Connect with us

Editorial

Terror in Auckland

Published

on

Saturday 4th September, 2021

A Sri Lankan terrorist with ISIS links was shot dead by the New Zealand police, yesterday, while he was carrying out a knife attack on civilians in an Auckland supermarket. Some of his victims are reported to be seriously injured. The assailant had been under police surveillance for some time, we are told. There could be others of the dead terrorist’s ilk, and it is hoped that the New Zealand police and public will remain Argus-eyed.

The manner in which the New Zealand law enforcement officers handled the terrorist concerned bears similarities, mutatis mutandis, to the way the Sri Lankan police acted in respect of the terrorists who carried out the Easter Sunday bombings. Both police forces failed to pre-empt the terror attacks despite having reliable information about the suspects’ terrorist connections and criminal intent.

The Sri Lankan terrorist in New Zealand could have resorted to far worse forms of terror, killing many people in spite of being under surveillance. What would have been the situation if he had grabbed a policeman’s weapon or commandeered a heavy vehicle, say a fuel tanker? Anything can become a weapon in the hands of terrorists bent on destroying lives.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden rightly declared that the terrorist attack had been carried out by an individual, not a faith. Terrorists and other such violent elements who are a threat to society take advantage of weak laws in a country to propagate their anti-social ideologies and expand their networks. Covid-19 patients are traced and isolated––in most cases, against their will––to ensure the safety of others. So, why shouldn’t terror suspects be caught and detained to protect society? Special laws have been introduced to tackle the fast-spreading pandemic, and the task of eliminating the scourge of terror also requires extraordinary laws. This does not mean the states should have the freedom to arrest and detain citizens arbitrarily as terror suspects, but those against whom there is irrefutable evidence, like the knife attacker in Auckland, must be arrested immediately. If New Zealand had done so instead of just shadowing the terrorist, the Auckland incident could have been averted.

Meanwhile, the UK has extended the ban on the LTTE. But this proscription does not serve any purpose because the LTTE enjoys unbridled freedom to operate on British soil; its activists conduct demonstrations, displaying the flag of the banned outfit, and the British police look on. By allowing Adele Balasingham, who brainwashed the LTTE’s child combatants, especially girls, and turned them into killing machines and human bombs, to lead a comfortable life in London, the UK has made a mockery of its commitment to protecting human rights and its efforts to have Sri Lanka’s accountability issues probed. There is incontrovertible evidence to prove the woman’s involvement in terrorism, and shouldn’t the British government have her arrested and tried for her crimes and, thereby prove that it is not partial to the LTTE and its human rights concerns are genuine?

Time was when powerful nations laboured under the delusion that they could harbour others’ terrorists safely. In fact, some of them have even used terrorism to destabilise their rival states. But they themselves have become victims of terror as can be seen from the experience of the UK, the US, etc. Even the countries with no known history of harbouring terrorists, have come to be affected by terror. Unfortunate incidents that peace-loving New Zealand has witnessed during the last couple of years in Christchurch and Auckland demonstrate that terrorism, like the Delta variant of coronavirus, has not spared any part of the globe, and no country is safe until every country is safe. This is why the world must unite in fighting terrorism in all its forms a manifestations wherever it raises its head, and learn from those who have defeated the evil instead of trying to confer pariah status on them.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Lucky masterminds

Published

on

Tuesday 28th September, 2021

Several persons including a trader have been arrested and remanded over the Sathosa garlic racket. Media pressure seems to have jolted the police into action at long last. Since a judicial inquiry is now underway into the allegations against the suspects, the matter is best left to the learned judges concerned.

One, however, cannot help wondering why no action has been taken against all high-ranking officials of Sathosa responsible for the questionable garlic deal. The internal memos on the purchase of the stock of garlic weighing 56,000 kilos from the Ports Authority and selling it to a private trader will help trace them. Those who signed the memos at issue could be asked on whose orders they sold the entire stock to a third party at Rs. 135 a kilo instead of making garlic available to the pandemic-hit people at the same price. But for the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) intervention, Sathosa would have repurchased the same stock of garlic at Rs. 445 a kilo and sold it to the public above Rs. 500 a kilo, as media reports indicate.

CAA Executive Director Thushan Gunawardena, whose intervention put paid to the efforts of the Sathosa officials to repurchase the garlic stock fraudulently, is now facing a witch-hunt for having blown the whistle. Investigators are barking up the wrong tree. Trade Minister Bandula Gunawardena, under whose purview Sathosa comes, has seen red. Why he is so agitated defies comprehension; he ought to go all out to have the garlic racket probed thoroughly and the culprits arrested and prosecuted, instead of finding fault with the media if his hands are clean.

Masterminds behind criminal operations have all the luck in this country. They never pay for their crimes, and their minions become scapegoats.

Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith and other Catholic prelates have been fighting quite a battle for more than two years to have the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday attacks traced, but to no avail. The people who defeated the yahapalana government, expecting the new dispensation to bring the real culprits to justice, are really disappointed. Not even the Presidential Commission of Inquiry that probed the bombing could identify the terror mastermind. It dealt with the issue perfunctorily.

Everybody knows that the mastermind behind the Treasury bond scams has gone scot free. The then Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran obviously carried out the illegal operation by abusing his position, but the person who ordered him to do so has not been found out yet. If Mahendran is brought back to stand trial, he will squeal on others. The present government has chosen not to go the whole hog to have him extradited, and the manner in which it is handling the matter smacks of a quid pro quo. While the SLPP grandees were calling for stern action against the Treasury bond racketeers, during their Opposition days, we argued in this space that Mahendran would be safe under an SLPP government because the scammers had links with all major political parties.

The state coffers suffered staggering losses amounting to billions of rupees owing to the sugar tax racket under the present government, which slashed the import duty on sugar so that one of its cronies would stand to gain. After being exposed, it claimed it had done so to bring the sugar prices down. But sugar remains expensive and the SLPP financier is grinning from ear to ear. The mastermind behind the racket has not been identified.

So, the person who masterminded the Sathosa garlic racket, too, will go unnamed, uninvestigated and unpunished, and the intrepid whistleblower will be made to regret having exposed the scam if ministerial barks and police action are anything to go by. How can anyone say this land does not belong to the corrupt?

Continue Reading

Editorial

Lankan ‘patriots’ defending American ‘Fortress’

Published

on

Monday 27th September, 2021

Chain snatchers swallow the necklaces they are making off with when they fail to outrun their pursuers, who however beat them black and blue before handing them over to the police for recovering the valuables with the help of laxatives. The incumbent government is apparently in a similar predicament. When it struck a shady deal with a US energy firm, the other day, behind the back of its coalition allies and the public, it may have thought the hurriedly inked pact would be a fait accompli, and its opponents would be left with no alternative but to stop protesting. But it thought wrong; it is drawing heavy fire, and pressure is mounting on it to scrap the questionable deal.

In February, the government had to withdraw from an agreement on the Colombo Port East Container Terminal (ECT), which was to be run as a joint venture with an Indian company and Japan. The SLPP leaders do not seem to learn from their mistakes.

Why there is so much resistance to the shady deal with a US company is understandable. The government scuttled a bidding process and selected the American venture, New Fortress Inc., which will acquire a 40% ownership stake in the West Coast Power Ltd., the owner of the 310 MW Yugadanavi power plant. The US venture will also build an offshore LNG receiving, storage and regasification terminal off the coast of Colombo, and initially supply the equivalent of 1.2 million gallons of LNG to Sri Lanka.

Even those who are supportive of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are critical of the New Fortress deal due to the absence of transparency and questionable exclusivity. The Professionals’ National Front has condemned the deal, which it says is a threat to the country’s energy security. It has also demanded to know whether the government consulted the Attorney General on the agreement, which, it says, does not come under the Sri Lankan law.

Millions of Sri Lankans who were dependent on Laugfs for cooking gas have been left high and dry. Laugfs starved the market and obtained a price hike, claiming that it was incurring losses, but its gas is still not available. The government is helpless. Given this situation created by a local company, what guarantee is there that something far worse will not happen due to the New Fortress deal? All US companies do as Washington says; their compliance anent the US ban on the Chinese tech giant, Huawei, is case in point.

The SLPP leaders vehemently opposed the yahapalana government’s deal with China to lease the Hambantota Port in 2017. They even staged protests and called the deal a threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Today, they are struggling to justify the New Fortress deal while wrapping themselves in the flag. The then President Maithripala Sirisena defended the Hambantota port deal, which he said had to be struck because his administration could not pay back the loan the Rajapaksas had obtained for the project; he is now in the incumbent government as the leader the SLFP, which is opposed to the New Fortress deal.

The New York Times

published an article titled, How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port, criticizing the Hambantota port deal. It will be interesting to see how the US media describes the New Fortress-the Rajapaksa government deal. Will any American newspaper publish an article titled, ‘How the US Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Power Plant’?

When the yahaplana government tried to implement a free trade agreement it had signed with Singapore arbitrarily, Sri Lankan professionals and Opposition politicians (who are currently in the SLPP) launched a successful protest campaign. They called for the formulation of a national policy on agreements between Sri Lanka and other countries and/or foreign companies. It is the absence of such a policy that has enabled government politicians to do as they like in handling state assets.

Sri Lanka cannot exist in isolation and has to work with other countries and foreign ventures, but such deals must be transparent, legal and beneficial to its interests.

Among those who are campaigning against the New Fortress deal are some SLPP constituents. They would have the public believe that they have taken a principled stand on what they call a clandestine pact. What will they do if the SLPP leaders do not heed their protests? They must tell the public what action they are planning to take in such an eventuality. Will they pull out of the government? Or, will they fall in line and stop protesting. Let them be urged to fish or cut bait.

Continue Reading

Editorial

LNG hot potato on Sri Lanka’s lap

Published

on

The hottest potato now on the lap of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) is an unsolicited proposal from a giant U.S. corporation, New Fortress Energy (NFE), a NASDAQ quoted company on the New York Stock Exchange, to build a new offshore LNG (liquefied natural gas) receiving, storage and regasification terminal in Colombo. A framework agreement to go ahead with this proposal has already been allegedly signed but very little of this was known to the wider public. Unsurprisingly, allegations that this was done in secret is being widely bandied about. Lesser constituents of the government are unhappy about this proposal and Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa who is pushing it on the grounds that it will enable cheaper long-term electricity generation benefiting hard-pressed consumers had a discussion with party leaders of the ruling coalition on this subject last Thursday. What finally emerged there has not been revealed but it is clear that the government is determined to push ahead with the proposal.

Unsolicited proposals are by their very nature suspect. The recent discussions on the project did not reveal who NFE’s local agent is, or if there is any. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that a U.S. based company would make such a far reaching proposal with widespread ramifications without an extensive knowledge of the ground situation. For this a lot of domestic input would have been necessary; and the total picture, obviously, was at the fingertips of the offeror. But there has not been the slightest hint or whiff of a rumour of who the local participant might be. We all know that big projects, the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Project is one good example and the Norochcholai coal fired power plant is another, enabled massive commission incomes, probably disproportionate to the work and effort expended in winning the contract for an overseas principal, was earned locally. In the case of most projects, local agents are known by and large. This is as it should be because that is what transparency is all about.

Well documented allegations have been made that the proposal under consideration is a threat to the country’s energy security and would potentially cause enormous losses to Sri Lanka. We do have a National Energy Policy gazetted in August 2019. This is intended to ensure energy security through the supply of reliable, cost effective and competitively priced energy services from diverse sources. Nobody would, or could, quarrel about the push towards renewable energy in place of fossil fuels that are finite and environment degrading. This is the global trend. We in Sri Lanka, having now largely exhausted our hydropower resources that once upon a time gave us very cheap electricity, is now looking at renewables including solar and wind power. But these targets are not achievable in the short term although tight deadlines have been set. It is not possible to immediately dispense with expensive thermal power for which we have, and will continue to pay, a heavy price. That is why the National Energy Policy has identified LNG as the next fossil fuel option for us. But it has made clear that LNG procurement shall be kept under state control in the context of its impact on national energy security.

This policy further establishes that procurement of plant, equipment, crude oil and other fuels as well as power purchase agreements and similar concessions will be made through a streamlined competitive bidding process ensuring transparency and accountability. Critics of the NFE proposal are hammering home the point that all these safeguards will go down the river if the government goes ahead with its plans to sell-off 40 percent of the shares of the state-controlled West Coast Power Private Ltd. (WCPL) to NFE at a price of USD 250 million. The wide-ranging proposal made by the U.S. corporation includes an LNG terminal project together with what’s call a “Floating Storage Regasification Unit” and associated mooring systems and pipelines. There is a high possibility that NFE will supply most of the LNG consumed in the country in the future if this deal goes through. What is most disturbing is the ‘Take or Pay’ (TOP) clause in the proposal that ensures that NFE should be paid irrespective of whether contracted volumes are consumed or not. This is not altogether unusual in Power Purchase Agreements, several of which are already in force between the CEB and small scale independent power producers in business here. Under these arrangements what’s called ‘capacity charges’ are paid. But in the case of a TOP arrangement for future LNG supplies, the costs would be mind-boggling.

Within the last three months there have been two cabinet memoranda pushing the NFE proposal which is strongly supported by the Finance Ministry on the basis that it will enable much cheaper power generation than at present with the foreign investor carrying the capital component of the investment which will benefit the already hard-pressed consumer fearful of having to pay more for his electricity. We are not aware whether there is a cabinet decision to press on with the project although information presently available strongly implies that a virtual fait accomplii has been presented with the framework agreement allegedly already signed in the dead of night. Meanwhile the Energy Ministry is fast tracking the exploration for natural gas in the Mannar basin. What use would any possible strike be if the country’s future LNG needs have already been contracted out?

Continue Reading

Trending