Northern Provincial Council Elections – September 2013

2 September 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) has commenced monitoring the forthcoming Northern Provincial Council Elections 2013.

Cooperation and assistance rendered by election officials, police, political parties, candidates, media and public in the past has been invaluable to the exercise and we look forward to similar cooperation in this election as well.

The CMEV secretariat is located in Colombo and incidents related to electoral violence and violations of electoral laws can be reported to the secretariat through the contact details given below.

  1. All CMEV reports and communiqués, and the violence mapping on Google Maps can be accessed online at http://cmev.wordpress.com
  2. All updates will be posted on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/cmev (or via @cmev)
  3. All updates will also be posted on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/electionviolence

CMEV will deploy 20 Field Monitors in the first week of September to cover every polling division in the province and as well as 250 Stationary Observers and 10 Mobile Teams on Election Day in the areas identified as critical in nature.

Our contact details are:
Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)
No 24/2, 28th Lane
Off Flower Road,
Colombo
TP: 0112565304 & 0112565304
Fax: 0114714460
E-mail: [email protected]

Please contact following persons for comments and information:

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Co-Convenor-CMEV
0112301634 (direct)

Mr. Manjula Gajanayake
Co-ordinator
0115552749

Mr. Mani Maran
Field Co-ordinator
0115552749

CMEV was formed in 1997 by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), the Free Media Movement (FMM) and the Coalition against Political Violence as an independent and nonpartisan organization to monitor the incidence of election related violence. Currently, CMEV is made up of CPA, FMM and INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre.

A Critique: HIV/AIDS and the Legal and Policy Framework in Sri Lanka

Screen Shot 2013-09-13 at 7.52.02 PM

Official figures indicate Sri Lanka to be a low prevalence country but numerous factors could contribute towards the possibility of an outbreak of HIV / AIDS. These factors include poverty, lack of awareness, low condom use and the presence of numerous vulnerable groups. This coupled with the high levels of stigma and discrimination prevents many from coming forward to obtain assistance including necessary health care. It is compounded by a legal and policy framework that criminalises and subjects vulnerable communities to further harassment. This paper discusses and comments on the legal and policy dimension and the obstacles it poses to a sustainable and effective response to HIV/AIDS as many do not come forward  to obtain medical services for fear of violence, stigma and discrimination. The paper highlights that low prevalence levels are underestimated due to the existing legal and policy framework that is out-dated and in need of reform and recommends specific steps to be taken to address the situation.

The post war period has witnessed escalated development and rehabilitation across Sri Lanka. Most of the conflict affected areas in the north and east of Sri Lanka have been demined with thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) returning to their lands and rebuilding their lives and livelihoods. While there continue to be IDPs and affected communities, there has been development in the areas with much needed infrastructure rehabilitated or built new including hospitals in the areas.[1] Although development in Sri Lanka has been rapid, poverty still persists.[2] Sri Lanka prides itself on a high literacy rate and attributes this number to free education. Yet, conservative values are interwoven into the fabric of society alongside still impoverished rural areas of the country – a key reason for children dropping out of school. The lack of resources is an on-going battle for those living below the poverty line[3], as they require basic services such as health, education, water and sanitation. This has further marginalised vulnerable groups such as women and children.

Health care provided by the Government is free and accessible to all. There is also health care financed and managed by the private sector. Due to various factors including poverty, many are unable to afford private health care, and rely on public health care. Although public health care is meant to be accessible to all, there are issues such as lack of resources, staff and training. This has led to those who are able to afford it to seek private health care. The present Government’s shift towards economic development, while having some benefits for poverty alleviation and the provision of infrastructural development, is not sufficient in addressing basic health care needs. It is therefore important to examine Government policy towards key sectors including health to understand how the present economic development model will contribute towards better services. This includes People Living With HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) being able to access and enjoy basic services such as health care.

Download the report in full here or read it online here.


[1] Central Bank of Sri Lanka –Annual Report 2009, page  70, available at, http://www.cbsl.gov.lk/pics_n_docs/10_pub/_docs/efr/annual_report/ar2009e/PDF/7_chapter_03.pdf  last accessed on 23 May 2013

Central Bank of Sri Lanka –Annual Report 2012, page  86 , available at, http://www.cbsl.gov.lk/pics_n_docs/10_pub/_docs/efr/annual_report/AR2012/English/7_Chapter_03.pdf , last accessed on 23 May 2013

[2] Wimal Nanayakkara, “Eradicating Poverty in Sri Lanka: Strong progress But much remains to be done” available at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/96488153/TE-Special-Report-MPI-WN-Jun2012, last accessed on 23May 2013

[3] Palitha Abeykoon , “Case Study Sri Lanka” available at, http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/case_study_srilanka.pdf, last accessed on 23 May 2013

Press Release on new laws over defamation of major religions

21 August 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply concerned by reports that the Ministry of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs is to introduce new laws seeking action against publications that ‘defame the original teachings and traditions of the major religions’. These reports state that as a first step, a draft Bill providing for the establishment of a ‘Buddhist Publications Regulatory Board’ that will be empowered to regulate any publication purportedly ‘in violation of Buddhism, its philosophy or traditions,’ has been sent to the Attorney General for review. We are at a loss to understand how such a measure is a priority, when so many other matters demanding the urgent attention of the government in respect of communal reconciliation and amity have not received the same consideration, including implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) on promoting religious harmony. CPA also notes the context in which these measures are proposed is one in which national security considerations, as defined by the government, consistently override democratic freedoms, and serious incursions are being made into academic freedom and minority cultural rights.

The Bill, if enacted into law, will stamp a further official seal of approval on Sri Lanka’s slide towards majoritarian religious extremism and sectarian violence. The recent upsurge in ultranationalist violence by certain Buddhist groups, marked by numerous attacks on Islamic and Christian places of worship, threatens to further undermine the fragile peace in post-war Sri Lanka. There is a very real danger that by seeking to protect ‘the original teachings and traditions’ of religions, the Bill will lead to the arbitrary imposition of government-sanctioned versions of religious belief on the public and effectively prohibit theological teaching, academic inquiry or critical commentary, across all media, that questions government orthodoxy. Inevitably, the passage of the Bill will seriously threaten efforts to interpret religious teaching in a manner that is respectful of dialogue and tolerance.

The draft Bill, if enacted, will also manifestly violate Article 10 of the Constitution, which guarantees to any person the ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.’ The Constitution, it is important to recall, does not permit any restriction whatsoever on this fundamental right. The measure would also have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression including publication protected by Article 14 of the Constitution, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Sri Lanka is a state-party. In our contention, neither the Constitution nor the ICCPR permits the wide variety of potential restrictions on the freedom of expression that may be imposed by the new measures, including of course, the scope for abuse that is inherent in any attempt at state regulation of religious faith and morality.

CPA also notes that existing legislation already prohibits the inciting of violence through hate speech. Section 3 of the ICCPR Act of 2007 prohibits the advocacy of ‘national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.’ In this respect, we are concerned that the proposed Bill will be selectively applied to harass and persecute dissenting voices. We are mindful that section 2(1)(h) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) that prohibits speech which ‘causes or intends to cause commission of acts of violence or religious, racial or communal disharmony or feelings of ill-will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups’ has been exclusively used in the recent past to detain and prosecute journalists and opponents of the regime; including Jayaprakash Tissainayagam, Sarath Fonseka and more recently, Azath Salley. Yet, the same provisions have not been used to prohibit and prosecute brazen acts of physical violence on places of minority religious worship. This history of selective application of other restrictions on free speech seriously calls into question the motives behind the introduction of the instant draft Bill.

CPA therefore calls on the government to desist from introducing the draft Bill to Parliament. We also call on all those concerned with the rule of law, fundamental rights and religious harmony in Sri Lanka to prevail on the government that the draft Bill – and the motives for its introduction – are utterly unacceptable.

CPA further recommends that if the government is truly serious about arresting the rise of religious extremism and intolerance and promoting religious co-existence, it should:

  1. Take immediate steps to implement the LLRC recommendations on promoting religious harmony and co-existence, which call for establishing a mechanism in consultation with inter-faith groups that can serve as an early warning and diffusing system of potential religious tension, and which has not been included in the government’s LLRC Action Plan.
  2. Put an end to the culture of impunity and ensure that law enforcement authorities investigate, arrest and prosecute perpetrators of attacks on places of religious worship.

Download PDF of this press release here. Download in Tamil here and in Sinhala here.

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL): CPA complaint against the Independent Television Network of Sri Lanka (ITN)

12 August 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director filed a complaint (Complaint No: HRC/3083/13) before the Human Rights Commissions of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) this afternoon against the Independent Television Network of Sri Lanka (ITN) and its Chairmen. The complaint was on the basis that a news item appearing on the 7:00pm Sinhala language news broadcast of ITN on Sunday 14th July 2013 violates several fundamental rights of both CPA and its Executive Director which are guaranteed under the Constitution to all citizens of Sri Lanka.

CPA had previously written to the Chairman of ITN on the 16th July 2013 requesting that the erroneous news report be corrected and a formal apology be tendered to both CPA and its Executive Director within one week. However neither of these two requests was acceded to.

Against the backdrop of the Ministry of Mass Media and Information attempting to introduce “a code of media ethics” for Private sector media institutions CPA finds it abhorrent that a state owned and publicly funded media institution would be allowed to engage in irresponsible, unprofessional and deceitful reporting of this nature.  Even more troubling is the unwillingness of the said media institution to accept that a mistake has been made and take remedial action once the error has been brought to its attention.

The only possible explanation to this callous disregard of the most basic media ethics is that it is part of a larger scheme to systematically undermine civil society organizations perceived to be critical of the government. It is clear that the state media apparatus is being used as one of several instruments to intimidate civil society organizations.

The erroneous and fabricated news report of 14th July 2013 is only one of several instances in which CPA and other civil society actors have been intimidated using the state media apparatus.  CPA hopes that the relief sought in its complaint –if granted- would result in the formulation of processes within state owned and publicly funded media institutions that would result in more accurate, fair and balance reporting and also act as a deterrent against malicious and fabricated reporting.

CPA is hopeful that the HRCSL will conduct a full and independent investigation into its complaint and grant reliefs prayed for therein.

A copy of the complaint can be downloaded from here or viewed online here.

Interview with Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu on Weliweriya violence

Transcript of an in-house interview with CPA’s Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu on the recent violence in Weliweriya. See also CPA’s press release in this regard.

###

I think the most important thing with regards to what happened in Weliweriya is the simple fact that it is now becoming standard operating procedure that when citizens in this country exercising their democratic right to protest come out the police abdicate its responsibility for control and calls in special forces who then come in with live ammunition and presumably orders to shoot- and shoot to kill. Because we have on the instances of the export processing zone, in the instances of those in Chilaw and now in Weliweriya innocent people –unarmed innocent people being shot and killed.

If this is a functioning democracy there has to be a chain of command, there has to be someone in authority who takes responsibility for what happened. We have to know as to whether specific orders are given as to whether this has become de facto – by default- a standard operating procedure. In addition to that consider the political fallout in terms of international scrutiny of human rights situation and even two former representatives of Sri Lanka in the international community at the human rights council in Geneva in particular coming out and talking about the credibility and legitimacy of a state that behaves in this fashion with regard to its own citizens. One of them has talked in terms of lending credibility to the argument that was originally made way back in 2005 and 2006 about the need for a field office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sri Lanka.

Politically also I think an incident of this nature especially in a village like Weliweriya brings to the fore the question of if the special forces, if the army can behave like this as far as citizens in the South are concerned how did they actually behave in respect of civilians in the North. Are these allegations of war crimes – egregious human rights violations – the stuff of myth and slander or are they actually things that happened? We have now the account of the priest for example in the church; of the nuns in the church… something needs to be done and done fast.

If the position of the government is that now with CHOGM coming up with the High Commissioners visit before that everything should appear to be peaceful and calm, that the best way of ensuring that is to come out heavy handed against anyone who decides to demonstrate or show dissent, I think they are being very stupid, apart from anything else, apart from the criminality and the purely narrow political point of view, I think it’s really stupid to do this because what it does at the end of the day is it deepens the gap, the deficit with regards to reconciliation, with regard to governance, with regard to human rights protection, with regard to democracy.

Instead of throwing responsibility at each other I think there needs to be a unified and strong demand for a credible independent investigation, which gets to the bottom of the shooting, those who behaved in this way should be prosecuted and convicted and there should be a clear example set that this is not government policy, this behaviour is totally unacceptable in a functioning democracy, I think the opposition should use this as an opportunity to rally people behind the point about restoring rule of law and accountability in this country.