Connect with us

Opinion

Observations on Electricity Bill

Published

on

Kanchana Wijesekera and Charitha Herath

Prof. Charitha Herath’s letter to Minister of Power and Energy Kanchana Wijesekera

Having reviewed the recently published Sri Lanka Electricity Bill in the gazette, I wish to express my appreciation for the improvements made compared to previous drafts. It’s evident that considerable effort has been invested in refining this version of the bill, making it notably more comprehensive and effective.

Nevertheless, I have identified some fundamental issues in this draft as well. I believe that the forthcoming discussions on this draft will provide an opportunity to address these concerns. Given that the drafting committee appears to have finalized their positions on the matter, I suggest that the proposed changes to the bill should be subjected to scrutiny first in the Supreme Court and subsequently in the Parliament. I anticipate that certain comments and issues regarding the bill will be raised during the legal submission to the courts and in the policymaking exercise within the Parliament.

In the meantime, I wanted to share some of the issues I’ve noticed at the forefront of the bill with you. I believe your consideration, as the incumbent Minister of Power and Energy, is crucial regarding these matters. Thus, I aim to bring these issues into the national discussion surrounding this significant legislative process.

Reforms are Needed

As many would concur, I share the belief that reforms in the Power and Energy sector are paramount. This necessity has been a focal point in policy-level discussions over the past two decades. The current regulations governing the Power Sector, established under the Ceylon Electricity Board Act No. 17 of 1969 and the Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009, have highlighted numerous lapses and legal complexities. These issues have resulted in delays and, in some cases, hindered the development within the sector.

In my view, the reform requirement mentioned above was not adequately addressed by the gazetted bill on 17/4/2024. Instead, it appears to provide excessive leeway for political actors to intervene in the regulatory mechanism of the Power sector. In essence, the proposed bill could exacerbate existing difficulties in certain areas and potentially delegate decision-making power entirely to political entities.

When examining international experiences, Power sector reforms typically unfold in three stages:

1. Unbundling and corporatization, often adopting a single buyer model.

2. Establishment of a wholesale market.

3. Establishment of a retail market.

These stages represent a structured approach to reform aimed at enhancing efficiency and promoting competition within the sector.

The overarching goal of reform experiences is to transform initially highly regulated existing markets, where the regulator decides on allowed Revenue and Returns of Investment (ROI) except Power Purchasing Agreements (PPAs). Consequently, reforms typically advance towards deregulation, wherein prices are determined through competition. This progression aims to foster greater market efficiency and encourage innovation within the sector.

The gazetted Bill, dated 18/04/2024, outlines an initial proposal for unbundling and corporatization, operating within a single buyer model. Under this framework, the National System Operator (NSO) is tasked with purchasing electricity from Generation Companies (Gencos) and subsequently selling it to Distribution Companies (Discos). Additionally, the bill aims to establish a wholesale market model, wherein prices are determined through competition between Gencos and Discos. This approach signifies a pivotal step towards fostering market efficiency and promoting competition within the sector.

Given that approximately 85% of the cost of electricity in Sri Lanka is attributed to generation, it is imperative to prioritize the establishment of competition within the generation sector. Therefore, in alignment with the overarching reform expectations, it is crucial to thoroughly examine the gazetted bill. This careful scrutiny will ensure that the proposed reforms effectively address the need for competition in the generation sector, ultimately contributing to greater efficiency and affordability in the electricity market.

Some Observations

·

In order to effectively implement new reforms in the Power sector, there are two crucial aspects to consider at a conceptual level. Firstly, it is imperative to consult and involve the main stakeholders of the industry in the proposed legal and institutional reforms. It is essential to ensure that their voices are heard and that they are actively engaged in the process, regardless of whether all stakeholders are in agreement with the Bill. Secondly, it is vital to ensure that the proposed reforms adequately address the core issues at hand. Unfortunately, it is my belief that the Government has failed to address both of these highly important issues.

· The proposed bill signifies a notable shift towards increased Politicization of the Electricity Sector. It is clear that key institutions to be established under this bill will be subject to substantial political influence. For example, following the bill’s passage, entities like the Long Term Generation Expansion Plan (LTGEP), National System Operator (NSO), Power Sector Reform Secretariat (PSRS), and certain functions of the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) will come under direct political control.

· The independence of successor companies and corporate good governance will no longer be maintained, as management control will now rest with the Minister in Charge.

· The Electricity Reform Act no 28 of 2002(that was not implemented due to political reasons)had proposed the establishment of an independent agency known as the “Monitoring and Advisory Committee” to spearhead the reform project. This committee was intended to have the authority to advise the Minister on the appointment and dismissal of directors of the proposed successor companies. However, the recently gazetted new Bill (17/04/2024) does not include this independent mechanism, giving the Minister the power to appoint the Board of Directors of the successor companies. Furthermore, the Minister’s consent is now required for the appointment of the CEO of NSO, as outlined in Section 10 (1)(b) & (c) of the new Bill.

· The “Long Term Power System Development Plan” is formulated by NSO and then forwarded to the Minister for assessment, followed by submission to the Cabinet for approval (as outlined in the recently gazetted Bill, Section 10 (7) (b)).

· Weakening of the Regulator, PUCSL

· The PUCSL no longer holds the power to approve the “Long Term Power System Development Plan” as it has been transferred to the cabinet of Ministers, as per the newly gazetted Bill, Section 10 (7) (b).

· According to Section 3(1)(a) of the Sri Lanka Electricity Act 2009, the PUCSL has the authority to provide advice to the government on matters within their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the recently gazetted Bill has revoked these powers and transferred them to the National Electricity Advisory Council, which will be appointed by the Minister (new Bill, Section 3 (3)).

· According to Section 20 (2) of the Bill that was gazetted in December 2023, the Regulator is required to simply “inform the Minister” when granting licenses for generation, transmission, and distribution. However, in the recently gazetted Bill, the Regulator now needs to seek the “concurrence of the Minister” before granting licenses.

· The Bill’s Section 4 (10) includes provisions that enable the bypassing of competitive tendering through the provision of incentives to select technologies.

· Illogical Timeline – proposed approach to rescind the current Acts in 6 months without any preconditions, unveiling the Transfer Plan after the specified date, and more.

· As per the new Act, the functions currently executed by CEB will be transferred to the newly formed successor companies within a maximum duration of six months. Section 1 (2) of the Act ensures automatic appointment within this timeframe.

· The process of setting up new successor companies includes drafting detailed Memorandums and Articles of Associations, reallocating assets, liabilities, and human resources, preparing new balance sheets, creating financial models for tariff development, and finalizing the incorporation of other supporting functions. The unrealistic timeline proposed in this new Act is a significant issue.

·It’s not just the impracticality, the legality of forming companies according to a transfer plan which has not been approved and gazetted is also another serious issue.

·Electricity Pricing – guaranteeing fair returns, measures to establish private monopolies, minister directs policy guidelines to encourage specific projects/technologies, no safeguards for regional trade below domestic market prices, permitting current generation licensees to engage with distribution licensees before entering the Wholesale market.

· The increase in electricity prices is tied to the requirement for a justifiable return on investment as outlined in the recently published Bill, Section 29 (5) and (9)(a). This will cause prices to rise, with the Regulator being legally required to ensure that profits are kept at a reasonable level. In times of high inflation or interest rates, electricity prices may see an uptick. The assurance of a reasonable ROI can be accomplished through tariff policies, which are not legally mandated, giving the Regulator the ability to lower profits during tough economic times.

·Granting free access and allowing Captive Generation without comprehensive study as stipulated under Section 12 could lead to the general public being unable to access cost-effective power plants, ultimately causing prices to escalate.

· Section 30(4) permits distribution licensees to engage in power purchase agreements with generation licensees before the Wholesale Electricity Market is established. The competition between distribution licensees for access to inexpensive power plants will drive up prices.

· In the December 2023 gazetted Bill, there was a provision that prohibited the acquisition of combinations of licenses without any qualifications (Section 19 (6)). However, in the new Bill, this prohibition only applies if a company owns more than 50% of the ownership. For instance, if a company owns 49% of the National Network service provider, it can still acquire a Distribution license and shares of multiple other companies as long as its ownership remains below 50%. Additionally, with the introduction of Additional Transmission Licenses, it is possible for a few companies to have control over more than 50% of the National Grid.

· Private companies have been granted Additional Transmission Licences under the new Bill, as stated in Section 14 (2). Nevertheless, Section 10 does not grant the NSO the authority to utilize transmission lines owned by these Additional Transmission Licensees in order to ensure a consistent electricity supply.

· The new Act does not include any provisions to address monopolies, anti-competitive practices, collusion, abuses of dominant position, and merger situations that could impact competition in the Electricity Industry. Rather than enacting specific laws to combat these issues, Section 28 grants the Minister the authority to issue policy guidelines.

· Additionally, as per Section 10(13)(b), it is stipulated that the terms of Electricity trading with foreign nations must receive approval from the Cabinet of Ministers. Given that this trading has a direct impact on the sovereignty of the nation, these terms should be ratified by Parliament, especially for fundamental conditions.

· The exportation of low-cost renewable energy to other countries may result in the deprivation of citizens from accessing affordable electricity. Regional trading lacks protection against prices below the local market costs.

As mentioned earlier, stakeholders and policymakers will have limited avenues for correcting the draft bill once it has been gazetted and tabled in parliament. One option is to seek determinations from the Supreme Court, while the other is to propose amendments during the Committee Stage of the parliamentary debate. However, given the current government’s approach to passing acts in parliament, there are doubts about the feasibility of making amendments through the parliamentary process. The considerable majority power of SLPP MPs is likely to heavily influence and potentially override discussions on the issue within parliament.

I urge the Honourable Minister to carefully consider the observations outlined above and take necessary steps to amend the bill accordingly from the government side. Furthermore, I strongly encourage the Honourable Minister to convey these observations to your advisory council for their expert input and recommendations in rectifying the identified issues. This proactive approach will ensure that the bill is revised comprehensively to address concerns and uphold the principles of fairness and effectiveness in the reform process.

Lastly, I would like to reference an important excerpt from Sally Hunt’s influential book, “Making Competition Work” (2002), which directly relates to the subject under discussion here: “In the US energy industry, it is fairly clear that the major problems with the old structure lay in the generation part of the industry – the efficiency of the investment decision, its regulation, and the tendency for decisions on generation to become politicised” (p. 28).

What I have observed throughout the process of drafting the new Electricity Act is a concerning trend towards politicization of decisions regarding generation. I strongly urge you to take decisive steps to halt this trend and address the issues present in the bill accordingly. It is imperative that we uphold the integrity of the legislative process and prioritize the best interests of the public and the energy sector as a whole.

Charitha Herath (MP)



Opinion

‘From Galkissa to Tambuttegama’: A response

Published

on

by Sena Thoradeniya

I Refer to the article published under the above title in The Island of 14 Sept. It was written by Dr. Uswatte-aratchi, whose insights into art, literature, and culture have long resonated with mine. In those domains, we have shared similar views; yet in matters of political theory, political leadership, and governance, our perspectives have not converged.

I do not intend to discuss the entire article by Dr. Uswatte, for he is entitled to his views on our politicians, even to the point of publicly attacking them when opportunity arises. I am neither an apologist nor an agent of any among those he has named. My concern here is solely to highlight Uswatte’s curious attribution of his knowledge of mathematics and physics to a person who, in his public addresses, has revealed no trace of intellectual capacity.

Dr. Uswatte says: “Unlike the earlier rulers Dissanayake (referring to the President) attended government schools in Tambuttegama and Kelaniya University. He studied science and mathematics. He can differentiate an equation for you and speak intelligently about Paul Dirac and Higgs Boson with the same felicity as accusations against former politicians”.

We are waiting for a theoretical or scientific publication by the current President that might justify such a claim. To ascribe scholarly depth to one whose record is not noticeable is absurd. It is a gesture that compliments without foundation and confers laurels where none have been earned.

This is what Dr. Uswatte says about the Prime Minister: “There is a Prime Minister who can talk to you impromptu about Auguste Comte and Claude LéviStrauss”.

A person who is said to have studied sociology should be knowledgeable about Comte, regarded as the father of sociology and the founder of positivism, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, a leading figure in structural anthropology; yet we remain uncertain whether she speaks of them with genuine familiarity and scholarly understanding, or is merely name-dropping them in an impromptu fashion. What on earth is she saying about these men on public platforms?

Since I possess no knowledge of either physics or mathematics, it was sheer curiosity that led me to consult AI only to discover what a marvelous President we have!

Paul Dirac was a pioneering English physicist, who helped establish quantum mechanics, co-founder of quantum electrodynamics and contributed to quantum field theory. In 1933, he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics. The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle discovered in 2012 that explains how particles acquire mass, solving a central mystery in physics. Peter Higgs, a British theoretical physicist won the Nobel prize for physics in 2013, decades after Anura Kumara obtained his degree.

Trying to rediscover theoretical physicists among ordinary science graduates who left university decades ago is indeed a futile exercise, like looking for a needle in a haystack. Theoretical physics thrives on continuity, requiring sustained engagement with evolving mathematics, new theories and experimental findings, and is a discipline that demands lifelong intellectual engagement.

Dr. Uswatte should listen to speeches made by his new found friends at public meetings and see the reaction of social media activists. As Chairman Mao observed, theory divorced from reality is useless. “No investigation, no right to speak (“Preface and Postscript to Rural Surveys” -1941).

For the time being, I refrain from commenting on some of the President’s promises, such as ‘producing graphite from graphene’ (which ought, of course, to be the reverse), producing sulphuric acid using seawater, fortifying the stem of the banana through advanced research, devising lifesaving remedies for cancer, or unveiling the world’s first app for locating shoals of fish. The list is too long to reproduce here. An exaggerated parade of claims and the sheer implausibility of such boasts are not the stuff of theoretical physics.

Continue Reading

Opinion

A journalist who wrote across the divide

Published

on

Jeyaraj

by Jehan Perera

There are some journalists whose work we read and then move on. And there are others whose writing makes us stop, think and look at the country differently. D. B. S. Jeyaraj who passed away on 17 May 2026 was one of them. Whenever I saw an article by DBS, as he was widely known, appear in a newspaper, it was the first I read. He was primarily a columnist and political analyst, with a deep knowledge of the history of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. But his columns were not simply analysis or opinion. They were rooted in what was happening in Sri Lanka and in what people involved in those developments were saying. We could see this in his frequent references to first-hand comments from people he had spoken to. He did this both when he lived in Sri Lanka and later, when he was living in Canada. That was no easy task.

In a 2013 interview, after returning to Sri Lanka for the first time in 25 years, DBS described how he had continued to report on Sri Lanka from Canada by maintaining contacts at home. He said that he broke his rest daily to communicate with contacts in Sri Lanka and that this dual existence of living physically in Canada and mentally in Sri Lanka took a heavy toll on his health and finances. But that commitment mattered and allowed him to write about Sri Lanka from afar without losing touch with what was happening on the ground. His writings gave readers a sense of what was happening in the north and east, as well as of politics more generally in Sri Lanka.

Speaking at the commemoration and book launch organised by the Tamil Media Alliance last week, Vijitha Yapa, the founding editor of The Island and Sunday Times, under whom DBS worked, captured an important quality of his journalism when he said, “DBS had no venom. That was his greatness.” He also recalled how DBS stood up to pressure and threats and continued writing about the Tamil community while insisting on fair play irrespective of race or religion. M. A. Sumanthiran, General Secretary of the ITAK, put another aspect of DBS’s contribution even more directly: “Truth is the first casualty of war. DBS fought to keep the truth alive.” He recalled that DBS always cross-checked his news and noted that even those who hated him read his columns to find the truth.

These observations capture two qualities that made DBS special. The first was his commitment to truth and, second, was his ability to write about a deeply divisive subject without venom. DBS was a Tamil writing about the north and east and the Tamil national question in a deeply polarised environment. Yet he wrote for the mainstream English-language press and was widely read not only by Tamils but also by people from other communities. His writing helped make the concerns, political aspirations and historical experiences of the Tamil community accessible to readers beyond it. His importance was not limited to his being a Tamil journalist. His writing mattered because it addressed the country as a whole. Issues and perspectives that might otherwise have remained within particular communities could become part of a wider national debate.

Another noteworthy feature of DBS was his ability to be realistic in his assessments. With his wide knowledge of history, he understood that each side in the national conflict had its own history, fears and perceptions of threat. He recognised that the conflict could not be properly understood through the narrative of one side alone. He understood that there could be no unilateral solution imposed by one side or the other. That realism is particularly important in a country where political positions have often been presented as if the concerns of one community could be resolved without addressing those of another. A journalist who understands this complexity needs to do more than simply take sides. He or she can help readers understand why the conflict has endured, why trust has been so difficult to establish, and why lasting peace requires more than one dominant story.

There was also something revealing about DBS’s return to Sri Lanka in 2013. In the interview he gave during that visit, he said he deliberately avoided politics. He wanted to experience the country from the perspective of an ordinary person rather than through the views of politicians or political associates. He observed a disconnect between the needs of the people and those of the political class. In retrospect, that observation was remarkably prescient. The disconnect he identified in 2013 would become dramatically visible in the Aragalaya of 2022.

In the same interview, he offered an observation that deserves to be remembered. A journalist may not be able to write all that he or she wants because of external constraints, he said. But no journalist should write what he or she does not want to write because of external pressure. His commitment to independent journalism came at a considerable personal cost. He was arrested and detained by the Sri Lankan Police in 1987 after his reporting on the war in Jaffna, and in 1993, while living in Canada, he was brutally assaulted by LTTE supporters who fractured both his legs.

For all these reasons, I consider DBS to have been a mentor of mine. I never said so to him. Mentors are not always people who formally teach us or with whom we have a close personal relationship. Sometimes they are people whose work we follow, whose judgement we respect and whose example helps shape our own understanding of what we should strive to do. DBS was such a person for me. His passing has left a gap. His journalism was informed by history but connected to the present, rooted in facts but open to interpretation, and concerned with the realities of all communities.

The collection of his writings launched in his memory by the Tamil Media Alliance is therefore more than a record of an important period in Sri Lanka’s history. It is also a reminder of what journalism can be at its best. DBS showed that a journalist could understand one community without becoming confined to it, analyse conflict without being partisan, and take a position without losing sight of complexity. Above all, he showed the value of journalism that seeks to keep the truth alive. For those who read him regularly, the greatest reminder of his absence is the absence of his next column.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Who committed genocide and created mass graves in Sri Lanka?

Published

on

A painting depicting the Uva- Wellassa genocide of 1818

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

At a time when the word genocide is used with political motive and defensive war misconstrued as genocide, and a brutal genocide is taking place on a global scale with impunity, one should reflect on genocide committed by those who falsely accuse the Sri Lankan armed forces and the government for such crimes. The British who systematically annihilated people including “babies suckling”, in Uva-Wellassa in 1818 and the LTTE, which carried out numerous massacres to drive away the Sinhalese and Muslims in the so-called border villages are now shamelessly levelling unsubstantiated allegations of genocide against the Sri Lankan military. The British, jointly with the US, massacred about a million people, including children, in Iraq on a fabricated charge of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The British helped the LTTE continue their genocide of the Sinhalese and Muslims in the North and the East in an attempt to drive them away and grab their lands, and such crimes constitute genocide according to 1948 Genocide Convention.

“Slaughter every man, woman and child”

“Slaughter every man, woman, and child (including babies suckling at the breast)” was the order given by Governor Robert Brownrigg (3rd British Governor of Ceylon from 1813 – 1820) to Maj. Gen. Hay MacDowell in 1818. The British left the entire Uva-Wellassa region in a state of famine and starvation. The British used the scorched earth policy including mass murder and genocide of Sinhala civilians to crush the rebellion. British human rights campaigners now pointing accusing fingers at Sri Lanka have forgotten the Madulla Massacre, which led to razing and annihilating entire villages. In the entire Uva region members of the male population above the age of 18 were killed in revenge for resisting British imperial occupation under Governor Brownrigg.

Britain at present is leading a core group at the UNHRC Geneva, which bashes Sri Lanka for alleged human rights violations. Britain seems to have no remorse about its genocidal violence in Sri Lanka and happily leads the way in castigating Sri Lanka on unsubstantiated allegations of human right violations during the war against the LTTE. The US, which is the biggest war criminal in the world, is supporting these neo-colonial strategies to control and exploit the poor countries.

The Chemmani mass grave

The Chemmani mass grave has become a political tool liberally used by the pro-LTTE groups and their supporters in the West and also their local agents to pressure the government to take action against the war winning armed forces. Let the government be urged to get to the bottom of the mass graves found in the North and elsewhere. People of this country owe it to the armed forces who saved their country to ensure that the name of the national military is cleared. And if there are any war criminals among them, punish them after conviction. Sri Lanka is not Israel, the US or the UK.

The Genocide Convention was conceived largely in response to World War II, which saw atrocities such as the Holocaust that lacked an adequate description or legal definition. Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944 to describe Nazi policies in occupied Europe and the Armenian genocide, campaigned for its recognition as a crime under international law. Lemkin also linked colonialism with genocide, mentioning colonial genocides outside of Europe in his writings. The Convention defines genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

Genocide in Gaza

However, Israel in collaboration with the United States, which has the worst record in genocidal warfare, has violated this Convention with impunity in Gaza, knowing that the rest of the world cannot act against it except condemn its actions. The UN has miserably failed to take any action against Israel, though it has the necessary tools like the Convention mentioned above. Its Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk visited the Chemmani mass grave and issued a strongly-worded statement calling for investigation under international supervision. He has not visited the place where genocide is currently taking place in broad daylight. Neither has the UNHRC made any worthwhile response in respect of Iraq, Syria, Libya and other parts of the world, where the US and Europe have been engaged in genocidal warfare. This type of double standards will further erode the credibility of the UNHRC, and if countries tend to ignore its writ, it has itself to blame.

We still don’t know the identities of the people whose skeletal remains have been found in the Chemmani mass grave. It was a prolonged war situation that created these graves. There were allegations of killings, including civilians, by both parties to the war.

The Office of Missing Persons has received about 10,000 complaints about missing persons from the north and east and investigations into these complaints are ongoing (source – reports of the OMP). Apart from verbal complaints there is very little incriminating evidence, if at all, against the armed forces. A few isolated incidents where excesses were committed have been investigated and action is being taken against the suspects.

Campaign by Pro-LTTE groups

Pro-LTTE groups are trying their utmost to connect the missing persons with the mass graves. They claim that the people who went missing were buried in the Chemmani mass grave. The Island journalist Shamindra Ferdinando dealt with this matter comprehensively in the Midweek Review on 9 September. He shows that the narrative built up by the pro-LTTE groups and the Western imperialists regarding the alleged disappearances could be more myth than fact.

The LTTE massacred hundreds of civilians in cold blood in many places, such as Sri Maha Bodhi, Aluth Oya, Aranthalawa (where the victims were Buddhist monks), Kattankudy mosque, Palliyagodella, Eravur, Gonagala and Kebethigollewa. Most of those killings, committed outside the war zone, were aimed at terrorising the ordinary people, and that amounts to genocide according to 1948 Genocide Convention. The LTTE carried out many bomb attacks on civilian targets, such as the Central Bus Station in Pettah, the Central Bank, crowded trains and buses. In the eastern villages people were bludgeoned and slashed to death so that ammunition could be saved.

Apart from killing and injuring, the LTTE chased away Muslims and Sinhalese from the Northern province, which amounted to ethnic cleansing, an act of genocide according to the above mentioned Convention. The people who were chased away have not yet returned to their homes and property, perhaps because of the memory of terror they had experienced in the North. Aren’t these acts of genocide ? The 1948 Convention defines genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

Attacks on centres of worship like temples and mosques and killing of priests are unpardonable acts of terror aimed at destroying religious groups. Similarly murdering surrendered police officers is butchery of the worst kind. It was such acts of naked terrorism and insane mass murder that made the FBI label the LTTE “the most brutal terrorist organization in the world”.

Silence of UNHRC

Isn’t the UNHRC keen to ensure that justice is done for the victims of genocide committed by the LTTE? Perhaps, we should not make such a request to an organisation that keeps mum while genocide is rampant in the contemporary world ? Palestinians are being systematically murdered and driven away from their country with the UNHCR doing nothing to protect them. The US President is threatening the countries which support the Palestinians.

Sri Lanka must call for an international investigation into genocide committed by the LTTE.

Continue Reading

Trending