Shot and shelled – but still succeeding

 29 April 2020

A small war-impacted school in Mullaitivu celebrated as two of its students, both who were left paralyzed from the waist down by Sri Lankan military attacks in 2009, achieved top marks in their O-Level exam results this week.

Battling through more than a decade of disability, the two teenagers who were injured in separate gun and bomb attacks by the army, collectively achieved 8 As, B and 6 As, 2Bs in their examinations.

One of the schoolchildren, Vidurshika, spoke to the Tamil Guardian at her home in Mullaitivu the day after she received her results.

She was just 6-years-old when a Sri Lankan soldier shot her in the back.

“During my time at the Ananda Coomaraswamy camp, I was caught up in the conflict of a military fire zone which has resulted in my current state," she said.

Having survived through the massacres at Mullivaikkal, Vidurshika and her family were detained alongside tens of thousands of other Tamils at the Menik Farm IDP camp in Vavuniya. On September 26, 2009, Sri Lankan soldiers opened fire on a line of civilians queuing up at the camp, in an incident that received widespread media coverage from the BBC, HRW and even then-UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

Her older brother - who was 8-years-old at the time - was also injured in the same attack.They received no reparations or assistance from the government, with her family relying on donations from NGOs or the Tamil diaspora to get by. The soldiers who delivered her life changing injury have also never been held to account.

Despite the tribulations she has been through and the challenges she continues to face, the 17-year-old says that she has ensured her focus has been on her studies and was proud of her achievements so far.

"I am paralysed from the waist down. However, the next stage in life is education. If we educate ourselves, we don’t need anything else.”

“Despite the problems we have, education is important. Through education we can achieve our goals,” she added. 

Vidurshika credits her achievements down to her parents, her evening reading group, school staff and peers. 

“They encouraged me, telling me that education is important and that I could overcome any obstacles… they gave me faith,” she explained. 

Vidurshika shows her desk where she sits and studied for her exams.

Her brother, who was also admitted to hospital alongside Vidurshika at the time, has also succeeded academically, and is currently a first-year engineering student at university.

                                                          

Vidurshika is not alone in her perseverance. Her classmate, Pavadharani, was also disabled during the Mullivaikkal massacres more than a decade ago. A shell attack launched by the military landed where her family was sheltering in 2009. Pavadharani’s father, a popular English teacher, was killed on the spot and the then 6-year old was left with her legs paralysed. Despite being confined to a wheelchair since, Pavadharani also excelled in her examinations this week.

Both girls attend Kalaimagal Vidyalayam school in Mullaitivu, a district that is still struggling from the impacts of war and continued militarisation more than a decade since the end of the armed conflict.

Yet, stories like those of Vidurshika and Pavadharani, are still present and a testament to the deep-rooted resilience of the region.

Related Articles: 

31 December 2019 : Mullivaikkal survivor and daughter of disappeared achieves district top rank in A Level Commerce

Can The Lion Win The Corona Battle In Kiwi Style?

By Murali Vallipuranathan –

Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan

New Zealand appears to be the first nation successfully applied an elimination strategy to the COVID-19 pandemic and brought down the new cases though it is too early to claim victory or complete eradication (1) (2). The purpose of this article is to discuss the strategies used by the New Zealand in achieving this success and to propose strategies to Sri Lanka to achieve similar success. Present day statistics of both countries are compared above in Table 1 and distribution of daily new cases of both countries are shown in Graphs above.  

New Zealand is an island nation similar to Sri Lanka and had the advantage of easily shutting down the country borders (3). However, the estimated population of the New Zealand 4.82 million (4) is much smaller compared to Sri Lanka with an estimated population of 21.4 million (5). New Zealand was going through an increasing phase of COVID Cases in March 2020. New Zealand Prime Minister came up with an elimination strategy in March 23rd and announced a full-scale national lock down on 26th March 2020 (2). New Zealand government simultaneously introduced economical support package for the vulnerable population to overcome the lock down period (2). All these strategies brought New Zealand to the successful present-day figures of new Corona cases to single digit and it further seems to be possible to bring to zero levels though the threat of Corona will loom until a successful vaccine or an antiviral drug is invented (2).

Table 1 Comparison of Corona Disease situation in New Zealand and Sri Lanka as reported on 29th April 2020

Now looking back into the Sri Lankan situation our total number of COVID cases is still smaller than New Zealand despite the larger population of the country (6) (7). There is absolutely no need to give up the hopes of elimination strategy at this point of time though our daily cases had gone up and showing an increasing trend. The following steps are proposed to move our country forward in the elimination battle of Corona.

1. As Corona pandemic elimination phase requires lock down measures and social isolation the plan of having a parliamentary election on 20th June 2020 would be seriously jeopardizing the implementation of elimination strategy (8). We have already seen how the election arrangements for the last few months delayed our success in achieving the elimination phase. While the universities and schools were closed down political parties were having their campaign meetings increasing the risk of spread. There was a case report that a Corona patient came from UK to campaign for an election candidate (9). At this crucial juncture President should act as a statemen above the party interest making the country safer to all the citizens free from Corona. At the same time the opposition parties should support and contribute to the efforts of the President to eliminate the Corona virus disease as we see the success of the Prime Minister of New Zealand was attributed to the extended support of the opposition parties in New Zealand (3). 

2. Improved lab surveillance with enhanced testing facilities for all possible suspects should be the main strategy to find out the so far undetected cases (10). Though improved attention has been paid in this direction we need to screen all those who left the quarantine centres (QC) within last 3 weeks as we now clearly know that individual isolation was not satisfactory at the QC as evidenced by the increasing cases of cross infection from QC (11). Further there should be adequate supply of Personal Protection Equipment to the health staff and armed forces involved in quarantine and treatment of suspected or confirmed Corona cases. Ventilators need to be increased in the government hospitals as our statistics shows that Sri Lanka is having one of the least ventilator population ratios. It is high time that we improve our ventilator capacity even if we could achieve our success early at the elimination phase. 

3. GMOA should stop its political gimmicks and get involved in a constructive manner in elimination of Corona as the international experience shows when a country fails to contain the Corona Pandemic next it takes a heavy toll on doctors (12) (13) (14). President of GMOA a Specialist Paediatric Neurologist and his team of committee members who are just medical officers should honestly accept that they do not have the expertise to manage Corona Pandemic and should appoint experts among the membership to advice the government and public at this crisis stage. It is so amusing to see the daily talk shows by GMOA medical officers some of them who had left patient management and involved in full time trade union and administrative work for last several years but still addressing through the media to patients and public on Corona Management. GMOA talk shows with misinformation and wrong statistics had come under severe criticism by experts and research organizations (15) (16). An exit strategy document prepared by the pseudo experts of the GMOA was condemned by Muslim leaders as the document identified Muslim population as a risk factor for COVID 19 infection without any epidemiological rationale (17) (18). The most useful step for the GMOA and other medical associations at this stage would be to impress upon the President and the Government that the scheduled election on June 20th would be not conducive to eliminate Corona from this country. Further they should educate the political leaders that Consultant Community Physicians with epidemiological background should be at the forefront of managing Corona spread as they are the field experts trained in managing Pandemics and it is happening in other countries such as Canada where the Prime Minister openly acknowledges that he follows the advice of chief public health specialist in the management of Corona Pandemic (19).

4. Lock down and isolation measures should be enforced strictly without any political favours. New Zealand set an example by demoting the Health Minister for ignoring the lock down rules (20). Quarantine should be enforced to all immigrants including those who would be arriving from China and USA too. Similarly, district Lock down procedures also should be implemented without any partiality. 

Read More

SRI LANKA: DEFEATING COVID-19 PANDEMIC SHOULD NOT MEAN SUPPRESSING DEMOCRACY. – THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF DEMOCRACY FOR SRI LANKA

29/04/2020


The International Network of Democracy for Sri Lanka (INSD), based in Germany with its membership world-wide, salutes the health services of Sri Lanka for their leading role in the fight against the Corona virus in the country. We also thank the government agencies and personnel who are providing essential services to the public at this critical juncture. We are also concerned about the health safety of all those engaged in the fight against the pandemic.

In this hour of uncertainty, we stand together with Sri Lankan people of all communities. Only by standing together can we overcome this difficult period.

At the same time, INSD as a network that focuses on democracy and human rights in Sri Lanka, expresses its serious concern about the arbitrary actions of the government of Sri Lanka in the guise of defeating the pandemic. It is very clear that a well-organized operation to suppress democracy and human rights is under way, under the cover of fighting the pandemic. Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a number of violations of fundamental rights enshrined our the Constitution. There is an ongoing campaign to target dissenting voices and opposition opinions in Sri Lanka. INSD views these measures as serious threats to freedom of expression.

The police have arrested a social media activist, Ramzy Razeek, who has expressed his views against extremist ideologies his on his Face Book wall. It is reported that he has been arrested under the ICCPR Act, which is a legal instrument against hate speech. This is an example that shows that the government has begun to suppress dissent for narrow political gain.

We are shocked and surprised that the police have not made a single arrest against the real hate speech spreaders so far. Most of the hate propaganda, stemming from pro-government elements, is directed against ethnic and religious minorities and political opposition in the country. This behaviour of the Sri Lankan police reconfirms that discrimination against the minorities is a deep-rooted systemic evil in the country.

We are also concerned about the military-bureaucracy that is taking root in Sri Lanka. Instead of using available legal mechanisms such as the Disaster Management Act, the government has established a separate mechanism led by the Army Commander to face the pandemic. Today, Sri Lanka is under a curfew that does not have any legal basis. Military intelligence services have been assigned to track down COVID-19 contacts, thereby strengthening their hold on the population. The military is being projected, instead of health professionals who are doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances, as the leading force fighting COVID-19.

Particularly in the circumstances of this magnitude, the absence of Parliament that represents the sovereign people, does not augur well for the future of Sri Lanka’s democracy. The best course of action should have been to face the situation collectively, based on consensus reached in Parliament. Instead, the government has prioritized the politicization of the fight against the pandemic for its short-term political gains.

The unfolding events related to general elections that were scheduled to be held on 25 April poses an unprecedented rule of law crisis in the country. Parliament was dissolved prematurely by President Rajapaksa on 02 March 2020 while the threat of COVID-19 was looming. Now, the Election Commission has postponed the elections to 20 June due to the current situation. On 02 June, the three-months period during which governance can carried out without Parliament comes to an end.

The President is adamant that he will not reconvene Parliament. We wish to emphasize that Parliament is not only a law-making body. It is the body to which the President is accountable. It is the body which has an oversight function over the executive. It is the body that controls public finance. With the judiciary unable to function as during normalcy, the executive is determined to govern the country alone. The President, although elected, cannot govern with Parliament and the judiciary both not functioning. This seriously undermines the concept of rule by Constitution. Needless to say, such rule amounts to authoritarian rule.

The emerging situation poses a grave threat to rule of law, democracy and human rights in Sri Lanka. INSD fully understands that extraordinary situations need extraordinary measures. This is truer in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. But that should not be a cover to undermine democratic governance and people’s fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

Condemning in strongest terms the government’s anti-democratic approach to the emerging situation in Sri Lanka, INSD calls upon all democratic forces close ranks to fight the pandemic as well as efforts towards autocratic rule by the Rajapaksa family-led government.

International Network of Democracy for Sri Lanka,
On behalf of the Steering Committee, Senaka Wattegedara, 29.04.2020.

Coronavirus Diary- Part 2: Wanathamulla and Hobson’s Choice

29 April 2020 

Three wheeler drivers are idling and have families to feed

When I started writing this Coronavirus Diary, I had no idea how it was going to develop. We think one thing leads to the other. But Coronavirus is different. It always gets back to itself.
It’s not just one thing. It’s everything.

You turn on the radio, and more likely than not, you will hear the dreaded word being spoken. Don’t do this, don’t do that. Above all, stay home. Be safe. Be responsible. I know, and I’ve been trying my best. I fear the dreaded virus as much as anyone else.

But I am a journalist, I have a media identity card, and that enables me to be mobile during the curfew. I have a responsibility to the public I serve, to show them what life in Colombo under the curfew, strictly on the force since Friday, March 22, is like.
After the brief excitement of that Friday morning, when the curfew was lifted till two p.m, I made brief forays into city streets on my scooter, photographing life. 

The city is not deserted, there is simply less traffic and fewer people on the streets. No public transport and shops shuttered up, but you find roadside stalls and vehicles parked here and there, selling fish, meat, vegetables, eggs

Suraj Madhushanka

and milk. After the initial forays, facing opposition from home, I decided to stay home and be safe. It’s a Hobson’s Choice. You feel bad about playing it safe, but you also feel that social responsibility in this case also means reporting on what’s going on.

While in this confused state of mind, I got a call from a friend asking if I could accompany a female journalist from a Sinhala newspaper to Wanathamulla, the favelas of Colombo.

In a way, I dreaded Wanathamulla as much as the epidemic. After former Minister Champika Ranawaka, when he was a big shot in the previous regime decided to turn my quiet little lane into a pawn in his urban gentrification nightmares, cutting down all trees and creating a beastly hot ecological disaster, the denizens of Wanathamulla have direct access to us, and vice versa.

According to the saying, the devil isn’t as bad as he seems to be, and most Wanate residents, who trudge up and down the street now are like most of us, too busy simply trying to survive. 

The notorious underworld leaders are resting six feet under, oblivious to Coronavirus, due to internecine gang warfare aided and abetted by extrajudicial killings by guess who.
Nonetheless, old prejudices and fears lurk in the mind, and I had never ventured into Wanatamulla on my own.

Just a few days ago, a Policeman asked me to get him betel victual from that area. When I went there, it was crowded, social distancing was a joke, few bothered to cover their faces, and the young man who procured me the victual also offered me arrack and KG (Kerala ganja). But a sense of self-respect made me say yes to my friend’s request. What would this journalist think of me if I refused? What would I think of myself?

Laying aside fears of rotting lungs, I accompanied her to the humid beehive of Wanathamulla. I know a Municipality worker who lives there and asked him to act as a go-between. I’ve been in slums before, always carrying a camera, and know-how tense things can get.

K. Sudharmalan

When you walk carrying cameras into any place with rampant unemployment, overcrowding, drugs and crime, with most people simply focusing on how to survive the day, you make a very bad impression on the locals. When you have half your face covered (with a mask and handkerchief, respectively) it’s even worse.

Soon, tough guys with beards, tattoos and hard stares were crowding us, asking, ‘who, what, why?’ This is where Nihal, our go-between, proved invaluable. The female journalist was absolutely cool under fire, and that seemed to have a cooling effect on the opposition. While many didn’t want their photos were taken (Undoubtedly with good reason), they became quite talkative.

Soon, we were in the locality known as 130 Watte in Sinha Dupatha. The origin of this name is worth finding out, as no history of Colombo mentions lakes or rivers in this area, hence there could not have been an island, even an islet, here.

The stories focused on one thing – where’s the promised relief aid? There are two sources of official handouts – the Colombo Municipal Council’s relief package of Rs. 2,800 worth of foodstuffs to each family in the slums of Colombo, already issued, and the government’s proposed relief plan, again Rs. 5000 for each Lankan family.  

We encountered a mass of confusion about this, claims and counterclaims. As for the CMC’s package, some acknowledged receiving it, some said they did not, while others said some families got more than one. As for the government’s relief aid, the usual political muddle seems to have taken charge. 

The Grama Sevaka and Samurdhi officers have been put in charge of this mechanism. But those who spoke to us said that political interfering by Municipal councillors is messing up the process. A municipal councillor I spoke to admitted that some instances of such interference had been reported, adding that in some cases the Samurdhi officers too, have committed mistakes in making the recipient lists. In the final count, the total relief aid – Rs. 7,800 combined, is hardly enough to sustain a family of four for long. It works on the principle that something is better than nothing. 

The reality is that the people of Wanathamulla – including Magazine Road, and 130 Watte of Sinha Dupatha, which contains 1,500 families – must fend for themselves in the long run. The Coronavirus epidemic has simply highlighted their age-old plight, insecurity and uncertainties. Many are self-employed, selling lottery tickets, or children’s books, at traffic lights, walking the streets all day. Others drive three-wheelers. All are idling. 
Below them, there are another strata of beggars and sex workers. Though not officially recognized, they have a strong street presence. Whether they are entitled to official aid, no one could confirm, and none was there to be seen as we walked along the maze of back alleys under the broiling sun.  

An old lottery ticket-seller broke down and wept while talking to my media companion. Suraj Madhushanka, who lost a leg in a road collision in 2004, took us home to meet his family. His sister is the only wage earner, and her future is uncertain as to the shop which employs her remains closed up. K. Sudharmalan, was cleaning a gas cooker by the roadside. He makes a living by that and other odd jobs, but these days work is hard to come by as people have no money.

Pujitha Liyanage, a cheerful, voluble three-wheeler driver, is out of work now. But he takes it philosophically. 
As the finance company has put on hold the lease payments on his three-wheeler, he’s using the money he has to feed the family. It won’t last forever. But, as he puts it: “This is an international crisis. We have to understand. I just hope the government can give us some support to continue our day to day living.

Former Finance Minister requests Sri Lankan President to re-summon parliament to resolve crises & approve public expenditure

Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 08:42 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Apr 29, Colombo: Sri Lanka’s former Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera today wrote to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa requesting to re-summon the dissolved parliament to constitutionally resolve the crises arising from the delayed parliamentary election due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to approve public expenditure to battle the crisis.


He pointed out that the Vote-on-Account presented by the former government was passed on 23rd October 2019 for a period of four months from 1st January 2020 to 30th April 2020 and constitutionally the government has no legal right to bear public expenditure after 30th April.

The former minister requested the President to exercise his executive powers at this critical time to re-summon the parliament as soon as possible with the support of all parties represented in Parliament and to have the essential expenditure, including the payment of salaries to the public service after 30th April 2020 approved legally and constitutionally so that Sri Lanka acts responsibly, respecting the Constitution in relation to public finances.

Former Minister Samaraweera’s letter is reproduced below in full:

𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 Gotabaya Rajapaksa
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗿𝗶 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗮
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁
𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗼 𝟬𝟭.

Dear President,

𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲-𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲

I am writing this letter to you as the former Minister of Finance, who presented the Vote on Account for the state expenditure of Sri Lanka up to 30th April, 2020.

2. In the years when a presidential election is forthcoming, successive governments have refrained from passing a budget leaving an opportunity for the winning President to submit his own Budget.

3. As the Presidential election was scheduled to be held on 16th November 2017, the then government was of the view that presenting an Appropriation Bill would not be appropriate.

Accordingly, the then Government presented a Vote on Account to Parliament for a period of four months from 1st January 2020 to 30th April 2020 and adopted it on 23rd October 2019 leaving an opportunity for the would be elected President to present his own Budget.

4. But on the contrary, the finance minister appointed by you did not present a budget for 2020 until you issued a Gazette dissolving Parliament on 2nd March in spite of the fact that you assumed office in November 2019, over three months prior to the dissolution of Parliament. As you would recall, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa who also held the portfolio of Finance did not present the Budget for 2015 since the Presidential Election was scheduled in November 2014 for 8th January 2015.

Therefore, I would like to remind you that the good governance government that won the Presidential election on 08th January 2015 presented a budget for the financial year 2015 within 21 days of its election.

5. Instead of presenting an Appropriation Bill for the year 2020, prior to dissolution of the Parliament on 2nd March 2020, a proposal was brought by your government to amend the Vote on Account which had already been passed by the yahapalana government. Thereafter your government withdrew it after the opposition in Parliament pointed out that there was no provision in the Standing Orders for such an amendment. Now, as a result of the failure to present the budget due to reasons known only to your government, and the sudden emergence of the coronavirus (Covid-19), the country is afflicted with a pandemic in addition to legislative and economic crises.

6. Considering the serious risk of the spread of Covid-19 in the country, the Election Commission announced on the 20th of April that the General Election scheduled for 25th April will be held on 20th June 2020. However, the date to summon the new parliament to meet upon the conclusion of the proposed General Election scheduled for 20th June 2020 which is a must according to the Constitution has not been officially announced.

7. I urge that by virtue of the Vote on Account passed on 23rd October 2019, the Constitution clearly states that the Government of Sri Lanka has no legal right to bear public expenditure after 30th April 2020. As Parliament shall have full control over public finance, no sum shall be withdrawn except under the authority of a warrant under the hand of the minister in charge of the subject of Finance. No such grant can be issued by the Minister of Finance without such approval and it is unlawful for the Secretary to the Treasury to spend public money for any purpose without the approval of the Minister of Finance.

8. Article 150 (3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka provides for the incurring of Government expenditure in the event of the dissolution of Parliament and in the context of an Appropriation Bill not being passed in Parliament.

150 (3) 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘴: 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺, 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵.

The President shall be authorized to issue and spend money from the Consolidated Fund in terms of the provisions provided in the said Constitution only until the expiry of three months from the date on which the new Parliament is summoned to meet. But the due date for the new Parliament to meet has not yet been officially announced by the President.

9. As you are well aware, the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet of Ministers and the Members of Parliament, as well as all public officials, including the Secretary to the Treasury, have pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution of the Republic. Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions on conviction by the Court of Appeal shall be subject to:

(𝙘) 𝘾𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙
(𝙙) 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙛𝙚𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙢𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙮.

10. Therefore, I kindly request you to exercise your powers as the Head of State at this critical time to summon the Parliament as soon as possible with the support of all parties represented in Parliament and to have the essential expenditure, including the payment of salaries to the public service after 30th April 2020 approved legally and constitutionally so that Sri Lanka acts responsibly, respecting the Constitution in relation to public finances. Failure to do so, especially at a time of a pandemic is bound to have serious repercussions for the short and long-term economic well-being of our people especially in light of international obligations and the nature of the interconnected global financial and economic system.

Yours sincerely,

Mangala Samaraweera

China Spearheads Anti-Muslim Propaganda Campaign In Sri Lanka Amid Coronavirus Fears

APRIL 30, 2020

The Chinese Embassy in Colombo to have spearheaded and funded an anti-Muslim propaganda campaign in Sri Lanka, Colombo Telegraph can reveal today.

The first phase is a documentary on China’s ongoing infamous anti-Muslim pogrom in Xinjiang against its Muslim Uyghurs. The first episode titled ‘Learning from the experience of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in successfully defeating terrorist activities in Xinjiang Province and heralding in peace to the people, is to be aired on TV Derana, which is well-known for inciting racial sentiments against Muslims, tomorrow (30 April 2020) at 10 AM.

The Colombo Telegraph is in possession of the trailer of the so-called documentary.

Openly President Gotabaya Rajapaksa supporter Chatura Alwis of Derana TV was unwittingly exposed on 31 March when several racist slurred hurled at Muslims were inadvertently aired during a break in the political talkshow – Wadapitiya.

The documentary relates to the infamous ‘Xinjiang conflict’ in which Uyghurs, a Turkic minority ethnic group who make up the largest group in China’s far-northwest autonomous region of Xinjiang have been subjected to inhuman and unethical mass surveillance, increased arrests, and a system of ‘re-education’ camps, estimated to hold nearly one million Muslims, which human rights activists call some of the largest prisons in the world.

According to cfr.org, some eight hundred thousand to two million Uighurs and other Muslims, including ethnic Kazakhs and Uzbeks, have been detained since April 2017. Hundreds of camps are located in Xinjiang. Officially known as the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, the northwestern province has been claimed by China since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took power in 1949. Some Uighurs living there refer to the region as East Turkestan and argue that it ought to be independent from China. Xinjiang takes up one-sixth of China’s landmass and borders eight countries, including Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Chinese officials claim that Uighurs hold extremist and separatist ideas, and they view the camps as a way of eliminating threats to China’s territorial integrity, government, and population.
President Xi Jinping who is close ally of the Rajapaksa regime, warned of the “toxicity of religious extremism” and advocated for using the tools of “dictatorship” to eliminate Islamist extremism in a series of secret speeches while visiting Xinjiang in 2014. In the speeches, revealed by the New York Times in November 2019, Xi did not explicitly call for arbitrary detention but laid the groundwork for the crackdown in Xinjiang.

Though the conflict is traced to 1931, factors such as the massive state-sponsored migration of ethnic Han Chinese from the 1950s to the 1970s, government policies promoting Communist ideals, Chinese cultural unity and punishing certain expressions of Uyghur identity, and harsh responses to separatist terrorism have contributed to tension between Uyghurs, on one hand and the Chinese Police and Han Chinese on the other.

This has taken the form of both frequent terrorist attacks and wider public unrest such as the 1997 Ürümqi bus bombings, June 2009 Shaoguan Incident, the resulting July 2009 Ürümqi riots, 2011 Hotan attack, April 2014 Ürümqi attack, May 2014 Ürümqi attack, and 2014 Kunming attack.

Numerous moderates have pointed out again and again that highhanded and openly undemocratic policies including rabidly racist and chauvinist approaches against the Muslim community by the Rajapaksa regime are marring the effective containment of the Covid 19 pandemic.

Read More

Is this time different?

Wednesday, 29 April 2020 

The world is facing unprecedented economic challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Modern human civilisation has never confronted similar socio economic challenges. Both developed and emerging economies are equally struggling to provide necessary healthcare facilities to save millions of lives, risked due the viral outbreak. The global healthcare system in on the brink of collapse with an ever-increasing number of infected patients on a daily basis.

The action taken by authorities, ranging from social distancing to complete lockdown, in a bid to control the spread of the viral disease has severely affected the global economy. The growth projections are lowered, however any projection today is simply not reliable due to the unpredictable nature of the viral outbreak and severity of the responses.

Most authorities had though unwillingly adopted painful measures to control the movement of people and goods to the maximum possible extent. As result, the entire production and value chain had got completely distorted. Millions in many economies have lost their jobs and had been asked to stay at home. Lower income level had resulted in curtailing consumption expenditure and restricted ordinary lifestyle. Those actions had led to serious decline in the aggregate demand. World economic growth is nose diving.

The fiscal and monetary authorities have come forward to rescue the economies from looming collapse. A large number of fiscal stimulus of varying degree have been offered. Similarly, leading monetary authorities have offered monetary stimulus to the global financial system. Maintaining a sound financial system is of paramount importance today for the success of battle against the viral outbreak.

The space for fiscal stimulus is limited in many countries. The ability to pump additional fiscal stimulus in terms of Government spending is limited due to lower income collection during the economic slump. The prediction is that the viral spread to be followed by a severe and unprecedented global recession. It is expected that a prolonged and slow recovery can cause sustained economic damages, triggering millions of jobs cuts. The intention of all action by monetary and fiscal authorities is to shorten time for the recovery and make is ‘V’ shape recovery rather than ‘U’ shape.

The Keynesian model whereby government pumps money to the economy through discretionary fiscal spending to ignite the economy in a recessionary condition will work only when there is a coordinated global action under the current globalised world. The effect will be felt differently to different economies depending on their production base and level of production capacity.

Immediate monetary stimulus target to improve the liquidity and maintain the health of global financial system. The key central bank actions to lower the policy lending rates and inject money through purchase of government and private debts, expanding their balance sheets had avoided a possible global financial crisis. While understanding that any stimulus would work only when production and consumption resume to normal condition, the recovery will depend of the effectiveness of the responses.

The examples are plenty in the economic history. The innovative and unorthodox action from the Fed, the central bank of the United States under the chairmanship of renowned economist, Ben Bernanke at the time of 2009 global financial crisis, enabled the US to achieve a decade long sustained recovery and to lift millions around the world out of poverty. Unless the decisive action from the Fed, the US could have fallen to a prolonged Japanese style recession.  Then Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke was a crisis-expert and his action, without much supports from his political counterparts helped to avert further economic collapse onset of the financial crisis in 2009. His action was a testimony that an innovative central bank has no bounds. His action was supported by two more central bankers; then Chair of European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi and Governor of Bank of England (BoE) Sir Mervyn King. Thanks to unorthodox monetary actions by these economists the world economy survived and millions of lives around the world achieved economic wellbeing.


Tale of two continents

However, there was a contrasting difference in the approach of the two continents. Euro area adopted severe austerity measures curtailing most of fiscal expenditure. Contrastingly, the US policymakers didn’t adopt such drastic austerity measures while the Fed maintained several rounds of quantitative easing, forcing the banking system to lend to the economy.

Despite no fiscal support, Mario Draghi promised the financial community that the ECB would do whatever could be done to protect the Euro. He kept his promise by going on a massive monetary expansion and extended liquidity injection. As result of these collective actions, both continents survived and returned to growth. The austerity measures dragged down the recovery process and the growth rate in Euro zone while the US was able to rebound at a faster rate.

Richard Koo, former Chief Economist at the Nomura Research Institute, explained in his theory of ‘balance sheet recession’ that an economic recession that occurs when high levels of private sector debt cause individuals or companies to collectively focus on saving by paying down debt rather than spending or investing, causing economic growth to slow or decline. The danger is that the economy can fall into a prolonged recession unless action is taken to prevent such balance sheet recession. The Fed action prevented such balance sheet recession and the US economy recovered from the recession, caused by the financial crisis in 2009 albeit at a slower phase and reached full employment.


Government debt crisis in Sri Lanka

It is well understood that fiscal space in Sri Lanka is limited due to the high debt service commitments falling due every year. The period till 2023 is identified as debt bunching period. This period could be further extended due to the short-term borrowings, especially short tenure USD borrowings such as international syndicated loans and Sri Lanka Development Bonds (SLDB).

The debt sustainability is appraised in two areas; the adequacy of cash inflow to meet the debt commitments and the level of debt in comparison to the GDP. Both these indicators are affected by high level of debt as well as the low level of growth. Analysts mostly attribute to the high level of borrowings, however, the real reason is the low economic growth.

Our economic growth has been subpar during the last seven years (refer to Exhibit 2). When the economy is growing at rate below its potential output, both tax collection (fiscal revenue) and GDP (used as denominator of debt to GDP calculation) drag down, deteriorating the debt sustainability indicators. The ongoing global economic crisis, which emanated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has worsened the growth outlook and debt sustainability in Sri Lanka.

It is noted that most economists advise the Government of Sri Lanka to stay on prudent fiscal path and everyone should share the pain of the economic crisis. Nevertheless, history provides sufficient examples to those who try to impose austerity at the time of severe contraction of consumption that such action can worsen the crisis.

It also understood that most economic theories (the assumed relationship among the economic variables) work under normal economic condition and the economic crisis of this magnitude distorts such relationships. If the Government and the Central Bank stick to the theory in time of a crisis, the country may lead to a severe economic destruction.

Inflation or price stability is a relatively low threat at the moment as the economy is operating well below its potential output. The central banks have a bigger role during a crisis of this nature. Our Central Bank has taken number of measures to safeguard the financial system and offered liquidity and credit support to ailing economy. However, the effectiveness of such actions could be negligible given the severity of the crisis.

The Central Bank and fiscal authorities are the only institutional setups that can save millions of lives in this crisis prone world. The history suggests that they should adopt out-of-the-box thinking and unorthodox approaches to effectively fight against crisis of this magnitude.




(The writer is a CFA charterholder; capital market specialist and Certified FRM with over 15 years local and international capital market experience. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any institution.)

CHURCH LEADERS CALLS ON PRESIDENT TO RECONVENE THE PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO AVERT A DANGEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

27/04/2020

In a singed letter the heads of churches under the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka (NCCSL) have requested  the President Rajapaksa to  revoke the order dissolving Parliament and to postpone  the general election till September – October 2020 and avert the dangers of constitutional crisis Sri Lankan citizens can ill afford at this time.

The letter sent to the President follows:

Parliamentary Elections 2020: A Point of View

Photo credit AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena via The Diplomat

PROFESSOR SAVITRI GOONESEKERE-04/30/2020

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted the lives of people in Sri Lanka and across the globe. The President and the Minister of Health have given leadership in responding to this grave public health crisis.  Their policy and programming initiatives have been supported by dedicated medical professionals and health workers in the public health system, giving other citizens with different health problems the opportunity to access private hospitals. Sri Lanka also initiated from the middle of March, an intensive programme of identifying Covid 19 cases, contact tracing, and isolation, considered the best response in dealing with this pandemic. Testing has been added as a major initiative in recent weeks, again following protocols considered vital in preventing the spread of the disease. This is an impressive record of performance. It is a credit to our public health system, and the political leadership given in coordinating a response to the pandemic, with medical professionals and the public health system.

However unfortunately, pressure has been building in recent weeks, to “open up” the country. This is largely related to the concern with holding the Parliamentary elections on a postponed date of  20^th  June 2020.

The original date for Parliamentary elections was 25th April 2020, the date set by the President’s Proclamation (issued by Gazette Notice of 2^nd March 2020), dissolving Parliament. Section 10 (1) (b) of the Elections Act (1981) places the responsibility on the President to set the “date on which the poll is taken” in every Proclamation dissolving Parliament.  This provision restates the President’s responsibility under Article 70 (5) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, to set a date for the Parliamentary election, which also must not be later than three months after the dissolution of Parliament.  This is because the new Parliament must meet not later than three months after the dissolution of the former Parliament.  The details of these Constitutional provisions will be discussed later.

Section 24 (1) (c) of the Elections Act indicates that when the Election Commission publishes a Gazette Notice specifying the date of the poll for the Parliamentary election, it must “specify the date of the poll being the date specified (by the President) under Section 10,” i.e.  Section 10 (1) (b).  According to these provisions it is the President’s act of setting the date of the Parliamentary election by his Proclamation dissolving Parliament that enables the Commission to start making arrangements to conduct the poll.   The Commission’s responsibility in this regard arises only after the President has set the date under Section 10 (1) (b).  The President’s Proclamation dissolving Parliament, and the date set by him for the poll for Parliamentary elections are both clearly connected.

The Government introduced curfews and lock downs in mid March in response to the Covid 19 pandemic. When it appeared that elections could not be held on 25th April, (the date set by the President in his Proclamation), the Election Commission surprisingly issued a Gazette Notice on 21^st March 2020 stating that the poll could not be held on that date, and also that they would set a later date for the poll. This Gazette Notice of the Commission was in conflict with Section 10 (1) (b) and Section 24 (1) (c) of the Election Act referred to in the earlier paragraph.  The Election Commission was therefore acting outside the powers given to them by the Elections Act in stating that it would set a later date for the poll.  The Gazette notice was also in conflict with the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution as outlined in Article 70(5) (a) and (b) cited above.

However, the Commission subsequently wrote to the President on 31^st March 2020, seeking clarification on the date of the poll for the Parliamentary election. It had become clear that the poll could not be held on the 25th April 2020, and therefore that the new Parliament would not be able to meet on the 14^th May 2020, within the three month period specified by Articles 70 (5) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, and in the Presidential Proclamation.

The Secretary to the President replied to this letter, stating that the responsibility for setting a new date was with the Elections Commission, and NOT the President. The letter referred to the Commission’s responsibility to do so under Section 24 (3) of the Elections Act. It appears that it was in response to this letter from the Secretary to the President, that the Commission set the new date of the poll as 20 June 2020 by Gazette Notification No. 2172/3 of 20^th April 2020.  This Gazette Notification refers to Section 24(3) of the Elections Act, apparently accepting the interpretation of their powers given in the letter of the Secretary to the President.

It is useful in these circumstances to examine the provisions in the Constitution 1978 and the Elections Act 1981 that deal with this matter.

Elections Act 1981 and the Postponement of a Parliamentary Election

Despite the provisions referred to above on keeping to the date stated in the President’s Proclamation dissolving Parliament, there are provisions in the  Elections Act which relate to postponing a poll in the event of any emergency.  Section 24 (3) referred to in the Commission’s Gazette Notification of 20^th April 2020, justifying the setting of a new date for the Parliamentary elections, says this: “where due to any emergency or unforeseen circumstances” the poll for the election in any ELECTORAL DISTRICT cannot be taken on the date specified in the Commission’s Gazette Notification (and conforming with the President’s Proclamation), the Commission may by Gazette notification “appoint another day for the taking of SUCH POLL” (i.e poll for THAT electoral district).   Section 24 (3) clearly covers a case where the Commission cannot hold the poll on the date specified in the President’s proclamation due to an emergency, such as a natural disaster or a breakdown of law and order, in an identified electoral district.  This will be a special measure taken in respect of that district, in a situation where polls can be held in other districts on the specified date.  This provision on a postponement of a poll in a particular ELECTORAL DISTRICT is connected to a general provision in Section 113 of the Act.

According to this Section 113, after the President has fixed the date of an election on dissolution of Parliament, he has a special power to order an election on another date by Gazette Notification “in any electoral district where owing to any cause no election has been held in pursuance of his order.”  Section 113 refers again only to the change of a date in a particular electoral district.   The section envisages that this is done in circumstances where the elections are held in other districts in conformity with his Proclamation dissolving Parliament.

Both these provisions (Section 24 (3) and Section 113), clearly contemplate a change in the polling date in a particular electoral district because of an emergency or unforeseen circumstances. The phrase “electoral district” cannot be  interpreted as a reference to postponement of the entire  poll in a  Parliamentary election  after dissolution of Parliament.  Neither Section contemplates a situation where the polls for a Parliamentary election are held in all districts in the country at different times. Staggering elections in that way is not contemplated by the language of Section 24 (3) and Section 113 of the Elections Act.
Consequently:

1. The date for a Parliamentary election after dissolution has to be the date set in the President’s Proclamation. It cannot be later than three months of the date of dissolution, as the new Parliament must be summoned by the President within three months of dissolution (Constitution Article 70 (5) (a) and (b) and Section 10 (1) (b) of the Elections Act). The Constitution and the Elections Act reinforce each other and cannot be delinked.
2. The Election Commission has no power under Section 24 (3) of the Elections Act to set the date of a Parliamentary election after the dissolution of Parliament.
3. Section 24(3) and Section 113 of the Elections Act on the postponement of an election in a particular electoral district in an emergency or unforeseen circumstances, do not cover the postponement of a Parliamentary election.

The Constitutional Provisions

Though the Elections Act does not contain provisions to cover postponement of a Parliamentary election across the country by the President after the dissolution of Parliament, or by the Elections Commission, in the event of an emergency, the Constitution of 1978 had already provided for such a situation.

As stated earlier, the Constitution has placed on the President the duty to fix a date of a Parliamentary election when Parliament is dissolved (Articles 70 (5) (a) and 70 (5) (b). Article 70 (5) (a) reads as follows: “a proclamation dissolving Parliament (by the President) shall fix a date for the election of members of Parliament and summon the new Parliament on a date not later than three months after the date of such Proclamation.”  The obligation to conform to this procedure is placed clearly on the President by Article 70 (5) (b), which states “Upon the dissolution of Parliament ….. the President shall forthwith by Proclamation fix a date or dates (for the election) and shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than three months after the date of the Proclamation.”  It must be therefore be noted that these Constitutional provisions which predated the Elections Act of 1981 set out the President’s responsibilities, and it is this legal position that was reinforced in Section 10 (1) (b) and Section 24 (1) (c) of the Elections Act 1981.

Another Subsection of Article 70 of the Constitution provides for a situation where, an emergency may require the President to reconvene a dissolved Parliament.  This may or may not also require a change of the date for the General Election  and the summoning of the new Parliament.  Article 70 (7) states that:  “If at any time after the dissolution of Parliament, the President is satisfied that an emergency has arisen of such a nature that an earlier meeting of Parliament is necessary, he may by Proclamation summon the Parliament that has been dissolved, to meet on a date not less than three days from the date of such Proclamation, and such Parliament shall stand dissolved upon the termination of the emergency, or the conclusion of the General Election which ever is earlier.”
Therefore:

1. Article 70 (7) gives the President the discretion to change the date set for the General Election and the summoning of the new Parliament in his Proclamation on the dissolution of Parliament, only in the event of a grave national emergency.
2. When he exercises this power to act under Article 70 (7), then he must reconvene the dissolved Parliament.
3. When the emergency ends, unless a General Election can be held on the date specified in the original Proclamation, he must, by another Proclamation, set a new date for the General Election and the summoning of a new Parliament.
4. Only the President can the change the date of the General Election and the date for summoning a new Parliament in the original Proclamation, and he can only do so by acting under Article 70 (7).

It is also evident that the concept of a “General Election,” the term in the Constitution, is quite different from the concept of postponement of the “poll in any electoral district due to an emergency” by the Commission under the Section 24 (3) of the Elections Act, or the President ordering “the holding of an election in an electoral district” under Section 113 of that Act.

It can be argued that it is because the President is empowered by the Constitution  to use Article 70 (7) and re-summon a dissolved Parliament in the event of an emergency, that the Elections Act 1981 did not deal with the postponement of the whole General Election in the country, because of such emergency or unforeseen circumstances.

Conclusions

Both the Constitution and the Elections Act clearly place the responsibility for setting the date of the poll after dissolution of Parliament on the President and no one else.  He must also conform to the Constitutional obligation to summon the new Parliament not later than three months after dissolution. If he wishes to go beyond the date set in his Proclamation dissolving Parliament, he must use Article 70 (7) to postpone the election.

It is only by re-summoning a dissolved Parliament because of an emergency under Article 70 (7), that the President becomes empowered to issue a new Proclamation setting a new date for the Parliamentary general election, which could not be held due to a national emergency.  This Covid19 pandemic seems to be an occasion for the exercise of the President’s powers under Article 70 (7).

The exercise of Presidential powers under Article 70 (7) in an emergency, must be understood in the context of responsibilities of governance of two important institutions – i.e. Parliament and the President. Article 4 (a) and (b) of the Constitution clarify the balance of Presidential and Parliamentary rights and responsibilities of two institutions which reflect the sovereignty of the People.  Article 33A in particular states that the President has an obligation “to be responsible to Parliament for due exercise of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution or any written law.”  This suggests that it is contrary to the concept of the sovereignty of the People exercised through the institutions of Parliament and the Executive Presidency that the President functions after the dissolution of Parliament for an indefinite time during an emergency as the sole executive authority in government.  Article 70 on the dissolution of Parliament does not contemplate the President governing for an indefinite length of time without reference to Parliament.

The President also has a duty under the Constitution Article 33 (1) (d), “on the advice of the Election Commission to ensure the creation of proper conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections.” The Elections Commission’s role is therefore not to take over the responsibilities of the President under the Elections Act, but to help him implement, rather than avoid, responsibilities under the Act and the Constitution.

The Public Interest

The re-summoning of the dissolved Parliament, to cover a period of national emergency like the Coronavirus pandemic, is in the public interest, as well as the President’s interest. It promotes public confidence that he is adhering to the norms of constitutional and accountable governance in the exercise of his powers under Article 70 (7) in a national emergency like the Coronavirus pandemic.

When the President acts in conformity with Article 70 (7) in a situation where the Elections Act does not cover the current issue of holding postponed Parliamentary Elections due to the Coranavirus pandemic, the public has a right to expect a reconvened Parliament to conduct itself with dignity and a sense of responsibility.  The challenges of the pandemic demand an all-party consensus to help the nation to overcome the crisis. This is no time for the usual shouts and screams of confrontational politics or all too familiar conspiracy theories. Indeed some Commonwealth countries with Parliamentary systems of governance have witnessed the total co-operation of all parties across the spectrum in helping the government to respond to the pandemic. Perhaps this is a required response, in reimagining governance after the debilitating Coronavirus pandemic.

A reconvened Parliament will have a limited objective, and that is to support the President and the government to continue with an effective public health response, facilitating the allocation of necessary financial resources to do so.  The dynamics of the coronavirus pandemic will require very limited sittings of Parliament, with a very limited number of Members of Parliament from both Government and the Opposition at Parliamentary sessions.   It will be clear that routine sittings will not be possible, nor can there be a recommencement of the usual agendas and procedures.  However, important issues of national concern can be brought before the Parliament at these sittings.  We the People can also demand that they (members) do NOT receive the usual salaries and perks, at this time of national crisis.

Picking up the lives of citizens and strengthening governance to address the grave economic and public health problems we face will require new approaches, and strengthening and not undermining democratic institutions. Those who try to use an opportunity to function again as a Parliament and as representatives of the People at this difficult time for personal gain and confrontational politics will surely show us all just why they should not receive our votes at the next general election.