Thirty-one boats carrying 615 migrants return safely to Moroccan ports this past weekend
Nearly 39,000 migrants have reached Spain by sea so far this year, IOM estimates
Monday 8 October 2018
More than 600 migrants were rescued from boats that ran into trouble in the Mediterranean while trying to reach Spain over the weekend, the Moroccan navy announced on Monday.
Thirty-one boats carrying a total of 615 migrants were returned safely to ports in the North African country, the navy said in a statement carried by MAP news agency.
"Many of the boats that transported them sank due to their dilapidated state," the statement said, without giving the nationalities of those rescued.
The Spanish coastguard, meanwhile, said on Sunday that it had rescued nearly 1,200 people bound for Spain in a 48-hour period.
A total of 38,451 migrants have arrived in Spain by sea from the start of the year until 3 October, according to the International Organization for Migration.
That makes Spain the leading destination for migrants this year, outpacing both Italy and Greece.
Deaths in the Mediterranean remain high, the IOM says, at 1,777 so far in 2018. But that number remains lower than the 2,749 deaths recorded at the same time last year.
On 1 October, 11 people were killed when the boat carrying them between Morocco and Spain capsized in the Mediterranean.
Another 23 people remain missing, the IOM reported, including one child and one infant.
“There is no documented historic precedent" for the scale of changes required, the body found.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said there is no precedent for the sweeping changes required to control the planet’s warming.(Danielle Kunitz, Osman Malik/The Washington Post)
The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change.
With global emissions showing few signs of slowing and the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide — rolling back a suite of Obama-era climate measures, the prospects for meeting the most ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris agreement look increasingly slim. To avoid racing past warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels would require a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before, the group found.
“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrotein a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
At the same time, however, the report is being received with hope in some quarters because it affirms that 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible — if emissions stopped today, for instance, the planet would not reach that temperature. It is also likely to galvanize even stronger climate action by focusing on 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 2 degrees, as a target that the world cannot afford to miss.
“Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the IPCC panel and professor at Imperial College London, at a press event following the document’s release. “It’s now their responsibility … to decide whether they can act on it.” He added, “What we’ve done is said what the world needs to do.”
The transformation described in the document is breathtaking, and the speed of change required raises inevitable questions about its feasibility.
Most strikingly, the document says the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, which amount to more than 40 billion tons per year, would have to be on an extremely steep downward path by 2030 to either hold the world entirely below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or allow only a brief “overshoot” in temperatures. As of 2018, emissions appeared to be still rising, not yet showing the clear peak that would need to occur before any decline.
Overall reductions in emissions in the next decade would probably need to be more than 1 billion tons per year, larger than the current emissions of all but a few of the very largest emitting countries. By 2050, the report calls for a total or near-total phaseout of the burning of coal
Mark Furze, a geoscientist and professor at MacEwan University, discusses the importance of understanding how climate change is impacting the Arctic.(Alice Li/TWP)
“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen. We have to put out the fire,” said Erik Solheim, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that the need to either stop emissions entirely by 2050 or find some way to remove as much carbon dioxide from the air as humans put there “means net zero must be the new global mantra.”
The radical transformation also would mean that, in a world projected to have more than 2 billion additional people by 2050, large swaths of land currently used to produce food would instead have to be converted to growing trees that store carbon and crops designated for energy use. The latter would be used as part of a currently nonexistent program to get power from trees or plants and then bury the resulting carbon dioxide emissions in the ground, leading to a net subtraction of the gas from the air — bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS.
“Such large transitions pose profound challenges for sustainable management of the various demands on land for human settlements, food, livestock feed, fibre, bioenergy, carbon storage, biodiversity and other ecosystem services,” the report states.
The document in question was produced relatively rapidly for the cautious and deliberative IPCC, representing the work of nearly 100 scientists. It went through an elaborate peer-review process involving tens of thousands of comments. The final 34-page “summary for policymakers” was agreed to in a marathon session by scientists and government officials in Incheon, South Korea, over the past week.
(none)
The report says the world will need to develop large-scale “negative emissions” programs to remove significant volumes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Although the basic technologies exist, they have not caught on widely, and scientists have strongly questioned whether such a program can be scaled up in the brief period available.
The bottom line, Sunday’s report found, is that the world is woefully off target.
Current promises made by countries as part of the Paris climate agreement would lead to about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the end of the century, and the Trump administration recently released an analysis assuming about 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 if the world takes no action.
In a statement, a U.S. State Department official expressed appreciation for all the work that went into the report but noted that “governments do not formally endorse specific findings presented by the authors.”
“From 2005 to 2017, U.S. CO2-related emissions declined by 14 percent while global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 21 percent during the same time,” said the official. “This has been possible through the development and large-scale deployment of new, affordable, and cleaner technologies to capitalize on our energy abundance.”
The IPCC is considered the definitive source on the state of climate science, but it also tends to be conservative in its conclusions. That’s because it is driven by a consensus-finding process, and its results are the product of not only science, but negotiation with governments over its precise language.
In Sunday’s report, the body detailed the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the changes that would be required to hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but it held back from taking a specific stand on the feasibility of meeting such an ambitious goal. (An early draft had cited a “very high risk” of warming exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius; that language is now gone, even if the basic message is still easily inferred.)
“If you’re expecting IPCC to jump up and down and wave red flags, you’re going to be disappointed,” said Phil Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “They’re going to do what they always do, which is to release very cautious reports in extremely dispassionate language.”
Some researchers, including Duffy, are skeptical of the scenarios that the IPCC presents that hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, particularly the reliance on negative-emissions technologies to keep the window open.
“Even if it is technically possible, without aligning the technical, political and social aspects of feasibility, it is not going to happen,” added Glen Peters, research director of the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo. “To limit warming below 1.5 C, or 2 C for that matter, requires all countries and all sectors to act.”
Underscoring the difficulty of interpreting what’s possible, the IPCC gave two separate numbers in the report for Earth’s remaining “carbon budget,” or how much carbon dioxide humans can emit and still have a reasonable chance of remaining below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The upshot is that humans are allowed either 10 or 14 years of current emissions, and no more, for a two-thirds or better chance of avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The already limited budget would shrink further if other greenhouse gases, such as methane, aren’t controlled or if and when Arctic permafrost becomes a major source of new emissions.
But either way — in a move that may be contested — researchers have somewhat increased the carbon budget in comparison with where the IPCC set it in 2013, giving another reason for hope.
The new approach buys some time and “resets the clock for 1.5 degrees Celsius to ‘five minutes to midnight,’ ” said Oliver Geden, head of the research division of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
The report is sure to be the central focus of attention this December in Poland when the next meeting of the parties to the Paris climate agreement is held, and countries begin to contemplate how they can up their ambition levels, as the agreement requires them to do over time.
Meanwhile, the report clearly documents that a warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius would be very damaging and that 2 degrees — which used to be considered a reasonable goal — could approach intolerable in parts of the world.
Research charted the movement of thousands of coastal rocks, including a 620 ton boulder that moved 2.5 meters after the 2013-2014 winter storms.(Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
“1.5 degrees is the new 2 degrees,” said Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, who was in Incheon for the finalization of the report.
Specifically, the document finds that instabilities in Antarctica and Greenland, which could usher in sea-level rise measured in feet rather than inches, “could be triggered around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming.” Moreover, the total loss of tropical coral reefs is at stake because 70 to 90 percent are expected to vanish at 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report finds. At 2 degrees, that number grows to more than 99 percent.
The report found that holding warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could save an Alaska-size area of the Arctic from permafrost thaw, muting a feedback loop that could lead to still more global emissions.
The occurrence of entirely ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean goes from one per century to one per decade between 1.5 and 2 degrees, it found — one of many ways in which the mere half a degree has large real-world consequences.
Risks of extreme heat and weather events just rise and rise as temperatures do, meaning these would be worse worldwide the more it warms.
To avoid that, in barely more than 10 years, the world’s percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power would have to jump from the current 24 percent to something more like 50 or 60 percent. Coal and gas plants that remain in operation would need to be equipped with technologies, collectively called carbon capture and storage (CCS), that prevent them from emitting carbon dioxide into the air and instead funnel it to be buried underground. By 2050, most coal plants would shut down.
Cars and other forms of transportation, meanwhile, would need to be shifting strongly toward being electrified, powered by these same renewable energy sources. At present, transportation is far behind the power sector in the shift to low-carbon fuel sources. Right now, according to the International Energy Agency, only 4 percent of road transportation is powered by renewable fuels, and the agency has projected only a 1 percent increase by 2022.
The report’s statements on the need to jettison coal were challenged by the World Coal Association.
“While we are still reviewing the draft, the World Coal Association believes that any credible pathway to meeting the 1.5 degree scenario must focus on emissions rather than fuel,” the group’s interim chief executive, Katie Warrick, said in a statement. “That is why CCS is so vital.”
That’s an approach largely embraced by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which under President Trump has taken numerous steps to roll back regulations on the coal industry.
In an interview with The Post last week, the EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said the United States will “continue to remain engaged in the U.N.'s effort,” despite the fact that Trump has said he intends to withdraw from the Paris climate accord as soon as legally possible.
But asked specifically about what it would take to keep the world below a dangerous level of climate change, Wheeler declined to identify a specific level. The agency’s regulatory approach is that it would allow the coal industry “to continue to innovate on clean coal technologies, and those technologies will be exported to other countries."
In the end, “one thing is for sure” in light of the IPCC report, said Niklas Hohne, a scientist who heads the New Climate Institute, in a statement.
“If we give up the goal and do not even try, we will certainly miss it a long way.”
Juliet Eilperin and Carol Morello contributed to this report.
A jar of Insane OG, a strain of marijuana, is displayed at the opening of "Dr. Greenthumb", the flagship medical and recreational marijuana dispensary opened today by B Real of Cypress Hill fame in Sylmar, California on Aug 15, 2018. Source: AFP
MUCH of Asia is home the world’s toughest drug laws that impose stiff penalties like the mandatory death sentence for trafficking of illicit narcotics.
With the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs thriving in the region, especially in the notorious Golden Triangle, such laws show little signs of changing.
However, some advancements in the medical field have led to the discovery of medical benefits of marijuana, which has for the past decade been used in western countries like the US to help cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, and other patients cope with their symptoms.
A major report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine entitled, “The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”, found that cannabis was extremely effective in treating chronic pain, especially for those suffering from multiple sclerosis. It is also effective for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.
And while remaining largely conservative to the idea of legalising the drug for recreational use, some Southeast Asian countries are looking to catch up with their western counterparts in legalising the drug for medical purposes.
Thailand
In August 2016, the Thai government said there were by both the government and private organisations to discuss the possibility of decriminalising the use of medical marijuana.
At least four agencies agreed that marijuana should be removed from the list of illegal Category 5 drugs.
The four organizations with representatives at the meeting were the Crime Suppression police unit, Drug Suppression unit, National Agricultural Council and officials from the Council of State.
Currently, Thai law prescribes a five-year jail term and/or a THB100,000 (US$2,800) fine for those caught in possession of marijuana. Consumption, on the other hand, could land the accused in prison for a year and/or a fine of THB20,000 (US$570).
The proposal proved to be popular as poll seeking public opinion on whether it should be legalised resulted in nearly 80 percent of respondents saying “yes”.
Even more interesting is that those who agreed with the proposal said the authorities should allow marijuana to be used for both medical and recreational purposes.
(File) Thai authorities have also discussed the possibility of decriminalizing medical marijuana. Pic: AP.
Malaysia
Despite its reputation for having a zero-tolerance on drug-trafficking, the nation is the latest in the region to consider legalising medical marijuana.
Several weeks ago, the government said it has begun informal talks to determine the medical value of the organic drug,
Public debate on the drug came in wake of the death sentence handed to a 29-year-old father of one, Muhammad Lukman, who was caught distributing cannabis oil, mostly for cancer patients.
Under the country’s Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, individuals caught possessing 200 grams or more of cannabis can be charged under drug trafficking, which carries the mandatory death penalty.
The recent conviction and sentencing had also prompted Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to call for a review of the existing drug laws.
Despite President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs that claimed the lives of thousands since mid-2016, the Philippines committee on Health in March last year endorsed the use of medical marijuana.
House Bill 180 prescribes the rules for the proper use of medical marijuana, including the designation of a qualified medical cannabis physician, a medical cannabis patient who shall be issued an identification card, a qualified medical cannabis caregiver and a qualified medical cannabis compassionate centre.
Lawmaker Rep. Seth Jalosjos believes legalising marijuana for medical use “will benefit thousands of patients suffering from serious and debilitating diseases”.
The Bill also has the backing of the Philippine Cancer Society with Dr Jorge Ignacio saying he and other physicians at the organisation support the use of medical marijuana for patients with debilitating ailments and believe that the drug is capable of relieving certain medical conditions.
Medical marijuana has been frowned upon by Filipino leaders in the past, but Albano feels confident that his Bill will pass with Duterte in power.
07/10/2018
The investigation into the abduction and the murder of 11 children has taken a new turn with fresh evidence showing the involvement of former navy chief Wasantha Karannagoda, a magistrate has been told.
Criminal investigators told the Colombo Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne last week that Karannagoda intimately knew about the abductions and is continuing to suppress evidence and was keeping a tab on key navy witnesses.
Karannagoda becomes the second ex-navy chief to face impending arrest over the abduction and killing of 11 children of wealthy families. They were abducted for ransom by a gang of navy officers, allegedly led by Hettiarachchi Mudiyanselage Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi.
The children had been held at naval facilities in Colombo and Trincomalee between 2008 and 2009. Evidence uncovered the CID showed that Karannagoda knew the details, but did nothing to release the children. The abducted children had nothing to do with the Tamil Tigers or the armed conflict, investigators said.
The CID found evidence that the children had been detained in locations controlled by the then navy spokesman D. K. P. Dassanayake and Commander Sumith Ranasinghe.
Karannagoda’s secretary, RearAadmiral Shemal Fernando, had investigated the abductions at that time following a request from former Fisheries minister Felix Perera. Fernando reported to his boss Karannagoda that the children were being illegally held at a navy camp in Trincomalee, but nothing was done to release from their illegal detention or save their lives.
During the ongoing investigation, the Colombo Fort magistrate was told last week that Karannagoda has been keeping a close tab on navy officers who are key witnesses and have given statements to investigators. Karannagoda has now emerged as a key person of interest in the investigation.
He becomes the second senior officer implicated in the case after the former navy commander and current Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne who has been asked to make a statement to the CID. The magistrate has also asked the CID to arrest Wijegunaratne, an order that is yet to be carried out.
Earlier last month, Magistrate Jayaratne asked the Bank of Ceylon to release details of transactions of a navy account between March and May last year.Evidence confirms the navy had given Hettiarachchi 500,000 rupees to escape arrest and flee to Malaysia.
At the time of his arrest last month, Hettiarachchi had in his possession several fake identity cards, including one which he is believed to have used to obtain a passport and travel abroad.
Ironically, the alarm was raised by Karannagoda himself. That was when Karannagoda had a personal issue with his then aide-de-camp Sampath Munasinghe over an illicit relationship that he (Karannagoda) resented. Despite Karannagoda complaining to the police about the disappearance of five children (not 11 as discovered by the CID), the case has dragged on with powerful political interests protecting the suspects.
Police said the current CDS Wijegunaratne was not implicated in the abductions or the murders, but he was accused of shielding the suspects and providing them cash and protection.
Wijegunaratne’s successor Travis Sinniah took office in August last year pledging no forgiveness for any of his officers who might have committed crimes under cover of the island’s drawn out separatist war. But Sinniah, regarded as one of the most honourable officers in service, was terminated in just two months after he was denied an extension of service by President Maithripala Sirisena.
Protests calling for the release of Tamil political prisoners have continued daily in towns across the North-East.
06Oct 2018
Protest in Batticaloa, October 5.
On Friday, Tamils demonstrated in Kilinochchi town and Batticaloa town, in solidarity with the ten Tamil detainees hunger striking in Anuradhapura prison, as well as dozens hunger striking in Colombo's Magazine prison.
Protest in Batticaloa, October 6.
On Saturday a further protest took place in Batticaloa, near Gandhi park, while in Jaffna town campaigners distributed awareness leaflets.
If newspaper and online media reports this weekend are something to go by, President Maithripala Sirisena is toying with the idea of forming a Caretaker Government with his erstwhile arch-rival Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Several newspapers have reported of a meeting between Sirisena and Rajapaksa at the residence of former Minister S.B. Dissanayake, a member of the so-called ‘15 Group’ of the SLFP. Although the outcome of the discussion is still not clear, it can be assumed the discussion has laid the foundation for a continued dialogue over the proposal for a ‘Caretaker Government’.
The desired goal is not too hard to fathom. It envisions a temporary coalition between the SLFP and the Joint Opposition, booting the UNP and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe out of the government. The vote on Budget 2019 may be perceived as an opportune moment by Sirisena and Rajapaksa to try their luck.
An SLFP Parliamentarian in support of this initiative, in an interview with Asian Mirror, explained the end-objectives: “Former President Rajapaksa can be the Prime Minister under President Sirisena in the envisioned Caretaker Government. The same arrangement can continue after the next Presidential election; Rajapaksa can support President Sirisena at the Presidential election and the President will support Rajapaksa at the Parliamentary election. The President has already made it clear that under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution the Prime Minister is the central figure in the government. Therefore, the former President will receive his due place in a future government,” he said.
President Sirisena’s attempt to form a Caretaker Government with the Joint Opposition is in the wake of a botched plan to present himself as the Common Candidate of the UNP-led coalition in 2020. The UNP reportedly informed the President in no uncertain terms that the party does not intend to field a Common Candidate at the next Presidential election. It was after this that the President turned to the Joint Opposition with a fresh pitch to preserve his ambitions.
What remains clear, is that the attempt to form a proposed Caretaker Government, if successful, will only exacerbate the current political crisis and looming uncertainty over the economy. It will plunge the country into a chaotic and turbulent political weather at least until the next Presidential election, worsening the prevailing foreign exchange issue and driving away potential investors. That said, it is important to examine if the formation of a Caretaker Government between the SLFP and the Joint Opposition is feasible.
The last effort the SLFP and the Joint Opposition undertook together was the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in April, this year. The attempt boomeranged on those who initiated and supported it when, in a dramatic turn of events, a large number of SLFP MPs abstained from voting and the motion was defeated in the House with a resounding majority.
This allowed Prime Minister Wickremesinghe to reaffirm his authority in Parliament with 122 votes despite a shocking defeat at the Local Government election in February. Instead of expelling him from the government, the JO’s no-confidence motion gave Wickremesinghe a new lease of life, leaving the SLFP badly hurt and in shambles. The SLFP MPs who supported the no-confidence motion left the government and form a separate group while Sirisena was forced to go back to the drawing board. The Joint Opposition attributed the defeat of the no-confidence motion to the SLFP, as the party failed to throw their full weight behind the initiative and deliver the promised numbers.
This proposed Caretaker Government is the second ‘Joint Venture’ by the SLFP and the Joint Opposition to oust the Prime Minister. The problem, however, is that the SLFP and the Joint Opposition do not yet wield a majority in the House – which is a prerequisite to topple the UNP-led government and oust the Prime Minister. Alternatively, they need the support of the JVP and at least a group of 10 UNP Parliamentarians bold enough to defect from the party and align themselves with the SLFP-JO coalition
The sharp political differences between the two groups make it unrealistic to expect the JVP’s support for a Caretaker Government, and apart from Athuraliye Rathana Thera, a national list Parliamentarian, none of the UNP MPs seem ready to break away from the party and declare war on their leader, the Prime Minister. Even those who took swipes at the Prime Minister before the no-confidence motion was introduced, meekly supported him at the final vote, leaving the originators and the supporters of the initiative in the lurch.
Sri Lanka’s political landscape is distinguished by an oddity not evidenced to that unnerving extent elsewhere in this region, even with all its considerable turbulence.
kishali
How the jaundiced citizen sees it This oddity is that despite an increasingly uncertain economic future as the rupee free falls to unfathomable depths and law and order falters with the Inspector General of Police (IGP) embroiled in one unseemly controversy after another, there is little unified thinking by national level politicians on how to face risks to the country’s economic and political stability which gather in ominous storm clouds above us.
From the jaundiced standpoint of citizens, what we see are quarrelling politicians who are only concerned with how to retain or usurp power while national policies from the economy to industries are left to gather dust on bureaucratic shelves. An excellent recent example is the spectacle of President Maithripala Sirisena lambasting the IGP and calling for reform of the entire police force while Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe lauds the police for ‘effective crime control.’ Meanwhile former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his cacophonous supporters cackle with glee but offer no sensible solutions which indeed, may be somewhat vain to hope for in the first instance since it was the Rajapaksa Presidency that unprecedentedly squandered public finances for personal gain.
And in accordance with what appears to be the increasing madness of the political establishment, a state television channel blares triumphantly after taking television cameras to a hamlet to interview open mouthed residents, that stories saying that villagers ate ‘murunga (drumstick) leaves’ out of hunger was a ‘diabolical lie’ spun by Rajapaksa propagandists.
Acute need for independent regulation of electronic media Indeed, it seems that state electronic media channels are rapidly reaching the asinine levels of Rajapaksa propaganda immediately leading up to the shock election defeat in January 2015. This asininity is deplorable but nevertheless, the pattern is all too familiar. In the first years of a new Government coming into power, a measure of fairness is maintained in state news broadcasts. We saw this time around as well in the months after January 2015. But as the centre of power grows uncertain, that impartiality dissolves to be replaced by blatantly partisan coverage. On its part, the private electronic media is marked by a lack of professionalism and is even more sensationalist and politically partisan in its functioning.
This is exactly why an independent broadcasting authority, exercising its neutral writ over state and private electronic media channels remains a dire necessity. Sri Lanka already has an excellent blueprint for this, laid down more than two decades ago, (in terms of the deterioration of the country’s collective intellect, it seems two eons ago) in a seminal decision of the Supreme Court in the Broadcasting Authority Bill case. Here, our best judges of the day laid down guidelines for the constitutionality of such an Authority, (Athukorale and Others v The Attorney General, 1997). It was cautioned that “having regard to the limited availability of frequencies, and taking account of the fact that only a limited number of persons can be permitted to use the frequencies, it is essential that there should be a grip on the dynamic aspects of broadcasting to prevent monopolistic domination of the field either by the government or by a few..’
It is interesting that the Court addressed its mind not only to the question of governmental control but also ‘by a few…’ in that the independence of the media is affected equally by politically biased corporates seeking to expand their sphere of influence as it is by political control. The way an Authority should operate, its composition and character was also discussed in this decision which remains a signal example of the Court taking its constitutional role seriously at the time. This is a standard that we should return to even as future priorities in media law reforms are being discussed at the national level.
Injustices that occur due to failure of Rule of Law Meanwhile, the ‘madness of the political establishment’ has far reaching consequences. This week, a police officer, reprimanded by his superiors for stopping a lorry carrying sand without (as he alleges) adhering to the conditions of the issued permit, pointed a gun to his head in public and threatened to shoot himself. He was speedily dealt with by being clapped into prison but his relatives bemoaned the fact that corrupt superiors flout the law with impunity while subordinates implementing the law are imprisoned.
There is a point here which ought not to be missed. The police sought to justify the action taken against one of its kind by saying that a permit to operate the lorry in question had been in possession of the lorry driver and that a police officer cannot go around waving a firearm in the open. This seems eminently reasonable. However, it is less clear as to whether the conditions of the permit had been flouted.
If so, the monumental injustice meted out to this police officer illustrating the failure of the Rule of Law links up to President Maithripala Sirisena’s outburst that the entire police force must be revamped, starting from its head, the IGP. It is not a particularly reassuring sight to see Ministers shrugging off this IGP’s excesses by saying airily that this is merely due to his over-familiarity with the media. There is far more in issue here as discussed in these column spaces during the preceding weeks. And this problem must be addressed if the Government is serious about retaining public legitimacy though this tends to be in doubt given its erratic actions.
A nation perpetually in chaos But to be clear, the reference in these column spaces to the gathering madness of the political establishment is meant equally for ruling politicians and their opponents alike. Excuses offered by Government frontliners including the Minister of Finance, citing Rajapaksa-era degradation as justification for the unsteady if not wayward stumbling of this Government is nonsensical. Even so, this is trumped by the sound and fury of the Rajapaksa lobby signifying precisely nothing.
The danger however is that the vote in impending elections next year may be compelled by sheer disgust of the right royal mess being made in the corridors of power rather than a sensible contemplation of the worse horrors that an alternative may bring.
Some weeks ago, when engaging in an exchange of views on the state of politics in this resplendent isle with a more indifferent conversationalist, I was met with the cynical reflection that ‘Sri Lanka was in chaos when we were born, it remains in chaos while we live and assuredly it will be still in chaos when we die.’
That may indeed be a fitting epitaph for this nation and this land.
(Sunday Times)
Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera recently presented the Appropriation Bill to the Cabinet which states that next year’s State expenditure will be Rs 4,376 billion and the budget deficit will be Rs 644 billion which is 4.1% of the GDP.
The highest amount of allocations under the Appropriation Bill, which is to be presented to Parliament by Minister Samaraweera on Tuesday (9), has been made for the Ministry of Defence. The allocation for Defence in the year 2019 is Rs 306 billion. A sum of Rs 221 billion has been allocated for the capital and recurrent expenditure of Provincial Councils.
At the same time, capital expenditure of several Ministries including, Education, Health, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Finance, Fisheries, Agriculture and Megapolis and Western Development have been increased.
The Government revenue in the year 2014 was 11.5% of the GDP and, it was gradually increased after the unity government came into power and, it is expected to be increased to 15.1% of the GDP in 2019, the Treasury stated.
At the same time, a surplus was reported for the first time after 63 years in the Government’s Primary Balance in 2017 and, it is expected that this surplus will increase by 1.3% of the GDP in 2019.
Rs 2,057 billion has been allocated for debt servicing in 2019. This is the largest amount of money a Government in the history of this country is compelled to bear in repaying its borrowings. Out of this amount, Rs 1,271 should be paid locally next year while Rs 786 billion, which is equal to 4,650 million US dollars should be paid to foreign lenders. Accordingly, the Government expects to borrow Rs 1,944 billion from local and foreign sources for its debt servicing including the financing of the budget deficit in 2019.
Among the Government expenditures, Rs 1,456 billion has been allocated for recurrent expenditure of the public sector while a sum of Rs 856 billion allocated for capital expenditure.
The Government is to spend Rs 1,000 billion for the salaries of 1.1 million public servants and 600,000 pensioners and an additional Rs 220 billion is allocated to provide public welfare such as Samurdhi allowance, school uniforms, free medicine, allowances for the elders, fertilizer subsidy, a bag of nutritious food, payment for kidney patients and payments for the differently-abled.
Finance Minister Samaraweera has made allocations through the Appropriation Bill substantially to implement major development projects which bring direct benefits to the people of this country. These include road development, housing development, irrigation and drinking water supply development.
A sum of Rs 63 billion has been allocated for a series of development projects aimed at rural livelihood development programmes such as One Project for One Village Development Programme, Grama Shakthi, Gamperaliya and Pibidena Polonnaruwa.
A sum of Rs 175 billion has been allocated to develop highways and complete the Southern Expressway development up to Mattala; to develop and complete Colombo Outer Circular Road from Kadawatha to Kerawalapitiya and, construct the stretch of the Central Expressway from Kadawatha to Mirigama. This will also include the construction of the elevated Port Entry Road from Peliyagoda to Colombo International Financial City.
A further sum of Rs 75 billion has been allocated to complete middle and massive irrigation projects including the completion of the Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project and Moragahakanda Development Project.
At the same time, the Government has identified various housing schemes to be launched throughout the country in 2019.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs 50 billion has been allocated for the relevant ministries which are responsible to launch these housing development projects. Among them are urban housing development projects to be built by the Megapolis and Western Development Ministry, housing projects implemented by the Housing Development Ministry, housing development projects in the North and the East and the Estate housing development projects. Simultaneously, a sum of Rs five billion has been allocated for the proposed Colombo Light Railway Transit System which has been earmarked to begin construction from the Peliyagoda New Bridge next year.
In addition, a sum of Rs 50 billion has been allocated to implement several water supply schemes including Jaffna Kilinochchi Water Supply System, Kelani River South Bank Water Supply Scheme and Matale Water Supply System. Extra funds have been allocated for the development of the railway and road transport sectors in order to upgrade the strategic city development.
The Budget will be presented in Parliament by Minister Samaraweera on 5 November 2018.
Jo to defeat budget
SLFP rebel group frontliner and former Minister S.B. Dissanayaka said that the Joint Opposition would pool all its power to defeat the Budget 2019 and form an Interim Government, until the General Election scheduled to be held late 2019, with Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister under President Maithripala Sirisena.
He said that all progressive forces including members of the Tamil and Muslim political parties and a section of the UNP who are disappointed and dejected over the policies of the UNP and party leader would be invited to join the Interim Government.
The SLPP led by Mahinda Rajapaksa would be the leading party of the proposed Interim Government, he added.
Dissanayake also appeared confidant when pointed out that there was a risk of SLFP Members including Rajapaksa losing their parliamentary seat if they sought SLPP membership.
“It could be sorted out as the new Interim Government would be formed under President Sirisena with Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister. The main objective of forming an Interim Government is to save the country and nation from this calamity. The economy is in shatters.
Exports have been slowed. The Rupee is depreciating daily and prices of all commodities rising with no control. Not only the low income families but the lower middle class is also trying to make ends meet. We will try to put an end to this predicament faced by people and give them some relief. We have the full support for the Interim Government from the MEP led by Dinesh Gunawardena, Democratic Left Front led by Vasudeva Nanayakkara, National Freedom Front led by Wimal Weerawansa, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya led by Udaya Gammanpila, Ceylon Workers’ Congress led by Arumugam Thondaman and so many other Muslim and Tamil Parties,” he stressed.
Meanwhile, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) led by President Maithripala Sirisena has appointed a committee to work out the steps to be taken to mitigate the current political and economic crises in Sri Lanka and submit a report in a week.
The UPFA Executive Committee met on Thursday (4). Its main constituent party is the SLFP. Gunawardena, who attended the meeting, said that the committee comprised representatives from the UPFA allies. He said the alleged plot to assassinate President Sirisena and former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa was also discussed at the meeting.
“The committee will study how to conduct the elections to the Provincial Councils as early as possible along with other issues such as the economic crisis and the political crisis. It will report to the Executive Committee in a week,” the MP said.
Agriculture Minister Mahinda Amaraweera and Transport Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva represent the SLFP. The others are Ceylon Workers’ Congress leader Arumugam Thondaman, National Congress leader A.L.M. Athaullah, former Ministers S.B. Dissanayake and Susil Premajayantha.
IGP’s fate hangs in balance
The Inspector General of Police (IGP) has undermined his role and his immense responsibility to protect the peace of the country and has become a joke, President Maithripala Sirisena stated at the weekly Cabinet meeting.
Expressing his disagreement with the actions of the IGP, the President has further directed the attention of the Cabinet towards this matter as he has stated that if the IGP’s actions were to continue in such a way, action should be taken against him.
It was reported that the President has stated that the IGP’s behaviour belittles the country as well as its leaders. Furthermore, the President has stated that he himself has been criticized due to this issue.
The President has also stated that he will take stern action in this connection, if the IGP does not stop his erratic behaviour.
It is of special note that the President has stated this in his first meeting with the Cabinet of Ministers after his arrival from attending the United Nations Summit.
During this instance, the Minister of Public Administration and Management, and Law and Order Ranjith Maddumabandara has stated that a comprehensive investigation will be launched into the IGP’s actions.
However, it was reported that several Sri Lanka Freedom Party Ministers have stated that the IGP would not put a stop to his unusual behaviour, even if an investigation is to be conducted. It was also noted that the Ministers of the United National Party had not expressed any opinion against the IGP.
Meanwhile, Cabinet Spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said President Maithripala Sirisena would take a decision on Police Chief Pujith Jayasundara in the next few days unless he tendered resignation.
Minister Senaratne admitted that it was difficult for IGP Jayasundara to remain after President Sirisena expressed his displeasure over his behaviour in public and as the Police Chief.
Minister Senaratne said the IGP was appointed by the Constitutional Council and therefore, President did not have the power to fire him. He said but Members of Parliament could bring and pass an impeachment motion against him in Parliament and then the CC could fire him. He admitted that President Sirisena berated IGP Jayasundara at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday (2).
Interestingly, not a single Minister, including Minister of Law and Order Ranjith Maddumabandara under whom the Police Department runs, did not say anything against what President said on Police Chief, he said contrary to other reports.
“Jayasundara has been questioned last Friday (28) by a three-member Special Committee appointed to investigate allegations levelled against him that in 2008 that he accepted a bribe of Rs 12 million from a former Principal of Trinity College, Kandy,” he said.
President Sirisena’s second act of defection, if it were to happen at all, will be very different from his first act four years ago. The defection on 21 November 2014 was historic, heroic and dramatic. The likely second defection will be none of that, but unheroic, undramatic and opportunistic. There is more than speculation about a Sirisena defection from the shambolic ‘unity government’ to a new and mutually beneficial ‘Rajapaksa arrangement.’ The plan apparently is to defeat the UNP-government on the budget vote in November by mobilizing ‘anti-UNP forces’, and to replace the defeated UNP-government by a government of ‘anti-UNP forces’, with Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.
That is only Phase 1 of the plan. In Phase 2, Maithripala Sirisena will contest the 2019 presidential election as the anti-UNP candidate, presumptively win the election and prepare the base for the next phase. Phase 3 will start in 2024, when Namal Rajapaksa will be legally old enough to be a presidential candidate. Presumptively, as well, the same anti-UNP coalition will win the 2020 parliamentary election again with Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. Between 2019 and 2024, the younger Rajapaksa would be able to gain cabinet exposure and experience under his father’s tutelage to create whatever presidential material that can be made out of him. The prince’s learning will be aided and abetted by his uncles who will all be accommodated in a generously large cabinet of ministers to make up for frustrated presidential ambitions.
By the looks of it, the plan is no more than a comprehensive family plan. But one should not be too cynical about it because what is in it for the country is no less than the assurance of the re-enactment of the ten-year economic miracle that Sri Lanka apparently went through between 2005 and 2014,without anyone actually noticing anything. The only proof of this fantastic miracle is in the assertion of the former Central Bank Governor that under his leadership at the Bank and the overall leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa in the country, Sri Lanka’s economy grew through the roof from USD $24 b in 2005 to USD 79 b in 2014. It is left to the economists to figure out whether the former Governor is (ac)counting current prices or constant prices, not to mention the current rupee’s constant decline against the US dollar from 1978.
The plan and its pitfalls
The falling rupee is naturally a political football and it is fair game in politics for the opposition to make as much kick out of it as it could. There is no harm in the current opposition doing it and under whatever name – JO, SLPP, SLFP-SLPP, or the catch-all anti-UNP forces. The question is one of credibility, the credibility of ability as well as past record. But the business of the economy is not the driving motor behind the new Rajapaksa-Sirisena PM-President plan. The driving motor is family succession and the politics of the plan has four aspects, or challenges, to it: its organizational viability; its implications for the SLFP of SWRD Bandaranaike at the national level; its implications for the UNP and Ranil Wickremesinghe; and the response it could and should generate among the so called yahapalanaya forces.
On the organizational front, the plan may just pass without any fuss but there are also pitfalls. Harnessing the so called anti-UNP forces in sufficient numbers to defeat the UNP-government on the November budget may prove to be just as futile as it did during the failed No Confidence Motion against Prime Minister Wickremesinghe earlier this year. The new Rajapaksa-Sirisena unity plan may repel some parliamentarians just as it might attract others. On the final count, the numbers may not be just enough to defeat the UNP-government on its budget.
As well, the UNP and the Sirisena-SLFP may be joined a little too much at the hip to their own likings, and severing them cleanly may prove to be too painful, if not impossible. For example, the formal severance of the fake unity-government will make it impossible for the President and the Prime Minister to resolve the government-made problem over Provincial Council elections. Their acolytes can mudsling one another but the mud will land on the two leaders quite equally, so much so that the Rajapaksa faction may have second thoughts about forging unity with a muddied president.
A second fault line could be the aversion within the opposition forces to the brazen family purpose behind the plan – to engineer lineal or hereditary Rajapaksa succession in the presidential office. On the ridiculous side of politics, competing hereditary aspirations may arise among the Sirisena children the longer their father stays in office as president. After all (to the Sirisena children) it is their father, and not the other father, who helped attenuate the aggrandized presidential powers by pulling off a near unanimous support for the 19th Amendment in parliament. Nobody can take way from Maithripala Sirisena the credit for the passage of 19A in parliament. The sad irony, however, is that Mr. Sirisena has since done much harm to the spirit of 19A and positive little to advance its real purpose. And the blame for this falls equally on his failure to seek good political advice and the limitations of those who gave him wrongheaded advice.
Anti-UNP politics then and now
On the more sublime side of politics, the question is how the Rajapaksa-Sirisena arrangement could be squared with the founding principles that the late SWRD Bandaranaike would have thought through when he launched the SLFP after he made his own historic defection from the UNP. To digress a little here, soon after the breakup of the United Front in 1975, Dr. Colvin R de Silva let out of his chest, what the Left might have been holding up for almost 15 years – that the only worthwhile point of the sacred Bandaranaike principles was that the United National Party could not be defeated without a broad coalition of all anti-UNP forces. In fairness to Mr. Bandaranaike, there was more to his politics than just defeating the UNP. Although in classic leftist polemics he was eviscerated for this, it is fair to say that SWRD genuinely wanted the SLFP to be a centre-left alternative to the UNP not only in left-of-centre economic policies but also in the style and tone of parliamentary democracy.
In particular, SWRD abhorred the family bandysim of the UNP and kept his family, nuclear and extended, totally and cleanly out of the business of politics. At the broader level, SWRD was all for enabling the role of the opposition parties, which were primarily leftist in his time, in the functioning of the parliamentary system. The UNP, on the other hand, was all for deploying the state resources to its sole advantage and none to the benefit of other political parties. The celebrated B-C Pact that Mr. Bandaranaike reached with his Tamil counterpart, SJV Chelvanayakam is still a touchstone for inter-ethnic reconciliation in Sri Lanka. As it turned out, SWRD both benefited from and was overwhelmed by the forces of chauvinism unleashed by electoral politics. His assassination brought to an untimely end what was meant to be a different trajectory for politics in the island. No less tragically, his successors chose to ride the expedient components of his legacy for electoral success and jettison the more statesmanlike initiatives that required greater commitment and exceptional ability to sustain them.
It is against this backdrop of history that one must assess the current politics of mobilizing anti-UNP forces under a joint Rajapaksa-Sirisena leadership. The first question that should be asked is how a political scheme to create a clear path for Namal Rajapaksa to become President of Sri Lanka in 2025 would ever be compatible with SWRD Bandaranaike’s founding principles for the SLFP. The second point is that the tone and style of Mr. Bandaranaike’s politics are much of what now goes as good governance. The corollary question is what common ground there is between the politics of the Rajapaksas and the attributes of good governance.
The biggest incomparableness between the anti-UNP politics of the last century and the purported mobilization of anti-UNP forces in 2018 under a Rajapaksa-Sirisena leadership stems from the fundamental contextual difference between then and now. The only thing that is common between then and now is the surviving remnants of the Old Left who were against coalition politics then, but are genuflecting before the Rajapaksas for ministerial validation now. Their recycled rhetoric has no correspondence to today’s realities. There is nothing else that is common between what are in fact two different eras – politically, socially, demographically and most of all globally. Put another way, any claim of the Rajapaksas or their supporters to be the custodians of socialism in contemporary Sri Lanka should be dismissed out of hand as pure fakery and poor fiction.
Maithripala Sirisena got to where he is now not by mobilizing anti-UNP forces but by mobilizing the common opposition forces against a seemingly invincible juggernaut of a Rajapaksa regime. If he is planning to rejoin the Rajapaksas on the pretext of mobilizing anti-UNP forces, he should ask himself and should be asked by others – what assurances there are, or Sirisena has been able obtain from the Rajapaksas, that they will be any different on their return from what they were when Sirisena defected from and defeated them in 2015. The bigger question is how will those, who did the political leg work for Sirisena’s historic victory in January 2015, respond to his not so sudden turnaround to play checkmate politics now? The answer to that question invariably involves an elaboration on the failure and the future of Ranil Wickremesinghe as the leader of the UNP, which is also a very different animal from the UNP of the last century.
Monday 8 October 2018
06
