“…Politics is just dirty by nature…”

I don’t agree with this statement. The people running the politics made it dirty. In other words, politics itself is not dirty. Then again, the people running the politics are from our society.

“…Politicians come from popularity not intellectuality…”

If we could make intellectuals popular then the intellectuals become politicians too.

Therefore, the society should take fair share of the blame for the dirty politics, I reckon.

Have you forgotten the dirty mud tactics used in the last US elections? Joe the plumber ayone? If you watch Fox, you’d think SL state media is much much tame and unbiased. MSNBC vs. Fox is similar to say Rupavahini vs. Sirasa.

Doesn’t SF reminds you of Sarah Palin? He’s gonna do to Ranil what Palin did to Mccain. Except Mccain had a fighting chance.

Politicians come from popularity not intellectuality.

“Just a suggestion. Should not there be a Training Institute for elected politicians at various levels, hopefully funded with foreign, or better still, UN aid.”

You reckon Arnie would sign up for that? Maybe if its weights training.

Long as they’re cunning, they’ll thrive!

I think its true. The Executive Presidency clause seems to have rendered most of the rest of the Constitution redundant. What about the PTA? The burden of proof is on the victim, as opposed to the accuser. And ministers can overrule any judgment made in lieu of the PTA. Let me try to make this a little more clear:

—- (2) Where any person connected with or concerned in or reasonably suspected to be connected with or concerned in the commission of any offence under this Act appears or is produced before any court other than in the manner referred to in subsection (1) —–

Exactly how do you define suspicion? In civilized nations, regardless of the degree of suspicion, the relevant agency must still get a warrant from the court. No warrant is necessary as per the PTA:

6.(1) Any police officer not below the rank of Superintendent or any other police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector authorised in writing by him in that behalf may, without a warrant and with or without assistance and notwithstanding anything in any other law to the contrary -

(a) arrest any person;

(b) enter and search any premises;

(c) stop and search any individual or any vehicle, vessel, train or aircraft; and

(d) seize any document or thing, connected with or concerned in or reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in any unlawful activity.

———

I mentioned that ministers can intervene. Imagine then how powerful the President must be! Anyway, here is the relevant clause in the PTA:

DETENTION AND RESTRICTION ORDERS

9.(1) Where the Minister has reason to believe or suspect that any person is connected with or concerned in any unlawful activity, the Minister may order that such person be detained for a period not exceeding three months in the first instance, in such place and subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Minister, and any such order may be extended from time to time for a period not exceeding three months at a time: Provided, however, that the aggregate period of such detention shall not exceed a period of eighteen months.

(2) (a) At any time after an order has been made in respect of any person under subsection (1), the Minister may direct that the operation of such order be suspended and may make an order under subsection (1) of section 11.

(b) The Minister may revoke any such direction if he is satisfied that the person in respect of whom the direction was made has failed to observe any condition imposed or that the operation of the order can no longer remain suspended without detriment to public safety.

——–

Actually there is much more that ministers can do… in fact, there is nothing that ministers cannot do, as far as the PTA is concerned. You may observe the fact for yourself:

http://www.tamilnation.org/srilankalaws/79pta.htm

The question I posed was not to recant what you hypothetically proposition but to drive the well known principle that violence begets violence. It was state violence over years unleashed against Tamil people that created the LTTE. To have missed the wood for the trees was unfortunate. Nothing to do with Diaspora or anyone else. Simply a replay of what the past in Sri lanka has done in the hope that everyone concerned can learn, if at all, for the future.

Now to come to the raw points you raise about “maiming and conmcentration camps” these are potentially war crimes and gross crimes against humanity which are governed by laws, even international humanitarian laws. The way to deal with such dastardly crimes is independent investigation to bring the culprits to trial.

Your second statement is even hilarious in spite of your profanity that the government does not consider that its own constitutional provision should be taken seriously. Are you really serious?

When the Tamils have been maimed and locked up in concentration camps, would then my suggestion sound like a joke? The one million strong diaspora preferred to make noise from afar but dared not come near SL, leaving the hapless Tamils within the country to literally go through hell. Does that sound like a joke, too.

It should have dawned on the Tamils that the SL regime would never ever even consider the full implementation of the 13thA, what more the hope for federalism or autonomy similar to the one enjoyed by the Indian states is only a pipe dream. Didn’t you all read what Dayan wrote – 13thA – take it or leave it. My take is that even that piece of legislation will never be fully implemented unless the CM would just be another office-boy, just like Pillayan. The only choice left for the Tamils is to seek their own homeland.

The multiplicity of views of individuals show the many possible pathways to a better future. It seems obvious that without a political renaissance the people and country are doomed to repeat the grievous and gross mistakes of the past, as has happened more than once in teh past 60 years. How is it possible to break out of the vicious circle of past political rivalries and head for a new dawn is the question? Obviously new political environment is needed. Without trained politicians who can address seriously the burning political, social, economic and environmental issues there are bound to be endless fruitelss debates given the ever increasing issues to be addressed. Can the easy path to power of the past by political parties and their Leaders be buried?

Take the ongoing Presidential election process. There are said to be 22 candidates. NOT ONE has put out a coherent plan to solve the many burning problems except for the two main candidates MR and SF who are busy trading insults and war heroism as a means of garnering votes! What a pathetic state of affairs? Are these the issues which will help improve the people’s lot one wee bit and solve the many burning problems at people’s level? Reconciliation can come only from a win-win situation which will uplift ALL sections of the people at the citizen’s level. Only then is it possible to hold the politicians to account in an objective manner.

And for such a process to happen can politicians rise to the occasion and be held to account? if they fail then it is also the collective faliure of voters who elected them to power.

Just a suggestion. Should not there be a Training Institute for elected politicians at various levels, hopefully funded with foreign, or better still, UN aid. Trained political scientists are the need of the hour? Perhaps there should be minimum educational and practical qualiifications to be entitled to contest elections. Just like with every job in the Public Service every elected politicain should also have a Terms of Reference like with any other job (in the Public Service). Is it outrageous to stop freewheeling by politicians? Elections is a good time to bring about CHANGE.

The SL regime has been talking about the 13thA for ages but there is no way that it would ever be implemented in full anytime. There is no point of talking about the APRC with a slime without a backbone like Vitharana, ever changing his goal posts.

It is a new dawn – one that will define the future of possibilities. When the dust has settled and sanity returns, the reaction of the Tamils will depend on the magnanimity of the majority south but by simply saying, as Dayan says, that the Tamils have to settle for the 13thA, take it or leave it, as arrogance personified, then it would be wishful thinking that such a subjugation would not be vehemently protested by the Tamils, whatever it takes.

The Tamils should never ever resort to violence. As much as the world changed when Bush declared war on terrorism, and rightly so, there are abundant ways and means, in the present IT era to reach the people of many countries. The UN, UNHRC and similar establishments are never going to support genuine humanitarian issues when the leaders want to pat each other on their back. for their misdeeds. It is going to be a long journey but as much as the Americans are ready to impeach their President, so should the modus of dealing with genuine issues should be taken to the people of the countries whose leaders do not give a hoot over the legitimacy and seriousness of these issues. Barring economic issues and concerns, it will work and that is the global platform that should be established. Isn’t enough of the duplicity and treachery that have worked its way through to the not-so-noble institutions and being allowed to be hijacked by names like Dayan Jayatilake?

True reconciliation have to include a way to break from past. 35,000 Tamils youth did not fight to death just for 13th amendment. 300,000 tamils civilions did not die for that. 1 milions Tamils did leave this country for no reason.

[Edited out]

To have peace in this Island. Their has to be Win Win situation for all part’ys involved.

I remember that only when Rajpaksah was elected he wanted Honourable peace. Tamils expect that same now. Sinhala migh have won the war for now.. But to have peace tamils must get or win their rights.

I am sure amabassador will have more to say about TRC as a private citizen.

Centre for Social Democracy Media Release:
24 December, 2009
Ethnic discord that would not be resolved through war crimes accusations
The Centre for Social Democracy (CSD) understands the efforts of the two main candidates in using war crimes accusations raised by the international community, for political mileage against each other in their presidential election campaign, as extremely vicious and an inhuman effort. Manipulations by the very partners of this war that left thousands of Tamil people totally uprooted from their habitats, loosing their kith and kin, their children, their parents and their neighbours for mere election gains, prove that political leaders in this country are still not prepared for reconciliation of this war torn society to regain a peaceful, common future.

The conviction of the CSD that using the brute force of war in this modern world we live in to solve
political conflicts between ethnicities in a country is no civilised way of solving problems, is based on
the human misery and devastation that the war has heaped in the North, adding on to the yet unsolved
political issues, despite the war declared as over.
The CSD also believes that while accusations and queries on war crimes raised by the United Nations
and other international organisations are in relation to international law and human rights violations and
therefore are lessons for the future, what ever response given to those accusations and queries would
not suffice to alleviate the sufferings of the war affected Tamil people and help solve their long
standing democratic political problem.
That said, the CSD is of the opinion, any responsible government of a member country of the UN has a
responsibility in responding to accusations of war crimes and that should not be turned into election
campaigning to win votes.
Using war crime accusations against each other for elections gains, would further deepen the gaps
created between ethnicities during war. This no doubt is a political issue and could only be solved
through political answers. The CSD thus believes, reconciliation could be achieved only by creating
opportunities for self respect and by mutual respect for each other.
“Truth Commissions” initiated by political leaderships in apartheid and war affected South Africa for
purpose of reconciliation as an open social process, provide serious lessons for us, in Sri Lanka.
This South African lesson teaches that all savagery of any unwanted war could only be washed away
from society, by those who were collaborators of and fell victims to that war. Also that it should be a
people’s intervention led and managed by leaders who are independent and seeks no revenge.
The CSD is of very strong opinion that international accusations on war crimes could only be
effectively answered by such a genuine people’s intervention. Therefore, the CSD wishes to call on all
Sri Lankans to prevail upon all their political leaderships to reach consensus on such a democratic
people’s initiative for reconciliation, in achieving a peaceful future with a common purpose and
success.
Sgd / Kusal Perera Sgd/ Mahinda Ratnayake
On behalf of
Centre for Social Democracy

Company Act registration – GA 2036
NGO registration – L 135616
W / 2 /1, Anderson Flats, Colombo 5, Sri Lanka
Contact + 94 11 2555282 (phone / fax)
E-mail – socialdemocracy.sl@gmail.com

Too bruised by 61+-year structural violence/genocidal pogroms/draconian PTA/expert damage control at UN/Commonwealth/denial of access for aid agencies ….. to think.

Re your second point, the 24 hours switch over was said by none other than the late SWRD Bandaranaike himself. Anyone so minded could send /sign official letters in Sinhala Only from day 1 because it became the law on ofiicial correspondence after Sept.26, 1956. I agree in practice it took time and officials were paid bonuses to encourage switch over. I am at a loss to see the connection between lack of a complete Sinhala-English dictionary to the point I was driving at in respect of the use of the Tamil language by Tamil speaking people as the language of communication and administration. Where is the connection, if any?

I would like to respond to Mr. Jeyatillaka’s response. Having both studied the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and spoken to one of those who helped craft it, the purpose of it was not about minority vs. majority framework. It was rather an attempt to bring about reconciliation by openly addressing human rights violation on part of the state and non state actors. To narrowly define this process as a majority vs. minority framework indicates a lack of understanding of the process of reconciliation in South Africa. While South Africa is not a federal state, Nelson Mandela and the ANC were able to justify this because they were a non racial political party which ushered in a non racial constitution that did not give foremost place to any ethnic group or language. Also there was an independent judiciary within the new constitution which tends to uphold the laws both from the perspective of individual rights and political corruption.

If anyone is interested on the workings of the committee, please go to the official site of the TRC to learn more http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/index.html

As for the British not defeating the IRA and the Sri Lankan government doing so, I believe these are not similar situations. The IRA was more of an urban movement that did not resort to conventional tactics. The British could not resort to war against the civilian base of the IRA as they did in the past in the Malaya and Kenyan conflicts where they defeated the insurgent forces. This is because the British and the European public would not allow barbed wire camps and shelling of the public in the middle of Europe. The LTTE through their actions created conditions for their eventual defeat. Their actions of alienating India and the West took away the ability to resupply themselves. Their Human Rights violations took away the moral imperative of the cause they claimed to represent. Finally they overreached by building a conventional army that was bloated and collapsed on the imperative of having to hold on to ground and administer regions under their control. This in a way was the genius of the ceasefire agreement which in the end laid the groundwork for the eventual defeat of the LTTE.

And finally my article in no way indicated the need for “self determination”. It pointed out the flaws within the 13th amendment which Mr. Jayetillaka did not address. Also as my article indicated you need constitutional reforms on the national level in order to address disparities that minorities face in Sri Lanka. There is a broad space in politics between the idea of “Self determination” and the 13th amendment. There needs to be an open and honest dialogue between the political class and civil community leaders to find this balance.

Can Dayan influence the hardliners? Never!

How else could an admitted fan and abettor of fiat authority also think himself a dashing mountebank for liberal democratic values?

Benny Morris played the revolutionary new historian role too and ended up somewhere to the right of Jabotinsky. When will Dayan next sally forth into the international arena to bravely proclaim the right to bomb civilians in the course of yet another interminable war against terror?

Sri Lanka comprises of at least two nations and unless this fact is recognised by the Sinhalese there will never be peace in the island. As to the relationship that would prevail between the two nations will have to be decided by both nations together and never by just one of the two. It is left to them to decide to live as two separate entities or joined together in a confederation. Never shall the Tamils remain a subject nation for ever.There never was and never will be a single nation to call the Sri Lankan nation and a search for same will be absolutely futile!