Ceylon Today Editorial

Maithri’s K’gala doctrine

31 March 2017

President Maithripala Sirisena speaking at a function in Kurunegala on Wednesday had said, while war heroes would be protected from any war crimes prosecution, those who used the war as a pretext to commit other crimes, including the killings of journalists and sportsmen will however not be protected.(Yesterday's Ceylon Today)

In respect of the killings of journalists and sportsmen which Sirisena referred to in his speech, what immediately comes into mind is former editor of 'The Sunday Leader' Lasantha Wickrematunge killed in 2009, cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda the following year, i.e. in 2010 and former Thomian and Sri Lanka ruggerite Wasim Thajudeen two years later in 2012.

His reference to 'non-protection against other crimes' committed in the name of war may include rape, murder, torture, robbery and other forms of crime executed by the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and its agents such as certain GoSL officials and a section of the security forces, Police, civil defence force and others.

The President's reference to the protection of war heroes against judicial sentences of any kind in relation to their prosecution of the war against LTTE terrorists include collateral damage, which encompasses unintended deaths or injuries or even damage or destruction to private property, caused, due to bona fides acts of commission and omission, committed by the aforesaid GoSL officials and a section of the security forces, Police, civil defence force and others.

Previously, Sirisena had said that no foreign jurists would be allowed to investigate alleged war crimes committed by GoSL and its agents in their war against LTTE terrorism, though, GoSL, under his presidency, was a signatory to a UN resolution unanimously passed in October 2015, that gave the green light for foreign jurists to investigate such alleged war crimes.

He, together with Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, has since reverted to the position that such war crimes investigations will be carried out by local jurists with foreigners only being permitted to be present as observers, thereby reinforcing the status that Sri Lanka's judicial system is independent, despite being scarred, battered and bruised in the near 10 year rule of Sirisena's predecessor, Mahinda Rajapaksa, i.e. from November 2005 to 8 January, 2015.

Sirisena's 'Kurunegala Doctrine' is politically double edged.

Kurunegala is the district that provided the highest number of soldiers to the country.

Kurunegala is also the district which Rajapaksa, after divorcing from his family 'seat' of Hambantota District (previously having had represented the Beliatta electorate, before the advent of proportional representation in 1978) which he currently represents, having had successfully contested under Sirisena's leadership in the SLFP/UPFA ticket in the August 2015 Parliamentary Elections.
By doing that and moving away from his family 'seat', he 'gifted' Hambantota to his eldest son Namal, who topped the list in that district, contesting under the SLFP/ UPFA ticket, similar to his father's accomplishment at Kurunegala in the August 2015 poll.

Nonetheless, Rajapaksa (senior), re-entering Parliament as an ordinary MP, which he first did 47 years ago in 1970, as a young man of 25 and, 35 years later, in 2005, to end up climbing the top of the greasy pole, by being elected to the highest position of the land, only to allow himself to slide down rapidly and once more re-enter Parliament as an ordinary MP in 2015, is something which his predecessors had never done, or, probably, never would have had dreamt of doing?

Father and son continuing in politics, is also an extension of family bandyism, particularly in the context of Rajapaksa (Snr.'s) defeat at the 8 January, 2015 Presidential Poll.

Rajapaksa, who hasn't severed his connection with the SLFP or of its coalition the UPFA, which former party, i.e. the lead party of the UPFA coalition, 'nurtured' him and his father D.A. Rajapaksa, in politics, particularly after the latter's defection from the UNP to the SLFP 66 years ago in 1951, is, however, masquerading as the leader of the so called Joint Opposition (JO), comprising disgruntled MPs from the SLFP led UPFA coalition in the current Parliament.

Namal, or for that matter even his father Mahinda (Rajapaksa Snr.) has, however, studiously and shrewdly avoided playing an active role in the JO, allowing lesser minions such as Dinesh Gunawardena (scion of the Boralugoda lion Philip) to play that role.
Nonetheless, Sirisena's Kurunegala Doctrine makes it clear, that not only will foreign jurists not be permitted to sit in judgment in an alleged war crimes tribunal, but that war heroes will also not be prosecuted. Those, who will, however, be prosecuted are only those who committed crimes in the name of war to fulfil their own vested agendas, and that too by local jurists.

He also underscored a fact elaborated by no lesser person than US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Atul Keshap recently, that the island's relations with the international community is at an all time high, thereby dealing a double blow to the Rajapaksas and JO who are hell bent in trying to gain political mileage over this matter of foreign jurists, war heroes and war crimes investigations, and, that way, to try to lead the country down the Gadarene slope of economic, political and social chaos.(See also Ceylon Today's editorial of 1 December, 2016)

Daily News Editorial

The President has spoken

31 March 2017

President Maithripala Sirisena has set the record straight. For the umpteenth time that is. Earlier, he had declared, in no uncertain terms, that he would not compromise the country's War Heroes and would not stand for a hybrid courts. He was followed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who also declared unequivocally that no War Hero would be brought before any tribunal.

But Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the Joint Opposition, were not convinced, or rather feigned to be unconvinced. They were only interested in exploiting our War Heroes for narrow political gain, assuming a monopoly as the protectors of the country's War Heroes, never mind that they unceremoniously threw the war winning army commander behind bars.

Addressing War Heroes at a function at the Defence Services School, in Kurunegala, on Wednesday, President Sirisena once again reiterated his pledge to stand by the country's War Heroes and declared that no War Hero would be subject to any inquiry relating to abuse of human rights. He said he is not prepared to make any War Hero a suspect on charges levelled against the armed forces and the government on the alleged violation of human rights during the war against terrorism. Pointing out that it is the responsibility and duty of the government to protect the War Heroes, who fought for the Motherland, the President assured that he would always fulfill his responsibility as the President and the Commander-in-Chief.

But, in the same breath, he also stressed that he was unable to protect those found guilty of acts that are not connected to national security and those who are guilty of killing media personnel and sportsmen. President Sirisena could have not been more emphatic. He has declared his stand unequivocally and all right thinking members of the public, no doubt, would approve of the position he had taken. The President has now cleared the air, and, convincingly so, and the Joint Opposition can persist with it's threadbare slogan of a government witch-hunt against War Heroes only at considerable political risk to itself.

No war is fought clean and the Eelam was no exception. To deny that there were no excesses, on the part of security forces, is closing one's eyes to reality. As the saying goes the end justifies the means and today the people from VVT to Dondra Head are reaping the fruits of peace, thanks to the sacrifices made by our forces. To completely turn one's back on these valiant men and throw them to the wolves, would, therefore, seem not only ungrateful but a treacherous act. President Sirisena, as the Commander-in-Chief, has therefore fully stood by the forces and has assured their protection, indemnifying them from any allegation of human rights violations, in the line of duty. The President's firm stand vis-a-vis the country's War Heroes, and the tone and tenor in which he made this pledge, no doubt, would have convinced the public of his sincerity. It has certainly taken the wind off the sails of the Joint Opposition which had been carrying out a campaign to portray the government as being an “anti-War Heroes”, based on the arrests of some criminal elements among the security forces.

The President made it clear that all those responsible for criminal acts, among the forces, would have to suffer the same consequences, as in the case of the ordinary members of the public who are arraigned before the law, for crimes. The President, no doubt, has made this distinction to impress upon the public that crime never pays, whoever may be the perpetrators. True, members of the security forces may have committed excesses in the battle against the LTTE. But these could, by no means, be categorized as cold blooded killings, as in the case of the murders of Lasantha, Prageeth and Thajudeen. These were not conducted in the heat of battle but carefully planned and executed. Hence the President's position that he will not cover such elements in the security forces will be widely acknowledged by the public.

Today, hardly a day passes without some former member of the armed forces, or a serving member, reported to be involved in serious crime, such as murder, rape, or robbery. What would be the position if the President grants blanket immunity to all armed forces personnel? This is exactly what the Joint Opposition is telling the government to do. Will not such a course lead to a complete breakdown in law and order leading to a state of anarchy? Members of the security forces cannot have a license to commit criminal acts just because they fought on the battlefield.

True, the question of manpower compelled the recruitment of persons to the forces without proper screening, and, needless to say, a not inconsiderable number of criminal elements found their way into the tri-forces. It is these elements that did the dirty work of politicians to get rid of meddlesome journalists and others. Therefore the President's decision to put the record straight is not only timely but also puts the whole issue in its proper perspective.

The Island Editorial

The safety of bond scam witnesses

31 March 2017

 

Western Province Chief Minister Isura Devapriya has dropped a bombshell. Addressing the media on Wednesday, he declared that witnesses, giving evidence before the presidential commission of inquiry probing bond scams, were without protection and the IGP had to be held responsible should harm befall them. He has apparently sought to support his argument with Chairman of the presidential commission of inquiry K. T. Chitrasiri’s statement on Tuesday that the IGP had not heeded a commission request for more police personnel.

One is intrigued. One may have thought political violence was a thing of the past and butter wouldn’t melt in the mouths of the yahapalana leaders, pretending to be ‘incapable of harming even an ant’. They claim to have restored democracy, ensured judicial independence and given police freedom to maintain the law and order without fear or favour. They are busy probing goon attacks and government-sponsored violence under the Rajapaksa administration. But, now, a yahapalana heavyweight has hinted that they are capable of what their predecessors were notorious for—harming opponents! Devapriya is quite au fait with the yahapalana affairs and there is no reason to doubt his claims.

CM Devapriya’s statement is a damning indictment on the yahapalana administration, whose big guns wax eloquent ad nauseam on their commitment to protecting democracy and human rights. The so-called national unity government, whose ministers are at one another’s jugular, consists of several political parties, but the ongoing bond scams probe is inimical to the interests of only the UNP. The SLFP finds a perverse pleasure in upsetting the UNP by flogging that issue at every turn. So, logically, threats to the witnesses should emanate from the members of the UNP, and no one else, though Devapriya has stopped short of naming names.

President Maithripala Sirisena ought to pay heed to the ominous warning sounded by his trusted lieutenant, Devapriya, who is promoting him as the next presidential candidate of the SLFP. The safety of the key witnesses in the bond scam probe must be ensured. Malicious propaganda campaigns are already underway to discourage them from revealing the truth. The Central Bank officials deserve praise for their courage to stand up to the government in power and retaining their sangfroid in the face of a hostile campaign carried out by pro-UNP groups against them.

Anything is possible in this country where politicians consider even their closest allies expendable and, therefore, nobody is safe when they get into hot water and face the prospect of losing power.

Meanwhile, the SLFP faction of the yahapalana administration seems to think the masses are asses. Its members benefited from the Rajapaksa government and unflinchingly endorsed everything that regime did. They voted for ratifying the 18th Amendment and impeaching the then Chief Minister Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake among other things. They lined their pockets and abused power. Today, they are condemning the former administration as if they had never been members thereof. While enjoying the best of both worlds they are tearing into the UNP in a bid to absolve themselves of the blame for the wrongs the present government is committing.

These hypocritical elements need to be told that they were instrumental in shielding the bond racketeers two years ago. In 2015, President Sirisena dissolved parliament before the COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) headed by upright, intrepid leftist, D. E. W. Gunasekera, presented its report on bond scams to the House. Thus, he prevented an adverse COPE report being used against the UNP, upon which he was dependent to keep the Rajapaksas at bay at the general election in that year. Today, he is out for the scalp of former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran because such action helps him tame the UNP, which is undermining his authority.

Chief Minister Devapriya should be thanked for his concern for the safety of the witnesses in the presidential inquiry into the bond scams. But, should anything untoward happens—absit omen!—the blame for that must be apportioned to both the UNP and SLFP factions of the yahapalana government.