Constitutional game plan of yahapalana govt.

By C. A. Chandraprema-October 5, 2017, 12:00 pm 

When looking at the interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly, the game plan of the yahapalana coalition becomes immediately apparent. For over one and a half years, we have been intermittently receiving various documents from the Steering Committee which made it only too clear what the yahapalana government has in mind in terms of constitutional reform. The most immediate thing that becomes apparent in this interim report is the strategy they seem to have adopted to see that they get the Constitutional reforms they desire. On the first three numbered pages of this interim report, they have proposed various changes to Articles 1 to 9 of the present Constitution. In actual fact, not much damage will be done to the yahapalana purpose even if they drop all the proposals made to change Articles 1 to 9 of the present Constitution. However, the contents of Articles 1 to 9 are such that the mere fact that changes have been proposed to them is enough to spark off controversy.

Yet, these are the very provisions where they can back off without doing any substantial damage to their real objectives. The game plan obviously is that once a controversy is generated, for the yahapalana side to retreat on all reforms proposed to Articles 1 to 9 of the present Constitution and to agree to retain the present provisions as they are so that the real reforms they want can be got through as a compromise measure. This is the same principle used by drug smugglers. When a big shipment is being brought in, the smugglers also ship in dummy consignments which are supposed to get caught to the authorities while the main shipment gets through. Here, too, we have a dummy consignment in the first few pages which they can afford to discard without doing much damage to their ultimate purpose.

The interim report has stated that whilst people in the south were fearful of the word "federal", people in the north were fearful of the word "unitary." Therefore they have suggested that the word "unitary" be dropped and articles 1 and 2 of the present be reformulated as follows: "Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a free, sovereign and independent Republic which is an aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution." In similar fashion, they have proposed changes to Article, 3, 4 and 5, 7 and 9 as well. The proposed changes look substantial - for example, the change made to Article 2 seems to remove the English word ‘unitary’ and to replace it with two Sinhala and Tamil words.

In Article 3, the word ‘Republic’ is to be dropped so that sovereignty is diffused among the people and not through the inhabitants of the Republic – a manoeuvre that seems to smack of an attempt to imbue the populations of parts of the country with the attributes of stand-alone sovereignty. In Article 5, the territory of the Republic is going to be defined in terms of an unspecified number of provinces and not the fixed number of 25 districts as at present. Article 7 is to be changed by adding the Tamil version of the national anthem ‘Sri Lanka thaye’. A change has also been changed to Article 9 of the Constitution which guarantees the foremost place to Buddhism as follows. "Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while treating all religions and beliefs with honour and dignity, and without discrimination, and guaranteeing to all persons the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution".

The changes proposed to Articles 1 to 9 are such as to arouse controversy and a furious debate about the unitary state, about the place accorded to Buddhism, about the planned removal of the word ‘Republic’ from places where it is vital to indicate the collective identity of the nation, etc. These are the provisions in particular which would immediately capture the attention of the Buddhist monks in particular. It’s very rarely that one hears of a Buddhist monk talking about the powers of the provincial governors, the lawmaking powers of parliament on matters coming under the provincial councils and subjects like that. The Bhikku community is known to take up topics like the place accorded to Buddhism and the preservation of the unitary state.

However, the matters dealt with in Articles 1 to 9 of the present constitution are about outward form, and the substance that the yahapalana camp seeks change in the Constitution will not be affected even if they jettison all the reforms proposed to Articles 1 to 9. TNA parliamentarian M. A. Sumathiran is famously supposed to have said that the Sinhalese are interested in labels and that they should be allowed to have their labels and their nomenclature while they get the substance of what they want. The only reform that the yahapalana camp may be genuinely keen to get through to Articles 1 to 9 may perhaps be the jettisoning of the English phrase ‘unitary’. Even in this case, it has been proposed to drop the word unitary only in English while retaining its Sinhala equivalent ‘ekeeya’ in the Constitution. The Sinhalese are going to have their beloved label in Sinhala but not in English!

Given the long term project that certain people seem to having, they seem to be keen on getting rid of the English term ‘unitary’ if that is possible. Indeed the best case scenario for the yahapalana camp would be to get the proposed changes to Aticles 1 to 9 passed along with everything else. If they fail in that the next best scenario would be for them to get only the English term ‘unitary’ dropped while agreeing to retain everything else in Articles 1 to 9 in the present Constitution as they are. In the worst case scenario, they will effect a headlong retreat and agree to jettison all the proposed changes to Articles 1 to 9 and once the Bhikku community is kept happy by not changing Article 9 and retaining the term ‘unitary’, they hope to be able to push through the other reforms they have in mind.

The real reforms the yahapalana Constitution makers have in mind start only from Part II of the interim report. This is the part they hope to get through by ‘sacrificing’ the reforms they have proposed to articles 1 to 9. They have started off this section by positing what they call the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ as the basis of devolution. What they mean by this term is that whatever could be handled by the lowest tier should be vested in it. One would think the Vadukkodai proclamation of 1972 was based on this principle of ‘subsidiarity’ albeit without the terminology. The contention of the separatist lobby since the Vadukkodai proclamation has been that they could run a sovereign nation in the northern and eastern provinces of this country. In this country, one has to be insane to agree to the kind of proposition posited by this so-called ‘principle of subsidiarity’. Be that as it may, starting with this principle of subsidiarity, the interim report has proposed a series of reforms including restrictions on the legislative powers of Parliament, reducing the powers of the provincial governors and the president (vis- a-vis the PCs), and increasing the powers of the provincial councils.

Even if the yahapalana camp has to retreat on all reforms proposed to Articles 1 to 9, all their purposes will be met if they manage to get the other reforms through. For the time being, their game plan seems to be working – everybody is only talking about the unitary state and the place accorded to Buddhism while the other reforms proposed are hardly discussed at all.

Redesigning the legislature

Thursday, October 5, 2017

The government last week began grappling with its latest and most daunting challenge- the task of introducing a new Constitution to replace the Executive Presidential system of government introduced in 1978. This is while the de-facto opposition, the Mahinda Rajapaksa faction of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) which has styled itself as the Joint Opposition (JO) suffered twin political setbacks.It was only last week that the government succeeded in passing the Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Bill in Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This meant that the elections to three provincial councils- in the Eastern, North Central and Sabaragamuwa provinces- would be deferred for at least several months, until these regions are subjected to a process of re-demarcation of electoral divisions.

This was a severe blow to the JO because it was aiming to test its electoral strength, at least in the North Central and Sabaragamuwa provinces where it believed it has significant grassroots level support. A Supreme Court verdict declaring that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution required a referendum had given hope to the JO that the polls would be held, if not later this year, at least early next year. That is not possible now.

Hot on the heels of that came another court verdict- from the District Court of Colombo- where a lawsuit seeking the re-instatement of Rajapaksa as President of the SLFP was dismissed by Colombo District Judge Sujeewa Nissanka who upheld the preliminary objections that were raised.

Election victory

It will be recalled that shortly after President Maithripala Sirisena’s election victory, a discussion was held between President Sirisena, Rajapaksa and then Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa at the latter’s official residence where it was decided that Rajapaksa would hand over the leadership of the SLFP to President Sirisena.

That itself was a consequence of Rajapaksa’s actions. Keen to wrest control of the SLFP from former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, Rajapaksa, soon after he became President, had the SLFP’s Central Committee approve a resolution that if a SLFPer was the leader of the country, he or she would also take over the mantle of party leadership. It was a resolution that came back to haunt Rajapaksa after he lost the presidential election to President Sirisena in January 2015.

However, the petitioners in the District Court had a different argument. They submitted that President Sirisena was not entitled to that privilege because he contested from an opposition party and ran against a candidate from the SLFP. That submission however was not put to the test as the District Court held that the President had immunity from legal action under Article 35(1) of the Constitution.

This verdict is a setback to the JO because many saw this as a last resort attempt by the Rajapaksa camp to remain as stakeholders within the SLFP. Now, whether they like it or not, they will be compelled to market themselves as the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), nominally led by G. L. Peiris.

The mainstream SLFP, on the other hand, is now keen to forge ahead, without seeking alliances with the Rajapaksa faction, if and when the provincial polls and elections to local government institutions are eventually held. Towards this end, President Sirisena met with SLFP stalwarts last week, urging them to reactivate the party machinery in preparation for polls.

Constitutional reforms

Another course of action the President Sirisena is likely to pursue is disciplinary action against dissidents. Ever since he assumed office, the President has been extremely lenient on rebels from his own party, even though they have brazenly flouted party discipline by staging rival rallies on May Day and criticising the current leadership in numerous public pronouncements. This is likely to change now. At an electoral level, JO members are likely to lose their organiser posts and be replaced by other party members.

Meanwhile, the government has also announced proposed Constitutional reforms that could very likely lead to a new Constitution. This was a key pledge by both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe during the election campaigns in January and August 2015. These proposals are included in the interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly, which was appointed to draft a new Constitution. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe chairs the Committee.

While there is consensus regarding abolishing the Executive Presidency as it exists today, it has been proposed that the President should be elected by Parliament for a fixed term of office. It has also been proposed that the President should be conferred with powers, including those in relation to Provincial Councils in specified situations.

Earlier it was believed that while the SLFP wanted to retain the Executive Presidency as it stands now, the United National Party (UNP) was keen to have it abolished altogether. There was even some apprehension that this issue could drive the two partners in the National Unity government apart. Now, there appears some compromise on the issue.

The interim report also addressed two vexed issues: the system of election and the unit of devolution of power. On the issue of election, there is agreement that it will be a hybrid between the first past the post Westminster system and the proportional Representation (PR) system. It has been suggested that the new legislature consist of 233 seats- eight more than the current 225- of which 140 seats will be directly elected while the others will be through the PR system.

It has also been proposed that, within these 233 seats, a specified number of extra seats shall be allocated to the Northern Province for a specified period of time, to compensate disparities caused due to displacement of persons.

Differences of opinion

A senate style second chamber, consisting of 55 members, 45 of them drawn from the Provincial Councils, has also been proposed. The other ten members should be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life. It is not proposed for the second chamber to have veto powers. However, it is envisaged that it may refer legislation back to Parliament for reconsideration.

On the issue of devolution of power, there appears to be consensus that the main unit for the devolution of powers shall be the province. However, the steering committee has provided three options regarding the possible merger of provinces for consideration: that mergers not be allowed, that they be allowed subject to a referendum of the provinces concerned and that the Northern and Eastern provinces be considered as a single province. Clearly there are differences of opinion on this issue.

It has been stressed that while these are proposals where wide ranging consensus has been reached, they are still only the basis for further discussion. There is no doubt that there will be much deliberation and more analysis before a final consensus is arrived at.

Already generating controversy in this regard are concerns raised mostly by the JO that Buddhism will lose its special status which it now enjoys under the current Constitution. The government has been at pains to state that this is not so and the Mahanayaka of the Malwatte Chapter, Most Ven Thibbotuwawe Sri Sumangala Thera this week publicly stated that the assurances provided by President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe about this should suffice.

In this respect, the interim report has suggested two options to set out the relevant clauses of the Constitution. Both options include the words, “Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana”.

The government does not anticipate an easy passage of the new Constitution through the processes it must navigate. It is only too aware of the difficulties it has in repealing the 18th Amendment and enacting the 19th Amendment to the Constitution early on in its tenure of office, amidst stiff opposition from the JO. So, it expects the possibility of numerous challenges both in Parliament and outside it, in the courts of law.

Therefore, there is a sense of expectation within government ranks that there would be a referendum on the issue. In any event, replacing a Constitution, that too after nearly forty years is a major event in a nation’s history and it would be more viable if it receives the stamp of approval by the people at a referendum. This is the major next hurdle the government is gearing itself for. 

Election monitor urges the governors to prevent misuse of property of provincial councils under them 

Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 12:25 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Oct 05, Colombo: The Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE), an election monitor in Sri Lanka says the Governors and secretaries should act to prevent the misuse of the vehicles and other assets belonging to provincial councils that have been placed under the governor's control.

CaFFE says in the North Central, Sabaragamuwa and Eastern provincial councils, more than 32 vehicles have been taken by former Chief Ministers, Ministers, Opposition Leaders and their staff.

Furthermore, they have not returned many other items belonging to the provincial councils.
According to the election monitor it has been observed that during the past few days these resources were being used continuously for political purposes.

A number of vehicles belonging to the North Central Provincial Council have been used for a series of meetings held in Anuradhapura on October 2, the CaFFE said. Also the former politicians of the Provincial Council had participated in a meeting held at the Provincial Council Auditorium.

The NGO said it has complained to the Governor of North Central Province.

After handing over the governance of the provincial councils to the governor following the end of the term, the use of public resources by the former council members for political purposes is abuse of public property, CaFFE points out.

According to CAFFE, those who engage in such an action, as well as those who support and facilitate it, should be punished according to the law.

The NGO said it is regrettable that the majority of the ex-members of North Central Provincial Council have not still realized the seriousness and repercussions of such an act.

The election monitor says it is the responsibility of the Governor and the Chief Secretary of the provincial council to prevent misuse of public property in the event the PC is placed under the control of the Governor.


Writing to the Governors and Chief Secretaries of the Sabaragamuwa, North Central and Eastern Provinces, CaFFE has stated that the governors and secretaries should act to prevent the re-occurrence of the unpleasant situation arose between civil organizations and state officials including Lalith Weeratunga, Anusha Palpita and other government officials during the previous regime.

People’s Sovereignty Blatantly Betrayed

By Nagananda Kodituwakku –OCTOBER 6, 2017

Nagananda Kodituwakku

It is sad but true that Sri Lanka could be the only country where the politicos simply disregard the rule of law and the Constitution with a scant respect to their obligations to the people. And the way things happening in this island nation, suggests that the general public is either unconcerned or their minds are preoccupied with other stuff.  In this opportunistic backdrop the corrupt politicos makes a field day exploiting everything possible within their reach.

The currant Yahapalana regime elected to office in August 2015, promised the people a corrupt-free administration, which respects the rule of law. Yet, people have found those statement were meaningless and hollow. Within a short period of two years people have lost faith in the government, which has failed to realize the pledges made to the people, and hence becoming increasingly unpopular and reluctant to go before the people.

In this backdrop the Provincial Council election were due for the three Provincial Councils (North Central, Sabaragamuwa and Eastern) in the month of September 2017. The government was not willing to test the people’s pulses at all and preferred to postpone the elections yet the law did not permit it. The 20th Amendment Bill was brought in to the Constitution designed to have a breathing space with a new provision proposed (Article 154DD) to conduct the Provincial Council Elections on a ‘specified date’ as determined by the Parliament, which shall not be the later than the expiration of the term of the last constituted Provincial Council, which was the Uva Provincial Council due to expire in September 2019.

However, the Constitution did not permit postponing of any election beyond the specified date which tantamount to violation of the sovereign rights (franchise) of the people. When the 20A Bill was placed on the Order paper of the Parliament, many activists challenged it and the Apex Court on 08thSeptember 2017 ruled that postponement of the election violates the sovereignty in the people (Article 3) and their rights to equal protection of the law 12(1) and also freedom of Expression of the people (14) (1). Therefore, the Court ruled that it needs people’s approval at a referendum compelling the government to abandon it.

Yet, the government was not willing to face the elections and turned to adopt a different strategy. This time it relied on a Bill titled ‘Provincial Council Election Amendment’ Bill published in the Gazette on 07th July 2017, designed to increase the number of female candidates to not less than 30%. And no concerned citizen or activist did challenge the said bill, as it contained no provision that would affect any of the entrenched provisions in the Constitution.

To every concerned citizen’s dismay, after the second reading of the said Bill made on 20th Sep 2017 it was transformed into a completely a different Bill at the Committee stage proceedings, which is not permitted by the Parliamentary Standing Orders.

The original Bill passed at the Second Reading had been totally disregarded with a completely new set of provisions ‘smuggled in’ without following the due process established by Article 78 of the Constitution. These changes include the introduction of a delimitation committee under the new law, which would have to finish its task of carving electorates that would effectively postponed the elections for years. Already, the Chairman of the Election Commission has confirmed this fact. This wrongful act was clearly amounts to total disregard of the lawmaking process and negation of the Rule of law and the Parliamentary Standing Orders. And above all the betrayal of the trust placed in the Parliament and the Speaker by the people.

The speaker should have known better that he is not entitled to ratify a Bill that requires approval of the people at a referendum, yet he had ratified the Bill. The Attorney General, on the other hand [Article 77(2)], is not empowered to express any opinion about the requirement of the approval by the people at a referendum and he is only empowered to convey his opinion to the Speaker as to whether a Bill cannot be validly passed except by a special majority prescribed by the Constitution. However, it is apparent that the Attorney General has given the go ahead to the bundle of amendments proposed to the Provincial Councils Elections Bill, which had not been published in the government gazette, enabling judicial review of their constitutionality. Thus it is evident that the Attorney General has aided and abetted the Speaker to ‘smuggle in’ some clauses, which has the effect of postponing of the Provincial Council Elections. This had been previously ruled illegal by the Supreme Court when a similar attempt was made through the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. This unlawful process adopted by the so-called Yahapalana regime is a stumbling block against the conducting of the Provincial Council Elections, which violates the people’s power of franchise, one of the sovereign rights of the people.

Read More

Rohingya refugees in our Constitution 

Neither President nor PM ever thought it right to condemn attacks on Rohingya refugees

Monks violated rights of refugees and basic tenets of Buddhism

Politics of anti-Rohingya campaign outright Sinhala Buddhist racism

2017-10-06

“These are Muslim ‘terrorists’ who have killed Buddhist monks. Sri Lanka is not for them. They should be sent out immediately,” shouted protesting Buddhist monks who broke into the UNHCR safe house sheltering 31 Rohingya refugees at Mt. Lavinia. 

This is not the first such violent anti-Muslim mob attack led by Buddhist monks. Neither President Sirisena nor Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, who vow to safeguard Buddhism and the Sinhala ‘Unitary’ State, ever thought it right to condemn these attacks on Rohingya refugees, while they hurried to condemn the massacre at LA, USA. These monks not only violated the rights of Rohingya refugees which the Sri Lankan Government is bound to safeguard as a UN member state, but also violated the basic tenets of Buddhism; Meththa, loving-kindness; Karuna, compassion; Muditha, sympathetic joy; and Upekkha, equanimity. 

A group of very concerned people including me addressed a letter to the Premier as the Head of Government on September 29, demanding the immediate arrest of all those involved in the attack on the safe house including Buddhist monks, for breach of peace, violence and hate speech. The letter very clearly stated, “This racially-motivated violent incident brought international disrepute and proved the government is uncertain in stopping such hate-mongering violent protests when led by Buddhist monks. It is therefore the government that is wholly responsible in allowing law enforcement agencies to violate the rights of the refugees and avoid taking action against hate-mongering violent groups that create a social mindset that would never allow any degree of reconciliation in this country.” 

The first arrests reported were however not made by the three police units deployed. The much-delayed statement by the Secretary to the Law and Order Ministry said they were by the CCD.First a man and thereafter a woman were arrested. This followed with the arrests of three more men. It took another two days to summon a leading monk of Ravana Balaya to the CCD and then arrest him. A public call was thereafter made asking for information about another leading monk and a man. With these few arrests, action against those police personnel who failed to carry out their duties at the protest was casually forgotten. 

Most unfortunately, this remains the dilemma the ‘Yahapalanaya’ leadership is unable to face with political acumen and courage 

Politics of this anti-Rohingya campaign is outright Sinhala Buddhist racism. It is fundamentally anti-Muslim. While the degree of violence and focus are somewhat outside the usual target, the thinking, the ideology is Sinhala Buddhist supremacy. It is the same Sinhala Buddhist ideology that drives these violent and ethno-religious hate campaigns against other ethnic and religious presence in the ‘Land of Gautama Buddha.’ They are all linked to the politics of the joint opposition (JO) that is dished out with the brand name ‘Rajapaksa.’ 

It is ‘Rajapaksa politics’ that is played out by Buddhist monks who drive the ‘Yahapalanaya’ leadership scared stiff. Different platforms from Rohingya refugees to Wilpattu deforestation to the Constitution are used to push through the campaign the JO is part of. The present focus is on the draft document of the Steering Committee presented in parliament as a proposal for a new Constitution. 

“It is impossible to give Buddhism the foremost place without treating other religions differently,” a statement issued by the Buddha Sasana Kaarya Saadhaka Mandalaya, signed by Ven. Kotugoda Dhammawansa Mahanayake Thera, Ven. Ittapane Dhammalankara Nayake Thera, Ven. Tirikunamale Ananda Nayake Thera and Ven. Bellanwila Wimalarathana Nayake Thera among others stated very clearly and openly. What they shamelessly say is other religions should not be treated in the foremost way Buddhism should be treated and that must be clear in the Constitution. 

A very timidly-faithful and leading ‘Yahapalanaya’ apologist told the media the previous Friday that this government had three phobias; the Bhikkhu, the police and the State officer phobia

A very timidly-faithful and leading ‘Yahapalanaya’ apologist, who two years ago wanted the people to believe Sri Lanka had this time got the most democratic President and PM with whom an intellectual discussion could be held, told the media the previous Friday that this government had three phobias; the Bhikkhu, the police and the State officer phobia. He attributes these phobias as reason for this government’s failure in delivering the promises made during the two elections in January and August 2015. A ‘democratic’ government with ‘trusted leaders’ they vowed would not falter on promises made to people. All of them are far from understanding that they are fixated with a ‘Rajapaksa phobia.’ 

Rajapaksa phobia is what holds back this government from direct and firm action on the Rohingya refugee issue to postponing the LG and now PC elections too. It is the Rajapaksa phobia which compelled the parliamentary leadership of the ‘unity’ government to smuggle amendments during committee stage in parliament to both the 19th and 20th Amendments to the Constitution. It is that what is holding back the functioning of the OMP. It is also that what makes the government slip through war crimes probes, detention of youth and occupied private land in the North-East. They simply do not have the political will and confidence to address serious issues by publicly-challenging the Sinhala Buddhist politics of Rajapaksa. That explains in very simple terms what ‘Rajapaksa phobia’ is. 

For this very reason, the government leadership gets into contradictions on what is proposed for the new Constitution as well. When Sinhala Buddhist Rajapaksa campaigners accuse them, the proposed Constitution would dilute the status provided to Buddhism. When the Sinhala Buddhist campaigners accuse them of betraying the ‘Unitary’ State, they try to prove they have not. When they say the proposed Constitution is ‘federal’ and would pave the way for ‘separatism,’ they swear it is not a ‘federal’ system that is proposed. 

UNP National List MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, who claims to be an LSSPer while being the specially-appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the PM’s office, is also the most informed on the government’s stance on matters Constitutional. He told the media, “The reforms have not diluted the first and foremost place given to Buddhism in the 1978 Constitution as suggested by a section of monks and disgruntled groups who have failed to correctly absorb what was contained in the Interim Report.” He also told the media, “Recommendations of the Interim Report of the Steering Committee had not only further strengthened the unitary character of the State but included clear-cut provisions to prevent division.” 

If any of those contentious issues were not changed and would remain further strengthened, why should there be all this waste of taxpayer money for drafting a new Constitution? The present Constitution could remain with simple amendments to; (I) Prune ‘executive’ powers of the President as now proposed; (II) Strengthen the unitary character as Dr. Jayampathy says they have proposed; (III) Please the Sinhala Buddhist campaigners on the foremost place accorded to Buddhism. 

Sadly, these political figures in the ‘Yahapalanaya’ Government fear Rajapaksa so much, they do not want to spell out what they want done with the Constitution. They don’t have the political potency the high priest of the Malwatta Chapter of the Shyamopali Siyam Nikaya, Most Ven. Thibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera has. Last Monday, JO leader MP Dinesh Gunawardena who met Malwatta Chapter Chief Ven. Sumangala Thera to canvass support for their anti-Constitution Sinhala Buddhist campaign was rebuffed. The prelate told MP Gunawardena that there may not be another opportunity and it was time everyone got together in settling these issues for the benefit of the country. The Ven. Thera also said it was because the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam accord was not allowed to be implemented that this unwanted massive tragedy occurred with thousands losing their lives, and that it was best they acted in a way that would not lead to any calamity once again. 

This may not be the position of the Asgiriya Mahanayake Venerable Warakagoda Sri Gnanarathana Thera. As NP Chief Minister, Justice Wigneswaran, after his recent audience with the two high priests aptly described, “The two High Priests are personifications of contrary characteristics. I am sure Mahinda would find himself closer in spirit to Asgiriya rather than Malwatta.” 

The Asgiriya line of thinking came out loud and clear, when I sat with Justice Wigneswaran at the audience to explain the problems of the Northern and Eastern people is a stubborn assumption that this country is a Sinhala Buddhist State historically and it should remain so as ‘unitary’ State. Minorities therefore should accept this country as such. It is this political stand the JO and other Sinhala Buddhist segments like those who signed the ‘Buddha Sasana Kaarya Saadhaka Mandalaya’ statement stand for and would campaign for against the Steering Committee proposals for a new Constitution. 
Most unfortunately, this remains the dilemma the ‘Yahapalanaya’ leadership is unable to face with political acumen and courage. They tend to react to Asgiriya-JO politics that by default is Rajapaksa politics, instead of consolidating themselves on the political statements made by the Malwatta prelate. It is this utterly-timid political reaction that leaves them fixated on everything Sinhala Buddhist, contradicting what they propose as Constitutional provisions. It is this ‘Rajapaksa phobia’ that in turn has made them avoid elections; LG and PC elections for now. A government without a strong political backbone cannot stand erect, nor bend the way it should. That leaves even two and a half dozens of Rohingya refugees a frightening group to live with. 

NEW CONSTITUTION NEEDED - Malwatte Prelate

The delegation led by Dr. Wickremabahu Karunaratne, Ravaya Editor K.W. Janaranjana, Saman Ratnapriya, Gamini Viyangoda and Ven Mahagalkadawara Punnasara Nayake thera meeting Most Ven. Thibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Mahanayake thera of the Malwatt

Tilak Pushpakumara Senanayake-Thursday, October 5, 2017

Can devolve power, without dividing country

The country needs a constitution which devolves power without dividing the country and does no harm to the nation and religion.

The misunderstanding certain groups have that power devolution amounts to a division creates a wrong picture to the outside world, Most Ven. Thibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Mahanayake thera of the Malwatte Chapter said.

The Malwatte prelate made this observation when a delegation of the National Movement for a new constitution called on him at his Aramaya in Kandy on October 3.

The delegation included Dr. Wickremabahu Karunaratne, Ravaya Editor K.W. Janaranjana, Saman Ratnapriya, Gamini Viyangoda and Ven Mahagalkadawara Punnasara Nayake thera.

Dr Wickramabahu Karunaratne expressing his views on the occasion said they had arrived in Kandy that day to participate in a ‘satyagraha campaign’.

Certain groups were making misleading statements alleging that the proposed new constitution was harmful for democracy and Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism had gained world repute and recognition since some predictions made by the Buddha had been approved scientifically today. If people resorted to tribal behaviour it would be anti-Buddhist.

Dr Karunaratne said they had fruitful discussions with the Malwatte prelate. The Mahanayake thera also took the position that the constitution needed to be changed.

The prelate also pointed out the need for a discussion among the Maha Sangha on this issue. Some Parliamentarians were making false public statements quite in contrast to the stand taken by them in Parliament and the Steering Committee stages. The standpoint taken by the Malwatte prelate when Parliamentarian Dinesh Gunawardene called on him was a great source of strength for those campaigning for a new constitution which was the need of the hour.

Translation of the proposed interim report to other languages may involve certain misinterpretations which could be ironed out. But the fact remained that the country needed this new constitution, Karunaratne said.

Gamini Viyangoda said they were conducting the satyagraha in Kandy after staging a similar campaign in Colombo. Their objective was to ensure the fulfilment of election pledges given by the Yahapalana government and appreciate the pledges fulfilled already. Devolution of power to the peripheries and the abolution of the Executive Presidency were absolutely necessary, he said.

The incidents experienced in 1978 proved the dangers involved in the Executive Presidential system. The President had promised to abolish the Executive Presidency.

“Our other objectives are to secure a change in the system of elections and devolution of power. Saman Ratnapriya said certain elements were trying to arouse communal and religious passions through greed for power. Ravaya Editor K.W. Janaranjana said they have planned their next satyagraha campaign in Anuradhapura. Copies of two books titled ‘New Constitution’ and ‘Power Constitution’ and ‘Power Devolution’ were presented to the Malwatte prelate by K.W. Janaranjana and Ven Mahagalkadawara Punnasara thera respectively.

The Devolution Debate:Facts that should not be forgotten

Continued on yesterday

By G. H. Peiris-October 5, 2017

Repeating the multifaceted case against adopting a Province-based devolution as provided for in the '13thA' has been so persuasively presented from diverse viewpoints by many critics over several decadesmakes it unnecessary for me to embark on yet another of its reiteration here. Accordingly, what I think is more productive is to focus on certain prevailing misconceptions on the merits of district-based devolution, but subject to an overarching qualification based on my personal conviction that a tiny nation like Sri Lanka does not need a second tier of sub-national institutions of government between the Centre and the network of Local Government Institutions (the latter described in Ursula Hicks' classic,Development from Below, as one of the best of its kind in the Less Developed Countries) in order to rectify prevailing deficiencies from perspectives of the ideals of consociational democracy and social justice.I am encouraged to make such an attempt,albeit as briefly as possible, because of the faint silver-lining I see in the most recent instalment of Dr DJ's discourse – stemming ironically from his sustained campaign for the 'Province', resorting to patently absurd pronouncements such as: "The Steering Committee report also puts paid to the debate on the unit of devolution" and, implicitly an indication that there still remains an effort to revive the 'District case' which he finds it necessary to crush. I also have reason to wonder whether his incessant flow of wisdom during the past fortnighton the 'Province vs. District' issue is also aimed at suggesting to his readers that at least some of the eminent personalities who shared with him the recent 'Eliya' platform also share his viewson a '13thA plus' reform.

One of the most obvious merits of the District as the spatial unit of devolution is that it would serve as a far more effective system of facilitating the objectives of devolution than the Province in the context of the present spatial pattern of ethnicity in the island (as depicted in Figure 1).In this context what is of paramount relevance is that the majority of Tamils and Muslims in Sri Lanka live outside the 'North-East'; and since dispersal of political power is meant for the people rather than territory, devolution to provinces cannot result in a change in political entitlements of the majority in these two communities. The transfer of political power to Districts, on the other hand, has the potential of genuine political empowerment of a far larger share of their respective populations. Since such empowerment at district-level will not be seen as a serious threat to the territorial integrity of the nation, the need for overarching central control of the devolved powers and functions of district governments will be substantially reduced. Such an arrangement will also provide scope for an institutionalisation of effective inter-ethnic power-sharing at the Centre. In this sense, it is the District, rather than the Province that epitomises the 'middle-path' between total abandonment of devolution to a sub-national network of intermediate institutions, and a further reinforcement of devolution in accordance with the '13th A' with the risks and uncertainties it entails.

A reform involving untrammelled devolution of all powers and functions on the provinces envisaged in the '13th A', quite apart from its probable effect of strengthening the centrifugal forces that have continued to pose a challenge to territorial integrity of Sri Lanka,will, in addition,result in total chaos in respect of the functions of government pertaining to 'Law and Order', and 'Land and Land Settlement' as stipulated in the three Appendices attached to the 'Provincial Council List'.The glib advocacy of the '13thA' without reference to this fact is, indeed, beyond the realm of sanity, for the reason that exact specification of the powers and functions to be devolved ought to be considered the foremost determinant of the spatial framework of a devolution. A careful study of the dispensations on 'Law and Order' and 'Land and Land Settlement' as stipulated in the Government Gazette of 20 November 1987 (pages 23 to 32 of minute font), for instance, suggests that the Steering Committee had not even bothered to look at those segments of the '13th A', leave alone consider their implications and impact to the contemporary realities in our country.

A sane reader of the section titled'Law and Order' will undoubtedly see that,in the context of province-based devolution, some of the most arduous tasks such as preventive action against politicised mob violencein Metropolitan Colombo and its substantially urbanised hinterland, or the conduct of operations against organised crime in its spatially hazy underworld the tentacles of which extend from the metropolis well into rural areas in all parts of the island, will encounter bewildering confusions,especially in respect of coordination, chains of command and accountability, under the fragmentation of police manpower, functions and operational areas of authority.It also does not require expertise on this subject to realise the chaos that would ensue in the maintenance of law and order specially in unit such as the Eastern Province stretching as it does from Kokkilai to Kumana over a linear distance of some 180 miles, or the Northern Province, covering about 14% of the total area of the island much of it providing forested hideouts for subversives and criminals,and fully exposed to irredentist infiltrations, being policed by a hierarchical structure headed by a DIG, appointed to that post with the concurrence of a Chief Minister (who could be even more unreliable than one we have at present), but accountable to both to a Colombo-based IGP and a national Police Commission. There is reason to speculate that in such a system the maintenance of law and order especially in the North and the East is likely to replicate that of several parts of the 'Red Corridor' of India stretching across the Deccan where, as studies conducted by scholars like Ajay Mehra on 'People's War Groups' (a.k.a. 'Naxalites') indicate, there are well over 150 Districts out of India's total of some 700into which formal government penetrates only in the form of occasional quasi-military operations. Delhi's 'South Block' bureaucrats who made it possible for theParathasarathys, Bhandaris, Chidambarans, Venkateshwarans and Dixits to disregard, often with contempt, the submissions of their Sri Lankan counterparts like ACS Hameed, Gamini Dissanayake and Lalith Athulathmudali at negotiation forums probably wanted to create that kind of chaos in Sri Lanka.

The related landmark episodes were, first, JRJ'sconciliatory meeting with a less-than-cordial Indira Gandhi and the discussions he had with the aggressive diplomat Parathasarathy in November 1983 who, it is said, insisted on the Sri Lanka president abandoning his 'District Development Councils' scheme. The tangible outcome of that encounter was the so-called 'Annexure C' which engraved the 'Province' as the TULF bottom-line for negotiation.

This happened, it should be recalled, in the aftermath ofJRJ's 'Referendum' blunder of December 1982 which, among other things, paved the way for a distinct transformation of the electoral morphology, and the early signs of an economic downturn. More importantly, it happened in the all-pervading gloom of the '1983 Black July' of when it was known to those in Colombo's corridors of power that certain TULF leaderswere prodding Delhito undertake a Bangladesh-type military intervention in Sri Lanka to "liberate" the island's 'Northeast' ̶a distinct Indira Gandhioption kept in storage until the suppression of the Khalistan challenge through her massive 'Operation Blue Star' of June 1984.

With Rajiv Gandhi succeeding his assassinated mother, events moved swiftly. There was the 'Delhi Accord' of August 1985, followed by many other Indian intrusions with scant regard to the usual diplomatic nicetiesmeant to enforce the Indian will on the working out of the details of the Accord. The 'Political Parties Conference' of April 1986 summoned byour lame-duck president in desperation about the intensifying tempo of insurrectionary violence in both the 'North-East' as well as the 'South', the participation in which was confined to the TULF leaders whose "boys" had up-staged them(and probably earmarked them for future liquidation), and a few worthies of the "Old Left" whose trade-union base was virtually non-existent. The rejuvenated SLFP led a massive campaign of protest. The key leaders of the Muslim community remained noncommittal. Even stalwartsin the ranks of the ruling party like Premadasa, Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake, Gamini Jayasuriya, Ranjit Atapattu and HM Mohammedeither maintained low profile or remained aloof making no secret of their opposition. There was then the shocking Indian air-borne military intervention staged tofoil the 'Operation Liberation' staged in Vadamarachchi in June 1987 – a devastating indication to JRJ that affable Rajiv had not abandoned Indira's policy of supporting secessionism in Sri Lanka.

This is how the infamous 'Rajiv-JRJ Accord'and the Provincial Council cancer was implanted. Having heard certain details from a few ex-Peradeniya officials who had to painfully witness the aforesaid"negotiations" (one of my graduate students, along with three others,were incarcerated for aiding a minor deviation, as requested by Gamini Dissanayake, from 'Annexure C' specifications on land settlement under the Mahaveli Programme), I just cannot "Fuggetaboutit" – no way.

The fallacy of the notion that the Provincial Council system (with a supposedly interim merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces) was the outcome of an indigenous evolutionary processof compromise and consensus in mainstream politics could be grasped fromthe following portrayal by another illustrious De Silva – Professor K. M., a close and loyal associate of JRJ – ofthe ethos at the formalisation of this pernicious Accord on 29th July 1987.

"Even as the cabinet met on 27 July violence broke out in Colombo when the police broke up an opposition rally in one of the most crowded parts of the city. It soon spread into the suburbs and the main towns of the southwest of the island and developed into the worst anti-government riot in the island's post-independence history… When Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi arrived in the island on 29 July to sign the accord the security services and the police were still engaged in preventing the mobs from entering the city of Colombo intent on demonstrating their opposition to the accord. The situation in the country was very volatile at the time of signing of the accord, with news coming in of a dangerous mob making its way to Colombo on the Galle road through Moratuwa and the Dehiwala Bridge. There was every possibility that the government would have been overthrown and JR himself deposed.

To be Continued

World bank confirms bribery involving Maithri –Australian Co. that gave it blacklisted

(Lanka-e-News - 05.Oct.2017, 9.30PM) The World bank has acknowledged and accepted that president Maithripala Sirisena took  bribes from the Australian Co. SMEC when he was the minister of Irrigation. This was confirmed  when the World bank blacklisted that Co. on grounds of giving bribes. 

The bribe- taking of Maithripala Sirisena was for the first time highlighted by the Australian mass media last year. Maithripala in response to that most scandalous exposure only gave his characteristic answer – “I do not know’’ . However , this scandal became most grave when the world bank confirmed this , and blacklisted that Co.  

Hereunder are details ..
The World bank released a sum of US dollars 1.82 million  as aid towards Sri Lanka ‘s Irrigation project when Maithripala was the  minister of Irrigation in 2009. When the Australian Co. SMEC came  forward  for the completion of this project , Maithripala  demanded a bribe if that project was to be entrusted to that Co. According to Australian  laws, if a Co. of that country  grants a bribe to anybody of another country it is a punishable offence. Based on that, the anti corruption organization and the media of that country filed a complaint against SMEC  Co.

While the Australian Federal Police were investigating this , the world bank too launched an investigation. That was because the World bank views any corruption tainting the aid granted by it to countries like ours as most serious , sensitive and grave. Truly , it is the aim and objective of the world bank that countries like ours should work in conformity with the concept of good governance. The world bank in fact exerts pressures towards this in order to preclude officers down the line from plundering what are  granted legitimately .

Both the Federal police and World bank have probed into this bribery demanded by Maithripala Sirisena from SMEC if he was to grant the SL Irrigation project to that Co.  The chief of SMEC in SL was sacked  from the Co. as soon as this racket came to light  ( the email sent to the  parent  Co. revealed important details ) .

It was mentioned in that , if that project is to be granted to SMEC Co.  the coordinating secretary  or advisor must make a ‘political donation’ to the minister. Thereafter ,the parent Co. had remitted a huge sum of money to their local chief here , and that has been collected by someone , it revealed.  Where this sum was channeled finally is still a mystery .

Meanwhile, Maithripala Sirisena was elected as the good governance  president of the country , and when this accusation  came to light in the past  , he said he knew nothing about it , and that he would investigate this. However such an investigation has not so far been  initiated in SL. Instead, he began probing only into  the bond transaction.

In any event , since the World bank has by now confirmed that a bribe was paid by the SMEC Co. , the latter was black listed.  What led to this black listing were mainly the bribe paid to Maithripala Sirisena , and the bribe paid in respect of a Bangla Desh project by the Co. 

 ‘The Sydney morning Herald’ media of Australia published a long news report on the 4 th giving details in this regard  …
Read  ….   http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-faces-questions-over-snowy-hydro-20-as-firm-banned-over-corruption-allegations-20171004-gyu7q4.html ) .

Following this exposure Maithripala Sirisena’s international image is  hugely dented. While this is  the unalloyed stark  truth,  his henchmen, hangers on and lackeys on the other hand  are making a big din about Nobel prize award prospect , and blabbering about it.

His recent UN tour debacle  further  illustrated to what extent president Maithripala’s  international image is tarnished.  Previously when Maithripala attended the UN soon after he became president , leaders like  former US president Obama came to him from their seats to meet , greet and discuss . But on his last tour  nothing of that sort took place. Maithripala on this recent tour could meet  and discuss only with five international personalities .

Of them  , two were the general secretary of the UN who is met by everyone as a routine .  The other was , UN Human Rights Commissioner . The other three personalities who met Maithripala  were , Nepal P.M. , Pakistan P.M. and US   deputy secretary of State  (political division). 

Nepal and Pakistan are two countries belonging to our zone .The other personality  who met the president was not a state leader but a state official. In other words no powerful international leader met president Maithripala on this occasion. The contributory cause for this was not only the presently dented international image of the president but even the gross organizing incompetence of the SL officers at the SL branch of the  UN  office in New York . As it is the president himself who appointed morons and misfits like A S.P. Liyanage to those posts , it is he who had to suffer the consequences thereof.

The bottom line is , the black list record confirmed by the world bank cannot be sidelined by saying ’ I do not know.’ If Maithripala amidst this scandalous and perilous situation affecting him is to still get himself involved in the  deal with wheeler dealer Kili Maharaja ,  certainly Maithripala is going to tumble into a worse despicable and disgraceful state  than the ‘Rajapakses’ whose name is now synonymous with monumental frauds and corruption. Moreover his incurring  the wrath and curse of the masses is inevitable.  It is therefore hoped somebody will tell him at least at this belated stage , no politico had reached their goals by associating with Maharaja another name for ‘Mahajara’ (dirt and dross)  .

As a media website that worked indefatigably and was largely contributory to install Maithripala as the president , it deems it is its duty to forewarn  well ahead that , if ‘Chathurikas’ are  truly loving their ‘president father’  it is best they keep  their ‘president father ‘ out from their sordid and squalid deals. As human even the greatest leaders have met with their Waterloo through inordinate greed. It is therefore the duty of the children of ‘president father’ to keep him ‘clean out’  from their rackets when he is still  at the  crease  though without any score, instead of making  him clean out for a ‘duck’.

By an LeN special correspondent 

---------------------------
by     (2017-10-05 16:28:31)

Debt repayments, Sri Lanka’s biggest nightmare

Friday, 6 October 2017

When the ambitious Belt and Road initiative – with projects reportedly worth $1 trillion – was first announced by President Xi Jinping in the autumn of 2013, many were sceptical of this Chinese move aimed at building up economic connectivity of 65 nations (China plus 64) along its ancient silk road and maritime routes.

For China, this New Silk Road would also serve to redirect the country’s domestic overcapacity and capital for regional infrastructure development to improve trade and ties with Asean, South Asian and European countries.

Unprecedented in terms of China’s financial commitment, many critics have viewed this strategy as a grandiose foreign policy to expand Beijing’s influence to poor nations hungry for economic and infrastructure development. However for Sri Lanka, this New Silk Road would also serve to further strengthen trade, political and economic ties. What choice do debt-ridden countries have other than look to countries like China, given the versatility of

China’s approach in engaging Asian countries?

This is partly responsible for China’s surge as one of the major economic influences on the continent. For example Sri Lanka’s debt maturities in 2019-22 total $13.9 b. Despite port agreement bolstering reserves, foreign reserves challenges expected to remain.

Many analysts say that the Hambantota Port deal signed resulting in an inflow of $ 1.12 billion is credit positive for Sri Lanka because it will boost foreign exchange reserves, which will ease the Government’s external liquidity position ahead of several large international bond payments in 2019-22.

The Hambantota Port stake sale will feed into the Central Bank’s foreign exchange reserves, which will help bolster investor confidence and encourage future portfolio inflows. Importantly, the sale will allow the Government to set aside earnings to repay its upcoming debt maturities and reduce its external debt, a key constraint on Sri Lanka’s credit quality.

Foreign debt

External debt maturities in 2019-22 total $ 13.9 billion. Sri Lanka’s BOP position remains vulnerable after foreign currency reserves materially declined in late 2016 and early 2017. More recently, reserves have risen somewhat because of capital inflows from international sovereign bond issuance and syndicated loans.

As of June, gross official foreign exchange reserves (including gold and special drawing rights) were $6.9 billion. The foreign currency reserves portion of gross reserves was slightly under $ 6 billion, covering about3.75 months of imports, just above the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) minimum reserves adequacy threshold of three months.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka intends to increase gross official reserve assets to at least $7.4 billion by the end of 2017, in accordance with the targets under Sri Lanka’s current three-year IMF Extended Fund Facility program. The market expects the Central Bank to come close to its target, which would help support the country’s credit quality.

Moving forward, greater exchange-rate flexibility and more limited foreign-exchange interventions by the Central Bank would help preserve reserves. Although the Hambantota receipts will ease external pressures, the foreign exchange challenges will continue to remain, given persistent elevated Government debt and large borrowing requirements.

Furthermore Sri Lanka’s external vulnerability indicator, which measures the ratio of external debt payments that are due over the next year to foreign-exchange reserves, to rise to about 185% in 2017 from around 150% in 2016. Development of the broader Hambantota Port area and the industrial zone will help to bring in Foreign Direct Investment, especially from China to ease the pressure.

Structural reforms

The build-up of associated infrastructure surrounding the port also can help to attract greater private-sector investments. If the country is led well, this together with other ongoing development projects such as the Western Region Megapolis Plan and Colombo Financial City Project, will provide a stable source of financing for Sri Lanka’s external position and support economic growth.

The final sign-off of the long-pending port deal and the transfer of the money and also the proposed arrangement with India for Mattala Airport will allow the Government to focus on key priorities, including advancing economic and structural reforms under its IMF program that would help the island economy to focus on an export driven growth model led by private investment.

In addition the tourism sector, one of the top foreign currency earners, needs to be positioned as a high-value destination, reflecting Sri Lanka’s natural and cultural heritage to achieve its full potential.

(The writer is a thought leader.)