Aaron’s six wickets help S. Thomas’ take first innings lead
Matt Henry six-for and Will Young hundred crush India
Diyansa, Lihini reach U18 girls final
CDB and HNB ‘A’ clash in final today
Maris Stella and Nimala Maria Convent emerge overall champions
Former Director Geological Survey Department and retired Economic Affairs Officer, United Nations ESCAP
There were recent reports of earth tremors in the Buttala and Wellawaya areas in Sri Lanka and statements made by local earth scientists failed to give any scientific explanations as regards such activity.
An attempt is made to explain such activity in relation to seismicity in Sri Lanka compared to Tamil Nadu as well as the orogenesis of the Himalayas in relation to a new theory of cratons and fold belts in India and its extrapolation to Sri Lanka.
There was a news item in the local media that if a major earthquake occurs in the Himalayan region there will be tremors felt in Colombo as well as in Jaffna.
Historical seismicity in the Himalayan region has been analysed and its slip potential in the 21 Century recorded (Rodger Bilham [email protected] ).
The seismicity of Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu are compared to understand mountain building in the two regions as Sri Lanka resemble crystalline metamorphic rocks of South India.
It is recommended that the theory cratons and mobile belts that has been postulated in India focusing on the Tamil Nadu region be extended to Sri Lanka to explain present earth tremors in Buttala and Wellawaya areas.
COMPARISON OF ALTITUDES AND SEISMIC RECORDS BETWEEN SRI LANKA AND TAMIL NADU
The highest mountains in Sri Lanka are Pidurutalagala (2524 metres msl), Kirigalpotha (2396 metres msl), and Samalakanda – Adam’s Peak (2243 metres msl)
As compared to Sri Lanka the heights of 77 mountains range from 2695 meters msl to 522 metres msl from the Indian Peninsular.
Tamil Nadu, which is a part of Peninsular India, compared to the highest peneplain of Sri Lanka (Wadia 1945), has three mountains namely Anamuda (2395 metres msl ) , Meesapullimala (2640 metres msl) and Kolabetta (2629 metres msl) -Wikipedia.
Accordingly, it is evident that the highest mountains in Sri Lanka can be closely related to those of Tamil Nadu subject to the same orogenesis or mountain building.
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES FOR STATE OF TAMIL NADU SOUTH INDIA
A study by G. P. Ganapathy Assistant Professor, Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management VIT University Vellore 632 014 Tamil Nadu India [email protected] and Rajaratnam S. Professor, Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, Anna University Chennai 600 025 Tamil Nadu, India ( [email protected] ) have extensively analyzed seismic potential sources of Tamil Nadu State and are summarised in Table 2 of their paper titled, “Seismic Hazard Analyses for Tamil Nadu State: A Deterministic Approach “and published in the Jour. Engr. Geol. Vol.XXXV1 NO1.4
Tamil Nadu State covers 130 ,058 sq. km approximately twice the size of Sri Lanka which encompasses only 65 000 sq. km. Figure 1 gives a large number of lineaments which are seismic prone and it is interesting to note that such lineaments especially in the South Block may extend to Sri Lanka and Figure 2 indicate identified seismic potential sources in this block.
SEISMIC POTENTIAL SOURCES OF TAMIL NADU
Table 1 of the above research paper analyses seven sources seismic potential sources with lengths varying from 315 km to 42 km with cumulative number of earthquakes ranging from 5 to 1 with magnitudes varying from 6.0 to 5.0 (M) observed from historical /instrumental earthquakes and peak ground acceleration (PGA) in g determined using m varying from 0.212 to 0.078 . It is noted that PGA is high in earthquakes with magnitude 6.0 and low in magnitude 3. Further PGA in Chennai, Coimbatore, Salem, Madurai and Tiruchirappalli cities varies from 0.107g, 0.133g, 0.012g ,0.77g and 0.113 g respectively. It is noted that the southeastern part of the State shows high values because of a high earthquake data for the years 1800 to 2004 It also explains that the southern part of the State which may extend to Sri Lanka shows comparatively low seismic hazards.
SEISMIC RECORDS AND POTENTIAL OF SRI LANKA
It is reported that Sri Lanka had no seismic records up to 1800. However from the period 1615 to 1800 earthquakes were reported close to Sri Lanka in the northern Indian Ocean and Coimbatore- Nilgiri Hills. (Seneviratne H.N et al ( DOI :http://doi.org/10.4038/engineer.v53i2.7412)
Newspaper reports are available in the National Archives, Sri Lanka in 1882 ,1924, 1938 and 1944(Ceylon Observer) on earthquakes that had occurred during these years. However no deaths have been reported although there was damage to property (Gunasekera K.W (2000) Sunday Observer ,p34)
Seismic records from 1909 to 1992 were from a seismograph installed in 1909. However, no data are available since 1992 as it was not fully functional.
It is reported that from the year 1823 to 2010 earth tremors and earthquakes in Sri Lanka varied from 5.9 to 3.7 on the Richter Scale and most of such tremors were recorded in the Comorin Ridge Failed Mannar Rift Zone (Seneviratne et.al).
Sri Lanka has been identified as a Mid Plate Platelet lying between Antarctica -India -Africa and Madagascar ( Curry 1984 adopted by Crawford (1974 )and Katz (1978).
In 1823 there was an earthquake of 5.8 Magnitude at Mandawela , in close proximity of Colombo with coordinates 7deg. Lat. and 80 deg. Long. There were no deaths but damage to property were recorded. There was also an earthquake of 5.9 Magnitude at Lat. N 6.5 and Long 79 E close to Kurunegala.
It is interesting to note that Sri Lanka within a latitude of 7.8731 deg. North and 80.7718 East had 18 earthquakes or tremors between the period 1823 to 2010 a period of 187 years. However, the number of tremors of insignificant nature during this period was 670.
SEISMIC RECORDS IN SRI LANKA AFTER 1992
The Geological Survey and Mines Bureau (GSMB) commissioned three seismometers, one at Pallekelle in year 2000 (PALK) connected to the Global Seismic Network (GSN)and the others in 2010 Mahakandarawa (MALK) connected to GEOFON) Network and Hakmana (HALK)connected to GEOFON (Geo-Network operated by Germany).
It is of importance that a network of seismometers be established in Colombo and the Western Province and a network of seismometers covering the entire Island to establish relationship between earthquakes and development activity accelerated recently in Sri Lanka. (Senaviratne H.N. et. al. 2020)
It has also been revealed that an earthquake of magnitude 6.9 (475-year return period) along the Mannar Rift Zone identified earlier in this report.
SRI LANKA HAS THE LOWEST GRAVITY RECORDED IN THE WORLD
The European Space Agency (ESA) carried out a four-and-a-half-year Gravity Field and Steady – State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) mission to learn what constitutes the surface beneath the Earth and discovered that the lowest negative gravity was south of Sri Lanka.
A geoid is the equipotential surface that coincides over the oceans with the same sea level. It is noted that the earth becomes flattened around the equator and the distance from equatorial areas to the center of the Earth is more than from the poles to the center. (Roar media Sachith Mendis (https://roar.media/english/life/reports/sri-lanka-least-earth-place-world )
It is also revealed that launching of space satellites will be much cheaper due the low gravity and due to no land surface directly south of Sri Lanka.
An earthquake of magnitude 8 or 9 on the Richter scale was reported on 14 April 1615 evening offshore that caused extensive damage in western part of the Island. The worst hit area was Colombo and 2 per cent of Colombo Fort was destroyed. It has been reported that nearly 200 houses were destroyed with nearly 2000 casualties. Accordingly, moderate sized earthquakes cannot be ruled out in Sri Lanka. (Muhandiram P. M. S. S. B. <https: loes18.wildapricot.org/article _earthquakes-text= According to this document2 % of Colombo Fort got destroyed.
A Gravity Map of Sri Lanka was compiled and produced in 1975 by the Geological Survey Department (present GSMB) on the scale of 1: 1. 000,000 by T. Hatherton, D. B. Pattiarachchi and V. V. C. Ranasinghe with an appendix by R.B. Evans.
A total of 1,170 points were established covering the whole Island in respect to 19 base stations and about 87 per cent of observations where in areas less than 150 meters msl.
The horizontal distance and heights of the 1971 gravity observations were from 1 -inch topographic maps covering Sri Lanka.
Most of these gravity stations were tied up with the trigonometrical survey stations of the Survey Department. When these stations were opened it was revealed that there was movement due to upliftment.
A contour map of complete Bouguer (gravity anomaly corrected to the height of its measurement) anomalies with the locations of gravity observations was produced.
The gravity map has revealed a negative gravity low on the Highland -Vijayan boundary in the east of Sri Lanka.
Bruno Divakara, he’s reached a plateau
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
According to the History of the National Physical Planning Department, the “Anuradhapura Conservation Ordinance, established in 1942, can be considered as the first legal cover presented for the preparation and implementation of plans for any identified area within Sri Lanka; it is probably the first legislation to protect a historic site in the world. Architect/Planner Oliver Weerasinghe who was entrusted with the preparation of the Preservation Plan was appointed as the first Government Town Planner in the Department of Town and Country Planning that was established by the Town and Country Planning Ordinance No. 13 of 1946
The first task of the department was to finalise the Anuradhapura Preservation Plan. The Plan consisted of two parts, the Sacred Area and the New Town”. In 1949 the Government of Ceylon launched the Anuradhapura Preservation Plan with the guidance of Oliver Weerasinghe to protect the ancient ruins by relocating administrative functions and buildings to a separate New town.”
“The Sacred City incorporates Eight Sacred Sites known as the Atamasthaana. They are: Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi, Ruwanwliseya, Tuparamaya, Abhayagiriya, Jetavanaramaya, Mirisawetiya, Lankaramaya and Lovamahapaya”. ( Sunday Times , November 8, 2026)
Although the Sacred part of the City of Anuradhapura was separated from the New Town, the Regulatory work associated with Preservation and Restoration was within the Department of Town and Country Planning during Colonial Administrations. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that the Sacred City was full of Archaeological Artifacts “associated with living traditions of universal significance, specifically serving as the cradle of Theravada Buddhism” (UNESCO, the statutory institution continued to be the Department of Town and Country Planning.
This status remained unchained from 1946 to 1998 i.e. 52 years, until the Antiquities (Amendment) Act, No. 24 of 1998 which states: “An Ordinance to provide for the better preservation of the antiquities of Sri Lanka and of sites and buildings of historical or archaeological importance in Sri Lanka”. Paragraph 40 (g) of this Ordinance states: “the Director General of Archaeological is Empowered–to conduct archaeological impact assessment of areas that may be affected by development, industrial or other projects proposed by the government or any person and implement any mitigatory measures that may be required”.
As the title of the Act No. 24 of 1998 states: “the Ordinance was intended to “better preservation of antiquities” and concludes that it took 52 years to realise it despite the presence of Archaeologist of world repute while UNESCO’s declaration cited below was in 982 – 16 years earlier than Sri Lanka.
The declaration of Anuradhapura was a World Heritage Site and its justification for doing so was:
“This was officially inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1982 during the 6th Session of the World Heritage Committee.
The primary statutory documentation declaring its inscription is the official under the decision 06COM VIII.20 (Nominations to the World Heritage List).
The inscription was heavily based on the evaluation conducted by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The site was admitted to the World Heritage List under three specific cultural criteria:
· Criterion (ii): The sacred city exerted a major, long-term influence on the development of local architecture over several centuries.
· Criterion (iii): It stands as a unique testimonial to the ancient Ceylonese civilisation, having served as a prominent religious and political capital for over 1,300 years.
· Criterion (vi): The city is directly and tangibly associated with living traditions of universal significance, specifically serving as the cradle of Theravada Buddhism and hosting the , a sacred fig tree grown from a cutting of the historical Buddha’s tree”
As for the Sacred City of Anuradhapura, the status quo remained unchanged until the Constitution of 1977 introduced Article 9.
Article 9 states: “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and sponsor the Buddha Sasana , while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14 (1) (e)”.
Cited below are Judgments from the Supreme Court as to what constitutes the Buddha Sasana:
“In the Antiquities Amendment Bill, the Supreme Court, in its determination, observed: The expression Buddha Sasana is wider than Buddhism and includes the entire establishment, together with objects and places of religious practices and worship of Buddhists”.
In Re the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Provincial Councils Bill, 1987 2 Sri Lanka LR 312, Wanasundera J, referring to the term Buddha Sasana, said that it was “a compendious term encompassing all ancient, historic and sacred objects and places which have from ancient times been associated with the religious practices and worship of Sinhala Buddhists”.
It is clear that the Buddha Sasana is not confined to matters of ritual or practice, but includes the substance of Buddhist teachings. This is borne out clearly in other judgments of the Supreme Court.
An explicit example is the determination of the Supreme Court in the Ayurveda Amendment Bill, SCSD, numbers 22-35/2023, where the Court declared: “We hold that Buddha Sasana in Article 9 of the Constitution includes the dhamma, principles and teachings of Buddhism, including in particular recognized and undisputed codifications of the teachings of Lord Buddha”.
Buddha Sasana (Chapter 1) as Defined by the Presidential Commission of 2002
The Commission recommends the following definition to the term Buddha Sasana”.
12.1 Buddha Sasana is defined as the Buddha, the nine super-mundane ( navalokuttara ) Dhamma, the Sangha, the Buddhist temples (viharas) with their ancillary structures, forest hermitages ( aranya senasana ) and meditation centres, Bo trees, stupas, image houses, relic chambers, dhamma books and libraries, designated buildings for performance of vinaya acts by the sangha ( uposathagara) , fields, gardens and properties belonging to the Buddhist temples, Buddhist education, devalas , nuns and nunneries, the laity who had taken refuge in the Triple Gem, Buddhist literature, culture and civilisation, Buddhist festivals and processions (peraharas ), Buddhist customs and traditions, Buddhist principles and values and all that are required for its perpetuity .
12.2 It shall be the responsibility of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana in terms of Chapter II of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. The Government, all institutions and the citizens are bound by the constitution of that country. Therefore, it is inferred by the Commission that the constitutional obligation accorded by the Constitution of Sri Lanka to give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana devolves on the Government of Sri Lanka, all state institutions, other organizations, and all its citizens. (1.26)
Having set up the Anuradhapura Conservation Ordinance in 1942, as the first legal instrument presented for the preparation and implementation of plans, the Government’s first task was for the Department of Town and Country Planning to establish the Town and Country Planning Ordinance No. 13 of 1946. The first task of the Department was to finalise the Anuradhapura Preservation Plan, which consisted of two parts, the Sacred Area and the New Town in order to protect the ancient ruins by relocating administrative functions and buildings to a separate New town. In 1949 the Government of Ceylon launched the Anuradhapura Preservation Plan based on the fundamental concept that the City of Anuradhapura was to consist of a Sacred Area that would be separate from the New Town.
Notwithstanding this division, development work relating to both the Sacred Area and the New Town were undertaken by the Department of Town and Country Planning in the absence of any other implementing Agency. This structural arrangement meant that the Archaeological Department had NO official involvement in the preservation and restoration of the sacred part of the City that UNESCO inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 1982 and named it the Sacred City of Anuradhapura.
This sorry state of affairs continued from 1946 until 1998 i.e. 52 Years, despite the fact that Article 9 of the 1977 Constitution requires the “State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasane, when the ANTIQUITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, No. 24 OF 1998 was introduced. Paragraph 40 (g) of this Amendment requires the Director General to undertake “archaeological impact assessment” of areas that may be affected by development”. Although it is reported that the Archaeological Department had participated in the Development of the National Physical Planning Department’s Plan, up to now, no Archaeological Impact Assessment has been conducted, nor does the Public have access to the Plan despite claims of transparency.
For the status quo to continue notwithstanding that the Sacred City of Anuradhapura did not have the input from the Archaeological Department from 1946 to 1998 i.e. 52 years, and despite Article 9 of the 1977 Constitution stating that “the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana” and for UNESCO to inscribe the Sacred City as a World Heritage Site in 1982 is a serious lapse on the part of past governments.
It is imperative that the incumbent government review the structural arrangements contemplated and acknowledge that THE ONLY LEGITIMATE INSTITUTION TO “FOSTER AND PROTECT THE BUDDHA SASANA” IS THE MINISTRY OF BUDDHASASANA, a dedicated institution mandated to give “Buddhism the foremost place”.
Furthermore, UNESCO has described Anuradhapura as the “birthplace of Theravada Buddhism”. Therefore, all resources required for development within the Sacred City should be borne ONLY by the people of Sri Lanka, without foreign inputs of any kind, irrespective of their source.
Expecting advisory bodies to undertake the task of fostering and protecting the Buddha Sasana is also foolhardy. The Sacred City is a living heritage, whereas advisory bodies are transient entities and, as such, lack enduring accountability.
Continue Reading Features Power balance tilts against US-Israel combine in West Asia Published
With the Republican Party losing its clout in the US Congress in the wake of the recent midterm election setback the power balance in West Asia could very well be tilting against the US-Israel combine for the first time in decades. In all probability the Republican administration would from now on be challenged to initiate a policy reset in the region that is more amenable to Iran considering that the latter has emerged in a somewhat commanding position from the ongoing political and military turmoil in the region.
So powerful is Iran currently that it has unilaterally set out some seven conditions to the US to bring the conflict in West Asia within manageable limits. At present it is unclear whether the conditions are receiving the undivided attention of the US, given that the central Republican administration is in an effort to pull itself together and act with a degree of policy coherence in the aftermath of the recent polls debacle.
However, the Republican centre would have no choice but to concede some of the key Iranian demands in consideration of the ‘cost of living shock’ that the war in the region has administered to the average US consumer. Provided relief is quickly delivered to the consuming public, the chances are that the Trump administration would continue to witness a slide in its popularity and power. We have another reminder here that economics basically drives politics.
From the above viewpoint, conditions 2, 3 and 4, relating to the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran, the reopening of shipping lanes and the release of frozen Iranian assets could prove vital since they are decisive in not only worsening the material hardships of the Iranian and US publics but also those of the rest of the world. They exercise a direct bearing, therefore, on the political fortunes of the US centre and may need to be met before long.
However, it is to the degree to which the immediate political consequences from the midterm polls are effectively and swiftly managed that the US centre could give the conditions its concerted attention. But the urgency of granting the key demands of Iran would only be increasingly felt in Washington, thereby denying it the ability to deal with the foreign policy issues at hand with greater ease and freedom of deliberation. That is, Iran would be acting and even negotiating with the US from what could be seen as a position of strength.
It is possible that the Trump administration is biding its time at the moment until ground conditions stabilize and greater policy clarity could be achieved on what needs to be done going forward, but a revival of military strikes on Iran could prove both politically and economically most costly. The administration would be acting in some of the US’ best interests by choosing its policy courses with utmost circumspection.
Meanwhile, it should not come as a surprise if the US is compelled to seriously consider a policy reset towards Israel as well. It is not the case that the US would be substantially downgrading its alliance with Israel in the days ahead but it is possible that there would be reduced financial and material backing by the US for Israel. After all, the US ‘purse’ is beginning to ‘pinch’ and the affordability of US financial assistance could emerge as a major worry.
In fact there has reportedly been an effort to scale down US assistance to a degree. Whether this would seriously undermine the US-Israel alliance is yet to be seen but the development could point to possible future strains that could stringently test the alliance.
It does not follow from the foregoing that Israel would be seeing a steady diminishing of its military power to the degree to which the US cuts down on its assistance. This is unlikely to be because Israel has proved more or less self-sufficient in most respects in the past. But the perception could gain ground among Israel’s enemies in the Arab world in particular that she would be weakened militarily in the absence of continued and substantial US help. This again is primarily a matter for the future.
However, a development of note in Israeli politics at present is the possibility of opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot forming the next government in Israel. He has reportedly been called upon by the Israeli President to do so. If this comes to pass we would have in Israel a more centrist coalition government that could prove less militaristic and less religiously hard line than the Netanyahu regime.
One message that the foregoing development conveys is that the Eisenkot regime could prove more amenable to negotiations in sorting out the Middle East tangle. President Trump is unlikely to easily hear of negotiations but an incoming Democratic Party controlled Congress is likely to. Such an administration could bring pressure on Trump to consider negotiations and political solutions to the outstanding issues in West Asia. Hopefully this opening for progressive change would be seized by the Democrats and sustainably followed through in the days ahead.
An incoming Democratic Party-dominated Congress would need to work on several fronts if it is to prove sensitive to the US public’s aspirations. It would need to end all forms of conflict and war in the Middle East, cut down on needless defense spending and invigorate the weak domestic economy. There is no getting away from the need for a two-state solution in West Asia. The recent mid-term polls results amply prove that these are main among the US public’s needs.
However, incoming more democracy-friendly administrations would also need to call on Israel’s neighbours, including Iran, to cooperate in finding peaceful, negotiated solutions to the problems that have been bloodily tearing the region apart. It will need to be impressed on these neighbours that Israel would not be negotiating from a position of weakness. It is simply that diplomatic, equitable solutions would do everyone concerned good.
Iran’s first demand calls for an ‘end to hostilities on all fronts’; including Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. This is the way forward, but Iran needs to be asked to do more than what is seen as its part to end hostilities. It should not only down arms against Israel but prove its sincerity by recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
The nuclear option, meanwhile, needs to be shelved by all concerned. It needs to be perceived by all that unending war leads to the eventual annihilation of all.
“Pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart.” Robert F. Kennedy borrowed these words from Aeschylus on the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, speaking to a stunned crowd in Indianapolis. Two months later he was murdered himself.
I thought of that line in Washington, thirty-two years after my father, Ossie Abeyagoonasekera, was assassinated in Sri Lanka on 9 November 1994. At my book launch at the National Press Club, I met Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert Kennedy’s eldest daughter. She spoke of losing her father at sixteen. I was sixteen when I lost mine. Our fathers belonged to different nations and traditions, yet violence left us the same inheritance: the knowledge that one moment can divide a life into everything before and everything after.
Some losses are not healed by time. Time only teaches us to carry them.
The assassin believes he has settled something. He kills a man to silence an argument and let fear decide the future. But the dead go on asking the questions the living would rather avoid.
My father’s question has not aged: how free is Sri Lanka to decide its own future? I believe the answer lies in two places at once, in how we deal with the world’s great powers and in how we treat our own citizens. A country cannot be sovereign abroad and fearful at home.
He led a small party in an age of executive presidents, ideological quarrels and armed insurgency. After his close friend Vijaya Kumaratunga was assassinated in 1988, he assumed leadership of the Sri Lanka Mahajana Party, which would lose 117 of its members to political violence. He stayed.
In 1986 he travelled to Jaffna with Vijaya to speak with the LTTE, when dialogue itself could be called betrayal. Years later, a former LTTE member told me my father had earned their trust. The irony is unbearable, and I will not soften it: the organisation with which he sought peace carried out the bombing that ended his life.
He did not oppose his country. He opposed the injustice that threatened it. In 1982 he challenged President J. R. Jayewardene with a symbolic rice-ration-book campaign. In Welikada prison he corresponded with Nelson Mandela, who encouraged his struggle. And he supported his opponents’ policies whenever they served ordinary citizens. Loyalty to a party, he understood, is not loyalty to a nation.
His travels took him to India, China, the Soviet Union, Libya and Europe. I lived with him in Bonn in 1988–89, as the Berlin Wall approached its fall, and learned that small nations are never alone in history. They are always being looked at by larger ones. Today the Indian Ocean is contested by India, China, the United States and others through security, infrastructure and investment. The danger begins when that competition shapes our domestic choices and the stories citizens tell about their country. A nation loses sovereignty not only when foreign soldiers cross its border, but when its leaders can no longer tell the national interest from someone else’s. Sri Lanka’s task is not to choose between New Delhi, Beijing or Washington. It is to keep the independence to decide what serves its own people.
That independence is tested at home too.
The government promised to repeal oppressive counterterrorism law. In October it tabled the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill(PSTB) to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Critics point out that it allows detention for up to a year without charge, followed by up to a year of pretrial detention, and that a magistrate cannot overturn a detention order. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has urged the government to withdraw this bill and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, citing the lessons of the old Act.
The Twenty-Second Amendment deserves the same scrutiny. It raises the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges. The government presents it as a way to strengthen judicial independence and clear the backlog of cases. But the Bar Association notes that the sitting Chief Justice would be the first Supreme Court judge to benefit directly, and a UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite has written to the President with serious concerns.
Days ago, Gampaha Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne, who had asked the President of the Court of Appeal to begin contempt proceedings against the Inspector General of Police for failing to comply with a court order, was transferred to the Judges’ Training Institute with immediate effect.
The state has a duty to protect its people from terrorism and organised crime. But a law must be judged by what it lets a future government do, not by the intentions of the present one. A government elected on the promise of greater freedom owes the public an explanation of why its laws seem to narrow it.
I have now lived more years without my father than with him. In Washington I was returned to the sixteen-year-old who believed death was history’s last word. Time has taught me otherwise. The questions remain, patient and unanswered.
My father believed politics could be an act of love: the difficult kind that demands sacrifice and defends human dignity. As I prepare to launch the Sinhala translation of Winds of Change, I hope more Sri Lankans will read it in their own language and ask these questions for themselves.
My father died believing Sri Lanka could become a more just country. Our duty is to see that it also remains a free one.
Sarojini Kadirgamar –a lady for all seasons
Why the Jaffna Man Eats So Much Murunga
GMOA seeks restoration of duty-free vehicle permits
Sri Lankan Airlines loss amplified to Rs35Bn by monetary debasement
Government makes charity difficult in Sri Lanka – Pethiyagoda
Iran allows ship carrying fertiliser for SL to pass Strait of Hormuz
When preachers and sinners switch roles
Failure to heed PM’s directive worsened Colombo floods: Patali
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…