an update: cpa report on trincomalee

as you may know if you have been reading this blog. i have advanced evidence to show the bias of statement issued by centre for policy alternatives(cpa) on 21st. I have also advanced evidence to show that it was in fact a partial plagiarism from one of dbs jeyaraj's blog posts. so far i am yet to see any evidence to the contrary here or at moju where this is discussed.

it has since emerged that cpa has published (on 26th or later, a fact not mentioned in website, though it is dated 21st)a report purporting to be the report on which earlier statement was based. this new report while answering my questions regarding the availability of the actual report of the so called 'fact finding' and clarity regarding whether the all signatories of earlier statement actually took part in the 'fact finding'(they did not), fail completely to answer other questions raised.

all the other questions i raised regarding representativeness, the transparency , and methods, used in that 'fact finding mission' still remain valid for this report as well. they are yet be answered for earlier statment.

evidence i put forward showing bias of earlier statement with regard to content and recommendations is still valid for that statement and this newly published report.

to be fair, this new report does use the word 'unconfirmed' more often before putting forward allegations and it states that 'Most of the people we spoke to in the town , who were mostly tamil or non Sri Lankan'.

however that only raises the question as to why was that uncertainty almost completely dropped when cpa issued the earlier statement if that was based on this as it was implied? is this more evidence for bias and selective fact finding when releasing that earlier statement?

in this connection it is of importance to note that earlier statement was used by tamilnet and others as propaganda almost immediately after its publication.

in the same way plagiarism charge is still valid for earlier statement. in fact earlier statement has more in common with the jeyaraj's post than this report except for the recommendation part.

for instance in case of hatton national bank this new report details an attempt to attack the teller machine but earlier statement was shown to have plagiarized the paragraph containing the reference to hatton national bank from from jeyaraj word to word.

given that no significant effort has been made so far to disprove the charges of bias and plagiarism,
and given that almost all questions raised regarding the earlier statement are valid with regard to new report as well,
we are left with no other option but to doubt the bona fide of cpa and its motivation.