From Paddy To The Forest: Pathetic Story Of Vattamadu Farmers

By Razi Mohmamadh –NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Sri Lanka is an agricultural country. It promotes agriculture. The current President Mr. Sirisena is also from agricultural family and was once heading the Ministry of Agriculture.

In a decorated dinner table he will be having his pompous dinner every day, variety of dishes with variety of fresh vegetables from the farms. From rice to bread, from Aappa to Rotti…for sure those would the best dinning. So does the Prime Minister. So does the Minister of Agriculture.

In his reign, while he is enjoying his exquisite dinner, an outcome of hardworking pity, poor farmers, there is another corner of this country  where a bunch of same poor farmers without whom our president will not be having opulent dinner are fighting for their lost paddy fields grabbed by the forest Authority in 2010.

 

Vattamadu is a chain of paddy lands situated in Akkaraipattu area in Ampara District. The owners of these paddy lands are mostly Muslims living in Akkaraipattu and its suburbs. These farmers have inherited these paddy fields from their forefathers. They have been cultivating these paddy lands since 1970.This is their source of Income.

Suddenly on 1^st of October 2010 a Gazette notification was published declaring all of these paddy fields these farmers have been cultivating for generations as forest lands. The poor farmers lost around 1176 acres of their paddy field in day. They lost their lands. They lost their income. They lost their lives.

After the war thousands of acres of lands especially in Muslim populated areas were declared by the Forest department as forest lands following the amendment made to Forest ordinance. This raises doubts that Muslims’ lands were targeted by the Mahinda regime and declared forests during his tenure in Office.

Since then these pathetic farmers have been trying effortlessly to regain their grabbed land from the forest authority. They could not. After a meeting on 2013 November 19, with Susil Premjayanth then forest minister, five plots of land were released to them to cultivate. On 2014 October 26^th when they went to their paddy fields they were captured by the Police for encroaching into the forest land and produced to the district court of Pottuvil. Since then the cat and mouse game continues.

Vattamadu farmers have documental evidences to prove that the confiscated lands were not forest but their paddy fields. They have L.D.Os. They have receipts for receiving fertilizers for those lands and receipts for paying taxes for those lands. More over they have birth certificates to prove that during 1970s families of Muslim farmers were living in Vattamadu area.

 

As usual politicians of Ampara district have been misguiding these miserable farmers. They have been mishandling this entire issue. After exhausting all the available means they are aware of to regain their lost lands, these voiceless poor farmers are protesting in Akkaraipattu for the 6^th day demanding to restore their lost lands that were grabbed by the State in 2010 unfairly.

As the government encourages cultivation and farming it is very unfortunate to see that poor farmers’ paddy lands which have been their source of income for years being grabbed by the government without resorting to any proper settlement mechanisms.

You cannot go to those illiterate farmers and explain to them using complicated legal sentences and Latin words that the state has the right to confiscate whatever land they think fit and declare them as forest. They won’t understand that. What they understand very well is that their lands which they have inherited from their forefathers, in which they have been planting crops and cultivating for decades have been taken away from them and declared as forest by the state. For them it is very unfair. For any person who has a minimal level of intellect it is unfair.

Read More

Sumanthiran responds to Rajapakshe accusation that Constitutional Assembly is illegal

 Tuesday, November 14, 2017 

TNA parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran has responded to former Justice and Buddasasana Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s accusations that the Constitutional Assembly process is illegal, saying Rajapakshe was one of the original proponents of the resolution to form a Constitutional Assembly.

“Former Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe has taken up the position that the Constitutional Assembly process is illegal – I’d like to point out that he is one of the original proposers of the resolution that was placed before the Parliament on January 9, 2016, which proposed the setting up of this Constitutional Assembly,” the TNA parliamentarian said.

“He is actually one of the drafters of that resolution having proposed it to the Parliament. He has also been a member of the Steering Committee – which met 73 times and he has attended more than 50 times and participated fully in that process. He has even drafted certain portions of the Interim Report that was tabled before the Constitutional Assembly recently,” Sumanthiran said.

He said Rajapakshe was fully aware of this process and was satisfied that it was entirely constitutional and legal: “His opposition now arises only because he has been sacked from the Cabinet,” the TNA parliamentarian said.

He added, “He can’t say that he did not know of the implications of this – he holds two doctoral degrees and a President’s Counsel, he has been President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and at the time he was the Minister of Justice – such a person can’t now suddenly say the process is illegal, having participated fully and having himself proposed the mechanism.” 

Maha Sangha becoming fundamentalist…was Gnanasara a mere forerunner?

Malwatte, Asgiriya, were silent when Gnanasara was on a rampage,  two years ago

Unfortunately, our Buddhist clergy seems to be still living in the past

Gnanasara managed to dominate the media through a series of protest marches, manhandling and uttering utter filth as his basic lingo

In one of the greatest contributions to parliamentary history, M. A. Sumanthiran’s address on the debate on the 18th Amendment deserves a special place.

When politics become entrenched in ethnic and religious shades, governance also becomes entrapped in the same gory and muddy trenches

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” 
~Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
 
2017-11-15

Prior to the last Presidential Elections in 2015, the Rajapaksa clan tried a fast one. And it backfired. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara, who is more akin to a street thug-clad-in-saffron robes in search of a cause to push his own ego and those of whom he had vowed to place on the throne than a layman who has renounced a greed-ridden life. Even though his caste, which is the critical factor in being qualified to be ordained under the Malwatte Chapter of Siam Nikaye, was a shady feature of the man, by sheer force of the personality Gnanasara managed to dominate the media coverage at the time through a series of gung-ho cavalcade of protest marches, manhandling and uttering utter filth as his basic lingo, he managed to enter into the psyche of the majority of the Sinhalese Buddhists who themselves had found a cause to identify with.   

By choosing to amend the Constitution through an urgent Bill, the entire process of reform has been expedited

Defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) provided that cause. The growing triumphalism coupled with deliberate desecration of the political culture by the then rulers, the Rajapaksa clan, supplied the impetus to this increasingly polarizing socio-ethnic phenomenon. Their propaganda machinery went into full gear and began branding everyone who opposed them as unpatriotic. The image or portrayal of an image of an unpatriotic or traitorous person could be devastating to military officers or those who have retired from the armed forces. That was what happened to Sarath Fonseka.   

 The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) militants, a fundamentalist Sinhalese Buddhist action group, in order to muster the support of an extremely racist and religiously obedient to the Mahawansa and its glory-descriptions of the Kings of ancient times, towards a sizeable segment of our voting population, took to the streets immediately after the cessation of military action. Their battle cry was a broad-based message founded on numbers. Here are the latest numbers: 

Sri Lanka Demographics Profile 2017 Ethnic proportion:
Sinhalese 74.9%, 
Sri Lankan Tamils 11.2%, 
Sri Lankan Moors 9.2%, 
Indian Tamils 4.2%, 
Others 0.5% (2012 est.)

Religious proportion:
Buddhist (official) 70.2%, 
Hindu 12.6%, 
Muslim 9.7%, 
Roman Catholic 6.1%, 
Other Christian sects 1.3%, 
Others 0.05% (2012 est.) 
(Source: CIA World Factbook) 

In order to secure a realistic and firm hold of the majority of the voting population, if the objective is to form a government, the pundits of the MR-led Sri Lanka Freedom Party and its satellite parties theorized that they could completely disregard the minorities and ensure an impregnable firewall with an overwhelming majority of the Sinhalese-Buddhist vote. All this happened soon after MR defeated Sarath Fonseka in 2009. With the subsequent victory at the parliamentary elections in 2010, they were further encouraged and insisted on adhering to this base-instinct-based argument that a firm and solid voter bloc of Sinhalese Buddhists would suffice to secure future election victories. This theory of Sinhalese Buddhist majority-based belief was at the core of their introduction of the 18th Amendment which erased the term limit on election for the office of President. Although this amendment to our Constitution unquestionably lent a legal basis for MR and his family to perpetuate rule over Sri Lanka, the ethical and moral arguments that cascaded in the wake of the easy passage of the 18th Amendment were many and divergent in their content.   

In one of the greatest contributions to parliamentary history, M. A. Sumanthiran’s address on the debate on the 18th Amendment deserves a special place. Amidst a cacophony of disturbances and heckling emanating from the government-benches, Sumanthiran delivered a masterpiece. Quoting a statement issued by some leading academics at the time, Sumanthiran said thus: ‘By choosing to amend the Constitution through an urgent Bill, the entire process of reform has been expedited, if not short-circuited, and no room has been left for any kind of public debate let alone public consultation. Under a Constitution that explicitly recognizes the “Sovereignty of the People” that process is not acceptable, especially when no convincing reasons have been given as to the need to expedite this process. Indeed, the most distressing aspect to this whole process is the lack of interest in government ranks on the need to raise awareness, let alone build consensus, among the general public on the need for such urgent reform.’   

The unusual rush applied by the MR government to facilitate passage of the Bill was a clear indication of the ill-faith with which the Bill was introduced. This is the time the so-called custodians of Buddhism could have risen to the occasion and taken a stand on the side of the masses. Instead they unleashed the notorious thugs of the BBS. Both Chapters of the Siam Nikaya, Malwatte and Asgiriya, were conspicuously silent when Gnanasara was in full rampage a couple of years ago. They refused to condemn him and in a vicarious sense, they condoned his deplorable and obscene public and private conduct. Buddhist clergy and its hierarchy is built in such a way, its flexibility was used as an excuse to stay silent on matters of monk-discipline. In other words, the crude exercise of quietude when the very fundamental teachings of the Teachings were challenged, the Heads of the Sanga Sasana opted to side with the ‘fundamentalists’ of a different kind, of the modern day 21st century variety.   
Now those fundamentalist propensities are being openly represented by the two Chapters of the Siam Nikaya and other heads of the Ramanna and Amarapura Nikayas. Their wilful engagement in the process of the debate on the new Constitutional changes is not only old and hackneyed; it’s dangerously close to interfering in secular affairs of government. Secularity in governmental matters is profoundly significant in that negation of secularity would mean, especially in the context of a democratic pluralistic society such as Sri Lanka, what was relevant in dictatorial monarchs as was in ancient Ceylon during the reigns of Kings and Queens, is not applicable any more. Even during such reigns, according to Chanakya, arguably the first ever social scientist known in human history, the fundamental function of a ruler is to make his people ‘fearless’. The very construction of a monarch goes against such principles of secularity and all sense of objectivity and ‘consensus’ element of democracy, a system of government that developed over the last three centuries.   

Whether one likes it or not, we are committed to the basic principles of democracy and safeguards of basic human rights as pronounced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly in 1948. We should not be swayed by parochial propensities of tribal instincts. What was most relevant and applicable to a monarchical rule should not be allowed to prevail upon a much more acceptable and wiser way of governance, social intercourse and civilized life and thought. Buddhism taking pride of place during the days of our Kings is not only more acceptable at the time, it was more natural. But when Ceylon gained Independence, the country was not only freed of the colonial shackles that bound itself to the British Raj, it also graduated from a feudalistic socio-economic way of life into a fully-fledged democracy in which governments are elected and rejected by the people by virtue of the Universal Franchise granted unto it in 1931.   

Unfortunately, our Buddhist clergy seems to be still living in the past and that was mainly facilitated by the 1972 Constitution that granted ‘Special Status’ to Buddhism. The irony of this ‘Special Status’ is that when such special provision is written into the Constitution, it is impossible to take it away, specifically in the context of democratically elected governance. These nuanced arguments are beyond the average rural voter. Not that they are not learned enough to digest such Sophisticated Constitutional Affairs of the government, but that they simply do not have time to think of such matters that they think are out of the realm of material value to them. Besides, their allegiance to the Dharma is grossly understated by the Colombo-living pundits. Whether their allegiance is profoundly philosophical or abjectly superficial, the faith in ‘the land, the faith and the race’ is however ungainly, is deep-rooted and unshakeable.   

What was ominously initiated by Galagodaaththe Gnanasara is now being ordained by the Highest of the High Monks in the Buddhist clergy. The hue and cry about a Muslim invasion of the local businesses and legitimate Tamil rights would result in Sri Lanka becoming a satellite of Pan-Tamilism, has become a very justifiable grievance of the ‘majority’. When politics become entrenched in ethnic and religious shades, governance also becomes entrapped in the same gory and muddy trenches. That is why no advance in the sphere of ethnic harmony and religious tolerance is visible in the near future.   

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

Tribalism and its discontent

 He is guided by Basil Rajapakse who owns property and disowns property in Malwana and Browns Hill, Matara. 

Wednesday, 15 November 2017

This is a hurriedly-composed rebuttal to Dr.Dayan Jayatilleka’s critique of the Budget that he has described as a social war budget. The contrived indignation he summons in denouncing the Budget that a more learned economist Dr. W.A Wijewardena has described in these columns as promising and committed deserves an urgent response.

Novelist and Philosopher C.S Lewis in his ‘The Great Divorce’ creates a fictional allegory of a man’s experience travelling to another-world place which he takes to be heaven. The man then discovers that it is not at all consistent with his opinion of heaven. That in a nutshell is the predicament of Dr. DayanJayatileke.

As C.S. Lewis observes our opinions are not honestly arrived at. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful.

Mangala is talking about linking with global progress. Dr. Jayatlilake is propounding tribalism. He describes his tribalism as Sri Lankan exceptionalism. He is right. It is exceptionalism that keeps a tribe together. He talks of property rights. He is guided by Basil Rajapakse who owns property and disowns property in Malwana and Browns Hill, Matara. We don’t have to buy it.

Touchscreensare today integrated into our lives at a speed and pace that is light years away from the speed and pacethat integrated the steam-driven train into our lives, when the British introduced it in the 19th century and globalised Ceylon, now Sri Lanka.

Dr.Dayan Jayatillekais not an economist. He is not even an independent political commentator. He is a backer of Gotabaya Rajapaksa for the 2020 presidential stakes. Now, we cannot underrate Gotabaya’s determination to modernise Sri Lanka. The man has class. See what he has done to the lunatic asylum that the British built down former Buller’sRoad now Bauddhaloka Mawatha. It is today the Arcade and home toKaema Sutra,the restaurant of global star Jacqueline and global chef Dharshan, where you can eat hoppers and wash it down with chilled thambili water with lime and pay by credit card.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the first to introduce ‘robotics’ and ‘Artificial Intelligence’ into law enforcement. That is why Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and Ranil Wickremesinghe did not act on the Nambuwasam report on the Welikada prison massacre.

Surely, we should understand that ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is not defined in the penal code. ‘Robots’ cannot be prosecuted even if they have exotic names as ‘Betel Leaf Estate’. Keith Noyahr now in Australia will vouch for that.Don’t be surprised if SatyaNadella of Microsoft comes here looking for the father of ‘Artificial Intelligence’. Perhaps,that explains why the candidate is not anxious to surrender his passport with the Great seal of the Eagle.

Now let us return to Mangala’s ‘Social War Budget’ and how it has laid ‘siege on our social contract’.

The claim that R.Premadasa moved an amendment to the Land Reform Act to bring the ceiling down to five acres and that it was not a theatrical gesture is absolute hogwash. Premadasa owned some 40 acres in some remote corner in Mahawa which he tended with meticulous care.

In Steinbeck’s ‘Mice and Men,’ George and Lennie dream of a self-sufficient homestead where they can plant vegetables and raise animals. Born in to a lower middleclass family city councillor Premadasa shared their dream and obtained an allotment of land from the government in the Mahawa dryzone. If in fact as President, he claimed that ‘land is the patrimony of the whole people’ this writer will dare not dispute it. He would have meant it.

When this writer knew Premadasa he was driving an Austin Cambridge and most times relied on Sirisena Cooray’s Morris Minor to get about.Much water has flowed down the Mahaweli River and in to reservoirs created by its diversion telescoped into six years. Under JRJ’s executive presidency politics became a business that made millionaires.

President Premadasa also minded the Treasury as a patrimony.Paskeralingam was his trusted and absolute caretaker.That is the problem that haunts us today. Paskeralingam is Ranil’s Rasputin today.

Dr. Dayan Jayatileke has discovered a developmental paradigm that Sri Lanka has adhered to since independence and a Sri Lankan exceptionalism.

His problem is that he has served two Presidents – R.Premadasa andMahinda Rajapaksa, who more or less shared mental paradigmsand perhaps even developmental.

Premadasaleft us clock towers that don’t tell you the time, and model villages which are model aberrations of imposed pseudo urban facades that created a dependency syndrome undermining the innovative genius of our rural folk. He disoriented our rural landscape and distorted our urban environment.

Mahinda has left us an airport that is not functional, a sea port that is idle and a stadium that now keeps cattle.Indeed Dr.Jayatillekais somewhat correct when hetalks of a Sri Lankan exceptionalism. It is the exceptionalism of two Presidents R.Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksa promoted by sycophants beyond their limited intellects and credited with successes they do not deserve.

Dr.Jayatilleka’sexpressed anguish is either imagined or fictitious. He cries, “What will befall local industry when foreign industries enter the local market unimpeded?”He should instead ask,“What has befallen our local industry?”

In any event what local industries is he talking about?Is he talking about the steel fabricating outfit that the Rajapaksa brothers set up with a Sri Lanka expatriate who owns a Marriott Hotel in Dubai?Do we have a manufacturing sector that we can talk about?

He demands to know, “What happenswhen having decimated our local manufacturing base, they – theforeign industries– moveaway as they have done in manycountries?” Should we not bring in the foreign industries before we speculate on the likelihood of their leaving? Trumping up Trumpian logic trumps no body.

Dr.Jayatillekaextols the virtues of the Premadasa doctrine ofcreating a pastoral paradise with the Little Bo Peep slogan of ‘five acres and a cow’.

Continuing this patently misleading theme, he complains that Mangala Samaraweera has not explained what’s ‘improper’ about the ownership of land and property in the country. He then links the statement in the Budget speech “we will remove restrictions that limit the land ownership rights of listed companieswith foreign ownership” with a plan to disembowel the Paddy Lands Act (1958) and the twoLand Reform Acts of 1972 and 1975.

We havetraversed considerable terrain since the paddy lands act which we greeted as the great deed of the father of Marxism Philip Gunawardene whose stupidity in setting up a plywoodfactory in the back garden of his BoralugodaWalawwe at Kosgama initiated the rape of the Sinharaja Rain forest with Rumanian aid and opened the processes of denuding our pristine forest cover.

This writer confesses to some preferences, not fastidious but sensible. CIC Gourmet Rice is a little expensive but offers a tasty meal with one vegetable curry and parippu.

The company has titled its annual report as ‘Progress with Purpose’. Progress with purpose is not what Premadasa tried. Go to Maradana Junction. It not progresses with purpose that Mahinda pursued with greater determination. Go to Hambantota. It is this purpose less progress that Mangala attempts to arrest by universal interconnectivity. Global access is not global hegemony.

Dr. Dayan Jayatilake possesses an intellect that is undoubtedly exceptional. As Tolstoy observes in Anna Karenina in addition to pride in intellect, there is also an aspect of stupidity in intellect. “And, above all, the dishonesty, yes, the dishonesty of intellect. Yes, indeed, the dishonesty and trickery of intellect.” Oh! The sublime wisdom of the Russian novel!

The 13th Amendment on watch

There are several Supreme Court judgments which analyzed and interpreted the provisions of 
the 13th Amendment and Provincial Council system  in relation to identification,
demarcation and utilization of State land 

Prof. S. Sarath Mathilal de Silva - Attorney-at-Law-Tuesday, November 14, 2017

The Thirteenth Amendment has introduced a new conception of a unitary – decentralized State based on a system of Provincial Government at a sub-national level. This description is of extreme importance, since the Constitution specifically provides that the Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State and the majority of the people attach much sentiment to the unitariness of Sri Lanka. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the establishment of Provincial Councils. Basic to the structure of devolution is the competence jurisdiction – the separation of subjects and functions assigned to the Provincial Council and the Centre. This separation is set out in the three lists under the Ninth Schedule to the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution: Provincial Council List (List I), Reserved List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III).

There are several Supreme Court judgments which analyzed and interpreted the provisions of the 13th Amendment and Provincial Council system in relation to identification, demarcation and utilization of State land. As decided by the Supreme Court in regarding the 13th Amendment to the Constitution both in respect of the exercise of its legislative powers and in respect of the exercise of the executive powers, no exclusive or independent power is vested in the Provincial Council. Accordingly, the Parliament and the President have ultimate control over them and remain supreme.

The Land Ownership Bill

The Supreme Court stated in the Determination of the Bill titled ‘Land Ownership’ that with the passing of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, such constitutional power vested with the President was qualified by virtue of the paragraph 1.3 of Appendix II to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. By such provision the authority for alienation or disposition of State land within a Province to any citizen or to any organisation was yet vested with the President. In effect even after the establishment of Provincial Councils in 1987, State land continued to be vested in the Republic and disposition of State land could be carried out only in accordance with Article 33(d) of the Constitution read with 1.3 of Appendix II to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.

In this Bill titled ‘Land Ownership’ the petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the Bill by petitions presented to the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution. The Bill provided for the holder of land under a grant made in terms of section 19(4) of the Land Development Ordinance or section 3 of the Land Grants (Special Provisions) Act No.43 of 1979 to apply for his existing rights to be converted into full ownership, free of all encumbrances. The Supreme Court had decided that the Bill in question being of a matter set out in the Provincial Council List, does not become law unless it has been referred by the President to every Provincial Council as required by Article 154 (G) (3) of the Constitution. As noted by the Court, the Bill has totally ignored the concept of the President’s function on the advice of the Provincial Council with regard to the alienation and disposition of State land.

The Supreme Court in Vasudeva Nanayakkara v Choksy & Others Case stated that it is seen that the power reposed in the President in terms of Article 33(d) of the Constitution read with section 2 of the State Lands Ordinance to make grants and dispositions of State land is circumscribed by the provisions of Appendix II cited above. Appendix II in the view of S.N Silva CJ., establishes an interactive legal regime in respect of State land within a Province. While the ultimate power of alienation and of making a disposition remains with the President, the exercise of the power would be subject to the conditions in Appendix II being satisfied. A pre-condition laid down in paragraph 1.3 is that an alienation or disposition of State land within a Province shall be done in terms of the applicable law only on the advice of the Provincial Council. The advice would be of the Board of Ministers communicated through the Governor, the Board of Ministers being responsible in this regard to the Provincial Council.

Solaimuthy Rasu judgment

Another important judgment of the Supreme Court which analyzed and interpreted the provisions of 13th Amendment to the Constitution, to identify and demarcate between the Centre and the Provincial Councils in relation to the subject of State land is Superintendent, Stafford Estate v Solaimuthy Rasu judgment.

At the beginning the Supreme Court sought to identify the demarcation between the Centre and the Provinces with regard to State land. Here the Supreme Court referred to the observations made by Fernando J., in the Determination of the Agrarian Services (Amendment) Bill, where Fernando J., had stated that it is not possible to decide whether a matter is a List III subject by merely looking at the headings in these Lists. Therefore according to the Court it became necessary to examine and scrutinize the relevant Articles contained in the Constitution in relation to ‘land’ and ‘State land’.

The Supreme Court in the Solaimuthy judgment also referred to the observations made by Sharvananda CJ., in Re the 13th Amendment to the Constitution as follows” ‘….. both in respect of the exercise of its legislative powers and in respect of the exercise of executive powers, no exclusive or independent powers is vested in the Provincial Councils. The Parliament and President have ultimate control over them and remain supreme.’

In the view of the Supreme Court in Solaimuthy judgment, the entirety of State land is referred to in List II (Reserved List) and it is only from this jerminal origin that the Republic could assign to the Provincial Councils land for whatever purposes which are deemed appropriate. It is therefore axiomatic that the greater includes the lessor (Jmme Majus Continent in sc mimus) and having regard to the fact that in a unitary state of government no cession of dominium takes place, the Centre has not ceded, its dominium over State land to the Provincial Councils. The Supreme Court in the Solaimuthy judgment stated that if there is a reservation in List II, the inescapable inference follows that what is reserved to the Republic could only be the larger entirety out of which the 13th Amendment chose to assign some portions of State land to the Provincial Councils and the pertinent question before the Supreme Court is the parameters with which of what is entrusted to the Provinces.

As noted by the Supreme Court in the Solaimuthy judgment, a perusal of the Lists I and II, unequivacally points to the fact that State land as referred to in List II embraces the comprehensive entirety of the corpus of State land out of what is carved out land. List II connotes the greater mass of State land that includes List I as the lesser. But what has been given as land for purposes to be gathered from Appendix II is itself circumscribed by the qualification – Land that is to say rights in and over land, land settlement, land tenure, transfer and alienation of land, land use, land settlement and land improvement to the extent set out in Appendix II (item 18 of List I).

Having set out the overcharging dominium of State land with the Centre, according to the Supreme Court, Appendix II set out special Provisions which would qualify as further limitations on State land assigned to Provincial Councils. These special provisions apart from demonstrating the limited extents of Provincial Councils over land also display unmistakably that State land continues to be a subject of the Centre. Having grafted the brooding presence of the Republic on all State land in List II, List I and then Appendix II and subject to these pervasive provisions, State land is declared to be a Provincial council subject in the second paragraph of Appendix II, but that declaration is only explanatory of the purposes for which the Provincial Councils have been assigned with land. Those purposes are evident in the special provisions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of Appendix II. In the view of the Court these special provisions also strengthen the position that State land continues to be a subject located in the Centre.

As further stated by the Supreme Court in the Solaimuthy judgment , Appendix II in paragraph 3:4 provides that the powers of the Provincial Councils shall be exercised having due regard to the national policy formulated by the National Land Commission. The National Land Commission which includes representatives of all Provincial Councils would be responsible for the formulation of the National Policy with regard to the use of State Lands. Moreover If and when a National Land Commission is in place, the guidelines formulated by such Commission would govern the power of the Provincial Councils over the subject matter as interpreted in this judgment in relation to State Lands. In the view of the Supreme Court in the Solaimuthy judgment, National Land Commission strengthens the contention that State land lies with the Centre and not with the Provincial Councils.

The judgment also reveals that there are other provisions that indicate that State land lie within the legislative competence of the Centre: Article 154 (G) 7 of the Constitution provides that a Provincial Council has no power to make statutes on any matter set out in List II. One of the matters referred to in that List is ‘State land and Foreshore’ except to the extent specified in item 18 of List I. According to the Supreme Court all these features referred to above featured the unitary nature of the State. The Supreme Court also referred to Sharvananda CJ., in Re the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, who referred to two essential qualities of a Unitary State as (i) the supremacy of the Central Parliament (ii) the absence of subsidiary sovereign bodies.

Limitations on Provincial Councils

The following pronouncements in summary form on the nature and content of State land under the 13th Amendment have been outlined by the Supreme Court in the Solaimuthy case.

Firstly, Appendix II imposes the restrictions on the land powers given to Provincial Councils. The Constitutional limitations imposed by the legislature shows that in the exercise of its legislative powers, no exclusive power is vested in the Provincial Councils with regard to the subject of ‘land’.

Secondly, the Provincial Councils do not therefore exercise sovereign legislative powers and are only subsidiary bodies, exercising limited legislative powers subordinate to that of Parliament.

Thirdly, Provincial Councils can only make statutes to administer, control and utilize State land, if such State land is made available to the Provincial Council by the Government for a Provincial Council subject. When the State makes available to every Provincial Council State Land within the Province required by such Council for a Provincial Council subject, the Provincial Council shall administer, control and utilize such State land, in accordance with the laws and statutes governing the matter.

On further examination of the Solaimuthy judgment, the following points can be presented.

(a). Even if the Government makes available State Land to a Provincial Council, the title to the land still vests with the State.

(b). State land required for the purposes of the Government in a Province, in respect of a reserved or concurrent subject may be utilized by the Government in accordance with the laws governing the matter. The Government shall consult the relevant Provincial Council with regard to the utilization of such land in respect of such subject.

(c). Consultation would mean conference between the Government and the Provincial Council to enable them to reach some kind of agreement.

(d). Alienation or disposition of the State land within a Province to any citizen or to any organization shall be by the President, on the advice of the relevant Provincial Council in accordance with the laws governing the matter.

(e). State Land will continue to vest in the Republic and may be disposed of by the President in accordance with Article 33(d) and written laws governing the matter.

The Grama Shakthi Programme – Ideas To Make It A Success

By Garvin Karunaratne –NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Sri Lanka has not had a real development programme since 1977. The last major development programme where a concerned attempt was made to create employment was the Divisional Development Councils Programme(DDCP) of the Premier Sirimavo days. The Grama Shakthi Programme is therefore an initiative to be hailed.

It is also the responsibility of everyone who know and have first hand experience in poverty alleviation through employment creation – be they administrators or engineers or scientists or savants in the Private Sector to offer their expertise for the success of this programme. This Paper is my contribution to that programme

The DDCP was the last employment creation programme we had. That Programme created employment for 32,000 youths. I was one of the lieutenants of that programme- in charge of the Matara District, and contributed heavily with a Cooperative Mechanized Boatyard at Matara, turning out around 40 seaworthy fishing boats a year, established within three months and with a Crayon Factory which made crayons of high quality easily comparable to the world famous Crayola Crayons. These were in addition to many agricultural farms and other small industrial projects. In other districts too there were many projects implemented successfully. However it has to be admitted that creating employment to only 32,000 youths in seven years is no worthwhile achievement. This was due to the folly of the Ministry of Plan Implementation which directed the programme. In my words, “instead of import substitution type of projects the Ministry was advising us to concentrate on brick making, tile making and crafts- the areas where the Small industries Department had made inroads. In the Private Sector there were enough of tile and  brick making factories. The Ministry was not interested in establishing any import substitution type of industries. The Ministry comprised officials who had a scanty knowledge of industries.”(From:Papers on the Economic Development of Sri Lanka). The Crayon Factory was established by me to prove that we can establish import substitution industries and the mediocre achievement of the DDCP should not deter our Government from suitable action to attempt at the creation of employment and poverty alleviation. This is all the more reason why the Grama Shakthi Programme should be hailed.

The Mahaweli Development Programme was a continuation of the Land Settlement cum Irrigation Tank Building Programme of the Fifties. Though we have achieved a great deal, we could have done better. My comments  reveal what we lost:

“There is room to think  that the Kotmale part of the project was a ploy to ethnically cleanse the area.. Many do not yet realize that the Mahaweli Project at Kotmale ethnically cleansed a section of the Nuwara Eliya District- the Sinhala Kotmale Valley for good…This project creates 201 mega watts of electricity. I could have done that with the erection of  40 wind turbines on any one of the Kotmale mountains. I have in my travels passed though many hills in Spain, Scotland and the US where the sight of 50 wind turbines on a hill is a common sight. These are on hills not on mountains like ours. On the Mahaweli Programme  where we have an entire Ministry at work the original plan was to provide water to almost a million acres on the basis that an acre required only 5  acre feet of water. This was in a situation where on Government farms the water used was as low as 1.6 acre feet. However when the programme got under way it was found that the farmers used as much as 10 acre feet which reduced the possible acreage  by half to around 500,000 acres.”(From:How the IMF Ruined Sri lanka…(Godages). We failed because we did not educate the farmers in water management.

Read More

Sri Lankan soldier caught smuggling cannabis on Trinco-bound bus

14Nov 2017

A Sri Lankan soldier was arrested for smuggling cannabis by Vavuniya police on Sunday.

Puliyankulam police station’s officer-in-charge said the solider was arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning on a night bus from Jaffna to Trincomalee.

The 24-year-old soldier who is based in a camp in Jaffna was in possession of around 2kg of Kerala ganja.

The increase in drug smuggling in the Northern Province has been due to the protection and patronage of Sri Lanka military forces and police authorities, the TNA MP S. Sritharan said.

Related Articles: 

03 September 2017 : Sri Lanka seeks international assistance to tackle drug smuggling

13 September 2016 : Sri Lankan president honours Jaffna troops for drug crackdowns

31 August 2016 : Chief Minister stresses need for demilitarisation of North-East

06 May 2016 : Drug smuggling in North-East aimed at eradicating Tamil society says Chief Minister

29 April 2016 : Cannabis smuggling operations increase across North-East

Referendum on Constitution at stake

Govt losing its credibility over corruption

President’s gaze on illicit commission blinded him : Faces retributive justice after ousting Sinniah !

By Shamindra Ferdinando-November 14, 2017, 11:00 pm 

Deputy Power and Renewable Energy Minister and attorney-at-law Ajith P. Perera, MP, on Monday warned the government that its failure to firmly deal with massive corruption perpetrated during the previous administration and since the change of government in January 2015 would have far reaching consequences.

The government would certainly have to pay a very heavy price for losing credibility among the electorate, the UNPer said warning of the fact that it would realize its folly when it faced the electorate at a referendum on the proposed new Constitution.

Kalutara District MP Perera said so at a seminar organised at the new town hall by a health sector trade union grouping campaigning for a new Constitution.

On the podium were health minister and government spokesman Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, UNP National List MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne and Convenor of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) Prof. Sarath Wijesooriya.

Declaring that the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government had enough numbers to secure a two-thirds majority in parliament for the proposed new Constitution, Deputy Minister Perera said the coalition would face a Herculean task at a referendum.

Underscoring the importance of credibility for the government, Deputy Minister Perera referred to serious corruption allegations against some members of the current administration. The UNPer, however, refrained from referring to any cases.

Commending the police for successful conclusion of investigations into corruption cases, Deputy Minister Perera said the Attorney General’s Department, too, to some extent had fulfilled its obligations. However, President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe had to take tangible measures to ensure swift implementation of justice.

Turning towards Prof. Wijesooriya, Deputy Minister Perera faulted the civil society for not appreciating recent recommendations made by Sectoral Oversight Committee on Legal Affairs meant to curb laws delays and to take up corruption cases. The UNPer alleged that the civil society had failed in its responsibility to voice support for the government efforts where such backing was required.

Prof. Wijesooriya responded that they had already aired support to that initiative though Deputy Minister Perera said he wasn’t aware of civil society backing.

Perera said the damaging public perception regarding corruption allegations against some members of the government as well as its failure to deal with those who had been accused of similar charges during the previous administration could cause a debilitating setback to ongoing efforts to win public support for the new Constitution.

Those who had been campaigning against constitutional reforms would certainly attack the government over waste, corruption and irregularities and undermine the whole exercise because the government shirked in its responsibilities.

Dr. Wickramaratne said the ongoing government campaign to promote new Constitution was weak. He attributed this situation to the failure on the part of the UNP and the SLFP to reach consensus on the proposed Constitution.

Dr. Wickramaratne stressed the need for political parties to be flexible in a bid to secure agreement on key constitutional proposals. Pointing out that both the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) had been flexible, thereby paving the way for successful conclusion of talks, Dr. Wickramaratne said that they wouldn’t get an opportunity to reach consensus on Constitution.

Referring to recent media reports pertaining to crisis in the TNA, Dr. Wickramaratne expressed serious concern over some extremist Tamil politicians, including Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. challenging what he called moderate ITAK (Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi) members. The MP called for common strategy to defeat extremists on both sides.

He said that northern extremists posed a fresh threat on post-war stability and their project directed at the TNA could cause serious trouble.

Dr. Wickramaratne said that the government couldn’t intervene on the basis of some foolish statement made by the Chief Minister or the explosion of a hand grenade.

The UNP MP said that among the issues under discussion was whether defeated candidates could be accommodated in parliament through the National List.

Deputy Minister Perera warned of fresh security threat if they failed to devolve power. Commenting on the controversy of proposal to change the Chapter on Buddhism, Deputy Minister Perera said that the issue could have been avoided. The UNPer asserted that it would have been better if the Chapter that dealt with Buddhism wasn’t taken up for deliberations.

Prof. Wijesooriya accused a section of the media of promoting those hell-bent on sabotaging post-war reconciliation process. The civil society activist blamed the government for not being able to counter lies propagated by hostile elements, especially an influential section of the Buddhist clergy averse to peaceful resolution of the national problem.

Those monks now causing turmoil never resorted to campaign against people responsible for grave crimes.

Budget 2018: Enterprise Sri Lanka must address realities

 Wednesday, 15 November 2017

In 2017 Q1, Q2 and Q3 consumer consumption contracted. This must be arrested

The other day at a post-Budget forum the Minister of Finance said that Enterprise Sri Lanka needed to take off just like the USS Enterprise in the movie Star Trek with innovative solutions while venturing into places that no man has gone before. In my view it was a breath of fresh air given that I personally have been involved in this process for almost six years in different capacities and what Sri Lanka rightly requires is this sort of thinking.
But the issue is that we must understand our reality. The current situation of Enterprise Sri Lanka is that FDI has dropped from $ 1.5 billion in 2014 to $ 0.9 billion in 2015 and $ 0.8 billion in 2016. Export revenue generation dropped from $ 11.3 billion in 2014 to $ 10.5 billion in 2015 and it has once again declined to $ 10.3 billion, which does not reflect a healthy situation for brand ‘Enterprise Sri Lanka’.
Tourism - key driver 

The doubt raised by many is that corporate Sri Lanka was expecting strong governance and decision-making just like corporate Sri Lanka but the reality has been very different. Let’s take the key growth sector of Sri Lanka after the war - tourism. It’s been almost three years since the Government took over but the key activity requested by the private sector has not been addressed. The activity has been the launch of the Global Marketing Campaign.

The reason we see revealed in the media is that procurement prices do not support implementation of the campaign. However, in this backdrop, we see process violation in many other activities which hits the media on a daily basis, the most recent being when a particular minister, whilst addressing a press conference, answered a personal call, with the electronic media picking up the blatant violation of a procurement tender process.

This reality needs to be corrected if we are to drive Sri Lanka as an ‘Enterprise’ as per the vision of the 2018 Budget, the logic being that our competitor countries launch destination marketing campaigns at a minimum of two per year due to the entrenched competition that exists to attract travellers to a country. Especially in a country like Sri Lanka, where room stock is increasing at double-digit growth, we must drive stronger marketing if we are to keep the demand chain alive.

The numbers as at end August show a marginal growth of 2.89% with the key market of China showing a decline whilst winter bookings for the next two months have been very thin. What is sad is that over Rs. 4 billion remains to be utilised for tourism promotions and it has been there for the last three years.
Budget Implementation 25%?  

The other day at the Daily FT post-Budget forum a statistic which was mentioned by the political hierarchy was that 25% of the previous budget’s proposals have been implemented.

An independent study conducted by Verite Sri Lanka revealed that of the key 37 Budget proposals of the previous year almost half of them have not even gotten off the ground and 32% of the proposals are behind schedule. Only 3% of the proposals are on track, which is once again a reality that we must keep in mind given the high growth agenda that we have set for Budget 2018.
Public sector - monitoring 

The appointment of two top officials to monitor budget proposal implementation is a very good move if we are serious about making Sri Lanka enterprise-driven. However, the issue is that the public sector consists of human beings and just like the private sector must be motivated through strong leadership. Sadly, ongoing investigations done by different entities like the Financial Crimes Division (FCID) and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (CIABOC) have left a very bitter taste, the logic being that public sector officials are treated very badly and in fact are coerced to provide data which does not sometimes exist at the respective entities.

At some organisations almost 20% of the top management are daily in and out to give data leaving the entity crippled to do basic operational work. This effects the motivation of the staff which is the reality we must address if we are to make Budget 2018 happen.

On a separate note, we also see financial irregularities continuing even today. The other day we heard the President voicing his displeasure over the corruption that occurred just three months he after took office in January 2015 and he asked very rightfully whether that was what the people expected from the Government.

There was one institution where five top professionals took office and turned around a loss-making entity but after one and half years all five left the state institution within a three-month period as they did not want to be part of the financial impropriety.

In the backdrop of the highest ranking officer of the previous government being remanded for alleged misappropriation of funds, the public sector now refers any issue to the Attorney General for deliberation before approving.  Whilst this is a good practice it slows down the implementation process.

In my view we have to reconstitute Government processes and make them more market-driven so that we can speed up implementation. But first we must live the ethos of governance. We have to regain the confidence of the private sector which has serious reservations when having to work with the public sector.

I know of seven global advertising agencies that prepared for over two months for a pitch and then the project was abandoned. At each agency many had invested over Rs. 20 million on the work done. The loser today is not the ad agencies but Sri Lanka which has lost the chance to tell the world we are contemporary. We have to address these issues if we are to drive Sri Lanka as an enterprise. We have to understand the reality at the ground level. If not then once again in 2019 we will be discussing an implementation percentage of 25%.
Consumer reality 

In a survey conducted prior to the Budget, a key area of focus was the increasing costs of essential items in 2016. Almost 67% of the people had mentioned that the number had increased and it must be addressed in Budget 2018.

The announcement on the reduction of commodity prices of essential items on the day prior to the Budget was welcomed by the people given the changes to the purchasing power at the household end.

The third quarter report by AC Nielsen reports that for the third quarter running consumption has declined. A point to note is that this is the first time in the last four years Sri Lanka has seen this issue.

In Q1 of 2017, overall consumption declined by 3.2%. In Q2 the decline was 2.5% whilst in Q3 the number has increased to 3.6% which is a trend that has to be arrested. If this reality is not picked up, the theme ‘ Enterprise Sri Lanka’ will just be a theme that has not connected with the vibe of the people.

If one does a deep dive into the food and beverage, personal care and household sectors separately, the numbers once again are similar. What is worrying is the personal care segment. Normally people do not change their behaviour over personal care such as the shampoo used or the aftershave that one applies. But we see a change in behaviour taking place in 2017 quarterly which has to be addressed.
Next steps

Whilst the positivism of the theme ‘ Enterprise Sri Lanka’ is so apt that we can see some tech companies in the top 20 businesses in the near future, firstly the ground realities must be addressed so that Budget 2018 can become a reality.
(The writer is the first Executive Director of the National Council for Economic Development, Ministry of Finance/Presidential Secretariat. He is currently the CEO and President of a global property development company).