Mawbima News

Freedom on the Net 2014 – the fifth annual complete study of world wide web freedom around the globe, covering developments in 65 nations that occurred between May possibly 2013 and May 2014 –found 3 essential issues concerning Sri Lanka&#8217s internet freedom and named Sri Lanka&#8217s &#8220Press Freedom 2014 status&#8221 as &#8220Not Cost-free&#8221.

According the report, published on Thursday by the US-based Freedom Residence, the important developments in Sri Lanka amongst Could 2013 – May possibly 2014 are

By Granville Perera –

Mahindanada Aluthgamage, Minister of sports along with Dr Ramesh Pathirana MP and son of former Education Minister Richard Pathirana representing the government in the Wadapitiya tv debate on Derana Television in the evening of December 03,  2014 walked out of a live programme following a phone caller questioned Aluthgamage on his integrity and the charges of bribery and corruption leveled against him. The caller was referring to the bribery charge made by his estranged wife to the bribery commission, which the caller claimed was not investigated. Without having responding to the charges, Mahindananda went on a verbal barrage and calling the caller a beggar, and abusing the media network that is owned by the daughter of a prominent minister and the campaign manager of the Mahinda Rajapaksa re-election media approach.

The Minister, in his arrogance possibly felt that he had the correct to criticize the Derana network for entertaining a phone call from an opposition phone-in participant who was questioning Aluthgamage’s conduct as a prominent member of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance, the current ruling party in Sri Lanka. In his uncontrolled verbal abuse, the minister went to the extent of accusing the network of having a pact with the opposition United National Party. He wanted the network to change its logo to the elephant symbol, (the party symbol of the opposition united national celebration) as the Tv network’s logo. He threatened the caller with legal action for questioning him on his integrity. What Aluthgamage failed to recognize is that as a people’s representative, he is answerable to the folks – in a genuine democracy. Is this a sign of the Government members panicking at the believed of an opposition victory where they could be brought to justice?

Like many members of the ruling party, there have been critical allegations of corruption levelled against Sri Lanka cricket and other sports bodies in Sri Lanka, that come below Minister Aluthgamage’s purview. Further, severe charges of soliciting sex from female cricket players were levelled at senior officials of Sri Lanka cricket. Investigations in to these have never ever noticed the light of day.

Aluthgamage’s behaviour is standard of the present political arrogance of the ruling party members. He went on to say that the existing government had issued the broadcast license to the Derena Television Network hence they must not entertain any criticism against the government or any of its members. What Aluthgamage have to be assuming is that broadcast frequencies of the nation are the

Private home of the ruling celebration. What a sad state of affairs for independent media.

It was certainly disgusting to see a supposedly educated member of parliament, who claims to be a solution of a single of the most major and distinguished schools in Colombo showing his arrogance and intimidating independent media, or supposedly independent media. However, the government of the day has managed to intimidate the entire media landscape in to submission. This is primarily since of the huge advertising budget that is controlled by the government, which belongs to the state lotteries board, state insurance coverage companies, banks, and other state advertisers. Further, they are also capable to control what goes on air in the private media by means of the intimidation of the corporate sector, thereby ensuring that criticism of the government is non-existent. Further, a number of journalists have been killed, numerous physically attacked and hundreds driven in to exile. The Sirasa Tv network and the Siyata Television network were set on fire, and up to date, no inquiry has been conducted and no a single has been arrested for the violence.

The tragedy with the Sri Lankan private media, particularly the electronic ones is that they are controlled by company interest’s that have enormous non media associated contracts with the government. Any criticism of the government or its representatives will spell disaster to their organization interests and state contracts.

The want for independent media is the priority of the hour that would not be controlled by other company interest. Successive governments blatantly manage the state media, which is supposed to be the public service media. Government stooges who have definitely no specialist experience or knowledge are employed to manage essential positions in these institutions. This ensures that only the state voice is heard and nothing at all else.

The blatant abuse of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and the independent Television Network by the government is a disgrace to broadcasting norms. The public tv networks are taken more than and employed as the ruling party’s network by appointing Government stooges as heads of these institutions. There are radio and tv programmes that abuse simple broadcasting ethics on a daily basis. In the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporations, the Chairman goes on air each and every morning and hurls abuse and filth on any person who has dared to criticize the government or its policies.  Nowhere in the globe, not even in the most despotic states would a chairman of a media institution go on air on a everyday basis, hurl abuse and use raw filth on a national network. Regretfully, no one has taken this up in the courts of law almost certainly being aware of the justice one particular would obtain from a flawed justice method.

As portion of President Rajapaksa’s election campaign, all heads of media intuitions who were part of his election campaign in 2010 have been re-appointed to take charge of the presidents 2015 election campaign. Their continual theme is foreign conspiracy, NGO dollars and traitors of the nation. Thus is the state of enterprise in the “Miracle of Asia”

By Rajiva Wijesinha –

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Enemies of the President’s Promise: Grumpy 2 

So his attitude seemed to harden with the passing years. Also, sadly, even though he may possibly not have been ambitious himself, he seemed to see himself as the principal guardian of the victory the forces had won, with an obligation consequently to block the way of these who have been anxious to give more political powers to Tamil politicians. Even though, beneath threat from the LTTE, some of these had seemed to subscribe to the LTTE ideology, in reality most Tamil politicians have been moderates who have been relieved that the LTTE had been vanquished. They had been prepared to disavow terrorism as well as separatism, but they have been anxious to exercising political energy in predominantly Tamil regions, at least in terms of the Provincial Councils Act of 1987. But these who had been opposed to even that restricted devolution, on the grounds that it would inevitably lead to separatism, saw Gotabaya as their champion, and he came in time to articulate their views with increasing  assertiveness.

An intense instance of this came when, in 2013, with the President creating preparations to have the lengthy delayed Provincial Council election in the North, he declared publicly that it must not be held. Ironically, according to the President, he had been in favour of holding those elections a handful of years earlier, quickly after the war ended, which would have been a sensible move, and would have led to a greater result for the government. It was Basil then who had insisted on delay, on the grounds that his building programme would make sure far more and more assistance for the government. But by 2013, far more perceptive maybe than Basil about political realities in the area, possibly realizing also how he had contributed to increasing unpopularity, he came out strongly against having a poll. And normally this  occurred while a single of the more extreme coalition partners of the government, which was seen as close to Gotabaya, had introduced a Bill to amend the Provincial Councils Act so as to water down their powers. So powerful did this mixture appear, even although the evidence of elections had made it clear they had minimal common help, that it was feared the President would back down.

But he went ahead and elections have been held. The TNA won handsomely, with the determination of the Tamils to vote against government increased perhaps by what seemed sturdy arm techniques on the component of the forces against a candidate who was identified closely with the LTTE. She did remarkably properly, which may possibly properly have been predicted.

This tends to make one particular wonder why the forces ought to have got involved, and certainly it was so foolish an action, had been they the perpetrators, that a single wonders whether or not she herself had arranged the attack, provided that only she could advantage. Nevertheless there had been preceding situations of such folly on the portion of the forces, as when a meeting of the TNA had been attacked some months previously.

That incident was bizarre, due to the fact by the time the violence occurred the TNA representatives had completed speaking and left, and till then, they stated, what were clearly soldiers in mufti had behaved with restraint. When I asked the Jaffna District Forces Commander what had happened, he said that his orders to behave properly had been disobeyed, as a result of provocation by one of the later speakers, a Sinhalese member of a little radical celebration. But I could not comprehend why he did not then take forceful disciplinary action. Apart from the reality that soldiers must under no circumstances react violently against civilians unless they are themselves in grave danger, it was feasible that there were members of the forces who had no affection for the government, nor for Tamils (following the strategy of Sarath Fonseka ahead of his conversion), and they had no qualms consequently about aggression that could bring the government into disrepute. Government was only playing into their hands by refraining from disciplining them.

But Gotabaya seemed beyond such considerations, in what seemed wholehearted endorsement of what the forces did. Another instance of this occurred in Weliweriya, in the Gampaha District, where the forces opened fire on some demonstrators and killed a couple of young men. It was argued that the demonstrators had intended to provoke, which was doubtless accurate, but that did not clarify why the forces reacted as the provocateurs wanted. And even though Gotabaya granted that the incident was regrettable and required to be looked into, it was not apparent that disciplinary action was in fact taken against those accountable for undue violence. Certainly, as usual, the report of the inquiry that was held was not created public, nor any action taken on the basis of that report publicized.

Matters were complicated by the army insistence on secrecy with regard to such disciplinary proceedings. As a result, when the LLRC report came out, and the Army Commander appointed a Commission to look into matters it had raised, he kept the matter quiet. I told him that he should at least publicize the reality that an inquiry was getting performed, but he mentioned that was not their practice. Predictably, when a couple of months later he told an American envoy what was getting carried out, there was a newspaper report to the impact that, below American stress, an inquiry was being performed.

I utilised to think it was simply a foolish and unthinking adherence to British practice, that the British themselves had changed, which led to such secrecy. But I recognize also that this is an easy way of in fact avoiding critical action. If what is done is not produced public, then it is extremely easy to do nothing, or extremely small. Definitely there appears to be no proof that the forces have taken disciplinary action commensurate with obvious breaches, or have looked systematically into the abuses as to which, according to the LLRC report, there are credible allegations.

So Sri Lanka finds itself beneath continuing suspicion. Whilst I think we have to resist efforts to have international investigations (not least due to the fact the manner in which the Darusman Panel carried out itself leaves open to query both the motives and the methodology of those who will be imposed upon us), our internal investigations should be credible. This indicates that they need to be conducted not by the forces, but by an independent panel. That we have amply certified men and women for this goal is apparent from not just the LLRC (which those opposed to us said previously would be a whitewash) but from the Udalagama Commission which looked into the Trincomalee incident amongst other folks. The failure of government to publish the report of that Commission testifies each to the objectivity of the report and the incapacity of government to deal with anything that does not conform to its personal myopic perspectives.

In this regard Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s determination to defend his forces from any criticism, regardless of what they might have carried out, may possibly in the end prove decisive in ensuring the good results of the campaign to denigrate Sri Lanka and its government. This in turn will set the seal on the failure of the Rajapaksa government to market reconciliation within the nation and thus construct sustainable peace following its military victory. But Gotabaya would cite precedent for his intransigence, namely the approach of the Israelis, whom he sees as a model with regard to dealing with terrorism. Undoubtedly the new settlements that are getting introduced in the North, even if not as blatant and widespread as what the Israeli government has perpetrated in Palestinian lands, appear primarily based on the Israeli approach to making sure handle of a recalcitrant minority.

Gotabaya could cite precedent also for ignoring UN reports, given how the Israelis dealt with the Goldstone report. But the concept that Sri Lanka can perform as Israel does is preposterous, provided that we do not have the help of the Americans, who have created it clear that they will nullify any international criticism of Israel. And of course Gotabaya’s approach goes hand in hand with actions designed to alienate India, which might have supplied some sort of a shield against international condemnation, even if not as thorough a one particular as the Americans furnish Israel with.

This continuous jibing at Inda led most not too long ago for example to a far more than generally flagrant insult to India in a column by Shenali Waduge, who has turn into the commentator of choice on the Defence website. That, which was run by specialists during the conflict, turned into a loose cannon afterwards, dedicated it seemed to advertising the Secretary to the Ministry, whose public appearances and pronouncements had been offered prominence – quite unlike what had happened previously, when he had been content material to stay in the background. Then, a couple of years back, Shenali Waduge was found, and featured prominently, as she also is in government newspapers.

On this newest occasion the Indian Higher Commission had protested, and the write-up was removed. This was accompanied by an ‘unqualified apology’ and the claim that the article ‘had been published with out appropriate authorization and not reflecting any official position of the Government of Sri Lanka or Ministry of Defence and Urban Development’.

This is unlikely to convince anyone, not least because the report had been accompanied by a ridiculous cartoon, which was not the operate of Ms Waduge. And the reality that she, and those expressing related viewpoints, have been featured prominently on the website as effectively as in government newspapers, is not likely to have escaped the notice of the Indian government.

My attention had been drawn to this phenomenon a couple of years back by an Indian journalist who had covered the conflict, and whose balanced reporting had produced it clear that our forces had not behaved in the appalling manner they have been accused of. She expressed regret that the Sri Lankan government was so negative about India, and when I said I did not believe this was the case, she pointed out the a lot of articles attacking India that seemed to have official sanction. I did raise the concern subsequently when the management of the Related Newspapers of Ceylon appeared prior to the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises, and asked if this was policy. To my relief I was supported by practically all other members of the Committee, no matter whether from government or opposition, although one mentioned that we had a proper to defend ourselves when attacked. But when I pointed out that the Indian government, far from attacking us, had supported us solidly in our fight against terrorism, he too granted my point.

The Secretary to the Ministry mentioned there was no policy at all to attack India, and later thanked me for the intervention and stated it would aid him to exercise some control. But he proved powerless, for the attacks continued. Clearly the influence of the Defence Ministry, and the Minister of External Affairs who took his cues from Gotabaya, was as well powerful for him. The sniping continued, and Shenali Waduge, joined in 2014 by Senaka Weeraratne who had worked at the Peace Secretariat but whom I had had to restrain because of his chauvinism, which was expressed with astonishing insensitivity, became the most publicized writers in government publications. Denying them following they had been provided excessive publicity was a foolish step. Some sort of remedial action is required, and it is to be hoped that Gotabaya, or the President if Gotabaya believes he can get away with this sort of behavior again, calls a halt to such effusions in state outlets.

By Jehan Perera –

Jehan Perera

The continuing defection of government members away from President Mahinda Rajapaksa&#8216s election campaign is an indicator of the formidable nature of the challenge faced by the government. The President has a reputation for getting in a position to take on any challenge. However, what he is seeking to do is unprecedented. No President in the previous had the chance to contest the elections a third time. The Sri Lankan voter has had an earlier tradition of not returning an incumbent government to energy at elections. This only changed with the presidential method that concentrated energy in the hands of the President and enabled ruling parties to muscle themselves back to power.

There is expanding apprehension that the coming elections can become violent. The stakes are really higher for the contesting political parties. The presidency is by far the most potent institution in the country. Winning the presidency is the aim of each sides. The issues becoming canvassed at the elections, of corruption, nepotism and betrayal of the nation to international interests are highly emotive ones. Violations of election law are occurring on a big scale with the misuse of state property and sources getting highlighted by election monitors. There have also been acts of violence that can increase sharply as the election approaches.

In this fraught situation the sign of statesmanship would be for the President to initiate an all celebration discussion with the participation of religious and civil society on the need to have to ensure a cost-free and violence-totally free election. This discussion have to include the post-election circumstance, to make sure that no revenge-looking for will be tolerated. It is the President who is best suited to make this call as he holds the positions of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and is also holds the ministerial portfolios for Defence and for Law and Order. Initiating such a discussion is in the national interest. It would both produce confidence about the electoral method in the minds of the general public and could also minimize the polarisation within the polity.

Good Tone

So far, even so, the government&#8217s presidential election campaign has not taken on a positive tone. It seems to be focusing consideration on international conspiracies and plots to divide the nation, which are not new anymore. It is the opposition that is setting the pace in this regard at the early stage of the presidential election campaign. They have promised to abolish the presidential program and the 18th Amendment both of which lead to an overconcentration of power. They have pledged a new constitutional system that will make certain the de-politicisation of state institutions that will make government leaders accountable for their actions. Now the Common Opposition Candidate Maithripala Sirisena has promised to form a National Government if he wins the presidential elections.

&#8220I am inviting my former colleagues and all parties represented in the current parliament to join a national government,&#8221 he said and promised to return the country to its status as a parliamentary democracy that existed till 1978. He also mentioned he wanted to bring about a peaceful constitutional revolution, citing India&#8217s independence leader Mahatma Gandhi and South Africa&#8217s anti apartheid leader Nelson Mandela as his inspirations. He mentioned he was an admirer of both Gandhi and Mandela and will stick to their instance in leading the country to establish a new political culture. This would include ensuring that all will be protected by the Sri Lankan state right after the elections.

The Widespread Opposition Candidate&#8217s promise to kind a national government has 3 optimistic aspects to it. The initial is that it will be the very best way to make certain there is a 2/three majority in Parliament to make the necessary constitutional amendments. It is unlikely that a enough quantity of parliamentarians will cross over from the government ranks to the opposition prior to the presidential elections to guarantee a 2/3 majority. Therefore there will be a require to persuade government parliamentarians who did not cross more than to also give their vote for the constitutional amendments. This can ideal be carried out through the arrangements of a national government.

National Reconciliation

Second, the formation of a national government that involves members of the present government who did not cross over prior to the election can ease the trauma of the transition. It will reassure these in the outgoing government that they will not be left powerless and at the mercy of hostile opponents. Certainly, they can be element of the national government which will also be a transitional government. This sort of assurance is crucial due to the fact there is anticipation the forthcoming elections will become a do or die battle in which violence can take an upper hand. It is certainly possible that relations will be shattered during the elections. But following the folks give their verdict, there also wants to be political reconciliation in the national interest.

Elections are necessarily divisive as they pit one contestant against the other. The rivals seek to get the votes of the electorate by highlighting differences rather than commonalities. This is where statesmanship should accompany the political need to be various. What is necessary for each and every of the contestants to win is not necessarily in the national interest.  The work to win elections have to not detract from the greater ambitions of sustaining peace at house and peace in the world.

The third optimistic aspect of a national government is that it will contribute to make the constitutional reform process a consensual one. The 3 prior efforts at altering constitutions had been partisan exercises. The two new constitutions of 1972 and 1978 were rammed through with out any heed provided to the protests or wishes of the opposition parties. As a outcome there was no sense of ownership of those two constitutions by the opposition parties, let alone the people at large. The try at passing a new constitution in 2000 was derailed due to the fact of opposition protests.

Minority Participation

In searching for to form a national government it is also important that the ethnic minority parties be included.  The ethnic conflict has been the most divisive and protracted problem in the nation.  It was there even prior to Independence from the British in 1948, when Lord Soulbury observed that overcoming communalism and generating a unified nation was the largest challenge facing the newly independent country.

Consequently in effecting constitutional change, it is essential that the views of the ethnic minority parties be respected and their interests be accommodated. This is where the South African principle of &#8221sufficient consensus&#8221 will turn out to be useful.

When Nelson Mandela was negotiating the way out of the Apartheid system which handful of thought was feasible to achieve peacefully, he sought to acquire a maximum of consensus. Nevertheless, the South African leaders realised that on some issues getting the consensus of all parties was not achievable. So they decided that at least the most essential parties had to agree. In the Sri Lankan case, exactly where matters relating to ethnic minority rights, devolution of power and post-war reconciliation are concerned, the agreement of the main ethnic minority parties will be required.

The government&#8217s military victory over the LTTE unified the country geographically, but not in heart and mind. It is due to this unresolved difficulty that the nation faces international opprobrium, possible sanctions and is not getting the economic investments it could get from the Diaspora and from international firms. The main international concerns over Sri Lanka have been the unwillingness of the government to deal with the human rights violations that took place for the duration of the war.  South Africa provides a model in which truth and reconciliation walked hand in hand. Right after decades of political polarisation and pricey warfare, this will not be an simple challenge to take up and needs the collective wisdom of both the government and opposition, and regardless of which side wins the election.

By Rajiva Wijesinha –

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Enemies of the President’s Promise: Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Seven Dwarfs – Grumpy 1

What was termed the militarization of the North was attributed primarily to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Secretary of Defence, and in several minds he was regarded the greatest barrier to Reconciliation. He was thought the architect of the policy that held safety to be the most important consideration, and that to make sure this the footprint of the military had to be heavy and pervasive.

This was ironic, for during the course of the war he had seemed of the view that, even though the forces could handle the military needs, a settlement needed the politicians, and setting this in location was not his role. Indeed, in this regard he seemed the opposite of his Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka, who was thought to be of the view that a policy of settlements in the North was the greatest way of guaranteeing peace. Gotabaya, on the contrary went along with his brothers, the President and Basil, when they sidelined Fonseka, having refused his request that the army be enlarged and, as noted, Basil went ahead with a policy of swift resettlement, which was in accordance with the pledge of the President.

Certainly, even for the duration of the war, Gotabaya had seemed soft in comparison with Sarath Fonseka. His selected instruments had been officers such as Daya Ratnayake, appointed Army Commander in 2013, who had created the approach that ensured that there have been hardly any civilian casualties in the East. Sarath did not like Daya Ratnayake, and sidelined him and would have had him retired early, but Gotabaya saved his career by sending him off to China for his Employees College Course. When he came back, he was not utilized at all in what remained of the Northern offensive.

Sarath had a no nonsense strategy to the conflict, and when the ICRC told him that firing was coming close to hospitals, his response was on the lines that the hospitals ought to no longer have been there, because they had been instructed to move. Gotabaya on the contrary had taken notice of such warnings and indicated that he would have the line of fire changed.

In basic, Gotabaya and his preferred instruments such as Jagath Jayasuriya who, as Commander of the Special Forces in Vavuniya, was in charge of the Northern operation, tended to follow international law as best feasible. Offered the general technique followed in the war, and the care taken in most quarters to keep away from civilian casualties, there is no doubt that Sarath Fonseka also followed the general principles laid down by the civilian command, but it was also apparent that he often saw this as a needless hindrance. His initial account of the killing of those who tried to surrender by carrying White Flags and leaving the Tiger lines indicates his bluff mindset, for he was reported as possessing said that these in air-conditioned rooms, an obvious reference to Gotabaya, ordered that they be spared. He nonetheless had accomplished what was required, considering that he knew how they had behaved in the previous.

It was odd then that, a couple of years later, Gotabaya must have inherited the mantle of the difficult-liner, but maybe it was inevitable given the manner in which government decided to respond to the challenge presented by Sarath Fonseka, when he stood for election against Mahinda Rajapaksa as the common Opposition candidate. Getting skilled what seemed a Damascus style conversion, doubtless because he was backed by the Americans (who could not have been ignorant of his measure but believed him the ideal instrument of applying pressure on Rajapaksa), he place himself forward for election as a dove. He was certainly supported by the UNP, which had not supported the crushing of the Tigers, and by the TNA, the principal Tamil political celebration. His method then to the White Flag case was that it was these in air-conditioned rooms who had given orders that they be killed.

Government responded, not by pointing out the contradictions in his accounts, and calling him a liar, but by saying he was a traitor. They had decided that, since Fonseka was the principal opponent in the election, it was the hardline vote that had to be won. Patriotism, in order to get the much better of Fonseka, had to be difficult, so it did not matter that the impression they produced was that his story may well be correct. The upshot of this, of course, was that when the LLRC advised inquiries into attainable abuses, the government was in troubles, given that Fonseka could nicely have named them traitors for letting down patriots who had only done what was essential to remove terrorism.

But there had previously been indications that Gotabaya was determined to safeguard those who had fought on his behalf. Despite the typically admirable conduct of the forces, there had been a single ugly incident even before the offensive in the East had begun, which was unfairly noticed as characteristic of the army. What made this even a lot more unfair, apart from the exceptional nature of the incident, was that the perpetrators were not army personnel, but rather members of the Unique Task Force, which was a commando kind branch of the Police.

The incident had occurred in Trincomalee, with five youngsters getting killed in cold blood. Even though Gotabaya after claimed that they had been involved in terrorism, it is doubtful whether or not even he believed this. Initially certainly government had been of the view that these accountable had to be brought to book, but there had been some delay in carrying out this, and it seemed probably that Gotabaya, who had referred to the perpetrators as youngsters under stress, had been instrumental in countermanding the President’s decision. The upshot was that nothing at all was completed, even although at a later stage as well the President truly asked the Lawyer General to situation indictments. But, on the grounds that he would lose the case – and probably simply because he was not positive the President would not modify his thoughts – the Attorney General had done nothing at all.

This was 1 of the cases as to which the President had set up a Particular Presidential Commission of Inquiry, but its report was by no means publicized. This developed the impression that government wanted to cover up with regard to each this case and an additional notorious one, the killing of 17 workers of the French NGO Action Against Hunger, in the course of the try of the Tigers to take handle of Mutur, and hence threaten Trincomalee. In truth responsibility in the latter case was not so clearcut, and it was also apparent that the NGO had acted against UN recommendations in sending their workers into a threatened area when all other help workers had been withdrawing. But by maintaining the Udalagama Commission report a secret, government gave a handle to those accusing it of big-scale violations of international law.

Gotabaya then seemed determined to resist any effort to investigate charges of wrongdoing. He gave space on the Defence Ministry website to those crucial of the LLRC Report, which was a pity due to the fact the LLRC, having weighed the evidence, had indicated that most charges of War Crimes (as laid out in the Darusman Report commissioned by the UN Secretary General) did not hold water. By resisting however its conclusion that there was a case to investigate with regard to the remedy of some surrendees, Gotabaya permitted the impression to be developed – and propagated vehemently – that the government was in a state of total denial of everything.

Probably the vehemence with which the government was attacked had thrown him. Definitely the President claimed that his attitude had hardened right after the attacks on Sri Lanka elevated. Hence, with regard to police powers, which were supposed to be devolved below the current 13^th Amendment to the Constitution, which Rajapaksa had pledged to implement soon after the conclusion of the conflict, Gotabaya was initially reported as getting no objection to neighborhood policing being run by the Province. Certainly the President himself had earlier indicated to me that he saw no purpose not to devolve police powers since, following the demerger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, there seemed no real threat of an alternative energy base.

But right after the hostility in England to the President that prevented him from speaking at the Oxford Union, hostility which it seemed in Sri Lanka the British government had not dealt with firmly, Gotabaya had hardened, and there seemed tiny prospect of a Provincial Administration being allowed police powers. It was soon after that too that what had seemed previously a readiness to give up significantly of the land about Palaly changed, and government ended up keeping much far more than could reasonably be claimed was vital for security purposes. Whereas elsewhere in the North the forces withdrew from massive tracts they had previously declared they needed, in Palaly – which was a heavily inhabited area, so that hundreds of households had been deprived of their properties – they clung on, to unpopularity that enhanced in leaps and bounds.

This might have led as well to what seemed an effort to alter the demography of the Wanni, via settlement of Sinhalese in the area. Initially there had seemed no truth in the assertion that Sinhalese had been getting brought in from outside. What was happening was resettlement of households that had been driven away by Tiger violence in the early stages of the conflict, and I discovered in my early visits that certainly the Sinhalese families in location could talk emotionally of the ancestral properties they had had to abandon. But later on those exact same households told me of new settlers getting brought in. Interestingly, they had no racial feeling about this, and complained that what was taking place was unfair to the original inhabitants of the area, because they all, Tamil and Muslim and Sinhala, had children who must have been given the opportunity 1st, if new lands have been being given out to settlers by government.

Drastically, this type of settlement was also deeply upsetting to government politicians in the North. Rishard Bathiudeen complained once, at the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Resettlement, that government seemed to be acting on a policy that was not created public, of promoting racial harmony by producing villages of certain communities side by side with other people of various communities. Considering that this was only being implemented in the North, and therefore involved taking the lands of Tamil and Muslim communities to establish Sinhala ones, clearly the professed aim was not the real 1. And the huge locations devoted to Sinhala only villages in Vavuniya North created it clear rather that what was taking place was what the TNA claimed, which had not been component of government policy quickly following the war ended, namely efforts at demographic modify.

In some instances certainly Gotabaya seemed on a various wavelength from at least some of his officers, who have been typically concerned about the welfare of the original inhabitants becoming resettled. One obvious bone of contention was the work of a few monks from the South to set up Buddhist temples in the area, claiming that these had been historic Buddhist sites. In Mannar, the army officers did their greatest to avoid new locations being acquired – one particular Monk for instance had no liking for the archaeological site which did have an old temple but was deep in the jungle, so rather took over a Hindu temple on the principal road – but an unprofessional Department of Buddhist Affairs and a complaisant Archaeological Department contributed to growing resentment. Typically the TNA claimed that the armed forces had been behind these new Buddhist temples, which was really untrue, but they could not of course have been anticipated to admit that the army was normally the ideal defence against such practices.

Matters have been difficult by the more intense Buddhist chauvinists claiming that the President also was truly a Christian (which his wife was), and suggesting that the only hope for Buddhism was Gotabaya. Although the brothers had been extremely close, and had full confidence in every other, it was apparent that Gotabaya did take seriously the escalating tendency to view him as the greatest patriot in the land.

“It has been months now but the Centre of Policy Alternatives (CPA) has chosen to remain silent on Colombo Telegraph’s allegation that the CPA has been significantly less than transparent in its economic activities attracted the consideration of several given that it 1st surfaced says Dr. Liyanage Amarakeerthi.

Dr. Liyanage Amarakeerthi

“It is also essential for genuine public intellectuals to distance themselves from these corrupted NGOs and operate with individuals at the grassroots level to rebuild a tradition of civil activism.” he further mentioned.

On October 10th Colombo Telegraph exposed a variety of monetary malpractices in the CPA. The CPA, in its official site, referring to this exposé, on the identical day announced that its Executive Director, Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu was away and that a response would be provided ‘in two weeks’. Dr Saravanamuttu returned to Sri Lanka on the 17th. The self-imposed deadline expired on 24th October.

On October 10th, primarily based on CPA documents in our possession, Colombo Telegraph accused the CPA of billing for un-held workshops, engaging in double billing,’ i.e receiving grants from two donors to do the same process and duplicating receipts, hotel bills and other bills to submit to donors (maybe even submitting same bills to several donors), and hoodwinking donors by filing expenses under safe price columns. Colombo Telegraph initial asked the CPA to respond to particular inquiries primarily based on our investigations on 8th of June, 2014.

Dr. Liyanage Amarakeerthi, Senior Lecturer at University of Peradeniya mentioned nowadays that the fact that some NGO large shots live luxurious is fairly well-recognized and that fact alone has distanced numerous crucial public intellectuals from NGOs. The modus operandi of these NGOs includes the ideas such as ‘transparency’, ‘accountability’, ‘financial ethics’ and the like. But the NGOs appear to ignore those extremely ideas when they are utilized against themselves.

He mentioned there are NGOs doing some crucial operate in the country. That function needs to continue. Arguably, the NGOs indirectly helped the Sri Lankan state for the duration of war years by taking care of a lot of social problems even though the state was busy waging war. Even during these ‘peace years’ the NGOs are taking upon themselves several tasks to which the state could have ideally attended. There are some NGOs that concentrate on essential civil society activities geared towards empowering citizens. For these very factors, it is important that Sri Lankan citizens expect these NGOs to practice what they preach.

“Given this background the CPA’s freezing into silence is puzzling certainly.  Big shots in the government invest luxurious lives that they would not have even imagined a handful of years ago. The costs of the president’s wristwatch, of his son’s cars, are rightfully questioned.  These variables are currently causing the downfall of the regime. The shades of defeat are currently visible on the face of the corrupted patriarch. It is also important that the citizens have access to the information of about the funding these NGO vallahs get in our name, the people.

“It is also important for genuine public intellectuals to distance themselves from these corrupted NGOs and function with men and women at the grassroots level to rebuild a tradition of civil activism. The re-discovery of genuine (unpaid) activism and participation in governance requirements to be constructed into the movement of comment candidate and other social moments.”

Connected posts

CPA’s ‘Two Weeks’ Is Made Of 16 Days (And Counting): Troubled NGO Maintains Silence On Damning Charges

CPA’s ‘Two Weeks’ Is Made Of 23 Days (And Counting): Troubled NGO Says ‘Verification Of Documents Underway’

Nirmal Condemns Hypocrisy Of “NGO Tribe”

CPA’s Strong ED Dr. Sara Is Travelling, CPA Says It Requirements Two Weeks To Respond

Exposé: Centre For Policy Alternatives Defrauded And Hoodwinked Donors

CPA Hattotuwa Should Answer Rather Of Dodging And Misleading

Response To Report In Colombo Telegraph

Exposed: Rights Advocacy A Gateway To Lavish Lifestyles

CPA Removes Groundviews Editor From ‘Senior Staff’

‘Dhanapala Must Choose’ Says Saravanamuttu

Sara Says ‘Dhanapala – WebBlocking’ Concern Wants To Be Resolved Within The Framework Of Great Governance

How Sunanda Robbed Income And Rs 30.9 million Unaudited FMM

Sunanda Saga, States Of Denial And NGO Accountability