Author: TELO Admin

Sri Lanka recently passed regulations allowing detention without trial for two years for those suspected to have caused “religious, racial or communal disharmony”. This is a significant expansion of the already notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which has historically been used to target Tamils and Muslims.

Alongside a proposed ban on Islamic face coverings and the closure of more than 1,000 Islamic schools, this move is a further indication that Sri Lanka seems determined to repeat its past. Sri Lanka has consistently used laws to marginalise vulnerable communities, and these latest actions continue policies designed to oppress Tamils and Muslims, while strengthening the majoritarian ethnocracy that has dominated the country since shortly after its independence in 1948.

The Sinhalese, the majority of whom are Buddhist, make up more than 70 percent of the country’s population. Sri Lanka’s post-independence nation-building project emphasised Buddhism to the detriment of other communities. Leaders envisaged the island as a Buddhist stronghold, and their particular brand of Theravada Buddhism was ethno-nationalist in nature.

According to Sinhalese scriptures, Sri Lanka was the land of the Sinhalese from ancient times, and a place where Buddhism must be protected. Other communities were invaders, who either didn’t belong or were there at the benevolence of the majority. This was formalised in the country’s constitution, which says it is the state’s role to “protect and foster” Buddhism.

The systematic privileging of Sinhalese Buddhism was done initially through legislation, by enacting discriminatory laws against Tamils, but took on increasingly violent forms, including the targeting of Tamils in pogroms that killed thousands and destroyed thriving Tamil commerce, particularly in the capital.

The initially peaceful Tamil resistance of the 1960s and ‘70s, demanding equal rights and autonomy, was met with violence, which in turn fuelled popular demands for a separate Tamil state. The state, in response to militant Tamil youth, enacted the PTA in 1979, which gave security forces and the judiciary wide-ranging powers.

Declaring a state of emergency, Sri Lankan security forces arrested Tamil youths en masse, torturing them and in many cases forcibly disappearing them. The violence of the state pushed more and more Tamils to support the armed resistance, giving rise to a fully-fledged militancy that fought an all-out war with the Sri Lankan military, until its end in 2009.

The state’s brutal crackdown, supported and presaged by oppressive legislation, was successful in its own eyes.

Historic homeland

It is important to understand why the Sri Lankan state targeted Tamils in the way it did. Eelam Tamils, as Tamils native to Sri Lanka are also known, had a distinct identity and the concept of a historic homeland in the island’s northeast, which was at odds with what the majority envisaged. Rejecting the minority label, Tamils purposefully declared themselves as a separate nation within Sri Lanka, and increasingly mobilised around this identity.

This was a major obstacle to Sri Lanka’s nation-building project, and thus could not be tolerated. The common Tamil view of this situation as a genocide stems from the belief that the Sri Lankan state’s intent is to dismantle the Tamil identity and subsume it within a primarily Sinhalese-Buddhist Sri Lankan national identity, in which other communities play a subordinate role.

While Sri Lanka’s war ended 12 years ago with the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the conflict didn’t end. The state continued to oppress Tamils through the suffocating militarisation of the northeast. But it also set its eyes on a new target: the Muslim minority, most of whom also speak Tamil and had largely aligned with the state in its fight against Tamil militants. When the war ended, they had outlived their usefulness in the eyes of the state.

After the perceived vanquishing of the Tamils, Sri Lanka was in need of a new enemy. Islamophobia became commonplace, escalating into violence targeting Muslims and their businesses. The state took no action against perpetrators, and anti-Muslim campaigns, often led by Buddhist monks, proliferated.

After the Easter bombings by Islamic State-linked militants in 2019, Islamophobia exploded. Instead of acting to protect Muslim Sri Lankans, however, the state continued to marginalise them.

Wanton cruelty

The state also forced the cremation of Muslim Covid-19 victims, denying a dignified laying to rest in a burial, as per Islamic beliefs. This wanton cruelty, which began in March 2020 and continued despite global outrage, ended only recently, with the UN Human Rights Council session giving increased attention to Sri Lanka’s failure to pursue accountability for mass atrocities committed during the war.

But while international pressure did cause the government to somewhat relent this time, more is to come. The current government under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, himself accused of overseeing gross human rights violations, has been particularly committed to seizing any opportunity to hurt non-Sinhalese communities. As soon as the forced cremations were halted, the government announced it would look at banning Islamic face coverings and closing Islamic schools.

Tamil memorialisation activities, linked to the war and the armed resistance, also remain restricted. Last year’s Tamil Remembrance Day commemorations faced severe restrictions by the government, and this past January, a memorial was demolished – the latest among dozens of Tamil memorials and war cemeteries destroyed by the state.

Human rights groups have been calling for the repeal of the PTA since the 1980s. Yet, the draconian legislation, first said to be a temporary measure, remains in place.

The greatest opportunity for repeal was during the 2015-2018 “good governance” regime, but instead of holding Sri Lanka to its commitment to do so, the US and the EU prematurely rewarded Sri Lanka with increased political, trade and military links, reinforcing the ethnocratic structures that are so easily leveraged against minority communities.

And notably, despite the recent uptick in violence against Tamils and Muslims, the EU has just agreed to fund capacity-building for Sri Lanka’s counterterrorism efforts and its war crimes-accused security forces, together with the UN and Interpol, in a project worth $5m.

International pressure

Last Tuesday saw the UN Human Rights Council pass an important resolution that would place Sri Lanka under further scrutiny and establish an international mechanism to collect evidence of rights abuses. Sri Lanka’s immediate rejection of the resolution confirms that there is no political will to deal domestically with the crimes that occurred.

It’s also further evidence that the international community cannot rely on this forum alone. While efforts at the council are limited by institutional constraints, they are still useful leverage. Sri Lanka certainly seems to focus on the council as the biggest “threat” it’s facing – but the international community cannot rely on this very limited forum alone.

Individual countries have to use their own bilateral relationships in ways that give Sri Lanka limited options, other than to address longstanding grievances. In parallel, international efforts have to get underway to address international crimes. If Sri Lanka is allowed to continue to go down the path it’s going, its future will look remarkably like its past.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

The Sri Lanka Rupee hit a new record low against the US Dollar today.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) said the selling rate of the US Dollar closed at Rs. 202.04 today.

Meanwhile, the buying rate of the US Dollar stood at Rs. 197.62 for the day.

According to CBSL data, the Rupee has seen a continuous depreciation against the US Dollar over the last few weeks.

Sri Lanka received 600,000 doses of the Chinese donated Sinopharm vaccine today, some of which will be used to vaccinate Chinese nationals employed in the country starting next week, an official said.

Chief Epidemiologist Dr Sudath Samaraweera told EconomyNext that the consignment has been transported from the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) to the health ministry’s central storage facilities.

“As per the Chinese government’s request, we will first vaccinate Chinese workers in Sri Lanka, most likely starting next week,” he said.

However, said Samaraweera, the exact number of the Chinese nationals working in the island cannot be determined at the moment.

On March 20, the National Medicine Regulatory Authority (NMRA) approved a decision to bring the donated vaccine into the country and to immunise Chinese nationals with it, though the regulatory body has yet to authorise it for use on Sri Lankan citizens. The World Health Organisation (WHO), too, has yet to approve the jab for emergency use.

In an earlier interview Chief Executive Officer of NMRA doctor Kamal Jayasinghe said around 30,000 Chinese workers have requested vaccination in Sri Lanka.

Co-cabinet spokesman Minister Ramesh Pathirana said yesterday that pending WHO approval for emergency use, the health ministry will use the remaining doses of the donated Sinopharm vaccine to immunise the general public.

“The NMRA only gave approval to vaccinate Chinese workers in Sri Lanka with this vaccine,” Pathirana told reporters at the weekly cabinet press briefing yesterday. The minister did not explain how long the health ministry intends to store the vials until WHO approves the jab.

Meanwhile, the Association of Medical Specialists (AMS) issuing a statement yesterday said, according to the NMRA report published on March 17, due to the insufficient data provided to make a decision about the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of the Sinopharm vaccine it was decided to not to approve the vaccine for emergency use in Sri Lanka under the present circumstances.

“Despite this clear recommendation of a properly-constituted independent expert advisory panel, we are concerned about reports that a newly reconstituted Board of the NMRA appears to have taken an unprecedented step to disregard the expert panel opinion and allowed the import of the said vaccine to be used in Sri Lankans [sic],” President of the AMS Doctor Lalantha Ranasinghe said in the statement.

“We also note with great anxiety and dismay of certain arbitrary appointments and removals being made to the Board of NMRA. We strongly believe such moves as an attempt to undermine the scientific basis of vaccine approval and hence it’s safety, efficacy and acceptance by the general public,” he added.

Dr Ranasinghe was referring to a controversial removal of NMRA board members over the vaccine issue.

Pathirana, meanwhile, claimed that WHO approval has delayed due to a translation issue.

“It is said some translation issue has occurred since all data documents are in Chinese. As soon as they translate it to English and give their approval, it will be possible to administer the Sinopharm vaccine to Sri Lankans as well,” he said.

Pathirana’s remark about translation issues could not be independently verified, but a perusal of WHO documents showed that the Chinese vaccine may be approved for emergency use in early April.

“We will look for the most eligible community to receive the jab and will take necessary steps to vaccinate them,” Smaraweera told EconomyNext yesterday.

He noted, however, that NMRA approval for emergency use of the vaccine will need to be obtained, in addition to a number of other processes that must be completed, prior to administering it.

The Government is yet undecided on the electoral system under which to conduct the provincial council (PC) elections due to an amendment brought to the Cabinet of Ministers’ meeting on 29 March.

The proposals were to hold the PC elections either under the old system or to amend the PCs Elections Act and hold the elections under the mixed system.

The final decision regarding the amendment of the law pertaining to the PC elections was to be taken at the Cabinet meeting held on 29 March. At the meeting, the Cabinet had agreed on the enactment of the PCs (Amendment) Act and to thereby hold the elections under the mixed system (to elect 70% of the members under the proportional representation [PR] system and 30% under the first-past-the-post [FPTP] system).

However, Ministers Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Dr. Bandula Gunawardana, and Dullas Alahapperuma had opposed the proposal under the PR system of having three candidates per party, per electorate/seat.

Thus, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had decided to have a party leaders’ meeting to make a final decision on the amendment and postponed approving the said cabinet paper on the PCs polls.

The Government has sought Cabinet approval for the introduction of a new electoral system, a mix of the PR and the FPTP systems, for conducting the PC elections.

However, the delimitation process has hit a legal snag, making it impossible for the conduct of the polls in terms of the present law in force.

During its election campaign, the Government promised to hold the PCs elections soon after the general election.

Then Minister of Justice, Human Rights, and Legal Reforms Nimal Siripala de Silva publicly claimed that the PC elections would be held two months after the parliamentary elections that took place in August 2020.

However, even the general election got delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Nevertheless, while politicians boasted about holding the PC elections soon, the election monitoring bodies pointed out that no one could predict a time period for when the elections would be conducted before a decision in Parliament was taken about the electoral system under which the next PC elections should be held.

As predicted by the monitoring bodies, the Government is yet to decide on the electoral system that it should apply for the upcoming and overdue PC elections.

When contacted by The Morning, Election Commission (EC) Chairman Nimal G. Punchihewa stressed that the Commission was yet to be officially informed about any government decision taken to hold the PC elections.

He said that the elections could be held soon only if an amendment to the existing Act is passed in Parliament.

According to sources, the PC elections would take place after October 2021.

At present, all nine PCs are not functioning as their terms of office have expired. The terms of office of the Sabaragamuwa and Eastern PCs ended in September 2017, while the term of office of the North Central PC ended in October the same year. The terms of office of the Central, North Western, and Northern PCs ended in September 2018. The terms of office of the Southern and Western PCs ended in April 2019, while the term of office of the Uva PC ended in September 2019.

As per the provisions of the PCs Elections Act No. 2 of 1988, within one week of the dissolution of a PC, the EC Chairman is required by law to publish a notice of his/her intention to hold an election to that respective council, and this notice will specify the period during which nomination papers shall be received by the returning officer of each administrative district in the province.

However, with the introduction of the PCs Elections (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 2017, the entire system of PC elections has been changed, as it made necessary the appointment of a delimitation committee by the President within two weeks of the commencement of that Act, where the delimitation committee has to fulfil its responsibilities within four months of its appointment and thereafter submit its report to the subject minister.

Exploiting other countries by persuading rulers and professionals through bribery and corruption is the way of China, Prof. Nedalagamuwe Dhammadinna Thero said speaking to a rally held in Rideegama two days (28) ago.

“It is the way of China that bosses are bought for money, while the minions automatically follow. That is the way. Now, if you are in desire of achieving something, the deal could have been done by any means necessary in order to achieve it. That is how the procedure goes,” the Thera said.

He added: “This would be a very immoral, irregular and illegal system. The United States Constitution states that state-owned enterprises do not return commissions at home or abroad. But in China, you will be given a whole commission of 15%, if you ask for a 15% commission. Imagine!”

“Now the best example in our country would be the coal power plant in Norochcholai,” the Thera went on. “That’s about 300 megawatts of electricity. But in fact, only 270 are generated in the turbines. 30 missing. Why ? If quality turbines are imported, commissions cannot be paid. So bring a lower level one to it. Our general public does not know anything about it. We believe what the politicians and the engineers say. When both of them are given commissions, this is what happens.”

Civilians have the right to self-defence in the event of an unprovoked attack from a police officer, police spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana said.

Speaking to the privately owned Swarnavahini this morning, Rohana said members of the public may resort to self-defence if their life is threatened by the actions of a uniformed police officer abusing his or her powers, as per sections 92 and 93 of the penal code.

The police spokesman, who is also an attorney-at-law, was commenting on the brutal assault on a lorry driver by a traffic police officer in Pannipitiya yesterday (29). Footage of the incident went viral on social media yesterday afternoon and the constable, who is attached to the Maharagama police station, was promptly arrested later in the evening amid public outcry about police brutality.

Investigations have revealed that the lorry driver in question had accidentally knocked down the Traffic OIC (officer in charge) of the Maharagama police at the Pannipitiya junction on the High Level Road. Footage showed the enraged constable, who was on duty at the junction, shoving the driver to the ground and leaping onto him, not unlike a professional wrestler. (Incidentally, the constable is a former athlete, according to Rohana).

Asked if civilians who find themselves in such situations can retaliate in order to defend themselves, Rohana said a civilian who is unarmed and not showing resistance can use provisions in the penal code to defend themselves in such a situation.

“The law is the same for everyone. It’s fair. And the civilian has the right to self defence in that situation,” he said.

Section 92 of the penal code reads:

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under color of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised.
The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Explanation 1

A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2

A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction ; or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or. if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.

Section 93:

The right of private offence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely –

Firstly- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.