SINHALA NATION  

 

sinhala-nation.org    Last update -   Sunday, May 04, 2014

 

 

HOME          POLITICS

 

Emails

 

HIS EMINENCE STRATEGY  

As reported in the Island Newspaper dated 29.02.2012,

 

……...”His Eminence Malcolm has issued a communiqué stating that the presenting of a resolution against Sri Lanka by the United States Government at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva and the support given to that move by certain western countries is ‘an undue meddling in the sovereignty and integrity of Sri Lanka. At the same time it is also an insult to the intelligence of the people of Sri Lanka’.

His Eminence has criticized the US Government for an undue meddling in the sovereignty and the integrity of Sri Lanka. All that the US Government has asked the GOSL so far is to implement the LLRC recommendations and to His Eminence that is meddling with the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. We and many other Sinhalese would agree with it for very good reasons.

            However, the USA or any other nation under the freedom of speech has the right to ask, even in the form of a resolution, Sri Lanka or any other nation to implement something and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Free speech is said to be one of the moral absolutes of the Western culture. For example, if the USA or UK asks Sri Lanka to eradicate Rabies or Drug smuggling for greater good, then that cannot be construed as meddling with the sovereignty of Sri Lanka?

But if His Eminence says presenting a resolution to implement the recommendations of the LLRC report is a meddling with the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, Ah, there His Eminence is dead right because it contains recommendations detrimental to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. For example, devolution of political powers on ethnic basis is definitely detrimental to the sovereignty of the Sri Lankan State. If that is among other reasons why His Eminence has issued a statement, then it is highly commendable and appreciated.

But why why at the same breath, His Eminence has asked the GOSL to implement the vary recommendations that meant to meddle the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. By doing so, His Eminence too trying to meddle with the sovereignty of Sri Lanka through the back door. The US government asking GOSL to implement the recommendations of the LLRC is not an insult to the intelligence of the people of Sri Lanka but an honest political threat, which is clear and understandable due to well-known reasons.

This is not the first time that His Eminence or the Catholic Church hierarchy had meddle with the sovereignty of Sri Lankan State or had insulted the intelligence of the ordinary people of Sri Lanka.

During the past 30 years or so what did his Eminence said whenever, the LTTE unleashed a terror attack and killed scores of people belong to all ethnicities and denominations? His Eminence has always first made a token condemnation of the said attack but at the same breath and in clear terms, had asked the GOSL so many times to negotiate with the evil. In short give the LTTE all that they asks. His Eminence has always exploited attacks by the LTTE to justify its political cause stealthy.

His Eminence’s all attempts during the past 30 years to rescue the LTTE under the guise of peace has failed. Now His Eminence is trying to give the reminiscence of the LTTE separatists a new avenue to pursue its cause  -  through the LLRC report. Therefore, the real insult to the intelligence of the people of Sri Lanka has come not from any western nation but from his Eminence himself.

 

                                                                             Members of Sinhala Nation

     sinhalanation@sltnet.lk       www.sinhala-nation.org           02.03.2012

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

NAVANIDEM PILLAI SHOULD RESIGN FROM HER POSITION  AS THE COMMISSIONER OF UNHRC WHEN  POLITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO GOSL ARE TAKEN UP FOR INVESTIGATION

When the Commissioner of the UNHRC is directly or indirectly a party to an issue under investigation, then he or she is not in a position to act impartially, hence has no moral right to act as the Commissioner unless that person has no personal sense of honour and dignity, has no sense of shame to abuse one’s position to allow an advantage to a party that the Commissioner supports or wishes to win.

It has been reported in the media (The Island Newspaper – 25.02.2012) that Ms. Pillay had been a judge of the ICC, an acting Supreme Court Judge etc, Therefore, when somebody has clearly forwarded an argument against her ability to be an impartial Commissioner, she must effectively counteract that argument by giving reasons as to why she is not a party to the issue under investigation. Her credentials are far too strong to dismiss an accusation against her by ignoring it. If she does not counteract, but continues to acts as the Commissioner of the UNHRC when issues against GOSL are taken up, then the credibility of the UNHRC would be in doubt.

The reason why Navanidem Pillai cannot act impartially because she is a Tamil by birth therefore directly a party to the issue that is due to be taken up in the coming sessions of the UNHRC against GOSL. Similarly a Sinhala UNHR Commissioner too cannot act impartially when a case is taken up against the GOSL.

The issue to be taken up against Sri Lanka is said to be some human rights violations done by the Sri Lankan Army against the LTTE (an exclusive Tamil terrorist organization) and against a majority Tamil civilian population who were with them and nourished them for over a period of thirty 30 years. What that means? It means a clear evidence of a conflict between Sinhalese and the Tamils of some sort. The substance of the conflict is not the issue here but the fact that there exists a conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. A conflict does not exist among ordinary Sinhalese and the Tamils who are living as neighbours, doing business together, playing games etc in Sri Lanka. But a political conflict exists between the so-called Tamil Diaspora, the Tamil political representatives in Sri Lanka and the Sinhala politicians and a power sharing conflict between the Sri Lankan politicians. The GOSL accepts the fact that there is a conflict of some sort exists between the Sinhalese and the Tamils because it has appointed the so-called Lesson Leant and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to solve the Tamil Question.

Therefore, there exists a political conflict that go beyond the borders of Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. It is the Tamil Diaspora that intends to present a case against the GOSL through a UN member state. If there is no such conflict exists, then why Tamils living far away are unhappy about defeating a Tamil terrorist outfit. Therefore, when a million strong Tamil Diaspora rallies against the GOSL, Ms. Pillay, herself a member of the Tamil Diaspora, can then she say, sorry I am not part of that Diaspora? If she is an exception, then what are the grounds for it? The fact that she being a Tamil in itself is sufficient ground for the Sinhalese to feel unhappy, uncomfortable about her being the Commissioner of the UNHRC that is poised to investigate allegations against a military force consists of 99% Sinhalese.

GOSL has already accused her being bias but no Tamil organization has ever accused her for being bias and that means she has been bias towards them and the only reason that one could think is the fact that she is a Tamil.

We as an organization most respectfully call her either to resign or to make a statement giving acceptable reasons as to why she is an exception within the Tamil Diaspora.

 

     sinhalanation@sltnet.lk              www.sinhala-nation.org                         26.02.201

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNHR COMMISSIONER Navanidem Pillai  HAS NO MORAL RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ISSUES RELATED TO SRI LANKA

The United Nations Human Right Council (UNHRC) accepts and considers allegations from various member states, organizations etc in regard to Human rights violations against another member state. In the case of a resolution, a vote is taken after discussions and arguments thereafter the resolution is adopted or rejected.

The duties of the Commissioner is to see that the proceedings are done according to the Rules of the Council and no under hand dealing are done other than presenting each others with facts to support or to reject the resolution. Therefore, the Commissioner must be a person who could and would perform his / her duties absolutely impartially. The question now arises whether the present UNHR Commissioner is in a position to act impartially in matters related to Sri Lanka.

The present Commissioner of the UNHRC is Navanidem Pillai, a Tamil Lady by descent. A question now is whether the said Commissioner can act impartially when the Commissioner herself is connected to the issue under consideration. The conflict in question is a historical one between Indigenous Sinhalese and the migrant Tamils community in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is the Tamils who are making allegations against the Sinhala Army through the Sri Lankan State.

During the last session when UNHRC dealt a resolution against the Sri Lankan State Government (SLSG), the SLSG delegation said to have felt that the Commissioner herself was supporting a resolution presented against the SLSG. This is obviously unacceptable. Therefore, there must be a mechanism in the UNHRC when the resolution under consideration is in some way connected directly or indirectly to the Commissioner himself or herself, then the Commissioner must temporarily abstain from that issue and should delegate his or her powers to a deputy, because the Commissioner has considerable powers to adjust and arrange sessions in favour of a resolution in which the Commissioner wishes to succeed.

It is a customary practice in the judiciary anywhere in the world, when the sitting judge is directly or indirectly connected to the case under consideration, an honorable judge would transfer the case to another judge before such a connection is reveled. Also one party of the case has the right to ask the judiciary to transfer the case to another judge if that party feels justice will not be done if the said judge continues to be the judge.  Therefore, similar conditions are applicable to the UNHRC too.

The present UNHRC Commissioner should have realized that it is simply not right to be part of the proceedings when the Commissioner herself was compelled to support one side. According to the newspaper reports last year, when the so-called international community presented a resolution against the SLSG in support of the LTTE, the Commissioner was said to have acting in support of the said resolution. As a result, there has been a professional misconduct by the present Commissioner.

The reason why Navanidem Pillai cannot act impartially because as stated above she is a Tamil by birth therefore directly a party to one side – the LTTE and its supporters who are due to present a resolution in March 2012 against the SLSG for violations of human rights when it was defeating the LTTE in the war front. Therefore, the Sinhala Nation clearly states that Navanidem Pillai must resign because she is an unacceptable Commissioner for the Sinhalese in general. The SLSG did not and will not protest on the above grounds because it has its local political interests.

Email: sinhalanation@sltnet.lk            www.sinhala-nation.org   18.02.2012

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

GIANT LEAP FORWARD IN ASIAN FINANCIAL SYSTEM

       It has been reported in the media that Iran has agreed to accept Indian Rupees as part of payments for their oil. Sinhala Nation believes that this is truly a giant leap forward in the Asian financial system because then the demand for US dollars would diminish hence the dependency on western currencies to do transactions in the Asian business sector.

  Therefore, both Russia and China should seriously consider the possibility of opening up Sri Lankan, Indian and Pakistani Rupee Accounts in their central Banks. Then they could pay back the same Rupees in return when goods are exported to Russia and China. Similarly if Russia and China agree, then we could accept their currencies as well. All the transactions may not be possible in the beginning but it would be a good starting point for the future. Prospects are enormous.

The above News report has not been given adequate publicity in the media

  www.sinhala-nation.org      sinhalanation@sltnet.lk 10.02.2012

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE 64TH INDEPENDENCE DAY

WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THE INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE OF CEYLON,

WAS IT

(1).  TO RESTORE WHAT WAS LOST IN 1815? or

        (2). TO CONTINUE THE COLONIAL RULE WITHOUT THE BRITISH RULERS?

      The two main political parties were created by those who held offices under the British rule, hence the system of governance, the governmental structure, its thinking pattern, it’s identity are all remain more or less intact after 64 years later. The Queen of England has been replaced by a President. The task of the Privy Council has been transferred to the S.C. Those are the only changes that have taken place since 1972.

There were individual politicians among those rulers and some of them were their close relatives who wanted to restore the historical rights of the Sinhalese before 1972 but the strength of the non - indigenous political party vote base was more stronger for the then rulers than the dinner table voice of their relatives.

The name “United National Party” said to have been proposed by a Tamil politician and the late D.S felt into his trap. When it means several nationals united under one party, then that can be construed, as there are several nationalities in this country and that would give a misleading picture to people from other countries. Therefore, the very name UNP undermines the historical rights of the Sinhalese.   

The “Divide and Rule Policy” of the British remains the same and has not been brought under an indigenous system.

The present Sinhala caretakers of the two main political parties are those who joined that system later and maintain it very well. Their self-interests are far stronger than their feeling for their collective Sinhala Rights.

The Sinhalese have become political prisoners of the two political parties and they are now unable get out of the vicious setup.

Two main political parties in turn have become prisoners of the non - indigenous people with political parties created under the colonial system of governance.

www.sinhala-nation.org

04.02.2012

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

NON NEGOTIABLE STAND IN POLITICS

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Says

WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE OVER FALKLANDS.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE TAMIL NATIONAL ALLIANCE (TNA) & THE TAMIL EELAM SEPARATISTS

SAY

“ THIMPU PRINCIPLES” ARE NON – NEGOTIABLE.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE SINHALA NATION ORGANIZATION

SAYS

The Island of Sinhaladeepa (Sri Lanka) is the “Land of the Sinhalese”

 

And that stand is non – negotiable for the Sinhala Nationalists.

 

The two main political parties (colonial products) and all the Marxist parties hold the view of the British  - this island belongs to all ethnic groups equally. It is according to their Constitutions, The Ceylon Constitution (Order in Council) 1946 (written by the British) the Republican Constitution of 1972 (written by a Marxist) and the 1978 Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (written for a State leader with a minority background).

 

The Sinhala nation created by King Pandukhabaya in 437 B.C.E is the only nation historically acceptable in this Island. Any concepts or claims of Kingdoms, settlements and occupations established through invasions, illegal migration, and land encroachments (during the colonial era) by the minority groups has to be withdrawn by the minority groups themselves for any lasting political settlement.

 

www.sinhala-nation.org

 

16.01.2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

WHY THE MARXISTS PARTIES PRAISED THE LLRC REPORT?

It has been reported in the media that the senior Minister Dew Gunesekera, the leader of the Communist Party of SL, Minister Tissa Vitharana, the leader of the Lanka Sama Samja Pakshaya (LSSP) and the Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkakara, the leader of the Democratic Left Front has jointly praised the LLRC’s final report.

Now, this in itself tells much about the recommendations of the LLRC’s final report. Why the Marxists have faith in the LLRC report. It is clearly because the LLRC report have recommended what the Marxists have recommended to the respective governments during the past thirty years especially the devolution of political power to the so called Tamil areas.

It was the Marxists parties that justified the final aim (short of separation) of the LTTE but not its means to achieve it. The Marxists parties vehemently argued in the media on behalf of the Tamil struggle and stood firmly for a negotiated settlement with the LTTE. During the past thirty years none of the Marxists parties have ever said a word about the historical rights of the Sinhalese.

It is well known that the Marxists political parties are against Mahawansa in general and the JVP in particular and against everything that strengthens the historical rights of the Sinhalese and for everything that dilutes, weakens, lowers and degrade the strength of the historical rights of the Sinhalese. That has been the legacy of the Marxists during the past thirty years and even before. The JVP supported the war effort for a brief period (between 2005 – 2008) and now both the main JVP faction and the so-called rebels are regretting it, why?

Therefore, the Marxists parties having faith in the LLRC’s final report means its recommendations matches with theirs and that of the Eelam separatists, which is to establish Tamil Eelam step by step through the process of devolution of political power. The LLRC report has recommended the devolution of political power and granting an acceptable solution to the Tamil political parties and that was exactly what the Marxists political parties have been and are fighting for all these years. Therefore, it is clear that the LLRC’s final report has recommended the submissions from those who supported the Eelam separatist cause for thirty years and have ignored the submissions from the Sinhala nationalists who are fighting for the restoration of the historical rights of the Sinhalese.

The so - called Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) either have not learnt or did not want to learn any lessons from the past political knowledge and have made recommendations in favour of the Eelam separatists.

THE LLRC‘s FINAL REPORT HAS LOST MUCH OF ITS CREDIBILITY BECAUSE THE MARXISTS HAVE ACCEPTED IT.

 

   sinhalanation@sltnet.lk        www.sinhala-nation.org           06.01.2012

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE POLITICAL SOLUTION

FOR A LASTING POLITICAL SOLUTION…………………

WHY ONLY CONSIDER -

  DEVOLUTION OF POLITICAL POWER?

       – IS IT THE ONLY OPTION WE HAVE?

Aren’t there any other alternatives?

DEVOLUTION MEANS….

       - GOING DOWN,     

DEGRADING,   

WANING POWER,   

LOOSING STRENGTH,     

DOWN THE HILL………………………………………………………

FROM SINHALA JATHIKA PERAMUNA

www.sinhala-nation.org

23.12.2011

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

COMMENTS ON THE LLRC REPORT – PART - 1

SJP’s comments / Observations / Views on the LLRC report is based on the News items appeared in the Island Newspaper on 17th December 2011.

When we have a copy of the full report, we intend to update our comments.

 

(01).            EXCERPT

………..”The LLRC blames both Sinhala and Tamil political leaders for the conflict. "The conflict could have been avoided had the Southern political leaders of the two main political parties acted in the national interest and forged a consensus between them to offer an acceptable solution to the Tamil people”………………….

 

COMMENT ON THE ABOVE UNDERLINED SECTIONS

 

(1).            ………”acted in the national interest”…………..

 

When the LLRC states “national interests”, to which nation that they are actually referring to? We assume that they are referring to the so-called Sri Lankan Nation. Here we have to state very clearly that only a Sri Lankan State exists and no Sri Lankan Nation exists. If such a nation exists, then it must be in the provisions of the Sri Lankan Constitution. The word “Nation” does not exist in the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka or in any of the provisions of the 1972 Republican Constitution.

 

The term Sri Lankan Nation is an erroneous term used out of ignorance by the people at large.  For example, there have been hundreds of letters stating that we must unite as Sri Lankans but that unity never comes, why? At first glance, there appears to be no obstacles to it either. Even in cricket we are not united. The majority from the Muslim community supports the Pakistan team. The majority from the Tamil community supports India or even other countries. Therefore, where is the unity under the Sri Lankan banner?

 

These factors are known but ignored by the mainstream political parties due to the requirement of political support of the Tamil & the Muslim political parties in order to form governments. Therefore, party politics introduced by the colonial rulers are more important to the mainstream politicians than the historical national interests. The majority of the voters go with them due to their party loyalties fearing that any deviations during an election might help the other side.

 

(2).            ……….”an acceptable solution to the Tamil people”………………..

 

It is well known that the final acceptable solution to the Tamil community at large is their dream Tamil Eelam – To the Colombo Tamils and to the Tamil Diaspora, it will be their holiday resort after doing business in Colombo and in the west. The Tamil politicians especially the TNA is at present is asking self determination with Police and Land power including re-merger is nothing but an advance preparation for their Tamil Eelam. - to declare It when the central government is weak, unstable and when it has a leader who is willing (as happened in the year 2002) to concede to the Tamil demands supported by certain western leaders.

 

The LLRC Report has completely ignored above fears that have been expressed by many writers during the past thirty years. Therefore, recommending the mainstream politicians to give an acceptable solution to the Tamils, something that they failed since 50 - 50 demand by late Mr. G.G.Ponnambalum means LLRC report is trying to satisfy the position of the mainstream political parties while ignoring the submissions made by others including ourselves (Please see www.sinhala-nation.org - LLRC).

At least, the LLRC report should have stated that there is a strong opposition to the concept of devolution; instead they have accepted it without any reservations. Hence, the LLRC report has made a one-sided recommendation in regard to the national conflict.

 

We regard aspects such as Channel 4 video, the final phase of the military operation 2009 as secondary issues therefore not much relevant to our political mission. We concentrate only the issue of national conflict.

 

18TH DECEMBER 2011

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

COMMENT ON THE JVP’s 13–POINT ACTION PLAN FOR NATIONAL RECONCILIATION
Reference the News item that appeared in the Island Newspaper dated 12.12.2011 that consists of a JVP’s action plan for National Reconciliation, which includes the legal action for the remaining LTTE detainees before Tamil speaking judges.

The JVP action plan comprises the following;

 

(01). Restoration of political freedoms,

(02). Release of political prisoners,

(03). Resettlement of the internally displaced persons,

(04). Removal of military bases from Northern and Eastern Provinces to facilitate restoration of civil rule,

(05). Release of the names of those political prisoners,

(06). Safeguarding cultural identity of people living in different provinces,

(07). Ending state take-over of land in the Northern and Eastern Provinces,

(08). Settling disputes over land owned by IDPs, employment for all,

(09). Restoration of health and education sectors,

(10). Protection of media and right activists,

(11). Compensation package for those who lost their loved ones due to war and

(12). Compensation for the loss of private property.


We reject the following items from the JVP’s above action plan list for obvious reasons.

(02), (04), (05), (07)

We also reject the idea of trying the LTTE terrorists before only Tamil speaking judges. This is nothing but interfering with the existing judicial process that would give a wrong inpression to the so called international community  - that the LTTE detainees may not get a fair trial before the Sinhala Judges.

Referring to the above item (01), it was the JVP once said that they would cut the hands of those who vote in an election. Therefore, now talking about political freedom is nothing but a joke.

The cultural identities of so-called minorities have been over safeguarded.

Sinhala Jathika Peramuna

12th December 2011.  

Email: - sinhalanation@sltnet.lk

                   

 

 

Copyright © 2014. sinhala-nation.org. All rights reserved.