Ceylon Today Editorial

OBITUARY FOR A LYNCH PARTY

05 March 2017

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe Friday said in his opening address at the ceremonial inauguration of the " National Law Week – 2017" at the auditorium of the Sri Lanka Bar Association that establishing a Hybrid Court to deal with allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka was politically not feasible.

Mooting the appointment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an effective and feasible alternative, the Premier said the idea of a Hybrid Court would run into impediments such as a referendum. Even if Parliament gives it a two-thirds approval, a Bill to set up a Hybrid Court would still have to be put to a referendum. And "If the Court rules that we must go for a referendum, we will end up in serious trouble".

That's an understatement. However, much one might want to rubbish it, it's the strongest political weapon in the opposition's hands with the tremendous emotional ultra-nationalistic 'pull' it evokes when couched in terms which suggest it's a witch hunt against "Our national heroes".

One cannot wish away that reality though it does fly in the face of protests to the contrary that we have a justice system that can be now (as opposed to before) be expected to deliver justice.

Though Zeid Al-Hussein said in his report that it was up to Sri Lanka to "prioritize justice alongside reconciliation," to his credit he did also add that "party politics including the balancing of power between the different constituencies of the coalition (unity government) in the run-up to constitutional reforms have contributed to A RELUCTANCE (formerly it was lack of political will) to address difficult issues regarding accountability or to clearly articulate a unified position by all parts of government." This is the first time that either the President or Prime Minster has unequivocally said "NO" to a Hybrid Court. Whether it carries less weight because President Sirisena did not attend the function though invited would be largely immaterial to the issue. The President has done so by being a driving force in the setting up of alternate mechanisms for accountability such as the Office of Missing Persons. He has also been a driving force behind the move to usher in a new Constitution aimed at providing for adequate domestic mechanisms to deal with issues such as legitimate allegations of war crimes issues as well as issues relating to violations of human rights, and crimes against humanity. Hence, though Zeid from his point of view feels that Sri Lanka, the government to be specific, has failed to "prioritize justice alongside reconciliation" his thinking in the face of what the government is struggling to accomplish in the context of immense opposition from political foes and sections of the Maha Sangha would appear to be more in the realm of idealism than of reality. It's, unfortunate we concede, but the government of the day is certainly doing vastly better than its predecessor who was cast more in the roll of accomplice than reformist.

Making reference to the vote in the Brexit Referendum, he pointedly said the European Union, whose leading members are on the 49-nation Rights Council, more than others, knows "the dangers of a referendum" and that "we will end up in serious trouble if we go for a referendum."

Having put things in their proper socio-political context, the Premier then said very logically that a "Hybrid Court is not something we can campaign for. It is certainly not practical".

That's logic and reality. Unfortunately, the TNA, TGTE, Diaspora et al, appear to not appreciate the fact that political reality in a democracy as with the current government and political reality in a false democracy as with the former government, are two diametrically different propositions.

The Americans got it right when on someone's suggestion Shakespeare's quip "What's past is prologue" was inscribed on the National Archives Building in Washington DC.

The Tamils need to stop living in that prologue of the past and enter into today's reality and make the best of it in the true spirit of forgiving and being forgiven. The Premier in Australia a fortnight ago held out an olive branch saying "All is forgiven, please return home" and Home is not Eelam, but Sri Lanka. Eelam was the prologue. Let's sit down together and rewrite a new script for the future.

The Premier proposes a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of which the Tamils themselves could be a functioning part. This would of course need a new Constitution that ensures the process does not drag on for years.

As the Prime Minister put it poignantly, "We have fought too long. We have to find a quick way to compensate those who suffered and met with injustice. We have to address the issue of missing persons".

Nation Editorial

All lives matter

05 March 2017

 

Sri Lanka lost seven lives in a matter of minutes on February 27 when a prison bus was attacked in a typical gangland style seen only in Hollywood flicks.

The attack was well planned out and well executed which left the police and the prison officials baffled and confused.

The dead were mostly prison inmates, including prominent underworld figure Aruna Udayashantha alias ‘Samayan’, and two prison officials.

The attack occurred when they were on the way to the Kalutara Courts.

The incident has brought into public focus many questions pertaining to the protection of suspects, witnesses, and the efficiency of the police in protecting the suspects when transporting them.

In the past we have come across several instances where suspects have died while in police custody or while being taken to the prison, court, or to identify places or persons. Many questions have been raised over the suspicious nature of these deaths and the police have been placed in an embarrassing predicament over the matter.

There have been several moves to ensure the protection of witnesses and suspects. However, a proper mechanism is yet to see the light of day.

Most importantly, the protection of witnesses who have to travel to court on their own has also to be addressed.

It is indeed a difficult task to formulate a strategy for their protection. But, it has to be done. Otherwise justice will be impaired as witnesses will, out of fear, may not be forthcoming to come forward or truth itself can be thwarted.

The authorities, soon after the recent attack, have looked at possibilities of strengthening protection when the suspects are transported to and from the prisons.

Accordingly, the Ministry of Prison Reforms is scheduled to hold key discussions with the army and the Special Task Force, to work out a strategy to provide extra security to the notorious and prominent suspects who are likely to be attacked.

However, the security apparatus should also take into account that these attacks are carried out when other suspects are also in the bus. There are also innocent bystanders in the vicinity that they need to look into.

The other aspect which is a matter of concern is the attackers. The attackers are said to be members of a rival underworld gang.

Weren’t the police alerted? A policeman has to be alert 24/7. Was the convoy from prison to courts given or not given police protection? Was the request made by the prison for a guard? Why it was not provided?

It was reported that the attack was carried out in a manner that the prison guards could not react. This cannot be an excuse.

Sri Lanka is the only country which defeated terrorism. Our security and intelligence apparatus is one of the strongest. Is not strong anymore? Or is the security situation taken for granted?

We often see VIPs escorted by security personel who clear the way when they travel. Not a soul is allowd to move when the convoy comes closer. If the security convoy of a VIP could be alert all the time, why can’t prisoners also be provided with proper security? The prisoners have the right to be protected. On the other hand, if they could be attacked while under protection, what about a citizen walking on the road?

This is in no way to criticise the police. But these are questions that have been raised following the attack.

The worrying factor is the failure to curb underworld activities. These attackers had it well planned. They even disguised themselves as police personnel and confused the police. The government has to take this seriously. Here is a group which has professionally mapped out the entire attack, and successfully carried out the operation. Scary is it not? All lives matter.

Sunday Times Editorial

IMF reforms and the path to development

05 March 2017

A delegation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was in Colombo this week ahead of a planned but now postponed visit by its head Christine Lagarde, to discuss Sri Lanka’s worsening economic situation. With the country in dire straits with an acute foreign exchange and debt crisis, the IMF’s reform menu for stabilising the economy, one can be certain, will be the standard road map the institution has for developing countries.

Markets must be allowed to work properly, it will say, meaning increasing interest rates, faster currency depreciation, and permitting loss-making enterprises such as the Electricity Board (CEB) and the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) to raise rates, fast-tracking revenue measures, more cuts in expenditure and for the State to sell its assets like the Hilton and upcoming Hyatt Hotels, Water’s Edge and Lanka Hospitals.

Sri Lanka has always skirted by through dependence on foreign aid and loans (bilateral and the likes of the IMF). IMF programmes have been part and parcel of the Sri Lankan economy for decades, and the current programme was not entirely due to any impending foreign exchange or balance of payment crisis but an attempt to get a seal of good housekeeping on the macro economy and to follow a consistent policy to increase revenue and restructure foreign debt.

One crucial element on the debt side is to convert US Dollars eight (8) billion of Chinese debt into equity starting with the Hambantota PPP (Public-Private Partnership) and for others to follow and for them to start generating revenue. The Colombo International Financial Centre (Port City) is a medium-term project that will take two years for landfilling and five years to build – whoever finances the infrastructure.

Related to this will be how the foreign exchange reserves and the rapidly depreciating exchange rate are managed. The need to attract more FDIs (Foreign Direct Investment) and more market access through Free Trade Agreements; expanding the tax base through a new Inland Revenue Act are imperative. Getting financial corruption under control with the same wheeler-dealers back in the game with the Yahapalana Government’s key players distorting decisions to feed corruption; and converting all the IPS, Harvard, McKinsey and Baker & Mckenzie work into a medium to long-term programme that is predictable and consistent are the fundamentals needed to fix what’s wrong in Sri Lanka. But indeed, that is a tall order.

A Fuel Formula – a formula that may see a price rise if world crude oil prices exceed a certain level; an Electricity Formula – a move that may see a rise in electricity prices – if the IMF’s formula is accepted (it has been pointed out that the CEB’s overdraft is in the region of Rs. 11 billion); and talks on the debt ratio vis-a-vis GDP i.e. the rising foreign debt as a percentage of the country’s income, were on the table.

In the IMF’s jargon, reforms will impose short-term costs but the economy will recover through medium-term gains, meaning lower income groups will face the brunt of this adjustment in the short-term, but benefits will trickle through to them in the medium-term, say beyond 2019 or 2020. By then, this Government will be facing impending elections, (along with the probability of dealing with a severe external debt crisis in 2019, and possible calls for wage increases) and is almost likely to abandon stabilisation measures and propose a ‘populist’ agenda, whatever that means.

The IMF is lending a paltry sum not exceeding $500 million a year totaling $1,500 million over the 2016-2019 period. Sri Lanka’s repayment needs, due to commercial borrowing of the previous Administration, banks and state-owned enterprises, are a minimum of $1,500 million a year annually from 2017 onwards. The IMF facility will only cover part of this repayment and for the balance we are told by the IMF, to borrow at high interest rates through syndicated loans or international bonds.

Resorting to foreign commercial loans or allowing foreign investors to buy in the domestic bond market is, in general, a recipe for future financial crisis. The IMF programme seems badly negotiated by not taking this factor fully into account compared to the previous Rajapaksa regime’s effort in raising $2,600 million from the IMF. That regime, on the other hand, frittered away the $2,600 million in record time leaving the present Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Administration to pick up the pieces.

IMF measures are probably unavoidable once a crisis strikes. However, the pain imposed on the poor and leaving growth mechanisms to the market inevitably lead to retrogression in policy execution. So the IMF support cycle repeats itself once in few years.

Preventing the crisis from occurring is the key. A widening budget deficit, pressure on the balance of payments, an overheating economy all are clearly tell-tale signs of economic mismanagement. The Government’s inability to recognise such signals emanating from a mal-functioning economy early, and to take prompt corrective actions have led it into the IMF’s arms. However, averting the crisis is only one side of the coin. Realising a diversified export base is the other side as our rate of growth is constrained by the size of the deficit in the balance of payments.

The current and or any future Government will have to find ways to overcome the commercial debt hangover inherited from the exploits of the last Government’s financial wizards. Over the next decade every year from 2017, the Government will face a mini or major crisis: it must fund large roll-over repayments, try to maintain stability while achieving realistic growth rates, if it is to avoid further doses of IMF medicine. A tough task to pull off, for any Government.

How has the current Government faced up to these gigantic tasks? We have a Finance Ministry and a Central Bank at odds touting the theory of twin deficits and flexible exchange rate as mantra. The Prime Minister, who has put forward elaborate plans over the last two years, wants new institutions, complementary laws or committees to solve emerging issues. We have a President fond of setting up reconciliation committees for each minor problem ranging from lottery ticket margins, licence payments on vehicles and recognition of SAITM degrees — and an economic vision rooted in the 1970s.

The scorecard is not encouraging. In this dark scenario, the Joint Opposition is gleefully awaiting its turn in 2020 or earlier to impose its authoritarian ‘home-grown’ economic and political philosophies on the suffering population.

A bleak future awaits Sri Lanka unless the Government rolls up its sleeves and comes up with a coherent strategy and implements it expeditiously. IMF support, if required, will be peripheral to this exercise.

Sunday Observer Editorial

Our ‘reconciliation’ score-card in Geneva

05 March 2017

Even as Sri Lanka’s human rights condition is being assessed at the annual United Nations Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva, Switzerland, the President and the Prime Minister have made public statements rejecting the formal role of foreign judges on the benches of Sri Lankan courts. Both, the timing of the statements vis-à-vis Geneva and, the fact that both top national leaders have simultaneously made such a pronouncement is of great significance.

The President’s statement has a nationalist element that, perhaps, befits the role of the head of state and first citizen of the country. The Prime Minister, as head of government, naturally presents a technical rationale that addresses the institutional mechanics of the issue.

President Sirisena, as the elected defender of the nation and final spokesperson to the world, paradoxically chose a platform within his own political party to make this statement of profound importance to the country’s international position. Perhaps, he was unequivocally embedding this matter of international importance within the fabric of national politics.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe used his own professional authority as a lawyer to discuss the technicalities of the issue at the principal national forum of lawyers, thereby attempting to make the same case in technical terms of the country’s already mature – if temporarily disrupted – judicial system and legal discourse.

The dimensions of both, national politics as well as that of the necessary institutional and moral justification are of equal importance to any nation that values propriety together with dignity.

Sri Lanka has been rightly hauled up before the ultimate international forum, the UN, for its disgraceful record of violating the rights of its own people. For some years, the country’s official leadership, namely the previous regime, cynically denied such violations even as that regime was often caught with its pants down in denial. That government’s official representatives in Geneva indulged in intellectual gymnastics (even resorting to the idiom of revolutionary heroes to cultivate South American states) in efforts to cover up its misdemeanours.

That patent duplicity was shamefully exposed by brave Sri Lankans themselves who risked life and limb, literally, to travel to Geneva and give their side of the story. What counted in Geneva at the time were not so much the nationalistic testimonies of foreign-based minority ethnic activists (only some of whom were Sri Lankan born).

The more credible testimonies were by those who emerged from the authoritarian maelstrom here to testify irrespective of ethnic loyalties and, most significantly, highlighting the spectrum of violations that encompassed victims of both, racism as well as mis-governance and political repression.

The regime change that occurred in 2015 was only possible because the leaders of that change honestly acknowledged the scale of the violations all round – irrespective of ethnicity - and won the support of all those who struggled for democracy and social justice. The program of post-war Reconciliation, therefore, is not about merely redressing the woes of ethnic minorities but about addressing the pain of all victims of the war from among all ethnic groups and also not limited to ethnic-based victimisation.

In any case, the Geneva process is not simply about inter-ethnic reconciliation at all. It is about the repair and revival of Sri Lankan democracy and proper governance.

Of course, the Sri Lankan people as well as the international community has realised that the fulfilment of those commitments to ‘do good’ is not as easy or as quick as voicing such commitments. In the first place the creatures who led the way for change are themselves creatures of the mess itself. Many of them had fingers in the pies of repression, racism and corruption to varying degrees at various points in our more recent political history.

The UNP and SLFP as well as some of the smaller political parties have been in governmental power at points when repression occurred or racism was entrenched. The reactive insurgent forces, themselves the initiators of terrifying war-lordism and ethnic cleansing in most brutal ways, only added to the awful mix that cannot be redressed in just two years.

We have seen how, despite the prosecution of past repression and atrocity, similar acts have continued to occur, although at significantly less frequency and never as severe. The citizenry is beginning to lose its patience over emerging evidence of corruption and even some nepotism. The only comfort that citizens can give themselves is that other actors in society, namely the civil rights and social justice community as well as the news media, no longer function in fear of their lives and very quickly highlight such instances of mis-governance and repression.

The UN authorities have rightly pointed out these small victories of justice and democracy and acknowledged the changes achieved by the change-makers who won power in 2015.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe was right, therefore, to argue that those conditions that justified the requirement by the Human Rights Council for a role for foreign judicial experts now no longer exist. Some social justice activists within the country, however, would also be right to challenge the Government to prove the worth of this argument by more and quicker action on all fronts of democratisation.

There are indications that Geneva is listening to the pleas of Colombo today, primarily because there is a more honest and transparent regime here that is ready, in a manner that befits our civilisation, to acknowledge the wrongs of both, the past and the present. What is needed to further evidence that honesty is not further rhetoric nor showpiece actions of limited results.

Institutions such as the Office of Missing Persons and Office of National Unity and Reconciliation cannot be places with little more than name boards and budgets for meetings. Only sizeable allocations that are similar to the budgets of far less important but lavish programs will convince the citizenry as well as the international community that repression, racism and corruption is genuinely on the way out.

Only this will justify the non-inclusion of foreign judges in our repair of democracy.

Sunday Island Editorial

Geneva and after

05 March 2017

 

The advantages of a policy of non-confrontational foreign relations favored by the incumbent rulers against the bang-bang- bang approach of its predecessors was evident at the ongoing UN Human Rights Commission proceedings in Geneva where Sri Lanka did not face canon fire. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and his delegation left Geneva having seemingly won more time for the government to get its reconciliation act into proper order even as both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe went on record on Friday saying that foreign judges will not be appointed to tribunals that would be appointed to probe war crimes allegations.

Although Sri Lanka co-sponsored the 2015 resolution on this country at UNHRC soon after the regime change that year, it was abundantly clear to all that including foreign judges in any judicial mechanism that would be set up to probe war crimes would be sticky politically. This has become increasingly apparent with the passage of time. The president was quoted yesterday telling the executive committee of his Sri Lanka Freedom Party that he was firm in his resolve to reject the foreign judge proposal made at UNHRC. The prime minister said this was not politically feasible – a point of view that nobody in his proper senses would disagree with.

Buying time is one thing, but getting on with what needs to be done is an entirely different matter. Sirisena won the last presidential election with the substantial backing of the country’s Tamils. While they, like the rest of the people, are less than satisfied by the pace and quantum of delivery on expectations that led to the former president’s defeat, the primary concern of the vast majority are issues related to livelihood and the restoration of normalcy in Tamil majority areas. Other than perhaps those who have lost loved ones to war crimes at the hands of both the security forces and the LTTE who would desire primacy for impartial investigations, the majority will be more concerned about rice and pol sambol issues.

It is clear that investigation of LTTE war crimes would serve no purpose as there will be nobody to be held to account; it is another matter where government forces are concerned. While the UN Human Rights Chief Zeid Ra’ad All Hussein’s report to UNHRC, which has won the acclamation of the TNA, was critical about the state of play here, it was not blatantly aggressive and also noted some positive developments. But many of the speeches made by previously hostile western nations tilted towards the need to give us more time. Zeid himself acknowledged that contending factors in the political equation did not make it easy for the Sri Lanka government to achieve some of its targets. An appeal signed by as many as 11 TNA MPs urged that granting more time to Sri Lanka to implement the 2015 resolution would embolden it "to commit human rights abuses against Tamils," had clearly not found resonance in Geneva. After all, a letter Mr. Sampathan wrote President Sirisena last week acknowledged much positive progress in resolving issues faced by Tamils in the war-wracked areas.

The fact that the war is over has obviously meant that human rights abuses, not only in Tamil majority areas but countrywide, are today a fraction of what they were when the guns were booming. The white van culture is no longer existent. The cases that now come up are mostly police excesses that have existed for as long as memory holds and these are not directed against this or that community. The government’s claim that judicial independence has been restored, with both the new chief justice and his predecessor who was a Tamil, appointed on the basis of seniority, has won credibility both at home and abroad. The president’s recent revelation of two conversations he had with the chief justice in office at the time he was elected is a pointer to the state of affairs prevailing then. These events had been widely hinted at soon after the restoration of Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake to the position she was summarily removed from. But this was the first time the story, which has not been denied, came ‘straight from the horses mouth’, so to speak.

There will always be a constituency that will favor, nay push for, the participation of foreign judges in any war crimes investigations. But public opinion is overwhelmingly of the view that the process must be purely domestic. Given the propaganda from overseas unleashed on the forces when the war was being fought, this view is inevitable. With the credibility of our own judiciary today far greater than what it was at the time the demand for foreign judges was originally made, and the goodwill the country enjoys today in the wider world, the odds are better than even that irresistible pressure would not be applied on us on this score by our foreign friends.

While the country at large overwhelmingly applauds the security forces for its heroic role in overcoming at great cost a deadly terrorist foe, it does not in any way countenance war crimes by or witch hunts against the security forces. No wars are fought in accordance with Queensberry rules; and we cannot claim that ours was otherwise. Both the victims and the wider world must feel that serious allegations that have been made must are impartially investigated and those responsible held to account. Our judiciary does not lack the ability to do that and turning to foreign judges, as the UN did with its Darusman ‘expert panel,’ can only mean unnecessary complications.

Meanwhile there is a lot the government can do for the war-affected people that remains undone. While UNHRC has noted some favorable movement in this area, slow progress and a lack of commitment on a war crimes court was expressed in Geneva. Whether this would be reflected in the resolution that would be finally adopted is not yet known. But it was reported yesterday that the first draft of the resolution gives us a two-year extension. That is all to the good; but even if the outcome is favorable, it is time now that we come to serious grips with outstanding matters.