Tuesday, October 30, 2018

US urged to prevent her citizens from participating coup in Sri Lanka

Most unfortunate is that two U.S. citizens are actively involved in this coup and it is unbecoming of any U.S. citizen to participate in such a coup in any country that has adhered to a Parliamentary system of Democracy

( October 30, 2018, New York City, Sri Lanka Guardian) “As you may be well aware that there is an ongoing political crisis in Sri Lanka following a `constitutional’ Coup to change the constitutionally appointed Prime Minister and the Government and also to appoint a Prime Minister who did not prove that he commands the confidence of the majority of Legislators in the Parliament which is an essential prerequisite, according to the Constitution of Sri Lanka,” noted in a letter sent to Mr. Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State to the United States of America.

“Most unfortunate is that two U.S. citizens are actively involved in this coup and it is unbecoming of any U.S. citizen to participate in such a coup in any country that has adhered to a Parliamentary system of Democracy,” the letter added.

“Therefore, I am writing to you to urge you to prevent U.S. citizens from taking part in any coup, political or constitutional in Sri Lanka. Thank you for your time for considering my request,” the letter has further requested.

Copy of the letter follows;

Envoys of 25 countries express their solidarity with Ranil..! Not even a congratulatory message to conspirator MR..!

(Lanka e News -27.Oct.2018, 11.30PM) Envoys of 25 countries who assembled at temple Trees said in one voice , they will lend all the support to safeguard Democracy when they met prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

When the Envoys of 25 leading countries including US UK, those countries of the European Union ,as well as India and Pakistan met at temple Trees at the invitation of P.M. on 27 th , the latter explained to them the constitutional violation committed by the incumbent president .

The P.M. who elucidated the reforms introduced by the UNF government including himself towards Democracy and reconciliation said , there is much more in the pipeline in that direction. Hence while all this is in progress ,the president appointing another individual as a prime minister is illegal , the P.M. pointed out.

While it has been proved by the failed no confidence motion which was brought against him that he has the majority support ,this anti Democratic action has been resorted to. Hence the P.M. requested the foreign envoys to assist him to re convene parliament which has been adjourned, in order to enable him to prove his majority support and to safeguard Democratic parliamentary traditions.

Every Envoy without exception confirmed that they will do everything to strengthen country’s Democracy, and they will keep a watch on all activities which run counter to it. They also confirmed that they still recognize Ranil Wickremesinghe as the prime minister.

Meanwhile Machiavellian mendacious Mahinda Rajapkse who took oaths as prime minister has not received any congratulatory messages without China

---------------------------
by (2018-10-29 20:16:11)

Yahapalana hegemony shattered

By C. A. Chandraprema-October 29, 2018, 9:00 pm

The so called yahapalana government formed after the 8th of January 2015 had to end, and end soon. The yahapalana government was not just a government but a complete yahapalana hegemony over the political system contrary to the very ideals and principles the leaders of the yahapalana set up themselves paid lip service to. After winning the Presidential election and the Parliamentary elections that were held later, the yahapalana partners shared the government and the opposition among themselves with the UNP and the UPFA taking over the government and their comrades in arms the TNA and the JVP which provided the winning margin for President Maithripala Sirisena in January 2015 and took over the parliamentary opposition. The genuine opposition made up of the Joint Opposition was largely left out in the cold with very little time to speak in Parliament.

Thereafter the yahapalana hegemons proceeded to appoint a Constitutional Council made up only of yahapalanites and they stuffed all the independent commissions including the Elections Commission full of yahapalanites. The Judicial Services Commission is the only body that escaped this fate because it was made up of persons already serving in the Courts system. With the Constitutional Council dominated completely by yahapalanites, all those appointed to high posts were also yahapalanites and they went about this with brazen indifference as to how this arrangement looks like from the outside. As soon as the yahapalanites took over the government, they sacked the sitting Chief Justice with just a chit from the Presidential Secretariat and because the Sri Lanka Bar Association was then dominated by yahapalanites they raised not a whimper of protest. This insufferable air of superiority and the presumption that any outrage they may commit is right was what was most difficult to endure.

Even though the main slogan at the Presidential elections of January 2015 was the abolition of the executive presidency, after capturing power, the new President reneged on his pledge and resisted the move to abolish what he said he was going to abolish. The UNP, the JVP and the NGOs that supported the yahapalana project caved in and instead of making the President keep his pledge, began saying dishonestly that the main aim of the 2015 January ‘revolution’ as they called it was not the abolition of the executive presidency but the jailing of the members of the former regime for bribery and corruption. The idea that took over the yahapalana camp at that time was that since ‘their dictator’ had now been replaced by ‘our dictator’, it was quite OK to renege on the promise to abolish the executive presidency. The yahapalanites themselves began misusing the powers of the executive presidency to persecute the members of the previous government.

This is why last Friday’s turn of events tastes so sweet to all those who opposed the horrid government that captured power in January 2015 with the help of foreign powers. The term ‘hoist with your own petard’ has acquired a whole new meaning in Sri Lanka. For the more than three hand a half years, the people of this country heard nothing but talk of arresting or jailing members of the opposition. It was as if a group of professional jailors and executioners had taken over a government.

When things were not moving fast enough for the liking of the government they even created a Special High Court for no other purpose than jailing members of the opposition with the Chief Justice himself being placed in a legal straitjacket by making it mandatory for him to select cases to be heard by the Special High Court only from a list submitted by the Attorney General. Today, the third case being heard before this Special High Court is the case against ‘Ali Roshan’ for selling baby elephants captured from the jungles. By what stretch of the imagination does that qualify as a major financial crime warranting a Special High Court trial at bar? Before the yahapalanites changed the law, the Chief Justice would at his discretion that certain crimes be referred to a Trial at Bar. On top of all this, the law making process in parliament was itself upended with changes to the local government elections law and the provincial councils elections law being made so as to completely change the system of elections to these bodies, though sweeping amendments brought at the Committee stage to Bills that had been presented to parliament for completely different purposes. The local government elections system was changed by bringing Committee stage amendments to a Bill that had been presented to Parliament to correct some technical errors in the elections law. The provincial councils elections law was changed by bringing committee stage amendments to a Bill that has been presented to parliament to increase women’s representation in the PCs.

The result of bringing committee stage amendments to Bills in the manner was that the Bill that was first presented to parliament and examined by the Supreme Court was not in fact the Bill that was finally passed but something totally different. The only reason why laws that were passed in such a manner have the effect of law is because the courts do not have the power to examine the constitutionality or procedural correctness of a law once it has been passed by parliament and signed by the Speaker. The Speaker we have now is not a patch on his predecessors like Chamal Rajapaksa, W. J. M. Lokubandara or Anura Bandaranaike and he is playing along with all the outrages that the government has been committing. The yahapalana opposition (the TNA and the JVP) also has been responsible for playing along with all the outrages committed by this government since it came into power – the most unforgivable of these transgressions was the perversion of the law making process in parliament.

This set up needed to be shaken up. It was shaken up from outside by the people at the last local government elections who defeated the 60-70 year old UNP and SLFP and delivered victory to the newly formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna. Now it has been shaken up from within by President Maithripala Sirisena. The yahapalana hegemony has been shattered and like Humpty Dumpy cannot be put back together again. Even if the UNP is able to cobble together a majority in parliament with the help of the TNA which this columnist has no doubt they will be able to do, they will only be able to limp along till the next Presidential and parliamentary elections. The sacking of the yahapalana government is the second big victory that the Joint Opposition has scored this year after the local government election.

A deputy minister in the government Wasantha Senanayake described the yahapalana government as the most ‘moosala’ government that there has ever been in this country since independence and indeed that is true. The presidential jackboot that has been applied to their rear ends is well deserved. One can’t even begin to chronicle all the outrages and idiocies that have been committed by this government in one article. We have not been able to even touch on the economic front and the idiocies and outrages committed in that sphere which has plunged this country into the worst economic crisis since independence. The country needed this shake up. The people needed this shake up. It is also necessary to allow the yahapalanites to continue in power for the rest of their term after cobbling together a majority. With the President having broken up with the UNP government, it will be possible to prevent some of the irreversible damage that the UNP will do such as selling off state-owned assets and signing ill-considered FTAs. The impeachment motion that the UNP has threatened to bring against the President means nothing because the next presidential elections is only a year away.

From uncertainty to crisis

Whatever turn developments may now take, Sri Lanka’s fragile process of democratic recovery is in peril

Jayadeva Uyangoda-

OCTOBER 30, 2018

Last Friday, Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa, his political rival until the day before, as the new Prime Minister — a surprising move that Mr. Sirisena made in order to resolve a deepening political dispute between himself and Mr. Wickremesinghe. But this act has only pushed Sri Lanka into an unprecedented constitutional crisis, beginning a potentially dangerous phase of an on-going three-cornered power struggle among three leaders.

At the centre of the crisis is the lack of clarity as the new Prime Minister seems to have been appointed without a constitutionally valid vacancy for the position.

Crux of the issue

The constitutional provision that Mr. Sirisena has cited in the official letter to Mr. Wickremesinghe does not grant the President authority to remove a Prime Minister from office. Section 42(4) of the Constitution merely enables the President to appoint a PM. The President has taken the position that since he is the appointing authority, he also has the implicit power to sack the PM. The PM is not a public servant who can be sacked by the appointing authority at his will. It is a constitutional office with protection from the executive. This is the crux of the constitutional dispute.
The entire operation of altering the composition of the government seems to have been executed in a great hurry and in secrecy. There is also lack of clarity whether Mr. Sirisena’s letter (removing Mr. Wickremesinghe) had actually reached him by the time Mr. Rajapaksa was sworn in. This has led some commentators to call it a ‘constitutional coup’.

The position by Mr. Wickremesinghe aggravates the seriousness of this constitutional dispute. Dismissing the constitutional validity of the presidential action, he has argued that he still commands a majority in Parliament. His line of argument is that only Parliament has the constitutionally sanctioned authority to decide whether he could continue in office as PM or not. It also suggests that as long as there is no no-confidence motion passed in Parliament against him and the cabinet, his position as PM cannot be invalidated by the President at his will.

Mr. Wickremesinghe has also cited the fact of having defeated a no-trust motion brought against him a few months ago, and that situation, of Parliament’s majority expressing faith in him, remaining unaltered.

The argument seems to have derived its salience in the context of the 19th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution, passed in 2015 under the joint political leadership of both Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe. It curtailed powers of the President under the 1978 Constitution (the original) as well as the 18th Amendment passed in 2010. Among the presidential powers taken away by the 19th Amendment, which is valid, is the one pertaining to the President’s powers over the PM.

The 19th Amendment, which created a dual executive, made the PM’s position secure from the arbitrary actions of the President. Thus, the office of the PM falls vacant only under limited circumstances. Death, voluntary resignation, loss of support in Parliament, rejection by Parliament of the budget, and ceasing to be an MP are these circumstances. Sacking by the President is certainly not in this list.

By this change, the 19th Amendment has also restored the Westminster framework of relationship between the head of state, the PM, and Parliament.
All these make the constitutionality as well as democratic legitimacy of the actions of Mr. Sirisena less than clear.

An argument put forward on behalf of the President is that when the United People’s Freedom Alliance, which was a partner in the so-called unity government, informed the Speaker last Friday that it was leaving the ruling coalition, the cabinet automatically stood dissolved, thereby creating a vacancy for the office of the PM. This is not an argument derived from any explicit provision of the Constitution. It is merely a political argument. What it does is no more than confirm that the composition of the coalition government was altered. It does not automatically lead to the loss of constitutional validity of the cabinet and the position of the person holding the office of the PM.

No clarification

Mr. Sirisena’s address to the nation on Sunday did not clarify the constitutional issue at hand. He cited political and personal reasons why he could not partner with Mr. Wickremesinghe as the PM. But his assertion that he acted fully in accordance with the Constitution is only a claim. It awaits clarification. What is in dispute is not the total breakdown of relationship between the two leaders, leading to a collapse of their coalition. What is in doubt is the constitutionality of a series of actions by Mr. Sirisena on Friday. And if they are valid at all, they set a bad precedence for future constitutional governance in Sri Lanka.Contrary to the letter and spirit of the 19th Amendment, no PM will be secure in his/her position against arbitrary dismissal by the President. These circumstances also warrant judicial intervention to resolve the constitutional doubt.

Amidst this, the political dispute between the new coalition (Sirisena-Rajapaksa) and the Wickremesinghe led-United National Party (UNP) has now reached a stage of open confrontation. Mr. Wickremesinghe has refused the leave the office of PM as well as the official residence in Colombo. Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has written to Mr. Sirisena demanding that the rights and privileges of Mr. Wickremesinghe be protected, “until any other person emerged from within Parliament as having secured the confidence of Parliament”. The Speaker has implicitly acknowledged that Mr. Wickremesinghe is still the constitutionally legitimate PM.
Obviously, Mr. Wickremesinghe and the UNP want to take the battle to Parliament where the UNP feels that it can secure majority support. Meanwhile, Parliament has been prorogued by the President till November 16. As the numbers stand at present, Mr. Rajapaksa does not enjoy a majority in Parliament. The time left ahead will give Mr. Sirisena and the new PM enough time and space for horse trading. Ranged against this formidable combine that has been consolidating its grip on state power and institutions since Friday, are Mr. Wickremesinghe and the UNP who have only limited options — testing his floor strength, bringing a motion against Mr. Rajapaksa, and political defiance. He can also go to the Supreme Court.

If the UNP does so, the Supreme Court, which has been on a path to regaining its institutional independence and autonomy, will be called upon to adjudicate over a very sensitive power struggle among top politicians. The days ahead could be trying time for the judiciary as well.

The other side

Meanwhile, in planning his next moves for political survival, Mr. Wickremesinghe should also realise that he is partly to blame for the political imbroglio. His inability to establish a stable working relationship with the President to run the coalition government, casual disregard for the popular mandate he and Mr. Sirisena jointly won in 2015 for corruption-free governance
and politics, lackadaisical attitude to constitutional reform and reconciliation, and gross neglect of popular demands for better economic governance have severely eroded his popular standing.

The biggest political irony is this. The collective failure of Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe to be faithful to the 2015 mandate has now brought Mr. Rajapaksa back to power on the invitation of one party in a coalition which dislodged him from power.

Whatever turn the crisis may take, Sri Lanka’s fragile process of democratic recovery is in peril.
Jayadeva Uyangoda is Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

Statement by the Spokesperson on the situation in Sri Lanka

The sudden deterioration of the situation in Sri Lanka over the weekend puts the country at risk of instability and unrest.

Bruxelles, 29/10/2018

The sudden deterioration of the situation in Sri Lanka over the weekend puts the country at risk of instability and unrest.

Along with other key international partners of Sri Lanka, the Ambassador of the European Union met today with the President of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena, to express our expectation that a solution respectful of the country's constitution would be found quickly. To this end, it is important that the President allows the immediate reconvening of the Parliament so that the elected representatives of the Sri Lankan people can fulfil their duties.

In the current context of tensions and uncertainties, it is of utmost importance that violence and provocation are avoided and that law enforcement agencies act with restraint.

The EU expects Sri Lanka to pursue its positive path towards reconciliation and democracy for the full benefit of the Sri Lankan people.

International community continues to recognize Ranil Wickremesinghe as the legitimate Prime Minister of Sri Lanka - UK

Oct 30, London: The UK parliament today discussed Sri Lanka's political crisis precipitated by President Maithripala Sirisena's decision to sack Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appoint former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister in violation of the Constitution.

Former Foreign Secretary Sir Hugo Swire in the House of Commons today drawing attention to the political crisis in Sri Lanka asked the Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt to point out to the Sri Lankan President that the international community recognizes Ranil Wickremesinghe as the legitimate Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and only a vote in parliament can change his status.

Mr. Hunt in response said they are worried about Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's safety and monitoring the situation closely.

Following is the transcript of the conversation:
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)

When my right hon. Friend speaks to the President of Sri Lanka later on in the week, will he point out that his recent actions are in direct contravention of the 19th amendment to Sri Lanka�s constitution, that the international community continues to recognise Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe as the legitimate Prime Minister, that this can only be changed by a vote in Parliament, and that Parliament must be recalled as a matter of urgency in order that such a vote can take place?

Mr Jeremy Hunt

I will certainly be making those points when I talk to President Sirisena. I know that a number of Members are concerned about the safety of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, and we are watching the situation with a great deal of concern.

A Coup in Asia’s Oldest Democracy: A Statement by Sri Lankan Students

Security forces outside the Petroleum Ministry after a shooting in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on Sunday. Photo Credit Eranga Jayawardena/Associated Press

28th October 2018

We are a group of Sri Lankan students currently pursuing our education overseas. We write today to express our deep concern about Sri Lanka’s ongoing constitutional and political crisis.

Since 1931 Sri Lanka has had an imperfect and fragile, yet electorally and legally mandated, democracy. On Friday the 26th of October, for the first time since Sri Lanka’s independence, an unconstitutional and illegal transfer of power occurred. President Maithripala Sirisena, violating his oath of office and the mandate given to him on January 8th 2015, attempted to appoint Mahinda Rajapaksa, Member of Parliament for the Kurunegala District, as Prime Minister. This was unconstitutional. The 19th Amendment deleted the President’s power to remove the Prime Minister at will. While the President still appoints the Prime Minister, he has no implied power of removal since this is now governed by explicit provisions in the Constitution. Moreover, the withdrawal of the UPFA from the national government makes no difference: the Constitution does not provide that Cabinet ceases to function, and therefore that the Prime Minister loses his position, when one party in a national government withdraws its support.

In any event, there is a democratic means of settling this question – a test of confidence on the floor of Parliament. Yet President Sirisena and Mr. Rajapaksa did not propose a motion of no-confidence or engineer a defeat of the Budget to remove Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. Indeed even after Mr. Rajapaksa’s illegal appointment, President Sirisena decided to prorogue Parliament, demonstrating what was clear from the beginning: Mr. Rajapaksa does not have the confidence of a majority of the representatives of the people. His covert appointment, the illegal attempt to remove Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, the suspension of Parliament without consulting the Speaker, and the mob-led take-over of State media institutions make it clear that this is a coup d’etat.

The resort to violence and coercion is a chilling reminder of what dictatorship looks like. The coup is being followed by a return to the norms of self-censorship, violence and fear that were characteristic of Rajapaksa-era politics. State media institutions were stormed in the night and security for the Prime Minister and Ministers arbitrarily withdrawn. Moreover, many private media stations are already becoming vehicles for misinforming the public and spreading disinformation. By referring to Mr. Rajapaksa as Prime Minister they are renouncing the constitution and the democratic process, and normalizing an illegitimate regime.

Despite some successes, the government of national unity led by President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has failed to stand by many of its commitments on democracy, corruption and justice. Yet these failures do not justify an illegal power grab. Sri Lankans, regardless of political affiliation or their opinion of the Yahapalanaya government, have a duty to rally around democracy and the constitution. Therefore, we call for:

President Maithripala Sirisena to rescind his order proroguing Parliament.
The Speaker of Parliament, Karu Jayasuriya, to immediately summon Parliament.
A vote to ascertain whether the government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe commands the confidence of Parliament.
All those responsible for this coup to be held accountable for their actions.
All public servants to uphold the Constitution and fulfill their obligations set out in law.

The unprecedented events of last week have reinforced the fragile nature of our democracy. They are also part of a broader problem in our political culture. Once more, power is being used purely for political gain rather than towards building people-centered institutions and an inclusive and democratic political culture. These acts damage the health of institutions and processes that sustain democracy, pluralism and rights. They will have a permanent impact on the future of Sri Lanka’s youth.

As students of different ethnicities and religions, institutional affiliations and professional backgrounds we, the undersigned, condemn these recent developments, encourage others to make their voices heard, and commit ourselves to using our education to build a more just, fair and democratic Sri Lanka.

Download this statement as a PDF here.

India unofficially condemns the President Sirisena’s action

Mr. Sirisena’s appointment of Mr. Rajapaksa even before voting out Mr. Wickremesinghe on the floor of Parliament is nothing but blatant abuse of his executive powers

by Our Diplomatic Affairs Editor-Oct 30, 2018

(October 30, 2018, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Key level officials in the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India has unofficially expressed displeasure by condemning the Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s arbitrary action based on his bad intention, a reliable source in New Delhi has disclosed.

” This is unacceptable,” a key level source in the MEA, in New Delhi told the Sri Lanka Guardiananonymously.

“Consequences of this kind of decision will have bad impacts on the country’s reputation and stability. We are worried about how the people in Sri Lanka going to overcome the situation,” the source added.

Meanwhile, The Hindu, one of the mainstream media in India published an editorial by hammering the President Sirisena’s decision.

“By suspending Parliament, Mr. Sirisena is seen to have exposed his own insecurity about garnering the required strength. The next two weeks will be crucial, with attempts at horse-trading and assertions of political loyalty amid uncertainty. None of these is uncommon in Sri Lankan politics, but the circumstances, which are entirely of Mr. Sirisena’s making, have led to a political upheaval that was avoidable. All this has come at a time of economic fragility, with a plummeting rupee, soaring unemployment and rising living costs,” the Hindu editorial has noted.

“Mr. Sirisena’s appointment of Mr. Rajapaksa even before voting out Mr. Wickremesinghe on the floor of Parliament is nothing but blatant abuse of his executive powers. Guided by narrow political interests, the President’s actions betray an utter disregard for the parliamentary process. In resorting to these emergency measures, he has not only put democracy in serious peril but also let down Sri Lankans, including a sizeable section of the Tamil and Muslim minorities that backed him in the critical 2015 election,” the editorial further added.

PREZ SIRIENA’S RECENT ACTIONS ARE SHOCKING SAYS STUDENTS OF SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI

30/10/2018

“The mandate of the 2015 election in which Your Excellency was elected as President pledged to abolish the executive presidency and mitigate the balance of power between the Parliament and the Executive. However, it was shocking to see Your Excellency’s recent act as the Head of State, which has gone against this mandate and the promise given to the electorate to usher in a period of good governance.” says students of South Asian University, New Delhi in a letter addressed to president Sirisena.

Letter fellows:

His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena,

The President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

The President’s Office

Colombo 1

Sri Lanka

29 October 2018

Through the Deputy High Commissioner

Sri Lanka High Commission

27, Kautilya Marg

New Delhi

Your Excellency,

Removal of Prime Minster Mr Ranil Wickramasinghe and the Appointment of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister

We, students of South Asian University, New Delhi are concerned about the developing uncertainty in the political scenario of Sri Lanka consequent to the removal of the Prime Minster Mr Ranil Wickramasinghe, and the appointment of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister. This act, which has been carried out amidst much secrecy and without a floor vote in Parliament has already cost people’s lives and considerable disruption of public life. At the moment, we are not debating the legality of this action in terms of the constitution. We are concerned of the ethics of the action and the political uncertainty it may push the country into. We are well aware of the uncertainties which governed Sri Lankan politics and day to life in the recent past, and it would be singularly unfortunate if this action would push the country in this direction again.

The mandate of the 2015 election in which Your Excellency was elected as President pledged to abolish the executive presidency and mitigate the balance of power between the Parliament and the Executive. However, it was shocking to see Your Excellency’s recent act as the Head of State, which has gone against this mandate and the promise given to the electorate to usher in a period of good governance. This action is both politically counter-productive as it is also a direct threat to the survival of democratic traditions in the country. Compared to much of South Asia, Sri Lanka was taking reasonable strides towards accountable democracy over the last two years. Your recent action has hampered this progress, and as young people of South Asia we are very concerned of the impact this act will have not only in Sri Lanka, but by extension, on South Asia more generally.

In this context, we urge you to lift the postponement of Parliament and reconvene Parliament without further delay and ensure that a floor vote takes place on an urgent basis to ascertain which leader currently commands a majority in Parliament.

Such action will ensure that stability will return to Sri Lanka along with the confidence of the international community, which is at the moment clearly lost .

Yours sincerely,

Singed by 250 students of the of South Asian University, New Delhi

Pity the paltry state of a sick political culture

THE ETHIOPIAN HIS SKIN: With his true colours nailed to the mast, the ambitiously driven president has been exposed as being yet another realpolitik-playing politico. And with the naïve and sentimental protestations of an aggrieved prime minister ringing all the way to court in our ears, we might only yet be on the long hard road back to being a constitutional republic. The most pressing unanswered question is whether the leopard can change its stripes, and a former president turned prime minister be trusted not to take a political coup as seriously as a polls based confirmation of a mandate from the people. Time will tell; but that is just the commodity the country may have run out of over the weekend: and democrats who seek refuge in a subjectively interpreted constitution may be hoist with their own petard – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Wednesday, 31 October 2018

I am no constitutional or legal expert. But like most other politically-aware readers, I know what I like to see in my

democratically-elected leaders. Sorry to say that despite being something of a maverick when it comes to the herd instinct, I agree with the common consensus that the common candidate has both disgraced himself and dismayed the people with his altogether common character.

However, there remains something to be said for distinguishing between what has been called a ‘coup’ and/or a ‘constitutional crisis’ – and power-hungry self-serving politicos playing at realpolitik. Which is both their prerogative and their right (even if it is wrong in the eyes of a discerning but still conservative democracy). Therefore, indulge me as I trawl the murky depths of our present impasse for the moral takeaway or morale of the story. While being fully aware that a day or two is a long time in politics and that the ground which has shifted under our feet since last Friday might cave in entirely since the time of writing.
Preamble

The president may have a stronger case than many folks might realise for getting away with his capricious dismissal of one prime minister and cavalier swearing in of another premier. A more prudent approach may be to wait for the aggrieved party to seek some relief from the Supreme Court. But I for one have waited what seems like an eternity for the UNP to get its act together. So I’m going to plunge in and say my piece in these columns. As much as my favourite horses in a two-horse race have taken the liberty to address the nation with their respective sob stories in the past few days…
19A

Much of the learned commentary has focussed on the process and perversion of what is permitted by the constitution.

To wit: that after 2015’s 19th Amendment, the prime minister can only cease to hold office by death, resignation, ceasing to be a member of parliament. Or if the government as a whole has lost the confidence of parliament by dint of being defeated post the throne speech, budget, or a vote of no-confidence [Articles 46(2) and 48]. And that the president has been too literal in his interpretation of Article 42(4). That he has the right to appoint as PM whoever “in his opinion” is “likely to command the confidence” of the house.

And there is general annoyance (to put it mildly) that the chief executive’s failure to grant parliament the space to demonstrate to the people that his opinion was in fact justified is a great discourtesy to the electorate. It is also a sign that the people’s president was being simply another disingenuous politician who spouted platitudes about accountability and transparency to come into and stay in power. No big surprise there, but shock and dismay at the ramifications of his selfishness for all of us.

There is also a bad taste in the democratic-republican public’s mouth that the PM’s dismissal was sudden, planned in great stealth or ‘hopper-eating’ mode, and no courtesy notice of intention was given one’s coalition partner of many years much less one’s voting public of many decades. It tastes too much of native cunning for the likes of café society and constitutional coffee klatches. Many of us had lost faith in our once fit for statesman prime minister. But another no-confidence motion or the coming election would have been a better brighter way for our head of state to go. To rid us of a technocratic in public, autocratic in private, democratic-tyrant. As well as safeguard democracy – to say nothing of his preserving his own lacklustre reputation for unsmiling posterity.
Pro

But in liberal circles (pro-UNP, business, Western-orientated English-speaking social media centric civil society et al.), little attention has been paid to the president’s rightful prerogatives – or it has been negligently overlooked. There is leeway for even the most leech-like executive clinging to his opinion – and to power to boot – to appoint the MP who commands his own confidence, and allow parliament to ratify it at the next election.

Here we must not forget a few key constitutional elements militating in favour of the sitting president – even if we are prone to cynicism and tend to dismiss his crocodile tears on national TV at the hard time his erstwhile prime minister gave him. To wit: that Article 43(3) gives the president the authority to change the cabinet of ministers, and that the sitting prime minister ceases to function when the cabinet of ministers have been removed according to Article 46(2); and also that the president’s unilateral abrogation of the UNP-SLFP pact effectively terminated this cabinet and therefore its premier’s tenure.

And so, all we’re truly upset with Maithripala Sirisena about is that he has been less than a democrat. Prone to play realpolitik – like a long line of many better and brighter republicans before him. And proven publicly that power tends to corrupt. Which is no shock or surprise, really. If you consider that the president’s political DNA comes from tainted stock. With the sterling common candidate of 2015 having been a stalwart in an authoritarian antidemocratic regime under two Rajapaksa administrations spanning a decade from 2005-2015. Once bitten, we the public and our pouting premier could or should have been twice shy.

We chose to be blind to relative power’s relative corruption and built castles in the air on a dead-letter constitution that no political party embraces as faithfully as it should – no matter how much they protest when its loopholes militate against them. It is not the letter of the law that is sick, however, even though it may be weak. Rather that the political culture that appropriates and implements it is rotten at the core. And we the people are constantly compelled to choose between the lesser of the two evils. It’s becoming increasingly harder to do that. Though for the moment it looks like the UNP and its outraged premier are the aggrieved party.

It did not behove us to give bad wine good bush. So perhaps we will forbear to mention the UNP’s own short memory as it appears to have forgotten that their prime minister was also in a minority in government in January 2015 and was sworn in on the confident opinion of the president whose loyalty – or attention or anything else – he no longer commands. We need not even mention that if the born again democratic-republicans who are pounding the pulpit on legality and constitutionality now were to refer to the terms of the 19th Amendment, the not so small print would remind them that the cabinet of over 30 was in itself contrary to the spirit of the constitution – so let’s not lose too much sleep or waste airtime over the letter of the law not being honoured. On to impeachment of the incumbent president or a no-confidence motion against the now ensconced new premier or whatever the next fortnight brings.
Con
But not before I air a few rhetorical questions of my own. And like Pontius Pilate, I’m not waiting for an answer. But will be content to see the good offices of the prelate-endorsed speaker or petitioned chief justice rule for us.

Is MS constitutionally entitled to entertain a wrong opinion – even if his political motives are transparently craven? Has RW lost the moral right to take the legal high ground because he has violated the people’s mandates in manifestly more ways than one from being a minority PM himself to abysmal condoning of the bond scam by virtue of dissociation? Will the Sangha sanctioned speaker’s prevailing on parliament to reconvene violate even a politically driven president’s constitutional right to prorogue it? Would the aggrieved parties do well not to go to court and set a precedent such that the supreme ruling on the legality or constitutionality of it would establish the bona fides of MR, arguably the worst of a bad lot?

(Journalist | Editor-at-large of LMD | Writer #SpeakingTruthToPower)

The constitutionality of change in premiership

By Neville Ladduwahetty-October 29, 2018, 8:57 pm

This is in response to comments that the removal of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime minister is unconstitutional. The justification for this claim is that since the UNP with 106 members has the majority in Parliament, he as leader of the UNP commands the "confidence of Parliament", as stated in Article 42 (4) of the 19th Amendment. The identical wording relating to the appointment of a Prime Minister is contained in Article 43 (3) of the 1978 Constitution.

The irony is that Article 42 (4) is also stated as the basis for his removal in the letter forwarded to him. Therefore, since Article 42 (4) or Article 43 (3) cannot be the basis for his removal and also be the basis for him to remain as Prime Minister there is a need to examine and interpret Article 42 (4) in its full scope.

Article 42 (4) states: "The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament".

It is crystal clear that it is the "President’s opinion" that decides his choice. This overrides the issue of the person "likely to command the confidence of Parliament" on grounds of a majority in Parliament, even after the so called "Unity government" ceased to exist following the withdrawal of the UPFA from the government.

The reason for the primacy of the "President’s opinion" over the majority in Parliament or any other, is the fact that Sri Lanka’s Constitution is based on a Presidential system and not on a Parliamentary system. In Sri Lanka’s Constitution, Article 4 (b) states: "The executive powers of the People including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People".

ArtIcle 30 (1) of the 19th Amendment states: "There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka who is the Head of State, Head of the Executive and of the Government …."

Furthermore, as per Article 42 (1) the Cabinet of Ministers shall be "charged with the direction and control of the Government", and as per Article 42 (3) the President shall be "the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers".

Therefore, in view of the Articles cited above and taking its contents individually and collectively it is abundantly clear that a President, elected by the People as the Head of the Executive and the Cabinet of Ministers who are collectively responsible to Parliament for the "direction and control of the Government", has to have as a Prime Minister a person who in the President’s opinion would support him to guide the "direction and control of the Government", rather than having a person whose ideology is at variance with that of the President; a fact that was reported to have been building up and which culminated at a recent Cabinet meetings. If the primary basis for appointing as the Prime Minister is the person who has the largest numerical majority in Parliament but who is ideologically different, it would be a fetter to the direction and control of the government. It is for this reason that the opinion of the President matters more than numerical majorities, particularly in instances where coalition governments are made up of ideologically disparate political parties.

This fact is starkly evident in US politics whenever the President is from one party and the majority in Congress is from another. Similar situations could arise in Sri Lanka too. Fortunately, in the case of Sri Lanka the Constitution provides for the President to exercise his prerogative in regard to his "opinion" in appointing the Prime Minister. This permits the Executive powers of the People to be exercised through the President, free of constraints of the Legislative Branch as in the US when circumstances arise. Therefore, even if the Executive under the President does not have a majority in Parliament all it could affect the passage of Legislation. Aside from this disadvantage, Executive activities could continue unabated as it does when a Provincial Council is dissolved, and the Executive functions of the People are exercised by the Governor. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional in whether the political party under an Executive President has a majority in Parliament or not. This is an inherent feature of the Separation of Powers. However, it should not be overlooked that although a majority in Parliament is not a constitutional necessity, it is needed to prevent a rejection of "Government Policy, or the Appropriations Bill or to pass a vote of no-confidence in the government" (Article 48 (2). Therefore, while the lack of a majority does not amount to a violation of the Constitution, a majority in Parliament becomes a matter for political survival.

In contrast, under a Parliamentary system there is no choice other than for the leader of the political party with the largest majority to be accepted as the Prime Minister, and as such, become the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Government. Therefore, the claim that the measure adopted by the President in appointing former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister being unconstitutional, has no basis whatsoever in the presidential system.

Open letter to presidential secretariat ! Investigate the dozens of corruption and frauds

Gaani Vasuhewa writes..

(Lanka e News -26.Oct.2018, 11.30PM) The president while inaugurating a program against frauds ,profligacy and corruption made a request to the public to expose those crimes. In compliance with his own request Lanka e news deems it is its duty to give hereunder information about the frauds , profligacy and corruption that were committed during his own term as president under his very nose which warrant immediate investigation, and punishment. .

1.The Electronic transmission , a public property valued at many millions of rupees was given to Sirasa Institution for a song without duly calling for tenders. In the final round , when tenders were called to grant this electronic transmission on lease, the Malaysian Co. was paid US dollars 25 million whereas, Sirasa received a paltry US dollars 10 million only. That is, the country had been deprived of a whopping sum of Rs.4340 million . This is a massive crime of corruption. This abuse of power is itself a grave crime . Besides under article 38 , (2) a ( iv) of the constitution , the president is liable to misconduct and , has laid bare to an impeachment motion against him.

2.Purchase of a ship from Russia which in fact is just discarded metal, by KIli Maharaja in collusion with president’s notorious wheeler dealer son in law for US dollars 158 million. It was only after the Finance ministry pointed out when this deal was to be concluded forcibly, that economic sanctions will be imposed on the country because the Russian Co. is blacklisted ,that deal was stalled .This deal had not been concluded so far , and it is learnt every sly move is being made to put this through with the blacklisted Russian Co..

3.Presidant Sirisena made solemn promises that he will stamp out the family rule ,but as soon as he became president , his younger brother Kumarasinghe Sirisena was made the chairman of Telecom and Mobitel , two most important Institutions in the country. . Besides Kumarasinghe is an absolute ignoramus on the subject of telecommunication . Little wonder the Institutions are now in serious trouble.

4.The assets of Chaturika Sirisena , Thilina Suranjith and Daham Sirisena as at 2015-01-08 shall be laid bare. It must be revealed to the people how the assets snowballed to such monumental scale during the following 3 years.

5.Conducting himself in a manner to shield and safeguard murderers after reckoning them as war heroes when there is cogent evidence to prove the crimes .

Instead of interdicting the suspects in the Ekneliyagoda disappearance , reinstating them in service.

While the prime suspect in the multiple murder of 11 children after collecting extortion monies was in remand custody , granting an extension in service to him. These are grave abuse of powers and most heinous crimes.

6.When a most reputed Director General of Bribery Commission Ms. Dilrukshi Dias was discharging her duties most honestly and with integrity , and apprehending all the rogues irrespective of their rank and status , by openly leveling unfair charges against her created a situation which led her to resign that post. This was a violation of article 42 of the constitution by the president . He has deliberately obstructed the Bribery Commissioner in the execution of her duties duly and law enforcement.

7.Wife of Udaya Gammanpila unlawfully drove a state vehicle and killed a youth . This murder was suppressed .

8.In the Thajudeen murder and the Sirilasa fraud where Shiranthee Rajapakse is facing heinous charges , permitting to record her statement by the CID at speaker’s residence ( public property) .In addition giving illegal orders to the Attorney General to delay the filing of cases against her in the massive Sirilasa fraud.

9.Without taking necessary legal action against Mohan Peiris when he was the chief justice who exerted undue unlawful pressures on the president ( if he is allowed to continue as CJ , he will give decisions in the way the president wants) , president just made wild utterances in that regard. After Peiris resigned , legal action could have been taken against him for the pressures he exerted, yet that was not done.

10.Mangala Samaraweera in writing made a complaint against the conspiracy of the former rulers and their diabolic attempts on the night of 2015-01-08, yet that was suppressed.

11.On 2015-01-08 following victory , what were you secretly discussing and conspiring with those charged with murder and corruption charges that night after extinguishing the lights ( main witness to this is Malith Jayaweera M.P.) It is your incumbent duty to disclose what you discussed , to the people who elected you to power. .

12.When ex CJ Sarath Silva did not deliver a correct judgment against the then prime minister charged with misappropriation of Tsunami funds , and even after he told openly that he gave a wrong verdict and asked for pardon , preventing that case from being tried before a higher panel of judges.

13.Taking decisions regarding Glyphosate , asbestos , security helmets in a way that could harm the people. After saying those are bad and banning them , then again lifted the ban to deliberately drive the people into serious problems.

14.While FCID was conducting investigations into the corruption crimes of infamous ex ministers Dilan Perera and Susil Premachandra , the investigation was halted , and the files were called back by you ( telephone call exchanges bear testimony )

15.Encouraging and authorizing rape by appointing criminals as electoral organizers who were punished by courts for making a school teacher to kneel down. Even before his suspended sentence was over the criminal was appointed.

16.Encouraging and authorizing corruption by protecting and safeguarding the over obese chief minister who made a principal of a school to kneel down.

17.Culprit Sajin Vaas who never gave evidence and doesn’t appear is being named a crown witness , and kept in hiding .

18.After coming to power assuring that family rule will be stamped out , through own children exerting pressures unlawfully on State Institutions.

19.Giving nominations to wife of rowdy Saruwa Sunil who committed rape.

20.After railing at the Lamborghini of Namal , importing a super luxury vehicle costing Rs. 35 to 40 million out of public funds as soon as becoming the president .

21.Creeping to power after ‘selling’ the media personnel victims who were murdered and disappeared in so many ways , as well as the media institutions that were destroyed , by promising to address their issues and providing redress. But until now nothing had been done on their behalf.

22 .Swearing with all the might before Dalada Maligawa that the executive presidency will be abolished , saying this is your first and last term in office . But now kicking out all those solemn pledges and seeking court intervention to increase the presidential term in order to cling on to power . Having tasted the Infinite sweetness of corruption through corrupt power , how can you adhere to your promises and pledges even before deities?

23.Recommending two judges who have acquired a notoriety for corruption to the Constitutional Council to be appointed as judges of the higher courts

24.While being the official head of a government with a majority , conspiring with the confirmed discarded plunderers and rogues in a minority on the sly to form a government .

If the presidential secretariat is truly against corruption and frauds that have been committed in many dozens ,it should take stern measures against these, and irrespective of rank and status of the culprits mete out punishment with a view to put the country on the right road .

Gaani Vasuhewa

---------------------------
by (2018-10-29 19:47:46)

The Delights Of A Rural Existence: Electricity Supply

By Emil van der Poorten –OCTOBER 30, 2018

Emil van der Poorten

Some years ago, after being left in the dark, literally, for many decades while some of our “politically-connected” rural neighbours had the benefits of power off the national grid, it was announced that we, too, were soon to get “lights,” as the local Sinhala colloquialism has it.

Before the excitement generated by this announcement had died down, the “locals” had been shanghaied into contributing volunteer labour, saws, axes, knives etc. to clear the path for the high-tension feed up the mile-and-a-half between the main power lines bordering the Kandy-Kurunegala highway and our neighbourhood, halfway up the hill range adjacent to it.

Much enthusiasm, some skill and a great deal of sweat was willingly expended in the effort with those of us not having the physical capacity to participate, providing food and drink.

In due course the concrete posts went up and the high-tension cables, sans insulation of any kind, were strung.

Then came an extended period of inactivity, the reason for which was that those with the power to throw the switch and provide us with power were awaiting an election call which would provide the opportunity to celebrate their generosity towards us lesser mortals and reap our gratitude by way of “Xs” on ballot papers.

In the meantime, the (un-insulated) high tension cables proved a great source of entertainment and recreation for the troops of monkeys that have become the bane of the lives of people living in this area. They frolicked along the cables, performing various acrobatic feats that would not otherwise have been possible because there had never been anything like these big “ropes” to frolic on.

At last an election campaign arrived and the senior politician for the area honoured us with his presence, lunching with one who had been a personal friend during their secondary education in a hill country school. He then made the obligatory speech and threw the switch in a manner that would have befitted the Biblical command “Let there be light.”

Our simian neighbours took a while to wake up to the fact that it was no longer safe to use the power cables as some kind of acrobatic aid. This meant that periodically there would be a loud bang, the “trip” would go off at the transformer from which the electricity was distributed to our neighbourhood and there would be an (electrocuted) monkey below the said power cables with no electricity for the (human) consumers!

This sequence of events would only be brought to a satisfactory conclusion when the local Central Electricity Board (CEB) sent one of its vehicles (if available) up our hill to have the power switched on again.

One of the factors that contributed to our neighbourhood being the acknowledged leader in the matter of power outages was the immediate problem of trees or branches from them falling on and breaking the power lines.

Mind you, the pathway for the power lines was initially cleared on the direction and under the supervision of staff from the CEB and it should have taken a significant amount of time before the surviving vegetation was tall enough to fall across the power lines. Also, we were periodically deprived of power supply for a whole day at a time while a “maintenance crew,” was supposed to be removing any vegetation likely to fall across the power lines.

About all that these “maintenance crews” achieved was cutting down any vegetation that was easily reached from the ground, particularly plantain trees which didn’t have the capacity to grow tall enough to reach the power lines in the first place, strewing the results all over the roadway and in any drain that was handy, leaving, literally, a trail of debris and destruction in their wake. This necessitated those of us who had to use the road subsequently having to clear the obstructions they’d left in their wake before we could use what was supposed to be a public thoroughfare.

When I have raised this issue with the local head of the CEB, his excuse was that these were crews of “outsiders” working on contract from the CEB and that he had no control over these people’s conduct! His response to my question as to who could afford us relief in this regard was that he was that person! If they were working under contract from the CEB and he was the local head of that essential service, it seemed redundant to even suggest that he should be able to do something about what we were being subjected to, don’t you think, dear reader?

During the recent inclement weather, massive damage was done to the road, because the drains and culverts were blocked with the debris referred to earlier and the road constituted a veritable river. I can’t resist the temptation of repeating the fact that the reason for this state of affairs was that the culverts had been blocked by an accumulation of debris left behind by the CEB’s “maintenance´ crews.

Perhaps the crowning indignity was that we were told that until and unless we made the road accessible to the CEB’s vehicles, the electrical repairs, inclusive of replacing a totally destroyed transformer, would not be effected.

Does this state of affairs deserve further comment or does it simply bring to mind the desperate need for a Sri Lankan Franz Kafka to chronicle our plight?

In our particular case we were able to better survive the calamity than our neighbours because we had a 50+ years old generator that we could crank up from time to time and keep our refrigeration equipment cool enough to save most of our food. Our neighbours were not so fortunate and ended up having to throw away what food they had in their refrigerators. These were not affluent members of the Sri Lankan middle class but poor rural folk, most of whom travelled several hours each day to their work as helpers in the building trades. The only way we were able to help out was by offering them access to electricity to charge up their mobile phones without access to which they’d have been in even more trouble.