Northern Women and Social Change 

A Busy street in Jaffna

2018-01-15

Everyday life in the post-war North moves from trouble to trouble, from debt to abuse to violence. Women bear the brunt of this crisis; their labour and time are exploited, their meagre earnings are siphoned off by loan sharks, they are expected to make ends meet for their families and their bodies are subject to control. Yet, there is no vision or leadership for social rejuvenation as both the Tamil leadership and the state ignore this reality.

Labour and debt

Conditions of labour in the war-torn regions are worse compared to the rest of the country. Trade unions have not functioned for decades, and workers’ rights are violated by employers and are not a public priority. The deteriorating conditions for workers affect women the most; when they are not organised, women workers are exploited along class and gender. Retail shops to sea food companies pay women workers a pittance – sometimes just four hundred rupees for a hard day’s work – and abusive conditions of being constantly yelled at to sexual harassment are rampant. For agricultural work, women often get half the wages of men.
With sub-poverty incomes women are expected to care for their dependants, whether children or elderly parents. However, care-work in the homes means they cannot go out for employment. Women’s participation in the labour force is extremely low in Jaffna and the North and East more broadly. According to the Labour Force Survey 2016, labour force participation is 75.1% for men and 35.9% for women in Sri Lanka. 

"As we think about such social transformation in the North, let a hundred movements bloom. "

In Jaffna, however, men’s participation is 70.5% and women’s participation a mere 21.9%. For women to enter the formal labour force with regular and long working hours there is a need for formal day care and elderly care services. Alternatively, women’s arduous labour in their homes should be recognised and compensated, particularly when they have multiple burdens of caring for their children, elderly parents and disabled family members. In this context, a range of “livelihood” initiatives for home-bound women with loans provided by the state and NGOs have only increased their debt. These ridiculous projects of raising livestock to self-employment schemes of tailoring and handicraft fail within the first year. They cannot find the cash to feed goats, chicken often die of diseases and viable markets for tailored and handicrafts products 
are lacking. 
As domestic financial problems increase, women pawn their jewellery – the primary rural liquid asset – even as they desperately seek work. Older women look for casual labour, domestic work and petty production at home, while younger women tend to seek employment in the newly formed exploitative garment factories in the north or opt to migrate for work in the free 
trade zones.  As incomes fail, many lose pawned jewellery and are eventually trapped into predatory micro finance loans. Micro finance companies only target women for their loan schemes, as it is much easier for them to recover loans from women through intimidation and abuse. Day to day survival requires loans, loans, and more loans.

Culture and oppression

A discourse of cultural deterioration dominates Tamil society with women and their bodies seen as preservers of Tamil culture. Most social and economic problems in the North, including drugs, alcohol, and indiscipline, are attributed to cultural deterioration. Preserving culture supposedly protects women and secures their families. Such conservative discourses place women under tremendous social pressure to limit their movement, curtail their social interactions and dress in prescribed ways. These restrictions are claimed to both prevent the advances of men and vouch for their chastity. In other words, the social blame for abuse, separation and deprivation ultimately falls on women.
A new religiosity dominates post-war Tamil society with much social investment going into temples. While caste is central to the social setting of temples, women participate in temple festivals and carry through numerous periods of fasting. Young women with health problems avoid seeking healthcare as it has implications for their marriage prospects. 
Women also fulfil social obligations of organising and attending weddings and age-attainment ceremonies. As with any other religious practices, Hindu religious practices and discipline are driven by a variety of factors and have numerous implications for those involved. The post-war shift in temple life in the North has to be studied carefully for its caste and gender implications. 

Mobility and representation

Is higher education and employment the way forward for women? The increasing levels of women’s education and along with high levels of war-time out migration of men manifests in the growing presence of women in higher education and official positions. According to the University Grants Commission, in 2015, of 6,665 students enrolled at the University of Jaffna, 4,290 were women, making 64% of the university student population. Moreover, of the 26,474 government officials employed in the Jaffna District in 2014, 43% were women. In other words, there is a positive shift in women’s higher education and official employment as in the rest of the country, but this may not necessarily change the social situation of women. With the local government election now in full swing, and the 25% quota for women, the election of women to positions in local government will increase women’s representation. However, once elected, women’s issues may continue to be side-lined with women representatives undermined by the entrenched patriarchy within political parties and local governments. Furthermore, social institutions in the north, including co-operatives, community centres and village societies, continue to exclude women from leadership. In other words, without a powerful women’s movement, electoral representation may not change the situation of social leadership and women’s issues marginalised.

"While remaining in the most oppressive working conditions, women play an active part in the economy, family and social life of the communities. Yet, they are held back from making progress in politics and political leadership"

Towards social transformation

As we hope for post-war social transformation, I would argue that such change can only come through a radical break in the two most important and entrenched social structures in the north; caste and gender. While caste relations have dynamics specific to Jaffna and the North, the challenges before any women’s rights movement are no different from the rest of the country. National movements and their solidarity remain crucial.
A recent statement by a new women’s group, the Liberation Movement, challenging leftists in radical political spaces where women face harassment and exclusion, had the following to say:
“Women in fact have been in the forefront of political and social transformation. They have actively participated in the struggles to reclaim land and other resources, in protests against privatisation and damaging development projects and to fight for better working conditions. While remaining in the most oppressive working conditions, women play an active part in the economy, family and social life of the communities. Yet, they are held back from making progress in politics and political leadership. Our intervention on women’s liberation, therefore, is not limited to sexual violence. Nor do we see it as a problem specific to left politics. We recognize the emancipatory potential in anti-capitalist politics and the need for transforming social relations.” As we think about such social transformation in the North, let a hundred movements bloom. 

Sri Lanka: Presidential commission and criminal investigations

The criminal justice system is slow and works against the forces of both political power and public opinion. No one is guaranteed a desired outcome – only a fair trial. There are always two trials going on, one in the courts of law, and the one in the court of public opinion.

by Raja Wickramasinghe-Jan 14, 2018

( January 14, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It’s not easy to understand white collar crimes. The treasury bond issue, is not easily understood by ordinary citizens. Yet, the ordinary citizens have taken a keen interest in the treasury bond issue. It took centre stage in politics and the people followed the commission’s proceedings closely. Now the commission’s report is out and a summary of its findings and recommendations was made public by the President and it was stated in his public statement that the report was sent to the attorney general to take action on the commission’s recommendations.

The commission was not a criminal investigation. Pursuance of an investigation by a presidential commission and a criminal investigation has a profound effect on what ultimately happens. It comes down to the powers – or lack thereof – available in each process. This situation was explained clearly by the President’s statement. The commission can only identify the wrongdoers. That done, the commission’s mandate ends there. It has no power to punish the wrong doers. That process is left to the criminal justice system.

As far as the powers of investigation are concerned, the commission has the most power, because there the investigators can force anyone to answer questions, explain their action and produce any document. This was clearly seen during the proceedings of the presidential commission. Those powers are not available to prosecutors before the court of law, which make criminal cases much harder to prove. Defendants can refuse to testify and can’t be compelled to answer questions. By law the accused are provided certain rights and protection. The witnesses have to stand the test of cross examination by the defence.

To punish the wrongdoers the state needs to institute legal action against the wrongdoers identified by the commission. The state legal and prosecuting officers have to go before court and prove the accused persons guilty. To be successful, criminal cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt while at the commission, the cases must only achieve reasonable probability that the crime has occurred.

The attention is now focused on the attorney general’s department. The attorney general’s role is crucial for successful prosecution and conviction of the wrongdoers and recovery of undue profit earned. The state prosecutors are supposed to prosecute the cases neutrally and dispassionately. The state needs to follow due process, the rights and protection afforded to the accused limit the role of the prosecutors, while the defence can assume a much expanded role in defence of the accused, afforded rights and protection. The absence of due process is not primarily about depriving the accused of their rights, it could bring a “political show trial” in reverse.

The criminal justice system is slow and works against the forces of both political power and public opinion. No one is guaranteed a desired outcome – only a fair trial. There are always two trials going on, one in the courts of law, and the one in the court of public opinion. The verdicts can be strikingly different.

The law involves the human rights and freedom. The constitution – the country’s ultimate law, is based on perhaps the biggest mutual accommodation of all: the balance of individual rights and freedoms against the needs of society to govern it. These rights and freedom need to be taken seriously in spite of personal frustrations as the criminal justice system is the arbiter of truth and the truth seeking process.
The fundamental freedom under the law is guaranteed in the constitution. A trustworthy criminal-justice system is central to freedom and democracy. It needs to survive the political power and to withstand powerful public opinion. The rule, that convictions must be based on independent credible evidence may protect the guilty. But it protects something greater: the kind of society we live in – a system based on the fair trial.

The widespread disappointment following accused people escaping punishment, when they deserve to be punished, comes primarily from wrong expectations about what the criminal-justice system can properly deliver. The heart of the justice system stands against any predetermination. It is fine for those upset about such alleged offences to stand together. It is not fine to do so in ways that could subvert the justice system itself. Nobody would be surprised in this truth seeking process, if the outcome did not meet the truth the people desire.

The rule of law and democratic governance are two great achievements– both under growing stresses. The rule of law matters to a functioning society and security. If lost, a great deal will be undermined or destroyed. In a political world where facts seem to matter less, a world of fake news and demonstrably outrageous lies, people must become more alert to the foundations and importance of the rule of law and the criminal justice system.

The politicians, both in power and the opposition give endless interpretations to the commission’s findings and the recommendations, though none have read the report yet. Politicians are only interested in either protecting or grabbing power. The politicians and highly placed individuals use state power to protect them, not society. It was the rule of law, the criminal justice system, not politicians and highly placed individuals that protected the society. We need to pay attention to how well our criminal justice system is working,

However, at the heart of the frauds and corruption is the near-inability to punish offenders. Lack of necessary laws is a serious issue. They flout the law with impunity. The penalties imposed for the crime of fraud and corruption have not reflected the seriousness of these crimes and their impact, which only exposes more weaknesses in the system.

New tough laws need to be introduced to punish them in a meaningful way. They must be legally forced to surrender their ill-gotten gains. Anti-corruption activists were urging the government to introduce stringent laws to curb fraud and corruption for the last three years. It’s difficult to predict how long the government will take to do it, despite the recommendation of the commission.

Others say bluntly that the system isn’t working, and they’re right. In fact, it is so ineffective. Someone may get a few months in jail or are fined, and nothing happens to their ill-gotten gains. Their total take in the cases may be estimated at billions of rupees as revealed in the recent presidential commission report – straight out of the people’s pocket.

The presidential commission has recommended a forensic audit examination of the treasury bonds issued since 2008, as during its investigation evidence has surfaced of similar incidents having occurred during the period 2008 to 2014. The government’s approach to this recommendation needs to be watched closely. It was often found difficult to pursue the tortuous and hard trails of these frauds.

Even if the accused are found and punished, it will not be easy to recover the ill-gotten money. Pursuing the trails of corrupt politicians and individuals, especially those with high placed friends, and corruption committed with overseas connections is never easy. They hide the money moving them offshore. The cost to chase this money around the globe is hard, expensive and time consuming. Yet, it’s the people’s money; it needs to be found at any cost.

DEATH IN POLICE CUSTODY: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION’S URGENT ACTION CALL

Image: Police brutality is widespread and uncontrollable in Sri Lanka ( Image shows how policemen assaulted a  Tamil youth killing him in sea some years back)

14/01/2018

Can a nation that calls its island territory a ‘Dhamma Dveepa’ dare tolerate indiscipline and cruelty by the guardians of society? In recent decades such indiscipline and cruelty was rampant, thanks to political dispensations that manipulated both laws and security agencies to force through their diktat and secure regime survival. Today, that is changing, although the disease seems endemic.

The Human Rights Commission’s swift response to the latest death of a person in State custody – a teenager at that – clearly demonstrates that the newly empowered Commission, sensitive to our civilizational norms, is pro-active in its own role in this endeavour to recover humane governance.
The HRCSL, once reduced to almost a ‘rubber-stamp’ agency during the previous era of autocratic government, is now calling for a supplementary judicial mechanism dedicated to deal with the continued problem of deaths in custody. This is in addition to action already being taken by the higher authorities in the Police and, the Law & Order Ministry in response to last week’s tragedy in the heart of Colombo.

Last week, the news media highlighted the case of a 17-year-old boy – a minor – found dead inside the Pettah Police Station in Central Colombo. The boy, reportedly from Haputale, was seemingly ‘found hanged in his cell’ by police personnel on Thursday. He had been taken into custody on Wednesday on a charge of possession of cannabis.

Our readers are, sadly, not unfamiliar with the phrase ‘died in police custody’ and the often related phrase ‘found hanging in his cell’ or similar news reportage. Our news media has been reporting such incidents for decades. Studies and investigations by civic rights groups in the country that have focussed on such incidents since the 1970s, reveal that far more such deaths occur than the number actually reported in the news media or, even formally complained about by aggrieved kin of victims.
Certainly, the frequency of such reports has worsened whenever regimes became more autocratic and deployed security agencies to impose political repression. And, since autocracy has, inevitably, been accompanied by corruption, public institutions, including the police, have been lethally infected by such corruption.

If such corruption meant that our police cadre became compromised with bribery, the secrecy and clandestine culture of such corruption and autocracy also resulted in the police becoming lax in its own law and order duties. The secrecy of counter-insurgency action also contributed. Justice no longer needed to be seen to be done.

Dis-empowerment of the guardians has been compounded by under-resourcing of their institutions. As the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has repeatedly pointed out, the failure to support and expand the professional and institutional forensic capacities of the Sri Lanka Police has also added to the recourse to brutality by law and order personnel.

Cowed by political intimidation, demoralized by bribery by social elites and mafia, their institutions impoverished and disrespected, police personnel often take easy recourse to confessions rather than pursue investigations with little or no equipment or facilities. The pervasive authoritarian culture in recent decades encouraged forced ‘confessions’, especially, when tough counter-insurgency laws condoned secret detentions and encouraged reliance on confessions.

The judiciary also suffered from the same autocratic and corrupt pressures and influences, and sometimes, went along with such unacknowledged practices. ‘Bending’ the law became the norm and not the exception.

After a build-up by previous governments and yet sustained by corrupted institutional elements, such webs of secrecy and cruelty cannot be easily cleared. The government, especially, the Law & Order Ministry, has realized the enormity of the challenge even as it has begun taking steps to respond.
Almost immediately after reports of the death of the 17-year-old boy, the IGP and higher authorities acted swiftly to initiate a rigorous investigation. The Officer-in-Charge of the Pettah Police has been transferred and concerned station personnel are on notice. A Deputy Inspector General of Police has been asked to oversee the probe.

But, given the prevalence of such deaths in custody and the failure in earlier times to adequately address this problem by action within the Police system, an internal probe is clearly not enough. The lack of prosecutions in the vast majority of such cases over the decades and, light sentences or even acquittals in many cases heard, are highly likely to have contributed to the continued occurrence of such tragedies.

Editorial

In the current era of a new sensitivity to human rights and social justice, the rationale, therefore, must be to provide for new procedures and mechanisms of inquiry and prosecution that cannot be stymied or constrained by the Police’s own inadequacies. It is unrealistic to rely on redress solely by the very institution whose personnel are the suspect perpetrators. Indeed, in terms of the State’s overall accountability, it would not be efficient or reasonable to continue with the same old procedures.
It is with this need in mind that the Human Rights Commission has called for a specially dedicated judicial mechanism to address deaths in custody. In this, the Commission is fully living up to its responsibilities and mandate. The Government, which has done much to empower the HRCSL, should give its recommendation serious thought and, quickly.
Editorial, Sunday Observor.

Neither Principle Nor Law In Our Politics: A Plea To The Police & The AG

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole –January 15, 2018

Threat to Law and Order

Note: Constitution, §104B(2):”It shall be the duty of the [Election] Commission to secure the enforcement of all laws relating to the holding of [Elections].” This article is an attempt to secure that enforcement.

The reputation of the police is at a low ebb – with viral videos of the IGP assaulting a person, an SSP convicted of murder, a former DIG implicated in the Jaffna school girl’s rape and widespread testimony of bribery on the highways. Election officials on duty who were assaulted at the 2015 elections are yet to receive justice because the AG refused to charge the assailants.

 

Yet, the ongoing elections are regarded as relatively problem free. That gain needs consolidation and reflects well on our people. However there are signs aplenty that prosecutions are rarely pursued with the intention of punishing violators because our big fishes are above the law. A stunning unpunished example is the PM’s National Sasundoya Program launched on 5 Dec. building 1000 Temples using state funds. Because this involves waving religious symbols at elections to buy or influence the vote of one community, and because it was done at a religious ceremony (with the PM bowing before monks and the photo circulated widely), this covers a multiplicity of sins – what the law calls “undue influence,” “corrupt practice,” “treating” and “bribery” –  making the PM liable to up to 6 or 12 months of RI (depending on the offence) or a trivial fine up to Rs. 500. The real bite, however, is that if he is convicted with even a 1 cent fine, for 7 years from the date of conviction he cannot vote or be a candidate; and if he has already been elected at the time of the offence, he shall be unseated. That would certainly send a loud message.

However, in Sri Lanka where politicians and high officials can speed without tickets, everyone, including the AG, will look the other way. Only small fry are punished to put on a show.

Fearful Police

We have come far after a long period of darkness with neither law nor order. The police are therefore fearful of victimization if they uphold the law. On the 11^th morning I dropped my son off at the airport and saw two huge posters at the exit on the parking lot fence – one promoted political heavyweight, Hon. Siripala de Silva, and the other some UNP candidates. I reported it and the Commission ordered its immediate removal. I was told it would have been done. Come nightfall, returning to Jaffna and curious, I detoured to see the two displays still up. I went to the Katunayake Police. They wanted an order in writing, which I issued and the OIC committed to removing it. I asked when. He said immediately.

Since when do the police need a written order to stop an illegal activity? It shows fear and wanting someone else to take the responsibility.

 

Religion in Politics

Recall that the prohibition on buying “undue influence” using religion is a part of our proud democratic heritage. Thus it was that Gamini Dissanayake was unseated by an Election Judge for holding a public election meeting at a temple in  Scrubbs Estate, Nuwara Eliya around 24.05.1970; and at the Mariamma Kovil of Ward No. 3, Hawa-Eliya, Nuwara Eliya around 16.05.1970; and for the offence of  corrupt practice by making false statements during the election against the SLFP candidate Tantalage William Fernando in relation to his personal character and conduct. 

Dissanayake’s appeal was rejected in 1971 by the Supreme Court. Fitting the times, his worshippers rewrite history that the vacation was only for the third offence.

Read More

Professor Indraratna: Economist who refused to bow to pressure

Prof. A.D.V. de S Indraratna


Pressure for Indraratna to withdraw his research findings

 Monday, 15 January 2018

It was the presidential election time in 2010. The incumbent President after a five-year rule and a conclusive victory over the Northern rebels had sought another term. Given his popularity, the Opposition had a tough time to penetrate the voter base in the country. Hence, they used every trick in the book to attack the incumbent candidate.

Professor Indraratna Economist who refused to bow to pressure.docx by Thavam on Scribd

LNG terminal in Colombo Port: Has Japan joined regional game of Chinese chequers?

Japan’s Foreign Minister Taro Kono

2018-01-15 00:33:41

The visit to Sri Lanka by Japan’s Foreign Minister Taro Kono (Jan 4 – 6) saw governmental confirmation of Sri Lanka’s first Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project. A statement from Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s office revealed that an MoU with Japan to build a Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit (FSRU) will be signed this week. The project to build the FSRU and LNG terminal will be a joint venture by Sri Lanka Ports Authority with both Japan and India, it is learnt. The Japanese partner will be a consortium comprising Mitsubishi and Fujitsu, while Petronet will be the Indian partner, according to sources at the Ministry of Development Strategies and Investment Promotion, which will sign the MoU on behalf of Sri Lanka. A new company will be formed with representation from SLPA and the Treasury to be the Sri Lankan partner in this venture the sources said.  

LNG is very new to Sri Lanka as an energy source. What makes LNG different from any other type of power project is that an LNG terminal would include docking facilities within a port, for the special tankers carrying liquefied gas. As a result, the strategic dimension of investment in a LNG terminal or FSRU by any foreign partner cannot be ignored. It is in effect an investment in port development. Sri Lanka’s LNG terminal is to be located within the Colombo port.  
The FSRU is actually a special type of ship. LNG is natural gas that has been converted into liquid form for ease of transportation and storage, which is converted back into its gaseous state after it reaches its market destination, and thereafter distributed through pipelines.   
Once Sri Lanka’s LNG terminal/ FSRU infrastructure is in place and becomes operational, pipelines from Colombo port will transport the gas to two dual-fuel power plants in Kerawalapitiya expected to be completed around 2021, according to Dr. Suren Batagoda, Secretary Ministry of Power and Energy.  

"Japanese envoys never fail to recall the speech made by JR Jayewardena at the San Francisco Peace Conference in 1951,where Sri Lanka came to Japan’s defence and rescue"

One will be built in partnership with the Japanese government and the other in partnership with government of India he said.  
Japan’s public broadcaster ‘NHK World’ described Kono’s visit as being “part of Japanese government’s plan to promote cooperation for port expansion projects.” Japan has contributed to the development of navigation facilities in Trincomalee port and has expressed interest in its further development, at various times. Kono’s low profile visit concluded with a tour of Colombo port, including the site for the East Terminal which is yet to be completed under the Colombo Port Expansion Project.Japanese media did not hesitate to report the port visit in the context of Japan’s concerns over China’s growing maritime footprint in the region. “China is increasing involvement in port development in Sri Lanka” reported NHKWorld, adding that “Before the port visit, Kono told reporters that projects to build ports and other infrastructure should be open to any country.”This was not reported locally because the port visit apparently was not open local journalists, with only Japanese media being present. Kono’s remark flagged Japan’s concerns over China’s major role in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure development. His Sri Lanka visit was part of a tour that included Pakistan and the Maldives –also states in which China has significant infrastructure investments under its‘Belt and Road’ initiative.  
At a media briefing with a selected group of local journalists in Colombo Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Press Secretary Toshihide Ando said Japan’s concept is “to develop free and open maritime order in the Indo Pacific region as an international public good,” and that “it is important that we have maritime cooperation in this region.” Asked about the status of talks regarding the development of Trincomalee port, he declined to comment.  

• MoU with Japan to build a Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit to be signed this week

• With Mitsubishi, Fujitsu Petronet will be the Indian partner

• Sri Lanka’s LNG terminal is to be located within the Colombo port

The increasingly anxious interest shown by Japan and India in investing in the development of Colombo and Trincomalee ports, is clearly related to concerns arising from Sri Lanka’s lease of Hambantota port to a Chinese company that holds a majority stake. The apparent loss of sovereign control over the port, strategically located near major East-West sea lanes,has led to fears that it may become a Chinese military base, in spite of Sri Lanka’s assurances to the contrary. “We want to ensure that we develop all our ports, and all these ports are used for commercial activity, transparent activity, and will not be available to anyone for any military activity,”PM Wickremesinghe stated in Tokyo last April.  
There has been in a shift in the orientation of Japan’s military, or ‘Self-Defence Forces’ as they are called, following the Abe administration’s amendment to the constitution in 2015 allowing them to be deployed in offensive operations that had been prohibited by Article 9 since the end of World War II. This has no doubt created the space for a more assertive Japanese foreign policy.  

"Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Press Secretary Toshihide Ando said Japan’s concept is to develop free and open maritime order in the Indo-Pacific region as an international public good"

As an island nation with scarce natural resources, Japan depends on maritime transport to obtain most of its requirements including energy, hence its concerns over access to sea lanes. Japan’s interests now converge with those of the US and India, and with China being seen as a common adversary, a closer strategic partnership has evolved among the three. Japan now participates in the Malabar naval drills with US and India, and uses US-type rhetoric with terminology like ‘Indo-Pacific’to refer to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, blurring the boundaries.  
Historically, Japan’s relations with Sri Lanka have been cordial. Japan has been generous with aid and is also a major development partner. During Sri Lanka’s war years Japan was one of the four co-chairs of the peace process, and when the Western co-chairs threatened to cut off aid Japan reassured Sri Lanka that it would not follow suit. Japanese envoys never fail to recall the speech made by JR Jayewardena at the San Francisco Peace Conference in 1951,where Sri Lanka came to Japan’s defence and rescue. “The Japanese still remember that this speech supported Japan’s return to the international society after the WWII,” the visiting foreign minister said in a written interview with an English daily ahead of his visit. One might say Sri Lanka’s relationship with Japan has been somewhat special.  

"The increasingly anxious interest shown by Japan and India in investing in the development of Colombo and Trincomalee ports, is clearly related to concerns arising from Sri Lanka’s lease of Hambantota port to a Chinese company that holds a majority stake."

Against this backdrop Japan’s interest in investing in Sri Lankan ports would normally be seen as a welcome development. But with India a partner in the proposed joint venture, and given the evolving strategic landscape, it would now appear to be embedded in a larger trilateral project of countering Chinese influence. This could mean there is a hidden cost, in that Sri Lanka risks being drawn into the eye of the storm in the event of an escalation in tensions between China and the US and/or India.   
Analysts tracking Japan’s role in shaping the regional security architecture acknowledge its more robust and independent policies, but also express misgivings.“The only question is how Japan will decide to utilize their naval power in the coming decades” writes Brian Kalan in a military analysis for ‘Southfront.’ “Will it be used in the pursuit of ensuring their independence and peaceful relations with their regional partners, or in the self-destructive pursuit of U.S. hegemony in the region?”  

Taking Parliament for a ride?

N Sathiya Moorthy
Chennai, 13 January 2018

In a way, it is the reverse of having the cake and eating it too. By calling a special session to discuss the Central Bank bonds scam probe report, and not making the report available to members, the Government seems to have pulled a fast one on not just the political Opposition of whatever kind, but on the nation and the collective intelligence of the people and institutions, alike and together.

It was but natural for any Opposition in the place of the JO and the JVP to have demanded a special parliamentary session to discuss the report. But possibly, the initiator of the demand too might not have dreamt of a situation wherein they would have the session but not the material to discuss and debate upon.

It sounds funnier at one end but a mockery of the system on the other when Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said that the Opposition wanted a special session to discuss the probe panel report and he had given them – but he could not be expected to present the Report to the House, as he did not have it. It was obvious that Wickremesinghe was telling the Opposition to ask President Maithiripala Sirisena if they wanted a copy of the report each, and not bother him anymore.

In a way, it sounds like a typical ‘good-cop-bad-cop’ situation, in which Sirisena first played the good cop on ordering the probe, in which Wickremesinghe and his Team UNP in the coalition Government were all bad men, not bad cops. And when the probe report is out, and the nation wants to know the details, the reverse is the truth. Or, so it seem.

But the truth seems to lie in between, and seems going beyond it all, too. It is thus anybody’s guess if the President, who directed the probe and chose the panel members, has since shared the commission report with the ‘real government’ under its care, with the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet holding ‘collective responsibility’ to the people and Parliament alike.

Calculated indifference

The calculated indifference seemingly displayed by the Prime Minister in Parliament could imply that he and his Cabinet colleagues, whichever party they belonged, may not be privy to the document, and officially so. If some of them, both inside the Government and outside, know more than what the nation knows, they may be Sirisena’s confidants and advisors, not otherwise. Or, so it seems.

Doubts in this regard only gets multiplied when Wickremesinghe’s UNP has gone to town saying that the President should have taken all government parties into confidence before seeking the Supreme Court’s determination on the length of his current term – six years as in the Constitution earlier, or the reduced five-year term, after 19-A that they had piloted and got passed through Parliament. Those were different times, different people, and in a distant space, it now seems.

Surely, the Prime Minister did not expect Parliament to debate the President’s statement to the nation on the probe panel report, or all that had already been known on the commission’s proceedings through media reports even as those very events were unfolding. If the issue was one of translating the English original into Sinhala and Tamil, as is otherwise mandatory, the JVP requisitionists of the special parliamentary session were ready to forego it all for once.

Yet, it defies logic how the Prime Minister still could have hoped for the Opposition to have accessed copies of the probe report, studied and understood the nuances to be able to debate the same forthwh. His own idea seemed to be giving Parliament the debate that the Opposition wanted but without any meaningful and purposeful debate.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya having already declared that it was for the Prime Minister to decide on special sessions of the kind, Wickremesinghe can now turn back and tell the Joint Opposition, the JVP and whoever else that demand a special session, that he had given them one, but they did not use the occasion and opportunity. That could also put paid to fellow UNP ex-Minister, Ravi Karunanayake’s demand for the special session for the very same purpose, but instead to clear his name as Finance Minister during the sordid saga. Whether Ravi K would gain that way, or lose, is anybody’s guess, again.

‘De-fanging’ Executive Presidency

This may be a problem when political leadership, to meet their populist needs of a time, keeps tweaking the Constitution, laws and procedures, without a second thought. The nation having given itself an Executive Presidency at the commencement of JRJ’s ‘Second Republic’, to twist and turn the statute through the likes of 19-A without much thought if only to prove to the electorate that it was the painless way to defang the Executive Presidency, as if it was the greatest need of the hour at the time, could have only generated more problems than any real solutions

In neighbouring India, the world’s largest democracy, with a more vibrant democracy for a diversified – and not necessarily, a divisive -- society, such matters had been put to very long ago. Parliament amended the Constitution as far back as the early 1970s, to suit the demands and realities of a Westminster form of democracy by amending the relevant Article to take away the ‘discretionary powers’ in such matters, binding him instead to the decision(s) of the Cabinet on all affairs of government and governance. In doing so, Parliament did retain the President’s powers to return a resolution or Bill to the Cabinet or Parliament, as the case may be, for review, but with the provision that he or she did not have a choice if the latter stood by their earlier decision.

At a time when Sri Lanka is supposed to be discussing (still) the contours of a new Constitution, exposing the otherwise unfathomable side of the constitutional provisions and implied practices is good education. But, it would be so only if the system and the polity learns from the inherent mistakes that their forebears were in too much of a hurry to visualise and consider collective. In the current scenario, people seem to be discussing a new Constitution, to ensure its failure at passage, and more so at implementation – as with those in the past.

In a way, the appointment of such commissions of inquiry, in other parliamentary democracies, are also invariably decided by the Prime Minister and his team, with the President attesting the same – or, having to attest the same. Unless it is the Executive Presidency of the JRJ, CBK and Mahinda R kind, it would be a travesty of parliamentary democracy that the current duo team had promised to the nation, to have a dual authority that did more harm than good to the people.

Cohabitation dharma

Sri Lanka has had enough experience with ‘cohabitation governments’. As coincidence would have it, Ranil W was/is Prime Minister on both occasions. Under CBK, who has had the largest ever popular mandate in the country today (which even Mahinda R could not overcome after the ‘war victory), PM Ranil was riding rough shod on the Executive President, especially in matters of war and Norwegian peace-building with the dreaded LTTE. Or, at least until CBK showed Ranil and his UNP as to who was the boss.

Today, when it is known that Sirisena owes his election to the UNP more than any of his political or personal constituencies, and that 19-A, too, has purportedly de-fanged the Executive Presidency of the ‘sky-high powers’ from the past, for the incumbent to behave the way he does, only implies that persons make the institution, not necessarily laws and the Constitution.

There is another difference, too. In the CBK-Ranil saga, theirs was only a cohabitation arrangement, inflicted on them by the nation’s voters. It had its own advantages for the times. The LTTE having been continually targeting top leaders, if only to create a vacuum for them to thrive and grow, expand and entrench, as they did after the Premadasa assassination, a cohabitation arrangement of the kind provided a ready second line that the terror outfit could not escape. But the unexpected reverse became the truth, with the PM asserting himself over the President in every which way.

The present-day arrangement goes beyond the constitutionally-facilitated, voter-induced cohabitation. Instead, it is still a polity-induced coalition, where commitment to a cause (even if only to eliminate the Rajapaksas) is paramount than any cohabitation arrangement of other kinds might have imposed on shared leaderships of the kind.

Yet, President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe seems wanting to run with the hare and hunt with the hound, at every turn, and in opposite directions, even three full years after their coalition arrangement of the political kind made for the cohabitation adjustment of a constitutional type (though there are no specific provisions for the same in the statute). Rather than running the yahapalayana government as they themselves had coined and defined in specific terms, and going after the Rajapaksas, even if that were their only collective mission, the two and more so their confidants are continuing to indulge in shadow-boxing, doing nothing more, nothing less.

Worse still for the nation, at every turn that critics point an accusing finger at him, Sirisena is wont to say that he was ready to quit—but does not make any serious move, or even commiment, even one – making it all a farce for the nation to laugh at him and laugh at itself. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is too careful not to utter such words, on which the nation might take him more seriously and sincerely, and also expect him to act upon. To the extent, the nation seems to be taking the Wickremesinghe more seriously than Sirisena, and the persons concerned, too!

(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. Email: sathiyam54@gmail.com)

A parliamentary circus side-show and the law

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Could right-thinking people of Sri Lanka be blamed for asking themselves as to whether no one will rid us of these troublesome politicians following this week’s depraved fisticuffs on the floor of the House? Is this where the ‘Sovereignty of the People’ resides, as mandated by Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution?

As national legislators assaulted each other, (some unpardonably boasting about this later) and shouted obscenities with others fainting in the well of the House, two questions become paramount.

Why indeed are citizens trooping to the polls to elect members to local government bodies in a few weeks when the apex legislative assembly conducts itself in such an ugly manner? Of what use are massive public funds extracted from taxpayers being expended to maintain these assemblies, central, provincial and local when minimum decency cannot be observed in their deliberations?

A country’s collective shame

Certainly this is not to echo in quite the same way or expect the same consequences as what followed that medieval cry “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” commonly attributed to King Henry II after being angered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This resulted in one of history’s greatest infamies when, consequential to the King’s frustrated complaint, the Archbishop was killed by several of the King’s knights at the altar of the Canterbury Cathedral.

But even with a definitive caveat regarding the absence of a murderous intent as it were, it is a matter of the utmost disgust that the Parliamentary debate on Central Bank treasury bond scandal which should have been conducted with the greatest propriety and solemnity as befitting its gravity, disgracefully dwindled to a typical circus sideshow. For that, the members of the self-styled Joint Opposition (JO) and those in the ranks of the ruling United National Party must be fairly and squarely blamed.

As shouts of ‘hora, hora’ (rogue, rogue) reverberated in the chamber, it was to this country’s collective shame that a former President and an incumbent Prime Minister’s names were interchangeably used by each group of rowdy shouters to their advantage. Meanwhile Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s loud call of ‘kowda hora?’,(who is the rogue?), while broadly smiling and flinging his hands up in the air was far from reassuring.

Who casts the first stone?

The jeering on the opposing side of the House may have been aggravating to the Prime Minister as he read out a statement during a debate most idiotically called for by the Joint Opposition, even though the report of the Commission of Inquiry on the treasury bond scam had not yet been released to Parliament by President Maithripala Sirisena. Regardless, this was not the opportune response on the Premier’s part, if one is to understate the matter.

Denunciations came thick and fast. Leading the charge was President Maithripala Sirisena who remarked in a public speech on the same day that the brawl in Parliament reminded him of the proverbial story in regard to the robber who snatches a wallet and runs through the crowd screaming ‘thief, thief’ even as his unfortunate victim runs in hot pursuit after the robber, also screaming ‘thief, thief.’ But rhetoric cannot absolve the President of his own responsibilities. To put the matter bluntly, the image of being ‘cleaner than the others’ sought to be portrayed to the public by the President and his faction in the SLFP begs the question as to why that principle is not demonstrated in practice.

Later in the week, the President stated that he would not allow any local government member elected under his wing to commit wrongdoings and stressed the importance of electing ‘decent candidates.’ But the question is if these injunctions have been followed in the SLFP’s appointment of organisers and candidates? In mid-October last year for example, a provincial councilor of the North-Western Province who had been handed down a suspended jail term in 2014 after being found guilty of forcing a school teacher to kneel before him, was appointed as the organiser for Anamaduwa by the President.

Resigning ourselves to legislative depravity

In fact, there appears to be an uncommonly peculiar predilection on the part of politicians in wanting teachers to kneel before them. Just a few days ago, it was reported that the Uva Provincial Council was in turmoil due to allegations that the Chief Minister of the Uva Province had threatened and forced a principal of a Tamil girls’ school in Badulla to kneel in this same way.

Perhaps it is time that civil society organisations throw away all their demonstrably useless Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) entered into with politicians on lofty principles of good governance and the like. Instead, they may be better advised to enter into a national campaign to compel all politicians to kneel down at Parliament if not Galle Face Green or their respective provincial/local assembly grounds, firstly in meditation on the temporal nature of political power and secondly in pledging their allegiance to actually serve the public as they are meant to do.

But the likelihood of that scenario is as remote as the possibility that no ugly fisticuffs will erupt in Parliament again. Indeed, these are spectacles that we may need to resign ourselves to seeing on a daily basis. It is reported that a record number of candidates with dubious backgrounds have come forward to contest the forthcoming local government polls where the numbers in the councils have also significantly increased. This is an irony of the cruelest kind. What will happen in these councils once the elections are over is anybody’s guess. It is safe to predict however that local government, from efficient disposal of garbage to local administration will not be on the minds of a majority of the newly minted councilors.

Dramatics cannot take the place of substance

In any event, this careful choreographing of various political dramas as the local government elections draws near is so transparent as to be ridiculous. Legal consequences must be visited on politicians having the necessary accountability as well as the public servants who collaborated in a grave fraud involving Sri Lanka’s premier financial institution as detailed in the Commission of Inquiry report.

Measured steps are necessary in accordance with the caution that hasty disciplinary action taken against public servants consequent to findings of Commissions of Inquiry have been struck down by the superior courts on the basis that fundamental principles of natural justice have been violated. That does not mean however that the uproar over this Commission report must last only the length of the pre-election period, to be quietly shelved thereafter, with the culprits escaping scot-free.

Indeed, that would be absolutely unacceptable.

Sri Lanka: President’s term five years or six?

There is no question that the president, whatever the legal position, is morally bound to serve for five years and no longer. If the judges rule that his term is six years, there is nothing to stop him from vacating office at the conclusion of the fifth year and proclaiming a presidential election to elect a successor if the presidency is then in existence.

by Manik de Silva-Jan 14, 2018

( January 14, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The ruling of the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court determining whether President Maithripala Sirisena’s term ends in 2020 or the following year will reach him by today. He is likely to communicate the decision of the court to the country soon thereafter and any uncertainty in that regard would then be cleared. Those who followed the pleadings of the Attorney General heard him say that the incumbent president was elected in January 2015 for a six-year term under the law that existed at that time and this stands. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted unanimously by the sitting Parliament, repealed President Mahinda Rajapaksas’s abolition of the two-term limit on the presidency and additionally reduced the presidential term from six to five years. This, the AG argued, was prospective and not retrospective so President Sirisena can continue till 2021 though his successors will only have five-year term. There were vigorous arguments to the contrary with opponents to a six-year term for Sirisena rightly pointing out that the president himself had said that he had voluntarily reduced his term by a year. Sirisena had, in fact. said he personally favored a four-year term but bowed to expert opinion and the five years was finally agreed upon.

There is no question that the president, whatever the legal position, is morally bound to serve for five years and no longer. If the judges rule that his term is six years, there is nothing to stop him from vacating office at the conclusion of the fifth year and proclaiming a presidential election to elect a successor if the presidency is then in existence. Let us not forget that Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena all solemnly pledged to the country that they will abolish the executive presidency created by what CBK, with her talent for colloquial expression, called a bahubootha constitution. President Sirisena declared before the bier of Ven. Madulwawe Sobitha, who led the movement for a common opposition candidate against Mahinda Rajapaksa with the abolition of the executive presidency as its major plank, that he would deliver on these promises. In his first address to the nation following his swearing, Sirisena declared he would not run for a second term but now there is a deafening silence on this subject.

This country has been cheated by several of its elected leaders on the matter of how long they would serve without a fresh mandate from the people. Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike, elected in 1970 with a two thirds majority enabling constitutional amendment, was the first culprit. Claiming that the JVP insurrection of 1971 deprived her United Front government of two years of its term, she postponed the parliamentary elections that should have been called in 1975 to 1977 through a constitutional amendment. Opposition Leader J.R. Jayewardene resigned his Colombo West parliamentary seat saying that he was elected for five years and no longer, forcing a by-election he won by a large majority. But what did he do thereafter when he swept into office with a massive five sixths majority? He extended the 1977 parliament for a further term soon after he was elected president (not re-elected as commonly stated because he was ‘deemed’ elected the first time in 1978) in 1982 by obtaining the people’s ‘consent’ at a national referendum in December that year. Whether that was free, fair and conducted by the rules remains debatable though it is generally accepted that JRJ would have won a parliamentary election in 1982, but not with his 1977 majority.

Thereafter Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2010 parliamentary elections sought, but did not win, a two thirds majority enabling amending the constitution. But he got what the voters narrowly denied him by engineering defections from the opposition and amended the constitution abolishing the two-term limit on the presidency. This was to cost him dearly in 2015. That history is too well known to merit repetition. President Kumaratunga, first elected for a six-year term in Aug. 1994 called a snap poll in 1999 an year ahead of schedule and was re-elected. In August 2005 she sought to continue till 2006 arguing that she could serve balance of her first term. Five judges of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva unanimously ruled she could not and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga was compelled to ride off into the sunset a year earlier than she had hoped.

We will soon know whether President Sirisena’s term ends in 2020 or one year later. Even if the legal position is that he can continue till 2021, that was not something of his own doing although it will be clear that the 19th Amendment was badly drafted at least where the reduction of the six year presidential term to five years was concerned. The people verily believed that this applied to all presidents beginning with Maithripala Sirisena and not just those who would follow him. Given that he was rightly credited for doing away with his predecessor’s Mugabe-like greed for at least another term, that proved disastrous as Rajapaksa has lived to learn. Sirisena reduced his own term from six to five years without any demand or pressure for which all praise is due to him. We hope that the president will earn himself the honor of doing what is right on the matter presently at issue regardless of the legal position even if he does becomes the third consecutive president to welsh on the promise of abolishing the executive presidency.

( Manik de Silva is the Chief Editor of the Sunday Island, a weekly newspaper based in Colombo, where this piece first appeared.)