Connect with us

news

‘Are we being compelled to fully implement 13A, in return for Covid-19 vaccine?’

Published

on

Sri Lankan envoy in Myanmar questions Indian strategy:

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Myanmar Prof. Nalin de Silva has flayed India for its interference in Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs.

In an open letter in Sinhala, also sent to The Island, Prof. de Silva questioned what he called Indian interference with post-war Sri Lanka and a bid to exploit the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ambassador de Silva asked whether India offered Sri Lanka Covid-19 vaccine in return for the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in the late 80s at the behest of India though that piece of legislation was irrelevant today.

Referring to Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s recent visit to Colombo where he met President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, TNA delegation and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Ambassador de Silva questioned the Indian strategy.  At the conclusion of meetings, Dr. Jaishankar declared: “It is in Sri Lanka’s own interest that the expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka are fulfilled. That applies equally to the commitments made by the Sri Lankan government on meaningful devolution, including the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Commenting on Sri Lanka’s efforts to procure Covid-19 vaccine, Jaishankar said, “We are now looking at post-Covid cooperation and I carry back with me Sri Lanka’s interest in accessing vaccines from India and I shared with the Foreign Minister, as Prime Minister Modi has said, India sees international cooperation in this area as its duty.”

Expressing serious concern over strong Indian presence in Colombo, Ambassador de Silva queried whether the Indian External Affairs Ministry is situated in Colombo.

The non-career diplomat also compared the effectiveness of the vaccine that could be obtained from India and serum available for those countries having the wherewithal to secure, store and implement large scale vaccination campaign.

India recently approved two coronavirus vaccines, one made by AstraZeneca and Oxford University and the other developed in India, for emergency use.

Ambassador de Silva, a vociferous supporter of ongoing local efforts to develop Sri Lankan remedy for Covid-19 epidemic, pointed out the failure on the part of the country as a whole to support domestic bids. Prominent civil society activist pointed out how those opposed and ridiculed local remedies challenged recipients of local syrup to live among Covod-19 affected for two weeks.

Ambassador de Silva asked whether Dr. Jaishankar visited Colombo to inform the government of its readiness to provide vaccines and give priority to Sri Lanka. Pointing out that Sri Lanka would get some vaccines, though it lacked understanding of India’s requirement as it struggled to overcome Covid-19, Ambassador de Silva said that Sri Lanka should have sought an explanation from Dr. Jaishankar whether India didn’t have a local remedy.

Sri Lanka’s envoy in Myanmar asked whether India would send Sri Lanka some of its local remedies.

Ambassador de Silva launched a scathing attack over India’s call to further strengthen the Provincial Council system. The senior academic said: “Indian External Affairs Minister wants Sri Lanka to strengthen the Provincial Council system further. Why should we do that? The so-called Tamil problem had been solved. Even if the issue hadn’t been resolved, what right India had to intervene in domestic issues? We have no issue in TNA leader R. Sambanthan, MP, and lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran taking up residence at India House, situated opposite the University of Colombo. India cannot be allowed to meddle here to appease the likes of Sampanthan and Sumanthiran.”

Reiterating the irrelevance of the so-called Tamil problem in the wake of the eradication of the LTTE military capability in May 2009 on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, Ambassador de Silva said that the terrorist challenge could have been neutralized through only military means. In spite of those who had spearheaded the Jathika Hela Urumnaya at its inception campaigning against the war effort, the military succeeded in eradicating the enemy’s conventional military capability for once and for all, the nationalist said.

Pointing out how Canada and the UK still facilitated those bent on dividing the country on ethnic lines by propagating a fictitious genocide that never happened; Ambassador de Silva alleged that the government hadn’t taken tangible measures to counter the enemy strategy.

Dr de Silva questioned how India expected Sri Lanka to fulfill what the then President JR Jayewardene promised against the backdrop of New Delhi’s failure to disarm the LTTE in terms of the Indo-Lanka accord. Sri Lanka shouldn’t under any circumstances give into Indian demands as regards the 13th Amendment in return for stock of Covid-19 vaccines, Ambassador de Silva said.

The former Mathematics Don also discussed the continuing controversy over the alleged Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) among Sri Lanka, India and Japan in respect of the East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo harbour entered into by the yahapalana regime . The Sri Lanka envoy in Myanmar urged the government to take the parliament and the public into confidence if it intended to finalize agreement on ECT.

Several weeks ago, Ambassador de Silva called for the abolition of the Provincial Councils. The declaration was made in the wake of some interested parties, including a section of the government pushing for PC polls.

 

 



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

news

GL: Colombo Port City Bill received AG’s sanction

Published

on

…SC scheduled to commence hearing petitions today

By Shamindra Ferdinando

SLPP Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris says that the proposed Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill is consistent with the Constitution. Prof. Peiris, who is also the Education Minister, insists the Bill received the sanction of the Attorney General.

Prof. Peiris explained to the media the circumstances under which the incumbent government had initiated the proposed Bill. He did so having briefed Ven. Dr. Ittapane Dhammalankara Thera as regards the current political developments, at the Sri Dharmaloka Maha Viharaya, Rukmale, Pannipitiya, on Saturday (17).

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa recently presented the Colombo Port City EC Bill to the Cabinet of ministers. The 76-page Bill provides for the establishment of an EC authorised to grant registrations, licences, authorisations, and other approvals to carry on businesses and other activities in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be established within the Colombo Port City.

Responding to government member Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse’s bombshell accusations that the proposed Bill when enacted in parliament would transform newly reclaimed land adjacent to the Galle Face Green to sovereign Chinese territory, Prof. Peiris emphasized the responsibility on the part of the President in respect of the implementation of the project. Declaring that even an amendment couldn’t be moved without specific approval of the President, Prof. Peiris said all reports pertaining to financial matters, too, should be submitted to the President.

The former law professor also challenged those opposed to the proposed Bill claiming that the police and the military would be excluded from performing duties in the reclaimed land. One-time External Affairs Minister insisted that the police and the military enjoyed the right to exercise powers in terms of the country’s law in case of violations.

The minister said that the government was keen to create an environment conducive for foreign direct investment. However, those who now decried the Colombo Port City EC Bill conveniently forgot the formation of the ‘Greater Colombo Economic Commission’ (GCEC) under a new draconian Bill introduced by the then President J.R. Jayewardene.

Prof. Peiris said unlike JRJ’s Bill, the one proposed by the incumbent government adhered to the Constitution hence the approval from the Attorney General.

Prof. Peiris alleged that the JRJ’s Act paved the way for GCEC to take decisions pertaining to newly formed Export processing Zones (EPZ) and basically conduct its affairs outside the purview of the parliament. Claiming that those who exercised the required powers could transfer funds to and from accounts and anyone violating the secrecy faced jail terms, Prof. Peiris stressed that even the judiciary couldn’t intervene in some matters pertaining to this particular Act introduced in 1978.

According to Prof. Peiris, in 1992, the then President Ranasinghe Premadasa further strengthened the law by depriving the public an opportunity to obtain a restraining order from a court in respect of the all-powerful Commission.

Prof. Peiris accused the UNP and its breakaway faction, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and other interested parties of propagating lies against the project as part of their overall political strategy. The minister acknowledged that the UNP was among those who moved the Supreme Court against the proposed Bill.

Since former Justice Minister Rajapakse strongly condemned the proposed Bill at a hastily arranged media briefing at Abayaramaya under the auspices of Ven Muruththettuwe Ananda thera, several Ministers and State Ministers, Keheliya Ranbukwelle, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Namal Rajapaksa, Ajith Nivard Cabraal responded to their colleague on behalf of the government.

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court will begin hearing the petitions today (19).

Among those who filed cases against the proposed Bill were President of the Bar Association Saliya Pieris, PC, former lawmaker Wasantha Samarasinghe on behalf of the JVP, civil society activists, Gamini Viyangoda and K.W. Janaranjana on behalf of Purawesi  Balaya and the Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA).

Viyangoda questioned the government’s motive in depriving the public ample time and space to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill.

Purawesi Balaya spokesperson said that the disputed Bill had been placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on the 8th of April 2021, at a time when the sittings of the Supreme Court were suspended for the vacation. In terms of the Constitution any citizen seeking to challenge a Bill on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Constitution has to do so within one week of being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, which in this instance is the 15 th of April 2021. The petitioner said between the 8 th April 2021 and 15 th April 2021, there were the weekend and three public holidays intervening, thereby giving any citizen seeking to challenge the Bill, only two working days to obtain legal advice and representation.

Those who complained bitterly over urgent Bills exercised the same strategy as regards the controversial Bill, the civil society activist said. Responding to another query, Viyangoda said that if the government was confident the Bill didn’t violate the Constitution, it could have been properly discussed at their parliamentary group meeting before being presented to the cabinet of ministers.

Continue Reading

news

Hiding in obscure corner of India, Myanmar’s ousted lawmakers plotting to dethrone military junta

Published

on

BY S VENKAT NARAYAN

Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI:

Roughly a dozen ousted Myanmar lawmakers, who fled to India after the February 1 military coup, are now busy plotting to dethrone the generals.

In a spartan hillside room in India furnished only with a thin sleeping mat, one of the Myanmar Members of Parliament (MPs) spends much of his days attentively listening to Zoom conference calls and tapping away messages on his smartphone.

The short, soft-spoken man is among the handful of ousted Myanmar MPs who have fled across the border to India’s remote north-eastern region after the military coup and the lethal crackdown on dissent.

Two of the lawmakers and a Myanmar politician spoke to a Reuters reporter. They are involved with the Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw or CRPH, a body of ousted lawmakers that is attempting to re-establish the civilian government and displace the military.

The three said the group is supporting demonstrations, helping distribute funds to supporters and holding negotiations with multiple entities to quickly form a civilian administration nationwide. They asked not to be named for fear of reprisals against their families back home.

Most of the ousted lawmakers are from deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) that overwhelmingly won a November 2020 election, which the military has annulled.

The coup has been met with a fierce pro-democracy movement and tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets across the country, despite the crackdown.

Security forces have killed over 700 people, and more than 3,000 have been detained, including more than 150 lawmakers and members of the former government. Mobile and wireless internet services have been shut down.

The fear of detention and inability to rebuild a civilian government without internet connectivity has driven some Myanmar lawmakers involved in the resistance to work from India, the two MPs elected to Myanmar’s Parliament said.

“There is no time,” one of them, who is from the country’s western Chin state, told Reuters. “People are dying in our country.”

A spokesman for Myanmar’s military did not answer calls seeking comment. The junta has accused the CRPH of treason. The group is working to set up a national unity government to challenge the military’s authority.

Since fleeing to India around two weeks ago, the lawmaker said he had been holding regular discussions with colleagues to set up a parallel administration in Chin state, under directions from the CRPH.

The process is complex, involving building consensus between elected representatives, political parties, ethnic armed groups, civil society bodies and civil disobedience movement leaders, the two lawmakers and the politician said.

The CRPH is also keen on opening communications with India, where at least 1,800 people from Myanmar are already sheltering. It will seek New Delhi’s blessings for the parallel government it is attempting to form, the politician said.

“We can’t rely on China, Thailand and other neighbouring countries,” he said. “The only country where refugees are being welcomed is India”.

India’s External Affairs Ministry did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters.

This week, NLD lawmakers from Myanmar’s northern Sagaing region held an online conference call, but only 26 out of 49 representatives dialled in, according to the second MP who attended the meeting from India.

“We don’t know where the rest are,” the federal lawmaker said. Two party officials were now trying to track down their missing colleagues.

Some of the fiercest resistance to the junta has come from Sagaing. In the last two months, around 2,000 families involved in the civil disobedience movement in one part of the region have been given financial assistance of around 17 million Kyat ($12,143), the lawmaker from Sagaing said.

The presence and activities of escapee Myanmar lawmakers could pose a diplomatic quandary to India, particularly given New Delhi’s close ties with the Myanmar military rulers.

But India’s position on the Myanmar crisis itself appears to have somewhat shifted in recent weeks. This has also been acknowledged by some CRPH representatives.

At an United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on April 10, Indian diplomat K. Nagaraj Naidu said New Delhi is pushing for a return to democracy in Myanmar. “The first, and most immediate step, in this regard is the release of detained leaders,” Naidu said.

However, India is concerned around internal divisions within the CRPH that could hobble its functioning, a source with knowledge of New Delhi’s thinking said.

The politician involved with the CRPH said he is hopeful that India will engage with the group.

“If democracy wins in Myanmar, it is also a win for India,” he said.

Continue Reading

news

Wijeyadasa, under heavy flak over opposition to China project, says ready to face consequences

Published

on

by Shamindra Ferdinando

SLPP lawmaker Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, yesterday (18) told The Island that he stood by the accusations he made in respect of the proposed Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill.

The former Justice Minister emphasised that he had expressed concerns publicly regarding the planned project after carefully examining the proposed Bill.

“In spite of a spate of statements issued by various government spokespersons, I’m confident of the legal process scheduled to begin today (19). The entire country should be concerned over the government move made at the behest of China.”

Responding to another query, the Colombo district MP urged political parties represented in Parliament to study the Bill with an open mind. The proposed law should be examined taking into consideration the previous UNP-led government transferring control of the strategic Hambantota port to China on a 99-year-lease and China is also in control of a terminal in the Colombo port for 35 years.

The MP said that he was ready to face the consequences of his decision to take a contrary view as regards the Chinese project. Those who had been benefited by the mega China funded project would shamelessly back it, lawmaker Dr. Rajapakse maintained, recollecting how members of parliament backed the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement brokered by Norway, shielded Treasury bond thieves et al.

Those who moved the Supreme Court against the proposed Bill included the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, MP Rajapakse said. The former Minister claimed that unprecedented tax exemptions provided to the businesses coming up in the newly reclaimed land adjacent to the Galle Face Green would pose a severe threat to the national economy.

The MP said that he didn’t personally have anything against China or any other country, but strongly believed in political and economic independence of the country. Therefore, the right-thinking lawmakers couldn’t under any circumstances vote for the proposed Bill as it was, the former Minister said.

Continue Reading

Trending