විශ්රාම යන හැම ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක් ම පරික්ෂාවට ලක්විය යුතු ය
Ravaya explains its decision to go to court against the special privileges planned for former President Chandrika Kumaratunga and on other matters. Because presidential immunity prevents scrutiny in office, it argues, retiring presidents must be examined; it recalls its long pursuit of her assets declarations, her children’s foreign education and the President’s Fund.
මැතිවරණ නීති උල්ලංඝනය
The campaign is calmer than before, but the state media’s behaviour has not changed and the Elections Commissioner has not dealt with it. Sections follow on ‘the 2005 conspiracy’, Mangala Samaraweera’s democracy, including Ports Authority money spent on his mother’s official residence, Soma Thera and the doctor branded a traitor for finding his death natural, and an assassination plot.
කෙළවර කුමක් ද?
The Cabinet has decided to give the retiring President an acre and a half facing the Diyawanna Oya opposite Parliament, in lieu of the pension and official residence she says she will forgo. The note recalls her plan for a Rs 1,700 million presidential palace in the same area.
ජනතාවට පොත පෙරළීම
Chandrika Kumaratunga has had her biography written by a well-known biographer, with the publisher’s US$40,000 fee paid by the Ports Authority under Mangala Samaraweera and launches planned from Oslo to Berlin at public expense. Ivan traces the practice to J.R. Jayewardene, then turns to a heartless Parliament and the coming Supreme Court interpretation, noting that everyone has suffered at the Chief Justice’s hands except the President.
සුනාමි ආධාරවල පාරදෘශ්යභාවය
A Sunday Leader report that Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa transferred part of the tsunami aid in his account to a Hambantota development fund raises a wider problem. The editorial calls on every party and politician who collected foreign aid to disclose what they received and how they spent it, and notes the banners thanking politicians for houses and boats.
වෙරළ තීරයේ ඉඩම් කොල්ලකෑමට ඉඩ දෙමු ද?
Businessmen close to the government have begun using the tsunami to seize thousands of acres of valuable coastal land, confirming suspicions raised when the buffer zone was declared without reason. The editorial is not against foreign investment, but calls on informed citizens to force the government to abandon the scheme.
වෙරළ ආරක්ෂක කලාපයේ යථාර්ථය
Ravaya criticised the 100/200-metre buffer zone from the start, because such a law would ruin the survivors. The piece shows how it breaches eleven basic principles of two international covenants, then examines the roles of the JVP, of Ranil Wickremesinghe and a stagnant UNP, and of a President whose strategy may cost her only the executive presidency.
The cat is out of the bag
Two TAFREN advertisements, four days apart, expose what the 100-metre coastal building ban was for. The first, on 27 February, told the country that homes destroyed inside the zone could not be rebuilt and that the government would provide 500-square-foot replacements. The second, on 2 March, exempted buildings permitted before 26 December 2004 by the Tourist Board and other authorities — which may remain, may be repaired, and may be completed if construction had begun. Victor Ivan concludes the rule applies only to ordinary residents, and that its purpose is to clear the most valuable land in the country for the tourist industry. He notes that a Coastal Zone Management Plan already existed, drawn up by specialists, with a conservation zone varying from twenty metres to more than a hundred according to local conditions, and even anticipating a tsunami; the government consulted neither the Coast Conservation Department nor its experts, who are now unwilling to quarrel with those holding absolute power. Coastal residents and hoteliers had coexisted profitably, he argues, and turning the industry into an occupier will serve neither.
ජනතාවගේ ජීවිත සමග සෙල්ලම් නො කළ යුතු ය
Instead of using the tsunami to rebuild, the country is doubling the damage. The editorial attacks the coastal buffer zone that bars survivors from returning to their land, points out that most were freehold owners, not squatters, and argues that those able to rebuild on their own land should be helped to do so.
තොණ්ඩමන් ගනුදෙනුවේ ඇත්ත කුමක් ද?
Reports in the Sunday Leader and the Sunday Times link Arumugam Thondaman’s move to the government to a Water Board IT contract with an Indian company that he approved as a minister. The editorial asks for the facts and warns that a system which buys political support by protecting such deals will drag the country from ruin to ruin.