Why Gota gave me a ‘Gotler’ feeling

Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Viyathmaga forum on Saturday 

“Something wicked this way comes” – Macbeth

Bourgeoisie venues

Wednesday, 16 January 2019

It is no accident that presidential-candidate hopeful Gotabaya Rajapaksa holds his Viyathmaga meetings in bourgeoisie spots. Once, it had been Shangri-La. Last Saturday, 12 January, it had been Waters Edge.

Gota’s speech offered nothing to relieve the endemic poverty, pain and suffering of 80% of our people. The thoughts about the poor and downtrodden were distant from his horizon. The one theme that emerged is his Hitler-like will to power. Get to that exalted seat. That’s it.

Viyaththu or the Learned

I could identify some of the so-called “Viyaththu” people. Prominently, there were professionals who were rendered jobless and nowhere to go after Mahinda Rajapaksa fell. A few now-obsolete artists could also be identified. Locating a true and respected viyatha would have been like searching for a needle in a haystack; with the exception that the meeting numbers did not look countless as hay does look in the haystack. The erudite and famous of today weren’t there.

Perhaps, Waters Edge wasn’t the right place this time. But, then, can a man like Gotabaya hold public style meetings in poor Maha Vidyalaya buildings? The temple of the monk that wanted him to be a Hitler may have been a better choice. Social media has, since, referred to Gotabaya as Gotler! Sri Lankans have a good sense of humour.

Gotler feeling

I did get some Gotler feeling when I read the news report of that meeting in the newspapers. Gota dangerously tread into an area where he has been perceived as being utterly weak, namely, human rights. He made a distinction between social rights and individual rights although such a distinction cried for definition. What drove fear into me was when he downgraded individual rights. Gota went out of his way to state that social rights should take precedence over individual rights!

Furthermore, like it had been to Hitler, nationalism is a crucial ideology for Gota. Gota’s suggested acceptance of the institution of the Executive President completed the collaged image. All these considerations bundled together gave me that eerie Gotler feeling.

Social rights – little meaning

The fact is that social rights are not treated as ‘rights,’ as such. States the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 is now international law. The Universal Declaration included social (or “welfare”) rights that address matters such as education, food, and employment. Their inclusion has been the source of much controversy.

Social rights are often alleged to be statements of desirable goals but not really rights. The European Convention did not include them [social rights] (although it was later amended to include the right to education). Instead they [social rights] were put into a separate treaty, the European Social Charter.

When the United Nations began the process of putting the rights of the Universal Declaration into international law, it followed the model of the European system by treating economic and social standards in a treaty separate from the one dealing with civil and political rights. This treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (the “Social Covenant,” 1966), treated these standards as rights—albeit rights to be progressively realized.”

The general understanding, therefore, is that the listing of individual human rights are adequate without recourse to special mention of social rights. The reason is that an individual human right when collectivised becomes a so-called social right.

The right to education is just one example. This is a right that is not normally practised individually. A child has to attend a school for their education and the school is a community. The distinction that Gota makes is thus senseless and his conclusion that one set of rights takes precedence over another is absurd.

Downgrading human rights

The distinction makes sense only in a Fascist context.

The downgrading of individual human rights by Gota is frightening as that echoes Hitler’s similar public pronouncements. Under the guise of upholding ‘social rights’ as against individual human rights Hitler sent millions to the gas chambers. The social right was to cleanse Germany of the Jews and that social right takes precedence over the human right to life and security of a Jew.

As illustration, let’s mention some of the individual human rights taken from the 1948 Declaration and ask our friend Gota what’s wrong with them: the right to life, liberty and security; no one to be subject to torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment; right to recognition everywhere as  a person before the law; all are equal before the law; no arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; those charged are  presumed to be innocent ; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; the will of the public is the basis of authority; right to work;

Now, what quarrel does Gota have about any of those rights? Why make anything supersede these rights?

Violation of HR under Gota’s watch

Particularly in view of our experience under the regime where Gota and his family owned there were and are widespread allegations that many of the above rights had been violated. White vans arbitrarily knocked at homes and carried some to no man’s land.

The man who commanded our Army to victory in the battlefield was dragged away and put in incarceration without a Court order. The famed and fearless journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge was denied his right to life and security and no attempt was made by Gota, the then powerful Defence Secretary, to initiate serious inquiry; young ruggerite Thajudeen was brutally murdered and the incident was deliberately dressed by cops in Gota’s charge to look like an accident.

Our highest judicial officer was arbitrarily thrown out of her job by a bogus impeachment procedure. The torture of journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon. All these were violations of the human rights mentioned. Perhaps Gota’s guilt is talking.

Conclusion: No respect for the individual

The fact is, Gota has no respect for the individual and that makes his downgrading of individual human rights more scary because that is natural to Gota’s character.

When wielding power, Gota showed himself to be full of ego. His lack of respect for the person is evidenced in videos going around even these days on social media.

Gota’s interview by the BBC on Lasantha’s murder is a dramatic case in point. “Who is Lasantha?” Gota asked arrogantly as though Lasantha was a piece of rotten fish or what the cat brought in.

The ghost of Lasantha Wickrematunge is hard to push away

(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

PARL Reminds President Sirisena Of His Own Promise To Release North & East Lands: Urges Him To Expedite Release Of Keppapulavu

JANUARY 15, 2019

The People’s Alliance for Right to Land (PARL) sent another letter to President Maithripala Sirisena reminding the President of his promise to release all occupied lands in the North and East provinces for civilians.

In the new letter, the organization specifically referred to the village of Keppapulavu, Mullaitivu, where acres of lands remain occupied by the Army. Some parts of the village, however, were released in December 2017.

The organization said, “This includes, residential lands located in close proximity to their livelihood of fishing in the nearby lagoon, agricultural lands, and a village school, church, Hindu temple and cemetery. The villagers have been engaged in a day and night continuous peaceful protest outside the entrance to the Army camp, for more than 22 months – demanding the release of their lands.”

“As the Tamil community dawns the new year with Thai Pongal celebrations today, we know that many displaced in the North and East, are yet not able to celebrate in their homes. So, following up from our letter to the President (cc. Prime Minister and leaders of all main political parties), on the 27th of December, 2018, we reiterated our call once more to release all occupied lands in the North and East, as per his promise in October last year,” it also added.

The full letter written to the President is as follows:

15th January, 2019

Dear President,

On the 4th of October 2018, the Presidential Media Division reported that “President Maithripala Sirisena instructed the authorities to complete the process of releasing the lands in the North and East Provinces to their original owners, before the 31st of December, after resolving all the issues,” at a meeting with the Presidential Task Force to monitor development projects conducted in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

Displaced persons from the north and east, and other concerned persons and organizations, wrote a letter to you on 27th December 2018, appealing to you to honour your promise.

But, to date, there was has been no response to our letter, and large tracts of lands remain inaccessible to their residents, who remain displaced, many for over a decade.

Therefore, we are once again writing to you to keep your promise to complete the process of releasing lands in the North and East, – and in this case, we are referring specifically to the village of Keppapulavu in the Mullaitivu district. In December 2017, some parts of the village was released, but acres of lands remain occupied by the Army. This includes, residential lands located in close proximity to their livelihood of fishing in the nearby lagoon, agricultural lands, and a village school, church, Hindu temple and cemetery.

The villages have been engaged in a day and night continuous peaceful protest outside the entrance to the Army camp, for more than 22 months – demanding the release of their lands. They have also been holding multiple discussions with officials and politicians.

In the past, a village leader had threatened to engage in a fast unto death till their lands were released. We are concerned that they may resort to drastic action, if the promise you made, is not kept, and all lands not released.

Read More

A Need To Rethink Staying Out Of Government

January 14, 2019, 9:10 pm 

The east is a part of the country where the price paid by the people where the ethnicisation of politics is still a dominant factor is visible. The main road runs through Tamil and Muslim settlements which are often consecutive with a Tamil-majority area followed by a Muslim-majority one and vice versa. The difference in the level of physical development of these towns and villages becomes more evident as a result. One set is bustling and energetic, and at night the streets and shops are well lit, while the other is less so.

Recently there were demonstrations in the east against the appointment of a Muslim politician as the Governor of the Eastern Province. The concern articulated by the Tamil protestors was that they would be further marginalized as a result of this appointment. Prior to his appointment Governor M.L.A.M. Hisbullah was a Member of Parliament and former minister in the same province of which he is now governor. The Tamil concern is that he will be partisan in his decision making on issues where the interests of Tamils and Muslims diverge.

The relative success of the Muslim community in the east may be attributed at least in part to the willingness of its political parties to join governments and be partners with them. Other reasons include the language capabilities of the Muslim politicians who are usually fluent in all three languages unlike their Sinhala and Tamil counterparts who are often monolingual. A further reason for the neglect of the Tamil community is that the main Tamil parties which have not been prepared to join government coalitions. The last time they did join was in the late 1960s, and even then the alliance was short lived when the government of that time failed to deliver on the political reforms that the Tamil polity sought.

POLITICAL PATRONAGE

As a result of joining governments, Muslim political parties have been able to obtain ministerial positions in government and thereby are able to provide political patronage and governmental resources to their constituencies. They have been able to negotiate successfully in getting economic development and employment to their constituencies. By way of contrast, the Tamil political parties have remained in the opposition without joining the government. Their priority has been to obtain the political rights of their community.

Despite Governor Hisbullah’s pledge to be non-partisan between the communities in the east, political realities are likely to modify his pledge.

He has stated that he will be governor only for a short period until the next general election which he is likely to contest. The governor was not successful in winning a seat at the last general election and came into the parliament on the national list. As the eastern vote is polarized on communal lines it is going to be difficult for him to be non-partisan if he wishes to succeed in winning a seat in parliament.

On the other hand, TNA leader R Sampanthan has changed the character of Tamil politics from being primarily oppositional to being one of responsible opposition. Especially during the recent political crisis, the TNA played the role of a responsible opposition which safeguarded the democratic process when it was in danger of breaking down. Instead of seeking to strike a hard bargain at a time when a single parliamentarian was trading for Rs 500 million, TNA leader Sampanthan’s commitment was to the democratic process, the upholding of the constitution and the rule of law. He and this party now need to show the Tamil people that their efforts were not in vain and beneficial to those who voted for them.

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED

President Maithripala Sirisena’s appointments of governors to the provinces appear to be motivated by the forthcoming provincial elections. Along with Governor Hisbullah, the president had appointed other governors who have had partisan political backgrounds and are active members of political parties that will be contesting future elections. In terms of the 13th Amendment the governors have powers that can undermine the powers of the elected chief ministers and ministers of the provinces.

Unfortunately, the president’s appointment of politically motivated governors will undermine the principle of devolution of powers. It highlights the need for reform of the constitution to reduce the powers of the governors to interfere in the administration of the provincial councils. The governor presently has power to review, veto and delay provincial legislation and public finance proposals of the board of ministers. In addition, even appointments to provincial public administration need to go through the governor. Constitutional reform is one of the priority agenda items for the government.

The continuing political and economic marginalization of the Tamil polity should induce a rethinking of traditional positions with regard to staying away from joining governments and engaging in coalition politics. They need to look at the relative success of the Muslim community due to the efforts of their political leaders. The most recent blow suffered by the Tamil polity is the loss of position of Leader of the Opposition, which TNA leader R Sampanthan enjoyed for more than three years until the political crisis that followed President Sirisena’s withdrawal from the government of national unity.

NEGOTIATE HARD

The TNA continues to hold to the position that the loss of the position of Opposition leader is an injustice to them. This is on account of President Sirisena’s dual role as head of the cabinet and holder of three ministerial portfolios and more than 40 government departments, while his party member former president Mahinda Rajapaksa simultaneously leads the opposition. The TNA has also questioned the validity of those members of parliament, including Opposition leader Rajapaksa, who have taken membership of the SLPP which is not registered as a party represented in parliament. However, in the absence of a legal initiative in the courts, this situation is unlikely to change.

Instead of leading the opposition, a more positive option for the TNA may be to join the government. The unwillingness to join governments caters to a nationalist mindset that says first there must be a vindication of the political rights of the Tamil people before governments can be joined. However, as a result there is a marginalization of the Tamil polity which leads to neglect of the communities at the grassroots level. The people do not get the economic and development resources that others who join the government succeed in bringing to their towns and villages.

In these circumstances, the Tamil polity needs to reconsider its unwillingness to engage in coalition politics. This is not necessarily as ministers as the Muslim politicians have successfully done. With Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe having taken over the portfolio of Northern Development, the TNA could ask to play a role in this even without joining the government. There could be supervisory executive committees that the TNA could join or even lead for the development of the north and east, if they negotiate hard enough with the government.

Lanka’s draft constitution abolishes Executive Presidency

By P.K.Balachandran/newsin.asia-by Editor-January 12, 2019

Colombo, January 12: The Constitutional Expert Committee’s report, which was tabled in the Sri Lankan parliament on Friday abolishes the powerful Executive Presidency and replaces it by a Westminster style parliamentary system with a powerful Prime Minister and a ceremonial President.
As per the report which can be described as the “draft constitution”, the President will cease to be directly elected by the people and will instead be jointly elected by a bi-cameral legislature comprising a 233 member “Parliament” and a 55 member “Second Chamber”. The President will be elected by a majority of the whole membership of the two Houses.

This will make a huge difference to the moral authority of the President. Presently, the President enjoys an enormous sense of power because he is the only occupant of a high Sri Lankan office who is elected directly by the entire voting population of Sri Lanka. Others come through smaller constituencies (and also through parliament as in the case of the Prime Minister).

Thus, a directly elected President can legitimately claim that he is the quintessential repository of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. An indirectly elected President can make no such claims.

Under the new draft constitution, the President loses his power to choose the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers. He has to appoint as Prime Minister, not anyone who he imagines may have majority support in parliament, but one who indubitably enjoys it. The President will have to appoint ministers only on the Prime Minister’s advice. He will lose the power to allocate departments to ministries without the Prime Minister’s assent.

Unlike now, the President will not be Head of Government, take Ministerial portfolios, and chair the cabinet. He will only be Head of State and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. But every action of his as C-in-C, will be subject to the advice of the PM.

The President will lose the right to dissolve parliament on his own volition. Parliament can be dissolved before its five year term only when the House itself passes a resolution seeking dissolution with a two-third majority of its entire membership.

The Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers cannot be dismissed at will. The PM and cabinet will go only when they lose the confidence of the House in a Vote of No Confidence or when the annual budget gets defeated in the third attempt in the first two years, and in two attempts after two years.

The President will cease to have discretion over the grant of pardon. This function will be exercised by the Prime Minister and a judicial committee and the President will only be rubber-stamping the decisions.

The President can be removed for mental and physical disability by a committee comprising the Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition. He can be removed also by a parliamentary resolution backed by a two-thirds majority in both the Houses.

After the election, the President is expected to sever all links with any political party and function in a non-partisan manner. This is a major departure from the present constitution under which the President can be chairman of his party.

To meet the demand for provincial autonomy, the new constitution vests power over State Land in both the central and the provincial governments with the condition that land use is carried out as per the rules of the National Land Commission. But the commission’s policies should be shaped in consultation with all provincial councils.

The provinces will also have their own police forces headed by officers of the rank of Deputy Inspector General. There will be separate National and Provincial Police Commissions to make appointments, transfers and promotions at the national and at the provincial levels.

The new constitution introduces a Second Chamber to the national legislature. The lower and larger chamber called “parliament” will have 233 members elected for a five-year term. Out of these, 140 will be elected from single-member constituencies and the rest will be elected on a provincial basis.
There will be a Second Chamber of 55 members, for which members will be elected by parliament and the provincial councils. The Second Chamber will be there not to block bills passed by parliament, but to have a second look and give suggestions for improvement. In drafting bills, parliament will be expected to give due consideration to the view expressed by the Second Chamber.
The draft constitution has described Sri Lanka as “Ekiya Rajya” in Sinhala and “Orumittha Nadu” in Tamil which mean a “United Country”. The experts had avoided labeling the constitution as either “unitary” or “federal” given the strong feelings for and against these two concepts.

It has retained the “foremost place” given to Buddhism in the country while guaranteeing freedom to practice other religions. In a departure from other constitutions, it guarantees individual and family privacy and has stated that gender and sexual orientations will not be a bar to public employment.
Prime Minister Wickremesinghe told parliament while tabling the draft constitution, that what has been made available is only a draft. Members have also been given summaries of all the views expressed in the six sub-committees, he pointed out. He appealed to the members to study the drafts and the views expressed and come to a consensus on each and every aspect of the constitution.

The constitution has a long way to go. It has to be passed by parliament with a two-thirds majority and also put through a referendum.

But opposition to it has already become manifest and loud, with the opposition Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa openly saying that it is meant to divide Sri Lanka into “nine semi-independent units.” He wanted the draft to be taken up for debate in the forthcoming Presidential and parliamentary elections to know the peoples’ view. Rajapaksa also wanted to know why the ruling United National Party (UNP) is keeping its view a secret.

It is no secret that Rajapaksa is a votary of the Executive Presidency as he believes that it was only because Sri Lanka had an Executive Presidency that his government was able to defeat the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009 begin massive infrastructural development in 2010.

Although President Sirisana has not spoken on the issue, his Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) is against the abolition of the Executive Presidency and any further devolution of power to the provinces especially to the Tamil-speaking Northern and Eastern Provinces. The draft constitution has been put forward at a time when Sirisena is attempting to fully exploit his position as Executive President to curb the power and influence of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe.

Only the Tamil National Alliance and the other Tamil parties are for devolution and have been clamoring for it. The others had kept promising to amend the constitution to get the votes of Tamils and liberals, but never fulfilled the promise. This has been the case since the 1980s and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future.

Power hungry politicians like a system based on the concentration of power and not diffusion of power. And no Sri Lankan political party depending on the majority Sinhala vote really wants to share power with the minorities on a territorial basis because it sees the seeds of separatism in such a distribution of power.

It is generally agreed that with provincial, Presidential and parliamentary elections due in 2019-2020, no Sinhala-majority political party will want to be associated with the just presented draft constitution. The government of Ranil Wickremesinghe will, in all likelihood, make a pretense of discussing a new constitution and abandon the effort as the first available opportunity.

(The featured image at the top is that of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe)

Was justice done to Dalrene in the film? 

2019-01-16

Was Dalrene Ingram guilty of killing her husband? Was she aware of Mathew Peiris’ criminal designs and the method of killing he carried out? Did she respond to his advances while her husband was still living?  

The continuous stream of film goers heading to cinema halls to see “According to Matthew” seeks answers to many doubts that cloud their minds. Curiosity seems to have returned even after several decades, just as in the aftermath of the crime. The filmmaker Chandran Rutnam may argue that it was not an Agatha Christie detective to provide answers, and that his job was not to exonerate anybody or pin the guilt, but to stick to facts. “According to Matthew” however, is based on a true story that rocked Colombo in the late 1970s. Therefore, instead of going by the premise that Dalrene too was found guilty by a court of law and received the death penalty, it is only fair that the filmmaker gives a realistic portrayal of her and treated the role with understanding and sensitivity. For the reason that Dalrene was the motive of the double murder, could she be made a partner to the crime?  

In several interviews given by the filmmaker, he had mentioned that the court found Dalrene guilty, along with Fr. Mathew, and both were given the death sentence by hanging. But with Fr. Mathew getting the same lawyer appearing for him to defend Dalrene, couldn’t she have been handicapped? Because, her own defence could not have been independent of the co-accused, even if the lawyer believed that Dalrene had no part to play in the double murder.  

When she made a separate appeal in defence of her, she was acquitted on circumstantial evidence, a section which was not included in   the film. Therefore, the acquittal of Dalrene as the filmmaker says, was not political, but legal. Fr. Mathew on the other hand, on the appeal he made, had his death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. On good behaviour in prison, he was freed in the winter of his life.  

While the prime task of the lawyer was to defend the murderer, the fact that Dalrene could not get a lawyer to independently defend herself, showed the extent of her vulnerability. And this she did at the risk of being declared guilty. She was not only found guilty, but received the death penalty by hanging, the same as that of the murderer.  
Film maker Rutnum says :“Ingram too has to take the blame for the double homicide. She was found guilty by a court of law. Both were condemned to death by hanging. The courts heard the evidence and convicted her. Her getting out later was a political thing......”.  
“And a woman has to seduce a man. A man has to seduce a woman. Otherwise, it is called rape.....”    
How fair is this judgement of the filmmaker?  

So, Jacqueline Fernandez, who acts as Dalrene, plays the role of a glamorous, seductress. And it appears quite natural for a charismatic, good-looking priest, acted by Alston Koch, who looks too decent for the role, to make advances to her, receiving a response and being driven to commit double murder. The murder story (of a double murder or treble?) enacted in a vicarage and committed using an unsuspecting method by a man in robes, has all the elements that appeal to a foreign audience. But in Sri Lanka, this was a calculated, cold-blooded murder that took place almost in our neighbourhood, and sent shockwaves through Colombo. Therefore, it cannot be helped if Sri Lankans take a personal interest in the film and are excessively critical of the film.   

Dalrene was in reality, a poor, plain, hardly educated Burgher girl. Fr. Mathew, about 20-30 years older than Dalrene, was a vicious but forceful character. He was dark, gangly with a long grey, unkempt beard. Identified as an exorcist, it is said that he was uncouth and unhygienic, apart from being a pervert which had caused many ugly incidents in the church. His reputation therefore, may not have been a secret in the vicarage and may not have escaped Dalrene who happened to live in the same premises. Therefore, was there a lustful alliance between the two and did their relationship come about that easily?  

In “According to Matthew” on the contrary, no sooner Fr. Mathew tells Dalrene of his wife’s death, she is made to utter the words “then we can marry?” If Jacqueline, instead of playing a servile, robotic role, was given to bring out the mental strains, the psychological battle Dalrene may have fought, the pressures she faced from the outside world and her reactions of being a condemned woman, it would have been an enviable role for Jacqueline that rarely comes in the way of actors.  
There still are many questions that have gone unanswered. If Dalrene heard about Fr. Mathew’s perversions on young girls during the performing of exorcism, did she turn a blind eye to them because of her helplessness and had nowhere to go? And was it fear of the priest that prevented her from reacting when there was a delay in calling for medical attention for the husband in spite of the fact that Ingram’s parents made strong protests?   

Incidentally, it was interesting to find fellow journalist Gaston De Rosayro playing a role in “According to Matthew” and many other well known people appearing on the screen performing what they actually did at the time. The film however, very dramatically covered only up to the point the court delivered the death penalty to the main characters, and the two being taken to prisons. There was disappointment that no mention was made in the film of their final legal status quo and of the excommunication of Fr. Mathew by the Anglican Church which would have been important for those of the church.   

A lie is also a truth

Gotabaya Rajapaksa addresses the Viyathmaga forum on Saturday 

Wednesday, 16 January 2019

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a determined contender for the presidency. His trenchant lecture to activists of the Viyathmaga forum demonstrated the man’s spiritedness and impulse to act. He is a driven man. What drives him?

Ancient Greeks developed the concept of ‘thymus’ which they believed explained our unconscious impulses to act. It is the subconscious driving force that tells a warrior to fight. Thymus in a sense, is a synonym for passion. Gotabaya has now pronounced his passion to be president of our republic.

The Greek philosopher Plato divided the soul of man in to three parts: reason, desire and thymus or the hunger for recognition).

The Thymus motivates the best and worst things men do. It drives them to seek glory and assert themselves aggressively for noble causes. It drives them to rage if others don’t recognise their worth. Plato observes that the thymus causes those hungry for recognition and power to unimaginable villainy over a trifle if they feel disrespected.

The essential thesis of this essay is that Gotabaya Rajapaksa does not give a damn for individual human rights. His ‘thymus’ compelled him to tell us what he thinks of individual human rights. Goats are sacrificed. Not lions. Gota thinks that we are goats.

Monstrous regimes in history are those headed by leaders who gained unconditional power by subverting truth. As Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 classic The Origins of Totalitarianism, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between what is true and false no longer exist.”

Give the devil his due. It takes a special kind of intellectual honesty to indulge even in mock honesty to interrogate one’s own ideas and convictions.

He was wildly applauded by the audience of professed academics and intellectuals that included the former Central Bank governor Nivard Cabraal, former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Nalaka Godahewa and former Chairman of the SLPA Priyath Bandu Wickrema who claimed that a Singaporean diplomat told him that Hambantota will make Singapore obsolete.

There is no doubt that Gotabaya Rajapaksa is convinced that his ideas are reasoned, principled positions.

His captive audience of activists by their applause demonstrated that he has a resilient following bound by either conviction or are bound to his tribal identity with conviction coupled with collusion of likeminded.

He stressed on the imperative of constructing a Sri Lankan identity that eclipsed ethno-religious heterogeneity. That national identity was an inclusive concept was not stressed. Obviously, the national identity of the nation state and discriminatory jingoism are sublime concepts that needed further refinement.

Nearly 60% of the population remained trapped in poverty. Liberal democracy promoted by the west placed an emphasis on individual rights. Successful Asian countries pursued national objectives while we lagged behind too engrossed in individual human rights. He did not specify the Asian countries.

The presidential contender opted to ignore the ideological confrontation between liberal democratic societies and the authoritarian and illiberal societies of Asia.

 Lee Kwan Yew attributed the remarkable economic success and stability of these Asian societies to a somewhat nebulously defined Asian values. Confucianism place a high value on family-oriented moral qualities such as filial piety and deference to authority.

Gotabaya made a pointed reference to the deep cultural roots developed in the formative years spent in the comfort of parental care. No wonder, the man built a mausoleum for his ancestors. “We are social animals. Human beings are social animals and not individuals. We should move forward as a society and not individually. Many countries in Asia developed their countries while promoting a sense of nationalism.”

“We know a Presidential election is to be held this year. I’m ready for it if you are ready.”

There is no doubt that Gotabaya Rajapaksa is convinced that his ideas are reasoned and principled positions. The captive audience of activists by their applause demonstrated the resilience of his following bound by the strong tribal identity he exudes.

Individual human rights are rights enjoyed by human beings by virtue of their humanity. Such rights are inherent, inalienable, interdependent, and indivisible. They cannot be selectively granted or taken away. The enjoyment of one right affects the enjoyment of others, and they must all be respected.

In China it is a different story. In China, it is the state that comes first, the collective second, and the individual the last. In situations of conflict, the collective benefit of the family or the association or the union is secondary to the state’s interest. Similarly, the individual’s personal interest is subject to the interest of the collectives and the State. This Chinese legal philosophy is not an invention of the Communist party or Mao Zedong. It has roots deep within the Confucian vision of society and the individual’s role within it.

The Buddha recognised the individual. Not only is man his own master and the master of his fate and destiny, but in his capacity for attaining the highest spiritual development, that of enlightenment, man is higher than even the gods.

The Buddha recognised the individual. Within this fathom-long body,” he declared, “are the world and the origin of the world, and the ceasing of the world, and the path leading to its cessation.”

The Buddha envisaged the world as the scene of individual human endeavour. What is man, and what should he make of his life in this world to achieve the supreme value that life affords? These are the problems which the Buddha set himself to solve and to which he found the answer.

Nations and nationalism are much more than political constructions. They represent cultural phenomena that are identifiable. They include language, sentiments and symbolism.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is right. Liberal democracy has lost its sheen. Our own experiment of liberal democratic governance after the 19th Amendment is experiencing perilous times. Mahinda Rajapaksa told the constitutional council that the 19th Amendment was disastrously defective.

A strident resilient segment of the polity insists on a strong decisive leadership unhampered and untamed by independent commissions to respond to identity politics and politics of resentment.

Liberty, equality and individual human rights formed the core thesis of liberal democracy. Now Gotabaya Rajapaksa has told us that he is ready to be President of the Republic if we are ready to embrace his anti-thesis of an aggressive pursuit of the common good in place of universal dignity of the individual.

Gotabaya rejects secular individualism. He champions a fervent communitarianism.

Liberal democracy despite its shortcomings of unruly protest and dissent demands adherence to some basic ground rules. In our liberal democracy that is unpalatable to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the left leaned towards ensuring that everyone got a fair deal. The Right focused on securing individual and economic freedoms. A middle of the road movement strived for a “middle-way” until both the left, the right and those in the middle path got mired in identity politics.

Identity politics has spawned zealous tribes. People no longer vote for values such as liberty and human rights but according to their identities. Sirisena violated the constitution and declared the tripitakan a national heritage. He feels absolved.

Liberal democracy is not a fixed concept. It can evolve in directions that we cannot anticipate in advance. Common good and National interest offer great polemical promise.

Who decides what is common good? What is national interest? Politics has made the common good and national interest so flexible that both terms are euphemisms for expediency. The answer depends on the definers and their perspectives! Both are instruments of partisan politics used to demonise opponents.

There is a valid reason for us to insist on individual rights. Growing inequality in wealth and income is the principal catalyst of the conflict between individual entitlement and group demands.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa did not touch on one subject. He will not talk about it because he does not wish to even consider its possibilities. He has not even heard of it. Distributive justice and settlement of social conflict are not his province.

We are social animals because we cannot live exclusively independent of each other. The common good or working toward the common good is when those in the community come together and do things that benefit or are in the best interests of everyone in the community.

That does not diminish the relevance of individual rights. What sort of people should we be? What does it mean to live a good life? What is the best way to live?

Do we need the President of the republic to decide on them? Gotabaya Rajapaksa as president, will certainly try to do that.

In Bertolt Brecht’s ‘Life of Galileo,’ the character Andrea concludes: “There’s a lot of things we don’t know yet. Really, we’re just at the beginning.”

Sumanthiran Debunks Maharaja’s False Report: Says Channel Deliberately And Mischievously Misleading Public

JANUARY 14, 2019

 Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran said NewsFirst, owned by Killy Maharaja‘s MTV/MBC Media Network, has deliberately and mischievously misled the public by distorting a speech he made in Jaffna.

NewsFirst reported a speech by Sumanthiran under the title “The Possibility of a Divided Nation“. The report said Sumanthiran, in his speech, talked about the possibility of the country being divided in the future. NewsFirst described Sumathiran’s speech as a “controversial statement”.

“This is mischievously and deliberately misleading! I spoke extensively on why the Tamils should abandon ‘the eelam dream’ and should assure the country at large that we are NOT for separation,” Sumanthiran tweeted today, debunking the false report.

The NewsFirst misreported Sumanthiran’s speech just a few days after several civil organizations staged a protest opposite its office demanding ethical and fair coverage. MTV/MBC Media Network hit out at the protestors saying they were funded by NGOs and it even went to the extent of getting a comment from former President Mahinda Rajapaksa under whose watch Sirasa studios were set on fire.

Read More

SRI LANKA BAR ASSOCIATION CONDEMNS PRO-RAJAPAKSA MP FOR CASTING ASPERSIONS ON JUDICIARY

Image: Weerawansa is a very close associate of Rajapaksa.

15/01/2019

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has vehemently condemned MP Wimal Weerawansa for casting aspersions on the judiciary by hiding behind parliamentary privileges, which prevent him from being dealt with for contempt. [ Weerawansa is leading pro Rajapaksa propagandist.)

A statement titled ‘deplores statement made by Wimal Weerawansa M.P. on recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka,’ says: “The Bar Association of Sri Lanka unequivocally and strongly condemns the speech made by Member of Parliament Wimal Weerawansa in Parliament on 10th January 2019 wherein he made derogatory remarks about the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. During the course of a speech during the debate on a Bill, Weerawansa stated that “the Supreme Court has become a den for a certain religious sect”. In the course of this speech Weerawansa alleged that the Constitutional Council had approved only the names of persons from a certain religious sect for appointments to the Supreme Court. When appointments to the Supreme Court over the last few years are considered it is clear that Weerawansa’s statements are baseless and devoid of truth.

“The aforesaid words of Weerawansa have the effect of interfering with the independence of the judiciary of this country. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka stresses that the race and religion of members of the judiciary should not be used to unfairly attack the judiciary. Whilst members of the public including politicians are entitled to criticise the judiciary in a reasonable and objective manner, they are not entitled to cast aspersions on the judiciary in such a manner as to bring the court into disrepute. Such attacks impinge on the independence of the judiciary and the Rule of Law.

“It is regrettable that Weerawansa has made this speech in Parliament under cover of privilege, preventing him from being dealt with by the laws of contempt. Had this speech been made outside Parliament, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka would have without any hesitation called for him to be dealt with for Contempt of Court in terms of the law.”
Island

Scorecard: President Sirisena’s First Four Years

MR also promised to abolish the executive presidency during his first run for the presidency

Like Dudley, President Sirisena failed to communicate his achievements to the grassroots

 2019-01-16

he election of President Maithripala Sirisena four years ago on January 8 was a watershed moment in Sri Lankan politics. However, since then, it has lost its allure. This year’s anniversary was, by and large, abandoned by its early supporters. As he enters into his final year, the president himself looks as if he is destined to a single term. Yet, by any account, President Sirisena’s first four years count as one of the most transformative; in terms of building independent institutions, restoring fundamental rights and rolling back the authoritarianism of the past. Those developments were also not possible without the President’s actual commitment -- and now his detractors, sizable number of whom are partisan acolytes, might want to ride roughshod over this assertion.   

President Maithripala Sirisena was not the only president who promised a greater democratization as a key election pledge. Chandrika Kumaratunga rode to power on the promise of abolishing executive presidency, and completed her two terms and retired, and was subsequently forced out of active politics by her successor Mahinda Rajapaksa. There is nothing much to crow about her ten years in power, which were, by and large, a lost decade, economically, politically and militarily. The worst military casualties of the Eelam war were reported during that time along the highway of death as she sought, in a politically influenced ploy, to  open a Main Supply Route (MSR) via Tiger infested Wanni. 

MR also promised to abolish the executive presidency during his first run for the presidency. Having been elected, he abolished the mandatory term limits for presidency. MR during his second term watered down independent oversight over his office, and concentrated the powers of the state into his office and his family. He effectively turned presidency into a Sultanistic dictatorship.   
Sarath Fonseka promised a whole lot of things during his aborted run for presidency. Given the temperament of the man, many of even his supporters are now relieved that he did not win.   

President Sirisena could have followed suit. Neither the political culture in this country, nor the institutions did compel him to stick to his promises. However he did, and delivered the 19th Amendment. That is probably the most consequential and empowering constitutional amendment in this country since the independence. All previous efforts at churning out new constitutions and tinkering existing ones were done to advance the personal-political ambitions of the political leaders. Instead, the 19A clipped the powers of the President who advocated for it. Of course, President Sirisena went back on his adulation of these institutions lately, as he pulled off a constitutional coup. He was checkmated by the independent judiciary, empowered by the 19A. 

That was a low point in his political career, but a high point in the success of institutional building in the country. Constitutional states do not rely on political leaders to defend the rights of their people, instead they entrust that responsibility with independent institutions that defend these rights and arbitrate in disputes between organs of the state.   

"Neither the political culture in this country nor the institutions did compel him to stick to the President’s promises. But he did, and delivered the 19A. That is probably the most consequential and empowering Constitutional Amendment in this country since  independence"

However, countries need forthright leaders to build these political structures, which over time effect their own course of action. Maithripala Sirisena was one of the rare lot who, knowingly or unknowingly made an active contribution to constitutional government. In that sense, he would have a special place in Sri Lankan politics. If one is to rank, Sri Lankan political leaders in their contribution to the democratic institutions, he could probably share a joint first with Dudley Senanayake. 
However, like Dudley, President Sirisena failed to communicate his achievements to the grassroots. Also, he failed in many other areas, which effectively blunted the allure of his achievements in institutional building. Two areas stand out: Fighting corruption and leapfrogging the economy. The failure in both was not exclusively of President Sirisena’s. Rather he was forced to shoulder the burden of mishandling of his constituent partner, UNP. That UNP leader and PM Ranil Wickremesinghe could not see the looming failure until they explode right before eyes made it hard to rectify those mistakes, while it was still possible to do so without incurring a hefty cost. In the absence of remedial measures, a disgruntled electorate voted overwhelmingly to the MR acolytes of Pohottuwa at the local government elections. That was the beginning of an end.   

Overall failure in economy and fighting corruption are now threatening the reversal of significant achievements in democratization. Those were also reasons why the prospect of Maithripala’s re-election looks dim.   
In retrospect, the President could have avoided this fall out had he kept a degree of the control on his government- as any president of a country of our socio-economic standards ought to have done. But, the personal disposition of the President, let PM Wickremesinghe run the show. When, President Sirisena tried to wrestle back some of the control, later, that was proved futile. Nor is he a good economic manager either.   

However, the composition of Yahapalanaya was such that the failure on these bigger dynamics was destined. The UNP which suffers from a deficit of populist legitimacy do not have the political will to implement drastic policy decisions ( be it on land acquisition, labour reforms or simply evicting squatters to make room for development). Nor was it an efficient entity as it was projected. It deliberately sat on major economic decisions.   
It also failed to provide political leadership to fast-track the investigations into the regime leaders of the former government. That could well have been a cynically calculated move on the part of the UNP. However, it has has now backfired both on the President and the UNP. 

"The President wields a good deal of constitutional remit, and not so constitutional but, practical means to make that happen. President Sirisena failed in that, and that failed both him and Yahapalanaya"

A stronger executive president could have made his prime minister investigate his nemesis. The President wields a good deal of constitutional remit, and not so constitutional but, practical means to make that happen. President Sirisena failed in that, and that failed both him and Yahapalanaya. 
On the other hand, in the economic front, ThePresident’s economic view, and indeed, that of his so called experts are anachronistic. Sri Lanka needs a strong handed liberalizer, and not an insular economic nationalist. Maithripala Sirisena falls into the latter category. His intervention at the latter stages only added to policy confusion.   

Unless the President does something extremely stupid, it is unlikely that his final year would drastically alter the track record of his first four years. His final score: A minus for democracy and C+ for economy and anti- corruption.   

Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter 

Sri Lankan president issues bogus promise to fulfil election pledges

By K. Ratnayake -11 January 2019

Politically discredited Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena claimed on Tuesday that he would fulfil all his remaining election promises this year, including to eliminate “fraud and corruption.”

Sirisena’s pledge, made at the opening of a new Laggala village and irrigation scheme in Central Province, marked his fourth year as president—he was elected on January 8, 2015. His term ends in November, with the next presidential election due in January 2020.

Sirisena’s comments are in line with his efforts to strengthen an alliance with former President Mahinda Rajapakse, as part of their continuing conflict with the United National Party (UNP)-led government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena ousted Wickremesinghe as prime minister in a political coup on October 26, replacing him with Rajapakse and then dissolving parliament. Last month, however, Sirisena was forced, following a Supreme Court ruling and under pressure from Washington, to reinstate Wickremesinghe.

Washington made clear that it would not allow any undermining of the military and political relations it had built up over the previous four years on the strategically-located Indian Ocean island. The US had previously opposed Rajapakse as president because of his economic and political orientation toward Beijing.

Sirisena declared on Tuesday: “We have made huge sacrifices to fulfil the aspirations of the people in the country.” He ludicrously claimed that his presidency had taken important measures “to build a society free from doubts and fears, ensuring people’s democracy and liberty, as well as building a free media, an independent judiciary and an unbiased government service to strengthen the national economy.”

He admitted that his campaign “to eliminate fraud, corruption and malpractices” had failed but called on Sri Lankans “to join hands to reject corruption and fraud through a strong program.”

Sirisena’s proclamations are laughable. He and Wickremesinghe, who helped bring him to power, together established a “unity government” in 2015 and have fulfilled none of their election promises.
Sirisena was a senior minister in Rajapakse’s government until he defected in November 2014 to become the presidential candidate of a UNP-led electoral front. Sirisena and his supporters made all manner of promises. These included changing the constitution and abolishing the autocratic executive presidency, strengthening democracy, restoring human rights, ending ethnic discrimination and improving living and social conditions.

These promises exploited the anger of workers and the poor against Rajapakse’s autocratic 10-year rule, the military atrocities committed in the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and the escalating attacks on democratic and social rights.

Sirisena’s elevation into the presidency was orchestrated by Washington and its political allies, including Wickremesinghe and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga. While the US had backed Rajapakse’s communalist war, it was hostile to his government’s reliance on China for investment and military hardware. Washington, which was stepping up its economic, diplomatic and military offensive against China, was determined to bring Sri Lanka back into its orbit.

After taking office, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe reoriented Colombo’s foreign policy in favour of the US, India and the European powers, and integrated the island and its military forces with US preparations for war against China.

While the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration provided limited increases in agricultural subsidies and salary rises to some state employees, it soon began to implement the austerity measures demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The shaky unity government’s promise to abolish the executive presidency never eventuated. The only changes were to prune some presidential powers, including the dissolution of parliament. Action on human right violations and war crimes was swept under the carpet to appease extreme-right Sinhala-Buddhist formations and the military. De facto military rule continued in the island’s North and East.

Colombo’s austerity policies provoked struggles by broad sections of the working class, as well as by farmers and students. The government responded with threats and repressive measures.

The anti-government opposition also manifested itself in landslide defeats for Wickremesinghe’s UNP and Sirisena’s SLFP in last February’s local council elections. Most of the council seats were won by the newly-formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)—a breakaway Rajapakse faction from the SLFP.

Sirisena then calculated that the best way to deal with the growing opposition was by aligning himself with Rajapakse.

Sirisena said not a word in his Tuesday speech about the October 26 anti-democratic sacking of Wickremesinghe, or the prorogation, and later unconstitutional dissolution of parliament.

Since the failure of his political coup Sirisena has sought to undermine the UNP-led government and strengthen his own powers. When a new cabinet was announced late last year, Sirisena retained the law and order ministry and then established a special committee, answerable to himself, to assess the “suitability” of all individuals chosen as heads of state-owned enterprises and boards.

In the 225-seat parliament, Sirisena’s faction of the SLFP and the United People’s Freedom Alliance only has about 20 MPs, with about 75 MPs backing Rajapakse and his SLPP.
Sirisena is desperately trying to secure his political future by linking up with the SLPP and Rajapakse. Exploiting this crisis, Rajapakse hinted that he would support an alliance with Sirisena but indicated that it must have the blessing of SLPP. Rajapakse also issued a statement on his ouster in 2015, declaring that his removal as president had created “triple dangers” for the country.

These dangers, Rajapakse claimed, are: the 19th amendment to the constitution, which prevents the president from dissolving the parliament in any circumstances; the collapse of the economy; and the government’s alleged attempt to divide the country which, he falsely insisted, would hand over the North and the East to the Tamil elite.

Rajapakse is seeking to build an extreme-right movement, appealing to Sinhala chauvinist groups and military in the hope that these forces can suppress the opposition of the working class and rural poor.
Sirisena is appealing to the same right-wing elements. He has repeatedly opposed the arrest of any military officer over human rights violations and war crimes.

Rajapakse also declared that his party has started discussions with the US and other major powers in order to change their political attitudes toward a future Rajapakse government.

For his part, seeking to justify another round of IMF-dictated measures, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has declared that Sirisena’s failed coup has had a “huge economic” impact.

Wickremesinghe also has initiated discussions with the pseudo-left Nava Sama Samaja Party and so-called civil society groups to establish a National Democratic Front, another right-wing movement.

Under conditions of mounting economic problems, including $US5.9 billion in foreign debt repayments due this year, and developing workers’ struggles in Sri Lanka and internationally, every faction of the ruling elite is preparing for dictatorial forms of rule.

While the internecine political war continues within the ruling elite, the working class must take the political initiative to chart its own course—that is, to fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government on the basis of an international socialist program.
The author also recommends:

The US hails Wickremesinghe’s reinstatement as Sri Lankan prime minister[20 December 2018]
Fight for a socialist solution to the political crisis in Sri Lanka[31 October 2018]

Morals and ethics take a nosedive in Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka

 Wednesday, 16 January 2019

As a Sri Lankan first, as a member of the predominant ethnic community, Sinhalese, as a follower of the Buddhist philosophy and as a grandmother, I have taken it upon myself to address the youth and young adults of Sri Lanka, amongst them – the future leaders of Sri Lanka – through this open letter, as I consider it incumbent upon those of us now in our 50s and beyond to advise and do our utmost, to guide those of you who have obviously been misguided and led astray by the unethical and unpatriotic, with selfish and devious agendas.

Dear people, for 70 years, we as a people have been used, abused and made fools of by politicians, irrespective of the political party they represent. Today, you, your parents and even your grandparents are used, abused and fooled products of those self-serving politicians.

To start with, over the years, the quality of our sacrosanct free education system has been tampered with and made to deteriorate by successive governments to such an extent that it now focuses only on academic qualifications. This defacing of the education system has been cleverly designed to produce academically qualified fools who are easily hoodwinked, brainwashed and are unable to think independently for him/herself. And those of you who have fallen victim to this phenomenon, are the primary manipulative tools of the devious politician.

Our education structure no longer encompasses the crucial areas of ‘reading comprehension’ and ‘ethics’ – the moral principles on how one should behave decently, honourably and respectfully in society. One who holds only an academic qualification sans reading comprehension skills and ethics/integrity, is doomed to fail and is of no use to society at large. In fact, such a person is more of a curse than a blessing to society.

Unfortunately, most of those engaged in the teaching profession lack ethics and reading comprehension skills themselves or are unaware of such. So, how can such a teacher teach their students something they have no knowledge of hence don’t practice it themselves? Who is there to teach the teacher? My interaction on social media has been a stark eye-opener for me as a journalist and a writer on sociopolitical issues, as I have come across a cross section of society I wouldn’t otherwise meet. Therein I have found, those belonging to varying social strata, from the well-rounded educated and ethical to the common street thug. Hence social media is a useful platform for those of us focussed on evolving sociopolitical issues in Sri Lanka.

Besides networking decently, social media is also a platform where people display their true colours or their dark side without realising it. The cunning amongst them hide behind fake names and profiles to launch their racist and sexist attacks on the other, and the foolish do it under their own names and faces. These are the people who are referred to as ‘trolls’ on social media. The majority of these trolls are ill-bred and uncouth men with a handful of their female counterparts included, but, the males are in the majority. This is not at all surprising in a society where a woman cannot walk freely in public or use public transport without being harassed by sexually-depraved men.

These trolls are basically cowards suffering from acute and varying forms of inferiority complexes who take cover behind a phone or a computer to attack the other. If you ask any one of them to meet you physically and repeat to your face what they do hiding behind a keyboard, you can bet your bottom dollar they never will. I know this from experience.

They wear masks in society to hide their true selves, yet inadvertently expose their dark side on social media. Hence you will never know the real person behind the mask when you meet them face to face but on social media, you will.

Amongst these trolls are professionals such as doctors, lawyers, etc., including journalists who will even sell their souls for a free laptop or less. Their behaviour brings them down to the level of the uncouth, ill-bred common thug on the streets. Hence the medical, legal and journalism which were once amongst professions which regarded ethics as sacrosanct, is no more!

These trolls, including the above mentioned ‘professionals’ resort to using what is referred to as “raw filth” in their racist and sexist attacks on the other or when they disagree with the views expressed by others, simply because they lack the intelligence and integrity to disagree decently and respectfully. Most of them are also parents of impressionable young children. Hence through their conduct, what is the example they are setting for their children to emulate?

It is all well and good to be armed with academic qualifications – degrees, PhDs, etc. – but, if you lack ‘integrity’ (morality, courtesy and decency), your academic qualifications are of no use, because, a decent society will judge you first not by your academic qualification, but, by your conduct in society. Hence a ‘professional’ and others who lack integrity ends up spitting on his/her own face, their families, schools, religion, the profession he/she is engaged in and last but not least, the ethnic community you identify yourself with and as a Sri Lankan.

Further, unsurprisingly, I also discovered by going through the profiles of these trolls on social media that 99.9% of them were Sinhala-Buddhists. Now, who set the example for such people to emulate over the past eighteen years, ably assisted by sections of the Buddhist clergy? A youth who was 18 years old in 2005 is today around his/her mid-30s, and it is amongst them and those much younger and little older who have become the ethically depraved and destructive generation of Sri Lankans.

The above mentioned generation of Sinhala-Buddhists will eventually lead to the destruction of the Sinhalese as an ethnic community because they will breed their own kind. Therefore, the threat to the Sinhalese does not come from those of other ethnic groups or religions, but, it comes from within the Sinhalese and amongst the Sinhalese, with the examples set by racist and bigoted Sinhala-Buddhist politicians, and many amongst the Buddhist clergy.

Contd.On Page 20

For a country to develop economically, it first and foremost needs an educated, principled and ethical populace. Hence a country like ours cannot and will never develop economically and socially as long as its people are unprincipled. Because, it is from amongst such people - the citizens of Sri Lanka – that politicians are elected to represent us and lead our country.

Therefore as long as the majority of this country remains gullible, unethical and unprincipled, we will continue to have unethical and unprincipled politicians as our political leaders. Remember, the person you vote for is a reflection of who you are. If you are unethical and unprincipled yourself, you will chose to vote for an unethical and unprincipled candidate at any election, irrespective of the political party.

Last but not least, I lay the blame for this societal degradation in Sri Lanka, fairly and squarely at the feet of our Buddhist clergy, save a handful. The majority of our Buddhist clergy, starting with the Mahanayakes downward are guilty of violating the Vinaya Pitaka. Their first violation was segregating themselves according to the repugnant caste system the Buddha totally denounced, and from their onwards, the rot started.

Morally, the main and only reason a man or woman choses Buddhist ordination is to live a simple and meditative life and ultimately attain nirvana and in the meantime, teach the Buddhist laity the philosophy of the Buddha – the Dhamma. Today, how many amongst those referred to as ‘Buddhist monks’ behave and live the morally righteous life? How many of these ‘monks’ know and understand the Buddha’s teachings or reflect it in order to teach the laity? How can they teach what they do not know?

Instead, they have adopted a self-serving pseudo religion called “Buddhagama” (‘Agama’ means religion as in Hinduism, Christianity and Islam) concocted by their predecessors aeons ago and continue to propagate it amongst the gullible Sinhalese, instead of teaching what they should be rightfully teaching the laity – the Dhamma, which makes absolutely no reference to a religion called “Buddhagama”.

These pseudo ‘Buddhist monks’ are the primary cause of the morally bankrupt Sinhala-Buddhist laity of Sri Lanka, for they have led the laity astray with lies and deceit. And, if the right-thinking educated Buddhists of this country don’t take it upon themselves to take these pseudo ‘Buddhist monks’ to task and stop them in their destructive tracks, right now, they will continue to contribute to the ultimate destruction of the Sinhalese as an ethnic community. 

Given the moral-lows Sri Lanka’s society has dropped to, it will take nothing less than a righteous ‘Benevolent Autocrat’ to cleanse our country of the societal scourge that has taken hold, which is the primary impediment to the development of our country. This is the only option for the greater good of the future generations of Sri Lanka!