Circles of political vengeance and end of Yahapalanaya!

Maithripala Sirisena was obviously naïve at the beginning. When he realised his predicament, he was rather late. Therefore his anger was doubled, and trebled. Ranil Wickremesinghe has got a lease of life through the Supreme Court and therefore he should either deliver or get out. After another attempt at power as the PM, Mahinda Rajapaksa is again eating humble pie, waiting to be declared as Opposition Leader – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

• “Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them, they take vengeance” – Machiavelli 
• “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” – Romans 12:19 
• “Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek” – Matthew 5:39

How things began

Tuesday, 1 January 2019 

Maithripala Sirisena left Mahinda Rajapaksa four years ago, after a hopper treat, because he was not given due recognition as a Minister, and the PM position. That may be true. Otherwise, he even voted for the 18th Amendment to allow the possibility of Rajapaksa to contest for the presidency again and again without a term-limit. There must have been other reasons to do with family rule or authoritarian handling of things.

The Lord (the people) took vengeance from Rajapaksa on 8 January 2015, and he left for Medamulana on the same night without a whimper, whatever Mangala Samaraweera said about a military coup. Romans as quoted above were correct about the Lord. That was justice. After another attempt at power as the PM on 26 October, Rajapaksa is again eating humble pie, still waiting to be declared as the Leader of the Opposition. Justice often means punishment, and this time by the Supreme Court.

When Sirisena was elected as the President, to the surprise of many, he was quite amicable to Ranil Wickremesinghe, the schemer behind all the political gimmicks since then, and even called the latter ‘Sir’. However, Ranil apparently didn’t like anyone above him and most certainly a ‘gamarala’ from Polonnaruwa. Most disliked was his continuous and rigmarole Sinhala talk. Sirisena was meekly humble at the beginning, and even gave Temple Trees back to the PM. 

Then there was this 100-day program (whoever drafted it!) to clip the presidential powers of anyone above the PM, among other things, and Sirisena was obviously trapped. The only obstacle was the presidential constitution itself which could not be totally changed without people’s consent, a referendum. Therefore, many constitutional jugglery had to be performed, as evident from the 19A. An expert from the left movement was hired for the job, who has some experience in these type of matters.
Naivety and offense 

Sirisena was obviously naïve at the beginning. When he realised his predicament, he was rather late. Therefore his anger was doubled, and trebled. This is where what Machiavelli said about ‘offence’ became true. Sirisena was not destroyed, but offended to the brim.

This is not to relate Machiavelli’s advice literally into democratic politics today. Complete destruction of an enemy is not possible today, except in civil war or by punishing someone for criminal offenses. Now Jaliya Wickramasuriya, Mahinda’s first cousin, is trapped in the USA. Similar things might happen in the near future. Otherwise, politicians have to live with perceived enemies, whether they like it or not. Mahinda Rajapaksa (also his gang) is still there with renewed vigour, although slightly bruised after the abortive attempt at unjustified grabbing of the PM position. Sirisena is to be blamed mainly for this tragicomic happening. 

There is no question that politicians should be punished for financial fraud and corruption. However, this should be done without bias, and equally for one’s own side, and not merely targeting the opposition. Otherwise, the Lord will be angry. The opposite is what has happened since 2015 and the appointment of Ravi Karunanayake would confirm the situation in the eyes of the people. Whatever said against Sirisena, he relatively appears clean in respect of financial matters (so far!). Although called Mr Clean, Wickremesinghe has become a prime suspect in the bond scam.
Revenging in circles 

What has happened since 2015 is revenging in circles, not mere circularity. The reasons are not so byzantine. Politics is understood, or used by politicians as power, and absolute power in the case of some. And power is used for personal interests rather than for public good. Politics should be for justice and public good instead. Sirisena took revenge from Rajapaksa as he was marginalised. Wickremesinghe took revenge from Sirisena as he was not toying his line as anticipated. There were overt or alleged policy differences as well.

The first policy difference between the two was the appointment of Arjuna Mahendran as the Governor to the Central Bank. This reminded Sirisena of old stories about Wickremesinghe – that he is inclined to work with his Royalists. By that time Wickremesinghe has taken over the Central Bank under his wings and was quite determined to control and direct the economy according to his neoliberalism. The obvious immediate result was the Bond Scam.

According to Wickremesinghe ideology, an uncle giving inside information to his nephew is not a big issue. What is important is money to the Treasury. It appears that Wickremesinghe wanted to fudge the situation from the beginning and even Sirisena corroborated by dissolving Parliament in June (2015) before Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) giving its damning report on the matter. There are so many other people who don’t consider the ‘bond scam’ as a financial fraud or corruption, according to probably their capitalist thinking.

Things soured between the two eventually and much after the general elections of August 2015. Even by that time Sirisena was like a bruised cobra because of the 19th Amendment and other matters. His first major counter attack was the appointment of the Presidential Commission on the Bond Issue in March 2017. Even that was a late reaction. Nevertheless, it was a major turning point of their soured relations. Although the national government marriage continued uneasily even thereafter, it was without a proper direction either from Sirisena or Wickremesinghe.


Overreaction? 

Sirisena appears to be a slow, but an over reactor. As he was leading the SLFP, the party’s performance at the local government election was a major setback. He correctly attributed that set back to his alliance with the UNP and its unpopular economic policies. First, without properly assessing the relative strengths between the opposition and the Wickremesinghe Government, he encouraged the aborted no confidence motion in April 2018.

Then came his major reaction on 26 October. He ousted Wickremesinghe, but Wickremesinghe refused to leave Temple Trees or his position as the PM. Now R. Sampanthan is doing a similar adventure without leaving the office of the Leader of the Opposition. What strength did Wickremesinghe get in October even without a clear majority in Parliament? It is not merely the support of the TNA or the JVP that allowed Wickremesinghe to come back to power. Some of the Western embassies and international NGOs were believed to be behind the comeback, not to speak about the local cohorts. Sampanthan might be banking on the same.

More importantly, it was possible because of the miscalculation on the part of Sirisena that Rajapaksa could muster a majority. S. B. Dissanayake was behind all the machinations based on pre-2015 experience of parliamentary politics. It was not purely a constitutional obstacle, but a political one. Whatever the objectives that the people or even Sirisena had in mind in bringing a change of government in January and also in August 2015, Wickremesinghe government probably survived and survives because of the backing of the Western powers.



This backing is premised largely on the objective of preventing Chinese influence in Sri Lanka. It was not by accident that the Chinese Ambassador was the first and also the last to greet Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister. This created more fears or anxieties on the part of Western embassies.

Overreaction was accompanied by overconfidence on the part of both Sirisena and Rajapaksa. Rajapaksa’s overreaction became more evident by taking the membership of the SLPP, or allegedly applying for it, without considering possible legal ramifications. When Sirisena’s three trump cards of ‘Dismissal, Prorogation and Dissolution’ came one after the other, at a quick pace, the Western educated middle class or the Colombians also became genuinely alarmed. They were thriving under Wickremesinghe economics.

Sirisena’s actions and boasted overconfidence undoubtedly had an element of authoritarianism. The return of Rajapaksa also united the UNP ranks and it was only for a short while that people like Wasantha Senanayake could flirt with both sides. The UNP/UNF Ministers, State Ministers and Junior Ministers undoubtedly have generously gratified their support base through public funds. This is something that the SLFP had failed to do, giving priority to their acrimonious or talkative politics. There are clear indications that both Sirisena and Rajapaksa have not learnt the lessons of the 2015 democratic change, where people don’t want to go back to authoritarianism or even semblance of it.
A lost opportunity 

When looking back at last four years, it is at best a lost opportunity. It was also a betrayal and treachery from almost all sides. What they promised and delivered as Yahapalanaya were different. When friends (although new) become enemies they obviously become extra bitter. This is what happened to the UNP and the SLFP or more correctly to Sirisena and Wickremesinghe. It was by chance that the UNF government was salvaged thanks to the TNA and the JVP. In actual sense it is still a minority government. No one knows at what time it will fall or disintegrate.

Was it too ideal or impractical to have a national government? Perhaps yes. Primarily because the objectives on the part of the leaders were short sighted or rather opportunistic. Nevertheless the positive achievements or people’s aspirations behind 2015 change should be continued and even enhanced. They are primarily (1) to have independent commissions to oversee not only appointments but also government performance and (2) to resist authoritarian tendencies on the part of the President or even the Prime Minister.

As most of the authoritarian deviations in the future might come from the PM or the new government, the President should step back and allow the PM to expose himself before the people. Unnecessary reactions or attempts at imposition of authority might confuse the situation and boomerang on the President himself. There is a need for a strong opposition in Parliament (not a fake one!) and in the country. Opposition activities in the country should not be destructive, but peaceful, engaging and constructive as much as possible.

There is no question that the so-called Yahapalanaya has exhausted its potential. It is a lost opportunity, par excellence. The problematic however in the New Year would be its alternative. Ranil Wickremesinghe has got a lease of life through the Supreme Court and therefore he should either deliver or get out. Jesus’ advice to his disciples was too ideal, at least on the part of the sovereign people of the country. If their living conditions are attacked, people should not turn their other cheek, but should give a good hammer!

TNA URGES ALL PARTIES TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A PERMANENT RESOLUTION TO THE NATIONAL QUESTION IN 2019.

31/12/2018


New Year Greetings.

My heartiest wishes for a Prosperous and a Happy New Year to all Sri Lankan citizens.
As we step into a new year I wish and pray that this new year brings hope and happiness to all the people in this Country. The past year has taught us many lessons through both positive and negative incidents. Let us take the learnings and make it a useful one to our lives and a fruitful one to the others.

In this New Year, let us not give in to the adversities that bring disunity and heartedness among our communities and stand firm against the extremists whose petty political aim is to divide the communities into Ethnic and Religious lines. Moreover, I pray that the affected communities will be provided with solutions to their longstanding issues in this New Year.

I appeal to all Political parties, Religious Leaders and Civil Society to come forward and  within a United, Undivided, Indivisible Sri Lanka on the basis of Justice and Equality.

Happy New Year

R Sampanthan

Leader – Tamil National Alliance 

Was Ms. Vijayakala Maheswaran Wrong?

By Nanda Wanninayaka –DECEMBER 31, 2018

Nanda Wanninayaka

For most of you, this could be stale news. But I thought of writing this piece even at a later time after Vijayakala Maheswaran’s controversial speech. My first hand experiences in the North since June this year made me write this piece. Being 6 months in the North on and off (at least 3 weeks per each month) won’t be enough for me to come to a right conclusion about the subject but I would report what I saw. I don’t speak Tamil but can manage with the little English I know and sometimes in Sinhala as I found many people I meet in the North can speak some Sinhala. Besides, I think I am good at the universal language, the sign language 

I have no connection or whatsoever with the then State Minister of Women and Children’s Affairs, Ms. Vijayakala Maheswaran. I even didn’t know if such one ever existed before her speech came to the limelight. But with all those hullaballoos about her “controversial” speech at Veerasingham Hall Jaffna on July 02, 2018, I thought of reading the full English translation of her speech “for the heck of it.”

Apart from the controversial and illegal part of “reviving the LTTE,” I don’t find anything wrong in what she talked in the rest of her speech. Ms. Maheshwaran must be really lucky not to be in jail for talking about reviving a ruthless terrorist outfit that dragged the country back to the Stone Age, literally. If this speech was made in any other sovereign state, she would have been counting the bars in a cell by now. But Sri Lanka is a funny country with funnier constitution which is less funny than a Kushwant Singh’s sarcastic column! I would refrain from making any comment about judiciary here as, at this age, I don’t have much time left to be in a secluded cell for several years. I have better things to in my life.

About child abuse/rape/killing which Ms. Maheshwaran talks, she is right. It is true these were not committed by the Sri Lankan military but mostly, the people of the neighborhood were the perpetrators. (There are some allegations that Ms. Maheshwaran herself tried to save one such accused of the high school girl Vidya rape and subsequent killing being, I don’t know.) What I do know is that the post-LTTE era has compromised the rigid law and order which had been implemented in the North by the terrorists. So, naturally, maybe the people might think that the “known devil” was better.

It was the same with the extensive substance abuse by the youth and the men at large in the North. The LTTE was trafficking drugs to sustain their organization but they did not sell them in Sri Lanka, well, at least not in the North. Drug trafficking was one of their main ways of illegal fundraising to the so called “liberation struggle” but they ensured the drugs would not make their way to the North. But now, after the conclusion of the bloody war, one can read from the press that large hauls of drugs are being captured by the police and the Special Task Force (STF) in the North and East. I myself have seen numerous times the youth spend hours under street lights in Jaffna just loitering till late hours of the night. I cannot see what they do but I just have a friendly word or two and find most of them are intoxicated. I don’t think this happened during the LTTE era. Terrorism should be condemned at any level, but didn’t the women in the South themselves kind of “approve” the rigid jungle laws implemented by “Deshapremi Janatha Wyaparaya” – the terrorist unit of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) for that matter? People, especially women, love to see the men being controlled at least by a terrorist outfit if the authorities cannot do their job any better?

I am not a legal expert. But as everyone knows damn well, atrocities were committed from both sides during and the immediate aftermath of the war. There is no point in harping on these forever. A government military has to abide by the international ethics of war no matter how hard it is. They will be forced to retaliate when the opposite happens from a terrorist group. But this is why a state military is trained how to become a professional military. One cannot justify an illegal retaliatory action a state military commits by pointing at a ruthless terrorist or guerilla group’s heinous acts. This is where the state military has to draw the margin. A terrorist organization has the luxury of ignoring international war ethics. This is why they are called “terrorists.” So, the better thing to do is to forgive and forget. There are allegations and reportedly, hard evidence too, of atrocities committed by both the military and the terrorists according to what I read, hear and see. So, why not we go to a South African model Truth Commission in which all parties are pardoned and integrated to the society? It is never too late, even after 9 years of conclusion of war.

Read More

Will 2019 see abolition of Executive Presidency?

by gagani weerakoon-02:00 AM DEC 

The majority of Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentarians in the Government and Opposition are enjoying vacations overseas with family members for the Christmas and New Year holiday period while, few other MPs were holidaying in the cool climes of Nuwara Eliya and are unlikely to return to Colombo till the dawn of 2019.

Parliament which last convened under Speaker Karu Jayasuriya on 21 December is expected to reconvene only on 8 January 2019. According to sources, they are scheduled to return to the country ahead of the next meeting of the Cabinet headed by the President on 2 January 2019.
President Maithripala Sirisena is also in Bangkok, Thailand on a private visit.

Cabinet crisis

The President and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe both must have thought of taking a break from the political mess but will return along with others, to another chaotic situation as there are unsettled grouses when allocating Cabinet Ministries in addition to internal matters of their respective political parties.

Puttalam District UNP Parliamentarian Palitha Range Bandara says that he would have to take a stern decision if he does not receive a ministerial portfolio in the new Cabinet within a month.

Addressing an event held in Siyambalawewa, Andigama to distribute essential equipment to people under ‘Gam Peraliya’ project, Range Bandara said he had not received the appreciation he deserves, although he has been praised as the turning point for the United National Party.

He said it has already been a few weeks since the new Cabinet of Ministers was appointed, however, he had not received a ministerial portfolio.

Range Bandara was not the only one to complain. Power and Energy Minister Ravi Karunanayake also revealed that he was deprived of the Finance portfolio due to two or three in the UNP itself going against him.
He said that it is a matter for regret that a jealous and ungrateful clique in the Party rejecting him when the whole world accepts him.

He emphasized that this situation was created by a minority group in his Party itself and not by anyone in the Opposition.

Ravi Karunanayake who said that he would accept the challenge with a happy heart and will see how those who have given the works in ultra modern mode will perform in future.

In order to solve these matters, UNP legal experts are currently contemplating suitable legal action to determine what exactly 19th Amendment says about the number of members in the Cabinet.

Abolishing Executive Presidency

New Year resolution for the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and majority of sensible voters and activists would be getting rid of the Executive Presidency by way of introducing the 20th Amendment. Whether it could receive a two-third majority remains a question.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya requested religious leaders to take the lead in raising a voice, in the New Year, with regard to calling for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, and rejecting racism and religious bigotry.

Apart from taking the lead in this regard, he requested them to provide the requisite guidance too.

Whilst noting that racism and religious bigotry could be seen once again coming to the fore under a political guise led by politicians in various places, including through temples and places of religious worship, he requested that narrow political agendas not be allowed to incite the North and the South. Jayasuriya made this request when he met the chief representatives to the multi-religious summit at the Speaker’s official residence on 26 December.

He pointed out that Parliamentary democracy could not in any way bear the Executive Presidency, adding that the societal public too had for quite some time urged its abolition. Jayasuriya pointed out that he had, since entering politics, appeared on behalf of the same.

He reminded that late Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera had organized the society against a developing anti-democratic dictatorship not for the purpose of bringing in a common candidate and to once again establish a Presidential position but to make a common policy victorious and to thereby abolish the Executive Presidency and strengthen democracy. He expressed regret at not being able to fulfil the aim of the abolition of the Executive Presidency, despite the establishment of the Constitutional Council, the Independent Commissions and the Independence of the Judiciary, and ensuring the right to information.

Elsewhere, explaining the series of incidents that took place in the recent past in the Parliament to the clergy, he explained that, “The breakdown of the trust between the President and the Prime Minister began after the commencement of the last Local Government Election.
 Early on, because I understood the unfortunate results of this, at all possible times, I continuously intervened to create reconciliation. It is true what the President said, when he said that he had on several occasions attempted to give me the Premiership. Yet, back in the day, we asked for a mandate to appoint Maithripala Sirisena as the President and Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister. I didn’t want to accept any post contrary to that mandate.”

He further said, “On 26 October, after the unexpected change in power, I met the President on 27 October.
 He requested me to provide the required facilities to the new Premier appointed as per the Gazette Notification issued by him. Although I could act according to the said Gazette Notification, I requested the President to protect democratic principles by showing within seven days that the new Government possessed the majority. Agreeing to this, he said that he would summon the Parliament on 5 November.

Later, owing to practical difficulties, he changed it to 7 November.
However, for whatever the reason, the Parliament was not summoned on either of the said dates. In the meantime, I received a letter containing the signatures of 117 Parliamentarians who were opposed to the newly established Government.
I could not, as per my duty not listen to the voice of the majority. Everyone could see how attempts to prove the majority in Parliament were continuously disturbed. During this period, MPs were being bought for unbelievable sums of money.”

Furthermore, he explained, “There was a big challenge before me. This was regarding whether I allow the majority view to prevail or do I allow force to win. I decided that force should not in any way be allowed to prevail.
I knew the risk of it. Threats to the effect that I would be shot inside the Chamber or have acid thrown at me were levelled at me. If I didn’t take up that challenge and risk on behalf of democracy, our Parliamentary system which has an esteemed history, would have been dragged into an extremely dark age.”

The summit representatives noted that although there was some reconciliation to be seen in the politics of the country at present, because there were certain contradictions in the decisions taken by the two poles of power, namely the President and the Prime Minister it could be harmful to the country. They requested Speaker Jayasuriya to intervene and act.          
Western Province Governor Hemakumara Nanayakkara answering a question posed by the Ceylon Today during a special press conference held last week, revealed that President Sirisena is not in agreement with the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution, brought by the JVP, seeking the abolition of the Executive Presidency.

Nanayakkara added that the JVP has very limited power in Parliament.
“It was brought by the JVP, but the people at the grassroots level are disturbed by it. We know why they brought it; we know how many people went to have secret discussions with some of these so-called non-governmental organizations. The JVP is a very weak party today. They hasten the process of becoming weaker by bringing in this Amendment,” he added.

He further said that there was also a secret conspiracy to approve a new Constitution, but he would not allow that to happen.

Meanwhile, when queried as to whether it would be the Provincial Councils (PC) Elections or the General/Parliamentary Elections that would be held first, he added that he expected that the PC Polls to be held first owing to the current political situation.

Plus points in a mess

Establishment of the Independence of the Judiciary as being the only light at the end of the tunnel in the context of the recent Constitutional and political crisis, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya said that henceforth, the world would not talk about international judges intervening in Sri Lanka.

The latter was a reference to the call from various stakeholders to have foreign judges involved in a judicial process to try alleged war crimes and human rights abuses and violations, perpetrated and committed during the period of the war.

These views were aired by Jayasuriya when he met the chief representatives of the multi-religious summit at the Speaker’s official residence last week.

Speaker Jayasuriya said so in reference to a landmark judgment interpreting the powers of the Executive President to dissolve the Parliament post-19th Amendment to the Constitution, where a seven-Judge-bench of the Supreme Court on 13 December unanimously quashed President Maithripala Sirisena’s proclamation issued via an extraordinary gazette dissolving the Parliament and calling for a General Election, declaring it null and void, ab initio (from the outset), and sans any force and effect in the law.

Speaking further to the religious representatives, Jayasuriya pointed out that, “It is not important as to who won at the end of the past two months.
This is because the country suffered a major defeat during this period. The prime position that was coming our way in terms of the world’s tourism industry was lost. The Japanese funds for the monorail project of the American Millennium Challenge Corporation and the International Monetary Fund were to be turned back. The respect for our Parliament which has provided examples to the world, suffered a major black mark.
Yet, I see a positive aspect to this. The independence of our judiciary became world famous. Henceforth, the world will not talk about international judges intervening in our country. It was confirmed that we have such an independent, non-partisan judiciary.”

Further, it was understood that political forcefulness could not be made a reality in this country, he noted, adding that it was affirmed that henceforth no leader can do the wrong thing.  

Meanwhile, the JVP is currently engaged in seeking legal advice in connection with proposing new legislation to punish those involved in the 26 October conspiracy against the Constitution, including primarily President Sirisena and opposition leader Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The JVP also noted that they expected Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and/or Minister of Justice Thalatha Atukorale to present a report in Parliament, once Sittings commence, on the Government’s stance on the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, so that a Parliamentary debate on the Bill could commence.

This was revealed by JVP MP Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa when contacted by Ceylon Today.

When questioned as to what the JVP made of Western Province Governor Hemakumara Nanayakkara’s recent statement that President Sirisena was not in agreement with the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution, but instead opposed it, and the proposed recommencement of the constitutional reforms process by the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly, Dr. Jayatissa added that while the said reforms process regarding a new Constitution also contained the abolition of the Executive Presidency, the JVP, despite having membership in the said Steering Committee did not have much faith and trust in the process.  

Delay in appointing SC judges

Recommendations, made by the Constitutional Council (CC), to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, have been rejected by President Maithripala Sirisena.

Instead, the President has selected three judges of his choice to fill these vacancies and sent the names for recommendation to the CC. However, recommendations made by the President have been rejected by seven of the ten members of the CC, a source who was present at the meeting told this newspaper.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was present as Leader of the Opposition at the meeting chaired by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya last Friday (21). Leader of the Opposition Rajapaksa, his representative and the President’s representative accepted only recommendations made by the President, he added. Mahinda Samarasinghe MP was the President’s representative.

When inquired from the Speaker, he confirmed that the Constitutional Council met on Friday and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa participated as the Leader of the Opposition. Lengthy discussions took place regarding the appointment of judges to vacant slots in the Supreme and Appeal Courts but a final decision has not yet been taken, he added.

The Supreme Court has only nine judges though it should include eleven. However, the President has rejected Gamini Amarasekara and S. Thurairaja who were recommended by the Constitutional Council, sources said.
He added that the President has named Deepali Wijyesundara and K.K. Wickramasinghe instead and sent the recommendations to the Constitutional Council.

Meanwhile, the President has rejected K.P. Fernando who was recommended by the Constitutional Council as President of the Court of Appeal.

However, under the 19th Amendment, the Independent Commissions and the Constitutional Council wields more power than the President. This had been done to maintain the independence of these Commissions.

In the context of the appointment of Judges to the Apex Courts, if the President refuses to appoint the Judges approved and recommended by the Constitutional Council (CC), it constitutes a Constitutional violation and is also a case of being in contempt of Court, not to mention a violation of the rights of Judges, a Constitutional Council Member said.

Both, the offices of the Constitutional Council and the President are recognized in the Constitution and their authority is derived from the powers vested in the Constitution.
 In the context of appointing Judges to the Superior Courts (the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court), the President as per the Constitution has the power to nominate Judges, while the Constitutional Council, according to the Constitution, has to approve and recommend as Justices, the persons deemed suitable by the Constitutional Council from among the names nominated by the President in the latter’s list to the CC, he pointed out when contacted.

According to him, the Constitutional Council had been unanimous in approving and recommending the Judges they did.

“The President must as per the Constitution appoint Judges approved and recommended by the Constitutional Council. This is a matter that concerns public office. Neither the CC nor the President can act outside the Constitution,” he explained.

He noted that such ultra vires action on the part of the President would also be in violation of the rights of Judges, adding that some of the appointments are two months overdue.

“What is of paramount importance is the question of intention. Intention must be progressive. For example, a book is meant for reading but as was seen in the Parliament recently, it can be thrown as a weapon. This is not the intention as it is not a progressive action. All must act in accordance with the intention as otherwise it is unacceptable.”

He added that the Constitutional Council was scheduled to meet again on 7 January 2019 and when questioned whether the matter of the said judicial appointments would be on the day’s agenda, he noted that though they had yet to receive the agenda for the day, the CC’s work in this regard had been completed, adding further that the ball was now in the President’s Court.

If the President doesn’t take progressive action with regard to this matter at hand, a disgruntled member of the judicial and legal fraternity may challenge it before the Court, and if this happens to be the case, the President would stand no chance, he pointed out.

Article 107 of the Constitution holds that the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal shall, subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council, be appointed by the President by warrant under his/her hand.

Schooling the visually impaired in Sri lanka

DABAL Meeting

When Dr Hudson Silva began his eye donation campaign somewhere in the late 1950s, he “marketed” it as a means of achieving merit in this life, because an earlier campaign to get people to donate corneas had failed. So successful was this marketing tactic that the first batch of corneas he got exceeded by a considerable margin what he had expected. Dr Silva would later be appointed as the President of the International Eye Bank. Today there are monuments, institutions, and roads named after him. Is that enough to venerate him for what he did? I certainly hope so.   

2019-01-01 

The lesson that Dr Hudson taught us was this: those who donate expect something in return. That something may not always be financial, but it has to make the giver “feel good”. In a predominantly Buddhist country, where even non-Buddhists believe in acquiring kusal over akusal and where Buddhist terms are liberally appropriated and disseminated by the Christian clergy, it has become the norm to view those who are less abled as being worthy of pity. Sadly, however, that is not enough.   

Looking through reports, statistics, and interviews of various officials and experts in the field, I believe that we as Sri Lankans are not doing enough to help those who are in need of help. In particular, the blind and the deaf.   

Consider the plight of the blind. Around 1.7% of Sri Lankans are blind. That works out to about 364,000 people. The most common reason for this is cataract blindness, followed by diabetes and glaucoma. Among the biggest constraints that stand in the way of preventing blindness are inadequate human resources, information systems, and supplies of spectacles. Add to that the glaring problem of inter-regional disparities (13 government eye surgeons in Colombo, as opposed to one in Anuradhapura) and you see the gravity of this issue: when it comes to the blind, there’s no one to lead them. Especially with regard to blind children.   
Blind education in this country goes back to 1912 with the founding of the Ceylon School for the Deaf and Blind. Today, it is a registered charity with three institutions (two in Ratmalana and one in Jaffna), which provides education free of charge to a population of over 600 students. Though it receives a stipend from the government, it is not publicly owned or subsidised. Because of this, it faces financial constraints in the provision of facilities and has to raise Rs. 50 million annually on its own.   
The “bursary” that children in these and other blind schools receive is around Rs. 50 a day. What can anyone do with that amount of money? To give a comparable figure, a blind school student in the UK would get around £1,000 per annum, which works out to around £2.73 (or Rs. 817) per day. What with financial constraints and bottlenecks it probably is difficult to raise the bursary to such a level here. But then, if we aren’t concentrating on these disadvantaged youngsters, who will be?   
We are a nation of givers, we are told. Doesn’t mean we can’t give more. In that sense there are individuals, groups, organisations, and foundations that have done and are doing more, much more, than the government will. Among those foundations, many are run as exercises in Corporate Social Responsibility. Such foundations do a great deal, but since they depend on corporate profitability they can’t be said to have done enough. There are other foundations, though. Among them, DABAL.   
DABAL stands for Deaf and Blind Aid Lanka. Established in 2004, it resorts to new and innovative ways of getting donations that go beyond just corporate funding. It has so far been able to support 16 blind schools in the country, a lot considering the severe financial constraints it has had to put up with at a time of austerity in Britain. DABAL, however, does not as yet have a branch in Sri Lanka, though it has targeted that most marginalised kind of educational institutions, the rural school. It’s “small” in the sense that corporate social responsibility projects are “big”, but the way I see it, it has done more, much more than what those projects can ever achieve.   

Consider the plight of the blind. Around 1.7% of Sri Lankans are blind. That works out to about 364,000 people

Deaf and Blind Aid Lanka has a patron. Not just a patron, but a guiding figure. I met him three months ago. His name, Colin Low. Baron Low of Dalston. 

 
Colin Low currently sits in as an MP in the House of Commons. When he entered the House in 2004 (the same year DABAL was founded), he was considered as the first blind person to sit there, though as he pointed out, “that honour is not quite singular.” Born in 1942 (“halfway through the War”) in Edinburgh, he was left fatherless at the age of two and had to struggle hard to obtain a proper education. Initially educated in Scotland, he left for Oxford in 1961 and to Cambridge in 1965, becoming a lecturer in Law at Leeds University. Over his tenure (1968-1984), he would see Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, James Callaghan, and Margaret Thatcher; the campaign for disability rights would begin with Wilson and culminate with Thatcher’s successor, John Major, when in 1995 the Parliament passed the Disability Discrimination Act.   

Baron Low was at the forefront of disability rights in these heady years and decades. He was particularly concerned with rights for blind students, at a time when the notion of disability rights was limited to the Welfare State (“which was hardly enough”). The National Federation for the Blind, the Association for the Blind and Partially Blind, and the National Bureau for Handicapped Students were some of the organisations he was involved with. Tony Blair’s government, which succeeded John Major’s, finally recognised all these efforts when it gave “stronger teeth” to the 1995 Act through the Disability Rights Commission of 1999. In the meantime, Low would become Chairman of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in 2000. Six years later, he was approached by DABAL to be its patron. Which he became in 2007, and which he still is today.   

DABAL has visited Sri Lanka frequently, but Baron Low was able to visit it only this year. When I met him a day or two before his departure, he told me that the interest shown by teachers and staff members at the blind schools he had visited (five in total, including the Ratmalana School and also schools in Kandy, Kandalama, Galle, and Matara) was incongruent with the funding that they desperately needed. At one level, it had to do with the attitude of the government towards their maintenance: “These are schools that are in part at least patronised by the State, but to what extent? It seems to me that the State takes responsibility for them only as far as appointment of teachers and principals is concerned. Beyond that, it doesn’t appear to be bothered.”   

There’s another problem. Since 2010, it has become a norm for parents to send blind students to normal schools. These include public as well as private schools. But is the quality of education given to them enough? Baron Low told us that doesn’t seem to be the case, “because what happens more often than not is that disabled children, who are blind, deaf, dyslexic, or ‘mentally retarded’ as some like to term it, are holed up in one classroom with indifferent teachers who frankly don’t know how to respond to each in kind.” As an example, he pointed out the case of a school which refused the services of a sign language interpreter that a student had badly wanted.   

This, of course, is in keeping with how our culture likes to pile the differently-abled in one basket, treating them not as different, but as separate. It’s discrimination tinged with pity and condescension, an attitude hardly endemic to our culture but certainly symptomatic of a society which marginalises the different on the basis that they probably committed a sin in his or her past life.   

We are a nation of givers, we are told. Doesn’t mean we can’t give more

Baron Low, as he himself told me, enjoyed Sri Lanka. “I’ve visited the subcontinent several times, but never here.” He would have “felt” the usual images associated with this country: the coconut trees, the tropical climate, the sun-baked coastlines, and of course the candid ever smiling people. Such optimism, however, barely if at all masks the glaring shortcomings of our education system for the differently-abled. The truth is that the system, like the schools in it, is (as he put it) in “a basic state of repair.”   

He could have said that of many other things in the country. But for the purpose of this article and timely issue, it sums up the reality quite well. The major role for the amelioration of these problems, he put it before wrapping up our interview, “must come from the State.” Private charity will thus never be enough, “because they are determined by the whims of individuals, not the needs of society.”   

Will our government respond to DABAL and Baron Low? Will it take stock of what’s ailing the system and go beyond philanthropy? That, of course, remains to be seen.   

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM     

2018: A Recap

Featured image by Amalini De Sayrah

12/31/2018

2018 saw ethno-nationalism, the role of technology in moderating hate speech and freedom of expression and the impact of foreign debt, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative remain key topics in global discourse. It also saw a growing movement of women speaking out about workplace harassment and sexual assault, through the #MeToo hashtag. Though many questioned the effectiveness of the movement, there was no denying its power.

All of these conversations impacted Sri Lanka in one form or another over the course of the year. In February and March, a series of violent riots in Ampara and Digana left a lasting impacton the Muslim community. In the aftermath of the riots, civil society wrote an open letter to Facebook highlighting the spread of hate speech, including of technology-related violence against women and the LGBTIQ community on its platform. Facebook responded to the open letter, and has made commitments towards improving its response to hate speech and misinformation. A New York Times story on the Hambantota Port increased scrutiny on China’s role in development, including in Sri Lanka.

In 2018, Groundviews continued conversations begun the previous year on the explosion of the #MeToo movement, examining the pervasive nature of sexual violence in Sri Lanka, including around workplace harassment in the private and public sector. 

2018 marked a number of important events in Sri Lankan history, including 35 years since the Black July riots, 70 years since Sri Lanka’s Independence, and one year of protests by families of the disappeared and those displaced through militarisation.

In October, the surprise resignation of President Sirisena from the coalition Government in what has been widely termed a “constitutional coup” left shockwaves that endure beyond the re-instatement of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister.

Through these myriad events, Groundviews attempted to be a trusted source in times of crisis, to combat misinformation and disinformation, and generate conversation on topics largely underreported in mainstream media.

Below is a list of our top 20 articles for the year.

1. An Open Letter to Maithripala Sirisena – Documenting an act of civilian resistance that struck a chord with many
2. The Beast Rides Again – On the violence in Ampara and Teldeniya and ongoing cycles of violence
3. STF Brutality against Muslims in Digana: March 5 – Report based on eyewitness accounts of STF brutality during riots in Digana
4. Sri Lanka’s Pandemic of Sexual Violence – On Sri Lanka’s pervasive culture of sexual violence
5. Deranged – On the chaos ensuing the constitutional crisis on October 26, a time of ‘systemic unraveling’
6. Namal Rajapaksa, bots and trolls: New contours of digital propaganda and online discourse in Sri Lanka – On the weaponisation of social media by political figures in Sri Lanka
7. Sex and gender in the anti-Muslim riots – On sexual and gendered dimensions of the riots in Digana and Ampara
8. Smart Phones and Stupid Governments: Blocking Social Media as Sri Lanka Burns – On freedom of expression and censorship of social media platforms during riots in Digana in March
9. Money Talks: Some Facts About the Depreciation of the Sri Lankan Rupee – Debunking myths in the wake of reporting around currency depreciation
10. From an Electoral Drubbing to a Manufactured Crisis – In the wake of steep losses by the coalition government at the local government elections, reflection on growing dissastisfaction with the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government for failing to deliver on campaign promises
11. Reigning In The Executive President – On the attack of democratic institutions by a runaway executive, and the need to limit the powers of Presidency
12. Facebook Responds to Open Letter by Civil Society – Facebook’s response to an open letter issued by Sri Lankan civil society organisations on the spread of hate speech on its platform
13. The Government has failed us. Do we fail ourselves? – On the then impending local government elections and President Sirisena seeking a Supreme Court ruling on his Presidential term
14. The Coup de Grace on the Coup d’etat? – On the failed coup attempt by President Sirisena and former President Rajapaksa and the need to work together for a political compromise
15. The Parliament Fair – Satirical poem on the violence unleashed on Speaker of the House of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya
16. Mental Health and Stigma in Sri Lanka – On the stigma against receiving treatment for mental health in Sri Lanka
17. What, to the minority, is democracy? – On enduring racism in Sri Lankan postcolonial politics
18. RTI Reveals Lanka E News Blocked on Order from the President’s Office – Article using the Right to Information which finds that Lanka E News was blocked by the President’s office, with implications for freedom of expression
19. The Multiculturalism of Sinhala Song: A Review of Sons and Fathers – Movie review examining the multiculturalism of Sinhala music, juxtaposed with identity politics in Sri Lanka
20. The Fall of the No-Confidence Motion Against the Prime Minister – A piece looking at the failed no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and the weakened position of the Government ‘in office but not in power.’

Want to see what people were talking about on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? View a short video below:

Groundviews wishes its readers a happy and peaceful new year.

Man is born free but corrupt political system has chained us without any mercy (Part 1)

The country has been captured by a strong group of paranoid political elites belonging to all parties. They have amassed excessive wealth and resources illegally having defrauded public funds running into millions, billions and trillions

– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Monday, 31 December 2018

Why do we want to change the present political system?

Our representative democracy and bureaucratic organisations need vast changes. Both are suffering from increasing deficiencies and legitimacy too. It looks as if we are close to being a ‘failed state’. The country therefore is facing enormous complexities including major governance issues. It is all because the country has been captured by a strong group of paranoid political elites belonging to all parties. They have amassed excessive wealth and resources illegally having defrauded public funds running into millions, billions and trillions.

Such ill-gotten monies are being used unethically and hungrily to defend and prevent any rival elites with good leadership qualities, taking over governance. The prescription essentially involves insulating institutions from corrupt politicos and strengthening democratic practices and forces. In Aristotelian terms, I quote – “the good leader must have ethos, pathos and logos. The ethos is his moral character, the source of his ability to persuade. The pathos is his ability to touch feelings, to move people emotionally. The logos is his ability to give solid reasons for an action, to move people intellectually”.

Our rulers do not take accountability for the wrongful fraudulent acts they had committed such as criminal, civil or administrative. Perpetrators had finally escaped arrest, prosecution, trial and suitable punishments for wrongdoing in terms of the law.  An effective anti-fraud strategy which consists of four main components – (a) prevention (b) detection (c) deterrence and (d) response – has also not been introduced to date. Perpetrators are confident that they will not be caught since the prevention controls are seriously lacking in our country. ‘Politics’ is therefore the most lucrative business if you need to be superficially rich within a short period in our country.

In my view, the malaise is all due to the political culture and fragile foundations. It is awfully distressing to understand how one of the oldest democracies in the world has been totally destroyed, including the rule of law. We are therefore unable to govern the governors. As such, we are subject to free rein which is arbitrary, capricious and brutal. They do not promote rule of law after having pledged to the constituents and having got a mandate for the purpose. They act in subtle ways doing everything possible to unplug the concept of rule of law to achieve their self-seeking agenda

We have experienced that almost all the elected representatives invest millions and billions to get elected to representative institutions, including Parliament. It is because they want power by fair means or foul. The concern is that the system is dominated by organised and powerful people who do not want to adopt methods to deal with the problem of fraud, restrict opportunity, and limit the ability for potential fraudsters to commit deliberate acts of fraud.
They also do not introduce deterrent techniques, policies, procedures and controls, and activities such as training and fraud awareness to stop fraud from occurring. According to the KPMG survey carried out sometime back, a majority of public sector institutions have not recovered their stolen assets. It has been found that it is preferable to try to prevent loss from occurring in the first place. The old adage ‘prevention is better than cure’ certainly applies to fraud as well.

Professor Ian Robertson had also stated that: “The longer the politicians are in power they are more likely to abuse it.” I quote: “The artefacts around democracy were invented – such as judiciary, and a free press – because it was observed that leaders often went off the rails and above the law, seeing themselves as special once they gain power.” In Sri Lanka too, we have seen politicians who have gone off the track very long for decades. Cases that had been detected have not been duly investigated. The perpetrators do not take the law seriously. They commit such crimes audaciously, without batting an eyelid, one after the other.

All of them lack moral integrity which is the most valuable and respected quality of good leaders. Impunity therefore was a creation of all those corrupt politicos who held power since 1970s. Robertson who is a Professor of Psychology, Trinity College, Dublin had studied political figures and in his research he had found and I quote: “Power can go to some people’s heads and change the way their brain functions – their personality changes, they have a loss of empathy, they are more narcissistic – and are increasingly of the opinion that without them, everything will fall apart.”

In Sri Lanka too, as Professor Robertson says, power has gone to their heads. He has added that the longer they are in power, they are more likely to abuse it. They have thereby failed to understand public sentiment, I quote: “With public sentiment nothing can fail: without it, nothing can succeed.  Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who can enact statutes or pronounces decisions” – Abraham Lincoln.

Constitutional experts believe that one of the greatest contributions of the United States Constitution, and perhaps, the most influential section of the US Constitution is its preamble.
Let me therefore draw your attention to the preamble of our Constitution, I quote: “The people of Sri Lanka… and having solemnly resolved by the grant of such mandate and the confidence reposed in their said representatives who were elected by an overwhelming majority, to constitute Sri Lanka into a Democratic Socialist Republic whilst ratifying the immutable republican principles of Representative Democracy and assuring to all people’s freedom, equality, justice, fundamental human rights and the independence of the judiciary as the intangible heritage that guarantees the dignity and wellbeing of succeeding generations of the people of Sri Lanka and of all the people of the world, who come to share with generations the effort of working for the creation and preservation of a just and free society.
“We, the freely elected representatives of the people of Sri Lanka, in pursuance of such mandate, humbly acknowledging our obligations to our people and gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain and preserve their rights and privileges so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, just social, economic, cultural order attained, the unity of the country restored, and concord established with other nations, do hereby adopt and enact this Constitution as the supreme law of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.”

Preambles, the world over, often outline a country’s fundamental goals. The preamble to the Constitution of Japan emphatically states that they are peace-loving, I quote: “Never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war… desire peace for all the time.” Preambles therefore contain statements about the constitutional philosophy, future aspirations, commitment to resolve disputes by peaceful means and many more. 

Our leaders since the 1970s have been unethical. It is heartening that the Supreme Court had however ruled unanimously that President Maithripala Sirisena’s order to dissolve Parliament and hold Parliamentary Elections is unconstitutional. This is a historic unparalleled judgement. It is the first time in Sri Lanka that an act, purported to be a constitutional prerogative, has been quashed, by the Supreme Court. It is primarily because the 19th Amendment paved the way for removal of full immunity of an incumbent President.

It is also alleged that Jayampathy Wickramaratne had crafted the relevant Amendment, I quote: “With the support from Ranil’s office, without the involvement of other political parties” – Dr. Rajiva Wijesinha. It proved that Ranil Wickremesinghe succeeded in amending the Constitution to fulfil his needs, perhaps only because he was well aware that he is not electable if he contests for Presidential Elections.

Why is that RW and Jayampathy did not take steps to suitably amend the electoral system and the need to reduce the composition of Parliament almost by half which are the root causes of all these problems?

Under the present preferential system, all candidates spend millions to get elected from the district. They are fully aware that the people had to carry a huge burden having devolved powers to provincial councils under the 13th Amendment. Due to all these, poverty is increasing and 42% of the population live below the poverty line. It could be predicted that this situation will become even worse.

Their priority should have been to replace a top heavy government and avoid political misadventures by addressing the burning issues, i.e. (1) to reform the public sector overall to achieve all sustainable goals, (2) to identify necessary economic reforms to strengthen the economy (3) to increase employment opportunities, (4) to minimise rising inequalities, (5) to address burning issues such as rising cost of living, and (6) to introduce ways and means to minimise corruption, abuse of power, waste, etc.

In my view, the malaise is all due to the political culture and fragile foundations. It is awfully distressing to understand how one of the oldest democracies in the world has been totally destroyed, including the rule of law. We are therefore unable to govern the governors. As such, we are subject to free rein which is arbitrary, capricious and brutal. They do not promote rule of law after having pledged to the constituents and having got a mandate for the purpose. They act in subtle ways doing everything possible to unplug the concept of rule of law to achieve their self-seeking agenda.

We had plenty of elected representatives and public servants in the early ’70s who always respected the Constitution, all formal laws, unwritten rules and norms. They disliked the abuses of power. They ensured that they served the country for the public good and not for personal financial benefit or gain. They protected the citizens from arbitrary and unfair government action. At present, without such public officers, the entire government machinery has now become a chaotic garb. 

It is sad that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had forwarded a list of names exceeding the Constitutional restriction that the Cabinet should not exceed 30 under any circumstances. I quote: Article 46 (1); “The total number of ministers shall not exceed 30” and (b); “Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 40. It is pertinent to mention that all those State Ministers were introduced during the Premadasa rein. It was no doubt a violation of the Constitution since there was no such category or provision in the Constitution at that time.

The authorities have now craftily introduced two categories i.e. ministers who are not in the Cabinet (now known as State Ministers) and Deputy Ministers, when in fact both categories are naturally holding ministerial posts who are not members of the Cabinet Minister. All what they want is to give constitutionality to accommodate greedy politicos. Dr. Harsha de Silva who is now a State Minister said that there is hardly any difference between a Cabinet Minister and a so-called State Minister.

Furthermore, it is frightening that RW has included the names of several politicians as Cabinet Ministers, who have been utterly corrupt and accused of serious corruption issues. Ravi Karunanayake, as we are aware, was one minister who had been compelled to resign over numerous allegations. He too had been reappointed once again without taking legal action against him.

In short, time and time again a number of them in the present Cabinet have committed frauds and have abused their positions for personal gain. They have been reissued with another licence to commit further frauds and financial crimes. They therefore show no interest at all to establish rule of law and good governance, except for a rhetorical comment in that regard.

Owing to these problems, there is destructive and counterproductive conduct, theft, fraud, sabotage, anger, frustration, despondency, pessimism and aggression. In addition, how did political tribalism come about in Sri Lanka? It began, in my view, several decades ago when S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike broke away from the UNP camp and formed the SLFP with a view to promote his own vision. SWRD was a leader who was subsequently assassinated by the very same forces.

J.R. Jayewardene, during his election campaign in 1977, appealed to the nation. I quote: “Give me 120 good men and I assure you we will fulfil our pledges… if we fail you, you are at perfect liberty to vote us out anytime”. The people trusted the then UNP leadership and overwhelmingly voted and elected the UNP regime with an unprecedented mandate of 139 seats in a 168-member Parliament and gave not only a two-thirds, but a five-sixth’s majority as well which was the finest ever victory ever secured by any party since independence.

JRJ used the mandate he received to enact the law and called himself the first ‘elected’ president without being elected to the post. JRJ had stated: “Such an executive is a strong executive, seated in power for a fixed number of years, not subject to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature, not afraid to take correct but unpopular decisions because of censure from its parliamentary party.  This seems to me a very necessary requirement in a developing country faced with grave problems such as we are faced today”.

Steps had been taken accordingly to transform the system of governance from a Westminster style parliamentary system to an executive presidential system which had finally paved the way for a weak Parliament. Under the previous Constitutions (Soulbury 1947/Republican 1972), the Executive had been made answerable and accountable to the Parliament which JRJ had wanted changed. A brand new Constitution was thereafter enacted once again to consolidate the presidential system in 1978. The Executive President was deceptively made answerable to the Parliament constitutionally which realistically never happens to date. An impeachment procedure too had been introduced to remove the President.

Dr. N.M. Perera had argued that the “impeachment procedure was a near impossibility in practice”. Hence, crafting a strategy for ending lawlessness and establishing rule of law is a herculean task.