Prominent political scientist Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda today urged all religious leaders, community leaders, civil activists, and senior citizens to come forward and intervene in resolving the current political crisis which has made a debilitating impact on every aspect of the country.
Delivering the keynote speech at the Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera commemorative event at the New Town Hall, Colombo, this evening, Uyangoda said only such an initiative could bail the country out of the mire it is in.
“What we need, at the moment, is a ‘moral intervention’ by all these groups. The political organizations alone cannot find a solution to the current crisis,” the political scientist explained. “Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera appeared for a civil society movement that was able to make moral interventions. It is the very approach that we need today – at a time when the entire country is grappling with an unprecedented political crisis.”
“In the absence of such an approach, the prevailing political crisis might slide into a bloodshed,” he added.
“From what I see, there will be a fierce confrontation between the Legislature and the Executive in the coming days. In the absence of an amicable solution, the current crisis may end in some sort of violence.”
Uyangoda added that the face-off between the Executive and the legislature could result in far-reaching ramifications and it was the responsibility of everyone to rise up to the moment and help contain the crisis.
Meanwhile, addressing the same event, Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya said Sobitha Thera, a crusader for freedom and democracy, would have been dejected if he was alive today see the conduct of the common candidate he vigorously campaigned for.
“But Sobhitha Thera saw the first signs of President Sirisena’s uncivilized conduct. On the day Shiral Lakthilake was appointed Advisor to the President, Sobitha Thera telephoned me and described it as an “ungrateful” act. We have experienced this ungratefulness many times since January 2015,” Wijesuriya said.
“What he did, on October 26, did not occur on the spur of the moment. It was a carefully planned and well-executed act. The President slowly prepared the ground for this drastic, undemocratic act that went against the aspirations of everyone who voted for him in the hope of democracy and good governance.”
“It was President Sirisena who stood in the way of law enforcement authorities when they tried to take action on corrupt individuals, murderers, and criminals linked to the previous regime,” Wijesuriya said. “Susil Premajayanth was the first person to challenge the legality of the Police Financial Crimes Investigations Division (FCID). The President also intervened to stop a corruption investigation against Premajayanth. Today, Susil Premajayanth took paths before Sirisena as the Justice Minister of the country.”
The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has ruled out support to the Sirisena-Rajapaksa government in parliament under any circumstances.
A four-member TNA delegation led by its leader R. Sampanthan made its position clear to President Maihripala Sirisena yesterday.
President Sirisena met the delegation, close on the heels of TNA MP S. Viyalendiran being sworn in as Deputy Minister of Regional Development (Eastern Development).
The TNA delegation comprised R. Sampanthan, Selvam Adaikkalanathan MP, Dharmalingham. Siddarthan MP, and M. A. Sumanthiran MP.
Political sources said that the TNA delegation had met President Sirisena at the Presidential Secretariat on the latter’s invitation. The meeting lasted for one and half hours.
Before Viyalendiran switched his allegiance to President Sirisena, the TNA parliamentary group comprised 16 lawmakers, including two on the National List. Another TNA MP Shivashakti Anandan, too, has rebelled and decided to remain independent.
TNA spokesperson Sumanthiran said: "The situation currently prevailing in the country was discussed at length. The President explained to the TNA delegation the circumstances under which certain decisions were made. The TNA delegation explained to the President the reasons for the decisions that have been made by the TNA and its members of Parliament, which decisions had been made public and are well known to the country and the world. The TNA delegation also explained to the President that the decisions taken by the TNA cannot be reversed and that the TNA will stand by the said decisions.
The TNA delegation also specifically told the President that in consultation with the President it would extend to the President its fullest support with regard to any future steps taken by him to stabilize the political situation in the country with the cooperation of all political parties. To enable this to be achieved at the earliest the TNA also urged HE the President to convene Parliament for a date earlier than now contemplated. The President stated that he would give his earnest consideration to this request."
Political sources told The Island that the TNA and the JVP would work together in parliament to thwart the new administration. Both the TNA and the JVP backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at January 2015 presidential polls.
The JVP parliamentary group consists of six members, including two on the National List.
Sirisena-Rajapaksa combine has lost one out of its 95 member parliamentary group to the UNP since the President sacked Wickremesinghe as the PM on Oct 26.
Sources said that seven SLMC MPs (six elected/appointed on the UNP ticket and one on the SLMC ticket) were still with the UNP though so far Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, Wasantha Senanayake, Ananda Aluthgamage, Suresh Vadivel, Dunesh Gankanda, S.B. Navinna switched allegiance to the new government. In addition Ven Athureliye Rathana appointed to parliament on the UNP National List has already declared his support for the new administration.
The SLMC, too, backed Sirisena at the 2015 presidential polls (SF)
Sri Lanka’s politico-constitutional crisis has begun to show signs of deteriorating into an open struggle for state power, ensuing extra-parliamentary causes of action for its resolution. This path to potential violence and total retreat from democracy needs to be prevented forthwith.
Yet, at the moment there does not seem to be political space available or conditions conducive for such a peaceful end to the crisis.
Only the enlightened self-interest dawned on the main protagonists to the conflict can avert a confrontation with destructive political consequences. For them, particularly for Sri Lanka’s President and the two competing Prime Ministers, the time has come for exploring peaceful alternatives to the present deadlock, which is now moving in the direction of a dangerously volatile phase.
Paradoxically, parliament seems to be the new arena of contestation between the two sides. At the same time, and paradoxically, parliament is likely to be used not as a forum for mature debate and discussion for conflict resolution, but as an arena for, to borrow a phrase from George Orwell, ‘a war minus the shooting.’
This power struggle has been brewing for quite some time. What was initially a three-cornered one seems to have suddenly taken the form of a two-cornered, bipolar, power struggle.
The events amidst the rain and darkness on the evening of October 26 and the days that followed, have led to crystallization with utmost clarity, that Sri Lanka’s power elites have now drawn the battle lines clearly. Most worryingly, employing extra-parliamentary means to settle this ever-sharpening dispute for state power might even be viewed as an unavoidable political necessity, arising from political realism.
That provides the context for the possibility of parliament becoming the arena for extra-parliamentary solutions to the crisis. This is precisely the possibility that needs to be immediately averted.
The current status of the conflict shows that the resources, both institutional and intellectual available to the two camps of politicians, are fast becoming inadequate to settle the escalating conflict peacefully. Actually, now it is a political conflict that is fast moving beyond the limits of political capacity of the professional politicians and their advisors.
The conflict is now too serious to be left to politicians alone for its resolution.
This increasingly dangerous political situation calls for politico-moral intervention by religious and community leaders, respected elders, civil society movements, and concerned citizens.
Their moral intervention has great immediacy. It has to be, literally, today or tomorrow, before the convening of parliament on the 14th.
Colombo civil society owners, latest democratic campaigners and different types of “Yahapalanaya” apologists who suddenly woke up and found democracy in peril and rushed to the streets to save democracy and the constitution
by Kusal Perera-
( November 8, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) I see no reason why the parliament cannot be “constitutionally” dissolved immediately.
It is in very clear black and white letters written into the Constitution and that remains one of the very important provisions these stupid politicians have not been able to amend or change as yet. It’s the “Sovereignty of the People”.
Although the Colombo civil society owners, latest democratic campaigners and different types of “Yahapalanaya” apologists who suddenly woke up and found democracy in peril and rushed to the streets to save democracy and the constitution, did not have a semblance of decency and civility to come on the streets and oppose the 19A which violates People’s Sovereignty by denying the right of the people to change and elect a government for 04 years and 06 months.
This very selfishly crafted 19A for Ranil Wickramasinghe to continue this time for 04 years and 06 months of the 05 year parliamentary life, the “redshirted UNP Marxists” helped draft and defend, completely contradicts Chapter I, article 3 of the Constitution which says, (quote) In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise. (unquote)
The constitution in Chapter I also says how people can exercise their sovereignty. (quote) 4. The Sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner :– (a) the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament, consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People at a Referendum (unquote)
Thus, there cannot be any doubt or confusion, the people’s “inalienable” sovereignty that therefore is non negotiable, overrides the 04 year and 06 months damper in 19A. People can and should enjoy the right to elect its ‘representatives’ to the parliament as and when they so desire and that cannot be decided by Presidents, Prime Ministers and others around them.
It is more than valid in a rabidly insane and unstable situation these politicians themselves created. It is not them who have the right to decide when elections can be held, but the “People”. That’s people’s sovereignty. This parliament that does not represent the will of the people and has been turned into a marketplace where numbers are traded for State power, should stand dissolved immediately under Chapter I article 3 of the Constitution, for people to elect their own parliament to govern themselves.
Running out of options President Maithripala Sirisena is getting ready to push Sri Lanka to the brink of lawlessness by dissolving Parliament unconstitutionally on Wednesday night Colombo Telegraph learns. If not on Wednesday night, President Sirisena is contemplating dissolution on Thursday the sources claimed.
On Wednesday afternoon Sirisena met with a group of lawyers to discuss his options as political party after political party declined his requests to join the Rajapaksa Government or at least abstain on a Parliament vote of no confidence against Rajapaksa. Some reports also said he had summoned Chief Justice Nalin Perera to discuss the constitutionality of the move. It was not confirmed if Chief Justice answered the summons. The President can refer questions to the Supreme Court on constitutional matters but officially and not by summoning supreme Court justices legal sources told Colombo Telegraph. Sirisena’s lawyers are arguing that while Section 70 of the Constitution (amended by 19th Amendment) explicitly states that Parliament cannot be dissolved by the President until it has completed 4.5 years of its term unless a resolution is moved by a two thirds majority in parliament requesting dissolution that provision is superceded by Article 33 (2) which outlines President’s general functions, including to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.
Heavy movement was visible at President’s House late evening sources said with senior bureaucrats being summoned for urgent talks. Another option being discussed is a referendum of the people to determine if his actions to appoint Mahinda Rajapaksa as PM were legal.
An increasingly desperate President Maithripala Sirisena had taken over negotiations to build a majority for his illegally appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, Colombo Telegraph reliably learns, meeting several Party leaders over the past few days to convince them to support the new Government.
On Wednesday November 7 which was the day Sirisena promised Speaker Karu Jayasuriya he would convene Parliament, before he issued a gazette declaring November 14 as the day, the President met with the Tamil Progressive Alliance led by UNFGG MP Mano Ganesan and the main opposition Tamil National Alliance (TNA). Both parties declined his request to abstain from voting. And also told the President that his actions were unconstitutional and illegal. President Sirisena was also informed that the Tamil people of Sri Lanka had voted in 2010 and in 2015 even supporting the former Army Commander who prosecuted the war against the LTTE in 2010 just to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa as president. The Tamil representatives told the President that their people would never support their neutrality in the face of a real threat of Rajapaksa becoming Prime Minister. After SLMC Leader and ACMC Leader Rauff Hakeem and Rishard Bathiudeen have also declined support when invited for talks with President Sirisena over the weekend.
President Sirisena’s body language was bad during the meetings and he looked increasingly worried sources said adding that this might drive him to take desperate and willfully unconstitutional measures in order to break the deadlock and justify his actions on October 26.
This was in the aftermath of a major dressing down by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa at a meeting with UPFA MPs on Tuesday evening. Rajapaksa blamed S.B. Dissanayake for pushing him into the position without having the requisite numbers to defeat the country’s legal Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in Parliament. The Rajapaksas are showing signs of bowing out of negotiations to win MPs for a parliamentary majority Colombo Telegraph learns leaving President Sirisena and his agents to continue with this task.
The seat does not belong to the MP; it belongs to the party and voters
2018-11-09
n elderly gentleman, a United National Party supporter, cast his preference vote for a teledrama actress who contested the 2010 parliamentary elections from the UNP, for he felt she was being unfairly vilified by the then government leaders who suddenly projected her character as a ‘a bad woman’ after she played the lead role as a do-gooder for more than a hundred episodes. She was, however, elected to parliament, largely on the sympathy of voters, including many elderly people who exercise their franchise not in anticipation of any benefits for them but in the hope that the future generation will have a better Sri Lanka. But she betrayed her voters, when she crossed the floor and joined the Mahinda Rajapaksa government after remaining some months in the opposition as a UNP parliamentarian.
As Sri Lanka finds itself in a constitutional quagmire following the controversial swearing-in of a new prime minister by the President while the sitting prime minister insists he is the rightful holder of the post, the absence of an anti-defection law is seen to be the major curse that undermines democracy and the people’s mandate. As the numbers game for the decisive 113 target becomes dirtier by the hour, nothing makes such a huge mockery of democracy and the voters the biggest losers than the floor crossing, frog jumping or monkey acts of members of Sri Lanka’s 225-seat parliament. As MPs switch sides amid allegations that they are being bought over for hundreds of millions of rupees, the voters feel betrayed. In an audio clip posted on social media, a young smart voter was heard demanding from his MP who switched sides and was sworn in as a deputy minister that he be paid Rs. 2,900 – the amount was worked out by dividing the money the politico is alleged to have received by the number of preferential votes he polled.
There’s no gainsaying that Sri Lanka’s democracy is party-based. At the start of an election campaign, a political party presents before the voters its manifesto, outlining its policies and the programmes it intends to implement if elected to office. In the absence of a mechanism to hold the parties accountable to a judicial authority for the pledges they make in their election manifestoes, the parties do promise the sun and the moon. Whether they fulfill their promises is another matter. But the issue here is that the people do vote for a party rather than for an individual, for, at a parliamentary election, the main purpose is to elect a new ruling party or reelect the party in office. Our voting system is also structured accordingly. First we cast our vote for the party and then cast our preferences for the candidate of our choice.
Under the circumstances, if MPs elected from one party switch their allegiance to another party, it is sheer betrayal, unless, of course, they are required to do so by a petition by their electorates with the number of signatures being, at least, equal to the preferential votes they received at the election. In Britain, though floor crossing is permitted, the present trend is MPs, instead of crossing the floor, resign their seats, publicly announce they have joined another party and stand for by-elections. Often, the MP who crosses over loses the seat.
In the United States, elected representatives can take an independent stance on any issue, although they come under the party whip. In the US, both major parties encourage their opponents to jump to their sides, but, in such instances, research shows that the voters were furious and records show that the ‘frog’ had often lost the reelection bid. Research carried out on floor crossing in developed democracies underscores that what matters more to the electorate is not the candidate but the party and its policies. If a candidate becomes bigger than the party, it’s populism or cultism that distorts democracy. In Australia, voters take to the streets shouting slogans such as “Give back our seat” when an elected member switches sides. An MP holding on to the seat and supporting a party which was not the choice of the people who elected the MP is seen in developed democracies as indulging in an act of fraud committed upon the voters.
When money or other inducements such as cabinet posts are involved, then the fraud amounts to a murder of democracy. The seat strictly belongs to the party or to the voters. It is in this context that the need for anti-defection laws assumes significance. Sri Lanka’s democracy will remain defective until and unless the country strengthens its anti-defection laws or brings in constitutional amendments, making party jumping illegal. We need to ensure that the sanctity of the august assembly is not tainted by bribery and corruption and the earlier this is done the better it is for the survival of our democracy. Otherwise, what we call Sri Lankan democracy will only be a charade.
India, the world’s largest democracy, passed its anti-defection law as a constitutional amendment in 1985 with the intention of ending bribery and corruption at the highest level and the ugly practice of inducing defection with the reward of ministerial positions and perks. According to the Indian law, members of parliament or state legislatures are deemed to have defected if they either voluntarily resign from their parties or disobeyed the directives of the party leadership on a vote. Even independent members are disqualified if they join a political party because the spirit of the law, as interpreted by a five-bench Supreme Court ruling in 1992, is to respect the electors’ preference of the party. During the hearing, the right of an MP to defect was defended in terms of the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech, but the court held that the anti-defection law did not violate any rights, freedoms, or the basic structure of parliamentary democracy.
Sri Lanka has an anti-defection clause in the constitution. According to Article 99(13), where a Member of Parliament ceases, by resignation, expulsion or otherwise, to be a member of a recognised political party or independent group on whose nomination paper his name appeared at the time of his becoming such Member of Parliament, his seat shall become vacant upon the expiration of a period of one month from the date of his ceasing to be such member. However, the vacation of the seat is subject to the provision that allows the Supreme Court to interpret the validity of a party’s decision to expel an MP. Different Supreme Court benches – in the Athulathmudali, Ameer Ali, Amunugama and Piyasena cases, for instance -- have interpreted the exception provision differently and their rulings have only increased the call to amend the law to plug the loopholes.
However, in 2015 the move to strengthen the constitutional provision on anti-defection came a cropper when the Mahinda Rajapaksa-led opposition made the withdrawal of it as a condition to extend its support for the 19th Amendment. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, one of the prime movers of the 19th amendment, had to give in to get the bulk of the 19th amendment passed. But he must be ruing this mistake or the missed opportunity, having known that ‘Joint Opposition’ leaders are past masters in fishing out rival party MPs with inducements of ministerial perks and allegedly money. We could have been spared of this moment of turmoil in our quest to establish democracy in our country, if we had included anti-defection provisions in the 19th Amendment.
By Neville Ladduwahetty-November 8, 2018, 12:00 pm
The outcome of the 2015 general election was such that no political party secured a majority to form a government. Consequently, it became a matter of necessity to form a coalition. This led to the two political parties with the largest majorities (UNFGG with106 and UPFA with 95) to commit to the formation of a National Government under provisions of Article 46 (4) and 46 (5). These constitutional provisions not only helped form a majority government but also created the opportunity to increase the Cabinet of Ministers from 30 to 48, and State and Deputy Ministers from 40 to 45, thereby increasing the Executive from a total of the 70 stipulated in Article 46 (1) to a total of 93.
Since the UNFGG was the political party with the larger majority in the coalition (106 v. 95), it was natural for Ranil Wickremesinghe as the leader of the UNFGG to be appointed the Prime Minister. The rest of the Cabinet of Ministers, State and Deputy Ministers were distributed between these two political parties. It was this formation, headed by the President as the Head of the Executive and the Head of the government and the cabinet of Ministers, that was responsible for the "direction and control of the Government of the Republic", as per Article 42 (1).
With the withdrawal of the UPFA from the National Government on 26th October, the coalition that was forged between the UNFGG and the UPFA ceased to exist. Consequently, there was a constitutional necessity to reduce the Cabinet from 93 to 70, which meant appointing a fresh Cabinet of Ministers and State and Deputy Ministers, and dispensing with the extra 23in the Executive.
GROUNDS for a NEW CABINET
Had the President been satisfied with the ‘direction and control’ of the National Government it is likely that the President would have requested the then Prime Minster to reformulate a fresh Cabinet. Since this was not the case, as evident from the growing discontent in the country, a fact reflected in the February 2018 Local Government Elections results, the President had no choice but to select former President Mahinda Rajapakse, who in his opinion not only mirrored his own ideology but also had the proven ability to alter the direction of the Government.
The bold initiative taken by the President has polarised the country into two camps; those loyal to the former Prime Minister and those loyal to the newly appointed Prime Minister. While the former group is labeling the measures adopted by the President as undemocratic and unconstitutional the latter group is defending the President’s actions with equally strong opinions and arguments.
OVERCOMING the IMPASSE
One of the strategies proposed to overcome the impasse is to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court as to whether the measures adopted by the President are constitutional or not. There is little prospect of the Courts getting involved in making a determination as to the constitutionality of the measures adopted by the President on grounds of Parliamentary Privilege, since appointing a Prime Minister and a Cabinet is a matter for both President and Parliament; a lesson learnt when a petition was filed challenging the constitutionality of the National Government.
The other option that is being vigorously advocated by the loyalists of the former Prime Minister is to establish which candidate has the "confidence of Parliament". This factor is to be judged on the basis of votes in Parliament. The claim made by the former Prime Minister and his loyalists both nationally and internationally is that he is in a position to demonstrate that he has a majority in Parliament and therefore has the confidence of Parliament.
This approach has precipitated a bidding auction with Members of Parliament being induced to support one Prime Minister or the other with large sums of cash. Furthermore, the current Parliament has Members who were not elected by the People at the August 2015 election. If such a tainted Parliament is to be reconvened as vigorously advocated by the national and international backers of the former Prime Minister in order to determine who has their confidence, it would amount to a mockery of the immutable principle of representative democracy. Furthermore, for them to insist on outcomes that are dependent on the sentiments of elected representatives is to ignore their own experiences of the disconnect between elected representatives and the People, as demonstrated in countries such as UK regarding Brexit, where three fourths of the UK Parliament wanted to remain in the EU while the People of UK wanted to exit, and the projections relating to President Trump’s election in the US. Therefore, it is imperative that Sri Lanka must abandon this strategy and adopt one that is based on accepted practices of constitutionalism and true good governance if it is to regain its dignity as a respected democracy.
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
The recommended strategies should be based on the "Will of the People", expressed by them directly and not on the expressions of elected representatives in Parliament. One strategy is to resort to constitutional provisions that support dissolution of Parliament and the other is through the Franchise of the People exercised at a Referendum. While dissolution is dependent on the President being convinced of the legitimacy of the approach, and is unique to Sri Lanka’s Constitution and therefore could be controversial, the latter, namely, a Referendum is universally accepted as a legitimate technique to ascertain the Will of the People on a specific issue of concern.
The option of dissolving Parliament could be exercised by the President under provisions of Article 33 (2) (c) that states: "In addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power - to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament". It should be emphasised that such an express provision does not exist in the 1978 Constitution. Since this provision is in addition to other powers conferred and assigned to the President under provisions that include revised Articles 62 (2) and 70, it must mean that the framers of the 19th Amendment made a special effort to confer this additional power on the President.
While the exercise of provisions in Article 33 (2) (c) may not resolve the impasse, a cleaner strategy would be to let the People decide who should be their Prime Minister by invoking Article 86. This Article provides for the President to "submit to the People by Referendum any matter which in the opinion of the President is of national importance". Since the situation in the country is clearly of "national importance", it is only such a decisive approach that could resolve the current impasse. Furthermore, it cannot be challenged because under Article 4 (e) the exercise of the People’s Franchise at a Referendum is binding, because it is an integral component of their Sovereignty as per Article 3.
CONCLUSION
The current polarization of the Sri Lankan polity needs to be resolved decisively and quickly if the prevailing impasse is to be overcome. The approach advocated by a section of the national polity and by the international community is to reconvene Parliament in order to establish which candidate enjoys the majority’s "confidence of Parliament". This strategy is unacceptable in the background of a tainted Parliament made up of defeated candidates, as well as those whose loyalties have been bought for cash. Alternative options open to the government are either to dissolve Parliament by invoking provisions of Article 33 (2) (c), or for the People to choose who their Prime Minister should be at a Referendum, given the fact that the Franchise expressed via a Referendum is binding. The latter option cannot be challenged because the Franchise is an inherent component of the Sovereignty of the People.
When Parliament reconvenes, an announcement could be made by the President that the current impasse will be resolved by the People at a Referendum since the situation in the country has reached such a threshold that it has become a matter of "national importance".
Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said he is willing to work with President Maithripala Sirisena, who abruptly sacked him on October 26, if given a chance to prove his majority in Parliament.
Caught in an unprecedented power struggle, Mr. Wickremesinghe is trying to claim legitimacy as the country’s premier, after Mr. Sirisena appointed former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place and subsequently prorogued Parliament until November 16.
The bitter relationship between Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe appears to have further deteriorated this week, with the President resorting to personal attacks on him at a recent public meeting.
On whether he could still work with the President, Mr. Wickremesinghe said: “I’ll have no problem working with him, that’s a question you must ask him. The Constitution doesn’t make provision for personal prejudices,” he said on Tuesday, in an interview to The Hindu at Temple Trees, the official residence of the Prime Minister.
Deposed over 10 days ago, Mr. Wickremesinghe has steadfastly remained here, despite open threats from Mr. Rajapaksa’s supporters demanding he vacate and a sharp reduction of his security detail. On Tuesday evening, the premises was teeming with people, mostly supporters of Mr. Wickremesinghe. They waited around different entry points to the iconic Colonial-era building to catch a glimpse of their 69-year-old leader, who has been in Parliament for over four decades. Constant chants of the ‘pirith’, which Buddhists believe will keep evil and misfortune away, filled the air. They emanated from a white pandal erected right outside the main entrance. Two monks in saffron robes were seated inside and chanting into a microphone. “We have had this chant non-stop for 10 days now,” a security staff said.
Amid the persisting political crisis Mr. Wickremesinghe is optimistic about an early recall of Parliament. “The Parliament’s power is supreme and that is what the Speaker has upheld,” he said, referring to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s statement on Monday, noting that Mr. Rajapaksa will not be recognised as PM until he wins a floor test. “I am confident of having the numbers,” Mr. Wickremesinghe said, adding: “The fact that they are delaying the recall is because they don’t have the numbers.” Mr. Sirisena, who earlier suspended Parliament until November 16, has recalled the House for November 14. “The delay worries me because it makes the country more unstable,” the ousted PM said.
As of Wednesday evening, the Wikremesinghe-led front had 99 MPs, while the Sirisena-Rajapaksa combine had 104, short of nine lawmakers to prove majority in the 225-member House. However, Mr. Wickremesinghe has the implicit support of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), with 15 and 6 lawmakers respectively. In Opposition currently, both have deemed Mr. Rajapaksa’s appointment “unconstitutional” and are expected to vote against him in order to “protect democracy.”
Mr. Wikremesinghe, who has pegged his chances entirely to a floor test, has ruled out a court appeal on the matter, citing the Parliament’s “supreme judicial powers.” Reiterating the position, he said: “Even if you go to court they send will you back to parliament on this matter. We are different from yours [Indian context].”
On his strategy to stabilise to the country, should he prove his majority, Mr. Wickremesinghe said the cabinet might have to be reconstituted because some had left it, and joined the “new cabinet” that Mr. Sirisena has sworn in. “But the Speaker has very well said the status quo of [last] Friday stands. Unless they prove a majority that stands.”
Asked what if Mr. Rajapaksa won the floor test Mr. Wickremesinghe, even before the question was completed, said: “He won’t be able to prove a majority.” Pressed again for a response to such a hypothetical scenario, he said: “I don’t know about hypothesis, I am talking about the actual situation. He does not have the numbers.”
(Lanka e News -07.Nov.2018, 5.30PM) Parliamentary general secretary Dhammika Dassanayake after receiving a bribe of Rs. 100 million from the MARA –SIRA junta is following illegal orders and even not answering the Speaker’s phone calls , based on reports reaching Lanka e news.Under the laws , Dhammika is only bound to adhere to speaker’s orders . However after the bribery collection of Rs. 100 million he is following orders of the president
According to Dhammika, based on the gazette notification ( illegal) issued by the president to re convene parliament on the 14 th ,any other order to convene parliament before that date cannot be accepted. Both the deputy secretary and assistant secretary are ignoring the legal directives of the speaker ..
Therefore convening parliament by the secretaries on the 5th and Dinesh Gunawardena assuming duties as the speaker is unlawful.
Even if the president is taking the law into his hands and issuing illegal gazette notification , but if those are against the law , the government officials cannot abide by those directives because some day they are going to be hauled up before the law. That is unavoidable.
May we recall the funds amounting to Rs. 62 million that was granted by UNDP in 2007 for the refurbishment of the parliament were misappropriated by him. .The chairman of the Parliament refurbishment committee was Dhammika Dissanayake.Dhammika called for tenders for the purchase of computers .Metropolitan Co. submitted a bid for Rs.18 million. Dhammika however for obvious reasons cancelled that tender, and called for bids again two months later. Metropolitan in accordance with same specification submitted a bid for Rs. 80 million, which was unbelievably for inscrutable reasons approved by Dhammika.
Following this Rs. 62 million fraud , Priyani Wijesekera the then Parliamentary secretary lodged a complaint with the Bribery and Corruption Commission. At that time it was claimed the Bribery Commission cannot investigate the murky goings on within Parliament , whereby Dhammika went scot free.
Subsequently , the Auditor General conducted an investigation , and found Dhammika guilty. Meanwhile Priyani went on retirement , and as always the Rajapakse regime appointed the same crook Dhammika again as Parliamentary gen. secretary. Thereafter the racket involving Rs. 62 million was swept under the carpet.
Dhammika also is a famous scrooge . After collecting state funds when he does official tours abroad instead of staying in hotels , he makes bogus claims and collects state funds after lodging in temples. Such a corrupt scrooge is Dhammika.
His Contact Nos as follows
Mobile - 0777 - 380602
Residence - 011 2503986
--------------------------- by (2018-11-07 12:32:17)
The island nation passes through a political crisis as President Maithripala Sirisena sacks Ranil Wickremesinghe and appoints his rival and two-time President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and suspends Parliament to give Rajapaksa time to muster a majority.
by R K Radhakrishnan- Courtesy: The Front Line, India
( November 8, 2018, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The destruction of propriety and order that accompanied the constitutional coup in Sri Lanka on October 26, when former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as Prime Minister, will continue to rock the country’s polity long after a vote of confidence in Parliament and long after all the players in the drama—President Maithripala Sirisena, Rajapaksa and “ousted” Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe—disappear from the horizon of the island’s politics.
Each passing day brings a new story of trampling on democratic norms and the constitutional order that ignores the people’s voice. Sirisena’s act of proroguing Parliament (the only place where the majority can be proved) until November 16, Rajapaksa supporters’ takeover of a few state-owned media outlets by force, the Attorney General’s refusal to offer advice on the sacking of Wickremesinghe; the open horse-trading (one Member of Parliament claimed on November 2 that he was offered $2.8 million to cross over), and the induction of defectors as new Ministers have made the Sri Lankan people wonder what happened to the yahapalana (good governance) government they had elected in 2015.
Even as a battle raged between the supporters of Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa, an emissary of Rajapaksa met Wickremesinghe. No explanation about the meeting was forthcoming until this Instagram post from a Rajapaksa camp supporter explained it:
“The meeting took place yesterday between 4.10 to 4.17 pm. It was a closed door discussion and no other parties were present.
“At this brief meeting, they have discussed measures to be taken to avoid any chaos and negativity perceptions from the international community that could unexpectedly erupt in the face of the prevailing volatile situation.
“Mr Rajapaksa has mentioned that The President and The Prime Minister have garnered the confidence and support of the majority in Parliament. Mr Wickremesinghe has in turn expressed that he too was confident of the support of the people to protect the democracy and supremacy of the Parliament and he is ready to prove it.”
The post was attributed to “Milinda Rajapaksha, spokesperson to Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa”, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brother and a major power centre during Rajapaksa’s presidency.
The meeting lasted much longer than that, close to an hour, said a knowledgeable source. “At that meeting, Gotabaya assured Ranil that no harm will come to him, and wanted him to step down as Prime Minister. Ranil in turn asked Gotabaya to tell Mahinda to step down,” the source said.
Political risks
More questions are being asked of Mahinda Rajapaksa than of anyone else in this bizarre drama. Ever since he was first elected to Parliament in 1970, Rajapaksa had taken calculated political risks that steadily propelled him to the next level in the game. “This is another example of calculated risk, and he believes that he will prevail,” said a former Indian diplomat, who shared a close working relationship with the former President.
Rajapaksa’s political career began in 1970 when he inherited his father D.A. Rajapakse’s parliamentary seat, Beliatta in southern Sri Lanka. Rajapakse was one of the founding members of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) along with S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, but Mahinda Rajapaksa always believed that his father never got his due from the party and the country.
Almost always sure-footed, he rose to the presidency, which he held for two terms, with the help of his formidable grasp of realpolitik. When Chandrika Kumaratunga won the presidential election with a massive mandate in 1994, securing 62.28 per cent of the popular vote, Rajapaksa got his first ministerial berth as Minister for Labour and Vocational Training. He subsequently held the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and Highway, Ports and Shipping portfolios. He was a shadow man at that time, managing a few brief spots under the sun.
In 2001, when he was re-elected to Parliament, he rose to the position of Leader of the Opposition, which became his first step towards a well-planned course to the presidency. In 2002, when the peace processes commenced between the United National Party (UNP) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Rajapaksa had nothing much to say either way, leaving the political battle to the Executive President, Chandrika Kumaratunga, and the Prime Minister, Wickremesinghe. Rajapaksa decided to draw popular attention to what he would term as people’s issues and chose price rise as the focal point of popular mobilisation. The next step towards his journey to becoming the powerful Executive President was the parliamentary elections held in 2004. The United People’s Freedom Alliance, comprising the SLFP and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), won the elections. The contender to the post of Prime Minister other than Rajapaksa was the former Foreign Affairs Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar. Although Kadirgamar had Chandrika Kumaratunga’s backing for the post, Rajapaksa had two factors in his favour. One, he was the Leader of the Opposition in the outgoing Parliament, and two, unlike Kadirgamar, who was a nominated MP, he was an elected representative. Added to this, the Buddhist clergy, which flexes its political muscle every once in a while, backed Rajapaksa. As Prime Minister, Rajapaksa had to bide his time for a year before the presidential election was called.
The 2005 presidential election will go down in history as one that threw up a winner with the most slender margin, and this victory was managed by a Rajapaksa gamble. In a nationwide election, Rajapaksa, as incumbent Prime Minister, competed against Wickremesinghe, who had led peace negotiations with the LTTE. The narrow margin, with Rajapaksa winning 50.29 per cent of the popular vote (the winner had to secure 50 per cent plus on vote), was attributed largely to the LTTE’s diktat to the Tamils of the north and the east not to participate in the election. This was a calculated political gamble: Rajapaksa had managed to convince the LTTE leadership that a Wickremesinghe win would be detrimental to the Tamils.
Rajapaksa’s political graph—the rise from the position of Prime Minister in 2004 to Executive President in 2005, a subsequent victory in 2010 with 57.88 per cent of the popular mandate—was plotted with careful steps in tandem with his allies, who were rewarded during his journey to power. The consolidation of power saw him try the India-China balancing trick, and a sense of perceived invincibility resulted in his fall in the 2015 elections.
His political calling card, initially, was as a champion of human rights who exposed the wrongdoings of those in power during the presidency of Ranasinghe Premadasa, when the Sri Lankan state cracked down on the southern insurrection led by the then armed JVP. Subsequently, during his rise to prime ministership, he made the plight of the common man his plank. In his first bid at presidential power, his vision for the future, “Mahinda Chinthanaya”, kept people centre stage. After his slender victory in the 2005 election, his government’s military victory over the LTTE ensured him a second term.
He was a champion of human rights—he even flew to Geneva to expose the wrongdoings of those in power—when it suited his career. But in 2009, he presided over the genocide of Tamils in a narrow strip of land called Mullaitheevu. The Sinhala majority forgave him instantly for this and hailed him as a hero for putting an end to the LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabakaran. For Rajapaksa, emphasis on human rights was a ploy, and he used it when it suited him. When he was re-elected President after the conclusion of Eelam War IV, he enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution to consolidate his hold over power, conducted elections in the Tamil-majority Northern Province after the war in a bid to establish himself as a leader of all people of Sri Lanka, and called for an early presidential election in 2015 to perpetuate his hold on the island nation. Not all of these worked in his favour, but there is sound logic and reasoning behind all the moves that he has made in a political career spanning close to five decades.
The 18th Amendment removed the two-term limit set for the presidency, which meant that he could be back in the reckoning as President. But the northern provincial elections and an early presidential election were both gambles that did not work in his favour. In both cases, he was misled by advice. In the first instance, he was advised by Tamil leaders he trusted and the second case had more to do with astrology than political calculations.
So, when he brazenly teamed up with Sirisena, who had in 2015 deserted Rajapaksa and forged an alliance with the UNP to become President, it surprised many. After all, Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna had done reasonably well in the local body elections in February, and the general election was just a year away.
When this correspondent met him on “Thai Pongal” day in January this year, Rajapaksa was restless. He was not sure of the path forward and appeared to be searching for a comeback route. When this correspondent went back to meet him in August in his village near the southern beach resort of Tangalle, following the death of his brother Chandran Rajapaksa, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s body language had changed considerably. He appeared more confident about the direction in which he and his party were headed.
His son Namal Rajapaksa was making all the right noises in Sri Lanka, and was rising in his own right. The fact that the government was hurtling along a path of destruction helped him no end. It seemed only a matter of time before someone of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s choice would be running Sri Lanka.
So why would Rajapaksa, who is watching over a failing government, try to stage a constitutional coup, and that too just a year before parliamentary and presidential elections? There are many theories afloat, each one as compelling as the other.
India believes that Rajapaksa fell for a “ploy” of Sirisena, who has burnt his bridges with Wickremesinghe. “Politically, this is a big blunder,” an Indian official said. Another official who was in Sri Lanka during the war years called it “overconfidence and miscalculations.
“Unless there is a corruption case closing in on him or someone in his family, this does not make sense,” said an Indian diplomat. “He will only be Prime Minister. That makes him vulnerable to the manoeuvres of the President,” he said. “But having known Rajapaksa,” he added, “I would not be surprised if his game is to become Prime Minister and then have Sirisena defeated in the presidential election by striking a deal with Wickremesinghe.”
One source who was close to Rajapaksa during his years as President and even later said that age could be a factor. The fact that he had been out of power for close to four years might have been a trigger. “Going for election from the opposition is not easy as the magic number is 50 per cent +1 vote in a presidential election or 113 seats in Parliament. These are among the multitude of factors,” he added.
The calculation
There is also the son angle. Namal was called in for questioning at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) headquarters in October. This might have led to the Rajapaksas’ calculation that the CID was close to filing a case against Namal and hence, they had to move fast. “The Namal case, and Mahinda’s own brothers, who could steal his thunder, are all factors. He is confident that he will be able to pull it off and call for early elections,” a journalist said.
“One-upmanship and miscalculation,” said a senior Sri Lankan journalist. “Mahinda probably thought that his popularity will naturally flow into his premiership and he will outshine Sirisena, thus taking him out of the equation. What he did not factor in was public anger against this move,” he added.
“This could be a precursor of a general election. Sirisena and Mahinda might want a general election. Although the UNP retains a lot of goodwill, Ranil is difficult to work with, and this will count in an election,” said another senior journalist, who has worked with the Sri Lankan government.
An explanation that fits in with what India believes was offered by a Sri Lankan with his ears close to the ground: On October 26, SLFP MPs who owed allegiance to Sirisena were asked to meet him. Sirisena began ranting about someone who was trying to assassinate him, a narrative that was reportedly fed to him by Shiral Lakthilaka, coordinating secretary to the President. Sirisena was told that the former Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka was behind the attempt. The Indian external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing, which does not use assassination as a tool to effect changes in friendly neighbouring countries, was also brought into the picture.
Rajapaksa, who was in Colombo that day, was requested to come, with no particular reason offered other than the fact that Sirisena had invited him. Sirisena wanted Rajapaksa to take over as Prime Minister, and said that he could not find a better person for the job. Rajapaksa was aware of the problems in the coalition but did not have enough negotiation space at that time. It was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and he was caught off guard. Sirisena convinced him that there were many MPs with him and, with a few MPs crossing over, proving a majority would not be difficult. Rajapaksa took the offer. His brother, Basil Rajapaksa, who had been liaising with important people in the government, was kept in the dark. When Basil heard of the deal, he was reportedly livid.
Sirisena assured Rajapaksa that if the Speaker, Karu Jayasurya, tried to force his way, he would consider it a violation of the Constitution. But what Sirisena did not anticipate was the high level of international pressure. India, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and other countries have refused to recognise the new Prime Minister. China endorsed Rajapaksa’s appointment initially and later seemed to change tack, saying that the internal issues of Sri Lanka should be sorted out internally.
Even as a lot of back-room activity was going on, it was understood that Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa had been communicating with each other multiple times every day since the coup. Both of them have been part of the Sri Lankan story for about half a century and have maintained a level of civility with each other.
But that does not answer the questions posed by thousands of people who turn up every day to protest against the coup and the manner in which the changeover was effected. No one in the crowd believes that the Sirisena-Rajapaksa combine has done enough for them. The answer to the problem, as some of them feel, is going back to the ballot. A poster held by a middle-aged woman captured the mood well: “I am not here for Ranil. I am here for democracy and good governance.”
Before Viyalendiran switched his allegiance to President Sirisena, the TNA parliamentary group comprised 16 lawmakers, including two on the National List. Another TNA MP Shivashakti Anandan, too, has rebelled and decided to remain independent.
n elderly gentleman, a United National Party supporter, cast his preference vote for a teledrama actress who contested the 2010 parliamentary elections from the UNP, for he felt she was being unfairly vilified by the then government leaders who suddenly projected her character as a ‘a bad woman’ after she played the lead role as a do-gooder for more than a hundred episodes. She was, however, elected to parliament, largely on the sympathy of voters, including many elderly people who exercise their franchise not in anticipation of any benefits for them but in the hope that the future generation will have a better Sri Lanka. But she betrayed her voters, when she crossed the floor and joined the Mahinda Rajapaksa government after remaining some months in the opposition as a UNP parliamentarian.
In the United States, elected representatives can take an independent stance on any issue, although they come under the party whip. In the US, both major parties encourage their opponents to jump to their sides, but, in such instances, research shows that the voters were furious and records show that the ‘frog’ had often lost the reelection bid. Research carried out on floor crossing in developed democracies underscores that what matters more to the electorate is not the candidate but the party and its policies. If a candidate becomes bigger than the party, it’s populism or cultism that distorts democracy.
