I can only expand by saying it has very worrying implications for the rule of law, which we've already seen in relation to the changes to the constitution, which have now ended the term limits on the president and have affected the judicial appointment structure in the country and the impeachment of the chief justice. So the continuing narrowing of the circle of power and influence and the economic power in this small group have worrying implications for the rule of law in the country.
Sri Lanka has had many problems in the past, going back several decades, but it has had reasonably fair elections. It has had reasonably fair policing with some key issues in the north and east. There have always been issues in relation to the armed conflict, but it hasn't been an authoritarian state. The tendency is towards that, and that's quite shocking. For all of Sri Lanka's problems, it wasn't a place where, from the time you arrived you started being careful about what you said.
On my last visit in June, I felt a little bit of that, whereas during my other three or four visits during the civil war, I never felt there was an issue I couldn't talk about. This sense—and it's only my sense—that I was freer to speak out during my visits at a time of civil war than I was during a time of peace was significant. My only comment would be that it's a very worrying attempt to monopolize power, which is destroying the institutions Sri Lanka needs to have a proper reconciliation.