Wigneswaran boycotts Jaffna international Investor Forum

The Northern Province Investor Forum, held last week, was a landmark event for the Jaffna peninsula for many reasons.

It was the first time the business and financial community gathered in Jaffna to support the region’s economic development. Coming out of a three-decade long war and years of military occupation, such an event, needless to say, was a great opportunity for Jaffna to reinvent itself as a potential economic hub.

The investor forum also coincided with the famous Nallur festival – a major attraction for local and foreign tourists visiting the peninsula. The event was a clear indication that the authorities were swiftly moving away from the Colombo-centric business mentality, which restricts the country’s business and economic gains to the capital city and suburbs.

Another objective of the forum was to attract the Tamil diaspora to invest in the economic prospects of Jaffna. Since the end of the last stage of the war, a section of the Tamil diaspora always wanted to ‘give back’ to the province but never really got a chance from the previous administration, which looked at them with a modicum of suspicion.

After the new government’s ascension to power, communication channels were re-opened with the Tamil diaspora and they were encouraged to come back and support the economic machinery of the country. The investor forum was also designed to lay a strong foundation for long-term partnership with diaspora members who are willing to do ‘business’ with Sri Lanka.

The forum was initiated by Northern Province Governor Reginald Cooray, an SLFP stalwart who started his political career as a Leftist activist.

Many political observers dubbed Cooray’s move a commendable effort to uplift the living standards of the Northern community who silently bore the brunt of a thirty-year conflict. That was one reason why many business leaders and professionals supported the investor forum.

CM Wigneswaran was a notable absentee at the Northern Province Investors Forum. Picture: Courtesy youtube.com

When Governor Cooray first spoke to the media about the event, there was a question as to how the TNA-led provincial administration would respond to the forum.

There were multiple allegations that the Northern Provincial Council was not making any effort to resolve real socio-economic problems, on the grounds.

Their focus was more on passing resolutions to push the central government to devolve more power to them, and to investigate alleged war crimes and human rights abuses during the final phase of war. Unfortunately, they had no genuine interest in the effective functioning of the provincial administration and addressing day-to-day issues faced by the people.

When asked by the media if Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran would support the forum, the Governor said the Chief Minister did not have any issue with the event:

“When the Chief Minister met me I told him that we are holding an Investor Forum and the CM said ‘good’,” Cooray said, adding that invitations had been sent to Chief Minister Wigneswaran and other Tamil politicians in the area.

During the event, however, Chief Minister Wigneswaran was the notable absentee.

This came as a disappointment to many as Wigneswaran is the key political figure when it comes to matters concerning provincial administration. Sources close to the Northern Province Chief Minister told the Sunday Observer that Wigneswaran chose to stay away from the forum, in protest of what he termed as the government’s repeated moves to undermine the provincial administration of the North.

Despite Wigneswaran’s conspicuous absence, several other TNA parliamentarians including Mavai Senathirajah, E. Saravanapavan, Dr. Sivamohan and provincial council members including Chairman of Northern Provincial Council (NPC) C.V.K Sivagnanam, Provincial Minister P. Deniswaran, K. Sayanthan and Sugirthan were present at the event.

Representing the government, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs Minister D. Swaminthan, Fisheries Minister Mahinda Amaraweera, Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy and several others senior officials attended.

They were welcomed by the Northern Provincial Governor, who facilitated the event.

OMP Bill

The Chief Minister’s issue, however, once again demonstrated the tug-of-war between provincial administration and the Central Government when it comes to critical matters concerning the province.

On the other hand, it reflected badly on the Northern Province Chief Minister who occupied a very senior position in the judiciary, as a Supreme Court judge, before taking to politics. Ending weeks of speculation, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, placed his signature on the Office on Missing Persons Bill, officially certifying it to law. Along with the OMP bill, the Speaker also certified the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Amendment Bill, passed by the legislature. There is no question of the Speaker’s position on the OMP Bill, despite the UPFA rebel group’s claim against its validity. Speaking to the Sunday Observer last week, the Speaker said the OMP Bill was duly passed and legally valid.

“The JO’s argument is only a matter of opinion, which I respect. As far as I am concerned, I have corroborated with legal experts who have assured me that the correct procedure was followed,” he said.

“If the JO alleges that the OMP Bill was passed in Parliament violating parliamentary rules and procedure, they have also violated the Standing Orders by venturing into well of the House singing and disturbing the Speaker and the proceedings, when the Bill was presented,” he said, explaining his position on the matter.

However, speaking in Parliament a day after the signing, the Speaker requested the government to look into the possibility of accommodating further Amendments to the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Act.

The Speaker made this request responding to a Point of Order that stated that one of three Amendments proposed by JVP MP Bimal Rathnayake and the Amendments proposed by TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran had been missed during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

It was pointed out that the Amendments had been missed at the Committee Stage of the Bill, owing to the pandemonium that prevailed in Parliament at that time.

However, the Speaker reassured that there is no question on the validity of the Act as it has gone through all the required channels.

Leader of the House, Minister Lakshman Kiriella said he would consult Foreign Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera on the possibility of bringing further Amendments to the Act, by way of an Amendment Bill before the presentation of the annual Budget.

“These were agreed on and accepted by the Government. However, due to the unruly conduct of a handful of MPs who charged in to the well of the House and created a ruckus some had been missed.

As we gave our support to the Bill subject to these Amendments, the Government has a moral obligation to include these Amendments,” JVP Leader Anura Dissanayake said, explaining the circumstances leading to the Point of Order.

UPFA MP Dinesh Gunawardena, a strong critic of the Bill, said the passage of the OMP was against the Standing Orders of Parliament. He pointed out to a clause in the Act, which refers to an international convention on missing persons, and demanded to know whether Sri Lanka has ratified it, while observing that the Cabinet and Parliament should approve the ratification of such a Convention.

Wimal Weerawansa, another UPFA MP, supported Gunawardena’s argument, saying the OMP would be a ‘factory’ producing charges against whom he termed ‘war heroes’. Kiriella, at this point, asked why the JO failed to petition against the Bill at the Supreme Court if they had these concerns.

They resorted to the same tactic with regard to the VAT bill and dubbed it an intervention they made on behalf of the common public.

Although they had similar concerns over the OMP Bill, the JO opted to take a different path, raising questions on the bona fides of their claims.

“Many were eagerly waiting for a robust debate on the Bill. But, the JO sabotaged the debate. If they had a real concern they could have taken part in the debate. Now, they are too late. We are not in a position to reverse the process now.

I must also recall former Minister Richard Pathirana once passed 13 Bills on a single day. So why do you question this move?,” Kiriella asked. However, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, on Thursday, announced that the government was ready to accommodate any Amendment to the Office on Missing Persons Act, which had been missed during its Committee Stage. It was a progressive move by the government to include everyone in the process of formulating a crucial piece of legislation. The Prime Minister said the matter would be discussed further with the Foreign Minister. “We will look into all the options available to include this Amendment.

If there is no other way we will bring in an Amendment Bill to the OMP Act,” he said, disclosing the government’s position on the matter.

After the Prime Minister’s assurance, the Chief Government Whip asked the JVP to submit its Amendments to the bill in writing. Speaking on the same issue on Thursday, Minister Mangala Samaraweera fired a salvo at former President Rajapaksa, the leader of the group attempting to derail the OMP progress, citing various procedural flaws. “In 1990, I can recall that Mahinda Rajapaksa, as an Opposition member, said in one his speeches in Parliament that he would not only go to Geneva but even to hell if necessary to represent the tears of the loved ones of the missing persons.

Now we have introduced a mechanism to address their issue without going to Geneva or to hell,” Samaraweera quipped, directing his criticism at his erstwhile colleague Rajapaksa.

He said, according to the ICRC, 16,008 people have gone missing during the final phase of war. However, he said, the statistics from the Working Group on Empowering Disappearances and the Paranagama Commission report resented different numbers on the number of disappearances. He further added that 5,100 security personnel and Police have also gone missing.

“Relatives of persons missing and presumed dead due to either the conflict in the North or the East, civil disturbances and riots or members of the armed forces and Police identified as Missing in Action can apply to the Office on Missing Persons to receive a Certificate of Death in line with the provisions of the Act,” the Foreign Minister explained.

Tittawella

While the government took measures to resolve the controversy surrounding the OMP Bill, a statement by co-Cabinet spokesman Minister Rajitha Senaratne on Mano Tittawella being recommended to the post of Secretary of the OMP created a confusion of sorts among political circles.

Tittawella, who has over 25-years experience in private and public sector positions, currently functions as the Secretary-General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRC) The SCRM, however, was quick to deny Minister Senaratne’s remark. In a statement released on Thursday afternoon, the SCRM said Tittawella was neither Secretary nor member of the OMP.

“This is to confirm that Mano Tittawella was appointed the Secretary General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM) on March 29, 2016,” it said. “The SCRM is the apex body created by Cabinet in December 2015 to coordinate all reconciliation related activities in Sri Lanka.

“The SCRM is established under the Prime Minister’s Office and the Secretary General reports directly to the Prime Minister and through him to the President. The Cabinet of Ministers at its last Cabinet meeting approved the structure of the SCRM and the required funding for its operations. Accordingly, Abesinghe Arachchige Dayananda was appointed to the post of Head of Establishments.

“The members to the recently enacted Office of Missing Persons (OMP) will be appointed by the Constitutional Council and will be accountable directly to the Parliament of Sri Lanka. Tittawella is neither the Secretary nor a member of the OMP,’ the SCRM statement said.

CBK

Meanwhile, former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, speaking at the launch of a website for bilingual/trilingual resource pool held at the Committee Room ‘A’ of the BMICH, took an interesting position on the ‘Sinhala Only’ language policy adopted by her father, former President S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, in the run up to the 1956 General Election.

The resource pool was initiated by the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) in partnership with the Department of Official Languages to allow public institutions to have access to qualified translators in ensuring the language rights of all citizens.

Speaking at the event, the former President said the Bandaranaike administration’s language policy should be analysed and examined against the backdrop of 450 years of colonial rule, until Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948.

“In 1956, after eight years of independence, the Sinhala people, nearly 75 per cent of the country’s population, felt that they were being discriminated against, not by the Tamil or Muslim people but by the white rulers who dominated our country.

They felt a need to establish their collective identity and to regain an important place in the society - at large. Elevating the status of their language – a language spoken by 75 percent of the population – addressed their need,” the former President explained.

Known for her progressive views on ethnic harmony and reconciliation, the former President’s views gave a new dimension to her father’s controversial language policy, which came under criticism from many quarters, over the past six decades.

However, Kumaratunga also pointed out that although her father’s administration introduced corrective measures the following year to ensure “reasonable use of the Tamil language”, successive administrations failed to implement them.

“As a result, today, we do not have a single person who can speak Tamil or work in Tamil in most government offices, including ministries.

I tried to address this problem when I became President, but we had to face practical problems when recruiting Tamil people due to the war,” Kumaratunga said. She said the current government was very serious about facilitating state institutions to have sufficient officers to work in the Tamil language. After the former President’s remarks, Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages Mano Ganesan said the implementation of the language policy and addressing language related issues would solve more than half of the ethnic problems in the country.

The Minister said he would submit a “revolutionary cabinet paper” to strengthen ongoing efforts to encourage the Sinhalese to learn the Tamil language. Minister Ganesan said the proposed Cabinet paper would seek a policy decision regarding the Sinhalese acquiring proficiency in the Tamil language before being absorbed into the public sector – a proposal that caused ripples among some sections of the Sinhalese community, a few years ago.

It goes without saying that the remarks made by former President Kumaratunga on her father’s language policy and the Minister’s revelation on the controversial cabinet paper ensured that the launch of the resource pool made headlines!

[Treasury Bonds probe]

COPE finds CB evidence conflicting

The COPE probe into the Treasury bonds issue took a new turn last week with the minutes of the meeting on August 12 suggesting that there had been contradictory evidence given by Central Bank officials regarding the bond issue.

According to the minutes of the 44th meeting of the COPE held at the Parliamentary complex on August 12, the evidence of the CB officials had contradicted the evidence given by them before the same committee, previously.

Due to this contradiction, the COPE was to come to a decision on whether the investigations should be carried out based on the already given evidence or whether they should be summoned again to give further oral evidence. The minutes also said the Committee should draw a road map to carry out investigations into the bond issue.

The COPE, on August 12, summoned National Policies and Economic Affairs Ministry officials and CB officials to obtain a clarification regarding the bond issue.

They also decided to summon any other party who would be considered necessary to obtain clarification with regard to the matter. The contradiction of evidence, stated in the report, indicates that the COPE inquiry into the alleged bond issue will need more time to conclude.

However, the Committee has already decided that disagreements on facts among members, if any, with regard to the bond issue, be included in the report.