Shirani Violated The Rule Of Sinhala Chauvinism

By Vickramabahu Karunaratne -November 10, 2012

Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne

In the domain of liberal democracy a motion to impeach a judge of the Supreme Court is a serious matter. That is permissible only if either there is suspicion of insanity or some problem akin to it. Analysis of any impeachments of any judge in the post modern world show that whole intelligencia in that country and in related countries were participant in one way or the other in the judgment. It was a public, transparent affair where intimidation, political pressure and discrimination were brought to a minimum. Such a clear show was necessary to counter what happened under both fascism and Stalinism. It was made transparent so that the public were generally aware of the allegations – before those allegations are formally brought up. Here the situation is very different. Mahinda regime preached about the responsibility of the judiciary and the respect given by the people to the judges and magistrates. Indirectly people were made to suspect CJ of great misbehavior. However, still the public are not aware of  details of the allegations against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayke. Whole thing was submerged in secrecy. There were campaigns, all political, against the CJ. Already, in public domain she is convicted of treachery and indecency. Village humbugs who rule the country, there by, has converted her to a modern day Jesus Christ. It is clear that she is victimized for exposing the limitations of the parliament and the central government, in relation to the 13th amendment. That is the greatest sin she has committed. Jesus became a conspirator and a criminal, because he preached all humans are equal and of single divine birth. Shirani has to bear the cross for telling that devolved power to the provinces cannot be simply over ruled; that power sharing in the 13^th amendment is real. Her decision exposed the hypocrisy of Mahinda chinthanaya. That is her real crime. Gallantly she dismissed the ridiculous claim by the president that he consulted the northern Tamil people by getting the signature of the soldier appointed by him to lead the military rule there. She threw her dismissal on the face of the man who was directing an impeachment against her. Jesus went against the laws of the Roman Empire and the Jewish claim of selected race, when he said all humans are equal. In the same manner Shirani violated the rule of Sinhala chauvinism when she ruled that 13th amendment obstructs the parliament in relation to the devolved subject.

Mahinda so far maintained his support to the 13th amendment indirectly, as long as it is a mechanism for decentralization and diversification. But it cannot be a power sharing mechanism. When Shirani made it clear that the constitution and the 13th amendment stands for some thing different and devolution is already there, regime went into utmost crisis. Now they do not care for the rule of law or the constitution. What they want is to frighten and terrorize all those who are prepared to defend sharing of power. So it is clear that Shirani has to be crucified in order to save the great hero of war, man who finished the idea of Tamil liberation. She has become the goat to be sacrificed for the unitary state of Sinhala chauvinists. The struggle of the government is not within the law. It is already a war conducted by terror and wild allegations. She is threatened to deny and change the ruling she has given already. There is clear evidence to establish that the government was involved in the attack on JSC secretary, Manjula. Also it is clear that political mudslinging at Shirani is backed by the regime. In fact GL behaved like a Stalinist Red professor in the recent adjournment debate in Parliament on JSC. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in real terms, justified the attack on the JSC on the basis that its Secretary was appointed contrary to the constitution. He argued that according to the Constitution, only the senior most member of the minor judiciary can be appointed as the Secretary of the JSC.   Manjula was 29th in the seniority list; and therefore should not have been appointed as Secretary.  There are no such provisions in the Constitution and it exists only in the head of the local Red Professor. Out side parliament, using state media setup, the government is having a carnival of mud slinging and false propaganda against a woman who has given a historic judgment.

Mahinda knows that the parliament cannot act as a court in this case. It is clear that cases such as these are to be decided by courts and institutions that have been established to adjudicate judicially. However, MPs are made to believe that they can become a universal court in the name of the people. What they really expect is for this woman to break down and cry for help. In that way they expect to remove a stumbling block in their path to arbitrary rule. Time has come for all of us to defend the women carrying the cross on her shoulders. She may have done her job neatly not knowing the historic value of her stand and may be she has made mistakes in her judicial carrier. She and her family may not be the true example of a committed house hold living according to norms and traditions within the Lankan society. But, whether she likes it or not, she is in the middle of a struggle against injustice and discrimination. That makes her the women carrying the cross on her shoulder.

Video: Prison riot: death toll rises to 27

Sri Lankan troops found 11 bodies of convicts Saturday raising the death toll in an overnight prison riot in the capital to 27, prisons minister said.
Minister Chandrasiri Gajadeera told parliament that 27 people were killed in Friday's rioting at Colombo's maximum security Welikada prison where inmates fought gunbattles with elite police commandos who carried out a search.

"Sixteen bodies are at the hospital and another 11 were found in the prison today," Gajadeera said in a special statement to the legislature. "I have appointed a three-member committee to investigate the incident."


Army spokesman Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya earlier said troops recovered six bodies of inmates from the prison on Saturday morning.
"During our search operation this morning, we found six dead bodies of inmates in addition to the 16 bodies at the hospital last night," Wanigasooriya told AFP.

He said prison guards and police had also carried out searches and may have recovered more bodies.

The minister said rioting inmates had seized 82 guns, including automatic assault rifles, from a prison armoury they broke into, but the authorities were able to recover most of them.

"A search is on for five weapons which are still missing," the minister said.

Hospital sources said that at least one prison guard was among those killed. Thirteen police commandos and four soldiers were also among 43 people who were wounded in the riot.- AFP

Full Text Of The BASL Resolution On The Impeachment Motion

November 10, 2012 

“We will not tolerate any impunity”– Mahinda Samarasinghe

By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan-Sunday 04 November 2012

Sri Lanka rejected some of the recommendations by the Human Rights Council because most of them have already been implemented,” said Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe who led Sri Lanka’s delegation to Geneva.
He made this statement at the session where he gave the explanatory note as to why Sri Lanka had rejected certain recommendations at the Universal Periodical Review (UPR) held in Geneva on November 1, 2012.

Speaking to LAKBIMAnEWS, he explained the recommendations that Sri Lanka had accepted and rejected at the UPR. “Out of the 100 recommendations, some of them were rejected on the grounds that they are being implemented. We are not prepared to implement the rest of the recommendations at the moment. Those were the various conventions the UN Human Rights Council wanted us to sign or ratify.”
He added, “We are now concentrating on the visit by Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who is expected in Sri Lanka early next year.”
Commenting on the information passed on by Tamil Nadu’s DMK treasurer, M.K. Stalin, that the high commissioner would be coming to Sri Lanka in January, the minister said, “We checked with the UN High Commissioner’s office if the news is accurate but according to them she has not communicated the exact month of arrival, and had said ‘early next year.’ If she is going to come to Sri Lanka, she should inform the government about her visit.”
“News of her impending arrival has been conveyed to our UN ambassador in Geneva, it is claimed, but the exact date has not been indicated,” he said.

‘In line with our thinking’
All the accepted recommendation are in line with our thinking, the minister said. “For example, the implementation of the LLRC Task Force Action Plan (short term, medium term and long term operational plans), not the LLRC report per say, have been accepted.”
He also said, “If you read some of the recommendations carefully, they ask us to conduct further investigations into various incidents, and we are doing it.”
“We have met the Army Court of Inquiry at 30 different occasions and at present we are looking into 15 items that are listed in the LLRC report. At the same time, the Attorneys General’s Department is also looking into some of the cases. So these are some of the recommendations we have accepted and they are already being implemented. The rest of the recommendations in line with our thinking totals to 110.”
Explaining as to why some of the recommendations were rejected, he said, “The ones we have rejected were on the basis that either they have been completed or not being in line with our thinking. When we reject, it is rejected, based on the concern for the country. All countries reject recommendations based on their country’s perceptions.”
“Almost all the countries at the Geneva session appreciated the work that has been achieved by the Government of Sri Lanka. This is what we wanted from the start.”
He continued, “Having said that, I should also say, we do have to overcome many other challenges and for that we need more time. We cannot say exactly when this could be completed. We need more time. We cannot give a time frame as it depends on how we proceed. But we are committed, and this is what I would like to say. The ultimate objective is to complete the task and achieve a comprehensive reconciliation. The sooner we do so the better, but it cannot be rushed. For instance, the investigations depend a lot on the evidence that is brought forward. If there is evidence, certainly prosecution can follow, so that is what the attorney general and the police are doing.”

The mechanism
“The Army Court of Inquiry is looking into the entirety of listed incidents that is relevant to the army. For example, the Channel 4 telecast. In that regard, we have even gone to the extent of seeing whether we can identify the images of the people on the video. Some men are seen wearing army uniforms and allegedly shooting men who are blindfolded. The obvious thing to do, notwithstanding the accuracy or the non-authenticity of the video, is to identify any of those faces and establish the fact that they are genuine army personnel and verify it thoroughly and bring them to court martial procedures,” Minister Samarasinghe explained.

“What we demonstrated in Geneva is that we are committed and are working on these challenges,” he said.
He also added that all what was stated at the sessions in Geneva at the UPR were appreciated by a number of delegations present and who judged the sessions. It was a good occasion to explain the stance of the Government.
“Usually, at a comprehensive UN session such as this, we get only a few minutes to make a statement but we were given 70 minutes this time. Therefore we took the maximum opportunity, and we will continue to work towards the progress of the investigations,” he said.
Minister Samarasinghe continued, “We will not involve any international body to be part of our investigations and procedures. This is a domestic process and we are not interested in getting outsiders.”

Steps taken based on evidence

“Who can precisely say the international body is more independent than our local officials?” he questioned.
The minister did not wish to comment on the Indian stand on the Sri Lankan government’s views, but added, “Our stand is, we are committed to these challenges and are looking into the accountability issues. If sufficient evidence is established, we will certainly take the next step – to prosecute the persons involved. We don’t want to tolerate any impunity. The UPR session did not ask for a time frame for all these to be completed but wanted only the progress in record.”
He added, “I must say, even those countries which did not vote with us at the last Human Rights Council in March 2012 acknowledged that Sri Lanka has progressed.”

Sri Lankan State Terrorism Spreads To Paris, France

By S. V. Kirubaharan -November 10, 2012 

S. V. Kirubaharan

“Assassination makes only martyrs, not converts” Alphonse de Lamartine, French writer, poet and politician 21 October 1790 – 28 February 1869

With deep sadness and grief I write on the assassination carried out by the Sri Lankan military intelligence on a Tamil activist, a French citizen in Paris, France - Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi, nom de guerre Regan.

There is no doubt that this assassination was carried out by the Sri Lankan military intelligence which is directly under the Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the Defence Secretary.

Last Thursday, 8 November 2012, Parithi left his office located at 341 rue de Pyrenees in the 20^th arrondissement of Paris, at 9.00 pm (21.00 hrs). The assassin, who must have known Parithi’s daily movements precisely, was waiting outside his office. He cold-bloodedly opened fire on Parithi, killing him on the spot. Parithi’s colleagues who were with him were stunned at what they witnessed.

Parithi joined the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – LTTE in 1983. He was injured in battle in 1988 and left the LTTE. Being an LTTE combatant he had participated in many battles against the Sri Lankan security forces.

He sought political asylum in France in 1990 and worked as an accounts clerk, living with his wife and daughter. In 2004, he became a full time activist and was in charge of the Tamil Coordinating Committee – TCC in Paris. He consistently supported the struggle for the right to self-determination of the Tamil people.

In 2004, during the so-called “peace time”, Parithi went to Sri Lanka. He was threatened and followed by the Sri Lanka intelligence service on his arrival at Colombo Airport until he went to the French embassy in Colombo and made a complaint. The French embassy in Colombo is well aware of this incident.

However, in April 2007, due to strong anti-LTTE lobbying, Parithi and thirteen other members of the TCC, were brought to justice by the French authorities. As a result, Parithi served a prison sentence until 2010. His re-appeal is still pending in the courts.

On leaving prison, he saw the devastated Tamil diaspora, shocked and grieved by the Mullivaighzhal massacres of May 2009. Parithi continued to serve the Tamil cause.                       Read More

Computer literacy for parliament​arians

Saturday, 10 November 2012 Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa yesterday made it mandatory for all parliamentarians to be fluent and proficient in information communication technology and computer literacy.

The Speaker said that all facilities have been now installed in the Parliament complex for this purpose and requested the MPs to make use of them so that efficiency in parliamentary affairs could be brought up to a higher level. Accordingly all members would be able to log on to a network and terminal store of information pertaining to questions and answers made in Parliament, details and contents of the acts and bills, information on parliament committees.

Make The Impeachment Boomerang On The Rajapaksas

By Tisaranee Gunasekara -November 10, 2012

“You’d wear out a marionette of steel if you pulled the string and jerked it all day long”. Diderot (Rameau’s Nephew)

The impeachment of the Chief Justice is neither the beginning nor the end of theRajapaksa-rush towards absolutism. But it does constitute a watershed moment in that journey, perhaps its final really-existing breaking-point.

Whether the impeachment boomerangs on the Rajapaksas or scythes Lankan democracy depends on how the judiciary, polity and society, including the non-SLFP parties in the UPFA, respond to it.

The Rajapaksas are determined to get rid of the CJ, because she has begun to block their way and cramp their style. Impeachment is the only possible solution to the Rajapaksa conundrum that is judicial independence – since doing to a chief justice what was done to Lasantha Wickremetunga or Prageeth Ekneligoda is not tenable….yet.

A pinprick of light still prevails in this gathering Cimmerian darkness. By going for the impeachment in such a ham-fisted fashion, the Rajapaksas have overplayed their hand. Handled properly, the impeachment can be used to de-legitimise the regime nationally and internationally, and impose a strategic wound on the Rajapaksa project.

The impeachment can be made to boomerang on the Siblings, if the CJ continues to stand firm and our customary indifference does not condemn her to wage this national battle alone.

The impeachment is a mark of Rajapaksa hubris; it is a result of Rajapaksa-numerical strength and of Rajapaksa-political weakness. It denotes a break in the Rajapaksa’s Southern hegemony. The impeachment is symbolic and symbiotic of the Siblings’ inability to do to the judiciary what they did, with such terrifying success, to the legislature, the army, the bureaucracy and the SLFP. All those entities succumbed to that particular Rajapaksa concoction of threats and rewards, snarls and smiles, with nary a murmur. Until a few months ago, the judiciary seemed to be headed in the same anti-democratic direction; and the Rajapaksa power-project seemed totally unassailable.

The Rajapaksas do not want a chief justice who will cooperate with them some of the time, on some of the issues (as Shirani Bandaranaike indeed did). The Rajapaksas want a chief justice who will do their bidding, unquestioningly, on all the issues, all the time. The Rajapaksas want a chief justice no different from the fawning ministers/parliamentarians, the subjugated military-bosses and the supine bureaucrats, the sort of mindless underling they have become accustomed to.

Why the judiciary in general and the CJ in particular decided to resist Rajapaksa tyranny is for historians to debate. For us today it suffices that they are doing so. The judiciary, led by the CJ, is fighting to prevent itself from becoming another pillar of Rajapaksa power. They cannot win that necessary battle without the backing of all those who value the rule of law and understand that tyranny becomes destiny only through default.

 The Rajapakses Expose Themselves                           Read More

Government and CJ brace for showdown 

          The face-off between the government and the judiciary is now being played out in the open
On Tuesday, Parliament published the Order Paper of November 06, 2012 which levelled charges against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.  It called, “as per Article 107(2) of the Constitution,  for a motion of Parliament to be presented to the president for the removal of the Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake from the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.” Among the 14 charges levelled against the Chief Justice in the resolution are nondisclosure in her annual declaration of assets, the details of approximately Rs34 million in foreign currency deposited at the branch of NDB Bank located at Dharmalpala Mawatha, Colombo 07 in accounts 106450013024, 101000046737, 100002001360 and 100001014772 during the period from April 18, 2011 to March 27, 2012; purchase of a house under a power of attorney on behalf of two individuals – Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne, in a condominium known as Trillium Residencies belonging to the company that was known as Ceylinco Housing and Property Company and City Housing and Real Estate Company Limited and Ceylinco Condominium Limited. The resolution alleges that the chief justice is hearing a Fundamental Rights Petition filed against those companies and that she had done so having removed from the bench a Supreme Court judge who had earlier heard the FR petition. 
Among the other charges are nondisclosure in her annual statement of assets the details of more than 20 bank accounts maintained in various banks and none disclosure, during the purchase of the property  from Trillium Residence, as to how Rs 19,362,500, which had been made in cash for the purchase of the property was earned.   
                The procedure...                Read more...

“Dhang Justice Naah”- Now There Is No Justice

By Basil Fernando -November 10, 2012

Basil Fernando

When I talked to a Sri Lankan friend about the killings of prisoners which happened yesterday and tried to convince him that people should demand justice, his instance reply was, “ Dhang justice naah”. In the past, this expression meant that there were serious concerns about justice. However, now it has come to mean literarily what it says. It is a statement of fact, of which no one has any doubt.

Regarding the shooting itself, the very first issue is that it should not have happened and would have been avoided if the normal rules and procedures were followed. STF officers should never have been sent to an inspection in a prison. This should have been by prison officers themselves who, if necessary, could have sought the help of civilian police. Experienced officers would have known what to do and how to do it.

That it was done by STF shows that the raid or the inspection was carried out on the direction of Ministry of Defence. Whenever this ministry is involved, killings are usually the result. Earlier killings at demonstrations quite clearly show that.

In any case, those who conducted the inspection should not have carried guns and even, if they did, no live ammunition should have been issued. Further, no shooting should have taken place without the express command of a commanding officer. There should have been an express command not to shoot to kill, but only to use minimum force.

All this and many other questions need to be examined through an impartial inquiry.

However, such an inquiry will not happen and that is one thing about which there can be certainty, going by all the experiences on such matters in recent times.

Now it has come to a point that even the Chief Justice cannot get an impartial inquiry.

All that will happen is that a story will be concocted, blaming the prisoners for bringing about the shooting on themselves. And then that story will be given the full blast of publicity though the state media.

So, who could say that it is wrong to say “Dhang justice naah”

‘Trial Of The Chief Justice’ – By Kangaroo Court?

By Elmore Perera -November 10, 2012 |

Elmore Perera

A senior government source is reported to have stated on 08.11.2012 that “The PSC will work out the modalities for the sittings. It will only allow a single counsel to accompany the Chief Justice and would allow witnesses or documents to be called only with the consent of a majority of members,” and also that “the government had no intention of allowing representatives of theInternational Bar Association, International Judges’ Association and Commonwealth Bar Association and even the media to observe the proceedings as that would affect the Sovereignty, the authority and the Independence of the Sri Lankan Parliament if they were allowed to monitor or report or comment on the PSC.”  If this is not a Kangaroo (with apologies to the Kangaroos) Court. I don’t know, what is. Certain legalistic individuals,prostituting their questionable standing as legal luminaries, have even advocated that these Kangaroos be clothed with Judicial powers tovalidate pronouncements based on their “findings”. The purported “findings” may very well be clearly contrary to the weight of evidence available. The modus operandi seems to be to shut out any information regarding such evidence until the foul deed of impeachment is concluded.

This government source, the Speaker, and the PSC appointed by him, must all realise that the only valid interpretation of “Sovereignty” as per the 1978 Constitution, is that given by the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Hon. Neville Samarakoon CJ  viz. “Sovereignty of the Sri Lankan People under the 1978 Constitution is one and indivisible. It remains with the People. It is only the exercise of certain Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of the Sovereign People that are delegated to the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. Fundamental Rights and Franchise remain with the People and the Supreme Court has been constituted the guardian of such rights.” There certainly cannot be any such thing as “Sovereignty” of Parliament. The Authority and Independence of Parliament is limited to what is set out in the Constitution and therefore the extent of such authority and independence are subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

The impeachment of a President cannot be proceeded with unless the Supreme Court, after due inquiry, finds that the President has been guilty of any of the allegations contained in the resolution for his impeachment. Can the impeachment of  a Chief Justice be based on a finding of a motley group of Parliamentarians with no judicial authority ? Clearly not ! Any such finding is clearly subject to appropriate Judicial Review.

It is self-evident that “the truth of a matter does not depend  on how many believe it”. The truth of the 14 allegations (several of which seem to be clearly unfounded) certainly cannot be based on how
many ‘vote’ for it. Cognizance must be taken of the fact that several Parliamentarians who publicly professed to oppose  the 18th Amendment did, however, for reasons best known to them, vote for it.

The submission made by ex- Chief Justice  Sarath N. Silva that the impeachment exercise is “purely of a disciplinary nature relating to a contract of employment  between the Judge and the Government of Sri Lanka” and that “the publication of the charges and the response moves the issue into the realm of a public trial which will only harm the Judiciary” is, to say the least preposterous! The charges against him were, at that time, all in the  public domain and any attempt  by him to answer them would have been tantamount to digging his own grave.

Without merely “sitting and staring at the Order Book”, he took action and was saved from the ignominy of impeachment by the timely proroguing and subsequent dissolution of  Parliament, by his benefactor President Kumaratunga, to whom he had administered the oath of office, as President in 1999 and once again “secretly” in 2000, for reasons best known to him.

It was only because the charges contained in the impeachment motion against her were made public, that the Chief Justice has been able to refute them as convincingly as she has done. On the other hand, if they were not publicised, the PSC could have gone through the motions secretly and caused irrevocable harm to the Judiciary. In that event no judge would in future dare to act independently to uphold the rights of the Sovereign People, even in the face of patently unlawful violations of the Fundamental Rights of the People.

Perhaps this ex-CJ is not averse to this impeachment (which will cause untold damage to the Judiciary) for the reason that his conduct at the meeting of the JSC on 30th  December 2004, and the manner in which he conducted the affairs of the JSC in the year 2005 (with the active support of then Secretary of the JSC, Chandra Jayatilaka who was recently appointed by the President to the Court of Appeal) which resulted in the “Constructive Termination” of the tenure of Bandaranayake  J and Weerasuriya J as members of the J.S.C. in January 2006, will thereby be permanently swept under the carpet.

This trial must necessarily be conducted in as transparent a manner as possible, to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary. It may be necessary for Civil Society to take a stand to ensure this.  The arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the law enforcement agencies to suppress any dissent may require Civil Society to resort even to peaceful Civil Disobedience. Failure to do so may seal the fate of Democracy and pave the way for Ruthless Dictatorship.

*Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law,Founder, Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance,Past President, Organisation of Professional Associations

Can the Dead Left be recalled to life?

Communist Party reviews its options

Sunday 04 November 2012

There has been a significant development in the Communist Party of Sri Lanka. A conference at the end of October, in a critical review of the recent past, determined that supporting the 18th Amendment (18A) was a blunder. This has implications because the CP will now have to review its stand on a range of issues; most important, abolishing the Executive Presidency (EP). It has been the CP’s position from 1978 that EP was a monstrosity foisted on the country by JR; hence supporting 18A was an inexplicable contradiction. It makes no sense to increase executive powers and remove term limits if you think EP is repugnant! The two explanations at the time; Vasudeva’s “Oppose in principle, but support in practice,” and Tissa’s “Once the SLMC decided to support it, Mahinda was assured of two-thirds, so we may as well support it,” makes one ask whether these two need psychiatric attention. 
The CP reclassifying its support for 18A as a blunder is a step in the right direction.

Unavoidable implications
Since the CP has gone back on 18A, it will have to give its mind to three other matters; will it expressly call for the Executive Presidency to be abolished, will it oppose and vote against the Divineguma Bill, will it oppose the witch hunt of the chief justice? The importance of all three cannot be overstated. Ending EP is life and death for Lankan democracy. This has been much debated so I need spend no more newsprint today. Divineguma is another Rajapaksa power grab. I am not sure which is more egregious; the Rajapaksa siblings’ grab of the lion’s share (64%) of the state budget, or shredding provincial devolution. The first consolidates autocracy and family power; the latter is extreme centralization and monopolization, an element in the same strategy.
Impeaching, or more correctly lynching the CJ is another nail in the coffin of democracy. Of course they will dig up dirt on the CJ, her husband, or her great grandmother; UPFA MPs and other clowns need something to cover their nakedness with. The unqualified truth, however, is that this is a move by the Executive to bring the Judiciary to heel and reduce it to a pliant instrument in its hands. The CJ who bummed the regime by ratifying 18A is now to be strung up herself. That the regime has windigo psychos cannot be lost on the CP, which now has to choose between certain death by political atrophy, if it stays with the government, or a pounding by the regime if it distances itself. There is outrage in the membership because the CP leadership tried to go along with the CJ impeachment; it is likely this will be reversed by the PB and CC.
If the Rajapaksas’ lynch the CJ, the public can kiss free and fair elections goodbye – it’s pretty battered already. Once the Judiciary is enslaved, the young may reasonably conclude that direct action is the only remaining option. The regime will then unleash the military, whose blood lust it has primed in a racial war. Marxists foresaw all this a long time ago; the CP is just getting the point. Still I am glad; better late than never.

The LSSP and DLF
The CP is well aware that the step it is taking will have consequences; its relationship with the Rajapaksa quasi-dictatorship will rapture. If it stays with, and is a party to, mounting dictatorship, its own skull will soon be crushed under the tracks of a tank. If it moves out of the Cabinet (whether it sits in the government Parliamentary Group or not) that will free it from obligation to worship Rajapaksa five times a day. What I mean is that it can speak freely and critically. This will have an impact on stooges like Hakeem, Thonda, Tissa and Vasu. How long can these pallid poodles carry on kissing posteriors if the CP begins straight talking? 
Quite rightly, the CP is said to be of the opinion that a decision about its relationship with the Rajapaksa regime has to be made in consultation with the LSSP and DLF. This is the right way to get started. What will then unfold is as follows; Tissa and Vasu will fight tooth and nail to contain the CP and safeguard their own Cabinet posts. Conversely, the LSSP Left Tendency will be energized and surface as a faction demanding that the LSSP opposes the Executive Presidency, the Divineguma Bill and the attack on judicial independence. Anger at Tissa for signing-on to lynch the CJ is already running high in the LSSP. Nothing will happen in the DLF; that party is vacant of mind and populated by place-seekers collecting allowances in ministry sinecures. 
Although Tissa and Vasu will peddle a pro-Mahinda line and seek to contain the CP, thanks to internal tensions within the LSSP, and the event’s invigorating effect nationally, a show of real defiance by the CP may help empower the left nationally. Nevertheless, let me close on a cautious note. This is all a best case scenario, predicated on the supposition that the CP sticks to its guns and the challenge posed by the LSSP Left Tendency does not run out of steam. 
The Rajapaksas’ are past masters at subterfuge. Will they succeed in frightening or bribing the party leaderships into surrender, again? Personally, I am in no position to offer bets and lean to pessimism; but I hope the Dead Left does not capitulate again and dig itself an even deeper grave.

A Response To Laksiri Fernando: How About A Third Republican Constitution?

By Malinda Seneviratne -November 10, 2012

Malinda Seneviratne

I read with interest Laksiri Fernando’s avuncular response (‘Devolution Talk’) to a comment on the 13^th Amendment I had written a few weeks ago.  He’s asked me to ponder the 17^th and 18^th ‘syndrome’ of the Rajapaksa administration.  So, first things first, I will respond to this suggestion.

I have written dozens of articles on the 17^th Amendment, from the time it was passed in 2001, pointing out its errors and lacunae and suggesting corrective measures.  As for the 18^th, my objections were recorded in the Daily News as well as other newspapers I wrote for at the time.  So the ‘political past’ that he talks of is as much an imagination-figment as the idea as ‘pondering’ is ‘difficult’ for me.  I put it down to ignorance, which of course is no crime.

Fernando believes that the abrogation of the 13^th would spell disaster for Sri Lanka’s external relations.  I believe otherwise.  He believes that the 13^th ‘appears’ as imposition due to inept legal drafters.  ‘Appears’, he says and it astounds me.  India thrust it down our throats and JR conveniently ignored Supreme Court directive with respect to the referendum clause.  The document was only part read before the vote was taken in Parliament.  Fernando also ignores the fact that the 13^th sought to resolve a problem that had nothing to do with territory.

I have written extensively on the ‘white elephant’ element of the 13^th.  Two thirds of monies allocated for the Provincial Councils go to maintain them, for instance.  The logic of multiple economic centers in regions that are extremely unequal in terms of resource endowment rebels against devolution.  And if devolution is taken to its logical conclusion, we could have the Western Province (which contributes close to two-thirds of GNP) asking why it should subsidize Uva (for example).  A lot of regional ills can be dealt with by expanding administrative decentralization and does not require power devolution.

Fernando wants me to admit that my perspective on the subject has little to do with the weaknesses of the present system.  There is nothing to ‘admit’.  I’ve been clear about it.  I oppose the 13^th for multiple reasons, the economic ‘logic’ (or rather lack of logic) being but one element of my opposition.  The only logical way to devolve would be in accordance to a model where provincial lines are re-demarcated so as to correct for anomalies in resource endowment.  I’ve spelled this out many times.

It is a pity that Fernando hangs on to sarcasm and doesn’t get it either.  Indeed he confuses my objections to his gonibilla posturing regarding the international community with contentions about the 13^th .  Sad.

And yet, Fernando is not wrong when he says, ‘The main detractors of proper development, stability and people’s sovereignty, if those are the concerns, are within the country and within the ruling clique itself’.  He could also add the UNP, the JVP and many anti-regime thinkers who are slaves to development paradigm even as they object to its executors.  The whines about the 17^th and 18^th come from those who have a sorry track record when it comes to democracy and freedom and Fernando strangely doesn’t seem to notice this.

Fernando misses the political implications of horizontal democratization via devolution in a cartography that is nonsensical and pandering to secessionist myth-makers.   It is natural for someone who has blindly accepted the Eelamist position on devolution to be happy about current demarcations.  He won’t use ‘white-drawn’, he says.  It’s white-drawn and brown-accepted.  That’s a brown sahib thing, but Fernando is perhaps not schooled enough in cultural and social politics to understand such things or how the affirmation of a colonial error when cuffed to land-grab logic of myth-mongering communalists necessarily exacerbate problem and postpone resolution.

I am happy that Fernando has put it down in black and white that there’s no connection between Tamil grievances and territory-based solution.  Yes, it is unfortunate that elections for the Northern Provincial Council have not yet been held.  The excuses offered are thin.  Elections need to be held.  It won’t erase the errors of the 13^th, but there is (as I have said many times) danger in refusing the implement constitutional provisions (even if they are erroneous) or being selective in implementation.  What is required is the abrogation of the 13^th.

What is required, over and above that, given all the problems of the 13^th, the hope and flaws of the 17^th , it’s nullification by the 18^th , all of which have separately and together turned an already anti-citizen document (the 1978 Constitution) into a made-to-make-and-entrench-dictatorship, not to mention widespread agitation about the Proportional Representation system and decades long calls for doing away with the Executive Presidency, is for a new constitution.

*The Nation editorial – Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com .