"Gross interference in Sri Lanka's internal affairs by the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka"

Wednesday, 02 August 2006 Siber News

Honourable Mr. Dominic Chilcott,
British High Commissioner,
Sri Lanka

Honoured Sir,

Please see below, at (A), the article captioned "Gross interference in Sri Lanka's internal affairs by the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka" publicized by Malin Abeyatunge, Secretary (SPUR Vic), Society for Peace, Unity & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR), together with my comments. He should withdraw the allegations directed at you with due apologies, as otherwise the Singhalese would be biased furthermore against the Tamils.

I am at a loss to understand as to why, Mr. Malin Abeyatunge, Secretary, Society for Peace, Unity & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR), reacts strongly to your statement made in an interview with the "Sunday Virakesari" during the weekend, prior to 21st July, 2006.

Could he explain as to why he kept quiet when "Lee Kuan Yew" the founding father of Singapore and the leader who is presently regarded as virtually a national institution at home contended as far back as 1998 that "SRI LANKA -THE COUNTRY WILL NEVER BE PUT TOGETHER AGAIN".

Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's article referred to above is appended below, at (B), for your perusal.

The article that refers to your statement could be seen below, at (C).

Thanking you, Sir,

M.R.Wilson

(A)

Society for Peace, Unity and Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR) Reg No. A 003 07777 M PO Box 4066 Mulgrave VIC 3170 Australia

Email : Public Officer : Spokesperson : Webmaster : President Ph: +61 3 9548 0276 Fax: +61 3 9548 0276

Media Release: Thursday, 27 July 2006

http://www.spur.asn.au/SPUR_20060727_British_High_Commissioner.htm

Gross interference in Sri Lanka's internal affairs by the the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka

(1) The British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Mr. Dominic John Chilcott is reported to have made comments which range from inaccurate representations of history to gross interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka by supporting the separatists terrorist's ideology in an interview with the Sunday Virakesari.

He states that "When the British came to Ceylon in 1796 there were three distinct kingdoms. The British made it one country for purposes of administrative convenience." This is a grossly inaccurate statement given that when the British arrived in Sri Lanka there was only the Sinhala Kingdom in the Hill country while the Dutch East India Company controlled the coastal areas. We can only speculate at the intention of making such an inaccurate statement and hope that it was not done to further the terrorist LTTE's claim for an independent Tamil homeland.

Comments against item (1):

Facts are better known to the British than to anyone else, since they have their own records and documentary evidences as to the period from their invasion up to the date of independence to Sri Lanaka. The statement made by the British High Commissioner cannot be inaccurate and it could be treated as something direct from the horse's mouth because of the simple reason that it were the British who replaced the Dutch in 1796 and directly involved in unifying the three kingdoms namely Yarlpanam in the North, Kandy in the central hills and Kotte at the Western coast. As early as in 1505, when Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), consisted of three autonomous kingdoms, the Portuguese arrived on the island, and colonial rule began followed by the arrival of Dutch in the 17th century. The British replaced the Dutch in 1796 and the coastal areas became a crown colony in 1802. After the fall of the kingdom of Kandy in 1815, the three kingdoms were unified into a single political entity of a crown colony by the British in 1818, with centralized administration in Colombo under a British Governor.

Now, the British High Commissioner as a human being and only on humanitarian grounds, regrets the ill-fated ethnic rift in Sri Lanka and the lapse on the part of the British entailing sole responsibility on them, for having been the architects to design the Constitution without any adequate commitment enshrined in it to safeguard the basic and fundamental rights of the Tamils or to fulfil any of their aspirations when independence was granted in 1948,

How on earth could Malin Abeyatunge, being no less a person than the (SPUR), without humanism and any realistic approach towards the prevailing ill-fated ethnic rift and the racial genocide in Sri Lanka, level unfounded, and preposterous accusations against the British High Commissioner contending that he has made comments which range from inaccurate representations of history to gross interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka.

It is very unbecoming of a person of Malin Abeyatunge's caliber and standard to trot out allegations ridiculously against the British High Commissioner, and further he does not seem to be a fit and proper person to hold the post of the Secretary of Society for Peace, Unity & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR Vic).

(2) He has gone on to accuse successive Sri Lankan governments of not safeguarding the rights of minorities, particularly of the Tamils, but has played down the role of the British colonial policy of 'divide and rule' as a pre-condition to the terrorism facing Sri Lanka today. This is a mostly inaccurate, harsh and unjust indictment of Sri Lankan governments since independence. Sri Lanka is a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic country and Sri Lankan constitutions that followed the Soulbury commission have by and large reflected that and have not caused grievances that are different to those that are faced by minorities in the UK and in other so called developed countries.

Comments against item (2):

Parties who cannot share together cannot live together. While democracy could prevail only in a country where there is no racial, linguistic or religious dominance, in Sri Lanka by virtue of the Constitution enacted by the majoritarian Singhalese, successive Singhalese governments have arrogated all the powers to themselves.

The British High Commissioner has not erred when he accuses the successive governments of not safeguarding the rights of the minorities because in Sri Lanka, racism and religious fanaticism are legalized by the Constitution formulated by the majoritarian chauvinistic Buddhist Singhalese and consequentially, only a Buddhist Singhalese could be the ruler, Buddhism could be the State religion, Singhalese could be the official language, Buddha statues could be erected at random anywhere in the island, colonization of Tamil areas by Singhalese could be done at State expense, a contrived standardization procedure to enter higher education could be enforced to benefit the Singhalese with the suppression of Tamil children who thrive on education, and any of the past historical records together with the archaeological evidences of the country could be tampered with surreptitious interpolations to the advantage of the Singhalese community.

The article under reference by Malin Abeyatunge Secretary (SPUR Vic) Society for Peace, Unity & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR) is self explanatory and self evident enough to allege that he is fanatically communal minded.

(3) He has gone on to state that the current political system has to change and that they would like to see a federal system within a united Sri Lanka implemented. This is a blatant interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka as the type of solution must be determined by the people of Sri Lanka taking into account the national interests of Sri Lanka. Perhaps Mr. Chilcott needs reminding that he is merely the High Commissioner of the UK in Sri Lanka and is not a viceroy.

Comments against item (3):

Malin Abeyatunge Secretary (SPUR Vic) slurring the public image of the British High Commissioner by unwarranted remarks, still maintains that only the Singhalese could decide the fate of the Tamils. He should bear in mind that even any Tom, dick and Harry also could bear witness to truth anywhere at anytime when it is expedient and necessary.

(4) His comment that the terrorist LTTE's chief negotiator and political strategist Anton Balasingham, is free to live in London as he is a citizen of the UK despite the LTTE being a banned organisation in the UK, leaves us astounded and smacks of double standards. We wonder what the purpose of the UK's ban on the LTTE is, when the ban isn't enforced against a known member of the LTTE who is openly espousing and strategising terrorism and death to members of the legitimate government of Sri Lanka from London. We would be extremely surprised if a strategist of the Al-Qaeda would be allowed to operate in the same manner as the LTTE's Anton Balasingham does in London.

Comments against item (4):

LTTE's chief negotiator and political strategist Anton Balasingham vied his best for a peaceful solution and made every endeavour to bring peace and harmony in the country by the adherence to the Ceasefire Agreement signed on 22/02/2002 by both parties involved.

It is only the Singhalese State terrorists have sabotaged the peace process and not Anton Balasingham. He has neither any knowledge on weapons nor anything to do militarily but has only expertise in politics.

The person, who advocates for peace incessantly by adhering to the CFA already signed, is branded as a terrorist inhumanely by Malin Abeyatunge Secretary (SPUR Vic) Society for Peace, Unity & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR). What a crime!

(5) We request the UK government and its representatives in Sri Lanka not to make pronouncements that justify and legitimise the LTTE's terrorism and to allow Sri Lankans to work out the best solution by themselves.

Comments against (5):

Allowing the Singhalese to solve the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is tantamount to like monkey dividing the hopper among the cats.

(6) If the UK wishes to genuinely be of assistance to a fellow democracy and a fellow member of the commonwealth, it needs to stop or minimise the LTTE's fund raising and propaganda activities in the UK and to provide military, economic and political assistance to Sri Lanka in it's legitimate fight against the cruel separatist terrorism of the LTTE.

Comments against item (6):

Is it all right when the Singhalese regime amasses weapons and armaments reserving funds enormously in the budget, besides the other foreign aids from parties with vested interest to crush the Tamils?

(7) In view of the above we request the government of Sri Lanka to reject the High Commissioner's statements and to impress upon the High Commissioner that such statements are not acceptable and are unbecoming of his position.

Comments against item (7):

'Facts are stubborn and comment is free'. Also 'truth hurts' when it comes from a Diplomat, it has knocked Malin Abeyatunge into a stupor and hence his blurts as above. Incidentally, his writing has no relation or connection to the ideals professed in the name of his organisation which could be better termed "SLUR".

Malin Abeyatunge
Secretary (SPUR Vic)
Society for Peace, Unity & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (SPUR)
Reg No. A 003 07777 M
P.O. Box 4066
Mulgrave, Victoria, VIC 3170
Australia

http://www.spur.asn.au/SPUR_20060727_British_High_Commissioner.htm

(B) "SRI LANKA -THE COUNTRY WILL NEVER BE PUT TOGETHER AGAIN" - Lee Kuan Yew, 1998 Lee Kuan Yew: the Man and His Ideas is the title of a book published in Singapore in 1998. Written by three Straits Times journalists Han Fook Kwang Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan, the book carries fresh interviews with Lee Kuan Yew on the events that shaped his life and the way he governed Singapore.

Now in his graying years - he is 74 now - the founding father of Singapore is regarded as virtually a national institution at home. In transforming a busy ramshackle port city on a resourceless island into a prosperous multi-lingual nation, he created a model for other developing countries.

He left the premiership in 1990 and assumed the role of, senior minister, but wields as much prestige and influence today as he did while holding office, a distinction rarely earned by any politician in any other country.

In talking of Sri Lanka, this is what Lee Kuan Yew says: -

"We have got to live with the consequences of our actions and we are responsible for our own people and we take the right decisions for them. You look at the old Philippines. The old Ceylon. The old East Pakistan and several others. I have been to these countries and places. When 1 went to Colombo for the first time in 1956 it was a better city than Singapore because Singapore had three and a half years of Japanese occupation and Colombo was the centre or HQ of Mountbatten's Southeast Asia command.

And they had sterling reserves. They had two Universities. Before the war, a thick layer of educated talent So if you believe what American liberals or British liberals used to say, then it ought to have flourished. But it didn't.

One-man one-vote led to the domination of the Sinhalese majority over the minority Tamils who were the active and intelligent fellows who worked hard and got themselves penalised.

And English was out. They were educated in English. Sinhalese was in. They got quotas in two universities and now they have become fanatical Tigers.

And the country will never be put together again.

Somebody should have told them - change the system, loosen up, or break off. And looking back, I think the Tunku was wise. (The reference is to Tunku Abdul Rahman the Malaysian Prime Minister under whose rule Singapore separated from Malaysia).

I offered a loosening up of the system. He said: "Clean cut, go your way". Had we stayed in, and I look at Colombo and Ceylon, I mean changing names, sometimes maybe you deceive the gods, but I don't think you are deceiving the people who live in them.

It makes no great difference to the tragedy that is being enacted.

They failed because they had weak or wrong leaders ".

(C) Constitutional safeguards proved inadequate - High Commissioner [TamilNet, July 21, 2006 00:57 GMT] Britain's trust in the safeguards built into the constitution of Ceylon at independence was misplaced and their weakness is to blame for the island's present problems, the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Mr. Dominic Silcott, said in an interview with the Sunday Virakesari. In a wide-ranging interview last weekend, Mr. Silcott said that LTTE and the Sri Lanka government must now negotiate an end to the conflict. The UK and the United States were in agreement on their policies on Sri Lanka, he also said, adding that India also wants a negotiated solution to the conflict.

The UK High Commissioner was asked to comment on accusations that 'divide and rule' policies of the British colonial administration precipitated the present ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka.

"When the British came to Ceylon in 1796 there were three distinct kingdoms. The British made it one country for purposes of administrative convenience," Mr. Silcott explained.

"In over half the number of countries in the world the British colonial rulers adopted a 'divide and rule' policy. In that regard this policy was not unique to the island alone."

"If one were to truly examine Britain's role one important aspect deserves special mention. That is the constitutional arrangement that Britain left behind. It left behind the Soulbury Constitution. Britain considered the Soulbury Constitution as having the necessary arrangements to provide for safeguards for minorities."

"Britain thought that the rights of the Tamils in particular would be safeguarded by these arrangements. However history has proved otherwise that these safeguards were inadequate and not robust enough. I regret that Britain's policies have to such an extent been the cause for the problems," the High Commissioner said.

Asked about present British policy, the UK wanted the Sri Lankan government to engage the LTTE in negotiations, the High Commissioner said.

"There is an imperative not only for the Liberation Tigers but also the government of Sri Lanka to move forward to arriving at a negotiated settlement."

"In the end, the final settlement that's reached must be satisfactory to both parties. The present impasse must not be allowed to continue. The government of Sri Lanka and the Tigers must both dedicate themselves to peace. By some means, both parties must return to peaceful negotiations. There is no other way."

Saying "there have to be changes to [Sri Lanka's] political system," as part of a solution to the conflict, the High Commissioner said: "although we cannot say much in this connection, Britain's view is to move forward to a political settlement that's based on the 2002 Oslo Declaration … on federal lines in a united Sri Lanka."

Asked about the position of the United States, Mr. Silcott said: "the US has, from time to time, taken a contrary view from Britain in world affairs. However in Sri Lanka's conflict, Britain has been in agreement with America."

"It's noteworthy that India is [also] fully in favour of a political settlement achieved through peaceful means," he added later. Given the present climate of international opposition to the use of violence to pursue political goals, the LTTE "could achieve more through negotiations than through violence," Mr. Silcott said.

If the LTTE returned to the negotiating table then Britain could ask the EU to reconsider its proscription of the LTTE, the High Commissioner said.

Meanwhile, Britain's proscription of the LTTE in 2001 was not an impediment to direct contact between the UK and the Tigers, Mr. Silcott said. British policy was that direct contact was necessary to move the LTTE towards peace.

Asked about the status of Mr. Anton Balasingham, the LTTE's Chief Negotiator and Political Strategist who resides in London, the High Commissioner said: "Mr. Balasingham is a British Citizen. He has the right to live in Britain. Britain had banned the LTTE way back in 2001. It's been five years since the ban was imposed. As such the ban does not affect Mr. Balasingham."

"I do not think there would be any change in respect to Britain's attitude to Anton Balasingham," Mr. Silcott added. "Similarly, there would not be any significant change in this respect in view of the ban imposed by the EU."

Source: By M.R.Wilson For SiberNews Media
Date: 02 August 2006