Rohingya return: On the trail of the destroyed villages in Rakhine

Jonathan Miller-13 Nov 2018Foreign Affairs Correspondent

The United Nations human rights chief has called on Bangladesh to halt plans to begin repatriating thousands of Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar on Thursday, saying it would put their lives in danger.

Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have fled across the border since August last year and the UN says it continues to get reports of serious rights violations in Rakhine state, including alleged killings, disappearances and arbitrary arrests.

We travelled to Rakhine, accompanied by Myanmar government handlers, where we repeatedly tried to visit the sites of villages which were destroyed, challenging the authorities to explain what happened.

Flipkart CEO Binny Bansal resigns after sexual assault accusation: source

Binny Bansal, Group Chief Executive Officer of India's largest e-commerce firm Flipkart, poses at the company's headquarters in Bengaluru, July 7, 2017. REUTERS/Abhishek N. Chinnappa/Files

Nandita Bose, Euan Rocha-NOVEMBER 13, 2018

(Reuters) - The chief executive of Flipkart Group, Walmart Inc’s (WMT.N) Indian e-commerce business, resigned following an internal probe into accusations of “serious personal misconduct,” Walmart said Tuesday.

The misconduct accusations followed an allegation of sexual assault, two people familiar with the matter said.

The departure of Binny Bansal, 37, one of the co-founders of Bangalore-based Flipkart, could be a setback for Walmart’s efforts to compete with Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) in India’s huge consumer market. A tech-savvy billionaire, Bansal took over as CEO of Flipkart in 2016. He became the chairman and group CEO of the e-commerce company this year.

Walmart paid $16 billion for a roughly 77-percent stake in Flipkart in May. The investment is the U.S. retailer’s biggest acquisition and was a major move in its efforts to compete against Amazon’s growing market share at home and abroad.

Walmart announced it would acquire the stake in Flipkart in May and completed the deal in August. In a note sent to Flipkart employees, which was seen by Reuters, Bansal said recent events led him to step down from his role as chairman and CEO. He said the events related to a claim of misconduct against him, “which was uncorroborated after a thorough investigation completed by an independent law firm.”

Bansal did not give details of the nature of the claim. “The allegations left me stunned and I strongly deny them,” he wrote.

“The investigation, however, did bring to light lapses in judgment, particularly a lack of transparency, related to how I responded to the situation,” he said, without elaborating further.

Neither Bansal nor his representatives responded to requests for comment. Flipkart did not respond to requests for comment.

A person in the United States familiar with the Walmart investigation said “a claim of sexual assault against Binny” came to its attention in late July. The accusation dated to a few years earlier and was made by a former Flipkart associate, who was not with Flipkart at the time, the person added.

Walmart said in a filing that it conducted its own investigation into the allegations, without saying what the accusations were.

“While the investigation did not find evidence to corroborate the complainant’s assertions against Binny, it did reveal other lapses in judgment, particularly a lack of transparency, related to how Binny responded to the situation.” Walmart said. “Because of this, we have accepted his decision to resign.”

 The person familiar with the matter at Walmart said that Bansal had hired two private security firms at the end of 2016, “to make this matter go away,” referring to the alleged assault claim. The person did not disclose the names of the security firm or the parties involved and Reuters was unable to confirm them.

“Binny had an opportunity to disclose these allegations to us when we were in talks (to invest in Flipkart)..but he did not,” the person said.
 said.

Slideshow (2 Images)

ACCELERATED TRANSITION

Hailing from the northern Indian city of Chandigarh, Bansal is one of India’s best known entrepreneurs after starting Flipkart in 2007 with Sachin Bansal. The duo, who hail from the same city but who are not related, formed Flipkart shortly after quitting Amazon.

Originally an online bookstore run out of a two-bedroom apartment in India’s technology hub of Bengaluru, Flipkart grew over the next decade to become India’s most valuable technology start-up.

Its units include Flipkart, which sells general merchandise, the clothing and accessories retailer Myntra, the fashion portal Jabong and PhonePe payments app. Walmart has said it may make an initial public offering of Flipkart publicly within the next four years.

A separate source directly briefed on the matter in India, who did not wish to be named, said Bansal is still a shareholder in Flipkart and has not expressed any desire to sell his stake. Walmart has not offered to buy him out, the source added.

Walmart said Bansal had been contemplating a transition for some time and that the companies had been working together on a succession plan, which had now been accelerated. In his note to Flipkart employees, Binny Bansal said that he recently had thought he might continue as CEO for “a few more quarters.”

Kalyan Krishnamurthy, who heads the company’s main Flipkart e-commerce operation, would now act as chief executive for a broader group of businesses including apparel websites Myntra and Jabong, Walmart said

Walmart Inc102.94

WMT.NNEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE

-0.93(-0.90%)

 

WMT.N

AMZN.O

Ananth Narayanan, who is the CEO of Myntra and Jabong, will continue in those roles and will now report to Krishnamurthy.

The social media #MeToo movement against sexual harassment that began in the United States over a year ago has gained traction in India in recent weeks.

Walmart’s shares traded down 1.15 percent at $102.68 per share in afternoon trade.

Reporting by Nandita Bose in New York and Euan Rocha in Mumbai, Additional reporting by Aditya Kalra in New Delhi, Nivedita Bhattacharjee, Siddharth Cavale and Nivedita Balu in Bengaluru and Sankalp Phartiyal in Mumbai; Editing by Patrick Graham and Clive McKeef

In Indonesia, businesses put on front-line of war on plastic

New regulation will require Indonesian manufacturers and retailers such as supermarkets and grocery stores to reduce their reliance on plastic. Source: Shutterstock

By Basten Gokkon | 13th November 2018 | @bgokkon

THE INDONESIAN government is set to make consumer goods manufacturers more responsible for managing the waste from their product packaging, in a bid to tackle one of the worst plastic trash problems in the world.

The regulation, expected before the end of this year, is part of a wider effort to cut Indonesia’s waste output by 30 percent by 2025 from current levels, according to Rosa Vivien Ratnawati, the environment ministry’s head of waste management.

The so-called extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulation will oblige producers and retailers to redesign their product packaging to have a higher proportion of recyclable material. It will also require that they take greater responsibility for the management of waste from their products.

Those affected will include makers of processed foods and beverages, who rely heavily on plastic packaging for their products. Retailers such as supermarkets and convenience stores will also be subject to the EPR requirements in terms of the packaging options they offer customers, as will food and beverage outlets that currently use plastic utensils, plates and cups.

SEE ALSO: Indonesia’s big plastic cleanup involved 20,000 people in 76 locales

“The roadmap addresses the way [producers carry out] waste reduction, especially for plastic,” Vivien told reporters on the sidelines of the recent Our Oceans Conference in Nusa Dua, Bali.

Vivien said an EPR requirement already exists under the Waste Management Act of 2008, but it hasn’t been easy to enforce it.

“Because when we talk about this problem, we’re talking about whether industry is ready to carry out EPR,” she said.

Ocean waste was one of the key topics discussed by government officials, business executives and civil society representatives at the Bali oceans conference.

Indonesia, a country of more than 250 million people, is the biggest contributor, after China, to the plastic trash crisis in the oceans. It produces 3.22 million tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste every year, of which 1.29 million tonnes ends up in the sea, according to environment ministry figures.

A tourist stands between plastic rubbish at Kuta beach near Denpasar, on Indonesia’s tourist island of Bali on December 19, 2017. Source: Sonny Tumbelaka/ AFP

The businesses that will be subjected to the EPR regulation will be expected to draw up a 10-year plan identifying the proportion of waste from their products that they will take back and recycle, Vivien said.

They will be required to either set up their own recycling facilities or partner with existing facilities, she added. Producers will also be expected to establish dropboxes where consumers can dispose of their product waste for processing.

Besides the post-retail recycling requirements, producers will have to increase the recyclable content of their products, Vivien said, and ideally look to create goods that are reusable.

SEE ALSO: Seaweed, Indonesia’s answer to the global plastic crisis

“With waste reduction, what we essentially want is to decrease the amount of waste dumping in disposal sites,” she said. “We have to approach all stakeholders.”

Vivien said her office was in discussions with the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Trade and business associations to design the roadmap for waste reduction by producers.

The government plans to spend US$1 billion over the next five years to reduce marine waste, much of it plastic waste. The goal is to cut it by 70 percent by 2025, according to the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs.

The Industry Ministry will have “the biggest role in controlling plastics over the next five years,” according to Safri Burhanuddin, a senior official at the coordinating ministry.

The Industry Ministry has previously opposed EPR requirements, saying it’s enough just to oblige manufacturers to ensure their products include some amount of recyclable content.

“We must assure them that waste management has profitable aspects and cost reduction,” Vivien said. “When we talk about waste management, we want to talk about a circular economy.”

EPR is an established practice in many countries, with proven economic benefits. The South Korean government, for example, introduced such a scheme in 2000 and applied it to packaging made from paper, glass, metal and plastic; as well as lubricants, tires, fluorescent light bulbs, batteries and electronic products.

A 2010 government assessment showed that EPR recycling generated KRW1.7 trillion (US$1.5 billion) in added value and saved KRW1.9 trillion (US$1.68 billion) in incineration and landfill expenses. The study also showed that with the enforcement of EPR from 2001 to 2008, total energy reductions amounted to 3.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent (TOE), or approximately KRW2.6 trillion (US$2.3 billion) in electricity costs.

Crucially, while South Korea imposes fines and other penalties for noncompliance with its EPR policies, the Indonesian roadmap will not stipulate any such punitive measures for companies that fail to meet their ostensible obligations.

Vivien said she expected the market and consumers to turn away from products made by companies that didn’t comply with the new guidelines.

“While we increase talks with business associations, we also must educate the people,” she said, adding that her office was working with civil society and religious organisations to promote waste reduction.

“Our way of consumption has so far been created by [producers]. We’re used to using [plastic] straws because of the industry, we’re used to using sachets because the industry created them,” Vivien said.

SEE ALSO: In Indonesia, commuters pay for the bus with plastic waste

It is hoped that consumers will turn way from businesses that don’t comply with the new EPR guidelines. Source: Shutterstock

Environmental groups have long called for increased producer responsibility in waste management.

Greenpeace Indonesia carried out an audit on plastic waste across the country in 2017, and found that much of it was dominated by plastic bottles and packaging from products made by multinational and local producers, including Univeler, Danone, Indofood, Wings and Orang Tua.

“It’s important for producers to take over the responsibility for the waste from their own products,” said Rahyang Nusantara, a coordinator from the Indonesia Plastic Bag Diet Movement (GIDKP), an advocacy group.

“The Industry Ministry needs to encourage businesses to embrace that change,” he added.

“Business development must go along with sustainable and responsible efforts to protect the environment. Degraded environment will eventually affect the business climate.”

This article first appeared on Mongabay.

Fat-clogged cells explain why obesity can cause cancer

12 November 2018

A new discovery could explain why obese people are more likely to develop cancer, scientists say.

A type of cell the body uses to destroy cancerous tissue gets clogged by fat and stops working, the team, from Trinity College Dublin, found.

Obesity is the biggest preventable cause of cancer in the UK after smoking, Cancer Research UK says.

And more than one in 20 cancer cases - about 22,800 cases each year in the UK - are caused by excess body weight.

Experts already suspected fat sent signals to the body that could both damage cells, leading to cancer, and increase the number of them.

Now, the Trinity scientists have been able to show, in Nature Immunology journal, how the body's cancer-fighting cells get clogged by fat.

And they hope to be able to find drug treatments that could restore these "natural killer" cells' fighting abilities.

'Lose some weight'

Prof Lydia Lynch said: "A compound that can block the fat uptake by natural killer cells might help.

"We tried it in the lab and found it allowed them to kill again.

"But arguably a better way would be to lose some weight - because that is healthier for you anyway."

Dr Leo Carlin, from the Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, said: "Although we know that obesity increases the risk of 13 different types of cancer, we still don't fully understand the mechanisms underlying the link.

"This study reveals how fat molecules prevent immune cells from properly positioning their tumour-killing machinery, and provides new avenues to investigate treatments.

"A lot of research focuses on how tumours grow in order to find metabolic targets to stop them, so this is a reminder that we should consider the metabolism of immune cells too."

Avoiding cancer

Media caption

To reduce risk:

• keep a healthy weight
• stop smoking
• eat a healthy diet
• cut back on alcohol
• avoid sunburn

A FIGHT TO RESET SRI LANKA’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLOCK – KISHALI PINTO JAYAWARDENA

11/11/2018

As the core of Sri Lanka’s Democratic Socialist Republic implodes in multiple critical ways today, it cannot be said that we were not forewarned.

For not only President Maithripala Sirisena but also each and every one of us must abide by a fundamental truth underlying the legal order. The Constitution cannot be selectively applied because we happen to like someone or dislike another. If this is not recognised, we are condemned to unceasingly wander in a weary cycle of constitutional attrition, much like the bewildered rat in the cage.

Selective constitutional propriety

There is a particular context to that warning. A bare eight months into office in 2015, the President addressed the nation before television cameras stating that even if former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s faction of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party was successful in obtaining a majority at the pending parliamentary election, he would not appoint him as Prime Minister. Voices of reason should have been aghast at this proclamation. It was an affirmation in no uncertain terms that constitutional propriety will yield to a visceral reaction of whom the President felt should be suitable or not to appoint as Prime Minister.

But few raised their eyebrows. In fact, many applauded. Why? Because a hated and feared Rajapaksa was at the receiving end of that presidential diatribe. It was on that same reasoning that many clapped and cheered when earlier that same year, a Chief Justice who should have been properly impeached for misbehaviour in office was declared by a Presidential letter ‘never to have been in office’. As pointed out in these column spaces, that was an assessment that should have been made by Court, not by executive fiat. Yet, this was justified, supported and even urged by those who wax eloquent (then and now) on constitutional propriety.

Even as members of the black-coated fraternity strode up and down Hulfsdorp’s streets bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, demanding the Chief Justice’s summary ouster, I remember receiving a phone call from a colleague who asked me only half in jest, as to why I was not joining the ‘yahapalanaya’ melee. My response was these disastrous precedents will be rued once triumphalism following Rajapaksa’s defeat subsided.

An ugly history of subversion

Now as 2018 draws to a close, it is cold comfort to be proven right. Prodigiously infantile if not ‘instrumental’ constitution-making has reaped its bitter harvests. The removal of a UNP Prime Minister by a letter of the President has been effected in much the same manner. Putting the blame on an eccentrically manipulative Presidency is the easy way out. Instead, the responsibility is much wider. It pervades beyond the political sphere, as uncomfortable as that truth may be. This is something that Sri Lanka’s young democracy fighters lining Colombo’s streets and boulevards must remember.

That said, cynics who grumble that this is merely the continuation of a long history of constitutional subversion are only half right. Both the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions were instrumentally engineered to suit political ends. In that ugly history, the 17th Amendment stands as the one clear exception where constitutional objects were true to their aim. The 19th Amendment was a pale shadow of that steadfastness. For those who would jib at this castigation, a thorough reading of the constitutional documents is recommended.

One major illustration is the Constitutional Council devised to mediate appointments to key public posts and independent commissions. Its 17th Amendment version insisted on a majority of civil society members. This was revised in the 19th Amendment which tilted that balance in favour of politicians. To be fair, the 19th Amendment did away with the authoritarian overreach of the Rajapaksa backed 18th Amendment brazenly approved by the Supreme Court of the day. But that does not excuse this Amendment being shot through with multiple internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

Basic questions in issue

An excellent example concerns the dissolution of Parliament this Friday. This came four short days before a sitting where a floor test to determine the majority in the House would have been inevitable. Proponents of the presidential move rely on Article 33 (2) (c) which gives general power to the President to ‘summon, prorogue and dissolve’ Parliament. Opponents say that this is contrary to Article 70 (1) of the Constitution which reiterates this power but specifically ‘provides’ that Parliament cannot be dissolved before the passing of four and a half years, absent approval of a two-thirds majority in the House. On a plain and simple reading, the constitutional text inclines towards the primacy of Section 70 (1).

Even so, a basic question arises. Earlier, the power of dissolving Parliament was simply and unambiguously contained in Article 70 of the 1978 Constitution (Section 70) with provisos as to time periods that were thereafter amended. But a ridiculously tautologous general power of the President to dissolve the House was brought also into Section 33(2)(c) through the 19th Amendment, piling one folly upon another and enabling this rich confusion presently gripping the nation.

In the most profound of ironies, it is this Section that is cited by admittedly devious legal minds to justify the President’s act (‘Country in anarchy; President can dissolve Parliament, Sarath N. Silva, Sri Lanka Mirror, 08.11.2018). Interestingly it is contended that Section 33(2)(c) had been inserted following the Determination of the Supreme Court on the 19th Amendment when a clear reading of that Determination shows that very much not to be the case.

In the eye of a storm

But constitutional drafting errors aside, what is happening now is infinitely worse than at any time in the past. Rash actions by President Sirisena which are entirely devoid of remorse add to the sum total of historical abuses by the Office. An election to bring in the same set of rogues in whatever configuration is pointless. Indeed, a wildly unpredictable President may well dismiss the winner of that election as well if the outcome is not to his liking. His appeal to public officers to perform their duties regardless of political conflict is quite nonsensical. Truly we are in the eye of a storm that has the potential to strangle Rule of Law protections even as they are being slowly and and hesitantly rejuvenated.

The popular struggle must be to reset Sri Lanka’s constitutional checks and balances and reject this joke of a monstrous kind perpetuated by all three men, President Sirisena, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. To safeguard the credibility of this movement, it must studiedly keep itself aloof from the UNP and the SLFP. The discarding of the Executive Presidency must be a prime aim along with eschewing transferral of those powers to an equally authoritarian Prime Minister.

For now, it will be up to the judiciary to fulfill its role of protector of the Constitution. It is the nation’s hope (against hope?) that this task will be taken to heart in the full and awful solemnity that it demands.

(Sunday Times)

Several people missing in Mullaitivu after flooding burst tanks

Photograph: Flooding in Kilinochichi this week.

10 November 2018

At least six people have been declared missing after heavy floods burst irrigation tanks in Mullaitivu, as flooding affected many parts of the North-East this week.

The Sri Lankan military has reportedly been deployed in the region, as flooding from heavy rains has affected as many as 647 people.

The heavy rains have been particularly hard in Mullaitivu, the site of the final stages of the Sri Lankan military offensive which saw tens of thousands of Tamils killed. It remains one of the poorest districts on the whole island.

Photograph: Flooding in Mullaitivu bursts an irrigation tank.

19A totally Nullified: J.C. Weliamuna

• Constitution a counter-majoritarian document 
• Article 48 (1) doesn’t say PM can be removed by President 
• SLFP cannot form a national government 

 

2018-11-13

Politics has always been a messy game. It got even messier over the past few days. At a time when many debates, arguments and justifications are being brought up, one certainly wouldn’t be able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. When many were looking forward to November 14, President Maithripala Sirisena dissolved Parliament last Friday -another trump card out of many as he said. A majority of those in the legal fraternity deem this move unconstitutional. “Imagine a situation where in Parliament, the President and Mahinda Rajapaksa are unable to show a majority; it can then lead to what is known as a Constitutional deadlock,” says J.C. Weliamuna, President’s Counsel specialised in Constitutional and human rights law, in an interview with Daily mirror . Excerpts: 

QThere have been several arguments over what was right and wrong in the sudden turn of events since October 26. What are your thoughts on this?

There are multiple issues here. First is the removal of an existing Prime Minister and appointment of a new one. There are a lot of arguments to that move. Then surfaces the question whether prorogation is lawful or not -- leading up to a potential dissolution of Parliament. Let’s take a look at the provisions; the basic fact regarding a Constitution is that it is not interpreted like normal laws. One cannot tamper with it and we need to find answers within the Constitutional framework. In the Constitution, unlike other laws, there is no provision to say that either Sinhala or Tamil clauses prevail. They have to look at the intention of the Parliament. The Constitution is a fundamental document that sets limits to power, which is why it is a counter-majoritarian document. If we say the Parliament has powers, it sets limits to Parliament. Otherwise, the Parliament can pass anything. This applies to the President as well. He has his powers and you need to look at the limitations. 

The President can appoint a PM only if there is a vacancy and such a vacancy will occur only in terms of the provisions given or after an election. Under Article 47, the President can appoint a PM when there’s a vacancy. During such an instance, he can form an opinion on who commands the majority

QAccording to 19A, where does the legality lie in the unfolding of such events?

Many say the President was vested with enormous powers through the Constitution prior to the introduction of 19A. Article 47 says the President has the authority to remove the premier and Cabinet ministers. 19A was intended to shift away executive powers. Therefore, any interpretation will look at the amendment first. There is no provision and since Article 47 was altered, the President is now unable to change the PM. They also refer to Article 48 (1) in Sinhala which says the PM will be removed, but it doesn’t say that the PM will be removed by the President. Even then, there is a procedure to remove the PM and that is not by the President because his powers are limited. The only instance where a PM can be removed -- which is termed an enabling provision -- is through a no-confidence motion in Parliament. If not, it has to be the court upon him ceasing to be a Member of Parliament (MP) through an election petition. Under the Constitution and according to Standing Orders, there is one more person who cannot be removed. That is the Speaker. Furthermore, a no-confidence motion cannot be brought against the Speaker because we have gone towards Parliamentary traditions, moving away from Presidential systems. 

QSome claim that since the SLFP left the Cabinet, the PM ceased to exist. Is that true?

There has to be 30 members in the Cabinet with the President and if there is a national government, the numbers may increase. When the SLFP withdrew from the national government, the Cabinet ceased to exist and the Parliament has to be dissolved. Once again, this is similar, because the Constitution states how a Cabinet is dissolved. This is when the PM resigns and even with the dissolution of Parliament, the Cabinet may continue to function. The provision caters to the party that musters a majority to accommodate as many people in the Cabinet. In fact, it is quite an unhealthy provision. It doesn’t get members together to run the country. The Cabinet will be expanded so that people won’t jump here and there and they will be accommodated. It is the party which gets the highest number that can form a national government. Presently, it is the UNP. The SLFP cannot form a national government. In order to form a national government, there has to be a resolution passed in Parliament. Only then can the President appoint more than 30 members. When you increase the count to more than 30, you don’t have to replace the PM. It is the same equation when you reduce the count. The national government concept is only for the size of the Cabinet. That has nothing to do with the President’s power to remove the PM. They are totally independent. The President can appoint a PM only if there is a vacancy and such a vacancy will occur only in terms of the provisions given or after an election. Under Article 47, the President can appoint a PM when there’s a vacancy. During such an instance, he can form an opinion on who commands the majority. This happens in two ways in Commonwealth countries -- you either consult the parties and the party that garners the highest number will appoint whoever it considers to the post. If the decision is challenged, a ‘Floor Test’ will be held to show a majority and then you are appointed. Once appointed, the executive ceases to have any authority for interference and this applies to any executive anywhere in the world. This is the Constitutional change envisaged in 19A. If you want to have Parliamentary traditions, this is how it should happen. Otherwise, we are going back to the epoch pre-19A. 

QCan this process be reversed?

This process has totally nullified 19A and it is unconstitutional. It is now difficult to redo it and even if you show a majority, this unconstitutional step will create a historic precedence and ultimately affect the populace. Imagine a situation where in Parliament, the President and Mahinda Rajapaksa are unable to show a majority; it can then lead to what is known as a Constitutional deadlock. Such deadlocks will be resolved militarily or by bloodshed. In order to get over that, the government will have to resort to many other unconstitutional steps. If the President wants to respect the people’s mandate and the Constitution, he has to give in. 

Article 99 (13)  has been over-interpreted by the Supreme Court in  many rulings. I cannot say if it is right or wrong, but we ended up in a  situation where MPs can crossover to any side. If you want to jump into  a party that is in power, you can strengthen their hands. It’s the  party’s decision that is challenged

QDoes it leave room for dissolution of Parliament?

The power vested with the President to dissolve Parliament should be incorporated in the Constitution. One reason why 19A was brought in was to limit presidential powers. Earlier, the President had the authority to dissolve Parliament of his own accord after one year. This was changed in Article 70 and it now states that the President may proclaim, summon, prorogue or dissolve Parliament, provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until expiration of a period not less than four years and six months. So he cannot dissolve Parliament unless it requests the President to do so with a two-thirds majority (150 MPs). The argument is that Article 70 (1) and 33 (c) vests general powers with the President to dissolve Parliament but sets limitations as aforementioned. The dissolution of Parliament is a clear indication that the government wants to keep covering the initial illegality. 

QWhat exactly are the President’s powers?

Article 33 lists out the President’s powers. These include presiding ceremonies and summoning, proroguing or dissolving Parliament. Although he has a general power when there are specific limitations, you can’t say that one part is valid and other part is not. Previously, there were decisions on 19A in the Supreme Court, but all of them were nullified following 19A. The President says he cannot work with the PM. This argument isn’t valid in the Constitution because the President and Parliament are direct appointments of the people. One person appointed directly by the people of the country cannot say he is unable to work with another elected in the same manner. They must cooperate and consolidate the Constitution rather than breaking it. If the President says he cannot work with X, Y or Z, it then means he is not willing to respect the Constitution. Therefore, he’s creating an undemocratic precedence. The general public shouldn’t be a casualty of personal problems between the President and the PM, if any. But now look at the socio-economic cost and international pressure. There is an unprecedented brain drain situation. They must keep their egos aside and work together. 

QBut he prorogued Parliament immediately after the new PM was appointed.

Prorogation is traditionally with the Queen. Nobody has interpreted it except in Parliamentary traditions. Even in England, prorogation comes with the Speaker requesting the executive to do so. This is because there’s a separation of powers. The Parliament has its powers and the President cannot ask them not to work. Traditionally, in other prorogations, they inform the Speaker and in this instance the budget was supposed to commence and now coming to think of it the national budget has become less important today. According to traditions, it says that the Speaker can reconvene the majority of Parliament. During CBK’s regime, she gave a lengthy order to prorogue Parliament, but the then Speaker Joseph Michael Perera said he would continue proceedings as the order was an abuse of power. 

QCrossovers for staggering inducements have become a commonplace once again. This also raises a question about transparency. Why do they impose a black patch on the entire political culture?

Article 99 (13) has been over-interpreted by the Supreme Court in many rulings. I cannot say if it is right or wrong, but we ended up in a situation where MPs can crossover to any side. If you want to jump into a party that is in power, you can strengthen their hands. It’s the party’s decision that is challenged. Parties strike deals so that decisions will not be successful. Evidence of bribing and handing over ministerial portfolios is surfacing one by one. It is in question whether an outside source is funding such interests or if it is own money that keeps falling into the wrong hands. However, there seems to be an illicit financial flow from corrupt elements. These actions need to be investigated. All MPs concerned are virtually selling our right to franchise. This debate was tabled with 19A and there was a debate to drop crossovers -- we wanted to have one provision where if you crossover you cease to be an MP. But several SLFP MPs opposed to it during the 100-day programme and eventually blocked it. 

The power vested with the President to dissolve Parliament should be incorporated in the Constitution. One reason why 19A was  brought in was to limit presidential powers. Earlier, the President had  the authority to dissolve Parliament of his own accord after one year.  This was changed in Article 70

QPeople are taking to the street to protect their democratic rights. Where do we, the general public, stand in this dilemma?

People are victims of this vicious cycle. Unfortunately, they are taking party lines. There’s another group of people that find it difficult to survive without ministerial portfolios. Several others are ready to abuse power. The problem is actually with the people. If this continues, don’t be surprised if people claim to not have a future in this country. We wanted to establish the rule of law. We saw how Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached and we have seen how constitutional processes were abused. They will take a little time to consolidate and will start from where they stopped. 

Untruth is the crisis

Tuesday, 13 November 2018

Political language, said George Orwell, is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Dr. Sarath Amunugama is the subject of this essay. In addition to his current incarnation of a politician, he is an erudite scholar, a socio anthropologist of repute. His incisive mind’ has few rivals in the parliament that stands dissolved.

I last met him on 30 November 2015 when he joined Professor Gananatha Obeysekera in celebrating the life and work of Dr. Stanley Thambiah in a panel discussion at the International Centre for Ethnic Studies.

Dr. Amunugama paid a touching tribute to the author who made the penetrative survey of political Buddhism published under the rhetorical title ‘Buddhism betrayed?’

Dr. Amunugama bid farewell to his departed colleague by reciting four Buddhist stanzas, beginning with “Anicca vata sankhara” – Impermanent alas are formations, subject to rise and fall.

The learned trapeze act, at the time, impressed me no end. I rushed to print in admiration. I described it as the distilled decency of the Sinhala Kandyan Buddhist ethos.

The essential purpose of this essay is to eat my words.

Sanskrit, the language of Kama Sutra, has 247 equivalents for the word love. Dr. Sarath Amunugama is far more modest than ‘Vatsyayana,’ the author of the love tract. He seems to have less than 200 equivalents for truth. A little more than 100 equivalents for intellectual integrity and around 50 for politics of expediency.

Among political parvenu currently pirouetting in centre-stage, Dr. Sarath Amunugama’s mastery of the Bhagavad Gita is unparalleled

He has a sensitive and delicate grip on the pristine essence of the Gita – how to evade mental and emotional traps, how to create an outer life that feeds your inner life.

He has amply demonstrated his versatility in interpreting events to suit his idea of truth, alternate truth and manufactured truth.

It is such a pleasure to write on the politics of a scholar who can recite forwards and backwards the famous tract ‘Politics as a Vocation’ by Max Weber, the German pioneer of social anthropology.

Weber concludes his tract ‘Politics’ as a vocation with these startling words: “Only he has a calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say ‘In spite of all!’ has the calling for politics.”

On the morning of 4 November Dr. Sarath Amunugama called on the Malwatte and Asgririya prelates. He assured them that the international community had not exerted any pressure on the country. He told them that “the European Union had only requested the Government to resolve the current problem in the country democratically.

“Although the international community could not exert pressure when action had been taken according to the Constitution, the government had given thought to the possibility of unfavourable repercussions if this situation led to violence and bloodshed. This was because the media was so powerful today that even a minor incident could be taken to the world in a matter of seconds.”

On 5 November Dr. Sarath Amunugama told Jack Moor of the ‘The National’- the Abu Dhabi based English language newspaper – that the current “crisis was a case of who reached for the gun first”.

This is how the largest circulating English paper in the Middle East reported it: Sarath Amunugama said the ousting would be finalised with a Parliamentary vote in the new Government’s favour and that the takeover was just a matter of “who reached for the gun first”.

On bribing MPs to obtain support in Parliament and delaying a vote until it has the majority it needs, he is reported as saying “They would have done absolutely the same. They are just the guys who have not been fast on the draw.”

On Saturday 10 November Dr. Sarath Amunugama tells the Associated Press Correspondent that the President was compelled to dissolve Parliament because the Speaker “was not planning to act according to the Constitution and Standing Orders of Parliament” and that “there was to be a lot of commotion and un-parliamentary activities sponsored by the Speaker”.

The report appears in the Washington Post of 10 November.

Sarath Amunugama has presented three contrary versions – two to the world and one to the two prelates in Kandy. And he is not ashamed of those untruths.

These are times of populism and neofascism. We must learn from history. Hitler explained the secret of his success: “I will tell you what has carried me to the position I have reached. Our political problems appeared complicated. The German people could make nothing of them… I…reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realised this and followed me.”

The words of that monster have a sure resonance when we hear the learned Trinity educated Dr. Gobbles of Gunnepana Kandy.Sarath Amunugama has read Emanuel Kant. If I was writing to Wimal Weerawansa, or Sirisena the President, I would not have bothered with Emanuel Kant and his teachings on morality.

The philosopher once remarked that “no man in his true senses … is candid.” When he said it, he did not outright dismiss the value of either truthfulness or sincerity in human transactions. What he meant was that we must restrain our inner thoughts that basically express contempt for our fellow beings.

That is precisely what Dr. Amunugama has been trying to do with his three statements cited in this missive. Emmanuel Kant recognised contempt as a dangerous thing. The danger of contempt is that it helps to dehumanise your target. That is the precise travesty Dr. Amunugama commits with Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. He has unscrupulously made Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, an intrinsically gentle creature and a character, into a monster that he could never be.

Partisan politics has a disregard for truth and virtual commitment to convenient untruths. But Sarath Amunugama must not entertain the illusion that gross falsehoods can add up to a constructed truth or even a half-truth.