The Sirisena Saga: On Yahapālana Misogyny

By Chamindra Weerawardhana –January 16, 2018

The National Human Rights Action Plan [hereafter referred to as ‘Action Plan’] is one of the best developments that came out of the otherwise jaundiced Sirisena–Wickremesinghe joint government. A crucial component of the Action Plan was a call to work towards repealing legislation of yesteryear that restrict fundamental freedoms of Sri Lankan citizens.

Last week, Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera MP announced a decision that was part of the gradual implementation of the Action Plan – which involved amending a law passed in the Dominion of Ceylon in 1955. This extremely misogynist ‘law’ banned selling alcohol to women. It also prohibited women from working in bars, distilleries and breweries. Samaraweera’s directive was intended at rescinding this archaic dinosaur of a law, which simply has no place in a country that is even parsimoniously serious about gender equality.

What happened thereafter does not require any reiteration here. The first and the trickiest of elections since the 2015 presidential and parliamentary elections is on the way, and President Sirisena was quick to jump in the bandwagon of fundamentalist and, in the book this writer has read, thoroughly uncultured conservatism. He used presidential powers tooverturn the ministerial directive, reinstating the 1955 monstrosity of a law.

 

This decision can be interpreted as an effort by Sirisena to reap electoral advantage among the non-urban, and to a very large extent socially conservative vote base. It can also be understood as a decision that helps cement Sirisena’s position as a politico from the rural conservative hinterland, as opposed to the urban, cosmopolitan and to follow the much-repeated cliché, ‘westernised’, types heading the UNP.

It can also be argued that Samaraweera, being the seasoned politician he is, ought to have waited until the end of the local government poll to come up with this directive.

At another level, Samaraweera’s directive can also be understood as precisely intended at appealing at a very specific vote base that would be extremely decisive at the forthcoming elections – the Colombo electorate. This time around, the UNP has fielded one of its most progressive voices, Rosie Senanayake, as the Colombo mayoral candidate. To the cosmopolitan Colombo electorate disillusioned by the Joint Government’s many vices,  a directive of this nature would have meant that their 2015 vote was not in vain. A decision with gender equality and fighting misogynist prejudice at its core implemented by her party would have been advantageous to Ms Senanayake.

Leaving political speculations aside, it goes without saying that Sirisena’s reaction to this directive is extremely pathetic and puerile. It is a move that relegates the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to the absolute laughing stock of the world. This decision shows where Sirisena stands on the fundamental rights and freedoms of women.

Reactions by many Sri Lankans on social media demonstrate the extent of the presidential decision’s unpopularity.

 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/LordDK82/posts/574798699519022?pnref=story

Source: https://www.facebook.com/Supzter/posts/2315351448490961?pnref=story

Source: https://twitter.com/kavindya_T/status/952659144993132545

Source: Click here.

This decision may come as a shock to some, but to this writer, a member of the LGBTQI+ community, it certainly does not come as a surprise.

Read More