 |
 Sri Lanka
| December 9, 2011 | 3:50 PM |
|
|
|
|
rotaract shutterbug :)
|
This is about the latest photography project in town for people who are eager to take their photography skills to the next level and explore their potential; for who have what it takes to be ‘The Ultimate Rotaract Shutterbug’ and WIN exciting prizes and for the ones who are ready to experience a rollercoaster ride with a full dose of photoantastic moments?
The Rotaract Club of Panadura proudly presents Rotaract Shutterbug – A story with every click! from July to October 2011, in partnership with National Photographic Art Society Sri Lanka, Photographic Society of Sri Lanka, Canon- Metropolitan, Ogilvy Action, Quantei, United Nations, IYV+10 Steering Committee, Maharaja Broadcasting Corporation, MTV and YFM.
This is a photography initiative for amateur and enthusiasts consisting of three main segments
- Rotaract Shutterbug Photography Training (Deadline for applications – 10 August 2011)
- Rotaract Shutterbug Photography Competition (Deadline for entries – 10 September 2011)
- Rotaract Shutterbug Photography Week (Await further details)
Please visit the website or call on 077 65 11 393 for further details or to find out how you can participate and get involved. Click here for the Facebook Fan page.
 Don’t miss out on this great opportunity! Apply today!
       
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ramifications of the Channel 4 documentary ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’
|
The recently telecast Channel 4 documentary on ‘Killing Fields of Sri Lanka’ sheds no new light (despite claims to the contrary), in terms of groundbreaking evidence, regarding the incidents related to the end of the war in Sri Lanka. If anything, it will seek to entrench already hardened attitudes and decrease the ever reducing space for dialogue and reconciliation.
From the government’s perspective, it will seek to discredit the documentary as fake as it feeds into the insecurity that it surrounds itself with, of a perception that the west has been influenced by a highly successful pro LTTE lobby. The end result will be the securing of its ‘credibility’ especially as a ‘victim of an external conspiracy’ consequently rallying the people’s sympathy, thereby making any genuine attempt to hold the government accountable for anything fruitless.
On the other side, for the pro LTTE lobby (largely represented by their supporters in the UK, US and Canada) this will be a ‘vindication’ of their claims regarding the Government and its conduct of the war, thereby serving to boost their movement and support whilst ignoring the part that they have played in fund raising and supporting the LTTE (despite the proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist group). This has been helped by a fairly sympathetic media (angered at being excluded from the front lines by the Sri Lankan Government) which so far has tended to focus on the government’s part in the end of the war rather than also holding these representatives in the West, accountable for the crimes committed by the LTTE.
It is this decrease in the space to explore mutual understandings that lie at the heart of most people’s disapproval of moves like Channel 4 or the UN to talk about War Crimes. At the end of the day, the repercussions will not be felt by the Diaspora in the Global North or even by the Government. It will be felt by the ordinary people in Sri Lanka who have to live with the consequences. For those of us who are active in trying to work on post conflict reconciliation, it is not about defending the indefensible. We are not here to deny or justify abuses. War is never just or civil, even when it is fought against a proscribed terrorist organisation. There is no excuse for abuses to be meted out. But the question remains how, who and when should accountability take place? Is it when the wounds are still fresh or is it when there has been enough time for healing to have taken place? Equally when accountability is demanded it has to be done against all responsible and for all crimes. Whilst blame is very often vociferously laid at the feet of the Sri Lankan government for its actions, nothing is said with the same intensity about the atrocities committed by the LTTE such as: the ethnic cleansing of 100,000 Muslims from the north (who still live in refugee camps today in the north west of Sri Lanka, with no one voicing any concern about them); the assassination of key political and intellectual leaders (of all ethnicities) or the forcible recruitment of child soldiers. The reports do not carry any discussion of how the LTTE combatants mingled with civilians and forcibly conscripted them to fight in the final stages, as has been documented in an interview given by a former Tamil National Parliamentarian who was trapped inside the war zone during this period. This former Member of Parliament said that he saw people being shot and killed by the LTTE. No explanation is given about the fact that during the heaviest of fighting, the LTTE also moved its heavy artillery positions near the no fire zones and within the hospital compounds and used them. The Tamils who objected to this move were brutally shot dead which has been corroborated by the war victims and even former LTTE cadres and can be viewed on You Tube. Nor do they discuss the phenomenon that Mark Meadow’s 2010 book ‘Tea Time with Terrorists’, describes of how former LTTE fighters have explained LTTE tactics such as “LTTE cadres dressing up in Sri Lankan army uniforms, then firing at unarmed civilians to put false blame on the army”.
The truth of the matter is that the conflict in Sri Lanka is not black and white. The truth is somewhat blurred in between. Unfortunately, in the midst of this flurry of interest once again in what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009, the real discussion is becoming sidelined, for whilst it is important to look at the past, it is vital that an eye is placed towards the future at all levels, not just political. How can Sri Lanka learn from the mistakes of the past that sidelined the minorities and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Successive governments have always hid behind the pretext of winning the war and defeating the LTTE militarily without addressing some of the fundamental key issues concerning minorities. Now with the defeat of the LTTE, there is a real opportunity to address the legitimate grievances of the minorities to ensure that the country is not subject to a repeat of the conflict ever again. The questions becomes, how can Sri Lanka, despite more than sixty years of independence, develop a constitutional framework that will satisfy the aspirations of all its citizens and deliver an environment of peace and harmony? Moreover at a grass roots levels, how can people work towards reconciliation between polarised communities (growing increasingly suspicious of each other thereby encouraging inward looking clannish tendencies) and ensure an environment of peace, justice and equity that can hold politicians accountable for good governance? Like it or not, it is at the grass roots level where ideologies take root and prosper or fester and also where consequences are felt, either way.
Those involved in conflict resolution and peace building will often talk about a period of healing in order for accountability to take place. The Bloody Sunday acknowledgement by the British Government took 38 years after a 12 year investigation. Poland and Germany still have strained relations incurred during the Second World War. The period of healing for Sri Lanka is still in a baby stage of 2 years yet is not being addressed. As it stands it is doubtless felt that such endeavours will in fact damage efforts being undertaken to achieve reconciliation.
What is critical for Sri Lanka is the rebuilding of trust which can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding. Rebuilding trust is about honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity. Sri Lanka needs the space for this to happen. It needs time for its people to go through the healing process. Its people need to come up with their own locally developed solutions.
Transparency, accountability and social justice are the pillars of a mature democratic society. Sri Lanka’s journey is still very early in trying to achieve this, but nevertheless it has started. Accountability will come in time once people are ready to not allow the past to become a ball and chain for the future. The release of this documentary and other reports provides unwarranted distraction from the main issues that the government (and any government in a post conflict country) should be held accountable for including: steps taken towards reconciliation, stemming the rising cost of living, tackling corruption and trying to ensure law and order. By demanding it from outside, it also abrogates responsibility from all the stakeholders at all levels within Sri Lanka to ensure that seeds are planted at the grass roots that will not fester into another conflict. This is possibly the biggest disservice we do to those people who died (on both sides) of the conflict for something they believed in or were forced into due to other’s selfishness.
###
Note on author: Amjad Saleem was previously the Sri Lankan country director of British based NGO Muslim Aid, where he oversaw post tsunami and post conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation. He was at the fore front of relief efforts for the current crisis which saw 300,000 people being displaced as the war came to an end in Sri Lanka.
His main interest is in building bridges between communities to help further respect, understanding and acceptance. He was instrumental in developing a unique partnership in Sri Lanka between Muslim Aid and UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief), based in the States, which was heralded by the Commonwealth Foundation as the ‘missing link’ between interfaith dialogue and grass roots action. Using this partnership, Amjad was instrumental in bringing religious and civil society leaders together in December 2008 to discuss real practical ways of reconciliation post conflict in Sri Lanka. Amjad is currently consulting with the Congress of Religions and The Methodist Church in Sri Lanka to establish an Interfaith Coalition for Peace to undertake practical projects using spirituality as a resource for reconciliation and rehabilitation.
Amjad is currently working as Head of Communications for The Cordoba Foundation, an independent policy, research and public relations think tank based in London promoting intercultural dialogue and positive coexistence among civilisations, ideas and people , and advocating dialogue and action to promote understanding and acceptance of inter-communal and inter-religious issues in Britain, Europe, US and beyond.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twitter explodes with reactions and responses to Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields
|
Channel 4 broadcast Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields tonight in the UK, which it describes as “a hard-hitting investigation into the final weeks of the Sri Lankan civil war, featuring devastating video evidence of horrific war crimes.” Sri Lanka’s response to the video has been unsurprisingly ham-fisted, but already, the video is having an impact internationally. As noted by Bloomberg, the UK’s Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt, after watching the video, urged Sri Lanka to initiate an “independent, thorough and credible investigation” into allegations of war crimes.
Twitter provides one measure of how the video was received. Viewers were encouraged by Channel 4 to tweet with #killingfields, and the responses from those who saw the documentary just after it was first broadcast on public television are quite revealing.
If the Twitter search widget below doesn’t load, click here for an RSS feed generated live from tweets tagged with #killingfields, or click here to access Twitter’s search page directly.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exclusive: Syllabi and timetables from compulsory University ‘leadership’ training course
|
Image from Virakesari Online
Great controversy and concern surrounds the ‘leadership’ training programme designed by the Ministry of Defence for under graduate students, conducted in around 28 military installations around the country. As the Young Researchers Collective recently noted on Groundviews,
“Although the government has stated that this will be a leadership training program rather than a military training program, it has conceded that the military will be involved in a number of aspects of the program. Students have also been informed that this training is “mandatory” for university entrance, though there now appears to be a great deal of confusion with regards to this provision as Government officials have issued a series of contradicting statements. These decisions have also been challenged by many students, rights groups, student unions, teachers’ unions and academics who have raised a number of concerns about the way in which this program has been conceived and implemented. This issue has also exacerbated a worsening crisis in local universities as the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) are also in the midst of trade union action.”
Other civil society groups have also raised grave concerns over this training which is essentially the indoctrination of a militaristic Sinhala Buddhist ideology. The Friday Forum for example notes,
“The curriculum of the training programme obtained by the Friday Forum after some effort reveals extremely problematic aspects. No mention is made of the authority responsible for the curriculum but a prominent photograph of the Defence Secretary on the cover of the study guide suggests authorship by the Defence establishment.”
The Friday Forum goes on to say,
“What is more problematic is the content of the module on history and national heritage. The topics are, in order, the arrival of the Aryans, foreign invasions, (who the foreigners are is not clear) and the development of Sinhalese kingdoms. “National heritage” focuses exclusively on prominent cultural symbols of the majority Sinhala community such as Sigiriya, the Temple of the Tooth and the Aukana Buddha statue with none from other communities. Subjecting new university entrants who may well become future leaders of this country to a course which focuses exclusively on the majority community, undermines all the official statements on national reconciliation after three decades of civil strife. If this is an officially sanctioned method of national reconciliation what hopes do we have for a peaceful conflict free future in this country?”
In a cogent essay on the training course, Lemek notes on this site,
“The political motivations of the leadership programme are quite clear when we consider that it is essentially a retributive reaction to the student protests that occurred in October and November 2010. It also provides an opportunity for the government to restrict the political influence of opposition parties within the university system and student politics, which presents a potential force of mobilisation against the government.”
Responding to the justification of the programme by those opposed to ragging, Lemek goes on to aver,
“The other issue that has received much attention is the problem of ‘ragging,’ which has developed into an institutionalised practise within a majority of universities. Perhaps a greater tragedy is the complicity of lecturers and other university officials who in complete indifference accept ragging as a ‘rite of passage’ within a hierarchical system of senior dominance over freshers/juniors. It is sufficiently amusing – in consideration of the egalitarian pretence of boot camp society – that the instruction of an alternative hierarchical system with a similar call for subordination is the solution to ragging. Is it exceedingly ambitious to request the chancellors and senior lecturers of universities to set about establishing intelligent administration in order address the issue by expelling students who are guilty of physical abuse? “
This is not just a domestic issue anymore. Capturing the concern over the substance of the leadership programme and the manner in which it is conducted, the Hindustan Times notes,
“Be it Mahinda Chintanaya, or what the government’s policy doctrine is know as, or name stadiums after the President or print currency notes with his photo, there is worrying trend to blitzkrieg the Lankan population with images and words about the ruling family. If his brother is having some fun, why should Gotabhaya miss out? Secondly, to focus only on one community in history is manipulating it. Though I haven’t seen the history module, it’s clear from Friday Forum’s statement that the module will far from help in reconciling the country emerging from years of civil war.”
To date, no one outside of the students who have undergone this training have seen the course material. We were emailed copies of the manuals and timetables in all three languages, plus copies of the covering letters the students received, which clearly state that the training is compulsory, with no exceptions.
Leadership Training – English Covering Letter
See this letter in fullscreen here.
Training Manual (English Version)
See the manual in fullscreen here.
Training Manual (Sinhala Version)
See the Sinhala version of the manual in fullscreen here.
Leadership Training – Tamil Covering Letter
See fullscreen version of the letter here.
Leadership Training Manual (Tamil Version)
See fullscreen version of the Tamil manual here.
Leadership Training Timetable – Detailed Version
See fullscreen version of detailed timetable here.
Leadership Training Timetable – Concise Version
See concise version of the timetable here.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Months after the 18th Amendment: Is the Executive really more accountable to Parliament?
|
Image credit Sunday Leader
The 18th Amendment, we were told, would make the President more accountable to Parliament. The Editorial of the Sunday Observer noted back in the day,
By making it mandatory for the President to attend Parliament at least once in three months to answer questions by MPs, the 18th Amendment has not only made a vital link between the Executive and the Legislature, but has also made the President answerable to Parliament. Had President Rajapaksa given thought to dictatorship even in his wildest dreams, he would never have decided to attend Parliament once in three months. Despite being elected twice to the high office, President Rajapaksa strongly believes in parliamentary democracy and is keen to attend Parliament and follow proceedings whenever time permits. Isn’t this characteristic of a truly people’s leader who firmly believes in the power of the ballot?
Emphasis ours. But has the President in fact entertained any questions from MPs in Parliament since the 18th Amendment was passed in late 2010? And precisely when has he attended Parliament, and for what purpose?
Click here to view a larger version of this timeline, where you can also see it a list of events.
As far as we can find, the President last addressed Parliament in March 2011. There is no record that he entertained any questions. The timeline above reflects both the genesis of the heinous 18th Amendment and also the occasions mainstream press reported that the President attended / “visited” Parliament.
It was no easy task to compile this. Only a handful ordinary citizens would have the expertise to search for this information online, or elsewhere. There is no easy record retrieval of the President’s attendance in Parliament on its official website. But what is immediately obvious when the scattered media reports are taken as a whole is that the 18th Amendment has in no way at all contributed to a more accountable Executive. The incumbent for example possibly waltzes into Parliament ceremoniously to riotous greetings by those in government ranks, warms a special seat reserved for him as of November last year, possibly smiles benignly at government MPs, twitches a tad when the Leader of the Opposition speaks, twirls his moustache once or twice, adjusts his satakaya, winks and nods knowingly at his blood brothers and summarily leaves, to a standing ovation.
If this sounds like absurd caricature, the following report in the Daily News of the President’s last visit to Parliament is worth reading,
President Mahinda Rajapaksa paid a visit to Parliament yesterday evening, respecting the Constitution of Sri Lanka. According to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the President of the country has to attend the sittings of Parliament once in three months. President Mahinda Rajapaksa arrived in Parliament around 2.30 pm and occupied the seat allocated for him in the House next to the Prime Minister’s seat. When the President entered the House, government and opposition members rose and welcomed him thumping on their desks. When President Mahinda Rajapaksa arrived, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa was in the Chair and the condolence vote on Minister Nissanka Wijeratne was taken up. President Rajapaksa stayed in the House for a short while and left.
Even The Island coverage of this visit doesn’t include a single question the President had to face from MPs. Very much ‘visits’ to Parliament then, as the titles of the news articles suggest. What then of the MPs who staunchly supported the 18th Amendment saying that it would strengthen the accountability of the Executive? In a lofty speech for an essentially expedient end, the Rauff Hakeem, MP from the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) noted,
“And, in helping President Mahinda Rajapaksa to secure an additional term of office, we hope that the enticement of a third term will compel him to seek the mantle of a sincere statesman rather than being remembered merely as a clever politician.”
Has Mr. Hakeem asked the President a single question even during his cameo appearances in Parliament? If not, why not? Where and how is the enhanced accountability of the Executive demonstrated in practice from September 2010 to June this year? Who in Parliament and amongst us can remember Basil Rajapaksa’s statement noting that attendance of the President in Parliament would be further strengthened by the 18th Amendment? And what of the government’s most loquacious apologist, Rajiva Wijesinha’s assertion during the 18th Amendment debates,
“I would have wished too Mr Speaker that this first step in ensuring greater accountability in the President, by making appearances in Parliament mandatory, had also specified that he would be required to answer questions relative to his executive functions. I believe this is intended, given that His Excellency the current President enjoys Parliamentary debate, but we may have in some distant future a less sociable President without communicative skills who might not fulfil this provision in the spirit in which it is intended.”
Emphasis ours. But it’s not just Messrs. Hakeem and Wijesinha. What about other MPs, the heaps of political commentators, senior Sri Lankan diplomats and the range of voices on this site itself who championed the 18th Amendment? Where are their voices of concern over what is quite demonstrably a farce?
Much of this was known well in advance. As Kalana Senaratne notes in the Sunday Leader back in September 2010, just days after the Amendment was passed,
“Firstly, the provision in the 18th Amendment which states that the President shall “attend Parliament once in every three months” does not essentially suggest that the President will be more accountable to Parliament or the people. One still does not know what the President ought to do after attending Parliament. It is said that he has the right to “address and send messages to Parliament.” But then, will he exercise that right? What if he decides to simply attend Parliament, and watch parliamentary proceedings where his message will be read out by the Prime Minister? If real accountability was to be ensured, he should actively engage in parliamentary proceedings and be involved in some form of active debate and discussion. The 18th Amendment does not do this.”
Kalana’s singular prescience aside, the larger question remains as to why the clarion voices who ostensibly supported the 18th amendment entirely out of principle and a love for democracy are, in the face of what is actually an on-going farce, completely silent. Therein lies a story that needs to be told.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch Moving Images at Kandy International Film Festival (KIFF)
|
We are very pleased to announce that films from Moving Images will be part of the first Kandy International Film Festival (KIFF). Though the official schedule is still being finalised, we have been informed by the organisers that Moving Images will be screened from 4 – 6pm on Saturday, 25th at the Kandy City Centre. A moderated discussion will follow. The selection of films will be from A Lost White Tribe: The Eurasians of Sri Lanka by Menika van der Poorten and Koothu, kerosene and paper: portraits of resilience by Kannan Arunasalam.
Please join us. Ticketing information for KIFF can be accessed here.
The Kandy Film Festival will be a four-day celebration of global cinema, with a special focus on Asian film and upcoming talent, in the UNESCO world heritage city of Kandy, Sri Lanka. Against a stunning background of gardens, hilltops and cultural architecture, the Festival will showcase an exciting program of films celebrating diverse techniques, styles and themes relevant to the region. As noted on its website, the Festival is designed to generate an inclusive and tolerant environment to allow a close-knit and passionate artistic community, including Sri Lankan students and youth, to engage in debate, dialogue and be inspired by the power of film to understand the human experience.
Moving Images is a series of stunning short-form documentary and narrated photographic portraits on facets of life in post-war Sri Lanka. These high-definition productions, the country’s first, range from portraits of resilience from the war ravaged Jaffna and reflections on the Eurasian community by the last surviving Eurasians themselves to fascinating lives in Colombo invisible even to most who live and work in the city.
Some of the comments we received after the premiere of Moving Images in Colombo were,
- “moving images is FAN TAS TIC. Please convey my congratulations to those involved in it—they tend to be online acquaintances or friends of friends or people I follow on Twitter. Thinking of Kannan Arunasalam, Sharni and Tari Wickremaratne particularly. How marvelous it looks. And, of course, to you! It looks spectacular. And as always, I am amazed at how much you accomplish.”
- “I love Moving Images. Inspiring, and beautifully produced. Congrats. We’re gearing up for some relatively similar stuff here, but perhaps not so classy, more mainstream.”
- “A sincere thank you for last evening. There was certainly something to say and not merely something to show!”
- “Absolutely f******* fabulous.”
- “I’ve had a look through a lot of the videos that you and Kannan have put up – this has immense value and I’m so glad something like this exists. They are all just great stories and beautifully shot.”
- “Groundviews has been producing some great content in the last couple of years and the ‘Moving Images’ is super stuff. Congratulations! “
- “Looking at kerosene nearly brought tears to my eyes. This is my Jaffna.”
- “Beautiful and evocative images. Look forward to seeing more stories soon.”
- “excellent pictures.”
Of particular note is that the co-editor for Groundviews, Nigel Nugawela and the producer of A Lost White Tribe: The Eurasians of Sri Lanka, Menika van der Poorten, both hail from Kandy. Nigel will lead the moderated discussion after the screening of the films.
Trailers for the productions follow along with the flyer announcing the launch of the content back in April this year.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killing and State Intervention into a Funeral: A New Form of Suppressing Liberty in Sri Lanka
|
Crime of “Dissent” & of Murder
Killing of Roshen Shanaka Ratnasekara, a factory worker in the Free Trade Zone (FTZ), Katunayaka gives a signal to the country on how peaceful protesters would be dealt with. Those who are familiar with police accountability will accept that police cannot carry guns and ammunition, without accountability. The records of the police must reveal as to who issued firearms and ammunition and who, in fact, ordered the police to fire. Police is required to make frank notes of their actions after they return to the station. However, all these come out only if a credible investigation is conducted. Knowing the track record of governance in the country and impunity with which law enforcement and political authorities operate, there is hardly any genuine hope of such transparency in any investigation.
The purpose of this article is to briefly examine the legality of use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and the impact of the response of the government on fundamental liberties of the citizens.
The issue on which the workers went on a protest was a legitimate demand affecting them. They challenged the proposed Pension Bill. This Bill came into being without any discussion, at a time when the EPF fund is being used for questionable investments in share market. No wonder people have reservations. There is no doubt that they had a legitimate constitutional right of expression to object to the government’s proposals. The Supreme Court had, in fact, given the green light to the Bill. The government with its two-thirds majority was confident of passing it through Parliament. Then came the workers’ protests centered on the main Katunayaka FTZ. With my own personal experience in and around this Zone (where I associated myself for many years with a main women’s center working towards unionization of workers), I believe that the protests were spontaneous and were decisions of the workers themselves. Contrary to what the government says, I do not believe that they were manipulated by a political party or two. These workers were not initially unionized when FTZ was introduced but slowly they were. Suffice it to say that the workers in the FTZ are undoubtedly a legitimate group to raise their objections against the Bill.
The protestors took to the streets and one assumes that this is a democracy. This is a usual form in legitimate protests involving workers all over the world. The motive of the crowd was abundantly clear – to have the Pension Bill withdrawn and to protect their savings against what they call “a robbery by the State”. The TV footage and the eye witness accounts appeared in some of the Sinhala newspapers clearly indicate that the protests were peaceful, until they were attacked by the police. At one stage, the police had broken open the gates and gone into the Zone and attacked the unarmed workers mercilessly, when they were pleading. An eye witness account in another newspaper reveals the state of affairs: “We ran and hid as soon as we heard the noise, but the police broke into our factory and pulled us out. They beat the boys and the women police officers beat us. I was hit with a helmet.” Then there was senseless firing from all over. Whom were they shooting at – unarmed and unplanned workers who were agitating against the Bill. Many protesters received gunshot injuries while hundreds of others, mainly women received injuries and were admitted to hospitals. One newspaper reported that some of the injured did not want to be admitted to hospitals close by in fear of arrest and they chose to go to their far away villages, so that they would avoid repercussions.
Let me say in no uncertain terms that the use of firearms by law enforcement is a matter of International Law now. For example, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Basic Principles) provide, in principle 9, that firearms must not be used against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. The Principles explicitly provide that, in dealing with assemblies where people are using violence, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary and only under the conditions stipulated in Principle 9. Any other use of firearms is unjustified. Judging from the eye witness accounts appeared in media, there is no justification whatsoever to use firearms in this instance at Katunayaka.
The legal position, as introduced by the Police Ordinance, Penal Code, Police Departmental Orders and practices in Sri Lanka is, in fact, compatible with the international standards, where the police can use firearms only as a use of minimum force to prevent a crime or in self defense. To my recollection, the weapons used are also required to be examined and detailed notes kept for inspection thereafter. Let us hope that these rules are practiced by police. Though the confidential notes of the police officers are yet unknown, it is clear that there were “over preparation” by police for “some reason”. This fact is borne out from the fact that there were a large number of high ranking officers including DIGs present in the vicinity.
From Crime to Cover-up Through Propaganda & Extra-Judicial Actions
Following its usual technique, the government resorted to their infamous and confident propaganda mechanism to cover up. No doubt they would have taken many decisions at political level. The first decision seems to be to get the IGP to go on “leave prior to retirement” – just one week before his actual date of retirement. (I am not surprised, if he is later appointed as a Commissioner of one of the Commissions or as an Ambassador.) Then, there was an effective move to prevent information leaking from hospitals of the conditions of the patients. Many were prevented from even entering hospitals to see patients. Then there was a statement from the government blaming the JVP for the incident. The usual “conspiracy theory” came next. Then came the news of the death of this young victim due to gunshot injuries. The TV coverage of the state media and the news items and political discussion programmes over the state media (not to mention the controlled private media), both print and electronic, made a herculean task to cover up the overall state responsibility. Payments of millions to the victim’s family and the government’s decision to withdraw the controversial Bill dominated state media. Not to forget that there is, according to the government, a top level police investigation to ascertain whether “outsiders” have infiltrated into the Free Trade Zone.
Passing the buck to another is a clearly visible strategy. Let me quote the first line of the editorial of the government’s leading English Sunday paper: “The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has proved yet again that it has more faith in the bullet than in the ballot…”
Generally, the government’s motives in a situation like this can be easily judged from its responses. Similarly, inferences can also be drawn on the government’s bona fides from its behavior. Obviously the government was worried with the series of protest rallies organized by trade unions, civil society groups and political parties and the crowds attending the rallies. At one point, there were announcements in Katunayaka with loudspeakers announcing that the Katunayake zone is closed and requesting the workers (most of whom are boarders) to go home until further notice. Many of those rallies held could not be obstructed firstly, because they were not organized by political parties and secondly, because they were spontaneous. The biggest rally, however was organized by the JVP on Friday at Lipton Circle, Town Hall and the government’s performance was the most visible there! Police and Army were strategically placed, while bus loads of thugs (armed with clubs) were awaiting orders to attack the peaceful protesters. It is no secret that those thugs were brought by an MP, who is the “monitoring MP” to the Ministry of Defence and that those thugs were given protection by the police. I was not at all surprised with the statement of police media spokesman SSP Prishanthe Jayakody who said that “there are no restrictions for people to walk along the road carrying poles as a person armed with a pole could hit a dog if it tries to attack him” (‘Lanka Truth’ website quoting the spokesman). What would be the response of the police spokesman, if the FTZ workers had a few clubs in their hands? Just shows the level to which professionalism has gone down! We saw a similar crowd of armed thugs with clubs attacking unarmed civil protestors a year ago near the Supreme Court but no effective action was taken by police against the identified offenders even then.
There were also credible information and news items in newspapers that a large number of posters pasted by many groups led by the JVP condemning the attack were taken into custody by police/army the day prior to the funeral. This is a certainly a counter measure to control the political criticism of the government. Suffice it to say that this should not be the function of the law enforcement officers.
Funeral and State Capture
Probably the most stunning operation of the government was the “funeral” of the deceased itself. A democratic society must, I repeat MUST, not forget what happened at the funeral particularly because this may be the order of the day in time to come.
State media coverage of the funeral was no different to the coverage of the war. It was only state sponsored and one-sided news. Inexplicable military presence – thousands of them – raises the question whether it was the funeral of a terrorist leader. There was no doubt that the government had taken all measures to prevent disturbances but whether a government has any right to meddle with a private funeral to that extent is doubtful. I heard many saying it was a well planned “psychological operation” (which term I am not very sure)! One could not move without bumping on to a military person; or talk without someone approaching to listen to the conversation. People were disheartened to be there, to pay respect to the victim of a crime of the state. Newspapers reported that there was a Magistrate’s Court order placing restrictions on how to conduct funeral proceedings. I am yet to understand the relevant provisions which give a Magistrate the power to control a funeral. Usually, the Magistrate has power under the Criminal Procedure Code to conduct an inquest and the Magistrate holding the inquest to make consequential orders such as visits to crime scene, pronouncing on apparent cause of death and to release the body to a family members etc. The judge or the coroner may give directions not to cremate the bodies or to bury in an identified burial ground. Never can I recall an instance where there was a court order limiting the number of speeches at a funeral and how and where to carry the body. Let us hope that there is a serious academic discussion on the legality of the Magisterial Order.
Overall operations of the government to control the funeral seem to have had at least two short-term objectives – firstly to prevent an event that can challenge the government’s authority and secondly, to control freedom of expression at the funeral. Nevertheless, the outcome was an unusual “captive State Funeral”- a new lesson to learn from Sri Lanka; “We kill you & then bury in our own style.” With what we hear and saw at the funeral, the role played by the church (in particular, the Parish Priest) is a matter of concern. This is very unusual for the church, which has maintained a good record of their integrity. Who is benefited from such an intervention of the Church? A story of a family member giving an affidavit cannot justify a state capture of a funeral of this nature. The support of the Parish Priest or a church does not erase an immoral and impious conduct.
Intolerance & Over Stepping Powers to Stifle Dissent
The law enforcement functions in Sri Lanka have been so politicized that any unlawful action of the government can easily be justified with impunity. The other intricacy is the law enforcement has now been mixed with military action, just like in Syria, Egypt and Libya. This combination is certainly not conducive to a democracy which recognizes a clear distinction between military action and police action. The continuous emergency situation and counter terrorist measures taken by successive governments have created a different psyche among the law enforcement officers. This I believe can be addressed. However, the abuse of authority by political masters under the cover of such emergency situations cannot be overcome so easily – because they believe that they have “majority power”. And they have a vested interest.
Perhaps, the government would attempt to justify the use of firearms due to possible political instability that can be created in the strikes and the wave of protests on the Pension Bill. This is not acceptable in a democracy. According to the UN Principles on use of firearms, “exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.”
According to the UN Basic Principles, governments are obliged to ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is treated as a criminal offence under the law. The Basic Principles also note that the government and law enforcement agencies must ensure that superior officers be held responsible if they know, or should have known, that law enforcement officials under their command are resorting to unlawful use of force and firearms and they did not take all measures in their power to prevent, suppress or report such use.
The law on illegal orders and right to disregard unlawful orders are very clear in national and international law. Sri Lankans cannot forget the famous Kataragama Beauty Queen murder case (Wijesuriya v. Queen 77 NLR 25), where the Court of Criminal Appeal of Sri Lanka held that it is no defence to plead “superior order” in committing a murder. In that case, the army officer shot and killed the detainee on the orders of the superior officer. Any law enforcement officer knows that it is illegal to kill a detainee. As decided in this case, under section 100 of the Army Act every person subject to military law is required to obey only lawful commands (and not unlawful orders). This legal position is equally applicable to the police as well. International criminal law is no different. Let me reproduce the UN Basic Principle 26: “ Obedience to superior orders shall be no defence if law enforcement officials knew that an order to use force and firearms resulting in the death or serious injury of a person was manifestly unlawful and had a reasonable opportunity to refuse to follow it. In any case, responsibility also rests on the superiors who gave the unlawful orders.”
One can argue that the motive of the officer who fired at the crowd is not very clear. However, the motive of those who gave orders cannot be so unclear. Judging from the events leading to the killing and the past conduct of the government, one can easily conclude that it was basically to control public dissent. The public (including the trade unions and workers) have a duty to express their views by holding protest rallies or any mode of expression. Before winding up this article, I wish to advert to a clear constitutional principle that is relevant here. The state does not have the authority to make criminal peaceful expression of unpopular views and to deal with protestors like criminals.
Let me conclude by quoting Justice Brandeis (Whitney v. California) on the constitutional importance of freedom of speech and expression:
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They value liberty to both as an end and as a means … they believe that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and the spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile… that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that the public discussion is a political duty and that this should be a fundamental principle…. “ .
I sincerely hope that our leaders and the readers will read and re-read the following paragraph of the same judgment of this great judge, Justice Brandeis:
“Those who won our independence were not cowards. They did not fear political changes….. Fear of serious injury cannot justify suppression of free speech.”
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Checkmate, Rajapakse! The UN Report, Militarism and Public Religion in Sri Lanka
|
Original image from TNL
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayvam
Many things in the international arena came together to cast a shadow on the second anniversary celebrations of the Sri Lanka Government’s victory over the LTTE, after three decades of war on May 19, 2011. The United Nations had recently released a semi-official report on alleged war crimes which implicated both parties to the war and laid the groundwork for future action against the Government of Sri Lanka and what remains of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In neighhouring Tamil Nadu, India, the newly elected Chief Minister Jayalalitha Jeyaram urged Delhi for a war crimes trial of Mahinda Rajapakse, president of Sri Lanka, and subsequently passed a special resolution calling for economic sanctions against the regime.
In the Hague, the International Criminal Court had issued arrest warrants on Libyan leader Gaddafi and his son for crimes against humanity. Both, whom the emergent Rajapakse dynasty in Lanka had been cultivating, had their assets frozen. Meanwhile, protests were escalating in-country due to the spiraling cost of living and a sense that the peace dividend has been denied the working-classes who most deserved it, signaling the waning of the southern polity’s extended honeymoon with the Rajapakse regime for ending the war with the LTTE. The shooting to death of a protesting worker in the Katunayaka Free Trade Zone by the police, drawing legitimacy from the Emergency Regulation still in force, solidified public disaffection. The killing and the subsequent army take-over of the FRZ underlined the erosion of democratic space through ongoing militiarization.
Checkmate in chess and other Chaturanga board game occurs when one player’s king is threatened with capture (check ) , or under direct attack: The player who is checkmated loses the game. If a king is under attack but the threat can be met, then the king is said to be in ‘check’, but is not in checkmate. If a player is not in check but has no legal move (that is, every possible move would put him in check), the result of the game is stalemate and the game ends in a draw but is effectively a loss for the stalemated player. In practice, most players resign an inevitably lost game before being checkmated since it is considered bad etiquette to continue playing in a completely hopeless position.
The semi official UN report had put the President of Sri Lanka comprehensively in ‘check’. To survive he will need to transform his game. Although a stalemate exists at this time the writing is on the wall and the direction of the game clear. The UN report has also put some members of the ruling Rajapakse family, US citizens subject to US jurisdiction, in ‘checkmate’. The groundwork for further action including for command responsibility against the regime is in place and this fact has not been lost on the professor of law who is the Foreign Minister.
Command Responsibility, established in the Hague and the Geneva Conventions, pertains to accountability in war crimes. It establishes that though soldiers of the armed forces and paramilitary units are directly responsible for the war crimes committed first-hand, the military officials who ordered and supervised these acts are also guilty, along with the head of state who controlled the military units. The Government of Sri Lanka has strenuously avoided the UN Secretary General’s repeated requests for a response to the semi-official UN report. Perjury may become an issue later.
In the aftermath of the semi-official UN report, Foreign Minister G.L Peries rushed off to New Delhi for support. While there, he was read the Riot Act and required to sign a statement that called for the repeal of Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Meanwhile the United States and European Union assured the government that ‘regime change’ was not on the agenda at this time (but perhaps later, depending on how the Rajapakse regime’s game evolves). Right now the Western powers have their hands full with the Arab Spring, but the Tamil diaspora and international civil society seem focused and determined that justice be done at war’s end in Sri Lanka. GoSL has also asked or time and space for reconciliation – but it will need to be genuine. Official ‘truths’ generated by State propaganda machines are now being challenged by non-official truths, presented by ordinary people and easily disseminated through the new media technologies, as amply demonstrated by the Arab Spring.
In short, the wheel of international justice, like the wheel of samsara, turns slowly but surely. The protests by university dons and students against government policies, low wages and the militarization of higher education, as well as protests by women workers in the Free Trade Zones against a private sector pension scheme, herald the gathering storm. While the government claims it cannot afford to pay university dons a decent wage, it has spent billions on vainglorious military celebrations and kitsch Vesak festivities that constitute a distortion of the doctrine, spirit and practice of Buddhism, with its core values of non violence, tolerance and simplicity. It is now evident to the citizenry that the long awaited peace dividend of post-war economic growth has been gobbled up by the ruling political elite, and the jambo Cabinet of Ministers while the laboring masses are still footing the bill for the excesses of Rajapakse’s egoism, manifest in funds spent on foreign public relations companies and extravaganzas like the Commonwealth Games bid, SAARC beach games in Hambantoa, 3 new international cricket stadiums, Bollywood awards nights, state subsidized military businesses and a swollen and costly military that provides illusory comfort in the face of the semi-official UN report hanging like the Sword of Democlese over the Rajapakse Triumvirate.
To avoid ‘checkmate’ the regime will need to resolve the root causes of the ethnic conflict and learn to share power with the minorities at the center and in the regions. Enabling or disabling genuine reconciliation, democracy and power-sharing in Lanka will be the litmus test of the international community’s resolve. The statement signed in New Delhi called for “genuine reconciliation”, signaling that Delhi was not sold on the “Senate” idea in lieu of genuine devolution of power to the north and east. Minimally, the already existing articles for devolution of power to the provinces need to be implemented in the north and east within the next six months. Currently military rule and occupation continues unabated and local governance is effectively in the hands of the military
Singapore, Sri Lanka and Minority Question
Mr. Tharman Shanmugratnam, of Ceylon Tamil immigrant descent was appointed Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore in May 2011 by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, although 78% of the population is ethnic Chinese and the South Asian, largely Tamil, population is less than 9%. Independent Singapore’s first Foreign Minister was also a Ceylon Tamil. Singapore’s first PM, Lee Kuan Yew, who had great respect for Rajaratnam (after whom the Rajaratnam School of International Studies is named) recently dismissed the Rajapakse government in Sri Lanka as racist.
Sri Lanka has never had a President or Prime Minister from a minority community. Presently, the United States has a president from the African American community, and India a prime minister from the Sikh minority, which had also waged armed struggle against the Indian state.
If President Rajapakse and Professor G.L Peries are serious about sharing power at the center they should request current Prime Minister D.M Jayaratne to resign and replace him with a citizen from a minority community, preferably a Tamil because it is this community that has suffered the most due to state discrimination, the root cause of the war. The new PM would need to be a person of integrity, intellect and moral stature. Needless to say this would rule out the Tamil warlords morphed into stooges who currently support the regime. The current Prime Minister, D.M Jayaratne, has demonstrated that he is not of the requisite caliber for this office in a country recovering from political and cultural conflict and deeply in need of reconciliation. For instance, school children in Jaffna were forced to sing the national anthem in Sinhala in his presence on December 26, 2010, despite protests, displaying a singular insensitivity to the need for reconciliation and respect for cultural diversity. He also claimed, in Parliament a few months ago, that there were LTTE camps in India in an attempt to justify extending the Emergency Regulations, but was corrected by the Indian Government: while at an International Women’s Day event in March this year he claimed that there was no discrimination against women in any sphere in Sri Lanka – even though women have less than 5 percent representation in government. It is indeed time that women and minority communities in the country were enabled to share power at the center as well as govern themselves in the provinces where they are the majority linguistic community.
Of Guns and Robes: Securing and Salving a Conscience?
On the second anniversary of the defeat of the LTTE, in May 2011, rather than declaring a national reconciliation month, a War Heroes or Ranaviru month was declared by the regime. The second anniversary was also channelized into the celebration of Vesak and the Sambuddhathva Jayanthi, with billions spent on construction of a Buddhist Information Center. The President engaged himself in a merry-go-round of public religious activity. He inaugurated various religious projects such as the Buddhist Museum in Kandy, visiting the Mahanayakes of the Asgiriya and Malwatte Chapters, and gave alms to 500 monks at Gangaramaya temple in Colombo. The Vesak celebrations and decorations organized by the army, navy and air force is a sign of the militarization of public religion in Lanka. Buddhism seems increasingly in need of rescue from its self-appointed guardians - the Rajapakse regime.
Professor Gananth Obeysekere, one of Sri Lanka’s foremost scholars of Buddhism and Comparative Religion, has written about the Conscience of Duttugamunu who (like Emperor Asoka), being troubled after the killing of the Tamil king Elara, felt compelled to make amends and atone for the violence and suffering. But the public religious rituals that President Rajapakse indulged in seemed to reflect a still troubled conscious, more akin to that of Macbeth. For while LTTE terrorism has been wiped out, state terrorism continues in many forms, given immunity by the ER and the PTA. The extravagant, grandiose and kitsch celebrations this May lacked a sense of perspective and the true spirit and practice of Buddhism – ahimsa or non-violence, annicha (impermanence – including of power) and simplicity. The official Vesak celebrations, with the stamp of the armed forces seem to characterize a “political religion”, mobilized for the personal political gain of a ruler who wishes to project himself as a God King for having “defeated terrorism in the country”.
Religion has always been used and abused by nationalists and self-declared liberators of the ‘wretched of the earth’, in ways often contrary to the spirit and practice of their doctrines. Nowhere is this fact more evident than in Sri Lanka where the Buddhist principles of Ahimsa, Metta and Karuna has been twisted, commercialized, vulgarized and marketed beyond recognition by official public and politico-religious authorities and nationalists – also manifest in the building of ever more grandiose stupas and statues, extravagant Bodhi and pahan pujas to celebrate war victory, rather than considering the victims of violence and meditating on Samsara. As Osama bin Laden used Islam to promote violence, Mahinda Rajapakse uses Buddhism to legitimize continued militarization, occupation and oppression of minorities and the poor. Osama Bin Laden wanted to create a religious state, but the uprisings in the region have challenged both his and the western Orientalist version of Islam. Buddhists in Lanka will need to challenge the current construction, use and abuse of Buddhism by politicians.
Beyond the public religious nationalism of the Rajapakse regime and its celebration of the Sambuddhathva Jayanthi, there is another kinder, gentler and truer history of religion in Lanka where Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians; Sinhalese and Tamils have co-existed and shared gods, and one might add, goddesses for centuries before the birth of the modern state and the invention of ‘religion’ as a form of nationalism in South Asia. Ironically, Sinhala nationalists who have become self-appointed ‘protectors’ and ‘guardians’ with guns to defend the Sri Lanka regime’s version of public religion have actually internalized colonial constructions of “Protestant Buddhism”.
‘The past is another county’
The scholar Dr. Roshan de Silva Wijeyeratne, has suggested that “the legacy of Sinhala Buddhism can be rescued from the forces of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism”. In current national public religious discourse in Sri Lanka there is the suggestion that (Theravada) Buddhism belongs primarily and almost exclusively to the Sinhala people, appointed as guardians of the faith (since Hindusim is today the dominant religion in India and Nepal, the birthplaces of Buddhism). The Mahawamsa, an ancient chronicle subject to various readings and misreading by Sinhala patriots was to be the vehicle of the parochial projection of Rajpakse’s greatness as the protector and promoter of religion. The three new chapters to be added to the Mahawamsa would now have to include the UN report’s statement on “credible allegations of War Crimes’, against which Rajapkse Bros. Inc. has sought to protect itself with hyper-militarization of the country and invented traditions of public religion.
Buddhism, a ‘great world religion’, ’however, cannot be that easily parochialized to serve the interests of political ambitions. Buddhism is transnational and pan-ethnic in character, spirit and practice. It does not belong to Sinhala nationalists or the Rajapakse regime. Indeed it is time that true Buddhists rescue and reclaim the spirit and practice of Buddhism from the nationalist political discourse.
Until the release of the UN report, the Rajapakse ruling family had aspired to be Lanka’s rulers in perpetuity, having awarded themselves carte blanch as a reward for the defeat of the LTTE and buoyed by subsequent victories in presidential, national and local government elections. Hence the speedy and surreptitious removal of Presidential term limits via the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 2010. But these victories were delivered by a public relieved that the war was over and aided by the fact that the opposition United National Party is in tatters due to the lack of internal democracy under Ranil Wickramasinghe who has lost too many elections but refuses to retire. The JVP has emerged as the only opposition party able to challenge the Rajapakse war machine, now increasingly directed at the southern polity.
In the absence of genuine power-sharing and reconciliation with minorities and civil society uneasy lies the head that wears an increasingly hollow crown in Sri Lanka – hence the current excess of militarism and public religion. For,
Within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court, and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and mocking at his pomp,
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deliberative Democracy and the Sri Lankan Parliamentary Committee System
|
Any State policy affects its citizens. All State policies should be designed to benefit citizens and ideally citizen’s perspectives or representations should be included within the principles of a particular policy. Hence, State policies should be designed by State representatives to ultimately benefit citizens and not themselves. This basic and broad understanding of what policies within a state mechanism should achieve is the ‘norm’ in a relationship between State Policy Design and the political rights of its Citizens. Although this is a ideal and is probably not practiced perfectly anywhere in the world, it is something we would like to believe we can achieve in the 21st Century of political thought. This link between citizen consultation and state policy design is non-negotiable, while the method through which it is done could be negotiable. The real problem lies when the very link between citizens and state policy design is severed. When politicians or state officials start to design policies without consulting the people especially on issues concerning voting rights, economic rights, education or political representation it becomes a betrayal of the franchise. Someone could argue that once you have voted in a particular government, whatever policies they determine during their term could be validated through the franchise they have received and if you disagree with them you could just vote them out in the next election. But what if they design a political system through state policy creation in which they cannot be voted out or the state policies they create are so destructive that the country suffers crisis even before the end of a term. I think it’s important that people have a say in the design of state policy for this reason. It’s not enough for you to just cast your vote and let your leaders design State policy to suit you because they may not represent what exactly you want. Hence, you or at least concerned groups of people should be consulted when politicians or state officials design policy. This would be the basic idea behind the necessity for Deliberative Democracy.
There are a number of scholars who have tried to define Deliberative Democracy academically. Combining the thoughts of political theorists Albert Weale, Joshua Cohen and Jane Mansbridge Deliberative Democracy can be defined as a public political procedure in which a deliberative process involving society provides legislation under which society is governed fairly. In such a procedure the perspectives, needs and interests of different socio economic or political groups may be measured and the principles of a particular policy may be decided upon, based on this measurement. Based on the these thoughts it may be assumed that inside a deliberative process the legitimacy of a particular policy is created through a variety of institutionalized processes which are systematically and politically in a political system. But what would be the best manifestation of Deliberative Democracy in state mechanisms? To answer this question, it must first be understood that there are some fundamental thoughts regarding deliberative democracy. Everyone acknowledges that the vote or ‘franchise’ is the ultimate expression of Democracy. But what happens when the vote is over and how do citizens have a say in how they are ruled in between elections? Any Democratic political system evolves methods through which this can be done. Hence, the popular will of the people becomes enshrined within the institutional and procedural aspects of the State. From this perspective on Democracy and indeed Deliberative Democracy, Committee Systems within Parliament perform vital functions for the constitution of popular sovereignty. Such a system, if implemented in a transparent and open manner would allow citizens to assess what the Executive arm of government is doing in their name. A Parliamentary Committee would examine a particular policy in a deeper and more comprehensive manner thus being more constitutive of democratic subjectivity and will. Hence, parliamentary committees are central to the deliberative dimension of democracy. However, it must be said here that they must conform to the principles of deliberation in their own practice.
It is with these reflections on Deliberative Democracy we must look at our own Parliamentary Committee System. Firstly, according to Former Secretary General of Parliament Priyanee Wijesekara in her book Parliamentary Practice in Sri Lanka while a major part of the work of any legislature is done through committees the Sri Lankan Constitution itself does not provide for committees. In fact committees have been established under the Standing Orders and are a result of evolution and not Constitutional design. The general rules applicable to committees can be found in Standing Orders 130 to 130A. The ‘Official’ committee stage of Parliament comes into effect after the Second Reading of a Bill in Parliament. In the Second Reading Members express their views on a particular subject. It encompasses wide ranging discussions on the scope and principles of a bill. Wijesekara states that in the Committee Stage, a bill is considered clause by clause and amendments can be introduced. Standing Orders 37 to 40 deal with this procedure. Hence, the Sri Lankan ‘Parliamentary Committee Stage’ itself does not provide room for any major policy changes but rather amendments to a particular policy. Furthermore, there are two major ‘Committee Tools’ that can be utilized during the when a bill is passing into law through the parliamentary process in Sri Lanka; the Committee of the Whole House and Standing Committees. A Committee of the Whole House is comprises all members of Parliament and can take place while parliament proceedings go on while a Standing Committee can examine a bill clause by clause and report back to Parliament later. A Standing Committee is also a smaller groups of MP’s to whom petitioners or other interested parties may make representations too under Standing Order 49. In relation to both these Committees Wijesekara states that the procedure in a Standing Committee enables more close scrutiny of Bills whereas the Committee of the Whole House enables a speedier disposal of bills. Therefore, in the eyes of Deliberative Democracy Standing Committees would be a good system of public consultation in relation to amending bills. However, the Standing Committee system does have some drawbacks in relation to truly representing a Deliberative Democratic process in Sri Lanka. Firstly, while Standing Committees provide for a wider consultation from interest groups and experts the impact of these inputs would be limited because the Standing Committee is only allowed to edit the technical details of the bill rather than its principles. Secondly, the composition of the Standing Committee would be such that the Government would always have more representation in a Standing Committee and hence be able to override any views in contravention with the Government’s own policy line. Hence, it would important to re examine the Standing Committee system from the standpoint of Deliberative Democracy in the near future. In addition to the Standing Committee System the second most important aspect of the Sri Lankan Committee system in relation to Deliberative Democracy are the Consultative Committees.
There is a Consultative Committees for each separate Ministry of the Cabinet of Ministers and their main function is to keep the work of each ministry under review. Consultative Committees reflect the party composition in Parliament and hence may run the same risk of being partisan to the government during its function. However, the nature of the Consultative Committee is such that they become a convenient forum for MP’s to probe the working and functioning of Government Departments by questioning officials. This allows efficiency and focus for peoples representatives to question the functioning of a particular institution of the State. According to Wijesekara the Consultative Committee System would be the most effective method by which Parliament could scrutinize the activities of the Executive branch of the State. In a way it is an evolutionary step for Deliberative Democracy in Sri Lanka which goes beyond peoples’ participation in policy design and evolves into a method through which the representatives of the people can keep a check on how State Services and Policy is implemented at the institutional level. Other than promoting a Deliberative Democratic Process there are many advantages of utilizing the committee system for parliamentary work. A Committee is smaller and therefore easier to administer. Committees can meet on any day at the convenience of its members and they are not required to follow the hours mentioned in the Standing Orders thus giving Committees a degree of ‘qualitative flexibility’. Committees also leave room for MP’s to function in their personal capacities thus reducing the chances of towing a party line and increasing the possibilities of working on consensus. A Committee can summon experts and other relevant witnesses to aid a more qualitative policy amendment process. Many different committees could function at once while discussing different issues at the same time and not be limited to one matter as practiced in the general assembly.
In all the complexities of these details one thing is clear in relation to Deliberative Democracy and the Sri Lankan Committee System. There must be a political will to consult a wider range of opinion in the policy design, amendment and implementation process in Sri Lanka. The political attitude of the day is to rush through legislation and get things done quicker and faster. This will only be successful if a Government and State have vast resources and advanced technical knowledge on specific policy areas. If this capacity does not exist it is necessary for the government to get the help of independent experts and consult different opinions on a particular issue. What’s important here is ownership and consultation. The basic premise of Deliberative Democracy is that it allows consultation and inclusivity thus giving legitimacy to a policy process. Hence, in the design of State Policy more people will have a stake so that if it does fail or succeed there will be more people to take the blame or revel in success.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perspectives and Commentary on the Leadership Training Programme for University Undergraduates
|
[Author's note: As you are probably aware the leadership training for undergraduates is now well under way in 28 military installations around the country. Although the government has stated that this will be a leadership training program rather than a military training program, it has conceded that the military will be involved in a number of aspects of the program. Students have also been informed that this training is “mandatory” for university entrance, though there now appears to be a great deal of confusion with regards to this provision as Government officials have issued a series of contradicting statements. These decisions have also been challenged by many students, rights groups, student unions, teachers’ unions and academics who have raised a number of concerns about the way in which this program has been conceived and implemented. This issue has also exacerbated a worsening crisis in local universities as the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) are also in the midst of trade union action.
Within a context such as this The YRC is releasing this document in the hopes that it would deepen the debate and further stimulate thinking around this issue. Though the YRC has been concerned and has closely monitored this issue from the beginning we have chosen to release this document now rather than earlier because there is a need to ensure that the issue continues to be discussed and monitored and that it isn’t allowed to fade from the public discourse.
The attached document is divided into 2 segments – the first captures snapshots of opinions shared with the YRC on this training session and its implications for higher education in the country. The 2nd segment is a series of reflection on the issue and raises some questions that have not received as much attention in public discussions on this issue. We are also including a brief overview of the issue and its development below. We look forward to any comments or suggestions that you may have on this. If you are interested in signing up for our mailing list or getting in touch with The Young Researchers’ Collective, Sri Lanka please email us info@theyrc.org]
Perspectives and Commentary on the Leadership Training Programme for University Undergraduates
Even as the first batch of university entrants commenced their university life with the “Leadership and Positive Attitude Development” programme at various army camps across the country, the decision by the Ministry of Higher Education to run a three week course in collaboration with the Defence Ministry did not go unchallenged. The decision has triggered much discussion among university students, parents, academics, employers and others. Student unions have vociferously opposed these moves and a number of students filed fundamental rights petitions challenging the fact that this training is mandatory for university entrance. Although these petitions have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, this issue will have far reaching implications for the administration of higher education in the country.
In this document we have attempted to collate and present snippets from ongoing dialogues that the Collective has been having with people through blogs, social networks and conversations since the leadership training was announced. It highlights diverse opinions about the government’s decision to hold a ‘compulsory’ leadership training for undergraduates in military camps, on the benefit of this type of training and on the process of decision-making and consultation in developing such a programme. In addition the Collective wishes to draw attention to a number of key questions and considerations with regards to the future of higher education in Sri Lanka.
Our analysis consists of two segments; the first is a broad snapshot of the opinions and discussions that were shared with us which we use to contextualize some of the issues surrounding this training programme. The second segment is a series of reflections and questions that we wish to pose in order to deepen the debate and discussion on this issue.
Part I: Conversation Snapshots
1. On the Training Programme being “compulsory”
The compulsory nature of the training programme has raised a fair amount of concern. Students and parents fear that if students don’t turn up for the training they may be forced to forego their university placement. In the view of one teacher, “parents may have severe reservations about sending their children (particularly their daughters) to a military facility, and this may result in students losing the opportunity for a university education, or worse, students deciding to pursue the option of studying in a much vilified “foreign/private university”.
Students have filed fundamental rights petitions in this regard, contesting the compulsory training as they were not informed of this requirement when they applied to university nearly a year ago. “Regarding the government’s decision to conduct training for future undergraduates in military camps, my initial response was disbelief! If the news about such a programme was not enough, added to that is the fact that it is COMPULSORY for university entrance. Unfortunately for those who have no other option, whether they are for or against it, they must make themselves go”. (Student, Colombo)
2. The choice of venue to host the training programme
There is general consensus that leadership training is essential for university students, but views differ on the choice of venue. “Depends on the construction of the programme; overall, I guess it may benefit the participants by improving their team working skill” (Analyst, Colombo)
A management consultant mentioned about the use of theories in business strategy that have their roots in military strategies“…. I’m sure the students will benefit, do u ever think MR govt will do something that the masses in SL will not benefit from? Compulsory military training is a practice in many other countries, why can’t we apply compulsory residential leadership training (not military training)? Many survival strategies (that gets extended to business and even the social sector) were formulated in War / by the Military (am sure you know of Sun Tzu)…, In fact I hope this will help discipline a lot of the Sri Lankan youth…, as against being wishful thinkers wanting to change the country only”.
“If you really want to give them leadership training why do you have to hold that in army camps? Why not in other institutions which are much more transparent? This programme is to brainwash students to suit the needs of the government. Parents should stand against this kind of nonsensical projects of the government”. (Senior Lecturer)
Questions were also raised as to why this could not have been incorporated within the existing university orientation programmes which could save money and contribute towards building greater cohesiveness among students. According to a lecturer from a leading university, “Universities already try to provide these skills in whatever way possible. Why not tap into these existing structures instead of creating another one from scratch? Also when expertise on the above skills is available at universities, why turn to another source? If the existent structure and content of the courses are inadequate (and ‘unmarketable’, as the govt. seems to love saying), then wouldn’t the alternative be to solve those issues and harness the skills of the ELT units and IT experts in doing so?”
Suggestions were also made for alternate methods of training using religious teachings and corporate trainers. “I don’t agree that there should be programmes conducted in the military camps. But students will benefit from a different type of programme. I think leadership training which has been inclusively designed would be something very useful for university students. They should be conducted in different parts of the country allowing the students to also experience the life and culture in these places to broaden their views”. (Freelance Consultant, Colombo)
Another concern that was raised is the impact this might have on post-war reconciliation efforts, especially when students from various ethnic groups participate in this training in army camps. “I don’t see after 3 decades of war, and now finally being in a post war state of ‘supposed’ reconciliation period, how it could be in any way conducive for a student to obtain any sort of training at a military camp. Furthermore, the setting alone is highly insensitive to so many, who have only known and experienced the military at it’s most brutal, and are yet to return to a state of complete normalcy” (Activist, Colombo).
Recovering from a prolonged war, some felt this mandatory leadership training held in military camps was a step in the process of militarization. A lecturer from the Central Province had this to say, “Given that the war has been concluded, the government’s persistent efforts at strengthening the army and increasing its numbers raises the question as to why continued militarization is necessary and / or allowed. The decision to hold compulsory leadership training for undergraduates in military camps seems like quite an extreme step and hints at how militarization of the society is seeping into education and the youth as well (in the guise of something like leadership training).”
Some also felt this was a political move by the government to control the JVP and their political activities within the universities. A researcher from Galle stated that, “This is a strategy to disconnect the relationship between students and the JVP, who are most connected to the students, when they enter University. It is a long term project which helps this type of regime to be in power without any disturbance. Through this programs student will be socialized before they meet JVPers”.
“I think it’s a devious scheme to brainwash students as part of their political agenda. To me it seems that the government is taking a leaf out of the books of the JVP in the 70s and 80s and the LTTE”.
(Senior Lecturer)
3. Content of the Training
Responses from the corporate world highlighted the need for suitable training that equipped undergraduates with important soft skills necessary for professionals. A management consultant who is an arts graduate stated that “most of my colleagues are still without jobs. Poor English language knowledge / lack of leadership, soft skills are the primary reasons I see for this situation. This residential workshop would be a good starting point for this….. It is better if the residential trainings were held in a friendlier atmosphere”.
“… I have seen graduates struggle to establish themselves in work places because they are not taught the most simple things in life like, close you mouth when biting food. Never slurp your tea and so on. I hope this basic training will break the barriers between the rich and the poor mentality, while telling students that life is not limited to the University. There is a whole world that they need to explore and going on the road and behaving like mad hatters is not worth it. They need to be taught how to wear a shirt or a dress in matching colours and a session or two on personnel hygiene. Such as using a deodorant and how to apply a bit of make up are basic necessities in life. All these University students have access to internet and mobiles, therefore taking them one step further won’t do any harm”. (Journalist, Colombo)
A Muslim Father said, “we don’t know the course contents. Nor do we know if the course takes into account cultural sensitivities”.
An undergraduate argued that leadership training is a continuous process and not something that can be fitted into a timetable alone, the student stated, “Whether students will benefit from this programme will depend entirely on how the programme is conducted for those three weeks, which by the way I personally fail to see as a time frame which would be effective. i.e: leadership training and developing a positive mentality are long-term goals which need specific care and also a specific framework. These can never be fitted into a time-table of training, but can only be learnt in the face of situation, from adults and from being in the environment/atmosphere relevant to the next four years of a university hopeful”.
4. Public engagement and consultation
Respondents were in agreement on the need for proper consultation with parties concerned before implementing such a training programme. “There has been no discussion with the stakeholders; teachers, parents, and the students themselves”. (Business Manager)
“Yes they (students) should have been consulted. It leaves them with very little choice, but to attend the programme, when left with such very little time to oppose the decision. Students could have even made alternate plans if attending a state university as in the case wasn’t an option”. (State University Graduate)
The education system in Sri Lanka has seen ad –hoc changes being made with the change of regimes in the past. Some were of the opinion that this is a further extension of this non-consultative process, with little foresight as to its impact on students.
“Generally, in Sri Lanka, state authorities do not, in the least, take into consideration the views and opinions of parents or students on these matters. It’s a top-down system where the impact of policy decisions on students and their parents are not taken into consideration (as evident in several recent examples from secondary and tertiary education – the frequent changing of O/L and A/L syllabi, the blunders in preparing the marking final examinations etc.) This instance is not very different from other such decisions. However, this issue has managed to get some public attention and debate due to the participation of the military and the implications it can/may/could have with regard to the sense of security, identity etc of the different ethnic groups in the country”. (Lecturer, Central Province)
Part II: Reflections by the Collective
In addition to presenting some of the opinions held by the general public, the Collective believes that there are a number of larger issues that should also be raised with regards to the leadership training of undergraduates in military camps.
1. Like many of the respondents, senior government officials have also opined that undergraduates must be trained in soft-skills and etiquette in order to make them more marketable. This is buttressed by another impression of undergraduates as unemployed youth engaging in protests and disruptive campaigns. The solution that has been mooted is to instil discipline in students through this training in order to ensure that they do not engage in protests and other disruptive campaigns. Building a mandatory training programme for undergraduates on the assumption that military style training will solve these issues is akin to using a band aid to treat a cancer. The problems of education and employment are structural and solutions to these problems should be carefully considered and thoughtfully implemented. In this regard we are extremely apprehensive about the lack of transparency, consultation and haste with which this programme has been put together and foisted on students as a mandatory requirement to enter university.
2. It is also worth asking ourselves about the role that graduates are expected to perform in a work environment. What is the role of a graduate in the workplace? What kind of leadership qualities are they expected to show? Without a broad discussion on questions such as this, the value of creating “marketable” graduates through this programme appears to be rather unclear.
3. It is also worth questioning the model of leadership that has dominated these discussions. Why was this particular model of leadership adopted as the best available model of leadership building for undergraduates? Why is the military seen as the best available model for developing the correct skill set required of “marketable” university students?
4. While there will be a number of students who look forward to this training, there will also be a number of students who are uncomfortable with participating in a program conducted in a military camp. It is safe to assume therefore that there will be students attending this training with fear and reservations but due to lack of choice in the matter. For many students who have worked so hard to get into university in the hope that it would increase their chances of employment, there is serious fear that raising their voices about any of these issues would seriously jeopardize their university placement. While this may be an agreeable state of affairs for some, we strongly believe that this should not be the foundation on which a period of study and critical thinking is built.
5. The conditions of the camps and student responses have been documented in several news reports and serious concern has been raised by groups such as the Inter University Student Federation about the safety of students. Similarly the information on the content of the programme that is now emerging in the media is also worth questioning. Who decided on the content? Who was consulted? How were these decisions made? Why is the content not publicly available? What are the students taught about the relationship between this content and their university education? It is not surprising that the lack of transparency in making these decisions has raised serious suspicions that the leadership training is being used as a means of consolidating the power of the State. Nevertheless authorities appear to be very pleased with their progress, despite public disapproval and have voiced their desire to extend the training to 3 months and also design a similar training for school principals.
6. The leadership training for students in military camps is for the duration of three weeks. While the choice of army camps as the venue for such training has raised some legitimate concerns, students will eventually return to their universities and spend the next three or four years in their respective campuses. Thus, the onus is again on the universities to provide the environment for learning and to produce graduates who will contribute to society.
7. The way in which this training for undergraduates has been implemented also raises larger questions as to whether there should be civic involvement in policy making. This programme was implemented without much public discussion or consultation of different groups such as student unions, university teachers, parents or potential students. When policies such as this are implemented it may be useful to consider broadening decision-making discussions. We strongly believe that civic involvement in decision making and policy is an issue that requires further discussion and serious exploration as a means of mitigating the implementation of ad-hoc or ill-conceived projects or programmes.
Ironically the leadership training programme coincides with the strike being staged by university academics led by FUTA demanding proper salaries for academics. The challenges pertaining to university education in Sri Lanka are complex. It is good that it has finally received some public attention. However, it is important to ensure that this catalyzes into a serious attempt to deal with the core problems that have plagued our universities and are severely hampering the capacity of Sri Lankan graduates to contribute to the production of knowledge. The failure to do so will only worsen the crisis faced by our universities.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overseeing the Farm
|
Planning a visit home is not easy
for a Tamil returning to Jaffna. First,
he needs to fly into the international
airport at Katunayake and pass
through customs like any traveler.
He may be asked to step into
a back room, to answer why
he carries the Economist
in hand luggage, or stickers
from the World Wildlife campaign
to save the tiger, given that
such animals have not been spotted
on the island in thousands of years,
if indeed they ever sauntered through
the wild grass or paddy fields.
He may be grilled about
family members in Wellawatte,
and what career he pursues
in the Scarborough, Ontario refuge
where wild and liberal creatures found
a home before conservatives took
over in Ottawa; he may be whisked
through secondary, and into a waiting
vehicle for a fast ride to the upstairs room
at CID headquarters where he will meet
his guide, his helper, who will say,
come friend, the campaign is lost,
give me a few names of laggards,
dreamers still in the foreign networks.
We must root out the germ.
Human beings have almost
eradicated polio, why not this
virulent, regional strain called
Eelam? Unfortunate, the cricketer
who failed a dope test,
and the others charged
with fixing matches, and
the Tamil policemen, who trained
in the hot sun for weeks to march
in the Victory parade for Eelam War IV,
told they cannot, on orders
of the President’s security detail.
What the hell, machan,
in paradise only Man is vile, said
the preacher who visited the island
in ancient times. Now we are renewed,
climate savvy, the A-9 Highway
is open to tourists beyond
Elephant Pass, but not yet, without
permission, to returning Tamils,
Hambantota boasts a deep water
port, and all our teenagers will
receive mandatory training
in military arts, which should help
them run animal farms in the far North.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
The state of tomfoolery: 2018 Comonwealth Games in Hambantota
|
A prominent English newspaper recently reported that the government has paid US$ 2.4 million to a British PR firm to promote its candidacy to host the 2018 Comonwealth Games in Hambanthota. This news item would definitely raise the eye brows of many Sri Lankans who constantly get beaten by the scourge of cost of living. For those who are not aware of international currency rates; 2.4 million US dollars means 264 million Rupees. The minimum salary of a state sector worker in Sri Lanka is Rs. 11000. The average monthly income of a middle class family in Sri Lanka is Rs. 20,000. But, the average monthly expenditure of an ordinary middle class family is way higher than that. As we all know, almost every one of us can feel the excessive pressure, generated by the soaring cost of living. Everyone in this country, including the government of Sri Lanka, has adopted a “hand to mouth” policy when it comes to the ‘income’ and ‘expenditure’. In this context; the government has paid 264 million rupees to a British PR firm in order to promote its bid to host Commonwealth Games in HAMBANTHOTA.
It is not a hidden fact that the government is engaged in a secret love affair with British PR firms over the past several months. The British PR company named “Bell Potinger” was its most trusted partner when it comes to international relations with United Kingdom and European Union. Millions and billions of tax payers’ money has been paid for this PR firm in order to enhance Sri Lankan government’s image and strengthen its relationship with aforesaid countries. In other words, the Foreign Ministry and this particular PR firm exchanged their duties with pleasure and from there onwards Foreign Ministry was operated as a PR firm and this company was harnessed with the duties of Foreign Ministry.
But unfortunately, this PR firm could not provide desired results. They were not able to strengthen the relationships and interactions between the government and EU parliamentarians and on many occasions Sri Lanka was bruised and battered by the European Union. GSP Plus tax concession was removed and all the secret missions which the government carried out in order to get it restored were failed. President Mahinda Rajapakshe’s Oxford visit was another fiasco which ended up with nothing but humour. At the same time, the relationships between Sri Lanka and European Union countries were strained due to many reasons. But ‘Bell Potinger’, the company which was tasked to make these ruptures fixed, did not come out with any good results. So, quite obviously, all the money which was spent on this company was an utter waste.
There are some allegations that a powerful UPFA MP, who represents Southern Province, is the hidden hand behind all these deals with British PR companies. The notorious politician, who’s closely linked with the top leaders of the government, is considered as the person who is responsible for the staggering losses generated by the budget air line ‘Mihin Lanka’. But, as we all know, this sort of huge deals cannot be taken place without the endorsement of the very top people in the government. Therefore, none of them can wash their hands off and claim “I am clean”.
This, I believe, lays the foundation to discuss about the ‘unprecedented’ international policies carried out by the present government. These policies have already created a diplomatic muddle and Sri Lanka is still struggling to come out of it. These inefficacious PR deals are merely a small part of this huge muddle. This kind of deals finally produces nothing but a heavy damage to the exchequer. The exchequer, on the other hand, is not made of cash that has been harvested from trees in Medamulana. It belongs to the poor and innocent tax payers in the country and the government is answerable to the public about the way this money is being spent.In this context; we, as citizens, can ask some important questions from the government. Can a government develop its international relations by wasting millions of tax payers’ money in an imprudent manner? Is this the way they expect to implement Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in the future?
Policies and strategies related to external affairs of a country are nothing but a sheer reflection of its internal policies. If a country has poor internal policies within its own territory it is impossible to expect better external policies or strategies in the international domain. This reality is common to Sri Lanka as well. No one can deny the fact that Sri Lanka was trapped in a diplomatic muddle over the past 36 months and it caused a heavy damage to the country in many ways. They might say that Sri Lanka was ill-treated in International domain since President Rajapakse refused to follow the advices and instructions given by the international community, during the battle against Tamil Tigers. This is partly true. But beyond this, the government was not able to handle the delicate diplomatic issues about Sri Lanka in the international domain plus the leaders of the government were happily lost in political rhetoric. They did not worry about the factor called “International Community”. And, that is why the problems got deteriorated and the government was trapped in many troubles. ‘Way-out’ diplomatic policies and friends did not help President Rajapakse to get rid of this situation. That’s how they lost the support of many influential elements in the international community. No one can put each and every fault, in the account named ” War Against Terrorism”.
It is apparent that the government is eager to host the Commonwealth Games in Hambanthota as an international level image building programme about post-war Sri Lanka. (Regardless of large scale money deals connected to it) This is not the first image building campaign of that caliber. When they hosted IIFA – the Indian Film Festival last year, they came up with the same slogans about “image building” and “tourism”. But what was the outcome? IIFA ended up as another Tamasha which caused a huge loss to the country’s economy. There are many allegations about several dirty money deals linked to Cricket World Cup 2011 in which Sri Lanka took part as a co-host nation. No investigation has been made into these allegations so far. Therefore, we are not permitted by the history to forget this past about the “International Level Image Building Programmes” carried out by the government in recent times. On the other hand, there is a big question mark about the efficacy and productivity of those large scale development projects which took place in Hambanthota such as “Maagampura Harbour”. Therefore, it gives a clear-cut answer about the ‘innocence’ of such deals.
However, the common public must be aware of these developments. Because, at the end of the day, they will have to pay the price for everything from their wallets. In simple words, people are the victims of this jugglery; not the politicians.If the people are happy to be victimized in this manner, that is the most tragic part of the entire story.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
When allegations become evidence
|
Media and advocacy groups make mistakes. It’s true. The reason for the errors can vary from simple human error, time constraints resulting in insufficient research to subtle manipulation of facts and wording to push an agenda.
Once a mistake has been pointed out, most reputable organisations will publish an acknowledgement along with the correction. Less reputable organisations may ignore the error or correct the error without any acknowledgement. How organisations deal with errors are a great indicator of the quality of the publication.
The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, appointed an advisory panel to report on the final stages of Sri Lanka’s separatist war. The Darusman report was published in April and human rights advocacy groups, including Amnesty International, International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch, initiated a controversial media campaign accusing Sri Lanka of war crimes.
The most glaring error propagated by this media campaign is the assertion that there was “credible evidence” of crimes. There was not. The Darusman report states clearly that it found “credible allegations” of crimes. Simply, evidence is required to prove an allegation to be true. Without evidence, an allegation can not be considered to be fact. 1 2
There are only two instances of the phrase “credible evidence” in the report, namely:
“…(With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study)).
…
In the case of both war crimes and crimes against humanity, credible evidence points to the responsibility of superiors for their subordinates’ actions.” 3
In the first instance the report states ‘it did not find credible evidence”. In the second instance, the report finds “credible evidence” that superiors are responsible for the actions of subordinates.
Amnesty International has substituted “credible allegations” with “credible evidence” when quoting the Darusman Report:
“A report submitted to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 12 April 2011 by the Panel of Experts he appointed to advise him on accountability issues in Sri Lanka ‘found credible evidence, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed by both the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”’4
The actual report states, “found credible allegations, which if proven …” 5. The official response from Amnesty International is:
“Thank you for your message regarding Amnesty International’s public statement on Sri Lanka of 17 May. The mistake you highlight was a typographical error on our part which we have now corrected. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
It has not been corrected yet (04/06/2011).
In CrisisWatch N°93, the International Crisis Group (ICG) has substituted the phrase “credible allegations” with “credible evidence”6 7. The International Crisis Group has not replied with an official response. Though the first instance of this error remains on the ICG website, the second has been corrected.
A number of prominent media organisations like ABC (Australia), AFP, BBC, Channel 4, Reuters and even Groundviews have propagated the aforementioned error.8 Groundviews corrected the error immediately after becoming aware of it.
Media and advocacy groups will continue to make errors. We all have to accept it. Knowing this simple fact, readers need to be more critical when consuming news. The media reaction to the Darusman report is a great example of where a small but pertinent error is introduced in press releases by advocacy groups and then those errors are broadcast far and wide by the media. With the advent of the Internet these factual errors can not be completely corrected and will continue to misinform readers well into the future. It is critical for the media and advocacy groups not to succumb to the 24 hour news cycle and ensure factual correctness, not deadlines, determine the content of the news.
Endnotes
1 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2387
2 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671
3 http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
4 http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/7f414896-e15c-4d24-9d0a-98fe8b418892/asa370052011en.pdf
5 http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
6 http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/CrisisWatch/2011/cw93.ashx
7 http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/2011/crisiswatch-93.aspx
8 http://jayasolutions.com/slreport/sl-Darusman-report-media-reaction.html
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
History is Irreversible – A ‘Postmortem’ on the Seminar, “Defeating Terrorism: Sri Lankan Experience”
|
The three day long seminar titled “Defeating Terrorism: Sri Lankan Experience” conducted by the SL Army and Ministry of Defence was concluded recently. During the event, top level military and civil officers addressed the international delegates and shared their experiences with regard to ‘defeating terrorism”. However, there are many views, opinions, doubts and speculations about the outcome of this seminar. Hopefully, the wheeling of time will provide satisfactory answers to many of these questions.
Apart from this, I would like to point out another visible issue that prevailed throughout the seminar, which strikes me as pertinent. All the speakers who addressed this event prevented themselves from uttering one significant name. That particular name was ‘unmentioned’ and ‘unmentionable,’ and it was of course “Former Army Commander Former General Sarath Fonseka”. As we all know, Fonseka was responsible for engineering the military victory by using his knowledge, skills and combat experiences. Soon after the war, he was praised and honoured as the ‘Best Army Commander in the world’ and was elevated to the rank of a “Four Star General’. Fonseka was the first serving ‘General’ in the history of the Sri Lankan Army.
The decision to remove his name from the seminar is quite apparently a political decision. There is no doubt about that. Fonseka, who is imprisoned in Welikada and facing a few trials in courts, was victimized because of his politics. It is an undeniable fact that Sarath Fonseka is a political prisoner. As a result of this political process Sarath Fonseka lost his military rank, uniform, medals, pension etc. His name was taken out from plaques and slates. The removal of his name from this seminar is merely another step in the very same process.
As a person who practices democracy and as a person who admires democracy, I personally have some serious doubts and fears about Sarath Fonseka’s encroachment to politics. Under any condition, history doesn’t permit us to trust military leaders when it comes to politics. Therefore, ‘General’ Sarath Fonseka also falls into the same category. Some of the remarks he made as a presidential candidate and some allegations that were leveled against him during his tenure as the Army Commander would affirm this prejudgment (I am pretty sure the Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickramasinghe was very much aware of this during the election campaign.) But this doesn’t point out that Fonseka should be avenged in an imprudent and cavalier manner. The government and even the UNP (someday) should confront him ‘politically’ within the political domain, without playing foolish games that could possibly lead to disastrous repercussions.
In spite of all these matters, Sarath Fonseka’s contribution towards the military victory is irrefutable. This particular seminar, which was organized by the Army in order the counter the allegations that have risen in the international domain, was a great opportunity to muster the support of international community around Sri Lanka. But that cannot be gained by political decisions that are being taken to fulfill petty political desires. International support should be gained by prudence, responsibility, respectability and accountability. If the government has faith on these four factors, it is not so difficult to confront those challenges successfully and effectively. But unfortunately, these incidents expose their poor political foresight, particularly when it comes to delicate and important issues.
The international community is well aware of the way President Rajapakse and his brothers handled Sarath Fonseka’s matter. They are well aware of his incarceration, trials and all the other ill-treatment. Those types of things cannot be hidden from the world. Quite obviously, the international delegates who took part in this seminar must have noticed the removal of Sarath Fonsekha’s name from a phase of history in which he played an integral and essential role. It does not augur well for the government, especially in terms of gathering support. At the same time, we should not forget the fact that some powerful nations purposefully boycotted this event in order to express their objection towards the government’s approach on accountability issues. This sort of foolishness would affirm their convictions.
Just as they omitted Sarath Fonseka from their speeches, is it not possible that they could hide crucial incidents that were alleged to have taken place during the final stages of the war? Is it not possible for the government to ‘fix’ history for their benefit? Does this behaviour pave the way for an honest and frank dialogue between and the government and the international community? Is this a true ‘sharing’? Isn’t this seminar another time buying exercise in which they boast about themselves and exaggerate things while hiding the truth? These questions could come up in the minds of those delegates who came down to Sri Lanka to participate in this event, representing their own nations. They are the eyes and ears of their nations on this matter and therefore, undoubtedly, they will take this message to the world. In other words, they might lose their faith on the entire event and take it as a mere political event that is being carried out to fool the international community. Who will be the fools at the end?
Therefore, I believe, the Rajapaksa regime should find correct strategies to confront the global challenges it has to face at this very moment. These strategies should not be made of emotions, but intelligence. Ultimately, emotional political decisions would not provide desired results and all their efforts would become an utter waste of time. The government, especially President Mahinda Rajapakshe and his brother Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakshe, should realize this and revise their approach on former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka. Without achieving inter-personal reconciliation, they cannot guide the nation towards inter-racial reconciliation. Inter-personal reconciliation (between the Rajapakas and their political rivals) will lay a robust foundation for national reconciliation. And on the other hand, it will substantiate the fact that the Rajapaksa regime is ready for a sustainable reconciliation process and hence the international community will have to support them.
But, as we all know, these strategies will not be materialized in reality since the ‘very top people’ of the government are so much confined to party politics and personal gains and interests. They are not ready to come out of that ‘box’ and confront the challenges in a prudent manner. So the problems and troubles they have to face on a daily basis will deteriorate and worsen. At the end of the day, all their methods and strategies will provide no results and eventually the citizenry will also have to pay the price. That is the most tragic ‘repercussion’ we all will receive one day.
Similar Posts:
|
|
|
Change Language
Categorized Archive
|
|
