Crisis of the Constitution

 A Policeman and a Government servant assigned for election duty during Local Government elections. Now Sri Lanka can be considered a country without a proper constitution or a proper system of governance. Going for elections without rectifying these two fundamental errors will most probably result in the country ending up in a state of anarchy – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Friday, 15 February 2019

Now, economically, Sri Lanka is in a state of virtual bankruptcy, which cannot be controlled. Politically too, it is on the verge of anarchy. Fluctuations of political crisis affect the economic crisis while those of economic crisis affect the political crisis.

Viewed from whatever angle, Sri Lanka is now in a situation of imminent fall into a great crisis. But it does not seem to have received the attention of the political leaders and the intelligentsia of the country. Instead, their full attention appears to have been focused on the forthcoming elections to be held according to the political agenda.

As reported by the media, the Provincial Councils election is scheduled to be held before 31 May in one day. Thereafter, the Presidential election is due to be held on a day from 9 November to 9 December.

The crisis that had been growing in the economic and political spheres may sometimes lead to disrupt the scheduled election timetable. Even if such an eventuality will not occur, the elections that will be held or their results may cause an explosive impact on the ongoing crisis of the country.

In this context, the Constitution that we now have can be an important factor, causing a big mess. The Constitution we now have is more conducive to add to the present problems than solving them. Due to persistent violations, it has lost the consistency and the proper order that a constitution ought to have and had become an impotent and deformed entity. Therefore, now we are left with a constitution not effective in countering the crisis or containing it. It had become a source that would aggravate both the existing crisis and the new crises that may arise.
The crisis of the Constitution 
Prior to introducing the 19th Amendment, the 2nd Republican Constitution of Sri Lanka had already become a distorted and weak document as a result of it being violated in a row by the ruling parties that came to power from time to time. It can be said that the 19th Amendment had brought the distortion and impotence of the Constitution to a climax rendering it a defaced and mutilated statute. Thus, the 19th Amendment itself can be considered the crudest and the major violation of the Constitution prior to it was violated by President Maithripala Sirisena in October 2018 by sacking the incumbent Prime Minister and later dissolving the Parliament.

The violation of the Constitution through the 19th Amendment did not take place in secret. It was done in public and in a jubilant and euphoric atmosphere. The people did not notice the violation taking place as it had been done in the pretext of fulfilling several resounding election promises like the restoration of the system of independent commissions, abolition of 18th Amendment, granting the public the right to information and reduction of the powers and the official term of the President, etc.

Abolishing the executive powers of the President and transferring same to the Prime Minister can be said to be the main objective of the 19th Amendment. Normally, the object of a simple constitutional amendment would be to make only a revision of the existing constitution.

Adopting a new system of government changing the existing system is usually done by a new constitution and not by a mere amendment to the Constitution. It constitutes an accepted principle in constitution making. But the 19th Amendment can be considered only as callous and anti-constitutional attempt made to abolish the existing system and superimpose it with a new system of government by a simple amendment to the Constitution which was contrary to this principle.

On the other hand, a simple amendment could be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament. But, any significant transformation in the system of governance is required to be approved by the people at a referendum in addition to it being passed by a two-thirds majority of the Members of Parliament.

Though the 19th Amendment can be considered a move to change the entire system of government, it had been drafted as an amendment that could be enacted by the approval of a two-thirds majority of the Members of Parliament.

However, the Judiciary did not approve of this callous effort. The Judiciary ruled out that it should be approved by the people at a referendum in addition to it being passed by a two-thirds majority of the Members of Parliament if it is to be enacted as a bill.

Following the ruling of the Judiciary, the next legitimate step taken should have been to abandon this informal and haphazard approach and work towards adopting a proper course of action to achieve this objective. But, what had really happened was to remove certain elements of the main object of the amendment and produce a new draft, incorporating only a part of the objective contained in the original draft of the amendment so that it would appear to be in conformity with the guidelines of the Judiciary and pass it by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament without submitting it even for a review by the Judiciary.

It does not call for a deep knowledge of the subject of constitution making to realise that the manner in which the powers of the president was reduced by the 19th Amendment was a serious constitutional fraud which is contrary to the provisions enshrined in the Constitution itself. This can be considered a serious fraud committed by the Legislature to the public and the Judiciary.
Mutilation of the Constitution 
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution can be considered a product of the Yahapalana Government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Maithripala Sirisena. The UNP and its Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe had the potential of public support to secure the ruling power of the country after the rule of Mahinda Rajapaksa. But, Wickremesinghe lacked the self-confidence needed to contest against Mahinda Rajapaksa. Similarly, the UNP too did not have confidence in the candidacy of Ranil Wickremesinghe and his success.

Ranil Wickremesinghe might have expected that it would be possible for him to make the common candidate, elected as the president with the support of the UNP, his political puppet. But, Maithripala Sirisena upon his victory was not prepared to be a political puppet of the Prime Minister. In this context, Ranil Wickremesinghe schemed to reduce the status of the president to a level of a nominal head of the state by making it a part of the common program of action of the Yahapalana Government and transfer the Executive powers to the Prime Minister by a simple amendment to the Constitution. The 19th Amendment can be reckoned to be the constitutional manoeuvring that he initiated to achieve this object.

Despite the common agreement reached between the two leaders to abolish the executive presidency, Maithripala Sirisena, after being elected the President, did not like to see his executive powers removed totally. In this backdrop, the Prime Minister tried to achieve his objective through a subtle program, by way of the 19th Amendment aimed at transferring the executive powers on him without upsetting the President.

As its original draft failed to receive the approval of the Judiciary, the Prime Minister was compelled to adopt a crafty approach to achieve his objective. The final outcome of this approach had been the creation of an irregular and lopsided Constitution that leads to cause a maximum distortion in the system of governance. Eventually, this situation, besides being absurd, has rendered the entire system of governance a confused mess with no consistency and proper order.

The 19th Amendment reduced the powers of the president considerably and transferred them to the prime minister. Accordingly, the president lost the discretionary power of decision on who should be appointed the prime minister. Deciding on the cabinet of ministers also rests on the prime minister and not the president. The president has no power to change the prime minister or the cabinet of ministers. He cannot dissolve the Parliament until its official term is over unless the Government is defeated by a no confidence motion or by the defeat of the budget or the request by MPs to dissolve the Parliament with a two-thirds majority.

Despite the fact that the 19th Amendment had deprived the President of most of his executive powers, conferring them on the Prime Minister, it has not been possible to reduce his status to a level of a mere nominal president. According to the Article 30(1) of the constitution, the president shall be the head of the state, the head of the executive and of the government, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. According to the Article 42(3) The president shall be a member of the cabinet of ministers and the head of the cabinet of ministers. The authority of appointing the secretary to the cabinet of ministers, secretaries of the prime minister and the cabinet ministers rests on the president.
Most hilarious feature
The biggest confusion and the most hilarious feature of this Constitution is that the President is selected by public vote treating the entire country as a single constituency, notwithstanding the fact that the president had been deprived of his executive powers to a considerable extent.

Under the new system introduced and the changes effected, it is the prime minister, not the president, who can be considered the chief executive of the government. But, according to this Constitution, it is not the prime minister, but the president who is recognised to be not only the head of the state but also the head of the government. While the prime minister, who wields the executive power of the government, is elected from a local constituency, the president who has no executive powers in the rule of the government is elected from an island wide general election in which the entire country is treated as a single constituency.

Even though the executive power of the government is vested in the prime minister, it is the president who represents the sovereignty of the people the most. This irregularity and the confusion in the distribution of powers between the president and the prime minister will inevitably lead to make the entire system of governance a chaotic mess.
A serious fault
One of the serious faults of the new constitution is as follows. Appropriate measures should have been taken to remove the power the President had in dissolving the Parliament arbitrarily. But the way it had been implemented led to a bigger chaos. There can be special instances in which the Parliament needs to be dissolved due to the changes in the balance of power. In such situations, the continuity of the lifetime of the Parliament without dissolving it until its official term is over will necessarily create a chaos in the functioning of the government, making it a source of ridicule and disgust, earning the strong protest of the people.

Prior to this change, all the powers had been concentrated in the President. With the 19th Amendment, a considerable share of this power had been deprived and transferred to the Prime Minister. But the system of government introduced by this change, in its final analysis, can be described as lacking consistency and order, leading to disputes and conflicts while causing the country to be pushed to a state of anarchy.

Thus, the bequest of a mutilated constitution together with an equally-mutilated system of government can be considered as the final outcome of the 19th Amendment.
The need for a new constitution 
The present situation of the country is not normal. It is sunk in a serious crisis. The mutilated Constitution and the mutilated system of government that we have inherited will not help abate the crisis except for aggravating it. Under the circumstance, making a new constitution can be said to have become an urgent need and a national requirement before anything else.

If the elections are held in an atmosphere in which there is no proper constitution and a formal system of governance, it is likely to create a situation that leads to the emergence of constitutional crises. Such an eventuality will not augur well for the country in solving its present crisis and avoiding the country plunging into a complete anarchy.

If the flight control signalling system of an aircraft breaks down while it is in flight, essentially the pilot should give prominence to the safety of the passengers rather than to the timetable of the journey. If the pilot decides to navigate the aircraft being more concerned with the time schedule thinking that the flight control signalling system could be rectified once the aircraft reaches its final destination, it can amount to a serious risk of playing with the lives of the passengers.

It is important that the aircraft is navigated according to a timetable. Yet, if there is a serious technical fault in the aircraft, the prominence should be given to the rectification of the fault and not to the timetable. The pilot’s concern should be more on the safety of the passengers than the timetable.

We can apply this analogy to the present situation of Sri Lanka, which is in a state of confusion in which the country does not have a proper constitution or a proper system of government. If it is decided to implement the election timetable to the letter without resolving this fundamental fault and the main confusion, it will invariably result in creating more confusion; and the country may even be plunged into a state of anarchy. Those of who are dreaming of a presidential election should not forget that there is a serious confusion in the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to the election of the president.

The candidate elected for presidency must poll over 50% of the valid votes. In the event no candidate has satisfied this condition, the provisions introduced for selection of the winner cannot be considered practical or proper. The voter is entitled to express his second preference when there are two candidates contesting and a third preference if there are more than three candidates contesting the election. But, experience show that the voters of Sri Lanka do not use their second or third preference.

This provision for second and third preference is made to be used as a basis for selecting the winner in an event no candidate has received more than 50% of the valid votes polled in the first round of voting. In such a situation, all other candidates except the two highest scoring candidates are eliminated from the contest and the winner is selected on the basis of the second and the third preference marked on the ballot papers of the candidates who were eliminated from the contest.

But, as mentioned above, the Sri Lankan voters cannot be expected to indicate their second and third preference in voting. Therefore, in an event the highest scoring candidate polls less than 50% of valid votes it could invariably lead to a constitutional crisis in selecting the winner. So far, such a situation had not arisen in Sri Lanka. But, it is most likely to happen at the forthcoming presidential election.

The provisions available in the French Constitution in this respect are precise and simple. It is a two-round system also known as the second ballot or runoff voting. The candidate aspiring to be the president should obtain a certain proportion of valid votes. If no one has polled the required proportion of votes, then all but the two candidates receiving the most votes are eliminated, and a second round of voting is held within two weeks. Only the two candidates who had received the highest number of votes will be entitled to the second round of voting.

The above drawback is not the only fault in the Constitution of Sri Lanka that leads to create problems in the system of governance. It is only one fault. Now Sri Lanka can be considered a country without a proper constitution or a proper system of governance. Going for elections without rectifying these two fundamental errors will most probably result in the country ending up in a state of anarchy.

Reflections on Sri Lanka’s two nationalisms

2019-02-15

Being a short note on why I am not a Ceylonese/Sri Lankan nationalist 

epending on how you see it, Sri Lanka is either a nation of many cultures or a culture of many nations: Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, Burgher and so forth. It is up to us to construct an identity transcending petty labels and it is up to us to ensure that such an identity, once constructed, is adhered to and privileged at all times. The simple truth is that no one outside cares as to whether what we produce, and give back to the world, is made by a Sinhalese Buddhist male heterosexual in his mid-forties. When it goes there, the product becomes distinctly Sri Lankan. 71 years after independence, we seem to have failed to grasp this fundamental reality. We never learn. 

On the other hand, that this is somehow a licence to cast aside and forget the ethnic dimensions of grief and grievance, of victory and loss, is taking the argument that we are all one nation too far. Historically, there has never been a Sri Lankan identity, just as there has never been a Ceylonese identity. It is a fairly recent cultural construct, and it depends, for its perpetuation, a vaguely defined, amorphous, and fragile framing of citizenship. It is premised on ethnic and religious labels; for this reason, it never truly transcends those labels. Once again, 71 years after independence, we seem to have failed to understand this fundamental reality. 
By 1948, identity politics in Sri  Lanka had become so vaguely defined that there were two broad nationalisms: a Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and a Ceylonese nationalism. K. M. de Silva in his work A History of Sri Lanka contends that the latter “emphasised the common interests of the island’s various ethnic and religious groups,” accepting as a reality “a plural society.” 

In other words, it was more accommodative, more inclusive, and more forward looking than the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism which was, in part at least, based on the Buddhist revival of the late 19th century. Such a distinction, between the bigoted and the inclusive, the emotional and the rational, the mono-ethnic and the multi-ethnic, corresponds to the distinction today between those who argue for an ethnicised Sri Lankan identity and those who yearn for a more pluralist identity.
The tragedy was – and this is a tragedy that bedevils us even now – was that both these streams of nationalism were based on misinterpretations of history. Identities are never static, nor are they completely fluid. The evolution of identities, in this sense, is never as clear-cut as historians sometimes present them as. Racial consciousness, as R.A.L.H. Gunawardhana pointed out in ‘The People of the Lion,’ dates back to 16th century Europe, which was when the term “race” appeared for the first time. Given this, those who went overboard with their visions of pre-colonial Sinhala Buddhist utopias were “presenting a view of the past moulded by contemporary ideology.” 

"“Ceylonism” was not a continuation of the nationalism which had flourished before 1815. It was a nationalism catered to an uprooted class and imposed on the people, despite the racial and religious pressures which more than a century of colonial rule had stifled"

On the other hand, that identities are hybrid, that they remain “imagined communities”, that they are conceived and crafted by a subtle mixture of different groups and interests from one period to another, does not delegitimise the claims of specific identities. Quite the opposite: it is by understanding the grievances of these identities, imagined or otherwise, and their claims, that we can begin to construct a cohesive nationalism accommodative of everyone. The truth, given all this, is that the Sinhala Buddhist considers him/herself Sinhala and Buddhist, and only then a Sri Lankan, because of the fact that his/her identity bears with it a long history of colonisation, exploitation and marginalisation. 

The popular, or populist, view is that an all inclusive Sri Lankan identity is, somehow, a panacea for the country’s ills. Historians point out the era that predated the rise of Sinhala Buddhist consciousness in the 20th century, i.e. before the election of the most vilified political leader we ever had, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, was an era in which everyone identified with such an inclusive identity. In this assertion, however, the champions of “Ceylonese nationalism” are, or tend to be, unaware of history.
First and foremost, Ceylonese nationalism was a reflection of the fact that the country was never a nation in the conventionally understood sense (a contention not only of scholars like Gunawardhana and H.L. Seneviratne, but also of leftist politicians like Hector Abhayawardena). In fact not until the fourth century AD, in the Dipavamsa, that was there a link drawn between nationhood and ethnicity, when the country was referred to as Sihala or “the Sinhala island.” 
Interestingly, not even at the time of the Nayakkar kings was there an identity based on ethnic/religious groups. The rebellions of the Sinhalese nobility against the kings of Kandy, Gunawardhana wrote, “were not uncommon even when Sinhala kings were on the throne.” What this meant was that even when the Adigars conspired against Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe, it represented a rebellion that had taken more than a century of rule by South Indian princes to transpire. In other words it was politics, not racialism, that had a say in the deposal of the king, which is why it was considered natural that with independence, the political order should return to the “nationalism” that had supposedly flourished in pre-1815 society. 

At the time of independence, a complex interplay of historical forces had therefore conspired to define the country in terms of a cohesive, transcendental, multicultural identity. Even this was clumsily done; when in 1936 the State Council debated on a motion to repatriate all “non-Ceylonese” from the country, A.P. de Zoysa remarked, “the Sinhalese, I think, would be non-Ceylonese.” Moreover, this definition of nationality marginalised a profound historical reality. Colonialism.
British rule led to a contortion of the ethnic, religious, and caste demographics that had prevailed in the island until then. From being the most privileged, the Sinhalese Buddhists became, until the entry of South Indian labourers, the most marginalised community. This was reflected even in the way they were “counted” in the censuses; while forming more than 75% of the population, they were always listed after the privileged groups: the Europeans, the Burghers, the Muslims. 

During the period of colonial rule, Sinhala Buddhist consciousness underwent a radical transformation. It is unconstructive to assess history on the basis of arbitrary periodisations, but for the sake of simplifying a complex reality, we can say that, in this respect, British colonial rule can be divided into three periods: from 1796 to 1815, from 1815 to 1835 (until the Colebrooke-Cameron reforms), from 1835 to 1931 and from 1931 to 1947. From Colebrooke-Cameron to the first decade of the 20th century, there was a revival of Buddhism; Obeyesekere and Gombrich termed it, based on affinities they felt it shared with Lutheranism, “Protestant Buddhism.”
Whether or not it was Protestant being another debate, what is important to note is that the revival was the consequence of two distinct realities: the colonial enslavement of the Buddhists, and the formation of a plantation elite, birthed by the Colebrooke-Cameron reforms, who could not be more indifferent to the revival.
Described as a “native civil service class” by my friend Vinod Moonesinghe, the rentier/plantation bourgeoisie, who would later make it to the pages of history books as national heroes and founding fathers, were not just indifferent to the revival, but at times were even hostile to it. They saw the world, the world they occupied, in terms of those who belonged to their subculture and those who did not; it was this attitude that made a prominent member of this class, J.P. Obeyesekere, to rant against villagers who got into debt trying to educate their children in English schools. 

"The popular, or populist, view is that an all inclusive Sri Lankan identity is, somehow, a panacea for the country’s ills"

Ceylonese nationalism, in that regard, was less pluralist than it seemed; it was defined in economistic terms, more so than the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism which found its single greatest exponent in Anagarika Dharmapala. It was the nationalism of a narrow class that Beckford, in his brilliant study Persistent Poverty, identified as the legatees of colonialism in plantation societies like ours. These nationalists never went beyond attaining Constitutional independence for the countries they led. They couldn’t, for to have gone beyond it would have entailed a radical reform of the sector they had made their fortunes in. Of course, they didn’t want that.
“Ceylonism” was not a continuation of the nationalism which had flourished before 1815. It was a nationalism catered to an uprooted class and imposed on the people, despite the racial and religious pressures which more than a century of colonial rule had stifled. Today, there are those who want to become Ceylonese/Sri Lankan nationalists. I for one am thankful that I am not one of them. 

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM 

Deputy Governor fails to answer Judge

Lahiru Fernando-Friday, February 15, 2019

Deputy Central Bank Governor S.R.Attygalle was questioned as to who should be held responsible for the expenditures made by the Treasury without following the due processes and laws.

Court of Appeal Judge Gamini Amarasekara yesterday questioned the Deputy Central Bank Governor at the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into the Irregularities at SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering and Mihin Lanka.

Justice Amarasekara asked as to who should be held responsible if someone challenged this issuance of bonds in courts when the gazette was issued subsequent to the issuance of bonds. This has been the practice of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka since 1997 than the law.The witness said he had no answer for that.

Justice Amarasekara was referring to the issuance of bonds worth US$ 500 million (Around Rs. 46.3 billion) to SriLankan Airlines by the General Treasury as per a budget proposal for 2012 - 2014 period as capital infusion instead of issuing money (cash).

Pointing out that the General Treasury through the minister in-charge of finance had not gazetted the issuance of these bonds on a prior date following the Registered Securities Stock Ordinance (RSSO); Justice Amarasekara said the public could have raised their objections against this issuance in courts if it was gazetted as per the law. When Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Neil Unamboowe, PC claimed that Attygalle as the then Deputy Secretary to the Treasury (DST) had directed the CBSL to issue billions of rupees worth bonds to the SLA even without a direction from the then Finance Minister, Attygalle replied that when the budget asked to make such expenditures, he as the DST had to find money for that.

Attygalle said they have two options either to borrow money from banks to make the relevant expenditures or issue bonds. However, as it is the public money, they had used the least cost method, he added.

Attygalle also said that Dr.P.B. Jayasundara as the then Treasury Secretary had directed him to issue bonds valued at US$ 500 million to SriLankan Airlines instead of money.

As the Secretary had mentioned that those bonds cannot be discounted, the ASG questioned the Deputy Governor under which law had he mentioned this. “There is no law to say that. But, this should be because it was issued for capital infusion and not for the recurrent expenditure”, Attygalle added.

Some heated arguments ensued between ASG Unamboowe and Deputy Governor Attygalle during yesterday proceedings also and Commission Chairman,retired Supreme Court Judge Anil Gooneratne intervened to control the flares.

Independence: Its meaning and a direction for the future

By Neville Ladduwahetty-February 14, 2019, 9:26 pm

The seventy first anniversary of Sri Lanka’s independence was celebrated on the fourth of February. Independence should mean that the Sri Lankan nation is free to self-determine who and what they want to be as a nation and charter their destiny. The question is whether Sri Lanka is free enough to make such a determination. Thus independence day becomes a day of retrospect for us to look back to consider whether we have used our independence wisely or not, and to reflect whether the direction we are taking as a nation is being defined by us or for us by others.

No country is free enough to charter its own destiny independently. Those who have attempted to do so have paid a price. The fact that all countries are connected in varying degrees to each other is what causes the interests of each to impact on the other causing each nation to compromise its national interests for reasons of survival. Apart from these external compulsions that are beyond one’s control the lack of internal political stability arising from contrasting ideologies also is a serious fetter to defining a sustained direction. It is in such a context that Sri Lanka as a small and developing nation has to determine how best to charter a self-determined course in the highly competitive global commons

EXTERNAL COMPULSIONS

In the background that Sri Lanka is in a debt trap there are reports that it is negotiating a one billion-dollar loan with China and a further one-billion dollar loan also with China to construct a highway. Also in the background are reports that there are unsolicited attempts to set up a Floating Storage Regasification Unit to cater to our energy needs. There are reports that while the United States is using the International Airport at Katunayake to ferry "cargo", describing the exercise euphemistically as a "commercial transaction", countries such as India, Japan and Singapore are exploring opportunities to get involved in infrastructure projects in pursuit of their global interests by taking advantage of Sri Lanka’s unique location in the Indian Ocean.

This location, situated between the two choke points - the Straits of Malaca in the East and the Straits of Hormuz in the West, is a vital nodal point for China’s Belt and Road grand plan. To counter the latter the United States has organized a coalition of democracies that have capabilities to exercise both hard and soft power by way of infrastructure projects and/or finance for the purpose of establishing a footprint in Sri Lanka to offset the footprint of China.

Debt through Infrastructure projects is the new tool in the armory of the major powers to establish their footprint in countries whose geographic locations further the geopolitical interest of these powers. Since their convergence in and around Sri Lanka is driven solely in the pursuit of what is best for them individually and collectively, how Sri Lanka handles great power relations is a matter of deep concern because the games the great powers play leave in their wake unintended consequences, evidence of which is scattered throughout the globe and in which Sri Lanka is already paying and would have to do so dearly in the near future. If Sri Lanka hopes to emerge unscathed by the interplay of global powers in and around Sri Lanka it is not only being delusional but it also reflects a failure to acknowledge its own limitations.

The pursuit of such interests cannot be undertaken in isolation. They require political patronage, which means governments that are pliant enough to comply with global power expectations. This requires these powers to develop relationships with patrons within the host country, giving rise to the formation of internal rivalries among the local patrons. For instance, the perception in Sri Lanka is that while one political formation is favourable to China the rival group is openly partial to the coalition of democracies, while engaging with China. The need to install political regimes that favour the respective interest of rivals is either through direct involvement including regime change or in the form of infrastructure projects financed by them and when the debt becomes overbearing end up "selling" the project as occurred with Hambantota. Thus, great power rivalry and domestic politics are inextricably linked.

OPTIONS for SRI LANKA

The challenges that Sri Lanka is currently undergoing is a direct result of Sino-American tensions that traditionally arise when an emerging power such as China becomes a threat to a globally recognized super power such as the United States as warned by Thucydides of Greece. Sri Lanka has become a victim of these tensions both by its own actions and the consequences of the fallout from these tensions. How Sri Lanka handles them will impact significantly on the direction of its destiny.

Traditional thinking as to how small States could cope with external pressures are supposed to be: (1) Non-alignment with any of the major centers of power; (2) Alignment with one of the major powers thus making a choice and facing the consequences of which power block prevails; (3) Bandwagoning which involves unequal exchange where the small State makes asymmetric concessions to the dominant power and accepts a subordinate role of a vassal State; (4) Hedging, which attempts to secure economic and security benefits of engagement with each power center: (5) Balancing pressures individually, or by forming alliances with other small States; (6) Neutrality.

Each of these six strategies has its share of advantages and entrapments. Since the concept of non-alignment has lost its relevance in today’s context it appears that successive Sri Lankan governments have opted to adopt a policy of hedging by engaging with China and the coalition of democracies to secure economic and security benefits in the hope of using their rivalry as an opportunity. If such an approach is perceived by the power blocs as exploiting great power rivalry to Sri Lanka’s advantage, their responses could be of such a nature that they are beyond the capabilities of Sri Lanka to handle. In short, this strategy is too risky. Furthermore, the fact that such a strategy is not based on consensus between the two major political parties in Sri Lanka, each has engaged and are continuing to engage to different degrees with China and the coalition of democracies headed by the United States. Therefore, since there is no planned balance in how rivalry between the two power blocs is handled Sri Lanka could well end up paying a heavy price.

STRATEGY for SRI LANKA

Of the six strategies cited above, the only strategy that permits a sovereign independent nation to charter its own destiny is neutrality, as it is with Switzerland and some Nordic countries, not only because domestic rivalries prevent the development of consistent policies for engagement with great powers but also because Sri Lanka does not have the skills or the level of sophistication to emerge unscathed from "grey zone coercion" of the great powers.

Neutrality has relevance at this particular point in time because regional cooperation arrangements among countries in the Indian Ocean Rim and South and South East Asia have lost its appeal due to each country attempting to engage in arrangements that suit them best. Under the circumstances, how could neutrality translate itself in real terms?

Instead of making a public declaration that henceforth Sri Lanka would be neutral in its relations with the great powers, it would be more prudent to express neutrality via the manner in which Sri Lanka engages with the great powers. To start with, Sri Lanka should cease taking outright loans or loans to finance infrastructure projects however attractive the terms from either of the power blocks. Equally important is for Sri Lanka to cease participating in security related land or sea operations with either of the power blocs because they are clearly conducted to further their own security preparedness. 

Since Sri Lanka possesses skills, technical knowhow and materials locally, except for a small component of imported items to design and build infrastructure projects relating to water supply, highways and high-rise structures, and the only shortcoming is finance, the government should facilitate financing arrangements through local banks or through Treasury Bills instead of taking loans from either of the power blocks. If Sri Lanka is compelled to take loans to implement infrastructure projects to further its economy, at least Sri Lanka should insist whenever possible that the design and construction of such projects should be undertaken by Sri Lanka. However, there are projects beyond the capability of local talent in fields such as power generation and value addition of raw materials that are currently being exported. One way of attracting Foreign Direct Investment is for the government to encourage and facilitate the emerging class of astute entrepreneurs to engage with the private sector in countries that have the knowhow to implement those projects that are beyond the capabilities of local talent.

In the meantime, the government should focus on food security by giving every possible incentive locally, not only because tried and tested skills and knowhow are available locally through centuries of experience but also because it is the fastest and most effective way to improve the livelihood and wellbeing of the bulk of the nation. Such traditional agricultural practices should be coupled with up to date technologies relating to transport, packaging and processing of agricultural products together with marketing the end products for local consumption as well as export.

Since water is the most vital input for agriculture the government should undertake a program to restore the ancient tanks that dot the landscape of Sri Lanka as part of food security, because the consequence of climate change is the certainty that it is not possible to predict when and where it would rain. As a key feature of such a program, the upper elevations that form the catchment area of the major rivers in Sri Lanka should be declared a natural reserve under the control of the central government and reforested to harvest precipitation from either of the monsoons.

A development strategy that should run parallel with food security should be the development of a whole range of organic agricultural products including spices outside the range related to food security e.g. horticulture, flowers, ornamental plants and foliage along with spices and herbal medicinal plants not only for local consumption but also specifically targeted for export. A few pioneering entrepreneurs have already embarked on this field of activity but it is only a serious and concerted thrust undertaken by the government as an integral part of a National Economic Policy to develop agriculture and agriculture-based products that could take this field of economic activity far beyond than what it is today. Such a strategy would contribute directly to the human development of a hitherto neglected section of the rural population with the minimum of external input.

CONCLUSION

The independence celebrated on the fourth of February and the forthcoming elections would be a timely opportunity for Sri Lanka to determine whether the direction that is being pursued would define who and what we are as a nation and if not what course direction is needed to get us where we want to go. If Sri Lanka does not make hard choices and it drifts in the direction defined for them there is a strong possibility that Sri Lanka would be a victim of great power rivalry because Sri Lanka does not have what it takes to interact in this rivalry to its advantage in the background of its own particular domestic rivalries. The latter prevents the development of a unified strategy with which to address great power rivalries that are manifesting itself in and around Sri Lanka

Under the circumstances, the safer bet is to be neutral in its relations with the great powers either collectively or individually by ensuring that engagements with any of them in respect of participation in security related exercises, securing financial support to meet debt commitments and the financing of infrastructure projects are kept to an absolute minimum. It does not mean isolation from the community of nations. Instead, what it means is for Sri Lanka to free itself from engaging with major powers so that she is free to define her own direction. Such a direction should focus on human development because at the end of the day what counts is tangible human development and not statistical distortions represented by numbers such as GDP.

Focusing on human development means dramatically improving the livelihood of the bulk of the nation through agricultural activities with food security as a priority and related agricultural activities for export as well using tried and tested indigenous technologies coupled with modern technologies relating to transport, processing, packaging and marketing. Such a direction would enable Sri Lanka to free itself of the external dependence that Sri Lanka is currently trapped in.

Today the Sri Lankan nation is adrift in a complex sea influenced by a way of life that is driven by consumerism and where the emphasizes is on Rights and not on Responsibilities. Whatever government is returned to power at the forthcoming elections, the demand of the public should be for a serious course correction from the direction currently being taken. The People want to take charge of a destiny that they can identify with, and not one that is fashioned by external interests and supported by their local agents. Sri Lanka was able to fashion its own destiny based on self-reliance, hard work and livelihoods based on cherished civilizational values during the early years of independence because the leaders of the time recognized what was best for the nation and its People. It is only a leadership that can reconnect with them that could restore their confidence in a future that has hope for them, their children and the generations to come.

Neville Ladduwahetty

February 13, 2019.

Sri Lanka now needs visionary leaders

The success of all political leaders depends on their ability to run governance well – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Thursday, 14 February 2019


In Sri Lanka, our political leaders have forgotten that we had elected them to represent our interests, care for our welfare and to drive the country to greater heights. It is sad that they had forgotten that aspect altogether. It appears they think that they have been elevated to such dizzy heights to further their interests and of their kith and kin.
The success of all political leaders depends on their ability to run governance well.The problems of governance that that had arisen today are the repercussions of mishandling of public resources and failure in policy implementation by our leaders.They lack capacity, commitment, integrity and the ability to run State craft.

Let me add what Henry A. Kissinger, former US Secretary of State (1973 – 1977), had said about Lee Kuan Yew, I quote: “A great leader takes his or her society from where it is to where it has never been – indeed , where it as yet cannot imagine being. By insisting on quality education, by suppressing corruption and by basing governance on merit, Lee and his colleagues raised the annual per capita income of their population from $ 500 at the time of independence in 1965 to roughly $ 55,000 today.


“Singapore became an international financial centre, the leading intellectual metropolis of Southeast Asia, the location of the region’s major hospitals and a favoured location for conferences on international affairs within a few decades.It did so by adhering to an extraordinary pragmatism: by opening careers to the best talents and encouraging them to adopt the best practices from all over the world”.

In Sri Lanka, all successive governments have sent the citizens down the garden path for several decades. In 2012, the MR Government had said that their Vision regarding National Human Resources and Employment Policy (NHREP) – I quote: “‘Sri Lanka – the Wonder of Asia’ in which all persons of working age become globally competitive and multi-skilled, and enjoy full, decent and productive employment with higher incomes in conditions of freedom, equity, and human dignity.” They had convinced the innocent public and swaggered that human resource capabilities would be strengthened, and employment opportunities created to make Sri Lanka the “Wonder of Asia”.


How did both MR and Yahapalana regimes fail to sustain economic growth while ensuring sufficient investment flow, which is pivotal, to achieve long-term sustainable development strategies in the country?Both these leaderships have disregarded the pattern of demographic transition in the country.It is predicted that the population will undergo major changes in its size and age structure in the coming decades.In the year 2031 the size of the population would reach its peak of 21.9 million persons.

The role of a good government is to guide the country along a course leading to the desired goal, namely, development. Good leaders should therefore deliver what they have promised to the citizens. They should have the firm resolve; the political will, to serve the country and the people first. Elected representatives should be aware that they are elected by the people and they are therefore liable to be voted out on several counts – their poor attitude, disregard for law and order, dishonesty, inefficiency, etc. Democracy works well if the elected representatives ensure good representative governance and support well-functioning institutions.

Our leaders have failed to act responsibly. A study carried out by the Central Bank had revealed that the post-war reconstruction strategy in the north centred on building infrastructure expansion, expansion of credit to promote self-employment and a narrow focus on private sector investments etc., have failed to meet the expectations of sustained economic growth with increased jobs and higher incomes.

It has also been revealed that micro-credit lending too has become cancerous.It is a problem because there is undue political involvement. Powerful politicians are behind the whole thing. It applies to drugs, ethanol and numerous other exploitative businesses aswell. It is also reported that unregulated lenders had indulged in ‘immoral credit practices’ throughout the Island, particularly at a time when the innocent citizens are making an attempt to rebuild their lives in post-war conditions. It is reported that the total outstanding loan portfolio of major state micro finance institutions had exceeded Rs.263 billion in 2017.

It is frustrating we are globally among the top nations when it comes to the number of suicides in our country. According to information hundreds of suicides linked to family disputes arising from micro-finance debts take place all over the Island in an alarming manner. The newly-enacted Micro Finance Act No. 6 of2016 provides provision for licencing, regulation and supervision of unregulated microfinance companies.  Bimputh Finance PLC Director Chamindra Gamage, had elaborated the way forward at a forum entitled ‘Managing Microfinance; The Way Forward’ sometime back.It is unfortunate that owing to conflict of interest and particularly when there are powerful government ministers involved in businesses, nothing could be put right in the interest of public-good.

Bimputh Finance is a subsidiary owned by Daya Group of Companies. The relevant website says – “Bimputh Finance strives to uplift the living standards of poverty-stricken women by providing them with the necessary financial and technical support to mould them into successful micro entrepreneurs.”

It has also been reported that the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents is causing a serious threat to the country. The WHO had revealed that traffic-related deaths in Sri Lanka had accounted for 2.80% of total number of deaths in the year 2017.

Prof. AmalKumarage, Moratuwa University, had said: “Minimum standards in road designing, unsafe junctions, bends and pedestrian crossings, visibility at night, and potential black spots, have not been properly dealt with.” Professor Kumarage had also said: “The deaths reported due to road accidents might surpass deaths reported in the three decades of war.”

The elected political executives in Sri Lanka, it is sad, do not commit themselves to ‘develop ascience of administration with principles of universal validity’. They always promote and legitimise solutions imposed without any regard to the institutional context and administrative capacity.We should not delay promoting innovative approaches. We should at the earliest alleviate the problems of corruption, decline of public trust and the erosion of the standards of public service.

Human resources have considerable potential to steer the country’s growth trajectory from its current low-skilled, low productive and low income earning people to one of highly-skilled, dynamic and globally competitive work force. We should never forget the fact that we have been a model of social development for developing countries in the past. We now need to transform all that into economic prosperity, which requires much more emphasis on human resource development and employment generation.

It is frustrating the Yahapalana regime too have gone on a borrowing spree, adding fuel to the fire. Nevertheless, owing to the debt crisis, the IMF has suggested strict policies for fiscal consolidation, where Government had been urged to curtail Government expenditure, e.g. reducing wastage, corruption, reduction of ministerial portfolios, etc. The Cabinet of Ministers in all successive governments should be firmly dealt with by law for neglecting their duties and thereby committing crimes, without working out a business case for the projects they have undertaken during their tenure of office.



The Yahapalana Government too did do same thing without looking at the whole issue futuristically.Our predatory political leaders e.g. Mahinda Rajapaksa, MS and RW, have not considered how the East Asian economies, attained rapid economic progress. Those countries became the so-called “Asian Miracles” by adopting the Flying Geese Model (FGM) of development, the late Professor Emeritus of HitotsuBashi University had coined the phrase “Ganko-Keitai”, which had been subsequently translated as ‘Flying Geese Model,’ which has become quite well known throughout the world as a way of describing rapid economic growth in East Asia.

Good governance needs fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially.It also requires the protection of human rights. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and impartial incorruptible police force. Good governance to become a reality, both elected representatives and all public-sector employees should act in the public interest always.

Ministers Rajitha Senaratne and Harin Fernando, at a public rally recently, had unconventionally said that they would disregard rules, regulations etc., to serve their party supporters. Both had bragged that they would not respect or abide by policies of good governance. This no doubt is a serious announcement. A lawful government should principally be a responsible government acting in the interest of all the citizens in the broadest sense, while honouring, I repeat all citizens, irrespective of their party, race etc.

The public sector is duty bound to serve the public while adhering to the requirements of government policies, rules, regulations.The President, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers should always promote a culture where they honour public interests to strengthen their ethical values and standards. They should refrain from making statements that may lead to conflicts. It is unfortunate we do not have leaders who can stand as examples to give the “tone at the top”.It is irregular to act contrary to the broad written and unwritten policies and procedures.

It is virtually impossible to achieve and sustain effective administration, to achieve goals, sustain quality governance, and deliver quality services, if they are not visionaries with sufficient understanding about the vision, mission and the goal.They should also in addition include:

nStrong commitment to integrity, ethical values, and the rule of law; and

nOpenness and comprehensive engagement of all citizens without any discrimination at all

As far as I am aware, Hong Kong’s Independent Commissionagainst Corruption (ICAC) is one of the world’s best known anti-corruption agencies so far.The Commission won public credibility after capturing and winning a conviction of a corrupt police commander whose escape from jail had led to massive demonstrations demanding reform. After three decades, the ICAC mandate had been widely expanded. The ICAC has jurisdiction to cover private sector too, which had eventually paved the way for better corporate as well as public governance system. 

Inside Story of the First - Ever Foreign Indictment of A Lankan Ambassador

• Wednesday, 9 January 2019 

It was revealed last month that former Sri Lankan Ambassador to Washington D.C., Jaliya Chitran Wickramasuriya is facing criminal prosecution in the United States of America, according to an indictment and supporting documents unsealed on December 20, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Colombia.

Inside Story of the First -... by on Scribd

National ethnic question: MR blames TNA’s lack of cooperation during his tenure

ANANTH PALAKIDNAR- FEB 05 2019

Leader of the Opposition and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, while opposing the formation of a National Government, pointed out that if the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) had cooperated with him, he would have gone for a meaningful settlement to the ethnic question, soon after the war.

Rajapaksa had a breakfast meeting with the senior editors and journalists of the Tamil media at his Wijerama Mawatha residence today (5).

He responded to several questions during his meeting and pointed out that he was confident of winning more than 113 seats if a Parliamentary Election was held.

He also emphasized on the necessity of holding the Provincial Councils Elections first, saying that several Provincial Councils have completed their terms at present. He also said that attempts have been made to delay the Provincial Councils Elections. “We are prepared to face any election and are confident of winning all the Elections. I have interacted with the people closely and I am certain of my victory,“ he said.

Elaborating on joining hands with President Maithripala Sirisena, he said that he had done so to prevent the United National Party, led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, taking the country towards disaster.

Commenting further on the national question, Rajapaksa said that a political solution should have been found soon after the end of the war in 2009. “The TNA instead of cooperating with me was very particular about supporting Wickremesinghe and getting a settlement from him. Ultimately nothing has happened in the past four years,“ Rajapaksa noted. When a question was put to him saying that the TNA had 18 rounds of talks with his Government in this regard, yet to no fruition, he said that even in those 18 rounds of talks, the TNA was not cooperative.

Expressing his views on the proposed new Constitution, Rajapaksa said that a new Constitution could not be brought by a weak Government. “A Government with strength is important to bring out a new Constitution,“ he said.

Commenting on the Presidential Election candidate from his side, Rajapaksa said that there were speculations about fielding his brothers Chamal Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, yet no decision has been taken thus far in this regard. “At the right time we will announce the right candidate,” Rajapaksa said.

Responding to a question on what would be his stance if the TNA and former Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran, who has formed his own Party contest separately in an Election held in the North, Rajapaksa said that he would join hands with whoever needed his cooperation in solving the Tamil question.

ICJ DEEPLY CONCERNED BY PRESIDENT SIRISENA’S RESOLVE TO RESUME EXECUTIONS IN SRI LANKA

14/02/2019

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has called on Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, to retract his recent pronouncement that executions would resume in the country notwithstanding a moratorium on capital punishment that has lasted 43 years. The last execution was carried out in Sri Lanka in 1976.

“Resuming executions would be an egregious violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law, a serious threat to human rights in the country, and it would be inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty”, said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.

Speaking in Parliament last week, President Sirisena vowed to resume executions of those convicted of “drug offences” as early as within the next two months.

The ICJ considers any resumption of executions in Sri Lanka as constituting a violation of international law and an appalling disregard for the international human rights system as a whole.

The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances – as it constitutes a violation of the right to life and its imposition constitutes per se cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. The Human Rights Committee, the Treaty Body supervising the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by which Sri Lanka is bound, has recently made clear in its General Comment 36 on Right to life that, “it is contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6 [of the ICCPR, which enshrines the right to life] for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty”, and that, “States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future. The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”

Moreover, the UN Human Rights Committee has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for “drug offenses” is incompatible with the Covenant.

“At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty or instituted an official or unofficial moratorium. There is a growing understanding around the world that the death penalty is an unacceptable assault on rights and dignity”, Fredrick Rawski continued.

The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe a an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition. It must be noted that

Sri Lanka voted in favour of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution. This commitment should not be reversed, but upheld in practice instead.

The ICJ calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to reject the resumption of executions and to do away with the death penalty once and for all. Instead of planning on resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidencebased approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards, such as formulating policies and legislation that address the underlying social and economic causes of criminality, which are also vital to ensuring stability and the rule of law.

The ICJ also urges Sri Lanka to immediately ratify the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.

For questions and clarifications, please contact Mr. Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Advisor and UN Representative, Tel.: + 41 22 979 3800, Email: livio.zilli@icj.org.

February 13, 2019.

Sri Lanka Medical Council Under Pressure To Remove Corrupt Member

FEBRUARY 15, 2019

The Government Medical Officer’s Association (GMOA) in a letter addressed to the Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Wasantha Perera urged her to initiate a full scale investigation in to the allegations of massive financial frauds carried out by the sacked ex fake director of Sri Jayewardenepura General Hospital (SJGH) Susitha Senaratne. The GMOA has also urged the Secretary to remove Senaratne from his position at the Sri Lanka Medical Council as a ministerial appointee. 

The Administrative Officer of SJGH Sarath Robertson has been instrumental in covering up and attempting to destroy the evidence of the FCID investigation in to the massive financial frauds of Susitha Senaratne. Since last Saturday when Susitha Senaratne was removed from his post, Sarath Robertson has been lobbying with Chairman SJGH Dr Athula Kahandaliyanage to let Senaratne remain in the Director’s Quarters. Kahandaliyanage has stood his ground that Senaratne has to vacate the premises within 72 hours, Colombo Telegraph reliably learns. ”

“Sarath Robertson has moved one of the prime suspects and the key coordinators of these financial frauds, Anjana Sendanayake into the Transplant Unit. The unit has now turned in to the key meeting place of the cronies of Susitha Senaratne. On 12th February at a secret meeting held in this location, Shantha Dayasiri, the Chief Radiographer, Dayananada Handaragama, the Chief Physiotherapist, Kolambage of the procurement division and Anjana Senadanayake have been planning a coup for the removal of Athula Kahandaliyanage under the instructions of Susitha Senaratne,” sources within the hospital told Colombo Telegraph.

Shantha Dayasiri, the right hand man of Senaratne who has openly funded the booze drenched party that was held on 11th January at the Grand Monarch with the attendance of Rajitha Senaratne. There, Susitha Senaratne planted employees to lobby with the Minister to appoint himself as Chairman SJGH displacing Kahandaliyanage.,” a source closed to the Health Minster told Colombo Telegraph.

Currently the 4 matrons, Anodani Saputhanthri, Kala Karunaratne, Samitha Senanayake and Vishakha Weerasinghe are lobbying with their colleagues in the nursing staff to support this coup. Colombo Telegraph published photographic evidence of the first three Matrons mentioned, seen rallying around and physically protecting Susitha Senaratne on 11th February when he walked in with thugs to the SJGH premises. 

Anjana Senadanayake: From Casual Laborer To Top Dealer Of Fraud

Anjana Sendanayake

The staff of SJGH are bewildered as to how Anjana Sendanayake who is allegedly connected to massive fraud, coordination of bribes, money transfer, corrupt negotiations and deleting files from official computers was transferred to a protected cushy room with access to a computer, internet and privacy. 

“Sendanayake first joined the permanent staff of SJGH as a casual laborer. Later, due to his connections with the former administrators he jumped from the post of casual laborer to Secretary to the Director. Currently Sendanayake remains the chief coordinator of Susitha Senaratne from within the hospital, mainly engaged in “disappearing” hard and soft copies of documents related to the FCID investigations with the assistance of Sarath Robertson,” another source told Colombo Telegraph.

Sarath Robertson: Unqualified Administrative Officer of SJGH

“Sarath Robertson, the Administrative Officer of SJGH got selected to the hospital due to his relationship with Alec Robertson, a former Minister of the UNP. Sarath Robertson does not possess any qualifications to hold his current position or even entry in to the clerical staff of the hospital. His A/L result sheet has also been contested as fraudulent. He received large financial top ups to his salary under Susitha Senaratne, who submitted Board paper after Board paper for the irregular allowances and salary structure changes to Robertson’s salary. He also re-formulated the salaries of the matrons and illegally appointed them as “Managers” which is believed to be the main reason why they are beholden to Senaratne. These salary re-formulations were done without the approval of the Salaries and Cadre Commission,” our sources further said.

Since the sacking of Susitha Senaratne, Robertson has been working in coordination with Prabhath Werawatte, the Acting Deputy Director. They went as far as to illegally opening the director’s office for Senaratne to occupy by force, 2 days after he was sacked. 

Read More