US views on Obstacles for inevsting in Sri Lanka

Ad hoc tax application, lengthy approval processes are among them

by Kelum Bandara-July 31, 2021

U.S. Ambassador Alaina B. Teplitz said lengthy approval processes, ad hoc tax applications and difficulty in obtaining property to build factories or facilitate investments, tax on financial flows and mandatory requirements for converting dollars into rupees remain barriers to investment in Sri Lanka. 

During a round-table discussion with journalists, she said she talks to Sri Lankan business people as well as American business people all the time and they continue to express frustration over barriers to investment here.

“I talk to Sri Lankan business people as well as American business people all the time and they continue to express frustration over barriers to investment here. So lengthy approval processes or ad hoc kind of tax application or difficulty in obtaining property to maybe build a factory or facilitate an investment. Even transferring money. Right now there are taxes on financial flows and mandatory requirements to convert dollars to rupees. All of these things can be big barriers to investment when international firms look at global options and Sri Lanka has to fundamentally be in a position to compete not just within the country or even within the region but frankly, globally with other countries that are trying to attract the same investment,” she said. 

Transcript of Ambassador Teplitz’s Virtual Media Roundtable with Sri Lankan Journalists

Ambassador Teplitz:  Good morning everybody.  Thank you, Doug. And thanks to everybody who’s joined today for the roundtable.  I really welcome the opportunity to speak.  I have met many of you in the past and of course you’ve heard me say in our previous conversations that Sri Lanka and the United States enjoy the benefit of a very long relationship and a long friendship.

However, the last several years, of course, have been tumultuous.  A time for both of our countries to take a look at the quality of that relationship and friendship.  And I look back and I certainly see that the quality has been good.  The United States has responded in times of need for Sri Lanka.  We have deepened ties between peoples, whether it’s through business or study, or family connections.  We’ve really sought to ensure that that relationship is a two-way street.  It’s not one-sided.  It’s one where both countries and both peoples can gain value from the partnership.

The tumult, of course, stems from politics, from the brutal and unjustifiable terror attack that took place in Easter 2019 and of course the ongoing pandemic.

And I did want to say an extended word about some of the pandemic-related support that the United States has provided to Sri Lanka.  We have supplied more than $8 million to Sri Lanka’s COVID-19 response and recovery.  And, of course, many of you would have been tracking the July 15 arrival of more than 1.5 million doses of the Moderna vaccine that came straight from the U.S. national stockpile to Sri Lanka, delivered here through the COVAX mechanism.  The vaccines have come at no cost to the people of Sri Lanka, so they are a true donation and in addition to the vaccines we have provided medical equipment and supplies, PPE, ventilators and other support to ensure that Sri Lankan health authorities and people can overcome the challenges posed by this global problem.

The United States is the largest single country donor to the COVAX vaccine distribution mechanism, and we are continuing to provide support not only through that funding but also with vaccines and other items coming from our own stockpiles and we’re very committed to providing access to these high quality and WHO authorized vaccines.  So that’s something that I think is of immediate concern to your readership, but it’s really just the kind of help that we have been consistently providing as a long-term development partner.  And you can look back to other periods of stress or trauma in Sri Lanka’s history, whether it’s looking at the immediate aftermath of the Easter attacks when we responded to the Sri Lankan government’s request for support for the investigation, or back to 2004 looking at the tsunami, or even earlier in trying to address some of the challenging development needs of the country.

And building on the shared values and strategic interests that our government has, we hope in the future to increase Sri Lanka’s capacity to foster sustainable and inclusive economic growth, counterterrorism and transnational crime, and to promote the rule of law, transparency and democratic governance.

So we want to continue the partnership.  We remain committed to the prosperity and the rights of all Sri Lankans and we look forward to many more years of partnership going forward.

With that let me now open the floor for questions.

Moderator:  Thank you very much, ma’am.  We will begin with the first round of questions and I first call on David Ebert of Derana to ask the first question.

Journalist:  Good morning, everyone.  My question basically is, I thought I’d get down to some [inaudible] facts early in the morning is related to the human rights situation and the rule of law situation in Sri Lanka.  What I’d like to know is how does the U.S. administration view the situation?  Is there a change in its stance?  Will there be more engagement with the Sri Lankan government on the issue?  And in what form will that entail?

Ambassador Teplitz:  That’s a very good question and it is an important part of our relationship.  As two countries that have democratic political institutions and where we have signed on to international conventions that support human rights and the rule of law.  We fundamentally look at Sri Lanka’s human rights commitments as exactly that – Sri Lanka’s commitments to human rights.  Our human rights engagement with the government of Sri Lanka is about helping Sri Lanka fulfill those commitments to its people, to the world, and making sure that the highest standards of respect, tolerance and human dignity are in fact in place here.

This is completely consistent, of course, with the sustainable development goal, something that President Rajapaksa has pledged to undertake for the country and that the United States also has supported.  So our human rights commitments and engagement here should be understood in that context.  This is about Sri Lanka’s journey as much as it’s about the world’s journey to better respect the dignity and rights of every person.

So looking at the context here, of course we continue to talk with the government about challenges to human rights and we note recent actions, for example, the release of prisoners who have been detained, in fact who were arrested, sorry.  I think all of them were convicted under the PTA, this was the Poson Poya pardons.  That was a really helpful and welcome step forward and I think that we look forward to the effort to look at more people who have been detained under that legislation, legislation that no longer conforms to international norms and does need to be revised.

There are other challenges out there, of course, and I did note that in light of the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 which had upheld the conviction of another one of the pardoned prisoners, Duminda Silva, that didn’t appear to be consistent with SDG goals or maintaining the rule of law.

So we want to continue to engage with the government to ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected and that Sri Lanka’s prosperity and sovereignty remain protected through adherence to these international commitments.

Moderator:  Thank you, ma’am.

Now we move on to Kelum Bandara of Daily Mirror.

Journalist:  Good morning, Ambassador.   Ambassador, I would like to know how the B3World, Build Back Better World program, how do you look forward to cooperate with Sri Lanka under this particular program in the future?

Ambassador Teplitz:  Under the what program?

Journalist: B3W, Build Back Better World Program announced by your President.

Ambassador Teplitz:  The Build Back Better Work Program.  I have to say, perhaps I know that program under a different name so I’m not familiar with that one specifically.

Journalist: I was referring to that B3W program.

Ambassador Teplitz:  I’m not sure I know that one.  Like I said, I might know it under a different name or some shorthand that we call it.

I’m happy to address some of our commitments around development more generally, if that’s helpful.

Journalist:  Of course.

Ambassador Teplitz:  Okay.  As noted earlier, we remain a really committed partner of Sri Lanka, and part of that partnership has been supporting Sri Lanka on its development journey.  And for 60 years, in fact, we have been really focused on that.  It’s been a large part of our partnership.  The goal, of course, is to ensure that the people of Sri Lanka arrive at a more prosperous place but also are more capable in terms of managing some of the challenges the country may confront, and I’ll offer the example of sort of natural disasters.

We’ve supported the Disaster Management Center and authorities in the Sri Lankan government and across communities and the entire country to better manage the response to floods and landslides, for example.  And the people and government of Sri Lanka have become increasingly capable.  And in the last several rounds of predicted flooding, Sri Lanka has been able to respond without the need for foreign support and intervention to meet the challenges posed by that natural calamity.  That’s exactly the place we want to arrive at, where Sri Lankans are managing everything without the need for support, although given willingly from friends abroad because they’ve got the institutions and the training to make that response happen.

We are focused, of course, also on growing the economy and many of our development projects are in partnership with the private sector, looking at ways to mentor small and medium sized Sri Lankan businesses.  Looking at ways to get them access to finance so that they can grow and create jobs for Sri Lankans.  Helping mentor and support the existing talent that’s here.

We’ve also spent quite some time and effort focusing on programs to support Sri Lanka’s young people, connecting them to jobs and helping make sure that they get the training that they need to succeed in the workplace.

So these are the types of things that we’re focused on in the development relationship, and it’s all about supporting Sri Lankans to help themselves.  We feel that a prosperous Sri Lanka, one where the economy is growing and hopefully growing in an inclusive way, is going to be a great partner for the United States and of course enhance stability in the region and be a great partner for other countries around the world and will be entering those partnerships from a position of strength and capability.

Moderator:  Thank you, ma’am.

We will now move to Robert Anthony from Virakesari.

Journalist:  Thank you.  Good morning, Ambassador.  You had negotiation with recently TNA regarding accountability and reconciliation and a permanent political solution.  What is the outcome, and how do you see the accountability and reconciliation program or the issues in the country at the moment?

Ambassador Teplitz:  Actually I had a meeting with the TNA, not negotiations.  I make a point of meeting with all of the political parties including parties in power and the parties in opposition periodically in order to exchange views, so I can understand where they’re coming from and I can share the policies and thoughts from the United States.  So I had a very cordial meeting with the TNA and was able to hear from the leadership there about their concerns related to needed changes in the political process and some of the challenges that people in the north and the east in particular, but island-wide are facing with regard to the economy and concerns, frankly, over preservation of civil liberties here, making sure people are free to demonstrate and making sure that people are free to engage in the political process.

The United States has long supported the human rights, the political rights of all people on this island, no matter what community they might come from or represent or what part of the island they might come from or represent.  But we do support a Sri Lanka that remains wholly democratic and is united and strong and sovereign.  We don’t think any of those things are incompatible.

So there were, like I said, a cordial conversation in a meeting.

Moderator:  Thank you ma’am.

We move on to Easwaran Rutnam of Colombo Gazette.

Journalist:  Hi, Ambassador, good morning.

I just want to ask you about the Port City since this administration is putting a lot of emphasis on investing on the Port City, and with the Biden administration enforcing sanctions I believe on the company involved with the project.

As far as U.S. investments are concerned, is there an opportunity or does the U.S. prevent U.S. investors from putting their money on the Port City?

Ambassador Teplitz:  One of my priorities has been to encourage U.S. investment in Sri Lanka as a whole.  Looking at the opportunities that would be here for joint projects and to help the economy grow, and of course continue to strengthen the ties between our countries by encouraging business relationships.   Port City obviously is something that’s new on the economic scene here.  New legislation, a new opportunity for potential development.  The United States does have one of the companies that are working on the Port City development on our sanctions list, I believe, and we can get you I think some more facts about the specifics on that.  And so doing business with that company might not be something that’s advisable.  And of course companies are going to have to look carefully at the terms of doing business in the Port City going forward and what the legislation means.

I believe the last time I spoke with some of you or a roundtable like this I expressed concern over the Port City legislation.  It was then in draft.  It’s now been passed. I continue to be concerned about some aspects of that legislation although I’m trying to dig deeper and really understand what it may mean, because there do appear to be openings for either corrupt influences or potential for illicit finance and financial flows, money laundering, and things like that.

U.S. companies are going to be wary of that.  They want to keep clean balance sheets, they’re not going to engage with partners that aren’t going to meet international norms in relation to international finance.  And of course we have our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that makes corruption and the payment of bribes in the conduct of business illegal for U.S. firms.  So they’re going to have to look very, very carefully at that legislation and what that means in terms of doing business and at any regulations that get promulgated as a result of the legislation.

The U.S. is not preventing American companies from investing but we have been raising concerns about the investment environment for any companies, not just American companies, and whether it’s going to be one that is attractive, and as attractive I think as Sri Lanka wants it to be, needing that foreign investment to help the economy grow.

Moderator:  Thank you, ma’am.

On to Shehan from Hiru TV News.

Journalist:  Good morning, Ambassador.  Taking back [inaudible] with regards to investment and now you touched upon the Port City.  Port City has the potential of about $15 billion U.S. dollar investment capacity.  You also said that you will not encourage the U.S. companies to invest in Port City.  But you also had concerns over the legislation.  But now you know that also in your address you pledged that the U.S. will be the financially backing Sri Lanka in terms of the development process especially in the investments.

So how do you basically encourage to mitigate this with the government and to encourage the U.S. investors to invest in Sri Lanka?  And with that, there are a lot of concerns about the U.S., are you behind some negotiations with some power plant in Kerawalapitiya to push an U.S. investor to invest in Sri Lanka.

But the people are in darkness, they do not know what’s the real true story about that.  Would you enlighten us on that?

Ambassador Teplitz:  A lot of things to unpack in your question, but the first thing I want to clarify is I did not say I would not encourage U.S. companies to invest in Port City.  What I said is that we are looking at the new legislation and of course we’ll be waiting for regulations that come from that legislation that would then govern the investment environment and that so far we continue to remain concerned about the legal framework because it appears to have loopholes or provisions that would permit the presence of corruption or potential for money laundering.

I realize that the legal framework of Port City is not complete, that there is legislation, but regulations have to come.  There are many details that have to be filled in.  So we’re mindful of that evolving situation.

What I said was that U.S. companies are not going to want to invest in an environment that has essentially a problematic legal framework.  They want to be assured that they’ll be doing business in ways that meet international standards, and of course we also have legal prohibitions against doing businesses in ways that involve corrupt practices.

So let me just clarify that, what I was saying in response to the earlier question.

Then you asked I think how to mitigate maybe some of the problems or negatives there, and then how to encourage investment.  So two thoughts on that.  And again, encouraging investment and having economic engagement between our two countries is a key priority for me.

How to mitigate some of these problems. Well, the most obvious thing of course is to look at international norms in relation to international business conduct and looking at guidelines that have been established through whether it’s the OECD or looking at the requirements established by the Financial Action Task Force.  There are plenty of international norms that can help these benchmarks for Sri Lanka in terms of establishing legislation and encouraging growth in business practices.  That’s part of the best way to mitigate that.

Also I think that having a consistent policy regime, one that is fully open to international trade and that’s going to encourage that trade and bring inward investment with a minimum of barriers.  And this gets to the ease of doing business.  I talk to Sri Lankan business people as well as American business people all the time and they continue to express frustration over barriers to investment here.  So lengthy approval processes or ad hoc kind of tax application or a difficulty in obtaining property to maybe build a factory or facilitate an investment.  Even transferring money.  Right now there are tax on financial flows and mandatory requirements to convert dollars to rupees.  All of these things can be big barriers to investment when international firms look at global options, and Sri Lanka has to fundamentally be in a position to compete not just within the country or even within the region but frankly, globally with other countries that are trying to attract the same investment.

I know this is not a new issue.  The ease of doing business annual ranking is well known and the government and the senior leadership I know have promised to tackle these challenges and I hope that that can come to pass, that some of the barriers can be removed and the United States remains ready and willing to support the government in removing barriers to investment.  Ultimately we’d like to see Sri Lanka have good quality investment, making sures that it’s transparent, that it’s open, that it’s real investment.

And in that regard, you asked me about the New Fortress Energy Project, proposed project.  That’s a private sector investment.  It is a real investment with an investor coming with their own money, not bringing loans to finance some sort of project.  And they are negotiating with the government according to government processes to make that investment.  And I would argue hopefully a crucial investment in the energy sector, a sector that desperately needs to add capacity and new technology in order to supply the needs of Sri Lankans and Sri Lanka’s growing economy.

So I hope that can be concluded, and of course we absolutely support having a fair, clear, consistent legal framework.  We absolutely support ensuring that business deals are not made around corrupt practices.  And then importantly, investment is meeting the highest environmental and labor standards.  That’s definitely something that American companies bring to the table as well as innovation and good technology.  But I think increasingly we’re all aware that that is not enough.  That taking care of the environment and ensuring the safety, the welfare, and frankly the training and education of the workforce are also very important parts of good quality investment.

Moderator:  Thank you very much, ma’am.

We can open up for follow-up questions.  First I have David Ebert from Derana.

Journalist:  Ambassador, recently the Central Bank announced plans to permit individuals to repatriate what they termed previously undisclosed income into Sri Lanka, that is to shore up Sri Lanka’s dollar reserves.  How concerned is the U.S. about decisions like this from a money laundering perspective?

Ambassador Teplitz:  That’s a really good question.  I know there has been a lot of kind of commentary in the media about the wisdom of the tax amnesty or whatever you want to call this proposal, and I would have to agree that in general this kind of offer doesn’t work in the way people think.

The first problem, of course, is that it’s an open invitation to people to launder money maybe that was obtained in ways it shouldn’t have been and has been stashed abroad, and now they have a chance to bring it in and basically clean it by bringing it into the country under that amnesty.  But secondly, it usually doesn’t raise a lot of money for the government at the end of the day.  It doesn’t necessarily help.  And of course there’s always the possibility that it deters other people in the future from declaring their income because they’ll just wait for another amnesty, right?  It encourages them to engage in that kind of practice where every couple of years they can bring their money in and out.

So it’s not the kind of economic choice or policy decision I would advocate.  And I think the government really does have a challenge at the moment.  You mentioned levels of reserves and just broadly stated I would say there are a lot of concerns about the health of the economy right now.  And I think that the solution in the end is not this kind of policy choice.  It’s not limited repatriations of funds.  A much more massive infusion of funding and economic reform is required and that means going to the International Monetary Fund.

Sri Lanka is a member of the International Monetary Fund.  It’s absolutely right to seek the support of the funds.  That’s something that the U.S. government would support Sri Lanka doing and support other governments in doing.  That’s the purpose of the fund is to help countries that are in need in this way.

I have no doubt that the IMF would work with the government transparently and reasonably to establish appropriate conditions for that kind of support, and that that would benefit Sri Lanka in the long run.  There are, I’m sure, economic reforms that are going to be needed in order to strengthen and stabilize the economy going forward.  People should welcome that because it’s only going to benefit individuals as well as business to have a strong and stable economy.

Moderator:  Thank you, ma’am.

I have Easwaran Rutnam from Colombo Gazette with a follow-up.

Journalist:  Ambassador, I just want to ask you, you met the new Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa soon after he took office.  I’m just wondering at your meeting, during your meeting with him if there were signs of promise as far as Sri Lanka’s trade relations are concerned and economic policies that you expect from Sri Lanka.

Ambassador Teplitz:  Good question.  I had, again, a cordial meeting and conversation with the Minster who is new in that role but obviously very familiar with Sri Lanka’s economic needs.

We did discuss trade relationships and of course I’d refer you to the Minister, but I certainly came away with the impression that there’s a desire to strengthen those relationships and an acknowledgement of what might need to be done to shore that up.  Not just with the United States but with other nations.  I’d note the GSP+ challenges and the need for the government to engage in that process.  And also looking at ways to maybe diversify the trade agenda as well.  For my part, I think that would be healthy, looking at ways to encourage investment or trade in non-traditional sectors.  A lot of our trade has been focused on apparel and while I actually think quite highly of the apparel industry in Sri Lanka, it’s unique maybe in the world, to have gone way beyond manufacturing and working on design and logistics and has very strong global partnerships.  In fact it’s kind of a model for the industry in other parts of the country.

I do think there’s other potential in other industries, whether it’s technology or energy as we were discussing, and those are things that we hope we can maybe explore going forward.

Moderator:  Thank you, ma’am.

Robert Anthony from Virakesari.

Journalist:  Thank you, madam.

Ambassador, the three member panel or commission appointed by the President to look into the previous commission’s recommendations regarding these accountability issues.  The Government is saying that it will engage in the accountability process with the domestic legal framework.  How do you see that?  And what is the present situation of the Geneva resolution 46/1?

Ambassador Teplitz:  Let me just start off by saying that respect for human rights is an enduring American value and enduring policy priority for us.  President Biden has articulated a vision for the United States and the world, frankly, where people can live in dignity and importantly without fear.  And assuredly where there’s justice and accountability not only with respect to maybe specific events such as the conflict in Sri Lanka but globally on an everyday basis.  That there is an end to impunity and that people’s rights and their civil liberties are respected and people have equal and equitable access to justice.

So in that context the PCOI that was established to look at the previous commission’s work, I mean I understand that they have put forward an interim report.  The government has not briefed the international community on the findings of that commission or their work to date.  That’s something, of course, that I would welcome hearing more about.  I have said to government leadership in the past, that we do encourage the government of Sri Lanka to look at some of those previous commissions and their recommendations.  The LLRC, for example, that was convened under former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, did come forward with some very I think useful recommendations that if the government chose to pursue would do a lot to upholding its commitments both in Geneva and just broadly speaking, commitments to people of this island.

So I think there’s potential there.  I’d welcome getting that brief.

And with regard to Geneva more specifically, the current resolution, I believe there’s a review in September to encourage the government to come up with that domestic mechanism and to share what that’s going to be with the international community.  Again, potentially referring to some of these previous recommendations.

But to be clear on what that mechanism is going to be, there are many issues to be addressed and concrete steps to address them will build credibility in the international system and I think make the Geneva process one that is less contentious and a much more positive one.  And some of these steps could be, for example, replacement or amendment of the PTA.  This has been a promise including of this government.  I understand there’s an effort underway to do that.  But doing that sooner rather than later would be a real sign of genuine commitment to the human rights values that we’ve been talking about.  Particularly since this government has used the PTA to detain people and that some of those people, Hejaaz Hizbullah and Jazeem the poet, haven’t had a trial.  They’ve been in detention for a long time.  And Hejaaz Hizbullah is now an Amnesty prisoner of conscience.  So that isn’t a credit really to the government’s statements about a commitment.  We need to see that there’s actually some genuine follow-through.  And as I noted earlier, the United States is ready to stand by and support the government and do what we can to help it meet those commitments, but there needs to be some action on its part.

I think other things that could be done that would build credibility would be, of course, ensuring independence of institutions like the Office of Missing Persons or of Reparations and ensuring that the leadership of those offices is constituted by people of integrity who are widely respected by all communities and who can ensure that those institutions fulfill their missions.

Their work is still needed.  Notwithstanding, of course, the long civil conflict that ended in 2009, there were other periods in Sri Lanka’s history that generated missing family members and those families, the survivors, need some sort of answers about what’s happened to their loved ones.

Likewise, families have been impacted and their livelihoods have been challenged due to conflict and due to the absence of family members, and they need help and support.  These needs are still out there and they transcend any one particular group.  There are needs all across the island.  The government could fulfill the mission of these once independent institutions, make them independent again and ensure the leadership is going to move ahead.

Just two examples of some of the concrete steps that could be taken to make the Geneva process a much more positive one.  And to support the commitments that Sri Lanka has made, whether it’s through implementation of the SDGs or its ratification of international conventions to human rights.

Moderator:  Thank you, Ma’am.

Next is Shehan Baranage from Hiru TV.

Journalist:  Ambassador, in your initial comments you made reference to the special presidential pardons that were given.  But it’s very unfortunate, Ambassador, that you have been basically speaking only one story about the release of…talking about the special Presidential Pardon that was given, you were only picking up one incident of a release of a former MP.  We have seen there are a lot of politicized issues behind that issue as well.  But also you have basically overlooked that there were so many former LTTE-ers who were released by the presidential pardon.  Your President in U.S. has also given pardons to thousands and thousands of people.  And then we see this.  You are speaking of one single case and overlooking the release of LTTE-ers by the government.  What led you to do this, Ambassador?  Don’t you think this is not totally in the purview of your mandate?  Thank you.

Ambassador Teplitz:  I think if you look at the transcript of this conversation you will find that I noted the release of people who had been arrested under the PTA, the former LTTE-ers and commended that pardon.  I think it was 17 or 19 individuals that were released.  That was a very good step forward.  I noted that in public in a tweet as well, immediately following the pardon, and I will reiterate again, that that was a positive action and in fact I encouraged the government to continue its review, which it said that it’s doing, of people who have been detained under the PTA to either have a trial and conclude the case or dismiss charges or whatever is appropriate to ensure that people have a fair and transparent processing of their case.  And a timely processing of their case given that many of the PTA detainees have been in prison for quite some time.  Years and years if not decades.  And possibly way beyond what any sentence might have been imposed for the crimes to which they’re accused.  So that’s addressing the first part of your question there.

Secondly, it is the prerogative of the President of Sri Lanka, just as it’s the prerogative of the President of the United States, they have pardon powers and they exercise them.  It is also my prerogative as a representative of the United States to express the views and the policy concerns of my country and that’s my job as it is of every other diplomat who’s represented here in Sri Lanka.

So I try to do that faithfully, both privately and in public and ensure that the issues that are of concern to us, that it is known where we stand on those issues.

As I said in the earlier statement, not only does the United States consider the promotion of human rights an important part of our foreign policy, but of course as a democratic society, we consider rule of law to be an essential pillar of our form of government.  Sri Lanka is also a democracy, South Asia’s oldest democracy with a long and proud democratic tradition.  Rule of law is a pillar of Sri Lanka’s government and its commitment to the people.  It’s incredibly important and ensuring that rule of law is strong, that people have equal access to transparent and prompt justice is something I would think that most Sri Lankans also want.  I know in general there’s a large problem with many people not just people who have been detained under the PTA but people who have been arrested for other types of charges who have been held in remand for very, very long periods of time without actually having a trial.  This is the kind of justice reform that I think Sri Lankans and I understand the Justice Minister support, making sure that people get a fair shake in the trial process.

Moderator:  Thank you, Ma’am.

We will now have one final question and then we will close the roundtable.  I see David Ebert from Derana had his hand raised.

Journalist:  Thank you for that.

Going back to the International Monetary Fund, Ambassador, the Central Bank recently said that it will not seek a new program in the near future, and this is because they cite concerns regarding conditionalities such as maintaining a devalued rupee level that is to strengthen exports.  But the Central Bank is adamant that alternative methods may work in easing for example the cost of living pressure on the people.

What are your thoughts on that?  Is that something that could work?

Ambassador Teplitz:  Sri Lanka’s economy is experiencing problems.  I think if you ask people on the street they will talk to you about concern over rising food prices and other commodities.  They will talk to you about concerns about their jobs in the future.  And the state of the economy is due to both policy choices and some of the external shocks like the pandemic for example or the Easter attack that nobody could have anticipated.

I doubt at this point that alternative measures are going to achieve the foundational economic reform that’s going to be required for the economy to regain its health and to grow at an accelerated pace going forward without the support of the IMF.  And frankly, some of the collaboration that can be achieved between the government and the IMF to look at some of the economic reforms that are going to be needed.

Sure, it’s possible that Sri Lanka can muddle through.  We’ve seen other analysts express that thought.  These opinion pieces have appeared in the pages of your news outlets or people have expressed themselves on your TV shows.  But I’m not sure that’s what the people of Sri Lanka are going to want, an economy that’s always muddling through.

From the perspective of the United States having good, strong economic policies in place that again, facilitate business and help ensure that the economy is growing on a fair, transparent and inclusive basis and in ways that limit corruption and limit opportunities for illicit transactions is the only way to grow that strong economy of the future.  Economies don’t – people don’t prosper by muddling through.  You prosper by having a really sound foundation on which to build.

So I know that the leadership at the Central Bank and leadership in government of course are very attuned to the challenges that the economy is posing today and I continue to encourage them to look to the IMF as a central part of the economic solution going forward.  And to embrace some of the conditionality as a means of helping build that strong economic foundation.

I thought it might be useful to sum a little bit of this up.  It’s not in response to any particular question.

Just to say, many of the questions have focused, of course, on the nature of the relationship and thoughts about things that are happening here in Sri Lanka.  But I do want to reiterate a key point which is that the United States does support a secure, prosperous and united Sri Lanka.  We are a willing partner insofar as the government and people of Sri Lanka remain committed to democratic values and norms that we share, and we have been a willing partner for decades prior to this.  We look forward to continued partnership going forward.

We feel that a reconciled Sri Lanka can overcome any disunity and achieve broad-based equitable economic growth and ultimately emerge as a more developed and more secure partner for the United States.  And I think importantly also as a deliverer of prosperity and calm to the people of this beautiful island.

We didn’t have a chance to talk about less weighty issues but I have very much appreciated being in such a special place and I think we were able to maybe hint a little bit in some of the questions at the strong people-to-people ties that I think are a very important foundation of our national relationships and our enduring partnership.  What a beautiful island.  What a great cuisine.  What a lovely place to come and engage.  So I certainly want nothing but the best for the people and the country.

And in light of that challenging last couple of years, we remain committed to finding ways to work together even when the conversations are difficult because we do think that there’s much potential in that relationship and that as two democratic countries we have the opportunity to see both of our peoples prosper in a free and open Indo-Pacific environment in a free and open world.

So thank you.  Just to put things up in a nice package.

Thanks everybody.

  Presidential Secretary Says IMF Not The Answer; But It Is The Answer

By Hema Senanayake –JULY 30, 2021

Hema Senanayake

“Dr. P.B. Jayasundera is destroying the government.” So said and reiterated many times by Venerable Muruththetuwe Ananda in recent past. I was reluctant to believe it, given his experience and more over due to his qualification as a senior economist. After reading his recent interview published on July 25th in the Sunday Times, I was convinced that how true the Venerable Ananda’s assertion is.

Sri Lanka is in a dire economic crisis. Technically Sri Lanka is facing a serious Balance-of-Payment (BOP) crisis. The gravity of crisis is so severe that China cannot or not capable enough to bail us out. If China could have done it, Sri Lanka would not have gone to India to borrow money, especially Sri Lanka would have not borrowed from Bangladesh. In fact, China does not have internationally designed mechanism to bail out countries that faces temporary BOP crises.

However, economic thinkers who created international payment system after the World War Two, knew that free trade would not be possible if there is no proper international mechanism to support the countries that face with temporary BOP crises either due to the shift of terms of trade or due to some natural disaster. Therefore, they established a formal international organization with participation of many member countries just to do this job. That organization is International Monetary Fund (IMF). Sri Lanka became a member of IMF in August 1950.

IMF’s primary mission is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system- the system of exchange rates and international payments that enable countries and their citizens to trade with each other (see IMF website). This goal is achieved by supporting countries whenever they face with temporary BOP crises. It is true when IMF bails out countries IMF advises those countries to make structural reforms/ adjustments that would provide lasting solution to BOP situation of those respective countries. It is also true some of these economic adjustments proposed by IMF are in line with the neoliberal thinking which is not popular among some nations. But IMF correctly thinks and as a member country Sri Lanka too agrees that no country should be bailed out continuously as such measure would allow an irresponsible country or corrupt government to live on other countries wealth. Therefore, the conditions imposed by IMF is very similar to all countries and there is no secret about it. Yet, the IMF does not demand the exact pound of flesh. IMF open for negotiations in line with theory and well-set country plan.

This is a time we face with a severe BOP crisis with foreign remittances shrunk, tourism down and Foreign Direct Investments not forthcoming even after passing and enacting the Port City Bill. So, Ranil Wickremesinghe declared in parliament that the country must go to IMF. Dr. Harsha de Silva, an economist and a parliamentarian of Samgi Jana Balawegaya, reiterated the same idea in many press conferences. Even the leader of Communist Party, DEW Gunesekera recently expressed that the Government should go to IMF on the basis of the situation created by Covid-19 pandemic.

Rejecting all those ideas, presidential secretary Dr. Jayasundera says that “Sri Lanka has no immediate plan to seek financing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).” He questions whether ‘going to IMF would bring tourism and will IMF bring exports back.’ If this is his opinion that should be the President’s and the government’s official view. This is complete madness. If it is just a madness of some official it is fine. But this madness makes citizens, businesses, farmers suffer enormously and makes banks vulnerable. IMF’s mandate, ratified by Sri Lanka as a member country is not to bring exports or tourists to any country but to stabilize any country’s BOP situation enabling the country to do regular businesses and attract foreign direct investments. And, yes, if IMF supports to resolve BOP problem and supports to contain Covid-19 under emergency financing instruments, the suffering of people including farmers, self-employees, businesses, and the stress on banks etc., will end soon. In the official website of IMF says that “In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the IMF temporarily increased the access limits under emergency financing instruments and the annual overall access under non-concessionary resources.” Dr. Jayasundera rejects this opportunity. What is his alternative suggestion?

“The alternative was to consolidate projects already on the ground, for which funds are secure, and to make use of them. If you execute those projects, you can get the money,” he says. He further says that “The World Bank/Asian Development Bank project portfolio covering such sectors as water, irrigation, highways, education and health is around US$ 3bn with utilization spanning three to four years. So, if you fast-track them, remove the bottlenecks for implementation and focus on those, the disbursements are a money flow… Last year saw the highest ADB disbursement at US$ 750mn (Rs 149bn).”

This is an amazing but awful solution. For the first time I am hearing from a senior economist that BOP crises can be resolved from project loans provided by World Bank/ Asian Development Bank. Interestingly, the IMF which is the international organization that is mandated to help in resolving BOP crises, has different set of financial instruments but it has never listed project financing of World Bank or Asian Development Bank as mechanisms that support resolving BOP problems. Instead, what the IMF says is this. “The IMF’s various lending instruments are tailored to different types of balance of payments need as well as the specific circumstances of its diverse membership.” Also, it says that “In the absence of IMF financing, the adjustment process for the country could be more abrupt and difficult. For example, if investors are unwilling to provide new financing, the country would have no choice but to adjust—often through a painful compression of government spending, imports and economic activity.” That’s what the country is experiencing right now. It further states that “IMF financing facilitates a more gradual and carefully considered adjustment. As IMF lending is usually accompanied by a set of corrective policy actions, it also provides a seal of approval that appropriate policies are taking place.”

Read More

 

Militarisation: Two sides of a contemporary movement

STURM UND DRANG – for those enamoured of ‘Ordnung’ (the order of a disciplined yet highly regimented society), the lessons of history from a century not quite over could be a cautionary tale...

Saturday, 31 July 2021 

For ever so long, ‘militarisation’ was a dirty word in café society and among the ‘lib-dem’ elites. There was nothing good it could come to – at coffee mornings or on the cocktail circuit. Despite the existence of a plethora of societal evils, this was liberal Sri Lanka’s favourite whipping-boy. 

Those ills have had to stand in line to get a look-in with the critics ahead of this traditional bug-bear – from an ailing economy, with no physicians but spin doctors (apparently); through natural disasters offshore and man-made abuses in the home; to forex, fertiliser, and currency crises. 

Anti-militarisation sentiment trumped them all once upon a time... the safety-valve of self-indulgent capitalism, consumerism and corpulent profiteering blowing a gasket.

Add education to the mix these days... whether serious issue or political spectacle – take your pick.

Then the storm was suddenly over, and the sun shone through – on the social media battlefield at least. This was when the army recently stepped into the PHIs’ and nurses’ shoes, and civil society discovered that the milk of human kindness – not only blood in every sense – flowed in the security forces’ veins. 

Of late, Colombo elites are falling all over themselves on Facebook and Twitter to hymn the tri-forces’ general praises.

Of course, these paeans may well be temporary. Public approbation is a fickle creature, as the electorate’s rapid and growing disenchantment with a once-worshipped regime has shown. 

But for now, the positives of a regimented roll-out of the government’s accelerated vaccination drive have lulled the bourgeoisie – where once the apathy of bureaucracy and chaos of trade unionism rained down equally on a ruined populace. We’re becoming immune to more than the virus, it would seem... 

Enemy at the gate

I suspect only the petit-bourgeoisie – as perhaps best represented by the JVP’s stalwarts – remains, with any degree of integrity, the ranks of Tuscany. They’re hard to sway, and have their faces set like flint against that Trojan horse of militarisation: the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence Academy (KDU).

Which opens the JVP and its present NPP allies on the issue at hand to charges of hypocrisy, perhaps? That those who once lived in glasshouses should not throw stones even now!  

For was it not under the aegis of the old guard of the JVP that we were once brought to a bloodier terror? Whereby a riven nation-state faced anarchy at the hands of their regimented youth and shadowy paramilitaries? Is it not the highly unionised public service that still marches, as if to an unseen drum and unheard drum-major? Or is the grave allegation – that the mass protests against the KDU are itself a weaponised political assault with a neo-socialist agenda – only a spurious defence by a curiously regime-friendly grove of academics?

Whatever the answer is, it isn’t the province of one party to practise indoctrination – whether military, paramilitary or militant insurrection. Hypocrisy is to decry the JVP’s present outrage while embracing allegedly reformed former militants into government ranks in the amoral game of realpolitik.

Irony in the idea

There is also an irony in the disorderly demonstrations of the anti-KDU claques. It is that even those who see their bigger picture would rather not see their picture in the papers at all! The iron discipline of martially attired and glamorously coiffed recruits into the Kotelawala Defence Academy stands in sharp contrast to the rag-tag motley crew who make a nuisance of themselves to public and police alike. 

The pro-militarisation brigade for its part has not been slow to capitalise on the cosmetic differences between militant protests and model platoons. ‘Don’t you want your children to be as well-behaved as our cadets?’ they seem to ask enticingly from their recruitment (O! enrolment) posters; wagging a dismissive head at the whole sorry raggedy lot of them being hauled off to court, detention, or worse. Is this what the taxpaying public expect from all those poorly employed beneficiaries of free education?

At first glance, there may be much merit in this specious argument to some analysts. After all, who amongst us hasn’t regretted the waste land of varsity militancy and ranted against its worst excesses – from the bane of ragging and the brutal rape of young minds by blunt bearded revolutionaries to benighted traffic jams and the blight of unemployable undergrads?

And no matter what, the ghost of a brace of youth uprisings in polite society’s mercurial memory has confounded the prospects of the JVP in its various avatars at sundry elections since 1994... 

After which, it has ostensibly apologised for its wrongdoings! Repented with wrung hands and AKD’s dulcet tones echoing hollowly in our ears! And tried to shake off its bloody history! To no avail thus far?

Terms of endurance

On the one hand, the then state’s heavy-handed crackdown has not been entirely forgotten, either. In fact, some of those responsible for its alleged agencies of torture are still at large and seemingly sanguine about their sanctity in the eyes of civil society. 

Yet, who can recompense the lost generation that paid a heavy price on the altars of ruthless warmongers and unrepentant separatists on both sides of an illusory socio-political divide? Militarisation of a nation-state – then or now – makes a mockery of all good graces; and the small mercies of an insular society that once lived in idyllic harmony. 

On the other, successive governments have fallen under the spell of a polity enamoured of hackneyed terms such as ‘unity’, ‘sovereignty’, and ‘territorial integrity’. So much so that year after year, legislatures have voted ballooning defence spending, even post-war. While education and other crucial social capital budgets fall by the wayside: wounded; victims of a glamour (in the old sense of a curse or a spell) for the military regimentation we have all admired from afar at one time or another.

Look back in anger

Don’t hate me for saying it, in confessional mode and fully apologetically. But I once thought the National Socialists of 1933-45 had the best uniforms. And I still haven’t quite grown out of the allure of the Nazi marches or Munich-style parades. Although a juvenile delinquency for the SS’s Nuremberg rallies has swiftly given way to post-conflict sense and sensibility – though, alas, it is not only the neo-Nazis who still dwell in – and also on – the past...

Shall we, then, forcibly grown up by real war and grim atrocities on every side, be held hostage by those who know no – or have never had – better prospects than the terrible determinism of the martial life being brought to bear down on a country at large?

Post-conflict society?

Administration after regime upon government has lost their opportunity to convert our swords into ploughshares. 

Defence spending (according to online source Trading Economics) ballooned from $ 1.58 billion in 2011, two years after the war, to 1.85 billion dollars in 2015. From 2016 through 2020, it ranged between $ 1.543 billion in 2018 to 1.7 billion dollars in 2019. 

Today, it’s poised to take a leap into the stratosphere for a nation-state at peace – such as we are – from 2020’s $ 1.56 billion to an estimated 1.775 billion dollars, according to a revelation made in parliament recently. 

These figures represent an average 2% of GDP in a milieu where government debt to GDP hovered in the 80-90% region; while on the way forward, Sri Lanka is looking at debt-to-GDP ratios in excess of 1:1.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s public spending on education – to take but one socio-political/economic indicator – has plummeted from 3.45% of GDP in 2016 through 2.8% (2017) to 2.12% (2018), according to The Global Economy online. And it is on a downward spiral despite repeated appeals by academics and relevant apex professional bodies to invest at least 6% of GDP in this vital sector.

 

Aye, there’s the rub!

The issue with KDU, meanwhile, is not that it’s a military – or strategic defence – university per se. Such a place of learning among the groves of academia is a perfectly acceptable development in a tactically positioned island-nation on the cusp of its global positioning becoming a key cog in the regional wheel. In fact, with a largely civilian administration and tutorship at present, it is a case in point for de-militarisation!

As long as it’s run along the lines of any other reasonably patterned analogue, no weaponised protest can stand against it. If, however, it doesn’t operate under the aegis of the National Universities Act – by virtue of which it would function vis-à-vis the University Grants Commission – it could barge into more than opposition at the barricades.

To wit: that it would run contrary to the spirit of free education that has been our social contract since independence. And stifle the critical engagement so characteristic of our state universities, warts and all. It could also enable a future expansion of the military ethos into civilian life by dint of setting up any sub-campuses of the highly regimented (yet, admittedly orderly and disciplined) KDU around the island. 

It would also result in the unacceptable reality of a supplier and regulator of education being the same entity – in this case, the defence ministry de jure and the government de facto. 

Also, such a campus could be the doctrinal nursery for a monstrous regiment of militarised bureaucrats and administrators – who, despite their admirable virtue, should be no more (or no less) than apparatchiks in a future martial regime, with scant regard for the values of a democratic society.

And, last but by no means least, the acme of civil society could well turn out to be mindless functionaries rubber-stamping the least wish of an already paternalistic state, as well as its present authoritarian regimes.

In which case, there would be no point citing comparable defence universities in the region, such as in Malaysia or Indonesia; because that would really be begging the question? Those nations are subversively militarised, faux-democratic and deceptively authoritarian regimes! 

Shall we seek to pay the price of their costly progress at the expense of our civil liberties, rigorous approach to education thus far, and critical faculties as much as civil rights, as well as the messy democratic milieu we can still say we love... and treasure – warts and all? 

End game

The jury is – as they say – still out. And that is but part of the issue. 

That under an increasingly militarised milieu, the courts will be martial; the constitution interpreted rigidly in favour of a regime that favours force over friendly persuasion; and the state less inclined to be a kindly nanny but far more a strict governess. 

While the best lack all conviction, and the worst on both sides of the socio-political divide are full of passionate intensity.

Brave new world, with O! such people in it? Or broken wounded nation, beating its ploughshares into swords again?

A lot depends on the ability and willingness of the incumbent regime to amend its agendas to align with constitutionality, common sense and civic courtesy – to say nothing of honouring a long-standing social contract. So we would have it edit the KDU Bill, not amend the UGC Act.

We ought not to make a desert – and call it peace. Don’t say you didn’t see it coming; or note the ominous writing on the wall, which indicated they were coming for you...

---

(Journalist | Editor-at-Large of LMD | Writer WFH)

 

A common agenda for Opposition sought amidst political chaos

SJB lawmakers Mujibur Rahman and Asoka Abeysinghe lead a protest opposite the Fort Railway station yesterday (27) to draw the government’s attention to the grievances of the striking teachers and the difficulties experienced by those struggling to make ends meet (pic by Kamal Bogoda)

By Shamindra Ferdinando- 2021/07/28

UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe recently called for a common agenda for the Opposition. The announcement was made in the wake of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) moving a No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against Energy Minister Udaya Gammanpila over the increase in fuel prices and it being comfortably defeated by the government with a 2/3rd majority on July 20.

The NCM received 61 votes in its favour and 152 against with General Secretary of the SLPP Sagara Kariyawasam who declared war on Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Gammanpila, too, standing by the Energy Minister.

Obviously, National List lawmaker Wickremesinghe felt he could take advantage of the situation at the expense of the SJB, a big breakaway group of the UNP, which outperformed the grand old party itself, reducing the latter to a zero in Parliament, if not for the solitary National List seat it won.

The main Opposition party, the SJB, secured 54 seats at the last parliamentary election, in August 2020, against virtual zero by the UNP.

SJB lawmaker, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, on the second day of the debate, on the NCM, questioned the role played by Wickremesinghe in Parliament. Alleging that the SLPP had given Wickremesinghe an opportunity to address Parliament, MP Fonseka accused the UNP leader of trying to undermine the Opposition.

Having sought to cause turmoil in the SLPP, over Kariyawasam’s demand that Minister Gammanpila should resign over the fuel price hike, the SJB ended up with egg on its face. Perhaps, the SLPP’s strategy had been meant to pave the way for Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament, through the National List. The SLPP strategy succeeded though Attorney-at-Law Kariyawasam looked quite uncomfortable, defending the decision to vote against the NCM.

The bottom line is that the SLPP, too, agrees that the fuel prices cannot be brought down against the backdrop of a much deteriorated national economy. Former General Secretary of the Communist Party and one-time Chairman of the Committee on Public Enterprises, Dew Gunasekara, says the situation is so bad the government revenue could be even less than 09 of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Twelve years after Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism, the country is in an unprecedented financial turmoil as a result of the national economy suffering a debilitating setback due to the raging Covid-19 pandemic, as in most countries. Waste, corruption, irregularities, mismanagement and negligence also contributed to the current sorry state of the country. The country that clinched an unbelievable victory against the most ruthless terrorist group in the world, is in a state of flux. Actually, what the public now needs is certainly not a common agenda for the Opposition but consensus among all political parties, represented in Parliament, on how to overcome the daunting economic challenges.

Former Minister Mangala Samaraweera, on Sunday (25), faulted the political party system for the current state of the national economy. Samaraweera explained the difficulty in settling foreign debt, running to billions of USDs, while the country’s foreign reserves are nearing the rock bottom. Having represented the cabinet of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena, Samaraweera’s declaration should be examined, taking into account his current political strategy.

During Sunday’s briefing at ‘Freedom Hub’, at T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Samaraweera, one of the fiercest critics of the Rajapaksas, asserted the futility of forming a political alliance, only on the basis of opposition to them. Samaraweera declared that such an opposition alliance should be based on a set of principles. Can Samaraweera’s call also meant to strengthen Wickremesinghe’s call for the Opposition to adopt a common agenda? ‘Freedom Hub’ is situated in the same building that housed Derana, situated in close proximity to the now sort of dilapidated SLFP main office.

It would be pertinent to mention that Samaraweera, having backed Sajith Premadasa at the 2019 presidential election, abandoned him soon after the formation of the SJB. Samaraweera quit the SJB, ahead of the 2020 general election, after having handed over nominations on behalf the newly formed party’s Matara district team.

Wickremesinghe’s strategy

Wickremesinghe is pursuing a dicey political strategy. The Embattled UNP leader has to simultaneously attack the SLPP government, and undermine Premadasa’s leadership as well. Having suffered the worst ever defeat at a parliamentary election, Wickremesinghe is struggling to consolidate his position, both in Parliament and outside.

Facing a legal challenge against entering Parliament, in violation of Section 99 A of the Constitution, Wickremesinghe, during the debate on the NCM, said that both the ruling SLPP government and the SJB qualified to enter the Guinness World Book of Records for incompetency.

Wickremesinghe declared that the incumbent government was the first in the world to mess up its affairs and ruin a country in such a short period of time, whereas the SJB had set a world record by not moving a NCM against the government.

The status of the SLPP government cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the global Covid-19 challenge. If not for the crisis caused by the epidemic, the Opposition would have been in a much weaker position. The Covid crisis has sort of facilitated an Opposition strategy meant to undermine President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government struggling to cope up with drying up of two major revenue sources, namely funds remitted by Sri Lankan workers overseas and from the once bourgeoning tourism sector. Having secured strong mandates at the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary polls, the SLPP could have pushed ahead with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s agenda, comfortably, if not for the Covid-19 menace.

UNP leader Wickremesinghe quite obviously has forgotten the first Treasury bond scam, perpetrated by the then Governor of the Central Bank, Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran, (handpicked by him) within weeks after the 2015 presidential election. The first Treasury bond scam carried out on Feb 27, 2015, less than 50 days after the January 8, 2015 presidential election, messed up the UNP government. Its exposure ruined the UNP as it unsuccessfully tried to dismiss it, with one of its MPs even writing a book denying it ever took place. The crisis caused an irreparable damage to Wickremesinghe’s marriage of convenience with the then President Maithripala Sirisena. The Treasury bond scam rocked the UNP-led government that at the onset had nearly a two-thirds majority. An irate President Sirisena, in spite of the despicable act on the part of the UNP, tried to save the UNP-SLFP partnership. So much so the President who is also the SLFP leader, cunningly dissolved Parliament, in late June 2015, to thwart the then COPE Chairman Dew Gunasekera from tabling an explosive report on the Treasury bond scam, in Parliament. President Sirisena though being the leader of the SLFP delivered a knockout blow to his own party by declaring Mahinda Rajapaksa wouldn’t be named Prime Minister in case of their victory. Perhaps that un-called for statement should have earned President Sirisena a place in the Guinness World Book of Records.

Having won the August 2015 parliamentary election, though it couldn’t secure at least a simple majority, the UNP perpetrated the second Treasury bond scam in late March 2016. Between the two Treasury bond scams, the UNP also betrayed the war-winning military, at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council. The Oct 2015 Geneva betrayal earned the yahapalana government the wrath of the vast majority of the people of this country.

While alleging the SLPP messed up its affairs in such a short period of time, Wickremesinghe has conveniently forgotten his own record. The emergence of the Joint Opposition, in the aftermath of the shocking defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa in the January 2015 Presidential election, and its transformation as the SLPP, thanks to Basil Rajapaksa’s skills as an organiser and the stunning victory the newly registered party achieved, in Feb 2018, at the local government polls, should be studied against the backdrop of the UNP kicking its own goal, repeatedly. Did the top UNP leadership believe that it could create a massive slush fund by way of the Treasury bond scams to undertake consolidation of the party? Those who had backed the then UNP strategy, some of them vociferously, now represent the SJB. The UNP and the breakaway faction, registered under controversial circumstances cannot under any circumstances, absolve themselves of the Treasury bond scams. Despite the two Treasury bond scams, the second far bigger than the first, Wickremesinghe made a desperate bid to retain Mahendran as the Governor. Wickremesinghe failed. The UNP accepted the seriousness of the situation only after it suffered a humiliating defeat at the Feb 2018 Local Government polls. The SLPP emerged as a formidable political force, thanks to the bungling UNP and the SLFP. By the time the Covid-19 epidemic erupted here, in early 2020, that caused the postponement of the general election scheduled for April to August, the SLPP was in control of Local Government authorities (Feb 2018), Office of the President (Nov 2019) and general election (Aug 2020). Today, the main Opposition largely depends on the outcome of the battle between President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government and the epidemic.

Stinking Bathiudeen affair

All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) leader Rishad Bathiudeen, embroiled in a spate of controversies, was elected to Parliament on the SJB ticket. The ACMC is a constituent of the SJB. Bathiudeen is now under investigation over the death of 16-year-old Ishalini, who succumbed to burn injuries she suffered at the Vanni District SJB MP’s Baudhaloka Mawatha residence on July 3. She died at the National Hospital on July 15th. The revelation that Ishalini had been raped repeatedly sent shock waves through the country as various interested parties exploited the situation. Some remained silent. Having first entered Parliament, at the Dec 2001 general election, Bathiudeen switched his allegiance to various political party leaders over the years, ultimately ending up with Sajith Premadasa in the wake of the UNP split. Bathiudeen served as a Cabinet minister under Presidents, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena and deserted Wickremesinghe at a crucial phase of the battle between the UNP leader and his deputy. The Supreme Court found him guilty of clearing the Kallaru forest reserve and he has continuously been under the media glare for the wrong reasons. Four days after the death of Ishalini, UNP leader Wickremesinghe, on the first day of the NCM against Minister Gammanpila, questioned the circumstances the police arrested Bathiudeen over the Easter Sunday carnage. Wickremesinghe also questioned the alleged moves to take SJB National List lawmaker Harin Fernando into custody over a statement he made as regards the Easter Sunday carnage. One cannot find fault with Wickremesinghe for speaking on behalf of those elected on the SJB. But, obviously Wickremesinghe didn’t anticipate Ishalini’s death causing such a furor with the Upcountry Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) demanding justice for the girl from there. The TPA’s Deputy Chairman Palani Digambaram led a noisy protest in the Hatton town while Vadivel Suresh, also a member of the SJB parliamentary group declared that those responsible for Ishalini’s death should be punished Saudi Arabia style.

Among those who had been arrested so far in connection with Ishalini’s death, is Bathiudeen’s 46-year –old wife Ayesha, father-in-law, brother-in-law and the broker, who arranged the underage girl to receive employment at the former minister’s residence. How many female domestic workers had been employed by the Bathiudeens, did another one of them commit suicide by jumping before a train and did any of them been sexually harassed during their employment there?

The case took a new turn on Monday (26) in the wake of shocking disclosure made by Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peris before Colombo Additional Magistrate Rajindra Jayasuriya. Peris explained how those at Rishad Bathiudeen’s residence delayed taking Ishalini to the National Hospital in spite of having the vehicles at home and deceived the hospital by giving a Sinhala name to the Tamil girl when she was admitted.

Although Wickremesinghe is on record as having cleared Bathiudeen of involvement in the Easter Sunday carnage, on the basis of a confidential police report he received during his tenure as Prime Minister, the National Catholic Committee for Justice recently named the former minister as a person who assisted terror attacks ‘in different ways.’ In a July 12 dated appeal to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the Catholic Church pointed out that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) that inquired into the Easter Sunday carnage recommended that the Attorney General consider criminal proceedings against Bathiudeen under any suitable provision of the Penal Code. The Church also made reference to the MP’s brother, Riyaj, requesting that he be subjected to further investigations by the police as well as the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.

The ACMC is obviously in serious turmoil. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in Oct 2020, at the expense of the 19th Amendment, divided the four-member ACMC group in the Opposition SJB. The Bathiudeens wielded immense power whoever was in power. There cannot be a better example than Riyaj’s sudden release, ahead of the vote on the 20th Amendment. Riyaj taken into custody on April 14th, 2020 was released though police headquarters earlier asserted a direct connection between the suspect and those responsible for the Easter Sunday carnage. Although the then Attorney General Dappula de Livera made a highly publicised intervention, Riyaj’s release remains a mystery though he was again taken into custody subsequently amidst an outcry. Actually, the Law and Order Ministry owed an explanation as regards Riyaj’s release, especially because the suspect was arrested again, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Rishad Bathiudeen, too, is held under the PTA.

The ACMC tainted by a series of equally destructive controversies will have to charter a new path as major political parties namely the SLPP and the SJB no longer could accommodate Rishad Bathiudeen’s outfit on their ticket at a future election.

The Catholic Church also questioned the delay in initiating criminal proceedings against SLFP leader, now an SLPP MP, under any suitable provision in the Penal Code, in respect of the Easter Sunday carnage, and also the P CoI’s failure to make any specific recommendation against the UNP leader.

A House in tumult

Parliament seems to be in turmoil with political parties therein unable to comprehend the crisis the country is facing. The Finance Ministry shocked all by opening LCs for the import of Toyota Land Cruisers for all 225 members of Parliament. In addition to them, LCs were opened for three more Toyota Land Cruisers though the identity of the intended recipients remained a mystery. Obviously, the SLPP felt that luxury vehicles should be ordered for all lawmakers representing 15 registered political parties in the current Parliament, though the largest beneficiary would be the SLPP with a 145-member parliamentary group. In addition to the SLPP group, those who voted for the 20th Amendment had to be appeased. The worst post-independence financial crisis didn’t discourage the SLPP from seeking to appease lawmakers at the taxpayers’ expense. Although the government spokesmen claimed the order for the luxury vehicles was put on hold the real issue is for how long?

Parliament remained silent over Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodituwakku moving Supreme Court against accommodating members on the National List, contrary to Section 99 A of the 14th Amendment. Kodituwakku sought the annulment of such NL appointments as well as the abolishment of the 14th Amendment itself. In fact, all political parties refrained from commenting on such a controversial issue, now before the Supreme Court. Issues pertaining to Parliament needs to be examined, also taking into consideration Ranjan Ramanayake losing his parliamentary seat (SJB/Gampaha District) after being found guilty in a case of contempt of the Supreme Court, convicted murderer Premalal Jayasekera (SLPP/Ratnapura District) taking oaths as a member of Parliament and the recent dismissal of cases involving one-time Eastern Province Chief Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, alias Pilleyan, now an MP and ministers Johnston Fernando, Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Basil Rajapaksa, Mahindananda Aluthgamage and Janaka Bandara Tennakoon.

The CIABOC also owed an explanation as to how the decision to drop all charges against former lawmaker and Foreign Ministry Monitoring MP Sajin Vass Gunawardena, pertaining to the Mihin Lanka case, was arrived at. That particular case dealt with misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs 883 mn and another case involving former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris, now Sri Lanka’s top diplomat at UN, in New York, was dismissed. Present Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, the AG during whose tenure legal proceedings had been initiated against those above-mentioned persons, is now the head of the judiciary, in his capacity as the Chief Justice.

Presidential pardon granted to former UPFA MP Duminda Silva, now Chairman of the National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) should be examined taking into consideration the dismissal of a spate of high profile cases since 2019. Duminda Silva, one-time monitoring MP for the Defence Ministry is the only parliamentarian to receive a presidential pardon so far!