A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Saturday, January 31, 2015
"We cannot rewrite history, but we can right history," said Justice John
C. Hayes III last week in a South Carolina Court in the US, while
retroactively vacating the guilty verdicts against nine African
Americans for sitting at an all-white lunch counter in a popular
restaurant in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on January 31, 1961. They were
18-year-old high school students then and went to jail, refusing bail,
and inspiring other Civil Rights activists of that era. Now in their
seventies they had to wait for 54 years to have history righted. By that
standard, the righting of judicial history in Sri Lanka took just two
years to be accomplished. Even two months ago, no one could have
imagined such a swift reversal of the vulgar and highhanded impeachment
of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake in January 2013. What took place
on Wednesday and Thursday was a necessary course correction, which
necessarily took an unusual detour.
Mohan Pieris, the hitherto ‘de facto’ Chief Justice, was sent home
packing on the technicality that he had been appointed to a non-vacant
position by virtue of the procedural flaw in the then government’s
impeachment resolution. In other words, the Rajapaksa government had not
technically impeached the Chief Justice, even though it crowed it did
so disregarding procedural objections, and bullied Dr. Bandaranayake to
vacate her office and her official residence. Quite properly, the ‘de
jure’ Chief Justice returned to the Supreme Court just for one day and
retired, enabling the government to appoint Justice K. Sripavan as the
new Chief Justice. History has been righted. The proposed constitutional
changes should make sure that the judiciary is never again monkeyed
with by the Head of State and/or Head of Government, as it has been
since 1978.
The High Noon drama could have been avoided if Mohan Pieris had
gracefully walked away from a position that he had disgracefully come to
occupy. Pieris should have vacated his position just as the Governor of
the Central Bank and the Secretaries to the Ministries of Defence and
Finance vacated theirs after the January 8 election. He should have
known that the reinstatement of Shirani Bandaranayake was an undertaking
in the opposition manifesto (Paragraph #94) at the election, and he dug
his hole deeper by attending a controversial meeting at Temple Trees
with the outgoing president in the wee hours of January 9 morning, while
vote counting was still going on. What additional signal did he need
after the mighty national snub of not being called upon to deliver the
oath of office to the newly elected President? He had the gall to ask
for a diplomatic posting, but got clever by half and did not take it
when he was offered one. In the end, he had no place left to go except
his private home.
He is the master of his own misfortune, but as a Catholic he should know
there is still life after trespasses both in this world and the next.
He could use the upcoming Lent Season for a religious retreat, sing ‘God
of Mercy and Compassion’ in atonement, rediscover his moral moorings in
the Bible, and start bandying the message of his reformation to others
as Felix Dias did after 1977.
That said, the government could have managed the inevitable surgery at
the apex of the judiciary with some solemnity and earnestness through
timely statements in parliament. The back and forth in the media between
Pieris and government ministers was not an edifying instance of good
governance. Parliament and not media scrums should be the first and the
main forum for messaging. The general media can and will broadcast what
transpires in parliament, but there is no point in persisting with the
parody of cabinet briefings bypassing parliament that became a feature
during the Old Regime. Nor is it necessary for cabinet ministers to
offer broadsides on matters way outside their portfolios. They should be
disciplined to mind and speak to their portfolios and files only.
Unlike the High Noon at Hultsdorp, the Central Bank came in for a quiet
reallocation from the responsibilities of the Finance Minister to those
of the Prime Minister, by way of a gazette notification. This is a
significant departure from normal practice which should have warranted a
statement by the Prime Minister in parliament. Not surprisingly, no one
in parliament raised any concern about this. The matter has received
some publicity thanks to Dr. WA Wijeywardena, a former Central Bank
Deputy Governor, writing about it in one of his weekly articles. While
calling the move "legally and operationally unworkable", Dr.
Wijewardena, to my mind, is being charitable in also arguing that the
new move could be "a step toward the bank’s independence." He does not
give much credence to the litigation involving the new Finance Minister
and the Central Bank’s implication in it, as being a plausible reason
for listing the Central Bank under the Prime Minister instead of the
Finance Minister. But no one knows the government’s real reason for this
departure from normal practice, and the Prime Minister and the
government have not helped the cause of good governance by doing things
opaquely by gazette notification without a transparent explanation in
parliament.
It was apparent during the election campaign that the topic of good
governance was not just a Colombo fad, but one that resonated well in
the villages and outstations. When people outside Colombo began using
expressions like yahapalanaya, they were not parroting in the vernacular
what the Colombo elites are accused of picking up from UN texts and
Wikipedia accounts about good governance, but were giving verbal
expression to their experience of bad governance under the Old Regime.
The people do not know the text book attributes of good governance but
they sure know what they want from a new government after experiencing
under the Old Regime everything they do not want to see in any
government. Needless to say, most of what the Old Regime did was in
contravention of the norms of good governance, and while exposing the
misdoings of the Old Regime the new administration must also demonstrate
how it is doing things differently. At Hultsdorp, the government did
what it had to do. In regard to the Central Bank, the government owes an
explanation to parliament and through it to the people.