Ex-Soldier, three others arrested for Kandy unrest

2018-04-01

Four more suspects including an ex-soldier had been taken into custody by the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) yesterday in connection with the recent violence that occurred in Kandy, police said.

They were arrested on Friday, Saturday and Sunday following an investigation conducted based on CCTV footages and other collected evidence.

According to police, suspect Prasanna Abeywardhane (40), a resident of Gonawala, Rajawella was arrested on March 30 for damaging shops and religious places in the Digana area. The suspect was identified as a labourer and was remanded until today (2) after being produced at theTeldeniya Magistrate's Court.

The second suspect Sudilinaragedara Shantha Priyantha (30) who was a resident of Kahaulla, Katugastota was arrested by the TID officers on March 31. The suspect has been identified as a mechanic and was arrested for damaging religious places and shops in Madawala, Katugastota and remanded till April 10 after being produced at the Kandy Magistrate's Court.

Meanwhile, suspect Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Sampath Sooriyabandara (37) a resident of Mullegama, Ambatenna was arrested yesterday (01) and was to be produced before the Galagedara Magistrate's Court. The police said that the suspect was a labourer, was arrested in connection with setting fire to shops in Ambatenna and damaging religious places.

Former soldier Herat Mudiyanselage Piyatissa (46) was arrested yesterday for damaging shops and religious places in Poojapitiya. The suspect was a resident of Kaluwana, Ambatenna and he was also to be produced before the Galagedara Magistrate's Court.

Meanwhile, police said that another team attached to the TID had been sent to Kandy to arrest several suspects who were identified in the investigations.

A recently - elected SLPP member of the Kundasale Pradeshiya Sabha was also arrested by the TID on March 28 for causing damages to businesses and places of religious worship at Digana, Kandy.

According to police, a total of 332 suspects had been arrested over the Kandy violence and among them 127 suspects are yet in remand custody. (Thilanka Kanakarathna)

Head of reconciliation - Chandrika - offers no response to reports of ongoing sexual exploitation of Tamil women by the state

02Apr 2018

Sri Lanka’s former president and current head of the ‘Office for National Unity and Reconciliation’ (ONUR) remained silent and offered no response as mental health professionals and civil society representatives detailed the ongoing sexual exploitation perpetrated by the armed forces, police and government officials against Tamil women in the North.

In a meeting with the former president, Chandrika Bandaranaike-Kumaratunge, at the Jaffna District Secretariat on Sunday, mental health professionals and civil society representatives said that almost nine years on, war affected Tamil women in the North were still subjected to sexual exploitation and harassment.

The problem was particularly bad in Mullaitivu which has the highest presence of military forces and police in the province, the meeting’s participants highlighted.

Vulnerable women who had lost partners and family members in the war were targeted for harassment and exploitation by armed forces and police officers and officials, as well as local government officials who had the backing of security forces, they said.

With the perpetrators being in positions of power, affected women have no recourse for relief or justice, they said.

Related Articles: 

05 January 2018 : Assassinated human rights lawyer Kumar Ponnambalam remembered 18 years on

05 November 2017 : Chandrika says 'I am a good Buddhist', blames racism on 'extremist' monks

19 October 2017 : Murdered Tamil journalist Nimalarajan remembered in Jaffna

Buildings Can Be Rebuilt, But Not Broken Hearts

By A. M. Majeed Muzammil –APRIL 2, 2018

A. M. Majeed Muzammil

There has been a vicious campaign to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment and unrest among Sinhalese over the past few years by Sinhala Buddhist ultra-nationalist groups. The aim is to create racial discord between the Sinhalese and Muslim communities.

There had been more than two hundred recorded incidents of intimidation, violence and arson attacks and tens of police complaints made against the aforesaid groups by Muslims. Had the government enforced law and order and brought perpetrators to book , this Ampara – Teldeniya violence against Muslims could have been averted.

Following the death of a Sinhalese lorry driver ten days after hospitalization due to a road rage incident, extremist Buddhist bigots had wreaked havoc in a dozen towns. Over 300 houses, nearly 250 businesses establishments and over 90 vehicles were attacked and torched over a period of three days and nights. Scores of mosques were vandalized and desecrated.

Ironically, houses and businesses were burnt in front of law enforcement officials. The body of an innocent 27-year-old Muslim youth was found inside a shop at Kengalle in Digana. The riots were similar to the events that unfolded in Aluthgama and Beruwala in 2014.

It was distressing to witness a Sinhalese doctor at the Teldeniya hospital refusing to treat the bleeding head wounds of Abdul Saleel Mohamed Fazil, a local councilor who was mercilessly assaulted by the Special Task Force. 

Be that as it may, it is pleasing and heartening to hear that there were many instances where Sinhalese families gave shelter and protection to their besieged Muslim neighbours and friends. In most cases, they were kept hidden in their homes, and there were several cases of people standing up to the mobs and refusing to let them go on the rampage in their vicinity.

This clearly proves that, the majority of the Sinhalese do not condone these types of violence against another community and with deeper feeling and affection towards Muslims, have expressed their dissatisfaction about the acts of violence unleashed against the Muslim community.

The finest couple of examples to be cited for their benevolence details the young Buddhist monk Ven. Waturakumbure Dhammaratana Thera, and a group of Sinhalese students patrolling the streets of the Muruthalawa village in Yatinuwara, to prevent violent incidents against its Muslims residents and slept in the Muruttalawa mosque along with their Muslim brethren. 

In another instance, Madeena Muslim Hotel at Anamaduwa, was burnt down by a petrol bomb attack. A majority of those who came to assist in the repair of the hotel were from the Sinhalese community living in the area. The renovation was completed within 12 hours after the attack and the hotel resumed business the very same day. 

The initial police inaction and reported connivance of some sections of STF with the mobs have undoubtedly added fuel to the communal flare which spread to Katugastota, Aladeniya, Digana, Abathenna, Akurana and other parts of Sri Lanka. It is akin to Bollywood movies where the cops always come after deaths and wanton destruction to the scene.

We cannot allow a few fringe extremist elements to premeditate another anti-Muslim pogrom. Law enforcement officers must take stern action against the perpetrators irrespective of political affiliations or status and prosecute under Chapter XV of the Penal Code as well as section 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act No. 56 of 2007.

The government must share equal responsibility in failing to act swiftly and allowing a manageable situation to get out of hand. The President has currently appointed a panel of three retired judges to probe the breakdown in law and order and it should not end up  like the Justice A C Alles’ Commission of Inquiry into the Galle anti-Muslim riots of July 1982.

It has transpired that the Mahason Balakaya, or Devils’ Force, under the leadership of Amith Weerasinghe had masterminded the spread of violence and mayhem on social media, specifically on “Face book” in which his page has over 143, 000 followers.

The primary objective of the so-called ultra-nationalists was to cripple and undermine the economic power of Muslims and their livelihood; hence Muslim owned business establishments were precisely targeted. “Fashion Bug” and its head offices in Colombo, “No Limit” at Maharagama, “Last Chance Electrical Showroom” in Wennappuwa, a cosmetic shop in Elpitiya, a leather store at Wijerama Junction – Maharagama, are just a few examples. Losses are estimated to run in to millions.

Most of the Muslim traders sweat blood and earn money. It takes a whole lifetime of hard work to build a business, just for it to be burnt in a few seconds. How traumatized will the owners be to witness their business establishments ransacked and set ablaze?

Read More

19A AND POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

• Removal of the Prime Minister: Revisiting 19A 
• Can the President remove  Prime Minister?

2018-04-03

 The 19th Amendment (19A) to the Constitution of Sri Lanka was passed by the 225 member Parliament on 28 April 2015 (Three years ago) with 215 voting in favour, one against and seven absent.

However, due to a large number of Committee Stage Amendments, it could be certified into law by the Speaker only on 15 May 2015.

19A AND POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Army, defence secretary tried to mislead the courts

April 02, 2018  

The Army and defence secretary Kapila Vaidyaratne have tried to mislead the courts in order to obtain permission for retired Maj. Gen. Amal Karunasekara to go overseas.
Karunasekara is prohibited from foreign trips over the court cases into the ‘Sunday Leader’ editor Lasantha Wickrematunge murder and ‘The Nation’ former editor Keith Noyarh’s abduction and assault.

On March 29, he motioned the court for permission to go to India, saying that he has been entrusted with the Sri Lankan coordination of a special training at the Indian Defence Academy. A top military official made representations and submitted a letter said to have been signed by the defence secretary.

Upon investigation, the CID found that it was not the defence secretary Vaidyaratne who has signed it, and also that the letter was only a photocopy.

The Army’s legal directorate has said that another officer has signed on behalf of Vaidyaratne, who was said to be overseas, and that the original of the letter could be submitted to courts.

The CID objected permission for Karunasekara to travel overseas, saying he needs to be questioned over several assaults and murders.

The magistrate permitted Karunasekara to leave the country, and ordered him to submit the original of the letter on Monday.

However, the CID continued investigations and found that Vaidyaratne has not gone overseas, and that he had been in Kandalama, and raised the matter in the court.

The magistrate is inquiring into the matter.

Vaidyaratne has avoided the CID, which wanted to ask him about the matter, which makes it clear he too, is aiding Karunasekara to flee the country.

We admit Karunasekara to be an honest officer. He refused to give a statement, upon being summoned from Eretria by the then defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, that Sarath Fonseka was linked to the Wickrematunge murder and assaults on journalists.

What he should do now is to tell the truth to the investigators with regard to the targeting of journalists during the previous regime.

Not too late to renew unity government MOU

By Jehan Perera-April 2, 2018, 9:36 pm 

The no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will be taken up on Wednesday. The no-confidence motion against the prime minister is primarily on the basis of his involvement in the Central Bank bond scam. In the motion against the Prime Minister there are 14 charges including placing the Finance Ministry under the purview of the Prime Minister with the intention of committing the bond scam, appointing Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran to the post of Governor of the Central Bank, directly involving in the Treasury bond scams, appointing a committee comprising his friends to exonerate those responsible for the scam, and misleading Parliament by giving false statements on the bond commission on March 17, 2015.

The no-confidence motion also accuses the Prime Minister of violating financial regulations, failure to arrest the rising cost of living and, rather brazenly given the involvement of opposition political activists in it, the failure to bring the recent anti Muslim riots under control as the minister of Law and Order.

The no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister is an escalation of the efforts by the opposition to break the unity of the National Unity government following the local government election. Immediately after the election, and the unexpectedly poor performance of the UNP and the SLFP, there was a move by SLFP members to compel President Sirisena to reunite with former President Rajapaksa and the SLPP. The SLFP members saw that the SLFP vote had shifted to the SLPP. They feared that their continuing partnership with the UNP, the traditional rival of the SLFP, would alienate the SLFP voter who would not vote for them again. A watershed was reached when President Sirisena publicly announced that he would sack Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. But this was not an option under the 19th Amendment.

If the no-confidence motion is taken up in Parliament with President Sirisena’s support it will be the end of the Government of National Unity and all it stood for. At the elections held in 2015 a majority of the people voted for the government and what it promised in terms of anti corruption, human rights and good governance. Although registering a significant improvement over the past government, the unity government failed to deliver on many if not most of its promises. If the no-confidence motion succeeds, it is certain that those promises will not be fulfilled for a long time to come. In particular, the political roots of the ethnic conflict will not be dealt with, those who engaged in criminal enterprises will not be brought to book and the example of good governance that Sri Lanka might have set for the world will not come to pass.

BROKEN RELATIONS

The key deciding factor in whether or not the no-confidence motion will or will not go through will be President Sirisena. For the past several months he has been on the war path against his prime minister. First he began to publicly assail him on the grounds of covering up the corruption of the Central Bank bond scam. Then after the debacle of the local government election that saw the President’s party reduced to third place, the president appeared to join with the government’s foes in the opposition to plot the ouster of the Prime Minister who had campaigned by his side for his presidential election victory.

During those honeymoon days of their relationship in 2015 when the duo campaigned against former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his seemingly invincible government, candidate Sirisena remarked that he had the highest regard for the UNP leader and would call him "Sir." Only few leaders in the world have been able to triumph over the hubris that electoral victory at a presidential election brings in its wake. George Washington in the United States and Nelson Mandela in South Africa are two of those glowing examples. And like in Abou Ben Adhem’s dream, it is to be hoped that the name of Maithripala Sirisena will join that select group whose names are written in gold in the heavens. It is essential that for the future of Sri Lanka and the belated implementation of the MOU of 2015, that the President should be willing to work again with the Prime Minister.

Among the many reasons that can be given for the souring of relations between the two main leaders of the National Unity government are their different visions for Sri Lanka’s future. Polar opposites in their origins, one from the most rural and other from the most elite, they have contrasting economic models of cosmopolitan and statist development that cater to the most elite and to the generally disempowered. There was also tension between their time frames of tackling the corruption and criminal activities of the past and also the non consultative approach to governance in which decisions were taken without the approval or understanding of the other party in government. There was the lack of a bridge between the two personalities and two parties that will remain even if this crisis is overcome.

OVERRIDING ISSUE

However, the central issue that pitted the President and Prime Minister against each other is the question of which one of them would be the presidential candidate in 2020 when the next presidential election falls due. Initially it seemed that the prime minister would have a clear path. President Sirisena pledged he would be a one-term President and would not contest again. This promise was based on the implicit understanding that the pledges in the mandate received at the elections of 2015 and the MOU signed by him and the prime minister would be honoured.

If the pledges of the MOU had indeed been honoured the leaders of the old regime would have been subjected to the law and no longer been capacitated to give leadership to the SLFP. This would have meant that the president would not have faced an obstacle to uniting the SLFP under his leadership. He would then have been able to leave the presidency in 2020 secure in the knowledge that he would be succeeded by either a UNP president or SLFP president with no ill will towards him.

Unfortunately, neither the mandate nor the MOU of 2015 was implemented. Instead the former leaders of the old regime are now dominating the political landscape. They have taken the position that their recent election victories have absolved them from accountability for their past wrongs. The SLFP that is led by the President has been reduced to third place. In these circumstances the only way that the president can safeguard himself and the members of the SLFP who have remained with him is to retain the presidency for another term. It is only as Executive President of Sri Lanka for another five year term that the President Sirisena as leader of the SLFP can offer anything to the members of his party or ensure his own safety.

The rift at the heart of the government may be healed if the MOU of 2015 that expired at the end of 2017 is renewed with an additional clause that takes President Sirisena’s concerns about the presidential candidacy for 2020 into account. This is the root of the power struggle that has led to the non-performance of the MOU. It will be best for the implementation of the reform agenda that they embarked upon that President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe overcome their differences, their mutual senses of betrayal by the other and defeat the no-confidence motion together.

Tomorrow: new beginning or beginning of an end

2018-04-03

The No-Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister is not just against him. In its practical implication it is about the government as a whole. This is not about how it is interpreted constitutionally, but how it would work out, practically, if it wins.    

It states, “This Parliament resolves that it has no confidence in Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ability to function as Prime Minister and as a Minister of the Cabinet, and as well as the Government in which he holds the office of Prime Minister, any longer.”    

In purely constitutional terms, the government could well go on under a different prime minister even if Mr Wickremesinghe is ousted by the No Confidence motion. But, how practical is that? If this one wins, this is the beginning of a very rapid end. The UNP and the government will be effectively headless and anyone who succeeds Mr Wickremesinghe as the prime minister would be at the mercy of a jubilant joint opposition and is more likely to be a stop- gap prime minister until either the next general election or the JO appoints one of its own.     

However, most likely, the Joint Opposition will lose the number game. As ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa has implored, “we have delivered the signatures of all MPs on our side. It is up to President Sirisena now to carry through the rest. We await this.”    

Basically, the joint opposition is expecting the president to do the dirty work. In fact, the President seems to be swinging his proverbial sword at the prime minister all too often. He has progressively weakened the Prime Minister’s hold on the government. He has abolished the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) headed by the Prime Minister, and last week removed Central Bank and the Securities Exchange of Sri Lanka that were previously under the purview of National Policies and Economic Affairs Ministry held by the prime minister, and placed them under the minister of finance, Mangala Samaraweera. Subsequently, several other institutions that were formerly under the prime minister were also removed and re-assigned to relevant line ministries.     

The UNP will have to part ways, possibly carrying with it whoever SLFP MPs willing to join it, and form a new government

The President’s intentions are not all that clear. Is he believing that the prime minister would orchestrate a cover up of the bond scam? Or does he simply think it is unethical for the prime minister to oversee these institutions in the light of revelations made before the Bond Commission and absconding former governor Arjun Mahendran?     

However, the president’s silence over the no-confidence motion and what appears to be his tacit approval of it, suggest something different. The president may be plotting to strengthen his hold in the SLFP by weakening the prime minister’s position in the government. His recent political decisions are reflective of the desires of the SLFP’s Mahinda-loving factions, and by extension, those of the joint opposition. Effectively, the president is playing an indirect role in destabilizing his own government.    

At the end, the president will have to announce his position as to whether he supports the no-confidence motion or not. In the case of former, battle lines would be drawn and that would be the end of the Yahapalanaya government. If he opposes the motion, then, the president and the UNP will have to work out a plan to salvage the Yahapalanaya from the current inertia. There again the president is following a third strategy; he is standing on the fence, perhaps with the intention of backing the winning horse. His vacillation creates further political confusion.    

Even if the entire SLFP and the joint opposition unite (that is 95 seats in Parliament), they still fall 18 votes short of a Parliament majority. The UNP (105 plus the Speaker) can manage to survive the vote with the help of the TNA, some of whose members are likely to vote against the no-confidence vote while some others may abstain. To guarantee that outcome, the UNP should be able to secure the loyalty of all of its MPs. If things come to a close combat, the Joint Opposition and its financers would try the old tricks that were used to buy votes for the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Bag loads of cash will change hands. If the Bribery Commission is really committed to fight high profile corruption, here is one case that they ought to keep an eye on.    

In purely constitutional terms, the government could well go on under a different prime minister even if Mr Wickremesinghe is ousted by the No Confidence motion. But, how practical is that? If this one wins, this is the beginning of a very rapid end

The real question then would be the future of the unity government. If the SLFP votes for the no-confidence motion, the continuation of the unity arrangement would no longer be tenable. Trying to do so would make the government a farce. The UNP will have to part ways, possibly carrying with it whoever SLFP MPs willing to join it, and form a new government. Securing a simple majority in Parliament will however be a tall order, however not that difficult for an industrious political leadership. The first Rajapaksa government, which he inherited from former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, had only 105 seats and went to win the war.     

A UNP-led government would be relieved from the current internal wrangling between the two main partners. It would also allow a degree of a unified political direction. However, the problem with Mr Wickremesinghe is he lacks political initiative, and apparently that lethargy is now taking a heavy toll on the country’s economy. Successful leaders in developing countries of the caliber of Mahathir Mohammed, Lee Kuan Yew in his days, and Narendra Modi have shown greater deal of political and economic pro-activeness and have run rings around their opponents when they have to. Developing countries have different priorities and a sense of urgency for growth, which can be achieved only if they secure a degree of political cohesiveness which these states are lacking. Sometimes, to achieve these ends, one has to follow unorthodox means, reflective of social and economic conditions of these countries.    

Basically, the joint opposition is expecting the president to do the dirty work

A UNP government can appoint Sarath Fonseka to catch crooks and increase the heat on the joint opposition. It should act to fast track the implementation of development projects that have been stuck for too long, expedite land acquisition for FDI projects and think new ways of riot control. For most of these things, Mr Wickremesinghe can ask ex-President Rajapaksa how he managed to deliver . With all his other mistakes, he did quite well on economy, though he wasted money on a few vanity projects.    

All in all, this government cannot continue this way, April 4th should be the day for a fresh start.    

Follow @RangaJayasuriya    

A Vote Of No-Confidence Cannot Remove The Prime Minister

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –APRIL 2, 2018

Shyamon Jayasinghe

“it is absolutely clear that the 19th Amendment has conferred on the Prime Minister a specially privileged position. He cannot be removed just because a Vote of No confidence has been passed against him.”

Why the Vote Will Have no Terminal  Sting

Come Wednesday, the 4th April,  Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe faces a crucial day in his long Parliamentary life. At this stage, predictions are terribly hard due to various complexities. However, it is possible that he may lose the vote of no-confidence (VNC) brought in by the JO. Whatever may happen, the move does not inflict terminal damage on the Prime Minister incumbent. In terms of the 19th Amendment he need not quit his role as Prime Minister as the passage of such a motion does not conform to the constitutionally specified ways in which the Prime Minister can be removed.

The motion, if successful, would be even less than tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in a Minister of the government. In the latter instance, a Minister can be removed at any time  and for no cause shown at the discretion of the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. A VNC in Parliament merely confers an ethical responsibility for the removal of the affected Minister; it is not a necessary reason.

It is distinctly different in the case of a VNC against the PM. A VNC passed by Parliament against the PM clearly does not accord with constitutional procedure that bears on the removal of the PM. It has no relevance  for the PM’s tenure in constitutional terms. The PM has to leave along with the rest of the government and that, too, on the basis of passage of a NCV against the whole government as set out in clause 48 (2) cited below. There is no objection for bringing a vote of no confidence; but the constitutional fact is that the Prime Minister cannot be removed thereby. The Speaker has allowed the motion and that is right. However, the motion if passed cannot remove the Prime Minister. It could well be politically unprecedented and damaging to the PM; but that is another issue.

I produce the relevant clauses of the 19th Amendment in order to prove my point:

“46 (2) The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he–

(a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; (b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament

(b) 46 (3) A Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers, a Minister who is not a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and a Deputy Minister, shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he–

(c) is removed from office under the hand of the President on the advice of the Prime Minister;

(d) resigns from office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or

(e) ceases to be a Member of Parliament.”

How exactly a Prime Minister can go is laid down in the following clause :

Read More

SLFP decides to request PM to resign before no-confidence vote

By Yusuf Ariff-April 2, 2018 

The Parliamentary Group of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has unanimously decided to request Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to step down from his position, Minister Chandima Weerakkody said.

The decision was taken after the SLFP MPs met with President Maithripala Sirisena, short while ago, for crucial talks.

Speaking to reporters following the meeting, the minister said that the SLFP parliamentary group unanimously decided to request the UNP leader to resign as Prime Minister before the vote on the no-confidence motion which has been brought against him.

The debate in Parliament on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is set for April 4.

President Sirisena also held discussions with the Prime Minister and UNP Cabinet Ministers at the President’s official residence this evening.

The Working Committee of the United National Party (UNP) last week unanimously agreed to vote en bloc to defeat the no-confidence motion which has been brought by the Joint Opposition. 

Is president Sirisena such an imbecile ? Unable to read and understand even simple Sinhala language ?

-By Poddala Jayantha

(Lanka-e-News - 02.April.2018, 11.00PM)  The no confidence motion supposedly brought   by the Rajapakse clan against prime minister (P.M.) Ranil  Wickremesinghe is being propelled with all the might day and night by president Maithripala Sirisena to ensure it is successful. This is borne testimony to  by  no action being  taken until today against president’s own  ‘men’,   T.B.Ekanayake , Nishantha Muthuhettigama , Susantha Punchinilame and Cader Masthan who signed the no confidence motion. The president has not even asked them   ’ with whose permission did you sign that motion?’

It is none other than Dilan Perera ,Thilanga Sumathipala, S.B. Dissanayake and Lakshman Yapa brought into parliament by the president via the  national list who are holding press briefings at the party headquarters of the president to support the no confidence motion.  The other who walked in from out at the media briefing was Susil Premachandra. It is deducible from all these the president is for  the no confidence motion. 

Meanwhile Sirasa of  Kili Maharaja (the secret partner of president Sirisena in illicit deals) , along with the co ordinating secretary of president Shiral Lakthileke  the lackey and lickspittle  of president , and Maithri Gunaratne have come out to the streets to chase away the P.M. with president’s blessings.   

The statement made by ex  president Mahinda Rajapakse on the 1 st , also proves  that it is incumbent president who is behind the no confidence motion. The ex president said , the balance task of successfully steering  forward the no confidence motion belongs to president Maithripala . 

However , it is very evident  now , the president is moving heaven and earth , day and night to steer forward  the no confidence motion because he hasn’t the capacity to read and understand clause 15  contained in the no confidence motion explained in  simple Sinhala language  , as well as  article 30 stipulated in the constitution in simple language pertaining to the motion.

It is a pity president Sirisena is so obtuse he  could not understand , the Rajapakses  had brought forward  this motion not to chase out only the  P.M.

Clause 15 of the no confidence motion states …

 ‘The parliament is of the belief  that it has no confidence in the ability of  Hon. Prime Minister (P.M.) Ranil Wickremesinghe to continue further as P.M.  , function as a member of the cabinet , as well as in the ability of the ‘government’ of which he is the P.M. to conduct  its affairs .‘  

In the last clause of the no confidence motion it is most clearly pointed out , ‘the government of which he is the P.M. has no ability to conduct its affairs’

If the no confidence motion is successful , the  clause  15 applies , in which case the present government cannot continue , and the ‘chief of the government’ under the Sri Lankan constitution is the president.

Article 30 of the constitution states thus …

‘There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.’

If the parliament adopts the resolution  that the  ‘government’ facing  a no confidence motion cannot go on any more  , then the power of the  president who is the ‘chief of that government’, according to the  constitutional interpretation  is rendered null and void.  

Nowhere is it stated in the constitution , with the nullification of the powers of the P.M . who is the chief of the cabinet , the ‘chief of the government’ will remain and stay put .  In the circumstances  how can a stupid imbecile who cannot read and understand even  in Sinhala the articles of the constitution  be  a president of a country ?  

A clause has been incorporated that the government  of which  Ranil Wickremesinghe is the P.M. has no capacity to  act in respect of  the  no confidence motion of the Rajapakses , not to send P.M. alone  home , and to   mollycoddle president Sirisena keeping him in the chair some more .

Doesn’t  president Sirisena have that little grey matter to understand this simple fact ? 

Let us hope at least ,  realization will dawn today (02) on the Maithri group  to understand this simple truth , on  the day on which the Maithri group  is deciding how they should react to the no confidence motion. 

Poddala Jayantha

translated by Jeff

---------------------------
by     (2018-04-02 18:34:26)

2012 LG electoral system will have to be restored - Prof. Liyanage 

April 2, 2018, 9:28 pm

The present local government elections system has resulted in complete chaos with unstable administrations formed in the majority of LG institutions. No political party has emerged unscathed. The two main political parties in the country the SLPP and the UNP, the biggest regional party the TNA and other minority parties like the SLMC have all been affected to a greater or lesser degree. The TNA which not so long ago was the preeminent political force in the north, managed to get a TNA Mayor elected in the crucially important Jaffna Municipality only by forming an alliance with long term rivals. ‘

In the middle of this unfolding fiasco, The Island staffer C. A. Chandraprema spoke to Sudantha Liyanage Professor of Chemistry and the Dean of the Faculty of Applied Sciences of the University of Sri Jayawardenepura, who is credited with having designed the hybrid first-past-the-post and proportional representation system which was proposed by the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reform headed by Dinesh Gunawardene as the most suitable system to replace J. R. Jayewardene’s proportional representation and preference vote based elections system.

The new system of elections designed by Prof. Liyanage and proposed by the PSC headed by Dinesh Gunawardene was further developed by the then Minister Basil Rajapaksa and passed into law as amendments to the Local Government Elections Act in 2012. However on 25 August 2017, the present government rammed through Parliament sweeping changes to this system of elections and the present confusion stems from these ad hoc changes, as Prof. Liyanage explains.

Q. How did you get involved in the electoral reform process?

A. Around 2003, a Parliamentary Select Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Dinesh Gunawardene was appointed to look into electoral reform. The PSC through public advertisements called for proposals and I was among the sixty individuals who submitted proposals for electoral reform. All those who submitted proposals were given an opportunity to make presentations to the PSC. The then Elections Commissioner Dayananada Dissananayke was also involved in the process. By 2004, about three of these proposals had been short listed and taken up for further discussion. Thereafter the PSC decided that my proposal was the most suitable and it was selected to be further developed and implemented. We analysed election results from the 1970s onwards in designing the new system. It was on this basis that the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral Reform headed by Dinesh Gunawardene published its interim report in 2008 which stated among other things that the system of elections should be changed at the local government level first and based on the result, to decide whether it was going to be extended to the other levels as well with any changes that may be necessary. In 2012, Mr. Basil Rajapaksa introduced electoral reform at the local government level through amendments to the Local Authorities Elections Act basing himself on the 2008 interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Under this system, 70% of the representatives of a local government institution would be elected on the first past the post basis and 30% on the proportional representation quota. A delimitation committee was also appointed to demarcate the wards in each local government area. The first local government election under this system was to be held in 2015 but the government changed before that. After the government changed, Messrs. Mano Ganesan, Rauff Hakeem and the JVP began saying that the 70-30 ratio was wrong. In the system put in place by the 2012 amendments to the local government elections law, only the votes of the losers would be counted in selecting the proportional representation candidates. The political parties in the present government got together and held discussions among themselves and it was on the basis of these discussions that changes were made to the local government elections law. It was then decided that the 30% PR quota was not sufficient and that it should be increased and further that the seats should be apportioned to each political party on the basis of the total number of votes received. It was Mr Ranil Wickremasinghe who brought the suggestion that 25% women’s representation should be made compulsory.

Q. In the system that was originally introduced in 2012, the number of representatives each party is entitled to on the proportional representation quota was to be decided only after the votes of all those who had either got less than 5% of the vote and or had won in the wards on a first past the post basis were eliminated from the race.

A. Yes, this government eliminated the 5% cut off point as well as the bonus seats that were given to strengthen the winning party under the old proportional representation system. Since this is now a pure proportional representation system, only weak administrations can be formed. When we designed the original 2012 system of elections, we made it a specific point to look at the 1977 election result where the TULF got a small percentage of the vote and became the main party in the opposition with its leader holding the office of opposition leader while the SLFP which got a much larger proportion of votes at that election obtained only eight seats. We made sure that such a thing would not take place under the system that we proposed. Under the old first-past-the-post system, the votes of the loser were not given any value.

Q. There was a great deal of instability and factionalism at the local government level even in the best of times. The 1987 Pradesheeya Sabha Act had a special provision where in the event a budget is defeated in a pradesheeya sabha, the Chairman will present it again and even if it is not passed the second time, it will be deemed to have been passed.

A. When the 2012 local government elections system was put in place, we worked on the assumption that with 70% of the representatives being elected from wards on the first past the post basis, stable administrations would come about automatically.

Q. Based on the history of this special provision, and the spate of budget defeats and revolts against Chairmen when it was relaxed, we can predict that the presently constituted local government bodies are not going to be stable.

A. Yes. If the 70%-30% proportion of the representatives to be elected on the first past the post basis from the wards and on the PR quota had been retained, that could have been avoided for the most part because the number elected on the PR basis would have been less than one third of the number of representatives in the institution.

Q. Under the present law, once a Chairman is elected, stability can be guaranteed only in the first two years. If infighting breaks out within the institution after that, control over the local government institutions will pass on to special commissioners.

A. Yes. The cost of conducting the local government election is Rs. four billion. After spending all that money, what we have got are very unstable local authorities which will not be able to serve the people properly. We will have to restore the 2012 system if the local government institutions are to be made to work. Under the present system we may end up seeing about two thirds of the local government institutions being controlled by commissioners in a couple of years’ time. The number of representatives has doubled and they will all have to be paid and given allocations. I heard President Sirisena saying that each local government member in the Polonnaruwa district will be given an allocation of Rs. five million annually. If the thousands of local government representatives in the country are to be given Rs. five million each annually, that itself will be an enormous burden which will destroy the country. I think even parties like the SLMC are now be open to the idea of having a system which ensures strong local government institutions. I met Mr. Hakeem after the recent elections and he admitted that they had made a big mistake. Mr. Nizam Kariapper was also dissatisfied with the way things have turned out. All these problems arose because some people shortsightedly looked only at the advantage that they expected to gain by instituting a pure proportional representation system.