Back to business with same old faces

by Rajeewa Jayaweera-December 22, 2018, 6:15 pm 

The 52-day drought without a legitimate government which began on October 26, 2018, has finally ended. With the swearing-in of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister last Sunday and a 29-member Cabinet of Ministers four days later, a functioning government of sorts is now in place.

Judging from media reports, most newly appointed Ministers have rushed to assume duties. One would wonder, in their haste to get into their ministries, if at least some of them abandoned their customary practice of consulting astrologers for auspicious times, which they usually do before embarking on any important event or journey.

A leading English daily, on Friday, in their front page, carried photographs of the Prime Minister and 28 Ministers. Despite close scrutiny, not a single mug shot could be found of an unknown or unfamiliar face. They all belong to those who held ministerial positions before October 26. Besides, the publication also carried pictures of seven MPs who had been rejected by the President which includes that of the Field Marshal.

There is speculation of exceeding the Constitutional restriction of 30 cabinet ministers through various means. One could be by enticing UPFA/SLFP MPs to cross over and to call such an unholy combination a ‘National Government.’ As things happen in this land like no other, it is even possible, the single SLMC MP joining up could be construed a National Government purely to overcome the restriction, but it would not help in bridging the shortfall to reach the magical 113 MPs required to govern comfortably.

Even though the TNA could be considered in desperation, joining the government would not suit the group’s game plan. Staying outside the government and extracting their pound of flesh as and when their support is required by the government to further their agenda would be more to their advantage.

The recent imbroglio galvanized the urban population, both young and middle age groups alike as never seen before. These people, though small in numbers were not the servile types who genuflect to politicians.They are not the types who paste posters and hang flags for politicians with the expectation of employment for which they do not have the necessary qualifications. They are not the types who attended political rallies at the behest of politicians and are rewarded with a packet of rice, a bottle of arrack and a small amount in cash.

They are employed in the private sector and/or professionals, who turned out in numbers to register their opposition. Many such persons took to the streets. They gathered at places such as Independence Square to express their anger to the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, and the dissolution of Parliament, which the Supreme Court subsequently ruled was a violation of the Constitution. The horrors of the Rajapaksa era, especially the 2010/15 period are obviously not forgotten. The announcement of the appointment of the former CEO of the national carrier SriLankan Airlines as its Chairman is a case in point. He is tainted with allegations of corruption and presently under investigation. Mercifully, sanity prevailed, and the appointment was rescinded in less than 24 hours. However, the incident may have been a sign of what to expect, had Rajapaksa continued in office.

There were other groups too who turned up at public rallies to express solidarity with Ranil Wickremasinghe, the UNP and register their opposition to the President’s conduct. They turned up in massive numbers in places such as Lipton Circus. In fact, Wickremesinghe and the UNP did not draw such massive crowds since they were elected to office in August 2015.

All these groups who came together did not do so for want of a better alternative to spend their time. They were already burdened with the high cost of living and fuel prices. But they were shocked of the manner in whichPresident Sirisena, one Friday afternoon, stealthily replaced a sitting Prime Minister and replaced him without as much as an ‘if you please.’ The autocratic act visibly disturbed most urban dwellers.

In the appointment of the new cabinet of ministers, what Wickremesinghe has done is to kick all these people in their teeth with scant regard for their expectations.

The newly appointed cabinet of Ministers does not contain any young and new blood from the crop of UNP MPs. The appointees are the same old faces as before.

The cabinet consists of at least two members aged over 75 years. Could not these two gentlemen have been replaced with two young UNP backbenchers if not the likes of Eran Wickramaratne and Harsha de Siva? The MP who resigned under pressure in the aftermath of the Central Bank Bond Commission has returned in true Westminster tradition where it is normal for Ministers resigning on the grounds of misdemeanors to be reappointed after a brief interval. With the UNHRC review around the corner in March 2019, the Foreign Minister who acts more like a part-time Foreign Minister has been appointed again. At least three former Ministers who declared two days earlier they would step aside to enable Wickremasinghe to accommodate some others in the cabinet have all managed to creep into the group of 29 Ministers.

The bottom line is the Prime Minister in his usual style, has once again acted with little or no regard for public opinion. Whereas the Supreme Court with their verdict resolved the vexed issue and the anti-Rajapaksa groups in Parliament remained steadfast in their demands, it was the public that kept up intense pressure in the streets which also played a vital role in restoring him to the office of Prime Minister.

Enticing MPs Vijitha Vijayamuni de Zoysa, AHM Fowzie, Piyasena Gamage, Lakshman Seneviratne, Indika Bandaranaike and Manusha Nanayakkara with ministerial positions is not the solution to the government’s problems. To do so would amount to the prostitution of democracy. The answer is to endeavor to function as a minority government. If that does not work, a resolution could be passed in parliament with a 2/3 majority co-opting other parties and request the people for a mandate to govern.That is what democracy is about.

In as much as President Sirisena has muddied his copybook since October 26 and is at the bottom rung of the popularity ladder, he is not down and out. He could claw back some of his lost stature by adamantly refusing to swear in as ministers any MP crossing over, thereby at least temporarily suspending the disgusting practice of political defections at least till such time an anti-defection bill becomes a reality.

The mandates given by the people on January 09, 2015 as well as in August 2015 have been squandered. Let not the verdict of the apex court of December 13 go waste.

Public opinion must be heeded. Wickremesinghe must realize, he and his government cannot get back to business as usual and ignore all that has happened. To do so stubbornly would no doubt have serious consequences. 

Tamil Leaders Played An Honourable Role In Restoring Constitutional Governance In Sri Lanka

By K. Mukunthan –DECEMBER 24, 2018

Dr. K. Mukunthan

The historic judgement by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka that President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament on November 9 was unconstitutional and illegal is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. Though this ruling may not signal the end of the constitutional crisis, it should be recognised that this is the first time in Sri Lanka’s history the judiciary has made a momentous decision in the adjudication of the conflict between the legislature and the executive. It appears that the 19thamendment to the constitution, championed in 2015 by progressive polity including President Sirisena himself, has allowed some space for creating independent institutions, which now have the capacity to resist arbitrary actions by the Executive President.

While this progressive outcome is welcomed and respected, a learned judgement on the independence and effectiveness of various important institutions can only be made when human rights and political issues that are important to the numerically minority communities are also addressed promptly and impartially. The litmus test for the independence and impartiality of the judiciary will be when serious cases of human rights violations and war crimes are heard – particularly when the victims are Tamils and the perpetrators are security forces and those linked to the establishment. Until those responsible are prosecuted and punished, the clarion call for credible international participation will not subside.

A reflection on the recent constitutional crisis shows that for far too long Sri Lanka has been wrongly believed to be a respectable democracy, often with descriptions such as ‘the oldest democracy in Asia.’ Whenever politically inspired brutality reached alarming proportions, often with the connivance of the state, it is this façade of democracy that gave the country a convenient cover. But a deeper analysis of post-independent Sri Lanka reveals, at best, it could be described as a notional electoral democracy where transfer of power occurred after periodic elections. Realistically though, it is a highly superficial quasi-democracy with weak democratic traditions and vulnerable institutions. The violence and armed rebellions by both the Sinhala radicals and Tamil rebels – that plagued the country for decades – are testaments to this appalling mess.

‘Ethno-centric majoritarianism’ and ‘constitutional manipulations for short term self-interest’ are two fundamental faults in Sri Lankan democratic practices, which extracted a heavy toll on the Tamil community. Disenfranchisement of close to a million Tamils living in the Hill Country (1948-49) and unilateral abrogation of Pacts signed with Tamil leaders to satisfy extreme Sinhala-Buddhist nationalistic elements (1957 and 1965) are prime examples of the former. The refusal to faithfully implement the 13th amendment to the Constitution (1987) that provided limited autonomy to Provinces, and the lack of interest in accommodating Tamil aspirations in a truly pluralistic Constitution illustrate the later. Such sectarianising of governance practices continues to date as manifested in the refusal to share political power with Tamils more than nine years after the end of war, just as with the politicising of accountability processes aimed at addressing wartime human rights violations. All these lead to the burning questions among Tamils: Even if a constitutional outcome is achieved, what are the chances of it being genuinely implemented, or worse, reversed in the not-too-distant future?

It is indeed an irony of the highest degree that the Parliamentarians from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which represents the Tamil community from the North-East of Sri Lanka, find themselves in a position to play a crucial role in restoring the constitutional governance of the country – despite the undemocratic practices to which the Tamil community has historically been subjected to. Though morally and legally warranted, the risks of antagonising the Sinhala nationalistic elements which are predominantly associated with the constitutional coup cannot be underestimated. Under such polarised and poisoned political atmosphere, a constitutional outcome that would address the long-term concerns and aspirations of the Tamils is highly unlikely. The recent statement from the TNA leader and Leader of Opposition Mr. Sampanthan that “Tamils are likely to become the worst victims in Sri Lanka’s political crisis” articulates just that. TNA also had to withstand hard-line opinion among sections of Tamil populace that Tamils should sit out of the crisis in the South. It is in this context, that the pivotal role played by the TNA in restoring democracy should be valued and reciprocated by the Sinhala political constituency and key international players. It is hoped that the TNA’s timely gestures will turn out to be a useful political capital capable of delivering tangible outcomes for the future wellbeing of all communities, including the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

The constitutional coup and illegal transfer of power was entirely predicated on the perception that by hook or crook an artificial parliamentary majority could be proven, and it is the hollowness of this ‘wisdom’ that opened other possibilities including the monumental judicial intervention. In this context, in addition to the historic role played by the TNA, a broad spectrum of small but significant political parties representing different community interests and political philosophies including the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), and several progressive NGOs and social media played key roles. And they all deserve commendation.

Equally important is the international community, in particular the key western countries and India, taking an active and principled stand, which included non-recognition of the newly installed government and explicit articulation of potential economic repercussions. The economic impact of President Sirisena’s misadventure was swift and severe. It included: holding off discussions on nearly $500 million US aid program and a soft loan arrangement of $1.4 billion from Japan; EU warnings on GSP+ concessions; credit rating downgrades by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch; continued decline of the Sri Lankan currency; freezing of hundreds of millions of private investments and sharp reduction in tourist arrivals. In fact, the present constitutional crisis and the effectiveness of the economic leverage at the disposal of the international community provide a useful blueprint, and if needed, could be replicated to deal with potential governance and accountability challenges in the future.

The twin issues of Sri Lanka’s democratic governance – the constant tug-of-war between authoritarian tendencies and independent institutions and resolving the national issue by accommodating the Tamil community into the constitutional fabric – have never been successfully addressed. In many ways, the escalating erosion of democratic governance resulting from these major faults has precipitated the present nadir. The shock to the informed citizenry and the system of governance is so severe, that perhaps this is the trigger that was needed to force an upward trajectory in the constitutional governance agenda of the country.

Read More

Sustaining democracy

“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both” – Niccolo Machiavelli, Prince 1532

Tuesday, 25 December 2018

St. Augustine’s ‘City of God’ was perhaps the book Sirisena was following since the beginning of his presidency in 2015. A kind and calm leader from humble beginnings was seen trying to be righteous yet appeared cornered, isolated and perhaps pushed to the wall by his coalition partners.

That is why, it seems, he decided to borrow political ideas from another book which was banned since as soon as it came into print. This book is another Italian masterpiece, ‘Machiavelli’s Prince’. This book had once helped Queen Elizabeth to create a golden age while assassinating the people who went against her; a terror far worse than her father Henry the VIII’s time.

Machiavelli advised in the Prince to be a lion and a fox at the same time; former to frighten wolves, the latter to detect snares. Elizabeth was a combination of both, turning adversaries against each other keeping steady on the tightrope she walked with patriotism. In the same manner, President Sirisena appointed Rajapaksa – a move that the entire nation or the coalition partners never contemplated – dismantled and stripped power of the former Prime Minister the same way as he treated Sirisena according to a Presidential adviser who completely ignored the advice of the President when making decisions in the bipartisan model.

Matching to the last trick, in 1571 the most elaborate plot was to assassinate Elizabeth and install Mary Stuart to the throne. A Florentine banker Roberto Ridolfi was planning this plot connecting Pius V, King Philip and Duke of Alba which Elizabeth’s spymasters tracked and exposed at the right time.

In the same way the assassination plot of Sirisena was revealed with recorded conversations and investigations taking place at the same time where another nation appeared involved, indirectly. The investigation will tell if there was such real plot to assassinate the President.

Just like in the ancient time Sirisena will use exacts words of Machiavelli to crush all his adversaries with the help of the man who he contested against in 2015 and perhaps use the same nation who supported his election victory calling and requesting assistance on the assassination plot. So in an article titled ‘Leviathan’ (Sea Monster) authored a few months ago, I had appealed to the leader to follow work of Hobbes who wrote of a central figure with authority than a weak figure at the centre who was seen by many as a puppet on strings.

Sirisena, like Elizabeth, was a strange leader perhaps never took advice. The Ambassador to Philip of Spain in England Count de Feria wrote: “Elizabeth is a very strange sort of a woman…she is determined to be governed by no one.” She was calm to the public even at the time of much rebellion and chaos, in the same way Sirisena was seen calm and was watching the success of his pet project Moragahakanda reservoir opening the sluice gate while one of the gatekeepers of democracy, the Parliament, was in chaos and trending on social media and television screens.

The entire nation observed fist-fighting between the honourable representatives of the highest democratic institution. Perhaps a question could be raised if political parties who are an essential gatekeeper of democracy had given election nominations to the right kind of candidates to become people’s representatives?

While many leaders from history practiced Machiavellian philosophy, another document keeps leaders from engaging in authoritarian acts. National constitutions represent that document with long history from the ancient times of Hammurabi’s code which codified 282 laws to govern Babylon to the modern-day English Protectorate introduced after the English Civil war by Oliver Cromwell. But all constitutions also have had their flaws.

The US Constitution does little to prevent the President from doing undemocratic things such as filling the FBI or other independent Government agencies with obedient subjects nor does it prevent a president from acting by decree issuing executive orders. President Trump is seen today exercising all these undemocratic practices and further interfering with Judiciary by calling his Chief Justice an Obama judge while the Judge denies this allegation.

So how does democracy sustain its credibility? What keeps democracy going is an adherence to the unwritten rules and it thrives on two things which are mutual toleration and institution forbearance according to Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s book ‘How Democracies Die’.

Mutual tolerance means participants of a democratic system that is political rivals to power are not branding each other enemies, traitors or criminals. In recent past this axiom has been repeatedly undermined in Sri Lankan parliament. In nations like Chile during 1960 mutual tolerations began to erode between the two political camps. In 1973 August when the chamber of deputies declared government unconstitutional it triggered a military coup led by right wing power and for the next 17 years Augusto Pinochet was in power. There is a grave danger when mutual toleration is lost and the political opponents are seen as traitors or part of a plot to assassinate the Executive.

In a similar manner, autocracy could creep into system with gradual erosion of democracy. In Peru when Alberto Fujimori failed to deliver economic progress through democratic means he took over the law to his hand ignoring the courts and the constitution. On 5 August 1992 he dissolved congress and suspended the Constitution. Fujimori transformation from a democratic leader to a dictator was piecemeal.

Institutional forbearance means refraining from actions that would undermine the spirit of democracy -- even if the act is technically legal or not prohibited by the constitution. For example, George Washington exercised this by limiting his term serving only twice as President even when there were no set term limits in Constitution.

In Sri Lanka institutional forbearance was lost when the past regime scrapped the presidential term limit and took control of all independent commissions – an act which made the former President unpopular. However, President Sirisena’s recent move to remove Prime Minister was done on many grounds according to the President but there was one point which made his case accepted.

This was breach of national security by the former Prime Minister during his conduct at office, seen by some as being an agent of another nation not working on national interest. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga fired the same Prime Minister on the grounds of national security since he signed an agreement with another nation without her consent in 2004.

The present situation has to return to normalcy at some point. Hope perhaps lies in going back to the people to unlock the present gridlock between the Executive and the Legislature. In the long run political culture of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance need to be restored to preserve South Asia’s oldest democracy. Else, Sri Lanka could drift towards a worse form of government, a dictatorship with its main gatekeeper of democracy the Parliament crippled and Judiciary undermined.

President Sirisena should shelve Machiavelli and revisit the work ‘City of God’ of St. Augustine. It is important to understand that dismantling of democracy can be a gradual imperceptive process that may allude our day-to-day priorities. But once begun, this drift can take a long time to restore and redo what is lost which may take real long time to rebuild.

(The writer is the Director General of INSSSL, views expressed are his own. The article was initially published by South Asia Journal http://southasiajournal.net/%EF%BB%BFsustaining-democracy/.)

Size of the Cabinet - EDITORIAL

2018-12-26

he current debate over the number of ministers in the Cabinet is ridiculous and ironic. It is ridiculous because it is vividly clear that the debate is not in the interest of the people of the country. It is purely a matter of satisfying various politicians by appointing them as ministers at the expense of the people. The debate is ironic because even the people are divided over the issue with one section of the tax payers wanting the Government to appoint more ministers with perks worth millions of rupees which is their hard-earned money.

While attempting to increase the number of ministers as they wish using the National Government tag, the leaders of the Government are debating whether it is 30 or 32 ministers that the Government can appoint when it is not a National Government. This points to the fact that how hell-bent are the Government leaders, who once boasted about good governance, to increase the number of ministers by at least two.

A National Government, according to the Constitution is “a Government formed by the recognised political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognised political parties or the independent groups.” But what is the need for a National Government when there is neither a national disaster or a problem such as a war or a nation-wide epidemic to be solved nor a national programme collectively prepared by political parties to be implemented?

It was clear that the only need for the so-called National Government in 2015 was the need to ensure the survival of the UNF led Government which had obtained only 106 seats in the Parliament by doling out ministerial portfolios to the members of the UPFA. And now the UNF Government is mulling about a National Government just to lure the members of the other political parties in order to secure again its survival. In other words, the Government is attempting to ensure its survival by spending millions, if not billions, by way of appointing more ministers.

What is the rationale behind the appointment of any number of ministers in the name of National Government? If an ordinary Government can manage the affairs of the country with 30 ministers, why cannot a National Government do the same without increasing the number of ministers?
Answer is clear. MPs belonging to other parties would not join the party that has obtained the highest number of seats to form a National Government, unless they are given portfolios. Clearly it is a bribe out of public coffers. And ironically the 19th Amendment to the Constitution has provided for it. In other words, it is a constitutionally sanctioned bribe.

Now, the Government is attempting to increase the number of ministers by at least two, arguing that 30 ministers of the Cabinet should be counted excepting the President and the Prime Minister. This is a ridiculous argument since the President and the Prime Minister are members of the Cabinet. The Constitution says “The total number of ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed thirty.” Hence, there is no room for the Government to increase the number of ministers including the President and the Premier above thirty. After a bitter struggle to uphold the Constitution, it is not appropriate for the government leaders to find loopholes in the Constitution in order to increase the number of ministers.

There have been Cabinets in Sri Lanka in the past with less than twenty ministers. Even when the plantation industry was the main revenue source of the government, we did not have a separate ministry for that industry then. Despite the population having drastically increased since then, the sectors or the subjects to be handled by ministers have been remaining the same. However, after 1978 President J.R.Jayawardene while breaking up the existing ministries into three or four, appointed new ministers such as State Ministers and District Ministers, totalling over hundred ministers. Later other governments too followed it.

A recent newspaper report said that Government spends Rs. 7.5 million a month for a minister, despite the salary of a minister being not even Rs. 100,000. Hence, it is a crime to increase the number of ministers without a justifiable basis.

Idioms relevant to our latest upheaval

December 22, 2018, 6:07 pm 

Writing that word ‘upheaval’ in my title brought the instant reaction of saying thank goodness, it is over, at least for now. The perpetual seeker of powerful posts, backed by his sycophants, some of whom have been silenced by being shown up to be ill-advisors and miss-interpreters of the Constitution, is again creating trouble wanting to oust Mr Sampanthan and become Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker, bless him, will give a ruling on Friday but as of today, Thursday 20th as I write this, we have all heaved a huge big sigh of relief with hope in our hearts. With a UNP government in power, having gone through fire, we look forward to enjoying the Season of good cheer and good will.

Political analysts and commentators will dissect and express opinions of what we Sri Lankans went through since October 26. I was impressed by the sections I quote below of an Economist article which expresses our own thoughts so succinctly:

"There is much to cheer in this outcome. Sri Lanka’s governing institutions and civil society proved strong enough—just—to withstand an assault not just by a rogue president but by a charismatic populist skilled at stoking majoritarian Sinhalese Buddhist sentiment, and backed by big money and powerful interests, particularly in the security establishment.

Mr Rajapaksa’s return had looked increasingly likely; now he stands disgraced in the eyes of many. The crisis may also empower Mr Wickremesinghe’s government, so far lacklustre in its achievements, to push through parts of its agenda that the president has sabotaged.

But judging from backstage whispers, the next acts of the play could still be ugly. Mr Sirisena, who is now supposed to work with Mr Wickremesinghe, has accused him of wanting to "punish the servicemen who saved Sri Lanka and protect the Tamil fighters who tried to destroy it".

Mr Rajapaksa in his resignation speech rapped his rivals as "anti-national" traitors. Henchmen blame outside meddling for their ouster, telling supporters that "certain foreign nations" siphoned millions of dollars to NGOs that interfered with national security.

Sri Lankans are used to loud, nasty politics, but this kind of talk does not fit a plot with a happy ending."

Yes and yes again. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s minions of the likes of Wimal Weerawansa keep accusing foreign powers, especially Western States of "interfering" in the affairs of our country and even accuse the UNP of being willing stooges. Representatives of the UN and countries, in Colombo, were naturally perturbed at the happenings of October 26 and thereafter and expressed concern about the stability of Sri Lanka. Admittedly they are not completely altruistic but they were perturbed for the country and not worried about their organizations or countries being affected. Small minded, loudly pontificating men behind Mahinda Rajapaksa are so narrow in their view both of the world and our land. They are also, as the Economist writer mentions, bringing in the twin issues of our armed forces and races. They have been beating their drum on punishments given to armed forces personnel and inalienable rights being restored to the Tamils of the land - to them unjustified benefits. They could not comprehend that the TNA and other non-Sinhala Parties joined hands with the UNP to restore democracy in the country. MR’s sycophants have already seen a division of the land and the so called minorities becoming the majority.

Succinct idiomatic expressions

Many English idioms and expressions were used in relevance to the upheaval we went through; and many more come to mind.

Rabble rousing defined as "stirring up public sentiment" is especially resorted to when certain politicians open their loud mouths. Young Namal Rajapaksa too pontificates in like vein, while their leader MR encourages them. He mentioned it in his farewell speech after five weeks of being an ill begotten Prime Minister. Raising the ire of people about armed force personnel being convicted of crimes and igniting the dormant flame of racial animosity are unforgiveable sins. If armed forces personnel are guilty of having committed crimes they HAVE to be punished, no two words about that. The worst fire to ignite is of racial disharmony which will soon lead to bloodlust and bloodletting and senseless waste of resources. One thinks of Roman plebs when one talks of rabble rousing. The term was first used by Sydney Smith in 1802.

Bedlam is what all Sri Lankans saw and suffered from October 26 to December 16. Some of its synonyms are: uproar, pandemonium (in Parliament by MR’s rabble); hubbub, hurly burly, ruckus, rumpus, and many more. Bedlam came in to usage being derived from Bethlem Royal Hospital, the first asylum for the mentally ill in England. It is currently located in Beckenham, Kent. The word bedlam came to be used generically for all psychiatric hospitals and used colloquially for an uproar. Bedlam – a place, a scene, or state of uproar and confusion.

Dragged down from the high horse

Now for the most apt expression that delights me as it connotes what happened to two VVIPs who jumped the gun. (Another expression!) I mean here eat crow. The origin seems fairly obvious: the meat of the crow, being a carnivore, is presumably rank and extremely distasteful, and the experience is easily equated to the mental anguish of being forced to admit one’s fallibility. That’s what our President Maithripala Sirisena had to do and then his earlier bête noir, chosen by him as the second in the land, not even caring or stopping ten seconds to dismiss the incumbent Prime Minister, joined him in the disgrace. They both ignominiously had to eat crow, dished out by the ruling of the seven judge Bench of the Supreme Court and loudly crowed over by the right seeing citizens of the land. The expression means suffering humiliation by having been proven wrong after assuming a strong position. Origin is an American 1850 story about a dim witted farmer of New York.

The two – MS and MR - had to also eat humble pie; less stinky than consuming crows’ flesh, that predator of all that isrotten. The expression derives from umble pie, a pie filled with the chopped or minced parts of a beast’s ‘pluck’ – the heart, liver, lungs and kidneys, especially of deer but often other meats. While ‘umble’ is now gone from the language, the phrase remains, as an idiom. Also only humble people ate umble pie. "To acknowledge one’s mistake or a wrong doing and accept humiliation that goes with acknowledgement."

The two also bit the dust or had to bite the dust. What’s the origin of this phrase? The same notion is expressed in the earlier phrase ‘lick the dust’, from the Bible, where there are several uses of it, including Psalms 72 (King James Version): "They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him and his enemies shall lick the dust." It means defeated, fall out of the running, be knocked for a loop. Both men have lost more than their dignity and integrity. They have lost future votes, even political future itself in one case.

In betweens

We had, saw and even heard many who mislead the Prez and ex-Prez and encouraged them to take the very dangerous steps that endangered the very existence of the country economically and almost dammed it internationally as a ‘banana republic’ or ‘failed state’.

The most vociferous were G L Peirs and Sarath N Silva, followed by ex-tuition masters and such like. They misinterpreted the Constitution and pushed the willing hand of the President to make a move, initially to oust Ranil and his men and ultimately benefit him (the Prez) so he could ride on a shoulder he betrayed in 2014/15, to be voted Prez come 2019/20. Thus the two mentioned and other lesser fry who shouted loud, all claiming to be attorneys-at-law and sporting kalu cloaks can be classified Judas Iscariots. He, as we all know, was one of the original Twelve Disciples of Jesus Christ. According to all four canonical gospels, Judas betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin in the Garden of Gethsemane by kissing him and addressing him as ‘Rabbi’ to reveal his identity to the crowd who had come to arrest him. So in the final run in Sri Lanka, advisors were betrayers.

One could also label these as False prophets prophesying lies and deceiving people with their dreams and "prophesying by the alleged authority of Baal."

The good ones

In our recent upheaval let’s cross to the other side, which literally means crossing over to the government side of Parliament now composed of UNPers, the Muslim Congress and a Tamil Party or two; which means minus Blues.

You could say they stood tall, closed ranks and held their heads high; to express staying loyal and committed to a person, Party or principle and being proud of it. They gathered at Temple Trees. Etymology is as follows: Hold our head high, heads up was first used as an interjection in the 19th century. Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, it began to be used adjectivally, as in: "He was always right on the job, and looking ‘heads up’."Then, around the late 70s, it became a noun, probably through shortening of phrases like "heads-up alert" into "heads-up":   It means having an air of heroic masculine dignity. Horse riders normally sit in the saddle, but they occasionally stand in the stirrups. Walking tall is to walk or behave in a way that shows one feels proud and confident.

Primarily Karu Jayasuriya who acted with such dignity and restraint we could name a gentleman’s gentleman who stood tall. The first documented use of ‘gentleman’ was in the 12th century AD. Then it meant "well-born man, man of good family or birth". Gentle arrived in English from Latin ‘gentilis of the same family or clan,’ via Old French ‘gentil/jentil’ meaning high-born, worthy, noble, of good family; courageous, valiant; fine, good, fair. Those epithets suit the Speaker fine and apply to Ranil W and so many other UNPers and other Party members who kept their heads while others lost theirs - to quote a half line from Rudyard Kipling’s poem If.

SRI LANKA COUP HASTENS PROSECUTION OF RAJAPAKSA ENVOY TO WASHINGTON

Image: Jaliya W. and Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Political Correspondent/ ECONOMYNEXT .-Dec 24, 2018 ,

Sri Lanka’s October coup that brought former president Mahinda Rajapaksa briefly back to power may have backfired on a close relative, ex-ambassador to Washington and fugitive from justice, Jaliya Wickramasuriya.

The prospect of a Rajapaksa government in Colombo prompted justice authorities in Washington to publicly disclose money laundering and visa fraud charges against Wickramasuriya, a first cousin of the former president, and ensure he is swiftly prosecuted.

The man who served as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Washington for six years till 2014 will now become the first Rajapaksa relative to be prosecuted abroad and face a possible lengthy jail term following five counts of charges ranging from wire fraud to immigration offences.

Official sources said the test case could leave the door open to several other very high profile prosecutions shortly. Foreign ministry sources said thatit was the first time that a Sri Lankan ambassador was being prosecuted in the country he was posted to.

US Justice department documents show the authorities were keen to ensure that the very serious nature of charges against Wickramasuriya were made public to prevent a Rajapaksa administration in Colombo restoring his diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution.

With the nature of the serious charges made public, it was hoped that any new Rajapaksa-led government would not have been able to scuttle the prosecution without an international backlash.

The intense activity in the US judiciary came even as an appeal by Wickramasuriya was pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. However, Wickramasuriya is a fugitive from justice in Sri Lanka too after fleeing the island while on bail in 2017. He had been arrested in late 2016 by the Financial Crimes Investigation Division over misusing state funds.

He has given the slip to the FCID, but lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the foreign ministry in Colombo in October last year withdrawing his diplomatic immunity in the US and clearing the way to proceed against him.

Official sources said there were moves afoot to restore Wickramasuriya’s immunity after President Maithripala Sirisena made peace with his one-time foe Mahinda Rajapaksa and made him prime minister with most arms of the administration coming under him.

“In the last 10 days or so, there has been a change in the government of Sri Lanka,” the US government document to court said. “Several media outlets have referred to the matter as a constitutional crisis.

“We have been advised by the United States officials in Sri Lanka that there will be a meeting to discuss and/or determine the immunity (of Wickramasuriya) issue on Sunday, November 11, 2018 and they believe that advising the Sri Lankan authorities of the fact that the defendant has been indicted will be of relevance and assistance in making their determination.”

In other words, the US wanted to go public with the charges against Wickramasuriya so that the new Rajapaksa government (which by that time had been recognized only by China) would not be in a position to restore the former envoy’s immunity and scuttle the case.

While a court case was moving slowly in Sri Lanka, the case against Wickramasuriya in Washington remained “sealed” meaning that the indictment was not made public. Court documents show that the “sealing” or making the indictment secret fearing that Wickramasuriya could flee, destroy evidence ir tamper with witnesses.

However, the case assumed a new urgency following the October 26 power grab in Colombo with Rajapaksa making a dramatic comeback.

As the coup drama unfolded in Colombo, the US government lodged a request on November 8 with a Washington court to partly “unseal” the indictment in order to impress Sri Lanka authorities of the gravity of the case. They followed it up with another request to fully unseal the charges. It was granted on December 20, according to public records.

The original indictment charging him on five counts was filed on May 1, 2018, after the Court of Appeal in Sri Lanka dismissed Wickramasuriya’s appeal against Colombo withdrawing his immunity for actions during the period he was Sri Lanka’s top diplomat in Washington betwee 2008 and 2014.

The charges against ghim include defrauding the government of Sri Lanka of over 332,000 dollars over an embassy property transaction, money laundering and making a false declaration in an immigration application.

It is learnt that the US authorities would now press ahead with prosecuting Wickramasuriya irrespective of any court proceedings regarding his immunity status. He himself had waived his immunity in a document at the time of applying for residency in the US. This had been discovered much later, but has become a pivotal part of Washington prosecutor’s case to proceed against Wickramasuriya. (COLOMBO, December 24, 2018)[

 

 

Sri Lankan staffer accuses senior UN official of sexual harassment

Sunday, December 23, 2018

UNITED NATIONS – A Sri Lankan staffer has accused one of the highest ranking UN officials of sexual harassment in a case currently playing out at the United Nations. Shihana Mohamed, a Human Resources Policies Officer with the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), has charged the New York-based Commission’s chairman of retaliating against her by denying promotions and excluding her from duty-travel overseas because she refused to accede to his demands.

After a long drawn-out investigation, the Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS), the UN’s investigative arm, produced a report last week.
But the contents of the report are under wraps since neither the OIOS nor ICSC has announced plans to go public with the results of the investigation in an institution which has long preached “transparency and accountability” to the outside world.

The official against whom the charges were made, UN Under-Secretary-General Kingston Rhodes of Sierra Leone, abruptly announced his resignation last Friday, two weeks before his retirement — circumventing the sexual harassment charges. The ICSC is described as an independent expert body established by the 193-member UN General Assembly, and its mandate is to regulate and coordinate the conditions of service of staff in the United Nations common system, while promoting and maintaining high standards in the international civil service.

As a result, the office of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says he has no jurisdiction over a UN body created by the General Assembly and answerable only to member states—even though, ironically, Mr. Guterres has been vociferously advocating a “zero tolerance policy” on sexual abuse and harassment at the UN.

The New York-based Equality Now, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes women’s rights, is advocating Ms. Mohamed’s cause.
Antonia Kirkland, Legal Equality Global Lead at Equality Now, said Secretary-General Guterres acknowledged months ago that the allegations against the ICSC chairman were “credible.”

“So he should have done everything to protect his own staff from sexual harassment regardless of the Chair of the ICSC, or anyone else’s, technical employment status vis-a-vis the UN.” She said the UN’s zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment should apply to all, without exception, with survivors and their interests at the centre.

“All those who have been found to perpetrate sexual harassment should be held accountable. The UN is the premier international defender of human rights and should start by defending its own employees from sexual harassment in the workplace,” said Ms. Kirkland. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Ms. Mohamed said “I was sexually harassed by the Chairman of the ICSC for more than 10 years — and I was not the only one. Because I said “NO” to his repeated sexual advances, he denied me promotions, and excluded me from duty travels, training, assignments, projects, Commission sessions and working groups.

“In 2016, I was on sick leave for three-months due to the stress caused by the hostile office environment and retaliation by the ICSC management.
“His quiet resignation just two weeks before the end of his term is a slap in my face and barely a slap on his wrist. It is very sad that the ICSC, a jointly-funded body with a mandate to cover all facets of UN staff employment conditions, failed to make Mr. Rhodes accountable for his misconduct.”
Also, the Secretary-General and the General Assembly President have said that they do not have any jurisdiction over the ICSC Chairman who is a UN official elected by the General Assembly.

“Then, my question is, who has the jurisdiction over him? Can this one person stand above all the rules, regulation and UN values as well as with no checks and balances while dealing with public funds and trust?,” she asked.
The issue is expected to go before the UN Dispute Tribunal.

The Greatest Gift For All

by Paul Craig Roberts-Dec 25, 2018

Dec 25, 2018

Christmas is a time of traditions. If you have found time in the rush before Christmas to decorate a tree, you are sharing in a relatively new tradition. Although the Christmas tree has ancient roots, at the beginning of the 20th century only 1 in 5 American families put up a tree. It was 1920 before the Christmas tree became the hallmark of the season. Calvin Coolidge was the first President to light a national Christmas tree on the White House lawn.

Gifts are another shared custom. This tradition comes from the wise men or three kings who brought gifts to baby Jesus. When I was a kid, gifts were more modest than they are now, but even then people were complaining about the commercialization of Christmas. We have grown accustomed to the commercialization. Christmas sales are the backbone of many businesses. Gift giving causes us to remember others and to take time from our harried lives to give them thought.

The decorations and gifts of Christmas are one of our connections to a Christian culture that has held Western civilization together for 2,000 years.

In our culture the individual counts. This permits an individual person to put his or her foot down, to take a stand on principle, to become a reformer and to take on injustice.

This empowerment of the individual is unique to Western civilization. It has made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens, protected from tyrannical government by the rule of law and free speech. These achievements are the products of centuries of struggle, but they all flow from the teaching that God so values the individual’s soul that he sent his son to die so we might live. By so elevating the individual, Christianity gave him a voice.

Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.

The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

In recent decades we have lost sight of the historic achievement that empowered the individual. The religious, legal and political roots of this great achievement are no longer reverently taught in high schools, colleges and universities or respected by our government. The voices that reach us through the millennia and connect us to our culture are being silenced by “Identity Politics,” “political correctness” and “the war on terror.” Prayer has been driven from schools and Christian religious symbols from public life. Constitutional protections have been diminished by hegemonic political ambitions. Indefinite detention, torture, and murder are now acknowledged practices of the United States government. The historic achievement of due process has been rolled back. Tyranny has re-emerged.

Diversity at home and hegemony abroad are consuming values and are dismantling the culture and the rule of law. There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country. A Tower of Babel has no culture. A person cannot be a Christian one day, a pagan the next and a Muslim the day after. A hodgepodge of cultural and religious values provides no basis for law – except the raw power of the pre-Christian past.

All Americans have a huge stake in Christianity. Whether or not we are individually believers in Christ, we are beneficiaries of the moral doctrine that has curbed power and protected the weak.

Power is the horse ridden by evil. In the 20th century the horse was ridden hard, and the 21st century shows an increase in pace. Millions of people were exterminated in the 20th century by National Socialists in Germany and by Soviet and Chinese communists simply because they were members of a race or class that had been demonized by intellectuals and political authority. In the beginning years of the 21st century, hundreds of thousands of Muslims in seven countries have been murdered and millions displaced in order to extend Washington’s hegemony.

Power that is secularized and cut free of civilizing traditions is not limited by moral and religious scruples. V.I. Lenin made this clear when he defined the meaning of his dictatorship as “unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything.” Washington’s drive for hegemony over US citizens and the rest of the world is based entirely on the exercise of force and is resurrecting unaccountable power.

Christianity’s emphasis on the worth of the individual makes such power as Lenin claimed, and Washington now claims, unthinkable. Be we religious or be we not, our celebration of Christ’s birthday celebrates a religion that made us masters of our souls and of our political life on Earth. Such a religion as this is worth holding on to even by atheists.

As we enter into 2019, Western civilization, the product of thousands of years of striving, is in decline. Degeneracy is everywhere before our eyes. As the West sinks into tyranny, will Western peoples defend their liberty and their souls, or will they sink into the tyranny, which again has raised its ugly and all devouring head?

The Mystery Of Christ

By Jagath Asoka –DECEMBER 24, 2018

Dr. Jagath Asoka

I invite you to take a break from mundane things such as petty-party-politics and pay attention to things that will remain as mysteries forever, because no one can know these things; we are moving in a world of images and concepts and none of our reflections touches the essence of these mysteries; perhaps, we can experience them.

There is only one way to look at mundane things that are going on around you: With aloof amusement because soon you will forget everything, and everything will forget you.

Even a Buddhist must ask, “Is it possible to live my life that is modelled on Christ’s or to live my own life as truly as Christ lived his: betrayed, denied, mocked, crucified, and abandoned?What is the driving force behind your own life? Does the public opinion or the moral code stands behind your action, or is it your unconscious personality, which is a mystery? Just like the Buddha and Christ, are we what we always were?

Recently, I did a small survey and asked, “What is the actual meaning of the word ‘Christ’?” I am not going to reveal the results of my survey for obvious reasons. Go figure!

If the divine experience is lost, God is dead, and the mystery has faded in you, what is next for you?

Probably you have heard or read the following: The son of God died; this is believable because it does not make sense. And after he was buried he rose again; this is quite certain because it is impossible.” Wow! Surely, this kind of thinking is not for the faint hearted.

If you are a Christian, the grace of God is everything to you; you are puny, so always be mindful of your impotence; the death and resurrection of Jesus brought salvation. In Buddhist soteriology, when the ego disappears, man redeems himself; a Gnostic would say that the divine substance hidden within us is known only to a very few. When you look at what is happening everywhere, it seems like “God is really dead; He is not pretending to be dead. Who is going to resurrect Him?”: at least psychologically. The Old Testament God is like a sea of grace on fire. In the Old Testament, Yahweh revealed himself in Nature; sometimes he was cruel; in the New Testament, God became man: Now, man is God, and God is man.

If you are a Buddhist—I invite you—visit an empty, old church; if you are a Christian, visit an old Buddhist temple on a full moon day when people are not around. You will experience numinosum which will alter your consciousness. When there is religious sentimentality instead of the numinosum of divine experience, then you know that religion has lost its living mystery. For most people, creed and dogma may not after all have any meaning in their lives. There are people who have had an immediate experience; they would not submit to the ecclesiastical authority. For dogma to survive, dogma must be a living thing which is capable of change and development.

Is Jesus God? This is a theological question, and I am—a student of religion—cannot answer that question. My views on religion are not based on creed, dogma, devotion, or faith, but on my own experience. Around 2.4 billion—out of 7.6 billion people—would say, “Yes, Jesus is God.” Though I am not a Christian, how Jesus became God fascinates me, and I plan to be a student of religion for the rest of my life. If I must bet, I would go with Blaise Pascal to satisfy both contingencies:  existence and not existence of God.

The claim that Jesus was God separated early Christians from Judaism. Why did Christianity spread through the pagan world so rapidly? Was Adonis, the archetypal dying-and-rising god, a prefiguration of Christ? Was the Osiris-Horus-Isis myth a prefiguration of the Christian legend of salvation? Why did the pagans embrace Christian symbols with such alacrity? Was it because they were similar or sometimes identical? If Emperor Constantine had not converted to Christianity, or Emperor Asoka had not embraced Buddhism, all of us would probably be pagans or Jews; certainly, I would be a pagan!

Throughout the history, there have been numerous ways that people have understood the divinity of Jesus. The Trinity, which is a mystery to me—there are three distinct persons, namely, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit, yet there is only one almighty God who manifests in all three persons—was not the view of Jesus or the followers of Jesus during Jesus’ life time.

The basic historical questions are very simple: When did the followers of Jesus start believing that Jesus was divine or God? The sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John about his divinity do not make much sense from a historical point of view; theologically, of course. When they started believing that Jesus was God, what did they mean? Was Jesus co-eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and identical with God, God the Father? First it was homoiousia then homoousia. In addition to being fully divine, Jesus is fully human, so the Trinity is a revelation of both God and man: man is God, and God is man. Some people think that other peoples’ religions are fiction: They think only their religion consists of facts.

Throughout Christian history there have been several ways that his followers have understood how Jesus is God.  As far as history is concerned, what people thought of Jesus’ divinity has changed over the years. The divinity of Jesus changed from the beginning with Docetism, Separatism, Modalism, and the Trinity. I have no desire to explain these concepts because most people do not give a hoot about these concepts, but these concepts will edify, illuminate, and tantalize you. In Christianity, God and Satan are separate: Two separate seas, a sea of grace and a sea of fire.

Read More