Indonesia risks measles outbreak as Islamic clerics declare vaccine ‘haram’

This photo taken on January 17, 2018 shows an Indonesian military doctor treating a Papuan child at a medical facility in the remote Asmat region of Papua. Source: AFP

By Asian Correspondent Staff | 9th November 2018 | @ascorrespondent

INDONESIA is at heightened risk of an outbreak of measles and rubella after Islamic authorities declared vaccination ‘haram’ (forbidden) due to its pork gelatine content.

The Health Ministry said its World Health Organisation-backed immunisation programme held since last year had reached 95 percent coverage in the highly-populated central island of Java, dropping measels and rubella cases by more than 90 percent, but the jabs only reached eight percent of children in provinces like Aceh.

The declining rates of injections, as a result of millions of parents forgoing the vaccine in recent months, has alarmed the health officials who say there could be a fresh wave of measels and miscarriages and birth defects resulting from rubella infections during pregnancy, according to Science.

SEE ALSO: India: What you need to know about the Nipah virus outbreak in Kerala 

Just before the ministry intensified its immunisation drive to islands and provinces outside Java in August, the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI) of the Riau Islands, an Islamic body that oversees religious affairs in the province, raised concerns that a new vaccine used was not certified halal by the central MUI body, the highest authority on religion in the country.

The concern led to the requests by the MUI to postpone the vaccinations and the issue became contentious with parents across the country showing increased distrust on the injections as pig components were used in its manufacturing.

Children play at an evacuation centre in Klungkung regency, on the Indonesian resort island of Bali on Sept 25, 2017. Source: AFP

Produced by the Serum Institute of India in Mumbai, the MR vaccine was adopted by the Indonesian ministry to immunise 67 million children aged between nine months and 15 years.

But the MR vaccine contained Trypsin, an enzyme which helps separate the cells which the vaccine viruses are grown from their glass container. The gelatine extracted from pig skin protects the vaccine viruses as they are freeze-dried.

In many other Muslim countries, clerics concluded that the gelatine in the vaccines was permissible as it had been purified in accordance with an Islamic legal concept called istihalah.

SEE ALSO: Vigilance urged in scarlet fever outbreaks

Despite the health ministry’s calls to issue a fatwa to declare the vaccine halal, the MUI did the reverse by declaring it haram based it the vaccine’s porcine-based ingredients.

However, the MUI had not called for an end for the vaccination campaign, telling parents to have their children vaccinated for public health reasons – they simply wanted a halal vaccine, even though there were none readily available.

Bio Farma, Indonesia’s state-owned company has noted that non-porcine vaccine stabilisers exist but clinical trials on the replacement could take six to 10 years.

In the meantime, however Art Reingold, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley, says “many will be made ill and some may die avoidable deaths.”

Smoking, diabetes increase heart attack risk more in women

8 November 2018

Women who smoke, have diabetes or high blood pressure increase their risk of a heart attack more than men faced with the same risks, a large study of UK adults has found.

The researchers, writing in the BMJ, said women should receive the same treatments as men and be offered support to stop smoking.

Doctors should also be better at spotting female patients at risk.

Men are still three times more likely than women to have a heart attack.

The study, led by Oxford University researchers, tracked nearly 500,000 people aged 40-69 enrolled in the UK Biobank database.

Over seven years, 5,081 people had their first heart attack and one in three of them were women.

Although the risk of having a heart attack is lower in women than in men of all ages, certain risk factors appeared to have a greater impact on women.

• Do you know your heart age?
• Waist size 'bigger heart risk in women'
• Women doctors 'best for female heart patients'

Women who smoked were three times more likely to have a heart attack than women who did not smoke - but in men, smoking only doubled their risk.

High blood pressure increased a woman's risk by an extra 83% relative to its effect in a man.

Type 1 and type 2 diabetes both had a greater impact on the heart attack risk of women compared to men, the study found.

The researchers say they do not know why these factors are sex-specific, and no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, but they do have some theories.

Image copyright

Biological factors may be a reason. For example, type 2 diabetes, which is usually linked to poor diet and lifestyle factors, may have a different impact on the female heart to the male one.

But the study says women often don't realise they are at risk of heart disease and they may also be on the receiving end of poorer care and treatment from doctors.

In an accompanying editorial, the researchers say men may be more prone to heart attacks, but heart disease is the biggest killer of women in the UK.

---

Heart attack symptoms

• chest pain - a sensation of pressure, tightness or squeezing in the centre of your chest
• pain in other parts of the body - it can feel as if the pain is travelling from your chest to your arms (usually the left arm is affected, but it can affect both arms), jaw, neck, back and abdomen
• feeling lightheaded or dizzy
• sweating
• shortness of breath
• feeling or being sick
• overwhelming sense of anxiety (similar to having a panic attack)
• coughing or wheezing

Although the chest pain is often severe, some people may feel only minor pain, similar to indigestion. In some cases, there may not be any chest pain at all, especially in women, the elderly and people with diabetes.

Source: NHS Choices

---

Dr Elizabeth Millett, lead study author and an epidemiologist at the George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, said: "Heart disease also affects women and this needs to be recognised.

"Women need to be aware they're at risk, but despite lots of campaigns, it's still under the radar of most women.

"It's a complicated, long-term thing to work out, probably caused by a combination of factors - both biological and social," she said.

She said, in the future, with an ageing population, women could start to have a similar overall rate of heart attacks to men.

And the authors said women with diabetes, high blood pressure and who smoke, "should be considered at a level of risk comparable to many men".

Assassinated Tamil MP Raviraj remembered in Jaffna

The TNA MP Raviraj was remembered in Jaffna today on the 12th anniversary of his assassination.

10Nov 2018

TNA MP, Mavai Senathirajah, fellow party members and local residents took part in a commemorative event by the statue erected in his honour. 

Nadaraja Raviraj, a member of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and a human rights lawyer, was shot in Colombo at close range by unidentified gunman on a motorbike at around 8.30am on November 10 2006 as he got into his car after giving a TV interview. The MP died later in hospital. His bodyguard was also killed.

The TNA blamed the government for the brazen killing by gunmen who coolly departed the scene in the capital, Colombo.

Despite several arrests and trials, Raviraj's killers have not yet been brought to justice. 

On Dissolution of Parliament..! - By Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne

Lanka e News - 09.Nov.2018, 4.20PM) There is speculation that Parliament will be dissolved. Arguments have been made for and against the right of the President to dissolve Parliament at will, at any time.

It is a golden rule that in interpreting a Constitution, the Constitution as a whole must be looked at, not at just one provision in isolation. If the issue is related to an amendment made to the Constitution, we need to look at the corresponding provisions before such amendment. The intention of the legislature in amending the Constitution must be considered. If the amendment was consequent to a pledge made at an election, then the circumstances of that election must also be considered. Constitutional provisions cannot be read in isolation, in a vacuum.

Before the Nineteenth Amendment that came into force on 15 May 2015, the Constitution gave the President a near-unbridled power to dissolve Parliament at will. Article 70 gave him the power to so do, subject to just one limitation. If the previous Parliament had been dissolved prior to it completing its six year term, then the President could dissolve Parliament only after one year.

At the Presidential Election of January 2015, one of the main issues raised was the executive presidency. The forces that supported the common candidate were clearly for limiting Presidential powers and strengthening Parliament. One does not have to labour the point.

The Nineteenth Amendment, which was passed with just one Member of Parliament opposing it, reduced the term of Parliament to five years. Provisions that Supreme Court held required a Referendum were amended or dropped. Article 70 of the amended Constitution restricted the power of the President to dissolve Parliament. It now provides that “the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour.” Thus, Parliament can now be dissolved by the President in the first four and a half of years of its term only if 150 Members of Parliament so request by a resolution passed in Parliament. The wording is clear and unambiguous.

Those who argue that the President’s power to dissolve Parliament is unlimited point out to Article 33 (2) (a) which 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–

(a) …..
(c) to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament…”.

It is argued that Article 33 (2) (a) overrides Article 70. Article 33 only declares some of the general powers of the President. The manner in which and the conditions under which that power of dissolution can be used are given in Article 70. That Article states that dissolution shall be by Proclamation. Then it goes on set down the clear limitation that the President cannot dissolve for four and a half of years unless Parliament so requests by a two-thirds majority. Any power that the President claims under Article 33 (2) must not be in violation of express provisions of the Constitution. The words “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…” cannot be used to override expressly laid down constitutional limitations on the powers of the President.

Take Article 33 (2) which provides in sub-paragraph (f) that the President has the power “to keep the Public Seal of the Republic, and to make and execute under the Public Seal, the acts of appointment of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and other judges of the Court of Appeal, and such grants and dispositions of lands and other immovable property vested in the Republic as the President is by law required or empowered to do, and to use the Public Seal for sealing all things whatsoever that shall pass that Seal…”

Can the President take cover under this provision and appoint the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court on his own? Clearly not, because Article 41C requires the approval of the Constitutional Council for such appointments.

Article 4 says that the President has executive power. Can the President make appointments to posts in the public service citing Article 4 in isolation, disregarding express constitutional provisions relating to the Public Service Commission?

If the argument that the President can dissolve Parliament at any time at will is correct, then Parliament can be dissolved by the President just one day after the new Parliament meets, even if he had dissolved the previous Parliament before it completed its full term. This was something that the President could not have done even before the Nineteenth Amendment. This shows the absurdity of the argument. 

By Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne

President’s Counsel and Member of Parliament

 

---------------------------
by     (2018-11-09 10:52:46)

Government Lies That There Are No Political Prisoners

The War Crimes the President does not want Prosecuted: Preference for Necrophilliacs over Butterflies.
Images of Penetrative Rape of Corpses by those whom our President calls our “National Heroes” are not produced here as a courtesy to readers. There are also images of Executions by “National Heroes”
In light of Mahinda Rajapakse’s offer to solve Tamils’ problems, would President Sirisena explain how he proposes to do that when he wants our vote without locking up those who pose a danger to our lives and women.

By N. Logathayalan –NOVEMBER 11, 2018

Political Prisoners

During Sri Lanka’s civil war, several thousands of Tamils were taken away by Sri Lankan forces and by those working for them; others were surrendered to the forces by their families and removed, never to be heard of again. Government is yet to respond even about those handed over to it.

These tens of thousands of disappearances are now well known to the world. Yet, what exactly happened to them is known only to those who disappeared them and those who gave the orders for that. We do not know how many were killed and how many are in custody except through the UN Report that says that 40,000 persons were killed.

The Current Political Imbroglio

These are times when the two major parties are claiming the premiership. Each promises to solve the problems of the Tamils but many Tamils say their idea of a solution is to eliminate Tamil presence from Sri Lanka. Tamil arguments on whom to side with, centre around under whom they would have a chance for a solution to their problems. To their credit, the more important, only valid constitutional positions in this debate are upheld by the TNA leader Mr. R. Sampanthan. He was telling at his meeting on 5 Nov. with President Sirisena on the long list of broken promises

This article is to report evidence that has newly emerged that the governments before and after 2015 have lied about holding political prisoners, and that Tamil claims that the government holds political prisoners are very true.

 Jeeva, LTTE Fighter

Tamil organizations have a long list of persons who were taken away by the army, and are still not heard of. We have ferreted out evidence affirmed by witnesses that there is at least one person who has been secretively held prisoner since on 2 July 1995, proving the governments to have been lying. The entire government machinery including the Head of State could not see him in the prison system?

Int’l community expresses concern

2018-11-10

Several countries including US and UK have expressed their concerns over the decision taken by President Maithripala Sirisena to dissolve Parliament on November 9, days before it was due to be reconvened.

“President Maithripala Sirisena's decision to dissolve Parliament poses a vital threat to Sri Lanka's democratic institutions. There is much at state and such actions jeopardize Sri Lanka's economic progress and international reputation. We call on the President to respect his country's democratic tradition and the rule of law, and to fulfill the commitments to good governance and democracy upon which he and his government were elected,” the United States said.

The European Union said that the decision of President Sirisena to dissolve the Sri Lankan Parliament ahead of its planned reconvening risks undermining public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions and processes and further deepens the political and economic crisis in the country. 
“A fully functioning Parliament is an essential pillar of democracy. As a longstanding supporter of a democratic Sri Lanka, the European Union expects a swift and peaceful resolution of the current crisis, in line with the Sri Lankan Constitution,” the EU said.

Meanwhile, issuing a statement Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne said Australia expressing its concern and disappointment with President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve the Sri Lankan parliament on 9 November.

“As a longstanding friend, we believe this action undermines Sri Lanka’s long democratic tradition and poses a risk to its stability and prosperity. We urge respect for the country’s democratic institutions and for all parties to continue to exercise restraint,” she said.

The UK Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field also stated that he was concerned about the latest development in Sri Lanka.
 
“As a friend of Sri Lanka, the UK calls on all parties to uphold the constitution and respect democratic institutions and processes,” he said.

Issuing a statement, Norway also said that it is deeply concerned by President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve the Sri Lankan parliament on November 9th, just days before it was due to be reconvened. “As a longstanding friend, Norway believes this action undermines Sri Lanka’s long democratic tradition and poses a risk to stability, prosperity, reconciliation and accountability. Norway calls on all parties to respect democratic institutions and continue to exercise restraint,” it added.

Switzerland also deplored the political crisis in Sri Lanka and the recent decision to dissolve Sri Lanka’s Parliament. It calls on all parties to follow democratic processes and to respect the rule of law.
“Switzerland is deeply concerned by the increasing political crisis in Sri Lanka and the recent decision to dissolve Sri Lanka’s Parliament. Switzerland considers that this decision threatens the stability of Sri Lanka, may have adverse effects on its economic prosperity, its democratic future and the ongoing reconciliation process supported by Switzerland in the past years. Switzerland calls upon all parties to revert to the rule of law and to the principles of good governance. It requests all actors to exercise restraint and calls upon President Sirisena to settle the current crisis as quickly as possible while respecting the country’s democratic institutions and processes.”

Sri Lanka: Why Do I Care ?

I have written on this issue recently and I feel compelled to write again because, as a citizen who has never contemplated life anywhere else other than in this country and who has nowhere else to go, I need to make some sense out of the lunacy that is now consuming us.

by Anura Gunasekera-Nov 11, 2018

Nov 11, 2018

( November 11, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Over the last couple of decades, particularly after Mahinda Rajapaksa first became president in, I have written intermittently in various daily and weekly papers, on matters of political interest or significance. At the outset I must declare firmly that I am not a political writer per se or a professional journalist in the real sense of the word. That identification must be reserved for writers who own columns in various papers and regularly comment, comprehensively, clearly and learnedly, on current issues. I , on the other hand, belong to the class of agonized, ordinary citizens, who burst out sporadically when something they value is threatened; the kind of people who write indignant “Letters to the Editor”, when they wish to focus public attention on matters of common interest or value.

Recently I scrolled through my early writings and noticed a disturbing trend. It is that of a gradual change in tone and content of the writing. I find that I have commenced with Hope, steadily degenerating over time to confusion, suspicion, disbelief, anger, discouragement, disillusionment, resignation , cynicism and finally despair.

Despair is now, today

Despair is when a man who first seemed eminently reasonable, articulate but not impassioned, strong in his convictions but unbiased, a man with an ostensibly clean past and who promised a clean, uncorrupt future, a man who promised credibly to right old wrongs and to prevent the commission of such in the future, a man who pledged, very convincingly , to redress inequities and to address inequalities, a man who swore to punish the guilty and to reward the virtuous, suddenly turns his back on everything that he promised before the nation to hold dear, and commits an act of incredible imprudence, that which is glaringly duplicitous, and plunges the entire nation and its machinery in to total chaos.

Despair is when a man who rekindled hope and provided a glimpse of a path to sanity, suddenly commits an act which is both absolutely deceitful and irresponsible . An act which, in the light of events in its immediate aftermath, proves totally damaging to the national fabric and recommits it to the noon darkness which once threatened to engulf it.

That man is President Maithripala Sirisena, the most unlikely president in a country in which dynastic succession in political power seemed to be a given. A quick appraisal of the kinship links of successive leaders of this country, apart from R. Premadasa and D.B.Wijetunge, will bear out my statement. Sirisena in the high chair is itself an aberration, a consequence of the desperation of a citizenry groping for rationality and a measure of righteousness of governance after a decade of corruption, abuse and misuse of state power and privilege, naked nepotism, subjugation of legitimate dissent and the suppression of minority interests.

Maithripala Sirisena actually stood before the nation two days ago and declared that Mahinda Rajapaksa as the purported new Prime Minister was a choice born out of his personal desperation, after two candidates he considered to be more suitable had turned down the offer, despite entreaties and blandishments.

I have written on this issue recently and I feel compelled to write again because, as a citizen who has never contemplated life anywhere else other than in this country and who has nowhere else to go, I need to make some sense out of the lunacy that is now consuming us. Perhaps, if ordinary people like us pop our heads over the parapet and scream from time to time, somebody will take note and something will happen. I have children living in this country, as well as grandchildren who may, as adults, make a life for themselves in the country. That is one of the reasons I care about what happens in, and to, Sri Lanka.

Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presence as a leader is the consequence of Prabhakaran, the terrorist leader of the North, writing the political narrative of the South through the suicide bomber and the assassin. If not for the violent deaths of Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake and Ranasinghe Premadasa, it is most unlikely that Wickremesinghe would have become the leader of the UNP and, consequently, the Prime Minister. Despite having been the leader of his party over two decades and Prime Minister on more than one occasion, that he has never been able to become President is clear evidence of his toxicity to the greater mass of people of this country, when the voters are faced with a choice of not a party but one individual against another. However, whilst unequivocally conceding the glaring fault lines in Wickremesinghe’s administration and, also, of his personality, what is uncontestable is that his replacement is a man who was twice rejected by the nation in a twelve month period.

At the recent mass rally at Diyatha Uyana, convened to celebrate the Mahinda-Maithripala nuptials and to convince a confused public that this time the union is forever – possibly till death do them part – Sirisena made a startling revelation. The spouse that he foisted on the unsuspecting nation-family was not the first choice, nor the second. It was only after first refusal by Karu Jayasuriya and the second refusal by Sajith Premadasa that Sirisena had proposed to Mahinda Rajapaksa. A Hobson’s choice as it were. Perhaps Sirisena would have done better if he had conducted this selection through a lottery, closing his eyes and drawing names from a box.

Maithripala Sirisena actually stood before the nation two days ago and declared that Mahinda Rajapaksa as the purported new Prime Minister was a choice born out of his personal desperation, after two candidates he considered to be more suitable had turned down the offer, despite entreaties and blandishments.

Leaving aside the other provisions of the Constitution which suggest that the president’s removal of the PM is inconsistent with both its spirit and the letter, consider the provisions of article 42 (4).

“….. the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament who, in the President’s opinion is most likely to command the confidence of the Parliament”.

The provisions of articles 46(2) and 48 are specific as regards the appointment of a new prime minister, setting out clearly the conditions which provide the President with the opportunity of making such an appointment. If we are to assume that that the president, having discarded the provisions of articles 46(2) and 48, and was acting entirely on the powers vested in him by article 42(4), it still does not permit him to exercise his subjective and personal opinion, but an opinion grounded in an objective and constitutionally valid view as to who is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

At the Diyatha Uyana meeting the president made it absolutely clear that, that person was not Mahinda Rajapaksa but Karu Jayasuriya. It then follows that if the president was acting only in the broader interests of the nation and in accordance with Article 42(4), that the matter should have stopped there, when the person whom he considered most suitable as an alternative to the sitting Prime Minister, declined the invitation.

But what does president do then? Having failed to persuade the man whom he considered most suitable, he then turns to Sajith Premadasa, the man whom he considers the next best. When to his increasing disappointment and despair the second best choice also refuses the offer, the President – who has pledged before the nation to uphold the constitution and all that it entails – holds his nose to stifle the stench and approaches Mahinda Rajapaksa who grabs the opportunity, probably before Sirisena finished outlining his pitch.

In the context of the president’s actions and statements in the preceding fortnight, how do we, as a nation, assess the man’s nature? Is he a fool or a knave, or a disastrous combination of both ? How is it possible for the nation to continue to endure such a man as the president? Does not the unbelievably poor judgement, the lack of objectivity and the prioritization of a personal need against the national interest that this man has demonstrated, warrant a call for his removal? Remember, in his first address to the nation after October 26, that this man whined about the cultural gap that distanced him from Wickremesinghe , whilst more recently making totally inappropriate references to the ” Samanala Group” within the RW administration. The constitution of the country does not address such issues when contemplating the conditions which permit the appointment of a Prime Minister.

The president’s desperation has clearly addled his senses. In a way, his confusion also reflects the tragic dilemma that this nation is also faced with, the lack of viable leadership alternatives. The voters are compelled at election time to follow the same path as Sirisena, who now triumphantly admits before the nation, to having replaced one scoundrel with another of a greater magnitude.

It is not necessary to elaborate on Sirisena’s previous opinion of Mahinda Rajapaksa as a man and a politician, expressed frequently at various public forums in the preceding four year period. Having appointed Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, it is now incumbent upon Sirisena to apologize to the man in public, recanting all the terrible accusations he made against Rajapaksa. Sirisena needs to confess, either that he is a brazen liar, or that he was completely misinformed about Mahinda Rajapaksa personally and of his previous administration as well. He owes that explanation toat least 6.2 million people of this country.

In a brief video clip currently in circulation, parliamentarian Eran Wickramaratne, in an address to an unidentified audience, spoke with a sense of despair which mirrors mine. In the context of the ongoing auction purchase of parliamentarians, he repeated a comment which he attributed to an unnamed minister.” …. This system works for us. So why should we change it?”. That brief, cynical statement encapsulates the appalling lack of integrity of leaders that the electors are forced to accept.

In a recent writing (The Three Losers and the Crisis) subsequent to the October 26 incident, journalist Sarath de Alwis has referred to himself as a “…..76 year old loony nut obsessed with human dignity and individual freedoms.” I too would classify myself as such, whilst being a just couple of years younger than de Alwis, as a man with an equally ridiculous obsession about freedom of expression, decent governance, the need for the elimination of religious and racial bigotry from both public and private discourse and for addressing legitimate minority aspirations without equating them to threats on majority rights. These are just a few items in an otherwise long list of foolish, irrational aspirations.

That is also why we need to keep on protesting; because we need to care about the things that are dear to us, however derisible they seem to be. I care deeply because I firmly believe that all those spectres which used to haunt my consciousness – and possibly that of all decent people – which had begun to recede in recent years, will once again reappear if the country returns to a Rajapaksa dispensation.

The Sirisena-Rajapaksa Combo: Till death do them part? 

November 10, 2018, 6:58 pm

"A certain cat had made the acquaintance of a mouse and has said so much to her about the great love and friendship she felt for her, that at length the mouse agreed that they should live and keep house together."

Brothers Grimm (Cat and Mouse in Partnership)

Tisaranee Gunasekara

Some words are more evocative than others. Coup is such a word, bringing to mind images of gun-toting soldiers and generals ousting elected politicians. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word coup originated in the medieval Latin word colpus, meaning blow. Coup d’état is a blow against the state, even when that blow is non-violent and administered by civilian politicians.

A blow against the state was what happened on October 26th, when Maithripala Sirisena sacked Ranil Wickremesinghe, in clear violation of the 19th Amendment.

Mr. Sirisena knew what he was doing. The proof is in the brief letter of dismissal he sent Mr. Wickremesinghe. That letter mentions the provision under which Mr. Wickremesinghe was appointed as the prime minister. It does not mention the provision under which Mr. Wickremesinghe was being dismissed from his post. There is no mention of the provision under which the prime minister was being dismissed, because there is no such provision in the constitution.

The letter is a masterpiece of evasion. Written in Sinhala, it is worded in such a way that a casual reader (and most voters are casual readers of such missives) would not notice that key omission.

"The lie is quite as real as the truth, it works upon the world, transforms it," said Italian writer Claudio Magrisi. That is what the Sirisena—Rajapaksa combo is trying to do – using mammoth lies to upend the popular perception of reality.

Take, for instance, the widely disseminated lie about a discrepancy between Sinhala and English versions of the relevant section in the 19th Amendment. Had there been such a discrepancy, Mr. Sirisena would have mentioned it in his letter, adding that his action is based on the Sinhala version. He didn’t, because there isn’t – any discrepancy - whatsoever. (The official Sinhala and English versions can be read hereii).

Another obfuscating tactic is to compare last month’s appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa with the 2015 January appointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe. Before the 19th Amendment, the president had the power to sack a prime minister and appoint a new one. The 19th Amendment took that power away. As a key architect of the 19th Amendment, Mr. Sirisena would have known that.

Mr. Sirisena, as president, can appoint a new prime minister, if there’s a vacancy. Constitutionally there cannot be a vacancy unless Ranil Wickremesinghe resigns, ceases to be a parliamentarian, or his government is defeated in a money bill. None of these eventualities have taken place. To use Mr. Sirisena’s own analogy of an unsuitable marriage, a man has a right to make a new marriage, but only after he has got a divorce. Sans a divorce, a man who ‘marries’ again commits the crime of bigamy. If Mr. Sirisena wanted to divorce Mr. Wickremesinghe, he should have worked to defeat the government at the second reading of the budget. Instead he broke the law, formed an illicit alliance, and plunged the country into a needless and bottomless crisis.

Hell obviously hath no fury like a president scorned.

The return of the Rajapaksas

The 19th Amendment was a key election promise of the then Joint Opposition, one of the few pledges the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration honoured. It democratised the Lankan constitution and the Lankan state by pruning some of the more egregious presidential powers and privileges. Blaming the 19th Amendment for the current crisis is like blaming the law for murder or rape or robbery. The crisis was caused not by the 19th Amendment, but by its gross violation.

The 19th Amendment was not hastily and badly drafted. It went through innumerable revisions, until the final version was approved by the Supreme Court. No exercise in constitution-amending was conducted with such openness, and so democratically. It was not something that the UNP sneaked past Mr. Sirisena. Mr. Sirisena worked tirelessly to push the 19th Amendment through a UPFA-dominated parliament.

Those were the early heady days, when Mr. Sirisena’s thinking had not been warped by the miasma of executive-presidency. He was still intent on being a one-term president; he wanted to limit the presidential term to four years; and he laboured hard to obtain a two-thirds majority for the 19th Amendment.

It was the man’s finest hour.

When he ganged up with Mahinda Rajapaksa and violated the 19th Amendment, it was his own legacy he profaned. His homophobic comments, and his evident enjoyment at the howling approval of the rabble, mark his definitive descent into the gutter.

Mr. Sirisena, for reasons that seem entirely petty and personal rather than political or ideological (going by his own statements) is hoping to use the Rajapaksas as a battering ram against Mr. Wickremesinghe. At a recent rally, Mr. Sirisena said he appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister because he needed someone capable of toppling Mr. Wickremesinghe and charging ahead. When it comes to toppling laws, rights, traditions and niceties, Mr. Rajapaksa is a master. Now that he has a gained a foothold on power, he will definitely charge ahead. The question is not whether he will topple Mr. Sirisena, but when.

The Rajapaksas were already on the electoral path to power, thanks to the political and economic inanities of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. The LG poll of February 2018 presaged that future. Had Mahinda Rajapaksa waited for just over a year, he could have become the prime minister openly, legally and constitutionally. Instead he opted to get there through the back door, like a thief in the night.

The Rajapaksas were and are a family concern. The legal jeopardy of a brother might have played a key role in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to form a temporary alliance with a man who probably is on the top of his ‘Wanted’ list.

During their rule, the Rajapaksas built a museum for their parents in Hambantota.iii Public funds were allegedly used for the purpose, to the tune of more than Rs. 80 million.iv A part of this money was repaid by the Rajapaksa Foundation, but only after the family lost power. There is 40 million more to be paid. In consequence, a case has been filed against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and several others. Starting on December 4th, the case is to be heard on a daily basis by the special high court. v Was saving his brother a prime motivation in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to form an alliance with a man he cannot but mistrust and even hate?

Going by their various public pronouncements, the Rajapaksas never had any intention of waiting for five years to regain power. Over the last three years, they tried to dislodge the government many times. The latest was the September 5th attempt to inundate Colombo with hundreds of thousands of supporters bussed from the Rajapaksa-hinterland. Spearheaded by Namal Rajapaksa, the intention of the Peoples’ Power to Colombo (Janabalaya Colambata) was to paralyse the government, perhaps even to ensure its immediate downfall. "The 5th is a critical day for us," Pavithra Wanniarachchi proclaimed. "We will surround the places in this country which should be surrounded. We will occupy public places and begin the great satyagraha to send this government home. On that day we will surround all of Colombo. We will come home after we’ve installed our government again."vi "Peoples’ Power has started the Colombo invasion,"vii claimed Lanka c news at midday on September 5th. But the expected numbers did not materialise. Those who came started leaving by nightfall, forcing the organisers to cancel plans to ‘occupy’ downtown Colombo, at least till the 6th.

Mr. Sirisena needed a reed to hang on to in his mad scramble for a second term. Mr. Rajapaksa needed a fast track to power. The twain that was fated never to meet thus met, in a cat-and-mouse alliance.

To commemorate the first anniversary of the Sirisena presidency, some Sirisena loyalists produced a song hailing their leader as the new king from Polonnaruwa. The story leaked out and there was a public outcry. The plan was aborted and the song removed from the internet. That was perhaps the earliest warming that the plague bacillus of power had infected Mr. Sirisena.

Now the king from Polonnaruwa and the king from Ruhuna are together. That partnership can have only one ending. Perhaps it’s time Mr. Sirisena brushed up on his knowledge of folk wisdom, especially of the fate of the man who grabbed the tiger by the tale.

Keeping hope alive,

in criminal times

The Sirisena-Rajapaksa combo came into being through a constitutional-crime. It can exist only by committing more constitutional-crimes.

Had the faux-regime possessed the numbers, the constitutional coup wouldn’t have resulted in a political logjam. Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Rajapaksa have grabbed all power, but a parliamentary majority continues to elude them.

The only legal and constitutional option open to the Sirisena-Rajapaksa combo is to allow a free vote in parliament and abide by the decisions. But that is not a political option for either man. So more constitutional violations, more illegal deeds, more abuses of power and if necessary, naked violence, would be on the cards. Having created the crisis through their unconstitutional power-grab the combo would try to end the crisis via dictatorial solutions.

What will happen once the parliament reconvenes on the 14th – assuming it does reconvene? The Speaker has announced his decision to hold a floor-vote, to determine which side has the majority. The faux-regime is unlikely to permit it, or to abide by its outcome. A pro-Rajapaksa website has mentioned a plan to elect a UPFA parliamentarian as the Speaker on the 14th. The Sirisena-Rajapaksa combo lacks the numbers for such a move. Will force of some sort be used to prevent UNF, TNA and JVP parliamentarians from entering the chamber?

Rumours are rife about an anti-constitutional dissolution of parliament. If Mr. Sirisena implements such a measure, it will backfire on him and on the SLFP. He might entertain dreams of the SLFP and SLPP contesting together under the UPFA banner. But the general secretary of the SLPP has issued a statement saying that the party will contest under its own symbol, and any other party is welcome to join as a junior partner. viii Will Mr. Sirisena accept such a humiliating deal?

Since the Sirisena-Rajapaksa combo will not abide by the constitution or the law, logic or reason, chaos awaits Sri Lanka. The political uncertainty together with the various travel warnings has already affected the tourism sector, with growing cancellations and dropping occupation rates. The haemorrhaging of the Colombo Stock Exchange continues, and the rupee is steadily weakening. Appointing Bandula Gunawardane as the minister of International Trade and Investment Promotion tells its own tale (he set another mathematical record this week, claiming that the Sirisena-Rajapaksa combo enjoys the backing of 12 million voters; he simply added the 5.8 million who voted for Mr. Rajapaksa and the 6.2 million who votes against him).

We are in a time of systemic – and perhaps violent - unravelling. Still there are developments which burn bright in the gathering dark. Be it the principled stand taken by Dr. Devanesan Nesiah or the daily protests by groups of mostly ordinary citizens, the decision by the TNA and the JVP to work together to protect the constitution or the further remanding of a Navy officer accused of abducting two persons in 2009, there are signs, large and small, of resistance, courage and decency. Hope has been murdered, but there is no reason to despair.

i Inferences from a Sabre

ii The official versions are available on the parliament website

Sinhala - http://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution/19th-amendment-act-si.pdf

English - http://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution/19th-amendment-act.pdf

iii https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPE7sWf2tmM

iv https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/da-rajapaksa-foundation-owes-slrdc-rs-47-million-for-rajapaksa-memorial/

v http://www.dailynews.lk/2018/10/10/law-order/165065/rajapaksa-museum-and-memorial-case-fixed-day-day-trial

vihttp://www.mawbima.lk/print20180101MB20181230.php?id=19551

viii https://www.srilankamirror.com/news/11370-will-contest-only-under-flower-bud-slpp-secy