Lonely Planet 'hotspot' workers demanding minimum wage, beaten up by police

A PROTESTER SHOUTS SLOGANS DURING THE PROTEST DEMANDING A PAY RISE FOR PLANTATION WORKERS - OCT. 24, 2018, COLOMBO

By Athula Vithanage-POST 26 OCTOBER 2018

---

Police beat up members of the plantation community who protested in Sri Lanka’s capital demanding a daily minimum wage of five dollars while their workplaces were celebrated by a top international travel publisher as tourist hotspots. 

The protest was the largest mass gathering in the country convened through social media, primarily by the sons and daughters of plantation workers.

D

ACTIVIST ANTHONY JESUDASAN

ressed in black, protesters descended on Colombo in their thousands from hill country tea plantations hundreds of kilometers away.

Several of those plantations were promoted by Lonely Planet as “Top Experiences” for tourists in Sri Lanka, which has been named the best country in the world to visit in 2019.

Workers of all those estates were making the same demand for almost three years; A daily minimum wage of one thousand rupees.

Police violence

On October 24, plantation workers came to Colombo hoping to hand over their demands to President Maithripala Sirisena after talks broke down between trade union leaders and plantation bosses.

After nearly seven hours of waiting where no official was available to hear their grievances, the protesters launched a sit-down protest opposite the president’s office in Galle Face.

Around 7 pm street lights were switched off and riot police dropped in.

“Unlike in other protests where an official coming to meet representatives and accepting a memorandum containing demands, what we received was police violence,” said activist Anthony Jesudasan speaking to JDS.

Police used batons, tear gas and water cannons to disperse the workers, family members and activists.

THOUSANDS OF BLACK-CLAD PROTESTERS GATHERED AT GALLE FACE GREEN IN COLOMBO - OCT. 24, 2018

---

In the face of rising cost of living, workers have been requesting a minimum wage of LKR 1000 for nearly three years.

Most recent talks broke down after the Planters' Association was only prepared to raise their salaries by another hundred rupees (USD 0.05). 

SUNIL POHOLIYEDDA

Ministers as union leaders

The workers were frustrated with their trade union leadership, who have a promised to take the matter up with the president. Many of those leaders are powerful ministers in the ruling coalition.

“Why can’t they take up the issue with the president at the weekly cabinet meeting?” one angry worker asked journalists.

“That is why we came to Colombo giving up the waiting for three months; To hand over our simple demand to the leader whom we voted to be president.”

President of the Planters Association Sunil Poholiyedda says that the industry was incurring heavy losses making it difficult to meet the workers demand.

“Give us the pay we deserve, and we will make the industry profitable and get the country also out of this debt trap,” said a worker at the protest.

Workers also demand the scrapping of the collective agreement between unions and plantation owners on wages, work conditions and welfare, which is due to expire this month.☐

© JDS

A failed Fanta Morgana

 Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Fanta Morgana is the highbrow term for a rainbow. After the failed rainbow it sounds exquisitely exotic.

We must not allow politics to provoke our moral outrage. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is a magnificent political conjuror. After his re-election he jailed his failed opponent. The one who beat him on his third bid delivers the boodle to his doorstep.

I undertake this essay to enlist your support to ensure that the Government that was led by Ranil Wickremesinghe survives this challenge. This is not about keeping him in office. This is about using the opportunity of the 360-degree somersault of Sirisena our President to infuse a modicum of decency in to our democratic discourse. We must rejoice that it happened and use it for course correction.

The outrage expressed by the President over Ranil Wickremesinghe’s role in the Central Bank bond issue is feloniously farcical theatre. He dissolved Parliament before the D.E.W. Gunasekera findings could be published.

A day before Parliamentary elections in August 2015 he moved the finishing tape closer to the UNP by going on air that the former President MR would not be invited to form a government no matter what. When he did all that, he knew that there had occurred a funny fracas in the vaults of the Central Bank. Now he has decided to waltz out as the only virgin left in the ‘Yahapalanaya’ bordello.

I hold no lantern, torch or candle for Ranil Wickremesinghe. In an article captioned ‘Promises, perceptions and performance’ published in Daily FT on 26 January 2015 I wrote: “It is difficult to comprehend the urgency in appointing a Governor of the Central Bank for a term that extends beyond 100 days when the more transparent option would have been to appoint the most senior Deputy Governor for a short-term pending the implementation of good governance parameters which would include the selection of the Governor of the Central Bank.”

In a subsequent article published in Daily FT of 20 March 2016 which I sardonically captioned ‘In more submissions in defence of Arjun Mahendran,’ I likened the appointment of three UNP lawyers to investigate the bond deal to the search of a black cat in a dark room.

I said: “The current situation is exceptional. It calls for civic mobilisation around the values of a people’s democracy. The nation is not privy to the whole truth about who made what decisions. Daya Pelpola and Ronald Perera are not the best qualified to tell the nation the details. We can observe the writing on the wall. As we get closer we should be able to decipher the scrawling. The grafting of the oligarchy to political power over the last decade has fundamentally altered the values in public life.”

My credentials as a sceptic of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s politics are impeccable.

Although I find the politics of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa disastrous and offensive, I appreciate the logic of his design to access power at the earliest possible hour.

He is the President who won the war. The imperialist West and dollar-greedy human rights NGOs denigrate his patriotic achievements by claiming that it was a war without witnesses. That cannot be true.

That said, now he wants to cobble up a coalition or a caretaker government without witnesses while Parliament is prorogued.

On Monday we saw why it is necessary for the Parliament to be prorogued. The grandson of D.S. Senanayake appeared at Temple Trees from whence his illustrious ancestor rode out on horseback to die of a stroke at Galle Face Green. He was there to assure his colleagues and leader that his loyalties were with the party and under no circumstances will he desert the party.

Later in the evening he was sworn in as a Minister of the Cabinet in which Mahinda Rajapaksa is the Prime Minster. The President who was the common candidate backed by the UNP is the Head of the Cabinet.

Now you must remember that legal interpretations are done by a great legal mind, a jurisprudential scoundrel if ever there was one. The grandson is not in breach of his solemn promise made in the corridors once graced by his grandmother Molly!

Obviously, the great grandson is deeply attached to the imagined legacy of a noble ancestry – a clear pointer to a medieval mind. He seems seduced by the praise heaped on his honorable ancestors by the president, who himself has adopted a style of hugger mugger clandestine political maneuvering more suited to a Moghul or Ottoman court.

Let us cut to the chase. Why is Parliament prorogued? Because the road to fascism runs through the forum of the people. Silencing Parliament is the first requisite of a fascist experiment. You must ignore Vasudeva Nanayakkara.

Leon Trotsky identified the Vasudeva types in his tract ‘Their morals and ours’. “To appeal to abstract norms is not a disinterested philosophic mistake but a necessary element in the mechanics of class deception.’ He wants Parliament prorogued to reassign seats in the House. Mastery of Marxist morality needs more grit than a daintily coiffured silvery beard.

We must return to the theme of this essay. Constructing a coalition with lights switched off with fat wallets discharging a blinding light.

You must remember that Mahinda Rajapaksa was not a despot. History may or may not repeat. But it sure instructs. Powers of the earlier MR presidency were freely given by the people. That is the way it works. Timothy Snyder, a Harvard scholar has traced the road to populist serfdoms which are a sign of our time.

Anticipatory obedience is political suicide. Yet that is what we do. We think ahead of what a repressive rule could do. Then, we offer without being asked. We saw the hill country Parliamentarian who put a shawl round MR earlier in the day going back to Temple Trees and assuring his party colleagues that he would never abandon the tribe. Then he shuttles back and is sworn in as a minster. The earlier shawl draping was an expression of anticipatory obedience.

When we abandon facts, we abandon our freedom. As Timothy Snyder points out, when nothing is true, no one can criticise power because there is no basis for us to arrive at the truth. When nothing is true we have to be satisfied with the spectacle.

Is it not what we are doing, immersed in a spectacle since last Friday when a nationalist progressive Cardinal received a godsend in the form of a Sinhala synonym for Judas Iscariot?

Constitutional Coup: How to save Sri Lankan democracy ?

2018-10-30

This is not the first time that the powers of the executive presidency that were deemed to be a source of stability were abused to serve the whims and fancies of the holder, effectively plunging the country into the depth of a political crisis. J.R.Jayawardene’s arrogance sowed seeds of a nation- wide political turmoil that overshadowed much of his second term, and Chandrika Kumaratunga’spalace coup in 2003 ingloriously ended her cohabitation government with the UNP.  Last Friday, the incumbent of the office of presidency went an extra mile to wreak havoc. President Maithripala Sirisena scandalously sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa, his one- time boss, then the nemesis and now again the friend, in the post of Prime Minister. Constitutionality of his action is hotly debated and is open to interpretation. However, military-grade secrecy that shrouded the whole affair raises serious questions about basic civility and morality of his action and of the man himself. His subsequent prorogation of Parliament betrays sinister mechanization, which are gradually taking practical expressions as of now.   

According to the Article 46 of the Constitution,‘the Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he—   

46. 2 (a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or   

(b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament ‘ or   

48. (2)‘Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government.’   

Under such a condition, the President shall appoint a new Prime minister, who ‘in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament’ (article 42 (4) and 48 (1) and the Minister of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers .   

The legal opinion that supports the removal of Mr. Wickremesinghe is the interpretation that the departure of UPFA from national government on Friday, effectively ceased the function of the Cabinet of Ministers. Nonetheless, the practical question is whether the exit of the UPFA caused the Prime Minister to lose the confidence in Parliament. That can only be tested in a vote in the House. Instead, President Sirisena, who on two previous occasions within this year tried (and failed) to remove the Prime Minister, used this opportunity to appoint MR, as the Prime Minister.   

His action is contentious and polarizing at best, and undemocratic and unconstitutional at worst. He could still have mitigated the degenerative effects of the political crisis he himself caused, had he let Mr. Rajapaksa to prove that he commanded the most confidence in Parliament. He did not do that. Instead he prorogued Parliament. As a result, now there are two parallel governments.   

If he genuinely believes his Prime Minister appointee commands the most confidence in Parliament, the question of prorogation does not arise. In truth, UPFA even with the support of the CWC could command the support of only 97 members in Parliament. That is a long way from securing a working majority of 113. In comparison, the UNF has 106 MPs. There is also a crucial block of 16 MPs of the TNA who are more inclined towards the UNP than the Rajapaksas. The JVP which has 6 MPs has decided to remain neutral. A few of the UNP MPs could well sell their vote to the highest bidder. M/s. Vadivel Suresh and Ananda Aluthgamage have expressed interest in pole vaulting, though the former had since changed his mind.   

That is where the sinister logic of the prorogation comes to life. Prorogation is meant to buy time to secure a sufficient number of cross overs from the Opposition. Mahinda Rajapaksa has deep pockets and a chequred history of buying MPs. Any bribery commission worth its salt should investigate this insidious affair.   
The three week period until the convening of the House is now being put into to good use to capture the state and consolidate the grip in state institutions, often through the use of thuggery. The national television, Rupavahini went off air during its forcible takeover by the UPFA supporters. Editors and independent journalists of Lake House were terrorized and chased away during the weekend.   

Political violence that has been kept at bay for the last several years is raising its ugly head. Two men were killed on Sunday in a clash involving rival political groups. Rights activists, especially in the North are bracing for a new phase of state violence. Intimidation would further radicalize Tamils. Also a government that lacks constitutional legitimacy would find it hard to defend Sri Lanka in international fora.   

In his address to the nation on Sunday, the President made a lame effort to justify the sacking of the Prime minister. His speech was a load of loaded words and personal attacks and a practical explanation of his self-serving ploy. Nor did he explain how Mr. Rajapaksa whom he accused of manifold corruption, atrocities, and previously spoke of likelihood of he himself ending under six feet, had he lost the presidential election, suddenly become an ideal companion.   

Sri Lanka is in political turmoil due to the President’s selfish mechanization to secure a second term. He vouched in his inauguration speech not to seek another term and later changed his mind. He aspired to be the common candidate for yet another time. The UNP refused to accommodate him. Since then he began making overtures to the Rajapaksa acolytes in the Joint Opposition. The unsaid agreement behind his Friday ploy was that he would be the SLFP nominee for the presidential election supported by Mr. Rajapaksa, who in return gets the post of Prime Minister.   

How this gamble will play out is to be seen. For it to succeed, his constitutional coup should go unchallenged in court, in Parliament and outside. Second, MR should stick to his side of the bargain. Most likely, the President would be taken for a nasty ride by the shrewd Rajapaksa/s.

Whether Mr. Rajapaksa commands the confidence in Parliament is untested. Numbers suggest he does not. This in other words makes him an imposter of the office of Prime Minister -- Just like his pick of a Chief Justice, Mohan Silva, whom he appointed after he sacked legitimate Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike. 

International community has moral responsibility not to recognize his government unless or until , its majority in Parliament is proven in a vote. If that majority is achieved through extra-Parliamentary/ extra judicial means that would further erode his legitimacy. That the foreign envoys (except the Chinese ambassador who met both M/s.Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa) have so far shunned Mr. Rajapaksa and President Sirisena betrays the reservation on the part of the international community. Irrespective of self -interested articulations of cave- minded patriotism by a few, the people of this country deserve the help of the civilized world, if their painstakingly achieved democratic reforms are to be defended.   

The game plan of the Joint Opposition, of which a captive the President has become, is clear. It could consolidate its grip through the state capture and lavish inducement for Opposition MPs to crossover. If it fails to secure enough votes, the President may be persuaded to prorogue Parliament again. At the end, the Vote on Account that the JO plans to present could well be defeated in Parliament. This would prompt the President to dissolve Parliament, leading to snap elections.

However, JO members appointed as the ministers of Rajapaksa government would have recourse to hold on to their ministerial portfolios, thus enabling them to utilize the state machinery for electioneering. Both Sri Lanka’s main parties have a track record of abuse and misappropriation of public property during the elections.   
Submitting an impeachment motion against the President would prevent him from dissolving Parliament. That would nonetheless further aggravate the political crisis since the UNP could not garner the two third majority needed for the impeachment of the president. Yet, that would tie the President’s hand.   

There is,however, a silver line. Institutions that had been empowered under the 19th Amendment could prove that they could tame the absolutism of a self- serving presidency. RanilWickremesinghe, Opposition leader R. Sampanthan and JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake have requested the Speaker to reconvene Parliament. The Speaker should use the powers vested with his office and the doctrine of necessity to avert the further slide of the country into political chaos. That would enable the elected representatives of the people to resolve the current political crisis through a vote.   

The Speaker should act now. Time is fast running out. If he waits too long, democracy in Sri Lanka would bleed to death. 

 
Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter 

THE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS PRESIDENT AND THE POLITY NEED TO ANSWER

by Jehan Perera-October 29, 2018, 12:00 pm 

The dismissal of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe following the withdrawal of the SLFP headed by President Maithripala Sirisena from the government alliance has become yet another source of instability within the polity. It has also caused international ripples with the governments of many countries publicly expressing their concerns and the UK issuing a travel advisory to its citizens to be careful when travelling to Sri Lanka in the near future. Therefore the sooner this crisis is resolved the better it will be for the country. It is to be hoped that all parties concerned will act with restraint. The desire to corner the other and utterly defeat it can be a cause for further instability that outlives the present crisis.

The main issue at stake is the transfer of power from one government to another and this needs to be done in conformity with the Rule of Law or else the longer term consequences can be catastrophic. In his first address to the nation after the change of government, President Maithripala Sirisena explained his motivation in sacking Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. He spoke of corruption, an assassination plot against him and the sale of national assets to foreign parties, among others. These were all serious issues. But he did not mention the issue that was considered the elephant in the room during their period of cohabitation. This was a contentious issue, to which the answer is still far from clear, as to who would be the presidential candidate on the government side.

It is now generally believed that President Sirisena is not interested to adhere to his one-time promise to be a single term president. The increasingly contentious relationship between the president and prime minister, and their two respective parties, the SLFP and UNP, made it unlikely that either UNP voters or UNP leaders would have wanted him to be the beneficiary of their votes once again. But if contesting the presidency is his ambition, then President Sirisena will have a challenging task ahead. He will need to restore the confidence of the people that he has acted wisely and in conformity with the Rule of Law which exists to ensure social peace and justice.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

In his speech justifying his action in sacking Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, the president gave much emphasis and spent most of his time in elaborating on his abhorrence of corruption. However, he failed to explain why he had appointed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister when he had accused him of abuse of power, violation of human rights and corruption in the past. During the past three years, during which time President Sirisena has been head of state, and chairs the meetings of the cabinet, the former president and his close asssociates were regularly assailed for having engaged in corruption, abuse of power and violation of human rights during their period of supremacy in the country. Some of the former president’s close family members had corruption cases filed against them in the courts of law and even had to spend time in remand custody. These cases are likely to get stalled if not thrown out in the present circumstances.

It is worthy of note, and remembrance, that President Sirisena was elected in 2015 by the votes of people who rejected corruption, abuse of power and human rights violations that had reached excessive proportions and had made Sri Lanka a virtual pariah state in the eyes of the international community. Just a week before he sacked Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, Sri Lanka had obtained first place in the world for being the best country to visit, on account of its enjoyment of democratic freedoms among others. Chief amongst those who campaigned for presidential candidate Sirisena at those elections was Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. But on Friday last week, even as the courts of law closed for the weekend, and no immediate recourse to them was possible, he appointed his former nemesis as the prime minister and thereafter sacked the man who had campaigned for him.

Dr Asanga Welikala who teaches law at Edinburgh University has analysed the events on Friday evening in the following manner - "Indeed, the whole set of circumstances suggest not the way a change of government ought to occur in a democracy, but the sharp practices associated with a constitutional coup, which is likely to lead to a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional coup because the serving Prime Minister has not legally ceased to function in office before a new Prime Minister has been appointed. And it will lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis because there are now two competing Prime Ministers and their parties jostling for power, authority, and legitimacy at the very heart of the state."

Although most Sri Lankans are unlikely to be able to express themselves in this analytical and concise manner, they seem to have imbibed its essence in much the same way. Many of those who are supporters of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, and admire him for his leadership and what he did to defeat the LTTE, do not agree with the way he became prime minister. This was the case in Colombo, Badulla and Negombo from which I got first hand anecdotal reports.

In the North and East of the country, which experienced the three-decade long war, there is also concern that the promises made by the government in terms of return of land, release of detainees and finding of missing persons and reform of the constitution will not happen. Over the past three years the people there have been complaining that the changes are too slow and they want them speeded up. A few weeks ago, President Sirisena pledged that all civilian-owned land in the North and East that is under military occupation would be returned by the end of the year. The president was even specific that it would be December 31 when all land was returned. But there is now doubt that this promise will be delivered on.

BUILD UPON

The concerns of the ethnic minorities about the new government formation is not limited to the North and East. This may account for the fact that the leaders of nearly all the ethnic minority parties have continued to stand by Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and support his position that he continues to be the legitimate prime minister. They appear to have accepted the position that his sacking was not in conformity with the constitution. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has contested his dismissal, and the appointment of a new prime minister, on the grounds that it does not conform to the 19th Amendment to the constitution. The 19th Amendment specifies that the Prime Minister can only cease to hold office by death, resignation, by ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, or if the government as a whole has lost the confidence of Parliament by a defeat on the throne speech, the budget, or a vote of no-confidence.

Legal opinion is divided on this matter and the final arbiter will necessarily have to be the Supreme Court. The legality of the Prime Minister’s dismissal needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Apart from questions of law there is also the question of democratic process. The changing of governments and leaders is part and parcel of democracy. But due process needs to be followed, the constitution must not be violated and the Rule of Law must prevail when such changes take place. Despite violent conflicts in the past, Sri Lanka can take pride in the fact that transfer of power to successive administrations was achieved through democratic electoral processes.

The practice of democracy requires consultation with the general public and transparency in decision making. The secrecy in which the president’s decision to sack the Prime Minister was made with no transparency so much so that it caught the country’s people, and most of the government, by surprise was not in the spirit of democracy. Parliamentary democracy is a public process not a secret enterprise. Therefore the president’s action in proroguing parliament until November 16 is unacceptable in democratic terms. The discussion that is taking place all over the country, on the streets, in workplaces and in people’s homes, needs to be taken to parliament. The most urgent need is for parliament, as the supreme law making body, to meet and find ways and means to resolve the crisis. The president needs to heed the imperatives of democracy, the need to follow due process and reconsider his decision to prorogue parliament till November 16.

How Mahinda Rajapaksa became the Prime Minister (solved)

Please read with an open and objective mind. The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is not the property of politicians, professors, justices or lawyers. It is the property of the people of Sri Lanka and we the people have the right to read, understand and apply the Constitution without bias. Following is the order of events and relevant Constitutional articles by which the new Prime Minister

 Wednesday, 31 October 2018

 was appointed:
1. The National

Government ends
46. (5) For the purpose of paragraph (4), National Government means, a Government formed by the recognised political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups. – The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist

Republic of Sri Lanka (Page 42)

Application: As per the above article, the National Government which was formed between the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party was ended with the formal withdrawal of the SLFP from the National Government, as per its constitutional definition.
2. Cabinet of Ministers ends

42. (1) There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic. – The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Page 40)

Application: As per the above article, when there is no government, there can be no Cabinet of Ministers. Therefor with the ending of the National Government, its Cabinet of Ministers ceases to exist constitutionally.
3. Prime Minister’s

tenure ends
46. (2) The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he –

(a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or

(b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament. – The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Page 41)

Application: As per the above article, since the Cabinet of Ministers ceased to exist, MP Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Prime Ministership too ended simultaneously and constitutionally.

4. Appointing of a new Prime Minister by the President

42. (4) The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. – The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Page 40)

Application: As per the constitution, the President appointed MP Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister. Therefore it can be concluded that the appointment of the new Prime Minister was legitimate and constitutional. Your questions and challenges are answered below.
Frequently

asked questions


Q: Where does it say in the Constitution that the Government will end when one party leaves the National Government?

A: The Constitution does not spell out common sense. The basic premise of the “National Government” as per the Constitution 46, is that it is has more than one party working together. When one of the two or more parties withdraw, that original Government is no more. It’s common sense. However, the UNP could have signed a new agreement with another one or more party and form a new National Government, which they have not done.

Q: What about other parties in the National Government?

A: The National Government was formed by signing an agreement between the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Therefore when SLFP formally withdrew, the National Government ended.

Q: Where does it say in the Constitution that the Cabinet of Ministers will end with the ending of the Government?

A: 48. (1) On the Prime Minister ceasing to hold office by death, resignation or otherwise, except during the period intervening between the dissolution of Parliament and the conclusion of the General Election, the Cabinet of Ministers shall, unless the President has in the exercise of his powers under Article 70, dissolved Parliament, stand dissolved and the President shall appoint a Prime Minister, Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers in terms of Articles 42, 43, 44 and 45 (The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Page 43) As per the above article, the Prime Minister may cease to hold office by death, resignation or “OTHERWISE ”. The Prime Minister ceased to hold office NOT by death or resignation, BUT by a reason OTHERWISE, which is the ending of the Cabinet of Ministers which was in turn caused by the ending of the National Government as explained above in points 1 and 2.

Q: Shouldn’t MP Mahinda Rajapaksa prove that he has a majority support in the Parliament to be appointed as the Prime Minister?

A: As per the Constitution 42, it is entirely the President’s decision to appoint an MP who he/she opines is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. There is no mentioning of “majority” or “support”.

President Maithripala Sirisena used this exact constitutional power to appoint MP Ranil Wickremesinghe immediately after he was sworn in in January 2015; while an elected government with a functioning Cabinet of Ministers was in office.

Q: But isn’t the President unable to remove the Prime Minister according to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution?

A: There is no such wording in the Constitution stating that the President is not allowed or is unable to remove the Prime Minister. There is a document being circulated on Social Media called ‘A Brief Guide to the Nineteenth Amendment’ by the Centre for Policy Alternatives dated May 2015. It is a list of proposals that were made by the authors back in 2015.

However no such amendment was made to the Constitution. The relevant amendment is Article 46 (2) (which states that) The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he –

(a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or

(b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament.

Therefor it is a gross misleading of the public to say that the 19th Amendment does not allow the President to remove the Prime Minister.

Q: Shouldn’t this all be decided in the Parliament?

A: The President could have let the Parliament form a new government after the National Government ended with the SLFP’s withdrawal, but he is not bound to do so constitutionally. Given the extraordinary circumstances leading to this event, he may have decided not to let the Parliament decide.

Q: But then isn’t it undemocratic?

A: Sri Lanka’s democracy is structured between the Executive Presidency, the Parliament and the Judiciary due to a variety of reasons. The President is an elected representative as much as the members of the Parliament are. Given that the members of Parliament can crossover, it does not fully honour the people’s mandate, and therefore cannot be considered as a fully democratic institution. However, this is a good example of the reason why we need to strengthen the Parliament as a full democratic institution through genuine constitutional amendments.

Q: Aren’t you a supporter of MR just trying to whitewash this?

A: I am an ordinary citizen who believes in and promotes democracy. As a citizen I have the freedom to hold and express any political view as I wish, a right given to me by the Constitution 10. (2) No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any one of such grounds.

I am a strong supporter of the Constitution 1. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a Free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic and shall be known as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. I am a strong supporter of the Constitution. 2. The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State. Therefore I strongly stand against the internal and external forces acting against the preservation of above constitutions. I do not see this as a win by Mahinda Rajapaksa. I see this is as a legitimate and timely defeat of the forces acting against Sri Lanka.

(The writer is Ambassador for Democracy Earth and can be reached via eranda@democracy.earth.)

UNP holds protest demanding democracy

2018-10-30

The United National Party (UNP) today staged a protest near the Temple Trees in Kollupitiya urging President Maithripala Sirisena to uphold democratic values and to reconvene Parliament immediately to resolve current political issues. Pix by Nimalasiri Edirisinghe 

Sri Lanka: TNA leader questions Rajapaksa

We are witnessing the serious breakdown of democracy in our country – TNA to MR

---

( October 30, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Veteran Tamil politician has questioned the unprecedented move of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, de-facto Prime Minister appointed by the President Maithripala Sirisena in a “constitutional” coup, during the meeting held in the morning, a reliable source in Tamil National Alliance told the Sri Lanka Guardian.

“We are not going to accept the President’s decision as well as the unpleasant political move of the former and incumbent Presidents. Our leader, Rajavarothiam Sampanthan, has questioned Mr Rajapaksa over this unprecedented acceptance to be the de-facto Prime Minister of Sri Lanka,” the source said.

During the discussion TNA leader suggested the de-facto Prime Minister Rajapaksa saying that “if you wait for the election, you could have easily get the handsome mandate from the people than involving with this sort of political turmoil”.

“We are witnessing the serious breakdown of democracy in our country and our leader expressed the need of reconvening the Parliament immediately,” the source added.

Stand with Ranil: Fight against Sri Lanka’s Bolsonaro Moment

Wednesday, 31 October 2018

The appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister at the discretion of President Sirisena was unconstitutional.

The argument advanced by people like Professor G.L. Peiris, that the withdrawal of the UPFA from the Joint Government unseats the sitting Prime Minister, is inadequate, due to a very important Constitutional provision – that it is the person with a clear Parliamentary majority who is entitled to be Prime Minister.

As many commentators have noted by now, Sirisena had other options if he was so keen to unseat Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, such as defeating the 2019 Budget.

As this writer noted in an article written hours after the ‘coup’ happened, there is a precedent to this kind of power game, in the November 2003/February 2004 decisions made by President Kumaratunga.

However, as clarified in the same article, Kumaratunga did not violate a single provision in the Constitution. There was absolutely no limit on executive powers at the time.

Today, we are in post-19th Amendment Sri Lanka, and let’s not forget that the President is obliged, by oath, to abide by the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Sirisena has clearly not done so, and has hence grossly violated the Constitution.

At this point of time, all citizens of Sri Lanka need to take stock of the violent consequences of Sirisena’s actions.

One fellow citizen is dead. A few others injured in the same incident are in serious condition.

State television and radio corporations have been taken over, using mob violence, in the most undemocratic, un-ceremonial and shameless manner.

Reports also indicate that Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a man known for his violent disposition, is behind organising violent mobs to take control of State-owned departments, ministries and corporations. Individuals known for their disregard for the rule of law such as Kamal Gunaratne and Suresh Saley have been given responsibilities in these violent missions.

If no action is taken and Mahinda Rajapaksa remains Prime Minister, it will set an extremely bad precedent, that political power can be grabbed through shady deals and coups, with zero regard for the Constitution of the 2nd Republic and the rule of law.

If Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans can be proud of one thing, it is our system of democratic governance. Irrespective of the multitude of problems associated with that system, Sri Lanka has had a functioning democracy, elected governments, structures of local government, and broad conversations on issues such as the devolution of power. Even at the height of a secessionist war, this ‘system’ remained functional.

Under the present circumstances, the first priority that we should all stand for, is for Parliament to be reconvened at the earliest possibility.

Once Parliament is reconvened, the person with a clear parliamentary majority can remain Prime Minister.

Supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa MP should clearly take note of an absolutely vital point: that this is NOT about Mahinda becoming Prime Minister. Instead, this is about our democracy, our Constitution, our institutions, and the rule of law.

The recent descent into violence, mob attacks at State bodies, and violence against private citizens are clear signs that the very epicentre of democratic governance is at risk.

This writer, like many others, upholds a stern critique of neoliberal political models. However, it is necessary to remember that no such critique can be advanced if our democracy and institutions are at stake.

Hence the vital importance of reconvening Parliament.

A clear risk of reconvening Parliament is that violent mobs directed behind-the-scenes by a ‘caucus of evil’ composed of Gotabaya/Kamal Gunaratne/Suresh Saley and others, might prevent MPs from entering Parliament premises. This writer hears in the political grapevine that this is currently a key concern at Speaker’s Office.

The problem, then, is of very high magnitude. It is therefore a national priority to stand with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and call for Parliament to be reconvened.

It is also important for everyone with a concern for Sri Lankan democracy to resolutely stand against the mob violence currently being unleashed in Colombo.

Our international partners, except, unfortunately, China and Iran, have done it right, by supporting Prime Minister Wickremesinghe.

Given the sorry nature of this power grab, and even if Mahinda Rajapaksa eventually succeeds in demonstrating a Parliamentary majority, it is essential for a general election to be called at the earliest possibility.

This is due to one single reason: we do not want State power – in one of Asia’s oldest democracies and in a place where the Constitution and the Rule of Law ‘matter’ – to go to the hands of vain and mediocre village thugs whose only priority is to establish a dynastic dictatorship.

As Brazil is hit by the Bolsonaro effect, we must never lose sight of the dire consequences of supporting extremism, majoritarian nationalism, all hues of chauvinism, and leaders who thrive on discriminatory discourses. We do not want a Sinhala-Buddhist Bolsonaro to rule over us, limit our fundamental rights and freedoms, and dehumanise many of us who do not fall into what they consider as superior.

(The writer is a political analyst and the author of ‘Decolonising Peacebuilding: Managing Conflict from Northern Ireland to Sri Lanka and Beyond’.)

Political Crisis Continues Breaking the good in governance

Ranil Wickremesinghe addresses supporters at a rally which was organised by his party in Colombo yesterday in protest against his removal as Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (Pic by Nimalsiri Edirisinghe)

2018-10-31


Much has been spoken and discussed about and debated on regarding the existing political quagmire. With many ifs and buts, the President has started to act in such a manner that the entire nation is confused at the moment. While many took to rejoicing on the streets, the prevailing situation doesn’t seem to be a reason to rejoice at all. One life was already taken away. Legal experts claim that the move to remove the existing Prime Minister was unconstitutional and taking another dangerous step forward, the President also prorogued Parliament till November 16. The Cabinet too is in the process being subject to change in a possible move to manipulate the majority vote. Those who voted in favour of the Yahapalanaya regime on January 8, 2015 wouldn’t have expected this turn of events. But the damage has already been done and whether it is reversible or not remains the question. Hence the Daily Mirror spoke to several experts to shed light on the prevailing situation.

Political Crisis Continues ... by on Scribd

Constitutional Coup Or Crisis – Questions & Answers

By Mass L. Usuf –OCTOBER 30, 2018

Mass Usuf

The announcement of the appointment of Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister and the removal of the sitting Prime Minister Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe last Friday, 26 October 2018 was a shock to the nation. All are now talking about politics, law and democracy. The partisans on either side of the divide are calling the removal and appointment as constitutional while the other side is screaming that it is unconstitutional.  There is another lot who unable to distinguish between what is political and legal are swimming against the current adding to the confusion. It is surprising to see some who are considered to be ‘legal experts’ also in this lot.

My interest in writing this column has to be explained. Firstly, I must confess that I have no political affiliation or inclination towards either of our defacto and dejure Prime Ministers or their respective parties. Secondly, my allegiance is to democracy and democratic principles. I am aware that these values have received a battering in our country nevertheless, we must all cling on to it.  

Looking around, I find many people in a state of uncertainty unable to understand the constitutional legality of the matter. With this in mind, I developed a question and answer approach to the issue to help the average person understand.  In certain places, I have provided an opinion of my own.

Question No. 1: What are the duties and powers of the President in the Constitution?

Answer: Article 33. (Relevant excerpt).  The duties in relation to the Constitution is stated as follows: 

“(1) It shall be the DUTY of the President to –

(a) ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld;”

(2) The President shall have the POWER –

“(h) to do all such acts and things, not inconsistent with the 

provisions of the Constitution or written law, as by 

international law, custom or usage the President is authorized 

or required to do.”

Article 33. (1) is simple and very clear. As far as 33 (2) is concerned, the President has no power to act contrary to the constitution. If he acts in such a manner, can that be argued to be abuse of power?

Question No. 2: Does a citizen have the duty to defend the Constitution?

Answer: YES. Article 28. states in relation to Fundamental duties:

“It is the duty of every person in Sri Lanka –

(a) to uphold and defend the Constitution and the law;”

Therefore, it is a fundamental duty of every person to defend the constitution. 

Question No. 3: What is a National government?

Answer: Article 46. (5). “National Government means, a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups.”

Question No. 4: What are the salient features of this Article 46. (5) on national government?

Answer: The salient features are:

• Formation of a government
• By the Party which has highest number of seats 
• Together with other political parties or independent group

Question No. 5: Who is eligible to form a National government?

Answer: Article 46 (4). (Relevant excerpt). “The recognized political party which obtains highest number of seats in Parliament forms a National Government.”

Question No. 6: What does the constitution provide in a situation where a political party pulls out of the National government?

Answer: The constitution does not provide for this because common sense shall prevail. The National government is formed at the call of the party which has the highest number of seats in Parliament. If any party pulls out of the government, the government shall continue so long as the party which has the highest number of seats can demonstrate its majority in parliament.

Question No. 7: What is the relevance of the National government to the Cabinet of Ministers?  Why is it relevant?

Answer: The relevance of the national government to the cabinet of ministers is only with regard to the increase in number of Ministers in the Cabinet under a national government and, nothing else.

Article 46. (4).  (Relevant excerpt).  “where the recognized political party which obtains highest number of seats in Parliament forms a National Government, the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers, ……. ,  shall be determined by Parliament.”

Why it is relevant is because if it is a non-national government under Article 46 (1) (a) and (b) the number in the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 30 and 40 respectively.  In the case of a national government an exception to this made by Article 46 (4) where the parliament shall determine the number in the Cabinet of Ministers.

Question No. 8: Can the numbers in the Cabinet of Ministers change?

Answer: Yes, it can. Article 43. (3) (Relevant excerpt).  “The President may at any time change the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers.”

Question No. 9: Does any change in the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers dissolve the Cabinet?

Answer: No. It does not dissolve.

Article 43. (3) (Relevant excerpt). “Such changes shall not affect the continuity of the Cabinet of Ministers and the continuity of its responsibility to Parliament.”

Question No. 10: Is it correct to say that the cabinet stands dissolved because a party or parties have pulled out of the national government?

Answer: It is not correct. The Cabinet is a vital government organ. Even when the Parliament is dissolved the Cabinet shall continue as per Article 47. (1) “The Cabinet of Ministers functioning immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament shall, notwithstanding such dissolution, continue to function..”

Read More