Archive for December, 2009

New Year Greetings and Inspiration from Ramakrishna-Vivekananda ideology and Tamil literature

by K.T. Kumaran

Arise and awake to serve all people and to bring goodness to all is what all humanity could resonate, at this time of beginning of a new year – 2010.

Sri Ramakrishna said, cultivating higher life is denouncing discrimination and recognition of divinity in everyone and in everything, compassion for the downtrodden and spirituality is final solution to worldly miseries and universal love.

According to The Vedanta Kesari, A monthly issue published by The Ramakrishna Order, several parallels can be drawn between Ramakrishna-Vivekananda ideology and twentieth century Tamil literature.

Swami Ramakrishna’s deep humanism has cast its influence on many literary compositions including in the works of Mahakavi Subramania Bharathi.

Drawing by a child who wants to be Bharathiyar. The drawing is hanging high in an office in Kalmunai, Sri Lanka – pic courtesy: Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai

Just as Bhagwan Sri Ramakasrishna called upon the youth of the country to arise and awake, Bharathiyar also wrote to Ilaya Bharatham (Young India).

Song by Mahakavi Subramania Bharathi, “Oli Padaitha Kanninai” (Thou with sparkling eyes), called upon the youth of the country to arise and awake to rejuvenate the land.

Here is the song ~ rendered by M.S. Subbulakshmi and a translation of the song:

Thou with sparkling eyes come, come, come
Strong hearted thou come, come, come
Thou with sweet words come, come, come
And with firm shoulders come, come, come.

Thou with serene mind come, come, come
Seeing smallness thou rage come, come, come
Thou with compassion for poverty come, come, come
And with mounting pace come, come, come

Young Bharatha come, come, come
Unmatched vigor thou hold come, come, come
Thou waiting to rise in rayless land
And like the rising sun come, come, come

Razed heartland to spruce afore
Restore splendor thou come, come, come
Thou as having seen all illustriousness
And come illustrate with your eyes come, come, come

Comments (1)

Sri Lanka President Rajapakse accused of “illegal” election campaign

The Sri Lankan branch of the Berlin based anti-corruption watchdog “Transparency International” in a 10 page report released on Thursday Dec 31st has accused Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse of utilising state property and public funds to illegally finance his re-election bid.

Pointing out that members of the Police,armed forces and public officials are being deployed to engage in propaganda activity the report also spotlights the $ 790,000 dollar advertising campaign conducted by the President’s son Namal Rajapakse for which public funds are being solicited.

The full text of the report is as follows:

Introduction

The abuse of public resources at elections seems to be a continuing activity in every election in Sri Lanka. The Program for Protection of Public Resource (PPPR) in its reports in 2004 and 2005 pointed out the manner in which these activities have taken place and their outcome. The trend seems even more ominous at the current Presidential Election.

It is extremely important that the public resists the use of public resources for election purposes because it is the public who bears the cost of abuse of public resources. The elected representatives are only the caretakers of public property which is at all times to be used for the benefits of the public. Just as the public condemn rape or murder, they ought to condemn and call upon law enforcement authorities to deal with those powerful persons who abuse public finance for personal gain at elections.

The Programme for the Protection of Public Resources of Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), evaluates the integrity of the Presidential Election 2010 in the light of the misuse of public resources/property and non compliance with the directions/guidelines introduced by the Elections Commissioner in that regard.

A. The Political Environment in which the Election is Held

The Presidential Election due in 2012 was advanced to 2010 by the President as per the powers vested with him. This election was called at a historically important period, in which the government defeated the LTTE ending a bloodiest civil war prevailed more than 25 years.The election is contested in an environment where 110 MPs are holding ministerial portfolios. Even after the nominations for the election, the President appointed another crossed over MP as a cabinet Minister.

In addition to the Ministries and Departments, there are 168 State Corporations and Statutory Boards along with 93 companies with total control by the government. Directors of these public corporations are appointed by the Ministers and there is hardly any doubt that chairmen and directors of these corporations are appointed on political affiliations rather than on merit. The state owned companies are not subject to the government audit by the Auditor General’s Department and thus not reviewable by any of the finance committees in Parliament.

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees an independent public service ceased to exist two years ago. Since then all major positions are being filled circumventing the required screening process by the Constitutional Council. The Election Commission which is envisaged to be established under the 17th Amendment was never formed despite the fact that the present Elections Commissioner has passed his age of retirement. As a result, the Elections Commissioner is tasked to discharge all the duties and responsibilities to conduct free and fair elections. Thus the accountability and the responsibilities of a whole commission are now vested with a single person with limited resources.

Sri Lanka has no right to information law to demand information from the state about its conduct. This prevents a transparent election process where the conduct and expenditure of public officers, institutions and political parties during the time of an election are prevented from the scrutiny of the public eye. Thus the legitimate right of the tax payer to know how their money is spent is veiled with a culture of secrecy.

B. Election Commissioner’s Guidelines & Instructions

As per the powers vested with him, the Commissioner of Election issued guidelines/directions/notices with the objective of ensuring a free and fair Presidential election.

For example

- Directions were issued on 08.12.2009 to all Secretaries of the Ministries, State Departments, Corporations and Statutory Bodies to prevent the abuse of public resources during election time. Among others these directions include nullification prohibition of any appointments, transfers and promotions of employees done or intended to be done on or after the 23.11.2009. These directions were publicly announced by publishing in national newspapers on 14.12.2009.

- A set of guidelines was issued by the Commissioner on 17.12.2009 to the electronic and print media to be observed in broadcasting, telecasting and publishing of matters relating to the Presidential Election.

- A guideline dated 07.12.2009 was issued to the Police Department regarding their duties in relation to the election

Although the objectives of these guidelines/directions/notices aimed at a free and fair election it is unfortunate to note these were observed in breach than conformity. The specific abuses highlighted in this report identify such non-conformities.

C. The Cost of Propaganda

It is evident that large sums of rupees are invested by the main candidates for their campaigns in the election resulting competing at election a high cost affair. For example a 4 colour poster (medium size) approximately costs between Rs.08 to Rs.12 for a quantity over 100,000 in the initial print. A cost of a 20X20 feet hoarding to be exhibited in Colombo city limits would cost around Rs.300,000/- and a larger hoarding would cost approximately Rs.500,000/-. At present it is not scarce to see hoardings carrying political messages in almost all major junctions in many towns and villages in the country.

It is legitimate and legally accepted norm that such expenses to be borne by the candidates themselves or their political parties/independent group. Under no circumstances it is permitted to use public resources consisted of monies of the tax payers in the country for individual or political party propaganda.

The high cost of involved in election campaigns is a contributory factor for using public property by candidates who have controlled over them. Despite being immoral and illegal, abuse of public property in any circumstances is unaffordable to a developing country like Sri Lanka where burdens may have to be carried by sectors such as education, health or public transport.

Given the huge sums involved in election propaganda, TISL urge the need of political parties disclosing the sources of their funding. Unfortunately, unlike many democratic countries, Sri Lanka does not have law compelling political parties to disclose their funding together with the source.

D.Specific Instances of Abuses

By 30th December 2009, the Programme for the Protection of Public Resources of TISL has received more than eighty (80) complaints from the public and its investigators about various abuses of public property and election laws/guidelines by the candidates.

Thus far relevant verified instances are mentioned below:

01. Temple Trees

Facilities at Temple Trees, the official residence of the President, are used to entertain people from various sectors for political purposes. At these events, most of the participants were transported to the venue at State expense and were provided with food and in some instances, even with liquor. The President justified such entertainment events where the cost was borne with the public money as a “normal cultural practice.”

Spending public resources for entertainment purposes and to promote candidacy of a party candidate, especially during the time of elections is clearly an unacceptable practice. During the Presidential Election in 2005, facilities at Temple Trees were abused for political propaganda activities by the then Prime Minister (the present President) and the expenditure incurred in those gatherings were never recovered by the State.

Given below are some of the groups entertained at political treats at Temple Trees in December 2009:

7th – Recipients of Swarnabhoomi deeds
8 th – Mediation Board officers
10th – Children of Samurdhi beneficiary families
10th – Officers of the Education Sector
11th – Members of Women Lawyers’ Association
13th – Lawyers
13th – Police officers
14th – Artists
15th – Dairy farmers

(The President also conducted a series of similar gatherings at the President’s House in Kandy, details of which will be given in future reports)

These gatherings are a violation of the essence of the public notice issued by the Election Commissioner on 08.12.2009 preventing the use of public property for the purpose of promoting a candidate during the election.

02. Public Buildings and Machinery

• A property belonging to the Ports Authority situated at 56/1 Mc-Callum Road, Colombo 10 is being used to print propaganda material in favor of the President. The said posters are seen in Colombo city and other parts of the country.

• A large stage to be the property of Sri Lanka Ports Authority was transported to Minuwangoda and used for the public rally on 27.12.2009, patronized by the President. Several employees from the Ports Authority and two vehicles registered as Ports Authority vehicles (registered numbers: 41 – 3995 and GJ – 2312) were discharged for this purpose.

03.Misuse of Vehicles

Vehicles belonging to various public institutions are reported to have been transporting supporters and used for propaganda across the country for the candidate of the UPFA. The vehicles of Sri Lanka Transport Board, different government ministries, departments and local government authorities were abused in this regard. Given below are few such instances:

(a) Nine lorries bearing the numbers WP-LG 4738, WP-LG 4740, WP-LG 4741, WP-LG 4742, WP-LG 4744, WP-LG 4745, WP-LG 4546, WP-LG 4547, WP-LG 4749 of Sri Lanka Ports Authority (purchased in 2009) are being released for election work of the UPFA in the Southern Province

(b) A fatal accident that took place at Koppara junction in Negombo on the night of 12.12.2009 involving a lorry bearing number LG-4608 belonging to the Ministry of Road Development and a double cab bearing no. NB 7414 belonging to the Chief Secretary of the Eastern Province. It was revealed that the lorry was transporting several cut-outs of the President at the time of the accident.

04. Use of Central Transport Board (CTB) Busses

There is almost a pattern of using CTB buses to transport crowds for meetings attended by President Rajapaksa. Two such instances are given below:

(a) The meeting of the UPFA on 27-12-2009, at Minuwangoda (Japalawatta) – Around 26 CTB busses were used to transport crowds free of charge from Nittambuwa, Attanagalla, Mattakuuliya, Udahamulla, Angoda, Wattegama and Teldeniya.

(b) The meeting held on 26-12-2009 in Alankuda Grounds in Kalpitiya – The Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), previously displaced from Jaffna and now living in Mannar, were transported by CTB busses free of charge.

(c) Crowds for several meetings in Temple Trees were brought in CTB buses. On 13.12.2009 a large number of CTB buses were used to transport police officers from outstations (in addition to police vehicles) to the temple trees.

05.Use of Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) Helicopters

On 24-12-2009, a SLAF helicopter carried Ministers Dallas Alahapperuma & Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Member of Parliament Wimal Weerawansa and Western Provincial Council Minister Udaya Gammanpila to Kandy where they participated in a public meeting attended by Technical College Staff, Women’s Organisations and University Employees.

These acts violates the regulation of the Commissioner of Election issued on 08.12.2009 which prohibits the use of government motor vehicles and helicopters/aircrafts for the benefit of a candidate of the election.

06. Misuse of public officials and other public servants for political work

There are reports that many public officials from ministries and public corporations engaged in political party activities. Under the Establishments Code, Chapter XXXII, members of Armed Forces, Police, State Officers and Supervisory Officers etc. are prohibited from engaging in political activities, except to vote at an election. The Elections Commissioner, acting under the 17th Amendment to the Constitution has also prohibited usage of public officials/employees in political party activities pending an election. We give below some clear abuses in this regard:

(a) 71 security officers attached to the Ports Authority in Colombo were released for election work in the Southern Province in November 2009.

(b) Chairman of Airport and Aviation Service Ltd. had verbally ordered middle and minor grade employees of the Airport to go on duty leave to Colombo on 23-12-2009 to participate in a protest rally against a statement made by the common candidate of the opposition

(c) Several serving diplomats and officers of Foreign Service (appointed by the government outside the professional Sri Lanka Foreign Service. However the provisions of the establishment code is applicable to these officers during the tenure of their office) have returned to the country for campaign activities, while still being serving in their posts. One such instance is: Mr. Chandrapala Liyanage who is the second secretary to the consulate in Italy is presently in Sri Lanka and actively engaged in the campaign of the UPFA candidate.

(d) The Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, a key public servant of the present government, is actively engaged in political campaign for the UPFA candidate. For example he has addressed a political meeting on 19th December 2009 at a rally in Urapola, Kadugannawa. Among the other speakers were politicians.

07. Information Ministry facilities for the political programme titled ‘Esi Disi’

Facilities of the Information Department head office at the Narahenpita is being used for pro-UPFA public discussions/panel discussions attended by professionals, senior public officials and selected individuals with UPFA affiliations. The programme named “Esi Desi” has been introduced to discuss issues having a direct impact on elections. This protramme is operating under the patronage of the Director Information where the entire cost of the programme is borne by the Information Department.

08. State Media

Some of the key officials of few public media institutions are concurrently holding political party positions of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the leading constituent party of the UPFA. This results in considerable amount of public resources in those institutions being used for promotion of one candidate and the policies of UPFA. These officials include:

(a) Hudsun Samarasinghe – Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation who is the organizer for Colombo West of Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). He anchors a number of TV/radior progammes which clearly support the candidate of the UPFA.

(b) vSudharman Radaliyagoda – Deputy General Manger of the Independent Television Network (ITN) is the SLFP organizer for Kurunegala District. He anchors few TV programmes based on contemporary political issues which are clearly titled towards the candidate of the UPFA.

(c) Karunaratne Paranawithana – Chief Executive Officer of the Sri Lanka Rupawahini Corporation (SLRC) is a SLFP organizer for Ratnapura district.

(d) Lalith de Silva – Reviewer of newspapers for ITN is a SLFP organizer for Colombo district.

Continuation of office of these individuals is a blatant violation of regulations issued by the Commissioner of Election on 17th December 2009 for the Electronic and Print Media. Particularly the regulation 15 states:

“If an individual (employee or any member of the board of the broadcasting or telecasting and newspaper institution) publicly identified holding an office in a political party, such person should withdraw from journalistic functions until the election is concluded and shall not be permitted to engage in any journalistic function at any broadcasting or telecasting institutions. The management must consider the implications for individuals involved in presentations and who are or might become known to the public.”

Further, the regulation20 states:

“The attention of the Chairpersons of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation is drawn to Article 154B(b) of the Constitution, which requires them to take all steps necessary to ensure compliance with these regulations.”

09. Tharunyata Hetak Advertisements

This youth organisation is reportedly receiving high contributions (by way of sponsorships) from several public institutions such as Bank of Ceylon and National Lotteries Board, both of which fall under the purview of the President. The key officials of this youth organization are the President’s sons Namal Rajapakse (chairman) and Yoshitha Rajapakse (vice chairman). A series of advertisements are carried out by this organization through radio and TV highlighting the need of a strong leader for the country. Although the advertisements do not mention a name of a candidate, it is not a secret or difficult to understand, for whom they stand for, given the direct political affiliation of this organization with the President and his regime and the content of the advertisements. The following data presents the number of spots retained by Tharunyata Hetak in the main stream TV channels and the cost involved:

Number of Spots for advertisements by TV Channels – between 1st to 21st December 2009

Channel – No. of Spots

EYE – 501
Derana TV – 305
ITN – 908
Rupavahini – 1285
SIRASA TV – 301
Swarnavahini – 254

Total spots – 3554

Total cost of the advertisements during this period, based on regular disclosed rate cards of the channels, amount to Rs.84,027,600/-. We have observed that another amount of Rs.5,842,000/- has been spent on radio advertisements. We note that the cost of political commercial is more than the normal rates disclosed in the rate cards. Further there is an additional cost of production, which has not been ascertainable as at present.

This raises the need to have a transparent political party funding in the country in addition to preventing electioneering at public expenditure.

10. Hoardings and Advertisements sponsored by Public Institutions

A large number of hoardings and advertisement sponsored by public institutions are displayed at various places in the country and published in newspapers supporting the President and his election messages. Below mentioned a few examples in this regard:

Display of Hoardings-

(i) Hoarding displayed at Nugegoda sponsored by the State Trading Corporation

(ii) Hoarding displayed in town hall sponsored by the Presidential Secretariat

(iii) Hoarding displayed in Thimbirigasyaya sponsored by Presidential Operational Office

(iv) Hoarding displayed in Matara sponsored by Sothern Development Authority

(v) Hoarding displayed in Matara sponsored by Ruhunu Radio

Advertisements Published:

(i) Advertisement published in Ravaya on 20.12.2009 sponsored by Board of Investment (BOI), Sri Lanka.

(ii) Advertisement published in Lankadeepa (Sunday Edition) 28.12.2009 sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism

(iii) Advertisement published Divayina on 29.12.2009 sponsored by Urban Development Authority and the Ministry of Urban Development and Scared Area Development

(iv) Advertisement published in Dinamina 29.12.2009 sponsored by Lanka Sathosa.

These are only few examples where tax payer’s money is used for the campaign of a single candidate of the election.

E. Specific Examples for the violation of the guidelines/regulations of the commissioner of Elections

(a) On 23-12-2009, Senior Supt. of Police in charge of Hambantota Division (Chandra Kumara) had, at a conference attended by officers in charge of Police stations in the District, said that no one should be permitted to remove, destroy or deface any cutouts of HE the President and that OICs will be held answerable for any incidents in this connection.

This is a blatant disregard of the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Election to the Inspector General of Police to dismantle and remove illegal cutouts, banners posters etc.

(b) 650 people have been recruited from Matara District for the Railway Department as temporary labourers. The letters of appointment were issued after the Presidential Election was announced on 23rd of November 2009 but they were intentionally backdated to 17th November 2009 to circumvent the direction of the Commissioner of Election which prohibits any appointment to the government service after the 23rd November 2009.

(c) The hoardings, cutouts and other election related materials continue to be displayed in public places irrespective of the guidelines to the IGP by the Commissioner of Election to remove such materials.

F. Conclusion

The width and depth of abuses of state resources can be easily ascertainable from the above instances. What is of more concern is its impact on the integrity of the electoral process and the candidates who supposedly stand in election stages to safeguards the property and the rights of the people. Therefore, TISL urges the public to raise their voices against the continuation of these abuses. – Transparency International Sri Lanka

Comments

Why did LTTE come to being in Sri Lanka and who really created it?

by Chaminda Weerawardhana

In responding so far to, “Desecration of Tiger war memorials deserve condemnation,” by Prof. Michael Robers many readers seem to have ignored these fundamental questions:

1. Why did the LTTE come to being?
2. Who really created the LTTE?

The answer to both questions, to cut a long, horrible story short, are:

1. Due to post-1948 Ceylonese/Sri Lankan government policies and:
2. The majority Sinhalese leadership(s)seeking narrow political gains and political mileage

Now, the SL government and a strongly Sinhala nationalist leadership (with a Sinhala supremacist discourse, coated in the false and dis-orienting stance of ‘patriots’ and ‘non-patriots’) has militarily defeated and decimated its own ‘bete noire’.

The main challenge now is that of reconciliation, making all Tamils (and other minorities) feel integrally Sri Lankan, and use all available talent and skills (especially from the Tamil community home and abroad) for post-conflict reconstruction, economic development and empowerment. In other words, all segments of the (divided)wider SL society have to be brought together around a common cause: to make Sri Lanka ‘take off’, make her part of the Asian economic boom and other global processes of fast-track and long-term development.

To reach these goals, a serious SL government needs to launch a massive project, based at least on two primary axes:

1. Political accommodation in terms of high politics – i.e. a political arrangement based on power-sharing in the N-E provinces, within a wider framework of devolution from the Centre (not the best gain, but the best available and realistically achievable option at the present stage)

2. National policy on reconciliation, mutual respect/understanding and coexistence – this is necessary to attempt at healing wounds of a 30-year conflict – A Truth and Reconciliation Commission should provide those affected by the war with a safe haven to ‘express’ their experiences and trauma – and record them for posterity. People’s perspectives on the ‘other’ should be changed through government policy (i.e. Sinhalese views on Tamils, issues within the Tamil community – developing harmony and dialogue among Northern, Eastern and Up country Tamils, and better mutual understanding in the wider Sri Lankan community).

In this process [axe 2], what Prof. Roberts mentions in this article comes into play crucially – continuing a sophisticated tradition of honouring the ‘fallen’, LTTE memorials should be left undeterred – this will help develop a sense of appreciation of the SL govt among supporters of hardline Tamil nationalism, especially in the Diaspora. To make it more ‘politically correct’, similar memorials could be built to remember fallen members of other Tamil armed/non-armed political groups (from FPC to the Eelam Left, including civil society activists such as Dr. R Thiranagama).

Most importantly, these memorials will enable future generations from across the ethnic divide to witness and learn about a bitter phase of the 20th century history of their motherland.

Why Tamils leave

The point here is that nobody in Sri Lanka’s political establishment is concerned as to how Tamils, especially young Tamil men and women feel, perceive and live the ground situation in the island.

Article such as “Land without checkpoints feels free to Tamil refugees,” could be easily condemned as ‘propaganda’ or efforts by the so-called West and the exiled Tamils to tarnish the ‘image’ of the Sri Lankan government….but what this blind critique blatantly forgets is that the government is thoroughly insensitive and totally unwilling to be sensitive to the real issues and concerns of young Tamil men and women. As long as this situation continues, illegal immigration will thrive, a whole lot of young Tamils will suffer, and the task of post-conflict transformation will remain un-achieved.

If Colombo ’sincerely’ wants to change things for the better in terms of ethnic relations, it has to change its ideology and discourse, and resort to a new ideology of inclusion, de-militarisation, mutual respect and ethnic accommodation.

This by any means,does not look achievable on realistic grounds in the near future – as the country plunges from one crisis to another.

Comments off

Surrendered LTTE leaders were killed by Sri Lanka Special Forces

by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

“Who Killed Cock Robin”?
Not I, said the Sparrow
With my Bow and Arrow”

[click here to comment on this article - dbsjeyaraj.com] The above lines from an old nursery rhyme recur constantly in my mind when looking at the controversy surrounding the deaths of some senior leaders of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE) in the early hours of May 18th 2009.

Balasingham Mahendran alias Nadesan

The LTTE’s political commissar Balasingham Mahendran alias Nadesan and head of tiger peace secretariat Seevaratham Prabhakaran alias Pulidevan and some other tiger leaders and members had allegedly been executed in cold blood after surrendering with white flags.

Seevaratham Prabhakaran alias Pulidevan

In the current climate both Government and opposition ranks are in a state of denial about the alleged incident. The focus now is not whether the alleged incident occurred or not but on whether any reference should have been made about it at all.

In such a situation the important question of “Who killed Cock Robin” or in this instance who killed Nadesan and Pulidevan and how they were killed is being sidetracked, overlooked or ignored.

War Crime

Gen.Sarath Fonseka(retd) is in the eye of a controversial political storm following the lead story in “The Sunday Leader” of December 13th 2009 in which it was alleged that the ex-Army chief had accused Defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse of ordering the then 58 division commander Brig(Subsequently promoted as Maj-Gen) Shavendra Silva not to accommodate tiger leaders surrendering with white flags in the early hours of May 18th.

Predictably,the Lead story of the Leader evoked a massive backlash against Gen. Fonseka for having let the side down by alleging that the army was guilty of a possible war crime in shooting dead in cold blood some tiger leaders who were surrendering with white flags after making prior arrangements for it through international channels.

On another level the General was also undermining his own claim that he and he alone was responsible for the war victory against the LTTE as Fonseka was now implicitly acknowledging that the Defence secretary was also directing affairs at the battlefront.

With the Rajapakse regime and its “Rottweilers” exploiting the situation and baying for Fonseka’s blood the general had to make a tactical retreat. He summoned a hasty press conference and stated that he had been misquoted by the newspaper.

The ex-army chief now vying for the presidency was relying to a very great extent on serving and retired soldiers and their families for political support. Casting aspersions on the army would badly affect this base.

Clarification

On December 20th “The Sunday Leader” published a clarification by Fonseka on the previous lead story. This is what it said-

“As Commander of the Army during the final stages of the war, I did not receive any communication that some LTTE leaders were planning or wanting to surrender.

I was not told at any stage they wanted to do so and that some kind of an agreement had been reached that they must come out carrying pieces of white cloth.

I can speak conclusively and authoritatively on this particular issue and say categorically that nobody carrying white flags attempted surrender in those final days of the war. Therefore all of the LTTE leaders were killed as forces completely took over a remaining 100m x 100m area of land north of Vellamullivaikkal.

Two days after the war ended I learnt through some journalists who were entrenched at the time with then Brigadier Shavendra Silva that an illegal order had been conveyed to General Shavendra Silva by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

This illegal order was however not carried out at ground level. I take full responsibility for what happened on the ground.”

Shavendra Silva

In another interview with “Daily Mirror” online the General emphasized that Gotabaya Rajapaksa did try to contact junior officers in the Army and that he gave ’stupid’ instructions concerning the white flag and that these ’stupid’ instructions were however not carried out by the Army.

The innuendo in Fonseka’s accusation is that Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa ordered the Army to kill the LTTE leaders attempting to surrender with white flags.

While Fonseka was “flip-flopping” Maj-Gen Shavendra Silva who had been implicated by Gen. Fonseka as having allegedly killed the tiger surrendees was interviewed by “The Nation”.

Shavendra Silva issued a vehement denial to direct questions about the accusation against him and the 58 division.This is what he said-

Q: The allegation that the Sri Lanka Army shot dead a group of LTTE leaders who had come forward carrying white flags which was bandied about sometime ago has been raised again. We would like you, as a military officer who played an active role in the war on terrorism, to comment on this allegation.

A: I can speak only on behalf of the Division 58. I can categorically say that we never received a report saying that a group of white flag carrying LTTE leaders were gunned down by the troops. I saw newspaper reports carrying this allegation. I also read news reports which said that there was no truth in this allegation.

I feel sorry if an allegation of this nature has been made by a military officer. We carried out the tasks entrusted to us with commitment. In the circumstances, I can only say I deeply regret if such an allegation has been or is being made.

Q: Media reports also said that Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa had given you orders to shoot LTTE leaders if they come forward carrying white flags to surrender.

A: These reports are untrue. Beginning from the day on which the humanitarian operation was launched, Defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa kept repeating his instruction that we should avoid civilian casualties while carrying out the operations. We had this objective in view right throughout our operations. Therefore, I cannot imagine that the Defence Secretary would order shooting down anyone coming forward to surrender carrying a white flag. I can say with responsibility that I have never received instructions from him to shoot any civilian.

Philip Alston

Meanwhile Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has written to Amb. Kshenuka Senewiratne, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations office at Geneva requesting information about alleged killing by the Sri Lankan Armed forces of LTTE leaders who surrendered.

Alston in his letter to Senewiratne said-

“It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on the death of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh, as well as of the members of their families, I would be grateful for the cooperation and observations of your Excellency’s Government. In particular in relation to the following questions:

1. Are the allegations summarized above accurate, If not so, please share the information and documents proving their inaccuracy.

2. What information does your Excellency’s Government have on the family members of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh allegedly killed on 18 May 2009.

3. Please refer to the results of my military, police, judicial and other inquiry or investigation carried out in relation to the allegations summarized above.

I undertake to ensure that your Excellency’s Government’s response to each of these questions is accurately reflected in the report I will submit to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.”

Heat and Light

Philip Alston’s pertinent query seeking more information about the fate that befell senior tiger leaders who surrendered is extremely relevant in the present situation where “heat” is generated about Sarath and Gotabhaya without any official “light” being shed on what actually transpired.

Ironically “The Sunday Leader” is now being sued by both Gotabhaya Rajapakse and Sarath Fonseka for the “offending” lead story.

It is against this backdrop that I want to focus to some extent on the events of that fateful period relating to the deaths of Nadesan, Pulidevan and others.

Though the lead story in “The Sunday Leader” of Dec 13th 2009 may have aroused passionate interest about the incident it was not something which went unreported during those days in May when “triumphalism” was holding sway.

I, myself referred to it in the article “The last days of Thiruvengadam Velupillai Prabhakaran” that appeared in the “Daily Mirror” of May 23rd 2009 and on this blog.

More than six months have passed since the killing of Nadesan ,Pulidevan and others. Some of us who have been researching the course of those events have been able to gather more information during this period.

Information

The information gathered is by no means comprehensive and may very well have some factual errors in the minor details. Given the difficulties one faces in this quest for truth I sometimes fret that the whole truth may never,ever be revealed.

Nevertheless I do feel that some of the information gathered should be publicised at this juncture though I would have very much preferred to wait until more details were available.

Despite the shortcomings it would indeed be appropriate to disclose some details now not only because the issue is topical but also to dispute the “evolving official” version that seeks to deny the entire incident.

Here then are some facts about what happened then in mid-May 2009

As events unfolded rapidly and the hard-pressed tigers fought a last ditch battle thousands of civilians and tiger cadres began surrendering. The armed forces were comparatively lenient in accommodating these surrenders until May 14th.

Surrendering

The 59 division led by Prasanna Silva, 58 div led by Shavendra Silva, 53 div led by Kamal Gunaratne and Task Force 8 led by Col Ravipriya had all accepted the surrendees and allowed them safe passage outside the battle zone.

Surrendees were asked to form two lines ,one for civilians and one for cadres and scrutinised before transportation

But the last few days saw fighting turn really fierce and the mood harden. The LTTE discarded uniforms and fought in civilian garb from among civilians.

On a few occasions tigers pretended to be surrendering civilians and then attacked. The LTTE also killed and injured hundreds of civilians and fellow cadres trying to flee.

Thus on May 15th,16th and 17th quite a few civilians and tiger cadres trying to surrender were shot dead.

This was more during the heat of the battle. The surrendering was in an ad-hoc manner and not well organized

At the same time the process of surrendering safely went on depending on the nature and mood of soldiers

Vellamullivaaikkaal

Once the 58 and 59 divisions linked up along the Mullivaaikkaal beach the tigers were sealed inside a small area of about three sq km. This was basically in the Vellamullivaaikkal area.

The remaining cadres devised a final, desperate plan to save Prabhakaran and other top leaders.

While one group was to remain defending until death another group was to try and break out of the military cordon in different formations. These formations included Prabhakaran, Pottu Amman and Soosai.

The third group was to negotiate terms of surrender and give themselves up to the army. The leaders of this group were political wing head Nadesan and peace secretariat chief Pulidevan.

This group was not directly involved in the fighting.

In the final phase the tigers had set up a makeshift hospital without basic facilties in the South-eastern parts of Vellamullivaaikkaal.

Nadesan, Pulidevan and some members of the political wing were staying adjacent to the makeshift hospital.

In addition there were many family members of tiger leaders and cadres.

Given the intensity of artillery shelling by the armed forces a very large number of non-combatants had sustained injuries. Many cadres too were injured.

Three points

It was estimated then that there were 1500-2000 person holed up in that area of whom around 1000-1200 had major and minor injuries. About 350-400 of these were tiger cadres.

Nadesan and Pulidevan along with the then LTTE head of international relations Selvarasah Pathmanathan alias KP had been involved in frantic efforts to negotiate a safe and honourable surrender .

The priority was to save the lives of these injured cadres and family members numbering close upon 2000.

Using satellite phones the trio had tapped into all their contacts trying hard for a UN sanctioned “laying down of arms” (euphemism for surrender) with guarantees of safety from the USA and Britain

Nadesan was emphasising three points as terms for laying down arms.

(Though a virtual surrender the LTTE was reluctant to call it that)

1. The LTTE wanted it to be UN supervised,

2. a guarantee of safety from the Americans and/or British:

3. an assurance that the Sri Lankan government would agree to a political process that guaranteed the rights of the Tamil nationality

Coup de grace

Among themselves the trio of KP, Nadesan and Pulidevan in a frantic bid to bring about a laying down of arms, contacted a vast array of personalities all over the globe ranging from friendly pro-LTTE legislators to journalists who had been critical of the LTTE.

Had these attempts been made months or even weeks earlier the results may have been different.

But now with the Sri Lankan armed forces poised to deliver the “coup de grace” to the hopelessly beleaguered LTTE there was no way in which the defence establishment was ready to allow an internationally sanctioned truce or laying down of arms.

Moreover the attempt to get international backing for a laying down of arms had a negative consequence.

The Government being paranoid about an international conspiracy to bring about a ceasefire and save the LTTE hierarchy was concerned that efforts could intensify in that direction if the fighting continued.

So the army was ordered to go ahead with military operations and batter the remaining tigers as quickly as possible.

This led to a no holds barred escalation in the military push.

Scant regard was paid to the lives and limbs of civilians as the army closed in for the kill.

Only Option

Under these circumstances Nadesan and Pulidevan realised that the odds were overwhelmingly against their request for a “laying down of arms” with international supervision and guarantees of safety.

The only option was to negotiate an honourable surrender to the Sri Lankan armed forces .Otherwise it was total annihilation.

With groups of tigers trying to break through the military cordon on the one hand and another group fighting a last ditch stand to delay the advancing army, this third group opted to surrender directly to the armed forces.

Nadesan being a cautious person tried to work out the modalities before surrendering but was firmly told to surrender first and work out the terms thereafter.

There was no choice other than to surrender unconditionally.

Many people were involved in this surrender effort of the tiger leaders.

Among these were cabinet ministers of two European countries, Envoys in Colombo of three western nations, two high-ranking officials of the UN, a well-known British journalist and two Parliamentarians from the Tamil National Alliance.

From the Government side those in the loop were President Mahinda Rajapakse, Presidential secretary Lalith Weeratunga, Defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, Parliamentarian and Special adviser to the President Basil Rajapakse and then Foreign secretary Palitha Kohona.

Modalities

Many people including UN officials, international cabinet ministers,western diplomats and political representatives talked on behalf of tiger leaders to the Sri Lankan political leaders and influential govt officials to facilitate the surrender.

It must be noted that none of the LTTE leaders spoke directly to the Govt side about this crucial issue. More importantly the army top brass was not informed of this “surrender” plan until the penultimate stages.

After protracted discussions the tiger leaders were told to walk slowly towards army positions with raised white flags. Only a small number was asked to come out first.

It was said that after making contact with the army officers on ground the modalities of bringing out the remaining persons both injured and uninjured could be worked out.

The tiger leaders were also given a rough route to follow. This led to positions manned by the 58 division commanded by Shavendra Silva. Both the 59 commanded by Prasanna Silva and the 58 were in the Vellamullivaaikkaal area.

But the tigers preferred to surrender to the 58 rather than 59 as they felt the former was more humane or less brutal.

Vijay Nambiar

A final bid was made by the tigers to get Vijay Nambiar, UN chief of staff to Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to be on the spot to witness the surrender. But this was rejected as unnecessary by Nambiar who said President Rajapakse himself had assured him of tiger safety.

British journalist Marie Colvin has gone on record that she had woken up Vijay Nambiar then in Colombo at about 5.30 am (Lanka time) to ask about the surrender.

This is the relevant extract from Colvin’s article in the London Times-

“Once more, the UN 24-hour control centre in New York patched me through to Nambiar in Colombo, where it was 5.30am on Monday. I woke him up.

I told him the Tigers had laid down their arms. He said he had been assured by Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan president, that Nadesan and Puleedevan would be safe in surrendering. All they had to do was “hoist a white flag high”, he said.

I asked Nambiar if he should not go north to witness the surrender. He said no, that would not be necessary: the president’s assurances were enough.

It was still late Sunday night in London. I tried to get through to Nadesan’s satellite phone but failed, so I called a Tigers contact in South Africa to relay Nambiar’s message: wave a white flag high.”

Chandranehru Chandrakanthan MP

Another person who played a crucial role in trying to ensure the safe surrender of Nadesan and others was TNA national list MP Chandranehru Chandrakanthan.

He too acted as intermediary between the Govt and LTTE and had even wanted to be physically present at the point of surrender. But President Rajapakse had said it was unnecessary.

Marie Colvin

Here is an extract from Marie Colvin’s article about Rohan Chandranehru Chandrakanthan’s role-

“I discovered that on Sunday night Nadesan had also called Rohan Chandra Nehru, a Tamil MP in the Sri Lankan parliament, who immediately contacted Rajapaksa.

The MP recounted the events of the next hours: “The president himself told me he would give full security to Nadesan and his family. Nadesan said he had 300 people with him, some injured.

“I said to the president, ‘I will go and take their surrender.’

“Rajapaksa said, ‘No, our army is very generous and very disciplined. There is no need for you to go to a warzone. You don’t need to put your life at risk’.”

Chandra Nehru said Basil, the president’s brother, called him. “He said, ‘They will be safe. They have to hoist a white flag.’ And he gave me the route they should follow.”

The MP got through to Nadesan at about 6.20am local time on Monday. The sound of gunfire was louder than ever.

“We are ready,” Nadesan told him. “I’m going to walk out and hoist the white flag.”

“I told him: ‘Hoist it high, brother-they need to see it. I will see you in the evening’,” said Chandra Nehru”

Machaan

This account by Colvin of Chandranehru’s tele-conversation with Nadesan is substantiated by the information I received from another close associate of Nadesan.

This person attached to a western university was in touch with Nadesan barely a few minutes before dawn on Monday May 18th.

Mahendran or Nadesan addressing him as “Machaan” said that they had made white flags out of “verti” and would be holding it very high (Nallaa thookki pidippom)

Nadesan however had been very uneasy about the surrender plan. He had told his friend that he could not trust the government or the army and that he felt they were all doomed.” saranadainju saahirathai vida kuppi adikkalaam poley irukku” (I feel its better to take cyanide than surrender and die)he had said.

Still Nadesan had to follow the surrender option as the intention was to save the lives of injured tigers and civilians and surviving family members comprising men,women and children of tiger leaders and cadres.

While the tigers prepared themselves to surrender to the 58 division fate was playing a cruel hand.

Former Army commander Sarath Fonseka was in China from May 10th to 17th but the then Lt. Gen was constantly in touch with his ground commanders and defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse.

Though physically away from the Country Fonseka was very much in command of his troops, monitoring and directing from afar.

Special Forces

One such act by Fonseka from far-off China was the induction of the special forces regiment into the Mullivaaikkaal battlefront. The Special Forces were deployed alongside the 59 led by Prasanna Silva.

The Special Forces regiment was commanded then by Col. Athula Kodipilli. It consists of multiple battalions assigned specialty tasks. Each battalion is broken up into 150 man units called squadrons.

Of the Special Force battalions 1-SF led by Maj. Mahinda Ranasinghe and 2-SF led by Maj. Vipulathilake Ihalage were deployed in the Mullivaaikkaal area.

In an ironic twist of fate the LTTE leaders intending to surrender to the 58 division fell into the hands of the special forces operating in Soth-east Mullivaaikkaal before reaching their avowed destination

A tiny group of 12-15 led by Nadesan and Pulidevan had gone first followed by a second group of 35-40 at a distance. They were all unarmed and carrying white flags.

“Col” Ramesh

White Flags

Nadesan and Pulidevan carried aloft two huge white flags. Both groups comprised men, women and children.

Within the second group were former LTTE special commander for Amparai-Batticaloa districts “Col” Ramesh. He had been commanding tiger units in the Wanni war and had been injured earlier.

Along with Ramesh was Ilango the LTTE police chief. He had succeeded Nadesan

Nadesan and Pulidevan wanted to establish contact with senior military officials first and negotiate the modalities of bringing out the others in stages.

Nadesan’s Sinhala wife hailing from the Ruhuu also was in the first group to help with Sinhala interpretation if required.

It was past day-break now and the small groups of stragglers with white flags were clearly visible. Soon they were surrounded by Special Force personnel who took the first group to their officers in the vicinity.

The second group following nearly a hundred yards behind were ordered to remain where they were with white flags held high with both hands.

Nadesan’s group had ony to walk a very short distance to reach the command post.

Cold Blood

Nadesan and Pulidevan identified themselves and stated they were surrendering in term of an agreement worked out with President Rajapakse

Upon hearing this the SF officers got Nadesan and Pulidevan to kneel down and began interrogating them.

The others were taken to a side and asked to kneel down.

Even as the “interrogation” was going on some of the SF personnel began uttering threats in Sinhala and started brandishing firearms.

Nadesan’s wife realised that they were planning to shoot both in cold blood and started screaming in Sinhala that they should not kill people who surrendered with white flags.

Suddenly there were bursts of fire. Nadesan and Pulidevan slumped to the ground their bodies riddled with bullets.

As Nadesan’s wife screamed and tried to run to her husband , she too was shot down with a few men shouting that she was a treacherous bitch and prostitute for marrying a “kotiya” (tiger)

A few shots were fired into the remaining members of the group too but it was stopped on the orders of superior officers. The few survivors were bundled out of the place

Assault

When the Ramesh-Ilango led second group of 35-40 following behind saw what was happening they simply started running back.

A few SF personnel gave chase firing on the fleeing men,women and children and commanding them to stop.Many were hit and fell.

Thereafter the Special Forces moved forward and launched an assault on the tiny enclave where the remaining people were staying.

Some of the injured cadres put up a last ditch stand fighting with dwindling ammunition. They were reportedly led by Ramesh and Ilango who died a heroic death facing fearful odds

Many consumed cyanide or blew themselves up with grenades. Many people were shot dead or blown up with grenades by the Special Force personnel.

Despite this whole-sale massacre by sections of the SF personnel some other soldiers also saved the lives of people numbering a few hundred.

Squadrons

According to unconfirmed reports four SF squadrons were active in the vicinity of Mullivaaikkaal when the Nadesan-Pulidevan incident occurred.

They were the Golf squad under Capt. Chaminda Gunasekera , Romeo squad under Capt.Kavinda Abeywardene, Echo squad led by Maj. Kosala Wijekone and Delta squad led by Capt. Lasantha Ratnasekera.

The Golf and Romeo squads were from 1SF while theEcho and Delta squads were from 2SF

This then is the summary of what happened to Nadesan, Pulidevan and the remaining persons who wanted to surrender to the armed forces.

I would have liked to get some more details before publishing this account. But I decided to go ahead with available information because of the moves in certain quarters to deny that such an incident ever took place

Fait accompli

It is indeed cruelly ironic that while thousands of tiger cadres and leaders were able to surrender safely to the armed forces these surrendees were shot dead in cold blood by special force personnel.

What makes this incident deplorable is that the killing was not done in the heat of the battle. What makes it bad is the fact that elaborate planning had gone into the surrender effort with international involvement but to no avail. What makes it worse is that assurances of safety were reportedly provided by President Rajapakse himself.

According to a highly placed source in the defence establishment the defence secretary had informed 58 division commander Shavendra Silva beforehand that some tiger leaders may surrender and if that happens the surrender was to be accepted and safety guaranteed.

The source also said that Gotabhaya Rajapakse had told Sarath Fonseka of the proposed surrender plans by telephone at 3.30 am on Monday May 18th.

Hours later when the Defence secy had contacted the Army chief to find out what happened he learnt that “it was all over”. While the Govt had agreed to a surrender the Army had presented it with a “fait accompli”.

In that context it is perplexing at best and irritating at worst to see the ex- army chief trying to draw across a red herring by initially blaming Gotabhaya and Shavendra for the incident and subsequently changing his story.

Volte-face

I do not wish to be drawn into that controversy but it does seem to appear notwithstanding the ex-army chief’s volte face that Fonseka is insinuating that the 58 division acting under Gotabhayas “:illegal” orders executed the surrendees in cold blood.

While implicitly blaming Gota and Shavendra, Sarath seems to be trying to score by denying that such an incident ever happened and that he would stand by his men under any circumstances.

It does seem chicanery of the despicable sort for a man to turn around and blame the wrong guys when almost any high-ranking military officer in Sri Lanka knows that the special forces bumped off Nadesan and Pulidevan.

In a sense Fonseka is putting Gotabhaya Rajapakse and Shavendra Silva on the spot as he knows that both at this juncture cannot reveal who was responsible for the killing.

However it does seem that in his anger against Gotabhaya Sarath has shot himself in the foot by tacitly admitting that some tiger leaders had indeed been killed in cold blood.

Responsibility

Though he is now trying to do some damage control by denying that he ever said it and is threatening to sue “The Sunday Leader” the damage apparently has been done.

It must be remembered that Sarath Fonseka had referred to tigers carrying white flags being executed long before the current furore. Fonseka addressing a meeting in Ambalangoda in July had stated so. That fact has now been recorded for posterity in the US State dept report.

Interestingly Fonseka’s “noble” pronouncement that he would be assuming full responsibility for an incident that he says did not happen amounts to making a virtue out of necessity.

The simple fact of command responsibility is that as the Army chief of that time Sarath Fonseka is indeed responsible for many acts of omission and commission by his officers and soldiers.

Likewise the responsibility can go right up all the way to the President via the Defence secretary.

Apart from a few scoundrels masquerading as patriots almost every Sri Lankan knows that many acts amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity have occurred during this war particularly in the last stages.

Both the LTTE and govt forces were responsible. While the LTTE hierarchy is no more the Govt pretends it did not happen and is in a state of simulated denial

Established

The problem in the case of the Nadesan-Pulidevan incident is that too many people are aware that a surrender was agreed upon and that gurantees of safety were provided by the commander-in-chief of the armed forces himself.

From the UN to individual countries like the USA, Britain and Norway that fact has been established firmly.

It is also a widely accepted fact that something had gone wrong either accidentally or deliberately in the proposed surrender because the would be surrendees are not among the living.

What exactly went wrong may seem a little hazy at present but there is no doubt that something has gone terribly wrong.

Wittingly or unwittingly Sarath Fonseka has opened up a can of worms. He may dispute he ever said what he reportedly stated and deny that it ever happened but the issue is now widely debated.

Likewise Fonseka’s detractors may blame him for creating an unnecessary controversy but the fact remains that the incident of cold-blooded killing will not go away or be wished away.

Questions

Given the scale of international participation in the surrender episode and its widespread ramifications the Colombo regime cannot afford to be complacent.

It would indeed be galling for a regime riding a triumphalist wave to admit openly that its soldiers could be guilty of a war crime.

However bitter it may be the best option for the Govt is to conduct a credible,transparent probe into the incident.

There are many unasked and unanswered questions.

What went wrong? Why did this group get shot despite pre-planning a surrender while thousands of ad-hoc surrendees are safe and sound? Had Colombo genuinely agreed to the surrender or was there an ulterior motive?Was there a break-down in communications between the high command and field command? Was there a sinister motive by the former army chief to teach the Defence secretary a lesson for agreeing to a surrender without consulting him? Were the special forces behaving recklessly as tigers had been attacking the army while pretending to be civilians?

These are but some of the queries needing answers.

Nemesis

One cannot expect the govt to conduct an inquiry of this type at a time when the Presidential elections are on. But it does have to act very soon in a credible manner.

This incident is too big for the Govt to ignore or deny responsibility. It has the potential to become a major issue as human rights organizations continue to exert pressure.

If and when that happens all the “friends” shielding this nation in international fora may be helpless as events take their own course.

Nemesis may follow Hubris!

DBS Jeyaraj can be reached at dbsjeyaraj@yahoo.com

[click here to comment on this article - dbsjeyaraj.com]

Comments off

Missing Tsunami donor funds and current development of North East Sri Lanka

Review and deliberation of Tsunami recovery process important in the context of current development of North and East Sri Lanka,” Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), said in a statement marking the fifth anniversary of the 2004 tsunami.

TISL joins other several quarters that are urging for a tighter control against graft this time around, anticipating that the recent new North-East development initiatives by the World Bank and other donor agencies will build a good foundation for continued peace, rehabilitation and reconstruction if provided with adequate transparency.

Many express concern that new donor funds earmarked for North-East may get spent for other “unauthorised” projects just like in the case of the tsunami recovery programs.

TISL, in pointing that the authorities in Sri Lanka are failing to explain to what happened to tsunami recovery funds of over 471 million USD out of 1075 million USD provided by the donors, said:

“The difference between the disbursed and the expended has been a controversial issue that does not have a credible explanation. While some officials were reluctant to divulge the information, there were some responsible bodies, who implied that the funds have been utilized by the government for other purposes.”

In its statement to mark the fifth anniversary of the devastating Asian tsunami, Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) said the donors have also failed to keep their word.

More than 2126 million USD has been pledged by the donors but only 1075 million USD has been disbursed, according to the watchdog, TISL.

TISL’s conclusion and recommendations regarding the Tsunami Reconstruction process as follows:

a. TISL believes that it is a prime right of the people in Sri Lanka to know the true picture of the Tsunami recovery process. Therefore, the government should take every possible step to assure and respect the right to information of the general public of the country. Thus an audit should be done by the government to explain the utilization of the money received and the challenges faced.

b. All steps should be taken to arrest and remedy the existing problems in the recovery process. The participation of the public is paramount in this regard.

c. A special Committee of the Public Accounts Committee or an Independent Commission be constituted to review any remaining issues relating to the Tsunami Recovery Process and make necessary recommendations and lessons leant as related guidelines for the future.

d. TISL reiterates the importance of collating and documenting all the information of Tsunami 2004 in relation to both the relief and recovery process. Such deliberation is important in the context of current development in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

Unless the political leadership is committed to these recommendations, similar unfortunate experience will be repeated in the reconstruction of the North and the East of Sri Lanka.

Other media reports also stated that the World Bank, which recently concluded an audit of its $150-million tsunami rebuilding work, found out that a multitude of government agencies slowed down recovery programs leaving room for misuse of funds.

Sri Lanka was forced to refund the bank in cases where funds were misused. The bank said the government had bought 168 motorcycles for other work and claimed them from tsunami aid budgets.

The bank asked for a refund of $134,000 from the government in 2006 and finally had its cash refunded in May this year.

Comments

Dictators or democrats, “truth becomes a revolutionary act” in Sri Lanka

by T. Earakan

Sri Lankans of several walks of life, from politicians to everyday readers have been ratcheting opinion on General Fonseka’s interview with The Sunday Leader, in several media outlets in the recent days. The remarks are mostly negative on the reported allegations by the General in the Sunday Newspaper, at least the ones being carried by prominent media organizations.

In the political front Disaster Management and Human Rights Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe in various interviews continue to say that Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s recent statement to the Weekend newspaper has brought the country into disrepute. Several other government ministers, notably Minister of Export Development and International Trade Prof. G.L. Peiris and Cabinet spokesman Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa have been harping about common candidate Sarath Fonseka in various forums, over the Philip Alston query.

Yet the however small number of comments that have come across – in the form of “citizen journalism” – reader comments to articles on websites say significant number of Sri Lankans are out there deeply concerned about the reality and ramifications about the “bottomline” of the issue at hand regardless of political wrangling.

Case in point is Sri Lanka newspaper Daily Mirror online recently publishing several reader comments below its reporting on the aftermath of the letter to Amb. Kshenuka Senewiratne from Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions seeking clarifications on the alleged killing of the LTTE leaders.

While the comments moderated by the newspaper appear to show an overwhelming negativity towards the ex-General of Sri Lanka Army, there were at least three comments seeking “reason” and “upholding the true values” of the “silent majority” of Sri Lankans – as follows:

* In a country of deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. If heinous crimes have been committed on humanity it is time we hanged our head in shame and seek apology. We should rethink the character of our leaders whether they consist of the same human principles and observe the teachings of Lord Buddha. Only then will the Sinhala race shine and thrive otherwise it will be damned in the sins that we commit. – Posted By: spark

* Let us stop the ‘betrayal’, ‘Traitor’ Nonsense. As a true Buddhist, I am bit concerned and started to worry, if what this guy say is true. As I was thinking the Pro LTTE diaspora is making this claims and that was denied by our ministers. If this is true, then for god sake let the culprits face the music and they can’t rule my country at any cost. – Posted By: Nanayakara

* Thank you very much SF mother Lanka is very proud of You – Posted By: Fayad

While there are plenty of raucous against the Common candidate Sarath Fonseka in the print and national media, also being largely ignored is the fact this matter has been around since May 2009 when well-known British journalist Marie Colvin who herself played a role in trying to arrange for the safe surrender of LTTE leaders wrote an article in the Timed of UK then outlining some of the events.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Google