Sharing Experiences from the islandwide Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC (English)

7/29/2019 Sharing Experiences from the islandwide Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC (English)

1/37

Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC 2012

Sharing Public Opinions on the LLRC

at Hotel Renuka

Colombo -0319 th March 2013

Centre for Policy Alternatives


2/37

Page | 2

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is an independent, non-partisan organization that focuses primarily on issues of governance and conflict resolution. Formed in 1996 in the firmbelief that the vital contribution of civil society to the public policy debate is in need of strengthening, CPA is committed to programmes of research and advocacy through which

public policy is critiqued, alternatives identified and disseminated.

Address : 24/2 28th Lane, off Flower Road, Colombo 7

Telephone : +94 (11) 2565304/5/6

Fax : +94 (11) 4714460

Web : www.cpalanka.org

Email : [email protected]


3/37

Page | 3

CONTENTS

CHAPTER - I

Citizen Dialog on LLRC 2012 / Executive Summary ----------------------------------------------------- 4

Project Outcomes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5-9

Recommendations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-11

CHAPTER - II

Public Opinions on the LLRC/Methodology --------------------------------------------------------------12

LLRC Witness Survey-----------------------------------------------------------------------------13-26

LLRC Workshop Participant Survey ----------------------------------------------------------27-30

CHAPTER - III

ANNEXE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31-37


4/37

Page | 4

CHAPTER - I

Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC 2012

Executive Summary

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) presented their muchawaited report and recommendations on Dec 16 2011. Following a war whichlasted almost 30 years, and resulted in death, destruction and devastation, thisreport is the result, after 18 months, of a presidential commission of inquirystudying the failure of the ceasefire agreement of 27/2/2002, highlighting lessonslearnt, and aiming to promote national unity and reconciliation among all

communities. This can be said to be one of the most important documents in thehistory of Sri Lanka.

Nevertheless the failure of the government in implementing theserecommendations led to the UNHCR resolution against Sri Lanka in 2012. Themain requirement of the resolution was proper implementation of therecommendations according to an Action Plan and review and reporting of progress. This caused a contentious situation in the country and divided opinions.The majority opinion was that the internal problems of the country should besettled without foreign intervention. The less popular opinion was that somerecommendations would to an extent solve serious issues of Tamil and Muslimminorities and therefore full and expeditious implementation would reducecontinuing conflict and even the possibility of renewed hostilities.

A number of factors underpin these responses. One of these is that the first LLRCwitness enquiry was carried out, outside of a broad public space. The second isthat, authorities responsible for creating awareness among the public on the LLRC,have evaded such responsibility. In fact, the report itself was only available inEnglish, and not in Sinhala or Tamil. Some elements of the government itself

engaged in inciting the public against some recommendations and despite thecountry being bound to international agreements and UN conventions, thegovernment maintains that it is implementing LLRC recommendations.

Similarly although the LLRC recommendations clearly suggest involving them, thegovernment has rejected support from Civil Society organisations, and insteadincited and spread hostile attitudes about such organisations among the public.The public for its part is uncertain as to what to believe.

In this situation, a broad public discourse has not been carried out in the country,

on how to work towards genuine reconciliation and a united future.


5/37

Page | 5

Firmly believing that civil society has an important and constructive contributionto make to the conflict transformation process in Sri Lanka, CPA worked topromote a democratic dialogue at community level on the contents andrecommendations of the LLRC report (and the resulting Action Plan) and to

channel resulting opinion into a national discourse on implementing the LLRC,while increasing overall awareness of the LLRC report, among the public at large.

Project Outcomes

Books and Publications

1. As an initial step, CPA prepared, disseminated and launched relevant informationon the LLRC report in the public sphere. Accordingly, a publication, edited byAttorney-at-Law SG Punchihewa was launched in both the Sinhala and Tamillanguages. This was a simplified, attractive publication, designed to be easilyunderstood by its intended audience, the general public. This publication wasprepared using as a basis, the recommendations of the LLRC report. The report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka(DarusmanReport) and recommendations of the European Commission.

2. The September 2012 edition of the Saama Vimarshi (Peace Monitor) periodicaledited by Lionel Guruge and published by CPA, discussed the LLRC report and waspublished in both Tamil and Sinhala languages under the theme of Will LLRC become reality?

Over 67000 copies of the LLRC book, and 63,500 copies of the Saama Vimarshiperiodical (70% Sinhala/ 30% Tamil) have been disseminated and links to thesewere distributed electronically to mailing lists of 8,000 persons. A relevant amount of feedback was received from people who requested these periodicals at dialoguesessions, and on an individual and organizational basis, leading to the creation of interest groups.

Statistics on printed publications

Books NumbersSinhala 45,000Tamil 24,000Total 67,000Magazine(Periodical) NumbersSinhala 46,000Tamil 17,500Total 63,500Grand Total 130,500

Table 1 (source- Based on project datas and reports)


6/37

Page | 6

3. An E copy of the above mentioned book and periodical is available in the threemain languages on the CPA website.

MediumMonth/2012 Num of usersSinhala Tamil

September 1800 1425 375October 3700 2275 1425November 2100 1120 980December 405 245 160Total 8005 5065 2940

Table 2 (Source - Data and reports of the project)

Training Sessions and WorkshopsThe Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC project targeted the raising of awareness in more than130,000 stakeholders through meetings and awareness raising publications on LLRC, aswell as increased capacity in 47 trainers trained on conducting community dialogues.47 competent trainers selected from partner organizations in the field were given acomprehensive five day training in all matters of the reconciliation process leading tothe LLRC, and on strategy for raising awareness among people on the LLRCrecommendations. Each trainer conducted an average of 42 sessions.

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, S.G. Punchihewa Attorney-At-Law, Prof. JayanthaSeneviratne, K.Gurubaran and A. Sarjoon, University lectures and Senior Journalistsincluding Thimbirayaga Bandara, attended as resource persons in these sessions andworkshops through these open dialogue sessions and workshops, CPA was able toidentify some misconceptions about the which were well established in the society, aswell as able to create a pool of trainers able to clarify such problems.

A total of 1033 community level discussions were carried out island wide with the facilitation of trainers, with the participation of more than 30,990 attendees

Number of District level TrainersTotal number of trainers Male Female45 40 05

Eastern Province Ampara 02Batticaloa 02Trincomalee 01

North central Province Anuradhapura 02Polonnaruwa 01


7/37

Page | 7

Uva Province Badulla 02Monaragala 02

Western province Colombo 02Gampaha 01

Kalutara 02Southern province Galle 02

Matara 02Hambantota 03

Northen Province Jaffna 02Kilinochchi 01Mannar 02Vavuniya 02Mullaitivu 01

Central Province Kandy 02Matale 02NuwaraEliya 02

Sabaragamuwa province Kegalle 01Ratnapura 01

North Western province Kurunegala 03Puttlam 02

Table 3 Source - data and reports of the project

These dialogue sessions emphasized citizen participation. Politically motivated andinterested citizens, professionals from various fields, and a number of members of theclergy attended these sessions. Resource persons for these dialogue sessions wereconnected from Colombo. These dialogue sessions were completed with a totalparticipation of over 30990 citizens.

Number of dialogue sessions held in district level

Province District Number of dialogue

sessions held in district level

Eastern province Ampara 43Batticaloa 41Trincomalee 44

North Central Province Anuradhapura 41Polonnaruwa 38

Uva Province Badulla 44Monaragala 40

Western province Colombo 35


8/37

Page | 8

Gampaha 32Kalutara 40

Southern province Galle 35Matara 45

Hambantota 63Northen Province Jaffna 40

Killinochi 35Mannar 44Vavunia 41Mullaitive 38

Central Province Kandy 47Matale 42NuwaraEliya 45

Sabaragamuwa province Kegalle 43Ratnapura 38

North Western province Kurunegala 40Puttlam 39

Table 4 (Source Data and reports of the project)

These sessions resulted in discussion of a number of current political opinions andideas, and resulted in a group of people with a serious interest in the recommendationsof the LLRC coming together. Thus it can be seen that the results of these sessionscontinue to flow into social discourse in different levels through various forums.

It was clear that it was important to collect the observations and opinions of witnesseswho gave evidence before the LLRC. Therefore a report of such witness opinions wasproduced. For this purpose, the opinions of 46 persons who had given evidence beforethe commission were taken. A report on public opinion on the LLRC was also compiledbased on the feedback from participants at the dialogue sessions held at district level .

In this process it was identified at the citizen level, that if there had been a priorawareness raising process on the LRRC recommendations at the initial stage, thesituation would have been different.

The lack of citizen participation at the policy- making stage results in socialdiscrimination. It is caused by the autocratic behavior of rulers who act as they wish.Also, the necessity of continued information on LLRC related issues was identified bycitizens. There was another observation. In addition to the attitude by the government,media and academic institutions too had evaded their responsibility for ensuringawareness on these matters. The combined effect of this negatively impacted oncitizens attitudes.

Similarly it became clear from citizen attitudes, that the media promptly publishes newson the UN responses as it happens, whilst evading any responsibility to educate the


9/37

Page | 9

people on the recommendations and their background. Based on the coercion bygovernment leaders and local politicians, citizens appeared at mass demonstrations;however they had little or no understanding of what they were doing. As mentioned inthe novel of Ignazio Silones Fontamara, villagers of Fontamara were similarly helpless

after being sent to towns for rallies and being misguided.

A popular attitude was then that agreeing with the LLRC recommendations amounted tooverturning the war victory.

Challenges/Obstacles

At the citizen level, challenges and obstacles faced were minimal.

However there was a level of rejection from some parties such as Government Administrative officers and Security personnel, based on the belief that theserecommendations-although established by state appointed commission-were against the interest of the country, as well as an attitude of hostility against Civil Societyorganisations, and tactic implication that such hostility was acceptable.

Threats have been received to some trainers and facilitators from regional politicalleaders. However, as a whole, the results were positive and encouraging. Thoughcitizens had been accustomed to not questioning such issues, it was clear that they hadthe capacity to understand such issues. Therefore, the majority of persons who

participated continue to be interested in the process.

Recommendations

1. The LLRC process was carried forward without broad citizen participation. Therole of citizens in the obtaining of testimony was at a minimum level. Politicalleaders and high officials like Minister Champika Ranawaka and the DefenseSecretary were given priority during collection of testimony. In taking the

discourse on the LLRC Process to the people, one factor identified was that there isno understanding about this among government officials and among people.Therefore the government should start creating awareness among the people . It isthe responsibility of the government to ensure this.

2. The government should take a political stance about implementation of the LLRCrecommendations. In the presentation of a new constitution, then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaranatunge was prepared for such. She was of thefirm belief that such should be implemented. The Government should also havesuch readiness.


10/37

Page | 10

3. Opposition parties including the United National Party (UNP) and Tamil NationalAlliance (TNA) should fulfill their responsibilities instead of leveling accusations at the government. The education of the public on these specific political matters isthe responsibility of political parties and civil society organisations. The education

at least of their constituents on matters of the LLRC, has not been carried out.Necessary steps to fulfill this are urgently needed.

4. The media too has not fulfilled its responsibility in informing the public on mattersof the LLRC. As well as informing on these recommendations, the creation of arelated discourse on this subject, should be initiated without delay.

5. The National Plan of Action on the implementation of recommendations made bythe Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) drafted to win reprievefrom the UNHCR has not yet been translated to Sinhala and Tamil. Out of the 285

recommendations in the LLRC report, only 133 have been included in the ActionPlan. There is no specific mention of when deadlines commence, and the time linefor such implementation. Therefore the government should take steps to present these clearly.

6. There is no transparency to be observed in the Action Plan. Many responsibilitieshave been allocated to the Defense Ministry and many have been allocated only byname, what is needed is movement towards the creation of a new constitutionrespecting the rights of all ethnicities, such that a situation of conflict andhostilities in the future will not arise.

7. Steps have not been taken to promote harmony and co existence amongethnicities; although this is mentioned in the LLRC recommendations, thegovernment has not implemented these. It is not enough to simply assure theinternational community that measures are being taken to promote reconciliation.There should be a creative process to make a space for co existence between theNorth and South, from village to village, school to school and religious center toreligious center for example.

8. In the national budget millions of rupees are allocated for various issues. However

it is not clear how much has been set aside for the implementation of the LLRCprocess. There are also recommendations which can be implemented withinexisting structures, which do not need any financial outlay.

9. The tasks of making decisions on recommendations of the LLRC, expression of opinions and producing information on this to the public has been discretelyhanded to certain nationalist elements, leading to negative attitudes among thepublic. This has to be changed.

10. In the presentation of the New Constitutional proposal (Political

Package),Chandrika Bandaranaike took on herself the responsibility via the SaamaTawalama (Peace Cart), Book and Brick and Sudu Nelum and similar movements


11/37

Page | 11

to involve the people. However, this government has not taken the leadresponsibility for the LLRC implementation.

After a war lasting 30 years, in order to prevent such a situation arising again, therecommendations of the LLRC need to be discussed broadly and lead to theintroduction of a new constitution. If this is not the final focus, the existingproblems will not only continue, it may not be possible, in the future, to prevent amore dangerous situation than that already experienced, arising.


12/37

Page | 12

CHAPTER - II

Public Opinions on the LLRC

Methodology

In order to obtain opinion about the LLRC report, two semi structured questionnaireswere designed by Social Indicator, the survey research unit of the Centre for PolicyAlternatives. The two questionnaires were for those who gave testimonies to the LLRC

(LLRC Witness Survey) and those who attended the LLRC awareness workshopsconducted by the Outreach Unit of CPA (LLRC Workshop Participant Survey).

The questionnaire for those who gave testimonies attempted to gauge awareness of thecontent of the report and to what extent, their expectations of the LLRC, opinion o f thereport and recommendations and the implementation of the action plan. Thequestionnaires for workshop participants looked at respondent opinion on LLRCrecommendations and the Government action plan as well as their thoughts onimplementation and the key actors of that process.

The questionnaires, which were to be self administered, were translated into Sinhalaand Tamil. Organisations and individuals who testified were met with individually andgiven the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were returned to the Outreach Unit .Workshop participant questionnaires were distributed to all participants to fill out at the end of the workshop.

The questionnaire for those who gave testimonies to the LLRC was completed by 47respondents.As the workshops were held in every district of the country, 60 completedquestionnaires by workshop participants were randomly selected from each district,making the sample for the workshop participant survey 1500. Once the data from both

surveys were entered into a data base, the data was analysed using the StatisticalPackage for Social Sciences (SPSS).


13/37

Page | 13

LLRC Witness Survey

Field visits

The following opinions are of 22 people who gave testimonies at the LLRC field visit hearings. Their current districts of residence are Batticaloa, Mannar, Mullaitivu andKillinochchi. All 22 respondents are above the age of 30.

Awareness and expectations from the LLRC

Respondent knowledge about the LLRC and its purpose is quite low. A respondent livingin the Killinochchi district has specifically stated that there has been insufficient awareness in the Killinochchi and Mullaitivu district and majority of the people have not understood the LLRC.

Its evident that most of their interest in the LLRC was because they believed that thecommission would provide answers regarding those who disappeared during the waror were arrested.

When asked how they first heard about the LLRC, 20 of the respondents said that theyheard through the media. 3 people said that the purpose of the LLRC was to find asolution to those affected by the war while another 3 people said that it was committeethat was set up in the pretext of finding a solution. This question went unanswered by 6respondents. Others who answered gave the following responses

A commission established to find the root causes of the 30 year ethnic conflict. (2)

To release those who have been arbitrarily arrested (2)

A commission appointed to find a solution to the ethnic conflict.

A commission appointed to find those who have been reported missing due to the

war. A commission appointed to solve the impending language issues in the country

and thereby resolve the ethnic conflict

The primary sources of information for news and updates about the LLRC have beennewspapers and radio. 10 respondents who said newspapers cited Thinnakural,Veerakesari and Uthayan while 11 respondents who said their primary source wasradio mentioned Shakthi FM, Sooryan FM, Vasantham FM and BBC as examples.


14/37

Page | 14

What were respondent expectations when they gave their testimony? 12 out of the 22respondents stated that by giving a testimony to the LLRC, they expected answers withregard to those who have been reported missing during the war. 3 said it was becausethey wanted to seek justice and 2 said that they expected to see the release of people

who have been arrested. 2 other individuals who answered this question gave thefollowing answers

The commission would be attentive to the information given with regard to the final stages of the war.

To bring an end to human rights violations

When asked if the final LLRC report fulfilled their expectations, 20 respondents said nowhile 2 did not answer the question.

LLRC report and recommendations

Only 2 respondents out of the 22 were aware that the final LLRC report has been madepublic. This is to be expected given that the translations of the report in Sinhala andTamil have not been made available by the Government and official Government copiesof the report exists only in English.

When asked how they obtained copies of the report or document/booklet about the

LLRC, 7 respondents said the Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2 said National PeaceCouncil, while four others gave the following four responses from a friend, from thenewspaper and from an official from the commission.

The following statements were given and respondents were asked to select thestatement with which they agreed the most.


15/37

Page | 15

Graph 1 - Which of the following statements do you agree with?

2

2

0

2

4

2

5

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

I have read the LLRC report completely or have readmost of it

I have read about all/ most of the report contentsthrough a booklet or document about the LLRC

I have read the sections relevant to me/ of interest tome in the LLRC report

I have read about the sections relevant to me/ of interest to me through a booklet or document about

the LLRC

I have not read the LLRC report but I know all or mostof its contents through awareness from other

people/ media

I have not read the LLRC report but I know thecontents of the sections relevant to me/ of interest

to me through awareness from other people/ media

I do not know anything about the contents of theLLRC report

No answer


16/37

Page | 16

The following are the opinions of the respondents on the recommendations made by theLLRC.

Graph 2 - What is your opinion about the LLRC recommendations? (Can select morethan one answer)

Respondents who said that the recommendations are practical also selected the answerthat the recommendations did not address crucial issues and that they fell short of expectations. A respondent who said that the recommendations are practical believedso for the following reason

Certain issues such as rehabilitation, release of those detained by the military,livelihood issues can be implemented

4 respondents who also believe the recommendations are practical stated that althoughthe recommendations can be implemented, the Government is wasting time and not committing towards implementation.

Those who stated that the recommendations fell short of their expectations, did not address several issues or did not address them adequately gave the following reasons asexplanations

Inadequate solution given to those affected by the war (2)

Insufficient attention given to the information regarding the civilian death duringthe last stages of the war

7

2

0

5

4

4

2

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

They are practical

Some recommendations are not very realistic

Exceeded my expectations

Fell short of expectations

They did not include/address seve ral crucial issuesor did not address them adequately

Only some of the recommendations should beimplemented

I do not know what the recommendations are

No answer


17/37

Page | 17

The white flag issue was inadequately addressed.

The testimony given was not adequately perused nor published

The majority of those who were affected by the war did not come up to give their

testimony due to fear; hence their actual problems and needs are not reflected inthe report

The report does not address the root causes of the war nor deal with the humanrights violation issues

One respondent who said that only some of the recommendations can be implementedsaid that only the administrative recommendations can be implemented.

Commitment of the Government

Respondents were asked if they thought that the Government of Sri Lanka was fullycommitted to implementing the recommendations of the LLRC. None of the respondentssaid yes, with 15 saying no, 5 saying that they were not sure or did not know and 2respondents choosing not to answer the question.

When asked to explain why they do not think the Government is fully committed,respondents who answered no to the question mentioned above said the following

Recommendations not yet implemented (5)

Persons arrested during the war have still not been released (2)

Despite it being three years since the civil war came to an end, informationconcerning people who were reported missing due to the war has still not beenrevealed to those concerned. (2)

Although the final report has been published, biased land acquisition in the North,violence against those arrested and ethnic clashes still continues

The testimony given was not publicised to people and has not been implemented

Although three years has lapsed since the war ended a viable solution has not been found

Threats from the Government still continues


18/37

Page | 18

Thoughts about the LLRC

The general impression received from the interviews with the 22 respondents is that there is not a lot of faith in the LLRC. As explained by one respondent The report doesnot represent the needs of those affected by the war as the majority of those affected by thewar did not come forward to give in their testimonies due to fear since the military was patrolling the areas where the testimonies were being taken. Furthermore, even those whocame up to give their testimonies were unable to do so for reasons such as limited amount of time, and certain people were unable to give testimonies due to the fact that they wereasked to write in their testimonies.

The effectiveness of the mechanism itself was questioned as respondents stated that thescope of the investigation was very narrow and limited itself within the urban areas,people in remote areas were not adequately educated about the report, the

independence of the commission is doubtful due to the fact that they were appointed bythe President.

With regard to the content of the report itself, some respondents believe that insufficient attention has been paid to the information regarding civilian deaths duringthe war (including civilians who were trapped and died in the safe zone) and theproblems faced by people in the war affected areas.

Hearings in Colombo25 individuals who gave testimonies at the LLRC hearings in Colombo wererespondents in this survey. These individuals included Members of Parliament,members of the clergy, journalists, civil society actors, politicians.

Expectations of respondents

For 12 of the respondents, one of the main reasons they gave a testimony was to do

their part towards reconciliation and development specifically to show respect to thereconciliation process, to showcase the willingness of the society to join hands with thegovernment for the cause of national peace, contribute to the future development of thecountry, to provide and point out facts that are a hindrance to the peace and unity of thecountry.

Other expectations of respondents includes

Personal objective in providing a witness statement on the LLRC report was that someday the individuals ideas with regard to the recommendations will be

published and implemented


19/37

Page | 19

To produce statistical evidence with regard to the destruction caused by theterrorists. However, the LLRC report did not talk about the Sinhalese people.

Expected the Chairman of the LLRC to influence the President to deliver peace and reconciliation and to create a better society in Sri Lanka.

Share their experiences regarding the civil war

In order to prove that various allegations about the Tamil community werewrong. For example, there were claim that the LLRC was against the Tamil community - to prove this wrong

During the past years there was a great deal of injustice that was caused towardsthe Tamil community by many governments. The main objective in providing thiswitness statement was to point out facts that would help to improve genuine ties

with the minority. The recommendations that have been addressed with regard tothe minorities are good and should be implemented without further delay

To find a solution to the national crisis

The generation of bold unilateral gestures by the Sinhala polity towards theembittered Tamils, especially the youth

The international community can only support but cannot deliver peace and reconciliation. Peace and reconciliation can only be delivered by Sri Lankans

themselves. That was precisely what the LLRC was charged with providing a road map for. I expected the Chairman, in particular, to be able to influence thePresident.

9 respondents said that the LLRC report fulfilled their expectations, 10 said that it didnot while 3 said they were fulfilled to a certain extent.

LLRC report and recommendations

21 out of the 25 respondents were aware that the LLRC report had been made public.The following statements were given and respondents were asked to select thestatement with which they agreed the most regarding the report.


20/37

Page | 20

Graph4 - Which of the following statements do you agree with?

Respondents had obtained copies of the report from NGOs, the internet, the LLRC staff directly, from friends or place of employment.

Graph 5 - What is your opinion about the LLRC recommendations? (Can select more thanone answer)

18

4

6

4

6

2

1

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

They are practical

Some recommendations are not very realistic

Exceeded my expectations

Fell short of expectations

They did not include/address se veral crucial issuesor did not address them adequately

Only some of the recommendations should beimplemented

I do not know what the recommendations are

No answer

9

3

5

2

3

2

0

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I have read the LLRC report completely or have readmost of it

I have read about all/ most of the report contentsthrough a booklet or document about the LLRC

I have read the sections relevant to me/ of interestto me in the LLRC report

I have read about the sections relevant to me/ of interest to me through a booklet or document about

the LLRC

I have not read the LLRC report but I know all ormost of its contents through awareness from other

people/ media

I have not read the LLRC report but I know thecontents of the sections relevant to me/ of interest

to me through awareness from other people/ media

I do not know anything about the contents of theLLRC report

No answer


21/37

Page | 21

Most respondents believe that the recommendations are practical with some statingthat the recommendations exceeded their expectations, while some said that therecommendations did not address crucial issues or that some were not very realistic.

When asked to explain the reasons for their opinion on the recommendation, thefollowing was stated by the respondents

The reason being that actions taken with regard to re-settlement of refugees,elections, structural development and actions taken with regard to demining tooare a success. This is a commission that has been appointed by the government.Hence, the government is liable to abide by the recommendations mentioned therein. However, solutions with regard to the political solution in the country have not been fully addressed.

The general public is unaware of what the LLRC is all about. Therecommendations cannot be understood by people as the details are too in depth.It should be presented in a more simplified way.

What we expected was a report, not peoples ideological attitudes. The main problem with regard to the LLRC is that it is working under a certain ideology.

While certain NGOs such as CPA and NPCdefine the recommendations on power devolution according to their own ideas, when considering the conditions set forthin those recommendations, we see that they can be put into action. All other recommendations can also be implemented.

Most were practical and implementable by a committed leadership

Since I was somewhat cynical about the entire process, happy that at least somerecommendations were made that would address the grievances of Tamil people.

The report does not contain anything regarding the injustices committed towardsthe Sinhalese. This is a serious crime. I cannot agree with the LLRC report due tothe unfairness caused by it to the Sinhalese people.

Recommendations with regard to reconciliation and good governance aresatisfactory. However there are certain shortcomings in the sections relevant totruth and accountability.

The reason (Some recommendations not realistic) being that certainrecommendations mentioned in the LLRC only target the minority communitiesand emphasises on ethnic conflicts. Furthermore, the topic of power sharing isirrelevant.

If there are any recommendations that can be duly implemented, such

recommendations have to be put into to force. However, if there arerecommendations that cannot be implemented, then we need to find out as to why


22/37

Page | 22

these cannot be implemented and create a system and work around it and produceour findings to the international community and gain/build their trust.

The commission did not address the crucial issueof the need for the state toinvestigate alleged war crimes. However, they included important areas not included in the TOR such as the urgent need for identification and location of missing persons, expeditions return of property and land to individuals which wereacquired by the state as high security zones, the need for the state to issue a publicregret to the nation for the destruction to the life and the property as aconsequence of the war.

Most of the LLRC recommendations are easily implemented if the will to do so isthere.

Apprehensions based on reported statements of a few Commissioners prior to thehearings, were largely dispelled by the seemingly genuine attempts made to assessthe real situation. Seemingly beneficial recommendations lacked specificity leaving room for procrastination, delay and ultimate disregard. The unlawful incarceration of General SarathFonseka and the wholly indefensible 18 th Amendment were apparently unaddressed.

Commitment of the Government

Respondents were asked if they believed that the Government was fully committed toimplementing the recommendations of the LLRC. Only 4 respondents said yes while 15said no. 6 said that they believed to a certain extent that the Government was fullycommitted.

One respondent who answered yes believes so because of the actions taken with regardto resettlement of refugees, elections, structural development and demining have been asuccess.

Those who said no stated the following reasons

The government lacks dedication/ responsibility in implementing therecommendations mentioned In the LLRC

The LLRC was set up to please the international community and as a solution tothe western pressure with regard to human rights violations etc. However thisdoes not give solutions to the problems faced by the country. Therecommendations mentioned in the LLRC are not being put into practice by the government.

Recommendations that could be easily implemented have not been implemented.For example, he national anthem is not sung in both languages. What is being


23/37

Page | 23

implemented is totally in contrast to what is in the LLRC. The action plan does not consist of anything of substance.

Up to now the government has not shown adequate progress in fulfilling therecommendations of the LLLRC. Every measure taken up to now has been only asuperficial attempt to show the world that they are implementing the required reforms.

The keep it as a buffer for international safety and the LLRC is used to counter attack from the accusations. They appointed a task force and allocated funds inthe budget but not at all interested in the implementation process.

The initial response to the report was not as expected, being a Commissionappointed by His Excellency, I was under the impression that sooner the final report was out, that the Government will immediately implement therecommendations on a short term, medium term and long term basis.

The Government set up the LLRC only to please the international community and not due to any commitment to address the issues facing the country. Furthermore,as the LLRC recommendations have gone beyond the objectives set for them by theGovernment, I doubt the current Government will implement them.

Respondents who said they only believed to a certain extent that the Government was committed put forward the following reasons

The LLRC does not indicate the destruction the LTTE caused to the socio-economicstatus of the country and the report does not indicate the Tamil influence on thenation. Hence, the Government of Sri Lanka is not committed in implementing therecommendations. However, there are certain recommendations that have beenimplemented via the Government, the Parliament and, the President.

Sri Lanka may be victims of international influence as the commission came tobeing as a result of international pressure. Hence, its sceptical to a certain extent on the governments commitment in this regard.

There are no direct, clear policies or actions that can be seen with regard toshortcomings in the Constitution and addressing issues faced by minorities.However, on certain other issues we can see that an effort is being made to find clear solutions.

Respondents who said that they did not know or were not sure about the Governmentscommitment said

I do not know whether the Government is committed to implementing therecommendations but I do not believe that all the recommendations need to beimplemented. The reason is that the Commission has gone beyond their mandate.


24/37

Page | 24

Some of the recommendations in the report are short term while some are longterm. We can say that the LLRC was granted the liberty to makerecommendations. The President is not bound to implement them. Somerecommendations have been implemented they are implemented through the

Government, through the Parliament, through the Executive. The LLRC has not recognised the socio-economic impact that the LTTE and Tamil nationalism hashad on Sri Lanka.

Thoughts about the LLRC

Following are some thoughts about the LLRC that were stated by some of therespondents

LLRC and its recommendations is one positive step the government has taken thus far, putting into force the recommendations would be an advantage to the citizensof the country as it would pave the way for a better future.

The issues that we face a nation are not like the issues that the Indians or theSouth Africans face. The LLRC report does not mention one word about theSinhalese. The report does not mention about the efforts of Western nations tobuild the LTTE.

The LLRC report should be a teaching tool for civil society. The LLRC comprised of

peopleof high intelligence and who have held high positions. The report containsmoderate ideas. The fact that our society has moderate people must beappreciated. This is something that is hidden in society and it must be brought out.

The recommendations mentioned in the LLRC are nothing close to solving theethnic crisis in the country. Therefore instead of taking time discussingrecommendations that are of no use it is best to find out and discuss solutions tothe difficulties and unfairness faced by the Tamils of the country.

There are recommendations in the report to provide Government offices in areasoutside the North and the East with translators to help the Tamil citizens with theissues they face with regard to the Sinhala language. However, the Tamil languageis the administrative language in Government offices in the North and East whichcauses difficulties to the Sinhalese living in those areas and there were norecommendations made to provide translators regarding this.

The LLRC presentsinformation with regard to the Tamil and the Muslim IDPsbutdoes not mention Sinhalese IDPs.

I personally feel that this is a fair report. The need to strengthen the unity amongst the Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese is mandatory. We as a community should leaveno opportunity for any kind of division amongst these ethnic communities.


25/37

Page | 25

The LLRC report includes recommendations that are not relevant to the mandate such as power sharing and the setting up of independent commissions.

The LLLRC recommendations are impartial despite being severely constrained by the TOR and the close allegiance of the members to the government. However, they have chosen to omit the crucial issue of war crimes which is a grave omission.

The LLRC should have been used to generate the opinion that society as a whole,especially Sinhala elites were responsible for Tamil militancy. However no such feeling of wider social responsibility after the LLRC report, and Tamil peoplecontinue to feel alienated.

Even though the Government is not interested in the implementation the NGOshave to take these to the grass root level. I have also not seen the religious leaderstaking interest in the implementation process and they need to be enthused about it so that they in turn may take down the line.

The recommendations of the LLRC are a starting point, which would show theinternational community that Sri Lanka is prepared to put things right. In my evidence i had highlighted the question of religious intolerance. Today this hascome to the forefront. It is important that this matter be looked into very critically or the outcome will be far greater than the 30 year war that ended in 2009.

Despite the fact that the war is over, reconciliation and peace for which the LLRC was established still elude us. The prevailing situation is hardly any better thanthat which prevailed during the thirty year war. State condoned terrorism hasnow replaced LTTE terrorism. Further no meaningful action has been taken on thespecific recommendations of the LLRC.

LLRC commissioners set out a framework and strategy not only for achieving themission for which they were appointed but also for Sri Lanka to save faceinternationally and get accepted as a State now reformed. However the leadershave missed the boat by their foolish response strategy to date.

I did speak of the disappearance of the 9 priests and more especially of Rev. Fr.Francis Joseph who surrendered after the war in May 2009 and people have seenhim at the camp but now he is missing. I spoke of the concept of restorative justice it is paying compensation for the victims and the perpetrators also be punished.But these recommendations have not figured in the final report. With my recommendations I expected a solution to the national crisis.

I wanted the LLRC to generate the opinion that society as a whole, especially Sinhala elites were responsible to some extent for Tamil militancy. It is in thissense of collective culpability that led to the rehabilitation of the JVP and the

greater inclusion of rural Sinhala youth in our society. There is no such feeling of


26/37

Page | 26

wider social responsibility after the LLRC report (or very little) and Tamil peoplecontinue to feel alienated.

The Reconciliation and Peace, for which the LLRC was particularly established,seems to elude us. The prevailing situation is hardly better than which prevailed during the 30 year war. One cannot be blamed for believing that state condoned (if not sponsored) terrorism has replaced LTTE terrorism. No meaningful actionwas taken on the specific recommendations contained in the Interim Report of theLLRC. Did the LLRC honestly believe that their final recommendations will betreated any differently?

This report was written from a Tamil nationalist ideological perspective.


27/37

Page | 27

LLRC Workshop Participant Survey The following are opinions of 1500 workshop participants from 25 districts. Their agegroups are:

Below age 21: 11.3%

Age 21 35: 39.6%

Age 36 50: 31.7%

Age 50 65: 14.3%

Age 65 and above: 3.1%

Which statement best describes your interest in the Lessons Learnt and ReconciliationCommission prior to this workshop?

Prior to the workshop, majority of the participants (44.4%) had a little interest in the

Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission while 24.9% said that they had a great deal of interest.

District wise, workshop participants with a great deal of interest in the LLRC were fromthe Kilinochchi (43.3%), Mannar (55%) and Mullaitivu (55%) districts. A highpercentage of participants from Gampaha (56.7%), Kalutara (56.7%) and Matale(46.7%) districts said that they had no interest in the LLRC prior to the workshop.

24.9

44.4

23.6

6.9

0.1

A great deal of interest

A little interest

No interestNo answer

Don't know/Not sure


28/37

Page | 28

Some say that the Governments Action Plan to implement the LLRCrecommendations is inadequate. Do you agree?

29.7

32.3

4.1

3.9

7.9

16.7

4.9

0.5

Completely Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Completely Disagree

I am not aware of thegovernments Action PlanNo Answer

The Government of Sri Lanka released a National Plan of Action to Implement theRecommendations of the LLRC 1 in July 2012, in response to the final LLRCrecommendations report. The Action Plan is been categorised under five themes International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights, Land Return and Resettlement,Restitution/Compensatory Relief and Reconciliation. Implementation details for theselected recommendations include activities, key responsible agency, key performanceindicator and a time frame for each activity.

Majority of the workshop participants believe that the Governments Action Plan toimplement the LLRC recommendations is inadequate, with almost 30% stating that theycompletely agree that it is inadequate.

Participants with the least amount of faith in the Action Plan were from Mannar(73.3%), Gampaha (55%) and Kilinochchi (51.7%) districts while around 20% of participants from Ampara, Matara and Puttlam districts said that they disagree with thestatement that the National Action Plan is inadequate.

1http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201207/National%20Plan%20of%20Action%20_%20LLRC.pdf


29/37

Page | 29

Do you think the Government of Sri Lanka is fully committed to implementing therecommendations of the LLRC?

11.1

46.9

35

6.9

Yes

No

Dont Know/ Not Sure

No Answer

Almost 50% of the workshop participants do not think that the Government is fullycommitted to implementing the recommendations of the LLRC. When asked why theythink so, those who answered gave reasons such as translations of the final LLRC report not being made available in Sinhala and Tamil, there being no tangible evidence of recommendations being implemented and general lack of faith in Government appointed commissions and reports.

Looking at the opinion district wise, 88.3% of participants from Mannar district do not think that the Government is fully committed to implementing the recommendations,while 81.7% from Kilinochchi and 70% from NuwaraEliya agree with the same. Thehighest percentage of those who think the Government is committed to implementingthe recommendations were from Trincomallee (28.3%), Monaragala (25%) and Kegalle(23.3%) districts.

What do you think is a realistic time period for the implementation of recommendations?

13.7

18.7

21.6

20.1

15.7

10

0.1

Less Than Six Months

Less than One Year

In 1-2 Years

2 5 Years

More than 5 years

No Answer

Dont Know/ Not Sure


30/37

Page | 30

Workshop participants were fairly divided on a realistic time period for theimplementation of recommendations. Around 20% said less than one year, 21.6% saidone to two years and another 20% said two to five years.

36.7% of workshop participants from Mannar said less than six months, another 35%from Mannar said less than one year, 36.7% from Monaragala said in one to two years,46.7% from Kandy district said two to five years and 66.7% from Ratnapura said morethan five years.


31/37

Page | 31

CHAPTER - III

Annex 1 Questionnaire for LLRC Witness Survey

Questionnaire for people who gave testimonies

D1. Age:

D2. Sex:

D3. District of residence:

1. Please list the three most critical issues you are facing at present

a. .......

b. .......

c. .......

2. In your opinion, what was the purpose of the Lessons Learnt and ReconciliationCommission?

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

3. How did you first hear about the LLRC?

a. Media

b. Family member/ Friend

c. NGO/ Community group

d. Other (Please specify) ..................

4. What was your primary source of information for news and updates about the LLRC ? (If media, please mention the name(s) of the newspaper/television/radio channel)

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................


32/37

Page | 32

5. Are you aware that the LLRC final report has been made public?

a. Yes

b. No

6. Which of the following statements do you agree with?

a. I have read the LLRC report completely or have read most of it

b. I have read about all/ most of the report contents through a booklet ordocument about the LLRC

c. I have read the sections relevant to me/ of interest to me in the LLRC report

d.

I have read about the sections relevant to me/ of interest to me through abooklet or document about the LLRC

e. I have not read the LLRC report but I know all or most of its contents throughawareness from other people/ media (Go to Q8)

f. I have not read the LLRC report but I know the contents of the sections relevant to me/ of interest to me through awareness from other people/ media (Go toQ8)

g. I do not know anything about the contents of the LLRC report (Go to Q8)

7. From where did you get a copy of the LLRC report/ booklet or document about theLLRC?

.................................................................................................................................................

8. What were your expectations when you gave your testimony to the LLRC?

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

9. Did the final LLRC report fulfil these expectations?

a. Yes

b. No

c.

I do not know the contents of the report


33/37

Page | 33

10. Do you think the Government of Sri Lanka is fully committed to implementing therecommendations of the LLRC?

a. Yes

b.

Noc. Dont know/ Not sure

11. Please give a short explanation for your answer to Q10.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

12. What is your opinion about the LLRC recommendations? (Can select more than one)

a. They are practical

b. Some recommendations are not very realistic

c. Exceeded my expectations

d.

Fell short of expectationse. They did not include/address several crucial issues or did not address them

adequately

f. Only some of the recommendations should be implemented

g. I do not know what the recommendations are

13. Please give a short explanation for your answer(s) to Q12.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

14. Some say that the Governments Action Plan to implement the LLRC recommendations isinadequate. Do you agree?

a. Completely agree


34/37

Page | 34

b. Somewhat agree

c. Neither agree nor disagree

d. Somewhat disagree

e. Completely disagree

f. I am not aware of the Governments Action Plan

15. If you have any further comments about the LLRC please state them below.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................


35/37

Page | 35

Annex 2 Questionnaire for LLRC Workshop Participant Survey

Questionnaire for LLRC workshop participants

D1. Age:

D2. District of residence:

D3. Occupation:

1. Which statement best describes your interest in the Lessons Learnt and ReconciliationCommission prior to this workshop?

a. A great deal of interest

b. A little interest

c. No interest

2. What is your opinion about the LLRC recommendations? (Can select more than one)

a. They are practical

b. Some recommendations are not very realistic

c. Exceeded my expectations

d. Fell short of expectations

e. They did not include/address several crucial issues or did not address themadequately

f. Only some of the recommendations should be implemented

g. The LLRC recommendations should not be implemented

h. I am not aware of the LLRC recommendations

i. Dont know/ Not sure

3. Please give a short explanation for your answer(s) to Q2.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................


36/37

Page | 36

4. Some say that the Governments Action Plan to implement the LLRC recommendations isinadequate. Do you agree?

a. Completely agree

b.

Somewhat agreec. Neither agree nor disagree

d. Somewhat disagree

e. Completely disagree

f. I am not aware of the Governments Action Plan

5.

What do you consider to be the most important recommendations in the LLRC report?...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

6. Do you think the Government of Sri Lanka is fully committed to implementing therecommendations of the LLRC?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Dont know/ Not sure

7. Please give a short explanation for your answer to Q6.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

8. What do you think is a realistic time period for the implementation of recommendations?

a. Less than six months

b. Less than one year


37/37

c. In 1 2 years

d. 2 5 years

e. More than 5 years

9. The following statements are about the translations of the LLRC report. Please select thestatement that you agree with the most.

a. Sinhala and Tamil versions of the LLRC report was released by the Government in December 2011

b. Sinhala and Tamil versions of the LLRC report was released by the Government one month after the English report

c. Sinhala and Tamil versions of the LLRC report was released by the Government six months after the English report

d. Sinhala and Tamil versions of the LLRC report was released by the Government eight months after the English report

e. Sinhala and Tamil versions of the LLRC report was released by the Government one year after the English report

f. Sinhala and Tamil versions of the LLRC report has not been released by theGovernment yet

g. Do not know/ Not sure

10. If you have any further comments about the LLRC please state them below.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

Sharing Experiences from the islandwide Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC (English)

Documents

Transcript of Sharing Experiences from the islandwide Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC (English)