FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AS-036-2007-R1
March 01, 2007
A reply by the Asian Human Rights Commission to a reaction concerning an earlier Statement
Background: The AHRC received a reaction from Dukhinda Jayawardena regarding AHRC statement AS-036-2007 of February 26, 2007 (SRI LANKA: A serious attempt to control and suppress civil society organisations needs a response if further repression is to be halted). However, as we feel that the matter raised is of interest to our network we are reproducing our reply.
SRI LANKA: Reply – Clarifying a misunderstanding
This is a response to a letter from Duhkinda Jayarwardene under the heading ‘Reference to a statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission’. Specifically it is related to a statement, ‘SRI LANKA: A serious attempt to control and suppress civil society organisations needs a response if further repression is to be halted.’
We regret to note that Duhkinda Jayarwardene has completely misunderstood our statement. The writer thinks that the letter we reproduced in our statement was a letter written by the government of Sri Lanka to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). In fact it is very clear from our publication that the letter was not sent to us but to some civil society organisations based in Sri Lanka.
The AHRC has no personal interest in that letter since we are not based in Sri Lanka and the letter we are referring to was not one that was sent us. We are based in Hong Kong. Our objection to the letter was of a general nature about questions that are being asked only from one group of organisations and not from all others that belongs to the category of organisations outside the government. Unfortunately the author presumes that similar questions may be asked from all organisations outside the government as those asked in the questionnaire we reproduced.
The question the AHRC raised was not about any organisations being questioned within an authorized area where questions can be asked. That area is defined by law. The argument of the AHRC was that the specific questions being asked are not ones that fall within the questions that can be raised within the law.
Like all other organisations civil society organisations also are under the same legal obligations to have strict audits and submit them to all legal authorities that have a right to view them, including the Inland Revenue Department and any other legitimate authorities.
However, there is a difference between questions that may be raised in a democracy which respects the right of privacy, and there are strict laws regarding such limits and those that may not be asked. It is this that the author does not appear to understand. It is only under an authoritarian system that we have ‘big brother’ watching everything.
It is a fundamental tenet of civil liberty that there are limits to questions that the state may ask fron citizens. Civil rights movements all over the world have fought for centuries to define and uphold such limits. And the state, even when asking legitimate questions must ask them within the common framework of the legal procedures within the country.
It is unfortunate that Duhkinda Jayarwardene’s response is something that may be described in a common Sinhalese saying, ‘Koheda yanne malle pol (where are you going, I have coconuts in my bag). Under the pretext of fighting NGOs a lobby has grown up that is in fact trying to promote authoritarianism and censorship in a new style.
Since the author is very confused let us make it very clear as to our position: that everyone working in a country including the politicians, all others in the business and other sectors and also those who are engaged in the field of influencing public affairs have the duty to be transparent in all they do. Everyone is bound by the laws relating to financial accounting prescribed by the law. However, the state is equally legally bound to respect laws relating to privacy and the right of dissent. Those who express different opinions have the right of protection. When that right is taken away what remains is a naked form of authoritarianism that not only harms the particular persons who are targeted but also everyone else who may have a difference of opinion. The AHRC has consistently for several years repeated the position that since the adoption of the 1978 constitution the system of governance that exists in Sri Lanka is an authoritarian one. Now that authoritarianism is attempting to destroy even the small space still available within the country to express dissent.
The problem in Sri Lanka is that there is such massive corruption that goes unchallenged. Journalists and any other independent minded person who may challenge these things are either assassinated or subjected to many forms of harassment. If Duhkinda Jayarwardene knows anything about Sri Lanka he would know about the number of journalists killed and the far bigger numbers of persons constantly harassed in one way or another for having an opinion of their own. Sri Lanka for several decades now is among the countries that have the highest rates of abductions, disappearances, torture and the like. To expose this is regarded unofficially as a punishable offense. That punishment is also meted out by unofficial means such as assassinations, death threats and the like. It is this climate of intimidation and fear that is being reinforced by the letter that we objected to.
We are based in Hong Kong. The sending of any letter of similar nature by the government to any organisation here would cause both legal and civil protest if it was attempted at all. When some attacks were proposed through a bill known as Article 23 a few years ago, over 500,000 people of this city, where the total population is around seven million, came to the streets and defeated it. It is known that institutions such as banks also objected to the law as it would harm the normal course of business. In Sri Lanka there used to be a tradition of similar protest. However, due to severe repression over several decades there is now fear prevailing everywhere. Even lawyers are frightened to take up cases affecting civil rights due to fear or a sense of futility. The attacks on civil society organisations is designed to reinforce this climate of fear.
I hope this clarifies the issue and we will be glad to respond if any further confusion remains.
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
Please find below the original letter:
Dear Sir Madam
Reference A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
SRI LANKA: A serious attempt to control and suppress civil society organisations needs a response if further repression is to be halted
This letter by the Asian Human Rights Commission should be considered as a JOKE. Under the guise of fighting Human Rights Violations these organizations enter developing countries and siphon out a major part of the Aid given to these countries. They have found out a method of registering themselves as Non Governmental Organizations and basically operate as having Diplomatic Status. This is why AHRC, has taken upon them selves to object to Sri Lankan Governments request for information of NGOs operations within Sri Lankan soil. They do not want to divulge their activities at all.
According to their letter the following institutions also should have been sent the questioner. I quote from their letter The title Non-Governmental organisation means any organisation that is not an official government organ. This would include all private businesses such as companies, private services such as hospitals and educational institutions; other organisations such as trade unions and organisations of peasants and also political parties. The AHRC should understand that all these institutions are governed by Sri Lankas Laws and Legislations. There are several authorities, eg; Dept of Inland Revenue, Auditor Generals Dept, Central Bank etc and many more who are responsible for the activities of these institutions. They do not break the law, but questioners are sent regularly and honest answers are expected. That was the method of good governance by the British when they ruled Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka in turn is carrying on with it now.
Non Governmental Organizations should not expect to be treated differently. They too handle finances, very large amounts, they meet the people who are having hard times, they have the ability to influence people emotionally, economically, educationally, politically and on religious grounds. Their influence is vast and has on many occasions misused them, especially in Sri Lanka. They have used the privileges allowed by unsuspecting governments to help terrorists; many such instances have been noted in Sri Lanka.
I strongly believe that Non Governmental Organisations and their International partners when operating in Sri Lanka should be questioned about their activities, Finances, their employees and all related programmes. If they are not violating any rules and regulations in Sri lanka they should not worry about giving honest answers. After all this is what they .expect from the Sri Lankan Government to their questions. On the other hand if they do object to questions and do not want to give honest answers they have the right to pack up and leave the country.
Dukhinda Jayawardena
UK
