Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 21st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We are the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today, November 21, 2013, is the fourth meeting of the committee.

Further pursuant to our study of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, joining us from Colombo, Sri Lanka, as a witness is Dr. Saravanamuttu. He is the executive director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Welcome, Dr. Saravanamuttu. Please feel free to begin your testimony.

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives, As an Individual]

Thank you.

When one looks at the situation in Sri Lanka with regard to human rights, one key feature comes to mind. That's the notion that Sri Lanka, as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and formally functioning democracy, albeit with flaws, is under serious threat at present. The directions of the threat are institutionalized militarization, the near collapse of the rule of law, and the culture of impunity with respect to human rights violations and rising religious intolerance.

At the present moment, the policy of the government with regard to governance in general is very much a focus on economic development which is highly centralized and in which any kind of discussion or relevance of civil and political rights in particular is seen as irrelevant at best and subversive at worst. This is seen particularly acutely in the north of the country, the province in which the last phase of the war was fought.

In this respect, the government's attitude toward reconciliation is very much an attitude of economic development and of forgetting and moving on. As some people argue, it is an attempt to build reconciliation on concrete, with a reference to a heavy emphasis on economic infrastructure.

Indeed, with regard to that emphasis on economic infrastructure, it is highly centralized. Mega economic development projects are designed and implemented from the centre, by the centre, without the participation or consultation of the civilians whose lives they directly impact. They see themselves somewhat as hapless bystanders in the decisions that affect their daily lives. This was attested to very firmly in the results of the Northern Provincial Council election on September 21 when the government's campaign, based on economic development, was roundly and soundly defeated. The Tamil National Alliance won 30 out of the 38 seats in the provincial council.

As a consequence of all this, Sri Lanka is very much in what I would call a post-war situation, as opposed to a post-conflict situation. My definition of the latter is one in which the roots of conflict are not being sustained and certainly not being reproduced. Unfortunately, as I mentioned to you, with institutionalized militarization, with the collapse of the rule of law and the culture of impunity, and growing religious intolerance, there is both the sustenance of the roots of conflict as well as their reproduction.

Let me briefly take each one in turn.

The argument with regard to institutionalized militarization is one that has relevance across the country. The military is involved in the economy. It is involved in the educational sphere, where school principals are inducted into the national cadet corps, where security on university campuses is in the hands of the military, and where orientation courses for first-year undergraduates are run in military camps and by military officers.

Again, as I said, it is felt most acutely in the north, where the governors of the northern and of the eastern province are ex-military people. The government agents in certain divisions of these provinces are also ex-military people. According to some statistics, the presence of the military in these provinces, in the north in particular, is of a ratio of one soldier to every 10 civilians. The military is involved in governance in that it has the last word over development projects. It even goes to the extent of telling people in what language the national anthem can be sung. The military is present in private functions, from school prize-givings to sports meets. The military is involved in the economy, growing, buying, and selling vegetables, and running hotels, golf courses, etc.

Most importantly, it's the overbearing presence and the intrusion into the lives of the people that is of particular concern. Only in April, some 6,300-odd acres of private land were taken over by the military for military camps as well as for business enterprises. As a consequence, more than 2,500 people are in court contesting that acquisition.

There is a very powerful intrusion into the daily lives of people. There are also allegations of continuing human rights violations by way of abductions and disappearances, and in particular, with respect to assault.

Gender-based violence accusations have also been made against the military. The vast majority of them are hard to verify, insofar as there are cultural inhibitions on the part of victims and witnesses and their coming forth with hard evidence in respect to these cases, but such violence certainly does take place.

If you move from the question of institutionalized militarization to the collapse of the rule of law, you find that in a huge number of cases of egregious human crimes, violations in which there have been prosecutions, in which there have been indictments, there haven't been convictions. People are taken in, charged, and released on bail.

There are two cases in particular which were identified as well by the presidentially appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission: the killing of five students on the beach in Trincomalee in the east, and the murder of 17 humanitarian workers in Muttur in the east as well. We have had any number of investigations with regard to this, but no convictions.

We have a number of other cases like these. We had a case recently, after the end of the war, in which in the deep south a British humanitarian worker was killed and his partner was brutally raped. Because of CHOGM, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and because of the earlier visit, the longest country visit paid by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to Sri Lanka, there has been a certain attempt at moving towards indictments and convictions, but it remains to be seen how far they will go.

The response of the government to these egregious violations seems to be to set up commissions. If you take the question of enforced and involuntary disappearances, of which Sri Lanka has one of the highest number of cases recorded with the working group in Geneva, you will find that at least four to five commissions have been appointed by this very government itself, but the reports have not been made public. Therefore, we have no idea whether or not the recommendations have been implemented, but we can safely assume that they have not, because the problem continues.

It continues also for the families of the disappeared. On any number of occasions, including when meeting with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and also when trying to come to Colombo at the time of CHOGM to deliver a petition to take part in an exhibition on human rights, and in meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron, ordinary civilians have been intimidated, threatened and prevented from participating in such events by the military.

The culture of impunity is widespread. It extends even into the south, where you have a number of cases in which local politicians associated with the ruling party got off scot-free in incidents that involve sexual assault, attempted murder, bribery, etc.

Some attempt is being made now, in the context of the CHOGM, the high commissioner's visit, and the pending sessions of the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2014, to clean up, as it were; however, there are big questions as to whether this is merely being done as a cosmetic exercise to deflect criticism, or whether there is something much more serious and honest intended here.

I suppose that ultimately the whole question of the independence of the judiciary was epitomized by the process of impeachment of the chief justice earlier in the year, which was declared unconstitutional and illegal by all the apex courts of this country, the court of appeal and the supreme court.

Nevertheless, the government steamrollered it, and we now have a bizarre situation in Sri Lanka whereby there are in effect two chief justices, or to put it another way, one de jure and one de facto.

There has been a breakdown of trust as far as the judiciary is concerned and with militarization too. As a consequence, ordinary civilians do not have the level of confidence and trust required to enjoy the fullest measure of their rights as far as the institutions of governance and justice in the country are concerned.

This is also amply demonstrated in the rising tide of religious intolerance. We've had over the last five years a series of attacks on Christian places of worship. New fundamentalist evangelical churches have been attacked. Most recently, egregious attacks have been made on the Muslim community, involving mosques, prayer halls, prayer meeting places, as well as retail establishments. There has been Goebbelsian propaganda and hate speech injected into the public discourse by extremist Buddhist organizations, on the grounds that the Muslims are going to over-populate the country and that the country will cease to be a Sinhala country. They have targeted in particular the halal certification of products by the Muslim community in conformity with their faith.

Now, in none of the instances of attacks on mosques, on prayer halls, and on retail outlets has there been any indictment and conviction. In one particular case, the police announced that the owner of the establishment appealed that no indictment should take place, because it would bring the country into disrepute and because people allegedly involved in the act were also people in robes, that is, monks, and therefore, it would be unwarranted and unnecessary criticism of the situation in Sri Lanka. The police proudly announced this as an example epitomizing communal harmony and amity but did not take any action whatsoever.

There are on record now more than 150 acts between January 2013 and September 2013 targeting the Muslim community. This begs the question how acts of violence of this nature can happen without any action being taken by the forces of law and order, without any categorical condemnation by the government and by the politicians of these kinds of actions. People therefore point to the instance in which the brother of the president, who is the defence secretary in charge of the entire national security apparatus, was invited as the chief guest to the inauguration of a leadership academy by one of the key groups involved in perpetrating these attacks against the Muslim establishment, namely the Bodu Bala Sena, or force for Buddhism, otherwise referred to by the acronym BBS.

Put all these things together and you find that Sri Lanka, in terms of human rights, is facing a very critical situation at the present moment. The public at large, the polity, the citizenry do not have full enjoyment of their rights. They are treated rather as subjects, given that the structure of power is also dynastic. The predominant ideology of the day is very much triumphalist and majoritarian. It is underpinned by this militarization. Therefore, we seem to be moving away from that example of a formal functioning democracy and a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society to something that is much more homogenized, centralized, and controlled, and one which in this respect moves away from that idea of a boisterous, vibrant, dynamic democracy.

As the UN high commissioner noted in her final press statement when she left Sri Lanka and in her oral statement to the Human Rights Council, we are heading in an authoritarian direction here. Some of us would disagree and say that we are already in an authoritarian state, in which things in that respect are not very good as far as human rights are concerned, and something badly needs to be done about it.

That is why sections of civil society look yet again to the UN Human Rights Council sessions in March 2014 and the possibility of yet another resolution on Sri Lanka that will push and persuade our government to take human rights more seriously.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we have time for six-minute rounds of questions and answers. As usual I will be using the timer. I'd observe that Mr. Marston has an even bigger timer at his disposal.

At any rate, Mr. Sweet, you are free to begin questioning.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Dr. Saravanamuttu, we're glad to have you here. Your testimony is very powerful and compelling.

You talked about the institutionalization of militarization. Your statement was about the overwhelming intrusion of the military, and then toward the end your words were that the citizenry do not have all their rights.

From our last witnesses there was an observation that the reason there isn't significant protest toward the government is that there have been so many years of fighting that the vast majority of the citizenry are prepared to tolerate this move toward authoritarianism.

Do you concur with that statement?

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

If one looks at the elections that have taken place since the defeat of the LTTE, general and presidential elections in 2010, and subsequent provincial council elections and local elections, it is very clearly the case that the president and the ruling coalition have won considerable majorities.

Now, certainly there is a great deal of appreciation and gratitude toward the government and the president for having ended the war, for having defeated terrorism. However, there are sections within that community that are engaged in certain activities and are particularly targeted.

I think everyone lives different realities. If one is working in the press and if one dares to criticize the government, one would then be reminded of the number of journalists who have been killed, or who have fled the country, the self-censorship, which is the context in which the media operate in the country, or alternatively, the white vans that come and “disappear” people. It depends very much on what the individuals or sections of society are doing, and in which part of the country they are living.

Certainly, we can say, too, that with reference to the results of elections in the north, it's a very different story.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Is there a sense today that the general population is becoming wise to this, that the present regime is basically using its political capital? There have been so many years where the citizenry have been exhausted from fighting that the regime is using this to blur the lines between the judiciary, the military, and the legislature. For lack of better words, are people waking up to the fact that they're being slowly led down the path to authoritarianism?

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

I think so.

Again, since 2009 and the defeat of the LTTE, we've had popular demonstrations against government policy that have been met by the army and special forces using live ammunition, shooting to kill, and killing demonstrators. We've had it in 2011, 2012, and again in 2013. Villagers were demanding clean water. Three of them were killed, and scores of them were brutally assaulted as well.

There is, I think, a recognition that the authoritarianism is spreading toward the rest of the country too, but it is by no means a critical mass. The government does keep reminding the people that it is the government that defeated terrorism, and insists, therefore, that there be gratitude and appreciation that ought to be given to it. It constantly reminds them of this great achievement.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, and certainly my observation is that they do this with a reckless disregard, with impunity.

The day before yesterday, I read the news report of how the government responded to Prime Minister Cameron's comments, that rather than taking any of them seriously, it just brushed them off because he wasn't following the right diplomatic protocol.

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

Absolutely, yes.

It's very much a kind of response that offence is the best form of defence. They will try to draw very much on the innate nationalism of the people and confuse the love of country for loyalty to government.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I asked our officials this a couple of days ago, but they weren't aware. Are you aware that there was a program going on of, for lack of better words, reprogramming the LTTE members after they were disarmed?

Is this going on, and do you have any particular concerns about that action?

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

There were rehabilitation programs of LTTE surrendees, of cadres who surrendered...[Technical difficulty—Editor].... Some of them, the majority of them in fact, have now been rehabilitated and sent back into society. One of the challenges, though, that they face is there is still a certain suspicion and mistrust among the community with regard to them. There is concern that they have been used as informers by the military as well. Most recently there have been allegations, and I emphasis they are allegations, that there has been abuse in the rehabilitation process, although for the most part, the rehabilitation process was seen to have been conducted quite fairly.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That was the sense I was getting from your initial comments. That is a good thing because, of course, when they're under their control, they are at a vulnerable stage in that rehabilitation.

Is there public sympathy towards the 40,000 war widows? Is the government treating them justly? What is their disposition at the moment?

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

I think the interesting point here is that, first, given the control and flow of information we have in the country, the government control in respect of it, and the self-censorship on the part of the media, I don't think many Sri Lankans will actually know that figure.

Second, there are no special measures being taken with regard to what are now female-headed households in terms of regaining livelihoods.

Third, there are obvious survival strategies that have to be pursued by these women in a context of high militarization, and there are all sorts of allegations in terms of sexual abuse as well.

One of the key demands at the end of the war was the whole question of the government giving precise information with regard to how many surrendees there were, how many detainees there were, whether these people were “disappeared”, whether they are traceable, or whether they are dead. These women after all at the end of the day need to know whether they are actually widows or not, whether they inherit property, whether they can get married again, and all of these questions. There are practical dimensions to this as well as questions of emotional and personal closure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

We'll go to our next questioner, Mr. Marston. I gather you will be splitting your time in some way with Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, thank you for that consideration. I appreciate it because many of the Sri Lankan diaspora are in the member's Scarborough—Rouge River riding, so it's important to ensure there's a direct access via this committee.

Doctor, I want to thank you. When you talked about the elections in the north, overall what is the validity of the elections? Are they being interfered with? It's almost as if you alluded that in the north they were running a little better than the ones in the south, or maybe I misread that.

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

Yes, what happened in the elections in the north is that, during the election campaign, there were a whole lot of acts of intimidation, threat and intimidation of citizens by the military in uniform and in civilian clothing as the civil defence force. This is not dissimilar to the type of thing that happened when Navanethem Pillay, the UN high commissioner, visited and those people who went to talk to her were also given this same treatment.

There was a fair amount of this kind of intimidation. In that respect, it took place in a context of institutionalized violence. The very presence of the military in certain districts of the north, such as Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi, is particularly intimidating, given the numbers and given the role it plays.

Furthermore, we had the situation earlier on in the year when, given the ratio of military to civilians I mentioned earlier, you had the distribution office of the key regional newspaper, the Uthayan newspaper in Kilinochchi, destroyed. You had the printing press of this newspaper in Jaffna again burned down. You had meetings of the Tamil National Alliance disrupted.

None of this would happen unless there is collusion and complicity by the military—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Perhaps I could jump in for a second. The actual structure and operation of the election machinery, do you feel that was straightforward, or was that interfered with?

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

As far as the electoral process, as far as the Department of Elections were concerned, the conduct of the election in that respect was fine. What was an actual impediment and what marred the integrity of the electoral process was the violence that I have been alluding to.

I think it was the popular backlash against that violence which produced a result that reflected the general will of the people.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pass at this point, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Doctor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, please.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Saravanamuttu, for joining us.

You have spoken a lot about the ongoing militarization of the communities in the north and the east, and the country in general. Mr. Sweet spoke of the 40,000 war widows. From the community members and from some of the newspapers you mentioned, I gather that the number is actually higher. I've heard that it's 90,000 widows.

Can you expand a little bit about the ongoing culture of impunity on the island, and how it is affecting the women and the ability of these women to continue their lives? Do they have real access to a form of livelihood to be able to run these households? As you mentioned, they are mainly women-led households on the island right now. How is the culture of impunity affecting it and the ongoing militarization in the community?

The rest of my time is all yours.

[Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu]

Thank you.

I think the figure of 40,000 is with regard to the female-headed households in the northern province. I think the collective figure for both the north and east is about 90...[Technical difficulty—Editor].

In terms of how this affects the women, I think the first point is with regard to their particular status within society, which has a whole lot of social, cultural, and economic implications.

In terms of their access to resources, there are no special provisions being made for women in particular with regard to rebuilding houses and getting on with their livelihoods looking after children. There are no special provisions that are really being made for them, so that creates a problem.

There is also the question about inheritance of property. There is a raft of issues associated with ownership of land, with the whole question of land that was owned by one particular family that, when they were displaced, was taken over by members of another community. It goes on like that, and that has an obvious impact.

Again, there is no special provision being made to focus in particular on the land issue and to expedite resolution of land conflicts. There have been attempts to come up with land circulars, etc., but they have been weighted very heavily in favour of the central government. In fact, in one case we as an organization went to court to get it struck because we felt it had discriminatory effects.

As far as the women are concerned, they are facing a lot of challenges and hardships in this respect. As I said, because of the cultural inhibitions, the full picture in respect to sexual abuse does not come out. A number of cases, we are told by civil society organizations on the ground, are not being reported.

Most recently there were also allegations, as far as three villages in the Kilinochchi district were concerned, of forced sterilization, of women being given contraceptives without their consent and without their being told what was actually going on. All of these things are happening at the present moment.

I think what is actually required is for there to be an honest acknowledgment of what's going on, so measures can be taken to redress it. By pushing it aside and not acknowledging it, nothing is happening. That, of course, further nurtures frustration, anger, and disappointment.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

We'll go next to Ms. Grewal, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you Dr. Saravanamuttu.

In your testimony you said that the UN high commissioner was in Sri Lanka and sent a statement to the Human Rights Commission that Sri Lanka is headed towards an authoritarian situation. Has any action been taken by the UN after that statement was sent?