Separation Of Powers Tripod Acquires Fourth Prop

By Kumar David –April 16, 2017

Prof. Kumar David

Trump’s jingoism hopes to reverse collapsing domestic popularity: Separation of powers tripod acquires fourth prop

Trump’s America is an example of how mass demonstrations, social media, town-hall meetings, local councils, court action by rights groups and mass pressure can make Congress, courts, media, the White House and security agencies bow to public concerns. In the last three months this conglomeration of drivers, which I will call People’s Power (PP), have been able to compel the other three branches (executive, legislative and judicial), well defined in the Constitution, to accommodate their influence. My thesis is that this is a paradigm shift, a change that has come to stay. There are now four not three ‘branches’ in the division of power, three constitutionally stipulated and PP, a supra-constitutional dynamic.

This thesis makes sense only if PP is not a flash in the pan but has come to stay. Many great mobilisations have transformed society, or been crushed or fizzled out. Revolutions alter countries; the tide from 1789 to 1848 changed Europe, February and October 1917 did the same for Russia and wars have shaped and misshaped the world. The Arab Spring, despite electrifying fireworks, fizzled out. PP in the Philippines and Eastern Europe achieved great change but did not add a fourth prop to the structure of state. In democratic advanced societies – that is, technologically, materially and culturally advanced – the score is different. Modern communications empowers social media whose influence is a game changer. It brought Trump to power and has the clout to drive him out of power. The influence of electronic media, TV and the Internet, penetrate maybe a 100 million homes.

Jingoism to mute critics

Let it be said upfront that Basher al Assad, a slayer of innocents and an egregious tyrant must be driven out. He has often used chemical weapons against his own people and I will cheer when they hang him from a lamp-post. World and American popular opinion is glad that Assad’s nose has been bloodied. Trump’s resoluteness contrasts favourably with his predecessor Obama’s Hamlet like indecisiveness in similar circumstances.

However, Trump repeated over and over again on the campaign trail that he would not “waste US tax dollars getting involved in the Middle East” and declared “let the people over there sort out their problems, it’s no concern of the US”. This complements his refrain that human rights and soft morality is drivel not in American interests. En passant this is a wakeup call for Sinhala chauvinists and simpleton Sirisena who delude themselves that Lanka’s war criminals and human rights violators are off the hook following the leadership change in Washington.

Why Trump’s epiphany, dramatic change of heart and total reversal of pledges? I was amazed to watch his performance. Why, he even had a tear for the “beautiful babies and chocking civilians” that Assad’s brutes were mowing down! You don’t need to be a cynic; you only need common-sense to see how bogus and theatrical the dramatization was. Firstly, the build-up of tension and its cathartic release was to defuse unbearable domestic pressure escalating against him. Secondly it was intended to mollify international human rights movements and thirdly to send a message to North Korea, the Middle East including Iran, Russia and China that the new man in the White House is tough so don’t mess around. This third objective may fall flat as global powers see that this is only an act by a crude showman. The strike was limited to 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles and hit just one air-base, Shayrat. The Russians were told in advance to move personnel out of harm’s way. No doubt the information was passed to their Syrian counterparts. [There is a Syrian-Russian version that conventional Syrian air forcr bombs fell on rebel held poison gas stockpiles. I have not taken note of this in this piece because no evidence has been offered up to now].

China and Russia

Read More

Trump may be about to break another big promise. That’s very good news.

(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Greg Sargent April 18 at 10:10 AM

THE MORNING PLUM:

President Trump has reversed himself on a lot of campaign promises lately, and some have rushed to credit him with learning on the job. While one hopes he is capable of this, his reversals also reflect the less admirable factor that his original campaign agenda was mostly fraudulent — and is now colliding violently with reality.

One excellent illustration of this is Trump’s vow to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal. And that’s why it’s good news that Trump is now seriously considering remaining in the accord, now that some of his most senior advisers are apprising him of the folly of withdrawing from it.

The Associated Press and the New York Times report that Trump’s top advisers will huddle Tuesday to decide what to recommend to the president about the United States’ path forward. The Times notes that there is a divide among them that breaks down this way:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump vowed to “cancel” the climate deal, and his most politically conservative advisers, including his senior strategist Stephen K. Bannon, have pushed him to follow through. But Mr. Bannon’s influence has waned in recent weeks, while authority has risen for Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who advocate staying in the accord.

Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has also spoken in favor of “keeping a seat at the table” in the climate pact, and in recent days, major corporations have stepped forward to embrace that position.

With Kushner and Ivanka Trump on the ascendant, even as the Bannon wing loses clout, the Times notes that “the side pressing the president to remain in the deal enters the pivotal meeting with the upper hand.”

The Paris Agreement entered into force on Friday, Nov. 4, 2016. The Post's Chris Mooney explains where we go from here. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

If they prevail, it could have important long-term consequences for the battle against climate change. It is true that Trump is already making it a lot harder for us to meet our commitments as part of the deal, by moving to reverse former president Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which sets goals for states to reduce carbon emissions and is key to whether we hit our reduction targets.

[Why slashing the NIH budget is indefensible]

But for various reasons, unwinding that plan could prove hard to do and could take a long time. What’s more, even if Trump does make headway on that front, there may still be merits to remaining in the Paris deal even if we fall short of our pledges.

“Staying in the Paris accord signals to the world that the long-term policy of the United States is to control greenhouse gases,” Richard Revesz, an environmental law expert who wrote a useful book about the climate wars, told me this morning. “The U.S. gets large benefits from the greenhouse gas reductions occurring outside our borders, and the actions of the U.S. are likely to have an impact on the actions of other countries. Withdrawing from it is likely to lead some other countries to relax their own commitments, to the detriment of the United States.”

Remaining in the deal would signal that the United States may well continue to play a leadership role in sustaining international efforts to battle global warming — even if it has to wait until after the current president leaves office. “By staying in, the United States would have a seat at the table from which the [next] administration could communicate right away the new commitment of the United States, and then begin taking domestic actions to meet this commitment,” Revesz says.

Of course, there are other actions the United States could take — short of pulling out entirely — that could be damaging. One alternative being weighedwould keep the U.S. in the accord while replacing our current commitment — reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below the 2005 level by 2025 — with far less ambitious goals.

Still, it’s telling that Tillerson wants to remain in the deal, because that represents a recognition that reneging on this particular international commitment could have detrimental diplomatic consequences. “Imagine trying to get other leaders’ cooperation on the next international crisis, or any Trump priority, after you stuck a finger in everyone’s eye,” David Doniger, director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me.

In this sense, staying in the Paris accord could deal another blow to the Bannon wing’s “economic nationalist” project. This holds that international engagement is primarily a cause for deep suspicion — it’s a threat to American sovereignty that serves only the interests of allied cosmopolitan international elites who enrich themselves while disdaining and disenfranchising local working peoples. There is little room in this vision for the idea that constructive global engagement can, if done properly, serve America’s long-term interests, as part of a system of mutually advantageous compromises. While our approach to trade should be improved on behalf of American workers, the Bannonite vision is mostly simplistic demagoguery. Plenty of things are objectionable in the worldview of the “globalists” inside the White House, but staying in the Paris deal is not one of them — and represents one way in which they are right and the Bannon wing is wrong. It would reaffirm a reality-based view of the merits of international cooperation and diplomacy.

[Trump’s cake and golf presidency]

One last nuance is worth appreciating. It is often stipulated that Trump’s recent reversals show he is abandoning Bannonite economic nationalism (never mind that Trump is retaining the nativism and xenophobia) and embracing orthodox conservative governance. But most conventional Republicans disdain climate change regulations, and many are climate change skeptics or outright deniers. 

Remember, pretty much all the other GOP presidential candidates fit this mold. And so, if the administration does remain in the Paris accord, it would represent a partial victory over some of the worst elements of both Trumpism and GOP orthodoxy.

* TAX REFORM IS ON VERGE OF DEATH: The New York Times reports that Trump’s dream of a sweeping overhaul of the tax code may not survive, due to internal disagreements among Republicans, and crucially, Trump’s failure to release his tax returns:

A growing roster of more than a dozen Republican lawmakers now say Mr. Trump should release them … The Trump administration’s tax plan, promised in February, has yet to materialize; a House Republican plan has bogged down, taking as much fire from conservatives as liberals … lawmakers do not want to pass an overhaul of the tax code that unwittingly enriches the commander in chief and his progeny.

As ethics expert Norm Eisen predicted to this blog, if Trump wants tax reform — and he really needs a big accomplishment — he may have to make serious concessions on transparency.

* WHITE HOUSE WILL CLOSELY WATCH TODAY’S GEORGIA ELECTION: Axios reports that the White House is taking a keen interest in today’s special election in Georgia, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff is likely to win easily but may not reach 50 percent to avoid a runoff:

Why Trump cares: Whether he likes it or not, the media will portray this election as an early verdict on his presidency. The year’s first special election, in Kansas’ usually reliable deep-red 4th district, was way closer than it should’ve been. A loss in Georgia would further weaken Trump and make his legislative agenda — which relies on him holding his popularity like a knife over recalcitrant Republicans — a fair bit tougher.

And as we’ve seen, Trump’s “popularity” already has totally cowed congressional Republicans into doing his bidding. (Not. And today could make it worse.)

* WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN GEORGIA: Nate Cohn notes that turnout will be very unpredictable, as this is a special election, but the early voting turnoutshould boost Democrats’ confidence more generally:

Democratic turnout [in the early voting] was impressive by any measure. It’s much higher than it was in the early voting in the 2014 midterm election. … Even if Mr. Ossoff falls short, a strong showing — over 45 percent of the vote — would suggest that he would be very competitive in the June runoff.

As Cohn notes, polls suggest Ossoff will fall short of 50 percent to avoid a runoff, but the possibility that Ossoff could win outright can’t be ruled out, given how hard it is to poll special elections.
* WHAT DEMOCRATS HOPE FOR IN GEORGIA: David Drucker gets the readout from Democratic operatives monitoring the race:

Democratic insiders will be watching how close Ossoff gets to 50 percent. Privately, they concede he is headed to a runoff. But operatives say that in a district where the Democrat typically ends up in the 30s, they’ll be satisfied with anything north of 40 percent, hopeful that it will position Ossoff to compete in the runoff.

The Republican (Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price) won here by nearly 24 points in 2016, but Trump won it by only 1.5 points, so the question is whether Trump’s awful performance puts it within Democrats’ reach.

* TRUMP TRIES TO JUICE TURNOUT IN GEORGIA RACE: Good morning, Mr. President:

Follow

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Democrat Jon Ossoff would be a disaster in Congress. VERY weak on crime and illegal immigration, bad for jobs and wants higher taxes. Say NO

6:38 AM - 18 Apr 2017

• 12,10312,103 Retweets
• 42,93142,931 likes

This pretty much ensures that Tuesday’s results will be widely read as a referendum on Trump’s tenure thus far. (In my view, we should avoid overinterpreting the outcome, no matter what happens.)
* AND IVANKA’S BUSINESS PROSPERS AMID WHITE HOUSE ROLE: The Associated Press reports:

On April 6, Ivanka Trump’s company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world’s second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago.

The scenario underscores how difficult it is for Trump, who has tried to distance herself from the brand that bears her name, to separate business from politics in her new position at the White House.

This implies she wants to “separate business from politics.” Does the conduct of the Trump family suggest thus far that this is what they want?

Thailand: Ban on street food takes effect in capital amid junta crackdown


People at Yaowarat Road in Bangkok. Source: joyfull / Shutterstock.com

18th April 2017

BANGKOK’S world-famous culinary experience looks set to change dramatically today as Thailand’s ruling junta placed a complete ban on street food stalls along all of the capital’s main roads as part of their crackdown of street side dining.

According to AFP (via Channel News Asia), the clean-up campaign has prompted outcry and anguish in the food-obsessed capital, which is famed for its eclectic and bustling street food scene.

Offering a mind-boggling range of cuisines, from a steaming bowl of noodles to deep fried insects, the chaotic clamour of the closely packed stalls is seen locally as a social leveller. 

People from every aspect of society, from high-flying business people to street cleaners, can be found in the capital enjoying dinner with friends and often befriending the strangers around them.

SEE ALSO: Thailand: Junta breaks promises of return to democracy – watchdog

But city officials have been attempting to hem in food hawkers for months, claiming the crackdown is due to “hygiene reasons.”

“All types of stalls including clothes, counterfeit goods and food stalls will be banned from main city roads,” Wanlop Suwandee, chief advisor to Bangkok’s governor, told AFP.

“They will not be allowed for order and hygiene reasons,” he added.

The stalls are also a major draw for tourists, who serve as a driving force behind Thailand’s economy.

“If they go against the vendors, that will that affect business and it will affect the charm of Khaosan,” said Sanga Ruangwattanaku, the president of a business association on Khaosan Road – a famous backpacker hotspot in Bangkok’s old town.

SEE ALSO: Thai junta projecting weakness by banning on online contact with critics – watchdog

Despite the protests, officials went through with the ban today, claiming the vendors cause disruption by littering the streets, clogging footpaths and leaving little room for pedestrians. 

But many of the locals and visitors alike believe this to be part of the capital’s hectic charm.

The ruling junta remains undeterred, however, and is pushing forward with a number of unpopular regulations as part of a sweeping morality and orderliness campaign.

According to AFP, critics say an attempt is underway to remodel Bangkok into a Singapore-lite and cleaning up the streets is part of this effort.

Outrage as Teen Denied Lung Transplant After Marijuana Use

Lack of access to transplants is an ongoing—and life-threatening—issue for marijuana users. Fortunately, this kid was able to find help elsewhere.

By Janissa Delzo / Medical Daily-April 17, 2017

A Utah teen was reportedly denied a double-lung transplant at one hospital after he tested positive for marijuana. However, another hospital agreed to do the transplant, and he is expected to make a recovery.

Nineteen-year-old Riley Hancey, who was once an active teenager, got a severe form of pneumonia in November and within 10 days of being hospitalized, his lungs collapsed, according to KSL.com, a local Utah news site.

Read: What Organs Can I Donate? Here's The Complete List Of Body Parts That Can Be Donated Or Transplanted

In order for Hancey to survive, his doctors said a lung transplant would be necessary; however, after he tested positive for THC, a key chemical in marijuana, Hancey’s father said he was denied a spot on the transplant list at University of Utah Hospital.

Although officials at the hospital couldn’t discuss the specific case, KSL received a written statement: “We do not transplant organs in patients with active alcohol, tobacco or illicit drug use or dependencies until these issues are addressed, as these substances are contraindicated for a transplant.”

Furthermore, the statement said age and certain medical conditions may be reason for exclusion from the transplant list.

After searching the country for another hospital willing to do the transplant, the family finally got a yes from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. About two weeks ago, Hancey received his new lungs.

“His transplant surgery went well and the Dr. is optimistic. There is still a very long road ahead so please keep Riley and company in your thoughts,” an update from Hancey’s YouCaring crowdfunding page reads.

He is expected to have a year-long recovery in the hospital, reports KSL.

According to Buzzfeed, there’s no federal guidelines or laws stating how hospitals handle marijuana users who need organ transplants. Therefore, it’s up to individual hospitals to make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis.

“Just denying access to a life-saving procedure for someone who’s just using marijuana? I think that we have to rethink that policy nationally,” Bilal Hameed, a doctor at the University of California, San Francisco, told Buzzfeed.

See also: 8 Of The Most Popular Google Searches About Marijuana: Questions About Pot, Answered
Effects Of Medical Marijuana On Quality Of Life: Review Says Weed Doesn't Improve Things Overall

Resolving internal conflicts requires a different approach

 

By Jehan Perera-April 17, 2017, 8:18 pm

Countries re-emerging from decades of violent internal conflict are encouraged, sometimes against their will, into following an internationally prescribed trajectory of transitional justice. This is a concept that has taken root within the UN and international human rights systems after decades of being honed by practitioners and academics in the field. The basic idea of transitional justice is that accountability and punishment are necessary if there is to be sustainable peace, democracy and justice in those cases of protracted conflict in which there have been large scale violations of human rights.

Colombia is one of the countries at the cutting edge of transitional justice. Its government has reached a peace agreement last year with FARC, a long standing guerilla organization that has a history of engaging in armed struggle that goes back over half a century. Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a result. Today, as part of its commitment to the negotiated peace process it has entered into with the Colombian government, FARC has yielded large tracts of territory it once controlled as it demobilizes its armed forces on the ground. Colombia might seem to be in an ideal situation but in reality the situation is much more complex.

Last month I was in Colombia with a group of peace workers from different parts of the world, but with an emphasis on South America. We came to take part in an interactive learning process, where the learning was not only in the conference hall but also out in the field. Among the highlights of the week long programme was a visit to the high security prison in the capital city of Bogota, where FARC rebels continue to be kept in captivity.

I expected to meet with war hardened veterans who had been fighters and part of an underground mafia of drug dealings and guerrilla killings. These had happened too, no doubt, but these aspects did not come across as the chief character of the FARC prisoners. What we encountered were leftist activists who might have been democratic political party cadres if they had not taken to weapons. We were taken up by their ideological clarity and continued passion. Any rebel who goes against the established order has to sacrifice the things we take for granted, such as family and normalcy.

REBEL MESSAGE

Their message to us was that they had joined the rebel organization to change an iniquitous society. They had now been captured and imprisoned for terms of between 10 to 20 years and some of them had spent the larger part of their prison sentences. They expressed their support for the peace process. But they also expressed their anxiety that the agreements reached would not be implemented by the government. We heard reports that with the withdrawal of the FARC guerillas from the territories they once controlled, paramilitaries and state armed forces had stepped in to fill the vacuum.

It was not only the FARC members who were anxious about the future. Those who had been members of the government armed forces and police who we met also did not feel reassured by the peace agreement. They did not trust the FARC and believed that they would violate the peace agreement. They were also anxious about the prospect of being held accountable for human rights violations that had taken place in the military operations against FARC and the punishment that transitional justice processes might inflict upon them.

The majority of Colombian citizens voted against the peace agreement at the referendum as they thought that the FARC guerillas would get off too lightly while those in the security forces of the government would be penalized and national security would be jeopardised. Sri Lanka and Colombia bear a resemblance in respect of the suspicion and opposition to international standards of transitional justice in the majority of the population. The transitional justice commitments that Sri Lanka has pledged to deliver on is seen by the majority of the country’s ethnically divided population as being unfair by the Sri Lankan security forces.

In both Colombia and Sri Lanka, the majority of the population, and those in the political establishments, see the military as having performed their duties in the national interest. In both cases those on the losing side represent a minority of the population. Those on the winning side represent the majority. Those majorities who dominate the power structures in the two countries side with the military and not the rebel forces. This accounts for the governmental malfunction in both countries to implement the agreements they have signed.

In the prison in Bogota when we asked the FARC prisoners what they saw as the way forward, they said they wanted international monitors. They were sceptical that the government would implement the peace agreement on its own. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil minority is supportive of international intervention and tribunals. Those on the weaker side of the divide in internal conflicts do not trust the stronger side to be fair and impartial. There is a role for the international community as a counter balance to the asymmetry of power that cannot be overcome through reliance on internal actors alone.

OVERCOMING PROBLEM

In Sri Lanka, the UNHRC resolution that the government agreed to in October 2015 in Geneva to deliver on is victim-centered, and rightly so. It requires that the fate of missing persons be ascertained, that land taken over by the military during the war be returned, accountability for war crimes be ensured and the security sector reform including demilitarization and replacement of oppressive laws take place. The Sri Lankan government has been slow to deliver on all of these, which is why the government had to ask for a two year extension from the UNHRC in March this year.

A key problem in moving forward it appears, is the central role given to accountability and punishment in the public discussion of transitional justice. But it does not have to be this way. Transitional justice is composed of four pillars – those of truth, accountability, reparations and institutional reforms. It is when attention is focused on accountability and punishment, the desire for revenge and for getting even, that the other three pillars of transitional justice get sidelined in the public discourse.

There is perhaps a need to rethink how best to achieve transitional justice which a means to an end. The goal of transitional justice is a society that is set irreversibly on a course of sustainable peace and justice. There is a need to win the support of both the majority and the minority groups, so that the process is acceptable to all. The concept of restorative justice was developed most strongly in South Africa in its truth and reconciliation process, as opposed to retributive justice. This may be the way forward in Colombia and Sri Lanka.

Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within communities. This contrasts to more punitive approaches where the main aim is legally imposed punishments to meet legal standards. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the security and dignity of all. The realization of the Sri Lankan government’s commitment in terms of the UNHRC resolution to set up the Truth seeking Commission and to gazette the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) under a selected ministry could be the start of this restorative process.

Why don’t we tap the charity market?

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Last Good Friday, the state of Victoria and its capital Melbourne carried out yet another successful Good Friday Appeal (GFA) funds raiser for the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. The collections from the public closed by 5 p.m. at a staggering 17.5 million dollars.

The hospital is a state-of-the-art top facility with a hugely qualified and experienced medical staff. It is said that these dedicated doctors, nurses and ancillary staff perform miracles every day. My own fourth grandson was born with his heart not properly located. The Royal Children’s Hospital fixed the problem after a series of surgeries. The fellow is grown up and strong now. That was miracle we experienced. Similar ones are being achieved on a daily basis in this hospital.

This hospital has a lot of public funds flowing into it voluntarily on days other than the GFA day. There are whole bequeathed estates rolling over to it.

The Good Friday Appeal is a specific campaign and it is very well organised throughout the state. All funds collected are counted at the end of the day at the counting centre. It is like election counting night in Sri Lanka. Voluntary organisers are waiting to hear the results of the count. 

The Lions Club to which I belong also carried out a door knocker from morning until 12 noon and we got $ 4,506.40 from our effort. I was the project manager. Similarly, various other voluntary organisations at all levels put in their weight on this great day.

In Australia, charity organisations have to be registered under the Australian Not-for-Profit Commission (ACNC). In the year 2014, $103 billion from all Australia flowed into the economy from various charities and also bequests. There are 11,823 community charities and 610,755 registered volunteers.

Isn’t this a significant contribution to the society’s wellbeing? The economy derives funds without taxation although many of the formally set up organisations do get tax exemption. However, there are thousands working outside the formal system and at almost every level. I write this because the thought occurred to me that Sri Lankan policymakers can shift attention to an invaluable funding service while at the same time people derive a sense of satisfaction in participating in charity work for worthy causes.

It may be a good idea to set up an agency like the ACNC, which can also initiate and provoke charity fundraisers in the wide community. Many of our Ministers are doing nothing although pretending to work. Why can’t this job be assigned to one of them? Doctors in Australia don’t strike on public policy matters like their counterparts in Sri Lanka. They themselves are seen actively working for the Royal Children’s Hospital fund raising events.

Sri Lanka has its own Lady Ridgeway Children’s Hospital. Why not start there? The ordinary public will willingly give up some notes on a given day – say, Vesak? One very important precondition for a campaign like this in Sri Lanka is that an independent body set up under statute should hold and disburse the funds. This is important for public trust. If there is no trust, there is no charity coming. 

In the diaspora, we are facing difficulties when organising fundraisers for Sri Lanka because Sri Lankans here do not trust that the money donated will go to the right spot and for a genuine purpose.

“Will it be siphoned off for more luxuries for the parasitic political class?” they ask.

On the other hand, if a credible independent body run by credible men and women handle the collection and disbursement, as proposed above, this ruling cynicism will disappear. 

On the ‘Deep State’ and an Indecisive Government

Apr 17, 2017

It has long been conventional wisdom that a government forced to maintain a fragile political balance for its survival is good for the democratic process in Sri Lanka because the tug and pull of critical public pressure will impact more on decision-making.

Is a Government under siege good for us?
This is in contrast to overwhelming political majorities where undemocratic policies and legislation are bull-dosed through a complicit Parliament with no checks and balances. There are many such illustrations, most notably the Jayewardene Presidency and the Rajapaksa years, particularly from 2010 to 2014.
Of course, Sri Lanka has never had the bountiful luxury of both a strong and democratically motivated leadership. Strength, (whether of the ‘Braemar’, Ward Place elite kind or the far coarser Medamulana kind), always seems to be accompanied by a profound lack of respect for the Rule of Law. That is, however, a whole different lament altogether.

But I return to the assumption that a government under siege is good for us. Oftentimes, the examples cited in support thereto include the much praised 17th Amendment to the Constitution. This was agreed to by a brittle Kumaratunga Presidency just prior to its less than happy ‘cohabitation arrangement’ with the Wickremesinghe Government, 2001 to 2004. Similarly, the far more compromised but still useful 19th Amendment which reversed some of the evils of the Rajapaksa engineered 18th Amendment emerged as a result of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition.

Questioning deeper and darker realities
Certainly there is something to be said for the merits of this argument. But the flip side of the coin is that these surface assumptions do not question deeper and darker realities. For example, why did these democratic ‘transformations’ in 2001 and 2015 leave untouched the ‘deep state’ of Sri Lanka’s political patronage system and a ‘tamed’ public sector bureaucracy that thrives best when an insecure Government is in power? Important questions are left unanswered. Why for instance, did the 17th Amendment fail? Why also, is the 19th Amendment in the throes of succumbing likewise even as the idle minded are busily running around pontificating on constitutional reforms that needs a proverbial miracle to see the light of day?

There are discomfiting lessons of the 2001-2004 constitutional experimentation that may be pointed to. A selective reading of history would make us believe that the Rajapaksas were the only villains in dismantling the 17th Amendment. This is far from the case. The resistance to governance reforms initially came when the Kumaratunga Presidency (presumably dictated to by her ‘advisors’), refused to appoint the Constitutional Council’s nominee, retired Supreme Court judge Ranjth Dheeraratne as Chairman of the Elections Commission.

This refusal persisted even though the CC, comprising a formidable majority of independent members, dismissed her objection. This was the first signal that the 17th Amendment could be defied head-on. From that point, the decline was swift. And to be clear, this was cheered on by all political parties. It only needed the reckless profligacy of the Rajapaksas to tear away even the façade wholesale.

Rude badgering of the Government
This reading is equally true of the undermining of the Sri Lankan judiciary. It is ‘convenient’ to focus only on the impeachment of former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake while ignoring the fact that the calamitous slide downwards was precipitated in many respects by the less than temperate actions of former Chief Justice Sarath Silva, the handpicked choice of Kumaratunga for that post (1999-2009).

Caught in an unwise boast of ‘restoring’ the independence of the judiciary with one wave of the wand by ejecting a sitting Chief Justice through an executive letter, this Government is now struggling in a trap of its own making. The unnecessary Ramanathan Kannan fiasco may have been avoided by the Office of the President swiftly and sternly nipping the presumptuousness of those lobbing for a particular judicial appointment, in the bud. But that did not happen.

And fast on the heels of that fracas, we have rude badgering in motivated quarters to ensure that a forthcoming appointment of the President of the Court of Appeal is made strictly on seniority, regardless of other ‘fit and proper’ criteria which rightfully must be applied.

The ‘deep state’ and the CTA
But worse consequences may yet ensue as a result of tortuous wriggling by an uncertain and chaotic political coalition. The potential of a ‘deep state’ security sector establishment to push for laws strengthening its heavy hand is now clear. One example is the draft Counter-Terror Act (CTA), analysed in previous columns. Some politicians are, meanwhile, proposing an ‘Independent Council for News Media Standards Act.’ This is cheered on by those who remain blissfully ignorant of dangers therein for print, electronic and web media alike.

In terms of this draft, a High Court can compel disclosure of a journalist’s sources to enable effective prosecution or defence in regard to a serious crime, or prevent clear and imminent danger to the constitutional order or the security of the State.’ This is classically imprecise language that raises red flags. What exactly is meant by ‘imminent danger to the constitutional order’ pray?

And sources can also be disclosed where there is ‘no alternative means of obtaining the information needed to prosecute or defend a case.’ This raises hideous possibilities of abuse. Existing legal precedents which strictly protect disclosure of sources with tightly defined exceptions may be overridden by this clause, including through politically motivated prosecutions, which we are familiar with. Similar concerns arise in regard to a stipulation that sanctions cannot be imposed for providing information to journalists, ‘except where the secrecy of the information is justified by a larger public interest.’

Understanding why democratic reforms are sabotaged
Advocates of the 2015 so-called ‘rainbow revolution,’ penning their signatures with much vim and vigour to Memoranda of Understanding with politicians are now resentfully berating their one-time saviors. But those who ignore history are ruefully bound to repeat much of those very same calamities.

We need to test proposed laws against the standard of constitutional propriety. Comfortable superficialities must meanwhile be probed. Is it better not to have an Election Commission or to have a body of which, at least one member unceasingly complains in regard to the Commission’s lack of authority? This similar question applies to a National Police Commission which seems helpless in disciplining law enforcement officers.

Certainly, if past lessons as to why democratic reforms were sabotaged had been properly understood in the first instance, greater caution may prevent us re-living those same failures, albeit clothed in a different style.

http://www.sundaytimes.lk

C. Suntharalingam, Part I: Tamil Story Telling on the Citizenship Bill

S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole-April 17, 2017, 8:15 pm 

Cooked up Commitments to Hill-country Tamils

Ceylon Tamil leaders treated the hill-country Tamils perfidiously during the 1948 Citizenship Bill. Today, having wrapped oursleves up in the nationalist flag and it has become important for us to maintain that we were always with them. I had been asked to review Grandfather’s Letters edited by C. Suntharalingam’s (CS’s) grandson. I found myself quickly immersed in a web of lies on who voted how on the Citizenship Bill, especially CS himself. The review necessitated first a study of voting records of the time.

Let me begin with Prof. Bertram Bastiampillai in the Daily News (20.08.2005):

"Suntharalingam … walked out of the legislature … on the second reading of the Indian Residents Citizenship Bill on 10 December, 1948. Prime Minister wanted Minister Suntharalingam's explanation. [He] immediately resigned in protest.

"Suntharalingam cleverly saw in the measure a plan to decitizenise and disenfranchise a majority of hill country residents who had made Sri Lanka their home … This was an obvious flagrant injustice. Suntharalingam had the courage of his conviction to forego a ministerial portfolio."

This is the general, but false, view of CS.The truth is that CS had already voted to decitizenize the hill-country Tamils when he voted Aye for the Citizenship Act on 25.08.1948.The Hansard (25.08.1948, cols 1969-70) gives the division at the second reading. Ayes 58, Nays 35. Of the Ceylon Tamils, Ministers CS, and C. Sittampalam, and Members SU Ethirmannasingham and V. Nalliah voted Aye. Voting Nay were SJV Chelvanyagam, C. Vanniasingam, AL Thambiayah, K. Kanagaratnam, V. Kumarasamy and T. Ramalinkam. The bill was passed on 02.09.1948, (Hansard col. 2003).

The Left opposed it. The Ceylon Tamil Congress (CTC) had promised S. Thondaman of the Indian Tamil Congress (ITC) to support them. So six from CTC voted Nay. CTC leader, GG Ponnambalam was the exception. He was negotiating to become a Minister, so he developed a fit of coughing and left the chamber as the Citizenship Act came up for division.

The Three Bills and Hansard Records

There were really three bills affecting Tamils. The first was the Ceylon Citizenship Act (18/1948). It stipulated that for citizenship one had to prove his father was(orhis paternal grandfather and paternal great grandfather were) born in Ceylon. It was impossible for most hill-country Tamils to prove, thereby rendering them stateless. It was a low point in our race relations – when Pieter Keuneman was speaking against the Bill, SWRD Bandaranaike cast a snide remark on "the brown Hollanders" (Hansard, col. 1707, 19.08.1948).

The Second bill affecting Tamils was the Indian and Pakistani Residents Citizenship Bill(3/1949) which too the ITC wanted opposed. It provided for citizenship by registration by those Indian or Pakistani residents in Ceylon who had an uninterrupted residence in Ceylon, immediately prior to 01.01.1946, for a period not less than ten years for unmarried persons and seven for married persons. The ITC and CTC opposed the Bill. The Ceylon Tamil Ayes were G.G. Ponnamablam, K. Kanagaratnam, V. Nalliah, S.U. Ethirmannasingham, T. Ramalinkam and A.L. Thambiayah. The Nays were S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, S. Sivapalan and C. Vanniasingam. That is, six Ceylon Tamils for and three against.

The Third bill, Ceylon Parliamentary Elections (Amendment)(48/1949) was a sequel to the Citizenship Act and gave the franchise only to citizens and thereby stripped hill-country Tamils of their vote which they had enjoyed till then. CS Voted Nay. Ponnambalam voted Aye with C. Sittampalam,V. Nallaih, A.L. Thambiayah and S.U. Ethirmannasingam. Again the majority of Ceylon Tamils were for depriving hill-country Tamils of the vote. (Hansard, Cols. 551-2, 20.10.1949.).

Tamils Concoct Voting Records

Beginning with the Bastiampillai account, because the bills are a blot on the Ceylon Tamil commitment to hill-country Tamils, the history of that period is clouded in untruthful defences of those who abandoned the hill-country Tamils. ApparthurayVinayagamoorthy,  a Tamil Congress MP untruthfully wrote (Daily News, 08.11.2003)

"[Ponnambalam’s] political opponents carried on a persistent campaign of vilification and character assassination against him stating he was responsible for the disfranchisement of several Indian Tamils in 1948.This is absolutely incorrect. The act which disfranchised the Tamils of Indian origin was the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948 and the ACTC and its leader G. G. Ponnambalam vehemently opposed this act and voted against it."

We know this to be untrue from the Hansard insofar as Ponnambalam’s part is concerned.

Bastiampillai says Suntharalingam’s son Gnanalingam, during a SLAAS debate with Kumar Ponnamabalam, referred to GGP’s unjust act regarding the Bill in contrast to another Tamil Minister's [his father’s] bold response in forfeiting a portfolio than endorse an unjust act like GGP.But CS had voted for the Citizenship Act months earlier on 24.10 1948. Some days later, according to J.L Fernando (Three Prime Ministers of Ceylon, MD Gunasena, 1963, p. 27), GGP "The Damila[Ponnambalam] bowed low before the Sinhala Lion," DS Senanayke, and was made a Minister, thereby striking one million Central Tamils off the electoral registers". The correct number was more like 700,000.

CS resigned as Minister much after he voted to deny citizenship to the poorest Tamils. He resigned only during the Indian Residents Citizenship Bill (in December, 1948) after rendering many of us stateless. Bastiampillai’s and Gnanalingam’s sleight is to confuse the Citizenship Bill of August with the latter bill of December. Lankan scholarship makes heroes of those we like regardless of the record.

Suntharalingam: Ceylon for the Ceylonese

Ponnambalam was simply ready to do anything for power. But Suntharalingam? Could it be that CS voted for the Citizenship Bill out of collective cabinet responsibility and then broke off because he saw the iniquity? This view could be sustained except for CS’s explanation in Parliament detailed in the Hansard (14.12.1948, cols. 599 –).

DS Senanayke (DSS) is furious that CS had absented himself from the chamber after a division had been called on the second bill (Indian and Pakistani Residents) on 10.12.1948. DSS says in his letter dated 11.12.1948 to CS,

"As you are undoubtedly aware, the proper procedure for a member of the cabinet as long as he remains in the Cabinet, is to vote with the Government on any Government measure that comes before the House. If any Minister does not wish to associate himself with any particular measure that is brought forward by the Cabinet he must not appear as a member of the Cabinet at the time the measure is taken up, and his clear duty then is to send in his resignation. On the other hand, a Minister who does not resign is required to vote with the government though he may tender his resignation immediately afterward. It is really difficult for me to believe however glaring the circumstances may appear to be, that you would be guilty of improper conduct. I shall therefore be glad if you will let me know as early as possible the reasons that prevented you from discharging your obligations as a Member of the Cabinet."

CS states he does not agree that he is obliged to vote with the government and that he had been unable to find any such precedent. In explaining his objections to the Bill he has no word for the rights of hill-country Tamils. "Speaking of his dreams of a Free Ceylon," he adds that the "national economy had been gravely jeopardized by British Capital, British entrepreneur, Ceylon land and Indian labour [sic.]. In this sorry scheme where did the Ceylonese come?, he asks, going on to say,

"Since [25 years ago] I have been closely associated with the Hon. Mr. D.S. Senanayake in most public questions, one of which has come to be known as the Indo-Ceylon problem. If he was in his seat today, he would have admitted that the provisions in the Land Development Ordinance restricting the alienation of Crown land to Ceylonese were introduced at my suggestion – I almost said at my insistence. If I refer to these events, it is because I wish to give this House an insight into what I have always regarded as the fundamental principles on which the national economy of Ceylon should be founded. Indeed, the principles can be summed up in one phrase: Ceylon for the Ceylonese."

Wounding India’sSelf-respect Affecting their honour

In his mind, Ceylon is not for the estate labour then. What then is his objection to these bills? It is relations with India. He refers to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, coming as an emissary of Mahatma Gandhi, not being happy with features of the Bill, and his [CS’s] playing a "small but significant" role behind the scenes to secure an adjustment with "the concurrence and approval of the Hon. Mr. D.S. Senanayake." He quotes his letter to Senanayake on 02.12.1948 just before the vote on the second bill where he states

"I have been unhappy about this question since I know that Jawaharlal Nehru had not agreed to certain features in the Bill. I need hardly state we will be committing a grave wrong if Jawaharlal Nehru felt that our bill wounds the self-respect of India and affects their honour. I have endeavoured to convince my colleagues in the Cabinet that the points of difference that now exist are trivial in their economic consequences but are fundamental in their political repercussions. We cannot, if we can avoid it, have in our Statute Book an Act which will be a source of constant irritation to the people of India. As the friendship between India and Ceylon is an issue, I beg of you to give this matter some favourable consideration and concession. You know my attitude in this matter for the last quarter of a century; and I would submit, in fairness to all concerned, we should have in view the happiness of Ceylon and India and not leave to our successors a legacy of ill-will."

CS tries to meet DSS who is sick and is unable to. He writes to DSS and gets a "brusque" reply insisting that traditions be kept by his resignation. Contrary to Bastiampillai, he tried to hold on to being Minister and DSS insisted that he go.

Thus most Ceylon Tamils MPs voted against their hill-country brethren. CS felt no sympathy for the plantation labour. Like many upper-class Tamils, he looked only to placating Nehru and India. Only SJV Chelvanayagam and his MPs showed consistency on standing up for hill-country Tamils. G.G. Ponnabalam was ready to do anything for office, even if it meant tricking his Congress MPs into thinking he was against the bills while he negotiated positions for himself.