Connect with us

Midweek Review

An assurance on China-backed Port City project, as Indian assets fought fire on X-Press Pearl



Prof. Peiris, flanked by Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC (left) and State Minister Ajith Nivard Cabraal addresses the media at the Information department on May 29 (pic courtesy Education Ministry)

Worst ever ecological disaster a month after ship carrying radioactive uranium entered H’tota harbour


By Shamindra Ferdinando


Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Chairman Prof. G. L. Peiris, MP, on May 29 reiterated the importance of the Colombo Port City project. National List MP Prof. Peiris, who is also the Education Minister, was responding to major concerns raised by those who moved the Supreme Court against the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill. Prof. Peiris was flanked by National List MPs, Justice Minister Ali Sabri, PC, and State Minister of Money & Capital Market and State Enterprise Reforms Ajith Nivard Cabraal.

The briefing took place at the Information Department, amidst Sri Lanka’s worst ever ecological disaster that threatened the seas around the Colombo Port City and the welfare of thousands who eke out a living off the sea. Indian vessels and tugs, operated by Sri Lanka Shipping Company, and Salvos, fought a raging fire on the container carrier X-Press Pearl.

Controversy surrounds the delay on Sri Lanka’s part to call for Indian help for five days. Indian vessels and aircraft arrived in Sri Lanka on May 25th – five days after Sri Lanka was informed of the fire. The X-Press Pearl fire erupted exactly a month after Sri Lanka expelled a China-bound Antigua-registered vessel that entered the Hambantota port without revealing it carried radioactive uranium.

It would be pertinent to mention that the Information Department received a new head on April 09. Mohan Samaranayake, who previously held the post of Director General, Presidential Media, assumed duties on April 19. Samaranayake succeeded Nalaka Kaluwewa. With Samaranayake’s arrival at the Information Department, the government’s under-used media outlet has sort of enhanced its role.

After assuming new responsibility, veteran journalist and political commentator Samaranayake declared: “Every effort will be made to ensure the expected role of the Department of Government Information by properly publicizing accurate information.”

Samaranayake’s departure paved the way for former Swarnavahini presenter Sudeva Hettiarachchi who had been previously with Hiru, to be the new DG Presidential Media. The Presidential Secretariat also created a new post, namely the Presidential Spokesperson for Sirasa presenter Kingsley Ratnayake, who had done a regular wide-ranging interview with former minister and Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to India Milinda Moragoda. Interestingly, the late Bandula Jayasekera, one-time The Islander, having served as President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s spokesperson, joined Sirasa after the 2015 presidential election.

The country is in such a crisis and in a far worse situation than during the 30-year war, daunting challenges cannot be overcome by media strategies alone.

Let me get back to the May 29 briefing, at the Information Department. Prof. Peiris was quite convincing in his explanation as regards the passage of the Bill on laws governing the China-backed Colombo Port city project. The one-time top law academic addressed, what he called, misconceptions and apprehensions pertaining to the contents and implications of the Bill, approved by Parliament on May 20th.

The ministerial briefing took place in the wake of Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena ratifying the new Act. Shan Wijetunga, Director, Department of Communication, Parliament, issued the following statement on the afternoon of May 27. It was headlined: “Hon. Speaker signs blueprint of the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill”. The following is the text of the Speaker’s brief statement: “Speaker Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena has put his signature today (27) validating the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill which was passed in Parliament on the 20th May 2021.

The Speaker signed the blueprint of the act at around 11.30 am this morning.

Thereby the Colombo Port City Economic Commission act will be implemented, in full, from today (27).”

The statement made no reference to the Speaker’s decision to launch two inquiries into the failure on the part of Parliament to accurately count the number of votes received, in support of the Bill, at the May 20th vote.

The inquiries were initiated following complaints received from Minister Sabry and SLPP General Secretary Attorney-at-Law Sagara Kariyawasam, PC. The Speaker called for a report from Jayantha de Silva, Secretary, Technology Ministry, pertaining to the failure of the electronic counting system and a comprehensive report in respect of the overall situation from former Secretary General Parliament Dhammika Kitulgoda.

The Communication Department statement also didn’t make any reference to the number of votes received for and against the Bill. However, the first post-war External Affairs Minister Prof. Peiris (2010-2015) didn’t mince his words when he declared at the Information Department that the Bill had received an overwhelming two-thirds majority. Prof. Peiris said that there had been an error in the counting process and the truth was established following an inquiry.

Interestingly, the Speaker’s own Media Division, headed by Indunil Abeywardena, too, hadn’t issued a statement regarding the revelation made by the SLPP Chairman, at the time of the Information Department meeting.

There cannot be any justifiable excuse for the pathetic failure on the part of Parliament to ensure an unquestionable counting process. Can there be any issue whatsoever in the electronic counting process? Parliament actually should be ashamed of its failure – the latest in a long list of let downs over a period of time.


Prof. Peiris responds to Opp concerns

The statement made by Prof. Peiris should be examined against the backdrop of the Opposition’s plea to the Supreme Court to order a Referendum, in addition to a two-thirds parliamentary approval for the Bill. The SLPP avoided the Referendum by agreeing for the amendments proposed by the Opposition whereas the SC declared the adequacy of a simple majority.

Prof. Peiris dealt with several contentious issues, including what he described as the perception of exclusivity. Appreciating China spearheading the mega project meant to ‘creating and adding to Sri Lanka’s territory’, Prof. Peiris declared that doors were open for all countries to invest therein. Prof Peiris emphasized that there is absolutely no basis for the assumptions as regards the new territory being Chinese and investments would be restricted.

Having dealt with the contentious issue over the alleged exclusivity, Prof. Peiris strongly countered accusations that the adoption of the Act would pave the way for creation of a mechanism (Colombo Port City Economic Commission) that would undermine basic democratic structures, therefore a threat to Parliament.

Prof. Peiris also explained how Parliament functioned in its supreme capacity and was responsible for the operation of the Colombo Port City project. The distinguished academic stressed that whatever tax concessions and other privileges afforded to investors would be strictly subjected to the parliamentary approval by way of powers exercised by the Auditor General. Minister Peiris asserted that there couldn’t be any controversy over the China-backed project as it would be subjected to regulatory authorities – the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka, Inland Revenue Department, Attorney General, Customs et al.

Prof. Peiris dealt with accusations that the Colombo Port City would be utilised for money laundering operations. The Education Minister explained how the laws applicable to the new territory didn’t in any way undermine the systems in place to deter money laundering. The US publicly in April alleged that the Colombo Port City would be exploited by ‘nefarious actors’.

Finally, the SLPP Chairman scotched speculation regarding the police and the military not having access to the new territory. Perhaps, most interesting was the examination of the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill with that of the Greater Colombo Economic Commission (GCEC) Law, introduced by President JRJ, and an amendment enacted by the late President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1992. Referring to Premadasa’s amendment that transformed the GCEC to the Board of Investment (BoI), Prof. Peiris said that the then President deprived the Courts of authority to intervene in BOI matters.

Prof. Peiris ridiculed those who had moved the Supreme Court against the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill, for having backed the GCEC Law and the 1992 amendment. Prof. Peiris said that President JRJ had been in such a hurry for the GCEC Law he got the National State Assembly to approve it before the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution.

Having explained the fundamental change in investments, Prof. Peiris called for what he called a ‘coherent statutory regime’ as part of overall efforts to attract foreign investments. Prof. Peiris quite vigorously emphasized the role played by the previous government in the China-led project.

Prof. Peiris recalled how the then Minister of Internal and Home Affairs and Provincial Councils and Local Government Vajira Abeywardena (Current UNP Chairman) issued a gazette pertaining to the Colombo Port City territory.

At the onset of the briefing, Prof. Peiris declared that apprehensions and misconceptions pertaining to the project could be easily resolved by a fuller discussion than we have seen in the recent days. Such discussions should have taken place in the run-up to the passage of the Bill. The government shouldn’t expect a consensus on the project having bulldozed its way through in Parliament.


UNP’s dilemma

Parliament, on July 23, 2019, passed a resolution that paved the way for the amalgamation of the reclaimed land of the Colombo Port City with the area coming under the purview of the Colombo Divisional Secretariat division.

The Resolution under the Administrative Districts Act was presented by Vajira Abeywardena, MP.

According to the Resolution, the land of the Colombo Port City in extent of 446 hectares will be annexed to the Colombo Divisional Secretariat’s Division of the Administrative District of Colombo. As per the plan prepared by the Surveyor General, the Colombo Port and Chaithya Road East will be a connecting point to the boundary of the Colombo Divisional Secretariat’s Division.

The newly reclaimed land’s connection point would be the western boundary of the Colombo Divisional Secretariat’s Division and its east coordinate would be 396913.476 from the northern connection point and 397077.037 from the southern connection point while its north coordinate would be 492847.74 from the northern connection point and 492290.222 from the southern connection point according to the Sri Lanka Grid 1999 reference coordinate system, according to the schedule of the resolution.

Having suspended the Colombo Port City project soon after the 2015 presidential election, the yahapalana government caused irreparable damage to long standing bilateral relations. The then Government spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said the China Communications Construction Co Ltd (CCCC) project had been launched without relevant approvals from concerned institutions. The Minister alleged that the agreement had been finalized without following proper procedures and did not meet environmental standards. The yahapalana government, in August, 2016, however, despite earlier bitter criticism of it, paved the way for the resumption of the project after China twisted the then Sri Lankan leadership’s arm. China warned Sri Lanka of dire consequences unless it paid compensation for the losses caused by the abrupt suspension of the project. The CCCC estimated it was losing more than $380,000 a day as a result.

Sri Lanka’s foolish decision to suspend the Chinese project should be examined against the backdrop of the US role in the 2015 change of government. No less a person than the then Secretary of State John Kerry revealed the US made funding available for the political project to topple the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, in addition to backing the regime change in Myanmar and Nigeria.

At one point, China lashed out at the then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake (Karunanayaka, who contested the Colombo district along with UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, lost his bid to re-enter Parliament at the last parliamentary election, in August 2020. Wickremesinghe, too, lost. The once all-powerful UNP won just a National List slot and it too remains vacant still).

The then Chinese Ambassador Yi Xianliang hit back hard at Karunanayake after he called Chinese funding as ‘expensive loans.’ The Chinese demanded to know why Karunanayaka sought more loans if he felt the Chinese were not being fair. The Chinese Ambassador reacted angrily to Karunanayake in Oct/Nov 2016. By then, both Karunanayake and the then government had been embroiled in Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016.

Having defended the flagship Chinese project to the hilt, the status of Prof. Peiris’ role in the overall government strategy cannot be ignored under any circumstances.

SLPP lawmaker Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, in his written submissions submitted to the Supreme Court, in respect of the Colombo Port City Economic Commission, challenged the legitimacy of the Bill. Perhaps, the bone of contention is that the Bill, presented to Parliament by the SLPP, hadn’t been consonant with the bilateral agreement between Sri Lanka and China, finalized in 2014, or the re-negotiated tripartite agreement (Sri Lanka, China and Urban Development Authority) following the change of government in 2015.

Lawmaker Rajapakse questioned the failure on the part of those who had access to those agreements but conveniently refrained from submitting them to the Supreme Court.

In his submissions, MP Rajapakse, who had represented both the UNP and the SLFP in the cabinet, alleged Prof. Peiris, along with Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, Secretary to the President, S.R. Attygalle, Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary to the Cabinet being silent on the previous agreements. The four had intervened in the case in support of the Bill.

Having appeared in the Supreme Court on behalf of Ven. Muruthettuwe Ananda Nayaka thera and Nagashenage Dasun Yasas Sri Nagasena, MP Rajapaksa skipped the vote on the Bill on May 20.


A big question mark over the role of Parliament

Prof. Peiris, as well as other government spokespersons, have repeatedly assured the public that the Colombo Port City project would be governed by Parliament. They guaranteed the project would be subjected to proper scrutiny therefore the public should be at ease. However, Parliament, having pathetically failed to fulfill its primary responsibilities namely (i) ensuring financial discipline and (ii) enactment of new laws expected to manage the Port City project. Parliament has, however, over and over again revealed its incompetence as waste, corruption and irregularities continued unabated. It would be a horrendous mistake on the part of the public to believe for a moment the Port City project would be within Sri Lanka’s purview simply on the basis of it being subject to parliamentary supervision.

Such claims should be discussed taking into consideration statements issued by the Communication Department of Parliament pertaining to the COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises), COPA (Committee on Public Finance) and COPF (Committee on Public Finance) proceedings. Parliament’s response to the Treasury bond scams, during the previous administration, as well as the massive sugar tax scam, perpetrated by the incumbent SLPP government, bared an unpalatable truth. Examination of COPE, COPA and COPF reports since the last general election revealed massive embezzlement at public sector enterprises as well as other institutions, such as Sri Lanka Cricket and Football Federation of Sri Lanka. In fact, waste, corruption and irregularities seemed almost acceptable to governments, whoever was at the helm, with Parliament struggling to cope up with corruption. Therefore, believing in parliamentary supervision of the Port City project can be quite a blunder.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

GR’s exit and developing crisis: Different interpretations



By Shamindra Ferdinando

President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva recently questioned the failure on the part of the cash-strapped Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) to provide electricity, without interruption, at least during the GCE Advanced Level examination.

The outspoken lawyer raised the issue with the writer, on January 23, the day the delayed examination began at 2,200 centres, with 331,709 students sitting the examination, countrywide. It was, originally, to commence on Dec. 05, 2022.

The constitutional expert pointed out how even in the implementation of daily power cuts, the CEB, obviously, discriminated against the population, at the behest of the political leadership, by excluding selected areas from, what he called, the daily scourge of living without electricity. Pointing out the responsibility of the media to take a strong stand on this issue, the President’s Counsel said that certain areas, categorized as ‘VIP,’ received a 24-hour, uninterrupted, power supply.

The CEB resorted to daily power cuts, last year, after a long time, during President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s time, as the economic crisis gripped the country, with the government unable to pay for the import of even basic needs, like gas, fuel, medicines, etc. At one time, there were 10- to 12-hour power cuts. The then Power and Energy Minister, Udaya Gammanpila, is on record as having said that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa ignored his plea for immediate small power cuts, to conserve what we had, at the beginning of the total breakdown, in January 2022, to lessen the full impact of the developing crisis hitting us at once down the road. Attorney-at-law Gammanpila pointed out that the President’s failure finally led to 12-13 hour power cuts, leading to the explosion of public anger, in the last week of March, 2022.

The continuing power crisis reflected the overall waste, corruption, irregularities, mismanagement, at every level, not only at the CEB, but the entire public sector, as well, over the past several decades.

The intervention made by the Human Rights Commission (HRCSL) last Wednesday (25) to compel the CEB to ensure uninterrupted power supply, failed.

In spite of Commissioner, Dr. M.H. Nimal Karunasiri, of the HRCSL, on its behalf, proudly claiming that it had secured a consensus with all stakeholders to suspend power cuts, ignoring all that, the CEB went ahead with the routine electricity supply interruptions.

The power crisis, coupled with an explosive cocktail of issues caused by Sri Lanka’s failure to meet its international loan commitments, contributed to the further deterioration of the country’s economy. The crisis affected Sri Lanka in the first quarter of 2021, with the Easter Sunday carnage, and the pandemic, already having done much damage, especially to the vital tourism sector, among others, but President Rajapaksa’s government ignored the threat.

Appearing in a live programme, telecast simultaneously, both on stateowned and private television networks, the Governor of the Central Bank, Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, recently alleged the then government hid Sri Lanka’s bankruptcy status before its inability to service foreign debt was officially acknowledged in early April last year. Having accepted the hot seat, in early April, last year, Dr. Weerasinghe announced suspension of repayment of loans, temporarily. In spite of progress made, the IMF USD 2.9 bn extended loan facility remained yet to be implemented.

What really caused the economic meltdown? Could President Gotabaya Rajapaksa averted public humiliation if he sought IMF’s intervention in early 2020? Who prevented Gotabaya Rajapaksa from doing so, as Sri Lanka had knelt before the IMF on 16 previous occasions? His elder brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa, who held the Finance portfolio, could have advised the President. Didn’t Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa advise his brother in this regard? And what was the role played by former Treasury Secretary, Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, not just another run-of-the-mill economist. Having been seconded to the Treasury, from the Central Bank, from the time Ronnie de Mel was the Finance Minister, his exceptional talents were tapped by the Finance Ministry, even under President Premadasa, when R. Paskaralingam, of the Pandora Papers’ notoriety, was the Treasury Secretary. And he continued to serve the Treasury, under successive Presidents, thereafter, especially in the hot seat, as the Finance Ministry Secretary, in one of the most difficult periods in the country’s history, during the final phase of the conflict, when it was a fight to a finish with the LTTE, especially after President Mahinda Rajapaksa telling the then British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, and his French counterpart, Bernard Couchner, to get lost when they went all the way down to Embilipitiya to tell Mahinda to stop the war to enable them to rescue Velupillai Prabhakaran, and what was left of his terrorist movement, by a flotilla of vessels they were ready to dispatch to the coast of Mullaitivu. PBJ, no doubt, ensured that no expense was spared when waging the most costly war of attrition, while keeping the economy humming with massive infrastructure projects, like building expressways, Hambantota Port, Mattala International Airport, etc. So it is quite puzzling why PBJ failed to guide President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the path of correct economic decisions. Surely it can’t be due to him past the retirement age.

After being Secretary to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, during this turbulent period, Dr. PBJ was asked to go in Dec. 2021, when the former’s presidency had suffered irrevocable damage.

Leaving all the above aside, it must be stated here that whatever disagreements, or misunderstandings we may have had in the past, with New Delhi and Beijing, we should be eternally grateful to both India and China for being unwaveringly behind us in that most difficult final phase of the war.

Ex-CP Chief D.E.W. Gunasekera recently discussed the downfall of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, after having polled a staggering 6.9 mn votes at the last presidential election, in Nov 2019. President Rajapaksa resigned on July 14, 2022, in the wake of snowballing violent protests that began on March 31, outside his private residence, at Pangiriwatta, Mirihana.

In a brief but fiery speech, the former Marxist minister explained how the wartime Defence Secretary caused the rapid deterioration of his government for want of a sound economic strategy. The retired public servant, who served as a lawmaker (2004-2015), found fault with President Rajapaksa for the ongoing political-economic-social crisis.

The veteran politician recalled how he suggested to the then Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa to advice brother Gotabaya to seek Chinese assistance to overcome the impending financial crisis. The outspoken politician blamed it all on the economic reasons.

Gunasekera said so at the opening of Eastern School of Political Studies, at the newly renovated CP party office, at Dr. N.M. Perera Mawatha, Borella, with the participation of Chinese International Department Vice Minister, Chen Zhou, and Acting Chinese Ambassador, Hu Wei.

Declaring that he himself warned President Gotabaya Rajapaksa of the impending crisis and provided a recovery plan in the run up to the last presidential election, held on Nov. 16, 2019, Gunasekera accused the fallen President of turning a blind eye.

The ex-minister placed the blame squarely on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

A different interpretation

Derana Chief, Dilith Jayaweera, at one time, one of the closest associates of ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in a YouTube interview with Eraj Weeraratne, discussed political developments, since 2018, leading to a violent public protest movement that forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. Jayaweera, who is also the Chairperson of the George Steuart Group, as well as George Steuart Finance Limited, squarely blamed the Rajapaksa family, including Gotabaya, for the turbulent end to his rule.

Responding to a Weeraratne’s query, Jayaweera, declared lawmaker Namal Rajapaksa had no political future. The outspoken entrepreneur was unhesitant. Asserting twice President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son, Namal, currently a member of Parliament, representing one-time Rajapaksa bastion, the Hambantota district, has lost his bearings, Jayaweera questioned the young politician’s sincerity.

Jayaweera didn’t mince his words when he declared that having failed to deprive Gotabaya Rajapaksa of an opportunity to contest the 2019 Presidential Election, the one-time first family worked overtime to undermine his authority at every level. The first family went to the extent of supporting the ‘GotaGoHome’ campaign that compelled the President to give up power, without a fight.

Jayaweera attributed to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second son, Yoshitha (formerly of the Navy) with #GotaGoHome# hashtag that became the clarion call of the high profile protest campaign to oust the previous President.

That tagline doesn’t belong to Aragalaya, Jayaweera declared, alleging that it grew out of the former first family’s inability to stomach Gotabaya Rajapaksa exercising executive power.

The controversial political strategist revealed the ex-first family’s angry reaction to his close relationship with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. “They believed I was trying to move the President out of the family’s orbit. But, the people wanted a Rajapaksa who didn’t represent the interests of the family.” Jayaweera said.

The intrepid local entrepreneur is convinced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa couldn’t overcome the combined challenge posed by the Rajapaksa family.

Responding to another rapid-fire question, Jayaweera explained how the Rajapkasa family thwarted President Rajapaksa’s move to appoint senior public servant, Anura Dissanayake, as his Secretary. But, the Rajapaksa family forced their loyalist Gamini Senarath, who had been Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Secretary, on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, following the exit of PBJ, Jayaweera claimed. According to him, that was definitely the worst example of the Rajapaksa’s family’s interference that rapidly weakened Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency.

The appointment of Dr. Jayasundera, as President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Secretary, should be examined against the backdrop of Jayaweera’s disclosure that Gotabaya Rajapaksa hadn’t been so critical of any other individual during private conversations he had with him.

Cardinal sin

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s cardinal sin was nothing but the enactment of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, Jayaweera declared. That controversial piece of legislature created an extremely hostile political environment and gradually weakened President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s authority, Jayaweera said, recalling how Basil Rajapaksa forced his way into Parliament, on the SLPP National List, regardless of political consequences.

Jayaweera said that he received an assurance from President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in the presence of SLPP National List MP, Gevindu Cumaratunga, that enactment of the 20th Amendment at the expense of the 19th A was not meant for Basil Rajapaksa’s re-entry into Parliament. “President Gotabaya Rajapaksa didn’t keep his promise. Therefore, he should be accountable for the subsequent developments which preceded the demise of his political authority.”

Jayaweera explained how the Rajapaksas interpreted Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory at the 2019 presidential poll for their advantage. “The family asserted that Gotabaya Rajapaksa received a staggering 6.9 mn votes due to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s popularity. So, the family asserted that the new President should pursue their agenda. The family appointed Dr. Jayasundera as the Presidential Secretary.

Basil Rajapaksa believed he should be able to control Parliament. Basil Rajapaksa justified his overall political authority on the basis his SLPP secured a near 2/3 majority in Parliament, in addition to Opposition support that underlined their supremacy.”

Jayaweera described how President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to take up residence at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, do away with gaudy practice of hanging pictures of the President in government buildings, excessive use of vehicles and, most significantly, approval of unsolicited bids, angered the former first family. Those who immensely benefited from such ‘unsolicited bids’ reacted angrily, he said.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s actions jolted racketeers, Jayaweera alleged, pointing out that the new leader quickly lost support within the Cabinet-of-Ministers, by denying those corrupt elements an opportunity to make money, through the promotion of unsolicited bids. They couldn’t bear the shock of Cabinet papers submitted through the family or the intervention of the family being rejected, Jayaweera said, alleging that those who lived off such racketeering spearheaded the campaign against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The ‘Aragalaya’ entered the scene much later and exploited the situation to the hilt as the government parliamentary group quite conveniently abandoned President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Those present in Parliament didn’t challenge SJB MP Harin Fernando when he ridiculed the President repeating the ‘Sir fail’ mantra, Jayaweera said.

The parliamentary group, particularly those corrupt in the Cabinet, felt there was no point in defending a President who didn’t allow them to make money.

Jayaweera also ridiculed the inclusion of four persons who wore kurahan satakaya (maroon shawl) among President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Cabinet. Jayaweera questioned the justification of bestowing five Cabinet portfolios on Namal Rajapaksa.

Relationship with JVP

The Derana Chief discussed a range of other issues, including his long standing relationship with the JVP, subsequent disputes with the Marxist party, and differences with the current leadership.

Dilith Jayaweera seems to be on a collision course with JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, especially over allegations directed at him as regards corruption in the procurement of antigen kits and hotel quarantine process during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Denying any wrongdoing on his part in spite of his close relationship with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Jayaweera declared his readiness to battle it out on a public platform. While acknowledging that his enterprises handled procurement of antigen kits and hotel quarantine process, Jayaweera challenged the JVP leader Dissanayake to prove publicly how he engaged in corrupt practices.

Jayaweera gave an open undertaking to personally lead JVP’s Local Government polls campaign if the record could be set straight by such a debate.

Recalling his close contacts with the JVP in the past and him having participated in their well-known five classes’ indoctrination programme to all new comers, Jayaweera disclosed how he spearheaded Mahinda Rajapaksa’s 2005 presidential election campaign in which the Marxist party played a significant role. Slain Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s residence had been their meeting point where they discussed political strategy. Wimal Weerawansa had been the JVP representative at such meetings on some occasions, Jayaweera said.

Reference was made to the JVP split in the wake of the then Somawansa Amarasinghe led party declaring its intention to vote against the 2008 budget. Had that happened, the military campaign would have been derailed, Jayaweera said, comparing the JVP’s political strategy with that of the UNP.

“At a time, the vast majority of Sri Lankans desired the eradication of the LTTE, the JVP adopted a strategy that clearly aligned with the UNP’s treacherous approach,” Jayaweera said. Reference was made to the then Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and his MPs, Ravi Karunanayake, Lakshman Kiriella and the late Mangala Samaraweera questioning the military strategy and even the competence of the then Commander of the Army, Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka.

Jayaweera commented on a possible deal the JVP had with some party while referring to the availability of large scale NGO funding for those who undermined the war effort.

Recalling the success of his high profile ‘Api Wenuwen Api’ campaign in support of the war effort, particularly meant to attract the youth to join the armed forces, Jayaweera also criticized the JVP strategy towards the end of its second rebellion 1987-1990 when it targeted those in the socialist camp as it was being decimated by the then government death squads.

Answering questions regarding Derana coverage as well as editorial policy of his daily and weekly newspapers, Jayaweera emphasized that he never interfered with them under any circumstances. The media mogul pointed out how Derana TV and newspapers followed different policies while reminding of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s angry reaction to their reportage of developments taking place. “Our reportage reflected the reality. We couldn’t save the government,” he said.

Jayaweera discussed how his strategy differed from that of late Raja Mahendran of the Capital Maharaja Group. Although TNL was launched before Sirasa, the latter received the attention, Jayaweera said, emphasizing Raja Mahendran’s steadfast policy that the owner of the private channel controlled the news content.

Pressed for further explanation, Jayaweera acknowledged that he always exploited situations and created an environment necessary to influence the media. “That strategy is meant to inspire all media, not only Derana,” Jayaweera said.

Jayaweera and Weeraratne also discussed the simmering controversy over the JVP having as much as Rs 8 bn in funds as alleged by Jayaweera, with Derana Chief stressing that whatever the counter arguments the fact remains the JVP had substantial amount of funding. Questioning the credibility of lawmaker Anura Kumara Dissanayake against the backdrop of a section of the media highlighting lies propagated by the JVP leader, Jayaweera declared his readiness to help the party. But, that would depend on the JVPers willingness to appear with him in a live debate to clear the whole gamut of issues at hand.

Jayaweera also recalled the allegations pertaining to the procurement of antigen test kits directed at him by lawmaker Rajapaksa. Dismissing Namal Rajapaksa’s allegations as irrelevant, Jayaweera stressed that MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake should be given an opportunity to rectify his mistakes.

Jayaweera recalled his close association with Dissanayake at the time the latter served as the Agriculture Minister of then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga led UPFA-JVP ‘Parivasa’ government. A smiling Jayaweera said though the JVP wanted to build 1,000 new tanks, it couldn’t complete at least one properly. Declaring he accompanied Dissanayake to various parts of the country,

Jayaweera acknowledged that he managed that media campaign, too.

At the conclusion of perhaps the most important interview that dealt with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s unceremonious exit from politics, Jayaweera commented on an often asked query whether Aragalaya was a conspiracy?

External intervention

Declaring that Gotabaya Rajapaksa had to give up political power not because of him, Jayaweera recalled how he warned in 2008 of the impending economic crisis and Dr. Jayasundera’s role in it. That warning was issued at the launch of Sinhala translation of John Perkins’s ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman,’ Jayaweera said, declaring that the former first family initiated the conspiracy that was subsequently exploited to the hilt by various interested parties, including Western powers.

There cannot be any dispute over how Gotabaya Rajapaksa was derailed and who contributed to that despicable strategy. Perhaps, social media influencer, who interviewed him should have asked Jayaweera about a few other issues that ruined the once much respected Defence Secretary.

The crisis created cannot be discussed leaving out the ill-fated fertilizer ban (2021), catastrophic cancellation of the Light Train Transit (LRT) project funded by Japan(2020), allegations directed at Presidential Secretary P.B. Jayasundera and Prime Minister’s Secretary Gamini Senarath (both denied these accusations) pertaining to procurement of fertiliser from India and China, respectively and the failure on the government’s part to implement recommendations made by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into 2019 Easter Sunday carnage.

The writer remembers how he ran into Jayaweera and Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Bishop’s House in the run up to 2019 presidential election when the latter visited Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith to assure that justice would be done.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Notes towards a politics and aesthetics of film:



‘Face Cover’ by Ashfaque Mohamed

“Black cat, at the tip of my fingers pulsates poetry,

Desiring hands, yours, nudgingly pluck those roses of mine

In the soft light of the moon

The dreams we picked from the foaming edges of waves of the sea.”

Jusla/Salani (in Face Cover)

by Laleen Jayamanne

Asifa, a young girl, and her elderly mother, living in Kattankudy, Baticaloa, are two fictional characters at the centre of Ashfaque Mohamed’s quietly powerful first feature film, titled Face Cover, which just premiered at the 2023 Jaffna International Film Festival (JIFF). As the President of the international jury judging the films in this year’s debut film competition at the JIFF (but on zoom from Australia), I have seen some highly sophisticated films from Bangladesh and India (the winners), immensely enjoyable and informative, but have chosen, for the purposes of this article, to write on Ashfaque’s thought provoking film that didn’t make it into the debut film competition. My decision to do so is part of my own politics as a film scholar who has, over the decades, often highlighted and laboured over films that may not necessarily be popular, or current, or even easily understood, for that matter. Eye-catching films often are popular, and many critics spend a lot of energy writing about them as is their prerogative. I, too, do that when moved, as I have been by Baz Luhrmann’s hugely popular ELVIS. But, it’s important to me, as a Lankan-Australian film critic/scholar, to focus also on work that at first may appear opaque, may not fit into my own limited viewing habits and preferences, first and foremost. This way, I learn to learn from film even as I grow old. Face Cover has uncovered for me micro-histories of ethnic relations in Lanka in astonishing and moving ways. It’s certainly a film for our times, and in my opinion, Ashfaque is a young Lankan filmmaker of great promise. It is also heartening to note that he is cine-literate and (as he says), is self-taught as a filmmaker.

While the opening and closing screenings of the festival were at the Cinemas Movie Theatre, the rest of the festival films were shown at the University of Jaffna, largely due to the ongoing grave financial crisis affecting the country as a whole. I gather it’s the only film festival held in Sri Lanka, continuously, since the civil war ended, after 30 years, and is an admirable institution, powered by its Director, and curator of film, Anoma Rajakaruna’s unceasing energy and vision, which builds bridges among the various ethnic groups and cinephiles from across the entire country and crucially South Asia and further afield, in that once war-ravaged city. The following is the film’s blurb.

“Taking the cataclysmic Easter Sunday Bombings of Churches and Hotels in April 2019, by ISIS inspired Islamists in Sri Lanka as the point of departure, the film follows the life of Asifa in Kattankdy, in Eastern Sri Lanka, as she navigates the complex social forces shaping her and other women’s stories. The film tells the story of the town, as a woman’s tale. The film is experimental in form and mixes genres and conventions.”


The main fictional story line of the mother and daughter is interwoven with (what appears at first to be), documentary interviews and testimonies given by ‘real’ people, not fictional characters. However, towards the end of the film one realises that the demarcating lines between documentary and fiction have indeed been blurred. There are hints of this earlier, in the four scenes forming the large sequence ‘performed’ on a proscenium stage, as well. This blurring appears to be the result of an unusual aesthetic and political decision, which I wish to explore here. Perhaps the politics of the film are linked to this bleeding of the actual into the fictional and the reverse also. How does this device enable Face Cover to uncover subtle operations of power in a predominantly Muslim area of Lanka, in the post-war era, soon after the Easter Sunday bombings as well? The feminist slogan, ‘the personal is political,’ certainly gets elaborated quietly but quite decisively in exploring the agency of the young Muslim girl, Asifa, on the cusp of womanhood, as well. I am assuming here (as I think the film itself does), that a politics of cinema has to work on two fronts simultaneously, not only on the choice of subject/story, but also on HOW it is told, elaborated. For what’s at stake are, our powers of perception and understanding, through images and sounds, that touch us in unexpected ways. Film, I believe, can be our mentor, we can learn from film in the most enjoyable and unexpected of ways, to undo our prejudiced ways of seeing, hearing, feeling and thinking. Face Cover continues to be a revelation to me in this regard, even after multiple viewings, especially so.

Face Cover

Ashfaque Mohamed

, the title of Ashafque’s film, is in itself fascinating. Why didn’t he use the globalised Arabic word Niqab for instance? The words ‘Face Cover’ (I learn), are the same in Tamil, the English words simply transliterated and incorporated into the vernacular. It is commonly used by Muslims to refer to the practice of partially covering a woman’s face, as required by some Muslim norms. A Tamil friend suggested that it connotes both the intimacy of a piece of cloth and a sense of distance of appropriated foreign words. Perhaps this sense of ambivalence is a unique Lankan invention not perceptible in the pure Arabic official word for the practice, which is Niqab. What’s fascinating to me is that, before I saw the film and learnt about the connotations of the title Face Cover, I thought it would be a ‘hot’, topical film on a subject that has caused a great deal of debate in the West (France for example), and protests, most recently in Iran which turned violent and then garnered supporters in some Western countries especially among some feminists. It’s a topic that the Western white media finds especially irresistible. But I was mistaken to take the title Face Cover at face value, as a sign of a polemical film. And what was most surprising to me about the film was that I wrote a long email to a friend, soon after I saw the film for the first time and realised the next day that I had said absolutely nothing about the ‘problem’ of the face cover, despite having discussed the film at some length.

When I realised what I had done, I resaw the film which brought up a lot of questions but no answers, so I saw the film yet again for the third time. This time round the film began to slowly open up to my attention. It is a film, I realised, that requires a quiet focus, an attentiveness, as when one enters an unfamiliar social milieu, like when one takes one’s shoes off to go into certain places of worship in Lanka, or as it happens to some houses in Australia. Similarly, while music is used, it does so very sparingly, so that when we do hear it, it speaks in a way that wall to wall music does not, cannot. In these ways our quality of attention is tuned like a musical instrument. In fact, the only time the face cover became a ‘hot topic’ in the film was when a Sinhala trader, in a shop, makes it so by shouting at a young woman wearing a face cover. He aggressively asks her why she has her face covered and the young girl responds forcefully, asking why he wants to see her face, etc. Apart from this verbal stoush, (the only time Sinhala is heard in the film), and one re-enactment on a stage, of an Army check-point scene, from the civil-war era, the face cover itself is not conceived as a ‘problem’ to be addressed by the film. In the staged check-point scene, a soldier, carrying a gun, orders a young woman, in Tamil, to unmask at the point of his gun and she simply obeys the command. The soldier is meant to be Sinhala speaking an accented Tamil. So apart from these two ‘dramatic’ incidents, instigated by hostile people with authority and power, the face cover is not a focus of the film, it’s simply a given. Though there is a strong criticism of the Muslim male undergraduate practice of erasing the faces of female office bearers on student council photographs, at several Universities. A young Muslim woman astutely refers to this gender discrimination as a ‘digital veiling,’ images of which are displayed. This kind of internal criticism is very forceful and one hopes that Muslim male undergraduates will reflect on it and mend their ways. The check-point scene does function as a parable. More on the use of dramatic parables later, in a film where there is very little ‘drama’ in this sense of confrontations. Instead, momentous events transpire on Television News of the Easter Sunday bombings which frames the film and dates it to be set in 2019. But previous violent histories are folded into every-day-life and narrated as recollections, and an inventive mix of techniques of staged interviews and testimonies and ‘real’ interviews, replace drama, understood as actions and reactions reaching a crescendo.

Sumathy Sivamohan as Asifa’s mother

Often the interviews are played as voice-over while the person concerned goes about her every-day business, mute. This technique makes the film’s narration flexible, allowing room to play with our attention, an eye here and the ear there. I think that Ashfaque’s ethico-aesthetic sensibility evident here is a part of his film politics. I find myself listening attentively to the voice-over which rhetorically oscillates between answers to questions (which are themselves unheard), and an interior monologue. I found the texture, timbre, inflections and rhythms of the voices, especially those of the mother and daughter, very engaging, moving. Lankan cinema has not developed the autonomous potentialities of the sound track as much as it could, I think.

Face Cover

as a Lure

I was a bit slow to realise that the title, Face Cover, is a lure. It lures us into the film as a certain idea of the veil might. The veil is an alluring metaphysical idea in Kumar Shahani’s film Khyal Gatha for instance, which explores both Hindu Bhakti and Sufi Islamic traditions of spirituality as expressed in music, song and art in India which bypass both the priest and the religious institutions they control. ‘Khayal’ is an Urdu word derived from Persian which means ‘imagination,’ and is the name of a classical musical form. The idea of the ‘veil’ in Persian Sufi traditions is a complex idea, put very simply, it suggests that, reality itself is veiled (filtered, subtilised), and its perception depends on certain spiritual aesthetic practices, which reveal the imperceptible and the intangible, within the hum-drum of every-day existence. The veil as a spiritual idea, on the one hand, and the mask or ‘face cover’ socially mandated by certain Islamic patriarchal assumptions, on the other, are of course worlds apart in their conception and function and the feelings they evoke. As devout Roman Catholic girls, taught religion by Irish Catholic nuns at school, we always had to cover our heads modestly with veils when going to church.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Burnt Morsels and Barbed Wire



By Lynn Ockersz

The war tanks are battle-ready,

Menacingly lurking, raring to roll in,

At the first call to arms,

By a strong arm gentry,

Eyeing its spoils of power and office,

Secured sans a Freedom Struggle,

But those whom it sees as subjects,

Are now hitting their mats at night,

On a diet of tepid water and burnt rice,

Left very much on their own to die,

Proving that ‘Freedom’ is a stillborn babe.

Continue Reading