Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, December 7, 2018

American and Worldwide Tamil Diaspora Organizations Respond to Sri Lanka Constitutional Crisis

Political reform must include restoration of Tamil rights ensured by international guarantees of implementation


NEWS PROVIDED BY-USTPAC -08:12 ET
WASHINGTONLONDON, and SYDNEYDec. 7, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Responding to the current constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka, leading Tamil diaspora organizations issued a call to the international community to support a permanent political solution to the country's ethnic problem that goes beyond current or proposed constitutional arrangements and provides international guarantees and safeguards. The US Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC), British Tamil Forum (BTF), Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), People for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PEARL), and World Thamil Organization (WTO) jointly issued the statement.
The collapse of the Sri Lankan government on October 26th, 2018 has exposed the inconsistency and instability of Sri Lanka's ethnocracy. A blatant disrespect for constitutional law and the failure to preserve promises made toward their people and the international community is evident. Since the 2015 presidential election, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has provided qualified support to the "unity government." This support has been given with the expectation of the restoration of normalcy in the former war zones of the North and East - the traditional areas of habitation of the Tamils -, Transitional Justice, a permanent political solution acceptable to the Tamil people, and implementation of good governance.
The Sirisena government's scant progress towards these expectations has been insubstantial and remains reversible. The TNA at a meeting with 15 countries on November 21, 2018, "urged the diplomats to use their influence with whoever necessary to set things right and put the country in the right path." The TNA's leader and Leader of Opposition Mr. Sampanthan expressed concern that, "Tamils are likely to become the worst victims in Sri Lanka's political crisis."
Since Sri Lanka's Independence in 1948, the two primary Sinhala political parties have demonstrated a pattern of 'ethnic outbidding' in catering to the Sinhalese majority community at the expense of all others, beginning with disenfranchising a million members of the Tamil community. Following enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in 1978 and extensive use of emergency powers, the country has experienced years of authoritarian rule. The use of extrajudicial powers has subverted constitutional rights, perpetuating a lack of respect for the rule of law, and a culture of oppression and impunity by the security establishment, mainly targeting the Tamil population in the North and East.  This targeting includes war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide.
In 1987, the 13th Amendment based on the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, an inadequate agreement to address Tamil grievances, created Provincial Councils as the unit of devolution, including police and land power. The Amendment also merged the Tamils' traditional homeland of the North-East into one province. The non-implementation of the 13thAmendment, including the dismembering of the merged North-East in 2006 without the required Referendum, is a blatant ongoing disregard of the country's constitution.
Sri Lanka co-sponsored UNHRC Resolution 30/1 in 2015, which required the establishment of a hybrid court including international judges and prosecutors. Sri Lanka has repeatedly rejected this commitment since.
The ethnocentric nature of the Sri Lankan state controlled by a Sinhala Buddhist nationalist ideology is fundamentally incapable of providing a political settlement that addresses the root causes of the war, provided the Sinhala-centric political reality of the past decades continues. For the Tamil community, the hard questions remain –
Will we be able to advance transitional justice within this current political state mechanism, regardless of the regime in power? Even if the present constitutional exercise to solve the Tamil question succeeds, what are the chances of such an arrangement being faithfully and permanently implemented? What kind of international safeguards would be needed to ensure legitimacy and permanency?
While we want the current crisis to be solved within the norms of democratic principles and the constitution, we urge the international community to reassess its options. It must take on a greater role in instituting transitional justice in Sri Lanka and must support fundamental change for a permanent political solution that meets the aspirations of the Tamil people, strengthened by international guarantees.
For further information, contact: 
S. Sivam, President, USTPAC 
T: +1 202 595 3123 
Website: www.ustpac.org  
Email: 206192@email4pr.com 
Twitter: @UstpacAdvocacy

Protest against arrest of former LTTE cadres held in Batticaloa

Civil society organisations and former LTTE cadres staged a demonstration in Batticaloa this week, protesting against the arrests of former fighters.
 06 December 2018

Protestors called for the released of the former LTTE cadres, with as many as six members reportedly arrested this week in connection with the murder of two Sri Lankan policemen.
The demonstration, staged outside of the office of the Governor of the Eastern Province also called for action on enforced disappearances.
 

The Possible Different Scenarios

Mass Usuf
logoThere are two decisions currently pending in the Courts. Firstly, the petition challenging the validity of the gazette notification in relation to the dissolution of Parliament and, secondly, the action instituted by way of a Writ of Quo Warranto.
This column will explore the implications based on the possible outcome of the different scenarios. An understanding of the outcomes is considered important because as citizens, we are duty bound to ensure the continuation of the institution of democracy.
Interim period
If the dissolution of parliament gazette is held valid. The Parliament will stand dissolved. Then elections will follow. Something of concern at this point is regarding the period between dissolution and the swearing in of the new government post-election. The constitution states in Article 18. (1):
“The Cabinet of Ministers functioning immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament shall notwithstanding such dissolution continue to function and shall cease to function upon the conclusion of the General Election …. “
At the time of going to press, there is no functioning Cabinet of ministers to run the affairs of the state because there is a pending case.  If the court decides that the present government is without authority, there obviously will be no Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers.  In this case, the president has to immediately appoint a prime minister and a cabinet of ministers in consultation with the Prime Minister. 
At present, the President has publicly declared that he will not appoint Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister. The flip side would mean that he is prepared to appoint any other. To emphasise his reluctance in making such an appointment, the President said at the SLFP convention that even if the entire 225 members of the parliament unanimously approve his Premiership, he would still not appoint Mr. Wickremesinghe. 
Two legal issues stem from this (1) the President by implication accepts the need to appoint a prime minister. (2) His refusal is a violation of the constitution and the sovereignty of the people.
Analysing point (1) above, there is acquiescence on the side of the President regarding the need to appoint a prime minister.  From this, it becomes clear that this position paves the way for two other possibilities –
(a) the President accepts the appointment of Mr. Rajapakshe as not valid or, 
(b) he accepts that the No Confidence Motion passed in the parliament on 14th and 16th as valid. 
Is the President’s position not to appoint Mr. Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister sustainable? Let’s make a wild assumption. Elections are held and UNP wins. Will the President then also say he will not appoint Ranil as PM? This type of behaviour is unconstitutional and should not be allowed to take precedence. It may invariably lead to a dictatorial or arbitrary rule.
With regard to (2) above namely that the President is in violation of the constitution and the sovereignty of the people. This has four more implications. 

Read More

Sri Lanka: Can we trust President

A president must know how to use power to assemblegoverning coalitions. Promises to “work across the aisle” are uselesswithout the ability to listen, compromise, devise political strategy, andmarshal support of all the partners. 

by Sarath Obeysekera-
( December 7, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Admittedly,professional experience in politics is no guarantee of presidentialperformance, but lack of it should not be such a desirable criterion. So what,then, does professionalism in politics require? Arguably, here are a fewcomponents of competence for would-be presidents from now on.
A president must understand the Constitution, its history, and the values at its core. This requires not just picking passages to buttress arguments, but knowing for example, how the communal and anti-communal tensions that nearly prevented unification continue today. It demands understanding that the farmers /working class are worried a lot about the tyranny of the majority.
As Jefferson of the USA put it in his First Inaugural, “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
A new President who thinks that the mandate to govern includes the ability to ignore the concerns of those who lost, misses the meaning of a rightful government.
A president should be able to think and act strategically, both domestically and internationally. This demands the capability to understand social, economic, and political systems and their inter-relationships. It requires a deep thirst for knowledge of the world as well as our history, the ability to handle cognitive complexity, the capacity to think long-term, and the skill to take short-term actions that move toward strategic goals.
A president must know how to use power to assemble governing coalitions. Promises to “work across the aisle” are useless without the ability to listen, compromise, devise political strategy, and marshal support of all the partners. Our disdain for the “political class” notwithstanding, a president has to be a political animal.
A president should be able to lead a complex bureaucracy. This requires understanding how large organizations work, what leads to failure, and how to select those leaders who will do the daily work of running government. It requires ensuring that communication and dissent flow upward. When they do not, a president — and a nation — get blindsided. It demands the ability to turn campaign sound bites into realistic ideas, ideas into policies, policies into programmes, and to execute those programmes well. Ideology may propel a campaign, but runs out of steam quickly in the real world.
Such capabilities seem seldom examined or demanded during election campaigns. This may come from two misconceptions. The first is that people who are political novices can fix the very political system they condemn. That is like expecting a plumber to redesign a highway interchange. The second is that good campaigners will make good presidents, though the skills required to win are a small subset of those required to govern.
Our political system has serious problems, but it is not broken. The inability to get things done is a direct result of the design of our Constitution, crafted to make acting without widespread popular and political support next to impossible. If we cannot move forward, it is because there are systemic problems that need to be addressed and, in part, because presidents have lacked both the understanding and the political skills to do so. Putting political neophytes in the President’s House may be appealing, but the results can be appalling. We don’t hand over the controls of jetliners or fighter planes to just anyone, nor should we hand over the controls of the presidency to political beginners. Hence, we should seriously think when we try to find an alternative President, from those who are novices like Cricket Captains or a Business Magnate or even an ambitious monk.People need to carry the manifesto of an incumbent president with them when they go to vote next time and decide. “Can we trust him “?

The culprit behind 2.7 million worth heroin arrested by police

Friday, December 7, 2018

Police yesterday arrested two suspects in the sea area between Beruwala and Balapitiya for transporting over 231 Kilograms of Heroin valued at over Rs.2.778 Billion. This is recognized to be the second largest haul of heroin to be seized in Sri Lanka.

The owner of the boat has been arrested today in Yatiyanthota with Rs.1.5 million in cash, the Police Spokesman said.

Police said that the suspect, who is the owner of the trawler, had jumped into the Kelani River as police officers attempted to arrest him, however the officers attached to Yatiyanthota Police had managed to capture the individual.

TNA could be the saviour


Can the TNA by supporting the UNP to form a Government save the day?

2018-12-07
he essence of the special statement made on Sunday by Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was prevented from acting as Prime Minister by the Appeal Court on Monday, was nothing new.While attempting to find parallels between the dissolution of Parliament by President Maithripala Sirisena on November 9 and dissolution of Parliaments of several other countries under various circumstances, he stressed the need to go for a General Election in order to bring in a stable Government through a fresh composition of Parliament.
Apart from his comparison of dissolution of Parliament in Sri Lanka last month and in other countries in the past is misleading, as the Lawyers for Democracy pointed out, the main point he was attempting to drive home –the need for a General Election- was something that had been canvassed by his group for the past several weeks.Hence, it is puzzling as to how the statement became special.
However, an important aspect that has to be taken into account in his address was his open attempt to influence the Judiciary that had already taken up for Consideration 13 petitions against the dissolution of Parliament by the President.

"An important aspect that has to be taken into account in his address was his open attempt to influence the Judiciary that had already taken up for Consideration 13 petitions against the dissolution of Parliament by the President"

The Supreme Court had heard the submissions on the dissolution on November 12 and 13 and was to resume hearing on December 4 when he made this special statement.
Besides indirectly influencing the case by his comparison of dissolution of Parliament in Sri Lanka and other countries, he made a direct reference to Article 70 (1) of the Constitution as well which is under consideration by the Supreme Court.
A Rajapaksa loyalist might contend that his statement was not sub-judice since many people discuss in the media the issues currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Yet, the propriety of a statement by a person who identifies himself as the Prime Minister of the country and more importantly, who is a stakeholder of the said case, is questionable. 

On the same day, Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera, who has now teamed up with Rajapaksa, after contesting the Parliamentary Elections in August 2015 under the Elephant symbol of the United National Party (UNP) directly addressed to the Court, while calling for a General Election.
He said that the court had to take into account the current political impasse when it delivered the Judgment.
This was not only influencing the court but also against the court procedures we know. Normally courts are expected to consider only the facts and arguments placed before them, disregarding other happenings outside the courtroom.
These attempts to influence the Court seem to be calculated and not accidental, as posters with slogans Nadukara Hamuduruwane apata ape chandaya denna (Ven. judges, give us our vote- meaning give us a General Election) had sprung up in many parts of the country, while they were making these statements.
Given these developments, what can one expect if such cases are heard when Rajapaksa is in power?
With Rajapaksa loyalists also taking one issue before the Judiciary, the country is waiting for the outcome of three petitions pertaining to the current political quagmire, with bated breath.

"A statement by a stakeholder of the said case is questionable if it was sub-Judice"

Apart from the petition against the dissolution, another one had been filed by the former head of Civil Security Department Sarath Weerasekara, seeking a declaration against the convening of Parliament, in the light of the dissolution of it.
A third one has been filed by Ranil Wickremesinghe who was ousted as Prime Minister by the President on October 26 and 121 other Parliamentarians seeking a declaration preventing Rajapaksa and 48 MPs from functioning as Prime Minister and Ministers.
Already two interim orders have been delivered by the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court, to the disappointment of President Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa.The Supreme Court on November 13 issued an order temporarily suspending the Gazette notification issued by the President dissolving the Parliament, while the Appeal Court issued another order on Monday (December 3) preventing Rajapaksa and another 48 persons from acting as Prime Minister and ministers.
In fact, the submissions before the courts sometimes highly tilted- by the high ranking lawyers in the country on these matters and the interim and final outcomes of these cases would no doubt be highly valuable for the students of law and those interested in politics.
However, very few even among the educated people seem to be looking at them objectively. A large majority is highly politicized and they want to see their point of view is carried by hook or by crook, come what may.

Now a strange situation has been created by the interim orders of the courts and the two no-confidence motions passed in the Parliament against Rajapaksa and his Cabinet. Following the interim order on the Quo-Warranto Writ Petition against Rajapaksa’s purported premiership and his purported ministers, the country is for the first time in the history without a government accepted at least by a section of the Parliament. Earlier, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya had announced that neither Wickremesinghe nor Rajapaksa was acceptable as Prime Minister. Yet, he convened the Parliament. After the interim order on the Quo-Warranto Writ Petition also he convened the Parliament on Wednesday. Can the Parliament meet under a situation where there is no government in the country?

" Very few even among the educated people seem to be looking at them objectively."

One has to look forward to one of four scenarios depending on the final outcome of the hearing on the petition against the dissolution of Parliament and the Quo-Warranto Writ Petition. One is a situation where dissolution of the Parliament might be upheld while the legality of the “Rajapaksa government” might also be endorsed by the court. Another situation that might arise is where Dissolution is upheld but the legality of the “Rajapaksa government” is not. Thirdly, the Supreme Court might declare the gazette notification on the dissolution null and void while the “Rajapaksa regime” could be declared legal. Also, there is a possibility of both the dissolution and the legality of the “Rajapaksa government” might be declared invalid. In the first scenario, an immediate general election will be held under a caretaker government headed by Rajapaksa while the second will produce a situation where there is no Parliament as well as a caretaker government. If the third option has to be accepted Rajapaksa would have to rule the country at least until February 2020 without a majority in Parliament. And fourthly, current Parliament would continue but the President would have to appoint a Prime Minister.

Rajapaksa and his Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) will prefer the first scenario –immediate election under Rajapaksa’s caretaker Government- and Wickremesinghe and the UNP will prefer the last option – Parliament continuing with a new Prime Minister.
The Sri Lanka Freedom Party led by President Sirisena will be benefitted only by the third scenario- a Rajapaksa rule without a majority- as Rajapaksa would have to depend heavily on the executive powers of President Sirisena.
The best option for the UNP would be the worst for the President as he would have to appoint a new Premier, most likely from the ranks of the UNP.
He says he would never appoint Wickremesinghe. Now, that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has announced that it would support the UNP to form a Government, can the President reject Wickremesinghe in case all MPs of the two parties request him to do so in writing?
The Constitution says “The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of Parliament, who in President’s opinion is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.”

"These attempts to influence the Court seem to be calculated and not accidental, as posters.. Given these developments, what can one expect if such cases are heard when Rajapaksa is in power?"

It uses the word “shall” and not “may.”Even if such a UNP Government is formed again, needless to say, that only a general election would save the country from the current quagmire, despite it causing the danger of bringing about a hung Parliament again. Though Wickremesinghe says that country can go for an election under a legitimate government, meaning a UNP led government, one cannot give an assurance that the UNP would stick to its words and support a motion in Parliament to dissolve it.
Hence, only the TNA by supporting the UNP to form a Government with a condition to dissolve Parliament can save the day. 

A Way Out Of The Crisis To Save Sri Lanka’s Democracy 

Prof. S W R de A Samarasinghe 
logoSri Lanka’s democracy is at a crossroads. Its future is now primarily in the hands of the Supreme Court, President Maithripala SirisenaMahinda Rajapaksa and his SLPP, and Ranil Wickremesinghe and his UNP.
Verdict in favour of dissolution
The Supreme Court verdict due to be given on Saturday December 8th has to either confirm the constitutionality and legitimacy of President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament or reject the decision as an illegitimate decision that violates the constitution. If the decision goes in favour of Sirisena, in effect, it will also be a decision in favour of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Such a decision is likely to have the following consequences. 
1. In confirming the constitutionality of the dissolution, the Supreme Court will contradict the viewpoint of many of the leading constituitonal scholars and lawyers who have publicly stated that President Sirisena’s action was in violation of the letter of the Constitution. Such a verdict may call into question the validity of constituitonal governance. 
2. The events in the last six weeks clearly demonstrate that such a decision will go against the spiritof democracy. The parliament has demonstrated that a majority of the MPs are for the continuation of the government that existed before October 26. The Parliament has also demonstrated on more than ne occasion that Mahinda Rajapaksa does not enjoy the support of a majority (minimum of 113 MPs) in parliament. 
3. The dissolution of parliament at this juncture is not a victory for “people’s sovereignty” or democracy as some would claim. People’s sovereignty is protected when governance accords with the rule of law. Arbitrary action, in this instance the sudden holding of elections, by the executive branch to suit its narrow political goals is not a triumph for people’s sovereignty or democracy. It is the exact opposite. Such elections are held in banana republics and tin pot dictatorships to acquire a veneer of legitimacy for undemocratic governments.  Sri Lanka’s 88-year-old democracy belongs to a more genuine tradition of democracy, and it would be a great tragedy if that tradition were to be abandoned starting with this crisis.
4. The Judiciary is the co-equal third branch of government in a democracy. One of its greatest constitutional obligations is to resolve disputes that can arise between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Brach of government. In the present crisis, so far, the Judiciary has acted with remarkable restraint, honour and integrity as the defender of the last resort of our democracy.   If the Supreme Court legitimizes the dissolution of parliament, the judiciary will lose its credibility and standing as the defender of democracy not only in the eyes of a large number of the Sri Lankan public but also in the eyes of the entire democratic world.
Verdict against dissolution

Read More

What can citizens do to make a difference?


article_image










By DR. A. C. VISVALINGAM- 
President, CIMOGG 
acvisva@gmail.com

The Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) started out in 2002 with the idea that the anti-constitutional acts of elected representatives should be widely exposed through the Media and in the Courts. It was hoped that, by supplementing the efforts of those who were already contributing in a similar manner, the people of Sri Lanka would soon begin to put things right. The basic objective was to help the public to identify the miscreants in our elected assemblies, and make it difficult for them to be re-elected. But that hope has just remained a hope so far.

Our lack of success was traceable principally to the fact that the majority of Sri Lankans are mentally lazy, and are too laid back to make even a nominal effort to work in the public interest. Happily, the current crisis has impelled an appreciable number of normally passive citizens to display a measure of activism that they did not show in the past. This is a much longed for positive development.

Turning to the current imbroglio, we are forced to conclude that President Maithripala Sirisena (MS) lacks the leadership qualities required to deal in an acceptably authoritative manner with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW). He has embarked upon a highly immature and vengeful journey that promises to wreck his name and reputation permanently. On 26 October 2018, MS appointed a "Prime Minister" ("PM") from a party that he claimed, from a public platform, had 113 MPs in Parliament. This has remained a "fake" fact from the time he said it. Another gaffe committed by him was that he did not remember for some hours after appointing the "PM" that he already had a PM, whom he then sought to remove.

The man whom MS appointed "PM" was the very man who MS had declared earlier would have put him six feet underground, in the event of MS failing to win the Presidential election in January 2015. Absurdly, MS now fears the prospect of being buried (alive?) to be less daunting than dealing with RW, quite "forgetting" that it was RW who was instrumental in getting MS elected President.

Although the "PM" never had 113 MPs on his side for quite some time, he decided to appear recently in Parliament with his followers, believed to be fewer than 102 in number. These minions took over the Speaker’s chair and severely damaged the voice amplification equipment, the electronic voting installation, and the expensive furniture paid for by the people. They also physically attacked the Police and other staff who tried to protect the Speaker. They threw heavily-bound books and chairs as missiles and also employed a suspension of chilli powder in water as a chemical weapon. During the entire time that this mayhem was being wreaked so as to frustrate the Speaker’s determination to carry on with the work of Parliament, the "PM" was seated with a few senior MPs of his party, unmoved by the desecration of the sanctity that should be accorded to our national assembly and the willful damage caused. He made no effort to restrain the ruffians who were rioting violently. That he remained overtly passive hardly disguised the fact that the vandalism was obviously pre-planned, almost certainly with his blessings. His behavior in Parliament disqualifies him from ever claiming to be a guardian of the interests of law and order and the interests of Sri Lanka’s people. As for MS, he has made no adverse comment on the disgusting behavior of the "PM’s" followers. It is not unreasonable to deduce that he, too, was a party to the vandalism.

The unvarnished and unpalatable truth is that MS has, by his ill-considered and intemperate actions, been the principal agent that has caused acute damage to Sri Lanka’s reputation as a responsible democracy, not to mention the irrecoverable loss suffered by the country’s economy. Moreover, we have no hesitation in stating that it is an intolerable impertinence for the President to tell any political party as to whom it should have as its leader. It is outrageous that the President should interfere in a matter like this that is not within the powers conferred on him by the Constitution.

A succession of actions in the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court regarding MS’s sacking of the PM and the appointment of the "PM" are in progress. There are heartwarming signs that the judiciary will look objectively at the situation and deliver judgments that will put Sri Lanka back on track after the derailment effected on 26 October 2018.

While our power-deprived citizens await the decisions of the Supreme Court, they wonder what it is that they themselves could do to promote good governance in this country. They long to find ways and means whereby they could use their votes more effectively in future. They would like to do something to improve the levels of responsibility, honesty and competence of elected representatives to counteract the current highly unsatisfactory manner in which party oligarchies choose their candidates for election (www.cimogg-srilanka.org).

Whereas the most reliable way to improve Parliament would be for knowledgeable citizens to work out a much better Constitution from first principles, it would be foolish to expect that to become a reality any time soon, because such a step will be resisted tooth and nail by most of those who are already in Parliament.

The "panacea" solution offered by a large number of "thinking" and "unthinking" individuals to the effect that holding elections before the expiration of the stipulated four and a half years would solve the conflict between the opposing groups in Parliament is a mirage. If Parliamentary elections are held without a superior Constitution in place, all that would happen is that the bulk of the less than admirable MPs that we have in Parliament at present, will contrive to get back in again and there would be no perceptible improvement in governance. One has, therefore, to find ways of working within the limitations of the current Constitution and applicable laws to get ourselves a better set of MPs into Parliament. To do this, the most important weapon that citizens have in their hands is the right to decide whom to vote for and use their franchise more intelligently than they have done in the past.

CIMOGG believes that conforming to the suggestions given below would lead to a marked improvement in raising the quality of MPs.

A useful approach would be to try to work against the criteria employed by party leaders and oligarchies to choose and nominate candidates for election. For a start, do not automatically vote for the party that you have always favoured. Discuss with your neighbours and friends whatever information is available about the candidates put forward by the various party hierarchies for your electorate, and try to identify one that has a reasonable educational background, a reputation for honesty, multilingual proficiency and sound experience in one or more fields that would help her/him to make constructive contributions to Parliamentary debates. Always blacklist those who have crossed over from one party to another. Also, write off those who, to your knowledge, have not attended Parliament regularly and contributed constructively to its debates. Once you have picked out the best available candidate by the above process, cast your vote for her/him and only thereafter to her/his party.

Do not vote for anyone who is currently charged with any offence that is likely to carry a sentence of more than a few months, or has been lawfully punished for rape, fraud, cheating, violence, tax evasion, smuggling or close friendship with drug dealers. Do not vote for anyone who causes disruption to the movement and work of members of the public by organizing annoying pedestrian and motor-vehicle processions, installing of unsightly huge hoardings, inconsiderate use of loudspeakers and so on.

Do not vote for those who try to create fears in your mind about members of minority races or religions taking over the Dharmadveepa. These low tactics have always been a fruitful method of attracting the votes of unthinking citizens by playing on their atavistic fears. Vote, instead, for those who propose to introduce measures to bring together children of different language groups, who are at present forcibly directed into isolated streams that prevent us from building a united Sri Lankan nation. Vote for those candidates who plan to establish programs that will bring people together in music, sports, community service and so on.

It would be prudent to give increased priority to female candidates, despite the despicable behavior of two women MPs during the recent "riot" in Parliament, because it is CIMOGG’s conviction that a greater representation of women in elected assemblies would help significantly to promote better behavior and raise the quality of governance. So look out for good women candidates.

Matters to mind (while you wait for Justice to toll the knell)

 PARADIGM SHIFTS: A range of interpretations can be invoked to explain presidential expressions of late… Which have spanned the gamut from inane to insane – but if a more charitable perspective may be entertained for a moment (refer article below), these may suspend the personal or political in favour of the purely psychological – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
logoFriday, 7 December 2018

Some people can handle pressure. They positively blossom under the spotlight. From celebrities to sports stars, many if not most Sri Lankans in the spotlight have panache and pizzazz. This, it seems sadly, does not include certain leading lights among our island-nation’s political leaders.

First there was that litany of faux-savvy utterances which indicated that a certain (shall we say) ‘personality disorder’ was troubling the high and mighty – so much so that some stoned observers wondered what our beloved leader was smoking, and wanted some of it too. These ranged from hideous medieval punishments being prescribed for ladies voluntarily detached from their upper underwear at pop concerts, to the high sugar content in malted drinks deserving severe taxation and the unsavoury state of nutty snacks on our national carrier.

Then our pseudo-savant went and demonstrated that his grasp on matters constitutional left something to be desired. To paraphrase his shenanigans since that fateful Friday over forty days and nights ago: he perversely sacked a sitting prime minister, arbitrarily appointed another premier, waspishly prorogued parliament, unilaterally appointed new ministers, wickedly dissolved parliament, unpredictably called an election, unexpectedly reconvened parliament, inexplicably refused to accept the results of two floor tests in the august assembly named after a fall month, watched with trembling as his new appointee’s hooligans trashed the House, wantonly seized portfolios and ministries, ad nauseam ad infinitum. And since we’re doing Latin again, let me add this once more… ‘Non Compos Mentis’ (NCM). Look it up; it’s telling: a new NCM to trump No-Confidence Motions?

And now, in a fit of pique more in line with the madness of those who are monarchs of all they survey but hardly master of their own emotions, our one-man governor has expressed a sublime desire for the splendour of parochial isolation. “If I am pushed too far against the wall,” he has said in translation, “I shall go back to my paddy fields in Polonnaruwa.”

Which, as you can well imagine, has let loose a merry hell of social media commentary. “Quick, someone find that wall!” urged a wag on Facebook. “So, what’s the delay?” quipped a wit on Twitter. “Go! Back to the farms! You have sat up there too long… The heady wind has filled your straw head with sawdust, #MS” – this on a WhatsApp status.

All of this would be quite funny, if it wasn’t rather tragic. And if – as Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka MP has intimated in his suggestion that presidents and parliamentarians, et al. be compelled to undergo psychological evaluation prior to assuming office – our prez is indeed NCM, then the laugh is on us. So it’s worth analysing what’s most likely going on in the executive cranium.
Psych major
1. First, on level one – what psychologists call ‘psychotic’ if and when these are dominant – are the ‘severely pathological’ mechanisms. These six defences, in conjunction, permit one effectively to rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. Pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear irrational or insane to others, and include:

Delusional projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature. (Anyone recall that alleged assassination attempt?)

Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn’t exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality. (Start out a one-term president. Solicit Supreme Court approval to arbitrarily extend one’s term. Sulk when met with a stout ‘no’.)

Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. (They would kill me if they won. No, he would. And now, y’all would.)

2. At a second level (mental healthcare calls it ‘immature’): there are those mechanisms that help to lessen distress and anxiety produced by people threatening you or some uncomfortable reality. Excessive use of such defences is seen as socially undesirable – in that they are immature, difficult to deal with and seriously out of touch with reality. Overuse almost always leads to serious problems in a person’s ability to cope effectively. These defences are often seen in major depression and personality disorders, and include:

Acting out: A direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse in action, without conscious awareness of the emotion that drives the expressive behaviour. (The wish to whip bra-throwing lady concert-goers, perhaps?)

Hypochondriasis: An excessive preoccupation or worry about having a serious illness. (Some might call it ‘executive presidentialitis’.)

Passive-aggressive behaviour: The indirect expression of hostility. (Those references to butterflies…)

Projection: That primitive form of paranoia in which anxiety is reduced by allowing the expression of the undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of them; attributing one’s own unacknowledged, unacceptable, or unwanted thoughts and emotions to another; severe prejudice and jealousy; hyper-vigilance to external danger; and ‘injustice collecting’ – all with the aim of shifting one’s unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings, beliefs and motivations are perceived as being possessed by the other. (“My prime minister hates me! He ruined me to some extent!”)

Schizoid fantasy: A tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts. (“I will give up the presidency after one term! I would like to serve a second tenure? I will go home if pushed too far against the wall…”)

3. At the third so-called ‘neurotic’ level there are mechanisms which are considered as indicating neurosis, but are fairly common in adults. Such defences have short-term advantages in coping, but can often cause long-term problems in relationships, work and enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a once-blessed island republic when used as one’s primary style of coping with the world. These include:

Displacement: A defence mechanism that shifts aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the same intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening, in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening. (For example, a president may yell at their coalition partners because they are angry with their kitchen cabinet.) These often manifest as:

Dissociation: A temporary yet drastic modification of one’s personal identity or character to avoid emotional distress; separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought. (The first move – become a democrat overnight. Then – plot and plan how and when to show again the leopard’s spots to all and sundry.)

Intellectualisation: A form of isolation; concentrating on the intellectual components of a situation so as to distance oneself from the associated anxiety-provoking emotions; separation of emotion from ideas; thinking about wishes in formal, affectively bland terms, and not acting on them; avoiding unacceptable emotions by focusing on the intellectual aspects (isolation, rationalisation, ritual, undoing, compensation, and ‘magical thinking’). Hmm, well, maybe we can let the prez off the hook on this one? There is such a thing as going too far with all this armchair psychoanalysis!

Reaction formation: A conversion of unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous or unacceptable into their opposites; behaviour that is completely the opposite of what one really wants or feels; taking the opposite belief because the true belief causes anxiety. (Did we mention the paradigm shift from mandarin in a cruel brutal corrupt oppressive regime once upon a time to democratic-republicanism at the drop of a hopper, I mean hat?)

Repression: A process of attempting to repel desires towards pleasurable instincts, caused by a threat of suffering if the desire is satisfied; the desire is moved to the unconscious in the attempt to prevent it from entering consciousness; seemingly unexplainable naivety, memory lapse, or lack of awareness of one’s own situation and condition (i.e. the emotion is conscious, but the idea behind it is absent). Women without their bras come to mind… Or is it bars without women I’m thinking about?
Some hope of salvation
4. Thankfully, though, there is a fourth – or ‘mature’ level – at which there is great potential for redemption. These ‘defence mechanisms’ (which hardly seem psychological syndromes of any sort) are commonly found among emotionally healthy adults and are considered ‘mature’, even though many have their origins in an immature stage of development. They have been adapted through the years in order to optimise success in human society and relationships. The use of these defences enhances pleasure and feelings of control, and help to integrate conflicting emotions and thoughts, whilst still remaining effective. Those who use these mechanisms are usually considered virtuous. Mature defences that our presently manic leaders may consider on the way forward in the best possible national interest include:

Altruism: A constructive service to others that brings pleasure and personal satisfaction.

Anticipation: The realistic planning for future discomfort.

Humour: Overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about directly) that gives pleasure to others. The thoughts retain a portion of their innate distress, but they are deflected by witticism (e.g. self-deprecation).

Sublimation: That healthy transformation of unhelpful emotions or instincts into healthy actions, behaviours, or emotions (e.g. playing a heavy contact sport such as football or rugby can transform inner aggression into a game…)

Suppression: The conscious decision to delay paying attention to a thought, emotion, or need in order to cope with the present reality – making it possible later to access uncomfortable or distressing emotions whilst accepting them.

Well, yes. To ‘anticipate’ any ‘altruism’ might be a defence mechanism in itself. But humour is sublime. And if the president can suppress his delusions about going back to his paddy in peace, perhaps we could all heave a collective sigh of relief. If and when he willingly suspends inner reality, admits to an iota of paranoia and a modicum of persecution complex, and bows gracefully before the Supreme Court. If he can persuade his cronies and sycophants and succouring usurpers to do the same, we as a people with a hugely strained psyche these days need no longer live in denial or despair.

(Journalist | Editor-at-large of LMD | Writer #SpeakingTruthToPower)