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

Thursday, December 13, 2018

 Sri Lanka: president's dissolution of parliament illegal, top court rules

Ruling a blow for Maithripala Sirisena, who wants to replace PM with country’s former leader
Sri Lankan Special Task Force members patrol in an armoured vehicle near the supreme court in Colombo on Thursday. Photograph: Ishara S Kodikara/AFP/Getty Images

 in Delhi and in -
Sri Lanka’s supreme court has rejected an attempt by the president to dismiss parliament and hold snap elections, leaving the country without a prime minister or cabinet and extending a political crisis that has paralysed the nation for more than six weeks.

The court in Colombo ruled that Maithripala Sirisena’s order to dismiss parliament, issued on 9 November, was unconstitutional.

The unanimous decision by the country’s top judges also leaves Sri Lankawithout a budget for 2019. Lawmakers have warned that public sector employees could cease being paid from the beginning of next month.

The ruling prolongs an impasse that started on 26 October, when Sirisena suddenly announced he had dismissed the country’s prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Wickremesinghe declared the dismissal an “undemocratic coup” and refused to vacate the prime ministerial residence for the man Sirisena appointed to replace him, the country’s former leader Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Rajapaksa has been unable to rally enough MPs in the country’s parliament to confirm his prime ministership, and Sirisena has refused to reappoint Wickremesinghe, whom he claims was stubborn and arrogant and allowed corruption to flourish.

Sirisena had tried calling an election to break the deadlock but after Thursday’s decision must continue negotiating with Wickremesinghe and other parliamentary leaders.

Tensions have run high among politicians, who have openly sparred in the country’s parliament. Supporters of Rajapaksa have attacked opponents on the assembly floor with chairs, copies of the country’s constitution and water mixed with chilli powder.

A member of Wickremesinghe’s party was pictured during one brawl last month brandishing a steel letter opener.

 Sri Lanka MPs fight in parliament as political turmoil continues – video

Fireworks were let off in front of the supreme court building in Colombo shortly after 5.15pm local time when Thursday’s decision was announced.

“We trust that the president will promptly respect the judgment of the courts,” Wickremesinghe tweeted shortly after the verdict. “The legislature, judiciary, and the executive are equally important pillars of a democracy and the checks and balances that they provide are crucial to ensuring the sovereignty of its citizens.”

Sources close to Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) said they had received an invitation from Sirisena to meet later on Thursday evening.

Namal Rajapaksa, a member of his father Mahinda’s party, said his group would convene tonight to discuss their next move.

“Even though we do not agree with this decision, there is no other court we can go to,” he said. “We will be meeting with President Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa at the head and we will decide our next course of action.”

Abraham Sumanthiran, a Tamil MP and one of the lawyers who argued before the court in favour of rejecting the president’s order, said the court had reached a decision “that will no doubt go down in history as one of the most important”.

There were scuffles outside the country’s state newspaper where UNP supporters had allegedly tried to force their way inside. Rajapaksa supporters had entered the same building in October in the aftermath of his appointment as prime minister and allegedly supervised the newspaper’s coverage of the event.

The past month and a half has been a significant test for the institutions of what Sri Lankans boast is Asia’s oldest democracy.

Rajapaksa was ousted in 2015 by an unlikely coalition formed by Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, who hail from traditionally opposing parties. Among the few issues that united them was fear that Rajapaksa’s government had grown too authoritarian and corrupt.

When the pair took office, they amended the constitution to strip powers from the presidency, hoping to limit any future leaders who tried to amass the kind of power Rajapaksa and his family had come to wield over his 10-year presidency.

Yet it was this same 19th amendment that Sirisena appears to have contravened in past weeks by trying to summarily dismiss Wickremesinghe.

The pair – Wickremesinghe an urbane, business-friendly lawyer, Sirisena the socialist son of a farming family – have struggled to reconcile differing policy views and their coalition has stagnated and grown unpopular in the past 18 months. Their personal relationship has also festered: Sirisena said last month he could not tolerate working with Wickremesinghe again, “even for one hour”.
Sirisena was thought to be facing certain defeat at the 2020 presidential polls when he hastily announced the prime ministerial appointment of Rajapaksa, a Buddhist nationalist strongman whose former administration was marred by allegations of rampant human rights abuses including forced disappearances.

But the attempted leadership switch has been repeatedly stymied by Sri Lanka’s other branches of government. Most lawmakers in parliament, where loyalties frequently shift, have refused to join Rajapaksa’s coalition. Legacy media outlets that rallied around Rajapaksa in the hours after he was sworn in have been drowned out by a hive of critical journalists, lawyers and policy analysts on social media.

And on Thursday the supreme court – an institution once regarded as unwilling to wade into sensitive political issues – elected to stop Sirisena in his tracks and force him to end the crisis by constitutional means.

The bench is scheduled to deliver another important ruling on Friday on whether Rajapaksa is permitted to exercise prime ministerial powers without the support of a majority of MPs in parliament.

You never really cared. Should we?

Robert O. Blake


UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM-2018-12-14


By “Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently... and more willing than the republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.” (Gore Vidal, “The State of the Union”)  
The tagline for McLarty Associates reads, “We know diplomacy.” I asked a friend for a comment the other day, and this is what I got: “They should change it to ‘We buy diplomacy.’ ” Given the history of the US meddling through lobbies, think tanks and organisations that supposedly stand for (the business of) human rights, the witticism isn’t unwarranted or uncharitable. So when an ex-ambassador attached to such an organisation lets out his thoughts on the present imbroglio in Sri Lanka in a local newspaper, we need to not just read, but also read into what is written.  

Robert O. Blake is not the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, though he’s identified as such in his piece, just as Mahinda Rajapaksa is not the prime minister here (as far as the Constitution goes, that is). According to his CV, he now “advises the US business overseas on behalf of McLarty Associates.” Is this the same McLarty whose chairman once wrote that he had hopes for no less a far-right dictator than Bolsonaro? The same chairman who wrote that while Brazilians were entering a “new chapter full of fear and uncertainty,” global markets are willing to give the man a “honeymoon phase”? If so, I struggle to understand what the former ambassador, now at McLarty, means when he talks about promotion of human rights and democracy in our country. Where do Brazil and Bolsonaro figure in that scheme of things?  
People known for their antipathy towards the US and what it does in/to the rest of the world will no doubt think uncharitable thoughts of Blake, McLarty, the Clintons (with whom the chairman associated), and Henry Kissinger (a friend of the chairman), along with those other officials from the Clinton and the Obama regimes who write diatribes against the Rajapaksas and China whenever Mahinda Rajapaksa makes a statement or does something, anything. Since I’m not willing to entertain uncharitable thoughts like that, Mr. Blake, I’d like to get some points across.  

Mr. Blake, we were not born yesterday. Our politicians like to thump their chests whenever they talk about our 2500 year history, but such pride is, while symptomatic of chauvinism (in your books, at least), understandable, given how we were forced to flirt against our will with colonialism and how we are still trying to recover from the colonial hangover. It’s also understandable given our suspicions about the Colonial Project that’s being touted in the guise of democracy and human rights and what not (call it what you will) today. You will forgive me for saying that a substantial part of that project is, in the opinion of many people from the underdeveloped world, being spearheaded by the country you are working for.  Mr. Blake, if China is indeed colonising this country, through ports and massive investments and aid that come with strings attached, it is not the first to do so and it will not be the last. Just the other day one of our writers penned a letter to the Chinese Ambassador. This writer, if I may put it bluntly, seems to believe that the Chinese are washing their dirty laundry using us. He claims to be a big fan of Chinese literature and films and believes that this qualifies him to accuse that country of undermining ours with the recent deadlock. He also claims that the likes of him are for democracy and that they want to build a socialist Sri Lanka. I’m not sure how a socialist Sri Lanka would sit in with your government, but for the moment let’s forget that.  

The point is that none of this happened yesterday. So please, indulge us: how is the “Chinese threat” any bigger than the threats from your part of the world? I can go on talking about unwarranted interventions, invasions, and covert projects your part of the world has sponsored to the detriment of those same human rights and democratic ideals you say you are concerned with. I won’t. Instead I’ll talk about a claim you make at the end of your “analysis.”  
The Democratic Party won back control of the House of Representatives. That it had to cede territory to the republicans in the Senate is grist for another debate altogether. You seem to think, in any case, that this blue wave will bring “added scrutiny” to Sri Lanka. You believe, and I quote, that the “promotion of human rights and democracy would be a priority” and that “Sri Lanka should expect more intensive congressional review of its recent actions, which could impact Sri Lanka’s access to financing from the new IDFC or the MCC.” Of course, the IMF and other international lenders have withdrawn support from the government until it resolves the deadlock (read, “until it installs Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister”), but for the moment let’s forget the threat you’ve highlighted there. Let’s talk about the party and what people in this part of the world think of its commitments.  

Dictatorships and totalitarian states (some of which you oppose, others which your government has propped up, because after all, “in OUR interests!”) are essentially, as you would know, run by monolithic parties. There are no oppositions and if there are, they are undermined. It’s fashionable to term such societies as One Party States.  
What of the US? What of the distinction between republicans and democrats? Is it as simple as the good guy bad guy fights John Wayne gets through? Is it a distinction at all? Gore Vidal once wrote about this and he made the following observation: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party... and it has two right wings.” There are many reasons to agree with Vidal and many reasons to disagree, but on this point, history bears him out. Notice, by the way, that he didn’t place them on opposite sides; he called them both “right wings.”  

  • " Dictatorships and totalitarian states essentially run by monolithic parties 

  •  Democrats, in the popular view of many, espouse liberalism 

  • Problem isn’t with President, but legislature 

  •  We were not born yesterday"


The democrats, in the popular view of many, espouse liberalism. They stand for rights. They believe in welfare. They want decency everywhere. They aspire for democracy in every part of the world (can we call it “permanent democracy”?). The president in power is a man they oppose, so the narrative they’ve built up is one where they, the heroes, are fighting a crusade against a group of bigots, zealots, sexists, and falsifiers. The narrative that the Trump administration has brought out, in other words, is that your president and his cohorts are not American; that they do not stand for what America stands for. Resistance to Trumpism must, according to this, come from the party you were once affiliated to (and still are, going by the tone of your piece).  
But Mr. Blake, that is not how reality works. Resistance to Trump and advocacy of human rights and promotion of democracy in countries like ours is never one party’s preserve. It certainly isn’t yours.  

That is why it confounds me as to why, in this grand, sweeping narrative, people who went on record claiming that the death of half a million children in Iraq in the 1990s was “worth it” are put on a pedestal as anti-fascists, or how a former First Lady who originates from one of the most marginalised minorities in your country can describe a president alleged to have callously treated that minority during the aftermath of a powerful hurricane her “partner in crime.” And in a best-seller, too!  
If these are the people whose party you now claim will add more scrutiny to Sri Lanka and help it stick to its human rights commitments and democratic potential, we are left to wonder, “Quis custodiet?”  

Anyway, back to the point: given this truth, this undeniable truth, can we really take your word for it that the democrats coming back to power means more scrutiny and more safeguards in terms of democracy for us? Given its history, is the Democratic Party, which by the way is associated with McLarty Associates, the best bet we have? I will not write here about what you weren’t concerned about in the last few years: the postponement of elections, the swearing in of a prime minister who lacked a majority (I am not talking about Rajapaksa), and the austerity measures that made it difficult for people to live, let alone live for democracy. But I must mention them, because your lack of concern about those issues and your sudden upset over the coming to power of the Rajapaksas make me question your motives.  

One final point. You believe that presidential elections could be called next year. But you see, the problem isn’t with the president. It’s with the legislature. Parliament. This deadlock came about because the men and women we elected didn’t correspond to the seats their parties won and lost at the local government elections last February. If ever there was a democracy deficit here in the first place, that was it.  
And yet, you never said you were concerned. You never wrote missives to the papers outlining your worries. You never urged the government to address the issue. Why?  

I think we know the answer to that, Mr. Blake. Let me spell it out for you.  
The truth is, you never really cared.  


UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM

The Deep Roots of Sri Lanka's Political Crisis

The current crisis is just the latest round of fighting over the powers of the president.

The Deep Roots of Sri Lanka's Political Crisis
Lawmakers supporting disputed Prime Minister Rajapksa throw a chair towards police officers escorting the speaker inside parliament in Colombo, Sri Lanka (Nov. 16, 2018).
Image Credit: AP Photo/Lahiru Harshana

In the first week of December, Sri Lanka’s political crisis deepened after the country’s Court of Appeal issued an interim order restraining former President Mahinda Rajapaksa from functioning as the prime minister. The interim injunction order, issued on December 4, also restrained 49 others from functioning as ministers.  Technically, Sri Lanka is left with no functioning prime minister or a cabinet. The political uncertainty seems set to continue until the Supreme Court delivers the final verdict regarding the validity of the action taken by President Maithripala Sirisena to dissolve the Parliament.
The Court of Appeal issued its interim order in response to a Writ of Quo Warranto filed against Rajapaksa and others, stating that a no-confidence motion was passed by the majority in the Parliament against Rajapaksa holding the office of prime minister. However, Rajapaksa, responding to the interim order, filled appeals in the Supreme Court the very next day. He also claimed that he is not in agreement with the order issued by the Court of Appeal and insisted that only the Supreme Court is vested with the power to interpret the constitution and make final determinations on that regard.
Over the last month, Sri Lankan politics has been more dramatic than popular Netflix TV show “House of Cards,” with surprising events following in quick succession. Within a period of six weeks, a new prime minister and a cabinet were appointed, Parliament was prorogued and dissolved, the dissolution of Parliament was suspended by courts, a no-confidence motion was passed against newly appointed prime minister, and finally the Court of Appeal has restrained the newly appointed prime minister and cabinet from functioning.
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
Political turmoil in Sri Lanka started on October 26, when the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) handed over a letter to the speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, stating that they would withdraw from the coalition government formed with the other major party of the country, the United National Party (UNP). A few hours later, former president and current MP Mahinda Rajapaksa was tapped as the prime minister by Sirisena, who had defeated Rajapaksa in 2015 presidential election with the support of the UNP.
Despite this shock appointment, ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe refused to leave the official residence of the prime minister, claiming that he has the parliamentary majority. He insisted that the president convene a parliament session to allow MPs to vote and show who has the confidence of Parliament to hold the post of prime minister However, Sirisena prorogued Parliament till November 16, exercising his executive powers. During this interregnum, both parties were claiming that they have a parliamentary majority and MPs’ loyalties were shifting. Some MPs claimed that there were attempts to bribe them with money and cabinet portfolios.
While this saga continued, Sirisena managed to surprise the nation again on a Friday night. In another unexpected move, he issued a gazette dissolving Parliament on November 9. This move was severely criticized not only by the UNP, but also by the international community, claiming that the move was unconstitutional. Questions were raised whether the president has powers to dissolve Parliament after the introduction of the 19th Amendment to the constitution in 2015. The UNP and several other parties filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the dissolution. After considering these petitions, the Supreme Court suspended Sirisena’s order to dissolve Parliament till December 7, when the court planned to deliver a final verdict regarding the constitutionality of Sirisena’s move to dissolve parliament. However, the Supreme Court did not issue the final verdict on December 7; instead the injunction order was extended till the final verdict is issued.
After the Supreme Court suspended the dissolution, Parliament was convened on November 14. At that time the UNP presented a no-confidence motion against appointed newly appointed Prime Minister Rajapaksa with the signature of 120 plus MPs (which amounts to a simple majority of the parliament, which consists of 225 MPs). Twice the no-confidence motion was discussed and votes were taken in the parliament even while fights were going on inside the chamber. Although the  speaker informed the parliament that Rajapaksa was defeated by the no-confidence motion,  Rajapaksa and the MPs who support him claimed that the speaker violated standing orders in the proceeding and they cannot accept the results of the no-confidence motion. Sirisena claimed that to decide about a no-confidence motion against the government, he wanted a name call or electronic vote, rather than a voice vote as done originally. On November 23, a vote was taken electronically regarding the nominations for the parliamentary committee of selection and was passed with 121 MPs voting in favor; UPFA members boycotted the vote claiming that the speaker violated standing orders.
Even then Sirisena does not seem to be convinced about the fact that a majority of the MPs do not have confidence in the newly appointed prime minister. Sirisena seems to be enjoying the same executive powers he previously voted in to get rid of after being elected.
Executive Presidency and Sri Lankan Politics
Ever since the introduction of the executive presidency to Sri Lanka, it has given immunity and much power to the president, including powers to prorogue and dissolve parliament. This has made it very difficult to have a president and government from two different parties. Such instances have often created political instability as the president has sufficient powers to intervene with the work of the government — including ending its term. Recently ousted Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has been a victim of executive presidential powers twice. Before Sirisena ousted him recently, Wickremesinghe experienced very similar consequences when he held the office of prime minister in 2004. Then-President Chandrika Bandaranaike exercised her executive powers and dissolved Parliament in February 2004. Three months prior to the dissolution of Parliament, Bandaranaike took over three minister portfolios, including that of defense minister, and Parliament to to delay the Wickremesinghe government from passing its budget.
When Bandaranaike took over three ministries in late 2003, the prime minister was completely unaware of it. In fact, Wickremesinghe was in Washington to meet with then-U.S. President George W. Bush. Wickremesinghe, when queried by the media in the United States about the sudden political change, said that things were all right when he left and claimed that he had a majority in Parliament. However, Wickremesinghe having a parliamentary majority didn’t matter much. Bandaranaike dissolved Parliament and called parliamentary elections in 2004 even before Wickremesinghe’s government completed three years in office. Wickremesinghe conceded defeat and Mahinda Rajapaksa was appointed prime minister.
The post of the executive presidency was vested with much power in Sri Lanka and all successive presidents utilized it whenever they could use it to hold on to power. Late President J.R. Jayawardene called a referendum in 1982 to extend the term of the Parliament instead of holding a parliamentary election to retain the five-sixths majority in the legislature. Late President R. Premadasa used executive powers to avoid an impeachment motion against him by proroguing Parliament. Bandaranaike, as outlined above, used executive power to oust the prime minister from a rival party and form a government headed by her party. Rajapaksa used it to gain a parliamentary majority by offering minister portfolios to MPs and further increased the power of an executive president. These crucial, sometimes dangerous, overuses of executive powers included the power to dissolve parliament after the completion of just one year of the term, powers to take over any cabinet ministry whenever the president wishes, and the power to appoint as prime minister anyone whom the president thinks has the confidence of Parliament.
However, as per the 1978 constitution, a president could hold office only twice. The very first executive president in Sri Lanka, J.R. Jayewardene, had to leave the presidency after serving for two terms. So did Bandaranaike who left the presidency in 2005 after serving twice. Yet, Rajapaksa wasn’t ready to go after serving two terms. He introduced the 18th Amendment to the constitution and removed the barrier to contesting elections for the third time. However, his bid for a third term ended up as a failed mission as he conceded defeat to Sirisena in the 2015 election.
The 19th Amendment: Reducing the Powers of the President
The consistent use of executive powers by successive presidents in order to hold on to power has somewhat demonized the executive presidency. Such events created a resistance against the executive presidency among the general public. Subsequent to the removal of term limits for the presidency in 2010 by Rajapaksa and some alleged interventions by the president to the top judiciary appointments created a strong sentiment among the public about the need to abolish the executive presidency.  In order to do that, a common candidate was put forward by the opposition then led by the UNP. Sirisena, who had been the health minister under Rajapaksa and the secretary of the major party of the powerful Rajapaksa government left his positions and contested against Rajapaksa as the common candidate in 2015. One of the main campaigning points of the anti-Rajapaksa faction during the 2015 election was a pledge to take away the excessive powers vested to the executive president. In fact, Sirisena, who has seemed to enjoy his executive powers throughout the last six weeks, claimed that he was becoming president to defeat Rajapaksa and abolish the executive presidency. Although this was not a novel promise (Bandaranaike also pledged to abolish the executive presidency when she campaigned for the presidency in 1994; so did Rajapaksa in 2005), people believed in it.
Although Rajapaksa was defeated, removing the powers of the executive president was not easy. Removing certain powers required approval in a referendum. On that backdrop, the 19th Amendment was introduced in order to reduce powers of the president, as an amendment which doesn’t require approval in a referendum. This was passed with a large parliamentary majority in 2015. Changes introduced through this amendment included reducing presidential and parliamentary terms to five years, establishing constitutional councils, and preventing the president from dissolving Parliament before Parliament completes four-and-a-half years of its term. According to the architects of the 19th Amendment, due to the introduction of this amendment, Sirisena does not have powers to dissolve Parliament — a luxury enjoyed by other presidents and utilized by former President Bandaranaike — as it has not completed four-and-a-half years of its term. As per the 19th Amendment, an dissolution of Parliament before the four-and-half-year benchmark requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Parliament.
However, local media reported that Sirisena was informed by his legal advisers that there were issues in the way the 19th Amendment received parliament approval and therefore Sirisena still has powers to dissolve Parliament after it completes a term of one year.
What Next?
At the moment, the pending Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality holds the key. The decision, which is now due by December 10, will determine whether there will be a parliamentary election in the near future or not. At the moment, as per the law, the country does not have a functioning prime minister and a cabinet. The level of uncertainty seems to be beyond anyone’s imagination — especially when Sirisena claims that he will not reappoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as the prime minister even if every MP votes in favor of Wickremesinghe. In same speech on December 5,  Sirisena blamed for the difficulties and stressed that he will take actions to resolve the country’s political crisis within a weeks’ time.
The expectation is that the Supreme Court will deliver its final verdict regarding the constitutionality of the dissolution of parliament before December 14. Sri Lankans will hope that at least the Supreme Court decision will bring this drawn-out crisis to an end.
Umesh Moramudali is a Sri Lankan journalist who is currently pursuing a Masters in Economics at the University of Warwick, U.K.

SRI LANKA’S UNF EXPECTS WICKREMESINGHE RE-APPOINTMENT, JVP WANTS ‘COUP’ LEADERS PUNISHED



Sri Lanka Brief13/12/2018

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s United National Front expects appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe to be re-appointed Prime Minister while their opponents said a decision will be taken tonight after the Supreme Court reversed a sacking of parliament by President Maithripala Sirisena.

“Sri Lanka has a strong democratic traditions, illegitimate acts by the executive or or parliament cannot be sustained over a long period of time,” Eran Wickremeratne, from the United National Party said.

“This is a victory for the people.”

Wickremeratne said he expected the President to re-appoint Wickremesinghe and form a government.
Deputy UNP leader Sajith Premadasa said Sri Lanka’s judiciary had shown its independence and served as an effective check on the executive.

President Maithripala Sirisena plunged Sri Lanka into a political and economic crisis appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister on October 26, sacking Wickremesinghe and calling for fresh elections.

The Supreme Court ruled that President Sirisena had no power to dissolve parliament until the lapse of 4.5 years as set out in an amendment to Sri Lanka’s constitution in 2015.

“The overall intention of the 19th amendment to reduce the power of the executive has been vindicated,” Jayampathy Wickremeratne, constitutional lawyer and UNP legilslator who helped draw up the amendment said.

Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal has barred Rajapaksa from acting as Prime Minister in a separate decision.

Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Party, a breakaway faction of President Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party is pressing for general elections.

Rajpaksa’s son Namal told reporters they did not agree with the Supreme Court verdict
“But there is no higher court for us to go to,” he said. “We will take a decision as a group.”

Another ally Dinesh Gunewardene, said Rajapaksa would take a decision on the future course of action tonight.

“The Supreme court gave a decision against us,” he said. “In the end people will decide whether there is a parliament or not. Our democracy is that we need election, UNP’s democracy is not to have elections.

“Mahinda Rajapaksa will decide tonight the way forward.”

Sri Lanka’s Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna said the current parliament had a limited life and it must take action to punish those involved in the coup.

Parliament must bring in a special law to punish those involved in this coup, he said. But enacting retrospective legislation is considered an illiberal act. (Colombo/Nov14/2018)

Overcoming the crisis: The second freedom struggle


President Maithripala Sirisena
logoFriday, 14 December 2018

The crisis that has been developing in Sri Lanka, manifesting itself in varied forms at different times since independence, has now taken the form of a constitutional crisis, threatening the survival of the Sri Lankan State. Regardless of the Court’s decision, the collapse of the State cannot be avoided. The arbitrary act of the President has only accelerated the momentum of this collapse, plunging the State into a complete anarchic situation. One thing I can say for sure is that restoring the Government to the status quo of 26 October or opting for a presidential or parliamentary election will not prevent the great collapse that has gripped the State.
Ranil Wickremesinghe
Mahinda Rajapaksa


The President’s stance is that Ranil Wickremesinghe shall not be given the appointment of the next prime minister, even if a decision is made to reinstate the previous government. By doing so, the President hopes not only to take revenge on Ranil Wickremesinghe but to create a terrible crisis in the UNP, impair its strength and gain control over it so that he could stay ahead of its influence.

At this moment, regardless of who would be selected as the next prime minister except Ranil Wickremesinghe, given the power structure of the UNP, a serious internal crisis in the party is inevitable. The UNP's power structure rests on a system which gives paramount importance to its leader’s close confidantes. As such, a change in the party leadership at this moment will inevitably lead to a major transformation in the power structure of the party, creating a great crisis within the party. It is also seen as the strategic political ambition of the President.
The internal democracy of political parties
As we have already discussed, one important observation by the Donoughmore Commission was that the political parties that prevailed in Sri Lanka at that time could not be considered democratic. Although nearly 80 years have lapsed since the Donoughmore Commission, in a democratic sense, there was no positive development in the political parties of the country. Even at present, Sri Lankan political parties cannot be reckoned to be democratic. They do not have a democratic structure. Most of them are based on structures designed to give more weight to a dictatorial system with tight central controls.

There is hardly a single political party in the country which can be called democratic internally or in their organisational practices. The organisational structures of all political parties have been modelled in a way that gives the party leader despotic power. The party members have no right to actively participate in the decision-making process. There is no transparency in party funding. All political parties are maintained not on membership funds, but on black money.

The Constitutions of political parties cannot be considered democratic. They are more dictatorial than democratic. In the final analysis, all political parties can be considered entities that promote the party leaders as dictators and restrict the party members to playing a mediocre role as henchmen to their dictatorial leaders.

The dictatorship-style party system has also been a significant factor in the degeneration of the State. There is no system to assess the internal democracy and the true objectives of political parties.

Even the Election Commission that was set up recently with much fanfare and display can be considered a backward element compared to the Indian Election Commission. Those who formulated the Election Commission have not studied the Election Commission of India. There are strict rules governing political party funds, election funds and election expenses in India. The Indian Election Commission has the power to investigate the funds of political parties and how they are being used for elections. Besides, it has powers to investigate the internal democracy of political parties and to proscribe political parties that do not practice democratic principles internally. The Election Commission of Sri Lanka has not been empowered to investigate internal party democracy and party funds. It does not even seem to be interested in obtaining such powers.
Predatory nature
Almost all political parties in the country, big or small, are engaged in a battle to seize political power and become direct or indirect partners of that power, considering it an opportunity given to them to exploit public property at their whims and fancies. While the UNP and the SLFP, the two major political parties, are asserting their right to plunder public property, the other small parties representing Parliament tend to adopt a policy that directly or indirectly supports the ruling party to become the partners in this process and enjoy the benefits of the exploitation of public property.

It was the UNP that introduced the corrupt practice of allowing Sri Lankan Parliamentarians to conduct business with the government and to act as contractors, licence holders and purchasers of the property, a practice rarely found in any other democratic country. The irony of this situation is that even the SLFP, the major opposition, and the other political parties did not oppose it. They too willingly adhered to this corrupt tradition.

It should also be emphasised that there is no other country in the world except Sri Lanka where MPs are provided with vehicles and vehicle permits and fuel for those vehicles free of charge. Even quasi-revolutionary parties like the JVP and the JHU did not oppose this corrupt system. Instead they too adapted to this predatory system. If they had opposed this corrupt practice instead of becoming a party to it, it would certainly have created a major crisis.

The subject of radio waves and frequencies in Sri Lanka can be considered a sphere of acute exploitation. Radio waves are commonly acknowledged as a "rare treasure” by the world as a whole. Usually, frequencies are sold by auction in any state in the world. They fetch a very high price. The license-holder has the right to run a radio or television broadcasting station. However, in view of the fact that the radio frequencies are treated as public property, the owner is bound to follow a policy beneficial to the public and contributes to public good. However, radio frequencies of Sri Lanka are sold secretly, not in the public domain. The Treasury only gets a nominal price, not the real price of it. The proper price that ought to have gone to the Treasury ends up in the pocket of a third party.

The other important point is that the owners of broadcasting centres do not follow a policy frame beneficial to promoting public taste and discernment in pursuing their business. Rather, it leads more to undermining artistic taste and the fair judgement of the audience. This unpleasant role of the media too can be considered a powerful reason of the deterioration of the State and keeping the public consciousness at a level which is poor and uncritical.

During the reign of President Chandrika Kumaratunga, a number of television and radio licences were given to a trustworthy crony of her. It was those licences that one of the leading media institutions had purchased from that person later. The Chairman of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, also appointed by Chandrika Kumaratunga, carried a licence in his pocket when he left the Commission on the eve of her government’s change. It was sold to another leading television company allegedly for $ 5 million.This gives a rough idea of the market price of radio waves and frequencies. Even though the price ought to have gone to the Treasury, it went into the pocket of the former chairman.

During the rule of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime, some of those who contributed to his victory in 2005 were compensated with permits to set up of radio broadcasting stations. These licenses were issued to the JHU, JVP and a well-known Buddhist monk who sold it to an owner of a tea company for Rs. 40 million. This creates an idea of the price of the licences Rajapaksa issued to two small political parties and a Buddhist monk who supported him, from state property.

The Rs. 120 million fetched through the sale of three licences ought to have gone to the Treasury. But this huge sum of money too ended in the pockets of the two political parties and the Buddhist monk. This example illustrates the way in which the smaller parties with a revolutionary façade too contribute to the plunder of state property that takes place in the country’s political arena. Obviously, they were intelligent enough to realise that it was a bribe given to them from public property. We must not forget that even the current President has been accused of having issued licences for radio waves and frequencies to a broadcasting company that supports him, to expand its capacity to a level which is even much bigger than the capacity of the state transmission stations.
The dawn of renaissance 
The current constitutional crisis has pushed the state and its institutional system into a state of anarchy, causing a crippling breakdown of the entire system. Now Sri Lanka has no formal Constitution except a deformed and disorderly Constitution.

This could also completely destroy the country’s entire old political system. Simultaneously, it may lead to the end of the recognition of old political parties and their leaders. The people will be subjected to untold hardships. Though it may sound paradoxical, perhaps, this situation might result in the shedding of obsolete and archaic attitudes and the creation of a more modern and rational society.

The political embryonic seed of the renaissance movement had occurred and developed in the ideological womb that was able to foresee the impending anarchic situation in advance and was determined that this situation must be made an opportunity to re-create the state which ensures rule of law and is free of corruption and inefficiency. Just as much as it foresaw the deterioration of the State, it was able to see the constitutional crisis in advance. From its inception, its main goal was to recreate the nation, overcoming all discriminations based on ethnic, caste and religious differences and ensuring equal rights and respect for all citizens and in this process to promote social integration as a lead-up to the recreation of the State which was in a deplorable state of depletion and collapse.

The renaissance movement was also of the view that considering the extent of deterioration, even if the ruling power is seized through a general election, the winner will invariably become an unfortunate victim of the putrid system, thereby being unable to effect any far-reaching changes. It also held that it must stay out of Parliament, refrain from contesting elections and instead mobilise people to exercise their democratic rights directly and peacefully to achieve the anticipated changes. The renaissance movement also believed that the collapse of the State would be a historic moment as it offers the necessary space for the public to make a direct democratic intervention. The renaissance movement warned the public well in advance about the devastating constitutional crisis that was to come in the guise of a political tsunami before the next presidential election. People were informed of this development in writing or otherwise. It also produced a joint communiqué highlighting the issue which was signed by a select number of celebrated academics stressing the importance of public organisations working in collaboration to face the situation. The communiqué was circulated among public organisations.

As the renaissance movement believes the historic responsibility of changing the old State which is unjust, inefficient, corrupt and reached the verge of collapse and recreating a new State which is democratic, pluralistic, efficient, fair, free of corruption, law-abiding and in the perfect sense of the word is committed to safeguard the sovereignty of the people lies not on politicians but on the people of the country. The people of the country can only realise this goal if they are able to achieve the following basic condition: formation of a body of public organisations
Public organisations
Public organisations such as professional organisations, trade unions, farmers, fisheries and craftsmen associations, commercial and business organizations, arts, literature, culture and other non-governmental organisations should join together and form a mass organisation, a People’s Commissariat. The functions of this People’s Commissariat would be to:

nDevelop people’s networks, introduce awareness programs and serve as a special institutional system guiding people and educating them on the need to prevent instances of violence and the law being breached.

nServe as an institution to overcome discriminatory practices based on ethnic, caste and religious differences, and superstitions with the view to promoting social integration and recreating the nation.

nServe as a national level forum to build a far-reaching national vision. It must serve as an institution initiating a dialogue at the national level on topics that interest enthusiasts and other subjects conducive to creating a common national outlook. It is necessary that it acts as a screening agency for identifying the necessary features of the envisaged new state and exploring the circumstances that led to the collapse of the old system.

nServe as an institution investigating the serious offences committed by the governments of Sri Lanka from time to time and the people who were responsible for them.
The support of the media is a necessary condition for this initiative. So this body must look into the underlying causes of the deterioration in the media sphere and suggest reforms to be effected with the view of developing a media tradition responsible to the people.

Now the country has no Constitution. Drafting a new Constitution is a must and an essential requirement for the recreation of a new State. The three constitutions so far adopted had been drafted by disregarding the long-held policies, principles and traditions, dignity and solemnity to be maintained in Constitution-making. They can be considered constitutions adopted hurriedly, giving prominence to narrow political interests instead of the common good of the people and without the active participation of the people.

This body of public organisations should act as a guiding entity and develop a strategic program to avoid repetition of old errors and persuade the authorities to draft a new Constitution in line with the direct democratic rights and true participation of the people.

JVP Likely To Initiate Impeachment Motion Against Sirisena: Also Pledges To Initiate Investigation Against Coup Offenders

logo
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna indicated that it would initiate an impeachment motion against President Maithripala Sirisena for deliberately acting in violation of the Constitution, Colombo Telegraph learns.
Anura Kumara
j
The impeachment motion will be based on the unanimous ruling delivered by the Supreme Court stating the President’s actions are unconstitutional.
Speaking to the media, JVP Parliamentarian Vijitha Herath said they would initiate a no-confidence motion if the President continues to act in violation of the Constitution. He confirmed that an impeachment motion could be brought against the President.
Speaking after the Supreme Court ruling today, JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said a special investigation should be launched to prosecute everyone who supported the “Constitutional Coup” on October 26 and afterwards.
The JVP Leader said his party would also take the lead in initiating this process inside Parliament.
Meanwhile, UPFA MPs held a discussion with the President after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict. It is learnt that the UPFA MPs have discussed the possibility of “resigning from the government” during the meeting with the President. The UPFA MPs continue to identify themselves as the ruling party although the Court of Appeal interim order has ousted them temporarily.

Read More

Ranil say committed to abolishing Exec Presidency



METHMALIE DISSANAYAKE-DEC 12 2018

Ousted Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe today (12) said in Parliament that he is committed to abolishing the Executive Presidency, strengthening the Provincial Councils and finding a political solution for the problems of Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities, within a framework of an undivided country, through a new Constitution.

Wickremesinghe made this remark speaking after the House passed a motion expressing the support of the majority for him to act as the Premier of Sri Lanka.

Thanking all the Parliamentarians who voted in favour of him, when the said motion was taken up for the vote, Wickremesinghe said that passing it could be considered as a major step to defeat the current political coup in the country.

“In this moment, the words of Former US President Abraham Lincoln ‘the government of the people, by the people, for the people’ comes to my mind. Accordingly, a government should be formed by the people, not by a President. There cannot be a government of the President but a government of the people.”

He further said that all the MPs' despite the differences in their political ideologies are bound to protect the Constitution.

“I must mention that Speaker Karu Jayasuirya put a lot of effort to protect Parliamentary democracy.

This House passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution to scrap the powers of the Executive Presidency and to establish nine independent Commissions. We all contributed to ensure the independence of these Commissions. Because of our work, now the people can enjoy their democratic rights. They were scared to use their rights before,” Wickremesinghe noted.

Need an election, but not by hook or by crook

It is prudent to have a fresh Parliamentary composition through a mid-term General Election

 2018-12-14
Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa, the son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, has exclaimed in his twitter feed as to why those who make a fuss on democracy were scared of elections. Not only has him, rather this has become a common question posed by the Mahinda Rajapaksa loyalists these days.
In a way, this is an ironic question on their part. They were overjoyed when their leader was appointed Prime Minister on October 26 by President Maithripala Sirisena, in the wake of the withdrawal by the UPFA some MPs from the Government.

They did not call for an election then. They were further overjoyed when the same President dissolved their leader’s Government after two weeks when the latter failed to muster (buy over) Parliamentary majority. Then they wanted an election. They have taken two stances on the elections in two identical situations.
Namal Rajapaksa would not have raised this question had his father bought over MPs sufficient to show the majority power in Parliament after he was appointed Prime Minister in October.

"A General Election is not an assurance that the SLPP would win since the majority of voters had voted against the SLPP at LG Polls, despite them winning majority of councils"

Nor would he or any other loyalist of the former President have preferred a general election then. They would then have definitely opposed any suggestion to hold a premature Parliamentary Elections. Also, they would then have preferred to run the country until July 2020 when the term of the current Parliament elapses, during which time they would be able to reverse the legal actions that had already been initiated against some of them.
With his, Tweet Namal seems to argue that elections were the best indication of democracy or they were synonymous with democracy. According to this contention, the more you would have elections, the more would the country be democratic.

One can even contend on this line of thinking that democracy would flourish if you have General Elections once in every three months! One should not forget that Adolf Hitler also came to power through an election. Elections are needed for democracy but are not always sacred.
Rajapaksa loyalists have been campaigning for a General Elections since their sweeping victory at the February 10 Local Government Elections.
Yet, they did not want to go for an election when the Ranil Wickremesinghe government practically collapsed in the evening of October 26, and when President Sirisena sacked Wickremesinghe from the Premiership, a few hours later. Then again they wanted an election when it was clear that they failed in their unethical effort to buy over MPs from other parties.

"Rajapaksa loyalists prefer a general election for two reasons"

However, their allegation that the United National Party (UNP) is scared to face a Parliamentary Election was not unfounded. A General Election seems to be anathema to the UNP after the February Local Government Elections. UNP prefers a Presidential Election.
Likewise, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) group in Parliament led by Mahinda Rajapaksa abhors any election in Parliament. They raised hell in the House last month and even attempted to throw water mixed with chilli powder at the Speaker when it was clear that a vote was to be taken in the House.
They, under various pretexts, have been boycotting Parliament for fear of voting in the House. In their view, the synonymy between elections and democracy does not apply to the Parliament.

"Rajapaksa faction has taken two stances on the elections in two identical situations"

Rajapaksa loyalists prefer a general election for two reasons. Firstly, they seem to be confident of their victory in a Parliamentary election given their victory in more than 230 out of 340 local councils in February. And in an event they form the Government, Rajapaksa would be able to (And will attempt to) muster two-thirds of majority in Parliament by unethically buying over MPs from other political parties to bring in the provisions of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution again, so that he can contest future Presidential elections.
Secondly, they shy away from a Presidential election before a General Election owing to the Gota factor, which might rob Mahinda Rajapaksa’s chances to make a comeback as President.

"One should not forget that even Adolf Hitler came to power through an election"

However, General Election are not an assurance that the SLPP would win an absolute majority in Parliament since the majority of voters had voted against the SLPP at the February LG Polls, despite them having won a majority of councils.
Hence, there is a danger of a hung Parliament being elected again, though President Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) have patched up with SLPP recently.
It is owing to this very fact that majority voters had been against the SLPP in February that the UNP is demanding a Presidential election first. Yet, now that political alignments that prevailed in February have drastically changed with SLFP/UPFA which had bagged 1.5 votes at the LG elections aligning with the SLPP, the UNP cannot be so confident of a victory at a Presidential election either.

UNP’s only consolation is the SLPP not having been able to address the minority communities, Tamils, Muslims and the Christians.
With some of the men around the former President having racism in their very genes and being unable to open their mouths without disparaging any minority community, it would take time for the SLPP to win over the minorities.
For instance, we can cite an incident that happened recently during the voting on the motion to suspend funds allocated to the Prime Minister and Ministers.
When Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Spokesman M.A. Sumantiran protested against UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella’s call for a vote by name in Parliament after an electronic vote on the same purpose was concluded, even some of the learned men among the Rajapaksa’s ranks described the incident as Sumanthiran controlling the UNP. Would they have claimed that Kiriella was controlling the TNA, had the incidents happened in other way around?

"Elections are needed for democracy but are not always sacred"

What makes Sumanthiran controlling the UNP an issue while Kiriella controlling the TNA does not? Wasn’t this pure racism? They have forgotten that they were routed out at the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in 2015 mainly by the minorities and their behaviour now points that they do not want to win over the minorities at least now.

However, in the light of the current political and Constitutional issues, it is prudent to have a fresh Parliamentary composition through a mid-term General Elections. Unless the Supreme Court upheld the President’s November 9 decision to dissolve Parliament, the only way out would be a request by Parliament to the President to dissolve through a resolution passed with a two-thirds of a majority. Yet, the need for an election does not mean one should ignore the law of the land, which is tantamount to end justifying any means.  

12/12/2018
“Why are you asking these questions?” a bystander asks.
He had been watching me approach the vendors hawking their wares. Although he smiled politely as he asked, his upper lip curled, betraying his contempt.
“Look,” he waved his arm, encompassing the entirety of Prince Street. “We can walk freely here now. Now the war is over, why are you asking us about human rights?”
This reaction was not uncommon. In Maradana, in Pettah and in Kollupitiya, faces clouded at the very mention of the term “human rights.”
Human Rights Day, which falls on December 10, also marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Groundviews juxtaposed different articles from the Declaration with several of the rights issues that Sri Lanka has been grappling with, over decades. As Savitri Hensman noted in an earlier article on Groundviews, the idea that human rights are universal needs to be inculcated, so that a broad cross section of society can come together for their preservation.
And yet, it is clear that the very phrase, “human rights” is loaded for some. To the questioner on Prince Street, human rights was somehow connected with questions around what happened at the end of the war. However, alongside those who were sceptical or unwilling to speak, there were also those who recognised the importance of human rights, but felt that not enough had been done to create a culture that was rights-based and which addressed inequality.
Many of those interviewed felt that the State should be doing more to change the conversation around human rights, and to remove the negative connotations associated with the word. There were those who felt that the very idea of human rights was something remote, unconnected to them entirely. And there were those who said that civil society had not done enough to communicate rights issues in a way that resonated with their experiences.
As Hensman noted, “the challenges in building an ethos of rights should not be underestimated. But if those too young to have lived through the events of July 1983 and their aftermath are to be spared such horrors, it may be necessary to work towards a recognition that all deserve basic freedoms, recognition of human dignity and the necessities of life.”
The key question then is how to achieve this recognition? Should this be through the Civic Education modules in classrooms, a cleaner political culture, active citizenship or reflection and collaboration from civil society (or all these things combined?)
These questions may be vital to reflect on, in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Groundviews compiled a short video based on some of the interviews, accessible below.

UL without any documents on appointing reinsurance broker



article_image

By Rathindra Kuruwita- 

The insurance division of SriLankan Airlines did not have any documents to prove board approval for awarding MS Willis the contract as reinsurance broker in 2008, Rajinda Fernando, Senior Insurance Executive of the airline told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) on irregularities at SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering and Mihin Lanka, yesterday.

Testifying before the PCoI, Fernando said that, in February 2008, former Insurance Manager, Aruna Kalubowila had asked two companies, Willis and Mills, to submit proposals as the reinsurance broker for SriLankan. Chairperson of SriLankan at the time Harry Jayawardena had told her that a global tender should be called and at least the top three companies for airline reinsurance should be allowed to submit bids.

The Chairperson had stressed the need to prevent any allegations of corruption from being levelled against the institution and ordered a transparent bidding process, Fernando said, noting that he had also said that SriLankan could be probed by various parliamentary committees and the bribery commission. However, since the contract with the previous reinsurance company, Willis, was to expire on March 31, there was a time constraint, Fernando said.

Kalubowila had written back to the Chairperson that it was better to stick to Willis and Mills due to the time factor.

However, the Chairperson had insisted on a global bidding process, Fernando said, referring to documents.

However there were no documents to show the outcome of the process of awarding the contract.

The documents for 2012 showed that Willis had been offered the contract, but there wasn’t any proof of a contract in the files at the Insurance Division.

The PCoI directed the Attorney General’s Department officials to contact either the legal division or the Chairperson at that time to ascertain what had happened.