Second 'International Conference on Tamil Nationhood and Genocide in Sri Lanka takes' place in Ottawa

14May 2018

On May 5-7, 2018, academics from around the world came together to take part in the ‘Second International Conference on Tamil Nationhood and Genocide in Sri Lanka’ at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

This conference, organized by Tamil organizations in Canada whom had a focus on the Tamil struggle, was attended by a wide audience, from young diaspora activists to academics from around the world, as well as those who have lived through the final massacres of the armed conflict.

The conference had a focus on five themes: Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalism and its consequences in Sri Lanka, human rights violations and the search for justice, genocide by any other name, diaspora resources and responsibilities, and rebuilding the Tamil nation in today’s geo-political context. A final session was dedicated towards examining the way forward.

Throughout the conference, over 20 contributed papers were presented, all by a number of researchers, distinguished scholars, authors, columnists, and activists. Two keynote speakers addressed the opening sessions on each day; Ms. Anuradha Mittal from the Oakland Institute in California, and Dr. Richard Mann from the College of the Humanities at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Anuradha Mittal stated “this is an international issue of human rights, which requires international solutions and the international community to be involved here” and spoke on the militarisation of the Tamil homeland and the continued occupation by the Sri Lankan military.

Dr. Richard Mann stated “the Sri Lankan government’s constructed definition of Tamils as terrorists, separatists, and anti-national, is an attempt to disguise state violence against the Tamil community in Sri Lanka as anti-terrorists as opposed to state-generated violence, better called genocide.”

Speakers throughout the weekend touched on a range of issues, including on the search for justice, the recognition of the genocide of the Tamil nation in Sri Lanka, the future of the Tamil struggle and post war rebuilding of the Tamil nation. The organizing committee also together brought a resolution to be presented at the Canadian parliament.

See some of our live tweets from the event here.

Derailing racial rapport

By Manekshaw-MAY 12 2018

“For decades northern Sri Lanka was virtually cut off from the rest of the country, by the civil war and the city of Jaffna lost its population and its prestige. But the `Yal Devi’ line from the capital reopened in 2013 and now foreigners and Sri Lankans alike are exploring the city and its fascinating Tamil culture. Intercity trains are supposed to take less than seven hours, though delays are frequent. Reservations for first and second class tickets go on sale 30 days in advance.
Book well in advance to snaffle a seat with large windows for watching the scenery change from lush to dry, dotted with bright-striped Hindu temples”. This was the description given by the London Guardian when the `Yal Devi’ train journey was listed as one of the eighteen best railway journeys in the world by the prestigious newspaper last week.
It was a few days after the London Guardian rating the `Yal Devi’  train journey as being one of the best eighteen train journeys in the world, a Tamil female returning from abroad and travelling with her family from Vavuniya to Jaffna had a bitter experience in the `Yal Devi’.

The Tamil female passenger in her complaint to the Jaffna Police had said a ticket checker on the train was trying to sexually harass her and when she warned him, he began abusing her verbally in bad language and referred to her by saying “You bloody Tamil woman”.

A fellow passenger had recorded the incident on his mobile smart phone and the recording went viral in social media, which had even led Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa to call for deterrent action against the railway employee for his unruly behaviour against the Tamil female passenger.

Following the complaint to the Jaffna Station Master and the Jaffna Police, the ticket checker was arrested and later released on bail by the Jaffna Magistrate.
Preliminary investigations reveal that the ticket checker was under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident and had a track record of misbehaving with passengers.

The London Guardian in its description selecting the `Yal Devi’ train journey as one of the eighteen best train journeys in the world has stated, “For decades northern Sri Lanka was virtually cut off by civil war and the city of Jaffna lost its population and prestige. But the railway line from the capital reopened in 2013, and now foreigners and Sri Lankans alike are exploring the city and its fascinating Tamil culture”.

Therefore, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa prioritizing the resumption of the `Yal Devi’ train service to Jaffna as part of the reconciliation process between the North and South, his son and Parliamentarian, Namal Rajapaksa has every reason to condemn the unruly behaviour of the ticket collector and urging the railway hierarchy to take stern action against him.

The `Yal Devi’ had been the pride of Sri Lanka from the time it commenced as a fully fledged passenger service in 1956 earning a huge revenue for the Sri Lankan Railways.

As the separatist war escalated in the early eighties, with the removal of rail tracks between Jaffna and Vavuniya by the fighters, to sever connections between the two parts of the country, the prestigious train service came to a halt thirty years ago making the land route journey between Colombo and Jaffna miserable.
When the `Yal Devi’ train service resumed five years ago, it was not only local train passengers between Colombo and Jaffna, even Sri Lankan Tamil expatriates abroad expressed their pleasure.

As the `Yal Devi’ has its own stories of fabulous journeys in the past, local passengers as well as expatriate Tamils looked forward to travelling in a peaceful atmosphere by train between Jaffna and Colombo.

At the early stages of the communal unrest in the country, the `Yal Devi’ services were affected due to unruly mobs targeting Jaffna-bound passengers.

In 1977, the Jaffna-bound `Yal Devi’ train was attacked when it stopped at the Anuradhapura station. Tamil passengers were attacked and their valuables were robbed.

In the mid-eighties the `Yal Devi’ was set on fire at the Kondavil Railway Station in Jaffna.

With the resumption of the `Yal Devi’ in 2013, early reservations were even made from various parts of the world by Tamil expatriates to travel to Jaffna.

As peace loving innocent civilians in the country, as well as Sri Lankan Tamil expatriates expect every avenue leading to a healthy reconciliation to be strengthened, incidents of this nature should be seriously dealt with.

The late veteran Communist leader and Minister, Pieter Keuneman who in his last wish wanted his collection of books to be donated to the refurbished Jaffna Public Library, commenting on the inception of the `Yal Devi’, once said “it was the life line of coexistence between the North and the South”.

Therefore, the present regime which came to power with the good governance slogan should ensure that ultra nationalist sentiments should be rooted out in the best interests of strengthening peace and harmony in the country.

The London Guardian’s best eighteen train services in the world are as follows:
1. Colombo to Jaffna `Yal Devi’.
2. London to Fort William (Britain)
3. Bilbao to Ferrol (Spain)
4. Tradheim to Bodo (Norway)
5. Naples to Palermo (Italy)
6. Bastia to Ajaccio (Corsica)
7. Mostar to Sarajevo (Bosnia)
8. Johannesburg to Cape Town (South Africa)
9. Addis Ababa to Djibouti City (East Africa)
10. Kapiri Mposhi to Dar Es Salaam (Zambia/Tanzania)
11. Los Mochis to Chihuahua (Mexico)
12. Sudbury to White River (Canada)
13. Anchorage to Fair banks (Alaska)
14.Lima to Hunancayo (Peru)
15.Mettupalayam to Udagamandalam (India)
16.Xhining to Lhasa (China /Tibet)
17.Poipet to Sisophon (Cambodia)
18.Belgrave to Gembrook, Victoria (Australia)

Where is this government taking the country ? 

Sri Lankan politics is becoming increasingly acrimonious, yet again. There is a deepening polarization among the UNP and President Maithripala Sirisena on the one hand and the Yahapalanaya Government as a whole and the emboldened Rajapaksa acolytes of the joint opposition on the other hand. The President is openly undermining the Prime Minister. Now that he has implied his plans to run for the presidential election in 2020, this tenuous relationship would get worse. Mr. Wickremesinghe has his fair share of inner party troubles. 

2018-05-15

Within the Tamil politics, the Tamil National Alliance is facing a fratricidal war -- one if unchecked could produce another Prabhakaran sometime in the future. Northern Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran has resorted to the time tested strategy of the Tamil leadership of the past, who used Tamil nationalism and trumped up grievances with a devastating efficiency to undermine each other, and to drive a wedge between the Northern electorate and the mainstream national politics. Sometimes, one tragedy is not enough for people to learn lessons. Southern youth were duped twice by the same megalomaniac to wage war against the states under similarly trumped up grievances. 

With a bit of nudging by the Northern political leaders and perhaps a helping hand from the RAW, it would not be hard for another charlatan to drive some quarters of Tamil youth back to Nandikadal. Extensive military presence would obviously have a deterrent. But, it took 15 years of a gap between the first insurgency and the second in the South. Till the time is rife, messrs Wigneswaran, Gajendrakumar, Ponnambalam and so forth can keep the pot boiling. 

Within the Tamil politics, the TNA is facing a fratricidal war -- one if unchecked could produce another Prabhakaran sometime in the future. Northern Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran has resorted to the time tested strategy of the Tamil leadership of the past

The only political group that seems to be cohesive at the moment is the joint opposition of Mr. Rajapaksa. That unity itself portends a danger to the country, but it has thrived because all other people, who ought to have untied against this common threat are at each other’s throats. 

Mr. Rajapaksa should now be thinking if 92-year-old Mahathir Mohamad can make a political comeback, why not he. At the rate of deterioration of public trust in this government, he is not being overly ambitious. This government has failed seminally, perhaps with the exception of restoring a semblance of democracy. But democracy in the absence of economic prosperity and order is void. In both counts, the country is worse off than under the Rajapaksas, and much hyped remedies to economic malfunctions that the government claims to have inherited from the Rajapaksas have not made a dent. They have not worked because there is no political courage and determination to take political decisions that should go along with mandated micro and macro-economic reforms. Countries such as ours have a sense of urgency and policies and political actions should be aimed at achieving set goals, and should not be overly obsessed with rule following. Those latter kind of governments are good on NGO books, but are generally losers in the eyes of their own people. 

The economy is getting the worst hit. The plan for a second terminal of the Katunayake Airport has reportedly been shelved because our engineers think they could build it at a two-third of the cost of JAICA estimates (though our experience in complex engineering is as extensive as cricketing experience of our new ODI team). A new tender will be called and the project will take another five years and then it would be a miracle if there is no price appreciation commensurate to delay. 
And, the government is sitting on the blueprint of the Hambantota Economic Zone. That is one singular opportunity that can create wealth and change the face of the deep down South. But political vacillation is killing it. In this culture of procrastination, those who know how to milk the system like the former Chief of Staff of the President’s office Dr. Mahanama is making a quick buck. 

Mr. Rajapaksa should now be thinking if 92-year-old Mahathir Mohamad can make a political comeback, why not he. At the rate of deterioration of public trust in this government, he is not being overly ambitious. This government has failed seminally, perhaps with the exception of restoring a semblance of democracy

The government has even failed to resolve the seemingly peripheral issue of SAITM. Whether that is because its spinelessness is exploited by the interested parties, or the individuals within the government are reneging on the previous agreement is open to question. Elsewhere, the GMOA has threatened to launch a 24-hour strike this week to protest against the proposed free trade agreement with Singaporeand the Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement with India. If the government outsources its policy decisions to trade unions, the country does not need to have a government in the first place. A weak government that vacillates over key national decisions does more harm to the nation in the long run than a proactive tyranny that has eyes on the long-term national objectives. 

This indecisiveness wouldn’t be confined to economy alone. A government that cannot enforce its will on SAITM is unlikely to be able to champion the new Constitution that the TNA and the Tamil political leaders have placed faith on. It will be checkmated by a few hundred rabble-rousing fanatics. On the other hand, if Mr. Rajapaksa can get a two-third of Parliament vote for his dynastic project, and remove presidential term limits, anything is possible for a strong government in this country. Unfortunately, this government is not that one. 

Follow @RangaJayasuriya 

Is The Government Back-Peddling On The Right To Information?

MAY 14, 2018

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government has come in for strong criticism by media and civil rights lawyers after the proposed Audit Bill has sneakily suggested a clause that prohibits RTI applications from being filed against the Audit Service Commission and other individuals authorized by the Auditor General.

Pointing to this development as ‘a clear and present danger’, the widely read Sunday Times asked on 13th May as to whether the Government is ‘back-pedalling on the Citizen’s Right to Information’? The Times has editorialized that openness and transparency through RTI will turn out to be a hollow boast if a pattern of conferring exceptions to RTI for specific individuals continues.

The proposed clause in the Audit Bill states that information can be given by officers to information requesters only after the audit reports are presented to Parliament. Information can be disclosed prior to that only where there is a request of Parliament or an order of court or to give effect to the provisions of any written law, other than ‘any law requiring the disclosure of information’. If information is disclosed contrary to the above, an offence is committed. The Sunday Times has observed that any sensible reader of these clauses will see the obvious ‘potshots’ aimed at Sri Lanka’s globally acclaimed RTI Act, which the Government has boasted about locally and internationally.

The Colombo Telegraph learns that even some state officials involved in the drafting of the Audit Bill had not been in agreement with the wide cover given to a number of individuals by the proposed clause.

Meanwhile this is not the first such instance of a law providing RTI exceptions to individuals within a bare one and a half years of Sri Lanka’s globally praised RTI Act being enacted. The Island reported (May 9th 2015) that RTI Commissioner Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena who was a member of the drafting committee of the RTI Act had criticized the Office of Missing Persons Act as well as the proposed Audit Bill for containing such clauses. Responding to a question raised by a participant in the audience during a global conference on RTI held in Colombo last week, she explained that later laws which seek to protect individuals in a generalized manner from RTI scrutiny is not compatible with core ideals of RTI.

As of now, members, officers, servants and consultants of the Office of Missing Persons are shielded from responding to RTI requests in respect of information given confidentially to them. Families of the disappeared have said that they were concerned about this prohibition as the functioning of the OMP ought to be open and transparent in all respects. The RTI Act already lists privacy and confidential information given by third parties as two separate grounds on which information can be denied unless there is an overriding public interest.

In South Africa, the country’s Access to Information law had been extensively used by activists to get information on the functioning of the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One important example among many was when the South African History Archives (SAHA) filed an RTI request in 2016 for a report on funding for covert activities and weapons acquisition that the Auditor General of South Africa had prepared for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to which it denied public access.  SAHA has argued that the requested records related to tax exemptions on the export of uncut diamonds and secret funding could shed light on the manner in which billions of South African rand in tax money, money badly needed for social spending requirements, was either never collected or spent on dubious and illegal activities at the end of the apartheid era. These experiences are good lessons for Sri Lanka. If the proposed clause in the Audit Bill is passed in its current form, information requests such as that filed by SAHA will not be possible.

Where Sri Lanka’s RTI Act is concerned, enacting new laws with exceptions to RTI defeats its Section 4  which places the Act above other written law as at the time the RTI Act was passed by Parliament (4th August 2016). It is common knowledge that though attempts were made to persuade the drafting committee of Sri Lanka’s RTI Bill to exempt some Departments and Offices from the reach of RTI at the time, these attempts were firmly resisted.

Read More

Executive Presidency:What the 13A SC Determination really said - Part 1I

President J.R. Jayawardene and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi signing the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord which paved the way for the 13th Amendment

By C. A. Chandraprema-May 14, 2018, 12:00 pm 

(Continued from yesterday)

Of the five separate determinations given by the nine judges of the Supreme Court, the lengthiest was Justice R. S. Wanasundera’s dissenting determination. This is also the determination most often referred to by nationalists who claim that the executive presidency is a sine qua non to preserve the unitary character of the state in the face of the devolution of power and the provincial councils system that was forced upon us by India. However, in wading through Justice Wanasundera’s lengthy arguments, it becomes clear that he never said that the unitary state would cease to exist without the executive presidency. In fact, he spoke much less about the executive presidency than Justices Sharvananda, Colin-Thome, Atukorale and Tambiah did in their joint determination.

The first concern that Justice Wanasundera had was about the legislative power of Parliament. He pointed out that under Article 76(1) of the Constitution, Parliament shall not abdicate or in any manner alienate its legislative power and shall not set up any authority with any legislative powers. His contention was that even though the propounders of the 13th Amendment argue that the Statutes made by the Provincial Councils are in fact subordinate legislation, no less than 37 subjects with their sub-divisions have been allocated to Provincial Councils on which they can legislate without any guidelines of policy being imposed by the centre. Furthermore, Justice Wanasundera stated that the 13th Amendment had sought to place the legislative powers of Provincial Councils as far beyond the reach of Parliament as possible. While a Provincial Council with a simple majority can legislate on matters coming under the provincial councils list, Parliament which originally had this power of legislation and which it could have done with a bare majority, now needs a two-thirds majority and a Referendum as well under the provisions of clause 154G(3)(b). Justice Wanasundera saw this as a renunciation and alienation of Parliament’s plenary powers over legislation. Therefore he argued that what is sought to be granted to a Provincial Council is not the type of subordinate legislation mentioned in Article 76(3) but full- blooded legislative power. (It will be recalled that for any change to be made in the Provincial Councils Chapter or the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, a two thirds majority in Parliament plus approval at a referendum was required under clause 154G(2)(b). This too had the effect of placing the legislative powers of the Provincial Councils as far beyond the reach of Parliament as possible.)

Consistency with existing provisions questioned

Justice Wanasundera also made some observations on the President and the provincial Governors which were quite different to the views held by the other judges. He pointed out that under Article 154B, the provincial Governors are to be be appointed by the President and to hold office during the pleasure of the President. Justice Wanasundera regarded this not as an appointment but an ‘illegal’ de-routing or relinquishing of the Executive power committed to the President. The Governor has the usual powers of summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Provincial Council as in a Westminster type of Constitution. He argued that this delegation of the President’s power has by-passed the existing Cabinet machinery.

He argued that if the Cabinet system is fundamental to our system of government, then this delegation and relationship between the President and the Governor both ways is wholly illegal. It violates a basic feature of our Constitution, namely, government with the aid of the Cabinet and Parliament. Justice Wanasundera argued that such a fundamental change can only be effected by a Bill passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a Referendum. Furthermore he stated that clause 154H (4) which vests the President with discretion in deciding whether or not to refer a question of the validity of a Provincial Council Statute to the Supreme Court relates to the exercise of judicial power by an executive officer and contended that this also makes the Bill inconsistent with the Constitution, requiring that it be passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a Referendum in terms of Article 83 of the Constitution. Justice Wanasudera opined that the President exercises the executive powers of the State as an agent or trustee of the people. Although the President is permitted to delegate it to the Cabinet and subordinate public officers, he ‘did not think’ the President is authorised to alienate or abandon or renounce it. The Governor to whom the executive power in the province is delegated is an appointee of the President and can really exercise on his own behalf or on behalf of the President only the discretionary powers vested in him. The governor, is bound in law to accept and sanction decisions of the Board of Ministers and is given no discretion in the matter. Even in appointing the Chief Minister and the other Ministers clause 154F(4) shows that where the party system operates and a party obtains a majority in the Provincial Council elections, the Governor has no option but to appoint the leader of that political party as the Chief Minister and his nominees as the other Ministers.

The Governor merely sanctions what the law has provided for. So in reality, the substantive executive power exercised in a Provincial Council emanates from below and does not in fact constitute a devolution of power coming from above from the President. The executive, power relating to a Provincial Council is therefore broken at a dividing point, one purporting to devolve from the President and the other arising from the elected members of the Provincial Council. The effect of this is that such executive power vested in the President is relinquished and a complex arrangement devised to cover up and cloud, the real nature of the transaction. If the Executive power of the People can be renounced in this manner," serious questions regarding the proper administration of the country could arise. Justice Wanasundera stated that at the bare minimum, legislation permitting such a renunciation must have the approval of the People at a Referendum.

From what Justice Wanasundera said above about the executive and the powers of the President and the Governors, we see that he was only raising a legalistic argument about the President appointing Governors bypassing the cabinet, and the Governors having to exercise their executive powers in a kind of Constitutional strait jacket.

He was questioning only the strict legality of these provisions and he himself stated that the way to make these provisions legal would be to pass the amendments with a two thirds majority in Parliament and get them approved by the people at a refendum. He never said that rectifying what in his view were legal snags in the provisions relating to the President and the Governors would mean the end of the unitary state.

As in the case of the other judges, the main concern of Justice Wanasundera was the legislative power of Parliament vis a vis that of the Provincial Councils. He observed that the Provincial Councils are empowered to enact statutes applicable to the province with respect to the Provincial Council List and the Concurrent List set out in the Ninth Schedule. Clause 154G(5)(a) states that Parliament can make laws with respect to matters in this list after such consultation with all Provincial Councils as Parliament may such consider appropriate in the circumstances of each case. Similarly, clause 154G (5)(6) states that a Provincial Council can make law in respect of such matters after such consultation with Parliament as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of each case. Justice Wanasundera stated that what is meant by ‘consultation’ with Parliament can only mean a resolution of Parliament by a majority vote. Thus the powers of Parliament can be eroded and such powers given to, a Provincial Council on a mere majority vote. The wording of the two Article's is identical and gives a parity to the two authorities as regards law-making power and places a fetter on Parliament's plenary power.

Clause 154G(3)(b) contains a similar provision essentially prohibiting Parliament from passing any Bill in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council’s list by requiring a two thirds majority in Parliament and a referendum to enable Parliament to do so if one or more Provincial Councils does not approve of the proposed amendment. These Provisions give an insight into the nature and quality of the legislation made by Provincial Councils and that there was no doubt that statutes made by Provincial Councils have the dignity and quality of primary legislation. That in a nutshell was what Justice Wanasundera had to say about the 13th Amendment.

Main consideration was

legislative power

A perusal of his dissenting determination will reveal that he never said that the executive presidency was what kept the unitary state together. Like all the other judges, Justice Wanasundera was also more concerned about the legislative power than the executive power. In retirement, Justice Wanasundera worked closely with the nationalist movement and it is vital to understand what he said and did not say in this most important determination.

Justice O.S.M.Seneviratne in his dissenting determination focused like everyone else on the legislative powers of Parliament. He observed that the intention of the 13th Amendment is to create a new body a Legislature, the Provincial Councils as a separate administration unit with its own Provincial Council and Governor, Chief Minister and Board of Ministers. This Amendment is silent on the executive functions of the Chief Minister and the Board of Ministers. Like Justice Wanasudera, he too raised the legalistic argument that the Governor is sharing executive power with the President which is contrary to Article 4(b) of the Constitution and that the powers of the Governor in respect of Finance, the Provincial Public Service, and Law and Order are vast.

Justice Seneviratne stated that one of the pillars of our Constitution is that the executive power of the People "shall be exercised by the President". Article 4(b) and that there is no room for the sharing of the executive power with the President. (It should be noted that he was not saying here that the unitary character of the state would be endangered even if the executive power of the President was to be ‘shared’ as he characterized it. All that he was saying was that a sharing of executive power was not consistent with the existing provisions of the Constitution.) Like all the other judges, Justice Seneviratne also too took up the question of the limitations imposed upon the powers of parliament by the clause 154G(3)(b). While every Provincial Council may make statutes with respect to any matter set out in the Provincial Council List with a simple majority, Parliament which originally had this power of legislation and which it could have done so with a bare majority now needs a two-thirds majority and a Referendum as well to pass an Act on a subject coming under the provincial councils. Justice Seneviratne stated that he does not agree with the view put forward that the legislation passed by the provincial Councils should be classed as subordinate legislation in terms of Article 76(3) of the Constitution.

He explained that the legislative power granted to the Provinces is a kind of power that erodes the supremacy of Parliament and the People and he drew attention to the two clauses that featured prominently in all the determinations on the 13th Amendment – clauses 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3)(b). These provisions restrict, curtail and abrogate the powers of the Parliament and the People to pass laws by positing a requirement that it must be passed by two- thirds of the members of Parliament and approved by the people at a Referendum. Therefore he held that the 13th Amendment should be approved by the people at a referendum if it is to become law. Justices L.H.De Alwis and H.A.G.De Silva based their argument on Article 75 of the Constitution which provides that Parliament shall have power to make laws including laws having retrospective effect and repealing or amending any provision of the Constitution or adding any provision to the Constitution.

They pointed out however, that clauses 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3) which stipulate that no Bill for the amendment or repeal of the chapter on Provincial Councils or to pass a law on a subject coming under the Provincial Councils list shall become law if one or more provincial councils oppose them unless the Bill is passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a referendum restricted the law making powers of Parliament. They further observed that the provisions in clauses 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3)(b) constituted an addition to entrenched Article 83 of the Constitution and will therefore need to be passed by the two thirds majority referred to in Article 83 and approved by the People at a Referendum.

We see from this analysis that it was not the executive presidency that was central to the determinations on the 13th Amendment but the legislative powers of the Parliament. Clauses 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3)(b) which imposed restrictions on the legislative power of Parliament have featured in all five determinations made on the 13th Amendment and it was by amending these two clauses and dropping the requirement for a referendum that the 13th Amendment could be passed into law with only a two thirds majority in parliament. According to Articles 154G(2)(b) and 154G(3)(b) of our Constition as they are now, even if one or more provincial councils are not in agreement, Parliament can legislate on any subject coming under the provincial counsils or even repeal the entire Provincial Councils Chapter (Chapter XVIIA) in the Constitution with just a two thirds majority in Parliament. The executive presidency has been mentioned only in passing, if at all in the 1987 Supreme Court determinations on the 13th Amendment.

Concluded

Sri Lankan consumer in trouble?

The household consumption has contracted by 12% in Q1, 2018

 Tuesday, 15 May 2018

When Sri Lanka voted in a new government in January 2015, none of us in the private sector thought that we will be faced with today’s tough reality after three years. Whilst many of us are yet positive and optimistic, we must also be practical and see the reality.

Sri Lankan consumer in trouble.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Sri Lankan Politics ... Scramble for Power and the Bane of the People

The great bane of many third-world countries looms in the craftily orchestrated dramas of greed and struggle for power in the political arena. Formerly Ceylon, beginning from 1956 and now Sri Lanka, in the course of the last four decades or so, has provided an ideal oasis for power-hungry politicians to play their astute games and political trickery at the expense of often misinterpreting peoples choices and oppressing them with their high-flown imaginary visions.   

2018-05-15

There comes a time when an entire country and a nation can turn so corrupt and cock-eyed that they just are not able to see any other wiser way of thinking and deciding. The recent three elections country-wide, the Presidential elections, the parliamentary general elections and the local government election that followed give us a fair idea of how politicians are hawks at the game. What a pity! Where is the spirit of statesmanship exhibited by our great fore-fathers of the calibre of D. S. Senanayake, the first Prime Minister of independent Ceylon, Sir Baron Jayatillake, a great politician-philosopher, the noble rank and file of statesmen and national leaders who knew how to wage a commendable fight and struggle for Independence? Where have all the decent politicians and national leaders gone?   

A nation in crisis; all the way

It is true that S.W.R.D. Bandāranāyake broke away from the capitalistic, imperialistic and aristocratic UNP (so he thought in his radical political thinking) to unleash the five-great-revolutionary forces galvanizing the monks, the farmers, the teachers, workers and Ayurveda physicians to launch an unprecedented people’s political movement, thus winning the hearts of simple rural Buddhist populace and bringing in a “People’s Government” (Apē Ānduwa). SWRD was not left in peace to bring in his socialistic vision into the soul of the nation. Strike after strike followed suit buckling his plans, communalism began raising it head, the signs of the impending not too distant catastrophe and national decadence were to follow. The 1960s betrayed a lamentable instability that hit the economy rock hard. No one forgets the economic depression of the 1970s the dent on foreign currency, lack of basic nutritional needs and the acute ratio of unemployment.   

The 1980s witnessed the volcano of ethnic conflict that engendered a fierce and destructive armed struggle soaking this nation in blood and hatred. Since the historical events of the triple colonial aggression on our country, the 30-year ethnic war could be considered as our history’s next most national tragedy, the difference being that it brewed from within our national ranks. The efforts of the governments were inept and impotent to quel this move towards a war. The expenditure incurred in fighting a world’s worst terrorist outfit sucked the country off its financial resources and left a country battered and bewildered.   

Instability and rattling movements in Parliament means in the final analysis, destabilization of the country which affect the civility and the economy as everyone knows. It does not augur well at all for us in the international scene

However, with the defeat of terrorism, there opened a new page for treading new paths for national unity, economic progress and social integration. In no time, the raw greed for power from the rulers and political immaturity of leadership, there dawned a period of political instability marked by race for power and the dashing of people’s aspirations to zero. This is the drama at the present time. The speech from the President and the opening of the second session of the nation’s eighth parliament gave us some idea of the state of confusion that had engulfed our country. Even at this eleventh hour, the opportunity for saner political leadership and the more enlightened understanding of the people at large can bring in some light at the end of this dark tunnel to which we have been led.   

Politics in this country unlike that of countries like Singapore, Switzerland and Finland has proved itself to be a disastrous national exercise. There seems to be a relentless greed to grab political power and once won, bribery and corruption had crept in at all levels into the sacred sanctuaries of public trust to dampen and poison their undertakings and responsibilities.   

No one doubts today the utterly miserable condition Sri Lanka is being subjected to by politicians. Recent events and revelations give ample proof to the despicable extent the State machinery has been vitiated. It is a wholly crooked system of public life that prevails in the country where even the civil organizations and citizens’ movements appear powerless to stem this cancerous tide. Our politicians are experts in the disastrous skill of lambasting ruling governments while proclaiming their self-justified stance that they instead can rule better. They never get tired of asking for newer elections of all kinds and begging for newer mandates from the people!   

National politics and peoples’ cry

Fishing in troubled waters is what is plainly going on in our political arena at the moment under the fake cover of concern for the future well-being of the nation. It is the ardent plea and the honest desire and hope of all concerned citizens who have at heart the well-being and the good name of the motherland to raise a cry for change and conversion of heart and mind in the life of politicians and those who dabble in politics.   

The power struggle of the political parties and their despicable greed had wrecked the hopes and aspirations of the people, especially the middle-class, the rural and urban poor. Which political authority in the future and political leadership will at long last relieve their long-standing sufferings and woes, we still yearn to see. Who will succeed in solving the national problem of ethnic reconciliation, turn around the economy down-turn and succeed in establishing an effective political and social order with a stable economy?   

We do not need astute politicians who can hoodwink but eminent and noble statesmen of character and of the calibre of D. S. Sēnānāyake, the father of the nation, Dudley Sēnānāyake who was the epitome of honesty and sincerity, and Ranasinghe Prēmadāsa, the leader of the common man. Party politics need not be a shameful political rivalry for grabbing power by hook or crook. It must contribute towards the complementary vision of both the ruling government and a mature opposition. It appears as if there is a subtle form of tricking people and deconscientizing them of the real status-quo of the country. The dignity of the people is trampled and denigrated by those who use them as tools for their hidden agendas and personal benefits.   

The national government which held out many a hope for the people who voted it to power unfortunately could not attain their targets and accomplish their due tasks to full satisfaction. Instead, a tide of confusion has resulted where everyone is lost in the blues! The political life of the country seems to have boiled down to a game that is incessantly being played by heartless politicians who do not seem to care a tuppence for the good of the people and their immediate needs: cost of living that has to be lowered, fertilizer for the farmers, facilities for rural people for travel and school amenities for their children and of course creation of jobs. The question of decent salaries has propped up every now and then for various categories of workers. The frequent strikes are a sign that not everything has been settled regarding the anomalies of salaries. The farmer and the middle-class worker are at pains to make their ends meet in their day to day struggle to live and be content. 
Our traditional exports, tea, rubber and coconut products seem to be on the wane towards extinction. There is foul-play even in these sectors. Remittances from migrant workers are being threatened with the challenges facing their very lives and their unwillingness to venture into these employments abroad. Factories are grinding to a slow halt. Investors are having second thoughts opening up enterprises in the country because of the political instability and financial uncertainty. Then there is the constant rising cost of living that is our bee in the bonnet. It is indeed a sad scenario! As it is said, the ship is sinking but the merry-making is going on!   

Not all hope needs be lost

In the light of the three urgent issues at stake at the moment, namely political stability, stable economy and national reconciliation, what is needed today is a disciplined breed of politicians who love the country, its people and are ready to transcend their personal gains with determination to do their best to work together for the progress of our dear motherland. Despite ideological differences that might be legitimate in a atmosphere of freedom of thought and expression, they must be noble-minded and motivated to work hand in hand for a Sri Lanka, a country well-stabilized, a socially integrated nation with everyone focusing on one single aim of facing the challenges at hand and capable of coming out of the darkness and uncertainty of the present.   

What is at stake is the morality in political and public life and the maturity and sense of responsibility of those in high public office in their being accountable to the people and manifest a clear sense of transparency devoid of hidden agenda when dealing with national issues and people’s problems. The revelations of the failures of the so-called unity-government carry many a lesson that can give wise guidance for the ventures of the future. All politicians of whatever hue in this country, must give up their philosophy of politics that make them unstable and unsteady themselves like the lizard that changes colours.   

In no time, the raw greed for power from the rulers and political immaturity of leadership, there dawned a period of political instability marked by race for power and the dashing of people’s aspirations to zero. This is the drama at the present time

Instability and rattling movements in Parliament means in the final analysis, destabilization of the country which affect the civility and the economy as everyone knows. It does not augur well at all for us in the international scene. It is the very earnest and sincere desire of every enlightened Sri Lankan citizen that we emerge from the present impasse and be well on the way to a period of political stability and economic prosperity with national reconciliation soon achieved to make our motherland truly the impeccable Pearl of the Indian Ocean.   

Much hyped ‘Raalasana’speech with much fanfare wasting colossal public funds is not official policy announcement !

(Lanka-e-News- 13.May.2018, 11.30PM)  The ‘Raalasana’ speech made by the president with  huge fanfare , pomp and fuss on 8 th wasting colossal public funds when the parliament was re convened after the prorogation  finally was not  a policy announcement of the government and just turned out to be another of Pallewatte Gamarala’s usual blabbering, based on reports reaching Lanka e news.

If his speech is to be a government’s policy announcement , that should be ratified by the cabinet. Strangely his speech was not even presented to the cabinet meaning  that it was not government’s official policy announcement.

According to unofficial reports, President’s speech ought to have been  written by his two bosom hollow shallow  pals , Malith Jayatileke and Shiral Lakthileke .As far as  Lanka e news is concerned, if Shiral the notorious NGO crook had written, it is decipherable to no one. Even the devil will not understand it. Hence it is not possible to believe the story that Shiral the duffer wrote it.  No matter what, the president’s speech was most empty and hollow that it did not mention any future program of work.  

---------------------------
by     (2018-05-13 21:22:39)

The evolving shape and form of the presidency in Sri Lanka

In the future, the political landscape can be become more complex, but we need to take long hard look at the standard argument that an executive presidency is needed to face these uncertain situations

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Even the strongest critics of the 1978 Constitution will have to agree that it is a well-constructed piece of legislation with an architecture which is internally consistent. While a Constitution ensures the citizens their rights, the right of representation in particular, it also gives the Government the powers to govern.

In regard to this representation v. stability tension in a Constitution, the 1978 Constitution essentially improved on representation by introducing proportional representation (PR), but took away with the other hand the powers of the representatives. It gave the President excessive power over the Parliament, Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers, presumably to balance representation with governability.

The political landscape since then then, since 2015 in particular, has been consumed with the abolition of the Presidency, but, what seems to be possible is a gradual repeal of the powers of the Presidency. The first success came in the form of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. The latest is the news that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), dissatisfied with the lack of progress of Constitutional Assembly, intends to bring a Private Member motion to abolish the Presidency. Closer inspection shows that it is nothing more than an attempt to further strip away of the powers of the President and change the mode of election of the President from election by a popular vote to election by the Parliament.

Parliamentary procedures allow only two weeks to respond to a Bill before it is taken up in Parliament. In that regard, it is fortunate that the ‘Aluth Parlimenthuwa’ talk show of Derana TV gave us a glimpse of the proposals. What’s to come has to be evaluated against what has been, here and elsewhere. First, a few words about our own experiment in 2015.

Failed attempt at an apolitical President

There are only a few countries where the elected President is required to be above politics, constitutionally or by convention. In Asia, Mongolia is one such country where the President is required to be apolitical, but the ability of the President of Mongolia to contest a second time somewhat makes the stipulation unworkable, I feel. In Austria, the President has much of power on paper, but, apparently, by convention, Austrian Presidents stay above politics and serve national interests. We had same aspirations here in Sri Lanka back in 2015. As I optimistically wrote two days after the Presidential election of 8 January 2015:

“People have given the green light for a bold new step to do away with the executive presidency. The next 100 days are crucial as the form and shape of the new presidency emerge. The Maithri manifesto talked about a redefined presidency representing national unity and taking on other responsibilities as needed. Mr. Maithripala Sirisena has the ability to make it much more. If executive presidential powers are given away as promised, it will give the new President a moral authority like no other president will ever have. Going beyond the curbing of corruption, rule by family and friends and other ills, he can be the upholder of values of the nation to guide the new regime from that vantage point and, more importantly, help us rebuild our values as a people (Gamage, Colombo Telegraph, 10 January 2015).

In a turn around, Sirisena accepted the leadership of his old Party and became a hundred percent political President. The reasons and the context need a dispassionate analysis and we should not totally give up on the idea of a one-term and/or an apolitical President, I believe. Many countries in Latin America and Philippines here in Asia have term a limit of one for their Presidents. We should keep that option on the side-burner as we deliberate.

19th Amendment to the Constitution

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution brought many changes. Most important in the present context is the restriction on dissolution of Parliament by the President for four years and six months from the previous one-year limit. Other important changes are the reducing of the term of office of the President from six years to five years; reintroducing the two-term limit, and dual citizens being disqualified from being elected to the office of President.

In regard to the power of the President over the legislature and the Cabinet, the President no longer has the power to remove the Prime Minister at his discretion and he/she is required to act on the advice of the Prime Minister when appointing or removing from office any Cabinet Minister, Non-Cabinet Minister or Deputy Minister. The scope of the immunity conferred on the President has been limited to “civil” or “criminal” proceedings, with fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court allowed. Further the President is not able to submit to the People by a referendum any Bill which has been rejected by Parliament and President could not assign to himself/herself any subject or function not assigned to any other Cabinet Minister (with an exception applied to the present President. (See https://www.cpalanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A-Brief-Guide-to-the-Nineteenth-Amendment.pdf for details)

The President still remains the head of the Cabinet of ministers essentially giving him a grip on the Government (or the political apparatus) as well as State (or the executive apparatus). The Amendment sought by the JVP seems to address the issue and more.

A peak at the envisaged 20th Amendment

At the Aluth Parlimenthuwa Talk show by Derana on Wednesday, Vijitha Herath, Parliamentarian representing the JVP, outlined what is envisaged. Also attending the program were M. Thilakrajah, MP, Shiral Laktilake, the Coordinating Secretary to President, Udaya Gamamnpila, MP, representing the Joint Opposition, and the lawyer Kanishka Vitharana representing civil society. My own take on the JVP’s proposal is a measuredly positive one. For the time being let me simply outline what I heard watching the program.

As Herath explained, the President shall be elected by Parliament from among any individual qualified to run for President as currently defined in in the Constitution. If a Parliamentarian is elected he/she has to resign from the post. The President shall be the commander-in-Chief as now and will retain all powers in relation to the Provinces, the land and police regulations in particular. However, the President will not be the head of the Cabinet or the even a member the Cabinet, but the President can be informed by the Secretary to the Cabinet about any and all proceedings of the Cabinet. Further the President will not be appointing Secretaries to the Ministries, diplomats or grant pardons on his own. Those have to be approved by the Cabinet or the Constitutional Council as appropriate.

Thilakrajah sorted out the various incarnations of the 20th Amendment so that people are not confused. The first Bill presented in July 2015 was on electoral reforms, but became and null and void after the Parliament was dissolved soon after. The second version was for the purpose of holding Provincial Council elections on the same day, and postponing elections to some as part of the process. That amendment was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, though it still remains on the Order Paper of the Parliament creating some confusion.

The JVP’s attempt is the latest version of a 20th Amendment and it concerns the Presidency. An important question posed by Thilakrajah was as to why JVP does not go all the way and bring an amendment which encompasses the proposals of the Constitutional Assembly. Herath responded by pointing out that they are looking at what is possible, not what is optimum.

Lakthilake correctly noted that there is no vision or a sense of the overall architecture in the constitutional reform process and we need to proceed carefully. Gammanpila was concerned that a Private Members Bill could be used by the Government to sneak in other legislation. Herath, responded by noting that they are at liberty to withdraw the Bill if such happens. As lawyer Vithanrana pointed out, the governor’s powers derive from the President and if the President does not have powers over the National Government, the new role of the governor over the Provincial Government needs to be assessed. Thilakrajah pointed out the critical point about disadvantages to the minorities in the proposed Amendment, but recognised the overall benefits as well. As critical to the discussion is the electoral method and stability of the resulting Parliament, I felt, but it was not discussed adequately.

With improvements, a new 20th

could work

More often than not, PR gives hung Parliaments or Councils causing ungovernable situations. Germany recently was without a government for a considerable length of time and it took Spain a second round of elections and nearly two years to form a government. Both countries use PR based electoral systems.

Back home in Sri Lanka, we witnessed difficulties in returning Chairman and vice Chairman in our local Councils when we used a Mixed-Member PR method of elections. The difficulties were wrongly attributed to the Mixed-Member Method. The reason was in fact the overall Proportional nature of the method, and the problems would have come up even with the old PR method. The splitting of the SLFP and the resulting four way contests instead of the usual three way contests are the real reasons for instability.

In the future, the political landscape can be become more complex, but we need to take long hard look at the standard argument that an executive presidency is needed to face these uncertain situations.  Unfortunately, in this country we seem to be making policies by Committees where some bureaucrat seem to be charged with the task of putting together opinions of Committee Members with summaries that end up as bullet points.

The country needs a process guided by a vision and a sense of the underlying architecture, to yield a coherent document out of the report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly. Right now this is just a wish list. The JVP’s initiate should serve as a jolt to policymakers and civil society as well.

Say ‘Sorry’, stay happy!

BY N Sathiya Moorthy-May 14, 2018, 9:31 pm 

If only the British colonial ruler had known how his best of intentions would be misused, abused and over-used in both ways and more, after he had left these shores, he would have non-use of the term a pre-condition for granting Independence. There have been many occasions, in personal, private and public lives of individuals and institutions where the word ‘Sorry’ has saved the day. There have been more occasions in which the use, abuse and misuse of the word has made the very use laughable at times and highly condemnable otherwise.

No marks for guessing where Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka’s expression of ‘regret’ to President Maithripala Sirisena would fit in, in this broad-spectrum application of the word. Maybe he actually used the word ‘Sorry’, maybe he did not, and it’s in the domain of private confidentiality and away from the public domain, at least until one of them, or anyone else present on the occasion spoke up. Yet, what he did say in the public domain earlier, requiring his subsequent expression of ‘regret’ to the Head of State, shows up only the sorry state of affairs to which public life in the country has sunk.

It is not about the politics of Fonseka opening up from nowhere to contest the decision of the UNP to field Sirisena as the ‘common Opposition candidate’ in Elections-2015, against incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa. In the event, Sirisena won, and Fonseka is at present a Cabinet Minister in the very same Government, with the former as the Head of State, Head of Government and the Head of the Cabinet, all rolled into one. As a former Army Commander and also the nation’s only Field Marshal thus far, Fonseka would not have also forgotten that as President, Sirisena is also the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.

Nothing new about it

Speaking out of turn is not new for Fonseka, whatever the post he may be holding at a given point in time. As the army commander at the height of ‘Eelam War IV’, Fonseka was reported to have said that "Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese but minorities can live without making undue demands" – or, words and phrases to the effect. Later within days/weeks of the war victory, when the world was expecting Sri Lanka to roll-down on army intake, Fonseka, suo moto, declared that they would be going in for fresh recruitments each year, so as to double the existing strength of 200,00 uniformed men in a short span.

Rather than getting drowned in the cacophony of war-victory against the unbeatable LTTE, which the international community too celebrated in private, such observations from Fonseka was enough to stir up additional cause for concern in western capitals. Worse still, none would trust his then masters-turned-foes in the Rajapaksas, when they sought to explain away his observations as ‘unauthorised’ and without truth and substance.

More recently after becoming a Cabinet rank Minister in the current Government, Fonseka went on to declare that he had no problem with any probe into the ‘war crimes charge’ against the nation’s armed forces, nor would he mind deposing before any such panel. No one really took any serious note of it, but then, the first declaration should have owed to a policy decision of the Government, not otherwise.

Crucial difference

Whatever personal opinion that Fonseka might have had at the time, and even possibly later, he could have expressed in the Cabinet, and not in public. As a Minister in the Government, he would have been bound by the decision of the Cabinet, and hence the Government. On the question of deposing before any probe of the kind indicated, he could well choose to do so, as an individual. Whether he could continue to do so even while serving as a Cabinet Minister would have been for others to decide.

This apart, there was/is a crucial difference between any such deposition made by an ordinary citizen, or even a uniformed person from the battle-front. It would have been much different in the case of the army commander, who was a leading member of the high-level National Security Council (NSC) strategising on the war as a whole, discussing tactical moves on the battle-front, and of course the diplomatic pow-vow that the political leadership might have discussed, with adequate inputs from those who were similarly qualified to offer such advice.

These are ‘State secrets’ of a certain kind, and are often covered by the Official Secrets Act in almost every case. One thus only hoped that later-day Field Marshal Fonseka would have given a clear thought to it all when he said what he said about the war, the larger ethnic issue, which was a socio-political matter outside of the army commander’s domain, and later on, regarding the war-crime probe.

Sad and bad

It was sad that for things that he might had said and did, or did not say and did not do, the Rajapaksas thought it fit to haul up Fonseka so very unceremoniously over the coals. He was imprisoned, tried and condemned for wrong-doing, which had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘war crimes’ or any other conduct of his pertaining directly to the conduct of the war – if at all.

The worse condemnation and humiliation for a serving officer and gentleman should be his cashiering from service. Fonseka faced this and more, and the nation, including his present-day political allies and masters watched it all in silence without doing, or wanting to do anything about it. Yet, when their turn did come, they did restore his honour and dignity, and added the greatest of them all by conferring on him the unique rank of ‘Field Marshal’.

The UNP also adopted him as their National List MP, and later a Minister. Now, it would look as if UNP Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe seemed to have concluded that it would be better to have Fonseka ‘inside’ rather than letting him loose ‘outside’. Maybe, that was also why Ranil and the rest had talked Fonseka into accepting the offer of becoming the ‘common Opposition candidate’ against the very same Rajapaksa in post-war Elections-2010, which the latter however swept through.

Undignified, uncharitable

It would be undignified and cheap to say that Fonseka ticked off Sirisena’s choice in 2015 (because) the latter had defeated incumbent President Mahinda R when he himself had failed full five years earlier. It would be even more uncharitable to claim that Sirisena the commoner achieved what the war-hero in Fonseka could not do, and hence the recent tirade.

Yet, there was/is a larger message in it. Both Mahinda and Fonseka were ‘war heroes’ in their own spheres, but when it came to electing a President under the Constitution, the Sri Lankan voters (going beyond the narrow ‘Sinhala confines’) went in for the non-uniformed, public figure. When the contest was between two politicos in 2015, the very same voter had put the war behind!

Even in 2015, the voter might have put Fonseka’s humiliation behind. But definitely he did not forget the unceremonious and uncalled for impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bhandaranayaka. The new dispensation did restore her honour, too, by recalling her as Chief Justice, even if for a single day.

But then, in preferring Sirisena to Rajapaksa in 2015, the voter (going beyond the ideologically-tuned ‘minorities’, especially the Tamils), the voter did possibly draw the distinction between the discipline attaching to the uniformed services and the respect that he expected the political leadership to extend to civilian constitutional institutions like the Judiciary. Whether it has worked wonders on other areas of governance is a different thing, but in this one department, the difference became palpable and continual from day one to this very day.

When some sections within the UNP reportedly propped up Fonseka for Law and Order Minister recently, some claimed that President Sirisena certainly and PM Ranil possibly had reservations about it – and even more so, some top cops who would be reporting to the Field Marshal in his would-have-been job. There may be more than one reason for such a sentiment and feeling, going beyond the basic division between the attitude and approach of the two services, but then with his decade-long experience in a life without formal uniform 24X7 since, Field Marshal Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka, RWP, RSP, VSV, USP, MP, rcds, psc, should have known, and known better!

(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)