‘Chinese in Jaffna islands may cause Cuban missile crisis type situation’

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 362

 

Published

  2021/03/31

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC), Dr. Jehan Perera, last Wednesday (24) explained, in his opinion, why India abstained at a controversial vote at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.The vote took place on March 23.

The NPC Chief asserted India based its decision on three reasons namely (i) Sri Lanka choosing China to execute USD 12 mn renewable energy projects in Delft, Analativu and Nainativu islands, off the Jaffna peninsula. The joint venture with MS/Sinosar-Etechwin received funding from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The islands have no access to the national grid (ii) Indian Central Government concerns for its own Tamil population and (iii) a section of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government demanding the abolition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the failure, on the part of Sri Lanka to, fully implement the law.

Dr. Perera said so in response to TV 1 ‘Newsline’ anchor Faraz Shauketally’s query ‘why did India let us down?’ The NPC spokesperson described Sri Lanka’s relationship with China as nothing but a terrible mistake. Both China and India are nuclear powers, with the former also being a member of the UN Security Council.

The NGO activist compared Sri Lanka allowing China access to Jaffna islands with the Cuban missile crisis (16 October – 20 November 1962) between the then Superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union. The conflict is considered the closest the ‘Cold War’ came to escalating into a nuclear war. The unprecedented crisis erupted when the Soviet Union deployed ballistic missiles, in Cuba, in response to the US positioning missiles in NATO member states, Italy and Turkey. The missile crisis should be also examined against the backdrop of a failed US assault on Cuba (aka Bay of Pigs invasion), which ended in total embarrassment for Washington, no sooner it started.

Dr. Perera certainly owed the public an explanation how he arrived at the conclusion that raised many an eyebrow. Can there be anything as preposterous as such a comparison. Perhaps, the NPC Chief should explain his stand on the Access and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA), with the US, finalized in early August 2017, now suspended Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Compact and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The NPC position is vital as that of other like-minded organizations/persons as they frowned on the Sri Lanka-China relationship.

13 A continues to rattle Lanka

Sri Lanka’s wartime Permanent Representative in Geneva, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, too, faulted the incumbent government for India’s decision to skip the vote on the latest accountability resolution.

Appearing on Sirasa ‘Pathikada’, anchored by Asoka Dias, Jayatilleka, having referred to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s meeting with Indian leader Narendra Modi in late Nov 2019, claimed lucidly how the incumbent dispensation antagonized India by varying statements regarding the 13th Amendment and Provincial Council polls. Jayatilleka asserted that twice President Mahinda Rajapaksa would have responded to Premier Modi’s query on the 13th Amendment in a different manner. Jayatilleke maintained that public statements made by Public Security Minister Rear Admiral (retd.) Sarath Weerasekera, Defence Secretary Maj. Gen. (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne and Foreign Secretary Admiral (retd.) Jayanath Colombage influenced not only India but other members of the UNHRC as well against Colombo. Jayatilleka also faulted the government for not properly assessing the forthcoming Tamil Nadu elections.

The writer sought clarification regarding veteran political commentator Jayatilleka’s status, particularly whether he expressed those views as Senior Advisor on International Relations to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa. Jayatilleke said that he was not interviewed in his capacity as Senior Advisor to the Opposition Leader, nor did he respond in that capacity. “I have no position in the SJB. I am not a member of, nor organizationally affiliated, to any political party,” Jayatilleke, who led Sri Lanka to victory at the 2009 Geneva vote, in the immediate aftermath of Sri Lanka’s triumph over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) said. Sri Lanka lost four subsequent votes with last week’s one being the worst, slammed Jayatilleka, who also served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Moscow during the yahapalana administration (Sept 2018-January 2020), courtesy then President Maithripala Sirisena.

Tamara Kunanayakam had been our Permanent Representative, in Geneva when Sri Lanka lost in 2012, and Ravinatha Aryasinha when Colombo lost in 2013 and 2014— all under the same President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was in office when Jayatilleka fought a valiant fight in Geneva and won in 2009. C.A. Chandraprema, a former colleague of the writer, is the current PR in Geneva.

But certainly a defeat at the UNHRC cannot be squarely blamed on the PR as decisions are taken on the basis of policies adopted by respective governments. The 2015 Geneva betrayal is far worse than any defeat inflicted on war-winning Sri Lanka.

Reiterating commitment to the Geneva resolution, co-sponsored by the yahapalana administration in Oct 2015, Dr. Perera urged the government to ensure the implementation of that resolution though the incumbent administration withdrew from it in Feb 2020 for the obvious reason of not meekly surrendering to Western agenda against this country. Dr. Perera asserted that the government could reach consensus with what he called a responsible Opposition in that regard. Dr. Perera was obviously referring to not only the main Opposition party, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), but all those who backed Maithripala Sirisena at the 2015 presidential election.

It would be pertinent to mention the NPC, established in 1995 receives funding from the British (member of the UNHRC and leader of Sri Lanka Core Group), USAID (US spearheaded the campaign against Sri Lanka, although not being a member of the UNHRC), EU (EU members Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland voted for the resolution), the Asia Foundation, UN Peace Building, Legal Action Worldwide et al. Dr. Perera established the NPC having had served Sarvodaya under Dr. A.T. Ariyaratne for seven years (1988-95). The NPC, one of the biggest recipients of foreign funding, particularly from Norway, played a crucial role in the disastrous Oslo-led peace process (2002-2003) and caused shock and dismay in Aug 2005 when it declared the LTTE’s assassination of the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar tragic but inevitable.

Can the NPC be faulted for pursuing the agenda of those who fund the organization? Dr. Perera’s participation at a meeting, called by UNP leader and the then PM Wickremesinghe, during the leadership struggle in the run up to the 2019 presidential poll, cannot be ignored as one examined the full picture.

 

India guided by two principle considerations

Let me reproduce the relevant section from the statement made by New Delhi’s PR in Geneva Mani Pandey, before the Geneva vote. It explained India’s decision to skip the vote having made an abortive bid to put off the vote. The relevant section verbatim: “India’s approach to the question of human rights in Sri Lanka is guided by two principal considerations. One is our support to the Tamils of Sri Lanka for equality, justice, dignity and peace. The other is in ensuring the unity, stability and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. We have always believed that these two goals are mutually supportive and Sri Lanka’s progress is best assured by simultaneously addressing both objectives. India supports the call by the international community for the government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments on the devolution of political authority, including through the early holding of elections for Provincial Councils and to ensure that all Provincial Councils are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution.”

The UK headquartered Global Tamil Forum (GTF) further explained India’s role that had a bearing on many UNHRC members. GTF spokesperson Suren Surendiran stated: “GTF would like to express its appreciation and gratitude to all progressive forces that made this current outcome possible – the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, the core group of countries, all countries who voted for and/or co-sponsored the resolution, the countries that abstained without voting against the resolution, eminent persons and dedicated human rights organizations who championed the cause, and, more importantly, the victims of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka who despite the time lapse and the risks involved, continue to provide inspiration by bravely fighting for human rights and accountability.

“Tamils are grateful to the Government of India for supporting an escalation of the Tamil demand for equality, justice (accountability), dignity and peace at a multilateral international forum, like the UNHRC.

“By specifying India’s support to the international community, calling on the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments to devolve political power to the Tamils and to allow those devolved powers to be operationalized effectively, according to the 13th Amendment of the constitution, is very significant.

“By making a public statement before the vote and by abstaining, India has clearly shown its displeasure with the lack of progress on addressing the alleged violations of human rights and international laws and the non-implementation of Sri Lanka’s numerous public commitments of the past in addressing the grievances of the Tamil people.

“Tamils are grateful to the Tamil Nadu political parties, particularly the DMK President M.K. Stalin, for the recent statement calling on the Government of India not to support the Government of Sri Lanka by voting against the resolution.”

 

Why are all silent on Delhi’s role?

However, there hadn’t been any reference in ‘Newsline’ or ‘Pathikada’ interviews or in statements made by Surendiran and Pandey to India’s murderous role in Sri Lanka that resulted in the nearly three-decade long war. The bottom line is that if not for India there wouldn’t have been Nanthikadal where the victorious Sri Lanka Army (SLA) annihilated the LTTE leadership. Sri Lanka hopefully dealt with the LTTE for once and for all.

However, Sri Lanka lacked political will at least to set the record straight, in spite of being unmercifully harassed by Western powers and India. Those who had been pursuing a political agenda, since the successful conclusion of the war, at the UNHRC, conveniently refrained from making any reference to India’s despicable role here. Successive, Sri Lankan governments, too, remained silent, as regards Indian and other foreign involvement, and, thereby facilitated a relatively smooth anti-Sri Lanka project.

Before further discussing the deterioration of Sri Lanka due to India’s terrorist project here, let me remind you what one-time Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Shivshankar Menon (1997-2000) stated about Sri Lanka’s strategic positioning in relation to India and how Sri Lanka could threaten India. Against the backdrop of Menon’s assessment, Dr. Perera’s bid to compare Chinese on Jaffna islands with the Cuban missile crisis is rather alarming.

Sri Lanka never responded to Menon’s accusations in ‘Choices: Inside the making of India’s foreign policy,’ launched in Oct 2016. The veteran diplomat asserted India wanted a change of government in Sri Lanka due to then President Mahinda Rajapaksa going back on his pledge in respect of Sri Lanka-China relations. Menon accused Rajapaksa of breaking his solemn pledge, in May 2014, five years after the successful conclusion of the conflict. Menon’s assertion that Sri Lanka is an aircraft carrier, parked 14 miles off the Indian coast, clearly underscored New Delhi’s serious concerns regarding Sri Lanka being too close to China.

Menon, who had been India’s National Security Advisor, from January, 2011 to May, 2014, refrained from revealing a specific incident/or incidents which revealed Sri Lanka’s duplicity in May 2014. Incumbent Ajit Doval succeeded Menon. Doval is on record as having told Gotabaya Rajapaksa (during the first Rajapaksa administration) Sri Lanka being a small country does not need big infrastructure projects. Doval also had the audacity to urge Gotabaya Rajapaksa to do away with major Chinese funded projects, including flagship USD 1.4 bn Colombo Port City. Having commented on the conduct of former President Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Menon accused Sri Lanka of reneging on bilateral understanding with India. Menon directly alleged that the former President received Chinese funds for his political campaigns, and projects. The veteran diplomat didn’t indicate when the war-winning President first received Chinese funding.

Both Dr. Perera, who had represented the Sri Lanka delegation, to the 2016 Geneva session under the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, and Dr. Jayatilleka, warned the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government of dire consequences unless Sri Lanka acted swiftly and decisively to address international concerns. Both pressed the government to adhere with the consensus reached in respect of the 2015 resolution, whereas Dr. Jayatilleka emphasized the pivotal importance in acting on the recommendations made by the late Sir Desmond de Silva, QC, in the Paranagama report (second mandate). Jayatilleka explained how yahapalana Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and FM Mangala Samaraweera squandered an opportunity to exploit those recommendations. Alleging Wickremesinghe and Samaraweera buried internationally accepted Sir Despond de Silva’s report on Sri Lanka’s execution of the war from an international legal angle, Dr. Jayatilleka asked why the incumbent government suppressed such valuable recommendations. Dr. Jayatilleka underscored the importance in the proper use of available reports, including the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) findings that dealt with the conflict. The writer, when he sought a clarification from PR Chandreprema, was told the six reports, including the Paranamaga second mandate report, were submitted to UN member states.

 

Lanka’s treacherous failure

Actually, the government conveniently failed to exploit a number of other credible reports available in the public domain such as wartime (January-May 2009) British High Commission dispatches (and sections yet to be released), US Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s revelations in Colombo in 2011, UN report on Vanni war (August 2008-May 13, 2009), Wikileaks and UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) denying examination of war crimes allegations till 2031 to present a far stronger case. ‘Newsline’ and ‘Pathikada’ programmes didn’t discuss Sri Lanka’s pathetic and treacherous failure to use credible evidence provided by those propagating lies to counter the Geneva project. The SJB and JVP, too, conveniently refrained from raising the issue. In fact, no one bothered to point out accountability accusations are nothing but a joke in the wake of the Tamil speaking electorate covering the northern and eastern electorates, including Jaffna, overwhelmingly voting for war-winning Army Commander at the 2010 presidential election after having accused him and his army of genocide and just a couple of months after the SLA permanently dispatched Prabhakaran.

The Western project receives the backing of a section of the parliament with some members openly blaming the military for genocide. They haven’t been taken to task. Irresponsible political leadership discarded what one-time UN bigwig Jayantha Dhanapala told the LLRC in August 2010. The first Rajapaksa administration never bothered to examine and exploit post-war developments. Their failure to utilize Lt. Col Smith’s declaration at the first Colombo Defence Seminar in May-June 2011 that there had never been an agreement between the SLA/Government and the LTTE as regards a formal surrender and battlefield executions didn’t take place, was never used. The government was silent on this at the recently concluded Geneva sessions, too.

Having sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka and as a result lost a former PM and over 1,500 officers and men and 3,000 wounded during the Indian Army deployment here (July 1987-March 1990) , India had no qualms in preaching to Sri Lanka of accountability. Can India absolve itself of the responsibility for its murderous conduct in Sri Lanka and men, trained by them, raiding the Maldives, in early Nov 1988. They made an abortive bid to assassinate the then Maldivian President Gayoom. Perhaps Sri Lanka should at least now take note of Dhanapala’s declaration at the LLRC.

Commenting on the responsibility to protect concepts, Amb. Dhanapala said: “Now I think it is important for us to expand that concept to bring in the culpability of those members of the international community who have subscribed to the situation that has caused injury to the civilians of a nation. I talk about the way in which terrorist groups are given sanctuary; are harboured; are supplied with arms and training by some countries with regard to neighbours or with regard to other countries. We know that in our case this has happened, and I don’t want to name countries, but even countries who have allowed their financial procedures and systems to be abused in such a way that money can flow from their countries in order to buy the arms and ammunition that cause the deaths, the maiming and the destruction of property in Sri Lanka are to blame and there is therefore a responsibility to protect our civilians and the civilians of other nation states from that kind of behaviour on the part of members of the international community, and I think this is something that will echo with many countries in the Non-Aligned Movement where Sri Lanka has a very respected position and where I hope we will be able to raise this issue.”

Dr. Jayatilleka, who had been Minister of Planning and Youth Affairs of the short-lived EPRLF administration of the Northeast Provincial Council, between 1988 and 1989, reminded the government of the need to prepare proper defence as Geneva formed a Special Office to deal with Sri Lanka consequent to the passage of the resolution. Jayatilleka pointed out how the new Office, backed with UN funding to the tune of USD 2.8 mn, could gather information and evidence and use them to move courts in 22 countries (those who backed the resolution) unless Sri Lanka addressed accountability issues within the stipulated period.

Perhaps Sri Lanka should bring to the notice of the new Office what one-time India’s High Commissioner in Colombo, J. N. Dixit, revealed in his memoirs, ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy,’ launched in 2004. Dixit asserted that the decision to give active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants could be considered one of the two major foreign policy blunders made by the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. But he strongly defended the Prime Minister’s action, while asserting Gandhi couldn’t have afforded the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils [Chapter 6:An Indo-centric Practitioner of Realpolitik-Makers of India’s Foreign Policy]. Dixit failed to explain how the Prime Minister hoped to achieve her twin objectives by recruiting, training, arming and deploying thousands of Sri Lankan Tamil youth. India also helped Sri Lankan terrorists establish contact with international terrorist groups.

 

Adele’s hand in Gandhi assassination

Did India actually cause terrorism here in the 80s to create an environment conducive for the deployment of its Army in Sri Lanka? How many Tamils perished in the hands of the Indian Army? Those demanding action against perpetrators of violence should explain how they expect to deal with those ex-Tamil terrorists living in India, Europe, Canada, Norway, the US at al. Infamous of them all is Adele Balasingham, wife of LTTE theoretician, the late Anton Balasingham, a one-time British High Commission, Colombo, employee. Adele in spite of her role in building up LTTE women’s cadre, lives under British protection. Can British assure the world Adele didn’t have a hand in choosing the suicide bomber who blew up Rajiv Gandhi in South India May 1991. The members of that LTTE squad tasked to assassinate Gandhi were killed in subsequent Indian operations. Those killed in the Indian hands are probably among the list of missing persons along with the suicide bomber!

 

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS

In the final analysis despite what all the pseudo-experts say coloured by their own hiden agendas, such as even singing for their supper, it is quite obvious that Sri Lanka had no chance in hell in Geneva as the UNHRC is more or less a tool of the West and it did not matter what evidence, even if they were gilt-edged, we had in our defense, the West, particularly the US and the UK, was all-out to turn a Nelsonian Eye to whatever our pleadings. They had in fact convicted us long before all these charades there to hoodwink the gullible.

Premier Mody and, more importantly, the South Block in New Delhi, should realise if they have not done so already, the Americans only want to drag China and India into an internecine conflict or a much bigger quagmire by encouraging their rivalry – a typical tried and tested British tactic that helped it to plunder much of the world. This way they must be watching with glee the possible  killing of two birds with one stone!

Lastly, remember how the Americans, in particular, used Pakistan for so long into the 90s to project their global agendas, which included their dream of breaking up India and then dropped that country like a hot brick.

Sri Lanka’s collective failure on the Geneva front

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 361

Published

  2021/03/24

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Successive governments facilitated a high profile treacherous Geneva process by conveniently or incompetently refraining from exploiting former RAF pilot Michael Wolfgang Laurence Morris or Lord Naseby’s shocking disclosure in the House of Lords on Oct 12, 2017 to set the record straight as regards unsubstantiated war crimes.

The real issue is not defeat suffered by Sri Lanka at the UNHRC yesterday (23) but the failure on the part of successive governments to properly defend the armed forces.

Sri Lanka defeated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which was widely considered to be invincible and the most ruthless terrorist organisation in the world, following a nearly three-year long combined security forces campaign. The war was brought to a successful conclusion on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on May 19, 2009.

Sri Lanka’s collective failure to take advantage of Lord Naseby’s revelation as well as other related credible information in the public domain is nothing but betrayal of the war-winning armed forces. Lord Naseby provided the much needed ammunition to expose the Geneva lie two years after the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government betrayed the armed forces at the UNHRC in Oct 2015.

On behalf of Sri Lanka, the then Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinghe accepted the ‘Accountability Resolution 30/1’ on a specific directive from Premier Wickremesinghe-FM Mangala Samaraweera. Aryasinghe, who had earlier strongly opposed the US-led resolution at the informal discussions with the Core Group of Sri Lanka, is our Ambassador in Washington now.

A controversial US statement

The first indication that unsubstantiated war crimes accusations can be successfully countered was received at the first ever Colombo Defence Seminar conducted in late May-June 2011 during Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya’s tenure as the Commander of the Army (July 2009-July 2013). Jayasuriya succeeded war-winning Army Commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka in the wake of an unprecedented dispute between the Rajapaksas and Fonseka. The Sinha Regiment veteran ended up as the common candidate at the 2010 presidential election challenging Mahinda Rajapaksa his Commander in Chief only a few months before.

Thanks to Wikileaks, the US role in making Fonseka the common candidate as well as ensuring the one-time LTTE proxy, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) extending support to him is in the public domain. The day the TNA declared its support to Fonseka, the unsubstantiated war crimes accusations should have been unceremoniously discarded. But, unfortunately, the war crimes accusations persisted even after the predominantly Tamil speaking northern and eastern electoral districts overwhelmingly voted for him.

At the first Defence Seminar, the then US Defence Advisor in Colombo Lt. Col. Lawrence questioned the very basis of allegations, including the execution of surrendered terrorists directed at the Army (58 Division/formerly Task Force I). The US official was responding to a query posed by retired Major General Ashok K. Mehta, formerly of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed here, to Major General Shavendra Silva, the first General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the celebrated 58 Division. Silva, the incumbent Army Chief was there in his capacity as Sri Lanka’s then No 02 at the UN. Smith’s voluntary and spontaneous revelation, made weeks after the UNSG’s Panel of Experts (PoE) aka the Darusman report accused Sri Lanka of killing as many as 40,000 (paragraph 137) embarrassed the US (Sri Lanka Defence Symposium: Now, US suspects credibility of LTTE surrender offer with strap line…dismisses KP, Nadesan as ‘mouthpieces’ with no real authority – The Island, June 3, 2011)

The US State Department had no option but to claim Lt. Colonel Smith hadn’t represented the US at the seminar. The political leadership and Army Headquarters never exploited the US official’s statement. In fact, Smith’s statement made six years before Lord Naseby’s disclosure based on the then British Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Anthony Gash’s wartime dispatches, should have been the basis for Sri L:anka’s defence. It would be pertinent to examine why the first Rajapaksa administration never bothered to examine the US official’s statement. In fact, the Army never really pursued the matter during the tenure of Army Commanders – Daya Ratnayaka (Aug 2013-Feb 2015), Chrishantha de Silva (Feb-2015-June 2017) and Mahesh Senanayake (June 2017-August 2019) as Commander of the Army. Lord Naseby made his disclosure during Mahesh Senanayake’s tenure as the Commander. But, the Army never examined/exploited Lt. Col. Smith’s statement and that of Lord Naseby as part of Sri Lanka’s overall defence in Geneva.

The politically motivated US decision to slap a travel ban on incumbent Army Commander in Feb 2020 should be examined against the backdrop of the criminal negligence on Sri Lanka’s part to counter lies propagated in spite of having powerful ammunition. Actually a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) is necessary to ascertain the shocking lapses on the part of political and military leaderships that led to ‘Accountability Resolution 30/1’ in 2015 and the expansion of relentless and continuing Western campaign.

 

Yahapalanaya rejects Naseby disclosure

Treacherous politicians, some sections of the media and diplomatic community and the civil the society worked overtime to suppress Lord Naseby’s disclosure that threatened to undermine the devious Geneva project. The Geneva operation was meant to introduce a new Constitution that did away with Sri Lanka’s unitary status in the guise of addressing accountability issues. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration spearheaded the despicable project. The then Joint Opposition (now SLPP) co-operated in that endeavor by being part of a parliamentary process to draft a new Constitution, spearheaded by Premier Wickremesinghe. President Sirisena remained an onlooker whereas his parliamentary group participated in the process. Wimal Weerawansa’s National Freedom Front (NFF) subsequently quit the process though his efforts to convince the JO to do so failed.

Lord Naseby’s disclosure threatened to weaken the yahapalana project. The Foreign Ministry under Ravi Karunanayake (RK received the appointment in the wake of Samaraweera’s removal as FM in May 2017) ridiculed Lord Naseby’s statement.

Did the Sri Lanka High Commission in London bring Lord Naseby’s statement to the Foreign Ministry’s attention? For want of a Foreign Ministry response to Lord Naseby’s very important statement, even a week after it was made, the writer, on Oct 20, 2017, sought an explanation from the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry response really disappointed a vast majority of people, who expected the government to use the House of Lords disclosure to counter lies that had been propagated by various interested parties. Instead of taking advantage of Lord Naseby’s statement, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mahishini Colonne declared: “The Government of Sri Lanka remains committed to the national processes, aimed at realizing the vision of a reconciled, stable, peaceful and prosperous nation. Engaging in arguments and debates in the international domain over the number of civilians who may have died at a particular time in the country will not help resolve any issues, in a meaningful manner, locally, except a feel good factor for a few individuals who may think that they have won a debate or scored points over someone or the other.”

The writer also raised Lord Naseby’s disclosure with the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA), one-time mouthpiece of the LTTE and the main Opposition in Parliament. The TNA refrained from responding to The Island queries submitted to TNA leader R. Sampanthan. In spite of over a dozen calls/sms to Raghu Balachandran of Sampanthan’s Office, The Island never received the TNA’s response. You may want to know when the set of questions regarding TNA’s response to Lord Naseby’s disclosure was submitted to that party. The Island submitted the following questions to TNA and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan on Nov. 27, 2017 and repeatedly reminded the Opposition Leader’s Office of the delay on its part to respond: Have you (TNA) studied Lord Naseby’s statement made in the House of Lords on Oct. 12, 2017? What is TNA’s position on Naseby’s claims? Did TNA leaders discuss Naseby’s claim among themselves? Did TNA respond to MP Dinesh Gunawardena’s statements in Parliament on Naseby’s disclosure? And did TNA take up this issue with the UK High Commissioner James Dauris?

 

UK plays politics with Gash reports

The British HC too side-stepped the issue. When the writer raised the issue with Lord Naseby soon after his explosive Oct 12, 2017 disclosure, the Conservative Party member said that he received an assurance from the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mark Field, that the issue at hand would be examined (FCO to study Naseby’s proposals – The Island, Oct 26, 2017). However, when the writer sought an explanation from the British HC in Colombo on the same matter, the mission dismissed Lord Naseby’s statement on the basis he was not speaking for the British government (Naseby’s call doesn’t reflect UK’s stand – HC, The Island Dec 6, 2017).

The UK never hesitated to praise Channel 4 News that propagated accusations that the Sri Lankan military massacred over 40,000 civilians. The then UK Prime Minister David Cameron went out of his way to praise the Channel 4 team accompanying him to Colombo for CHOGM 2013 when he addressed the media at the BMICH. Questions at this peculiar press conference were only fielded from a handpicked lot, especially from his retinue of embedded reporters from the UK brought with him. Is that another display of “British sense of justice and fair play”? But one plucky Lankan journalist Rajpal Abeynayake clearly shouted out “bloody hypocrites” as Cameron got up and left without taking any questions from independent journalists.

 The UK should really examine its role here, how it had intentionally contributed to terrorism much to the disappointment of the majority of Sri Lankans. Let me remind you of a statement made by one-time UK High Commissioner in Colombo David Tattham in 1996 soon after the armed forces brought the Jaffna peninsula under the government control. Tattham, during a visit to Jaffna, urged the Diaspora not to fund the LTTE. But the UK didn’t take any notice of Tattham’s appeal. The LTTE was allowed to operate there with impunity.

 

Relevance of Offord’s speech

Despite being up to all types of villainy around the world (for example what did the ICC say recently about the behviour of her troops in Afghanistan and how London shamelessly passed hasty legislation to save their skins), the British are now championing human rights here in its new capacity as leader of the Sri Lanka Core Group without even examining the post-war situation. Perhaps a statement delivered by Matthew Offord, the current Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Sri Lanka (Lord Naseby is the Honorary President and Founder) on March 18, 2021 in the House of Commons debate on UK’s commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka underscored the need for a fresh examination of the war, post-war and related matters.

The following is the text of elected member Offord’s speech: “I start by highlighting my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s relationship with the rest of the world has been strongly shaped since the end of the conflict by allegations that the Army committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phase of the civil war.

“A UN panel of experts reported in April 2011 that there were credible allegations of those crimes by both Government and Tamil Tiger forces. It remains my opinion that both sides were at fault. However, I regret the Government of Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw support for UNHRC resolution 30/1 and note that previous domestic initiatives have failed to deliver meaningful accountability. I therefore urge the Sri Lankan Government to engage in a process that has the confidence of all on the island.

“But it would be remiss to state that the current Sri Lankan Government has failed to act. The Office on Missing Persons and the Office for Reparations are to be retained and strengthened, so that communities may build trust. It will be good to see reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and progress on the release of political prisoners. We must act as a critical friend to the country. We need to help strengthen democratic institutions, and we must trust Sri Lanka to develop its own judicial and non-judicial mechanisms.

“Since the end of the conflict, reconciliation has occurred among Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities. People are able to live wherever they wish. They benefit from state resources, such as free education and health services. Private land that was occupied by the military has been returned, former conflict areas have been de-mined with assistance from the United Kingdom, and more than 12,000 ex-LTTE— Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—cadres have been rehabilitated. There is greater connectivity throughout the island and globally, and all of this has transformed the business sector and the lives of everyone in the country.

“But we should remember that a fresh resolution and accountability are not a panacea for addressing underlying tensions. Questions about how to address the legacy of the Sri Lankan conflict must be answered: what kind of justice is attainable? How should the victims of violations be treated in the process? What might punishment look like, and how can justice play a constructive role in forging a lasting peace?

“Draft legislation for a truth and reconciliation commission had been prepared under the previous Sri Lankan Government, and that could be revisited. If it gains universal support in Sri Lanka, truth seeking among all stakeholders, including the diaspora in many of our communities and constituencies could make a lasting difference. When these issues have been resolved, a sustainable and acceptable peace will endure. Given the goodwill between our two countries, I ask the Minister: how can the UK help to facilitate a TRC mechanism that is unique to the needs of Sri Lanka?”

 Offord took a sensible and impartial stand on the Sri Lanka issue at the poorly attended debate.

Unfortunately, Offord has either deliberately or inadvertently been silent on the need to examine Gash reports pertaining to the Vanni war. The elected House of Commons member owed the public an explanation. Why shouldn’t the Conservative party member ask his government to release the entire set of Gash reports to help ascertain the truth?

Recently, former Sri Lanka Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva told the writer that examination of wartime dispatches from Colombo-based defence advisors and defence attaches would help Geneva to establish the truth. Those who had been pushing Sri Lanka on the human rights front are silent on their own records and tend to depend on faceless accusers. The CJ, 41 was referring to PoE declaration that war crimes accuser wouldn’t be examined till 2031. If Offord is really keen on post-war Sri Lanka reconciliation he should push for a thorough inquiry. By depriving access to wartime British HC dispatches from Colombo, one cannot help with the reconciliation.  

The writer is sure Offord understands the British lost credibility by offering sanctuary to LTTE activist Adele Balasingham, wife of Anton Balasingham, British citizen of Sri Lankan origin. Did the British ever inquire into the possibility of Adele’s direct involvement with women suicide cadres? The possibility of Adele knowing the woman suicide bomber who targeted former Indian PM and Congress I leader Rajiv Gandhi can never be ruled out. If New Delhi is really interested in finding the truth it should be the first party to pick up this line of thinking.

 

How Sri Lanka helped enemy strategy

Sri Lanka facilitated Western strategy against the country by allowing anti-Sri Lanka propagandists a free hand. One-time Deputy Minister and retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera addressing a media briefing organized by civil society organization ‘Eliya’ backing Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s candidature at the 2019 presidential poll said that Lord Naseby’s disclosure could be the basis for Sri Lanka’s defence at the Geneva body. The Navy veteran was flanked by the then The Island political columnist C.A. Chandraprema (our present Permanent Representative in Geneva) and Ven. Medagoda Abhayatissa. Weerasekera, now the Public Security Minister, faulted the yahapalana government for not exploiting Lord Naseby’s revelation to Sri Lanka’s advantage (Lord Naseby’s call to revise Vanni death toll: Parliament faulted for not taking up vital issue – The Island Nov 8, 2017).

The SLPP government certainly owed the public an explanation how it used/failed to use Lord Naseby’s disclosure along with other credible information such as Lt. Col. Smith’s stand at the 2011 Colombo Defence seminar, Wikileaks revelations and still confidential UN report that dealt with the Vanni conflict and placed the total number of dead at 7,721 to build up a strong case.

The writer during separate media briefings during the Yahapalana administration raised the accountability issue and was told by Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Mahinda Samarasinghe and Dayasiri Jayasekera the cabinet had never discussed Sri Lanka’s response to alleged war crimes allegations. Fonseka’s colleagues in Nov 2017 (Dayasiri Jayasekera in his capacity as the Cabinet spokesperson) and Aug 2018 (Mahinda Samarasinghe in his capacity as the SLFP spokesperson) revealed a pathetic situation. They acknowledged that the Cabinet of ministers had not discussed Sri Lanka’s defence nor examined the Geneva Resolution. Jayasekera reacted angrily when the writer queried about the lapse on the part of the government. Jayasekera declared that a statement made by Lord Naseby in the House of Lords would be used by the government appropriately at the right time, though the Cabinet was yet to discuss it.

Jayasekera said that they wouldn’t take up issues pursued by The Island the way the newspaper wanted. It had not been taken up by the Cabinet on the basis it wasn’t considered a grave matter, the Minister said. The Minister initially asserted that Lord Naseby’s statement wasn’t directly relevant to the Geneva issue (Cabinet spokesman provoked by query on govt response to Naseby move – The Island Nov 16, 2017).

When the writer asked the then Deputy Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs Dr. Harsha de Silva whether Lord Naseby’s disclosure could be used at the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the country’s human rights record at Geneva, the then UNPer said that the matter was not directly relevant to the UPR. He was responding to a query by The Island in his capacity as the leader of the country’s delegation to the UPR (The issue never discussed at cabinet: House of Lords statement not directly relevant to UPR-Dr. De Silva – The Island, Nov 14, 2017)

In spite of the change of government in Nov 2019, the country is yet to take tangible measures to expose the Geneva lie. The handling of the 46th Geneva session proved again Sri Lanka’s failure. Those responsible should keep in mind Geneva lie cannot be exposed by propaganda alone.

Govt. caught with fingers in the sugar jar

 

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 360

Published

  2021/03/17

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The parliamentary Opposition, having plunged into disarray, due to its unpardonable sins of the recent past, shadowed by a string of humiliating electoral debacles, starting with the local government poll of 2018, followed by the 2019 presidential and 2020 general elections, has received a massive adrenaline boost by way of the huge sugar duty scam. It has brought down to earth, once again the high-riding Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government, at the worst possible time, with the country reeling economically, due to the continuing Covid-19 pandemic.

The alleged fraud has dealt a severe blow to the SLPP that enjoys a near two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The accusations, as regards the sugar scam, received credence in the wake of the all-party Committee on Public Finance (COPF) declaring, in no uncertain terms, that the government suffered a colossal loss of revenue. The COPF made the declaration on Feb 25, 2021. This was consequent to the COPF calling for a comprehensive report on January 5, 2021, on the alleged sugar duty scam, from the Finance Ministry. The Finance Ministry report was received in the second week of March 2021 (‘Massive revenue loss: Eyebrows raised over inordinate delay in responding to House query,’ with strap line ‘SLPP members say sugar deal black mark on govt’-The Island, March 4, 2021)

Chairman of the COPF, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, didn’t mince his words when he publicly acknowledged the staggering loss of revenue. State Minister Vidura Wickremanayake and Nalin Fernando, MP, both members of the SLPP, and members of the COPF, had no qualms in declaring, at the Committee meeting, on Feb 25, 2021, the alleged sugar duty scam was nothing but a black mark on the government.

The JVP, that exposed the scam, in Dec 2020, spearheaded a withering attack on the government. JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, on Dec 12, 2020, named all those who had been allegedly involved in the corrupt deal. Obviously, the SLPP never expected the sugar controversy to take such a nasty turn. Both the JVP and the main Opposition party, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), exploited the situation to the hilt. The COPF, chaired by Kurunegala District lawmaker Yapa, threw its weight behind the accusations.

Defending the indefensible!

Last Friday, former JVP National List MP Sunil Handunnetti, on behalf of the Marxist party, filed a fundamental rights application against the sugar duty scam. The exposure of the unprecedented sugar duty scam turned the tables on the government. Under pressure, the government, a few hours after the JVP moved the Supreme Court, hastily called a media briefing, at the Finance Ministry, to explain the controversial sugar duty reduction. The responsibility of countering the accusations fell on Finance Secretary S.R. Attygalle. Defending the indefensible is quite a difficult task.

The previous yahapalana government perpetrated the Treasury bond scams, during the tenure of Attygalle’s predecessor, Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga.

Attygalle received the appointment as the Secretary to the Treasury and Ministry of Finance, effective 19th November, 2019. Attygalle’s was one of the first appointments made in the wake of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory at the presidential election. Before the latest appointment, Attygalle served as the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). Attygalle also held the position of Assistant Governor of the CBSL and had been released to the Ministry of Finance to serve as the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury. It is pertinent to mention that Attygalle received the appointment, as the Secretary to the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance, of the 52-day government (31st October, 2018 to 18th December, 2018) declared illegal by the Supreme Court. That appointment was made in the wake of a constitutional coup. The then President Maithripala Sirisena’s political project failed. Subsequently, Dr. Samaratunga was re-appointed.

In spite of the fact the COPF, being headed by an SLPPer, and it being packed with ruling party members, the government obviously didn’t receive the anticipated protection. The SLPP parliamentary group appeared to have failed to recognize the threat. It proved that it is no longer a case of ‘right or wrong my party’ line of thinking. Having turned a blind eye to the rapidly developing scenario, the SLPP ignored the Finance Commission, calling for a report on the alleged sugar tax scam, from the Finance Ministry. The SLPP parliamentary group disregarded government lawmaker Yapa’s declaration, on Feb 25, 2021, that the report was yet to be submitted. The writer, on March 3, 2021, sought an explanation from lawmaker Yapa as regards the inordinate delay in the Finance Ministry’s response. The former minister explained the report was expected in the following week. The MP was of the view that in spite of the delay, the Finance Ministry would definitely respond.

Although the COPF received the report and was taken up for discussion the following week, Parliament conveniently refrained from issuing a media release on the latest Finance Commission meeting, chaired by lawmaker Yapa. By then, the SLPP realized the alleged sugar tax scam had caused irreparable damage and sought to take some remedial measures. However, Finance Secretary Attygalle’s lackluster response to the alleged scam clearly boomeranged. The JVP and the SJB compared the alleged sugar duty scam with the Treasury bond scams, perpetrated by the UNP, in Feb 2015 and March 2016. They alleged that the losses suffered by the government, as a result of the alleged sugar tax scam, far exceeded the Treasury bond scams. The government struggled to cope up with the allegations. Remedial measures seemed to be futile against the backdrop of the Finance Commission, headed by a senior government member squarely blaming the incumbent administration for the situation.

JVP leader Anura Dissanayake, in his Dec 12, 2020 speech, delivered in Parliament, explained how the alleged fraud took place. Those who watched the explosive speech, online, certainly expected the government to set the record straight. The government so far failed, both in and out of Parliament, to successfully dismiss the JVP allegations. The Treasury Secretary’s response to these accusations obviously worsened the situation.

The COPF, the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA), chaired by SLPP lawmakers, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Prof. Charitha Herath and Prof. Tissa Vitharana, have responded magnificently to the daunting task of tackling corruption. There hadn’t been a previous instance of the Finance Commission acting swiftly on allegations as regards such a major fraud. The Opposition, therefore, should recognize the pivotal importance of the role played by anti-corruption watchdogs.

 

How long will the SLPP let COPF
do its job?

The Island sought an explanation from COPF member, Dr. Harsha de Silva, MP (SJB), regarding the work undertaken by parliamentary watchdog bodies.

The Island: The SJB wanted you to head COPA, COPF and COPE. Many feared the government would place all three under its members to hide corrupt practices. Against that background, how do you see the work carried out by the three outfits? COPF acted courageously in respect of the sugar deal. COPE revealed many corrupt deals that had taken place since 2013. Do you think they are responding to the situation well?

MP Harsha de Silva:

I was nominated to head the COPF. That’s all. The Standing Orders specifically mention that the COPF must be headed by a member of the Opposition. But the government overruled it, using their majority. They appointed MP Anura Priyadarshana Yapa to head the COPF. As a person, he has earned my respect. In fact, he has been quite forthright thus far. It is he who requested the Ministry of Finance to prepare a report on the recent issue with respect to the reduction of the sugar duty. His objective was to determine if the duty reduction was actually passed on to consumers or not. Now the whole country is aware how, while the Treasury had to forego much needed revenue to the tune of Rs 15.9b, a bulk of that benefit ended up with one importer, in particular, and not with consumers, who should have been its beneficiaries. That is why I want the COPF to order a forensic audit to be conducted by the Auditor General. That way we will be able to determine exactly what happened. And then take it forward from there. But it is not about him as a person. It is how long the SLPP will let the COPF do its job. Its actual mandate is to keep an eye on public finance as a whole; revenue, expenditure and loans and debt, etc., of the government. A classic case is when I questioned the Ministry of Finance on their budget figures for 2020 at the COPF. Specifically the COPF is mandated to assess the suitability of assumptions made. There was a huge uproar and they said their estimates on growth and thus the resulting estimates of the budget deficit and debt were accurate. And they stuck to their figures. But we will soon see the real figures as they will have to be released soon. And we will see how they mislead the COPF and the country. So, there it is. The objective of the COPF is to create checks and balances in the nation’s economic management. That’s what a strong legislature is supposed to do. But what we have is a weak legislature where the government controls the COPF, in addition to the COPE and the COPA.”

 

A post-war pledge

Three days after the eradication of the LTTE, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa assured that their priority would be to tackle waste and corruption. The promise was made at the parliamentary grounds, on May 22, 2009. President Mahinda Rajapaksa warned members of the government that the war against the LTTE would no longer serve as a shield, in face of public criticism. President Mahinda Rajapaksa acknowledged that the war wouldn’t be an excuse even for him. The Commander-in-Chief vowed that law enforcement agencies would now hunt for robber barons. Amidst the applause of the gathering, the President vowed that he would neutralize waste and corruption the way he crushed LTTE terrorism (President declares war on waste and corruption – The Sunday Island, May 24, 2009). Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent; the CBSL was robbed twice in 2015 and 2016. The frauds were perpetrated by no less a person than the Governor of the CBSL Arjuna Mahendran, a Singaporean, and a personal friend of the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. In spite of repeated assurances, the SLPP hadn’t been able to apprehend Mahendran, widely believed to be living in Singapore, perhaps not.

Those who had remained silent, at the time of the Treasury bond scams, now allege the sugar duty scam caused a much bigger revenue loss. Successive governments engaged in corruption with impunity. Mahendran’s successor, Dr. Indrajith Coomaraswamy, lucidly explained the status of Sri Lanka’s economy before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCol) that probed irregularities at SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering and Mihin Lanka. The statement couldn’t have been made at a better time for those who expected a genuine change in the political environment. Unfortunately, the media, pathetically, failed to provide sufficient coverage to, undoubtedly, the most important statement made by a respected public official, in the recent past, on any issue.

Dr. Coomaraswamy told the PCol that the country was facing a non-virtuous cycle of debt and it was a very fragile situation which could even lead to a debt crisis. “Of course, my colleagues, in the debt department, have plans and the capability to manage it. But it’s the duty of every citizen to act responsibly as regards the government policy,” he told the PCol. Dr. Coomaraswamy emphasized that people should elect MPs who were prudent enough to handle fiscal and monetary matters of the country. “I am not referring to any government, but it’s been the case ever since independence.”

 

Who abused Finance Ministry?

The CBSL made quite a startling revelation on Friday, July 26, 2019, before the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing the Easter Sunday attacks.

The CBSL team comprised the Governor of the Central Bank Indrajit Coomaraswamy, Director of Financial Intelligence Unit D.M. Rupasinghe, and Director of the Department of Supervision of Non-Bank Financial Institutions R.R. Jayaratne. Rupasinghe testified in-camera on a request made by Dr. Coomaraswamy.

Jayaratne and Dr. Coomaraswamy set the record straight as regards the Finance Act of 2017, after the then Power, Energy and Business Development Minister, Ravi Karunanayake, challenged CBSL condemnation of the Finance Act. Having stated that the Batticaloa Campus Limited and the Heera Foundation had received funds from Saudi Arabia on seven and 15 occasions, respectively, Jayaratne didn’t mince his words when he declared the new Act weakened the CBSL regulatory role, vis-a-vis illegal transactions.

The PSC probed M.L.A.M. Hizbullah over clandestine money transactions, amidst accusations that both Batticaloa Campus Limited and the Heera Foundation were involved with the National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ), responsible for the Easter Sunday attacks. At the time of the Easter Sunday attacks, Hizbullah functioned as the Governor of the Eastern Province and he now serves the current Parliament as a UPFA National List member. Hizbullah moved to the East, in early January, 2019.

M.A. Sumanthiran, Chairman of the COPF, was present on the panel of lawmakers at the time the CBSL made the shocking revelation.

When Jayaratne explained as to how the Exchange Control Act, introduced by the UNP-led government, had impeded the CBSL and was weaker than the one previously in operation, Ravi Karunanayake, the one-time Finance Minister, had the audacity to challenge the CBSL.

Karunanayake:

Where does it say such transactions cannot be inquired into in terms of the new Act?

Jayaratne: In accordance with the 2017 Exchange Control Act, Section 30, action cannot be taken.

Karunanayake:

You prepared that Act. Why are you pretending as if you don’t know anything, about it? The CBSL amended it several times and sent it back.

Perhaps Jayaratne could have faced a ministerial onslaught if not for Dr. Coomaraswamy’s swift intervention. Had Dr. Coomaraswamy opted to remain silent, Jayaratne, probably would have had to suffer in silence, unable to talk back to a powerful Minister

Dr. Coomaraswamy:

No Sir. The Act actually was not drafted by us.

Karunanayake:

Why not?

Dr. Coomaraswamy:

No Sir. It was done outside. We were actually very upset about it. We were not included. That was drafted without the CBSL being involved. We were asked to comment on it

JVP MP Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa: If the Batticaloa Campus last received money in 2017, Hizbullah was aware of the new Act being drafted.

Jayaratne:

Yes.

Nalinda Jayatissa:

It could have had happened.

Jayaratne:

Present Act does not at least interpret what it meant by wrong.

Jayaratne:

Unauthorized money transactions were taking place all over the country. Foreign currencies are kept illegally. Transactions do not come into the official banking system, not even one USD.

The exchange between Karunanayake and the CBSL erupted when lawmaker Ashu Marasinghe, sought a clarification as regards the difference in the current and the previous Exchange Control Acts.

Chief of the COPF Sumanthiran remained silent during the exchange between Karunanayake and the CBSL.

The circumstances in which the Finance Act had been introduced have been disputed by no less a person than the CBSL Governor. It would be pertinent to recall the advice given by Dr. Coomaraswamy to the electorate, in late 2018. Dr. Coomaraswamy issued the advice before President Maithripala Sirisena dissolved Parliament, at midnight, on Nov 09, 2018, following the sacking of Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe.

 

Financial chaos

Examination of statements in Sinhala, Tamil and English, issued by the Communications Department of Parliament, pertaining to the COPE, the COPA and the COPF, since the last general election, would reveal a pathetic state of affairs as far as the national economy is concerned. The statements have revealed an extremely dangerous trend with ministries and various institutions responsible for ensuring checks and balances, undermining the national economy. Revelations pertaining to Customs are quite disturbing and the failure on the part of the COPE, the COPA and the COPF to inquire into serious allegations within a reasonable period. The failure, perhaps, deliberately facilitated fraud, corruption and irregularities over the years. Last week, Parliament revealed a shocking case of corruption involving Customs and Access International (Pvt) Ltd that had taken place in 2013.

An investigation, conducted by the COPA, has revealed that the government suffered a loss of Rs 60 mn due to irregularities involving the Customs and Access International (Pvt) Ltd in the Eastern Province Water Development Project. The COPA revealed at the Committee on Public Accounts held in Parliament recently that the government had to pay an additional amount of Rs. 62,499,656 due to irregularities in the importation of DI pipes and fittings for the Eastern Province Water Development Project, implemented in 2013, with the assistance of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JAICA). Revelations during the COPA, the COPE and the COPF proceedings are only tip of an iceberg.