CPA Urges Swift Action in Adherence to the Rule of Law to Address Increase in Violence

29th June 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is alarmed by the recent spate of violence in Sri Lanka, including the custodial death this weekend, the death of a police constable and the inability of the authorities to contain the violence and bring perpetrators to justice. These incidents are evocative of a time when excessive force and extrajudicial practices was commonplace, with a complete disregard towards the guarantees provided in the Constitution of Sri Lanka and procedural safeguards. In the absence of swift action where the rule of law is upheld, we fear a slide back towards a society engulfed in violence with a thriving culture of impunity.

According to media reports the most recent custodial death occurred when the victim/accused, under police custody, was shot by the police when he allegedly attempted to throw a hand grenade. This incident is a reminder of several such unsolved incidents of custodial deaths in the past, some dating for over a decade, with similar reports of victims either attempting to attack or escape and being shot at in the process. As reported in the joint civil society submission for Sri Lanka’s Universal Periodic Review in 2017 and other reports, incidents of extrajudicial killings, while reduced from the previous regime, still continue with much work to be done to bring perpetrators to justice.

The present incident also comes at a time when media reports indicate a spike in the number of attacks by underworld gangs alongside the now much-publicised ethno-religious violence in parts of Sri Lanka. Both these phenomena raise the question of the effectiveness of the law and order authorities in Sri Lanka. It is against this backdrop that we were also alarmed to witness a senior member of the Buddhist clergy asking the former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to return to power and initiate military rule along the lines of Hitler. Such a reference is a chilling reminder of Sri Lanka’s own dark years when civil liberties were cast aside in the name of national security and public order. As such, the condemnation of this statement by both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is welcome, however, inaction in addressing law and order at this juncture will likely see sentiment supportive of authoritarianism resonating among segments in society who prioritise security and order over rights and freedoms.

CPA thus calls on the authorities to demonstrate their commitment towards upholding the rule of law and due process in line with Sri Lanka’s Constitutional and international obligations. This includes not only upholding security and public order, but in ensuring due process to suspects and those under custody. We call on the Inspector General of Police to take full responsibility for the death of a person under the custody of the Police. We further request independent institutions such as the National Police Commission and the National Human Rights Commission to investigate the recent custodial death and initiate necessary action. We reiterate yet again our call to the Attorney General’s Department to hold perpetrators to account with this incident and the many others that are before them. Inability, unwillingness or inertia to take swift action now will not merely reinforce dangerous statements made by others but also send a message that violence and impunity thrive under the Yahapalanaya government.

Download this statement here.

Civil Society Opposes the Nomination of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Russia

22nd June 2018

Secretary to the High Post Committee
Parliament of Sri Lanka
Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte

Representations on the Nomination of Dr. Jayatilleke as Ambassador to Russia

The following Sri Lankan civil society activists and organisations are deeply concerned by public reports indicating that the Government of Sri Lanka has proposed the name of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke to the post of Ambassador to the Russian Federation. We write in response to the public notice dated 12 June 2018 issued by the Committee of the High Post of Parliament of Sri Lanka calling for representations regarding nominations including that of Dr. Jayatilleke.

At the outset it must be noted that Sri Lanka has a rich history of diplomatic engagement with the international community and cultivated standing and respect among its allies across the globe including in multilateral forums such as the United Nations. With the escalation of violence in the early 1980s, the then United Nations Human Rights Commission, and subsequently the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which replaced the Commission, discussed Sri Lanka’s human rights record where victim groups and civil society were able to make representations and successive governments of Sri Lanka engaged in constructive discussions.

A marked shift in this stance was evident under the Rajapaksa regime when we experienced unprecedented levels of violence targeting civilians, civil society, media and other dissenting voices. It was during this period we witnessed a shift in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. Dr. Jayatilleke who served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva at the time, took an aggressive and triumphalist line on the violence unfolding back home. For example, in 2009 a Special Session was called to discuss Sri Lanka and it was under his leadership we witnessed a hostile position taken and the deliberate targeting of those who held a different view to his own. Such a stance created divisions within the UNHRC and undermined Sri Lanka’s reputation of being able to diplomatically engage with the international community. The divisive line has had a lasting impression among missions and other entities in Geneva who remain dismayed by the negative impact the session had on the unity of the UNHRC and its impact on human rights globally.

We also note that the line taken at the Special Session ultimately ran counter to Sri Lanka’s national interests. Professional diplomats have argued convincingly that the line espoused by Dr. Jayatilleke at the 2009 session, and triumphalism about his ability to ‘win’ a resolution congratulatory of Sri Lanka’s execution of the war, galvanised Geneva actors whose concerns had been cast aside by the Sri Lankan delegation. The 2009 Special Session debacle ultimately had a significant impact in convincing the international community including the members of the UNHRC that grave violations took place in Sri Lanka and that an independent international investigation was required. This hostile and triumphalist line was counter productive as it subsequently led to several resolutions being adopted by the UNHRC in 2012, 2013 and 2014. We also note that Dr. Jayatilleke who was subsequently appointed Ambassador to France was unable to prevent the French Government from voting against Sri Lanka in these resolutions, demonstrating his ineffectiveness as a head of mission.

With the political change in 2015, we were relieved to see President Sirisena and the coalition government reverting to a more conciliatory tone where there was recognition of past abuses and the need for genuine reforms towards reconciliation. This was based on human rights being fundamentally a domestic issue, in recognition of the rights of all of Sri Lanka’s citizens rather than a game played with the international community. We were also heartened to see the Government of Sri Lanka rebuilding bridges with the international community and engaging in a constructive manner to further the interests of Sri Lanka, not the whims of particular individuals. This was also welcomed by the international community and in recognition invited President Sirisena to events such as the prestigious Group of Seven (G7) summit in Japan and Anti-Corruption Summit in the United Kingdom both in 2016.

This hard work of rebuilding Sri Lanka’s image and reputation to be a truly democratic and plural country where all citizens are equal and a country that values its international standing can be damaged with the promotion of individuals who were not only apologists of the previous Government but also, to date, its most ardent champions.

We note that Dr Jayatilleke’s ideology and the ideology that shaped the January 8 2015 movement for change are poles apart. Dr. Jayatilleke has denounced the very concept of Yahapalanaya and members of this administration. He has stood stoically against democratic reform and reconciliation initiatives, repeatedly attacking progressive ministers and leaders of the current Government for making concessions to victims of the war, as seen when privately owned land is released by the military or a permanent office to investigate thousands of cases of disappeared is established. Where we fear the violence perpetuated by the previous regime, Dr Jayatilleke openly extols the virtues of ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and his ‘strong-man’ tactics.

On both previous occasions when Dr. Jayatilleke was sent on diplomatic postings, to Geneva and Paris, he furthered a personal agenda which had detrimental consequences to Sri Lanka among its most important allies. If that was the case under the Rajapaksa administration, where Dr. Jayatilleke’s ideological inclinations found resonance, then the potential for damage to this current administration which seemingly does not align with his ethno-nationalist views will be significantly greater.

It is in this context we question the nomination of Dr. Jayatilleke to a senior diplomatic post and urge the High Post Committee to reject the nomination. We also request President Sirisena, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and the coalition government to acknowledge the work done since 2015 to rebuild Sri Lanka’s image and standing internationally and to nominate individuals who are able to best represent the reforms promised in 2015 and not those who deliberately seek to undermine them.

Thank you,

Signatures

Individuals

  1. C. Mohamed Rumaiz
  2. D.J Rajani
  3. L. Ratnayake
  4. Anurasiri Hettige
  5. R.A Ramees
  6. Bennette Ratnayake
  7. Bhavani Fonseka
  8. Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe
  9. Brito Fernando
  10. Ranitha Gnanarajah- Attorney-at-law
  11. Chandra Jayaratne
  12. Chandra Hewa Gallage
  13. Chandraguptha Thenuwara
  14. Cyril Pathiranage
  15. Danesh Casie Chetty
  16. Deekshaya Illangasinghe
  17. Dharmasiri Bandaranayaka
  18. Dileep Rohana
  19. P. Saravanamuttu
  20. Ranjith Pathirana
  21. Faaiz Ameer- Attorney-at-law
  22. Faheema Begum Marsook
  23. Fathima Fayaza
  24. Freddy Gamage
  25. Gamini Viyangoda
  26. Gnaweera Dissanaike
  27. M Premasilee
  28. Harsha Gunasena- Charted Accountant
  29. Harshana Makalanda
  30. Helen de Alwis
  31. Herman Kumara
  32. Subashini
  33. Jayatilleka Bandara
  34. Jayanta de S Wijeratne
  35. Jeanne Samuel
  36. Jeyakanthi Jena
  37. Juwairiya Mohideen
  38. M.D Nilasini
  39. W Janaranjana
  40. Kaushalya Fernando
  41. Keerthi Kariyawasam
  42. Lakshman Gunasekara
  43. Lal Wijenayaka
  44. Lala Hegoda
  45. Lionel Guruge
  46. Lucian Bulathsinhala
  47. Lukshman Mendis
  48. D Mahindapala
  49. Mahaluxmy Karushanthan
  50. Mahesh Senanayaka- Senior Lecturer, Colombo University
  51. Mahinda Ratnayaka
  52. Mangalika Fernando
  53. Marian Pradeepa
  54. Marshal Fernando
  55. Mohammed Dilshan
  56. Mujeebur Rahman
  57. Nigel Nugawela
  58. Nihal Attapattu
  59. Noel Christine Fernando
  60. Manoharan
  61. D. Dissanayake
  62. D. Gunathilaka
  63. Padmini Weerasooriya
  64. Philip Dissanayake
  65. Prabodha Rathnayaka
  66. Prasanga Fernando
  67. Priyadarshani Ebenezer
  68. Arjuna Parakrama
  69. Camena Guneratne
  70. Desmond Mallikarachchi
  71. Jayadeva Uyangoda
  72. Kumar David
  73. Sarath Wijesuriya
  74. Raisa Wickrematunge
  75. Roshaan Hettiaratchi- Attorney-at-law
  76. Saman Ratnapriya
  77. Sampath Samarakoon
  78. Sandun Thudugala
  79. Sandya Ekneligoda
  80. Sanjana Hattotuwa- Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Alternatives
  81. Sarah Arumugam- Attorney-at-law
  82. Seetha Gamage
  83. Shaheera Lafeer
  84. Shanthi Dissanayaka
  85. Shreen Saroor
  86. Sumika Perera
  87. Sumathipala Kariyawasam
  88. Sunil Perera- Gypsies
  89. Titus Fernando
  90. Tharanga L. Patabandhi
  91. Upul Kumarapperuma
  92. Dhambara Amila Thero
  93. Mahagalkadawala Pungnasara Thero
  94. Visaka Dharmadasa

Organisations

  1. Association of War Affected Women
  2. Centre for Policy Alternatives
  3. Families of the Disappeared
  4. Janasansadaya
  5. Mothers and Daughters of Lanka
  6. Muslim Women’s Development Trust, Puttalam
  7. Northern Muslim Civil Society
  8. Northern Muslim Forum
  9. Platform for Freedom
  10. Rights Now Collective for Democracy
  11. South Asian Centre for Legal Studies
  12. Women’s Action Network
  13. Women’s Centre
  14. Women’s Resource Centre, Kurunegala

 

Download the statement in English and Sinhala, and the full list of signatures here.

Meeriyabedda to Makaldeniya: Life after the Landslide

The Meeriyabedda-Koslanda landslide of October 2014 drew national attention both for the massive destruction it caused and for the gaps it exposed in Sri Lanka’s disaster response mechanisms.

The subsequent resettlement efforts and updating of relief and response protocols have been hailed by the government as comprehensive and effective. More than three years after the disaster took place, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) spoke with government officials, relief officers and affected families who have been resettled in Makaldeniya during a visit to the Badulla district. Their experiences highlight the attempts to improve the system, but also expose the challenges that remain.

A new report published by CPA highlights the current ad-hoc nature of reparations and stresses the need for a comprehensive response mechanism. This should incorporate victim concerns and also streamline the activities of the relevant authorities for faster action in an emergency. Until such a system comes into place and is fully implemented, victims of disasters – natural or man-made – will continue to face more hardship in the aftermath.

Access the story directly on Adobe Spark here or view embedded below.

Meeriyabedda to Makaldeniya

Making the Case for an Office for Reparations

June 4th 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Reparations are an essential part of transitional justice and focus on recognising and repairing past abuses. In 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka recognised the right to reparations by committing to the establishment of an Office for Reparations through at the 30th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) through UNHRC Resolution 30/1. Despite this commitment, there has been no real movement on this issue with limited discussions on reparations and the scope of such an entity.

In this paper, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) focuses on the need for reparations in Sri Lanka and areas to consider in the establishment and operationalizing of a future Office. CPA makes the case that the design and implementation of a future Office and a reparations programme must be reflective of the Sri Lankan context and the grievances of its multiple and diverse victims. This is critical in a context where CPA’s research demonstrates discrepancies in the process and amounts allocated for compensation previously. Equally important is for reparations to be designed in a transparent and inclusive manner, being explicit about its purpose and ensuring that it is not a substitute to the other pillars of transitional justice. Finally, CPA urges a reparations programme be based on a rights framework to ensure cohesion.

Download the report in English here.

Survey on the Implementation of Official Languages Policy at Ministerial Level in Sri Lanka – 2017

May 30th 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Language is fundamental to human communication and a key marker of identity. Accordingly, it is essential that the language rights of every citizen of Sri Lanka is upheld. The failure to do so will adversely impact the enjoyment of full and equal citizenship, meaningful reconciliation and national unity as well as the quality of governance and the legitimacy of government.

The active involvement and effective contribution of all ministries, departments, and the administrative structure of the local government authorities are essential for the effective and efficient implementation of Sri Lanka’s Official Languages Policy. This policy ensures that Sri Lankan citizens have access to services and institutions in their own language.

The foremost responsibility for proper implementation of the Official Languages Policy has been placed on officials identified in each institution, including Chief Secretaries, Secretaries, departmental heads, and Municipal Commissioners, as outlined by the Extraordinary Gazette notification No. 1620/27 dated 2009.09.25 and the Administrative Circular No. 18/2009 dated 2009.11.25 respectively.

Accordingly, the Ministry of National Co-Existence, Dialogue and Official Languages has designed a guideline for developing ‘Language Plans’ for all government institutions. This focuses on four key lenses through which the proper implementation of Official Languages Policy can be ensured.

These are Visibility and Ambiance, Administration and Documentation, Service Delivery and Institutional Commitment and Support Mechanism.

This survey focused on the extent to which each of the ministries adopted these lenses when implementing the Official Languages Policy, and the core challenges and issues faced in doing so.

Download this report in English Tamil Sinhala.

For more information around the report, please contact Mr. Lionel Guruge – [email protected]

Weaponising 280 characters: What 200,000 tweets and 4,000 bots tell us about state of Twitter in Sri Lanka

April 23rd, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is pleased to announce the release of its latest report on social media, Weaponising 280 characters: What 200,000 tweets and 4,000 bots tell us about state of Twitter in Sri Lanka. The report is available for immediate download here.

The report is a collaboration between Sanjana Hattotuwa, a Senior Researcher at CPA and the head of the Civic Media Team and two leading data scientists – Yudhanjaya Wijeratne, based in Sri Lanka and Raymond Serrato, based in Germany. It is a response to an unprecedented social media phenomenon in Sri Lanka, with disturbing as well as potentially deeply disruptive implications for the health of the country’s democratic dialogue and electoral processes.

The recent violence in Kandy brought social media under renewed scrutiny for its role, reach and relevance in contributing to the production and spread of violent, hateful content. Starting late March, weeks after the cessation of the violent attacks, Twitter users began noticing a tsunami of accounts with no bios, no tweets and the default profile picture following them. Several fake Twitter accounts were identified to be promoting false or misleading content during the violence in Kandy. This, coupled with the heightened production of suspicious Twitter accounts raised red flags amongst Twitter users.

Given the scale and scope of the infestation, CPA’s English language civic media platform Groundviews, for the first time in the Sri Lankan Twittersphere, took the step of making public its block list, which other users could import. Even this measure though was not enough to address the high frequency with which new, fake accounts were being created, attaching themselves to prominent Twitter users in Sri Lanka. A preliminary analysis of 1,262 accounts, a subset of the larger dataset used for this report, indicated that the majority of suspicious accounts following Twitter users were bots.

A visualisation of the number of accounts targeted by the bots revealed that leading diplomats, Ambassadors based in Sri Lanka, the official accounts of diplomatic missions, leading local politicians, the former President of the Maldives, media institutions, civil society organisations and initiatives, leading journalists, cricketers and other individuals were amongst those who had large numbers of bot followers.

Considering bots are now a permanent feature of Sri Lanka’s Twitter landscape and will likely grow in scope and scale leading up to elections or a referendum, it is important to ask how to address the issue at scale, given the number of citizens – directly connected as well as influenced by those connected – involved.

Even with its limited scope and data, this report is a clear snapshot of the political landscape we now inhabit, and projects in the future real dangers that result from just the visible investments made around key social media platforms, which are today the key information and news vectors for a demographic between 18-34.

This report by CPA follows the path-breaking data driven study into the bots and trolls associated with a prominent politician in Sri Lanka, published in January 2018, which was also a collaborative research exercise with Yudhanjaya Wijeratne. Download Namal Rajapaksa, bots and trolls: New contours of digital propaganda and online discourse in Sri Lanka here.

Download in Tamil here.

Read the Sinhala version of this report here.

For further information and media inquiries, please contact Sanjana Hattotuwa on [email protected].

Facebook responds to open letter from Sri Lankan civil society

A day after our open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook representatives from Delhi, India, on his behalf, responded. The email is reproduced below in full. It is worth noting at the outset that this is the first official response from Facebook we have received after many years of engaging with the company around the issues flagged in our open letter.

We are very pleased that Facebook recognises that there “is no place… for hate speech, incitement to violence, and other content that violates… Community Standards.” The company also notes that it is increasing the number of Sinhala-speaking content reviewers and will engage with civil society in addition to government, going forward. Though long overdue, these are all welcome developments and commitments.

However, we are disappointed that much of the response only states what was already known or in the public domain and is without any concrete action or measure tailored to country, language and issue specific challenges and context we outlined in some detail. Our open letter, endorsed by a dozen other civil society organisations, captured the gross negligence of Facebook when dealing with gender-based violence, including content normalising rape and condoning sexual violence against girls and women. We asked for a clear indication around the precise number of content reviewers, their location and their gender makeup. We also asked for clear guidance around the timely, effective resolution of user generated reports, particularly during heightened violence.

Facebook however does not clarify or commit.

We recognise that Facebook is “investing in artificial intelligence tools” to help with the identification of “certain types of content faster and more accurately”. This echoes what has been promised around the context in Myanmar. We remain deeply sceptical. Our experience suggests that reporting posts where text inciting harm or violence is superimposed on a non-offensive image – and is not in the body of the post itself – is usually met with the response from Facebook that the content does not violate Community Standards. While not discounting the value of investing in AI and machine learning over the long term, what the company needs to do right now is to place a greater emphasis on human content reviewers conversant in Sinhala and Tamil.

Facebook continues to brush aside its culpability in allowing for the spread of and engagement with content that incited hate and violence in March alone, with a particularly horrific and widely-reported example noted in our open letter. We are thus asked to trust a company which does not or cannot publicly acknowledge how or where it went wrong to invest in solutions around non-recurrence. We trust Facebook itself will recognise this as a weak proposition.

In sharing notes with colleagues in Myanmar, we were interested to learn that Facebook had promised them what is also deeply relevant to and resonant in Sri Lanka. Recording our surprise that Facebook didn’t in their official response offer us in Sri Lanka these same options, we strongly recommend the company looks holistically at solutions around the challenge of dealing with content inciting hate across countries, instead of ad hoc, episodic or entirely siloed, country-specific solutions.

In particular, we would like to see Facebook in Sri Lanka, like it has promised to do in Myanmar,

  1. Proactively remove hate speech and repeat offenders
  2. Improve its review mechanisms and responsiveness
  3. Improve the reporting mechanisms built into Facebook apps like Facebook Messenger to make it easier and simpler to report violent or hateful content
  4. Work with government and civil society to improve the awareness of Community Guidelines by Sri Lankan users of Facebook services
  5. Establish a trusted reporting network that expedites the flagging of content vetted through experienced individuals and institutions.

Understandably, to those at Facebook, we may seem demanding, impatient and even impolite, playing down what the company and its representatives may feel are overtures, concessions and commitments aimed to assuage our concerns and address our challenges.

Our response to this is a simple one. As noted in our open letter, we have flagged these concerns to Facebook for years, to no avail. We do not trust in vague promises anymore. We cannot believe in and are not distracted by cookie-cutter public relations or press releases. We require clarity, focus, public data around stated intent and any related technical or human resource investments, clear reporting guidelines also in local languages, precise response times and independently verifiable key performance indicators around measures taken to address the challenges flagged.

Anything less is just damage control or public relations.

Risking disappointment, we continue to hope for a more honest interaction with Facebook that recognises and indeed, seeks to positively strengthen the vital role it plays in shaping our public discourse, democratic fabric and electoral processes.

###

Response from Facebook

11 April 2018

Dear Mr. Hattotuwa,

Thank you for your letter. Mark is currently travelling in Washington, but received your questions and concerns and asked that I respond as quickly as possible.

As Facebook’s Director of Public Policy covering Sri Lanka, I share your desire to improve enforcement of our Community Standards, especially for content in Sinhala. There is no place on Facebook for hate speech, incitement to violence, and other content that violates our Community Standards.

As you know from our conversations in March, we are committed to taking concrete steps to address misuse of our platform in Sri Lanka. We are increasing the number of Sinhala-speaking content reviewers on our Community Operations team to provide around-the-clock coverage, and will continue to engage with a diverse group of stakeholders, including the Sri Lankan government and civil society organizations like yours, to curb hate speech and deepen our understanding of local context.

We are also committed to using our product and technology to address these challenges. At the end of March, we displayed messages at the top of News Feed to every person on Facebook in Sri Lanka reminding them about our Community Standards and explaining how to report violating content. We are also investing in artificial intelligence tools to help us identify certain types of content faster and more accurately.

More broadly, we take our responsibility to protect the integrity of our platform, the privacy of people’s data, and the right of everyone on Facebook to express themselves freely and safely very seriously. As part of these efforts, we have recently announced a number of new transparency initiatives, including notifications to everyone who may have had their data shared with Cambridge Analytica. We also continue to provide regular updates to our community on changes to our products, including a recent News Feed FYI post detailing our decision to end the Explore Feed test in Sri Lanka and other countries.

We look forward to continuing to collaborate with you as we work to address the important issues you outline in your letter.

Kind regards,

Shivnath Thukral
Public Policy Director
India & South Asia

Download the statement here.