A Welcoming Nation?

KRYSTLE REID-02/12/2018

The following is a list of things I’m often asked or told, revealing of Sri Lankan perceptions about the Burgher community.

1. Are you Sri Lankan?
2. Can you speak in Sinhalese?
3. ‘You’re a Burgher? You sure don’t look like one’
4. ‘Sounds like a Las Vegas stripper name’
5. ‘They get drunk every Saturday and go to church the next day, no shame’
6. ‘Burghers? Parents must be divorced then.’
7. ‘Lansi no? Probably got the job because of her English and the mini skirt’
8. ‘Burgher.. like a hamburger?’

I could continue but the real point I was trying to make is that 70 years after independence, our ethnicity is still misunderstood.

Sri Lanka is multicultural and multiethnic, in short, rich in diversity. During nearly every Independence Day celebration, political campaign or ceremony where the public is addressed, minorities are continuously acknowledged. But from what I’ve experienced, it’s only a mandatory or token line in the speeches they deliver.

Coming from both Sinhalese and Burgher roots, I call myself a ‘hybrid’. Growing up with this label was no easy task. My mother told me about the struggles she underwent to get my sisters and I into school. National schools would not take us in, because free education came with labels and perceptions that we didn’t know of beforehand and the ones that accepted us came at a price my mother couldn’t afford.

I have a lot of fond memories from my school time, but that was not always the case. I was 8 years old when I understood what bullying really was, when girls started laughing at me for making pronunciation errors during English period. I was angry then, but I came to realize that these children are mere reflections of what we have become as a country.

The year was 2015, and my nominations were accepted to run for Vice Chair for Policy and Advocacy at the Commonwealth Youth Forum in Malta. I was one of the two Sri Lankans whose nominations were accepted by the Forum. With the support of a few good people like the late Adhil Bakeer Markar, one of the greatest human beings I had the honour of knowing, I made an appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka to, if possible, support me to attend the Forum. I’m no stranger to rejection, but this rejection came with the explanation that I was not accepted to represent my country as a Sri Lankan, because of my ethnicity.

First, I was asked to submit my birth certificate for verification purposes (which I completely understood). They then questioned me in Sinhala to ensure that I indeed spoke the language (perhaps not entirely necessary). Then they made an offensive comment highlighting the trouble the administration would have been in if they had sponsored a ‘suddha’ (irrelevant given that I had proved that I was a Sri Lankan already) and to no-one’s surprise, I was never contacted by the said government office again.

For years, others like me have mastered the art of tolerating these rather discriminatory statements and acts of others. We have learned to manage, but it’s frustrating to know that no matter what we do, we will always be outsiders in our own country. I’ve had more acceptance as a Sri Lankan in other countries, and the reality always hits once I return.

Over the years Sri Lankans have openly accepted personalities like Duncan White, Lionel Wendt and even embraced the ‘baila’ music of Wally Bastian. However, by virtue of our Government’s failure to bring a country together through ethnic sensitisation even after 70 years of Independence, people gradually forget that all ethnicities have played a pivotal role in developing our country and have a right be recognized as Sri Lankans equally.

Life would be easier for most of us if we respected and treated everyone with fairness and equality, but I know it’s not that easy for everyone. I’d ask everyone to take a minute and remember the 1996 World Cup. Our nation was devastated by acts of terrorism at that point but the undying passion, commitment and togetherness of the team, consisting of diverse ethnicities, brought the nation together under one flag. To me that’s what independence should feel like. We may be challenged or obstructed; we may fail or accomplish but above all, we accept each other as one people. Our true independence will be the day we become welcoming to each other as a nation.

Editor’s Note: Click here for more content around Sri Lanka’s 70th Independence Day. Click here for our video series. 

Keep cool UNP, just don’t overreact!

By Outsider-Tuesday, 13 February 2018

This was after all only a local government election, primarily to pick who will look after and nurture each ward, under the watchful eye of the local PS, UC, or MC, although pre/post-elections generated much political heat.

Newspapers have concentrated mostly on victories of Pradeshiya Sabhas, mostly ignoring MCs.

Municipality Areas (MCs) are pivotal in view of their extents, location and of course the populace they serve – mostly the more educated and discerning public who have unanimously voted with the UNP – examples being Hambantota, Galle, Kandy, Negombo, Wattala, Panadura, Dehiwela/Mt. Lavinia etc. and the plum of Colombo.


Not all doom and gloom

Reverting to yesterday’s results, no doubt Mahinda Rajapaksa and his JO would be elated with the strong showing at the LG elections with his hastily patched up political party garnering 45.31%.

Yet, it’s not all doom and gloom for the UNP+UPFA, the constituent parties of the present Government which together combined to get 45.72% – technically higher than the SLPP of MR.

You may recall the group of parties that got together in support of President Sirisena’s candidacy in 2015, namely the UNP, a section of SLFP, JVP, SLMC and TNA. Now if the number of those who supported these very same parties are to be totted up, it adds up to 53.1% at yesterday’s LG poll.

The group that opposed the despotic regime of MR should realise that they still have a majority. Therefore, the major constituent party, the UNP and those moderates of the UPFA/SLFP should not overreact when MR and his motley group are trying to go for the jugular of the Government by asking it to be dissolved.

What a preposterous suggestion! On what basis should a democratic government resign on results of a lowly local government election? This was not an exercise and/or referendum of ‘regime change’, period!

The UNP/UPFA/SLFP must be calm and look at these issues objectively and dispassionately, not overreact!

Of course they need to take stock and ensure that the promises/pledges they gave the people back in 2015 at both elections are fast-tracked and implemented as far as possible.


Govt. must get to work

All sane and balanced citizens of Sri Lanka are indeed grateful to the Government for ensuring a free, fair and relatively trouble-free election. One need not labour the point of the absolute chaos and near state of anarchy associated with earlier PR system elections where each candidate and his ‘helpers’ (mostly goons, really!) attacked each other, smashing homes, burning political offices of rivals and creating a fear psychosis everywhere!

Before even the dust settles after the 10 February LG elections – all concerned representatives of each ward must get to work – have ‘pocket meetings’ with groups of those in each sub-section of each ward and really listen to each person’s woes, concerns and suggestions and then act on them and thereafter monitor progress.

The true meaning of ward representation as opposed to the despicable PR system could bear fruit within a few months if each ward member enthusiastically does the work he/she is expected to do and responsible for.


Media playing games

Seriously, most of us forming the ‘silent majority’ are sick and tired of political games played and replayed by the media whose only concern is to sell more newspapers or attract more TV times with mostly slanted, exaggerated news or simply put: the new scourge of fake news – that poisons the social fabric and virtually paralyses folk.

We want the Government to govern effectively and that means create by their examples a disciplined society – with law breakers promptly dealt with without exception! Let us really appreciate the precious freedom that this Government has given us; do not let this hard-fought aspect be fritted away due to ignorance and trivialities!

Yet we need to, nay insist that decisions carefully made are implemented expeditiously. May we appeal to the Government to minimise the time-wasting practice of handing over even simple issues to a ‘committee’ – they say that if you want a job done – just do it! If you want to delay and not do a job – give it to a committee! There were/are concerns that various committees formed are simply dragging their feet unmindful of the urgency of the issues creeping up – so please be more dynamic and decisive – time and tide wait for no man (or woman!)

Harking back to the LG poll and its aftermath one can deduce that a compelling factor that emerged was that it was a ‘show of protest’ at the slowness of implementing what needed to have been done months ago.

The people want tangible action/improvements to quality of their day to day living. We need to listen and act!

We want the Government to demonstrate that it is fair, yet firm in dealing with lawless elements. We don’t expect the Government to resort to expedient gimmicks of giving ‘freebees’ to people – at the end of the day someone has to pay for it! Already SL’s economy is improving vide global ratings – hardly acknowledged by media whose main preoccupation is to sling mud at the Government incessantly and with impunity!

We want the Government to be stern with those of the media, especially the creators of fake news much like many countries that will brook no such rubbish. We don’t have to look far – look at governments and societies that have flourished by a no-nonsense ‘fair/firm’ policy – look at Singapore!

We wish the Government all success as it continues to govern this beautiful paradise of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka: No plan to sign the MoU with UNP — TNA

We will not sign any MoU with any government unless they committed to solving the national question.

---

(February 13, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) While talking to Sri Lanka Guardian, Parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran affirmed that there is no truth behind the news widely spreading by stating that the TNA is (Tamil National Alliance) preparing to sign the Memorandum of Understanding ( MoU) with the United National Party (UNP/UNF) to secure the majority in the parliament if the UPFA/SLFP annul their political cohabitation with UNP.

“We will not sign any MoU with any government unless they committed to solving the national question. We will continue to sit as the opposition in the parliament,” M. A. Sumanthiran, told Sri Lanka Guardian.

“But, if there is a national need we will definitely support the government while sitting in the opposition for the benefits of the public,” he added.

UPS AND DOWNS OF SRI LANKAN POLITICS AND LOOMING POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY

By S W R de A Samarasinghe.-13/02/2018

Last Saturday’s Local Government (LG) Election dealt a stunning blow to President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the two respective political parties, UPFA and UNP, that they lead and paved the way for the major political comeback of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) that Mahinda Rajapaksa leads literally swept the polls conducted to elect members for 341 LG bodies. At the time of this writing (all data in this article cover over 90% of the poll and it is unlikely that the balance results would change the substance of the analysis) the party had won about 75% of the 304 LG bodies for which results had been declared.

Voting Pattern

However, the results can also be described as one that has numbers without much of a difference when compared with the presidential and parliamentary polls of 2015. On Saturday the SLPP polled 44.7% of the total poll (see Table 1). The percentage will be slightly higher if the votes of the few Independent Groups that stood for the SLPP are added. In the 2015 presidential election, Rajapaksa polled 47.6% and in the 2015 parliamentary election his party, UPFA, polled 42.7%. In very general terms Rajapaksa and his party has had the support of around 45% of the electorate in the three polls.
 The most notable revelation is that he has a solid base of over 40% that his rivals do not have.
The non-SLPP vote has also not shown much movement. On Saturday its vote share was around 51.3%. In 2015 Maithripala Sirisena polled 51.3% in the January presidential election. In the August parliamentary election the non-Rajapaksa vote including that of the TNA was 55.3%.

Table 1: Election Results:

2018 Local Government; 2015 Presidential & 2015 Parliament.


[Excluding TNA 5.6m; 50.6%; Excluding both TNA and JVP 5.1m; 45.7%]
Sources: 2018 from media outlets; 2015 from the Department of Elections.
However, if both the TNA share as well as the JVP share are excluded from the Saturday vote the combined UNP-UPFA-SLFP share falls to 41.5% from the 45.7% that the same party combination polled in the August 2015 parliamentary elections. This is a serious loss of 4.2 percentage points. Some people not voting on Saturday as a mark of protest against the government that failed to fulfill its promises and some switching the vote to the JVP or the SLPP are the likely reasons for this. There is a two percentage point uptick in the share of the SLPP vote compared to the share in August 2015.

These movements are sufficient to make a difference to the result when an election is close.

These numbers do not imply that if the UPFA and UNP would have done any better if they had contested under one ticket. First, the proportional allocation of 40% of the seats under the Additional List compensated the UPFA even if it failed to win ward seats. Second, such an alliance may have even polled less because Sirisena’s UPFA gave some the opportunity to cast a protest vote against the UNP without feeling that they were completely undermining the Yahapalanaya admistration.

Rajapaksa Comeback

The electoral upheaval on Saturday can be explained as follows.

First, Rajapaksa’s base vote in the electorate has held up very well over the past three years. He has succeeded in making a local government election a referendum on the government and has re-emerged as a, if not the most, formidable player in Sri Lankan electoral politics just three years after his ouster from power. The UNP General Secretary Kabir Hashim in a post election communiqué has admitted that the result is a reflection of the failure on the part of the government to meet the expectations of the voter.

Second, the SLPP did best in the predominantly Sinhalese-Buddhist districts and especially in the rural areas in those and other districts outside the north and east. For example, the districts of Hambantota, Moneragala, Matara, Ratnapura and Galle that Rajapaksa’s UPFA carried by more than 55% in the 2015 presidential election and by more than 50% in the 2015 parliamentary election voted overwhelmingly for SLPP last Saturday.

In contrast the UNP did better in the urban areas, and especially in the ethnically mixed areas. For example, UNP won the Kalutara Urban Council and Galle Municipal Council in the respective districts but did poorly elsewhere. The Colombo Municipal Council that has around 400,000 voters of whom about 60% belong to ethnic minorities, voted 46% UNP and 21% SLPP. This voting pattern is in consonance with the widely held view, rightly or wrongly, that Rajapaksa stands for a more Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalist Sri Lanka and the UNP stands for a more cosmopolitan and ethnically inclusive liberal Sri Lanka. Identity politics still matter in Sri Lanka’s electoral politics, both in the south and north.

Future

It is common to exaggerate the importance of current events and change. Thus, terms such as “crisis, watershed” and “end-of-the road” will be used when evaluating last Saturday’s election results and their implication in the near and medium term. With the passage of time this may turn out to be just another of those many “historic” elections that we have had in the past. Having said that, it is useful to ask the likely challenges that the main political actors, parties, groups, and more generally, the country will have to have to face, especially in the coming weeks and months.

Mahinda Rajapaksa and his party obviously have cause for great satisfaction and celebration. Rajapaksa and the SLPP are likely to attract politicians including some current MPs and ministers who may see a brighter future for themselves by throwing their lot with the SLPP. The party will also use its newfound local government base to prepare for provincial and national electoral battles that are coming up in the next two to three years. In particular the strategy of relentless criticism of the present administration that yielded significant electoral dividends for the SLPP are likely to be pursued with even greater vigor.

President Sirisena is bound to be deeply disappointed that he and his UPFA do not have a significant political base in the country. In theory he has several choices. The first and easiest is to complete his current term and retire. Reaching an understanding with Rajapaksa and the SLPP to reunite the old SLFP is another option. The third is to continue the Yahapalanaya coalition but with some significant reform aimed at winning back public confidence that he, Wickramasinghe and the UNP have forfeited to some extent.

UNP

Ranil and the UNP have to face their own set of challenges. The loss of Wickremesinghe’s “Mr. Clean” image contributed to the election debacle. It can be argued that his government actually made a major contribution to the cause of good governance in this country by allowing an independent commission to probe and issue a report on the Central Bank bond scandal that has implicated several top men in the government. But in the eyes of the average voter that is unlikely to fully redeem Wickremesinghe and others who have been implicated. In fact the opposite happened in the election campaign when SLPP speakers argued that allegations of corruption against its leadership remained unproven whereas those against the UNP have been formally proven.

Reform

Notwithstanding the above complication, Wickremesinghe and the UNP may be able to reach an agreement with Sirisena to go for policy reform. Such a fresh strategy may include a more sincere effort to have good governance, do some development work that have an appreciable and quick impact on the lives of the people and, take steps to avoid the looming economic crisis that may occur if the government fails to abide by the IMF Extended Fund Facility Agreement signed in June 2016 for three years to get assistance worth $1.5 billion. In addition, for good measure, the government could make a serious bid to investigate the wrong doings and corruption of any and all irrespective who they are or were. But this may be wishful thinking in the Sri Lankan context.

Leadership Vacuum

Sri Lankan political leaders typically do not allow other members of their own party to come up to senior leadership positions with prospects of succeeding the leader unless they are family members. The rare exception was J R Jayewardene. In the current political scene grooming of family members is very evident in the SLPP. In the UNP Wickremesinghe is not grooming any family members. But neither has he permitted any potential challengers to gain much prominence.

The country is hungry for efficient and honest leadership. From the country’s perspective though not necessarily from the UNP’s or UPFA’s, one passible option is a radical realignment of political forces in the south under a “new” and a semi formal “collective” leadership of sorts that includes Sirisena and men like Karu Jayasuriya and Sajith Premadasa and a few others drawn from any quarter who have broad appeal to different segments of the electorate; Sinhala-Buddhist majority, ethnic and religious minorities, urban and rural dwellers, and the professional class. But such a realignment may be the ultimate in wishful thinking.
First published in The Island.

Legitimacy Of The Government Requires The Consent Of The Governed

By Lacille de Silva –February 13, 2018

As we know, during the reign of kings, beheading, hanging, mutilation of bodily parts (hands, foot, male organ etc.), and a wide variety of such punishments, had been prescribed by the rulers against those perpetrators of various crimes, such as misuse/abuse of power, violation of laws etc. Nevertheless, since 1978, due to concentration of excessive power to corrupt politicos, and particularly in the Executive President, successive governments have deliberately turned a blind eye and did not deal with the errant politicos and their thieving henchmen. Country has therefore deteriorated into a mobocracy, ruled by an assemblage of malefactors, which could lead to further serious underdevelopment, civil unrest and even state failure.

Why did YAHAPALANA leaders fail to create a clean, an unstained and a people-friendly political culture? They too, similar to the previous regime, did not respect civic virtues, morality, ethics, laws, procedures, rules and regulations. Nelson Mandela, Noble laureate and former President, SA, had said – “A political leader must be honest to himself”. It is sad our President, who is also the Head of State, the Executive, the Government and the Cabinet of Ministers, does not exercise his legitimate coercion to prevent the abuse of powers at the expense of the ruled. Prime Minister, appears to have towed the government, with a few of his close confidantes, in the Cabinet, in a different direction. As leaders, President and PM did not ensure that sound governance practices are instilled in numerous organizations including Central Bank in day to day governance. There had been proof that principles of public sector governance such as transparency, accountability, integrity, efficiency, effectiveness etc., had been conspicuously overlooked. Both did not ‘walk the talk’. And did not help the government to achieve GOOD GOVERNANCE they pledged during elections. There was no collective responsibility as members of the unity government . All these, finally had ended up with disastrous consequences. The citizens voted overwhelmingly, to a newly rustled up party, with unholy motives. President lacks the resolve, strong leadership to take tough decisions and presumably ineffectual. The Prime Minister too, allegedly so devious and ill-defined, a root cause of all ills, is being rated as the worst Prime Minister since independence. President lacks the nitty-gritties of delicate state craft and the assertiveness to deliver the political goods he had pledged to the countrymen.

The men who fought hard and founded the United States of America, namely, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the others had armed themselves and fought a bloody civil war to build new USA. They were considered to be the best educated, most considerate and thoughtful people at the time. Having decided to take up arms and fought an extensive war, they had justified their intent that they could not have effectively defended their rights and established a democracy with institutions that uphold the rule of law and shared values. They had also been emphatic that the legitimacy of government required the consent of the governed.

Nevertheless, President repeatedly, with his excellent communication skills, has been trying to deflect attention, away from the countless burning issues confronted by them. President also made an attempt to give it a try to capitalise on Presidential Commission reports to impress the voters. President pledged vociferously in his campaign day in day out that the perpetrators would be brought to book and corruption eliminated. Citizens did not fall pray and refused to respect the move to conceal the truth for the sake of looking good.

It is therefore obvious the present government has failed. Voters are convinced that the two leaders do not represent the interests of the citizens and give preference to their individual interests, their party machinery and are greedy for power with personal agendas. They do not work with the intention of doing the utmost to the people. President had however said always that the Government should mean business for the benefit of people. It is therefore believed that a government is a necessary evil. All successive governments have hoodwinked the masses and were self-servers. They lacked the vision, the ability, the firmness to take timely and difficult decisions appropriately. They wasted golden opportunities due to indecisiveness.

Chinese government during the last several decades had successfully developed processes for assimilating public information, consultation, deliberation and decision making. China, Singapore and Malaysia have achieved astonishing economic growth over the last several decades purely due to proven capabilities of their leaders, their commitment to meritocracy, intertwined with a series of concepts. In France, the leaders of the French Revolution had believed and had said “They were for the poor, the homeless, the helpless, the needy and the abused”. They had however overlooked the need to restore “human dignity”. They had placed the society and the State above the individual.

In USA in 1776, the forefathers of USA had thought differently. They had agreed to give effect to human dignity, the foremost place. According to the teachings of the Buddha too, the king and the state are servants of man. The fifty-six signatories to the Declaration of Independence had unanimously placed the individual above the State. Signatories to the Independence Declaration had patriotically endorsed only free individuals in a truly free and democratic nation could achieve material welfare, human dignity and personnel fulfilment. By adhering to the principles of the Independent Declaration, in America, people have attained both material abundance and human dignity.

How did Sri Lanka ultimately degenerate to the present low level? Isn’t it because Sri Lankans too are complacently relaxed? Primarily, I am confident having served the supreme Institution for over three decades, Parliament has totally neglected its oversight functions. Numerous reports from PAC and COPE have been thrown into the dustbin. Opposition has paid little attention to their role and they do not do a careful analysis of matters taken up in Parliament. Costly opening ceremonies, waste of funds for luxury vehicles, tax concessions, loss of revenue, endless corruption and unplanned borrowings had seriously impacted the vulnerability of the poor: (i) from welfare structures to patronage structures (ii) from institutions to politics (iii) weakening of empowerment structures, particularly, education, health care, social service, transport etc..

In the Independent Declaration, it is stated that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. The early patriots of America had believed that government should protect their “unalienable rights” and that government had no right to interfere with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, other than that of prosecuting law-breakers and maintaining self-defence from foreign aggression.

Read More

What is to be done? Where to begin?

---

“The only way of catching a train I have ever discovered is to miss

the train before”

G.K. Chesterton

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

When Lenin wrote his celebrated pamphlet ‘What is to be done?’ it was a reiteration and an amplification of an earlier tract titled ‘Where to Begin?’

Minister Rajitha Senaratne, dentist and nonsense artist, exceptional and preeminent, has described it as a defeat for Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Minster Mangla Samaraweera, the only present time minister anchored to the present, has described the LG polls setback as a timely wake up call.

Wake up call, it certainly is. Its timeliness will be determined by unfolding events. Where to begin the remedial process after the wakeup call?
First things first
First things first: Mangala Samaraweera finds himself in the UNP not because he is a neoliberal in disguise. He is in the UNP because he was sacked from the SLFP after Mahinda and his brother Basil hijacked it and made the party of the common man and the turf of the Bandaranaike clan into the fiefdom of the Rajapaksa clan. It is our misfortune that the war ended while the Rajapaksa clan was in control and now the title to the liberated land is theirs.

There is no SLFP. Our elected President has been labouring in a vain bid to rescue a party maimed beyond recognition.

The two brothers have interpreted the LG polls results with rare innocence. Gotabhaya on arrival said that the people have realised that they were duped in 2015. The people want Mahinda Rajapaksa at the helm of the realm.

Participating in a lengthy political discussion on Hiru TV owned by the family of Duminda Silva, now incarcerated on a murder conviction, Basil said that the people have roundly condemned legal witch hunts of political opponents. The obliging TV anchors did not probe the subject of free and fair franchise expressed by the people of Biyagama, bestowing the title to the Malwana mansion on him.
Where to begin?
Where to begin? We begin by requesting Ranil to step down. If he does not step down, dump him. This writer has said this before. Once, Ranil held tremendous promise. He lost the presidency by a whisker in 2005. Since then, he has lost his marbles. He has convinced himself that he is an expert economist and the Lankan version of a hybrid of Lee Kwan Yew and Mahathir Mohamed. He remains in politics to redeem himself and not to redeem us.

He is in a cloud cuckoo land of his own. He has little patience for elected members with proven track records. The unelected Malik Samarawickrama and Tilak Marapana are his main crutches. Paskaralingam and Charitha Ratwatte push his wheel chair behind the curtain.

This writer was horrified when a managing director of a quoted public company and one of our top blue-chip conglomerates said: “I don’t mind announcing that I voted for the Pohottuwa.” He/she explained: “Mahinda allowed us to do our business. He left us alone.” Now under the guise of one window clearance we are told what to do, when to do and how to do business by busybodies and mentioned ‘you know who.’
No Sobhitha Thero, no President Sirisena 
The Supreme Court has advised the President the precise span of his presidency. The time past is more than the time that is left. He must complete what is half done and attend to what needs to be done and completed.

Without Sobhitha Thero there would have been no common candidate and there would be no President Sirisena. Had Ranil Wickremesinghe contested, Mahinda Rajapaksa would be in the fourth year of his third presidential term. The Chinese would have written off our loans to offset the impact of western sanctions. Mohan Peiris would be administering justice. Cabraal and Jayasundera would be duelling to decide the growth rate, GDP, and per capita income. The maker of urban marvels would have introduced a mass rapid transit system linking Basil’s Malwana with Lanza’s Negombo. We would be relishing Malwana Rambutan laced with ecstasy from the lagoon in Negombo.

This writer voted for this President on 8 January, 2015 and has no regrets for doing so.

This writer is no supporter of Mahinda Rajapaksa. This writer does not wish to see Mahinda Rajapakse anywhere near state power.
Mahinda Rajapaksa is a believable leader
That said, this writer is not hesitant to concede that he is a believable leader to a near half of the voting population. In believability, he is miles ahead of any of his political opponents. Prevention of his return to power is a far too serious matter that should not be left to the advisers who inhabit the crevices in the corridors of presidential power. Half-witted lawyers and fake Rupert Murdochs with personal grudges against Ranil Wickremesinghe and ghost writers pretending to be eco geeks are the humbugs responsible for the current political cul-de-sac that has made the would-be reformer into a lame duck.
Egg on the face
Thanks to Sobhitha Thero, Maithripala Sirisena was a believable leader in 2015. Today, he is not. Since his election, he has slipped rapidly downwards. He has overstepped his mandate. His task was to facilitate reform of the political process. Instead he opted to manipulate the process. Now, he has ended with egg on his ‘vandaneeya poojaniya’ mug.

So, he should spare us the sermons and undertake to do what he promised to Venerable Sobhitha Thero. Dante Gabrielle Rosetti was an English poet. This rare pearl of wisdom is attributed to him – “Look in my face; my name is Might-have-been; I am also call’d No-more, Too-late, Farewell”.

Last ditch effort to preventcollapse of national govt.

Civil society outfit says they have assurance from Prez and PM 

By Shamindra Ferdinando-February 13, 2018, 12:00 pm

Co-conveners of Purawesi Balaya, Gamini Viyangoda, K.W. Janaranjana and Saman Ratnapriya yesterday claimed that the outfit had received firm assurances from President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on Monday (Feb. 12) that they wouldn’t quit yahapalana alliance over the disappointing outcome of Feb. 10 local government polls.

Addressing a hastily called press conference at the Center for Society and Religion (CSR), Maradana, Purawesi Balaya spokespersons, explained their efforts to settle a simmering dispute between the President and Prime Minister. They acknowledged that the dispute could derail their pre 2015 presidential poll pact with yahapalana leaders.

Purawesi Balaya delegation that had held separate meetings with President Sirisena and PM Wickremesinghe comprised Ven. Dambara Amila, Janaranjana, Viyangoda and Ratnapriya. Having had met President Sirisena at the Presidential Secretariat in the afternoon, the delegation made representations to Premier Wickremesinghe.

President Sirisena had been alone at the 90 minute meeting, while Premier Wickremesinghe was assisted by UNP Chairman Malik Samarawickrema.

Viyangoda quoted yahapalana leaders as having reiterated their commitment to 2015 agenda and readiness to continue till 2020.

Purawesi Balaya intervened in the wake of Wickremesinghe coming under intense pressure from a section of his parliamentary group to quit.

At the onset of the briefing Viyangoda said that the electorate had exercised their franchise against the coalition partners as they failed to keep major promises. Asserting that the voting public had shown both President Sirisena and PM Wickremesinghe a red light, Viyangoda emphasized the two leaders should share responsibility for the crisis. Whatever the reasons, they had attributed to the current predicament, such excuses couldn’t be accepted, Viyangoda said.

The civil society activist alleged that the failure to bring in a new Constitution with the abolition of executive presidency had caused irreparable damage to Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. Calling the failure to enact the new Constitution their primary failure, Viyangoda faulted the administration for not taking tangible measures against those responsible for killings and corruption.

Appreciating efforts made in parliament to pursue constitutional reforms, Viyangoda alleged that sufficient attention wasn’t paid to despicable campaign against political reforms. Those hell-bent on disrupting post-war reconciliation process brazenly exploited the weakness on the part of the government to undermine the new constitution making process, Viyangoda said.

Viyangoda flayed the government for its failure to bring investigations into the killing of The Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickremetunga (Jan.8.2009), disappearance of media personality Prageeth Ekneligoda on the eve of Jan.26, 2010 presidential poll and Wasim Thajudeen killing (May 17, 2012) to a successful conclusion.

Referring to former President Rajapaksa’s call for a fresh parliamentary election in the wake of what he had called political instability, Viyangoda claimed there was absolutely no justification in seeking national election following Feb. 10 local government polls. He said the local government, provincial council, parliamentary and presidential polls were meant for specific purposes. Viyangoda said that president couldn’t be replaced by parliamentary polls. Similarly, government couldn’t be changed on the basis of presidential election outcome.

The Island sought an explanation from Purawesi Balaya as to why UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was asked to form a government without the necessary parliamentary backing in the wake of Jan 2015 presidential poll. Purawesi Balaya speakers claimed that the parliament had accepted Wickremesinghe’s appointment sans protests. When The Island pointed out that the UNP parliamentary group comprised just 46 members whereas the UPFA consisted of 152, including 126 SLFPers, Viyangoda said that shell-shocked Rajapaksa couldn’t respond. Rajapaksa expected to continue for about 25 years, hence his inability to take the sudden fall, Viyangoda said. Others pointed out that in the run-up to Jan 2015, the electorate had been repeatedly told that Wickremesinghe would be the Prime Minister.

Asked by The Island whether Purawesi Balaya accepted the UNP-SLFP coalition was in crisis today due to bond scams in 2015 and 2016, those in the head table said that they too believed so.

They also admitted grave mistake on the part of the yahapalana government in purposely delaying local government polls, which finally led to countrywide election three years after the last presidential contest. Had local government polls been held as scheduled on a staggered basis, the situation would have been different, they said.

The Island sought their opinion as to the feasibility of having scheduled provincial council polls in Oct this year and, April and Oct next year against the backdrop of the yahapalana government putting off scheduled polls for three councils last year, Purawesi Balaya said that the outfit backed elections on time. Ratnapriya said that it would be better to have PC polls simultaneously for all regions. The Island asked whether he meant putting off PC polls scheduled for this year for the next or vice versa, Ratnapriya said that polls could be advanced to this year.

Purawesi Balaya leaders insisted that they expected President Sirisena and PM Wickremesinghe to reach an agreement on a workable solution for early implementation of their much touted promises.

---

Yahapalana flayed for not keeping vital promise

Influential civil society organization Purawesi Balaya yesterday flayed the yahapalana government for not enacting the National Audit Bill in spite of it being a pledge in President Maithripala Sirisena’s 100-day administration.

On top of that, the first treasury bond scam was perpetrated during that probation period, Purawesi Balaya co-convener K.W. Janaranjana told the media yesterday.

Addressing the media at CSR, Maradana, the former editor of Ravaya urged the UNP and the SLFP to help change the government structure. Jayanaranjana said that the issue wasn’t about the image of the President or the PM therefore urgent action was required to be taken to address contentious issues.

Sri Lanka: Rajapaksa phobia is not a solution

Where “political party” means a “gang of dealers” and “power is addictive” 

by Kusal Perera- Feb 14, 2018

( February 14, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) This Local Government election is unique in that this is the only LG election in history to decide the contours of central government power. Unique in that a political party leader as president who was completely discarded as irrelevant in politics with only 13.3 per cent votes polled, tells the other partner in the “Unity” government that polled 32.6 per cent votes, their PM has to now step down. And that seems to hold political logic too with a totally new political party sweeping the elections led by former President Rajapaksa whose image is as strong as a popular “brand name” easily marketable across the whole of Southern Sinhala society.

All elections, carry with them numerous post-election analyses using numbers to defend one’s own thinking and political affiliations. Despite President’s thinking that there needs to be serious changes in government to continue, the main partner in this “Unity” government the UNP is now working out analyses to justify continuing in power. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Media, generally considered the most trustworthy of all politicians in this government has issued a statement to claim “The UNP has a solemn duty not just to the 46 per cent of the electorate who voted for us (the UNP) and President Sirisena’s SLFP (includes UPFA too) last Saturday, but to the entire resounding majority of our citizens, all 6.1 million of them (55.3%) who marched to the polls last Saturday and voted against a return to Rajapaksa rule.” Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne too came up with similar numbers, the day after the LG election results recorded a political Tsunami that left the Yahapalana government in debris.

The writing of a coming political Tsunami was glaring big on the wall. Here’s what I wrote in my blog after reading it, 02 days before elections.
“With Rajapaksa assumed to have another comeback, President Sirisena will have a harder time ahead than his ‘advisors’ had calculated.”
“The ITAK leadership in TNA will therefore find themselves in troubled and deep in hot waters without any acceptable excuse for piggybacking the UNP for 03 long and unproductive years.”

“In brief, the Unity government after the LG elections will be left as fragile as no other coalition government had ever been in mid term before. Election campaigning by President Sirisena had already laid the ground for the political crises ahead despite how the people would vote on Saturday. What the EC would read out as official results will only add salt to the bitter pickle on the boil.”

• It is stupid for a politician like Samaraweera who generally talks sense to argue that voters behaved in the same “anti-Rajapaksa” manner this election too after 03 years of miserable rule by “yahapalanaya”.
• Their “Rajapaksa phobia” proved the Yahapalana government had no answers, no solutions to any of the issues they raised against Rajapaksa; from economic to democratic to mega corruption.
• It is not only the Rajapaksa led SLPP which polled 44.7 per cent that was hard line anti UNP. Even the Sirisena led UPFA’s 8.9 percent and his SLFP’s 4.4 per cent plus the JVP’s 6.2 per cent were all “anti UNP”.
• In any democratic country where political parties are also democratic, the most important news catching headlines would be changes discussed at “Special Conventions” of political parties. It is such special conventions of party members who decide their next leader. It is they who decide the “political line” of the party. That was how the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) decided their coalition with the SLFP in 1964 June.
• Here in SL, political decisions under party labels are taken by the leader with his own carefully selected group of henchmen amidst scheming and manipulations. Most henchmen are either from the “Filthy Rich” in this neoliberal economy or directly in business with them.

---

Calculations made by this Unity government “apologists” cannot hide the fact that in Sinhala South, the social psyche that had grown over the past 03 years does not accept this “Unity” government anymore. Even the numbers the yahapalana ‘apologists’ cluster together don’t carry the logic they blurt out.

One argument they hold on to is that Rajapaksa had failed to maintain the 5.8 million he mustered at the 2015 January presidential election. That his percentage vote of 47.6 at the 2015 January presidential poll had decreased to 44.7 per cent. One may then ask Samaraweera where the 62 lakhs who voted for Common Candidate Sirisena in that same presidential election are now. All the votes that Samaraweera had collected from so many different places still adds to 61 lakhs only.

It is more prudent to take numbers from the 2015 August parliamentary election, as the alliances and parties that ran for election then, seem almost the same as this LG election, 02 years and 06 months later. The UNP, JVP, TNA and also the SLFP/UPFA vote blocs can then be compared without any of the numerical gimmicks that Samaraweera is resorting to. Politics of the UNP platform then and now was also the same. They promised more investment with plenty employment and spoke about IT and a modern ‘Sri Lanka’ then and now. What was the outcome? At the 2015 August parliamentary elections UNP polled 5.1 million that was 45.7 per cent of the total polled. This February at the LG elections 13.1 per cent of those voters left the UNP and voted against the UNP leaving the UNP with only 32.6 per cent polled. How will Samaraweera explain this massive shift against the UNP?

Samaraweera and all “Yahapalana” apologists should face the truth that clustering numbers to keep highlighting a “Rajapaksa phobia” was and is their major blunder. Their “Rajapaksa phobia” proved the Yahapalana government had no answers, no solutions to any of the issues they raised against Rajapaksa; from economic to democratic to mega corruption. Thus it is not only the UNP that was heavily voted down, but it’s partner President Sirisena and his SLFP/UPFA too.

Technically, if people who voted SLFP/UPFA to elect 95 MPs in August 2015 stayed with the SLFP/UPFA, then President Sirisena should have polled 42.3 percent with 4.7 million votes. But President Sirisena could only retain a meagre 13.3 percent of that vote. That 42.3 percent in August 2015 was mustered by Rajapaksa for the SLFP/UPFA while Sirisena as President played the most sinister role of defaming Rajapaksa during the election campaign. Thus 29 percent of those voters opted to go with Rajapaksa and voted SLPP. Rajapaksa also gained from the 13.1 per cent voters who deserted the UNP in topping up the 29 per cent from SLFP/UPFA. Thus 42.1 per cent of the 44.7 per cent the SLPP totalled came from the SLFP/UPFA and the UNP.

It is stupid for a politician like Samaraweera who generally talks sense to argue that voters behaved in the same “anti Rajapaksa” manner this election too after 03 years of miserable rule by “yahapalanaya”. Forces that came together in poling 6.2 million for Common Candidate Sirisena to be elected president in 2015 January, had parted ways after 08 months when the parliamentary elections were held and contested against each other. That 2015 August re alignment of forces was further polarised at this LG election with the JVP, the Muslim vote in most districts and the SLFP in all its tattered forms clearly going “anti UNP” with President Sirisena being the loudest. Every single vote President Sirisena begged and bagged, was a vote against the UNP. The UPFA/SLFP councillors who were elected on that anti UNP vote at local level, cannot sit with the UNP. They ca n only opt to join with Rajapaksa to oust the UNP where the UNP failed to win an absolute majority.

Thus it is not only the Rajapaksa led SLPP which polled 44.7 per cent that was hard line anti UNP. Even the Sirisena led UPFA’s 8.9 per cent and his SLFP’s 4.4 per cent plus the JVP’s 6.2 per cent were all “anti UNP”. This totals to a massive 64.2 per cent votes among Sinhala South against the UNP. That’s after leaving out the Muslim and Tamil vote which went against the UNP in constituencies they contested against each other. If that number is added, the anti UNP vote could go well above 65 per cent.

In such a catastrophic situation in any democratic country where political parties are also democratic, the most important news catching headlines would be changes discussed at “Special Conventions” of political parties. It is such special conventions of party members who decide their next leader. It is they who decide the “political line” of the party. That was how the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) decided their coalition with the SLFP in 1964 June. The whole party discussed 03 different “Resolutions” at local party branches and elected their “delegates” for the special conference. At the special delegates’ conference it was Dr. N. M. Perera led group that won with their resolution to join the SLFP government with ministries. That LSSP is long dead and none of the political parties here in SL are democratic. Political parties today don’t have an actual membership. Here in SL, political decisions under party labels are taken by the leader with his own carefully selected group of henchmen amidst scheming and manipulations. Most henchmen are either from the “Filthy Rich” in this neo liberal economy or directly in business with them. Therefore decisions taken in the name of the “people” with promises for democratic reforms and justice to all, never get translated into action. If pressured to implement, they are scuttled and left dormant in Statute books.

Bottom line is, decisions that would actually be made effective are those for the benefit of the “filthy rich” and all attempts therefore in ensuring a government of their “choice” is what happens in these neo liberal economies. “People” are their to endorse them and give them legitimacy. Same is happening now and nothing else. This parliament has no other purpose as well.

Changing Political Culture Proactive Civil Society Activism

By Prof. Siri Gamage-2018-02-13

Some Civil society organizations, whose leaders come from the Upper Middle Class (UMC) and campaigned for yahapalanaya, and a handful of academics, are critical of the current governance mode and the lack of action on some promises. However, their reach into the voter heartland in cities and rural areas is minimal. Other than being so-called armchair opinion makers, they do not seem to have a network or following in politically significant and sensitive areas where it matters. Criticism alone is not going to change the political culture.

There has to be an organization and a strategy of likeminded members of the UMC developed in close consultation with would-be supporters who are fed up with the rotten political culture and the elitist system of expensive governance system. Such an organisation can emerge from non-political, socially conscious elements of the UMC. Civil society organizations, trade unions, academic unions, clergy, professional bodies, etc. can play a part in this.

Power in numbers

Unfortunately, there seems to be a dominant view among civil society leaders and even academics interested in current political issues that they should not get involved in politics. They don't seem to realize that power lies in numbers - not only in good ideas.

How to get numbers for their own social and economic agendas in the first place and then to develop a political strategy away from failed political parties should concentrate their mind rather than placing the faith on politicians from mainstream parties at election times as they did in 2015. The strategy should include steps that are necessary in between elections as well including expanding a follower base spreading into provinces.

Political culture cannot be changed by diffusion of ideas alone. This is because ideas do not take root in the minds of voters unless they are repeated many, many times during waking hours of each week, month and year. The role of media plays a crucial role here. TV programmes like Pathikada and Satana engage the public on current issues critically.

Educating the public from a critical perspective is important. But, as the political culture is deeply rooted and embedded in the material world plus the current neoliberal, free market economy - often leading to dishonest actions by elected politicians and bureaucrats who serve them - words alone cannot change such a culture. Organizational network of those who are frustrated with the repeated failings of governments and mainstream parties need to not only hammer out the message that political reform is necessary but also keep recruiting more sympathizers to their cause and agenda for a new or reformed society.

Perceptions of power

Whether such organization should remain apolitical or establish a new progressive party need to be debated among members.

There is an activist organization that runs advertising campaigns regularly in Australia called Get Up (https://www.getup.org.au/).

It plays an effective role in not only gathering public support on particular issues but also mounting grassroots campaigns in marginal seats at election times. This is an example of what one can do to change political culture and outcomes on a daily basis through a civilian outfit.

We need to recognize that perceptions of power that have been ingrained in the minds of people belonging to middle and working classes by a multitude of practices and symbolism during the last 70 years also function as a barrier for these classes, in particular the UMC, to come to the realization that power is not something that is possessed and exercised by the rich, powerful, politically connected somebodies but it can be acquired by average citizen nobodies like themselves.

Through various political, religious and social discourses and symbolism, a perception has been inculcated in the minds of people who do not belong to the elite political class and its incumbent families that power is to be exercised only by career politicians.

Thus the only option available for the masses is to support one or other mainstream party led by the elitist, political families. It is only they who understand the complexities of governance, international relations, legal language and practices, and possess the education and knowledge necessary to run a country. This perception has been seriously damaged in recent years.

Yet through mechanisms such as political stage or vedikava act for reinforcing this inaccurate perception is being reinforced. For example, when the agamathi or janadhipathi comes to address a meeting in the provinces, there is some ceremony and ritual associated with such visits. A stage or vedikava is large and imposing, decorations more elegant, presence of security strong; the vehicle they arrive is luxurious. Firecrackers signify the arrival of these personalities considered 'dignified personalities.'

Political stage

Those who introduce the dignitary characterize them as saviours of nation who can develop the country and bring prosperity.

Emotional language is used to characterise their parties as the only credible ones that people should vote. Party flags are prominently displayed along with banners and pictures of the leaders plus local candidate. The chair that the leader sits has to be higher compared to other chairs. Wearing national dress is a must for the leader.

All this paraphernalia and symbols, plus the politically charged discourses inject certain interpretations about the merits of voting for one party, one leader, one candidate over another. Many in the UMC and LMC who participate in such rallies and witness these events get convinced about voting one way or another after listening to speeches and witnessing symbolism and rituals performed.

Little do they realize that such stages are built and political activists belonging to major parties who stand to gain most from a government once established, enact the drama. Little also do they realize that these events are designed to convince the voter about the inherent nature of power belonging to the political elites, a concept and privileged community that has been constructed by the very same political process i.e. mass voting to give the elites power.

Thus when someone who does not belong to prominent and already privileged political class comes forward to seek their vote, it turns out to be not an attractive proposition. If it was, the JVP should have been in power a long while ago. Try seeking votes on a bicycle or a three-wheeler. So, any future progressive party emerging from the UMC has to reflect on how to change such inbuilt perceptions by using alternative and more representative discourses and symbolism.

I am not suggesting that JVP candidates should arrive at rallies in Benz cars or recruit candidates from elite families. I am suggesting that the political culture is deeply ingrained and rooted in the minds of voters by the use of discourses, symbolism, grassroots network of local officials and politicians, and it is not limited to the Colombo-based elite ruling class who enjoy high culture.

To change such a culture, preaching to this ruling class alone is not enough. The mindset of the middle class, which can make a difference, has to be changed along with those who subscribe to the country's gami culture. It is here that the birth of a progressive party of middle class intellectuals, professionals, workers, media personnel, civil society activists, and peasants is truly necessary. For this task, discussing how to evolve a suitable politically sensitive communication and organisational strategy is far more important than debating about the merits of social or liberal democracy etc.

Questions

We pride ourselves about the merits of free, mass education that allowed thousands of youths from under privileged backgrounds from the South, North, Centre, West, East to become professionals such as doctors, engineers, lawyers, dentists, etc. Why have they not gone back to their villages of birth in the provinces and try to change the political culture from the bottom up?

Why don't they even go back to these areas as professionals, except a few, and serve the very population that is under the thumb of politicians engaged in money politics? Has our higher education system done enough to sensitize undergraduates to the plight of the downtrodden in society and faults in the prevailing political culture and course correction required! If not, why? My own view is that as our leaders diverted Mahaweli to take water to dry zone, they constructed a second Mahaweli from Colombo to foreign countries.

heavy-handed politics

Our rural youth who got university education free, graduate and get frustrated with the system of governance, heavy-handed politics in the provinces, and daily struggle to make ends meet, take the easy path to move out of not only the provinces but also the country altogether in frustration or in search of greener pastures.

Thus second Mahaweli imagined here can be described as brain drain to some extent (see the article by Chandra Goonawardena on brain drain in Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences
(https://sljss.sljol.info/articles/abstract/10.4038/sljss.v40i2.7541/).

Thus the very provinces where a change in political culture and services are needed, are starved of the talent, wisdom, activism and the energy of the middle class turned professionals. This is good news for professional politicians whose leaders control the levers of power from their Colombo mansions. We talk about changing political culture and political theory from our own ivory towers, don't we?

A new Party

I focused on the UMC in this article but there is no reason why a reformist organisation concerned about the sorry plight of the country and its failings in governance cannot or should not harness the support from other classes and class fractions for their cause. Most important however is the vision, diagnosis of problems, way forward, strategy, and organization rather than critique alone.

If the UMC is diversified as explained earlier, leaders of such an organization has to investigate which elements of the UMC are likely to support a reformist, progressive organization or party?

 There is no point in preaching to those who are disinterested though in the long run some of them can open their eyes to the just causes.

It is important to target elements of the UMC who are most frustrated with the failure of governments and willing to get involved in a reformist movement.

This brings me to the issue of discussing what should happen if there is to be a progressive political party from the UMC.

Following steps can be useful:

1. Understanding that criticism alone is not sufficient. Action, collective action, is necessary however small it is.

2. Assessment of the present situation and diagnosis of the failures of main parties and the reasons.

3. A vision for the future. What should it look like? Involves fields such as governance, rule of law, education, foreign policy, co-existence, sustainable economic growth, and social welfare.

4. Conceptualize the changes and reforms necessary to achieve this vision in detail. Associated policies and programmes.

5. Develop strategies to achieve the vision including the nature of a new party that represents the interests of the middle class, in particular one or both fractions - UMC and LMC. In this task, developing principles that guide the new party such as the non-inclusion of corrupt and failed politicians should be a priority. Nation building without relying on foreign debt should be another.
Designing an education system corresponding to national culture is another. Harnessing the talents of all without discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, religion, language etc. should be a priority.

Conclusion

Westerners dissatisfied with consumerist lifestyle predicated by the capitalist market oriented economies and social policies that follow corporate regimentation, regularly travel to the East in search of a different meaning and style of life. Our leaders, in particular those who came after 1977 made the resplendent island of Sri Lanka 'a global market place' for numerous products and services from overseas loosening the controls that existed.

In this context, members of the middle class and for that matter many in other classes, chase material objectives in life by orthodox as well as unorthodox methods. The bedrock of values that guided human relations and behaviour as well as inter-personal attitudes has been compromised as individualistic ambitions got priority.

When things go wrong at national level, for example with the debt crisis, an important class such as the middle class remains apathetic to the plight of the country, society and its future prospects. This does not bode well for the medium to long-term future. The very class that should provide leadership to 'a reform movement' to change the corrupt political culture and money politics and be at the forefront of conceptualising and implementing a strategy for a progressive party is diversified, indoctrinated and made inactive by the corrupt political culture.

Some members of the class are made to leave the country making room for career politicians to thrive in the capital and countryside. Unless the critique–creative, constructive, and forward looking is turned into action and action-oriented strategy is designed to galvanize the energy and wisdom in the middle class or its mostly affected elements, conventional criticism alone is not going to yield desired change.

Crunch talks to check coalition crack

•  Final decision on Unity Government at Cabinet meeting today?
•  UNP ministers and UNFGG affiliates hold together; agree PM should stay
• JO-SLFP mull ‘caretaker government’
• Sajith, Karu refuse premiership
• US, Indian envoys hold talks with President, PM
• Legal experts warn under 19A President cannot force 
• PM’s removal
• No provision to sack PM without no-confidence motion in Parliament

By Dharisha Bastians -Wednesday, 14 February 2018

and Chathuri Dissanayake

Efforts to break a deadlock on the political future of Sri Lanka’s ruling coalition continued yesterday, with a second round of late night talks for all UNP Cabinet ministers at President Maithripala Sirisena’s official residence at Paget Road last night.

The meeting ended inconclusively, but ministers present said the national unity coalition would make a final decision on if it would stay together or part ways after the weekly Cabinet meeting today, at which SLFP ministers will also be present. UNP Deputy Leader and Minister of Housing Sajith Premadasa told the media that the two leaders had decided to appoint a committee to determine the future of the coalition.  The meeting had been cordial, although the President had initially walked in angry, it is learnt.

However, Ranjan Ramanayake, who was the only deputy minister invited to last night’s talks, tried to lighten the mood at the tense meeting, and also managed to tell both leaders some home truths. Ramanayake told the Daily FT he had reminded the President and the Prime Minister that they had the support of 6.2 million Sri Lankans and urged the two leaders to correct the mistakes the Government had made and move forward.

UNP ministers communicated to the President that the removal of the Prime Minister was a decision to be made by the party and it was agreed that he could not be asked to step down.

President Sirisena replied that while that was understandable, he had to think about his own party too, as the leader of the SLFP, Daily FT learns.

Meeting earlier at Temple Trees for discussions, UNP Cabinet members and UNFGG constituents agreed that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe should continue in office, the Daily FT learns. The UNP would continue to govern in the coalition and SLFP ministers were welcome to leave if they wished, the UNP and its allies decided.

The future of the National Unity Government, which has been ruling since September 2015, has never looked bleaker after both the UNP and SLFP suffered a humiliating defeat at Saturday’s electoral contest for control of local councils at the hands of the fledgling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, a party backed by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The fallout from the election has led to chaos and uncertainty inside the shaky ruling alliance, with President Sirisena’s SLFP demanding the removal of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and the UNP flatly refusing to consider the proposal.

SLFP ministers – many of whom lost their electorates in Saturday’s contest after the party suffered its worse electoral showing in decades – are making Premier Wickremesinghe’s removal conditional to their continued support for the Unity Government.

“The UPFA will not support or participate in any government as long as Ranil Wickremesinghe is Prime Minister,” UPFA Spokesman and State Minister Dilan Perera told the media yesterday, indicating that the President’s party was ready to dig in its heels.

The Daily FT learns that non-political envoys have already been dispatched to UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa and Speaker of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya, requesting them to consider stepping in as Prime Minister. Both senior UNP members have declined to accept the premiership without explicit party approval for the move, sources told the Daily FT.

The UNP disagrees with the SLFP position that the Premier should step down and is insisting that as the party that won the most number of seats in the August 2015 parliamentary election, it will call on support from other parties in the legislature to show a majority and govern alone for the two and a half years remaining in its term. Without the support of President Sirisena’s SLFP, the UNP can muster at least 106 MPs in the House, seven short of a simple majority required to pass legislation and national budgets.

Earlier yesterday a group of UNP backbenchers met Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and urged him to form a UNP government independent of support from the SLFP.  Several senior UNP members have expressed the view that a divorce has been imminent since the alliance with the party’s political archrival had always been uneasy with the centre-left SLFP repeatedly blocking UNP policy reforms and initiatives. An acrimonious polls campaign ahead of last weekend’s election had further jeopardised the relationship between the rivals turned ruling allies, the members said.

If the UNP decides to go solo, SLFP members will be faced with a choice of joining the opposition or attempting to muster the numbers to pass a no-faith motion against the UNP and form a government of its own. With 40-odd members allied with the President, the SLFP would be forced to unite with Rajapaksa’s JO in order to muster the numbers to govern.

As the UNP announced intentions to form its own Government with party leader Wickremesinghe remaining as Prime Minister therefore, United People’s Freedom Alliance sought the support of different parties in an attempt to form their own alliance to govern.

 A meeting convened for the UPFA parliamentary group discussed the possibility of a “caretaker government” with the support of the Joint Opposition (JO), senior SLFP sources told the Daily FT.

“The SLFP is also in negotiation with a few other parties. If you analyse the numbers, the UNP has only 82 seats in the Parliament and we are looking at other parties as well,” the senior SLFP Minister said.

JO MP Dinesh Gunawardena told the Daily FT that the possibility to form a caretaker government was being considered. However, the demand for a General Election still remains, he said.

However, SLFP General Secretary Minister Duminda Dissanayake denied reports that the UPFA had demanded Wickremesinghe be replaced as Prime Minister.

 Dissanayake also claimed that his party would do whatever it took to take the mandate given to their leader in 2015 forward.

 “We will not chase after power alone, we will do the right thing to ensure that we deliver on the mandate given by the people to President Maithripala Sirisena in 2015,” he said.

 “It is true that this Government has to correct its course. The people have given us a clear indication of that. We need to focus on the issues that we have in the Government and see how best to move forward from there,” Dissanayake said.

The SLFP is also setting things in motion to form alliances with different groups at local government polls. Dissanayake also stressed that the SLFP has a controlling percentage in a large number of local authorities when the numbers won by alliance parties and independent groups who ran for elections as a coalition in respective areas are added up.

With the political rumour mill in overdrive, the main Opposition Tamil National Alliance denied claims that it would support a solitary UNP Government.

“We will not join the Government until a solution to the national question is imminent,” TNA Spokesman M.A. Sumanthiran announced through the party’s official Twitter account.

Diplomatic overtures appear to have been made to defuse deepening tensions within the ruling alliance, the Daily FT learns. Authoritative sources told the Daily FT that US Ambassador Atul Keshap had met President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe yesterday amid the prevailing uncertainty. Indian High Commissioner Taranjit Singh also met both leaders yesterday, although sources said it was a “routine” meeting.

Meanwhile, civil society movements that backed the Sirisena candidacy in 2015 held discussions with both the President and Prime Minister, emphasising the need to hold the alliance together in order to deliver on fundamental promises made to the people ahead of that revolutionary election.

Purawesi Balaya co-convenor Saman Ratnapriya argued that bickering within the Government, repeatedly spilling out into the public domain, had undermined its reform agenda and resulted in its failure to deliver. Going forward, the National Unity Government needed to focus on big promises it made before the 8 January election, including constitutional reform and the abolition of the executive presidency. Criticism should be contained within the Government and the President and Prime Minister needed to present a unified front, Ratnapriya said.

Removal of PM: Experts warn President’s options limited by 19A

The enactment of the historic 19th Amendment continues to have profound relevance on the options open to President Maithripala Sirisena as crisis deepens in the ruling coalition, with legal experts warning that a 2003 style take-over of ministries by the President or the unilateral sacking of the Prime Minister feared by many political observers is virtually impossible under the provisions of the Act. The incumbent President, who is subject to the provisions of the 19A, cannot force the removal of a sitting Prime Minister or the Cabinet of Ministers without triggering a major constitutional crisis, since the historic legislation has slashed presidential powers in this respect, legal experts told the Daily FT.

Since the passage of the 19th Amendment, the President no longer has the power to remove the Prime Minister at his discretion, said attorney at law and researcher at the Center for Policy Alternatives, Luwie Niranjan.

Under Article 46 (2) and 48 as amended by the 19th Amendment, the Cabinet of Ministers can only be dismissed if the Prime Minister ceases to hold office by death, resignation or otherwise, if Parliament rejects a statement of government policy or the Budget or if Parliament passes a vote of no confidence in the Government, Niranjan told Daily FT.

“The Prime Minister can only be dismissed if the premier resigns, the Cabinet of Ministers is dismissed or the PM ceases to be a Member of Parliament,” he explained further.

The President’s powers to dismiss individual Cabinet ministers is also restricted by the 19A, Niranjan said. “Under Article 46 (3) (a) the President is explicitly required to act on the advice of the Prime Minister on the removal of Cabinet ministers,” he added.

«Where the Constitution requires the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, the President cannot act without obtaining advice or act disregarding the advice given to him,» Niranjan told the Daily FT. (DB)