Working People, IMF and Regime of Repression

 

Working People, IMF and Regime of Repression

Daily Mirror lk 2 October 2023 

Sri Lanka’s economy is now on autopilot. The Government – emasculated of making any economic policies – is merely following the IMF and the World Bank. Sri Lanka’s Finance Ministry may as well sit in Washington, or all the same it can be in Colombo following what is printed in the IMF agreement of March 2023 and the World Bank Country Partnership Framework released in June 2023. Indeed, a close reading of both these documents makes it clear there is no role for the Government in economic policymaking in Sri Lanka, and the only role left is to use brute repression to discipline the citizenry into the straight jacket of austerity.  

The IMF has set benchmarks for budget making, new laws including for public finance management and banking, revisions to taxes, lifting of import restrictions etc. The World Bank’s four-year framework pushes many laws for liberalization during the first 18 months, and privatization during the remaining 30 months. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa regime is complementing these regressive legislations on the economic front, with a range of repressive laws to attack dissent and protests, including the Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, Anti-Terrorism Act, Online Safety Bill and the Broadcasting Authority Bill.  

As we approach the national budget season, the citizenry is kept on the defensive with the bombardment of such laws and brutal attacks on protests, by a parliament and president who are illegitimate and will not stand the test of elections. The ruling regime does not have a social base of support, and is merely relying on the repressive apparatuses of the state; the military whose “war hero” President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country last year is now in desperate need of a patron. The other source of backing for this discredited regime are powerful international actors who find it expedient to carry through their neoliberal and geopolitical interests. There will be no relief to the people nor stimulus to the economy, and only be the further strengthening of the repressive arms of the state, in the upcoming budget.   

What about all the reports of the tremendous suffering of the working people? I discuss below one prominent instance of the ridiculous explanations given by those setting the economic agenda for the country.  

Lies or ignorance

At the end of the IMF Staff visit last week, the IMF Resident Representative in Sri Lanka, Ms Sarwat Jahan, had the following to say during the press briefing:  

“On the question regarding the situation of the poor, I have been in Sri Lanka now for almost a year and I’ve witnessed how the economic crisis have impacted all Sri Lankans, especially the poor and the vulnerable. … How the IMF programme can help? Well, we can help through multiple ways. First is when there is economic stabilization in the economy that means that it’s good for all Sri Lankans, including the poor and the vulnerable, because this means that inflation will go down, as it has been during the first six months of the programme. And therefore this helps the poor, as we know, because inflation is the worst form of tax.  

It also helps through reduced interest rates, and we have seen interest rates also coming down. And then the programme that the IMF has designed, the tax that is in place, is actually quite progressive. So the poor and the vulnerable are excluded from it. Only those who are able to pay, do pay. But in addition to this, the one point that I would like to highlight is the IMF programme places a lot of importance on social spending. In fact, this is one of the core pillars of the programme. Under the programme for 2023, we had discussed with the authorities to have a spending floor on four major cash transfers, which would be about Rs. 187,000,000,000 or equivalent to 0.6% of GDP.”  

💬 The IMF could be blatantly lying or inherently ignorant about Sri Lanka’s political economy.

I quote the IMF Representative at length because it betrays either the lies or the ignorance of those making economic policies for Sri Lanka. I unpack below the false logic and assertions of the IMF.  

First, Ms. Jahan claims inflation has come down because of the IMF programme during its first six months. Inflation rose in the first place because of the one-time price hikes due to the massive devaluation of the rupee – on the recommendation of the IMF – and the rise in global commodity prices due to the war in Ukraine between February and August last year. Since inflation is calculated year on year, or known as the base effect, it has declined to single digits by September this year. In fact, I have written in this very column, about this dynamic of inflation, in November last year and March this year, claiming it will come down to very low levels after September. The key point is that the cost of living has not come down, as wages did not rise during the last 18 months, with real wages now between 40% and 50% lower than before the crisis. Indeed, the year-on-year inflation reduction has little impact on working people’s purchasing capacity.  

Second, she claims that interest rates have reduced with the IMF programme. Rather, it is on the recommendation of the IMF and claiming to fight inflation that the Central Bank policy rate was raised drastically from 6% to 16.5% in the year leading to the agreement, resulting in the tremendous economic shock causing the collapse of many businesses and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The worst thing to do during an economic depression is to raise interest rates, but that is what the IMF wanted done to ensure its deflationary stabilization programme. The IMF pushes such policies for its free market agenda, claiming it is needed for competitive exports and to attract foreign investments for developing countries in the long-term. However, if an economy continues to collapse, such long-term possibilities are meaningless, and it is certainly no consolation for people suffering from the crisis. Furthermore, the damage is done, and once the economy is on a downward spiral reducing interest rates alone will do little to stimulate growth of jobs.  

Third, a significant proportion of the tax revenue in the country continues to come from the regressive VAT which was increased back to 15%, and has a disproportionate impact on working people whose incomes are largely spent on consumption goods. While the IMF is rushing to implement various policies, on the issue of redistributive wealth taxes, it is lukewarm, and only considering it in 2025. In this context, the attack on working people’s retirement funds with domestic debt restructuring, is one of the most regressive austerity cuts to date in this country, amounting to almost a 47% reduction of their savings over sixteen years.  

Finally, the IMF programme and its austerity measures came with much talk of social protection to the vulnerable, and it is the same discredited platitude that is repeated again. The meagre 0.6% of GDP allocated for social protection in 2023 and in future years, was already allocated for the same programmes in 2022 and was around 0.4% in the previous seven years, though went up to about 1% with the onset of the Covid crisis. With the economic depression where poverty levels have doubled to over a quarter of the population and those considered multi-dimensionally vulnerable over a half of the population, should there not be a much higher allocation for social protection?The claims that better targeting through a newly named programme will somehow improve the situation of the poor has been clearly rejected by the overwhelming protests against the new ‘Aswesuma’ programme.   

The IMF could be blatantly lying or inherently ignorant about Sri Lanka’s political economy. It has not studied or does not care about the history of universal social welfare in this country since Independence. The IMF’s ideological commitment to austerity and targeted social protection are not going to change. It is high time to reject such targeted social protection policies and formulate universal social welfare measures drawing on our own experience of free education, free healthcare and universal food subsidies.   

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa regime is fully complicit in this attack on working people. Confronting the IMF and changing the political economic trajectory in the country has to begin with struggles against the repression of the ruling regime. 

☝  

Sri Lanka: Proposed anti-terror bill labelled tyrannical, undemocratic

Anti-Terrorism Bill Version 2.0: Still Worse Than the PTA

Ermiza Tegal 09/23/2023

On September 15, the government published an Anti-Terrorism Bill, referred to as the ATA. The Bill is presented as a revision of an earlier version that was gazetted in March 2023, when it received widespread public criticism, including from local and international human rights groups. An analysis of the revised Bill reveals that although minor changes have been made, the ATA continues to be an unprecedented expansion of executive power, both in form and in its potential for the repression of citizens. It also constitutes a usurping of the judiciary’s authority to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights. A law of this nature, if passed, will significantly alter the balance of power within the social contract that Sri Lankan citizens have with those who govern. Passage of this law will give those in power the means to rule by fear, crush dissent and suppress political opposition. This is especially dangerous at time in Sri Lanka’s history when cumulative crises have led to deep mistrust between citizens and the state.  Enactment of the ATA will take this country down a path towards further conflict between its people and those who govern.

Undemocratic law making process

The government responded to the criticism of its March 2023 Bill with assurances that the proposed legislation would be reviewed, and invited stakeholders to share their concerns. Regrettably, the September 2023 Bill was published by gazette with the same lack of transparency, accountability or democratic ethos that was seen in the production of its predecessor. There was no white paper issued on the context and justification for the law nor was there any process by which a draft Bill was publicized for meaningful feedback before being gazetted. The government provided no information relating to the gaps in the current Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) or the gaps, if any, in the overall legal framework in Sri Lanka on terrorism; lessons learnt on what worked and what did not under the PTA, nor was there any information about the nature of the threats Sri Lanka faces and/or is anticipating.  Instead, the government simply gazetted the Bill, which is the preliminary step taken before it is presented in parliament to be enacted.

Abuse and harm under the PTA

There is ample evidence of routine horrific torture and prolonged detention experienced by Tamil citizens under the PTA during the decades of war. The law also enabled the victimization of Sinhala citizens during the period of terror in the late 1980s. After the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, the PTA was also used to arbitrarily arrest and detain hundreds of Muslims. The state has neither acknowledged nor compensated the citizens affected by misuse of the PTA for either the torture perpetrated or the profound impacts on their lives caused by years or decades of arbitrary detention, even when they are eventually discharged or exonerated. Of the thousands directly affected, only a very few detainees have had access to the Supreme Court to challenge their arbitrary arrests and detentions by way of fundamental rights applications. In recent years, the high profile PTA cases of lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah and student union activist Wasantha Mudalige have alerted the public to how easily the PTA can be misused by government to target political opponents and citizen protestors. Just over a week ago, the Sri Lanka police used the PTA to detain and question alleged “underworld figure” Sanjeewa Kumara, demonstrating how easily ordinary criminal law is bypassed by the police when broad anti-terror powers are available for misuse. The evidence offered in decades of research reports, repeated campaigns against the PTA a represents only the tip of an iceberg of extreme injustice and harm that has been caused to countless victims by the PTA.

No improvement on the PTA

The new proposed ATA still presents a significantly greater threat to citizens and governance than the PTA it seeks to replace. When compared with the PTA, both the March and September 2023 versions of the ATA are demonstrably much worse laws. Amongst the many egregious problems with the PTA, the only issues that have been addressed in the Anti-Terrorism Bills are the removal of the admissibility of confessions to the police and fixing of shorter periods of detention (although still without meaningful judicial oversight). These few positive reforms are long overdue. However, the more authoritarian scheme and new repressive provisions introduced in the 2023 Anti-Terrorism Bills offset these improvements.

The 2003 Bills also allow for some ordinary procedural safeguards that ought to be afforded to all criminal suspects and not exclusively to terror suspects. These procedural safeguards are the right to an attorney, female persons to be search by female officers, oversight of conditions in detention by a magistrate and informing the Human Rights Commission of a person’s detention. However, the same critique made of the March 2023 Bill continues to be true for the September 2023 version – that these “concessions” ring hollow in light of the fact the judiciary is prevented from reviewing detention orders and overseeing the many new broad executive powers vested with the president introduced under the ATA and the police is enabled to remove persons from fiscal custody into police custody. Even the concession on a right to an attorney is abridged in the September 2023 Bill by qualification that access to an attorney will be “subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act or as provided for in other written law.”

Definition of terrorism still fails to meet recommended international standards

The definition of terrorism and the related offences continues to be overly broad and vague in the September 2023 Bill. International standards recommend that the definition of terrorism in anti-terror legislation meets a threshold of three separate conditions: 1) involving an identified “trigger offence” found in 10 of the international anti-terrorism conventions in force and 2) be perpetrated with the intention to cause death, serious bodily injury, or taking hostages and 3) be for the purpose of invoking a state of terror, intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization.

The March 2023 Bill failed to adopt the cumulative intention requirement (2) and (3) above. This failure remains in the September 2023 Bill, in which the intention component in the definition of terrorism only deviates from the March 2023 version in the removal of the following: (a) “unlawfully preventing any such government from functioning;” (Cl. 3(2)(c)) and (b) “advocate national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” (at Cl. 3(2)(e)).

The March 2023 Bill failed to identify terrorism-specific trigger offences. Similarly, the September 2023 Bill continues to define ordinary criminal offences of murder, grievous hurt, causing damage and interference as trigger offences, which fails the internationally recommended guidelines for ensuring a high threshold for what is recognized as terrorism. Additionally, the spate of poorly defined related offences such as “encouragement of terrorism”, “dissemination of terrorist publications”, “training for terrorism” and failing to obey lawful orders (the Bill provides for a wide range of lawful orders) creates an unwieldy and opaque law that is highly susceptible to abuse and criminalization of legitimate civic activities such as dissent or protest.  In contrast with the earlier version of the Bill, the September 2023 Bill does include offences under the Suppression of Terrorism Financing Act as a terrorism-specific trigger offence, while it removes obstruction of essential services and being a member of an unlawful assembly for the commission of terrorism as offences.

Given the track record of Sri Lankan governments misusing broad anti-terrorism powers to arrest, detain and prosecute political opponents, journalists, citizens from minority communities and citizen protestors to suppress dissent and democratic rights, there is nothing in the new iteration of the proposed ATA that addresses or mitigates its potential for abuse.

Broad executive powers target democratic rights of citizens

The assignment of broad powers to Senior Superintendents of Police’s (SSP) (Clause 60) and the continued powers of administrative (non-judicial) detention orders (Clause 31) remain in the September version. The same is true for the broad, vague and judicially unsupervised powers assigned to the office of the President allowing for the proscription of organizations and movements, designation of prohibited places, declaration of curfews and securing of restriction orders. Such powers are not found in the PTA. They are an unprecedented expansion and normalization of extraordinary executive power. It is important to note that the expansion of executive powers ex facie targets rights of expression, assembly and association, such as were exercised during the overwhelmingly non-violent mass citizen protests of last year. As such, an SSP is empowered to seek orders for preventing public from entering an area, leaving an area, travelling on a road, transporting anything or person, and orders to suspend public transport, remove a vehicle or object, prevent congregations, prevent meetings, rallies and processions and prevent any specified activity. Under both the March and September 2023 Anti-Terrorism Bills, the failure to comply with such an order issued by an SSP’s would constitute a terrorist offence, even if an activity would itself otherwise be lawful.

💬In recent years, the high profile PTA cases of lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah and student union activist Wasantha Mudalige have alerted the public to how easily the PTA can be misused by government to target political opponents and citizen protestors.

The fiction of meaningful legal redress  

The administrative body to appeal against detention orders which is present in the PTA and March 2023 Bill has been removed in the September 2023 version. The Bill gives the express impression that persons aggrieved may challenge any violation of their rights before the Supreme Court. It is important to note that the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not an easily accessible remedy for most ordinary citizens. Applicants need to abide by a very restrictive time bar to petition the court (ordinarily just 30 days from the date of the violation), qualify in terms of standing (only the victim or her attorney can invoke the jurisdiction), afford the often prohibitive costs involved, and access the Supreme Court which is only located in Colombo. These conditions are a significant barrier to accessing legal redress for many citizens, especially those who are poor, marginalized, in detention or subject to threats of violence or reprisals. The experience with challenges to detention under PTA has shown that the legal process may take many years to secure the release of persons wrongly detained, with no compensation or restitution when they are finally discharged.

There is limited judicial review afforded in the September 2023 Bill to magistrates over whether a suspect may be discharged, and this does not apply to persons held under a detention order. Even this concession to judicial oversight must be understood in the context of lessons learnt and historically observed disadvantage that judiciaries are placed in when national security imperatives are invoked. In Sri Lanka, there is demonstrably weak jurisprudence on judges exercising powers of oversight to restrain or overturn executive decisions related to allegations of terrorism.

Conclusion

The Bill of March 2023 constituted a formidable tool with which a sitting government could crush dissent, citizen protests, political opposition and unleash disproportionate state responses to acts of civil disobedience. This potency remains unchanged in the Bill of September 2023. If enacted, the ATA would be a law that grants unprecedented further powers to the executive branch of government to act outside of the normal legal system to harass, detain and punish citizens who agitate against government action and policies. It would also enable gross abuses of human rights, as demonstrated by over four decades of the PTA. The Bill gazetted in September 2023 continues to fail to meet two key demands from the domestic and international critics of Sri Lanka’s anti-terror laws: (1) to stop resorting to extraordinary executive powers which are highly susceptible to abuse, and (2) to refrain from casting ordinary criminal offences as acts of terrorism.

The new version of Anti-Terror Bill represents a direct threat to the civil and human rights of Sri Lankan citizens and to democratic governance in this country. In very many ways, the proposed ATA is an even more dangerous and flawed law than the draconian PTA that it seeks to replace. While the repeal of the PTA cannot be delayed, replacing it with the ATA cannot be the solution.

Lawyers protest against the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) law in Colombo.
Credit: Ishara S. Kodikara / AFP

Anti-Terror and Online Safety Bills to Parliament on Today (03-10-23)

 

Written by Staff Writer  COLOMBO (News 1st)  03 Oct, 2023 | 7:45 AM

The  Anti-Terrorism Bill and Online Safety Bill will be tabled in Parliament today when the session convenes under the chairmanship of Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena at 09:30 am on Tuesday (03).

The amended Anti-Terrorism Bill was published via gazette on the September 15 by order of the Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms.

In the meantime, the Sri Lankan government is preparing to introduce new laws that would make it an offense to communicate false information online using the Online Safety Bill.

The draft bill was gazetted by the Minister of Public Security, and details offenses that are carried out via online methods.

The second readings of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill and Elections (Special Provisions) Bill will also be taken up for debate on Tuesday (03).

☝ 

HRCSL's dire warning against the proposed 'Online Safety Bill'

 

TM 02 Oct 2023 | BY Lahiru Doloswala

HRCSL's dire warning against the proposed 'Online Safety Bill'

In a letter penned by Chairman of the the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) former Supreme Court Judge Lakshman Tikiri Bandara Dehideniya, the Government has been urged to exercise caution in its approach to the proposed Online Safety Bill (OSB). The letter, addressed to Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles, emphasises the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights while addressing the challenges posed by online spaces. 

The HRCSL’s recommendations touch on critical aspects of the bill, including the misapplication of existing laws, concerns over political independence, and the need for clear criteria in classifying online accounts. One of the most striking points in the letter is the acknowledgement of the significance of making online spaces safer for Sri Lankans. While the objective is laudable, the HRCSL underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement authorities in interpreting and applying current criminal laws to online activities. 

The misapplication of section 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, No. 56 of 2007, is cited as a prime example, raising doubts about its effectiveness in addressing online incitement to violence and the potential for stifling free speech. Despite previous notifications to authorities regarding this issue, the misapplication of the ICCPR Act continues, as evidenced by a recent High Court case.  These concerns have led the HRCSL to propose a reconsideration of the timing of the OSB. 

The HRCSL argues that strengthening the institutional capacity of law enforcement authorities should precede the introduction of new legislation, highlighting the risk of jeopardising freedom of speech and expression without such reforms. The HRCSL has also presented a series of general observations and recommendations aimed at ensuring that the OSB aligns with the fundamental rights chapter of the constitution. These include refraining from criminalising statements deemed merely "distressing," ensuring the political independence of the proposed Online Safety Commission (OSC), and revising procedures to afford individuals an opportunity to be heard.

Additionally, the letter notes the need for clear criteria in classifying 'inauthentic online accounts' while preserving online user freedoms and cautions against vesting police powers in private actors assisting investigations. HRCSL plans to engage with relevant stakeholders to further refine its observations and recommendations on the proposed OSB.  In doing so, the HRCSL aims to strike a balance between online safety and the protection of fundamental rights in Sri Lanka's evolving digital landscape.

இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலத்தை மீளாய்வு செய்யுமாறு இலங்கை மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு வலியுறுத்து

TM 03 October 2023

வர்த்தமானியில் அண்மையில் வெளியிடப்பட்ட இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலத்தை மீளாய்வு செய்யுமாறு வலியுறுத்தியுள்ள, இலங்கை மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு, அதற்காக ஏழு பரிந்துரைகளை அரசாங்கத்திடம் முன்வைத்துள்ளது.

பொது மக்கள் பாதுகாப்பு அமைச்சர் டிரான் அலஸுக்கு அனுப்பியுள்ள கடிதத்தில், அந்த ஆணைக்குழு இதனைத் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

இலங்கை அரசியலமைப்பின் அடிப்படை உரிமைகள் அத்தியாயத்துடன் இணங்குவதை உறுதிப்படுத்தும் வகையில் குறித்த சட்டமூலத்தை மீளாய்வு செய்வதற்கு, பொது அவதானிப்புகள் மற்றும் பரிந்துரைகள் பரிசீலனைக்காக முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக இலங்கை மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு அந்த கடிதத்தில் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

குறித்த கடிதத்தில், அப்பாவி மக்கள் குற்றவாளிகளாக்கப்படும் சம்பவங்கள் தவிர்க்கப்பட வேண்டும், அவ்வாறு பாதிக்கப்படுபவர்கள் சாதாரண நீதிமன்றங்களின் ஊடாக நட்டஈட்டை பெறுவதற்கான வழிகள் ஏற்படுத்தப்பட வேண்டும் என பரிந்துரைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அத்துடன், மனித உரிமை மீறல்கள் தொடர்பான பொலிஸாரின் விசாரணைகளுக்கு உதவும் நோக்கில், நியமிக்கப்படும் நிபுணர்களுக்கு பொலிஸ் அதிகாரம் வழங்கப்படுதல் தவிர்க்கப்படல் வேண்டும் உள்ளிட்ட 7 பரிந்துரைகள் முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டணி கவலை.

இதேவேளை, உலகின் மிகப் பெரிய சமூக ஊடகங்கள் மற்றும் தொழில்நுட்ப நிறுவனங்களின் கூட்டமைப்பான ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டணி, இலங்கையின் இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலம் தொடர்பில் கவலை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.

ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டணி என்பது முன்னணி இணையம் மற்றும் தொழில்நுட்ப நிறுவனங்களை உள்ளடக்கிய ஒரு கூட்டமைப்பாகும்.

இதில் Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Booking.com, Expedia Group, LinkedIn, Spotify,Yahoo ஆகிய நிறுவனங்கள் உறுப்பினர்களாக அடங்குகின்றனர்.

இந்தச் சட்டமூலமானது கருத்து வேறுபாடுகளையும், இலங்கையர்களின் கருத்துக்களை வெளிப்படுத்தும் உரிமைகளையும் நசுக்குவதற்கு ஒரு கொடூரமான கட்டமைப்பை வழங்குவதாக ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டமைப்பின் முகாமைத்துவப் பணிப்பாளர் ஜெஃப் பெயின் (Jeff Paine) அந்த அறிக்கையில் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

இலங்கை அரசாங்கம் எந்தவொரு பங்குதாரர்களின் ஆலோசனையையும் மேற்கொள்ளாமல் இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலத்தை முன்னெடுத்து செல்கின்றமை குறித்து கவலையடைவதாகவும் அவர் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.

தமது உறுப்பினர்களின் சேவைகளை பயன்படுத்தும் பயனர்களின் பாதுகாப்பை தாம் மிகவும் தீவிரமாக எடுத்துக்கொள்வதாகவும், அதற்கான முயற்சிகள் சட்டத்தின் மூலம் முடக்கிவிடக் கூடாது எனவும் அந்த அமைப்பு கோரியுள்ளது.

இலங்கை அரசாங்கம் நியாயமானதாகவும், சர்வதேச தரங்களுக்கு இணங்கவும் தொழில்துறையில் உள்ள அனைத்து பங்குதாரர்களுடனும் இணைந்து பணியாற்ற வேண்டும்.

இலங்கையின் டிஜிட்டல் பொருளாதாரத்தின் வளர்ச்சியை ஆதரிக்கும் விதிமுறைகளை உருவாக்க நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டுமெனவும் ஆசிய இணைய கூட்டமைப்பு வலியுறுத்தியுள்ளது.