TNA turns down Wiggie’s request to boycott Task Force meeting

Saturday, August 25, 2018

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) on Thursday turned down Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran’s request to boycott the meeting of the Presidential Special Task Force on Northern Development which is scheduled to be held on August 27.

TNA Parliamentarians at a meeting held at the Opposition Leader’s office under the patronage of TNA leader R. Sampanthan on Thursday insisted that they should participate in this meeting to ensure development of the Northern Province.

They were of the view that development activities should continue in the North which was badly battered by the 30-year protracted war.

These Parliamentarians stressed the importance of participating in this Task Force meeting to find solutions to the burning issues of the Tamil people, that included releasing their lands occupied by the Security Forces.

Northern Province Chief Minister Wigneswaran in a letter to TNA leader R. Sampanthan had requested that the TNA should not support any development activity conducted by the government until a political solution is given to the ethnic issue.

Wigneswaran added that Tamil political representatives in the Northern Province had arrived at an unanimous decision not to join any committee or organization of the government until a solution is given to the Tamil peoples’ issue.

He added that Several Ministers and Security Forces officials have been included in this Speical Task Force and questioned as to why military officials have been appointed to the Special Task Force on Northern Development, which is solely aimed at bringing economic development to the Northern region.

“The TNA should decide whether it needs economic development or a political solution first,” Wigneswaran had stated in his letter to Sampanthan.

Our Leader Appapillai Amirthalingam’s Ninety First Birthday

By A.N. Rajendram –AUGUST 26, 2018

Today, 26 August 2018, is the birthday of Appapillai Amirthalingam – unquestioned Leader of the Tamils and first Tamil Leader of the Opposition. To remember such a powerful politician, a Tamil leader with pleasant personal abilities and commanding presence, is I consider a joyful and appropriate thing.

Leader Amirthalingam was born in the village of Pannaaham in Vaddukoddai. After a stint  at Pannaaham Meikandaan Tamil School he moved on to Victoria College, Chullipuram. He was the first student from there to enter the University of Ceylon. At the university he was acknowledged as one of the few who could speak in both Tamil and English. Joining people like Prof. Vidyananthan, he acted in Tamil plays.

His fluency in Tamil and English, and his ability to speak impromptu on various topics with rich content and succinctness has been paraised by many. His speeches were a source of joy to many youth like me.

A good leader may be assessed by his decisions and how he comes to them, and then implements them in ways acceptale to other people. He would read up on arguments on all sides of a topic, come to his decision very rationally, explain his position even to those who opposed him and often bring them over to his point of view. He was an excellent leader because of this.

At the Law College in 1949, he joined Thanthai Chelva (S.J.V. Chelvanayakam) in forming the Ilanka Thamil Arasuk Katchi (ITAK, aso known as the Federal Party). He participated at the initial meeting of the ITAK and was appointed the Head of the party’s Youth Wing. From that time to his death, he faithfully worked for the well-being of the Tamil people. He contested the Vaddukoddai seat in 1952. Although he was not returned then, he continued to build up the party and saw his work’s fruition in the 1956 General Election when he himself was elected as the Member for Vaddukoddai and the ITAK trounced to victory in the North and the East as the Tamil people endorsed the ITAK’s policies on language parity and citizenship for the Estate Tamils who had been cruelly betrayed by the Tamil Congress which turned its back on promises made to Mr. S. Thondaman.

That same year, our Leader participated in the Satygraha Campaign on Galle Face Green organized by Mr. Chelvanayakam and the ITAK to oppose S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s “Sinhala Only” language policies for Sri Lanka. At the Satygraha, Amirthalingam was assaulted by Sinhalese goons. However, even as he bled, he went to Parliament and gave voice opposing the language laws of the government. We cannot forget Prime Minister S.W.R.D. sarcastically and cold-heartedly insulting them saying that they had come to Parliament with the heroic wounds of war.

In the two elections that followed in March and July 1960, the ITAK prevailed impressively, showijg that it had the Tamil people fully behind it. As SJV Chelvanayakam consolidated his status as the unchallenged leader of the Tamil people, Leader Amirthalingam became his trusted right hand man.  Mr. Amirthalingam immersed himself in all activities of the ITAK – whether the Anti-Sri Campaign or protest march for parity for Tamil or Satyagraha. He organized these to perfection and often brought them to successful fruition. He was the man of action of the ITAK, the Action Hero as he was often called.

Read More

No provisions in SO to deal with violations of the Constitution – Dy Secy Gen of Parliament

METHMALIE DISSANAYAKE AND RUWAN LAKNATH JAYAKODY-AUG 21 2018

Deputy Secretary General of the Parliament, Neil Iddawela said that to the best of his knowledge there are no provisions in the Standing Orders of the Parliament to take action with regard to any violations of the Constitution.

He said this when contacted by Ceylon Today yesterday (20), with regard to the legal procedure that would be followed by the Parliament and the Speaker in relation to the case concerning former State Minister, Parliamentarian Vijayakala Maheswaran’s controversial statement made in July, concerning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), where according to a recent news report in a privately-owned national English newspaper, the Attorney General’s Department had recently communicated to the Speaker that it is possible for the Parliament to take action in this connection and that such action, if taken, should be under the Standing Orders of the Parliament.

Iddawela, who professed ignorance of any such alleged communication having taken place between the Attorney General’s Department and the Speaker, noted, however, that the particular speech by Maheswaran had taken place outside the Parliament, and that it is therefore the responsibility of the relevant institution to take civil and/or criminal action in connection to the matter, in accordance with the law, if the speech constituted a violation of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) said that neither the Bar Council nor its Executive Committee have yet taken a decision regarding the course of legal action to be taken concerning Maheswaran’s statement.

Elsewhere, Media Spokesman of the Speaker, Chaminda Gamage said that the Attorney General is yet to inform the Speaker whether Maheswaran’s comments violate the Constitution. When inquired about recent media reports, Gamage said, “The Speaker wanted to know from the Attorney General, the latter’s opinion on whether Maheswaran’s claims violated the Constitution.
 But, the Attorney General has not responded to the Speaker yet. He only informed that it is possible for the Parliament to take action against Maheswaran. But that is not what the Speaker expected.”
Maheswaran, speaking at a gathering in Jaffna on 2 July had stated that the aim was to revive the LTTE and that it should remerge and be strengthened in the North and the East if the residents of those areas wished to remain alive, free of fear and suspicion, and for their children to return home safely after school. She spoke in reference to the situation that had arisen in the areas as exemplified by an incident involving the sexual abuse and murder of a six-year-old girl.

The question is whether this is the only kind of action (a reference to the Parliament taking action as per the Standing Orders) that may be taken or whether the Attorney General will also file a case against her, President of the BASL, President’s Counsel Udaya Rohan de Silva said.

According to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, under Article 157A(1), regarding the prohibition against the violation of the country’s territorial integrity and Article 161(d)(iv), a citizen taking the oath cannot, “directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the (country’s) territory.”

If the said Constitutional Provisions are violated, legal action can be taken and there will be consequences, including prosecution for a criminal offence, which would upon conviction involve a jail term and in the case of a Parliamentarian result in the revocation of the MP status with the enjoyment of associated privileges also coming to an end.

According to Article 161(d)(iv), when the matter concerns an elected representative, in this case an MP who has taken, subscribed and made the particular oath and affirmation set out in the Seventh Schedule, in turn violating the said oath and affirmation, any person can then make an application stating this to the Court of Appeal, which is the Court of first instance in terms of jurisdiction in the instant case.
And if the Court makes a declaration in the affirmative, that in fact and in law a contravention has taken place, “the seat of such Member shall be deemed to be vacant with effect from the date of such declaration and such Member shall be disqualified from sitting and voting in the Parliament and from being elected or nominated to the Parliament for a period of seven years from the date of such a declaration.”

Further, as per Article 157A (3), upon conviction by the Court, subsequent to a trial on indictment, the guilty party would be subjected to civic disability (not entitled to civic rights) for a maximum period of seven years, and would forfeit their movable and immovable property other than such property as is determined by an order of the Court as being necessary for the sustenance of the person and his/her family.

No constitutional reprieve for a Rajapaksa Fourth Innings

Rajan Philips-August 25, 2018, 7:52 pm 

The twice elected and once defeated former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is apparently being urged by his acolytes to don his pads and get ready for a fourth presidential innings. In his first innings, he got outside help to force some of the opposing players from taking part in the game. For his second innings, his opponents hired a player who was known for his heroics in a different sport but knew nothing about presidential cricket. Rajapaksa hit his no-ball out of the stadium and then locked him up for daring. When the former President tried to play an illegitimate third innings, the people said enough is enough, clean bowled him and sent him back to the pavilion. He went home instead, after meeting the Vice-Captain of the winning team in the pavilion and allegedly striking a deal unbeknownst to the winning Captain.

Everyone thought Rajapaksa’s presidential cricket days were over, but he came back to rouse his supporters and to make sure that he or anyone else in his camp will not be charged for ball tampering and/or match fixing payoffs. He and his team-brothers managed to stall or derail all inquiries, not without help from the twin-captains of the winning team. Now the Rajapaksa cronies apparently think they have found a constitutional loophole to make Mahinda Rajapaksa bat again for a fourth presidential innings. If their interpretation is upheld by the umpires in chief, provided too many of them do not recuse themselves (it may be some of them may have to), and if MR is allowed to bat and he bats well, straight bat or cross bat, in his fourth innings, he could even get to play a fifth innings.

No. Stranger things have not happened even in Sri Lanka. To his credit, the former President sees not only the strangeness but also the absurdity of this presidential re-election ploy. He has reportedly tried to laugh this off: "Mama ovate usaviwala avidinna kemethi nehe(I don’t want to roam the Courts for that purpose)." But his cronies would have none of it, and they have plans up their sleeves and even their slacks, if needed. The former President doesn’t have to go to Court, they have assured him. They will just get a political hack to ask a District Court as to who does the two-term limits on presidential office reinstated by the 19th Amendment (after it was repealed by the 18th Amendment) apply? Does it apply to those who have held two terms in office before 2015, or will it only apply to the one who got elected in January 2015, and others to be elected in future elections? The question will be rapidly tossed over to the apex court. That is the plan, but let me digress.

Lessons from America

The strangest things are happening in the United States of America, the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. The Trump presidency is like no other and the American system is being exposed in the most unsavoury manner in its efforts to rein in an unruly incumbent, who is already being identified as "Individual-1" in criminal court proceedings and as unindicted co-conspirator in the media. Trump is currently enjoying immunity under a protocol, not a specific constitutional privilege, that a sitting president should not be indicted. Where all this will ultimately end is a novelist’s mystery, even though the Trump exposures have exhausted their capacity to shock anyone anymore. Every worst thing has become wholly predictable.

What is also becoming clear is that almost all of Trump’s legal troubles are attributable to the deviant path he took from business to politics. The traditional avenues of a political party in a democratic electoral process provide their own checks and balances to ensure that all the campaign steps are taken in conformance with the law. Trump, as an outsider, shunned the traditional party resources and relied on his opaque business organization, his shady business friends, and on Russian tentacles, to market himself with gusto and to invent and pile dirt on his opponent. The chickens, if not crimes, are slowly coming home to roost.

I would venture two observations from a Sri Lankan standpoint. First, the Trump saga illustrates the absence of a parliamentary forum that enables America’s elected chief executive to get away with anything and everything without concurrent accountability. A government’s constant exposure and accountability to the opposition in parliament is the best check against government overreach and abuse of power. This is not possible in the US in the same way as it works in a parliamentary system. The Congress is supposed to provide the first check against the executive and historically it has worked even when the same political party controlled the Administration and the Congress. It is not so now with a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln is genuflecting before an "uncouth property developer with a huge chip on his shoulder" (to borrow the apt description of Trump by Ian Buruma, the Editor of The New York Review) for the sole reason of not wanting to upset Trump’s touchy base. Trump will enjoy his current freeride with the Congress until the majority in Congress changes hands in the November midterm election, or he is voted out of office in the 2020 presidential election.

My second observation is that Trump’s freeride is only in appearance, for the Trump presidency has been thrown into a tortuous confusion thanks in all parts due to the American judiciary and law enforcement agencies. Historically blamed for its contributions to the entrenchment of racial segregation and discriminations against African Americans, the judiciary has played a very activist role in pulling down racial barriers and advancing civil rights over the last 65 years. Zealous prosecutors in different states have gone after and destroyed root and branch the remnants of the notorious Ku Klux Klan of white supremacists. Quite removed from the political battles over Supreme Court nominations, American judges, attorney generals and investigators at every level have provided the biggest roadblocks to Trump’s nasty schemes.

From Sally Yates, the indomitable former acting Attorney General who declared Trump Administration’s first immigration order targeting Muslims unconstitutional, to Washington District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan who threatened to hold the current US Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) and other government officials in contempt for trying to spirit out of the country two immigrant plaintiffs in a lawsuit before him (the Trump government had to fly back the two plaintiffs after flying them to Central America) - the men and women of the American judiciary and law enforcement agencies are professionally and conscientiously pushing back against Trump’s presidential excesses and are fearlessly probing into his pre-presidential transgressions.

The two American experiences – political and judicial, should indicate that in Sri Lanka every effort is necessary to protect our parliamentary traditions from deteriorating further and that our judicial and law enforcement agencies do not require any political nod or blessing to do their job and bring to fruition the multiple cases involving very important persons. Sri Lanka’s experience in democracy is intertwined with elected bodies – first the State Council and local bodies, later the Parliament, and now extended to Provincial Councils. Without the parliament democracy in Sri Lanka has no meaning. Without parliament and its working traditions in Sri Lanka, the negative effects of the presidential system would have been far worse. JR Jayewardene had no option but try to "marry the two systems", as he said, when he transformed himself from Prime Minister to President.

For the most part, the marriage has been a one sided affair with the executive calling the shots and parliament providing the legislative rubber stamp. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was supposed to rebalance the marriage after the 18th Amendment had strengthened the presidency even more by removing the term limits on an individual president. And now it transpires, rather it is being claimed, that 19A may not have quite done what everyone thought it was doing.

Constitutional Semantics

Legal opinions are being floated pro bono, both for and against the claim that the 19A’s term limit does not apply to Mahinda Rajapaksa. In my understanding, Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama grounds his assertion (The Sunday Island, August 19) that the term limit in 19A does not apply to Mahinda Rajapaksa (or Chandrika Kumaratunga, who is not craving for any more terms anyway), on a number of considerations. First, 19A has created a vastly different, if not totally new, office of the president from the one created by the 1978 Constitution. This apparently is evident from the differences in presidential powers before and after 19A, and the transitional provisions to address the term in office of the incumbent President. Second, because of the pre and post 19A differences in the presidency, 19A’s term limits are applicable only to the current and future presidents and not to those who have held office before 19A. Third, there was no such term limit, or "disqualification", "immediately prior to the 19th Amendment;" therefore, someone who had been elected twice as President before 19A could not be subjected to the new disqualification. And fourth, as 19A does not clearly provide for retrospective application of the term limit, or disqualification, "to citizens who had previously been twice elected to the former (since abolished) office of President," it does not apply to the "two surviving former Presidents, Mrs Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa."

Although it may not have been the intention behind this interpretation, it certainly comes across as having the effect of special pleading for Mahinda Rajapaksa in the current political context. At least from a political standpoint, it seems disingenuous to specially emphasize that there was no term limit "immediately" before 19A without equally acknowledging that the term limit was there from 1978 until it was removed by 18A in 2010. Technically, there was no term limit between 2010 and 2015 while 18A was in effect, but does it matter at all for constitutional interpretation that both our surviving former presidents were elected twice when the two-term limitation was in force. One of them, Chandrika Kumaratunga, served both her terms while that provision was in effect and is not known to have entertained ideas about a third term.

The entertainment came with her successor, Mahinda Rajapaksa, who after being elected for a second term masterminded the 18th Amendment to get rid of the term limit. The Supreme Court at that time and in its wisdom ruled that only a two thirds majority in parliament (and not a referendum) was needed to pass 18A, and Mahinda Rajapaksa had his way. But the people exercised their own wisdom in the only presidential election that was held during the short life of the 18th Amendment, in January 2015. Mahinda Rajapaksa contesting for a third time was defeated, and Maithripala Sirisena promising to rescind the 18th Amendment and restore the term limit was elected. The 19th Amendment flowed directly from that election and its verdict. If it is now suggested that 19A is not appropriately worded to have the meaning everyone was clear about, where is the recourse to honour what the people voted for in 2015?

There will be no need for any recourse if the legal luminaries surrounding Mahinda Rajapaksa drop the matter as he himself laughingly indicated in his first gut reaction to their proposition. Even if the matter were to reach the Supreme Court, one would like to think that the court would give some weight to the sequence of political events between 2010 and 2015 and not permit itself to be entirely swayed by the semantics of the constitutional text.

We can also look at it another way. It seems to me that it is a mischaracterization to call the two-term limit as imposing a "disqualification" on specific persons. Until the 18th Amendment, the presidential term limit was not viewed as a ‘disqualification’, and no citizen could have challenged it as a fundamental rights question. That status quo is now restored and it should apply to all Sri Lankan citizens including dual citizens. And isn’t it being anomalous to suggest that there should be two exceptions out of twenty million Sri Lankans: Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa? Chandrika Kumaratunga is not interested in any exception. Wouldn’t it be silly for Mahinda Rajapaksa, or anyone else on his behalf, to make a claim for such an exception?

The convenience of political amnesia

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Forgetfulness is emerging as a tool of convenient politics. The Presidential Commission inquiry into the Central Bank Bond Scam saw then important Minister Ravi Karunanayake forget millions worth of payments for a Penthouse rent. The payment of millions by Perpetual Treasuries or its associated companies have made two ministers forgetful of how such monies came their way. We now have former President Mahinda Rajapaksa forgetful of an important telephone call from then Cabinet Minister Karu Jayasuriya, relating to the Keith Noyahr abduction.

That was ten years ago – May 2008. Such absence of memory is understandable due to all the politics he has gone through since then, including his defeat in the last presidential election and return to parliamentary politics.

However, there is also the strong possibility of such forgetfulness extending to so many other matters of his presidency, the cause of his defeat in the last presidential poll. Such memory blocks could help him escape thoughts about the extent of corruption during the near decade of his presidency. Yet, the current Presidential Commission probe into the activities of SriLankan Airways and Mihin Lanka, must certainly remind him of the appointment of his brother-in-law Nishantha Wickramasinghe as the Chairman of SriLankan, who clearly brought huge corruption to the National Carrier. Would he have also forgotten the funds of Siriliya Saviya, largely directed by his wife, and all the corrupt practices of his son Namal, which are now before the courts?

Although Mahinda Rajapaksa may have forgotten the threat of near death faced by journalist Keith Noyahr, it is good for him to refresh his mind about it. Such memory refreshment (if needed) is also good about the killing of Lasantha Wickrematunga, the so-called fatal accident of rugby captain Wasim Thajudeen, and the abduction of Prageeth Eknaligoda. These are all matters of crime under the Rajapaksa regime, now before the courts. The public have certainly not forgotten these attacks on democracy and the right to life of the people. In addition, these matters would also involve memories of other members of the Rajapaksa family, who held high office and wielded power in MR’s years of presidency.

Political amnesia is certainly helpful to those seeking to avoid the reprisals from crooked politics. However, it cannot erase from the mind of the public contempt for those who directed such crimes and were closely involved in them. There is an overall delay in bringing these criminals to justice. The FCID, all investigative bodies, and the judiciary, should speedily bring all perpetrators of these crimes to deserving justice, with a revival of memories. Inform the public of all valid information about these crimes, and obstruction to the probes by the lingering forces of corruption.

Presidential poll

The move by the Joint Opposition (JO) to make Mahinda Rajapaksa a candidate in the next Presidential Poll, despite the restriction on the number of terms a person could be President of Sri Lanka, under the 19th Amendment, shows the divisions within the JO on the choice of its candidate.

The main legal opinion on this has come from the JO’s Chairman, Prof. G. L. Peiris, a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Colombo, with his career in the academic field of law. The proposal is an attack on the 19th Amendment, which removed more than two-term period for the presidency, brought about by Mahinda Rajapaksa himself, through the 18th Amendment. What MR introduced with 18A was similar to what prevails in many African ‘democracies’, where the presidents serve for several terms going on for nearly three decades. It was MR’s move to be in office until his son Namal could take over, and continue the Rajapaksa Raja Vaasala. The 19A removed this. The argument now is that the restoration of the two-term limit for the presidency is a ‘prospective’ move related to the future, and has no ‘retrospective’ application – thereby enabling MR to contest again.

The Supreme Court must decide on the matter. GL Peiris expects to take this before the District Court, which will refer it to the Supreme Court, due to restrictions on seeking the advice of the SC on such a matter. Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama, a learned academic in law who has been teaching abroad for many years, is supportive of this view. However, there are other legal opinions that strongly differ, such as Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, whose speciality is Constitutional Law, and was engaged in drafting the 19A, and many other leading academics and practitioners of law.

The 19A is the subject of considerable opposition by the JO, and political parties and groups opposed to changing the JR Jayewardene Constitution of 1978, which Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa, have been strongly opposed to in manifestos and other policy statements. GL Peiris has all these years, while in Chandrika’s and MR’s Cabinets opposed the JR Constitution. However, the present political move, including by sections of the Sangha, is to retain it, especially with regard to the Executive Presidency. Although MR has so far not expressed much support for the GL Peiris thinking, he is not likely to oppose it, if the Supreme Court decides the 19A term limit is not relevant, and the provisions in the 18A, of more than two terms is accepted. A path to the return of the “Maha Rajaneni”.

This is certainly a major legal worry to the public – more than 6 million (51.28%) who voted to defeat MR in January 2015, with the reduction of the terms of the presidency being a key slogan of the campaign.

The JO will certainly have to seek proper legal opinion or a SC ruling with speed, because delays that could lead to a loss of its goal, will adversely affect its campaign for the coming presidential poll. It will resume the infighting within the Rajapaksa Family on the candidacy of Gotabhaya or Basil, with MR’s related concerns for the future of Namal.

The Supreme Court had to decide recently on the opinion sought by President Maithripala Sirisena, on his ability to remain President for six years, and not five years as said in the 19A. He thought that being elected before the 19A was adopted in May 2015; his term of office would be six years as earlier. The SC held that his term was limited to five years, under 19A. A possible thinking on the ‘retrospective’ possibilities suggested for MR’s continued candidacy.

Public sector size and reality

A government clearly divided over many issues affecting the public has recently overcome two major issues – the threatened strikes by the Railway employees, and bus drivers and operators. The public reaction to the very badly timed Railway strike, and the lack of support within the bus services to the threatened bus strike, would have contributed to this. The government should look into the possibilities of closer association with the public, to bring about better understanding on issues manipulated by anti-government forces, leading to strikes.

The Commission to Review Public sector Salaries, to recommend optimal salary structures for the State Sector, devoid of salary anomalies, is a major step forward to bring about a more efficient and functional public service. The recent statement by Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera calling for a total halt to recruitment in the public sector is an important proposal that requires proper follow up. It is certainly not a politically successful proposal. However, it is the responsibility of a government to think beyond immediate popularity, and the wider and future interests of society.

For the past several decades, every government, Green, Blue or of combined colours, have been packing the public sector – departments, corporations and other organisations, with political supporters, with no concern for the success of the institutions. As the Daily News editorial in Thursday (23) quoted Minister Samaraweera, “there are 3,000 workers in a government office when the requirement is only for 1,000; there indeed is something badly wrong somewhere, which calls for immediate remedial action. No doubt, this situation is brought about by the fact that both major parties are today sharing power. If, prior to this, only the winning party stuffed state bodies with their supporters, we now have public sector institutions having to take the combined weight of unproductive labour at the cost of the tax payer, although UNP MPs bemoan that they are yet unable to get jobs for their supporters even though it was the Greens who were at the levers of power”.

This is certainly an expose of the harsh reality of the public sector. Even in the final year of the Coalition of Unity, with its known differences, this calls for action to have a functional and efficient public sector in this country, which is manageable with its economy. It also calls for serious study of educational patterns in the country, which will help trained and trainable youth, to a society and economy that will soon face the realities of the Digital Revolution. This is a challenge that is both political and overly national, calling for strong commitment by government and the private sector.

SRI LANKA’S EX-CHIEF JUSTICE MAY HAVE VIOLATED CONSTITUTION

mage: Former CJ Silva with Ex president Rajapaksa.

Aug 23, 2018 / ECONOMYNEXT – Former Chief Justice Sarath Silva may have openly violated constitution by presenting himself as legal counsel for ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa who was questioned by police in connection with the abduction of journalist Keith Noyahr.

Official sources noted that the police Criminal Investigation Department (CID informed the Mount Lavinia Magistrate that Silva was present as part of the legal team of Rajapaksa when he was questioned at his Wijerama Mawatha home on August 17.

Article 110 (3) expressly prohibits retired judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal from engaging in any form of legal practice. Silva is said to be in breach of this provision when he was present and interjected during Rajapaksa’s questioning.

“No person who has held office as a permanent Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeal may appear, plead, act or practise in any court, tribunal or institution as an Attorney-at-law at any time without the written consent of the President,” the constitutional provision says.

The Sinhala text of the provision says a retired judge from the superior courts cannot practice as a lawyer in court or for any organization or engage in the profession.

The CID was recording a statement from the former president as part of an ongoing case before the  Mount Lavinia magistrate’s court.

There is no punitive action specified in the constitution, but it leaves the door open for a petition to the Chief Justice to decide on a course of action.

The constitutional provision is considered by retired superior court judges to mean that they shall not engage in any form of private practice.

Police said they were confident that Silva, the controversial ex-chief justice who retired in 2009, had not obtained written consent from President Maithripala Sirisena to practice law.

Any action against Silva for  breaching Article 110 (3) could be unprecedented in Sri Lanka. No previous superior court judge had dabbled in legal practice after retirement.

In Silva’s case, he has taken to a political platform and once asked for forgiveness from the people for giving politically-motivated judgements when he was head of the judiciary.

Rajapakse had obtained legal advice during his questioning by the CID from the following: Ali Sabry, Jayantha Weerasinghe, P. Ganesh, G. L. Peiris and Sarath Silva, according to court records. Former president’s security officer was also there.

The CID officers had reportedly stopped professor Peiris intervening as he had no standing in the case. Although he is a professor of law, Peiris has no license to practice law.

In the case of Sarath Silva, out of respect for the previous office he held, the CID did not stop him, but reported the matter to the Mount Lavinia magistrate.

During an otherwise cordial meeting, the former president was seen restraining Silva. One of the lawyers present left the room half way through the interview.

Official sources say further action against Sarath Silva is awaited.

The former president was questioned for about three hours in connection with the May 22, 2008 abduction and torture of Nation journalist Keith Noyahr. (COLOMBO, August 23, 2018)

Time is ripe for a commission on banking and finance

 
Friday, 24 August 2018

By notice published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 6437 of 2 January 1991, President Ranasinghe Premadasa announced the mandate for appointing the last Presidential Commission on Finance and Banking. This happened during a period when the Government was concerned with the primary economic objective of raising the rate of real income growth to the highest feasible level. The focus was centred on inter-alia;

• Maintenance of monetary and price stability
• Alleviation of poverty
• Creation of new job opportunities

Increase of Foreign Direct Investment, new policies for deregulation and granting of autonomy free of controls and restrictions, improvement of the productivity and the efficiency in the private sector and the improvement of public sector savings through a rationalisation of Government activities were the other elements involved in the strategy of the Government. With regard to the poverty alleviation, the objectives encompassed proposals such as provision of adequate infrastructural base and facilitation of investment support.

The Commission was expected to inquire into the prevailing state of affairs and formulate recommendations within the framework of the strategy and goals of the Government. The terms of reference specifically addressed the need to development of policies and reforms to broad base and modernise financial and banking services in keeping with the ongoing technological advancements.

The State banks were undergoing a critical period in their operations due to capital adequacy problems and other issues regarding administration and control mainly due to political interventions. The activities of several finance companies too were in a state requiring immediate course correction.

Central Bank

What we witness today is a resurgence of the constraints and problems similar to what was faced by the banking and finance industry then. The role of the Central Bank in the recent past shows a sordid picture about its own performance of the activities and responsibilities entrusted to it by statute. Doubts have arisen with regard to the effectiveness of the policies and its mechanisms to regulate, improve and ensure the price stability and monetary policy.

The negativity displayed by the Central Bank in the area of sound checks and controls has affected the country’s image in the international scenario. The role played by the Central Bank in support of the achievement of national objectives and economic priorities is far short of expectations and remains subject to heavy criticism.

Leave alone the bank supervision that it is primarily responsible for, the functions falling within its own realm of affairs such as the management of the EPF (just to cite one example), has been severely messed up. The custodian role it was entrusted with to safeguard the biggest financial fund of the country, the EPF, has been grossly defaulted and abused. The CBSL Treasury bond scam is evident of this renege.

Many instances of lapses have been observed in the supervisory role of the CBSL leading to a scandalous state of affairs in the commercial banks including the total collapse of some finance companies.

State banks

The role of the State banks, their accountability to Parliament, involvement in large-scale financial scams and shady deals are matters debated in public today. The revelations in these regards made by the financial sector have become common news.

The ability and the response of the State banks to respond to calls by the Government to flexibly accommodate and play a prominent role in its development strategies remain constrained. Several instances of alleged violations of conformity regarding the tender procedures and procurement including operational shortcomings have been highlighted.

Interference with appointments, promotions and transfers of bank officials affecting their effective performance are taking place. There is a gross duplication of general functions as well as in the establishment of bank branches between the two major State banks while several other areas remain neglected amidst their unhealthy competition.

Lack of proper coordination and control by a central body has led to a huge wastage of public funds in the IT areas due to unnecessary duplications. Many areas of priority lending mandatorily thrust upon the State banks remain neglected in addition to banking services to backward areas and disadvantaged sectors of the society.

Cooperative movement

With this approach the cooperative movement of the country has dwindled to a very poor state despite the fact that People’s Bank was specially set up to sustain and develop it. The role the bank played during the early periods to extend development credit facilities to remote areas through cooperative societies and rural banking network is non-existent today.

The Government has taken other measures and is trying to provide this facility through alternate means leaving the bank which was set up for this exclusive purpose to dwell in other areas neglecting its primary role. The camouflaged accounts which eventually depict a profit picture serves to cover up their total failure to engage competitively in normal areas of banking business and actively engage in the development activities of the Government.

A careful and a closer examination of the balance sheets of State banks will show how they increasingly depend on the earnings from lending to Government and the degree to which they have performed in their normal banking activities. A large percentage of the lending portfolios of the State banks remains confined to direct Government sources and SOEs.

Pawning advances constitute a fairly significant percentage of the balance amount. This shows that the percentage income generation from normal business activities of the State banks is insignificant. It is evident from this that the State banks with a total commitment to the Government on account of their State-backed capital are surviving in business only because of the earnings they generate by virtue of a right to lend to the Government and not based on any performance efficiency. The same poor states of affairs prevail with regard to the contribution of the State banks towards rural development.

The Government has invested large amounts in the equities of non-State sector commercial banks, by way of their resuscitation as well as in the sustenance of the stock market operations. The State has invested a large amount into the banking Industry as a stake holder. The service element appears to have taken a secondary place and the profiteering aspect has taken precedence in the State banks too in their hot pursuit of profits.

Finance companies

We have seen several instances of finance companies crashing. Sometime back a huge conglomerate of Ceylinco Group caused a serious sensational uproar in the country .This was followed by few other smaller finance companies falling down. The latest is the ETI episode still very fresh in our minds. Many others in operation in the market do not enjoy the degree of confidence sufficient to support their business in the long run.  In the meantime many shady deals through leasing and finance companies managed by the banks have come to light. Therefore these institutions too will have to be examined to restore the public confidence and steps have to be taken to safeguard the interests of the depositors and other customers of the finance companies with the introduction of fiscal measures necessary to provide adequate protection.

Credit to the poor and rural credit are areas to be examined by an independent commission to determine the adequacy of the existing system and also to find out whether the industry is sufficiently oriented in this direction.

The market share of the commercial banks in the rural lending has declined. So much so that other non- traditional players such as the NGOs and private companies have entered this market. The social mobilisation that could be imparted through credit delivery to the poor by the banks cannot be replaced and achieved through these alternate means.

An independent commission

It is therefore appropriate at the present time for an independent commission to address these broad issues and make necessary recommendations after a study of the industry within the parameters of the national policy for economic development.

Nearly three decades have passed from the last Banking Commission. Therefore such a step at this stage will help the fulfilment of the visionary ambition of the President to secure a sustainable development strategy and the securing of financial stability.

The establishment of a Commission for Banking and Finance Sectors will be another initiative in the direction of the quantitative and detailed targets associated with the key areas in the recently announced ‘Sustainable Sri Lanka vision and Strategic Path’.

(The writer is a Councillor of the CMC and a former Chairman of Bank of Ceylon.)

Record breaking occasion in Parliament - President defeated ! Even M.P. who tabled delimitation report against !!

(Lanka e News 26.Aug.2018, 4.00AM)The delimitation report on the Provincial councils was defeated in parliament Friday (24) by a majority of 139 votes . The more shocking news is , this was a record breaking occasion in Sri Lanka’s parliament because the very M.P. who brought forward this proposal at the behest of the president also did not vote for it – he kept away !

There were 139 votes against the report while there were none in its favor. Believe it or not ! even Faizer Mustafa the minister of provincial council , local administration , and sports who tabled the resolution did not vote in its favor ! thereby proving such momentous occasions in parliament is just a sport and play to him. It has been proved time and again all parliamentarians in SL take only one thing seriously – they participate most enthusiastically only when the occasion is making parliament a bedlam with the other parliamentary hoodlums .

This is tantamount to a humiliating defeat for the president in parliament because this delimitation commission was appointed by the president himself. This report of the delimitation commission which was appointed by the president was presented under the Act 2017 No. 17 amended by section 3a(2) of the provincial council elections Act 1988 No. 2 , and was tabled in parliament by minister Faizer Mustafa of the president’s faction. Hence this defeat poorly reflects on the president . The latter tabled this in parliament on March 06 th for ratification.

All the parties including UNP, SLFP , Joint Opposition , TNA, Muslim Congress , and other minority parties voted against it on this occasion. As almost always the JVP members were absent at the time of voting .

There were serious allegations made by representatives of TNA, Muslim Congress, Pragathasheeli Tamil Organization and other parties that there are shortcomings in this report , and that the necessary majority seats for members representing the minorities had not been unerringly mentioned. Going by the voting result it was clear the argument advanced by the minority parties were endorsed by the main parties .

---------------------------
by     (2018-08-25 22:47:40)

Maithri visits Medamulana as Ranil defeats him in Parliament

BY Gagani Weerakoon-AUG 26 2018

As a result of the weeks- long campaign by the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe-led United National Party, the country on Friday (24) witnessed the Government voting against its own delimitation report, which  may result in further delaying Provincial Council Elections.
This unprecedented move, according to political analysts and polls monitoring bodies, could be the first instance in the world, or at least the Westminster Parliamentary system, where not only the Government but a Minister who was responsible in facilitating and presenting a report in Parliament too, voted against for something he ideally should have stood by.  

All the 139 Parliamentarians present in the Chamber when the vote was taken, voted against the Report. Among them was Minister of Sports, PCs and Local Government, Faiszer Musthapha, who moved the debate on the Report.

Members of the United National Party (UNP), the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Government faction, the Joint Opposition (JO) and the Tamil National Alliance voted against the report, thereby rejecting the holding of PC Elections under the mixed electoral system. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) was absent.

The report was required to be approved by a majority of two-thirds voting in its favour, in terms of Section 3A (11) of the Provincial Councils Elections Act.

The United National Party was campaigning, for the past few months, for the Provincial Council Elections to be held under the previous Proportional Representation System, as the Delimitation Committee Report, required to be passed with a majority of two thirds in Parliament enabling the Chairman of the Election Commission to announce a polls date.

Political parties representing ethnic minorities also opposed the Delimitation Report. Leaders of such parties including Ministers Rauff Hakeem, Rishad Bathiudeen and Mano Ganesan, who are all allies of the UNP-led United National Front, were against the Report. Political sources also claimed that the recent negotiations between these political leaders and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, regarding the Delimitation Committee Report, were also a result of the Wickremesinghe-led UNP’s canvassing.

Participating in the debate, Leader of the House and Minister Lakshman Kiriella said that the UNP believed the PC Elections should be held under the old electoral system.

He said that the Government wishes to hold the PC’s Elections as soon as possible.

“Preparing new laws to hold the PC Elections under a new system would take some more time. There is no consensus among the political parties regarding the delimitation process. Even the UNP MPs have raised questions on the delimitation methods.
We discussed the possibility of introducing amendments with the JO. But there is no consensus on the delimitation report. If we wait till a new method is agreed on by all, then a couple of more years would be needed before the Elections are ultimately held,” he said.

Minister and SLMC Leader Rauff Hakeem stressed that his Party would break the alliance with the Government if it would not consider forming multi-member constituencies for the benefit of minor and minority parties for the forthcoming PC Elections.

 Minister Musthapha, opening the debate on Friday morning, vociferously said those who would vote against the Delimitation Committee Report would be despised by the people as betrayers of the country. However, he not only voted against the report in the afternoon but also disowned the Delimitation Committee Report.

“Everyone says that this is Faiszer’s report and that Faiszer’s report is going to be defeated. I have nothing to do with this. The report was prepared by a committee appointed by President Maithripala Sirisena and not me,” he said in Parliament.

Meanwhile, Kotte Municipal Councillor Rajika Kodithuwakku on Friday came before the media and accused Minister Musthapha of changing allegiance. Attorney Kodithuwakku, who is President Sirisena’s coordinating Secretary and was appointed to the Kotte MC by the latter in August 2015, demanded that President Sirisena seriously consider letting Musthapha continue in the portfolio as an SLFP Minister.

It is widely believed that Musthapha is seeking an organizer post from a Colombo suburb and is expecting a ticket from the UNP to contest in next General Election.

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna which was largely believed to be the only political party that would vote in favour of the Delimitation Committee Report was also miraculously absent at the time of vote.
 Even though they were not present in the chamber at the time of the vote, the group was witnessed by many watching proceedings on screen seated at the lobby of the Parliament.

AG’s salary issue

In a shocking move, the Government announced in Parliament last Thursday (23) that it decided to withdraw a Motion included in the Order Paper to increase the salary and allowances paid to the Auditor General and refused to cite reasons for the decision when the Opposition sought a clarification.

The proposal in the Order Paper was to place AG H. M. Gamini Wijesinghe on the 8th Salary Step of SL- 4 Salary Scale of the Public Administration Circular No. 06/2006 with effect from 27 November, 2015 and from 1 January, 2016 the salary would be converted in line with the Public Administration Circular No. 03/2016.

At the commencement of yesterday’s Parliamentary Sitting, Leader of the House Minister Lakshman Kiriella announced that the Government withdrew ‘the Determination under the Constitution’ pending in the Order Paper to raise the salary and allowances of AG Wijesinghe.

The JanathaVimukthi Peramuna expressed its shock over the Government’s decision and demanded a clarification from the Government as to why it took such a decision.

JVP MP Bimal Rathnayake: “The proposal to increase AG Wijesinghe’s salary has already been delayed for three years. Now the Leader of the House says that the Government withdraws that Motion. We want to know their reasons for taking such a decision.  The Government should inform the House as to why it decided to withdraw the proposal.”

Kiriella: “We can discuss this matter at a Party Leader’s Meeting. This is the Government’s business. It is totally up to us to decide on Government’s business.”

At this juncture, Chief Opposition Whip JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said: “AG Wijesinghe recently revealed many serious financial irregularities in the public sector. Now we have doubts as to whether the Government is trying to take revenge for that.”

Dissanayake further said that the Government should have held lengthy discussions on the matter prior to withdrawing the Motion.

“Kiriella says we can talk about this during a Party Leaders’ Meeting. But what is the point in discussing after withdrawing it? The Parliament has approved special salaries for all successive AGs in the country until now.
Everyone knows that AG Wijesinghe made an attempt to create a wide social dialogue on the State’s financial irregularities. He made many revelations on frauds and corruption related to public institutions, public officials and ministers. The AG works closely with Parliament.
 Therefore, the matter of his salary is not just a Government business. Parliament also has a responsibility to give him necessary salary increments and allowances”.

Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri said the matter would be directed for Speaker Jayasuriya’s attention.

The Government on Friday (24) made a clarification, in Parliament, as to why it decided to withdraw the Motion, included in the Order Paper, to increase the salary and allowances paid to the Auditor General.

“This new Motion would raise the Auditor General’s salary and allowances to a level higher than what was proposed in the withdrawn Motion.
Actually, our effort is to give him more recognition by further increasing his salary. There is no political revenge in this situation. We would revise the determination and present it again to Parliament in the near future,” Kiriella said.

Changing politics

Rajapaksa family was saddened by another loss, as former President’s younger brother Chandra Rajapaksa who was ailing for sometimes took his last breath on Tuesday (23) at Tangalle hospital.

The remains were kept at the Medamulana house of Rajapaksas’ in Weeraketiya, Hambantota. While it is common that who’s, who’s in politics visiting a funeral house when a politician or member of his close family passes away, the funeral house of the Rajapaksa brother saw the political wind slightly changing its way.

It began with Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy visiting Rajapaksa’s Medamulana residence to deliver the official invitation to attend and deliver a speech at a function, to be held on 12 September in New Delhi.

Rajapaksa is invited as a special guest to speak at this event organized by Virat Hindustan Sangam.

Dr. Swami called on Rajapaksa’s  Medamulana house where he was warmly received by Rajapaksa and his elder brother former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa.

Former President Rajapaksa always considered Dr. Swami as a close friend of Sri Lanka.

“I welcomed my good friend Dr. Subramanian Swamy to Medamulana today and am honoured to accept his invitation to speak in New Delhi. A long-time friend of Sri Lanka, who has always so vehemently spoken out against LTTE terrorism, he has always had Sri Lanka’s best interests at heart,” Rajapaksa tweeted after meeting Dr. Swami.

Meanwhile, Dr. Swami too expressed his admiration for Rajapaksa by tweeting: “It was a hugely enjoyable trip to South Sri Lanka to meet fmr SL President Sri Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family. He is a man to be admired for his decisiveness to wipe out LTTE terror and incidentally also soothe India’s hurt feelings due to Rajiv’a assassination by LTTE.”

Many view Dr. Swami’s arrival to invite Rajapaksa to New Delhi as a measure to mend relations between the Rajapaksas and Indian Government. Dr. Swami, according to sources has quite frankly admitted that his intention is in fact, to do the same. He had mentioned this to a leading Tamil newspaper as well in an interview.

Meanwhile, in a surprise move President Sirisena also visited Medamulana to pay his last respects and was seen having cordial talks with his arch political rival Mahinda, former Speaker Chamal and widely speculated 2020 presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapasa.

President Sirisena’s visit to Medamulana came as a surprise as he did not attend the funeral when Rajapaksa’s sister Gandini passed away in May 2017.

Japan’s concerns

Top defence officials of Japan and Sri Lanka have confirmed that the Hambantota Port, leased to China, should be open to all countries to ensure freedom of navigation, the Japanese national broadcaster NHK reported on its website.

“Despite the lease, there was an agreement that the port remains free of military activities,” Onedera was quoted as saying by NHK.

The statement was attributed to Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera and Sri Lankan State Minister of Defence Ruwan Wijewardene in Colombo on Tuesday.

Onodera, the first Japanese Defence Minister to visit Sri Lanka, has pointed out that the Hambantota Port is located on a crucial shipping route.
Wijewardene said his country will not permit China to use the port for military purposes.

Onodera visited Hambantota yesterday and toured the Port for half an hour, officials in the Port told Ceylon Today.  He was accompanied on the tour by Chinese Embassy officials in Sri Lanka.

Japan has pledged to help strengthen Sri Lanka’s maritime security, authorities said Tuesday, in a new sign of efforts to counter China’s strategic grip on this country, AFP reported.

After meeting the Japanese Minister, President Maithripala Sirisena thanked Onodera for donating two coastguard patrol craft costing over US$11 million in total, his office said in a statement, after talks in Colombo.

“Attention has been drawn to further strengthening maritime security cooperation between Japan and Sri Lanka,” the statement said.
The visit came a week after the US State Department gave US$39 million to strengthen the island’s naval capabilities.

Sirisena said he was happy that Onodera, the first Japanese Defence Minister to visit Sri Lanka, was travelling to two strategic ports on the island.

The Government said it was forced to lease the Port for US$1.1 billion because it could not service loans from Beijing to build the white-elephant facility agreed by former President Rajapaksa. The Japanese Minister also visited Trincomalee, a natural harbour that was the target of Japanese bombing during World War II.

China has edged out Japan as a key funder of ports and other projects in the island in recent years. Sri Lanka has become a key link in its ambitious ‘Belt and Road’ international infrastructure initiative.

China has also vowed to keep on providing financial help to Sri Lanka. The International Monetary Fund, which bailed out Sri Lanka in 2016 with a US$1.5 billion loan, has warned Colombo over its debt.

Nihal Jayawickrema comes out to bat for MR

Campaign to nominate MR revs up as the Opposition’s options run out

Kumar David-August 25, 2018, 7:14 pm 

It is difficult to believe that the timing of a piece entitled "Disqualifying Twice Elected Presidents – A Failed Endeavour?" in the Sunday Island of 19 August written by Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, was fortuitous. In the alternative one would be compelled to say that Nihal has miscued. I have known NJ from 30 years from Hong Kong days, respected his integrity and enjoyed his impish humour. So if I were compelled to, I would prefer to allow that he has goofed than made himself a tool of the Rajapaksa bandwagon. But the facts! The Eighteenth Amendment (18A) by which Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) abolished term limits was greeted with revulsion; it split political parties, evoked mass campaigns and was a factor in his defeat in January 2015. NJ knows this as well as any ardent observer of the political scene. 19A was enacted with the express intention of preventing all presidents past, present and future from exceeding the two-term limit. NJ knows as well or better than any political animal that this was the public demand, what was promised and what every one of us took for granted till that fateful 19 August Sunday.

I reiterate that the timing and content of NJ’s intervention conveys the compelling impression that it is part of the campaign, now in full swing, by the Rajapaksa opposition to overturn term restrictions and allow MR to contest the presidency in 2020. I have no evidence to suggest Nihal is colluding with GL and his gang or conniving to benefit GL’s case in the Supreme Court but undoubtedly it is helpful for MR and GL. Is it not said that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done? Likewise, the remit of one’s interventions is the remit of what those interventions appear to convey. My reluctant conclusion is that my friend Nihal is a pawn in an obnoxious political game.

The way NJ phrases his intervention not only says explicitly that MR can contest the presidency in 2020, but it also implies that if he wins, and wins again in 2025, only thereafter would he be ineligible, having been twice elected after 19A was enacted! NJ is no fool and he must realise this import of what he is saying. NJ knows that term limits for all presidents was what the people called for when they demanded repeal of 18A; he has by hook or by crook distanced himself from this.

Let us for the space of this paragraph concede that the drafters of 19A goofed – I don’t think so, but grant it for a moment. Then the import of NJ’s intervention reeks of: "Hooray they mucked it up! MR can ride again!" (Mention of the Chandrika option is a red herring pure and simple). If that was not NJ’s intention he would have couched his piece entirely differently. His thrust would have been to protect the intent and purpose of 19A. He would have pleaded that inadequacies in wording, if any, notwithstanding the Court must hold with the sentiments of the people and the intentions of the assembly that enacted 19A. The latter is clear from the Hansard records which I trust will be placed before Court. Thankfully I am no accredited lawyer but not an idiot either; NJ’s legalist sophistry undermines the intent of 19A.

If NJ is right that the drafters of 19A goofed, then lawyers are asses as there is not the slightest ambiguity about what the people wanted. Even worse, human rights lawyers who have spoken up against torture, the white-van culture and authoritarianism, if they switch sides and come out to open the batting for Rajapaksa’s team, need to explain the morality of their switch. The Opposition is opting for the ‘Mahinda as candidate’ tactic as a last resort. The first fling was to try out Gota, the barrage of criticism ("racist-fascist") and negative evaluation (you can’t win against a 100% Tamil-Muslim block) put that strategy on the back-foot. Then a JO chucker went out pimping for Dinesh. That never took off, nor did the dead-left’s kite flying for Chamal gain traction. The SLPP Opposition finally fell back on what had always been its trump, Mahinda. There is no gainsaying MR is the JO’s strongest (though still beatable) suit. The danger with this strategy is that if excessive expectation is created but the Supreme Court says "nope", or if it says "come back if the Elections Commissioner throws you out", then the psychological setback could be severe. The dice is on the roll.

The question that many ask is "If NJ is playing along with MR, why is he doing it?" After all he is remembered as a critic of white-vans and assassins. I can only speculate till the maestro himself bowls his next over. There are two possible lines of speculation. He is, reasonably, fed up with Yahapalana’s failures and has decided, unreasonably, that reverting to MR is better. A mistake but I know others too who have shifted to reverse gear. This is political. The other is a personal feud due to the grossly unfair treatment meted out to Mrs B and Nihal by the JR government in which Ranil was a Minister who held his opportunist tongue. Ranil has compromised his moral integrity on more than one occasion so in the context of a failing administration perhaps NJ decided to change sides. Frankly this is all speculation, but speculation NJ has brought upon himself by the content and timing of his article.

The law is an ass

The crucial operative section of NJ’s missive, shortened here and there (why are lawyers so verbose, do they get paid by the word like copy editors?) is as follows.

"A new Article was included by the 19th Amendment. That Article 31(2) reads: "No person who has been twice elected to the office of President by the People, shall be qualified thereafter to be elected". To whom does the disqualification in Article 31(2) apply? On the one hand, it undoubtedly applies to anyone who has been twice elected (after) the 19th Amendment was enacted. On the other hand this is an entirely new prohibition on (others). Immediately prior to the 19th Amendment, the Constitution did not impose such disqualification, therefore, a person who had previously been twice elected by the repealed Article 30 (should) not (be) subject to such a disqualification".

A further point that NJ makes is that the powers and function of the president, when changes enacted by 19A are taken into cognisance, are different (far less) than they were prior to 19A. Under the much hated JR constitution the Executive Presidency was more powerful and odious than the post-19A. NJ’s point is that when 19A imposed term limits it did so only on this less obnoxious presidency that it created and this does not carry over to the odious pre-19A presidency which was a different animal. This is sophistry; the cry in the country was against the excessive, Bonapartist, near dictatorial powers of the JR crafted presidency and the public outcry was against 18A and abandoning term limits. NJ’s incredible story line amounts to: ‘The presidency is not as obnoxious as it was before 19A, so why not let any sod who has had two goes at the loathsome version have two more goes at the improved version’. Insane!

Jayampathy has refuted NJ in the Observer "Mahinda Ineligible to Contest 2019 Prez Poll" in the Observer of 19 August and I guess lots more chaps in black cloaks will weigh in.

(http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2018/08/19/news/mahinda-ineligible-contest-2019-prez-poll-%E2%80%93-jayampathy). I will not add to this legalistic cacophony because what is crucial is the will of the people and the intentions of the legislature at the time and in the processes of enacting 19A. But I must add that I have been present at forums prior to the enactment of 19A where drafters were pointedly challenged to reassure participants that the disqualification provision was retroactive. We were assured that this had been meticulously attended to.

Let me make just two final points and sign off. Nothing that I have said here should be taken to mean that I advocate a Tom Mix style brashness in respect of the law. Of course one must not highjack the written word in cavalier fashion to suit some convenience of the moment. I foresee the criticism that I advocate denigration of the law as written, but such censure is false. Such a concern cannot arise in this instance as this is the first, and in all likelihood it will be the only time, that this aspect of 19A will be put to the test.

Nor must this discussion be jumbled with concerns much debated in the US where judges are differentiated as traditionalist-conservative or liberal-modernist. The former hold that the constitution is a fixed document to be taken literally and the function of a judge is to ensure its proper usage in each specific instance. These judges promote conservative values and rarely challenge reactionary executives. Liberal justices on the other hand believe that the constitution is dynamic and open to advance and they value judicial progress. Nothing of this philosophical debate is even remotely relevant to this piece.

Leadership — What Does it Mean?

The true leader has to be an effective communicator and fixer upper. 

by Dr Ruwantissa Abeyratne- Aug 26, 2018

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”
–John Quincy Adams

( August 26, 2018, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) In a digitally enabled globalized world the term “leadership” has taken a turn from the original concept of a strong person wielding authority and issuing commands, to a person who motivates and inspires.  Rasmus Hougaard and Jacqueline Carter, in their book The Mind of the Leader cite four critical factors sought by today’s workforce: meaning; human connectedness; true happiness; and a desire to contribute positively to the world.  Javier Pladevall, CEO of Audi Volkswagen put it best when he said: “Leadership today is about unlearning management and learning being human”.  Today’s leader has to be connected to herself and to those around her and have a sense of purpose.  She should lead the people towards that sense of purpose.    Peter Drucker – the father of management studies – famously said: “You cannot manage other people unless you manage yourself first”. James Comey, former Director of the FBI, in his book A Higher Loyalty states that the ethical leader does not, and indeed should not demand loyalty from his workers.  Rather, he should seek commitment and a meeting of the minds between himself and his workers, and make the workers’ lives meaningful and fulfilling. The modern-day leader has to direct as well as guide and above all be empathetic and selfless.

It is reported that as much as $ 46 billion is invested on leadership development programmes annually, but the system is breaking down because the old mindset of feeling powerful has not given way to a people-oriented management style.    Rosalinde Torres, a management guru cites three features in the form of questions desirable in a leader: what are you looking to anticipate the next change? what is the diversity measure in your networks? are you courageous enough to abandon past practices?  The overall personality of a leader should reflect the following characteristics that are subsumed in the three main features of Torres: integrity; respect; innovation; teamwork; excellence; customer focus; trust; diversity; accountability; openness; quality; honesty; passion; safety; community; service; collaboration; responsibility; people awareness; and commitment.

A great leader would look at her company as a caring family and, when times are rough, do what a caring family would do.  Hougaard and Carter cite the case of Barry-Wehmiller – which had a revenue of $ 2.4 billion in 2015 with eleven thousand employees, which asked the fundamental question at the 2008 financial crisis: “would everyone in the Organization make a sacrifice so that no one would suffer?”   Part of the answer lay in asking everyone to take a months’ unpaid leave.

It has been said that the difference between management and leadership is the task of management is to bring order and consistency whereas leadership is the attempt to move people to a better place, establish a vision, align people by communicating, and motivating people. Management is goal setting, structuring jobs, delegating responsibility, and monitoring and controlling problems.

Essentially, leadership has two levels: team level; and strategic level.  What has been addressed above is the team level.  A leader has to act at the strategic level as well, which brings us back to the three factors enunciated by Rosalinde Torres.  Underlying the three factors are factors that drive strategic action: knowing the strategic plan; understanding how to link strategic concepts to actions; being good at defining goals, targets and measures; use operational plans to drive strategy; handling the peoples’ side well; and avoiding typical pitfalls of strategy execution.

Arguably the most important strategic direction that a leader should take lies in what is called anticipatory or predictive intelligence.  This has to do with evaluating probabilities and scenario building along with systems thinking. Jordan Ellenberg, a professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in his book How Not to Be Wrong explains how one can go wrong if one does not follow mathematical logic in the reasoning and decision-making process.  The book is about the proper use of probability and statistics and how to reject counterintuitive precincts of mathematical thinking.  This approach would apply almost to any discipline or practice, from running a business to politics.

There are three definitive concepts that would assist a leader in strategic thinking. One is the Probability Theory.   Encyclopaedia Britannica identifies the Probability Theory as: “a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. The outcome of a random event cannot be determined before it occurs, but it may be any one of several possible outcomes. The actual outcome is considered to be determined by chance”.

The second theory is the Game Theory, which is a philosophy drawn on the discipline of applied mathematics, that could be applied to politics and economics.  Investopedia defines the Game Theory as:” the process of modeling the strategic interaction between two or more players in a situation containing set rules and outcomes”. The Game Theory is about maximising returns based on the strategic decisions to be made by contestants at economics, trade or politics. In politics, the theory would help analyze interactions of political agents and strategies between them, this enabling politicians to study strategic interactions between agents. The outcome is a formal modelling approach to social situations in which decision makers interact with other decision makers.

The third theory is called Disruptive Innovation, a business concept straight out of the Harvard Business School which could well be applicable to political strategy.  Disruptive innovation” is an innovation which helps create a new market and value network that disrupts the existing market.  The theory of disruptive innovation was first coined by Harvard professor Clayton M. Christensen in his research on the disk-drive industry and later popularized by his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, published in 1997.  Examples of disruptive innovation abound in the commercial world.  For instance, Wikipedia disrupted the market established for more than 200 years by Encyclopedia Britannica.  the iPhone disrupted the market of the desktop computer and even the laptop computer.

Finally, the true leader has to be an effective communicator and fixer upper.  He has to take decisions quickly.  The Harvard Business Review cites as the main reason for  leaders, CEOs and Presidents of corporations to be  fired as their inability to take decisions quickly.   This brings one to the conclusion of Peter Drucker: “a manager is a person who does things right and a leader is a person who does the right thing”.

The author is President/CEO of Global Aviation Consultancies Inc., and Senior Associate, Aviation Strategies International.  He is a former senior official at the International Civil Aviation Organization.