Resolving the National Question: Where is the key?

By Sumanasiri Liyanage-May 22, 2017 

"We all know the old joke about a guy looking for his lost key under the street light; when asked where he lost it, he admits that it was in a dark corner. So why he looking for it here, under the light? Because the visibility is much better here." (Zizek Jokes. 2004)

The current debate on constitutional change reminded me of this old joke about drunkard guy looking for a lost key. I shall use the old Marxian term - the national question - rather than the conventional terms - the Tamil ethnic question or the ethnic problem - commonly used in the current discourse. It has been incessantly argued with some justification that a new constitution or revolutionary changes in the existing constitution is the key to resolving the national question as the Tamil struggle has been from its inception revolved around the issue of the state power. Although the issue has not been raised with that intensity in relation to the Muslim national question or the Kandyan Tamil question, a similar solution is flagged.

The present writer also held the view, maybe until 2005, that the constitutional change was the key to the resolution of the national question that is expressed in multiple forms. However, three events have led to the complete metamorphosis of my views on the issue. Let me list these three views in chronological order: (1) the complete breakdown of the talks between the Ranil Wickremesinghe government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2005 (my article with the caption, "Negotiating with the Non-Negotiable" (written in 2005 and published in 2007); (2) The military defeat of the LTTE in the hands of the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) security forces; (3) Sri Lanka’s adherence to neoliberal economic policies irrespective of the political party in power.

When nations or ethnic groups are in conflict, the settlement, resolution and transformation of the conflict may be initiated only in a situation which is characterised by a confluence of certain elements and forces. Hence, such a conjuncture should be taken not as a "phase" but as a "moment". In recent Sri Lankan history we have seen in my view that conjunctural moment in three instances in 1987 with the signing of the Indo-Lanka agreement, in 1994 when Chandrika Bandaranaike came to power and in 2009 after the military victory over the LTTE. We missed all three moments primarily because of the failure of the Sri Lankan political elites, both Sinhala and Tamil. Of course, the major share of the blame should go to Sinhala political elite as they represent the hegemonic element in the equation. In the first two moments, constitutional change played a major role. While the refusal of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) to participate in the process was one of the key reason for 1987 failure, Chandrika’s postponement of the process for expediency and that had an adverse impact on the process. The failure in 2009 could be attributed to the Sinhala egoism represented by the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. This ontological understanding reveals a hidden element that lies behind this failure.

When the ‘moment’ that is conducive to the resolution of the deep-rooted conflicts comes to pass conflicts oftentimes reemerge with great intensity. The society will be polarised on ethnic lines and this makes resolution of the conflict extremely difficult. We have experienced this in the post 1987, the post 1996 and the post 2010. Today, in the post 2015 "regime change" polarisation of society on ethnic lines has greatly intensified. The attacks on Mosque in Mallawapitiya and hate speech in social networks provide evidence for ethnic polarisation. In this context, it is not unnatural for people to view the proposed changes through the prism of ethnic identities. As someone has informed the constitution is the power map of the state. The point that I wish to submit here is that in the present context a referendum that is required for a constitutional change of this nature would be a battle fought on ethnic lines. Can a constitutional change be the key? Absolutely not at this juncture! It appears that a key can be found at a different plane where the visibility is poor.

Elitist project of Neoliberalism

How does this relate to neoliberal economic project? The focus of the World Development Report of 1997 (WDR) was state restructuring. There are two views of state reforms, namely the neoliberal state reforms and what I call the reforms for facilitating people power. The tangentially overlapping of the two should not be viewed them as one and the same thing. Neoliberal state reforms as outlined in the WDR ensures that elites would be kept in power and be given decision-making authority. Power-sharing or devolution is to share power among elites of the different ethnic or national groups. Those who emphasize the importance of the constitutional change look for an elite agreement that is similar to the present agreement between the yahapalana government (YG) and the Tamil National alliance (TNA). Both the YG and TNA are in agreement that the neoliberal economic project is imperative to achieve economic development.

The TNA has voted for all three budgets presented so far by the YG. The implementation of neoliberal project in the North as well as in the South goes against the fundamental economic rights of the people. Let us take an example. The YG is trying to grab large amount of land in the island thus violating peoples’ rights to use land, water and other natural resources. The government seeks to attract foreign investors offering them land on easy terms on the pretext that small peasants’ use of land is ineffective and unproductive. So far not a word has been uttered by the TNA on this. Similarly, YG is trying to give country’s resources to foreign investors. This may include oil farms in Trincolmalee, the Hambantota Port. Although oil farms in the Eastern Province, a part of the so-called Tamil homeland, both the TNA and the Chief Minister of the Northern Province are conspicuously silent on this matter. Neoliberal state reforms may change the power-sharing between the elites of different ethnic/ national groups but would fail to give power to the people enabling them to decide on their livelihood and resources. Hence, the previous failure of all the attempts can be posited as a failure of the Sri Lankan elites because they did not include issues and problems faced by the lower strata of the society.

The struggle against neoliberal policies would provide a new space within which people can be brought into a united struggle irrespective of their ethnic affiliation. Let me give an example. The disastrous event in April at Meetotamulla has pointed to the need of right of self-determination of the people to decide whether the people in the area wish to have garbage from other areas. This right may be expressed only under a system of Jeffersonian "ward democracy". The same principle can be adopted over the issue of land right in Mullativu or in Hambantota. However, this system of change may be totally different from the change that would be attempted by the neoliberal state reforms. The new key is not in the "visible" place of constitutional change but in the "less visible" space of struggle that people have already started on the issue of land, water, national resources and environment. As Judith Butler once argued what would results in this process is not a nation-state but a federation. The struggle against neoliberalism will be integrally linked with the struggle for a new constitution that ensures justice, equality, democracy and ecological balance.

(The writer can be contacted: sumane_l@yahoo.com)

ESCALATING VIOLENCE: RENEWED ASSAULTS ON THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

Image: 21st May 2017: A Cosmetic Shop in Elpitiya burned

Hilmy Ahamed.22/05/2017

Post war Sri Lanka saw a wave of attacks targeting the Muslim community by Buddhist extremist groups. The Mahinda Rajapaksa government allowed these extremists free rein, which caused extensive damage, including injuries and the damaging of Muslim-owned property. This resulted in the Muslims voting en-bloc to overthrow the once indispensable Rajapaksa regime.

ESCALATING VIOLENCE RENEWED ASSAULTS ON THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Return Of Rajapaksa Era Racist Politics

By Latheef Farook –MAY 22, 2017

Latheef Farook

Return of Rajapaksa era racist politics: Island is fast becoming playground for world powers

Disgusted with Rajapaksa regime’s senseless persecution, the island’s Muslims as a whole voted for Maithri-Ranil team in the hope they meant their election promises to end racist attacks and usher in an era of peace.

People trusted and expected the two to fulfil their pledges and deal with Bodu Bala Sena General Secretary Ven. Galagoda atte Gnanasara Thero for his crimes against Muslims. However Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakhse said that “Ven Gnanasara Thero will not be taken to custody”.

Adding insult to injury President Sirisena invited Ven. Gnanasara Thero to attend a meeting of religious heads and elevated this man of violence to level of respectability?  By these actions the President and Minister Rajapakshe left the Muslims wondering whether they could expect justice from this government.

Today government remains indifferent to attacks on Muslims by BBS led racists who have raised their ugly heads once again to such an extent that many suspects they get the government to implement their designs on Muslims. This week he has once again insulted Allah with police protection in Polonnaruwa.

As a result Muslims who also played crucial role to bring this government to power ask whether they voted for this government to power to continue racist attacks on them. Harassing Muslims have become order of the day .The state machinery is suspected to be hand in glove with them.

For example racist elements tried to prevent Muslim refugees evicted by LTTE from returning to their lands in Musali and adjacent areas. Implementing their agenda the government gazetted Muslim villages adjacent to Wilpattu National Park on Friday 24 march 2017, as part of the nearly 100,000 acre lands, declaring as “conservative forest” with immediate effect.

This was done, in such hurry that it was signed during president Sirisena’s official visit to Russia despite Muslims submitting documentary evidence to their lands.

Racists also turned their attention to Amparai district where they erected a Buddha statue at Maayakkalli hilltop on 27 October 2016 adjacent to Tamil-Muslim area of Maanikkamadu in Rakkamam district.This only serves to provoke Sinhalese against Muslims.

Now Ven. Gnanasara Thero and his gang grabbed a plot of Muslim owned land adjacent to this statue by force and started clearing to build a vihara to protect the Buddha statute.

This land is owned by a Muslim, Palliyan Zainudeen, and the justice under the government is such that he cannot go to his own land. They point out that usually in all such cases first the statue comes, then comes the vihare followed by military post, colonizing the area with Sinhalese brought from outside and set up government offices to legitimize these illegal colonization .The question is what lesson these trouble creators learnt from the racist politics which caused the 30 year destructive war?.

This in fact is the Rajapaksa program of Sinhalisation of Tamil-Muslim lands under which 86 places in the east were gazette on 10 October 2014 as archaeological sites.

Rejecting moves to build a vihara, Digavapi Parivara Chaitya Raja Maha Vihara Chief Priest Pottivala Sandananda Thero said “there is no need for a vihara in Manikkamadu”.

Read More

Israel, Islamophobia, and the question of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty

The truth, the horrible truth, is that it was the last Government that acquiesced in, connived at, and virtually supported a very serious erosion of our sovereignty.

by Izeth Hussain-May 23, 2017

( May 23, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The question of Sri Lanka‘s sovereignty looms large in the political consciousness of many Sri Lankans today. There are two major reasons for this, the first of which is that in the novel geopolitical configuration in South Asia there is a heavy Chinese presence which could prompt India to want to get a control over Sri Lanka. The other is that Sri Lanka ‘s further economic development obviously dictates some sort of opening out to India which would inevitably spell close linkages with the Dravidian states of South India which are proving to be among the most dynamic in India today. Those linkages might be seen as leading to dependence and satellisation.

Those two factors should be situated in the context of Sri Lanka’s peculiar, indeed disgusting, politics of today. It is a politics in which a rank hedonism is the hallmark of the power elite, a politics in which self-interest and group interests reign supreme with little or no regard for moral scruple, a politics in which the Opposition can be expected to sabotage every Government initiative regardless of the national interest if there is the slightest room for controversy, a politics in which the Government plays far more of a divisive than the unificatory role expected of it, a politics in which many Sri Lankans believe that a substantial proportion of our politicians can be bought and sold like potatoes. Given these factors the prospects for the continuance of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty look dim, quite dim.

A major purpose of this article is to point out that there was a serious erosion of sovereignty under the last Government. We have to be emphatic on this because the Opposition holds that the last Government was authentically nationalist whereas the present one is expected to sell the country to the West. The truth, the horrible truth, is that it was the last Government that acquiesced in, connived at, and virtually supported a very serious erosion of our sovereignty. We refer to the Islamophobic hate campaign of the BBS. It was quite evidently well funded, supposedly by Norwegian Christian fundamentalist groups.

It is well known of course that Christian fundamentalist groups have engaged in an internationally widespread Islamophobic campaign through the internet and are splendidly countered by Islamic groups. But there does not seem to have been any other Islamophobic hate campaign conducted within a country comparable to the one in Sri Lanka. Furthermore the BBS campaign obviously had an international dimension, shown in the connection with the Wirathu gang in Myanmar. We must recall also that according to former President Rajapakse the BBS campaign was part of an international conspiracy to overthrow his Government. There is no record of Christian fundamentalist groups having been engaged in programs of that sort anywhere else in the world: their purpose is to spread their versions of Christianity, and not to engage in programs to overthrow Governments. Obviously in the case of the BBS they were acting as proxies for Israel. It is well established that the last Government allowed wide latitude for the BBS’ hate campaign, even going to the extent of placing its leaders above the law. We can conclude therefore that Israel was guilty of outrageously blatant interference in our internal affairs, and it would not be excessive to say that the last Government was guilty of acquiescing in, conniving at, and virtually supporting a very serious erosion of our sovereignty.

Recently one of the two main propagandists who have been attacking this writer in the columns of the Colombo Telegraph, Backlash, declared his dog-like devotion to apartheid Israel and in the same breath declared that it was Israel that had backed the BBS campaign. That declaration can be interpreted in many ways. It does seem to bespeak some degree of arrogance on the part of Israel, shown in the expectation that a Zionist agent could openly declare Israel’s blatant interference in our internal affairs without Israel having to face adverse consequences. It was, in effect, a declaration of Israel’s sinister power in Sri Lanka. It certainly had that kind of power under the last Government: otherwise the wide latitude allowed to the BBS hate campaign cannot be explained. Does it have that kind of sinister power under the present Government as well? Whatever the answer might be the facts point to one conclusion, an inescapable conclusion. If the Government really values Sri Lanka’s sovereignty even to a slight degree, it should brook no interference whatever in our internal affairs, certainly not the kind of blatant Israeli interference that there was under the last Government. The inescapable conclusion is that the Government should institute a full-scale inquiry into Israeli interference in our internal affairs.

As the writer has been pointing out in recent articles the Islamophobic hate campaign has been continuing though on a lesser scale. Can the Government safely ignore that fact? The last Government evidently believed that it could contain the BBS hate campaign without allowing it to ignite into a full-scale genocidal 1983 holocaust against the Muslims. The present Government probably holds the same belief. It will do well to bear certain facts in mind. One is that Islamophobic hatred is now fairly widespread in Sri Lanka, as shown by the recent vandalization of mosques about which the Government doesn’t seem to care two hoots. The Government should also bear in mind the fact that one of the motivations behind the 1915 anti-Muslim riots was the desire of Sinhalese businessmen to take Muslim business into their own hands, and a similar motivation was a potent factor behind the 1983 holocaust. Above all the Government must bear in mind the following two facts: the British Government of 1915 never wanted those riots to take place but they did all the same, and secondly there could be sinister forces who would want another 1915 or even another 1983 as that could help destroy the unity of this country.

The Islamophobic hate campaign has certainly continued in the columns of the Colombo Telegraph. One of the regular propagandists, Backlash, seems to have dropped out but others have made their appearance, equally bizarre and equally stupid in their disregard for fact and reason and the high valuation they place on flung filth. One of the established regulars, Kettikaran, poor fellow, seems now to be in a totally hysterical state. But he seems to have broken new ground in the propaganda campaign. He used to keep on alleging that I advocated famine as a way of defeating the LTTE, and after some time I took to asking the readers to get to Google and click on “Izeth Hussain’s reply to K.Arvind 2006”. I found to my surprise recently that the connected correspondence that used to appear no longer appears. Has that been excised by Kettikaran and his neo-Nazi Zionista buddies? Anyone interested in their antics should now turn to something like “K.Arvind – Girls and Decency 2006” which will take him to a letter by me in the Island strongly advising against the use of famine to subdue the LTTE. The Zionistas really are bizarre and stupid.

 Maithri mends with mini-reshuffle

​​
Tuesday, 23 May 2017

• Reinforces his control by reshuffling nine portfolios
• Swaps Finance and Foreign Ministers - Mangala as Finance and Media and Ravi K as Foreign
• Captain Cool Arjuna moved out of Ports and Shipping to oversee Petroleum
• Mahinda Sam gets crucial Ports and Shipping portfolio
• Tilak Marapana makes a comeback with portfolio of Minister of Development Assignments
• Deputy Ministers to be appointed after Sirisena returns from trip Down Under
• Sirisena says Cabinet reshuffle will provide new impetus for Sri Lanka’s development
• Mixed reactions to reshuffle from civil society leaders

President Maithripala Sirisena yesterday effected a mini yet decisive reshuffle of the Cabinet of Ministers, reinforcing his authority in the Coalition Government despite reservations from UNP leader and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Contrary to expectations of a wide-scale change, what the country saw yesterday was a revision of the status quo of nine Ministers, most notably the swap of portfolios between the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs.

The controversial yet hands-on Ravi Karunanayake was removed from his Finance portfolio and given the Foreign Minister title while his predecessor Mangala Samaraweera, widely perceived as being “Mr. Clean” and “apolitical”, was handed the mantle of managing the country’s finances along with the media.

Furthermore, 1996 World Cup-winning Captain Cool Arjuna Rantunga was stripped off his Ports and Shipping Minister portfolio and put in charge of Petroleum with the amiable Mahinda Samarasinghe taking over the Ports and Shipping Ministry.

These were the major surprises apart from Fisheries Minister Mahinda Amaraweera being given additional duties as State Minister of Mahaweli Development. He is also the General Secretary of the UPFA.

In other changes, S.B. Dissanayake was appointed Minister of Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan Heritage, W.D.J. Seneviratne was made Minister of Labour, Trade Union Relations and Sabaragamuwa Development, Gayantha Karunathilake became Minister of Land and Parliamentary Reforms and Chandima Weerakkody was named Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training.

Deputy Ministers to the relevant new Ministers will be announced after President Sirisena returns from a three-day state visit to Australia beginning today.

The move to bring back Thilak Marapana, who was forced to resign from his portfolio as the Law and Order Minister last year amidst dubious circumstances, drew much criticism as an action which went against the good governance principles of the current Government.

Expressing confidence in his appointments through a message on Twitter, President Sirisena said: “This Cabinet reshuffle will provide a new impetus to Sri Lanka’s development.”

However, civil society groups have strongly criticised the move to bring Marapana back.

“There was a demand by civil society groups for the Government to respond to the Avant Garde case and remove the ministers who defended company blocked action being taken against it. But instead the President has brought the Minister back to the Cabinet,” Campaign For Free and Fair Elections Executive Director Keerthi Tennakoon told Daily FT.

Tennakoon was also critical of the decision to remove Mangala Samaraweera from the Foreign Ministry.

“Despite our opinion of his local politics, Mangala Samaraweera as the Foreign Minister did a good job in handling the international community and handling the ministry efficiently. Now he has been given a ministry without any powers,” Tennakoon added.

However, other groups welcomed the move to remove Karunanayake from the Finance Ministry, claiming that the former Finance Minister worked against the interests of consumers.

National Movement for Consumer Rights Association President Ranjith Withanage welcomed the new appointment to the Ministry of Finance, claiming he was confident of Samaraweera’s capability to work efficiently.

Marapana, who was appointed as a MP from the UNP National List after the August 2015 general elections, resigned in November 2015 following the controversial remarks he made during a parliamentary debate on the Avant Garde company for which he served as a legal counsel.

Marapana has had a chequered history as a Minister. He was appointed Minister of Defence when the UNP took power in 2001 but was among the three Ministers sacked by then President Chandrika Kumaratunga in November 2003, a move which eventually led to the fall of the UNP Government the following year.

Prior to yesterday’s meeting the President and the Prime Minister held a discussion on Sunday regarding the Cabinet reshuffle. According to party sources, UNP Ministers had agreed to the reshuffle provided the party would retain the same portfolios and the same number of ministerial positions.

AFP said Monday’s reshuffle had been foreshadowed for months and was opposed by the UNP, which feared losing powerful posts within the coalition.

Wickremesinghe attended Monday’s swearing-in ceremony for new ministers, which was off limits to the press. There was no immediate comment from the UNP regarding the shake-up.

Sirisena also removed Ports Minister Arjuna Ranatunga, who had been resisting Government efforts to forge a partnership with China to develop a loss-making, deep-sea port in the island’s south.

The reshuffle comes as Sirisena faces mounting criticism from the international community over the slow pace of promised reforms and delays in addressing Sri Lanka’s wartime past through a mediated reconciliation process.

Prior to yesterday’s  meeting the President and the Prime Minister held a discussion on Sunday regarding the cabinet reshuffle. According to party sources, the United National Party Ministers have agreed to the reshuffle provided that the party would retain the same portfolios and the same number of ministerial positions.

AFp said Monday’s reshuffle had been foreshadowed for months, and was opposed by the UNP, which feared losing powerful posts within the coalition.

Wickremesinghe attended Monday’s swearing in ceremony for new ministers, which was off limits to the press. There was no immediate comment from the UNP regarding the shake up.

Sirisena also removed Ports Minister Arjuna Ranatunga, who had been resisting government efforts to forge a partnership with China to develop a loss-making, deep-sea port in the island’s south.

The reshuffle comes as Sirisena faces mounting criticism from the international community over the slow pace of promised reforms and delays in addressing Sri Lanka’s wartime past through a mediated reconciliation process.

Real face of the Cabinet reshuffle

Cabinet reshuffle: Mangala, Ravi to swap portfolios

May 22, 2017

The discussion for a Cabinet reshuffle dragged on for months. The much discussed Cabinet reshuffle happened today at the President House. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party faction of the Government continuously emphasized on a Cabinet reshuffle while the United National Party faction resisted to the idea.

As preliminary discussions unraveled, the Cabinet reshuffle was to increase the efficiency of the Government by removing the non-performers. Yet what happened eventually does not show such a result. After so much of talks and visions the Cabinet reshuffle was just another political show.

Ministerial positions were changed of a few number of ministers and another few were given new portfolios. Accordingly ministerial positions were changed of Ravi Karunanayake, Mangala Samaraweera, Gayantha Karunathilake, Chandima Weerakkody and Arjuna Ranatunga. Thilak Marapana, who was already removed from the Ministry of Law and Order, was given the Project Development Ministry. And a few others some more new ministries.

It is evident that the objective of the Cabinet reshuffle was nothing else but to remove Ravi Karunanayake from the Finance Minister post. If considering non-performers there are many other ministers that fall in to the category who need to be replaced immediately if there is a genuine need to uplift the efficiency of the Government. The change is more like a cover up.

Several officials in the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry attempted to strategically remove Minister Karunanayake from his post. These persons pressured the President in order to achieve their goal and this is what they wanted to make happen. It must be emphasized that these people belong to the very group that publicly campaigned to defeat President Maithripala Sirisena.

If they have sensed, by pressurizing President Sirisena is a way to get their ulterior motives achieved, it will create a highly unfavourable environment for the Good Governance. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, finally got defeated because he fell in to the influences of these sort of groups. When these external groups become effective influencers to the President it will create conducive environment allowing them to act according to their own whims and fancies.  If this continues with the present Government, the future will not be so pleasant.

Upul Nishantha

Will Cabinet reshuffle answer people’s woes - EDITORIAL 

2017-05-23

A Cabinet reshuffle had been one of the main topics discussed in the media during the past few weeks and the politically-minded people were keen to know how the reshuffle would pan out. Finally it became a reality yesterday. However, many of the ministers are still unsure as to the real purpose of ministries being shuffled from one minister to another.   
Various reasons were given for Cabinet reshuffle. There have been clashes between ministers who represent the United National Party (UNP) and those representing the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) while there had been differences between the ministers of one party in the government and his deputy or state minister of another party over the allocation of subjects among them. Days before the Cabinet reshuffle, State Minister Sujeeva Senasinghe, who was in the forefront of the the UNP’s campaign at the 2015 presidential and parliamentary elections was quoted last week as having said that his status in the ministry was worse than that of a peon. Most probably the Cabinet reshuffle might have been mooted to mitigate these kinds of issues.   

At the presidential election the political leaders, who conceived the yahapalana concept, assured the voters that they would appoint a Cabinet on a scientific basis where ministers would be assigned combinations of related ministries and subjects. But post-election and entrenched in power these and other promises made to the people were conveniently forgotten. The subject of National Integration was handled by one minister while the subject of National Co-existence was handled by another and Education and Higher Education handled by two different ministers. The then much hyped scientific basis for allocating Cabinet portfolios is not evident in the new Cabinet either.   
The former Media Minister Gayantha Karunathilake told the media on Sunday that ministers who held powerful portfolios would be allocated equally powerful portfolios in case of any changes to their previously-held portfolios. What did he mean by powerful ministries? It is said that ministers prefer ministries that handle billions of rupees or the ministries having job opportunities which can be distributed among their party supporters. Was it what he meant? The minister also said that the UNP and the SLFP ministers would exchange their ministries among their respective party ministers. What is the scientific basis in such a move?   

Nevertheless, it is clear that the Cabinet reshuffle was not a demand made by the people because for most of them these ministries meant little or nothing or they even knew of their existence. For instance, despite the fact there are ten ministers and ministries handling transport in the country including the nine provinces, it is no secret that the public transport system is in a mess. For example, none of the transport ministers during the past several decades had been able to operate trains according to a timetable or able to prepare a timetable that was practical. In the case of the bus service, especially the private bus service is virtually operated by a mafia which takes bus passengers hostage once they board buses.The transport ministers since the 1980s have pathetically failed to compel the private bus owners to issue tickets to passengers which is extremely important in case of an accident while drivers and conductors are often rude to passengers. Decency is something totally alien to the transport sector.   

Rising inflation has for decades been an unchanging phenomenon in the country despite there being finance and trade ministers with incredible perks and privileges which are beyond the grasp of the ordinary masses. A recent newspaper report said the government spends Rs.7.5 million a month to maintain a minister. National Integration, Law and Order and the Religious Affairs Ministers are maintaining a deafening silence amid mounting religious tension in the country as happened during the last three years of the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.   
Ordinary masses do not believe that any Cabinet reshuffle would change this sad state of affairs. Only millions of rupees from public coffers would be wasted for refurbishment of ministry buildings according to the taste and whim of the new ministers after the merry-go-round. However, it is the bounden duty of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to show that they mean business by walking the talk.     

Can a cabinet reshuffle develop the country that couldn’t be done by a government change?

May 22, 2017 by

“Could a cabinet reshuffle develop the country that couldn’t be done so by a government change? As such, this is only a pseudo play act of Ranil; – Maithri administration. For the last few weeks the topic of the media was the cabinet reshuffle. This did override genuine issues of the people. The cabinet reshuffle was brought in to deceive the masses. As such, instead of taking the country forward this would create several crises in the country. Hence, these rulers, with the policies they follow, can no longer take the country or the people forward. Now, the country needs a change in policies. We call upon the people in this country to come forward for such a change,” says the Leader of the JVP and Chief Opposition Whip Anura Dissanayaka.
He said this speaking at a press conference held at the head office of the JVP at Pelawatta today (22nd) afternoon. The Member of the Central Committee of the JVP Kalutara District Parliamentarian Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa too was present.
Speaking further Mr. Dissanayaka said, “When this government came to power it promised to arrest all those who were involved in frauds and corruption and to punish the guilty. 2 ½ years have passed since it came to power. The rulers have not been able to fulfill any promises they made to the people. They also reiterated they would find employment for youths. They promised to find ten million jobs. However, the government has failed to find suitable employment for youths. Also, they promised to salvage the country entrapped in a debt trap. However, the country is again trapped in a debt trap. Despite promising that the supremacy of the law would be established, it has been cast aside. Instead, drugs and crimes have escalated in the country. After 2 ½ years of rule Ranil – Maithri administration has proved the promises and agreements to the people have been broken down.
The government should fulfill the needs of the people. Certain faculties of universities have been closed down for several months. There isn’t any solution yet. Children die when police exchange fire with the underworld. Prices of essential items have been increased burdening the people more. Fraud and corruption are rampant and the President and the Prime Minister, instead of solving issues of the people, have presented a play act called cabinet reshuffle to the masses. A statement published in the media said to have been made by the President after the reshuffle says their intention was to create new hopes among the people. These are hopes that would never be fulfilled.
The intention of the cabinet reshuffle is not to prepare future programmes to develop the country and the people. There are several other goals in this reshuffle. One such goal is to create a crooked legitimacy for the SLFP to continue to remain in the government. The MoU between the SLFP and the UNP was for a two year ‘national’ government. However, they have been together for 2 ½ years and have approved all proposals that have been brought in. They are trying to create a legitimacy to remain in the corrupt administration until 2020. The second goal of the reshuffle is to please who are dissatisfied. Tilak Marapana had to resign from the ministerial post as it was revealed he was protecting Avant Garde fraudulent company. After that he never came to the Parliament for more than a few days. He was unhappy that he had to resign from the ministerial portfolio. He has been given the Ministry of Development Assignments to please him. Already, there are several ministers for development. Malik Samarawickreme is Minister of Development Strategies; Sarath Fonseka is Minister of Regional Development. Sagala Ratnayaka is Minister of Southern Development. John Seneviratna has been given a new Ministry called Sabaragamuwa Development. S.B. Dissanayaka is the Minister of Upcountry Development. In addition to all of them Tilak Marapana is appointed Minister of Development Assignments. Is there development in the country with all these ministers of development? These ministries are not for development of the country or the people but for their own development.
Also, in the past John Seneviratna and S.B. Dissanayaka were grumbling. They have been gratified by adding several portfolios. As Mahinda Amaraweera is the Secretary General of the UPFA he has been given a state ministry as well. As such, the reshuffle is not for the development of the people or the country nor is it to solve the issues of the people. Someone can argue that there were allegations against the Minister of Finance and he had to be removed from that ministry. If there were allegations against him he should be investigated and he should be punished instead of giving him a new portfolio. This government has created a new system of punishments. It is to give the perpetrator a new ministry. There are rumours that Ravi is to be given plantations, insurance, Mahapola, Lotteries Board and several other enterprises in addition to Foreign Affairs. Then Ravi becomes Foreign Minister of Economic Affairs. Arjuna Ranatunga has been given the Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development. 1/4th of our export expenditure is for fuel. Why is a ministry with a transaction of nearly US$5 billion, a large number of personnel and a large number of retail outlets given to Arjuna Ranatunga who has allegations against him as the Minister of Ports?
Also, despite Kiriella, being accused of having a large number of consultants, coordinating secretaries and committing irregularities in projects, carries on regardless. Nothing has happened to Siyambalapitiya who is accused of irregularities in coal tenders.
Harrison who allowed middlemen to get profits by selling paddy stocks exists without any bother. The Prime Minister who protected bond fraudsters remains in his chair. Duminda, the Minister of Agriculture who wastes Rs.2.4 million monthly on rent for a building has nothing to worry.
As such the reshuffle is not done to remove fraudsters or the corrupt. It has been done not for the development of the people or the country. Changing the Minister of Ports doesn’t change the attempt to sell Hambanthota Harbour or the East jetty of Colombo Harbour. Changing the Minister of Petroleum wouldn’t stop selling oil tank farm to India. The reshuffle would not change any policies of the government.
According to the 19th amendment to the Constitution a resolution to have only 30 posts of ministers and 40 posts of state ministers was passed. When the SLFP and the UNP joined it was decided on 1st September, 2015 to increase posts of ministers from 30 to 48 and posts of state ministers from 40 to 45. As such, this government was formed to share posts and privileges. The cabinet reshuffle also proves it. With this reshuffle the cabinet expands by adding a minister and a state minister. It is the people who have to be burdened with the extra expenses. This would be another addition to the economic crisis the country is already immersed in.
Could a cabinet reshuffle develop the country that couldn’t be done so by a government change? As such, this is only a pseudo play act of Ranil; – Maiathri administration. For the last few weeks the topic of the media was the cabinet reshuffle. This did override genuine issues of the people. The cabinet reshuffle was brought in to deceive the masses. As such, instead of taking the country forward this would create several crises in the country. Hence, these rulers, with the policies they follow, can no longer take the country or the people forward. Now, the country needs a change in policies. We call upon the people in this country to come forward for such a change.”

Can new Cabinet tackle ‘deep-rooted structural issues’ in the economy? 

By Jayampathy Molligoda-Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy at a recent media briefing has announced that he was considering floating a second International Sovereign Bond (ISB) this year if the Government is able to get the required Parliamentary approval for enhanced foreign borrowing limit.

This is in addition to the funds raised through the recent issue of ISB worth $ 1.5 billion at 6.2% interest. He also wants to pool the foreign exchange proceeds that may come from the sale of assets including the potential long-term lease of Hambantota Port to ‘China Merchant’ into a separate fund for ‘debt servicing’.

When the Unity Government came into power in January 2015, the outstanding external debt was $ 43 billion and the Sri Lankan economy was growing around 5% and a GDP of $ 80 billion at current market price. As per the latest Central Bank report, the economy has been stagnating around $ 81. 6 billion in terms of GDP at ‘cmp’ and the external debt outstanding as at end December 2016 has increased to $ 46.6 billion. In fact, the per capita GDP income has come down from $ 3,843 to $ 3,839 in 2016. 

National Unity Government since September 2015

At present, there is a National Unity Government (NG) between the UNP and UPFA headed by the Executive President, whereas the Prime Minister of the said NG represents the UNP who obtained the highest number of seats at the last general elections. The Government is supposed to further devolve power to the regions through the present ‘constitution-making’ process under the concept of ‘sharing of power’.

The Leader of the Opposition, who happens to be from the TNA, predominantly a Tamil-speaking north-eastern-based party, is pre-occupied with focusing on regional issues, in particular the Tamil national (so-called) problem and other connected issues. In addition, there is an equally formidable and strong opposition movement led by the Joint Opposition (JO) of former the President representing predominantly a vast majority of the Sinhalese population. They are in the opposition in Parliament as well as participating in many extra-Parliamentary protest campaigns.

Nevertheless, some of the UPFA members whose party has not received a mandate at the last general election to form a national government have joined with UNP members to form the present Unity Government. Since then, the two parties have been at loggerheads in Government policy implementation and it has been going from bad to worse.

There seems to be no consensus reached on the constitution-making process among the UNP, SLFP and TNA MPs, leave alone the JO members. As political scenarios are fast-changing, it is unlikely that there will be consensus on power sharing between the Centre and the periphery. Further there has not been any genuine power sharing at the Centre, thus reflecting ‘true aspirations’ of the majority of the people. 

Economic situation as reflected in the Central Bank Annual Report

Much has been written in the print media on the economic situation of the country. There is a serious ‘balance of payments’ issue which, in my view, has not been properly addressed. Basically, the country’s external account is in deficit ($ 1.9 billion before debt servicing) and the foreign exchange revenue from export of goods and services is not sufficient to meet the import bill and the ‘debt servicing’ (imports were $ 19.4 Billion and debt servicing was $ 4.3 billion).

Since liberalising the economy in 1978, successive governments have been adopting an export-led growth strategy without much success. However, the real issue lies with the fact that there is a persistent gap between the savings and investment which has to be bridged through FDIs without resorting to obtaining loans only.

It is regretful to note that FDIs were only $ 900 million for the year 2016. The Government is therefore compelled to borrow external debt on non-concessionary, commercial terms. The bottom line is the current Government continues to borrow foreign funds at relatively higher interest rates in order to retire previously-obtained low-cost borrowings.

Government debt as a percentage of GDP has increased to 79.6% by end of 2016, which includes 34% of foreign loans. However, if we take into account the overall external debts obtained by the country, it works up to 57.3% of the GDP or in absolute terms $ 46.6 billion. If we add the overall external debt of Rs. 6,785 billion (equivalent of $ 46.6 billion) to the o/s domestic debt of Rs. 5,342 billion, then the total debt works out to Rs. 12,127 billion. This, as a percentage of GDP of Rs. 11,839 billion (at cmp), is 102.4% of GDP, which is excessive.

Further, the country’s gross official reserves are now around $ 5 billion, which is sufficient only for 3.5 months of imports. These foreign reserves are not ‘earned’ but with additional foreign borrowings which includes the issue of international sovereign bonds at 6.2% as mentioned above. Although the rupee has depreciated by 13% over the last two years, the Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) has in fact appreciated during the period, reflecting a deterioration in the external competitiveness of the country. This will affect the performance of the export sector despite having a depreciated rupee and the benefits of GSP+ concession granted by EU recently.

We also need to look at the balance needed between spending and revenues necessary to prevent the ratio of debt to annual GDP from rising. A “primary surplus” is needed to maintain the debt-to-GDP ratio. If receipts are greater than the expenditure excluding interest payments, then a primary surplus occurs. This is needed if the effective real rate of interest payable on debt (the nominal interest rate less the inflation rate) is greater than the GDP growth rate. Therefore, the fiscal consolidation alone is not sufficient to improve the economic welfare of the people. It is therefore important to balance the macro- economic fundamentals by focusing on (a) curtailing the inflation; (b) keep a close tab on the real interest rates of the banking sector; (c) whilst improving the real economic growth rates.

In the circumstances, floating another International Sovereign Bond (ISB) this year as suggested by the Central Bank Governor, in my view is not going to address the serious ‘structural issues’ in the economy. In fact, the Central Bank has been repeatedly emphasising (in their own words) the need to address these deep-rooted structural issues in the economy, which have prevented the country from maintaining a high and sustainable GDP growth rate over time. (Page 27 of CB 2016.)

Implementation snags as a major drawback

One of the major drawbacks during the last two-year period is in the delays in execution of policies and programs. It goes without saying that getting policy implementation right is critically important for ‘governance’ purposes. A simple governance structure, in my view has two functional dimensions. A more participatory style of management for policy formulation/strategic planning, whereas a more authoritarian style is needed for execution of such policies efficiently.

The immediate future scenario would be that more and more people would become dissatisfied with the Government machinery. This will lead to social unrest which makes the system ungovernable, at least the Government may not be able to undertake much-needed fiscal consolidation and other economic reforms.

Now, as a stop- gap solution to the current governance issues, a major Cabinet re-shuffle has been effected this week by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister. If we take stock of the current situation in the country, there are serious economic problems as well as socio/political and environmental issues that need to be addressed without any further delay. In my view, it is unlikely that the new Cabinet will be able to drive the economy by addressing the structural issues in order to improve the living standards of the people. It seems that the real crisis confronted with the country’s governance is a total lack of a people-oriented, visionary leadership.

Need a ‘real change’ to address structural issues in the economy:

From the above analysis, it is clear that what is needed is a more durable solution to address issues faced by the people. As stated above, the real issue lies with the shortfall in the investment required for the desired economic growth. The necessary prerequisite to enhance ‘investor confidence’ is to have political stability, thus creating a conducive environment to make investments and trade.

How do we achieve political stability?

In terms of the 19th Amendment, the presidential elections are due to be held during December 2019. As for the Parliamentary elections, even if the President decides to dissolve Parliament, it can be done only after March 2020. (Under 19A, the President cannot dissolve Parliament before four-and-a-half years from the first sitting of the Parliament in early Sept. ’15) In the circumstances, time is opportune for religious and civil society leaders to come forward and offer a possible solution calling an early Parliamentary election and forming a new government. Towards that end, they could request the President to call for an All Party Conference (APC) and consult leaders as to the course of action that needs to be taken by the political authority to find a durable solution.

The civil society members could request the APC members to seriously consider asking the Government Parliamentary members to come to some consensus among themselves so that they could dissolve the present Parliament and call for snap general elections. It is further suggested that at the next general elections, a truly national unity government could be formed by getting all the elected political party members involved in forming the next government.

In other words, all the main political parties such as the UNP, SLFP, JO, TNA, Muslim Congress and even the JVP could be in the next government, thus effectively practicing an inclusive form of governance sharing power at the Centre. The necessary constitutional amendments, if required, could be passed before calling general elections.

Conclusion

What is required now is an investment-led growth strategy and to offer economic and social benefits to people of all communities. The business community expects political stability and consistency in Government policymaking. Delays in addressing the current political issues can have significant negative impact on economic performance.

Cabinet reshuffle a damp squib 

By C. A. Chandraprema-May 22, 2017, 8:20 pm

The much spoken of cabinet reshuffle has now been completed and in the end it turned out to be a damp squib. Whether this will help the government to get its act together is highly debatable. As foreign minister, how different will Ravi K be to Mangala Samaraweera? Perhaps Ravi K may not have agreed to the controversial UN Human Rights Council resolution of October 2015 with the same enthusiasm as Samaraweera had he been the foreign minister at that time. But that depends on the extent to which that decision was actually taken by the foreign minister. If the decision not to contest or negotiate the Obama administration’s draft resolution actually came from Colombo as we suspect, Ravi K would have had no option but to fall in line even if he had been holding that portfolio at that time. Ravi K may be less controversial as foreign minister than Samaraweera. But then all the major foreign policy issues have already fallen into certain tracks from which there will be little deviation for the rest of this government’s term and Ravi K will find himself administering what has been bequeathed to him by Samaraweera.

Samaraweera for his part will not get into the same controversies in the financé ministry that Ravi K seemed to always found himself in. But as far as running the economy is concerned, Samaraweera will find himself administering what was bequeathed to him by Ravi K. The latter implemented the yahapalana election pledges of increasing the salaries of government servants, and reducing the taxes on fuel, gas, and some selected foodstuffs so as to win the August 2015 parliamentary election and the country went into a tailspin after that and taxes on cars, liquor, tobacco and the VAT was increased to earn more revenue to meet the election related expenses. With the IMF breathing down Sri Lanka’s neck the government has had no option but to put various assets on sale to meet the shortfall in revenue. Whoever comes into the finance ministry will have to follow through with that programme. Hence there will be little or no difference policy wise in the way the finance ministry functions either.

The removal of Arjuna Ranatunga from ports and shipping portfolio may have been to facilitate the lease of the Hambantota port to the Chinese. Arjuna and his brother Dhammika had been trying to negotiate a better deal for Sri Lanka. If the government thinks that by putting Mahinda Samarasinghe there the lease of the Hambantota port will become easier, that may not turn out to be so because it was not just the Ranatungas who wanted a better deal but the employees of the Ports Authority in general. In fact the removal of Ranatunga may galvanise the Port unions into putting up a stiff resistance the same way the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation workers are opposing the leasing of the Trincomalee oil tank farms to India. The government has been given notice by the CPC unions of a strike without advance warning unless the government shelves all plans to lease the Trinco facility to the Indians.

The CPC has also asked for the bunkering facility in the Hambantota harbour and hey feel that the government was trying to fast track the lease of the Hambantota port to the Chinese by changing the minister in charge, there will be strident calls for tranferring that facility to the CPC immediately. So in the end, what we may end up with may be more trouble rather than less as a result of this cabinet reshuffle. Other than the changes of Karunanayake, Samaraweera and Ranatunga, none of the other changes signify anything. After all the hype over a cabinet reshuffle that had built up for months, by noon on Monday people were already talking of other things and everything was back to business as usual. The government and especially the SLFP component of that government may try to gain some political mileage by making public statements to the fact that they got rid of Ravi K from the finance ministry,

How Ravi K reacts to any SLFP attempts to portray his ouster from the finance ministry is yet to be seen. Over the past two years and more, the SLFP element in the government has been using the UNP as a doormat. They have been telling the public that it is they who had been preventing all the bad things that the UNP has been trying to do to the country and the UNP for its part has more or less been passively accepting this portrayal. Ravi K, who became embroiled in various unpleasant controversies in trying to recover the money spent to implement Maithripala Sirisena’s election pledges was shown by the SLFP group in a bad light and now he has been removed from that ministry by Sirisena himself.

After that removal, President Sirisena has been reported in the press as having said that the cabinet reshuffle will provide new impetus to development. That is an indirect way of saying that ministers like Ravi K and Arjuna were obstacles to development. The truth however was that Ravi K only implemented the economic policy of the yahapalana camp and he tried to manage the fallout from that very policy as best as he could. As for Arjuna, he was trying to protect the interests of the Ports Authority as best as he could. Ravi K has been offered as a sacrifice to placate public opinion but whether the public is impressed is another matter altogether.

Two arrested with Kerala Ganja worth Rs. 50mn

2017-05-22

The Police Special Task Force arrested two suspects with 328 kilos of Kerala ganja valued at Rs. 50 million during a raid in Wellampitiya.

The consignment was seized when it was to be transported to another location from a house in Wellampitiya on Sunday night.

Two individuals, one who hid the ganja and the other who arrived at the site to transport the consignment, were arrested. A car at the premises was also taken into custody, police said.  

The raid was carried out by a team from STF headquarters following a tip-off received to SI R.P.N.U Piyaratne. Chief Inspector N.C. Gadgadeera conducted the raid on the direction of ASP D.P.U Kodithuwakku and the instruction of STF commandant DIG M.R. Lateef.

The arrested suspects and the Kerala ganja were handed over to the Police Narcotic Bureau for further action.

Meanwhile, three other suspects were arrested by the STF in during another raid in Grandpass where a micro pistol was taken into custody. (Darshana Sanjeewa)

Gold worth Rs 1.5 million recovered from Sri Lankan national in Mumbai

May 22, 2017

The Customs Department of Mumbai caught a Sri Lankan national at the Mumbai International Airport and recovered from him 505 g of gold worth Rs. 1.49 million, some of which he had swallowed, while some concealed in his rectum, an official said.

The Sri Lankan national, Mohamed Faheem, was intercepted by the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) of Mumbai Customs.

He was cleared from the Customs Green channel. However, on suspicion, when he was directed to pass through the door frame metal detector, it beeped giving indications of metals stored in his body. “He voluntarily ejected six cut pieces of gold weighing 205 g stored in his rectum,” customs official said. The sleuths asked him to pass through the metal detector again, but it beeped again.

“Since the passenger was unable to eject it and as he had confessed that he had swallowed some pieces of gold before arriving to Mumbai from Sri Lanka, he was taken to a local hospital, where he was made to eject 300 g of gold,” the officials said.

The officials added that it was a unique case since the passenger had swallowed 12 pieces of gold and also hidden 6 pieces in the rectum to hide from the Customs Department.

Official said that the doctors had a very tough time retrieving the gold from his stomach and that it took more than 48 hours to complete the procedure.

-Agencies