By Shamindra Ferdinando
UNP leader and yahapalana Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was a political devil and the earlier administration in which he served as PM, akin to a mismatched wedding, former President Maithripala Sirisena told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) investigating the Easter Sunday attacks.
SLFP leader Sirisena told the PCoI that disputes arose between him and Wickremesinghe within the first week of establishing the yahapalana government.
“Within the first week Wickremesinghe wanted to appoint Arjuna Mahendran as the Governor of the Central Bank. I wasn’t happy because Mahendran was a citizen of Singapore. However, Wickremesinghe insisted that Singaporean of Sri Lankan origin Mahendran was the ideal person and since I also did not want to create a conflict, within a week of coming to power, I let it happen,” Sirisena said.
The ex-President said that their relationship further deteriorated after he appointed the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, in January 2017, to investigate the Central Bank Treasury Bond Scams. Mahendran sought refuge in Singapore about a year after the appointment of the PCoI. The Commission comprised Supreme Court Justice K.T. Chitrasiri, the late SC Justice P S Jayawardena and retired Deputy Auditor General V. Kandasamy. Sumathipala Udugamsuriya functioned as its Secretary.
President Sirisena couldn’t convince Singapore to hand over Mahendran to Sri Lanka though he repeatedly vowed to get him.
Mahendran was indicted in June 2019 for causing losses to the government. The Treasury bond scams, the October 2015 Geneva betrayal, in between the two scams and the Easter Sunday carnage, sealed the fate of yahapalana partners, the UNP and the SLFP.
The Joint Opposition/Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna in the run-up to the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary elections, vowed to bring back Mahendran. Recalling how the LTTE financier, living in Malaysia had been brought back in 2009, some JO/SLPP spokespersons vowed to bring back Mahendran.
In spite of a change of government, in Nov 2019, the government hadn’t been able to secure Mahendran’s arrest. Singapore continues to ignore Sri Lanka’s request to hand over Mahendran. It would be pertinent to mention the previous yahapalana administration entered into Free Trade Agreement with Singapore in January 2018. The agreement followed just six rounds of talks beginning July 2016.
Singapore has indicated that handing over of Mahendran is very much unlikely. The Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar last month ordered the Treasury bond scam case to proceed in spite of the absence of Mahendran and Ajahan Gardiya Punchihewa. Both are abroad. The bench comprised High Court Judges Damith Thotawatte, Manjula Tilakaratne and Mohamed Irshadeen.
This directive was given when the case in respect of the misappropriation of Treasury bonds worth Rs 36 bn at the Central Bank bond auction on March 29, 2016 was taken up in court. It was the far larger second Treasury bond scam perpetrated by Mahendran with the connivance of the then government, the first being the Feb 27, 2015 scam. Altogether, the Attorney General has moved court against 10 persons, including Mahendran for misappropriation of Rs 688 mn in the Treasury bond issue held on Feb 27, 2015. The suspects included Mahendran’s affluent son-in-law Arjun Aloysius, who actually carried out the scams though his firm PTL.
We have grave suspicions about the squeaky clean image that Singapore has been putting out to the world, especially after how it picked up a Supreme Court Judge from here after he went into quiet retirement soon after then President Chandrika Kumaratunga went around the country accusing him of helping an LTTE man to escape justice here. (VINCENDIRAJAN FLED THE COUNTRY NO SOONER HE WAS GIVEN BAIL). And presto that tainted SC Judge was appointed to a respected arbitration panel there. So we cannot believe that a country like Singapore, whose intelligence gathering is second to none didn’t know about our judge’s background or was he picked because of his sordid background?
Let me reproduce a statement headlined ‘Joint stamp launches in Sri Lanka and Singapore to commemorate 50 years of diplomatic ties’ issued by the Foreign Ministry on July 27, 2021. The following is the text of the statement verbatim: “A joint stamp release ceremony was held at the Foreign Ministry, Sri Lanka, on 27 July to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties with Singapore which took place on the same day in 1970. This milestone event was held with the participation of the Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Singapore Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, joining virtually.
The two stamps ceremonially unveiled at the event, were especially designed for the occasion to depict the theme “Marine Conservation”, and showcase the restoration of Coral Ecosystem in Sri Lanka, and Mangroves in Singapore and reflects the shared interest and commitment of both countries in protecting the marine environment.
Speaking at the occasion, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena highlighted the long standing friendly relations between the two countries, nurtured by deep rooted linkages at community and societal levels. He recalled his meeting with Minister Balakrishnan when both were holding different portfolios and the discussions held on tackling challenges posed by climate change across the globe. Minister Gunawardena said further that the unveiling of commemorative postage stamps to mark the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties, undoubtedly shows the great warmth and friendship that exist between the two countries.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Singapore Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, in his remarks, spoke on the warm and long-standing nature of Singapore-Sri Lanka relations. He noted the close and meaningful cooperation between our two countries, including during this COVID-19 period.
The event was attended by the former Sri Lanka High Commissioners who served in Singapore, Chitranganee Wagiswara, Nimal Weerarathna, Ferial Ashraff and Consul of Singapore in Sri Lanka Dr. Jayantha Dharmadasa, Singaporean business community in Sri Lanka, Secretary of the Ministry of Mass Media, Officials of the Foreign Ministry and the Department of Posts.
Meanwhile, in Singapore, a ceremony was held at the Shangri La a few hours prior to the Colombo event where High Commissioner of Sri Lanka to Singapore Sashikala Premawardhane and Non-Resident High Commissioner of Singapore Chandra Das unveiled the two stamps in the presence of Director-General of the South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore Gilbert Oh. Deputy Director of Postal & Consumer Policy, Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore (IMDA) Ruth Wong, and Vice President Philately & Stamps Peggy Teo together with several other officials of MFA, IMDB, SingPost and the High Commission of Sri Lanka.
The Foreign Ministry extends its appreciation and congratulations to the Government of Singapore, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore, Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore, SingPost, and the Department of Post of Sri Lanka and to the High Commission of Sri Lanka in Singapore for the successful issuance of the commemorative stamps marking 50 years of friendship between Sri Lanka and Singapore.”
A Singaporean of Sri Lankan origin
Even if Mahendran attended the event at Shangri La, Singapore, the public shouldn’t be surprised. Whatever, the government spokespersons say, Singaporean Mahendran obviously received assurance that he would enjoy the protection of Singapore, regardless of Sri Lanka’s push to bring the fugitive to justice. Examination of Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to get hold of Mahendran should be examined against the backdrop of celebration of 50 years of diplomatic ties.
Why does Singapore continue to protect Mahendran? Did the incumbent regime here make a genuine effort to get Mahendran back to Colombo? What is the responsibility of Sri Lanka Parliament as regards the failure on the part of the government to convince Singapore to hand over Mahendran? UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who orchestrated Mahendran’s appointment as the Governor of the CBSL, immediately after the 2015 presidential election, is now back in parliament as the UNP’s solitary National List MP of that party. Have we heard any government lawmaker demanding an explanation from Wickremesinghe over accountability on his part regarding the Treasury bond scams and Mahendran taking refuge in Singapore? The CBSL was under Wickremesinghe at the time Mahendran perpetrated the Treasury bond scams, the court hadn’t been moved against him. The main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) is not in a position to attack Wickremesinghe over the Treasury bond scam as it consists of former UNP lawmakers who backed the UNP leader’s stand on bond scams.
The JO/SLPP and the SJB have conveniently forgotten the Treasury bond scams. The then President Sirisena, who paved the way for the much bigger second Treasury bond scam in March 2016 by dissolving Parliament in late June 2015 to save the UNP government reeling under the first scam. By the time, Sirisena received the PCoI report in late Dec 2017 or soon thereafter Mahendran was away. Mahendran couldn’t have left the country without the top UNP leadership’s knowledge. Wickremesinghe knew Mahendran was leaving. In fact, President Sirisena and Wickremesinghe hadn’t been able to agree on many contentious issues, including the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore though the President finally gave in.
The incumbent government owes the country an explanation why Mahendran couldn’t be extradited in spite of making representations to Singapore. In early Dec 2020, the then Attorney General Dappula de Livera submitted a note of clarification to Singapore as regards the request to Mahendran.
The Attorney General tendered the extradition request to the Defence Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry in 2019 for necessary authentication and transmission to the Singaporean government after the Permanent High Court at Bar issued an arrest warrant on Mahendran.
Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently informed that the Singapore Government would consider the extradition request once the necessary supporting information and documents were received.
In September 2019, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs forwarded the extradition request on Arjuna Mahendran, to the Sri Lankan High Commission in Singapore. The extradition request was then forwarded to the Government of Singapore for necessary action.
However, Singapore has declined to hand over Mahendran. Singapore is believed to have questioned the basis of the ongoing investigation into the Treasury bond scams. Speaker Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena should hold the debate on the much delayed Treasury bond scams in Parliament without further delay. The failure on the part of Parliament to debate the PCoI report on the Treasury bond scams cannot be justified or tolerated under any circumstances. Those political parties represented in Parliament should be ashamed for their failure to debate the report for well over three years.
How can we forget the fact that Wickremesinghe made a desperate bid to extend Mahendran’s term in spite of accusations relating to the 2015 and 2016 Treasury bond scams? Under heavy pressure to replace Mahendran, Wickremesinghe pushed for Charitha Ratwatte’s appointment as Governor.
In spite of issuance of Interpol red notice on Mahendran, in relation to the ongoing investigation into Treasury bond scams, he remains safe in Singapore, the number one destination for Sri Lankan lawmakers and even Presidents to seek medical treatment. President Sirisena was in Singapore when the Easter Sunday suicide bombers mounted near simultaneous attacks in Colombo, Negombo and Batticaloa. Sirisena claimed that he was in Singapore for a medical checkup when he received a message from Colombo about the carnage.
Chronology of events
Jan. 8, 2015:
Maithripala Sirisena sworn in as President (now SLPP lawmaker, representing Polonnaruwa district)
Ranil Wickremesinghe sworn in as Prime Minister (now solitary UNP MP in Parliament)
Then Finance Minister Ravi K recommended Arjuna Mahendan as Governor, CBSL (No longer in Parliament)
Jan. 26, 2015:
President Sirisena appointed Singaporean Mahendran as Governor, CBSL (privileged life in Singapore)
Feb. 26, 2015:
Mahendran met ministers, Ravi K, Kabir H (now SJM lawmaker) and UNP Chairman Malik S (not engaged in active politics now) at CBSL, allegedly to discuss a massive fund requirement of Rs 18 bn (All three politicians were present when President Sirisena lambasted the UNP over treasury bond scams on Dec 16, 2018 at the Presidential Secretariat in the presence of PM Wickremesinghe and Mrs. Wickremesinghe.)
Feb 27, 2015:
First bond scam perpetrated. Within hours, those who mattered knew how PTL had carried out the operation in connivance with Mahendran.PTL is a fully owned subsidiary of Perpetual Capital (Pvt.) Limited, owned by Geoffrey Joseph Aloysius and Arjun Joseph Aloysius. The Central Bank was under the purview of Premier Wickremesinghe, though previously it functioned under the Finance Ministry.
President Sirisena directed his party to lodge a complaint with the CIABOC. The high profile institution, handling of that particular inquiry, should be examined for obvious reasons.
March 10, 2015:
Wickremesinghe, following consultations with Sirisena, appointed a three-member committee to probe the issuance of treasury bonds. The committee comprised those considered UNP loyalists i.e. Attorneys-at-law Gamini Pitipana, Mahesh Kalugampitiya and Chandimal Mendis.
May 21, 2015:
The Joint Opposition requested Speaker Chamal R to call a special debate on the bond scam.
May 22, 2015:
Special Sub Committee of CoPE appointed to probe the Feb 27, 2015 issuance of treasury bonds. The 13-member Sub Committee had its inaugural meeting on the same day under the chairmanship of Dew Gunasekera.
May 26, 2015:
Probe commenced with Treasury Secretary Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga and Director General, Department of Treasury M.S.D. Ranasiri was questioned (Later it was revealed Samaratunga took part in a discussion when Ravi K issued controversial directives to state bank officials pertaining to issuance of treasury bonds).
June 18, 23, 2015:
CoPE questioned Mahendran. The Singaporean was the last to appear before the committee.
June 25, 2015:
Wickremesinghe alleged CoPE denied him an opportunity to appear before the watchdog. (In terms of the Standing Orders, ministers cannot be summoned before COPE.)
June 26, 2015:
Sirisena dissolved Parliament to thwart CoPE presenting its report on Treasury bond scam. General election set for Aug. 17, 2015. The dissolution prevented Dew Gunasekera from presenting his report on the first Treasury bond scam. In a related action, UNP Deputy Justice Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe moved court to bar Gunasekera from releasing his report to the media.
June 28, 2015:
The writer in an exclusive story based on Dew Gunasekera’s suppressed report headlined ‘COPE inquiry finds Mahendran had intervened in bond issue’ in the June 28 edition of The Sunday Island dealt with Mahendran’s clear complicity in the first scam.
July 3, 2015:
Dew Gunasekera declared that Sirisena could take tangible action on what he called ‘dossier of evidence’ produced by his committee. Gunasekera asserted that Sirisena could call for a copy of the 447-page report from the Secretary General of parliament W.B.D. Dissanayake. President Sirisena chose not to do anything.
Aug. 17, 2015:
Nov. 27, 2016:
COPE reconstituted with JVP MP Sunil Handunetti as its Chairman.
March 29, 2016:
The second far bigger bond scam perpetrated. The Central Bank was still under Premier Wickremesinghe.
June 29, 2016: Sirisena visited the CBSL much to the discomfort of Wickremesinghe and Mahendran. Recently, President Sirisena revealed how Wickremesinghe tried to discourage him from visiting CBSL.
July 2, 2016:
Renowned economist Dr. Indrajith Coomaraswamy succeed Mahendran as Governor of CBSL after Wickremesinghe made an abortive bid, with the support of Karunanayake, to secure Sirisena’s approval for Charitha Ratwatte to be appointed to the post.
January 27, 2017:
Sirisena appoints P-CoI consisting of Supreme Court Judges Kankanithanthri T. Chitrasiri and Prasanna Sujeewa Jayawardena and former Senior Deputy Auditor General Kandasamy Velupillai to probe bond scams.
Aug. 2, 2017:
Karunanayake was humiliated at PCoI over the lease of a fifth-floor super luxury condominium apartment at the Monarch Residencies that was allegedly paid for by Arjun Aloysius.
Aug. 10, 2017:
Foreign Minister Karunanayake resigned in the wake of shocking revelations at the PCoI. Karunanayake received the foreign ministry portfolio on May 25, 2017. Karunanayake switched portfolios with Mangala Samaraweera.
Nov 16, 2017:
Evidence at the Bond Commission revealed how Arjun Aloysius had been in touch with some members of the COPE during its hearings. Aloysius had spoken a total of 227 times to Sujeewa Senasinghe, 18 times to Dayasiri Jayasekara, 176 times to Harshana Rajakaruna and 73 times to Hector Appuhamy during the period commencing January 2015.
Nov 20, 2017:
Wickremesinghe received kid glove treatment at PCoI with AG Jayantha Jayasuriya (now Chief Justice) specially assigned to question him. But Wickremesinghe’s affidavits received by PCoI in response to questions sent to him by it and the AG’s department and PM’s responses to AG Jayasuriya established the UNP’s leader’s complicity and failure to thwart the scams beyond doubt.
Dec 30, 2017:
PCoI report handed over to Sirisena.
Jan. 4, 2018:
Sirisena, in a special statement to the nation regarding the P-CoI report mounted a devastating attack on the UNP over Treasury bond scams in the run-up to the Feb. 10 local government polls.
Feb 04, 2018:
Arjun Aloysius and Chief Executive Officer of PTL Kasun Palisena arrested. Subsequently, they were granted bail.
Feb. 10, 2018:
UNP and SLFP suffered debilitating setbacks at the long delayed local government polls. Their sidekick JVP too suffered heavy defeat.
March 28, 2018:
Sirisena removed the Central Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission from Wickremesinghe’s purview 1,125 days after the first bond scam and 727 days after the second bond scam.
April 04, 2018:
Wickremesinghe comfortably defeats a No-Confidence Motion (NCM) moved by the Joint Opposition and the SLFP against him by a majority of 46 votes.
Seeing Red on Bread
By Lynn Ockersz
The ‘People’s Rep‘, suave and poker faced,
Said to citizens bent under multiple weights:
‘You‘ll have to do with two meals and not three,
Since times are lean, and we are all seeing red‘;
But such alerts, citizens know, are all over history writ,
With France and Russia of long ago standing out,
As cases where Bread stormed centre stage,
And brought to society topsy-turvy change,
Marking an end to privileges earned in unjust ways,
While sending out the message to those in charge,
That the patience of the hungry wears thin fast.
UN going the whole hog
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The newly formed Civil Society Platform (CSP) on Monday (13) dealt with entire range of accountability issues and the re-imposition of a state of emergency on the pretext of addressing food distribution. The media received the comprehensive statement endorsed by 30 organisations, and 36 individuals, soon after the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) declared its intention to go ahead with fresh investigation, as mandated at the 46th session.
The hard-hitting CSP statement should be examined against the backdrop of a dialogue between a new collective of civil society activists, grouped as Sri Lankan Collective for Consensus (SLCC). The civil society appears to be divided over their strategy in respect of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government. However, UN Rights Chief, Michelle Bachelet, one-time Chilean President, in her hard-hitting statement, at the onset of the 48th session, made reference to the meeting President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with SLCC on August 3. That is a quite a development. But, nothing has changed in Geneva and the war-winning country is on the UN agenda.
A recent statement, issued by the Executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC), Dr. Jehan Perera, on behalf of SLCC, dealt with several contentious issues.
The statement issued, subsequent to a meeting the group had with newly appointed Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, raised the following issues: the declaration of State of Emergency, Cabinet of Ministers giving the go ahead for the Legal Draftsman to prepare ‘NGO legislation,’ continuing harassment of NGOs, abolition/amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (reference was made to those who had served the LTTE and the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage suspects), implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, and holding of long-delayed Provincial Council polls, land issues in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, language issue, hate speech and misuse of the ICCPR Act, step-motherly treatment of Tamil-speaking people, by denying them participation at national events, and targeting of the Muslim community.
The above litany, however, sounds only too familiar and the chorus is the same. They have packaged themselves under the new name SLCC, but being backed by the West, have been pushing the same agenda for decades. The CSP is no different. No one ever bothered to ask for an explanation from the TNA for recognising the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people, in 2001, thereby paving the way for the Eelam War IV a couple of years later. Similarly, no one ever inquired into the clandestine relationship between UN Colombo and the LTTE. Geneva is also silent about the origins of Sri Lanka terrorism (Indian intervention).
As happened in Afghanistan, with the now infamous independent media of the West, which unquestioningly only pushed the narrative of the military industrial complex of mainly the US and the UK, for decades, have now suddenly metamorphosed into finally questioning what went wrong, only after all their lies about Afghanistan and elsewhere began to crumble overnight. Interestingly, they are pointing fingers at everyone else, except at themselves, for not having done the job as an objective media. Theirs has been, for quite some time, an embedded media that cheered on the military industrial complex and the Wall Street. May be there, too, it was all due to filthy lucre.
Prof. Peiris, who had served as the Foreign Minister during the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term (2010-2015), received the same ministry on Aug 16. The academic, who once headed the government delegation for Oslo-arranged talks with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), has assured the SLCC of the government’s readiness to work with the civil society.
The SLCC statement, headlined ‘Promise of a fresh approach for resolving national issues’, at the onset, insisted that the discussions the group so far had with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, Justice Minister Ali Sabry, Youth and Sports Minister Namal Rajapaksa, Regional Cooperation State Minister Tharaka Balasuriya and Foreign Secretary Admiral Jayanath Colombage failed to yield the desired results. So they still want the pound of flesh paid for by the West and nothing less?
Prof. Peiris seems confident that the government’s interaction with the civil society can be utilised in their dialogue with the international community, whereas the SLCC assured the new administration of its support to address concerns among the international community. However, their support would depend on the government’s readiness to address the issues raised by them.
In addition to Dr. Perera, who had represented Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in March 2018, on the invitation of the late Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, several other prominent civil society activists joined the discussion with the government. It would be pertinent to mention that the SLCC has quite justly accepted that it did not represent, what it called, the larger civil society and recognised themselves as a group of individuals, drawn from multiple sectors of society, religion, academia and non-governmental organisations, dedicated to a country established on the high sounding ‘ideals of pluralistic coexistence, human rights and justice’, but found nowhere in the world, especially not among the self-appointed good guys of the West. Just look at how they still treat their Blacks, especially by their famed law enforcers.
The SLCC comprises (1)Ven. Kalupahana Piyaratana Thera – Inter religious Alliance National Unity, Chairman, Human Development Edification Centre working for peace Reconciliation and Ecology for more than 25 years. Peace activist for more than two decades (2) Bishop Asiri Perera – Retired Bishop/President of Methodist Church (3) Rev. Fr. C.G. Jeyakumar – Parish Priest Ilavalai and Lecturer at the Jaffna Major Seminary, Human Rights Activist (4) Dr. Joe William – Founder member and Chairman of National Peace Council, Director, Centre for Communication Training and Convenor, Alliance for Justice (5) Prof. T. Jayasingam – Director NPC, former Vice Chancellor of Eastern University and former member, Public Service Commission of the Eastern Provincial Council (6) Prof. Kalinga Tudor Silva – Professor Emeritus Dept of Sociology, University of Peradeniya (7) Dr. Dayani Panagoda – Social Activist, former director of Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process and Lecturer, former member of the Official Languages Commission (8) Ms. Visaka Dharmadasa – Peace Activist, Chair of Association of War Affected Women (9) Dr. Jehan Perera – Executive Director of NPC (10) Dr. P. Saravanamuttu – Founder and Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives (11) Hilmy Ahamed – Vice President, Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, Civil activist with 35 years of communicating on issues of Peace and Justice, Chairman of Young Asia Television (12) Sanjeewa Wimalagunarathna – Former Director of Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (13) Rohana Hettiarachchi – Executive Director PAFFREL (14) Javid Yusuf – Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former Principal, Zahira College and Founder member and Governing Council member, National Peace Council NPC (15) Varnakulasingham Kamaladas – President, STA Solidarity Foundation, Vice President Batticaloa-Ampara Hindu Temples Federation, former President of Inland Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (INAYAM) Batticaloa, and (16) Ms. Sarah Arumugam – Human Rights Lawyer.
Dr. Perera emphasized that they were prepared to work with any party to achieve genuine post-war national reconciliation.
The livewire behind the NPC Dr. Perera responded swiftly to several questions posed to him regarding the latest civil society initiative.
(1) The Island: Did the SLCC reach consensus with what it called ‘wider Sri Lanka civil society’ regarding the dialogue you are having with the SLPP administration?
No, we did not. SLCC is a loose collection of individuals drawn from civil society organisations that have reconciliation and peace building aims in their work. We have no one leader or office-bearers. Each of us is part of other networks where we have discussed the stands we take. But we do not speak as their representatives. Our common position is commitment to a united Sri Lanka that is founded on ideals of pluralistic coexistence, human rights and justice.
(2) The Island: When did you set up the SLCC?
We could say it was on June 23, 2021. That was the day we decided on our name. This followed two earlier consultations, organised by the Association of War Affected Women (AWAW), which were held in Kandy, to have an in depth discussion on the lessons learnt through our reconciliation process. We felt there was a need for a group, such as ours.
(3) The Island: Did you have discussions with the TNA (Tamil National Alliance) or other Tamil parties, represented in Parliament, regarding the current initiative?
We have not met with the TNA as yet, though we plan to meet them, and other parties, too. Earlier on we met with Charitha Herath of the SLPP, leader of the DPF Mano Ganesan, General Secretary of the SJB, Ranjith Madduma Bandara. More recently we met with Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa. We had arranged for a meeting with the Chairman of the National Movement for Social Justice, Karu Jayasuriya, but this was postponed and we hope to have it soon.
(4) The Island: Who decides the agenda?
Agendas of the meetings are decided by consensus, prior to the meeting, based on the need and the responsibilities of those whom we meet. Usually, following a self-introduction, we present the issues highlighted in the memorandums we have submitted.
(5) The Island: You represent the NPC, Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu represents the CPA and all others in the SLCC are members of various civil society groups. Do the SLCC members represent those organisations in the ongoing dialogue?
Those in the SLCC are mostly heads of organisations, who will naturally be in line with the positions of their organisations in any discussions on principle or decisions arrived at. But they are here as members in their personal capacities.
(6) The Island: Did the SLCC ever discuss these issues with the late Mangala Samaraweera?
No, we did not.
(7) The Island:
On the basis of BHC cables (Jan-May 2009), Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, challenged the massacre claim of 40,000 on the Vanni east front as mentioned in the Darusman report. In June 2011, US Embassy staffer, Lt Col Smith, at the 2011 Defence Seminar, in Colombo, denied war crimes accusations (weeks after the release of Darusman report).
(8) The Island: Did government representatives or the SLCC referred to/discussed/raised the need to examine the BHC cables during discussions?
We limited our discussion to issues that we presented in our memorandums to them with a view to be forward looking. This included the Office of Missing Persons and its work. We did not discuss the death toll, at the end of the war, or issues of war crimes.
Some of them had been involved in previous peace initiatives, including the Oslo project, finalised in Feb 2002. The SLCC has essentially pursued issues that had been taken up by a section of the international community (those who voted for Geneva resolutions or conveniently abstained) both during the conflict and after. Let me reproduce the SLCC’s stand on three key issues verbatim as mentioned in a memorandum handed over to Prof. Peiris.
Prevention of Terrorism Act:
Until the promised amendment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to cease using this law to detain people and to expedite the release of those taken into custody, under its draconian provisions, either on bail or totally where there is no legally valid evidence to justify their continued detention, especially when they have not even been charged. This applies to both long term LTTE prisoners and more recent Muslim prisoners with only a peripheral relation to the Easter Sunday bombings.
Improve the implementation of the 13th Amendment and expedite the holding of provincial council elections so that the ethnic minorities may enjoy a measure of self-governance in the areas where they predominate.
Targeting of Minorities:
The issue of Muslims being targeted continues to fester in proposed legislation regarding personal law, the continuing refusal to permit burial of Covid victims, except in a single designated location and the imprisonment, without trial, of a large number of Muslim persons, following the Easter bombings. All communities need to feel that they have been fairly consulted and treated without discrimination for national reconciliation to become a reality.
The 13th Amendment is quite a contentious issue, especially against the backdrop of India stepping up pressure over its implementation. The government is in a quandary as regards the much delayed Provincial Council polls. Today, the government, the Opposition, the civil society and the international community had conveniently forgotten the origins of the Sri Lankan imbroglio. Clandestine Indian intervention long before the July 1983 riots, most probably precipitated by the then 20th Century Fox JRJ openly flirting with the idea of giving the Trincomalee deep harbour to the US. The subsequent building up of terrorist power, leading to the forcible deployment of the Indian Army in Northern and Eastern regions, in July 87, paved the way for the 13th Amendment. Sri Lanka almost disintegrated.
Unfortunately, successive governments quite clearly failed to examine the current situation in a proper perspective. There had never been a genuine attempt to set the record straight. The incumbent government, too, pathetically failed to address accountability issues properly. Dr. Perera’s response to The Island query, based on Lord Naseby’s challenge and Lt. Colonel Smith’s denial of war crimes accusations six years before, revealed the failure on the government’s part to recognise the threat facing the country’s unitary status. Prof. Peiris and the SLCC owed the public an explanation how they discussed matters, including Office of Missing Persons, or OMP, leaving the primary accusation that the military killed 40,000 Tamil civilians on the Vanni east front. That is the charge Sri Lanka continues to face in Geneva, though Prof. Peiris’s predecessor, Dinesh Gunawardena, declared, in the Feb-March 2020, sessions, the government’s decision to quit the 2015 resolution. In fact, Sri Lanka is now facing a new investigation and actions so far taken by the incumbent government seems insufficient. As long as HRC turns a Nelsonia eye to all the grave crimes the West has committed and continuing to commit, from Palestine to Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc., how can we expect any fairplay from it. Maybe Minister Gunawardena played the only card there, we could have played, considering the ground realities.
The rationale in seeking the support of the civil society should be studied, taking into consideration the government’s failure to revisit accountability issues. Instead, having repeatedly promised the electorate in the run-up to the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary polls, a robust defence at Geneva, the government appeared to have accepted the agenda, pursued by Ranil Wickremesinghe and the late Mangala Samaraweera.
The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government established the OMP, in August 2016, less than a year after the signing of the Geneva resolution. The OMP came into being under controversial circumstances with the then Joint Opposition (now SLPP) accusing the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government of jeopardising national security. Today, the incumbent government has accepted responsibility for taking forward the much maligned and controversial Geneva process, much to the disappointment of those who genuinely believed an attempt would be made to reverse the project.
Key architects of the yahapalana project are in the current Parliament. Ranil Wickremesinghe is the solitary UNP MP. The former PM entered Parliament on the National List whereas Maithripala Sirisena returned from his home base Polonnaruwa after having contested the last general election on the SLPP ticket. Sirisena’s SLFP is the second largest constituent with 14 lawmakers, including one National List MP. As regards the accountability issue, the government seems to be moving in a direction contrary to the much publicised promises made.
In the absence of cohesive Sri Lanka response to Geneva threat, interested parties, such as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, have been freely bashing Sri Lanka. Massive foreign funding to the civil society lobby here and various other outfits are meant to ensure they follow the dictates of their sponsors. Often repeated claims that they refrained from taking government funding should be examined taking into consideration how these groups pursued Western interests and those of various other parties.
Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009)
, released in 2011, two years after the eradication of the LTTE, provided an insight into foreign funding for a particular purpose. The Norwegian study dealt with funding provided to various peace merchants assigned the task of propagating the inevitability of a negotiated settlement in the absence of military muscle to bring the war to a successful conclusion. For Norwegians funding for such initiatives had never been a problem. Sri Lanka is a case in point. They lavishly spent on the dicey Sri Lanka project on the basis that the LTTE cannot be defeated militarily, the then government has no option but to accept a deal even at the expense of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The Norwegian report revealed the funding of Sri Lankan outfits to the tune of USD 28 (NOK 210 mn) mn during the conflict. The recipients included Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe’s Foundation for Coexistence (largest single beneficiary with USD 6 mn during 2004-2008 period), the then Minister Milinda Moragoda’s MMIPE for humanitarian demining, Sarvodaya, Sewalanka (its former head Harsha Kumara Navaratne, an original extremely talented breakaway from Sarvodaya and now a member of the Human Rights Commission will soon relinquish office to take over Lanka mission in Canada as HC), Sareeram Sri Lanka National Foundation, Hambantota District Chamber of Commerce, One-Text Initiative, the National Anti-War Front also led by Dr. Kumar Rupasinghe, the National Peace Council, the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Forum of Federations and the People’s Peace Front.
The Norwegians also provided funding to the TRO (Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) an LTTE front organisation. The Norwegians went to the extent of providing funding to the then LTTE Peace Secretariat though it knew the group was rapidly preparing to resume hostilities. When Norwegian funding of LTTE front organisations drew strong condemnation, they funded the setting up of a Buddhist academy in Kandy in addition to reconstruction of Buddhist temples on the southern coast destroyed by Dec 2004 tsunami.
However, Prof. Peiris in a note recently submitted to diplomatic missions, based in Colombo, ahead of the 48 Geneva sessions, emphasised that the March 2021 resolution adopted by a divided vote hadn’t been accepted by Sri Lanka, rejected establishment of an external evidence gathering mechanism targeting Sri Lanka and questioned the rationale in spending meager financial resources on such a politically motivated Geneva initiative. The FM’s note dealt with progress made as regards port-war reconciliation with the focus on OMP operations, Office of Reparations, Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, Sustainable Development Goals, National Human Rights Commission, Presidential Commission of Inquiry, Accountability, PTA, Pardon to ex-LTTE cadres, Resettlement of IDPs, Releasing of Lands, engagement with the civil society (Prof. Peiris referred to the discussion President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with SLCC on Aug 3, 2021) and International Human Rights and other Treaty Obligations and Engagement with the UN Special Procedures Mandate Holders.
Puravara Visvavidyala (Pura Sarasavi)
‘Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.’ – John Maynard Keynes
In the beginning, all universities were City Universities (puravara visvavidyala): Bologna, Montpellier, Paris, Oxford, Heidelberg, Upsala and Utrecht and that for two reasons: first, in medieval Europe, where universities began as universitas generale, the city was the only polity available. Countries as political entities and national governments, were at least 600 years into the future. Universities needed law and order to work, in quiet. And these cities were ports on the Mediterranean: Venice, Genova and in other places, on river banks: Bologna (connected to the Po with canals), Utrecht on the Rhine, Paris on the Seine, Oxford on the Thames (Isis), Harvard (and, much later) MIT on either bank of the Charles river. There was good reason for that. In medieval Europe and in 17th century Massachusetts, travel by water was the fastest. Students and teachers walked to schools, rode on horseback or rowed a boat. Scientists from Cambridge, after rowing on the Cam and the Muse, rode a horse to Gresham College to attend the Royal Society meetings. Trains, motor cars, steamships and airplanes were at least 700 years away in the future. Let us remember that did not prevent scholars from coming from afar either to learn or to teach. In each universitas generale, there had to be students from beyond its neighbourhood and the student body was divided into ‘nations’. In 13th century Oxford there were two: Australes (Southerners) and Borrealase ( Northeners). (Recall that well into the 17th century, education in Europe was in Latin). As for teachers, there were
Constantinus Africanus from Tunis who wrote on medicine, Avicenna from present Iran who taught medicine and peripatetic Bartholomeus Anglicus, who taught philosophy in many places, including Paris. Books written by Constantinus and Avicenna were taught in universities well into the 16th century. Universities were city organisations but they were places where students and teachers from all sorts of places learnt and taught. We will jump to modern city universities in a minute.
Before that, a quibble about the name: why puravara ? There are also maravara (thugs). Why not pura sarasavi? Pura has a good genealogy:
vana vana pathi turehi
pura pura pathin medurehi (gira sandesa)
(in forests, on king-of-the-forest treetops and in cities (pura), in city chief’s mansions).
Word of Kumaratunga Munidasa’s coinage
Sarasavi was a term coined by Kumaratunga Munidasa to signify a university and has much merit to commend it over visva vidyalaya. In non-European societies, universities are often identified by other names. In China, it is daxue (e.g.Bejing daxue); in Thailand it is maha vithyalai (Tammasat Maha vithyalai). Vishvavidyalaya has its origin here and in India. It arose, perhaps, from a misreading that university has something to do with the universe (vishvaya) of knowledge. It is understandable as the word traces its origins to the same Latin usage meaning ‘combined into one (uni+versus)’. However, the popes who issued Bulls to charter early 13th and 14th used ‘universitas vestra’ to address a group, which form was not limited to universitas generale. He would address a guild of goldsmiths with the same term. And a universitas generale was a group, sometimes, of students (Bologna) and sometimes, of masters (Paris). The usage survived and morphed into university in English and say universite in French and universidad in Spanish. The term has no connotation that the universe of knowledge is taught in a university. It was not true in medieval times (Bologna taught law, Salerno medicine and Paris theology and arts); it is not true now (Remember the adage that Harvard men do not know to count and of MIT men how to read.) In Hindu culture sarasvati or sarasavi has association with knowledge and has been so used widely in Sinhala writings. I cited earlier Sinhala use of pura to mean a city. Pura sarasavi reads dandy, doesn’t it?
President drawing inspiration
The President perhaps draws his inspiration for city universities from his knowledge of his adopted nation, the United States of America. In the US, education is a matter for States and not the Federation. There are state universities, the President’s own state has the magnificent California State University System extending from Berkeley, San Diego to Santa Cruz. I am more familiar with the east coast and New York state, in particular. The New York State University (SUNY) system extends from Buffalo in the north to Stony Brook in Long Island. In addition to SUNY, there are City universities, the best known being the New York City University (CUNY) with two celebrated colleges: Hunters in mid-Manhattan and Queens in Fresh Meadows. The City University is owned and operated by the City of New York, with taxpayers’ money and students’ fees. In addition to these city universities, there are Community Colleges, owned and operated by counties. The entire primary and secondary school system is owned and operated by locally elected Schools Boards with revenue from property taxes.
Pinnawala, where a City University is to be located, is no city but an elephantine village. It does not have the resources of many kinds to run a university. Pinnawala cannot raise tax revenue sufficient for the purpose. As it stands, there are no residential facilities for students and staff in the neighbourhood. In the 13th century, a university that was started by students in Florence (Firenze) was abandoned because house rent was too high for students to afford. In a report on the University of Calcutta in 1918 (Sarkar?), it was observed, that students were in poor health partly because of wholly inadequate housing they lived in. There will have to be large scale construction to provide lecture rooms, well equipped labs and engineering labs quite apart from residential facilities for students and staff; perhaps like in Peradeniya. Finding that many competent teachers will be most challenging. These facilities will have to be repeated in all 10 districts for the time being, no small enterprise in matters personnel and financial.
At the inauguration ceremony of the Pinnawala project, both the President and the Minister emphasised that city universities will be there to supply graduates who can walk into workplaces. Did they ever ask themselves or their advisers, ‘Where are the workplaces that these young men and women would walk into?’. Anyone who expects that puravara visvavidyala themselves will generate job opportunities for their graduates, is presenting a new paradigm of development. We need to sit down and think hard. It is one of the common and convenient myths that this country has not developed for lack of trained personnel. In 1964, while a student, I read a paper before a group of eminent economists overseas and pointed out that Ceylon then had higher levels of education than most developing countries but was poorer in economic performance, contrary to the then growing tendency among economists to find a close relationship between investment in education and economic growth. I was almost politely shouted down. However, unhappily for us, subsequent developments have borne me out. I also wrote a paper in Education in Ceylon, A Centenary Volume, published in 1969 by The Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, in which I generalised on this phenomenon. The slogan about ‘the gap between skills and job opportunities’ (coined perhaps by Ronald Dore of Sussex) came from the ILO employment missions that were launched in 1971 or so.
Those missions went to Ceylon, the Philippines, Iran, Kenya, Colombia, Venezuela and a few others. Those mission reports had no impact on the development of those economies. We decided to carry the burden for the missions. However, graduates from Moratuva find employment, mostly overseas, before their final GPA is known. A professor in architecture in Moratuva told me, a few years ago, that of the 11 students in his final years class, 10 had left for employment overseas, within a few months of graduation. A young man who stayed with us and graduated in physics 2019 in Colombo was offered employment in Siemens in Germany before he graduated. Graduates in Commerce from Jayawardenapura find employment overseas, often easily.
Seeking more jobs in Saudi Arabia
Our Foreign Minister ‘urged Saudi Arabia to provide more jobs to Sri Lankans to work in skilled and professions there’ (The Island 14th August). Surely, this country has an exportable surplus of skilled personnel (including terrorists) and professionals. These young men and women go overseas for employment at reasonable wages mainly because there are none such here. A young university graduate who becomes a teacher is paid some Rs. 33,000 and an allowance of Rs.!0,000, I learn from an old friend. They love their country but working in a congenial environment and the prospect of a good living much more. Our graduates walk into professions overseas. Those with lower levels of education walk into homes abroad to clean them, sometimes to offices for clerical jobs. But for this latter exodus, our unemployment rates today would exceed 10 percent of the labour force.
If students did not go to university, they would have gone to either West Asia for employment or added to the locally unemployed school dropouts. I will turn the premise of the President and his Minister on its head and say, ‘Our graduates are unemployed because there are no jobs into which that they can walk into’. If enterprises do not grow, I am afraid graduates from Puravara Visvavidyala will walk not into jobs but on to street protests.
Look around you. Taiwan has a population that is 0.2 of the total world population. Taiwan produces 80 percent of the world output of semiconductors. Is every Taiwanese employed in semiconductor production a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics? When South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore started to industrialise and then to take on electronic industries, did they have massive increases in university output in engineering and in electronics? Why does Singapore import so much labour and we export so much? Did China undertake massive programmes in science and engineering education to become the factory to the world? It is in the current Five Year Plan ending 2025 that China ‘will vigorously cultivate talents with technical skills’ (The Economist). For that matter, go back in history, and Britain, when it was the factory of the world, did not have more than 2% of its population (1902) as university graduates, almost all of them in arts. That was true of the US when it overtook Britain as the world’s richest country about 1900, although there had been a professor of science at Harvard College from 1756. About arts graduates’ inability to fit into jobs, remember that the British empire was built and run when the two pre-eminent universities in Britain did not have a faculty of engineering.
What changed in Korea, Taiwan, China, Malaysia and Singapore was that enterprises grew to employ young people. Changes in policy that Deng Xiao Ping brought about in China in 1978 saw a magnificent growth of enterprises, both state owned and privately owned. We saw the birth of a new economic formation: state capitalism. In India, massive and widespread unemployment of university graduates was whittled away after 1992, with Manmohan Singh reforms that ended the permit raj and new enterprises grew ending the ‘Hindu rate of growth’. IITs, now powerhouses sending out manpower competent in engineering to the world, were first established in 1951 (Kharagpur), 1958 (Bombay), 1961 (Delhi) and others later. Yet it was after 1995 or so that the Indian economy began to grow fast and cut down graduate unemployment in India.
Central to all these changes was the growth of enterprises, no matter who owned them. Historically, the sequence in development has been for enterprises to emerge before skilled workers find employment. So far it has not been a chicken and egg question. There were no changes in educational policy before those enterprises flourished. Trained workers followed.
Every established truth deserves fresh examination, when new evidence emerges. And new evidence will meet the eye of those that seek.
Explanation sought over Monetary Board Secy.’s sudden transfer
LOLC becomes Mastercard’s first customer in Sri Lanka to join its Digital First programme
Those responsible for Easter carnage will be haunted eternally – Bishop Galle
7-billion-rupee diamond heist; Madush splls the beans before being shot
The Burghers of Ceylon/Sri Lanka- Reminiscences and Anecdotes
Unfit, unprofessional, fat Sri Lankans
news6 days ago
Private member’s Bill deemed unconstitutional:Tissa says he only complied with ‘Bills Office’ request
Sports15 hours ago
Former St. Peter’s cricketer Berenger on the cusps of representing third national team
Opinion4 days ago
Ivermectin and Covid: no time to lose and lives to save
news6 days ago
‘War crimes’: Lanka rejects fresh probe
news7 days ago
UN goes ahead with fresh probe, seeks funding for project
Features7 days ago
Commodifying ‘Discipline’ and Militarising Education
Features6 days ago
SLFP – What fate awaits it
news4 days ago
‘Ratwatte’s boorish actions unbecoming of a Minister’