UN On Verge of Deploying Sri Lanka "War Criminal" Hewage to Lebanon, Lacroix Is Told

Brigadier Priyanka Fernando: A (Suggested) Wider Context

By Matthew Russell Lee, video here, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 14 – UN Peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix has been informed of the troubling past history in 2008 in Sri Lanka of a commander that country is seeking to deploy to the UN in Lebanon as early as February 18, Rathnappuli Wasantha Kumara Hewage, Inner City Press is aware. 

When Lacroix held a rare press conference on January 24, Inner City Press asked him how the UN is vetting “peacekeepers” from Cameroon, as that country's army is burning down whole villages in the Anglophone zones. Lacroix insisted that vetting is intensive. Inner City Press asked about what sources tell it, that the ostensibly vetting of troops from Sri Lanka, after the bloodbath on the beach there, consists of one OHCHR staffer in Geneva. Lacroix said he wasn't sure on that. Video here. 
After the press conference Inner City Press was contacted, and ultimately copied on this letter to Lacroix, "c/o Debbie Berman, Copy to OHCHR, Geneva and InnerCityPress:

Dear Mr. Lacroix, STOP DEPLOYMEMNT OF UN PEACEKEEPER WITH FRONTLINE COMBAT EXPERIENCE IN SRI LANKA’S 2009 WAR - This is to request you to stop the planned deployment to Lebanon on Sunday 18 February 2018 of a Sri Lankan contingent commander with frontline combat command

experience in the final phase of the civil war in 2008-9. We believe that under the UN’s current vetting criteria, this commander should have been screened out of all UN peacekeeping duties. We note that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has been asked to vet UN peacekeepers from Sri Lanka but consider that ultimately the responsibility lies with your department, as according to the UN, it seeks to ensure that only “individuals with the highest standards of integrity, competence and efficiency” are hired. The Sri Lankan Army says Lt. Col. Rathnappuli Wasantha Kumara Hewage is due to head the 12th Force Protection Company (FPC) for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) An online search of Lt. Col. Hewage reveals he was involved in the assault on Kilinochchi town in Northern Sri Lanka on 22 December 2008 and located in PTK in late February 2009." 

Inner City Press accompanied and covered Ban Ki-moon's trip to Sri Lanka in 2009, and subsequent acceptance of Shavendra Silva as a senior UN Peacekeeping adviser. After Inner City Press published how Palitha Kohona got his former landlord to sponsor, on behalf of the UN Correspondents Association, a screening of the government's genocide denial film "Lies Agreed To," 

Inner City Press was threatened with ouster from the UN, which occurred, and Inner City Press is still restricted to minders under the Department of Public Information run by British Alison Smale. Meanwhile as noted in the letter, the UN does less and less human rights vetting. We'll have more on this.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2018 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for

Independent Woman

MINAL WICKREMATUNGE- 02/14/2018

This collage examines women’s status in society, before and after colonisation. Pre-colonisation, women had a certain status (albeit never equal to a man) in society. Today, there is still a need to advocate for women to enter positions of power. We are still governed by chaste notions of how a woman should act, governed by tradition and what is termed our ‘culture’. Yet a closer examination will reveal that this is not truly our culture, but rather a Westernised notion that has been adopted and called our own. In my opinion, the advent of Independence has not changed women’s position in society over 70 years.

Editor’s Note:  The artist featured is related to one of the Editors. Her piece was subject to the same editorial process as the other contributors. 

To view more content around 70 years of Independence, click here.

Brigadier Priyanka Fernando: A (Suggested) Wider Context

The throat-cutting gesture by Brigadier Priyanka Fernando in London

Response of the (Sinhalese) army to the (Sinhalese) JVP uprising

By Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan –FEBRUARY 16, 2018

Prof. Charles Sarvan

“The fault is not in our stars; not in Fate, God or the gods but in us, human beings” ~ (Adapted from Shakespeare’s  ‘Julius Caesar’, Act 1, scene 2,  lines 141-2).

The recent furore over the throat-cutting gesture by Brigadier Priyanka Fernando in London aimed at demonstrating Tamils led me to the subject of soldiers in general. That the Brigadier pointed to his army insignia and then made the gesture suggests he believes this is what soldiers do: they kill. The gesture can be understood as a synecdoche standing for different forms of violence, murder included.

The word “soldier” etymologically has its roots in “payment”, and payment is related to “professional”. A soldier is a professional; someone paid to endanger his own life while endangering those of others, be they soldiers or hapless civilians – since language is used both to communicate and to conceal, civilian casualties are referred to a ‘collateral damage’.  A soldier is paid to attack or to defend by attacking: the Israeli army is named the Defence Force. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), in his Leviathanfamously described human life in nature as short and brutish, there being a propensity in humans to be aggressive; to invade, rob and take possession. That being the case, we need an authority. But authority has no authority without the power of enforcement; in short, without armed men and women. Given human nature, society needs armed personnel ready to carry out orders. (Of course, many of us have no inclination to dispossess and dominate others and, if such negative impulses do arise, we restrain them: contrary to Hobbes, John Locke, 1632-1704, argued that we are rational creatures.

Let me begin by asking why men and women volunteer to join the armed forces, thus placing their lives in jeopardy. Many years ago, when the war against the Tamil Tigers was intense, a Sinhalese friend told me his wife was daily and bitterly blaming him for having allowed both their sons to enlist. But, he explained, when they joined, there was no war: “My sons don’t have qualifications, and the armed forces mean food, shelter and salary.” Thomas Hardy in a poem, ‘The man he killed’, imagines himself to be someone who had joined the army because he was unemployed and poor. Perhaps, the man he had just killed was like him, unemployed and poor. Poverty is a downward spiral: perhaps the man, in desperation, had sold his tools and now without tools, he can’t offer his services as a worker with a skill to sell. Of course, there are other reasons why individuals enlist: patriotism, family influence, an immature attraction to uniform, weapons and parades etc. Nor must one forget idealism and the self-sacrifice that goes with it. For example, individuals from Europe and the USA (Ernest Hemingway; Nobel Prize for Literature) volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War. Earlier, Lord Byron died (though indirectly) supporting the cause of Greek independence. I don’t cite Sri Lankan examples because some readers are prone to misreading and misunderstanding or, easily excited, focus on trivialities and irrelevancies.

An erstwhile friend of mine, because he was a university graduate, was able to join the army as a trainee-officer but I suppose the majority by far join at the lowest rank and then are hammered into shape as soldiers. It is a tough – one would say brutal – process graphically portrayed in ‘An Officer and a Gentleman’ (1982). I believe the film is still screened to soldiers in various armies. Why trainee soldiers are bullied and insulted, treated “worse than dirt”, I don’t know but presume it has two reasons: to toughen them up and, secondly, to weed out those who cannot be made sufficiently tough and callous. The armed forces being an instrument of government enforcement, its members cannot be soft-hearted and sensitive. On the contrary, they must be ready and willing to be brutal. They are the creation of the state, are meant to serve the state, and reflect both state and the people in whose name and on whose behalf they act. Brutalised in training, many become brutal and the ‘argument’ of force becomes their main, if not only, answer. Harshness is normality. Bullied by those higher in rank, the lowest have only civilians to bully in turn. Even those who have reached high military rank presumably came through a harsh system and carry its marks. The word “callous” now meaning insensitive and unsympathetic (therefore cruel) is derived from a hardening of the skin through repeated friction. In that sense, a callous is a self-protective mechanism.

Read More

EU: Unity govt should not lose sight of reforms

Walter Wuthmann-Friday, February 16, 2018

EU Ambassador Tung-Lai Margue said he is worried the promised reform agenda could stall with reports that the government might change following the ruling parties’ poor performance in the recent elections.

“The reform agenda: that’s the big worry that the international community has got,” Margue said in an interview yesterday.

“We understand that it has always been a shaky coalition, and obviously recent actions have shown that a lot of people are not happy.”

Ambassador Margue said he did not believe people’s widespread support of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party was a rejection of platforms like reconciliation and anti-corruption.

“I don’t think it was the reforms as such, but the non-result yet on their daily lives,” he said.

“I think it was a bit too ambitious to expect that with an ambitious reform agenda, this government could see the fruits so soon.”

He said the European Union, which recently reinstated Sri Lanka’s GSP+ trade benefits, would continue to support an agenda of reconciliation.

“We are following the events and we are glad to support the reform agenda,” he said.

Caged Independence

The cherished Maya Angelou wrote once in her famous poem ‘Caged Bird’:

[T]he caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.

DR. THAMIL VENTHAN ANANTHAVINAYAGAN- 02/14/2018

Freedom. That is what one associates with independence. Freedom from alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. Christian List and Laura Valentini write in a recent paper that freedom must be understood as ‘[i]ndependence. Like republican freedom, it demands the robust absence of relevant constraints on action. Unlike republican, and like liberal freedom, it is not moralised’.
My beloved father remembered very well that he, born in 1943, had to observe the flag ceremony in his early childhood when he went to nursery. He had to sing ‘God Bless the King’ and salute the Union Jack. Sri Lankans sang the British national anthem even after ‘Independence’, until it was replaced by Sinhala text in the 1950s. My father, however, never understood the concept of paying respect to a foreign flag and an old white man who warmed the throne in a distant palace – only then being replaced by a flag that shows a lion holding the sword towards the green and orange stripes (which represent the Tamil and Muslim) minorities and a Sinhala national anthem. Early moments in his childhood and youth determined his fate to become Vannai Ananthan.

I, as his son, gaze at this island now. As Sri Lanka celebrates its 70^th Independence Day today, on the 4^th of February 2018, I wonder: did the country and its people, however, really attain independence on that day and ever after? Did all the people living in Sri Lanka become truly independent, empowered and sovereign citizens? I will explore and explain here that Sri Lanka gained formalised independence in 1948, only to be the eventual springboard for the elaboration of a Sinhala nation state. The Soulbury Constitution, the country’s first post-colonial constitution with poor human rights protection, was a document drafted by the British to suit the country’s elite. Dr. Harshan Kumarasingham ascertains:

[I]n contrast to the fissiparous tensions that characterised the colonial experience in India, the small island of Sri Lanka seemed to gently and courteously accomplish its own independence with the minimum of fuss on 4 February 1948. (…) In fact many ‘dignified’ elements of British culture remained. ‘God Save the King’ was retained as the National Anthem, the Union Jack flew next to the Lion flag on public buildings, Imperial Honours were still bestowed, Sri Lankan debutantes were still presented at Buckingham Palace – and there were also key personnel who stayed in their posts and thus ensured a smooth and reassuring transition.

February 4 – The enabling moment of Sinhala majoritaranism

D.B.S. Jeyaraj writes that ‘[T]he modern Ceylonese nation itself was a colonial construct. It was the British who integrated different territories under their control into a single entity and set up a unified administration for the country.’ This is indeed true. The Kandyan Convention 1815 laid the groundwork for the country as we know it today. The 4^th of February 1948 and the transition of power to the privileged few, however, was an early chapter in the Sinhala nation state creation. D.S. Senanayake became the chosen one to lead the country. He, I argue, is unfairly attributed by Sir Charles Jeffries to be the incomparable statesman and navigator. He wrote in his book ‘Ceylon – the Path to Independence’ that it was the trust the British put in Senanayake to craft a common nation, home to all. This was a naïve, if not a reckless assumption. It was the same D.S. Senanayake who oversaw the Gal Oya Scheme that initiated the colonisation of Tamil lands and it was the same D.S. Senanayake who was part of the country’s first inter-ethnic riots between the Sinhala and Muslims in 1915. Dr. Harshan Kumarasingham explains further that:

[S]ri Lanka’s elite operated British institutions in an anachronistic eighteenth-century manner such as in having a patronage based Cabinet dominated by its prime ministerial leader/patron rather than by collegial attitudes or values. The weakness of party institutionalisation and the ambiguity in the constitutional arrangements laid the foundations for future political conflict and marginalisation of segments of society.

However, I argue that the 4^th of February was only the springboard to build a Sinhala-Buddhist ethnocratic nation state order. Sri Lanka’s process of becoming a Sinhala nation state was a process in the making, starting with the Citzenship Act 1948, rendering Indian Tamils stateless. The previous constitutions of the country, in particular the Colebrooke-Cameron Commission and the Donoughmore Constitution (despite all their progressive facets) formalised identities and entrenched suspicion among communal lines. Sinhala-Buddhism ideology was exploited for the furtherance and entrenchment of political power. As Kumari Jayawardena asserts:

[T]he differing ethnic and religious groups, composed of persons who had made their pile and were in search of ‘identity’ emerged to assert their superiority, exclusiveness and a right to a place in the sun. The most assertive was the majority Sinhala community, which developed a consciousness of beings ‘sons of the soil’, positioning itself against minorities (regarded as ‘aliens’) and more importantly, making claims to represent the ‘nation,’ while critically commenting on foreign rule.
The election victory of SWRD Bandaranaike on the 10^th of April 1956, who had readily understood and exploited the growing Sinhala-Buddhist revivalism in the country, provided the groundwork for the adoption of the First Republican Constitution in 1972 (and later the Second Republican Constitution in 1978). To this end, the 10^th of April 1956 was the harbinger of the 22^nd of May 1972, the true independence of Sinhala nation state with its first autochthonous prime document that crowned the Sinhala-Buddhist as -self-perceived- heirs and sons-of soil of Sri Lanka. Meanwhile it was the day of continued marginalisation of the minority communities, being doomed to be second-class citizens.

Colonial domination was replaced by majoritarian hegemony

The minorities in the country, never attained true freedom – their subjugation to an external ruler was only replaced by an internal ruler who validated his legitimacy by an ancient myth, the Mahavamsa. The election victory in 1956 that I had referred to in the previous section resumed a train of events, which had started with the Citizenship Act: the ‘Pro Sinhala Act’, the 1956 inter-ethnic riots, the 1958 inter-ethnic riots. The list can be continued to elucidate the growing display of Michel Foucault’s ‘biopower’: he held the view that -in biopolitics- the social body must ensure the maintenance of its survival and for this reason was entitled to kill others and wars were carried out to ensure the existence of the social body as such.

Sinhala-Buddhism as a state ideology is a continuous force that underpins rule – the First and Second Republican Constitutions were, as the late Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvam formulated, ‘[instrumental] constitutions’, entrenching a majoritarian hegemony. Both constitutions stipulated and gave validity to the overarching narrative of the Sinhala-Buddhists, with the minorities being the inferior citizens in a virtual dominance of the majority. The events from Black July 1983 are a constant reminder of our darkest past. Sriskanda Rajah accurately sums up:

[T]o sum up, the use of the terror of ‘lawlessness’ in July 1983 paved the way for the state to not only assert the Mahavamsa based all-island sovereignty claim of the Sinhala Buddhist people and the power of death that they had over the Tamils, but also produced three effects of battle: the elimination of a section of the ‘enemy’ race; destruction and possession of parts of their properties; and the expulsion of a section of them from the Sinhala areas, and to an extent from the island’s shores.
The victory of the Sri Lankan army over the ferocious Tamil Tigers in 2009, bringing an end to the civil war of over 26 years was a catharsis moment for the Sinhala majority: the invocation of Duthugemmenu’s victory and, perhaps, the reclaiming of the desired land. Perhaps, the 18^th of May 2009 was the renewal of the Sinhala independence of the 22^nd of May 1972. Telling enough are the scenes of triumphant celebrations in Colombo in the aftermath of the victory. It was not only the celebration of war victory, it was the renaissance of the Sinhala-Buddhist nation state.

A home for many, but one nation to none

The current Sri Lankan President, Maithripala Sirisena is correct in one of his early presidential speeches that post-colonial constitutions have never unified the different ethnic communities. The Sri Lanka state is a violent Leviathan, using the powers vested in him to spread fear. In fear, there is no freedom. The existing emergency regulations permeate a continuing status quo, where suspicion towards any non-Sinhala-Buddhist is paramount (one may also think of the continued military presence in the public). Fear deprives us of freedom. If one visits the northern and eastern part of the country, the ethnic dominance through war memorials celebrates military victory in 2009 against the Tamil Tigers. This memorialising manner offers a particular perspective on the civil war. As Thyagi Ruwanpathirana writes for a paper of the Centre for Policy Alternatives:

[A]side from serving as spaces for photo opportunities for war tourists, they (i.e. the government) have had limited success beyond sidelining, isolating, discriminating, victimising, creating unease and further marginalising stakeholders in the communities in which they are located (and others geographically far removed), where the mourning of their own loved ones has been faced with sustained military obstruction. The enduring divisiveness and tensions between ethnic communities have been cemented through such monuments and they have the capacity to fuel further cycles of hate and revenge.

Sri Lanka is a divided country. During my youth I met and worked with Sri Lankan youth from all communities to engage in multicultural understanding of all communities who were from the island. I will, however, never forget an incident I came across in my fruitless endeavour: I was asked if I speak “Sri Lankan” by a Sinhala youth. I was confused and soon understood what this person’s thinking was; Sinhala equals being Sri Lankan. It was a pattern that I have seen and heard very often in Sri Lanka and abroad. Sri Lanka and its people never attained real freedom. The departure of the British was only replaced by the elitist domination of a Sinhala power group, whose ‘Machtgier’, i.e. thirst for power was hijacked by a Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism. Sri Lanka, in its current state, evolved from an aristocratic democracy to a militarised ethnocracy, leaving limited space for minority rights to prosper, let alone integrating all communities to be part of one nation.

There is the first stanza of a beautiful Irish song by Michael McConnell, which my father taught me in early childhood. It captures the thirst for genuine freedom:

[W]hen apples still grow in September when blossoms still bloom on each tree

When leaves are still green in November it’s then that our land will be free

I wander her hills and her valleys and still through my sorrow I see

A land that has never known freedom, only her rivers run free

Sri Lanka may have gained today, 70 years ago, its first step towards its own independence after more than two hundred years of British rule. But the ‘independence’ never translated into true freedom for all people who consider the island as their home. Instead, the caged birds sing of freedom, gazing at the rivers that run free.

Editor’s Note: To view more content around 70 years of Independence, click here.

Ranil and Rajapaksa: The difference is how they play the power game

Ranil Wickremesinghe: Missed opportunities

Mahinda Rajapaksa: Understands power politics

2018-02-16

The just ended local council elections remind students of politics of an age-old adage: Politics is a continuous and ruthless struggle for power. Those who understand this often grab political power and stay on in power. Even if they lose, they continue their struggle to undermine the government with the intention of overthrowing it as fast as possible.
Politics is not for gentlemen or gentlewomen. Nor is it divine, for moral principles to govern it. It is simply dirty and therefore, one has to be animalistic to survive in politics, which is characterised by eternal vigilance, mutual suspicion, perpetual competitions, cold blooded conflicts, skullduggery, backstabbing, intimidation, assassinations and countermoves.

Man’s pursuit for power only ceases at death, Thomas Hobbes, one of the early proponents of a political power theory, said, echoing what Niccolo Machiavelli said in the medieval era and Kautilya said in ancient India. In Prince, Machiavelli says that with so many people in politics immorally disposed, good men in politics often bring down upon themselves their own destruction. In other words, a ruler who wishes to maintain power should not always be good.
In Sri Lanka’s political laboratory, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna de facto leader Mahinda Rajapaksa is an example of a politician in pursuit of endless power, while United National Party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe appears as a politician being pulled by his commitment to democratic aspirations on the one hand and the requirements of power politics, on the other. In this confusion, he seems to give more weight to political idealism than to political realism. This explains why Wickremesinghe is often caught by surprise in many an election defeat. If only he had been a political animal in the caliber of his opponent, he could have prevented the dissolution of his government of 2001-2003 and would not have lost the all-important presidential race in 2005.

Premier Wickremesinghe has proved his capability as an abled party leader. But if he can extend similar skills and strategies, with which he protects his party leadership, to the national level politics, he can certainly emerge as a winning candidate.
In 2005, when Wickremesinghe lost the presidential race to Rajapaksa, a disappointed journalistic colleague, who voted for the UNP, said of the UNP leader: “A man who had power and did not know how to protect that power, does not deserve to be returned to power.” There is much wisdom in his quotable quote. Political power is just like beauty. Those who are not beautiful try to become beautiful, while those who are beautiful protect it and enhance it. They become alarmed even when a negligible black spot or a tiny wart appears on the skin. Similarly those who wield power must go to any extent to retain, protect and enhance that power, while those who are not in power must resort to every trick in the book to capture power.
In this game of throne, the one who is more adept at deception prevails.

Politics is also a game of eternal vigilance. In the movie ‘Enter the Dragon’, Bruce Lee advises his young student that even when you bow to your opponent before the contest, do not take your eyes off him. Power politics requires politicians to spy on their opponents and know their next move.
The behind-the-scenes efforts of the Democratic Party in the United States to link President Donald Trump with a porn star and Russia show that even in the so-called full-fledged democracies, politicians make use of every opportunity to undermine their rivals.  Compare this with the UNP’s missed opportunities such as the allegation that the Rajapaksa team paid the LTTE millions to win the 2005 elections. Even now the cases pertaining to the killings of Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickremetunga and Sri Lanka rugby player Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of cartoonist Pradeep Ekneligoda and the MiG deal could break the spine of the opposition if they could be expedited. The unusually slow progress of these cases gives the impression that Wickremesinghe is protecting his very opponents. This is against real politics rules. On the contrary, his political opponents, if given a half chance, will stab him in the back. This is real politics. Politics is not for crybabies to complain after the defeat that they lost because their opponents resorted to a game of deception.

Not only has the UNP failed to expose the previous regime’s alleged misdeeds, but it has also allowed its opponents to define and defame its leader in whatever way and harmful manner. As a result of this failure on the part of the UNP, the Rajapaksa camp plays victim, with politicians corrupt to the core making statements about corruption, as though they are the paragons of virtue. After all, political charlatans want ordinary people to believe that they have become victims of a witch-hunt.
Power, like beauty, needs to be displayed, too. The ordinary people, who vote politicians into power, usually would like to see power in play. Power is associated with machismo. Britain’s Margaret Thatcher declared war against Argentina. The United States’ former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bombed Libya. Barack Obama, though portrayed as anti-war, continued the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to send the message to the ordinary Americans that the leader they have elected will not hesitate to use all measures necessary to defend them. This was why Trump dropped the mother of all bombs on Afghanistan. This was why French President Emmanuel Macron this week issued a warning that France would attack Syrian forces if he found proof that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons.
Sri Lanka’s separatist war provided ample opportunity for Rajapaksa to show his machismo. On the contrary, Wickremesinghe came to power in 2001 on the platform of peace and tried to appease the international community rather than his own voter base where any concession to the separatists was seen as treachery.

If he and his party are keen to capture power in 2020, they need to realize that there are votes in rhetoric pregnant with political machismo in defence of the country’s territorial integrity, the Sinhala race and Buddhism. Such machismo also needs to be displayed against politically motivated strikes by state-sector doctors and public servants. Disinclination towards using state power is a sign of weakness that does not win votes. After all, democracy does not mean passivity.
The ugly media also play a dirty role in this whole dirty game of power politics. Although media freedom is expected to be exercised with responsibility, we saw media groups bashing the politicians whom they love to hate; this is not media freedom. Some journalists under the guise of exercising media freedom or carrying out investigative journalism lie for their masters. These media proved they could portray a good candidate as bad and vice versa. If a media group is taking sides, it has the duty to tell its readers, viewers or listeners that it is partial towards a particular candidate.
Power politics is not a holy affair. It involves manipulations, planning, deception, lies and all sorts of sordid things. In a level political field where everyone lies and resorts to deception, the one who has mastered the art of deception wins. The bottom line is the masses are gullible.
But remember real politics also promotes the judicious use of idealistic goals, provided it can win votes to capture or retain power.

Sri Lanka: Ranil to Continue as Premier with President’s Consent

Mahinda was afraid that rogues in his party would be in jail if this government continues for the next two years. The President had offered full blessings for the government to move forward.

( February 16, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) “The Yahapalana government will continue till 2020 with Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister and a Cabinet reshuffle, after correcting its shortcomings with the blessings of President Maithripala Sirisena and subjecting the UNP to a complete re-organisation, UNP Ministers and Parliamentarians said,” state-run Daily News has reported.

The report by the pro-government Daily News further reads as follows;

They expressed these sentiments after a meeting with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at Temple Trees yesterday. Ministers and MPs of the UNP and the United National Front attended this meeting.

Minister Kabir Hashim elucidating said they decided to implement their mandate received from the people in the proper manner.

Everyone present at yesterday’s meeting vowed to march forward as one unit and implement a new programme of work.

They also agreed to bring in various changes and amendments as needed by the country and act in unity.

He said the government commanded a majority in Parliament. Anyone who wanted to form a government had to show a majority.

They firmly believed that the unity government should continue. Any individual or party could express contrary views because there is freedom of expression today.

Minister Gayantha Karunatilleke said at yesterday’s meeting they were informed about the outcome of talks held between the President and the Prime Minister. Everyone present was of the opinion that people-oriented decisions should be taken forthwith. They also decided to complete re-organisation work within a week and bring in several attractive changes that would be felt by the people. Minister Daya Gamage said the UNP would join hands with the SLFP to form the administration in several local councils.

Deputy Minister Ashok Abeysinghe said the UNP and SLFP would march forward together in the government. However, a cabinet reshuffle is in the offing. Parliamentarian Kavinda Jayawardene said they of the Jathika Yovun Peramuna would submit a programme to take the UNP forward. They would not run away just because there was a small drawback at the local government election.

Mahinda was afraid that rogues in his party would be in jail if this government continues for the next two years. The President had offered full blessings for the government to move forward. Parliamentarian Nalin Bandara said the UNP and the SLFP had agreed to form a strong government. Its nature was still unclear. Their intention was to move forward correctly, honourably while protecting the President. In 2015 people gave them a mandate on two occasions to form a strong government. Within the next few months people would be able to see whether the decision taken by them at the local election was correct or not. They should resolve the problems encountered by UNP supporters. The Samurdhi movement would be subjected to a major overhaul soon. A decision would be taken about Ministers who had proved to be failures. The netting of rogues and the corrupt and punishing them would be accelerated. President Sirisena had no dislike towards the Prime Minister and more talks would be held with the President about the correct political situation. He said no backbenchers in the UNP had aspirations to become Ministers. Charges that they received Rs 5 million each were completely false.

The allegation that we were consuming liquor, recently, was also a total falsehood. He said no other party or a section of the media could decide on their party leadership and positions. Several other UNP Parliamentarians expressing their views said many of their problems were resolved at the meeting.

They were all behind the stance that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe should continue in his post.

Pre-And Post-2015 Rajapaksa & The Road To 2020

By Mass L. Usuf –FEBRUARY 15, 2018

Mass Usuf

His post war victory speech in May 2009 still reverberates in our ears. The then President Mahinda Rajapaksa went on to say, “There are no minorities…. we are one nation…. We must live like children of one mother…. All people in this country must live without fear and suspicion…. To protect the Tamil speaking people is my responsibility.”

Noble were the intentions expressed to the nation, in a display of statesmanship by the Head of the State, from the sanctum sanctorum of the legislature. It was a soothing balm to the vanquished and an imposition of a duty and responsibility to the victorious. It was received by the population as a proclamation of a new era to our country. The hope of a nation without prejudice and the promise of developmental prosperity to all.

Maha Rajanano

Unfortunately, this euphoria did not last long. Seemingly, the noble expressions turned out to be despicable political rhetoric. In contrast to the humbleness of winning the hearts and minds of the people, what became manifest was an oversized Maha Rajanano ego. Those around the Maha Rajanano were massaging his ego to ecstasy. His priorities shifted to self-consolidation and enrichment of his family. While the cohorts around him were salivating to pick up the crumbs that fell from his plate.

Either misled by his advisors or emboldened by the victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Mr. Rajapaksa chose a strategic ultra-nationalistic racist path. The constitutionally fixed two term limitation for Presidency and the independent commissions put in place as a check on the Executive were unceremoniously thrown out. The dreaded 18th amendment was introduced as an urgent bill and was whizzed through Parliament. An unintended consequential fascist regime was in the making. Sri Lankans were beginning to see a fast mutating Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Racist Ultra-nationalism

Growth of ultra-nationalism as a protective mechanism against foreign machinations is to some extent explicable. It was, however, incomprehensible to see such a force being encouraged targeting one’s own people. Ultra-nationalism was bolstered by the addition of racism. It was becoming evident that a state sponsored differentiation of the ethnically cohesive polity was in vogue. The natural culmination of such a scheme would be the compartmentalising of the homogeneity of the social structure.

Mr. Rajapaksa’s aim was to build up a Sinhalese vote bank which he mobilised through his racist agents. The coterie consisting of racist politicians, ultra-nationalist political parties, monks and monk led institutions. A majority of the people comprising the Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers and Malays, responded firmly by de-seating him.

Post-2015

The higher you rise, the harder you fall. The double whammy – setback at the Presidential and general elections – in the year 2015 was an extremely depressing period I believe, in his entire political life. The battered oversized ego was psychologically distressed and at its nadir. Mr. Rajapaksa is reputed to be a fighter and a strategist who would bide his time. He had a band of lieutenants executing his comeback plan. The efficiency of some in that group funnily enough did not stem out of the patriotism to the country or loyalty to Mr. Rajapaksa but the animal instinct for survival. It was a do or die situation for most of them. So, there only salvation was the dream of a media headline, “Rajapaksa, reclaims power”. The consecutive defeats in the elections meant the wrongdoers were now hooked. The yahapalana folks contested on the unequivocal promise inter alia, to put those found guilty behind bars.

The ‘Pohottuwa’ and the events presently experienced are the results of a well organised and meticulously planned execution of the Rajapaksa strategy. In this context, the disorganised yahapalana and its brouhaha over corruption stinks to high heavens. If a person is accused of a crime such person should be prosecuted. It is not yahapalana at all to accuse someone of criminality and then leave it at that, causing damage to reputation and integrity of the person so accused; Whoever that may be. I remember once seeing the following lines printed on a mug (quoting with apologies): ‘Your all fart no poo. When I fart, I follow through’.

2020 Is Coming

In his preparation for a comeback in 2020, Rajapaksa may have to consider reviewing his political strategy. One of which will be the total reliance on Sinhala Buddhist nationalistic card. In the past, this has done immense damage to his reputation not only amongst the minorities but also among a large section of the Sinhalese people. Mr. Rajapaksa must think of himself as a national leader and not as a leader of the Sinhala race. It is incumbent upon him to embrace all communities. Treating the minority community with respect is not condescending but would be considered noble. It behoves a national leader to uphold such qualities. The Muslim community, as much as every other peace-loving community, is grateful to Mr. Rajapaksa for bringing peace to this nation with the help of our valiant and brave soldiers.

Muslims, Hate Or Fear?

This is a question that needs to be answered because there is a wrong perception about the Muslims’ in relation to Mr. Rajapaksa. Some even go to the extent of saying that Muslims hate him. The truth is that Muslims do not hate him but they disliked him. The cause for the dislike was because the Muslims feared. Rajapaksa’s camaraderie ship at that time with the ultra-nationalist racists were a potentially lethal combination. Muslims never fear dying but they feared being the cause for destability, political anarchy and communal riots. These would cause death and destruction for everyone.

The Muslims were exceptionally patient and bore the brunt of umpteen number of provocations of different sorts. This forbearance and maturity of the Muslims spat on the face of those ‘mike heroes’ who at that time made inciteful speeches stating that there were Muslim ‘jihad kalli’. If there were ‘jihad kalli’ as falsely stated, this country would be in the hell of another war. ISIS would be more than happy to be a part of it. This gives us a vicissitude of our so called self-serving patriots and opportunistic nationalists.

Read More

Lessons for Govt. from recent LG Elections

 Friday, 16 February 2018

The impact of the Local Government elections on the political system has been unbelievable and decisive. According to newspapers, the President has asked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to step down after the local elections debacle.

However, a majority in the United National Party (UNP) wants Wickremesinghe to continue and is supportive of his leadership. The Prime Minister will now be required to demonstrated his support. The power struggle is further amplified on private television, turning the issue into a media circus. The fact is President Sirisena cannot remove the Prime Minister. The 19th Amendment to the constitution places certain restrictions.

According to legal experts the 19th Amendment has severely restricted the Executive President’s options. The appointment of a political committee to decide on the future course of the national government appears to be a face-saving mechanism for all concerned.

However, changing the status quo and how the government is run is now an absolute necessity to make any decisive impact on the electorate in the future, given that the provincial council elections have to be held during the year.

Right royal debacle 

Despite all the arguments that the Unity Government’s main two partners, the UNP and SLFP,obtained 1.5% more than the SLPP (SLPP 44.66% - 4.941 million, 46.01% - 5.093 million) and the other two partners (JVP and TNA) put together got 54%, it was a resounding victory for the SLPP, a newly-formed party, with no state power of any sort.

Effectively the SLPP had won 239 authorities as opposed to 41 by the UNP and 10 by the SLFP. It is now said that over 100 councils can and will be jointly run by the National Unity Government. What is clearly evident now is that the Government in the last two years lacked the political acumen to stay one step ahead of the Joint Opposition. Often the strategy and tactics of the Government were half-baked. The Government as a result gave the Joint Opposition an opportunity to go beyond local issues and focus on the Government’s performance on national issues. The top three national issues were the rising cost of living, corruption and limited infrastructure development.

The other issue that the Government did not address was the criticism that the administration was slowing the investigations into high-profile cases and the mismanagement of the law and order apparatus as well as the Attorney General’s Department.

Administration failures

The Government’s failure to effectively deal with the issues impacting public services and getting bogged down in the past three years in them, the inability to deal with trade unions in the transport, health and energy sectors, including the gasoline crisis, the frequent protests and strikes affecting the life of the general public, failure to provide jobs to supporters, the failure to take decisive action against those accused of fraud in the Central Bank bond sales, sidelining party stalwarts by giving more powers to parachuters, not taking action against the SriLankan Airlines Board responsible for compounding losses and also incompetence in communicating the good the Government had accomplished effectively led to the UNP losing 10% of its voter base from the last election and the SLFP collecting less than 15%, the lowest in the history of the SLFP. Therefore President Sirisena cannot only blame the UNP for the vote debacle, despite a media institution repeatedly blaming the Prime Minister.

On the other hand, the public should not forget that the country last year was plagued by several natural disasters that devastated the lives of many people. Given the legacy of the debt buildup, it was a huge burden on a cash-strapped economy.

Way forward

Certainly all is not lost for both parties. In the next 24 months the Government needs to lead with a clear economic vision for the country and continue to steadfastly work towards ethnic unity and reconciliation. Given our huge debt situation, the Prime Minister’s international appeal as a market-friendly and liberal leader in the absence of an experienced, mature person is a must.

Therefore the President must support him to implement a common economic program so that they both have an opportunity to go before the people with a less cluttered and confused track-record. Also both leaders need to listen to the demands of their disgruntled voters and address their issues.

The UNP has 106 seats in Parliament, seven short of the 113 required to enjoy an absolute majority.  The party has enough numbers to form a minority government and implement policies more effectively. The fact that the Prime Minister is still determined to continue with the Unity Government, with major changes of portfolios and strategies, is a good sign and the best option for the country at this moment of time.

However, the talk of SLFP running a government with the JO with a faction from the UNP will certainly signal the end of the 8 January mandate and the beginning of a new political chapter.


(The writer is a thought leader).

THE POLITICAL CRISIS IN SRI LANKA WILL LIKELY END IN A RECONFIGURATION OF COALITION FORCES

Jayadeva Uyangoda.-15/02/2018

( The Hundu) Sri Lanka’s local government election held on February 10 has become more than a mid-term poll that usually helps the opposition. Rather, it has led to an immediate political crisis of sorts, threatening the stability of the present government.

While the disunited ruling coalition, jointly headed by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, has lost the election badly, the newly formed Sri Lanka People’s Front, unofficially backed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, has secured a sweeping victory in provinces except in the north and east.

 Pressure points

There are two dimensions to the crisis. The first is the pressure from the Rajapaksa camp for the Wickremesinghe government to resign, interpreting the local government election as a referendum on the government as well as a loss of its popular mandate of 2015. The government can easily dismiss that pressure by showing that Mr. Rajapaksa’s new party polled only 44% of the popular vote this time while the parties that were partners in the coalition that brought them into power in 2015 have nearly 52% of votes between them.

Besides, the outcome of the local government election has no direct bearing on the government’s parliamentary majority. Mr. Rajapaksa has only about 50 MPs. Thus, the balance of power within Parliament has not been altered, and it is likely to remain that way unless the ruling coalition breaks up.

It is in that sense that the second dimension is more serious than the first. The hostility and disunity between the two centres of power of the ruling coalition — one headed by Mr. Sirisena and the other by Mr. Wickremesinghe — has shaken the very foundations of the government. Mr. Wickremesinghe heads the United National Party (UNP), which is the largest component of the coalition with 106 MPs. Mr. Sirisena heads the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), with only 37 MPs with him in the coalition government. The local election showed 32% voter support for Mr. Wickremesinghe’s UNP —and Mr. Sirisena’s UPFA and SLFP polled a low 12%.

 The discord build-up

The discord between the President and the Prime Minister has been building up for over a year on a mixture of policy and personal issues. The President has been open in saying that Mr. Wickremesinghe and his ministers had been mishandling the economy, slowing down the investigation into alleged corruption by the Rajapaksa family, and even engaging in large-scale corruption while preaching clean governance. Mr. Sirisena also felt that Mr. Wickremesinghe has been ignoring him on policy issues. Thus, due to the simmering disharmony, bitterness and mutual distrust, the Sirisena and Wickremesinghe camps of the government could not even contest this election as a coalition. Once in the fray as competitors, the two main parties of the coalition quickly transformed themselves into rivals and adversaries.

In the backdrop of the escalating cold war between the two leaders was a major policy failure of the government — a massive financial fraud that was committed during the central bank’s bond sales in 2015. This was under the new government, within three months of its coming to power on a platform of corruption-free good governance.

Much of the blame for the bond sales fraud was laid at the door of the Prime Minister by the opposition and the media for allowing it to happen and then attempting a cover-up. Amidst a public outcry, Mr. Sirisena appointed a commission last year to investigate the fraud. In its report, submitted to the President late last year, the commission recommended the prosecution of the bank’s former Governor, his son-in-law and their accomplices. This was a blow against the government, and caused further deterioration of relations between the President and the Prime Minister.

The issue dominated campaigning for the local government election, which began early in December, with Mr. Sirisena targeting the UNP. He also pledged that he was going to clean up the government after the election, indirectly suggesting a change in the composition of the cabinet.

It is this conflict that exploded in February 11 soon after the election results showed Mr. Rajapaksa’s new party winning comfortably. Mr. Sirisena began to search for a replacement for Mr. Wickremesinghe, despite not having the constitutional authority to sack or appoint the Prime Minister or members of the cabinet. Mr. Sirisena failed to make any headway after two days of manoeuvring.

Alive to the threat, UNP Ministers and MPs, even amidst fresh divisions, have now closed ranks against Mr. Sirisena. By the night of February 13, the UNP began a line of action independent of Mr. Sirisena and his SLFP/UPFA and then to reconstitute the coalition government.

In this scenario, the UNP envisages an outcome in which Mr. Wickremesinghe will continue as the Prime Minister of a reconfigured coalition government, with a much weakened Mr. Sirisena as President. Mr. Wickremesinghe has 106 UNP MPs in the 225-member Parliament.

There is speculation that nearly a dozen SLFP Ministers, who are currently with Mr. Sirisena, are ready to join Mr. Wickremesinghe’s new government in case of a clear split between the two leaders. There is also speculation that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) is ready to offer conditional outside support to Mr. Wickremesinghe. Devolution, peace building and constitutional reform are sure to be the themes of those conditions.

There is another scenario in which Mr. Sirisena will continue to insist on Mr. Wickremesinghe’s resignation as Prime Minister. This will certainly deepen the crisis because the UNP is no mood to lose the power struggle. As mentioned earlier, the President is reported to be searching for a replacement for Mr. Wickremesinghe from among senior members of the UNP, but with limited success. A part of Mr. Sirisena’s strategy would also be to create dissent within the UNP with a view to weakening Mr. Wickremesinghe.

Thus, the political crisis that has been precipitated by the election seems to be intensifying but is expected to end with the significant step of re-constitution of the government.

 Difficulties ahead

Whatever happens, the undeclared power struggle between the two main coalition partners will have to come to an end in a new configuration of coalition forces. As things stand now, the two leaders do not seem to be giving way in the battle for supremacy within the coalition government.

Reconciliation between the two coalition leaders is not in the realm of immediate possibilities, but they will have to find a framework of cohabitation given that the Rajapaksa family is waiting to move in. However, the political drama that began on February 10 is unlikely to end soon. Buoyed by the surprise win for its party which was formed just a year ago, the Rajapaksa family will continue to stake claim to power both within and outside Parliament. It will also have another chance of consolidating its newly gained electoral power in the Provincial Council elections to be held later this year. After this, presidential elections will have to be held by end-2019, followed by parliamentary elections. Sri Lanka watchers can expect more political surprises ahead.

Meanwhile, if the President and the Prime Minister do not find a framework of constructive reconciliation between them, governance in Sri Lanka will crawl along for two years. Worse still, the much-valued programme of constitutional and political reform, peace building, inter-ethnic reconciliation and democratic consolidation will enter an extended state of stalemate. Its resurgence, sadly and ironically, might require another phase of democratic setback.

Jayadeva Uyangoda is Professor Emeritus at the University of Colombo

What’s behind UNP’s lost Paradise What does mandate mean? Councils or votes?

In many local councils, parties have not obtained an absolute majority and are seeking the support of other parties

JVP attributes the defeat of the UNP and the SLFP to their failure to take action against corruption

Chairman of the Elections Commission suggested a review of the new electoral system

The system has painted a distorted picture in respect of the number of councils each party has won

The “no action, talk only” policy followed by the UNP seems to be the main reason for its setback

2018-02-16

After the Mahinda Rajapaksa loyalists under a new title, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) winning the highest number of seats in the majority of Local Government bodies, people with various affiliations are heard making various comments analysing the results of last Saturday’s Local Government elections. According to the winning SLPP President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe do not have moral right to continue with their administration and therefore they must dissolve Parliament allowing the people to elect a new Government.
Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera opines that the collective achievement by those against the SLPP is larger than that of the SLPP. That is true not only at the national level but also at the local level in many areas. When it comes to people’s mandate the SLPP had bagged only about 45 percent of votes while the other non-SLPP parties and groups obviously had obtained the balance 55 percent.
In many local councils, the winning parties such as the SLPP, Thamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) have not obtained an absolute majority and are seeking the support of other parties to institute the council administrations.
However, the argument by Minister Rajitha Senaratne, who said that the Yahapalana Government has become stronger than before, after the elections could be explained only by him.
Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) attributes the defeat of the ruling United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) to their failure to take action against the corruption by the leaders of the previous regime.

"Also, the two ruling parties -UNP and the SLFP-  that had collectively received more votes and represent a higher percentage than what the SLPP had achieved are in a position to run only 51 councils whereas the SLPP dominates in 239 councils."

It is clear that he did not mean that the people who had been frustrated by the absence of action against the leaders of the former Government had voted for the very same leaders. His argument was that the UNP and the SLFP have frustrated a segment of their own supporters to refrain from going to the polling booth.
The best example of the people being self-centred in their analysis of election results was the university students who had stated that the people’s verdict was nothing but one against the Government’s pro-SAITM policy. It is ludicrous to say that at least a hundred thousand out of little more than 10 million people who had used their franchise in these elections had voted against the government due to its SAITM policy.
In another similar statement the Educational Secretary of the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), Pubudu Jagoda had said that the vote cast for the Pohottuwa (lotus bud) was not a vote for Mahinda Rajapaksa but one for a change in the Government.
It is obvious that those who voted for Pohottuwa are for a change of the Government, but they were with the former President even during the last Presidential election. It is childish unless hypocritical to deny the role played by the Rajapaksa factor in Saturday’s election.
Many people including the Chairman of the Elections Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya had now suggested a review of the new electoral system that was put into practice for the first time at the just concluded elections.
Such a review is important when one compares especially the number of votes each party had secured with the number of councils they are going to rule.
Despite the Elections Chief claiming that the new system represents the Proportional Representation to the letter, the system has painted a distorted picture in respect of the number of councils each party has won.  

"They showed that they were not on the ground in the very first month after they came to power by taking action to reduce the price of plain-tea and hoppers, as a measure of bringing down the cost of living. "

For instance, while the SLPP which had obtained 4,941,952 or 44.65 percent of votes by Monday is to control 239 councils, the UNP with its 3,612,259 votes representing 32.63 percent of the constituency had secured only 41 councils, not even half of the councils the former had captured.
Also, the two ruling parties -UNP and the SLFP-  that had collectively received more votes and represent a higher percentage than what the SLPP had achieved are in a position to run only 51 councils whereas the SLPP dominates in 239 councils.
The statement by Mr Deshapriya is valid in respect of the ratio between the votes and seats that each party had obtained. But in the public eye, it is the number of councils that matters and hence the present political crisis in the country. The demand by the leaders of the SLPP for the government to resign on the grounds that it had lost the people’s mandate it received at the Parliamentary elections in 2015 is incomprehensible as the collective achievement of the two ruling parties alone indicates otherwise.
The UNP and the SLFP/UPFA had received by Monday 5,093,915 votes whereas the number with the SLPP was 4,941,952. The mandate does not mean the number of councils a party can control, rather it signifies the people who had used their franchise in favour of a party. However, on this line of argument, UNP alone does not have the mandate to rule the country.
Government Ministers claim that the votes cast in the name of Mahinda Rajapaksa had reduced this time compared with the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections. True, the percentage of votes received by the Mahinda loyalists this time was less than what they had achieved at the Presidential Election,but not at the  Parliamentary Election.
Nevertheless, the former President’s group had increased its vote bank by about two hundred thousand compared to the last Parliamentary elections. In the meantime, the drop in votes polled by the UNP and its percentage was drastic and humiliating, in spite of the two ruling parties as a combination having fared well compared to the main rival SLPP. What is more important is that UNP leaders are still clueless as to what went wrong within their vote bank.
The “no action, talk only” policy followed by the UNP seems to be the main reason for its setback. As the JVP leader claims, the hollow rhetoric against the corruption committed by the leaders of the former regime might have distanced a section of the voters from the UNP but have not sided with the Mahinda group either. The frustration of the voters who voted for the UNP at the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections in this regard might have deepened by the accusation by President Maithripala Sirisena that the UNP has been delaying and stalling the investigations against the former leaders.

A large segment of educated society teamed up with the UNP and the anti-Rajapaksa group at the last major elections, with the hope of eradicating corruption and bringing in good governance. The UNP totally disappointed them by attempting to cover-up the Central Bank bond scam and to defend the culprits in that massive fraud.
With the corruption during the last regime being fresh in their minds, these voters might have had no option but to vote either for the JVP or the SLFP or to abstain from voting. One cannot ignore Minister Palani Digambaram saying that statements made by his opponents that the monies deposited in the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) had been plundered by those involved in the Bond Scam had seriously affected the UNP vote bank in the plantation areas.
UNP’s dismal failure in sensing the pulse of the people is another serious issue for the party.
They showed that they were not on the ground in the very first month after they came to power by taking action to reduce the price of plain-tea and hoppers, as a measure of bringing down the cost of living.
This was a very good indication that they did not know what is essential for the people. They promised to create one million employment opportunities in five years and recently claimed that 400,000 jobs had been given to youth during the past three years, without initiating a single factory or any other workplace during their tenure.
 Policies do not matter in elections in a big way, but the actions that directly affect the people would do.