Will there be an impeachment motion against President Maithri?

by gagani weerakoon - DEC 09 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena has decided to amend the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which had been ratified with the utmost difficulty as a progressive measure for the country three years ago. A special media release, from the President’s Media Division in the latter part of the week, stated that the President was willing to amend all politically-thorny clauses contained in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
It further pointed out that the President was determined to amend all problematic clauses contained in the 19th Amendment by taking necessary measures through Parliament.

Through the 19th Amendment, the setting up of independent Commissions as well as further strengthening democratic institutions had taken place, it was stated.

“By 8 January 2015, it was due to the President’s unstinted efforts that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in the House and it resolved many of the issues that had affected the country for over three decades,” the Media release quoted the President as saying.

The release stated that if there are any further problematic issues that the country has to face in the implementation of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, then it was the hope of the President that such issues could be sorted out by adding more amendments to it through the Legislature.

One of the key promises given by the Yahapalana Government had been to ratify the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and through it to further solidify the functioning of institutions within a democratic framework.

However, after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his then Joint Opposition MPs continued to insist that once they regain power it will be totally dispensed with.

The Act removing the ability for a President, who had served two terms in office, from running for a third term, was introduced for the first time through the 19th Amendment.

Another key point was the reduction of the powers vested in the Executive Presidency through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

Among a few of the independent Commissions that were set up through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution were the Independent Police Commission, Independent Audit Commission and the Independent Procurement Commission.

The media statement comes in the wake  of President Sirisena promising to solve the prevailing political turmoil in the country within a week.

SLFP convention

Prior to making public his desire to amend the 19th Amendment, the President, addressing the SLFP’s special Convention at the Sugathadasa Indoor Stadium, claimed that there was no political clash in the country, but an unrest followed by  the political turmoil following his decision to appoint former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister on 26 October.

“Solving issues causing political turmoil is a separate science. It was not me but Wickremesinghe who created this turmoil. I only tried to save my country from the curse that is him by taking the decision of appointing Rajapaksa,” he added.

He further said, “Wickremesinghe and his far right and far liberal principles are not suitable for this country as the country has a unique culture, traditions, and values, amongst others. His thinking pattern is not in keeping with our culture. Our people have certain expectations.
Wickremesinghe never cared about these things. His far right vision has made him numb to these things.”

Sacking Wickremesinghe from the Premiership was not a decision he took in haste, the President said.

“I was, very patiently, observing everything for three and a half years. It was a painful journey. He not only destroyed the good governance political culture but also the country. Wickremesinghe destroyed me to a certain extent too,” the President asserted.

Furthermore, the President said that he had signed five Gazette Notifications - to sack Wickremesinghe from the Premiership, appoint Rajapaksa as the Premier, dissolve the Cabinet of Ministers, prorogue the Parliament and dissolve the Parliament - all for the sake of the country.

“There are several pending political cases in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. These are not related to murders, robberies or rapes. They are political cases. Now, these Courts have given Interim Orders in some of those cases. I respect and accept the decisions of the Courts wholly.
 But, the general public has various opinions on the orders of the Courts.
Some people say that the Court is completely independent while others claim that the Court is biased. Some even say that a Temple’s Chief Incumbent is delivering a sermon which is supposed to be delivered by a Chief Prelate.
 However, during this political turmoil, we have to behave in a well-mannered fashion, protecting the Constitution,” the President said.
Moreover, he said that he extended the hand of peace to all the party leaders to solve the current turmoil.

“I promise you all that I would solve this crisis within seven days, the maximum, for the sake of our country, people and the unborn children. As I said before, it is Wickremesinghe who created this problem. We should remove that curse from the country. I invite all of you to be a part of that great mission.”

CBK not invited

One of the notable absentees at the SLFP convention was former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. Later, it was revealed that she was in fact, not invited to attend the party’s special convention.

Kumaratunga has written to SLFP General Secretary Prof. Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa charging that despite her being a patron of the Party, she had not been invited to any of its most recent crucial meetings, including the SLFP Convention held on 4 December and its CC meetings held since 26 October.

The former SLFP leader has pointed out that other than herself and SLFP Kelaniya Organizer Thilak Waragoda all other party organizers had been invited to a briefing held on 30 November at 4 p.m. to discuss arrangements ahead of the holding of the Party Convention on 4 December.

Kumaratunga had further noted in her letter that she had also been made aware beforehand by Lasantha Alagiyawanna that the party hierarchy had taken a decision not to inform her and Waragoda about the convention.

Responding to Kumaratunga’s allegation that she had not been invited for the SLFP Convention, despite being a patron, Party’s General Secretary Prof. Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa said Kumaratunga had not been invited to the 4 December Party Convention because she had not attended any of the SLFP activities lately.

He said that though the former Leader continues to be a patron of the Party, Kumaratunga had not turned up for any important meeting of the Party, since he had become the SLFP General Secretary.

He questioned as to why the SLFP should invite her to the Party Convention, when she had failed to attend any of its previous Central Committee or other vital meetings.

 “She is clearly appearing on behalf of the UNP and not the SLFP. As a former President, a senior SLFP Member, the daughter of the late Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and as one who had been educated overseas, I simply cannot understand her current behaviour,” said Prof. Piyadasa.

He also added that he will not venture to reply, in writing, to allegations levelled against the Party by Kumaratunga, as the response given by him to her through the Press would suffice.

“Really, she could have a social class related issue here. That is because the SLFP is currently not steered by those belonging to her class,” opined Prof. Piyadasa.

Impeachment in the offing?

By early last week, speculations were rife that there is a fat chance of an impeachment motion being moved against President Sirisena.

As if to attest this, the JVP in Parliament said that there was a possibility of President Sirisena facing an impeachment and losing his civic rights as he has violated the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

JVP MP Vijitha Herath who seconded the Adjournment Motion about the impact of the current political turmoil on the economy and diplomacy, moved by Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa noted that President Sirisena has violated the Constitution on a number of occasions and he is continuing to do so.

Herath said the manner in which President Sirisena sacked Ranil Wickremesinghe from the premiership was unconstitutional. Not only that, appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa was also against the Constitution.
 He then dissolved Parliament which once again was not constitutional.  Due to these reasons, he might face an impeachment and lose his civic rights. In fact he would face dire consequences. He is destroying   Rajapaksa right now as he did in 2015,” he added.

Dr. Jayatissa moving the Motion said that the image the international community has about Sri Lanka has been tarnished due to the recent actions of the President.

“What President Sirisena did is clearly a State conspiracy. He has no right to do that. Because of his actions, the economy of the country is severely affected. Our reputation is tarnished globally in a rather pathetic manner. The President cannot do this,” he noted.

On the same day, UNP Parliamentarian Sarath Fonseka called for the introduction of laws to check the mental status of the President of Sri Lanka once a year, like in the United States of America.

Making a hard-hitting speech in Parliament, targeting President Sirisena, Fonseka said: “The US President checks his mental status once a year.
Senior officers in the US Government and military officers also undergo these tests. I think we should introduce such laws in Sri Lanka, even if the Constitution needs to be amended. If someone who rules the country is going insane someday, we can send him to a psychologist then.”

 “During the last sitting (30 November), I informed the Speaker about the President falsely accusing me while going here and there. The Speaker asked me to make a written request on that and I followed that instruction. I hope action will be taken according to that.”
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya: “I’m working on that.”

Fonseka: “In addition to that, the President again had told the United National Front (UNF) Leaders that if I was elected as the President in 2010, they would not have been able to hold discussions during his meeting with them on 3 December. It seems that he cannot do anything without remembering me.”

He then read out two letters of Anuradhapura Returning Officer H.M.K. Herath and Election Commissioner Dayananda Dishanayake that were sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in the North Central Province and the Inspector General of Police in 2010.

“According to these letters, it would be clear to everyone whether former President Mahinda Rajapaksa actually won the election or he forcibly took the win. However, if I was the President I would never violate the Constitution of Sri Lanka like President Sirisena did.
I would not appoint the person who was defeated in the 2015 presidential election as the Premier. I would not go on foreign trips once in two weeks either,” Fonseka added.

Furthermore, he stressed, “I would not make someone to write a book about me and publish it under my daughter’s name. I would never try to be an actor by posing for pictures and wearing sunglasses, because I know I am too old for that.”

SLFP-SLPP alliance

Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) at its special Central Committee meeting held on Friday night had discussed available avenues to contest the future general election together with the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) by forming an alliance.

Amongst many other topics discussed with the target of reviving and re-organizing the SLFP, prominence was also given to discuss whether we (SLFP) can go for an agreement with the SLPP to contest in future elections, Minister Dayasiri Jayasekara said.

He also said that the party will discuss the matter further on a later date to ascertain how they could enter into a pact that will be more profitable to the SLFP.

SLFP General Secretary Prof. Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa said that attention was also paid to the Court proceedings pertaining to the dissolution of Parliament.

Several SLFP Central Committee members following the discussion told media that they, too, might have to think about joining the SLPP in future.
However, UPFA General Secretary Minister Mahinda Amaraweera said it was not yet decided whether or when the party should enter into an alliance with the SLPP to contest in future elections.

Meanwhile, several party sources confirmed that there are two factions within the SLPP as well.

“One group is in favour of entering into a pact with SLFP to contest in the general election. The other group says that the party should contest separately under the Lotus Bud symbol and forming an alliance with the SLFP should be done after the election results were out,” the SLPP sources said.

Sri Lanka’s economy at crossroads: The 1972-76 Five-Year Plan and its diagnosis of economic ailments

Professor H A de S Gunasekara 2018 Oration – Part 1

 Monday, 10 December 2018

This is an edited and abridged version of the Professor H. A. de S. Gunasekara 2018 Oration delivered at the University of Peradeniya on 4 December 2018
The economist who produced ‘From Dependent Currency to Central Banking’


Professor H A de S Gunasekara, popularly known as HAdeS, was a legend in economics in Sri Lanka. The doctoral thesis ‘From Dependent Currency to Central Banking in Ceylon’, which he submitted to the University of London, was a seminal contribution to the setting of the monetary and financial system in an economy that was transformed from feudalism to semi-capitalism.

I emphasise the word ‘semi-capitalism’ here because what had been in operation in colonial Ceylon was not a pure capitalist system of the Adam Smith type, but a system carefully managed and guided by the colonial rulers. There are a plenty of examples in his Dependent Currency to prove this point.



Intervention in the economy by colonial administration

The private sector-based issue of money that was prevalent in Ceylon from the early 19th century was continued to be regulated and controlled by the colonial administration. For instance, Natukottai Chettiars, who imported specie or coins from India, and facilitated import and export trade in the colony, were subject to strict control by the colonial Government. Whereas banks from the UK were free from regulation, banks to be established in Ceylon were subject to a set of unusual restrictions. They could accept deposits only up to three times the capital employed – known as the leverage ratio – and, if they became bankrupt, shareholders had to bring money from their homes to pay double the value of their shareholdings to meet the debt of the bank.

This was completely contrary to the principles of joint stock companies, where shareholders were required to pay only the unsubscribed part, if any, of their shareholdings, if a company became insolvent. In 1884, the currency issue was fully nationalised by the colonial administration, by setting up a Currency Board. In the UK, Sterling Pounds were still issued by the Bank of England, which was a private company until it was nationalised in 1947. Land grants were given to British planters by the Government. At first, they were free grants, but later, land was sold to them at an ‘upset’ price of 5 shillings per acre. Commerce and industry had been stringently regulated by the colonial administration to ascertain its own business interests.


Transformation from academic to national planner

I have chosen, on the request of the H A de S Gunasekara Oration Trust, ‘Sri Lanka’s Economy at a Crossroads: The Way to Rescue the Ailing Economy’ as the title of this oration. We are now in 2018 and about to enter the third decade of the third millennium.

Perhaps an appropriate starting point for the discussion would be whether Sri Lanka had a similar problem when HAdeS joined the bureaucracy, leaving his academic job temporarily in 1970, and accepted the top position of the Secretary to the Ministry of Planning and Employment in the newly elected United Front Government under Premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike. He had, according to reports, accepted this position on the personal request of the Prime Minister, and would have thought that it was a good opportunity for him to put his economic wisdom into practice.

This Ministry had the mandate of taking suitable policies to transform Ceylon to a socialist economy, in collaboration with other Government agencies.


The Five Year Plan of 1972-76

A noteworthy work completed during his tenure as Secretary was the release of The Five Year Plan 1972-76, prepared under his direction by a team of economists attached to the Ministry. The Plan was not implemented fully to realise its socio-economic goals, due to lack of resources. But, there is an amazing similarity of the diagnosis of the economic issues, strategies to be followed, and the goals of society in early 1970s and in early 2000s.


Sri Lanka’s economy had always been at a crossroads

The Plan starts with a statement that it is presented ‘at a time of social and economic crisis unparalleled in the history of modern Ceylon’. The severe foreign exchange crisis and the problem of unemployment, especially among the youth, have been the most pressing economic issues of Ceylon at that time. This is exactly the situation which Sri Lanka is faced today.

The Plan had not emphasised on the need for having a high economic growth because, as it declared, the growth in Gross National Product (GNP) was to hide many qualitative issues facing a nation. It noted, apparently with satisfaction, that per capita real income had grown on an average of 2.1% annually during 1959 to 1970. Yet, the fundamental problems of the economy, namely, unemployment, income disparities, and foreign exchange crisis, have remained unresolved. GNP per capita has also not indicated the ‘virtual stagnation of certain sectors in the economy’ and the ‘maturing crisis within society’.

The Plan aimed at using physical and human resources to create an economy benefitting ‘the nation as a whole’, a goal known as inclusive growth today, and eliminating income disparities which have been the bane of society. Thus, the objective of the Plan, as explicitly laid down in it, had been to meet the ‘socialist aspirations of the masses’ which had elected the Government into power in the General Elections held in May 1970.

Sri Lanka needed a desired growth of 7% continuously to become a rich country within a generation, but in the whole of the post-independence history, that rate has been exceeded only on five occasions. In the next three year period, the best projections made about Sri Lanka’s economy as at November, 2018, has been a growth rate of around 4-5%. Sri Lanka’s slow economic growth has snared it in what is now known as the ‘middle income trap’: a term coined by a group of economists attached to the World Bank to theorise the failure of some developing countries to move from an upper middle income country to a rich country.

Animosity against unfair income distribution
Societies throughout history have been intolerant of capitalist classes enjoying a disproportionately high share of the national wealth, though it was these capitalist classes which have been responsible for organising economic enterprises to create such wealth. In recent times, this was presented cogently by Thomas Piketty who argued in his bestselling book ‘Capital in the Twenty First Century’ that in 20 countries made up of USA and European nations, the rich have used capital inheritances to appropriate for themselves a larger portion of national income.

Similar sentiments have been expressed in The Plan drawing on the data on disparate income distribution revealed in the Central Bank’s Socio-Economic Survey of 1969-70. This has, according to the Plan, resulted not only in an unfair distribution of income, but also in a false social value system. These false values had led people, especially the youth, to imitate the wasteful consumption pattern of the rich, which was unaffordable by the prevailing economic conditions of the country.

However, income distribution in Sri Lanka has remained the same throughout its post-independence history. In 1953, the lowest 20% of the population had earned an income share of 5%, while the highest 20% had earned 57%. In 2016, the first category had earned a share of 4.8%, while the latter category had earned a share of 50%. Thus, the poorest have become poorer, with the richest being reduced to a lower share. It is the middle class which has been fattened at the expense of both the poor and the rich, a development known as Director’s Law, named after the American economist Aaron Director.


Diagnosis of Sri Lanka’s economic ailments 

The diagnosis of the economic issues faced by Ceylon in the early 1970s has been the same as today. There was a paucity of savings, exacerbated by dissavings of the Government, to meet the required investments. The Government savings had been low because of the high current expenditure, relative to the revenue. Hence, to generate savings for investment, the Plan had recommended that the budget should run a ‘substantial surplus’ in its current account, and to generate the same, the past policies have to be ‘drastically revised’. Today, such a strategy is known as ‘fiscal consolidation’.

The Plan had noted that, without this strategy, the Government had to borrow to finance its investment expenditure. Though it was a mere book entry from the private sector to the Government, the Plan had concluded that it would put more money in the hands of the people, creating a demand greater than the supply of goods and services. The rationale here is the generally known Keynesian multiplier effect. It would lead to two outcomes, according to the Plan.

First, the increased demand would create shortages unless they were met out of imports. But imports were constrained by lack of foreign exchange. Second, import and exchange controls had to be introduced to overcome the problem, but it would lead to increases in prices, emergence of black-marketeers, racketeers, and profiteers.

This is the critical issue faced by any open economy. That is, the aggregate demand boosted by increased Government expenditure programs financed out of borrowing or printing money will leak out of the economy, by way of increased imports, causing long term balance of payments problems. Hence, the solution to the problem of lack of foreign exchange would have been not resorting to import and exchange controls, but curtailing Government expenditure, on one side, and increasing exports, on the other. Yet, the strategy suggested in the Plan had been to curtail imports through domestic production and setup industries that would use less imported raw materials.

The designers of the Plan cannot be faulted for this, because that was the strategy adopted by many countries which Ceylon used as examples for stimulating growth. It was indeed a system of curtailing domestic demand to suit the available foreign exchange resources. However, there was still a gap which was financed out of external borrowings.

The Plan had recognised that it would lead to accumulation of external debt, the servicing of which would create further problems for the economy in the years to come. Thus, the problems faced by Sri Lanka’s economy had been the same as today, and one could appropriately label it as an economy in the crossroads, the title of today’s oration.

I will now revert to the topic this afternoon.


Sri Lanka’s economy in a series of crossroads

The experience that we go through today is not the first time Sri Lanka’s economy has been at a crossroads. As mentioned above, it had previously been at a crossroads, as per the designers of the Five Year Plan 1972-76. When the new open market economy policy was introduced in 1977, the Central Bank stated that the economy was experiencing a ‘watershed’, a change from one inferior system to a better system.

It then appears that the Sri Lankan economy has been moving from one crossroads to another frequently. Despite the fact that the avowed goal of the country has been to deliver prosperity and richness to its people, the whole of the post-independence period has been marked by low growth that fluctuated continuously from high to low.

Figure 1 shows Sri Lanka’s economic growth during 1950-2018. Sri Lanka needed a desired growth of 7% continuously to become a rich country within a generation, but in the whole of the post-independence history, that rate has been exceeded only on five occasions, and that again, well apart from each other. In the next three year period, the best projections made about Sri Lanka’s economy as at November, 2018, has been a growth rate of around 4-5%. This is presented in Figure 2.


Getting caught in the middle income trap

Sri Lanka’s slow economic growth has snared it in what is now known as the ‘middle income trap’: a term coined by a group of economists attached to the World Bank to theorise the failure of some developing countries to move from an upper middle income country to a rich country.


From low income to lower middle income

According to the proponents of the middle income trap hypothesis, a poor country can easily move from a low income country to a lower middle income country. That is because, being a low income country, it could make use of the abundantly available cheap labour for the production of mass consumption goods, and supply the same to rich Western nations at a competitive price. Sri Lanka did so by using its labour resources to produce apparels, with a significant competitive edge from around 1980.

However, once a country becomes a lower middle income country, it will experience an increase in labour costs, making it difficult for it to compete in the cheap labour market with newly entering poor countries, which have a relatively lower wage level compared to countries which have now attained the lower middle income status. As per statistics compiled by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in 2014, Sri Lanka had the lowest monthly wages for garment workers out of 25 major garment exporters in the world. However, actual costs to employers are about two and a half times higher than the minimum wages set for the industry, making Sri Lankan garment exports less competitive in the global markets.

As a result, Sri Lanka’s garment exports, which are less than 2% of the global trade in garments, have saturated in the last few years, making it difficult for the country to rely on this source of income anymore. Accordingly, though garment exports have increased in absolute terms over the years, they have slightly fallen as a share of total exports. In 2009, its share in total exports amounted to 46%. In 2017, it has fallen to 44%.

Strategy to beat the middle income trap  

Sri Lanka is at a crossroads today because it cannot beat the middle income trap with the available economic resources and the production system it follows. The way to beat is to transform the export sector into a modern sector, and align its economy with the rest of the world, a policy involving the integration of the country’s economy with the global economy. It is challenging and difficult, but not impossible if appropriate policies are adopted to modernise the export sector of the country.

The next part will discuss the present state of the export sector in Sri Lanka.
(W A Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com)

'Who are we?' - Tamil identity in the diaspora discussed at British university

Politics, culture, religion and caste were the topics of discussion at an event held at SOAS University of London last month, as British Tamils gathered to discuss Tamil identity in the diaspora.

 09 December 2018

As part of the discussion - entitled ‘Diasporic identity: Who are we?’ – panellists discussed a variety of topics related to how the British Tamil community and identity has been formed and grown.

Vithujan Arumugam highlighted the intransigent nature of the caste system and iterated the normality of casteism, especially when it comes to relations and marriage – a topic that many in the community felt still remained taboo.

Discussions also revolved around the growth of the Tamil community, as activist Iswarya Vidhaydaran reflected upon her own thought regarding her personal identity and the Sri Lankan and Eelam Tamil labels.

Thusiyan Nandakumar, an editor at the Tamil Guardian, also spoke of his experiences growing up as an Eelam Tamil in London and his involvement in activism within the community. He also spoke about the growth of the Tamil community and their impressive successes, but highlighted how ‘British Asian’ and ‘Desi’ labels had issues with inclusivity.

Priyangka Pransveswaran further conversed about the ‘British Asian’ identity and spoke about it in terms of a ‘British Tamil’ identity – from speaking the Tamil language to embracing the culture, and how being born as part of the diaspora affects that.

A lively question and answer session followed, with discussions of how religion, such as Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, fitted in with the Tamil identity and the successes and challenges the community continues to face.

“The event and discussions that it sparked, in person and on social media, are hugely important ones that the community needs to have,” said SOAS Tamil Society president Vithya Nandakumar. “As Tamil diaspora, whilst we grapple with the different facets that define us, we hope that these kind of discussions help towards building a more inclusive Tamil identity”.

Presidential bluff in Sri Lanka

We will soon know if that space would be restored by the Court’s ruling on the dissolution matter that is now before it. Valliant advocacy efforts are being made to lose sight of the constitutional forest by interpretively magnifying a few self-serving and half-grown trees.

– Rajan Philips argued -Dec 9, 2018

 by Rajan Philips   ( December 9, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian)

President Sirisena is playing a desperate game of bluff and brinkmanship. He is bluffing when he gives deadlines to resolve the current state of legal non-government and the standoff between himself and the legislature. And he is daring the UNP to dump Ranil Wickremesinghe as party leader. Anyone of the 225 legislators other than Ranil Wickremesinghe is acceptable to him as Prime Minister, but not Ranil Wickremesinghe even if he were to demonstrate unanimous support in parliament. The brazenness of this unconstitutional assertion has shocked even those who genuinely want Ranil Wickremesinghe to make way for a new UNP face in national politics. Even among non-UNPers there is a feeling that Sirisena deserves to be impeached. The JVP has said as much.

Who would have thought that the least feudally ranked among modern Lanka’s elected political leaders would turn out to be the worst embodiment of crassly native intransigence in the exercise of power? Many of us applauded the rise of Sirisena as the common presidential candidate in November 2014 and his convincing election victory in January 2015. We called it a sign of Sri Lanka’s egalitarian maturity and a sign of the generous space for democratic mobility within the Sinhalese political society. The President has now insulted and injured everyone who supported him to win the election, and is now relying on the corrupt support of everyone who massively insulted him as a candidate and wanted to injure him politically and otherwise. The mutuality of shamelessness is what binds those who are now insisting on the premature dissolution of parliament to cover up the mess they unnecessarily created.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that President Sirisena has still not realized that his insistent hatred for Ranil Wickremesinghe has only helped the latter to solidify his support within the UNP. This should have been quite apparent after the No Confidence Motion fiasco in June. But the President has learnt nothing from it and still thinks he can break up the UNP as payback for RW’s machinations to keep the SLFP divided between the Rajapaksa and the Sirisena factions. In the end, Sirisena has only helped to energize the UNP base for the first time under Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership.

Neither dissolution nor impeachment

Cynical and sinister machinations always backfire in electoral politics. Both Wickremesinghe and Sirisena should have learnt that lesson after their debacles in the February LG elections. But they have not. It is the continuing cat and mouse game between the two that provoked Sirisena to fly off the handle and precipitate the current crisis. Mahinda Rajapaksa must be ruing the moment he decided to go along with Sirisena’s harebrained scheme, whatever might have been the urgency to governmentally intervene in the criminal investigations targeting the members of his family. Politically and legally, MR is in a much weaker position than even when he was defeated in the January 2015 presidential election.

The President’s uninformed disregard for the constitution has made quite a few old schoolers to think that he deserves to be impeached. The question, however, is not whether Maithripala Sirisena deserves to be impeached. It is whether the country deserves the avoidable agony of an impeachment process. Political mistakes are better left to be punished by the people in an election rather than involving the institutions of government to adjudicate on them. Starting an impeachment process now will be no less counterproductive than the presidential overreaches to fire a sitting Prime Minister, appoint another without majority support in parliament, and prematurely dissolve parliament to cover up his tracks.

In fact, the call for impeachment would be no different from the current calls for immediately dissolving parliament. It is quite remarkable that otherwise (hopefully) responsible people do not think of the unintended consequences when insisting on a certain course of action in politics. The supporters of the Rajapaksas who insist on an immediate election presume that the Mahinda magic will work this time and give them a parliamentary majority. Then everything would be normal, in their scheme of things. What if there is a hung parliament just as there is now? What if they lose? Does the country have to start all over again and replay the current standoff between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe?

Equally, impeaching the President, even if it were to be feasible, is not going to find an easy way out of the current deadlock. The President is safe for now because there is no chance of securing the requisite two-thirds majority to pass an impeachment resolution, although an impeachment process could be started with a simple majority. The TNA has given the President the assurance that the TNA MPs will not support the impeachment of the President. That makes it almost impossible to even start an impeachment process unless the UNP-UNF and the JVP combine their votes in parliament.

Impeachment could only happen if Sirisena were to sufficiently annoy Mahinda Rajapaksa and the latter decides to strike a friendly deal of the devil with Ranil Wickremesinghe to join forces and throw out the bum of their common nemesis. While that would be high noon drama, it is not going to help this country and its institutions mature politically. Thankfully, the prospects for impeachment are a long shot.

The vicious triangle

The great irony of the current situation is that none of the three central actors deserve to be in their current positions for a day longer. But the country cannot get through the mess they have collectively created without involving them in the cleanup. We are stuck on a vicious triangle of intransigence. The courts have called into question the legality of Mahinda Rajapaksa being Prime Minister. He is abiding by the court’s interim ruling but is appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court. The apex court apparently has no judges to hear the appeal, and Rajapaksa is not willing to vacate his position. He has indicated that it is up to the President to remove him, but left it open whether or not he will accept such dismissal.

The President has stopped talking about Mahinda Rajapaksa. No one knows whether they are still talking to one another. The President is only talking about Ranil Wickremesinghe, aside from taking ill-advised pot shots at judges. He is insistent with constitutional ignorance bordering on native arrogance that he will not appoint RW as PM no matter what. For their part, the UNP-UNF forces are digging in and insisting that the only MP in the current parliament with majority support to be PM is Ranil Wickremesinghe. There is also the assertion that this is no time for constitutional compromise but to fight for constitutional principles.

No one knows how to operationalize these principles. The Parliament has quite rightly shown the President that he cannot appoint as Prime Minister an MP who does not have majority support. But there is no apparent way for parliament to force the current President to re-appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. And Ranil Wickremesinghe has not gone to the Courts to direct the President, because there is apparently no violation of his fundamental rights in not being appointed PM. It seems easier to prove that Mahinda Rajapaksa’s status as Prime Minister is illegal, than to make Sirisena appoint a legal Prime Minister.

Perhaps more public pressure on the President, especially red-light warnings from those who are sensitive to market and financial vicissitudes, might have some impact. The President’s brinkmanship is to mount a counter-pressure on Ranil to step down. He would have had some chance of success if he had consistently complained about Ranil Wickremesinghe, directly to the people and over the heads of the MPs. The only reason he did not do go directly to the people is because his hands have not been as clean as he pretends they are, and he was keen to show that he could beat Ranil in his own game. His actions on and since October 26 have just about ruled out that possibility at all.

A principled compromise

On the other side, Ranil Wickremesinghe is not the spotless constitutional white knight to deliver us from any and all Sirisena-Rajapaksa evil. Politically and electorally, he is better off where he is now than if he were to revert back to his status as PM and a truncated UNP-only government. A reinstated Ranil-as-PM led government will be a recipe for a UNP disaster in the next elections that are likely to take place sooner than they are currently due in August 2020. Mr. Wickremesinghe is quite right in asserting that a parliamentary election could be held only following a resolution by parliament with a two-thirds vote approval. He has thrown the challenge to Mahinda Rajapaksa to bring a resolution to that effect in parliament.

In fairness, the question to Mr. Wickremesinghe is why he wouldn’t stroll half-way down the aisle and extend the assurance that the UNP will support such a resolution provided the elections are held under a strictly neutral caretaker government without either MR or RW as caretaker PM. That would be a principled constitutional compromise. The first step in implementing the compromise is of course the reinstatement of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. But the reinstatement must be qualified by the assurance that RW will remain as PM only until parliament passes a resolution with two-thirds majority requesting the President to finally, still prematurely, but consensually dissolve parliament. The resolution itself will be the mother of all deals, stipulating the framework for a caretaker government and the do’s and don’ts to be honoured during the election by all involved in the caretaker government.

Unfortunately, there is no Sobitha Thero to mobilize public opinion and force the three political antagonists to reach a principled compromise – to break the current deadlock and dissolve parliament in the proper way and within the framework of the Constitution. The only constitutional citadel left is the judiciary. The Courts cannot and must not do what Sobitha Thero could have done. They can only make sure that there is enough constitutional space for principled compromises to be made without frequently involving the judiciary. It was this precious space that was violated by the President’s overreaching dissolution decree.

We will soon know if that space would be restored by the Court’s ruling on the dissolution matter that is now before it. Valliantadvocacy efforts are being made to lose sight of the constitutional forest by interpretively magnifying a few self-serving and half-grown trees. Like patriotism before, it is the notion of sovereignty that is the ultimate refuge of every constitutional scoundrel. But where is the people’s sovereignty without the constitution that enshrines it? When a president violates the constitution, he is alienating the people’s sovereignty. It would be adding injury to insult to allow the president to ask the people to be a party to that violation in the name of their sovereignty.

Dec 9, 2018

Daily Mirror Removes Video Of Sirisena’s Controversial Statement From Facebook After Pressure From PMD

DECEMBER 10, 2018

Daily Mirror, Sri Lanka’s largest selling privately owned daily newspaper, has removed the video of President Maithripala Sirisena’s controversial video from its Facebook page after increasing pressure from the President’s Media Division (PMD), Colombo Telegraph can now reveal.

In the video interview that went viral over the weekend, Sirisena was caught on record saying former President Mahinda Rajapaksa could not show a parliamentary majority, as the MPs demanded higher bribes than expected.

“Some MPs even asked for Rs.500 million to cross over. I personally know about such situations. It was like calling for tenders. That is why Mahinda Rajapaksa could not show a majority in Parliament,” Sirisena told Daily Mirror.

The video of the interview, however, disappeared from Facebook early this morning and was replaced with a audio-based short video with President Sirisena’s photographs. The second version did not carry Sirisena’s remarks about MPs asking for bribes.

The Facebook video was shared by thousands of Facebook users over the weekend and earned severe criticism from the public over President Sirisena’s irresponsible remarks trivialising bribery and corruption. The move to remove the video from Facebook was aimed squarely at suppressing the negative comments and feedback.

Colombo Telegraph learns Daily Mirror has made an editorial decision to remove the video from Facebook owing to increasing pressure from the President’s Media Division, a notorious outfit headed by former Maharaja employee Dharmasri Bandara Ekanayake.

However, the video is still available on the youtube channel operated by Daily Mirror.

Read More

Sri Lankan democracy at the crossroads

By Kan Butani-December 9, 2018, 

The rule of law and a civil society bound by conventions of justice and Fairness are today under challenge. A democratic form of government in which the party (or a coalition of Parties) with the greatest representation in Government forms the Government, its leader becoming the Prime Minister. This is the basic tenet of a Democratic Government. So one cannot understand this bickering and unnecessary legal issues because the powers that be cannot accept what is legal and fair. According to Lakshman Kiriella the President has even gone to the extent of saying he will not appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe even if all 225 members of Parliament tell him to do so. This is the height of totalitarianism. According to media reports the President goes to the extent of saying: "Don’t let current crisis disrupt people’s lives when he is the one who has to take full responsibility for the current crisis and also disrupting public life. The SLPP members are clamouring for a general election. How can you have an election, under the rule of an illegal government? Besides, if the President does not like the leader of the winning party he may not appoint him as Prime Minister.

I was studying at Kingswood College Kandy and there it was a tradition to recite a Prologue at the College Prize Giving. In the year 1963, I had the privilege of reciting the Prologue created and composed by the College Principal the late Mr. K. M. de. Lanerolle the best ever known tutors of the English Language with a storehouse of knowledge, with elocution skills to match and also a master-class orator. I do not remember the entire Prologue but do remember the last verse which is appropriate to be quoted at this point of time

"What’s cooking in the Kitchens of the Great?

The Common Man is looking at his plate

Totalitarianism isn’t quite the kind of thing of which he wants a bite

A simple menu card is what he needs with the milk of human kindness and seeds of freedom plainly dressed.

A democratic menu card is the best."

It is also fitting to remember the obituary notice inserted by Dr. Riley Fernando in 1974 which to refresh your memory was read as follows:

"O ‘ CRACY – The death occurred under tragic circumstances of D.E.M.O. CRACY beloved husband of T. Ruth, loving father of L.I. Berty brother of Faith, Hope, and Justitia. Interred on Saturday 20th inst. Araliya Medura, Panagiyawatte Anduruwela."

From the days of the Legislative Council in 1921 to date the person who commanded the most number of votes has been appointed leader of the house, Council, or Parliament as the case maybe except in one instance i.e. in January 2015 when Ranil was appointed Prime Minister by President Maitripala Sirisena, although he was leader of the minority party which had only 40 odd seats. This decision was not challenged, had it been challenged, and Ranil did not have a majority he would definitely have had to step down.

The first election petition in our legislative history was filed in 1921 in the days of the Legislative council. E.W. Perera left for England after the Sinhala-Muslim riots with that infamous "shoot at-sight" order concealed in his famous shoe and in London he spent a few years. Much of it lobbying for political reforms in Ceylon.

After four years in England he returned and contested what was called a Western Province B Division Seat. Nominations had been called on the 31st of March 1921 and polling held on the 21st April. And E.W. Perera won, defeating quite a formidable opponent – Forrester Obeysekere.

Section 13 of the Constitution of the time laid: No person shall be capable of being elected Member of the Legislative Council who has not been ordinarily resident within the area for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of nomination as a candidate for election.

An election petition was filed against E.W. Perera and the substance of the petition was that from July 1915 to May 1919 (two years before his election), he was out of the island and was hence disqualified to be elected to the legislature.

But E.W. presented a very unusual argument. He said that his house, his study, his books, his personal effects, his bedroom etc. etc. here in Ceylon had been maintained in good order right throughout his absence abroad which meant he was present in spirit and what was more important had the clear intention of returning to his motherland. The Election Judge upheld this contention, and E.W retained his seat.

Under British rule in 1931 the Donoughmore Constitution did not did not provide for a Government and Opposition, naturally. Instead, the State Council was divided into seven committees – Local Government Committee, Health Committee, Education, Home Affairs and so on. Each Committee had seven members who elected the Chairman of that Committee who then became Minister of whatever subject that committee dealt with. In July 1931 the Home Affairs met to elect its Chairman. One member proposed the name of Sir D.B. Jayatilleke and another seconded it. Someone else proposed the name of Sir Cudah Ratwatte and that too was seconded.

When those in favour of Sir D.B. Jayatilleke were asked to raise their hands three hands went up; those of D.B. himself and his proposer and seconder. Then those in favour of Sir Ratwatte were asked to raise their hands and three hands went up. The hand that did not go up was that of Sir Cudah Ratwatte. You can imagine the tension that would have been building up, for a Ministerial Post in that first State Council was a very coveted one, ensuring the holder’s political future and then came one of those imperishable scenes of utter gallantry that makes the blood of men surge like thunder in their veins. In an unmatched gesture of pure selflessness Sir Ratwatte cast his vote for his opponent Sir, D.B. Jayatilleke. What men they were; what Gentlemen!

The very first general election in 1947 was won by the UNP by a slim majority under the first Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake. He died unexpectedly in March 1952 and his son Dudley was chosen as Prime Minister by Governor General Lord Soulbury over his cousin Sir John. He called a general election in 1952 and won comfortably. In 1953, he raised the price of rice and cut subsidies became very unpopular as people revolted got sick and resigned. Governor General Lord Soulbury asked Sir John to take over as Prime Minister and form a Government although he had a grudge, but since UNP held the majority. In fact he had told Sir John: "I suppose now that you are Prime Minister, you will want me to resign ?" "To which Sir John is reported to have said, I shall think about it." Lord Soulbury took the cue and resigned a year later and on Sir John’s recommendation Sir Oliver Goonetilleke became Governor General.

Sir John called an election early in 1956 on the advice of his Secretary Sir Ukwatte Jayasundera and lost. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike of the SLFP won a landslide victory. SWRD Bandaranaike was assassinated in 1959 and Wijayananda Dahanayake was appointed Caretaker prime Minister. After a year of turmoil he called elections in March 1960. In 1960 when Dudley Senanayake formed his Government with an uneasy coalition of no less than seven parties, it was popularly called the Hath-havula. After its first speech from the Throne the motion of thanks was debated in the house and on Dudley winding it up, a voice vote was taken.

Those in favour say ‘Aye’ droned the speaker

"AYE!" ROARED THE Government MP"s in on raucous voice

Grinned the 2nd MP for Colombo South Bernard Soysa from the opposition front- bench "THE HATH HOWL"

This Coalition fragmented and lasted only four months and Dudley Senanayake called a general election in July 1960.

Eventually, the leadership of the SLFP fell to Bandaranaike’s widow Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who led the SLFP to a resounding victory and became the world’s first female Prime Minister, and was soon appointed a Senator. The Government was brought down in 1965 by the crossing- over of leader of the house, C .P. De Silva and some of his men precipitating the 1965 General Election.

Dudley Senanayake was able to form a Government in 1965 and served his longest term as Prime Minister from March 1965 to May 1970. Following the landslide victory of the United Front Coalition (SLFP LSSP and the Communists) lead by Sirimavo Bandaranaike in the 1970 elections with a large majority Dudley Senanayake resigned from the Post of Prime Minister and although active in Politics winning the Dedigama seat he remained a member of Parliament but did not accept the post of leader of opposition allowing J.R. Jayewardene to serve as Leader of the Opposition and become de-facto leader of the UNP.

Tapping into great anger with the SLFP Government Jayewardene led the UNP to a crushing victory in the 1977 election. The UNP won a staggering five-sixths of the seats in Parliament that was magnified by the first past-the-post system and one of the most lop sided victories ever recorded for a democratic election. Immediately thereafter he amended the Constitution of 1972 to make the Presidency an executive post.

The provisions of the amendment automatically made the incumbent Prime Minister – himself – President and he was sworn in as President on 4th February 1978.He passed a new Constitution on 31st August 1978 which came into operation on 9th September of the same year which granted the President sweeping –and according to some critics dictatorial powers.

R. Premadasa was elected 2nd Executive President when Late J.R. Jayewardene stepped down, defeating Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1989. He led the UNP to victory at the General Election held in 1989. R. Premadasa was murdered along with 17 others on 1st May 1993. Prime Minister Dingiri Banda Wijetunga was sworn in as acting President the very next day.

When a general elections was called for in 1994 Chandrika Kumaratunga, having rejoined the SLFP, formed a coalition called the People’s Alliance and led it to victory with a slim majority and was able to form a Government with the support of the Ceylon Workers Congress. Backed by the PA she then contested the Presidency against Gamini Dissanayake who was the leader of the opposition backed by the UNP. However Dissanayake was assassinated by a LTTE suicide bomber and his widow Srima Dissanayake took over his nomination. Chandrika won the Presidential Election in 1994 gaining 62.28% of the vote becoming the first female President of Sri Lanka in November 1994. She appointed her mother to succeed her as Prime Minister. In October 1999 Chandrika called for an early Presidential Election. She managed to defeat Ranil Wickremesinghe in the election on 21st December and was sworn in for another term the next day. In December 2001 her party the People’s Alliance lost the General Election to the UNP and her political opponent Ranil Wickremesinghe became Sri Lanka’s new Prime Minister. On 4th November 2003 while Ranil Wickremesinghe was on an official visit to the US, Chandrika prorogued Parliament and took over Defence, Interior and Media Ministries herself. This action was dictatorial but as per the existing Constitution. Kumaratunge’s PA and the JVP formed the UPFA United People’s Freedom Alliance in January 2004 and dissolved Parliament. Having won the election on 2nd April 2004 the UPFA formed a Government with Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. Chandrika’s six year term ended in 2005. She argued that she had a secret swearing in for her second term an year after her formal swearing to the second term. The Supreme Court rejected this stating that her term ended in 2005. In the Presidential Election that followed Mahinda Rajapakse gained 50.29% defeating Ranil Wickremesinghe and succeeded her as President.

On 19th May 2009 President Mahinda Rajapaksa delivered a victory address to the Parliament and declared that Sri Lanka had been liberated from terrorism. Following the end of the conflict a rift emerged between Rajapaksa and Fonseka over reasons which are still disputed. On 15th November Rajapaksa ordered Fonseka to leave his post as Chief of Defence Staff with immediate effect. Fonseka then joined the Opposition as Candidate against Rajapakse in the 2010 Presidential Election at which Rajapaksa emerged victor. He contested He contested for a third term after changing the Constitution and lost to Maithripala Sirisena the Common Opposition Candidate in January 2015.

The government in power in 2015 reduced the powers of the Executive Presidency by way of the 19th amendment and this is the situation we are facing today.

Women protest across North-East against gender based violence

181208 Jaffna gender based violence protest ND 1.jpg

Protests took place in Trincomalee and Jaffna this week against gender based violence. 

08 December 2018

In Jaffna, the protest took place by the main bus station today, calling for an end to gender based violence in workplaces. 

It was organised by the Jaffna Social Action Centre. 

In Trincomalee, a protest was held by the Trincomalee District Women Network on December 5. 

Women demonstrated from Post Office Road to the main bus station. 

Related Articles: 

06 December 2017 : Sri Lanka should tackle sexuality, gender identity bias - HRW

14 August 2018 : Remembering The Sencholai Massacre — A Gendered Attack on Tamil Women

06.12.2018 - Politicians Need To Follow The Law To Resolve The Political Crisis

Thursday, 06 December 2018 12:25

he political crisis that commenced with President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dismiss Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe continues. The sticking point at present is that the President is repeatedly stating both in public and private that he cannot work together with former Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and will therefore not appoint him again as Prime Minister. The parliamentary majority has made it clear through written and verbal statements that their choice is indeed former Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. On the other hand, the President is asserting his authority as the elected President to make his own choice of Prime Minister. His appointment of former President Mahinda Rajapakse as Prime Minister was a controversial choice which led to political chaos which political analysts have identified as akin to a political coup albeit a non-violent one. In this context it is necessary to find a solution that is both constitutional and just.

Conflicts can either be resolved through negotiations or through the law. So far our political leaders have been unable and unwilling to find a negotiated settlement to their conflicts. Even as our political leaders continue to be deadlocked in crisis, and violent in Parliament, attention has turned to the judiciary and to their interpretation of the law as the problem solving agency. It has therefore fallen upon the judiciary to resolve the two main problems that beset the polity. The first is the issue of whether the President has the power to dissolve parliament even before four and a half years have elapsed since the commencement of parliament’s term. The second is whether the Prime Minister can be selected at the President’s discretion. These are issues that need speedy resolution. Our country cannot afford a period in which it has no Prime Minister and no Cabinet of Ministers.

The National Peace Council calls on the President and Parliamentarians to abide by and respect the rulings of the Judiciary and not cause further dissensions in and outside of the parliament. When there is deadlock and the country and its people are hurting, it is important that political leaders should rise to the occasion by respecting the judgment of the Judiciary. Democracy is not only about elections and following the will of the majority. It is also about following the rules of democracy. There is no question of losing face in obeying the decisions of the Judiciary. We call on the President to allow Parliament to determine the Prime Minister. This is in keeping with parliamentary tradition, in which the person who enjoys majority support in Parliament is appointed as Prime Minister.

Finally, we wish to state our deep concern that in the event of the President’s unwillingness to abide by the norms of democratic practice, the government will face both domestic and international opprobrium which our country can ill afford. There is an urgent need to recover from the events of the past six weeks as many Parliamentarians have to rebuild their credibility, should they wish to seek re-election following their disruptive and violent behavior in Parliament. The unacceptable behavior of some of them was witnessed worldwide and in Sri Lanka including the younger generation. In a context in which early elections are being proposed as one of the means of resolving this political crisis, we believe that those who behaved in an unparliamentary manner should not receive nominations from their respective parties in order to bring in fresh blood and dignity to Parliament.