5. The Lankan Conflict-1

Today my post is on a forgotten war ... the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The Tamils in the North and East are long suffering due the war fought by the Liberation Tigers with the Sri Lankan Government for regional autonomy and power-sharing in these two tamil-dominated areas. The Sri Lankan Government has till today not offered a viable solution to the problem! The International Communities of United States, Britain, Norway and Japan who have promised aid have not been able to force the warring parties to a settlement.

By reading carefully this interview you would get an idea of the thinking of a President and the reasons for the failure to find a solution to the conflict.

The Conflict Very Briefly:

30 years of war; 70,000 killed on both sides; no solution in sight; the electoral parties elected by the Sinhalese and the Tamils to form governments successively, on the election promise of a solution, have cheated the people all the time.

>Ethnic tensions first surface after independence in 1948
>Tamil minority make up 12 per cent of island's 20m population
>They complain of discrimination from strengthening Sinhalese nationalism
>Decades of protest erupted into civil war in 1983
>Up to 70,000 have died in fighting, both sides accused of atrocities
>Ceasefire in 2002 led to period of relative peace
>Rebel attacks surged in late 2005, intensified fighting since and renewed calls for Tamil state

The following is a transcript of an interview between Al Jazeera’s 101 East presenter Teymoor Nabili and Mahinda Rajapaksa, the president of Sri Lanka:

Teymoor Nabili: Mr President, the Tamil Tigers launched their first attack against your government and against the Sri Lankan people only weeks after you came to power. Why do you think it was, that after so long of adhering to the peace plan, they suddenly decided to start attacking again?

President Mahinda Rajapaksa: They would have thought it was a weakness of mine, that I could be defeated. That was a good opportunity for them to establish a separate state. They would have believed that.

Is it possible that for Prabhakaran, war or continuing conflict is actually a preferred option because only by convincing the northern population that they were under attack can he convince them to support his movement. If there were no attacks from the government the population would lose the need for his command ?

Like I said before, he thought that we were weak, that the state is weak, that he is strong. But now, he has come to a point, where he has accepted that. He has lost the east. Prabhakaran does not represent the aspirations of the Tamil people. What he represents, is the interests of a small group, not the needs of the Tamil people. The Tamil people do not want a war, they want peace. The government does not need a war, the government wants peace.

Is there any level of dialogue at all between your government and the LTTE right now?

Actually, at present there are no talks at any level. As a government we cannot have talks. We say that we are ready for talks always.

You don’t see any value in dialogue?

We are always ready for talks. Always, even today. Even while the fighting goes on, I am ready for talks. Even being armed, the way they are behaving today, we are ready to go forward.

When you say you are prepared to talk, you are prepared to instigate, to initiate dialogue?

Definitely, if the LTTE is ready. [It takes] two hands to clap.

Have you made the offer?

I am ready if Prabhakaran is ready. We have said that very clearly. I am ready, but I am not prepared to kneel before the terrorism of the LTTE. I have said that many times. If I am attacked, I will counter attack. That is what we have done at every occasion.

We have then, a face-off. How does one get around what seems to be an intractable problem?

Actually in this instance, and at every other instance we have said, come and commence talks with us, we are ready. We have offered a political solution to the people. Along with the political solution, we are prepared to talk. But what the LTTE wants, to keep their arms and divide the country into two. That I cannot allow.

Do you think the Sri Lankan people would rather see a victory against the Tamil Tigers or a peace agreement with the Tamil Tigers?

The people have been battered by the LTTE for many years. It has come to a point where the LTTE cannot be trusted. If the people are asked, they will say, defeat the LTTE and talk. But I am ready to talk with the LTTE. From the other side, this question is a question not faced in any other country. Where a head of state asks Prabhakaran to talk.

So you are saying that you think the Sri Lankan people would prefer a defeat of the LTTE first?

First. Opinion polls seem to suggest that peace is much more important to the Sri Lankan people. For the people, LTTE, peace - the people want peace, that is the truth, without defeating the LTTE, without defeating the terrorism of the LTTE. There is no politics in this. There is a political side and terrorism here. This is a terrorist group. The people are aware that as long as a terrorist organisation exists, that negotiations will not be successful. They are making use of the negotiations to strengthen themselves, to bring in arms. This is a historical fact, historically because the people have been battered. Today we have to be very careful.

So let me be clear on this: what you’re saying is that there must first be military victory and then peace talks?

No. That is not what I hope for. Until the terrorists are weakened, they will not come for talks. As long as they think they are strong, they will try to break up the country. Today, what we hope is to fulfil the aspirations of the Tamil people.

What do you mean by weakened? At what point will you accept that the Tamil Tigers are weakened because it’s now been almost a year of …

Even under today’s circumstances. Clearly said, what the people expect. But what I expect is not that. I said that even today I am ready to negotiate, very clearly. My argument is that terrorism has to be got rid off. We cannot kneel down to that. I am not prepared to kneel down to their arms capability. But I am committed to ensuring the rights of the Tamil people. That I will achieve, somehow.

I apologise, I am not really following you. You say that terrorism must be defeated but you don’t want, you don’t think that a military victory is necessary?

Absolutely, a victory is essential against terrorism. That is a different story. But because we need to meet the aspirations of the Tamil people, I am prepared to go for talks, with the terrorists. I have come to that point. Has any other world leader said that?

Could you then describe a situation under which both those things can be achieved – defeat of the terrorists and representation of the Tamil people? What I am struggling to understand here is if the defeat of terrorism is a key element of your strategy and yet dialogue is also a key element of your strategy. How do you see those two working together? Which comes first and how do you proceed?

Now, we tried to talk at the beginning. While keeping their arms, we were prepared to talk. When we went to Geneva; they killed innocent people. Even while they were killing, I negotiated. I think, if you were to compare with other countries, you will see a difference. In other countries there will be no negotiations. But, we have been prepared, we have negotiated, we have shown that we are genuinely ready to do that. But they must give up terrorism. They must enter a democratic framework. Without that, that is what we expect to achieve through negotiations. It was clear during our negotiations with them, that they have no interest in negotiating because they believe they can win this war, that they can divide this country into two. That is their strong belief, Prabhakaran’s belief.

Second part of interview will be posted tomorrow.

4. Goldmine in Kelantan

Goldmine in Kelantan: The directors of Hong Kong-based mining company, CNMC Goldmine Limited, trying out durians when visiting Pasar Siti Khatijah in Kota Baru yesterday. The delegation was here to sign an MoU for the development of a gold mine in Kelantan - Starpic.

3. Lina Joy Migrating?

A woman who lost a court battle to change her religion to Christianity from Islam suggested she might leave Malaysia rather than stay without the right to practice the religion of her choice, her lawyer said yesterday.

Malaysia's highest civil court on Wednesday rejected Lina Joy's appeal to have the word "Islam" stricken from her national identity card.

The verdict was seen as a blow to religious freedom in this ethnically diverse country made up of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs.

"I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists in all persons: Namely, the right to believe in the religion of one's choice," Ms. Joy said in a statement released through her lawyer, Benjamin Dawson. "The Federal Court has not only denied me that right but [denied it] to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms," she said.

About 60% of Malaysia's 26 million people are Malay Muslims, whose civil, family, marriage, and personal rights are decided by Shariah courts. The minorities — the ethnic Chinese, Indians, and other smaller communities — are governed by civil courts.

But the constitution does not say who has the final say in cases such as Ms. Joy's when Islam confronts Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or other religions.

The founding fathers of Malaysia left the constitution deliberately vague, unwilling to upset any of the three ethnic groups dominant at the time of independence from Britain 50 years ago, when building a peaceful multiracial nation was more important.

The situation was muddied further with the constitution describing Malaysia as a secular state but recognizing Islam as the official religion.

In its verdict Wednesday, the Federal Court said Ms. Joy — who was born to Islamic parents and began attending church in 1990 — should seek permission to renounce Islam from Islamic Shariah courts.

Ms. Joy, however, has refused to seek the Shariah court's permission, saying she is a Christian and should not be bound by Islamic laws. If she continues to practice Christianity, she faces being charged with apostasy, which is punishable by a jail sentence and fine. She also has the option to leave the country.

Asked if she will take that option, Ms. Joy, 43, said in her statement: "It would be extremely difficult to exercise freedom of conscience in the present environment." Mr. Dawson, her lawyer, said members of the press are free to draw their conclusions from the statement.

Ms. Joy, who was baptized in 1998, was successful in getting the National Registration Department to change her name to Lina Joy on her identity card.

But the department refused to drop Muslim from the religion column of the card. A series of rejected appeals from 2000 onward brought her case to the Federal Court - AP.

2. Islam and Constitution

R. Manirajan and Liew-Ann Phang - The Sun

Islam is not above the Federal Constitution, and the decision by the Federal Court on Lina Joy's appeal was not politically motivated, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

"One must have a hole in the head to say it was a political decision. We've never asked or pressured the court to make political decisions," he said. "The problem here is emotion, and if one allows emotion to control [him/her], this is what will happen and one will have all kinds of things in the head, including suspicion." He was asked to comment on allegations that the court's decision was politically motivated.

The three-member panel of judges, in a 2-1 judgment on Wednesday, dismissed Lina's appeal to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card after she converted to Christianity, without an apostasy certificate from the syariah court.

Abdullah said Islam was not above the Federal Constitution. "This country upholds the Constitution and supremacy of the law, otherwise, we would have become a failed state. "We must uphold our Constitution and all laws are made in Parliament and by Parliament. That is made of all sorts of members and it is a multiracial Parliament," he said after chairing the Umno Supreme Council meeting.

He dismissed allegations that the two Muslim judges on the panel - Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff - had ruled in favour of their own religion.

He said he believed the judges would have made the decision after taking into account all the facts. Asked to comment on a foreign news report alleging that Malaysia did not favour Christianity, he said if that were the case, there would be no churches and Christians in the country. Asked about the problems faced by those who wanted to renounce Islam with the syariah court, he said this was a different matter and needed to be dealt with.

Commenting on Lina's appeal, several legal minds said a full bench should have been empanelled to hear it.

Former High Court judge Prof Datuk Seri Dr Visu Sinnadurai expressed concern that only three judges heard the appeal that resulted in a split decision.

"I am sure many were surprised that Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim did not empanel a full bench because this was a very important case - it was not any ordinary commercial law case - it involved several constitutional law issues and many other important questions of law. "Furthermore, the appeal before the Federal Court originated from a two-one (split) decision from the Court of Appeal," he told theSun today. "The case involves constitutional, administrative and human rights issues, and in most countries, including the US, India or Australia, such an important case would have a bigger quorum. "If there was a bench of five or seven judges hearing Lina's case, the decision may possibly have been different," he said.

Senior lawyer Karpal Singh said: "In view of the case's significance, the full Federal Court bench should have determined it." In as statement, he called for the landmark decision to be reviewed by a nine-member bench. "I call upon the government to repeal Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution which came into force in 1988. Before then, there was no controversy of freedom of religion in the country," he said.

Meanwhile, Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM) general-secretary Rev. Dr. Hermen Shastri clarified that he supported the dissenting judgment by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum.

"We have to live with the Federal Court judgment, but remember there was a dissenting judgment. I support that decision as the issue is in conflict with the Federal Constitution which allows Lina Joy to exercise her right to choose her faith and life."

The Centre for Public Policy Studies said in a statement the strong dissenting judgment indicates disagreement at the highest level and points to the urgent need to re-address the issue.

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the Constitution is and must remain supreme in law. "In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of state enactments and of the Federal Constitution, the latter must prevail," she said in a statement.

"The religion that a person professes must be the religion that that person states he or she professes; since there can be no evidential difficulty in ascertaining this in the case of a living person.

"Asserting this right, and upholding it, in no way undermines the position of any religion under the Federal Constitution and is consistent with the position of Islam under Article 3," Ambiga said.

1. To Ponder

Do you think it is possible? ... I think it is an ideal everybody should work for! ... However impossible that might be.