Monday, January 7, 2019

Feast of the Epiphany Manifestation of God’s Wisdom to the Wise Men

There is no doubt that our present society is a generation of seekers. The fields of research have multiplied

The wise men are a model of humility in the face of the search for Truth

2019-01-05

The proclamation taken from St Matthew’s Gospel (2 Vs:1-12) describes the journey of the Gentile astrologers or wise men as they are commonly known, who while on their way to see what the star foretold break journey at the court of King Herod and make known to him the reason for their undertaking this journey, who having seen the rising of the star of redemption had obediently followed it well assured of the fact that it would lead them to the place where they could see the new born King and pay him homage. Through an unusual star among the customary constellations, God sent a message to them that evoked in them a curiosity to pursue this message which made them sit up and ponder the grandeur of the birth of this King of the Jews while all Israel had been dull in paying heed to the word of God and blind in heart to such revelations and deaf to the prophetic pronouncements, wishing not to be disturbed in their pursuance of their favourite pastime of craving after worldly power and pleasures of the flesh. On entering the court of King Herod the wise men questioned Herod “Where is the Child who is born King of the Jews”? A question to which he could not provide a suitable answer and so he turns to the chief priests and scribes to learn that the Scriptures had foretold of such an event and that the Christ “would be born in Bethlehem of Judea”.

As related in the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph the foster father of Jesus was also warned in a dream by an angel, who told him to take Mary and their son and flee to Egypt, to escape Herod who had made plans to destroy the infant

This caused great consternation and even fright in Herod and in all Jerusalem as he did not envisage anyone could be mightier than himself to arise and be a challenger to the throne that was occupied by him. He tried to trick the wise men into revealing the child’s location in Bethlehem on their way home, but they were warned in a dream to avoid going back to Herod, so they returned to their countries by another route. With this new insight from scripture the wise men continued to follow the familiar sign of the star until it positioned itself in front of the place where the child was. As their gaze comes to rest upon the child with his mother Mary, they fall on their knees and give him homage. The gifts they offered were not to a mere infant whose destiny was to be an earthly king but to the one whom in their humble wisdom they perceived to be one who was God, whose Kingdom was not of this world.

As related in the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph the foster father of Jesus was also warned in a dream by an angel, who told him to take Mary and their son and flee to Egypt, to escape Herod who had made plans to destroy the infant. When Herod learned that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he became furious, ordering the slaughter of all the boys who were two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity.

The feast of the Epiphany is celebrated in the Christmas season and through Matthew’s Gospel we become aware of the visit of the wise men or Magi who went in search of the Christ child so that they might present their gifts

Joseph did not return to Israel until Herod had died. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus reported that Herod the Great died of a painful and debilitating disease that caused breathing problems, convulsions, rotting of his body, which was consumed by worms. Herod reigned 37 years. His kingdom was divided by the Romans among his three sons. One of them, Herod Antipas, was one of the conspirators in the trial and execution of Jesus.

Two Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled because of the wickedness of King Herod the Great. When Herod ordered the murder of all babies two years and younger in Bethlehem, it fulfilled Jeremiah31:15: “This is what the Lord says: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.’” Joseph took Mary and Jesus and fled to Egypt because of this threat. After Herod died, they returned, fulfilling Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”

The feast of the Epiphany is celebrated in the Christmas season and through Matthew’s Gospel we become aware of the visit of the wise men or Magi who went in search of the Christ child so that they might present their gifts. In the Christmas season what might the wonders of the Epiphany event be in our lives? What can we learn from the details of the journey of the wise men, the guidance they sought, the questions they asked, the gifts they brought to Christ and finally the decision they made to return to their home country by a different route?

The gifts that the Magi present to the Christ child have also received the interpretation of tradition

The identity of the Magi begins with the fact that they come from the East. It is not clear if they are from one location in the Orient or from several. We also see from scripture that we do not know exactly how many there were. This is where tradition begins to take over from scripture and we see them depicted as being three in number, coinciding with the gifts which they brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. They are also traditionally pictured as being black, white and brown in representation of all the peoples of the earth.

The reference to their being wise is also assumed to mean that they were astrologers and thus familiar with searching the stars of the heavens for meaning and direction in life. This also suggests that they were themselves pagan and unbelievers in the mysteries of God. Other traditions also referred to them as the “Three Kings” who were coming to give homage to the “infant King of the Jews”. “In St.Matthew’s Magi story religious and philosophical wisdom is obviously an incentive to set off in the right direction, it is the wisdom that ultimately leads people to Christ. In another way they are the successors of Socrates and immersed in his habit of questioning above and beyond conventional religion towards the higher truth. In this sense these figures are forerunners, preparers of the way, seekers after truth, such as we find in every age”- Infancy Narratives by Pope
Benedict XVI.

The word “Epiphany” and these events recorded in Matthew’s Gospel have come to mean a manifestation or a showing forth of the Christ-child to the nations. It reveals how God enlightens the hearts of all people and how he helps them to discover his revelation, to search out this Truth and to be faithful to it. The journey of the wise men begins as a search for Truth embodying the eternal Wisdom of God,through the simple observation of nature. The use of our human reason in the search for Truth continually poses questions about the origins of life, the universe, the nature of the human person and the search for God or ultimate meaning. In many ways it is the journey of humanity in all of the ages.

There is no doubt that our present society is a generation of seekers. The fields of research have multiplied. Through technology the modes of communication have become global in reach and the access to information made easy through the internet. It is an experience of tremendous power and control which seems transformative but which can leave us feeling empty and ultimately unfulfilled. The irony is that in the shadow of this experience of searching it seems that many parts of our world desire to do this without reference to God which inevitably leaves and empty space which only God could fill for which St. Augustine’s words gave fitting expression when he declared “Our hearts are made for Thee O God and they are restless until they rest in Thee”

The wise men are a model of humility in the face of the search for Truth. They seek the guidance of scripture and enter into dialogue with the chief priests and the scribes. It is this gift of faith and its insight into Truth which was essential for the wise men on their final leg of their journey. They did not abandon the star neither did the star abandon them, nor the use of their reason for it also directed them to Bethlehem. At the end of their searching the gift that they received was the gift of faith in God and this was acknowledged and symbolized by the act of falling on their knees before Christ.

The feast of the Epiphany offers us the opportunity to raise such questions and to see that the Church desires to enter into dialogue in the search for Truth. To show that faith and reason are not incompatible -- as John Paul II stated in Fides et Ratio -- but in searching to answer the questions of life they are necessary in our search for Truth; provided that it is done in this spirit of humility at the service of humanity. The challenge which we face today is that society is often beginning their search for Truth from secular origins without any reference to God. It is important for the Church to search out the signs of Christian faith in our society and to point to these, so that people can begin their journey as the Magi did with God as the point of reference.

It can be much easier for us to critique society and to point out the weaknesses. of its lack of foundation on the Christian tradition rather than being a Church that is open to the questions that are posed and to offer ourselves as guide. This is very important for our young people and their search for truth. It might be important that we see in this present generation of young people not only seekers of information, or surfers on the web, but a generation of Magi who are seeking God who is ultimately the Perfect Wisdom.

The gifts that the Magi present to the Christ child have also received the interpretation of tradition. St. Leo refers to them as symbolic gifts which bear witness to the Truth: incense for God, gold for the king, myrrh for the one who is to die. They point to the belief that the fullness of Truth is revealed in Jesus Christ. That he is the son of God, he proclaimed the fullness of God’s kingdom and that he was the Savior who was to die in order to redeem humanity from the bondage of sin.

In essence the gifts of the Magi are symbolic of their witness of faith and belief in God in their search for the Christ child. Their gift of faith is also witnessed in their act of worship. In falling to their knees, this not only becomes a sign of faith, but an active sign of worship and the demonstration of their faith. In our present day there is growing desire to search for a relationship with God and to express a spirituality which is personal, private and devoid of a communal expression. The Magi provide for us a reminder that our worship and belief in God is not simply a private matter but one which involves the whole of humanity in their worship as people of God, wherein we acknowledge God’s dominion over creation, through the act of giving of witness and of offering of our gifts to God which opens to us the way for a manifestation of God in others. God’s manifestation in the world is intended for the world as a whole including specifically the Gentile nations, who unlike the Jews had received no prophetic announcements but they were now the first to have arrived to pay homage to the perfect Wisdom of God.

Cuba: 60th Anniversary of Fidel’s Rule

by K Natwar Singh-Jan 6, 2019

This week, 60 years ago, Fidel Castro took over as the supreme leader of Cuba, an island in the West Indies. It was discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492.

He was a dedicated revolutionary from his early twenties. On being sentenced to jail (he employed no lawyer), Castro defended himself. His concluding statement in court in 1953 is now part of the history of the 20th century: “I know that the regime will try to supress the truth by all possible means. I know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my voice will not be stifled—it will rise from my breast even when I feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous cowards deny it… Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.”

During the course of my long, intrepid, chequered life I have met and seen at close quarters many world renowned leaders. Of these, only six I would call charismatic: Gandhi, Nehru, De Gaulle, Chou-en-Lai and Fidel Castro. I saw John Kennedy from close, to be bowled over by his exceptional charisma. I never exchanged a word with him.

To become an outstanding leader, charisma is an absolute necessity. One cannot acquire charisma. It is nature’s gift.

Dr Sander Van der Linder of Cambridge University writes, “…Charisma is elusive”, but adds that all charismatic individuals share, “attractiveness, temperament, voice, eye contact, they use verbal and non-verbal communication very well; and of course they have vision and communicate it powerfully…”

Back to Fidel Castro. I met him half a dozen times. My longest association with him was during the seventh NAM (Non Aligned Movement) Summit held in New Delhi in March 1983. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed me Secretary General. President Castro was Chairman of the sixth Summit, held in Havana. The seventh Summit was inaugurated on the morning of 7 March, President Castro was still Chairman. He was to hand over the NAM baton to Indira Gandhi in the afternoon. At the end of the morning session a totally unexpected crisis erupted. (I have written about this earlier, but the incident’s novelty does not diminish on retelling.) My deputy, Satti Lamba came to me in some alarm. He informed me that we had a serious problem on our hands. The PLO President Yasser Arafat had sent word that he was leaving Delhi in an hour’s time. He had been insulted in the morning session. He was asked to speak after the King of Jordan (whom he loathed). I immediately telephoned the PM, telling her of Arafat’s tantrum. I requested her to come to Vigyan Bhavan: “Please bring President Castro with you. He is still Chairman.” Both arrived within a few minutes. Castro sent for Arafat, who was in a sulk. “Are you Indira Gandhi’s friend?” asked Castro. Arafat: “Friend, friend? She is my sister.” Castro: “Then behave like a brother and attend the afternoon session.” It was all over in two minutes. The PLO President was conspicuously present at the afternoon session. Indira Gandhi was presiding.

During one of my visits to Havana, I asked President Castro: “Excellency, when did you first meet Prime Minister Nehru?” Here I relate the fascinating story.

In September 1960 was observed the 15th anniversary of the founding the United Nations. Any number of heads of state and government arrived in New York for the occasion—Jawaharlal Nehru, Tito, Naseer, Sockarno, Nkrumah, Khrushchev, Macmillan, Eisenhower and many more.

Fidel Castro also arrived. No hotel in New York would put him up. He called on UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, telling him that he must find accommodation for him and his delegation. If not, he would pitch a tent in the UN’s lawn.

Without waiting for Dag Hammarskjold’s answer, Castro decided to stay in a hotel in Harlem. Fidel Castro next told me that Nehru was the first world leader to come to Harlem to meet him. “I can never forget that. I was 34 years old, not well known, nervous. Nehru treated me like an equal. My self-confidence was immensely strengthened.”

President Fidel Castro addressed the UN General Assembly. If my memory serves me right, he spoke for four hours.

Contempt Of Justice: An Open Letter To Minister Of Justice Thalatha Atukorale

By K. Balendra –JANUARY 5, 2019

K. Balendra

The verdict given on the Fundamental Rights petition filed against the President has been hailed as Historic. Historic! Indeed, when compared with various other verdicts not given and given in the recent past and the time consumed to conclude the hearings.

Not only the Judgment is considered Historic, but, even the sacking of Prime Minister Ranil, installing Mahinda, (A lost case) as Prime Minister, two Prime Ministers functioning at the same time, ‘re-appointment’ of Ranil as the Prime Minister by the President, after shouting all over that he will never appoint Ranil as the Prime Minister, even if all the 225 MP’s demand it, the Speaker appointing a new opposition leader without removing the existing Leader, MP’s in parliament not allowing the speaker to take his chair, throwing chili powder in a so called ‘august assembly’ breaking the furniture in the Parliament, a former President of approximately 8 years of ‘standing,’ ‘creeping’ between the knees of the President who is supposed to have ‘betrayed’ and defeated him, demeaning himself to become the Prime Minister, failing in his attempt to fortify his position through the Supreme Court and finally making an all out effort to become the leader of the opposition, should not only be considered ‘Historic’ but should go down in our history books for the present/future generations to understand, as to how their fathers and forefathers conducted themselves and why they should not follow their footsteps.

While, no one will deny the fact the FR petition referred to is important for the welfare of the citizens of Sri Lanka, was this case really meant for the welfare of the ordinary citizens or to safeguard the pivotal positions held by the petitioners, as rulers. One cannot be satisfied that only the FR petitions filed against the government by ‘important’ individuals/organizations should be heard and disposed of in double quick time. Originally 3 judges and subsequently seven judges were involved in hearing this case, thus depriving the ordinary citizen’s cases being heard for some time, pending the availability of judges, who appear to be in short supply, unlike the ministers. The need to file FR petition arose simply because of the egoistic attitude of the President, coupled with Mahinda’s greed for power, (a kumanthiranayak) not for the welfare of the people, but to safeguard himself from possible repercussion of his activities, while in power previously. This was adequately amplified by the immediate transfer of the police officer deeply involved in investigating the crimes committed by the previous lawmakers, together with their kith and kin.

Notwithstanding the above sequence, who is to foot the bill for the (con) fusion caused between Srisena and Mahinda, which resulted in the FR petition?

It may be interesting to find out as to how many FR petitions are pending and how long and why?

Two of us are struggling to get the verdict of a FR petition, hearing of which commenced on or about June 2011 and concluded in June 2016. However the verdict has not been delivered even after 2-1/2 years. A detail letter, with the sequence of events under the caption authored by me was published in Colombo Telegraph on 28th June 2018. But, up to date no response has been forthcoming from those concerned. Even previously, a few letters in this regard were published in the Sunday Times, with no results.

On a perusal of the press cuttings available with me, I note that almost all the newly appointed Judges, speak eloquently at their inaugural ceremonies, about the law’s delay and other shortcomings experienced by the litigants, with a promise to remedy it. But, efforts, if any, made by them, to arrest the delays seem to be unsuccessful as they seem to be ‘evading arrest.’ This may be probably, due to the non co-operation attitude, of the Judiciary, Police, Minor Law Enforcing Authorities and Lawyers, under whose cloak matters lye, unseen/unheard.

In an article which appeared in the Daily Mirror of24th.October 2016, under the caption ‘Truth behind law’s Delay,’ a state counsel who did not wish to be named said, “Lawyers should take 90% of the blame for the delays that occur in our courts. They drag the cases on mainly for two reasons; one being financial factor with their day’s fees increasing with the case being postponed and the fact that most lawyers do not come prepared for the cases in which they appear.”

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Why do we need further constitutional reform?

Part I

“Commander in chief of the army, navy and militia, with the power of making treaties and of granting pardons, and to be vested with an authority to put a negative upon all laws,... is in reality to be a KING” (An Old Whig, 1787)

Ravi Ratnasabapathy-Monday, January 7, 2019

Citizens of Sri Lanka would do well heed this warning to the framers of the US constitution.

The Sri Lankan Presidency was, until recently, a fixed executive, not dependent or answerable to parliament and not removable except for limited reasons. Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. With the power to appoint higher officials, Supreme Court judges, the Police Commissioner, Elections Commissioner it was, essentially an elected monarch.

Did Sri Lanka throw off the British crown only to replace it with local one barely half a century later?

In theory at least, the colonial administrators of Ceylon were answerable to a British Parliament. For all practical purposes, Sri Lanka’s presidency answered to no one.

The 19th amendment restored some independence to institutions but mere independence is insufficient. Their proper functioning is dependent on the attitudes and competencies of their members, a question that must be addressed. The 19A is also incomplete, to erase the legacy of decades of authoritarian rule and secure rights further reforms beyond the constitution are needed.

The problem is best understood if viewed from the perspective of what matters to citizens: individual freedom.

If we call ourselves “free”, how must individual freedoms to be protected and advanced?

The basic political question

The fundamental problem in political theory is two-fold: on one hand there is a need for an “enforcing agent” which will protect the individual from violations of his/her liberty; on the other hand is the problem of how to ensure that any “enforcing agent” does not in its turn become a violator of the very same liberty it was originally set up to protect.

The Roman poet Juvenal expressed it as “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?” [who will guard us from these guardians?].

The solution that eventually emerged is government which was:

a) accountable to the people,

b) strictly limited in its powers, and

c) a rule of law based upon notions of individual liberty and private property; both terms carrying specific meaning.

Individual liberty

Individual liberty, simply defined is freedom from coercion.

“Coercion occurs when one man’s actions are made to serve another man’s will, not for his own but for the other’s purpose.” (Hayek).

Coercion of a citizen: aggression, threats etc may arise from individuals, organisations (such as religious bodies) or the state.

“Free society has met this problem by conferring the monopoly of coercion on the state and by attempting to limit this power of the state to instances where it is required to prevent coercion by private persons” (Hayek).

This means the state is given the sole right to exercise coercion, but it must do so only to protect citizens from the coercion of others.

“Freedom is achieved by limiting some kinds of actions – coercive ones – in order to encourage other kinds of actions – non-coercive ones. The result is the increase of voluntary exchanges within the parameters of the law” (Lehto).

Property

Property is the difference between what is mine and what is yours.

In the classical liberal sense, it is the creation of a protected private sphere surrounded by limits that cannot be crossed without ethical transgression (Lehto). It is a person’s entire private domain, Locke considered property rights to consist of “life, liberty, and estate”.

Thus, you may not enter my house without my permission. Thus, you may not borrow my car without my permission. Thus, you may not violate my body (Lehto).

Property marks the limits of permitted action in a liberal society, the personal domain which should not be intruded into under any circumstances. “We may well detest other people’s religion, reject their political views, abhor their lifestyle, despise their manner and loath their habits. We may be shocked by their ideas and opinions. We may even worry that they are damaging their own health with drugs or their own prospects with their anti-social behaviour. But none of these are valid reasons for using force to try to make them act differently.”(Butler)

A regime of legally protected property rights, in the wide sense used here is a prerequisite for liberty: “the end of the law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom (Lehto).

PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT BLOCKS MOVE TO OBTAIN PM’S ASSET DECLARATION

06/01/2019

Following the decision by the Presidential Secretariat to go before the Court of Appeal against the declaration of assets and liabilities of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, which are filed at the President Secretariat, Transparency International (TI), the organisation which called for information under the Right-To-Information (RTI) Act, finds the new situation quite surprising, Executive Director of TI, Asoka Obeyesekere told the Sunday Observer yesterday.

Transparency International filed RTIs on February 3, 2017, calling for asset declarations of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for 2015 and 2016.

Later it was announced by the RTI Commission that there was a gap in the law to issue the asset declaration of the President while he is in office. However, the RTI Commission had ordered the Presidential Secretariat to release the assets declaration of the Prime Minister, in December last year.

“The RTI Commission’s ruling was historic. Now, the President’s office is seeking to block that. This is nothing but a clear example that many politicians are trying to protect one another without allowing public accountability on issues such as this,” Obeyesekere said.

TI received a letter a few days ago stating that the Presidential Secretariat was not willing to issue the assets declaration of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and hopes to appeal against the decision of the Right to Information Commission.

“We find this, really surprising because the President levelled some serious allegations against the Prime Minister in the final quarter of last year. When such allegations are levelled, especially regarding corruption, information must be in the public domain,” he said.

Meanwhile, TI plans to call on some other Parliamentarians to declare their assets voluntarily. “Based on the discussions we have had, we are hopeful that some Members of Parliament, who feel this sort of information should be in the public domain, will release their asset declarations themselves. I won’t name those people right now. But we may have a press conference in the near future with their participation,” Obeyesekere said.

Observer

Above Cartoon by Gihan de Chickera / Daily Mirror .

Maithri brings ‘operation Dayasiri’ to wither impending storm created by CBK

BY GAGANI WEERAKOON-02:00 AM JAN 06 2019

Praising the 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 on 26 December.

Speaker Jayasuriya said thus in reference to a landmark Judgment interpreting the powers of the Executive President to dissolve 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 Parliament and calling for a General Election, declaring it null and void, ab initio (from the outset), and sans any force and effect in law.

On and after 26 October, President Sirisena set in motion a political and Constitutional crisis after removing then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, appointing Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Premier, appointing Ministers (Cabinet, State and Deputy), proroguing the Parliament and subsequently dissolving it. In the wake of the dissolution, political parties, civil society organisations and citizens, among others, challenged the dissolution of the Parliament by the President stating that their fundamental rights had been infringed. Subsequently the Court delivered the aforementioned verdict.

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 in 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.

Even though, Jayasuriya saw a brightside to an embarrassing failed constitutional coup, the consequences keep on rippling with both, the SLFP and tghe UNP witnessing dissidents.

By last week it was revealed that a group of SLFPers, having had a discussion at the Northern Governor Reginold Cooray’s Colombo residence, on the lines of forming an alliance with the UNF Government. This move, widely believed to have been instigated and planned by former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, will enable the forming of a so-called National Government and thereby increase the number of Cabinet members.

However, President Maithripala Sirisena, coming to know about the plan, called for resignation letters from all the governors.
Western Province Governor Hemakumara Nanayakkara believed this was merely a reshuffle, yet in typical Sirisena style came a Friday political surprise.

New Governors appointed to five Provinces were sworn in before President Maithripala Sirisena at the Presidential Secretariat on Friday (4).
The new Governors were appointed to the Western, Central, North Central, North Western and Eastern Provinces respectively.

The Governors are: Azath Salley - Western Province, Satendra Maithri Gunaratne - Central Province, Sarath Ekanayake - North Central Province, Peshala Jayaratne Bandara - North Western Province and M.L.A.M. Hizbullah - Eastern Province.

This will also enable incumbent Chairman of the State Timber Corporation, Shantha Bandara to make his re-entry to Parliament by next week on the UPFA National List.

Bandara, who was widely accepted as confidantes of President Maithripala Sirisena, was made the Head of the SLFP Youth Wing following the 2015 Presidential Elections.

His re-entry to Parliament follows A.L.A.M. Hizbulla taking oaths before President Sirisena Friday morning (4) as Governor of the Eastern Province.

Dissidents

Around 20 Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) organizers have decided to step-down from their posts and form a separate group.
According to highly placed sources, the group that is planning to defect from mother party will identify themselves as ‘SLFP-Alternative Group’ and was slated to disclose their future political plans at a press briefing to be held at the Public Library Thursday (3).

The group has had several rounds of discussions with leaders of the United National Front (UNF) and would announce their future political actions this morning, including whether they would join the UNF.

Addressing a Media briefing Wednesday (2) morning, SLFP Kegalle District Organizer, Bandara Athukorala said many SLFP Organizers opposed the move of President Sirisena joining hands with Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his faction on 26 October. “But the President did not listen and acted as a dictator. Now this situation has become much more severe as the President does not even listen to the General Secretary of the Party,” he claimed.

“The people did not give the President a mandate to rule the country with Rajapaksa and his faction on 8 January 2015. But the President joined the same persons, the people rejected in 2015. The SLFP has core values which have been built on the Bandaranaike (a reference to Party Founder, late Premier S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike) principles. Now the President is taking the Party away from these principles and gradually destroying it,” he said.

Athukorala added, “Currently we are holding discussions with every faction of the SLFP. There are several Parliamentarians among them as well. We will continue holding discussions with them and announce our future plans. We want to save the Party from further damage. More than 30 electoral Organizers, 17 District Organizers and all SLFP youth organizers support our views on the matter.”

In the wake of several electoral organizers threatening to defect from the party, challenging President Sirisena’s Party leadership, the Central Committee of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which met Thursday night, unanimously decided to appoint former Minister and Kurunegala District Parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekara as Party’s General Secretary.

Jayasekara’s appointment follows the resignation tendered by former General Secretary Prof. Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa. Jayasekara resigned from the UNP and joined SLFP, during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s last tenure and contested under UPFA banner and became the Chief Minister of North Western Province.

Whether Jayasekara would be able to wither crises in the party and drive it towards victory at future elections is a matter to be solved in future. However, by last week it was clear that UPFA will join hands with the SLPP in contesting elections in the future.

Opposition Leader

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, reiterating that he recognises Kurunegala District Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Opposition Leader, has told Government rankers to go to Courts if they have any problem accepting his decision.

He had said so at the Party Leaders’ Meeting on Friday (4) at the Parliament complex. Speaker Jayasuriya also said that he recognises Parliamentarian Mahinda Amaraweera as the Chief Opposition Whip.
He had further stressed that this announcement, which was earlier made in Parliament, stands.

Further, the Speaker held that he expects the Leader of Opposition to assume office and to take over facilities he is entrusted with.
However, the Government side representatives, who participated at the meeting, opposed the Speaker’s stance. Ministers Rauff Hakeem, Mano Ganesan and Lakshman Kirielle have stressed that Parliamentary membership of Rajapaksa itself is questionable. “He has obtained membership in another party, out of the UPFA,” they had opined.
However, the Speaker was of the stand that he cannot decide on the Party membership of Rajapaksa or anyone else and that it should be decided by Court.

“However, the representatives from the Government side told the Speaker the decision should be taken by Parliament, therefore, the Speaker should have the final say, yet he was not willing to accept it,” sources said.

When asked from former Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan about his party’s stand on this decision, he said, “I’m not aware of any such decisions. I don’t think there was any formal discussion and that any decision was taken. The Speaker had made an announcement in Parliament saying that he recognizes Rajapaksa as the Leader of the Opposition because the UPFA had written to him and stated that they are second largest party in Parliament and they want their leader recognized as the Leader of the Opposition.”

He further said, subsequent to the objection made by some members and by himself, the Speaker responded he would give a ruling on this matter on a future date. “The Speaker had not given the ruling thus far. Parliament is due to sit on the 8 January. Whether he will give the ruling or not, I don’t know.”

“We accept the fact that the post of Leader of the Opposition should be, in normal circumstances, go to the second largest party in Parliament. Largest party is the Government and the second largest party should have the Leader of the Opposition. This is not a matter we are disputing,” he further added.

The second largest party in Parliament is in alliance with the Government, in some way and thereby disqualifying itself from becoming the official opposition, when the second largest party is entitled that position, he added.

Since September 2015, I was the leader of the second largest party in the Opposition. The first largest party in the Opposition and second largest party in Parliament, which is the UPFA was part of the Government. They are in alliance with the Government and hold Cabinet portfolios. The President, who is the leader of the UPFA, is the member of the Cabinet and he has several portfolios. They are collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament. A person from the same party cannot be the official Leader of the Opposition.

“The President is the head of Cabinet. He holds three portfolios, Defence, Mahaweli and Environment. He has now brought other subjects under him. He, being the head of the Cabinet in terms of the Constitution, is collectively, responsible and answerable to Parliament. As a member of the UPFA, who has joined the Government ranks, he is virtually a part of the Government. In those circumstances, though the UPFA has formed an alliance, he had pulled it out of the Government, but the UPFA still plays a role in the Government. In that situation, a member of the UPFA cannot be the official Leader of the Opposition.”

Further, Rajapaksa, after the dissolution of Parliament, publicly became a member of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna. There were pictures in newspapers which proved that he joined the new party. How far that is correct I don’t know. But there were pictures in the paper that he joined the Podujana Peramuna. If a person obtains membership of another political party, on the expiration of 30 days, that person loses his membership of Parliament. This is a constitutional provision.
A person who resigns or who is expelled from the party on whose ticket he was elected to Parliament, on the expiration of 30 days, completely loses his or her parliamentary membership. In order to join the Podujana Peramuna, Rajapaksa left the UPFA and on the expiration of 30 days he loses his membership in Parliament and a person who is not a member of parliament cannot be Leader of the Opposition, he added.

“These are matters to be answered and we are awaiting those answers. Principles that are in the Constitution cannot be violated and kept under the carpet,” he added.

Sri Lanka: Way to change the Arbitrariness

by Rajan Philips-Jan 6, 2019

There is redundancy in the 2019 air. Impeach, censure or force his resignation – all targeting Maithripala Sirisena for his rampant violations of the constitution in 2018. He deserves any and all of them. The question is whether he is worth the effort and energy that any one of them will involve. Impeaching him or forcing his resignation will only remove the man but will leave in place the institution of executive presidency that became Sirisena’s wrecking wrench. It would be more worthwhile to spend time in radically reforming the executive presidency than waste time getting rid of Maithripala Sirisena who will be gone in one year anyway. Keeping it simple, leave Sirisena severely alone and keep targeting the executive presidency.

Targeting the man may prove to be divisive in parliament, and even within the government given the furtive connections between the President and senior UNP higher-ups such as Sajith Premadasa and Ravi Karunanayake. That would mean difficulty in getting the requisite parliamentary majority to either impeach or to effectively censure the incumbent president. Targeting the office or the institution, on the other hand will find broader support in parliament, and within the government, which would also be an essential asset in a referendum that will be required to implement significant changes to the current system of executive presidency. Even Maithripala Sirisena cannot oppose the ‘abolishing’ of the executive presidency because he campaigned for it before becoming President and assured the country soon after his January 2015 victory that he would be Sri Lanka’s last Executive President.

The Speaker’s spark

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya is the most recent public figure to target the executive presidency. Going by reported statements, Mr. Jayasuriya is apparently on to a New Year resolution – to devote 2019 to abolishing the Executive Presidency (EP). That might just be the spark to reignite the old fires of the abolishment campaign. Karu Jayasuriya’s commitment to abolish the EP could be a constitutional game changer for a number of reasons. He has committed himself to carry forward the single-issue mission of the late, lamented and revered Sobitha Thero. With his new stature as Speaker who stood up for the rights of parliament against the Sirisena-Rajapaksa machinations, Mr. Jayasuriya is now eminently qualified to carry the secular mantle of Sobitha Thero. Second, he is committed to a firm deadline – the end of the current first term of Maithripala Sirsisena’s presidency. Such a commitment is worlds superior to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s open-ended promises that have become predictably vacuous and invariably tiresome.

Also, Karu Jayasuriya (KJ) is a much better champion for the abolishment cause than the JVP could ever be, although the JVP’s 20th Amendment Bill will provide a very convenient starting point to KJ’s new initiative. Last but not least, the Speaker’s initiative has no political self-interest in it. It gives the lie to the vicious and mischievous campaign during the October-November parliamentary standoff that Jayasuriya was using the standoff to position himself as a presidential candidate in the next presidential election. On the contrary, it is fair to suggest that the real motivation for the Speaker’s new determination to abolish EP is the result of his total frustration in dealing with a person like Maithripala Sirisena wielding and exceeding the powers of the presidency.

While the term ‘abolish’ has gained irreversible currency in the politics of the executive presidency, it needs to be understood that the presidency cannot be eradicated root and branch, nor can there be a return to the Head of State arrangement under the 1972 Constitution of the First Republic. The institution of the presidency must be found a constitutional location between the ‘figure-head’ status in the First Republic and the omnipotent status granted by the current (1978) Constitution of the Second Republic. The 19th Amendment has trimmed away quite a chunk of the powers of the executive presidency but there are still areas that need to be addressed, especially the business of having the Head of State elected directly by the people.

The JVP’s 20th Amendment draft Bill has found such a midway location while dispensing with the requirement for the Head of State to be elected by the people. Moving forward, there need not be any worry about making a case against the executive presidency, and the focus should be on how to get the job done starting with the JVP’s 20A draft bill. An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory, as the old saying goes, and the country has had more than a ton of abominable constitutional experience with Maithripala Sirisena. Far more than what any argument can do, President Sirisena has shown by his actions of the past two months and more that it is time to end the executive presidency in its current form.

Getting it done

Getting it done already faces its own family of redundancies. Besides Speaker Jayasuriya’s New Year resolution and the JVP’s 20A Bill, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe after his reinstatement has floated the trial balloon for a new political alliance – the Democratic National Alliance, as a vehicle for constitutional change, and canvass for a two-thirds majority win in the next parliamentary elections. So far there have been no takers for it, and both the TNA and the JVP, the main parliamentary allies of the PM and the UNP, have rejected it. The TNA and the JVP have their own seemingly separate constitutional agendas.

The PM’s ‘alliance approach’ also raises a timeline question. Is the Prime Minister planning to make constitutional reform an election issue and leave it to the next parliament to deal with it? If that is so, what is the purpose in resurrecting the hitherto dormant ‘Constitutional Assembly’ to suddenly receive the draft of the new constitution prepared by the Steering Committee headed by the Prime Minister? The government’s on-again-off-again constitutional reform process is now suddenly ‘on again’ and apparently ready to fire on all cylinders.

According to TNA Parliamentarian MA Sumanthiran, the draft constitution was expected to be presented on December 7, but was delayed by Sirisena’s October-November antics and is now expected to be presented on February 4. But subsequent news reports have quoted “top government sources” indicating the draft constitution will be presented next week, much sooner than February 4, to the Constitutional Assembly chaired by Speaker Jayasuriya.

Regardless of the conflicting dates, it would seem a draft constitution is now in some shape for consideration and potential adoption by the Constitutional Assembly of MPs. What will happen from here on? What are the relative statuses of the anticipated draft and the JVP’s 20th Amendment Bill that has already gazetted and previewed by the Supreme Court? It is reported that the new draft will include provisions for “abolishing the Executive Presidency, and increasing the powers of parliament and provincial councils.” That would mean the JVP’s 20th Amendment will be effectively superseded by the new draft which will have to go through the amending process starting with the Supreme Court preview.

Where will Speaker Jayasuriya’s initiative to abolish the executive presidency fit in with the new draft constitution and its adoption? From what I have seen, Mr. Jayasuriya’s commitment to end the executive presidency made no reference to either the JVP’s 20th Amendment, or the new draft constitution that is to be presented to the Constitutional Assembly that is chaired by him. One would think that the Speaker is not planning on starting a new drafting initiative on his own, but one cannot be but mystified by the lack of co-ordination between the different initiatives on the constitution, and between those who are championing these initiatives.

It is also fair to ask as to where the Prime Minister and the government stand on the project of constitutional reform. What will be the scope of the proposed reform? Will it be broadly acceptable to secure two-thirds majority support in parliament? When is it going to be done – during the remaining time of the present government, or after the next parliamentary elections? Speaker Jayasuriya’s suggestion to have the EP removed at the same time as Sirisena’s current presidential term comes to its end is a very sensible timeline and one that will garner much larger support in parliament across party lines than any move to force his resignation or have him impeached.

In other words, removing or abolishing the EP must be completed during the course of the year 2019. One year is long enough to have a constitutional amendment to that effect passed in parliament and ratified in a referendum. But to be successful, it must be done this year and should be done along with the changes to the proportional and preferential voting system that has wreaked havoc on the country’s electoral politics. That must be the only constitutional agenda for 2019 and the Prime Minister Wickremesinghe must co-champion this initiative along with the Speaker, and quickly decide on the scope and content of the amending bill based on the JVP’s 20th Amendment Bill.

A narrowly focused amendment to change the executive presidency issue has a greater chance of securing two-thirds majority support in parliament in the current context, than a broadly scoped constitutional amendment. Among the current parliamentarians and party leaders – hardly anyone is going to be negatively impacted by reforming the executive presidency and removing direct presidential elections. Quite a few of them, especially Mahinda Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe given their current circumstances, will stand to benefit from it. It should not be too difficult, therefore, to build a substantial consensus in parliament in support of reforming the executive presidency. A substantial consensus – say 75% or 170 of the MPs (that is more than two-thirds support), is imperative to have success in the referendum.

Appointments Of Governors Raise Serious Concerns Over Sirisena’s Plans For Elections

JANUARY 5, 2019

The appointment of five new Governors have raised disturbing questions over President Maithripala Sirisena’s commitment to holding free and fair elections as all newly-appointed Governors have strong political involvements in the provinces to which they have been appointed.

Sirisena

The tradition – the unwritten rule – is that the Governor is from outside the province for which he is governor, especially when the appointee is an active politician. This is to avoid problems in conducting free and fair elections with a Governor wielding immense power to interfere and obstruct the work of the Election Commission during elections.

Two of the most glaringly offensive appointments involve those of M.L.A.M. Hizbullah, National List MP from Katankudi and State Minister of Highways and Road Development as Governor of Eastern Province, and that of Azath Salley, the flamboyant former UPFA Deputy Mayor of Colombo.

Hisbullah has resigned his MP and Deputy Minister posts effective 4 Jan, 2019, to be free to take up his new appointment as the Governor of Eastern Province where he has vested electoral interests. Salley, active in Colombo’s Municipal politics, is also in a position to interfere in elections within the Western Province.

Even the appointments of Sarath Ekanayake as Governor of North Central Province is questionable given that he was active as the Chief Minister of the neighbouring Central Province. Likewise, Peshala Jayarathna Bandara as Governor of North Western Province will wield influence in the North Central Province where he was Chief Minister.

It remains unclear as to how the Elections Commission will handle the elections that are due this year and the next with partisan Governors in charge of provinces where they are politically active.

Sri Lanka’s deep economic crisis:Wasted four years and a wasting election year

Taking over a sick patient by the new Government

By the time the present Government came to power in 2015, Sri Lanka was in a deep economic crisis.

Its growth had slowed down from a peak of 9% in 2012 to 3.4% in 2013 before recovering temporarily to 5%, still a low rate, in 2014. Exports had been stagnant at around $ 10 billion during the five year period from 2010 to 2014, while imports had been on average at about $ 18 billion giving rise to a trade deficit of about $ 8 billion annually.

Since the net amount of monies sent by Sri Lankans working abroad, known as remittances, had been around $ 5 billion on average, Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange payments over receipts, categorised as the current account of the balance of payments, had yielded on average a deficit of about $ 3 billion.

That deficit had to be financed by borrowing from abroad, mainly from commercial markets at high rates and under stringent terms. This sowed the seeds of what is now known as the external debt crisis. Accordingly, the total country borrowings from external sources consisting of borrowings of both the Government and the private sector more than doubled from $ 21 billion in 2010 to $ 43 billion in 2014. Of these borrowings, the commercial borrowing component too increased from 20% in 2010 to 40% by 2014.

The phenomenal increase in the component of the commercial borrowings in total external debt had created issues on the debt servicing putting pressure for the exchange rate to depreciate in the market. However, the rupee had been kept artificially at a high level at around 131 rupees per US dollar by market manipulations.

These market manipulations, known as ‘immoral suasion’ as against Central Bank’s legitimate tactic of ‘moral suasion’, had forced commercial bank foreign exchange dealers to withdraw bids placed above Central Bank’s guided rate. Hence, the value of the rupee could not reach its true value based on the demand for and the supply of dollars in the market.

Meanwhile, a fiscal sector crisis had been created by the continuous fall in government revenue as a percentage of the country’s total output, known as Gross Domestic Product or GDP. Accordingly, revenue had fallen from 13% of GDP in 2010 to 11.6% in 2014. Since the government expenditure had been around 18% of GDP during this period, the budget of the Government had generated an overall deficit of around 6% of GDP. This deficit had causedthe public debt to balloon to unsustainable levels, on the one hand, and caused the rupee to depreciate in the subsequent periods through increased money supply to finance the same, on the other.

Thus, as far as the country’s economy was concerned, the new Government had taken over a sick patient.

Warnings were ignored by the new Government
This was not news to the new Government. It had been adequately warned about the economic crisis the country was facing by the Institute of Policy Studies, abbreviated as IPS,in its State of the Economy for 2014 released one month before the new Government was sworn in. I have reviewed this report in an article in this series published under the title ‘IPS State of the Economy 2014: A critical probe shows hidden risks and defects of policies (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/ips-state-of-the-economy-2014-a-critical-probe-shows-hidden-risks-and-defects-of-policies/4-373511).

IPS had warned the policymakers in the Government, especially those in the Ministry of Finance, about a number of pitfalls they had to avoid. One was the pressure for the exchange rate to depreciate due to the folly of building foreign reserves by borrowing from abroad and attracting hot money to the government securities market. Another was the resort to commercial borrowings in increasing amounts to meet the foreign exchange requirements, instead of adopting a medium to long term strategy to enhance earnings from the export of goods and services.

President Maithripala Sirisena

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

Mahinda Rajapaksa

Ravi Karunanayake

Mangala Samaraweera

Malik Samarawickrama

A third was the window-dressing of the government’s foreign borrowing statistics by getting state banks to borrow abroad on its behalf. A fourth had highlighted the risks associated with concentrating Foreign Direct Investments exclusively in the hospitality sector. In the fifth place, IPS had drawn the attention of the policymakers to the long-term adverse effects of pruning the capital expenditure of the Government to show a reduced number relating to the overall budget deficit.

This report would have been the guiding principle for the new Government to frame its economic policies to rescue the ailing economy. But, it was ignored.

Sacrificing the economy for constitutional reforms

However, in the first six-month period after the formation of the Government, it got itself totally immersed in the constitutional reforms neglecting the economic front altogether. As a result the economic crisis in the country deepened slowing down economic growth, on one side, and creating a massive balance of payments problem, on the other.

Since there was no sufficient amount of foreign exchange available to meet foreign debt repayment obligations, it had to borrow more from external sources not only to repay maturing debt but also to make annual interest payments. This led to a sizeable increase in the government’s foreign borrowings from $ 24 billion at end-2014 to $ 31 billion at end-2017 worsening the prevailing external debt crisis. Since the pressure on the exchange rate was severe, the Central Bank had to supply to the market, on a net basis, $ 4 billion to defend the rupee without success.

A finance minister playing with budget numbers

There were several mistakes made by the Ministry of Finance led by Minister Ravi Karunanayake. In the Budget for 2016, to show better numbers on revenue and expenditure on education and health, an unusual revenue item had been reckoned. That was the use of a hypothetical rent revenue figure of $ 139 billion on account of the buildings used for education as well as for health services.

This number surely showed improvement in the Budget. However, it did not strengthen the Budget, since it was merely a book entry with no associated cash inflow to the Treasury. The folly of usingnon-existing revenue and expenditure figuresin the Budget was critically evaluated by me in an article under the title ‘Budget 2016 and Education and Health Expenditure: Playing numbers games isn’t in accord with good governance principles’ (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/budget-2016-and-education-and-health-expenditure-playing-numbers-games-isnt-in-accord-with-good-gove/4-507663).

But, Minister Karunanayake stubbornly defended his action, earning ridicule for Sri Lanka from public finance experts throughout the globe. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe made no attempt at correcting his Government’s folly. Fortunately, this anomaly in the Budget numbers was corrected by his successor, Mangala Samaraweera, when he presented the Budget for 2017.

This year has been reckoned by everyone as a year of elections. When a government is getting ready for elections, it has to postpone economic reforms. Instead, it will have to concentrate on measures that would please the voting public. These measures will take the form of delivering numerous types of free goodies to the public at the expense of the future economic growth in the country.

Relying on potentially-laundered money to rescue the rupee
About the foreign exchange crisis, instead of seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund or IMF, Minister Karunanayake maintained that he could bring the exchange rate to a level of Rs. 105 per US dollar by getting an elusive Belgian investor to supply $ 1 billion to the country. This number was subsequently upgraded by him to $ 3 billion.

Obviously, this was an attempt at money laundering and the Minister would have fallen for it knowingly or unknowingly. Its futility and the long-term adverse consequences were analysed by me in another article in this series titled ‘The illusive rescue of the rupee by an elusive Belgian investor: Is the Yahapalana Government on the wrong track?’ (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/the-illusive-rescue-of-the-rupee-by-an-elusive-belgian-investor-is-the-yahapalana-government-on-the-/4-519497).

In this article, I warned the Government about going for unsustainable remedies when the correct remedy for the falling rupee would have been to boost earnings from export of goods and services. It was also pointed out that a sovereign government cannot function like an underworld operator and it is accountable to the global community for every action it takes relating to the use of external funding flows. Still, the Government kept mum about this attempt at sanctioning money laundering by its own Finance Minister.

However, later it was known to be a flop and no such money was received by the country. But, while the Government was engaged in a futile attempt at attracting laundered money, the rupee came under further pressure, forcing Sri Lanka to seek assistance from IMF to rescue the rupee. But by that time it was too late.

Economic policy statements that were never implemented

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, to his credit, presented an economic policy statement to Parliament in November 2015. In my view, that statement had been well-crafted taking into account the prevailing economic situation in the country. He had very correctly identified the long-term need for Sri Lanka to cut down its consumption, divert resources for investment, boost export of goods and services by concentrating on high tech products, linking Sri Lanka to external markets through bilateral trade agreements and changing the budget structure by increasing the direct tax base and reducing the reliance on indirect taxes.

There was the necessity for the two coalition partners of the Government, the UNP and the SLFP, to jointly sign off the strategy outlined in the statement. This was not done and as a resultthe ownership of the new economic policy strategy fell exclusively on the UNP side of the Government. This was the reason for the subsequent conflict between the President and the Prime Minister with regard to the type of economic policies to be adopted by the country.

A Budget countering the economic policy statement

Further, the implementation of the economic policy strategy outlined in the statement became a non-event when Finance Minister Karunanayake presented a Budget two weeks after the statement with policies counter to or misaligned with the strategy outlined in the statement. The attention of the Government was drawn to this deficiency by me in an article in this series under the title ‘Budget 2016: Has it laid the foundation for implementing the policy outlined in EPS of Yahapalana Government?’ (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/budget-2016-has-it-laid-foundation-for-implementing-the-policy-outlined-in-eps-of-yahapalana-governm/4-499447).

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe continued to present economic policy statements to Parliament, another in October2016 and the last in November 2017, without reference to the goals achieved in the previous statements. Independent of these statements, a new policy document titled Vision 2025 was released by the Government in June 2017 outlining a set of policies to be adopted by the Government aiming at the elections to be held in the country in 2020 and beyond.

Addition to policy disunity by the President

Meanwhile, President Maithripala Sirisena, who had not been happy about the way the economy was planned and managed by the UNP section of the Government, setup a National Economic Council or NEC under his chairmanship with a secretariat established in the Presidential Secretariat.

In April 2018, the NEC Secretariat announced that it had prepared a National Economic Plan which document is yet to be released to the public domain. As such, the policy disunity in the new Unity Government during the last four-year period has produced nothing but a ‘bowl of spaghetti’ which cannot be easily unravelled by either party in the Government. One good example is the opposition of the President to the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement signed by the Prime Minister’s side of the Government.

The President, in order to prove himself that the agreement is not in the best interest of the country, appointed a group of economists to re-examine it and report back to him. Instead of rejecting the agreement in toto, the group has reported back instances of violation of economic policy governance when it was framed by the Prime Minister’s side.

But this policy disunity has cost the economy substantially in the past four years.

Competing to deliver free goodies to the public

This year has been reckoned by everyone as a year of elections. When a government is getting ready for elections, it has to postpone economic reforms. Instead, it will have to concentrate on measures that would please the voting public. These measures will take the form of delivering numerous types of free goodies to the public at the expense of the future economic growth in the country.

Immediately after Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as Prime Minister in October2017, his provisional Government outrivalledthe UNP by announcing a number of free goodies which were not economically sustainable. The economic cost of these free goodies was analysed by me in an article in this series under the title ‘Hastily-delivered midnight goodies will derail the Budget despite assurance by Finance Ministry’ (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/Hastily-delivered--midnight-goodies--will-derail-budget--despite-assurances-by-Finance-Ministry/4-666082).

Hence, the Budget to be presented to Parliament in March this year can be expected to deviate from the hard economic policy reforms which Finance Minister Samaraweera had embarked on when he took over that portfolio two years ago. It has to necessarily outrival the Opposition camp by delivering more free goodies.

A wasting election year

The past four years have been wasted by the Unity Government by ignoring necessary economic reforms. In view of the elections planned to be held in 2019, this year will be a wasting year as far as the economy is concerned. Hence, at the end of the year, public debt will be larger, inflation higher, monetary policy stricter, rupee value against the dollar lower and economic growth slower.

The country will have to restart 2020 withmeasures to correct the new cycle of economic derailment that has been forced upon the economy by short-sighted policies in the present year.

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