Aftermath of a political coup

Saturday, 22 December 2018

Along with the Supreme Court (SC) order to quash the proclamation of the President to dissolve the Parliament, and the declaration that the said proclamation was null and void, the coup launched by the President to forcibly acquire State power was defeated.

On 26 October, as the Head of UPFA he withdrew the support of UPFA to the Government. Within hours he removed the incumbent Prime Minister (PM) who commanded the confidence of the Parliament, for which he was not empowered by the Constitution, and this act was challenged at the SC.

Subsequently he appointed a PM. Then he prorogued the Parliament on the following day 27 October and the date the Parliament was to be reconvened was fixed on 16 November. His supporters started to speak to the parliamentarians of other parties to get the support of them. It was revealed that the President himself has spoken to UNP MP Range Bandara. President advanced the convening date of the Parliament to 14 November subsequently.

The Speaker who earlier said that he will be making seating arrangements in the Parliament according to the new appointments, declared on 5 November that he would follow the status quo at 26 October until such time the new PM shows that he is having majority support of the Parliament. The Speaker came to this conclusion after he was convinced that the new PM did not have the confidence of the Parliament.

Having realised the same, the President publicly declared that he had more trumps. Thereafter, rather than correcting his mistake, if it was a mistake, he dissolved the Parliament on 9 November and went on to fix the General Election on 5 January.

The Supreme Court issued an interim order on 13 November suspending the gazette issued on dissolution of Parliament. On the following day Parliament met and a no confidence motion was passed against the appointed PM. The process adapted was perfectly in order since suspension of Standing Orders was approved by the majority of Parliament. By that act it was evident that the appointed PM did not have the confidence of the majority.

The voting was disrupted by the supporters of the appointed PM and the Speaker was compelled to decide on the voices of the members that the no confidence motion was passed, which is a process accepted in parliamentary procedure.

The Speaker announced in Parliament on 15 November that based on the motion passed in Parliament on the previous day and based on the Constitution, the appointed PM could not hold the office any more. The President and the appointed PM refused to accept this position, creating a major tussle between the Legislature and the Executive. However, Parliament passed several other no confidence motions against the appointed PM.

On 26 November, 122 Members of Parliament, which is clearly the majority of the Parliament, requested the Appeal Court to issue a quo warranto prohibiting the appointed PM and the cabinet of ministers to function as the PM and the ministers. On 3 December, the Appeal Court issued an interim order prohibiting the appointed PM and the ministers to function, leaving the country with no government. Yet the President did not take any steps to appoint a PM who commands the confidence of the Parliament and the appointed PM did not resign.

On 12 December, Parliament passed a motion of confidence on the PM who was removed by the President. The SC comprising of seven Judges unanimously decided on 13 December that the decision to dissolve the Parliament was against the Constitution. The appointed PM resigned on 15 December although he was already removed and the President reinstated the dismissed PM on 16 December.

Considering this process, it is evident that it was a mission launched by Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa to grab the power of the State forcibly and unconstitutionally. It was reported in the print media in detail how Rajapaksa tried to stay in power after he was defeated in the Presidential election held on 8 January 2015 with the support of the then Chief Justice. It was averted by the then Attorney General, Army Commander and the Inspector General of Police.

Therefore, it is pertinent to examine the behaviour of the Government officials and the holders of important portfolios during this unprecedented act of breach of law of the country by the persons in highest echelons which was a blatant hit to the longstanding democratic procedures and values of the country. One can say that it is damn shame to be a citizen of this country. However, we should be proud that we were able to resolve the issue peacefully although it was prolonged over 51 long days.

Attorney General

In Section 32 (1) of the Administration of Justice Law No. 44 of 1973, the duty of Attorney General (AG) was stated as follows. “It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to represent the Republic of Sri Lanka in courts established under this Law, to give advice to the Government of Sri Lanka upon all legal matters, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this or any other written law.”

The President as well as the Legislature are integral parts of the Republic. Article 33A of the Constitution is as follows: “The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security.”

Therefore, the AG should represent the Republic which is comprising of the President as well as the Legislature. No one can conclude that the President is above the Legislature. It can be the other way around based on the Article 33A.

Unlike the President, the Speaker can refer to the SC only the matters pertaining to the impeachment of the President (Article 129(2)).

When the Speaker requested the AG to give an opinion of the constitutionality of the removal of the PM by the President on 26 October, he stated the following on 31 October: “Having regard to the role of the Attorney General under the Constitution, I am of the view that expressing an opinion on the said questions would be deemed inappropriate.”

When applications filed under Article 126 challenging the act of the President to dissolve the Parliament, the respondent was AG as per Article 35(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, he had to defend himself and also the President. The question is that if he has advised the President right throughout this illegitimate process, should he be removed from the office since the President is vulnerable to be impeached for intentional violation of the Constitution under Article 38(2)(a)(i)?

In a dispute between the President and the Legislature, the AG is compelled to take the side of the President according to the Constitution, but if he can see very clearly that the act of the President is wrong, can he remain neutral or not defend the President in court? If so, who would represent the President in court?

These questions are appropriate since in a recent speech the President has stated that he is not a lawyer and did all these activities in good faith and also several prominent lawyers made representations justifying his actions. Where does the AG stand?

It should be pertinent to mention here that if the President so wished he could have consulted the Supreme Court under Article 129 whether the removal of the Prime Minister and dissolution of the Parliament were in accordance with the Constitution. It would have been a matter of a few days since he could have specified the number of days. He did not do so because of his ulterior motives. He did not act in good faith, contrary to what he has stated.

Chairman, Elections Commission

In August 1998, elections of five provincial councils were arranged and postal voting was cancelled by the Elections Commissioner without a valid reason and the then President declared a state of Emergency on the following day, thereby making it impossible to hold the elections.

In the judgement of a Fundamental Rights case, Karunathilaka vs. Dayananda Dissanayake, a landmark judgment was given by Justice Mark Fernando interpreting the presidential immunity. Then Commissioner was found fault.

Ratnajeevan Hoole, Commissioner of the Election Commission, stated in his petition to the SC that all three commissioners were agreed that the order of the President was not legal. But the Elections Commission did not want to go to the Supreme Court. This means that if anyone else did not challenge the action of the President, the Election Commission would go ahead with the illegal election.

This non-action of the Election Commission goes against the fourth Nuremburg principle. “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

CJ H.N.J. Perera stated as follows in his judgement declaring the proclamation of the President was null and void: “It has been said by some of the added Respondents that refusing the Petitioners’ applications will enable a General Election to be held in pursuance of the Proclamation marked 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 a 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 a 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.

“In any event, it appears to me that, there is ample provision in the second paragraph of Article 70 (1) for Parliament, which is under a duty to act in accordance with the will of people, to take steps to have a lawful General Election where it considers it necessary to do so.”

Face-saving for the Election Commission was done by Commissioner Ratnajeevan Hoole. People should rise to the occasion rather than talking big.

Speaker

The Speaker has played a decisive role on behalf of democracy. It is not his responsibility to accept or reject a government. However, in a decisive moment when a coup is in operation and the leader of the coup is none other than the President of the country, it is mandatory that he has to move out of the traditional role of the Speaker and stand for the democracy of the country.

The Speaker represents the majority of the Parliament. The moment he realised where the majority was, he started defending the majority, which was his duty. That was his U-turn alleged by his opponents.

Thought leaders

Since this is a legal issue, opinion of the persons like former Bar Association President Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva PC and former University of Colombo Professor of Law G.L. Peiris matters. People tend to think that they tell the truth. Because of the wrong interpretations they gave, the public was misled.

The Supreme Court has given valid answers to the points raised by all of them. It looks like none of them advised the President to get the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 129. The mentality of Sarath N. Silva can be understood by reading between the lines of the following which was part of his judgment limiting the term of then President Chandrika Kumaratunga in 2005:

“The contorted formula could at first blush lead to a date in the succeeding year. Perhaps the draftsman succeeded to the extent and the then incumbent President availed of it by ceremonially commencing his term of office on 4 February 1983 in the grandeur of the celebrations to commemorate the 35th year of the country gaining independence, an event hailed at that time as the dawn of a ‘golden era.’ But the hand that guided the draftsman also included the words ‘whichever date is earlier’ at the end of the sub-paragraph, on a proper interpretation of which, the provision could be brought in accord with the firm moorings of the Constitution.”

MPs guided by their leaders showed to what extent they respect democracy and rule of law.

General public

People by and large divided themselves based on their political affiliations rather than respecting the rule of law. If Rajapaksa knew this he would have stayed somehow after the defeat of 8 January 2015. Different theories were brought in to support such political affiliations, not the rule of law.

This tendency shows how difficult it would be to have a political solution for the ethnically-divided Sri Lanka unless their leaders support such a solution. Leaders also depend on the votes of the collectivist public. Sri Lanka should resolve its divisions from the top in order to have a peaceful environment.

Political Crisis drags racism to the fore

Why an early election is the best option for all

A headline during the 2000 general election

 2018-12-21

Of the twin crises that engulfed the country for 51 days with the unseating of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister and the replacing of him with Mahinda Rajapaksa on October 26, the Constitutional crisis has ended with Rajapaksa’s resignation as Prime minister on December 15 and the swearing of Wickremesinghe on the next day.

However, the political crisis that had overlain the Constitutional gridlock still continues. As an extension of it, the legality of Rajapaksa’s Parliamentary membership, as well as his newly gained Opposition leadership, have been challenged.
As the speech made by President Maithripala Sirisena at Wickremesinghe’s swearing-in ceremony on Sunday indicated many more clashes are to come between the Executive Presidency and the Parliament.

When Rajapaksa resigned as Prime Minister on December 15 the UNF leaders argued that he did not have a post to resign from as he had already been ousted from the Premier post on November 14 and 16, through two no-confidence motions. 
The argument was logical. However, their leader, Wickremesinghe who claimed that his sacking from the post of Prime Minister was illegal and that he was still the Prime Minister was sworn in as Prime Minister on last Sunday. Why should a Prime Minister be sworn in for the same post again?
Some time back, Junior Vikatan, a magazine published in Tamil Nadu carried a story about a divorce ceremony in the State. The magazine said that it was the first of the kind.

Likewise, for the first time in history, we witnessed a resignation ceremony last Saturday. Rajapaksa at a ceremony at his residence to sign his letter of resignation from the Premiership said he decided to resign as he couldn’t go for a general election forthwith.
And he said that some people went before the court in the name of democracy to prevent a General Election being held. During his speech at Wickremesinghe’s swearing-in ceremony, President Sirisena too while giving vent to his anger and frustration over the Supreme Court’s rejection of his decision to dissolve the Parliament, expressed the same view.

They were attempting to mislead the country and the world. Nobody went before the court to prevent a mid-term election, though an election would have been the result had the Supreme Court upheld the President’s decision to dissolve the Parliament.
It was against that unconstitutional decision of the President that 13 Fundamental Rights petitions had been filed. 
Besides, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), one of the petitioners had stated that they would bring in a motion in the House requesting the President to dissolve Parliament, once the Constitutional conundrum was resolved.

In fact, had the intention of the President and Rajapaksa been to go for an early election, the former should have dissolved Parliament straight away, without taking pains to unseat Wickremesinghe, appoint Rajapaksa the Prime Minister and to prorogue the Parliament. 
Even then the same Constitutional and political quagmire would have engulfed the country, but his intention would have explicitly been seeking a fresh composition of the Parliament.

When Rajapaksa was appointed Prime Minister, neither he nor the President did say that they would go for a premature Parliamentary Election. 
They did not utter a word about an immediate election during the prorogation period either. It was after they realized that Rajapaksa could not muster sufficient support to command the majority power in the House that they wanted a mid-term election.
President Sirisena had two objectives in this manoeuvre.
One was to get rid of the administration of Wickremesinghe who had been ignoring the President and was acting as he pleased in dealing with the affairs of the country.

Secondly, the President who feared a political comeback of Rajapaksa was craving for a patch up with Rajapaksa later, when the latter’s party swept the electorate at the February 10 Local Government Elections.
On the other hand, Rajapaksa was eagerly awaiting an opportunity to reverse the legal actions against some of the members of his family and several of his loyalists.
He wanted power at least for a short period for this purpose. This was clear by the transfer of a senior CID official who had been handling the cases against Rajapaksa loyalists, soon after Rajapaksa was appointed Premier.

The October 26 Constitutional coup was the tryst of those political as well as personal goals of the duo. 
Rajapaksa during his speech at the resignation ceremony stated that the UNF has been a hostage of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA).
In a practical sense, his argument was correct as the UNP Government has been installed on the crutches of the TNA which can pull the carpet under Wickremesinghe’s feet anytime.

A Tamil newspaper quoted the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Parliament and the leader of the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), Selvam Adaikkalanathan as saying that TNA would topple the Government if the UNP leaders went back on their words with respect to the immediate issues affecting the 
Tamil people.

However, Rajapaksa’s intention was not to point at the weakness of the Wickremesinghe Government but to bolster his support bank among the Sinhalese by highlighting the ethnic aspect of the nexus between the UNF and the TNA.
In other words, he was rousing racism among the Sinhalese.
However, it must be remembered that Rajapaksa solicited support for his recent Government from the TNA during a discussion he had with TNA leader R. Sampanthan.

Earlier the leaders of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) led by Rajapaksa have been rousing racism among the Sinhalese by saying that the UNP was being controlled by the TNA, citing an incident in Parliament.
Both the main political parties who criticize Tamil and Muslim political parties for their ethnic politics demonise those minority parties when they attempt to engage in national politics, aligning with their rivals.
This has been going on for about six decades. UNP demonized the Banda- Chelva Agreement in 1957 and the SLFP did the same when the Dudley- Chelvanayakam Pact was signed in 1966.

A headline after the 2001 general election

The JVP described J.R. Jayewardene Government as JR-Thondaman Government, despite Soumyamoorthy Thondaman hanging on to a Government that had 140 out of 168 seats in Parliament.
In the 1990s and in 2000, the UNP had been accusing the Chandrika Kumaratunga Government that it was attempting to divide the country through various devolution schemes and the SLFP and the JVP were agog with an Ali-Koti Givisuma (Elephant-Tiger Pact) after 2000.
It must be remembered that Tissa Attanayake who crossed over to Mahinda Rajapaksa camp in 2014 was in hot water after producing a purported clandestine agreement between the Opposition’s common candidate Maithripala Sirisena and TNA.

Now, again the Rajapaksa camp is harping on another secret agreement. Sheer shamelessness has been the common trait of these accusers of secret pacts.Despite the UNF having managed to form the Government again after 51 days, it is a highly volatile Government, firstly, due to its weak support base 
in Parliament.
Secondly, now it has to work with an unpredictable and hostile President, who is constitutionally the head of the Cabinet, while openly teaming up 
with the Opposition armed with nationalistic slogans.
The President also has started to toe the same nationalistic line. 

SLPP and the two main parties in the government (UNF and the SLFP) received an almost equal number of votes at the February local government elections.
Given the fact that the SLFP has now teamed up with the SLPP, and with the possibility of economic issues further biting, the UNF would have to face a difficult situation at the next national level elections, despite the boost it gained through the recent Constitutional and political impasse. Therefore an early election would be better for the UNF as well. 

Managing Chaos: Why Sri Lanka Needs To Think Long Term For Disaster Response

Featured image via DNA India/Ishara Kodikara/AFP

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE- 12/21/2018

In 2017, Groundviews filed a series of RTI requests to ascertain more about Sri Lanka’s early warning system. (Click here and here to see the original RTI requests filed with the Metereological Department and the DMC respectively.)

At the time, most of the State bodies tasked to deal with disaster response appeared relatively unprepared to process RTI requests. Filing the application at the Metereological Department proved an uphill task, involving navigating through the labyrynthine corridors of the Department before finally ending up at the office of the then Director General.

The DMC was somewhat better prepared.

However, both the DMC and the Department of Metereology baulked at providing more detail about providing detail on the Doppler radar system, which has reportedly been in a state of disrepair for some time, since as far back as 2015. 

The now retired Director General of the National Metereology Department, Athula Karunanayake did acknowledge that the non-functional radar had been an issue.

“If it did work, it would have improved our predictions, made them much clearer. But still you can’t predict with accuracy that it’s going to rain 300 millimeters in this specific area. It’s especially difficult to subdivide by area,” Karunanayake said.

Karunanayake provided a series of situation reports from the DMC that showed that the Metereology Department had indeed warned of heavy rain the day before flooding began. He added that the Department had made several efforts to warn people ahead of time about the weather, including writing articles to the Ravaya newspaper.

The DMC provided copies of the same reports, adding that their early warning system had largely consisted of SMS alerts (though they were unable to provide documentary evidence of the time and content of the warning messages sent out.)

As was widely reported, however, the Department of Metereology failed to predict just how heavy the deluge would be. In 2017, 600,000 people were displaced, while the year before, over 500,000 had to leave their homes. Over 200 people lost their lives in 2017. At the same time, drought affected over a million people across the island.

The RTI requests were filed at a time when there was public outrage around what was seen as State inaction, despite flooding in 2016 wreaking similar havoc. It appeared that little had been done to prepare.

Map courtesy desinventar.net, a UN open source initiative to compile disaster databases. This map shows the number of deaths due to a number of events, including drowning and accidents, and land slips

Last month, the German Climate Risk Index 2019 was released, highlighting that based on 2017 data alone, Sri Lanka was the second worst affected by extreme weather conditions.

Groundviews took some time for further study, filing a fresh request in 2018. The aim, this time around, was to learn more about the nitty-gritties of how Sri Lanka prepares for natural disasters.

While Sri Lanka has made strides in terms of response, there is more that can be done in terms of preparation. it appears that bureaucracy, a lack of political will, or both, is holding the country back from more comprehensive planning around natural disasters.

The apex body for disaster risk management is the National Council of Disaster Management, headed by the President. It is supposed to convene regularly – “not less than once in three months” according to the Disaster Management Act. Yet, as Groundviews learned, the Council has met just once in 2018, twice in 2017, and not at all in 2016.

Click here to see the internal memo on the dates when the Council met, provided via email in response to our RTI request.

Why is the lapse in meetings by the Council important? Simply because the mandate of the National Council is to map out national policy on disaster management, including deciding on the best use of resources for preparedness, prevention, response and relief.

The 9th Council, for instance, asked the DMC to develop a guideline to safeguard people in inland waters, after around 12 people lost their lives in a wreck in Tissamaharama. At that time, the DMC had read through legislation in a number of areas – over 20 different laws in total, from the Navy Act to the Fisheries Act – and developed a set of recommendations. The Council plays a vital role in directing the focus on disaster preparedness.

The reason the Council isn’t meeting may simply be because, as the DMC implied, the President was unaware that he was the head of the Council until very recently. At the time Groundviews filed the request in November, the DMC was working on an updated national policy to present to the President.

Miscommunication and bureaucracy continue to act as obstacles.

For instance, in order to begin national emergency operations, relevant approval needs to be obtained from the Ministry of Disaster Management’s Secretary. This process is not mandated by the Disaster Management Act, simply because at the time legislation was passed, there was no Ministry for Disaster Management. This approval process has, however, become accepted procedure. While this sounds reasonable on paper, it can sometimes lead to what are, quite literally, life-or-death situations.

“In 2016, the flooding started in Galle,” Assistant Director from the DMC, Chathura Liyanaarachchi recalled. “At that time, a District Assistant Director suddenly called Head Office to inform us that it was flooding.”

Assistant Director and Media Spokesman Pradeep Kodippilli had answered the call.

“He asked the informant, “Can I trust you?” The Assistant Director replied “You have to trust me.”

The message was sent out via the armed forces that flooding was imminent. Evacuation began. The DMC did not have the time to follow established procedure. “We acted in good faith, to save lives,” Liyanaarachchi said.

Rather than scrambling to respond in this way, the answer may lie in better preparation.

Sri Lanka does have a  disaster management policy (accessible here) and a national plan (accessible here). Both provide a wealth of information including on plans to improve the Emergency Operations Centre and streamline warnings to the general public.

The value of planning in this way is obvious. Sri Lanka’s natural disasters impact swathes of the country’s population, often those who are least equipped to withstand them.

Left: Map showing the number of destroyed housing across the island, due to disaster events
Right: Chart showing disaster events that led to damaged or destroyed housing

Hazard maps, which identify vulnerable areas and routes for evacuation, are often describedas a “crucial first step” for disaster management.

Sri Lanka’s hazard profiles can be found in a 2012 report, a joint effort between the Ministry of Disaster Management and the UNDP. It is worth noting that the mapping for flood risk in this report has only been completed around the key river basins, and in Colombo and Gampaha district. It has been recommended that hazard maps be completed for a number of natural disasters, particularly flooding and landslides). There are numerous barriers to overcome – for instance, the lack of availability of base maps at the required scale, and the high cost of high resolution satellite images and base maps. (see page 15 of the national disaster management plan). Perhaps due to this, updated island wide hazard maps have not yet been completed, or at least, are not publicly available.

There have been several initiatives to map hazards using historical data. There is Vaessa, an interactive map that shows historical flooding (up until 2010) and land use (up until 2012). World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal also maps a number of hazards for Sri Lanka.

Screenshot from the Vaessa website

At the time Groundviews visited, the Ministry was carrying out a series of islandwide tsunami drills, so that the public would know the best evacuation routes. The DMC also highlighted several schoolbooks designed for children, on a number of different hazards, from lightning strikes to landslides. It also works with interested Government agencies, including schools, to develop their own disaster management plans.

These measures, introduced after heightened scrutiny following the flooding in 2016 and 2017, do appear to have had some results. In 2018, 26 people lost their lives, and 19,519 families were evacuated – a drop from the previous two years.

Yet while these initiatives are laudable, there is certainly scope for Sri Lanka to do more.

As Liyanaarachchi pointed out, “One dollar spent on preparation can save so many dollars that would have been spent on response.”

Many dollars saved, and possibly, many lives.

Note: Groundviews is linking the reports received as part of the RTI request below, for ease of reference.

National Disaster Management Policy

National Disaster Management Plan 2013 – 2017

Sri Lanka Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme 2014 -2018 

Hazard Profiles – December 2012

Omnibus Cabinet & Opulent Ministers

By Ameer Ali –DECEMBER 20, 2018

Dr. Ameer Ali

After weeks of no government, Ranil Wickremesinghe has legally secured his right to form one, to an embarrassing humiliation of President Maithiripala Sirisena, who was adamant in preventing RW from coming back. A president who vowed not to remain in his position even for ‘one hour’ if RW were to return as PM is now set to remain at least until the end of the rest of the term of this government. Mr. President! Never say never in politics. 

However, the RW government is really on life support, and it can lose its parliamentary majority at any time if one or more of its supporters, like TNA and JVP, decide to pull the rug under RW’s feet. Already a new tussle between the PM and President has emerged in relation to the formation and size of the cabinet. While the President wants three ministries for himself and dictating who should and should not be in the 30 member cabinet, PM and his party are trying to work out a plan to be approved by parliament, which could increase the size of the cabinet to more than thirty. Even if it remains at thirty can the nation afford an omnibus cabinet?

From just 18 ministers in the 1947 DS Senanayake cabinet, the number of ministers swelled to nearly seventy under Rajapaksa, before coming down to thirty, and again is about to blow out if RW government’s plan goes through the parliament. To put this under some perspective, let us look at the number of ministers in few of our neighbouring governments. Modi’s government in India, ruling over a giant of an economy and country, has a cabinet of only 25 ministers. India’s neighbour Pakistan under Imran Khan has a cabinet of only 21 ministers. Malaysia, with almost the same demographic size as Sri Lanka but far more affluent has a cabinet of 25 ministers. Singapore, the wealthiest nation in South East Asia has a cabinet of just 9 ministers. In the light of these figures what is the logic and rationale for the RW government, with an economy that is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, especially after the recent constitutional crisis, to wantonly enlarge the size of its cabinet and worsen an already adverse budget situation. Doesn’t the ruling philosophy of neoliberalism advocate for leaner governments?

The most lucrative job in Sri Lanka at the moment, even for one with the least educational qualification, seems to become a parliamentarian and get a ministership or at least a deputy ministership. The opulence enjoyed by some of these ministers and deputies compared to their predecessors is shocking. The current crop of ministers, deputies and ordinary MPs are part of the rising new leisure class in the country. Can the nation afford to sustain this ballooning bourgeoisie with a precarious economy? There are nevertheless a few of them who are dedicated, honest and hardworking, but several are simply charlatans and wealth seekers. In the absence of any mechanism to measure the performance of ministers and their deputies, how does one reward the good, warn the bad and punish the ugly?

Cabinet positions have become a source of bribing crooks and cronies for their allegiance to the PM and President. This is where corruption originates, right at the top, and spreads like cancer to debilitate the entire public domain. What Sri Lanka really needs is not a large quantity but better quality of ministers. A ministry is what a minister makes of it. An able minister is an asset to the country and there had been many in the past who delivered the most at the lowest cost. Corruption in Sri Lanka is not a birth trait but an acquired one through inept politics.

In spite of all other evils accredited to British colonialism, the country is in debt to the British for three important legacies: one, parliamentary democracy, the other, a first class civil service, and a third cricket. The country just saved democracy from the brink of disappearance, and no doubt Sri Lankans will fight to their death to keep it alive and robust. The nation has also shown that it can beat the British in cricket on their own turf. However, it is in the area of civil service that local politicians have done the most damage. Over the last few decades we have allowed that institution to lose its original stature and quality. There had been a planned easing in the standards of selection to the present administrative and overseas services. The significance of this institutional dereliction should not be underestimated.

In the past, while cabinet ministers took care of policies and macro-management it was public servants from the permanent secretaries to government agents and to ordinary clerks who did the micromanagement. When minsters were honest and impartial those worked in departments under those ministries were automatically expected to set high standards. There were several instances in the past when top class, able and dedicated civil servants resigned their positions and went into academia or left the island, simply because they could not yield to unfair pressures from incompetent ministers. Today, ministers are virtually micromanaging public administration. With omnibus cabinets, incompetent ministers and deputies, public service has become the politicians’ playground for winning influence and prestige. Corruption, no doubt, has become rampant. Ultimately it is the quality of the cabinet that determines the quality of public administration.

Read More

UN Chief welcomes resolution of political crisis

Saturday, December 22, 2018

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a statement on Thursday welcomed “the resolution of the political crisis in Sri Lanka through peaceful, Constitutional means, and applauded the resilience of the country’s democratic institutions”.

The Secretary General’s spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric in a statement also highlighted that the Secretary-General called on “all political actors to seize

the opportunity of the appointment of the new Cabinet to resolve outstanding political differences in the same spirit of respect for democracy and in the interest of the people of Sri Lanka”.

Guterres who has been closely following the political situation in Sri Lanka has since October released two statements with regard to the country- one on October 28 and another on November 1; which was a statement on the telephone call he had with President Maithripala Sirisena.

On both occasions he urged the country to resolve its political crisis in a peaceful manner, with respect towards the rule of law and human rights.

Abolish the executive presidency or reduce its powers further

The battle is not over yet: President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe greet each other after the latter was sworn in as prime minister on Sunday.

 2018-12-21

or forms of government, let fools contend; whatever is best administered is best, said Alexander Pope. The 18th century poet’s one-liner still rings true, in the context of ceaseless constitutional crises and ubiquitous debates over political reforms. No country is an exception. Even in Saudi Arabia, arguably the most rigid monarchy, political reform is a major demand of the dissidents. This was amply reported in news items on the recent killing of journalist and democracy activist Jamal Khashoggi.

In the United States, the call for political reforms is widespread. Hundreds of resolutions are proposed every congressional term to amend the US Constitution. It is said that from 1789 till January 3, 2017, about 11,699 measures have been proposed to amend the US Constitution.
In the United Kingdom, too, political reforms are an ongoing process; more so, after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. The nature of the union has undergone drastic change, with not only Northern Ireland, but also Scotland and Wales getting parliaments or assemblies of their own. 
Although sacrosanct, constitutions should not be airtight. When the exigencies of the situation demand, constitutional changes need to be done. That is why constitution framers include provisions outlining the process to change or replace the constitution.

Going by the political undercurrents of the past 55 days, it appears that the crisis or the conflict President Maithripala Sirisena unleashed on October 26 is still not over. But it has rekindled the debate on the abolition of the executive presidency. Suddenly, there seems to be an urgent need to bring in more constitutional provisions to check the president’s excesses.  The irony is that the United National Party, which introduced the executive presidency through a new constitution in 1978, is now calling for its abolition, while the Sri Lanka Freedom Party has now become its main  advocate though it earlier opposed the executive presidency on the basis that it would undermine the democratic structure of Sri Lanka’s post-independence government. 

Against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s December 13 ruling that the Executive President had acted illegally and violated the constitution, lawmakers in parliament this week argued in favour of and against the executive presidency. Government and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna MPs urged that the executive presidency should be abolished, given the temptation of the Presidents to resort to undemocratic and unconstitutional measures. United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MPs insisted that it should be retained at least with enhanced checks and balances to ensure the territorial integrity of the country.  

" Thanks to the 19th Amendment, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe could withstand the presidential salvos against all odds, and defeat the constitutional coup"

The need of the hour, however, is to eliminate backdoor avenues and plug loopholes to avert constitutional dictatorship, the types of which was seen during the 52-day crisis created by President Sirisena -- and also during the presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who, by introducing the 18th Amendment, suffocated the democratic spirit of the constitution.  Sadly, the war-winning President Rajapaksa, who built his political career by promoting himself as a defender of human rights, especially during the 1988-89 era of terror, is now known the world over as a ‘strongman’ – certainly not a flattering description. It is a term used by political analysts to describe a military or political figure who exercises far more influence over the government than the constitution permits. World history may not be kind to Sirisena and Rajapaksa. It will not enshrine their names as defenders of democracy, if they continue to be adamant in not seeing the virtues of democracy. 

Prior to the adoption of the 1978 constitution, many a warning was sounded about the threats it could pose to democracy.  A seasoned politician of yesteryear rightly said that he dreaded to think the consequences if a mentally unbalanced person became the President and was to enjoy the virtually unlimited and unchecked powers associated with the office.

The power the executive presidents wield is a trust the people place in them in terms of a social contract. But Sri Lanka’s executive presidents, from J.R. Jayewardene to Maithripala Sirisena, perhaps the only exception being D.B. Wijetunga, have abused that power, so much so that every succeeding president became a bigger tyrant than his or her predecessor. The problem is not over whether a constitution is good or bad, but whether the politicians who wield the power are good or bad. As this column has said before, a constitution, however good it is, can be bad in the hands of a bad leader, while a constitution, however bad it is, can be good in the hands of a good leader.

Sri Lanka’s 40-year tryst with the executive presidency, especially in the context of the current political crisis, is not a pleasant experience. Either it should be abolished or more checks and balances need to be introduced, so that there will be stability even when a cohabitation government is in power. The JVP’s proposed 20th Amendment is indeed a step in the right direction.

Sri Lanka’s experiment with cohabitation governments paints a dismal picture. The fact that cohabitation governments have miserably failed is proof enough that our leaders are power-hungry. Rather than coming together for the benefit of the people and the country, our politicians are interested in enhancing their political power – and for this purpose, they have no qualms about abusing the constitutional powers and taking cover behind warped interpretations of the constitution.
Sri Lanka’s constitution is neither exclusively presidential, nor purely Westminster. It is a hybrid system which can, at times, bring about a cohabitation government.
Political cohabitation is a form of governmental arrangement between the executive president and a rival party prime minister. 

"Suddenly, there seems to be an urgent need to bring in more constitutional provisions to check the president’s excesses"

In the absence of clear-cut constitutional provisions, cohabitation governments are usually associated with political backstabbing.  In Sri Lanka, this was first witnessed in 2001, when Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s UNP-controlled Parliament was dissolved by President Chandrika Kumaratunga before parliament completed its six-year term, though she had promised she would not do so as long as the UNP had the majority in Parliament.  It happened again on October 26 this year, and we all know the political turmoil came after that.  Thanks to the 19th Amendment, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe could withstand the presidential salvos against all odds, and defeat the constitutional coup. But the battle, it appears, is not yet over. 

In recent decades, this country has seen disaster after disaster, natural and man-made, economic and political.  On top of these problems, the political crisis the President has created has dealt a devastating blow to the economy. We do not need any more disasters. What we urgently need is development that will free us from the shackles of poverty and provide jobs for our youths. For this, we need to ensure political stability. Under the present constitution, cohabitation governments have proved a failure and cannot ensure that political stability. The 1978 constitution has not delivered political stability, though it was drafted and adopted for that purpose.  We need to go for a new constitution that will make prime minister the head of government and the president, who will be appointed by Parliament or an electoral college, the head of state – like in India and Pakistan. We need a constitution that will promote development and that will contain provisions to solve the country’s ethnic issue through meaningful devolution of power.  

MS tries ambitious agricultural stroke and is caught in the deep

Friday, 21 December 2018


In cricketing parlance, the concept of a textbook shot by a batsman is attributed inter-alia to class, perfection, command, etc. It’s usually executed with authority, accuracy and authenticity. Not everyone can do it. There are some essential prerequisites, namely experience and a good eye among other things. The ball is usually hit with such power and precision that it races to the ropes at lightning speed with the cordon of fieldsman left absolutely dumbstruck. The only gesture they could ever extend would be a look of utter anguish and despair.

Cricketers of the caliber of Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardena have not only demonstrated such exquisite stroke play but have immortalised it. They will remain in the Sri Lankan cricket-loving psyche for years to come. It’s no wonder that Sri Lankans take refuge in following and enjoying their game of cricket. One plausible reason may be to give vent and release the ever-building stress against the unbaiting and disgusting corruption and, more recently, absolute mockery of a constitutional crisis.

The opposite of a perfectly timed stroke is the infamous agricultural stroke. A variety not usually advocated by the fluent and proficient except maybe the recklessly ambitious, someone with an abnormal, unfulfilling childhood with fixations and worries of not being able to hold a straight bat. Such individuals may be very tentative in brandishing the willow in conformity with the correct scientific process and as such could potentially imperil others both physically and visually. In all honesty they should have never entered the game of cricket in the first place.

The agricultural stroke is usually categorised as a kind of injudicious cricketing stroke not found in coaching manuals. No technique is required whatsoever to play these kinds of shots. It’s usually played with the swing of the bat across the line of the ball. In most cases you either miscue or miss it completely and get adjudged leg before wicket. The stroke often causes a chunk of the pitch to be dug up by the bat due to which reason it is called an agricultural shot.

The fundamental danger of this kind of stroke is the apparent audacity of the batsman to swing the bat wide across the line of the ball. It’s carefree, immature and totally irresponsible. Such bizarre cricket confounds the keen spectator. Such cricketers have no moral authority to be on any decent team. 

Former farmer turned politician and current Executive President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena, is currently in the limelight having swung the willow in typical cavalier fashion. Launching himself into a stroke, attempting a swashbuckling agricultural swing, he ballooned the red cherry up in the air. He came irresponsibly charging down the pitch to a reasonably good delivery which he should have treated with respect and miscued it. A leading edge lifted the ball up in the air into the deep where he was caught quite comfortably.

And that wasn’t the end of the story. He blamed all his indiscretions on his deputy, who incidentally was batting at the non-striker’s end. No mention of his rash, incautious approach, it was all about the deputy and his myriad faults. What followed was most daring. He took the liberty to appoint his own deputy in gross disregard of all the rules of the game. When spectators took to the street and lodged a formal complaint with the selectors, up went the finger again to a roaring and tumultuous ovation. The red light on the mega screen was endlessly flickering. The former deputy was reinstalled. He unfortunately still has the job and as expected is unable to curb or eschew his characteristic penchant to complain, grumble and spew venom. A little bird whispers that he is eagerly waiting for the next opportunity to run him out.

Tainted legacy

If only he had worked hard on his technique quite early on in his career and worked on his demeanor things would have been much different. And now he goes down in history as one of cricket’s ugliest batsmen. A cricketer who doesn’t know how to play each delivery according to its merit and importantly projecting himself as unreliable and untrustworthy.

Cricket is a gentleman’s game. It first appeared in the 13th Century and the game only gained popularity in the 17th Century. The only worthy and redeeming bequeathal of colonialism. It was first played by English aristocrats. They decreed the game would be played in a gentlemanly manner, no sledging, cheating, bodyline bowling, temper tantrums or excessive appealing. If the batsman knew he was out he should “walk” even if the umpire decided otherwise.

Sri Lanka has a long way to go before it learns to play the sport in a manner befitting a true gentleman. All of the ungentlemanly traits listed above are sufficiently present in most of our 225 legislators. As a matter of urgency they must be taken to the Lord’s cricket grounds not to play the game but run 25 rounds and enjoy its fresh air.