News
Ex-Indian Envoy and Sri Lanka Expert S.D Muni on the Ethnic Conflict
————————
Below are excerpts from Dabbling in Diplomacy – Authorised & Otherwise: Recollections of a Non-Career Diplomat by S.D. Muni (New Delhi: Konark, 2024).
———————————
The TULF leadership duo of A. Amrithalingam and V. Anandasangaree came to JNU [Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi] to talk to all those interested in Sri Lankan affairs. Prof Urmila Phadnis organised a meeting where I was also present. The TULF leaders’ proposition was that why can India not intervene in Sri Lanka in support of Tamils and create an Eelam (independent Tamil State) as it had done in the case of Bangladesh. They explained that Tamils were being ethnically dominated and persecuted by the Sinhalese as the Bengalis had been exploited and suppressed in the erstwhile East Pakistan. The Tamil Eelam, proposed by the TULF in 1976, was to liberate Tamils from this persecution and it was to be a ‘secular, socialist state based on the right to self-determination’.
Both Urmila ji and I explained to them why it was not possible and practical for India to intervene as in 1971. I have elaborated on some of the reasons, in my book Pangs of Proximity: India and Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Crisis (Sage, 1993). It was not India’s policy to have a separate sovereign Tamil State in close proximity to India’s Tamil Nadu. Tamil nationalism had already erupted once in India during the late 1950s. The regional strategic context was also very different from what operated in 1971 for any drastic military action by India in the immediate neighbourhood.
The TULF leaders went back disappointed from JNU but all of us made common friends and our contacts remained active thereafter, until Amrithalingam was unfortunately assassinated by the LTTE later.
————————
I had close contacts with the EPRLF and EPDP. From EPRLF, Ketheeswaran Loganathan (popularly addressed as Ketheesh) came in contact with me first when he was lobbying for his cause in New Delhi. He introduced me to Shanthan Thambiah who was based in London and Varadaraja Perumal, another top-ranking leader of EPRLF. Both of them introduced me to their leader Comrade K. Pathmanabha, (popularly addressed as Com. Nabha), a suave, impressive and ideologically oriented personality. He disapproved of the LTTE’s insistence on a political order that had no room for dissent and diverse opinions.
Nabha’s thrust was on having a polity that valued social justice and equality, not only among all the sections of the Tamil community but also in relation to the majority Sinhalese community. He had accepted the Indo-Sri Lanka accord of July 1987 as against LTTE’s opposition to it. The LTTE could not stand his challenge to their ideological line. They assassinated him in June 1990 in Chennai where all Tamil leaders were scheduled to meet for mutual consultation and coordination.
Nabha visited me for dinner three days before his assassination where I witnessed his casual and overconfident approach to his personal security. He explained to me the approach of EPRLF to the struggle for Eelam under the situation created by the Indo-Sri Lankan Agreement. After dinner, when he was leaving, I cautioned him about his personal security in Chennai. I contributed to the Volume brought out by the EPRLF as a tribute to his memory.
—————————————
President Premadasa was a different class of politician, with a strong and rustic sense of nationalism. Emerging from a backward section of Sri Lankan society, his views differed from those leaders from the upper echelons. We met him in August 1989, shortly after he was elected to office. Our discussions were relaxed but intense and the subjects on the table were India-Sri Lanka relations as well as Sri Lanka’s domestic politics with reference to the role of the LTTE and the JVP. President Premadasa expressed his displeasure with the continued presence of the IPKF in Sri Lanka and India’s support for the North-East Provincial government headed by Varadaraja Perumal. We tried to explain to him that India had no bad intentions in Sri Lanka; the IPKF was there only at the request of the previous Sri Lankan government and would be withdrawn after it completes its mission. In response, he remarked, ‘India was invited as a guest but it has overstayed, to the discomfort of the host.’ When questioned about his approach to critical political issues, he likened it to a soccer player assessing a ball that needs to be put into the goal, showing little concern for other players or events on the field. Premadasa harboured such strong dislike for India that he did not hesitate in supporting the LTTE with arms supplies to confront the IPKF.
———————-
CBK [Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga] had her first visit to India as President in March 1995. She was put up in Rashtrapati Bhawan. She invited me and Hardeep Singh Puri for a quiet lunch. Puri was a senior IFS (Indian Foreign Service) officer who served in Sri Lanka under Dixit. CBK had been interacting with him in Colombo and knew that he had closely watched the LTTE and interacted with them during his stay in Colombo. Puri was actively involved in assisting Dixit to persuade the LTTE to accept the 1987 Agreement and accordingly, cooperate in laying down arms and help in the establishment of an Interim Administrative Council for the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran held many discussions with Dixit and agreed to cooperate. The agreement for laying down arms was signed on 28 September 1987. For signing the agreement, Prabhakaran personally backed out at the last moment and pushed his deputy to do this with the Indian High Commission. Explaining his refusal to sign the agreement, Prabhakaran said: ‘Mahatma Gandhi never signed any agreement with the British government so why should I.’ In reaction, Dixit also refused to sign the Agreement and deputed Puri to do so with the deputy of the LTTE leader, K. Mahendra Raja. This was disclosed to me by Dixit in one of our meetings and discussions in Colombo.
——————-
At the Rashtrapati Bhawan lunch, Chandrika told us very confidently that she would be able to strike a peace deal with the LTTE leader. She referred to three months of ceasefire between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army since her assumption of presidency. She told us about the letters (seven in all, by then) exchanged between her and the LTTE leader Prabhakaran. Both Puri and I did not share her optimism and confidence. In our different ways, we explained to her the deceptive nature of the LTTE promises.
I narrated to her the way in which the EPRLF and other Tamil leaders were assassinated by the LTTE. I also referred to her a Ph.D. Dissertation done under my supervision by Sudha Ramachandran on the LTTE, its character, strategy and behaviour. Puri shared with her his experiences in dealing with the LTTE, especially Prabhakaran. Puri had accompanied Prabhakaran when after the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement, he was brought to Rajiv Gandhi for a face-to-face meeting. Puri had told me in one of our Colombo meetings that Prabhakaran looked very nervous with his shirt going completely wet with his sweat.
We emphasised to CBK that it is a part of the LTTE strategy to make the adversary complacent and relaxed and then strike so as to take him by surprise. We cautioned her and requested her not to take the LTTE words on face value and remain prepared for any eventuality. It did not seem that she was convinced by our explanations. Within a few weeks of her return to Sri Lanka, we learnt that the LTTE in April 1995 had broken the ceasefire and declared war.
—————————
CBK took two other initiatives towards resolving the Tamil question that were unique in some respects. One was a proposal in August 2000, for a new Constitution that pledged devolution of power to Tamils and Muslims through federal institutions. It also proposed trimming of the Executive Presidency to create a more transparent and democratic political system. The constitutional proposal was being worked upon since her coming to power and had been subjected to informal feedback and suggestions from all stakeholders before its presentation as a Bill in Parliament.
It had support from all coalition parties in her government, including the JVP, which generally did not favour devolving powers to Tamils through federalism. It was for the first time that a federal solution to the ethnic issue had been proposed and that too with the support of diehard Sinhala parties like the JVP.
The second initiative was concerning the composition of her government. In the parliamentary elections of 2004, her party emerged victorious defeating the UNP. She decided to appoint her very able Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, a Tamil, as the Prime Minister to instill confidence of Tamils in her government. I heard about this from some of her party members in her official residence during one of my visits. Here again, she could not succeed because of stiff opposition from the hardline Sinhalese and Sangha pressures from within and outside her party.
—————————————————-
I have had opportunities to meet Chandrika’s successor Mahinda Rajapaksa. On his first visit to India in 2006, the Sri Lankan High Commission organised a public reception. High Commissioner Jayasinghe invited me and took me to President Rajapaksa for a one-on-one meeting introducing me to him as ‘former President’s friend’. President Rajapaksa, after exchanging pleasantries, said: ‘Professor, please ask your friend to support and cooperate with me.’ I submitted that ‘Excellency, in Sri Lanka’s interest, it is desirable that both of you work together.’ Chandrika then was the President of Rajapaksa’s party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), and it may be recalled that she made him Prime Minister in 2004.
———————-
[At an interaction with a small group during his visit to Singapore] Gotabaya [Rajapaksa] was completely dismissive of any ethnic issue left to be resolved in Sri Lanka and also of any human rights violations during the anti-LTTE operations. He was only concerned about the possibility of the LTTE’s re-emergence. I met him again in Colombo as part of a Kalinga Foundation delegation under the leadership of India’s former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh. We had gone to Sri Lanka on the invitation of The Pathfinder Foundation in September 2019. We met Gotabaya at his private residence. While shaking hands with him, I said, ‘Am I meeting the future President of Sri Lanka?’ He responded with a smile, stating that it was ‘all in the hands of his party’. He was sworn in as President in November 2019. During our meeting, I also enquired about his approval, during the previous regime, for the Chinese nuclear submarine to dock in the Colombo port. He explained, ‘That file was presented to me as the docking of a warship, and since we were allowing warships of other countries for refueling, etc., I also permitted that.’ He went on to mention, ‘The Indian High Commission raised the issue with me, and I assured them that we would not allow the submarine to dock on its return. However, it seems that the return docking permission had also been granted with the initial approval.’ Unfortunately, his response did not completely satisfy us.
(Excerpted with permission from Konark Publishers, New Delhi)
Business
Focus on developing the Coconut and Food & Beverage export industries into a USD 3 billion economy within the next two years
A discussion was held on Friday (26) afternoon at the Presidential Secretariat between President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and industrialists in the coconut and food and beverage manufacturing sectors on developing the coconut and food and beverage export industries into a USD 3 billion economy within the next two years.
Accordingly, the objective is to expand the coconut-based export industry into a USD 2 billion sector and the food and beverage export industry into a USD 1 billion sector, and extensive discussions were held on the plans required to achieve these targets.
The President stated that the Government is prepared to provide every possible form of incentive necessary to promote export diversification and encourage value-added products.
Proposals and suggestions aimed at developing these industries were also presented during the meeting, and the President further noted that future plans would be formulated after taking all such proposals and recommendations into consideration.
The President also expressed agreement to provide incentives for establishing industries in the Northern Province and assured that the Government would extend its fullest support for setting up coconut-based manufacturing industries in the region.
Attention was also focused on plans to streamline the importation of raw materials required for export production while safeguarding domestic producers. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake further stated that his Government’s objective is to build the country’s economy into an export-oriented production economy by strengthening domestic supply chains.
Minister of Labour and Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning Anil Jayantha Fernando; Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Dr Harshana Suriyapperuma; Secretary to the Ministry of Industry and Entrepreneurship Development, Thilaka Jayasundara; and Chairman of the Export Development Board, Mangala Wijesinghe, were among those present.
The President of the Sri Lanka Food Processors Association, Aruna Senanayake; Vice President Rasika Seneviratne; Managing Director of CBL Group, Shyamali Wickramasinghe; Chief Executive Officer of SriLankan Catering Ltd, Mangala Wijesekera; Managing Director of Ma’s Tropical Food Processing (Pvt) Ltd, Mario D. Alwis; Chairman of the Consumer Foods Sector of John Keells Food Holdings PLC, Daminda Gamlath; together with a number of leading business leaders from the food production sector were also present.
President’s Media Division (PMD)
News
Another 1,132 Sri Lankan Personnel to be deployed for United Nations Peacekeeping Missions
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake joined the ceremony held on Friday (26) morning at the Sri Lanka Infantry Regimental Centre in Panagoda to extend his best wishes to members of the Sri Lanka Army and the Sri Lanka Police Special Task Force who are set to depart on United Nations peacekeeping missions.
This marks the largest contingent of personnel ever to depart from Sri Lanka at a single time for United Nations peacekeeping operations. It is also significant as the first occasion on which a President has attended in person to extend his good wishes to the departing contingent.
Addressing the gathering, the President stated that this demonstrates to the world that Sri Lanka possesses forces prepared to stand for the protection, democracy and human rights of oppressed people wherever they may be. The President noted that this is a tremendous source of pride and honour for the nation. The President further pointed out that, although it may be difficult for Sri Lanka to become the wealthiest country in the world, it can nevertheless become one of the world’s most respected and dignified nations.
The President also emphasised that all those departing on peacekeeping missions carry the pride of the nation upon their shoulders and that it is the responsibility of every individual to safeguard the country’s honour and dignity by performing their duties with dedication and professionalism.
In order to help ease the current crisis in Haiti and support efforts to establish peace and stability in that country, the Government of Sri Lanka is scheduled to deploy this Gang Suppression Force (GSF) to Haiti in August.
The contingent comprises 900 Army personnel drawn from various regiments, 189 officers of the Police Special Task Force, and, for the first time in Sri Lanka’s military history, 43 female Army personnel specially trained in demining and explosive ordnance disposal operations. In addition, the battalion has been equipped with armoured vehicles, locally manufactured Uni Buffel vehicles, as well as two specialised bulletproof vehicles provided by the Presidential Security Division.
Following is the speech delivered by the President;
“We know that all of you gathered here today are preparing to undertake an extremely important mission in the service of world peace, carrying with you the reputation and pride of our nation. What is it that you take with you as you leave our country? First and foremost, we believe that you depart bearing the honour and dignity of Sri Lanka upon your shoulders. Each of you carries a profound responsibility to safeguard our motherland, its esteem and its pride in the course of your duties. This is because we must transform our country into one that enjoys great international respect and prestige. We all understand one thing: we may not become the richest nation in the world. However, we can become one of the world’s most dignified and honourable nations.
To achieve that, there are many tasks that we must undertake and fulfill. In doing so, we know that we must build a state whose economy does not collapse in the manner we have experienced before. When a country suffers economic collapse, its pride, reputation and dignity are also diminished in the eyes of the international community. If we are a nation unable to repay its debts, if we are a nation that has gone bankrupt, then we become a state that has lost its self-respect. Therefore, one of our greatest challenges is determining how to transform Sri Lanka into a strong and resilient economy.
In that regard, I believe we have already achieved several significant successes. One of them is that our economy has developed the capacity to withstand internal shocks, including floods, cyclones and other disasters. You are aware that cyclone Ditwah that struck during the November–December period last year became one of the most economically devastating cyclones in Sri Lanka’s recent history. That was an internal challenge. Yet we possessed the capability to build an economy strong enough to confront such an internal crisis. As a result, we were able to allocate Rs. 500 billion for recovery without printing new money or obtaining fresh loans. Consequently, by January, February and March, our economy remained stable and continued to record growth. Had that not been the case, we would not have achieved an economic growth rate of 5.1 per cent. Our ability to respond swiftly was made possible by the economic strength we had built.
Similarly, with the recent conflict in the Middle East, many people began to speculate that our country would once again come to a standstill. There were discussions about possible fuel shortages, power cuts, import restrictions and the suspension of vehicle imports, among many other concerns. Yet, in response to the impact of that conflict, we allocated Rs. 100 billion, to provide relief to the people. What does this demonstrate? It shows that we have strengthened an economy capable of withstanding internal shocks.
I believe our principal challenge now lies in how we respond to external shocks. How do we mitigate the effects on our economy arising from wars and conflicts elsewhere in the world? To address this, I believe we require a strategic plan.
We have engaged in extensive discussions on this matter and have already taken a number of important steps towards preparing ourselves for such external disruptions.
Your service, as you depart today, is in the interest of both our nation and global peace.
Next, if a nation is to attain true dignity and honour, the rule of law and the supremacy of law must be firmly established. Every citizen must respect the law and submit to it. However, our country long maintained a culture in which certain groups neither feared the law nor obeyed it. They possessed the means to evade justice through their wealth and influence. How can a nation achieve international respect, honour and prestige under such circumstances? A country cannot progress when one law applies to the wealthy and powerful and another to the poor and vulnerable.
Therefore, I firmly believe that one of the most important foundations of national dignity and honour is breathing life into the principle that all are equal before the law. Society must have confidence that the law will be applied equally to everyone whenever wrongdoing occurs. Internationally, Sri Lanka must be recognised as a country that respects the rule of law.
I believe that we have already taken considerable strides in this regard. We are building a state in which everyone is subject to the law. This is not easy, because old habits and entrenched influences continue to exert pressure. Nevertheless, we remain determined to establish the principle that every person must be accountable under the law.
In that endeavour, our armed forces and our Special Task Force have a vital role to play. We have every confidence that you will fulfill the unique responsibility entrusted to you in upholding the rule of law and the authority of the state in our country.
At the same time, we must safeguard the freedom of our citizens. No citizen of this nation should have to live in fear of those who govern them.
Yet, for a long period, the citizens of our country did live in fear of their rulers. A nation cannot move forward under such circumstances. A state cannot progress when its people live in fear of, and in subservience to, those in power. What, then, must we do? Citizens must have the right to criticise those who govern them. They must have the right to organise themselves in defence of their rights in opposition to the governing authorities. If the people have entrusted us with the office of President, then the people have the right to question me. We must build a state that safeguards such freedoms and human rights. That is an essential foundation for a nation’s progress and for earning an honourable reputation in the world.
In this regard, we know that our armed forces and our distinguished officers have rendered immense service to our country over many years. However, there have at times been reports, both domestically and internationally, raising certain doubts concerning some aspects of that service.
Nevertheless, I wish to state clearly that, from the ordinary soldier at the lowest rank to the Commander of the Army and from the police constable on the ground to the Inspector General of Police, if any action has been taken in defence of this country, its people and the security of the state, then we, as a government, are duty-bound to protect and uphold every such action. If anyone, anywhere, has carried out duties in the interests of national security, the freedom of our people and the protection of the state, then we have a responsibility to protect all those who stood in support of those efforts.
At the same time, we also have a responsibility to investigate any actions that may have harmed the reputation of our armed forces or undermined their responsibilities in pursuit of the ambitions of a small group. If, in furtherance of the interests of a very small faction, things inappropriate for the armed forces have been done, or acts have been committed that fall outside what is expected of them, then, for the sake of the reputation of the military, the protection of victims and the dignity of our nation, we are prepared to act and indeed we must act. None of this constitutes personal vengeance or political persecution. We must rebuild a strong and respected reputation for our armed forces.
If a small group, in pursuit of narrow interests, has abandoned the honour, values and commitment that the military owes to the people and to the state, then I believe that, for the sake of the dignity and reputation of the armed forces themselves, such matters must be investigated, examined and made known to society. Our honour does not rest upon burying crimes in the sand; it rests solely upon conducting proper investigations and bringing the truth to light. That is the conviction we hold. Therefore, I believe that the mission upon which you are about to embark today is one of immense responsibility. It will bring honour and prestige to our country.
The people of Haiti are facing an internal crisis that requires the easing of conflict, the safeguarding of their fundamental rights and the creation of an opportunity for them to choose a strong government through democratic elections. What has happened there is that the state itself has found it difficult to protect its own democracy, freedom and the lives of its citizens. Consequently, the United Nations has had to intervene. For what purpose? To uphold the freedom, democracy and human rights of the people of that country.
So, for what purpose are you departing today? You are leaving Sri Lanka to help safeguard the freedoms, democracy and rights of the citizens of another nation. What a source of pride and honour this is for us as a country. You are setting out from Sri Lanka to uphold the freedom of the people of another land. You are departing to strengthen democracy in another country. You are leaving to protect the rights of another people. You are going to safeguard the lives of citizens in another nation. I believe this is among the highest honours and greatest sources of pride that we can attain as a country.
You are demonstrating to the world that we possess an armed force and a Special Task Force that are prepared to stand for the protection, democracy and human rights of oppressed people wherever they may be in the world. That is of great importance. Moreover, Sri Lanka has, for many years, served alongside United Nations peacekeeping forces and on every occasion has earned distinction and respect. Today, you depart bearing the honour of a nation that has long performed its duties within UN peacekeeping missions with exemplary discipline and professionalism.
Your predecessors and the contingents that served before you protected that honour in those lands. I believe that, as you prepare to depart for Haiti, you carry with you not only the honour of the nation but also the reputation of your senior officers. Therefore, you are setting out to safeguard both the dignity of the country and the esteem of those who served before you.
Your parents, too, must feel immense pride. If there is a profession in this country that exemplifies discipline, it is the military and the police service. Generally speaking, a tendency has emerged among the younger generation to shy away from disciplined professions. Many are more attracted to unstructured lifestyles and less inclined towards orderly and regulated forms of work. Consequently, many young people today show a preference for informal employment rather than careers founded upon discipline and structure.
It is in such circumstances that you chose to join the armed forces and the Special Task Force of Sri Lanka, embracing a life of discipline. Your uniform, your appearance, your grooming, the time at which you rise and your daily duties are all governed by a structured code of conduct. Your parents have entrusted their children to a profession founded upon discipline and they must undoubtedly take great pride in that. The uniform you wear represents the honour and dignity of our nation and the fact that their child wears it is a source of great distinction for the country.
Moreover, your role becomes especially significant in times of war or disaster. Whenever a disaster occurs, the first person I contact is the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. Whether it was the recent fire at an elderly care home in Horana, a building fire, or the emergence of instability or conflict, it is to the Defence Secretary that we turn. Not only during natural disasters such as landslides and floods, but even in times of conflict, is it upon you that we first rely. We have great confidence that you will respond swiftly and take the necessary action.
Your parents have raised and guided you to become the professionals we need whenever disaster strikes this country. We need young people who are prepared to work to help the nation recover from any calamity. That, too, is a source of immense pride for parents. Today, you are not only protecting the freedom, democracy, and human rights of your own motherland, but are also departing to stand for the security and liberty of the people of another country. Reflect for a moment on how proud your parents must be that their child is travelling far from home to serve in defence of the safety and well-being of another people. It is a tremendous honour and source of pride for parents and equally a matter of national pride.
Therefore, this moment of your departure is an occasion on which all of us feel renewed respect and admiration for you. My final appeal to you is this: remember that you carry our national flag upon your shoulders. In every duty you perform and in every step you take, this motherland and your parents are watching you. Consequently, I believe that all of us bear a responsibility to act with the utmost seriousness, dedication and sense of duty. I look forward to meeting you again in Sri Lanka after you have fulfilled that responsibility. I sincerely wish you every success in this important mission. Thank you very much, everyone”.
President’s Media Division (PMD)
News
FSP complains of irregularities in a Guinness World Record event held in Sri Lanka
The Jana Aragala Sandhanaya yesterday lodged a complaint with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), calling for an investigation into Deputy Minister Sundaralingam Pradeep over alleged irregularities related to a Guinness World Record event held in Sri Lanka.
The organisation alleged that state patronage had been extended to a private company for the event and that large sums of money had been collected from around 5,000 families of participating students.
Speaking to the media, after submitting the complaint, Jana Aragala Sandhanaya National Executive Council member and Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) Secretary, Duminda Nagamuwa, alleged that the government had promoted the Bharatanatyam workshop, held on June 14, as an event that secured a Guinness World Record for the participation of the largest number of students.
He said a government politician had taken the lead in organising the event, attended by Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe.
Nagamuwa questioned the decision to provide state support for an event organised by a private entity, claiming that the Guinness certificate issued for the achievement had been awarded not to Sri Lanka or a state institution, but to a company.
“Why did the government provide state patronage to a private institution’s programme?” he asked.
He alleged that each of the approximately 5,000 participating students had paid Rs. 5,000, resulting in the collection of a substantial amount of money. He claimed that parents were also asked to pay additional amounts of Rs. 3,450 for logos and Rs. 2,350 for certificates.
Nagamuwa alleged that many families, from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, had incurred heavy expenses travelling to Colombo and staying there for several days for the event, with some families spending around Rs. 30,000 each.
-
Features7 days agoNanda Pethiyagoda Wanasundara as three generations of family saw her
-
Features6 days agoSri Lanka developing independent hydrographic capabilities
-
Opinion5 days agoRanasinghe Premadasa: The man who would not take ‘No’ for an answer
-
Editorial7 days agoFuel crisis: Beyond price debate
-
Latest News6 days agoSooryavanshi thumps fastest List A fifty as India A win tri-series
-
News4 days agoUS Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs meets President
-
Opinion4 days agoSri Lanka’s national security: Justice, reconciliation, and forward-looking vigilance
-
Features7 days agoThe Sirisena – Ranil conflict and events leading to MR’s return as PM
