Friday, November 30, 2018

United Backlash Halts Transfer of Key CID Officer


Behind the conflicting statements from various limbs of the State, a clearer picture is emerging of the circumstances surrounding the abortive attempt to remove Police Inspector Adrian Nishantha Silva from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and to transfer the officer to the Negombo Police Division. The order from the Inspector General of Police (IGP) for Silva’s transfer came on the night of November 18, 2018 citing ‘essential service requirements’.


In the days and even hours prior to the issuance of this order, which was made without consulting the National Police Commission (NPC), the IGP had come under severe pressure from the President and military brass to remove Silva from the CID. There was equal pressure from the CID leadership not to interfere with the officer’s career, according to documents the Daily Mirror is in possession.

CDS warned, remanded

Harbouring SLN officer with abduction allegations


article_image

 
Police yesterday arrested a junior navy officer who allegedly obstructed photographers and assaulted one of them who were at the Fort Magistrate’s court to cover a high-profile wartime abduction case in which Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne has been accused of helping one of the suspects to flee the country.

A senior police arrested the suspect after photographers had confronted him while he was trying to leave the scene. The suspect obstructed the photographers as Admiral Wijegunaratne left the Fort Magistrate’s court after being directed to come in civvies. The senior most serving officer arrived at the court around 9.00 am yesterday morning in uniform.

Later the Admiral arrived in civvies and was remanded till Dec. 5 pending further investigations.

Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake. while remanding the CDS. noted that the CID hadn’t been able to arrest the suspect on previous occasions due to pressure. Dissanayake also directed the police to inquire into alleged recent assault on Lt Commander Laksiri Galagama, one of the key witnesses in the case.

The Magistrate directed the CID to arrest the Admiral after the court was told that he had allegedly harboured Lt. Commander Prasad Hettiarachchi, one of those SLN personnel allegedly involved in the abductions.

Members of the entire Navy unit that provided security to wartime Navy Chief Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, including a senior officer in charge of it, were arrested in connection with the 11 abductions.

Police investigations got underway soon after the conclusion of the war following a complaint lodged by Admiral Karannagoda in May 2009.

The incumbent CDS was first requested to appear before the CID last September. He went overseas. He failed to report to the CID on Tuesday, as requested. Instead, the Admiral surrendered to the court yesterday.

ASP attached to the CID B S Tissera told court that Inspector Nishantha Silva investigating the case had been transferred following unsubstantiated allegations made by Admiral Wijegunaratne, at a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), Chaired by President Maithripala Sirisena on Nov 13, 2018. Tissera said that IGP Pujitha Jayasundera had acted on Admiral Wijegunaratne's request. Alleging that the transfer had resulted in threats to the life of the officer and his family, ASP Tissera told court that the DIG, in charge of the CID, had cleared the officer of accusations directed by Admiral Wijegunaratne as regards his alleged involvement with the LTTE.

ASP Tissera said that the CDS had interfered in the investigation by causing the transfer of the officer conducting the inquiry. According to the CID officer, the former Navy Chief had made false allegations against Inspector Silva.

The Magistrate turned down Admiral Wijegunaratne's request to make a statement in court. President's Counsel Anuja Premaratne appearing for the Admiral was told to advise his client on court procedures.

ASP Tissera further said that though there had been another reason for Inspector Silva's transfer that couldn't be revealed in court.

Attorney-at-law Achala Seneviratne, appearing for the aggrieved party told court that the CDS, in spite of being a suspect in this case, had left the court for when proceedings were suspended for one hour. The lawyer said that several navy personnel in civies had attacked photojournalists outside the court as the officer left court. She asked what the situation would be if the Admiral was given bail.

The Magistrate said that according to a letter submitted by the CID, the suspect had got the investigating officer transferred. The Magistrate said that the court considered the suspect holding such a senior rank shouldn't have acted that way. (SF)
Thajudeen killing: Court orders CID to arrest real suspects in murder

Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 01:11 am SL Time, 
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Lankapage LogoNov 29, Colombo: Colombo Additional Magistrate Isuru Neththikumara today ordered the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to take steps to arrest the real suspects in the killing of national rugby player Wasim Thajudeen and produce them in court.

The Criminal Investigation Department informed Court that the former OIC of Narahenpita Crimes Division Sumith Perera, former Senior DIG Western Province Anura Senanayake and former Chief Judicial Medical Officer of Colombo Dr. Ananda Samarasekara could be charged with concealing the evidence of the murder and forging false documents to conceal the evidence.

The Magistrate pointed out that those in remand custody are the charged with concealing evidence in the killing and inquired from the CID what evidence the CID has on the suspects' against them to bring charges of conspiring to murder Thajudeen.

The Magistrate pointed out that from what CID has produced before court there is no insufficient evidence to charge the suspects of the conspiring to murder in the open court.

Responding to this, the CID requested the court to provide a date to show facts after consulting the Attorney General

Accordingly, the Magistrate ordered the case to be called again on February 28 and ordered the CID to inform the court of the facts about the evidence that could be used to bring conspiracy to murder charges against the three suspects on that day.

The Magistrate further stated that the case was a murder case and told the CID to arrest the real suspects of the murder and produce them in the court. He also told the CID if murder charges cannot be brought against the three suspects in custody now, to take steps to prepare a separate case on them.

The Magistrate made inquiries from the CID regarding the current situation of the investigations.
Police responded that statements had been recorded from 1,200 persons and analyzed about 2.2 million telephone conversations regarding the murder. The CID informed the court that it is a highly complex case.

The CID informed the court that information has been revealed about a motor car and a person in the car that had chased behind Thajudeen on the day he was killed and further investigations are being carried out on the CCTV video images.

The CID further said that a request has been made to the NASA to obtain satellite images on the incident but the Institute has not responded yet.

Accordingly, the Magistrate ordered the CID to conduct the investigations without delay and to report to the Court on the 28th of February.

Thajudeen died on May 17, 2012 in Kirulapone when his car crashed into a wall and caught fire. Earlier it was ruled as an accidental death but the investigations by the CID had found that the player was killed before the accident and the accident was staged.

Former Officer-In-Charge of Narahenpita Police Sumith Champika Perera, former Western Province Senior DIG Anura Senanayake and former Colombo Judicial medical officer Prof. Ananda Samarasekara have been arrested in connection with the cover-up after the murder. However, no suspect has been arrested yet for killing the rugby player.

SRI LANKA: VEN DAMBARA AMILA THERO IMPUGNS ACTS OF PRESIDENT


Image: Ven Dambara Amila. ©s.deshapriya.
Sri Lanka BriefS.S. Selvanayagam.-29/11/2018
 
Nayake Thero Ven Dambara Amila attached to the Nalanda University College has filed a Fundamental Rights petition in the Supreme Court in relation to the acts of the President on the purported removal of Ranil Wickremesinghe from the office of the prime minister and the purported appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa to the same.

In the petition filed through Moahan Balendra, he impugns that the purported removal of Wickremesinghe from the office of the prime minister is ultra vires (beyond his legal power or authority) and amounts to an intentional violation of the Constitution by the President.
He also charges that the purported appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister is ultra vires the Constitution by the President as well and amounts to an intentional violation of the Constitution by him in as much as there was no vacancy in the office of the prime minister for Rajapaksa to have been so appointed. He sustains that in any event, Mahinda Rajapaksa does not command the confidence of Parliament.

He contends it is manifest that the President and Mahinda Rajapaksa have acted collusively in the impugned acts, considering especially the failure to adhere to the constitutionally-mandated ‘no confidence’ procedure.

He also maintains the purported appointments of cabinet ministers, non-cabinet ministers and deputy ministers amounts is in violation of the Constitution and amounts to a violation of the sovereignty of the people and negates the franchise and freedom of expression.

He seeks declaration from the Court the purported removal of Wickremesinghe from the office of prime minister as well as the purported appointment of ministers is null and void (having no legal effect) and Mahinda Rajapaksa is not entitled to act in the office of prime minister.

The Power Of Evil: Rajapaksa’s Do-Or-Die War & The Sajith Subplot


Shyamon Jayasinghe
logo“The chain of events that must now follow along the lines of the  logic inherent in Sirisena’s first unlawful act leads to the build up of a totally new system operating outside the frame of the constitution and irrelevant to it.”
Playing Mind-games on President Sirisena
Mahinda Rajapakse  and his family spotted trouble for them well in advance after their defeat at the polls in 2015. This is how the ‘Mahinda Sulanga,” meetings were organized at the outset- beginning Nugegoda. That move did not suffice and, next, they moved into a different ball game, namely to work on President  Maitripala Sirisena and play mind -games with the latter. What Sri Lankans witness now is the success of that Machiavellian strategy.
With this intent, sections of Mahinda’s men – Susil Premjayanth, John Seneviratne, SB Dissanayake, Mahinda Samarasinghe etc had come to be part of the Yahapalanaya government. The latter group together with advisors like Shrilal Lakthilaka – a sworn Ranil hater – kept on relentlessly working on the mind of Sirisena. To Sirisena himself, reverting back to his old master had an advantage as he was increasingly getting uncomfortable with the ‘alien’ UNP crowd and with the yahapalanaya shackles placed on his enjoying unbridled power. The two needs conjoined and Sirisena was won over. 
Lawlessness
The power of evil is at play. Rajapksas and his cohorts, who never ever expected defeat in 2015, had so many cases coming up  against them over charges of fraud, financial  embezzlement, money laundering, and the brutal murder of opponents. The alleged crimes were very serious. The crime operation of that regime represented plain evil. The regime never respected the fundamental right of a citizen to live and to speak his own conscience. A hit -squad took charge of dissentients-journalists and others.Having little respect for the law, Mahinda and his men and women MPs went about demolishing the democratic institutions that SrI Lankans have been enjoying since the days of the Donoughmore constitution in 1933. That is over 80 years! The regime spent the peoples’ and taxpayers money at their own will and pleasure and regarded all government property their own.If Mahinda wanted to detour a Sri Lankan plane to carry his kith and kin he would do just that.
Overcome Court Challenges
The Rajapaksa regime’s current strategies are tailored to overcome the deadly court challenges its family and cohorts imminently face before the Special High Courts.They couldn’t do that democratically. In the most recent attempt, they tried to use the  money they had amassed and buy over MPs; but that attempt didn’t work.Now, they have got onto the lower road of brazen Fascist rule. They got Sirisena to commence action outside and in violence to the constitution- ignore the 19th Amendment, ignore parliamentary rule, ignore majority rule and ignore decency. As suggested above, these are politicians who by natural propensity are given to lawlessness; so this style of governance is natural to them.
Lankan Special
What we now have is a plainly illegal and fake regime appointing their own Prime Minister, appointing their own Ministers and having pretence cabinet meetings like kids playing with sand castles. The technique was to receive only the President’s illegal seal. From that point, the junta got into government establishments, government-owned media and with sheer force of physical power continue to “rule.” This is not typically how dictatorships come into being; it is a Sri Lankan ‘special’ road to autarchy. Typically, a dictator grabs military power by coup or otherwise and then proceeds. In the Sri Lanka case, the armed forces are still dazed as to what is happening and they have not put in their teeth into the illegal regime. The ultimate power-source is not yet the gun but the physical force that thugs can supply. If the armed forces succumb to the rogue government, then it will guns right along.
Sirisena
In one sense, Maitripala Sirisena is too simple-minded to know that eventually he will be victimised as the man who started all this yahapalanaya replacement and caused all unnecessary worry and headache to the Rajapakse establishment.  However, I won’t credit Sirisena with being simply naive. Sirisena is a complex mixture of greed, corruption, cunningness and duplicitousness. These qualities are well expressed in his daughter’s book, ‘Janadhipathi Thaaththa.’In this instance, however, the naivety in the man emerges.

Read More

Good governance is the key to sustainability

Speaker of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya asserted that leaders who ensure the rule of law coupled with the right vision, dedication, commitment, discipline is critical for Sri Lanka to reach its full economic potential – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
logo Friday, 30 November 2018

To begin, after the financial crisis, regulators and funds came up with a new bunch of new governance structures and rules that they wanted their companies to practice and adopt. This new governance regime brought about new challenges for the chairman, the conscience-keeper in a business. The world we operate in is entirely different to the time.

Today, the increased focus on compliance and governance now permeate every aspects ofthe business. As an example, a board is expected to review all executive compensation schemes on a regular basis to ensure that they cannot be viewed as driving inappropriate behaviour. A board is also expected to review every compliance violations of their board members for a start in order to ensure the company maintains consistently high standards of ethics, especially when their members hold office elsewhere.

Corporate culture normally permeates and influences every part of a company. Of particular importance is the role culture plays in corporate strategy and performance. Culture is also increasingly on the agenda of regulators, with some, such as those in the United Kingdom, now holding boards directly responsible for oversight of corporate culture. Other companies are under deferred prosecution agreements or corporate integrity agreements from the US. Therefore, a board needs to play a key guardianship role as well as ensuring employees are fully aware of their obligations.

The reason for this is the concept that good corporate culture, grounded in good core values based on corporate governance helps to sustain business growth and attract and retain ethical employees and customers. At a macro level attracting investment requires protecting investors. Investor protection requires both law and the effective enforcement of law. However, in many developing countries, neither the quality of the law nor its enforcement are adequate.

As to law, few developing countries have, for example, an enforceable concept of the fiduciary duties that controlling shareholders, directors and managers owe to investors – particularly to minority shareholders. To join the global capital market, developing countries will need to attend to these deficiencies. Because private capital is necessary for economic development, but capital does not flow to badly managed markets.

Investors, whether purchasers of equity or lenders, will not invest in a market or a company they view as unstable, corrupt, or utterly lacking basic protections for their investment and contractual rights.Thus, countries seeking to create a capital market – and private enterprises seeking to attract local or global capital – must develop a framework that assures public investors that the assets they provide will be protected. That requires good governance at enterprise level and sound leadership.

Simply stated, board leadership means the effectiveness of the board in overseeing management and the affairs of the company. For financial institution it also includes ensuring that risks accepted by the financial institution can be safely managed.
Integrating governance
Corporate governance requirements can often be satisfied when it comes to the letter of the law, but respecting the spirit of the law is a challenge for some companies. Much has been said and written about culture change since the financial crisis.

For example in Enron, analyst found a strong correlation between a failure to embrace the spirit of corporate governance and deep-seated organisational culture problems. Furthermore it is now widely accepted that the CEO and top executive behaviour, attitudes and values determine organisational culture – and no matter how many mission or value statements HR plasters on the walls, it is the top management that finally shapes the values in a business. This dimension is probably the biggest chink in an organisation’s corporate governance amour.
Role of HR
Therefore the corporate governance in my view is an issue that encompasses an entire organisation, but without a supportive board will most likely to be side-lined. As a result HR is often the victim of a no-go cycle. Because in many businesses, corporate governance still lacks business perspective, and HR lacks the standing within the organisation to talk governance.

So without that stature, HR often has trouble getting a foot in the door to discuss business challenges like corporate governance. Therefore, HR must and needs to play an important role to promote good corporate governance but to do that they should be well trained in the procedures and demonstrate the value of good corporate governance to business sustainability and for attracting and retaining talent.

Today, the current governance debate in many companies is focusing not only on the changes and upgrades that need to be made to the processes, but also on the different players who need to have a role in either driving good governance or monitoring governance within the enterprise. Therefore, within a company, focus is required from all the key functions to promote governance.

However, HR can facilitate good governance within an enterprise by focusing on three main areas; firstly, HR can set and implement a framework for executive pay. Secondly, they can drive performance evaluation beyond the corporation and into the boardroom. Thirdly, they can ensure that there are good systems for succession planning. Lastly, help the enterprise to take a broader view of the relationship between long-term business success and practicing good ethics.

Culture needs to become a standing agenda item for the board to make sure complacency doesn’t become an issue and that a strong culture remains a focus of management and employees. To help oversee that monitoring, a dashboard with cultural indicators from across the company is a useful tool. These tools motivate investors to move into companies that uphold ‘environmental, social and governance’ standards.
(The writer is a HR Thought Leader.)

Sri Lanka: Chaos in Parliament and Crisis in Polity


Parliamentary and Presidential Elections are Necessary

by Laksiri Fernando-
( November 29, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The sittings in Parliament during the last two weeks have been symptomatic of a deep crisis in parliamentary democracy, and in the political system in general. These are undoubtedly leader-made, and not at all people-made crises. The culpable key leaders can be identified as Maithripala Sirisena (the President), Ranil Wickremesinghe (dismissed PM), Mahinda Rajapaksa (former President and newly appointed PM) and Karu Jayasuriya (the Speaker).
The situation contrasts considerably, for example, to the last two weeks in France where the ‘Yellow Jacket’ groups broke into the streets, burnt vehicles and property, and had violent confrontations with the police over the issue of high petrol prices. Undoubtedly, the situation in SL Parliament particularly on 16 November was despicable where some UPFA MPs indulged in violence, while the Speaker came with a police force like a ‘paramilitary leader’ to conduct a parliamentary session at his will. All these culprits again do not represent the average citizensof the country where they goon with their day-to-day activities peacefully, although deeply worried about the future.
People and their Representatives
In any democratic country, presidential or parliamentary, there can emerge a considerable gap between the people and their representatives. The same applies to elected Presidents, as in the case of Sri Lanka. Although elected by the people, the representatives can get easily alienated from the people, particularly as the time goes by. In developed democracies there are several ways of ameliorating the situation.
In the US, there are midterm elections for both houses to gauge and rectify the situation. The term of the US President is also for four years and not five or six. In Australia, the term of the House of Representatives (HR) is only three years and not four or five. There are state elections to reflect the intermediary situation and caution any government. The recently held Victorian state election is one example where people friendly progressive Labour policies were overwhelmingly approved, instead of neoliberal trickle down policies of the Liberal commonwealth government.
Although the term of the House of Representatives in Australia and New Zealand is three years, there can be elections before, as required. Another approach to address the people’s grievances is to evolve bipartisan policies on important matters. After the significant political change in January 2015 this possibility was abundantly there in Sri Lanka, but the two parties, the UNP and the SLFP, terribly failed in this endeavour.
Although called the mother country of all parliaments, some of the above devices are not available in the United Kingdom unfortunately. UK is not a proper federal or a devolved system, to gauge people’s thinking from those elections. The term of the House of Commons is five years (not four or three) and now quite artificially fixed (since 2011),and the House of Lords is still a feudal institution. This is one reason why the issues like Brexit are now terribly deadlocked. Therefore, if Sri Lanka is going to take inspirations or examples only from the UK, it is going to be a terrible mistake.
Fixed Term is a Bad Idea
Sri Lanka is a country in democratic transition. Much more important underlying factor is the economy (its health and prosperity). Considering the high population, ethnic polarity and political diversity, political will of the people could easily shift from one side to the other. In such a context, a fixed term parliament is utterly a bad idea and could create enormous crisis in the political system as evident today. You don’t need a fascist or a similar movement to do that. The structural collapse can easily eventuate such a crisis,while people remaining passive and uninterested in parliamentary gimmicks.
Let us take some examples. Maithripala Sirisena won the presidential election in January 2015 with a 51.28% island wide vote. However when his party,the SLFP, contested the local government elections in February 2018, it was only 12.1%.
At parliamentary elections in August 2015, Ranil Wickremesinghe’s UNP could obtain 45.66% of votes. However, at the local government elections, it came down to 29.42%. These are examples of how people’s choices could shift overtime or from time to time. During these two elections, August 2015 and February 2018, the JVP votes increased from 4.87% to 5.75%, while the TNA votes decreased from 4.62% to 2.73%.
It is noteworthy that the new party of the SLPP, under MR’s leadership,could obtain 40.47% of votes at the February 2018 elections. If the SLFP vote is also counted (12.1%), it might be argued that a SLPP/SLFP candidate even could win a future presidential election. However that is not necessarily the way the people make their election choices. Holding on to power at present, without a clear majority in Parliament, might disillusion the people of Rajapaksa intentions or objectives. The best option would be to resign to allow a new temporary caretaker government.
Mockery of Parliament
Whatever the criticisms one may have on President’s decision to dissolve parliament because of its apparent arbitrary and partisan character, a general election might still be the best option for the country given the above conditions. Even after the much desired change or ‘revolution’ in January 2015, the UNP could not obtain a clear majority in Parliament in August 2015. They could form a stable government only with the support of the President and some sections of the SLFP, although the UNP had implicit conditional support from the TNA (and the SLMC).
There is a long list of events that amounts to the distortion of ‘parliamentary democracy’from the appointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe as the PM in January 2015 with only 42 MPs, to the recent holding of Parliamentary sessions without Standing Orders and arbitrarily declaring ‘No Government’ by the Speaker, KaruJayasuirya. The repeated recognition of the TNA leader as the Leader of the Opposition was another distortion that the Speaker had previously committed. Another deviation from democracy was the freezing of elections for local government and then provincial councils. Both the UNP and the SLFP are culpable for this distortion.
It is in this series of distortions that the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the PM took place on 26 October with only 95 members in Parliament, hoping that the number would grow. The result has yet been a badly fractured hung Parliament which might justify the dissolution of Parliament politically.
Other Distortions
There are other aspects to the distortions in the parliamentary system emerging from largely the electoral system. The abolition of the ward system has been a root cause of such distortions, in addition to the dreadful preferential competitions at elections. Not only that the so-called representatives have got alienated from the constituencies, but also have won elections on the strength of money and physical force. Women were the most disadvantaged. The situation has also created sort of a class distinction within all political parties between ordinary party members/supporters and the rich political elite/groups.
While the ordinary members/supporters are marginalized in the nomination processes, the rich political elite/groups overwhelmingly obtain nominations again and again. There is no wonder why the age composition of MPs and leaders in general is quite high across political parties. The deteriorated educational standards is also a common predicament. No rational person would argue that there should be legally sanctioned age or educational limitations for MPs. However, those should come naturally, if the system is healthy and democratic.
The freezingout of independent candidates is another major predicament of the present electoral system. If one wants to contest independently, then he or she has to give nominations in a group (with a higher financial deposit) which is the very negation of one’s independence. Sri Lanka in good old days of parliamentary democracy had a good number of independent MPs who could bring sanity into parliamentary debates and political party rivalry. Often the Speaker of Parliament was selected from one of them on a bipartisan basis. This is no longer the case and the recent Speakers have been behaving strongly in partisan manner.
Role of the Speaker?
The most extreme of this pattern is the behaviour of the present Speaker purely for political reasons. Let me add an anecdote or two. When I was in Colombo in August, a ‘leftist’ friend of mine (you can guess),who is very close to political planning unfortunately now on behalf of the UNP told me that they intend to put forward Karu Jayasuriya as the next common candidate and asked my opinion, believing I would still continue to support such an effort. I disagreed and said,‘if it is a common candidate, the person should be from a nonpartisan basis and preferably a woman.’
Therefore it is no wonder why Karu Jayasuriya is behaving in the manner he does now in Parliament, conducting mock parliamentary sessions and countering the President in all executive matters. His fervent effort appears to get the support of the so-called ‘international community’ aka some Western countries, utilizing their misgivings about the newly appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as the PM.
It has been my position and understanding, as expressed previously, that the removal of RW and the appointment of MR are constitutional, and also conventional even under a nominal Head of State, when a Parliament falls into a perilous hung situation. However, the MR’s appointment is politically controversial and not sustainable under the given composition of the present Parliament. The prorogation of Parliament has been less controversial constitutionally. I have also given my interpretation on the dissolution of Parliament, right or wrong, and this matter is now before the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that when all three steps or President’s ‘trump cards’ came one after the other,the people or even the so-called experts got confused and divided.
I am not at all a rebel and has never been in sympathy with any insurgency (or violence), North or South, even in my young days. My only deviation could be that I don’t mince my words and often relish in polemics and sarcasm! I am for orderly progress in both the economy and democratic politics. I am also not hesitant to change my overt political or policy positions in advocating progress under given circumstances.
Conclusions
Thedissolution of Parliament is something that the political parties should have tolerated for the reasons given in this article. As the matter has been referred to the Supreme Court, the Speaker and the political parties in Parliament should have waited for its final verdict without having ridiculous sessions, although it may be true that the apparent time taken by the SC is too longfor the impatient and acrimonious politicians to tolerate. The most damaging from a democratic and a political stability perspective is the mock sessions conducted by the Speaker in Parliament with the connivance of the UNP, the TNA and the JVP.
It is hoped that the present instability and chaos should end sooner than later, and both parliamentary and presidential elections should be held peacefully one after the other, in that order, to end the stalemate, although even that might not be a complete resolution to the underling crisis. WijeyadasaRajapakshe’s speech today in Parliament is most welcomed. In agreement with all parties, there can be a new caretaker government, perhaps Lakshman Kiriellaor someone like that as the temporary PM before the elections.
There is a strong need for independent candidates and voices to emerge at both elections, with considerable number of women candidates. In terms of the expression of views, on the present situation, ‘critical, independent and objective interpretations’ are most essential, without supporting any of the present leaders

TNA TO SIRISENA: THE ITAK, WILL SUPPORT THE RESTORATION OF A GOVT. HEADED BY THE U.N.F


Image: TNA leader Sampanthan with Prez Sirisena. ( the Economic Times).
29th November 2018.
Sri Lanka BriefHis Excellency Maithiripala Sirisena
President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo -01
Your Excellency,

Appointment of a Prime Minister who commands the Confidence of Parliamentග
We write to you in regard to the above in the background of all that has happened since 26th of October.

The Hon Member of Parliament appointed as Prime Minister on the 26th of October has not been able to prove that he commands the confidence of Parliament though one month has lapsed since the said appointment and though Parliament has met several times during this period. On the other hand, Motions of No Confidence in the said Hon Member as Prime Minister have been passed in Parliament on 14th and 16th November. The voice votes taken in Parliament have been confirmed by 122 Members signing and transmitting to both your Excellency and the Hon Speaker statements to that effect.

The view of the majority of the Hon Members of Parliament on the issue of whether the said Hon Member commands the Confidence of Parliament to be the Prime Minister has been negative and has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

We wish to point out that,

1. The inability of the Hon Member to prove that Parliament has confidence in him as Hon Prime Minister, 2.the votes of No Confidence passed against the said Hon Member on the 14th and 16th November pertaining to his claim to be the Hon Prime Minister; have created a controversy in the Country as to whether the country is without a Prime Minister, a Cabinet of Ministers, and a lawfully constituted Government for more than a
month.

We respectfully submit that this situation should not continue.

In the circumstances to ensure that an Hon Member of Parliament is able to command the confidence of Parliament as Prime Minister we the Members of Parliament of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, will support the restoration of a Government headed by the U.N.F as it existed prior to 26th October/ the Appointment of a nominee of the U.N.F who in the opinion of Your Excellency is able to command the confidence of Parliament as Prime Minister.

We consider it our duty to communicate the above to you,

Yours Sincerely,

1. R.Sampanthan M.P

2. Mavai S Senathirajah M.P

3. M.A.Sumanthiran M.P

4. D.Sidhathan M.P

5. S.Shritharan M.P

6. E.Saravanapavan M.P

7. Selvam Adaikkalanathan M.P

8. I.Charles Nirmalanathan M.P

9. Shanthi Sriskandarasa M.P

10. S.Sivamohan M.P

11. Seenithamby Yoheswaran M.P

12. G.Srineshan M.P

13. 13. K.Kodeeswaran M.P

14. K.Thurairatnesingam M.P

30, Martin Road,

Maithripala Sirisena, The Bane Of Rajapaksa’s Political Existence

 By Rasika Jayakody –

Rasika Jayakody
logoPresident Maithripala Sirisena is many things to many people. But he has only been a bane to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
It was Sirisena, who, leading an alliance representing a wide spectrum of political parties and civil organizations, defeated the seemingly invincible Rajapaksa in January 2015. 
After a brief period in the political wilderness, Rajapaksa bounced back strongly, forming a political party of his own that pulled off an unexpected victory at the last Local Government Council election. 
And, as of October 26, 2018, it seemed that Rajapaksa was at the zenith of his popularity, poised to win the next Parliamentary election with a sweeping majority.
In fact, it can be said, that both President Maithripala Sirisena and ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have covertly helped Rajapaksa regain momentum through their shortsighted actions and ineffectual governance. 
Then Sirisena made his most monumental blunder. He allowed Rajapaksa in through the backdoor one night, and stealthily appointed him the Prime Minister. At the time, Rajapaksa’s group had no concerns about a parliamentary majority, naively assuming they were in the driving seat.
President Sirisena’s repeated assurances had convinced them to such a degree, they had even expected a section of hardcore UNP MPs to perform a somersault and support Rajapaksa’s appointment. A source familiar with the discussions that took place with the two groups implied that Sirisena and S.B. Dissanayake had presented Rajapaksa with a list of 14 UNP MPs who they assumed would cross over to support the “overnight” regime change they architected.
Things, however, went horrifically wrong, when Sirisena’s grand promises failed to materialise. All their attempts to purchase MPs and engineer mass crossovers bore no fruit, as the majority of UNP MPs stood their ground, supporting Wickremesinghe. 
In fact, MP Palitha Rangebandara recorded his conversations with Sirisena’s go-betweens and released them to the public, causing the former President and his camp a great deal of embarrassment In all, Sirisena failed to fulfil his end of the deal, leaving Rajapaksa stranded, with a crown on his head but with his hands and legs tied.
With  the Supreme Court staying the Gazette dissolving Parliament, Rajapaksa was forced to return to Parliament where he suffered two humiliating no-confidence motions backed by four of the six political parties represented in the legislature. In the absence of a simple majority, Rajapaksa’s only way out was to architect an early dissolution of Parliament by creating continuous chaos in the House and disrupting proceedings. This was indeed a long shot as all political parties saw through their plan and adopted counter-strategies. As a result, their plan backfired and the unruly behaviour of pro-Rajapaksa MPs drew scathing criticism from the public. With all of this,  the pendulum of public sympathy suddenly swung in favour of the UNP. 
On the canvas of public perception, Rajapaksa has now been painted as an unlawful Prime Minister, avoiding Parliament merely because he does not have a majority. The widely circulated photographs of UPFA MPs throwing books and chilli powder at police officers have caused irreparable damage to the former President’s political agenda. Their excuses for avoiding Parliament and for their forcible continuation in office without a simple majority in Parliament have causedthe Rajapaksa group to be reviled  in the eyes of the international press. Adding insult to injury, no country, with the exception of Burundi, has accepted the legitimacy of the purported administration and diplomats from key missions have warned of targeted punitive actions against those responsible for the protracted political turmoil in Sri Lanka.
The current situation has left former President Rajapaksa in a politically precarious position. Presiding over a fragile government lacking legitimacy, he has also earned criticism from his own ranks for being so naive as to  accept premiership. Leading  the MPs criticising Rajapaksa  from within his ranks is Kumara Welgama, a long-time Rajapaksa ally and a key architect of the “pohottuwa” movement. Meanwhile, there are reports that a section of SLFP MPs, led by national organiser Duminda Dissanayake, have held discussions with former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga to form an independent group in Parliament. Although Rajapaksa’s appointment as the Prime Minister was strategically positioned as a move  to ‘unite’ the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, it has, in fact, widened the divisions in the party. 
Many now  opine that the MPs around Rajapaksa, who are to face a surfeit of cases in court, pressured him into accepting the premiership, in a desperate bid to slow the wheels of justice. This may have been one reason why Rajapaksa entered a seemingly strange alliance with Sirisena. It is my view, however, that Rajapaksa made a grave strategic miscalculation, based on overly ambitious promises and assurances by Sirisena and his allies.
In his haste to oust Wickremesinghe and the UNP faction of the government, Sirisena also spoiled Rajapaksa’s chances for 2020 and pushed him into a disadvantageous position in the eyes of the public. Even at this point, Rajapaksa believes a parliamentary election will hold a favourable outcome for him and give him a relatively honourable exit route from the current rut he is in. But while Rajapaksa is still a force to reckon with at a parliamentary election, he is now much weaker than he was before October 26. The uncharacteristically defensive statement he issued on Sunday (25) explaining his reasons for remaining in the government indicates his current vulnerability. 

Read More

President Under Enormous Pressure To Accept UNP Majority And Appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe As Prime Minister

President Under Enormous Pressure To Accept UNP Majority And Appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe As Prime Minister
Asian Mirror
November 29, 2018
President Maithripala Sirisena has come under severe pressure to appoint a new Prime Minister from the UNP, with the United National Front showing a parliamentary majority of 117 seats. 
During a discussion he held with Speaker Karu Jayasuriya this evening, President Maithripala Sirisena promised to have talks with the TNA and the UNF leaders tomorrow on forming a new government. 
Both parties confirmed that they would meet Sirisena tomorrow evening, and discuss the future course of action. 
The point of contention dutring these discussions would be UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe's re-appointment as the Prime Minister. Altthoigh Sirisena has vehemently opposed the re-appointment of Wickremesinghe, the UNP parliamentary group has unanimously decided that they would push for the UNP Leader's reinstatement.
The TNA, which supported the UNP in securing a parliamentary majority, too has decided to support Wickremesinghe's Prime Ministerial bid. 
The TNA, however, has decided to support the new UNP-led government without accpeting ministerial portfolios. 

Understanding the root cause of the crisis

After ending the civil war, the successive governments that came to power should have made an honest attempt to probe into the circumstances that led to the armed struggles, violence and the resultant destruction with the view to rebuilding the State. But, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the leader who ended the war, and the two main leaders of the Yahapalana Government, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe, who succeeded the former, lacked the wisdom and the courage required for that. Consequently, the country has fallen out of the frying pan into the fire – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara 
logo
Friday, 30 November 2018 

Presently, the Sri Lankan State has lost its dignified existence and the prowess that a state ought to have. Evidently, it is moving towards a virtual collapse. This, in my opinion is a direct outcome of the rotten state of affairs associated with the present Sri Lankan State and its putrid system of institutions replete with rampant corruption.

The most important aspect of the present crisis is that even the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the supreme law of the country, the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people, which defines the public institutions and their role and serves as the ultimate guide of democratic governance is also in a jeopardy.

If we compare the Constitution to a goddess, I must say that she had been raped from time to time, singly and collectively by the rulers, the lawmakers and the Judiciary, her custodian. Consequently, she had been rendered innocent and inglorious. Presently, Sri Lanka is in a state of complete anarchy without having anyone to guide the rulers thereby expediting the downfall of the country.

The present situation of the south of Sri Lanka is more or less similar to the unfortunate conditions that prevailed in the north in the immediate aftermath of the internal civil war. At the end of the war, the Tamil north, from a political sense remained in a deranged state having lost many things. The Sinhalese south is also plunged into a similar situation consequent to the present constitutional crisis though there are certain differences in the nature of the circumstance.

In this backdrop, all ethnic groups living in the country can be said to be caught in a similar predicament. The collapse of the Sri Lankan State began shortly after defeating the de-facto State claimed by Prabhakaran. The irony of this scenario is that the Sinhalese and Muslim populations of the south of Sri Lanka who were excited and jubilant over the defeat of Prabhakaran are not aware that they are also embroiled in a similar situation as the State in which they live too has reached the brink of its collapse.
Destruction caused by violence 
The violent struggles in the Sinhalese south and the Tamil north resulted in untold damage to the country. The Sinhalese rebels attempted to capture the ruling power while Tamil rebels aimed at establishing a separate state of their own; ultimately, what both did was to attack the State.

Even though the government in power was able to suppress and defeat the armed rebels, their attacks on government necessarily resulted in weakening and devastating the country. Both Sinhalese and Tamil rebels exerted maximum violence and cruelty. In subduing them, the State as an alternative counter strategy released more violence and cruelty than was exerted by the rebels. Both the rebels and the government acted in violation of the law during this long uncivilised period, giving way to the reign of the law of the jungle which invariably led to blotch the integrity of the State, politicians and the officialdom. It became pervasive in almost every sphere with everyone becoming interested only in himself.

Exploitation of State property by its custodians became the norm of the State rule during this uncivilised period. The face of the State underwent a repulsive transformation giving it a look of an exploitative band of thieves. The violent struggles distorted and weakened the institutional system of the country.

Similarly, the very foundation of the State itself was threatened, distorted and weakened. While a substantial number of unfortunate people had been physically killed in violent struggles, those escaped death and were fortunate to survive had to suffer a spiritual death. Thus, to a greater or lesser degree the entire society had been plunged into a spiritual death.

After ending the civil war, the successive governments that came to power should have made an honest attempt to probe into the circumstances that led to the armed struggles, violence and the resultant destruction with the view to rebuilding the State which was rampant with injustice, inefficiency and corruption and also to recreate the society which had been rendered sick.

But, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the leader who ended the war, and the two main leaders of the Yahapalana Government, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe, who succeeded the former defeating him, lacked the wisdom and the courage required for that. Consequently, the country has fallen out of the frying pan into the fire.

Failure to build the modern nation state prior to or after independence can be considered the main cause of the Sri Lanka’s crisis. The true meaning of building the nation state implies negation of ethnic, caste and religious differences and treating everyone with equal respect, ensuring equal rights for everyone thereby creating a nation with a common identity as Sri Lankans who are bound by a common bond and committed to work in harmony for the upliftment of the country.

India and Singapore are two countries that had achieved this object successfully. India did it in a formal way. Singapore achieved it in a different style. Our earlier leaders (Ponnambalam Arunachalam, D.S. Senanayake and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike) and those emerged later did not have a deep political knowledge on this problem. Instead, their thinking had been shaped by the factors of race, caste and religion.
Role of the caste 
Mahatma Gandhi came to Sri Lanka on a 17-day visit on 12 November 1927. Gandhi’s visit coincided with the arrival of the members of the Donoughmore Commission which proposed Constitutional reforms to formulate a system of government for Ceylon (Sri Lanka).

Mahatma Gandhi delivered a short speech at the reception organised on the same day by the Lanka Jathika Sangamaya at Maligakanda Pirivena to welcome him. The speech he made addressing the leaders of the Jathika Sangamaya is produced in the book titled ‘Gandhi in Sri Lanka’ written by Gopal Krishna. But it does not contain a list of names of those who participated in this meeting.

However, Sampath Bandara, in his book titled ‘Mahatma Gandhige Lanka Gamanaya haa Lankeeya Deshapalanaya’ (Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi in Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Politics) has included a list of leaders who were present to welcome Gandhi. E. W.Perera, the President of Lanka Jathika Sangamaya, D.B.Jayathilaka, James Peiris, Victor Korea, and W.A.de.Silva, F.R.Obesekara, SWRD Bandaranaike and D.S.Senanayaka were among many others who were present at this meeting. We can safely presume that all important leaders of the Lanka Jathika Sangamaya might have attended this meeting.

Gandhi used the word “freedom” referring to the Independent Movements of both India and Ceylon at this meeting. But he was careful in qualifying that they were not the same but two different movements. He raised a very important question, a principle in regard to the freedom or independence that Sri Lanka was aspiring to gain.

Gandhi, addressing them had said that “there exists a community considered as ‘untouchables’ in India. Though I have no clear idea about the social life in Lanka, I have heard of a similar community in Lanka known as Rodiyas treated as untouchables and questioned whether the Lanka Jathika Sangamaya expects to ensure the freedom of such suppressed groups in its campaign for freedom. If the freedom of suppressed groups is not ensured then the freedom that you aspire to gain cannot be considered true and genuine.”

I do not think that the leaders of the Jathika Sangamaya were capable of grasping the deep political meaning underneath this statement. Gandhi called the untouchables the Harijans which means the sons of God!

As stated in ‘Caste in Modern Ceylon’ by Bryce Ryan, an authoritative account on caste system in Sri Lanka, “towards the end of the nineteenth century and until 1925 or so, some of the bitterest fulminations in Ceylon were not inter-communal but inter-caste”. In the passage of time the open castes conflicts had subsided while the ethnic differences had taken its place. Yet, the roots of caste animosity have not disappeared. They remain latent in the social fabric.

B.H. Farmer in his book titled ‘Ceylon – A Divided Nation’ provides a detailed account of the historical evolution of social conflicts in Sri Lanka and the circumstances that led to them. He had emphasised that the caste factor still persists as a formidable force in Sri Lanka’s politics. Interestingly, Farmer had written this book in 1963, 15 years after the country had gained independence.

The leaders of minorities viewed with suspicion the independence that was going to be conferred on Sri Lanka without a strong social struggle being made on the part of the beneficiaries. The leaders of minorities had a fear that they will be overwhelmed by a Sinhalese domination once the British rule was over. Similarly, the leaders of the suppressed castes in both the Sinhalese and the Tamil society had a fear that they would be dominated by the Sinhalese Goigama and Tamil Vellala castes respectively. These two groups of suppressed castes made separate submissions first to the Donoughmore Commission and later to the Soulbury Commission seeking redress for their grievances.

Prior to gaining independence the pressure stood on caste and not on ethnicity. As Gandhi had instinctively felt during his tour of Sri Lanka, the independence has not become a political phenomenon guaranteeing freedom to the suppressed castes. It did not pave the way for the people who served as serfs in temple and manor lands to come out of the wretchedness associated with their lives.

As a result, the independence could not make a far-reaching impact on the life of the oppressed classes who had been denied human respect and human rights owing to the deep rooted caste discriminations that prevailed in both Sinhalese and Tamil society .
Nationalism 
The Donoughmore Commission too, which arrived in Sri Lanka on the day Mahatma Gandhi’s visit took place, had made important observations on nationalism and democracy practiced in the country. Its observations are valid even today.

The Donoughmore Commission observed that Sri Lanka had not yet evolved into a cohesive society; nationalism which had developed was only an ad-hoc outgrowth of race, caste and religion and was not aimed at common welfare of the country and the people; the society lacked democratic disciplines or a system of political parties for successful operation of a parliamentary system of government.

The Donoughmore Commission had further stated that there was no unity or sense of collective responsibility among the leaders and as such, at this moment, the country should be granted only a system of governance which could help promote unity, national cohesion and raise social awareness on democracy.

All frontline national leaders of the day like Ponnambalam Ramanadan, D.S. Senanayake and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike had thoroughly opposed the grant of universal suffrage to the people of Sri Lanka. Ostensibly, their views and biases on social classes and the caste system had an impact on their protest.

However; the Donoughmore Commission was of the view that most of the regressive social elements would slowly disappear once the universal suffrage was introduced. The commission introduced a special system of governance based on a Committee System to educate the political leaders of the country, instil discipline in them to overcome parochial differences and encourage them to work in harmony and democratically.
Role of ethnicity
It was after gaining independence that the ethnic issue came to forefront. In my opinion, it was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who aggravated the ethnic difference between Sinhalese and Tamils and mystified it into a complex issue which eventually culminated in a ruthless bloodshed. It’s a fact that the vernaculars suffered badly during the colonial regime. Local languages had lost recognition and restoring their status remained an essential condition. Bandaranaike achieved his political dream with the support of the proponents of the Sinhala Only policy. In this respect, Tamils can be considered a community more passionate and attached to their language than Sinhalese people.

What ought to have been done was to give a new and renewed recognition for both languages, Sinhala and Tamil and adopt a bilingual policy allowing the Sinhalese people to transact with the government in Sinhala language and Tamils in Tamil language while English is promoted as the second language in schools. Yet, what Bandaranaike did was to throw the English language into the waste bin and disallow Tamil people of their right to transact with the government in their language, thereby denying them the respect they enjoyed as human beings.

Ethnicity and caste remained two crucial factors that caused violent attacks and bloodshed in Sri Lanka. It was Sinhalese youth in the south who took arms first against the government and not the Tamils in the north. According to the observations made by the public authorities on the 1971 insurrection, it was not only a class struggle, even the caste has had a big impact on it. That was why the authorities were prompted to look into the caste background of all rebels who were arrested. Perhaps, this must be the first instance in which a research had been done about the caste.

President Ranasinghe Premadasa, following the defeat of the second JVP insurrection, appointed a commission of inquiry to probe into the youth unrest and report the reasons that had led to insurrections .The Commission on Youth Unrest too had observed the impact of caste on youth unrest in both in the south and the north. The violent uprisings broke out at different times had a destructive impact on the State and the society. They were instrumental in distorting and making the society sick and above all rendering the State corrupt and weak. It was an outcome of the failure on our part to build the modern nation at independence or thereafter. Sri Lanka has no capacity to move forward, even one step ahead without recreating the nation.

Even after a great catastrophe, it would still be possible, though late, to recreate the nation provided we are ready to thrust aside ethnic, caste and religious differences and adopt a policy of treating everyone equally irrespective of discriminatory practices and prejudices. The State which had reached the verge of collapse can still be restored only if we are capable of recreating the nation.