SC ruling: Expert observations on the way forward 

With the Supreme Court judgment ruling out the President’s move to dissolve Parliament describing it as unconstitutional and violating Fundamental Rights of petitioners, the existing constitutional coup seems to be drawing to an end. While people applaud the independence of the Judiciary, they are also watching how the country will function from now onwards. In fact, how the country will recover and restore itself back on track. For that to happen, elected representatives will now have to act wisely. As Ranil Wickremesinghe was once again sworn in as the fifth Prime Minister yesterday, people are now watching how the green party will play their cards. With that in mind, the Daily Mirrorspoke to a few individuals in varied fields of expertise to find out their observations on the recent SC ruling. 

Need new Constitution abolishing PC system : 

Tirantha Walaliyadde

2018-12-17

“If the President can dissolve Parliament at his whims and fancies, then, we are running dangerously close to a dictatorship,” said President’s Counsel Tirantha Walaliyadde.   
“The President had no provision to remove Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister in the manner he did. The Prime Minister can be removed only by a vote of No Confidence or vacation of the post by retirement or b y ceasing to be a Member of Parliament. As the purported removal was unconstitutional, Mr Wickremesinghe never ceased to hold the post of Prime Minister. As such, Mr Wickremesinghe does not resume office but continues in it.”  

When asked whether the Constitution requires any amendments, Walaliyadde pointed out that among other matters, the Constitution needed to provide sanctions against crossovers by MPs.   
“Under the present Constitution, the voter must first vote for the party and then for the preferred candidate from that party. If once elected by public vote the elected member can change parties it amounts to a violation of the franchise. The devolution of power to the Provinces must be curtailed or the Provincial Councils should be abolished. If not, the emergence of a Federal State is imminent. The North and the East are even now close to de facto Federal Sates. Under the present Provincial Councils system, if the North and the East are merged as rumoured, in some political circles, Eelam is handed over on a platter to the Eelamists and the 30-year war was just a waste of lives. Sri Lanka also requires a new Constitution abolishing the Provincial Councils system as well as the preferential vote system and the infamous provisions accommodating National List interlopers- for starters.”  

"The devolution of power to the Provinces must be curtailed or the Provincial Councils should be abolished. If not, the emergence of a Federal State is imminent

With the Supreme Court ruling that the President’s move was unconstitutional, he has in fact set a bad precedent on the rest of the citizens in the country. 
“The Constitution is the conscience of the people,” Walaliyadde said.  “Respect for the Constitution should begin with the Parliament which is said to represent the people. If the Parliamentarians who were elected by virtue of the Constitution have no regard for it once elected, then can one expect the people to respect it? The people, in general, are fed up of the party system of Government. What Sri Lanka requires is the establishment of a Sinhala State with all minority races accepting it. It is only then that these racial conflicts will come to an end and harmony and coexistence will prevail. The Sinhala comprise about 75% of the population according to the last released census. The Tamils 15% and the others comprise the rest.”  

We need to restore the confidence of investors: 

Sirimal Abeyratne  

Adding in his comments on the topic, Sirimal Abeyratne, Professor of Economics at the University of Colombo said that one good thing about the Supreme Court judgment was that it proved to the rest of the world that we as a nation, treasure the independence of the Judiciary.   

"It would be better if the political leaders also follow these decisions and act accordingly. The political disruption has affected many aspects in different ways. Although the matter could be solved in a matter of days, its long-term impacts are greater. On the long term, we need to restore the confidence of investors."

“It would be better if the political leaders also follow these decisions and act accordingly. The political disruption has affected many aspects in different ways. Although the matter could be solved in a matter of days, its long-term impacts are greater. On the long term, we need to restore the confidence of investors. Policies need to be consistent in order to get investors to pool in their money. These depend on the political developments in 
the future.”  
Prof. Abeyratne also stressed the fact that there should be a budget in place and that it was not a good idea to run a country without a budget.  

UNP is stronger as a party now: 

Terrance Purasinghe  

"The Government that will be established now is not a national Government. For that to happen, the SLFP has to extend its support. But with the TNA backing they are in a position to form a Government."

In his observations, Terrance Purasinghe, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura said that the country had a national Government before October 26.  
“The Government that will be established now is not a national Government. For that to happen, the SLFP has to extend its support. But with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) now backing the green party they are now in a position to form a Government. The UNP had an internal crisis but it has subsided now and they are stronger as a party and the leadership is also strong.”  

The coup would have succeeded if not for judicial independence: 

Gehan Gunatilleke

“The Supreme Court’s recent ruling - that the President’s action to dissolve Parliament violated the Fundamental Rights of the people - is a watershed event in Sri Lanka’s Constitutional history,” said Gehan Gunatilleke, lawyer and an academic specializing in international human rights and public law.   
“This unanimous ruling demonstrates two things. First, it demonstrates how important it is to guarantee the separation of powers in the governance structure of a country. In Sri Lanka, the Judiciary plays a vital role in protecting the rights of the people in instances where the executive acts outside the provisions of the Constitution. There is no doubt whatsoever that the President contravened the Constitution when he sought to unilaterally dissolve Parliament prior to the lapse of four and a half years since the first meeting of Parliament.   

"It demonstrates how important it is to guarantee the separation of powers in the governance structure of a country. In Sri Lanka, the Judiciary plays a vital role in protecting the rights of the people..."

Without these checks and balances in place - without a Judiciary willing to perform its Constitutional Duty to check the abuse of Executive Power - the power grab launched on 26 October would have succeeded.   
Second, this ruling demonstrates that Sri Lanka’s institutional culture has evolved during the past three and a half years. This shift is subtle and cannot yet be called a genuine ‘transformation’.   But, in contrast to previous Governments, the Yahapalanaya Government either deliberately or inadvertently did not seek to concentrate power in the Executive. This is the legacy of the Nineteenth Amendment.   
It has enabled institutions such as the Judiciary to discover its independence over time. The coup would have succeeded had it not been for this vital discovery of judicial independence.”  

President should apologize to the public: 

Wasantha Samarasinghe

“The perpetrators who supported the Constitutional Coup should be punished,” said Wasantha Samarasinghe, JVP member of Parliament and convenor of the Voice against Corruption movement. “The Supreme Court in its ruling said that the President’s move to dissolve Parliament was unconstitutional. Therefore, the President should apologize to the public for all the chaos that happened over the past 50 days. We request for a commission to be appointed to investigate on the perpetrators attached to the coup. The JVP is also of the stance that the 20A should be presented in Parliament in order to abolish the Executive Presidency. People should be given the chance to vote at a general election and elect a fresh cabinet. Democracy cannot be restored just because Ranil Wickremesinghe was once again sworn in as the Prime Minister.”

"Neither Ranil nor his supporters have been protectors of democracy. We are now observing how the UNP will react to what the President has said..."

Samarasinghe said that it was important to protect democracy. “Neither Ranil nor his supporters have been protectors of democracy. We are now observing how the UNP will react to what the President has said and done over the past few days. Ideally, they should initiate an impeachment motion against the President. We can’t keep quiet while they sign more deals and drag the country to the gutters. So we request the public to be alert and join us in restoring democracy in the country.”  

RESTORATION OF POLITICAL SANITY IN SRI LANKA – JAYADEVA UYANGODA

mage: 24 day peaceful protest against Sirisena’s constitutional coup came to an end with the news of Rajapaksa’s resignation.(c)S.Deshapriya.

17/12/2018

But Sri Lanka’s biggest worry is a fresh eruption of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe power struggle.

New space has emerged for de-escalating Sri Lanka’s political crisis with the timely and judicious intervention by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court.

Following the two rulings made by the top court, last Thursday and Friday, Ranil Wickremesinghe — the Prime Minister who was sacked on October 26 by Maithripala Sirisena, Sri Lanka’s President — was again sworn in on Sunday as the new Prime Minister. The new cabinet is scheduled to be sworn-in today, Monday. With the Wickremesinghe-led United National Front (UNF) now back in power, the 50-day long tenure of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who replaced Mr. Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister, has also come to an abrupt end.

Mr. Rajapaksa, who was appointed on October 26, could not properly function as his appointment was legally challenged by the Wickremesinghe camp. Mr. Sirisena’s order, on November 9, to dissolve Parliament was also legally challenged, leading to a situation where Sri Lanka was without an effective government for six weeks. Now, as a result of judicial intervention, Sri Lanka has a new government that enjoys constitutional validity.

Thus almost seven weeks of unprecedented political turmoil and governance vacuum have come to an end, at least for the moment.

Supreme Court’s role

The huge significance of the Supreme Court’s role in restoring constitutional governance for Sri Lanka’s democracy warrants no exaggeration. When Mr. Sirisena changed the government on October 26, and dissolved Parliament some time after, there were serious doubts about the constitutionality of his shocking and sudden actions. Under the reformed presidential system in Sri Lanka with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the President’s powers over the Prime Minister, the cabinet and Parliament are severely restricted. Due to conflicts that developed within the coalition government that was jointly led by Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe, Mr. Sirisena seemed to have disregarded the constitutional limits of his legitimate authority. It is his acts of constitutional transgression that the Supreme Court has now reversed and corrected.

The most significant feature of the Supreme Court’s invalidation of three major political decisions made by Mr. Sirisena is the re-emergence of the judiciary with a clear sense of institutional autonomy and independence. This is all the more important given the thoroughly negative political consequences a judicial endorsement of the President’s actions would have carried. The highest court of the country asserted itself against the arbitrary and capricious exercise of constitutional authority by the head of the executive and refused to be submissive to the executive. It also protected the institutional autonomy of the legislature and ensured the constitutional protection to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. In doing so, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court ultimately proved itself to be a reliable arbiter of disputes that have the potential to endanger democracy and the freedom and rights of the country’s citizens.

In that sense, the two decisions by the Supreme Court last week are not only landmark judgments but are also future-defining judicial verdicts. Hereafter, Sri Lanka’s political leaders or their random legal advisers, both official and unofficial, cannot take for granted the limits of political power as set out in the Constitution. Thus, Mr. Sirisena’s loss is in fact a gain for Sri Lanka’s democracy and its freedom-loving citizen.

A citizens’ awakening

This happy end to the constitutional crisis — which is only one part of the larger crisis — also shows the resilience of Sri Lanka’s democracy, amid periodic setbacks. Mr. Sirisena’s act of stabbing democracy in the back has not only outraged many citizens, particularly young voters, but also led to a reactive regeneration and sudden burst of political activism, participation and resistance by citizens. Citizens committed to defending constitutional governance, democracy, and freedom found themselves spontaneously mobilised.

This was also the time when political humour — its creation, enjoyment, and sharing of it on social media — emerged as the sharpest political weapon available to citizens. In brief, there was a republicanist surge of political consciousness, education, participation, and activism by citizens in defence of political freedom.

The opening of Sri Lanka’s democratic space, ironically under the leadership of the same President, Mr. Sirisena, in January 2015 seems to have had a lasting effect on the political commitment of citizens to defend democracy the moment they see it facing an imminent danger. Nearly seven weeks of continuous political resistance by a multiplicity of citizens’ groups, defying the government, probably set the example for the judiciary also to be courageous in performing its constitutional duty.
Ironically again, these are all positive outcomes of the democratic revival of January 2015 that Mr. Sirisena co-authored and which, less than four years later, he decided to turn his back on.

Preventing another escalation

Although the constitutional dimension of the crisis seems to have, to some, ended peacefully, the larger conflict between two rival factions of the political class is far from over. In fact, the risk is that the conflict will continue, expressing itself in new forms under new circumstances. Prevention of the re-eruption of this power struggle is the biggest challenge Sri Lanka faces immediately.

The first step in the direction of preventing its resurgence and a re-escalation is for Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe to find a modus vivendi for at least a minimum level of peaceful cohabitation. After their bitter separation on October 26, this will not be an easy proposition to put into practice. The past few weeks have also seen how the poisoned personal relationship between the two leaders caused a major crisis in the government, with Mr. Sirisena even refusing to accept Mr. Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister even if all MPs reposed their confidence in him. As President, Mr. Sirisena will also have some crucial powers in the government. He will not only be the head of state and the executive but also of the government and the cabinet. As the head of state and the cabinet, Mr. Sirisena might even want to be in charge of defence and national security. In Sri Lanka’s dual executive system, if the President and the Prime Minister resume the old habit of working on competing political agendas, eruption of another major crisis of governance is inevitable.

The next two years

Meanwhile, the next two years will be crucial for Sri Lanka’s politics of the future. A new President will have to be elected before the end of 2019, followed by fresh parliamentary elections in early or mid-2020. Provincial Council elections are also on the cards. Mr. Sirisena’s political future will depend on the nature of the political balance of forces by early to the middle of next year. The Rajapaksa camp envisages a coalition between its newly formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP, Sri Lanka People’s Front) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led by Mr. Sirisena. Mr. Wickremesinghe’s party, the United National Party (UNP), is also in the process of forming a broad coalition for the next provincial, parliamentary and presidential elections.

Thus, what can be expected in the run-up to the next round of elections is a crystallisation of existing fissures, divisions and groupings into two broad political camps — one led by Mr. Wickremesinghe and the UNP, and the other jointly by Mr. Rajapaksa and Mr. Sirisena with the SLPP and the SLFP as its key components.

The resilience of the citizens of Sri Lanka in defending their democracy will once again be put to the test within months.

Jayadeva Uyangoda is Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s economy at crossroads: The ignored export sector for creating prosperity

 Monday, 17 December 2018 

Prof. H.A. de S. Gunasekara Memorial Oration 2018: Part 2

The Professor H.A. de S. Gunasekara Memorial Oration 2018 was delivered by Dr. W.A. Wijewardena on 4 December at the Senate Room of the University of Peradeniya. Today, Daily FT carries Part 2 of a revised and abridged version of the oration

The analysis so far 

In the previous part, we noted that Professor H.A. de S. Gunasekara, the first Ceylonese Professor of Economics at the University of Ceylon, was a legend in economics teaching in Sri Lanka. His doctoral thesis to the University of London, ‘From Dependent Currency to Central Banking in Ceylon,’ was a seminal contribution on the development of banking, finance and central banking in colonial Ceylon.

The Five-Year Plan of 1972-76 that was produced under his direction when he was the Secretary to the Ministry of Planning and Employment sought to convert Ceylon, following the policy of the government in power, to a socialist economy. Yet, the diagnosis of economic ailments which Ceylon had been suffering at that time and the prescriptions recommended by him have not been different from what we experience in Sri Lanka today.

Thus, it was a proof that when it comes to economic analysis, both socialist economics and free market economics follow the same path. The difference is only in the end objectives. The main ailments suffered by Ceylon in the entirety of the post independence period have been the low economic growth coupled with imbalances in the budget, savings-investments and the external sector. The external sector crisis has been compounded by the low priority given to the export sector in national economic policy making.

We will examine the export sector ailments and the way forward strategy for Sri Lanka in this part.
Export-led growth policy since 1977

Despite the export-led economic growth policy program pursued by Sri Lanka since the adoption of an open economy system in 1977, the trade gap has widened creating a sizeable deficit in the current account of the balance of payments.

In this policy, the export sector was incentivised through exchange rate reforms, provision of logistical support via modernising port and airport services and introduction of a targeted export drive by inviting foreign direct investments to export processing zones. These policies enabled Sri Lanka to dramatically change its export structure.

In 1976, the export structure was heavily biased toward the three tree crops – tea, rubber and coconut – with a share of 86% in total export earnings. The industrial products had a share of only 14%. By 2017, this structure changed to 24% from agricultural exports and 75% from industrial exports. This change included a host of new export products – minor agricultural products, textiles and garments, manufactured rubber products, and machinery and mechanical appliances – which were non-existent in 1976.

Hence, there were appreciable gains by Sri Lanka after it had gone for the export led open economy policy in 1977. It indeed helped Sri Lanka to elevate from a low income country to a lower middle income country. However, when compared with its peers and from a point of continued economic prosperity, the attainments have not been sufficient.
Transformation of the export sector

In 1951, Sri Lanka was so heavily reliant on exports that its share in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) amounted to 42%. This ratio gradually declined over the years falling to 12% by 1972. It however, increased slightly to 16% in 1976 mainly due to the slower economic growth recorded by Sri Lanka compared to the growth in exports.

After the introduction of the open economy policy in 1977, the share of exports in GDP rose to 30% in 1978, but the country could not sustain that high share since then. It gradually fell to 19% in 1986 before it started to reverse reaching a peak of 33% in 2000. After that high performance, exports began to fall once again in comparison to GDP. Finally, it fell to 13% in 2017.

Meanwhile, imports were rising both in volume and as a share of GDP, exerting pressure for Sri Lanka’s current account to record a significant deficit. It in turn affected the country’s overall balance of payments which was financed basically by resorting to external borrowings and the rupee’s ability to maintain a stable value. Accordingly, the country’s foreign borrowings which amounted to 4% of GDP in 1948 increased dramatically to 60% in 2017.

Figure 3 gives the ratios of exports, imports and current account balance to GDP during 1950 to 2017.
Exports lagging the general economic growth

The inadequate performance of the export sector is evident from the faster growth in GDP in absolute terms compared to the absolute levels of exports and imports. Accordingly, GDP which amounted to $ 10 billion in 1993 has risen sharply to $ 87 billion in 2017, recording an eight-fold growth during the period. However, exports have risen in absolute terms more slowly. In 1993, exports amounted to $ 2.7 billion. It has increased to $ 11.4 billion in 2017, only a four-fold growth.

Figure 4 presents Sri Lanka’s GDP, Exports and Imports in absolute terms during 1950 to 2017.
Domestic economy based economic growth

The slow growth in exports has been the bane of Sri Lanka’s economic performance in the past. The faster growth in GDP than exports reveals that the economic growth has basically been attained by concentrating on domestic economy-based economic policies. They offer the advantage of allowing a country to go through adverse external shocks with minimum damage to the economy. However, they do not help a country to grow because of the limitations in the domestic market. Hence, the growth rate to be attained is slower than the potential growth as well as the growth rates achieved by peers who have got integrated to the global economy.
FT Link

• Professor H.A. de S. Gunasekara 2018 Oration – Part 1 titled ‘Sri Lanka’s economy at crossroads: The 1972-76 Five-Year Plan and its diagnosis of economic ailments’ can be seen at http://www.ft.lk/columns/Sri-Lanka-s-economy-at-crossroads--The-1972-76-Five-Year-Plan-and-its-diagnosis-of-economic-ailments/4-668469.​

Figure 5 shows the per capita income of Sri Lanka, Singapore and South Korea during 1960-2017. All these three countries had started at the same level of per capita income in 1960.
Winners of export-led economic growth policies

However, Singapore and South Korea had adopted export-led economic growth policies since around 1970. As a result, the per capita income of both countries began to break away from that of Sri Lanka, rising to higher levels at each successive year. Both Singapore and South Korea have been able to beat successfully the middle income trap and become rich countries within a generation.
Sri Lanka’s present challenge: Beating the middle income trap

The challenge for Sri Lanka is to beat the middle income trap through a viable export development policy. This is because Sri Lanka’s domestic economy alone is not sufficient for the country to produce goods and services in volumes that would push the country up to the level of a rich country in view of the limitation of the market. Sri Lanka’s domestic market is limited by both the size and the income. It has a population of 22 million but its middle class – the segment of population that creates a demand for products – is estimated to be 3.6 million or 16% of the total population.

In comparison, USA’s middle class numbering 232 million amounts to 74% of the population. Bigger the middle class, larger the domestic market that enables a country to rely on the domestic economy based economic policies. The choice for Sri Lanka is, therefore, to adopt a strategy of selling its outputs across its borders. This is known as export-oriented economic development policies.

A classic example of how exports would facilitate a product or an industry to grow is provided by Sri Lanka’s tea sector which produces about 330 million kg of tea annually. But its domestic consumption is about 30 million kg, making it necessary for the country to seek external markets to sell the extra production. If these markets are not found, the country’s GDP will shrink by 1%, export earnings by 12% and employment by 2.5% as per data for 2017. Similarly, if the volume of tea exports can be increased by 25%, it will provide a significant boost to Sri Lanka’s economy.
Apparel sector in hot water 

Sri Lanka’s main manufactured export – textiles and garments – face a major challenge due to two related developments. The textiles and garments sector benefitted from the wave of globalisation that took place in the global economy in 1980s. Accordingly, the rich countries in the world taking advantage of the low wage costs in low income countries began to set up their mass consumption product factories in the latter category of countries. This process was known as off-shoring.

However, an unintended consequence of this process was the development of the bazaar effect, as first revealed by German economist H.W. Sinn, in which the rich countries simply became trading nations – bazaars in a traditional sense – with manufacturing off-shored to low income countries. With the consequential decline in manufacturing jobs in rich countries, there was a wide public outcry against off-shoring which became a political weapon for leaders to gain popularity among the masses.

Hence, the production model was changed to locate the mass production consumption goods industries near the final markets – called near-shoring – or on the land itself – called on-shoring – through product automation. The textile and garments industry has been the first industry to exploit these new production models.
New production model to replace off-shoring by on-shoring and near-shoring 

A recent survey conducted by McKinsey and Company on the apparel sectors in North America and Europe has revealed that both near-shoring and on-shoring have become the most popular production model adopted by a large segment in the final consumer countries. According to the survey, about 67% of the US apparel executives and 80% of the global chief procurement officers have indicated that the top-most priorities in the apparel sector have been the speed at which the final products should be delivered to the market and how the goods could be procured within the season.

In the past, fashions developed by apparel companies had been forced on consumers. But, that trend is fast changing and instead, a bottom-up consumer preference system in which the consumers will inform garment manufacturers to produce the fashions they desire is developing in the apparel sector. To gain capacity to produce and supply these products, apparel trading companies need to have manufacturing facilities near the markets. That is the reason for near-shoring and on-shoring to get established in the apparel sector value chain. On-shoring has been facilitated by automation of apparel manufacturing brought in by such technological advancements as 3D print manufacturing, gluing and bonding instead of stitching and robotic employment. As a result, the cost advantage enjoyed by low income countries with respect to garment manufacturing is fast eroding.
       
Apparel sector is to return home 

McKinsey Survey has predicted that by 2025, a large segment of both the North American and European markets will be supplied by both on-shoring and near shoring. Table 1 presents the countries that are located around North America and Europe standing to benefit by adopting the new value chain model.

Will Sri Lanka lose its markets?

Both North America and Europe are Sri Lanka’s established markets for apparel products. During the 5 year period from 2013 to 2017, European Union absorbed 43% of Sri Lanka’s apparel exports, while North America absorbed 46%. Thus, these two markets had accounted for 89% of the country’s apparel exports. Accordingly, if they are to near-shore and on-shore apparel supplies, Sri Lanka’s traditional apparel industry will face a serious risk of maintaining sustainability. It is therefore necessary for Sri Lanka to change the focus of its production to new export commodities to avert possible downside development of its export sector.

In the next part, we will look at the way forward strategy for Sri Lanka.

(W.A. Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com.)

Sri Lanka: What went wrong

by K. Ratnayake-Dec 17, 2018

Dec 17, 2018

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena swore in Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister yesterday, after having unconstitutionally sacked him seven weeks ago in what amounted to a political coup. The decision is a major setback for Sirisena who had repeatedly insisted that he could not work with Wickremesinghe and would never reappoint him.

Contrary to the claims of the Colombo media, the decision to reinstate Wickremesinghe will not end the political crisis but is just a temporary pause in the ongoing conflict within Sri Lanka’s ruling elite.

After removing Wickremesinghe on October 26, Sirisena appointed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister and then swore in a new cabinet, declaring it to be the government. The decision brought to the surface a bitter war between two factions of the ruling elite—one headed by Sirisena and Rajapaksa, and the other by Wickremesinghe.

After sacking Wickremesinghe, Sirisena prorogued parliament until November 14 to enable Rajapaksa to secure a parliamentary majority via bullying and bribery. When Rajapaksa failed to get the numbers, Sirisena dissolved the parliament and called a new general election.

Sirisena’s anti-democratic manoeuvre was temporarily halted by the Supreme Court in response to petitions from Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) and its allies, which included the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).

Sirisena ignored two consecutive parliamentary no-confidence motions passed against Rajapaksa. However, on December 3, a Colombo appeal court issued a temporary restraining order against Rajapaksa and his cabinet from exercising ministerial powers, effectively leaving the country without a functioning government.

Yesterday’s swearing-in of Wickremesinghe followed a final ruling by the Supreme Court on December 13 that the president’s dissolution of parliament was unconstitutional. The next day, another Supreme Court bench refused to stay the appeal court restraining order against Rajapaksa and his cabinet. It postponed a hearing of that case until mid-January.

Sirisena made various face-saving remarks about his reinstatement of Wickremesinghe, claiming that he had done so as a leader who “respects the parliamentary traditions and democracy.” All his actions, including the dissolution of the parliament, he continued, were in response to the advice of “law experts” and based on “good intentions.”

Responding to impeachment threats made by some UNP parliamentarians, Sirisena said that he was “not afraid to go to jail.” However, UNP deputy leader Sajith Premadasa has ruled out impeachment and said that the party would collectively work with him.

Cynically posturing as a saviour of democracy, Wickremesinghe yesterday thanked those “who stood firm in defending the constitution and ensuring the triumph of democracy.” The first objective, he added, was to return Sri Lanka “to normalcy” and “restart the developmental process.”

Wickremesinghe is expected to select a new cabinet today and present his list to the president. The UNP-led United National Front (UNF), however, has only 103 MPs, and requires another 10 MPs for a majority.

According to press reports, Wickremesinghe is manoeuvring behind the scenes to declare a ‘national government’ with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and to expand the cabinet. Constitutionally, a one-party government is entitled to appoint a 30-member cabinet. The UNP is also seeking support from members of Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

Wickremesinghe’s democratic posturing is as bogus as Sirisena’s claims that his actions over the last two months were to “save” the country and democracy.

Sirisena’s about-face is in response to international pressure, particularly from the US and its European allies, and India, which have demanded the reinstatement of Wickremesinghe, and fears about the growing upsurge of strikes and protests.

Washington’s main concern was that the appointment of Rajapaksa as prime minister would undermine the military and political relations built during the past three years under the so-called unity government of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena came to power in 2015 as part of a regime-change operation orchestrated by Washington which opposed Rajapaksa’s close relations with Beijing. Sirisena, assisted by Wickremesinghe, denounced Rajapaksa as dictatorial and ousted him as president in the 2015 election. Wickremesinghe was installed as prime minister.

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe quickly brought Sri Lankan foreign policy into line with the intensifying US-led confrontation against China. The new Sri Lankan “unity” government also began imposing austerity measures, as dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in exchange for a bailout loan.

From the outset, Washington responded to the bitter factional war in Colombo by backing Wickremesinghe and declaring that it should be “resolved” through the parliamentary process. Rajapaksa sent his party leaders to meet with Western diplomats in Colombo in a futile attempt to secure their support.

Sirisena also came under international economic pressure. The IMF withheld final instalments of its loan until the “political uncertainty” was resolved; the US postponed its Millennium aid program; and Japan announced that it was delaying its aid and investment projects.

Writing recently in the Colombo-based Daily Mirror, Robert Blake, the former US ambassador to Sri Lanka, made Washington’s hostility to Rajapaksa explicit. He should step down as prime minister, Blake declared, in order to “resolve the current political impasse and position Sri Lanka to be a leader and winner as the new Indo-Pacific great game unfolds.”

Translated into plain English, the so-called “Indo-Pacific great game” is Washington’s efforts to subjugate China through all means including diplomatic, economic and military. The end result will be a catastrophic military confrontation between nuclear armed powers.

The Sri Lankan ruling class is also terrified that the continuing political standoff would paralyse government functions, including a new budget, and accelerate the upsurge of strikes and protests by the working class, rural poor and youth in recent months against the government’s attacks on social and democratic rights.

This hostility was also reflected in local elections in February in which Sirisena’s SLFP and Wickremesinghe’s UNP suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). Sirisena attempted to distance himself from Wickremesinghe, blaming him for the “unity” government’s attacks on social and democratic rights.

The demagogic posturing by Sirisena and Rajapaksa, on one side, and Wickremesinghe, on the other, as defenders of democracy is completely bogus. Both factions have long histories of brutal autocratic rule. Their bitter clashes are over how best to prop up capitalist rule and suppress the emerging mass opposition in the working class.

Now reappointed as prime minister, Wickremesinghe will use the economic crisis created by the factional infighting to intensify the attacks on the social and democratic rights of the masses.

Nothing, however, has been resolved. On Saturday, Rajapaksa officially announced his resignation as prime minister and attacked the Supreme Court rulings for failing to support a general election.

“We are now engaged in a direct confrontation with a group of political parties that have continuously engaged in various subterfuges to avoid facing elections. We will bring the forces opposed to the country down to their knees by engaging the people,” he warned.

Rajapaksa also made clear that he would intensify his campaign of anti-Tamil communalism. He lashed out against the UNP, which, he declared “has been taken hostage by the TNA [Tamil National Alliance]” and had to “adhere to the diktat of the TNA.” The TNA had sided with Wickremesinghe against Sirisena’s unconstitutional moves.

The political crisis which erupted in October exposed the reactionary nature of every faction of the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie. Behind the empty rhetoric about “defending democracy” is the fear of the ruling elites of mass struggles by the working class.

The political dangers now facing workers and the poor have not decreased, but have intensified. The working class cannot stand on the sidelines and allow the ruling elite to resolve its economic and political problems. Workers must mobilise and intervene as an independent political force for its own class interests based on the perspective of socialist internationalism.

The problem in undermining the minorities

Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe in conversation with Leader of the Opposition and TNA R. Sampanthan during a parliamentary session  while Yahapalana regime was in power (AFP)

 2018-12-18

President Maithripala Sirisena restored a shaky and unhealthy political situation in the country to a certain degree by reappointing Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister.

Political analysts term this move more as the need of the hour rather than accepting Sirisena’s explanation that the reappointment was done to honour parliamentary traditions. If the political impasse continued under the Sirisena-Rajapaksa regime there was a threat that this nation was heading for a government shutdown’ because of the impending failure to get the 2019 Budget approved in Parliament. 

The country’s citizens learned many lessons during the 52-day strand-off. During this period the Sirisena-Rajapaksa Government attempted to administrate the nation as if they were ‘magicians’. There was a reduction in fuel prices apart from tax concessions being given. But the violation of the Constitution could not be undermined through the acts by the regime which offered some benefits to the people. The Sirisena-Rajapaksa regime also promised elections as the cure for all ills. But one of the pillars on which the country runs on-the Judiciary- showed in no uncertain terms that a violation of the Constitution can’t be rectified by the way of elections. 
Unlike when Rajapaksa was sworn in as the prime minister and the subsequent appointing of a new Cabinet drew virtually no responses from the outside world, this time around the developments surrounding Wickremesinghe’s reappointing as the country’s premier have been viewed positively by neighboring India. The Media Spokesperson of External Affairs Raveesh Kumar has said in a statement that ‘India remains committed in taking forward its people oriented development projects in Sri Lanka’. 

Wickremesinghe had to bear the brunt of a recent fiery speech made by President Sirisena, aired on television on Sunday, which targeted antagonising Wickremesinghe. Sirisena reminded the reappointed Wickremesinghe of how activities at the Central Bank took place in questionable manner during the Yahapalana regime

Wickremesinghe had to bear the brunt of a recent fiery speech made by President Sirisena, aired on television on Sunday, which targeted antagonising Wickremesinghe. Sirisena reminded the reappointed Wickremesinghe of how activities at the Central Bank took place in questionable manner during the Yahapalana regime. He said that the Forensic Audit which was expected to calculate the loss to the Government through the alleged Bond scam was still pending. 
The next few hours starting Monday would see the setting up of a Cabinet by the UNP. But what amounts to a challenge would be for it to function with the president of the country being ill-disposed towards its new ministers. 

It would be wise for the UNP to foresee Sirisena’s next move because it’s very certain that the president would do nothing in his capacity to aid a Wickremesinghe led Government. 

Right now what matters about Sirsena is his thinking more than his elbows out attitude he has shown towards both Wickremesinghe and the forces which love democracy. Sirisena has maintained that he reappointed Wickremesinghe to restore normalcy. We must remind the president that a normal situation was disturbed by him and no one else a few months back when he sacked Wickremesinghe and created utter chaos in the legislator. Now he is in the same position with Wickremesinghe as he his deputy. The only difference would be that the UPFA members in the equation would be absent because what would be formed is a UNP Government. Sirisena through his actions has ended up back in square one. 

What the staunch Sinhalese Parliamentarians don’t like to accept is the fact that the minority parties and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) have a huge say in shaping the political landscape of the country. One person who reiterates this fact, but uses a different perspective is former Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa. He has said that the UNP is being held hostage by the TNA. But what the Sinhalese politicians must fathom is that they can enjoy the smooth functioning of the administration only if they keep the minority parties happy. Rajapaksa warns that the proposed Constitution, which the UNP backs, would divide the country into nine provinces and give each of them federal status. Political analysts argue with Rajapaksa’s thinking and highlight India as a great example for federal rule.

 
A stubborn stance taken by staunch Sinhala Buddhist politicians not to change with the passing time and instead hold on to power undermining the minorities led to a political impasse that crippled a nation. The present situation can’t be compared to the past where the country fell into the hands of foreign forces due to the divisions within the Sinhala elite. Right now the problem that exists involves the Tamils and the Muslims. These minorities have grabbed an opportunity to back an alternative political force which better understands their cause. The victory for the minorities came the day not when Rajapaksa was defeated twice-first at the 2015 Presidential Elections and later during a no-confident motion which was passed against him as the premier in parliament- but when the UNP gave an indication that the TNA with its 14  members in parliament must be recognised as a force to be reckoned with. Rajapaksa saying that the TNA has the remote control of the UNP in its hands confirms this. 

Wickremesinghe can blow this chance or start afresh by doing something positively. That something would be everything for the right-minded people if he forms a cabinet sans any of the corrupt faces in politics who undermined democracy and plundered state finances and property. Parliamentarian Eran Wickremeratne has vowed that the next Cabinet would be restricted to 30 ministers. But all this good work done during the 52-day struggle, which can be likened to a freshly drawn pale of milk, could be ruined by appointing a controversial figure like Ravi Karananayake as the Finance Minister; speculation is rife that he earmarked for this post. Appointing Karunanayake in this coveted post would be akin to putting a pinch of dung in that pale of milk. 

What the staunch Sinhalese Parliamentarians don’t like to accept is the fact that the minority parties and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) have a huge say in shaping the political landscape of the country.

Rajapaksa might annoy democratic forces in this country, but he does play the role of watchdog well when seated in the opposition. Rajapaksa has already warned that the Wickremesinghe led UNP is bracing to scrap all forms of elections and be the administrators of this country for a very long time.

In this instance the UNP must be reminded that the past that prevailed, when the people voted for a change only when they got a bit jaded by either being ruled by the ‘greens’ or the ‘blues’ , doesn’t exist. 

As the UNP has underscored the people are the stakeholders of the country and would not tolerate for a minute when the government goes off track and forgets that they are in power because of the people. In this sense the minority parties have emerged to play the role of ‘game changer’ in politics. 

Special Statement made by the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

(Lanka e News -16.Dec.2018, 9.00PM) It is a pleasure to me to address you once again as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.

You all know that the basic law of our country is the Constitution. Now we have passed 87 years after we gained franchise. During this whole period the people of this country protected the Constitution. They protected fundamental rights. Whenever there was a threat to the constitution and to the fundamental rights, they came forward to protect them.

Same thing happened in the Presidential Election in 2016. You all joined hands to end an era in which the Constitution and the rights of the people were suppressed. It is with this intention that we adopted the 19thAmendment to the Constitution in order to protect the rights of the people more and more. I would like to emphasize that democracy will not be strengthened by acting against the constitution.

The Prime Minister of the Country should have the maximum confidence of the Parliament. Without a majority support a Prime Minister cannot bring forward the Country. Similarly, the Prime Minister and the Ministers should vacate their posts when a no confidence motion was passed in Parliament against them. In terms of the Constitution no one has the power to dissolve Parliament until four and half years have lapsed after a Parliament is formed. It can only be done on a resolution passed by two thirds majority in Parliament.

This Constitutional violation cannot be rectified by way of an election. It is also stated in the Judgement of the Supreme Court.

I would like to quote the following paragraph included in page 85 of the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court.

“It has been said by some of the added Respondent that refusing the Petitioner’s applications will enable a General Election to be held in pursuance of the Proclamation marked “P1” and, therefore, justified because it will give effect to the franchise of the people. That submission is not correct. Giving effect to the franchise of the people is not achieved by the court permitting a General Election held consequent to dissolution of Parliament which has been effected contrary to the provision of the Constitution. Such a General Election will be unlawfully held and its result will be open to question. A General election will be valid only if it is lawfully held. Thus, a General Election held consequent to dissolution of Parliament which has been done contrary to the provisions of the constitution will not be a true exercise of the franchise of the people.”

I said the same thing on 26th October at Temple Trees. I said that our fight was for the sake of democracy, justice, protection of the Constitution, adherence of the rule of the law and civilized and moral conduct of society. I also said that we would win this fight.

Even today I am telling the same thing. I will tell the same tomorrow too. I will abide my word. I will do what I say. I say only what I can do.

Most of the people of this country joined together to protect the constitution, democracy, and the rights of the people. Hundred thousand of people who adhere to their conscience came to the forefront of this fight as Sri Lankans, disregarding their race, religion and party politics. Sri Lankans living abroad too supported this move to the best of their ability. They joined this fight on behalf of their country and democracy without any personal gain.

I take this opportunity to salute them all.

Similarly, I would like to pay my homage to the Maha Sanga and the clergy of other religions who guided us in this endeavor.

The Hon. Speaker, Ministers and the members of the Parliament fully dedicated to uphold the supremacy of the Parliament and democracy. I offer my sincere gratitude to all them. Our judicial institutions including the supreme Court and the Court of Appeal exhibited their independence and the identity to the whole world. I would like to extend my gratitude to the Judiciary as well as to the lawyers who made their legal submissions. And also, I offer my gratitude to the members of the public service, armed services and the Police who upheld the rule of law and justice.

My gratitude should go to the journalists who fought for the impartiality of Media in the midst of the pressures of errant journalists and to all who toil day and night voluntary to tell the truth to the World through the Social Media.

In January 2015 and August 2015, we gained the mandate of the people to bring about good governance, to preserve the democracy and the Rule of the Law to eliminate frauds and corruptions, to empower Parliament after abolishing the executive presidency and to uphold the sovereignty of the people.

During the past three and half years we have done a lot to the Country.

It is due to progressive steps including the establishment of the independent Commissions that many institutions including the Judiciary could act independently.

The whole country is enjoying the harvest of the seeds we sawed during the past three and half years. We are happy about that. However, there are things we could not implement in this period. Some work got delayed. We could not finalize some work. But we haven’t lost our dedication determination. We are determined to rectify our shortcomings. We will take the steps to expedite the litigation regarding frauds and corruptions. We have created an environment in which different ethnic groups can live together in harmony and co existence. We will dedicate ourselves to maintain harmony among different ethnic groups.

Now, we should go forward.

Even by now, we have initiated the discussions with a number of political parties in respect to abolishing the executive Presidency. And also, we will have discussions with the Tamil National Alliance and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna to bring about a political solution in which all citizens can live in harmony in a unitary state.

I didn’t take any steps to enter into any agreement with the LTTE in order to win the Presidential Election. In the past I dedicated the victory in the Presidential Election for the sake of my motherland. I haven’t yet changed that stand.

Our intention is to form a broad alliance to protect democracy. It is only through democratic environment in which the voice of the people is considered and the rights of the people are protected. We can bring about a dignified society where future generation can do without fear.

Our effort is to create a strong democratic environment that any external force cannot suppress. My heart-felt wish is to create a such a Sri Lanka. You all wish for such a country. It is the hope of all Sri Lankans.

Therefore, I appeal to all of you to forget all differences and join hands with this broad alliance, for the sake of our motherland, democracy rights of the people and to bring about a free country for the unborn generation.

Let us allow our heart-felt wish.

Thank you all.

---------------------------
by     (2018-12-16 15:36:33)

UK welcomes resolution of the political situation in Sri Lanka

Minister for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field welcomes resolution of the political situation in Sri Lanka.

Foreign & Commonwealth Office and The Rt Hon Mark Field MP-17 December 2018

Following the swearing in of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister by President Sirisena on 16 December,

Minister for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field said:

I welcome progress made towards the peaceful resolution of the political situation in Sri Lanka. The outcome is a welcome indication of the resilience of Sri Lanka’s judicial and democratic institutions, and of effective checks and balances between state powers. The UK will continue to stand by Sri Lanka as a close partner and friend, supporting Sri Lanka as it works to deliver sustainable and accountable reform to reinvigorate the economy, improve governance, and safeguard human rights across the country.

UK Ministers have made a number of statements since the current outbreak of political tension in Sri Lanka on 26 October, calling on all parties to uphold the constitution and due legal and political process.

The UK is committed to supporting the Sri Lankan Government’s efforts to improve the human rights situation in the country. The UK is providing Sri Lanka with £8.3 million of Conflict, Stability and Security Fund funding over three years, to include support for police reform and training, reconciliation and peace building, resettlement and demining in the north of the country.

Further information

• Follow Foreign Office Minister Mark Field @MarkFieldUK
• Follow the Foreign Office on Twitter @foreignoffice and Facebook
• Follow the Foreign Office on Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn

Media enquiries

For journalists

Emailnewsdesk@fco.gov.uk

Newsdesk020 7008 3100

Maithripala Has Lost His Moral Crown; He Should Go!

By Mohamed Harees –DECEMBER 17, 2018

Lukman Harees

It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make          

amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere 

to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character.–Dale Turner

After weeks of political drama in our Dharmadweepa since October 26th, it was the height of irony that RW was sworn in as the PM for the fifth time this Sunday, before Maithri, thanks to a historic verdict by an independent judiciary and public activism, after having said that he will not appoint RW even if all 225 parliamentarians said so; thereby eating his own words. Maithri also screamed that he will NOT stay in office even for a day, if it happens. Now that the so-called ‘impossibility’ has happened, the nation has begun to look at Maithri with much wariness and a tinge of sarcasm whether he will do what he promised to do, at least this time. However, knowing him as he got gradually unmasked ever since he was elected in January 2015, the chances are next to nought. 

Maithri has been gradually losing his credibility and proving himself to be thoroughly inefficient, slimy, political (instead of being apolitical), corrupt and since 26th October, a crackpot, betrayer, cunning figure, and a chronic liar. Only concerted public pressure can therefore force his hand to stick to his ‘promise’ and resign OR call for a Presidential election after January 2019 or force their Parliamentarians to impeach him for the unforgivable damage done to the country, recovering after 30 years of war and subsequent years of dictatorship and divisiveness. 

For political leaders to be able to function and to deliver, having a healthy ‘stock’of political capital is essential. As authors Whiteley and Seyd described it, ‘political capital refers to citizen feelings about the political regime as whole, not just about the party or coalition which is currently incumbent. It is broader than the concept of legitimacy, since it encompasses citizen perception of regime competence, as well as of regime legitimacy’ (1997, p.128). It is unlikely that political capital can be put to effective use if one’s credibility becomes seriously hampered, and it is hard to imagine how a leader would succeed at that point in mobilizing others. Credibility for that matter is one of those indispensable political qualities that barely rates a mention when it is there. Yet when it is missing, nothing else matters as much.

It is clear as daylight that credibility and self-respect of the political class in Sri Lanka have becomes seriously hampered even to irreversible proportions specially during in the Post-War era. Serious levels of corruption, extravagant lifestyles, foreign travel, racism, loss of touch with the ordinary folks and inefficiency as well as excess fat in hierarchy levels of government have made this political class the most despised among the people. However, be it as it may, corrupts, cheats, drug dealers, criminals are continuing to be sent to the Lake by the House either through the ballot route or national list because of the outright stupidity of the people. It is a bane that the ones elected by the whole country to be their executive Heads of State have also been acting with impunity and thriving within the same polluted political culture instead of changing it. Maithri has now become an epitome of  this despicable political culture and a fatal cancer which has engulfed our lost nation.Well! Fish rots from the top! they say and it is so much true in Sri Lanka. Many ‘Addresses to the Nation’ he made in Post- Oct.26th period have been full of lies and distortions, unbecoming of a Head of State.  

It will be recalled with much humour that it was in September 2016 that a ‘fake’ article was published on a bogus ‘Guardian’ newspaper website, that Maithri was adjudged as the world’s best president by a Technical Committee made up of experts from reputable International Civil Service Organizations and think Tanks., which received at least 10,000 likes with several unsuspecting Sri Lankans also going on to congratulate and criticize him in the comment section. The story claimed that there has been ‘rapid development’ since he assumed office in January 2015.  It is expected that a factual and actual article will now appear that Maithri has become the world’s worst president who has put the name of Sri Lanka in the news websites in recent times for the wrong reasons.   

Read More