INTERVIEWS

"Political history in the making"

Mahinda Samarasinghe

Labour Minister of the caretaker government, Mahinda Samarasinghe says Sri Lanka is witnessing political history being created, when for the first time a party enjoying a majority in parliament has been sacked by the head of state against its wish and forced to face an election despite being able to continue in parliament as a majority government for another four years. He says it is unfortunate the country has been plunged into further instability as a  result of President  Kumaratunga's  action. Following are excerpts: By Wilson Gnanadass

Q: How do you view the sudden dissolution of parliament by President Kumaratunga?

A: I don't think it took anyone by total surprise because there was speculation for some time that a snap election was in the offing. There was however a big contradiction in the President's actions when we consider the pledge given to the previous parliament and through the parliament to the people that she will not dissolve unless the government loses its majority in parliament or is defeated at the budget votes. This was in fact a pledge put in writing under the President's signature and sent to the Speaker, which was also given lot of publicity.

We may be witnessing political history in the making, when for the first time a majority party has been sacked against its wish and been forced to face an election despite being able to continue in parliament as a majority government for another four years. By these actions, it is unfortunate that the country has been plunged into further instability, which has in turn started to affect the prospects of peace, investor confidence, economic development and finally the general wellbeing of our people.

Q: There were moves to impeach President Kumaratunga immediately after the UNF government came to power. Does the party now regret not doing it?

A: I know for a fact that the UNF never considered in a formal manner an impeachment against the President. There were individuals in the UNF who were agitating for an impeachment not only when they came into government but even when they were in the opposition. There were others who joined in the fray thinking that this would prevent early dissolution. The Prime Minister I believe never seriously considered this as an option because he felt that on the one hand an impeachment has to be sustained once presented and secondly, he was always prepared to face the people, confident that his government's record was clean.

I am also of the view that this was correct. We should never resort to shortcuts to remain in power and given the highly politicised environment that we are in I don't think anyone could have confidently said that the required two thirds for an impeachment motion could have been got. In addition, there is a requirement that it has to go up to the Supreme Court.

Q: It is said that one of the reasons for the President to dissolve parliament was corruption in the UNF government. What are your comments?

A: Corruption charges have been levelled against 14 ministers by a group of former PA parliamentarians with a lot of publicity. In retaliation, a PA provincial council member has handed over allegations of bribery and corruption against a large number of former PA ministers, PA parliamentarians and the President herself. Are we to believe that just because some politicians go and allege that ministers and parliamentarians have resorted to corruption that it is immediate proof that the allegations are correct? I don't think any right thinking person would take that notion seriously.

I have always advocated that politicians who are subjective personalities should not get involved in such accusations and counter accusations and that we should put in place and strengthen independent institutions manned by the correct people who could entertain bona fide representations from the public and also be given the powers to be proactive in line with their mandate and look into such allegations in a impartial and independent manner. Those who are trying to justify the dissolution of parliament with corruption charges should also then be asking for the removal of the President because she also has been accused along with several members of the PA.

Q: Another charge is that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has been slow to take action against those accused of corruption. Your views?

A: The Prime Minister cannot be expected to act just because a group of PA parliamentarians on the eve of an election takes TV cameras and goes to the Bribery and Corruption Commission and hands over baseless allegations as much as the President should not be required to act against allegations made by political personalities against some of her leading political stalwarts.

Q: What are the chances of the UNF winning the forthcoming election?

A: I am very confident that the people will understand and appreciate the events of the last three to four months and the negative consequences resulting from those events and give us a resounding majority to put in place a stable government of our own in order to put the peace process back on track and continue implementing the many development projects that the government had embarked on and had plans on implementing with solid international support.

The UNP has still not started its campaign proper and in the next six weeks we will carry out an effective national as well as grassroots campaign to explain to the people what is at stake. It is important that people are made to understand that the multicultural, multilingual and multireligious secular nature of Sri Lanka is protected and nurtured towards eventual peace and stability in our country. Only the UNF can assure this in today's political context. I am confident that the people will understand this.

Q: What are your views on the mixed economic policy the SLFP-JVP alliance hopes to introduce if elected to power?

A: Sri Lanka may be the only country in the world except for perhaps Cuba, where a major political alliance is advocating a controlled and planned economic policy. Even China and Russia have adopted a free enterprise economic philosophy and are enjoying the benefits of rapid economic growth. The JVP which has advocated an economic policy of no imports will only destroy whatever economic advancement that we have been able to build up.

I dread to think what the populist economic platform of the JVP/SLFP alliance will do to the economy. I am also sorry that a major party like the SLFP which has under President Kumaratunga stood for an open economic policy has had to compromise on this stand for the sake of an alliance with the JVP.

Q: The new alliance says the existing MoU signed between the UNF government and the LTTE had to be amended for the continuation of the peace process. Do you think this would in any manner facilitate the peace process?

A: There are contradictory signals coming from alliance partners on the MoU. The JVP says that the MoU is no longer in existence which is tantamount to saying that we should be prepared for war. There are others in the SLFP who are saying that the MoU is in place and that the ceasefire is being observed but that they will amend the MoU.

This is typical of an alliance which has been hurriedly put together hoping to defeat a legitimately elected government in order to occupy seats of power without a well thought out economic or political strategy to take the country forward. I dread to think the ambiguity which will emanate after the elections if ambiguity is evident to such an extent at this early stage.

Q: The SLFP-JVP alliance also refuses to accept the LTTE's interim administration proposals as basis for future negotiation. On the other hand the LTTE is firm in its view that the interim administration proposals should be the basis for talks. How do you view this contradiction?

A: The LTTE has dismissed not only the JVP, but also the possibility of talking with the PA in the light of both these parties refusing to even consider the interim administration proposal as a basis for future negotiation. The UNP on the other hand has come out with its own proposals which will be on the table at future negotiations. Any successful negotiation must include all of the relevant players in the scenario, otherwise it would lack the legitimacy which is needed for full implementation.

Once our government is formed on April 3, we will immediately start discussing with all political parties in the south so that a bipartisan consensus could emerge from the south in order that we could demonstrate to the LTTE and others that whatever position we take finally, would stand the test of time. I don't think the SLFP/JVP alliance could ever charter such a clear path towards eventual peace in this country, having taken ambiguous and extreme positions at the outset.

Q: PA Parliamentarian John Seneviratne says though the President was willing to gazette the defence power under the Prime Minister if such a necessity arose, the Prime Minister was not willing to accept this position. He also said the Premier was keen only to grab the Defence Ministry, thereby missing the chances of pursuing the peace process. What are your comments?

A: The Prime Minister at no time went before the President and asked for the three ministerial portfolios taken from his government to be given back to him. What he consistently advocated was that if he was to handle the peace process, these three ministries should be with him and that if the President did not wish to give it back, she should take over the peace process and handle it herself and he and his government would support her in this endeavour.

It is unfortunate that the eventual casualty of this impasse was the peace process itself. We have a legitimate reason to believe that the events which took place in the last three to four months was inspired by a plan of action decided and executed to go for an election, rather than ensuring the territorial integrity of the country as is being fondly said by speaker after speaker on the SLFP/JVP platforms. I leave it to the people to decide on April 2.

Q: What has the UNF got to offer the public afresh?

A: The UNF government turned around the economy from a negative growth rate to a 5.5% growth rate within two years. All major economic indicators were rapidly improving at the time of dissolution. An unprecedented amount of foreign aid at the Tokyo conference for major projects about to be embarked on would have created the catalyst effect for further rapid economic growth.

A record number of legislative measures were put in place to strengthen the legal framework of our country to facilitate this growth. Sixty-four mega development projects have already been announced by the Prime Minister for the implementation in the next five to 10 years.

This year was going to be the year of employment generation and enhanced income for everyone. All this has had to be temporarily put on hold but we will come back with greater strength and implement all of this and restart the peace process so that people will continue to enjoy the security and relative economic prosperity as a result of a ceasefire negotiated by the Prime Minister.

The fact that in the last two years any citizen of this country regardless of his or her ethnicity could move around freely without going through the harassment at check points or barricades and fact that none of our soldiers were killed in battle is demonstrative of what we have done in a short period of time. Are we going to sacrifice all this because of a selfish political agenda of extremist forces in our country?

Q: Do you foresee a danger to the lives of the contestants of the UNF especially after the President took over the defence powers from the government?

A: I think it is incumbent on all of us to ensure a free and fair election and it is also incumbent on the police, armed forces and primarily the elections commissioner to ensure that such an environment is delivered. The voters should be empowered and be made to understand that they have the power to penalise those who violate security and a free and fair election environment.

100% confident of victory - Seneviratne 

People's Alliance Parliamentarian and former Labour Minister, John Seneviratne says widespread corruption in the UNF government compelled President Kumaratunga to dissolve parliament. He said that if the government was allowed to function further under the leadership of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, it would invariably have destroyed the country. He also said the SLFP-JVP alliance is certain to win 12 to 14 districts this time. "The masses are sick of the present government and well aware of the corrupt practices of some of the ministers and high-ranking officials. The President decided to call for fresh polls only since there was a demand from the people," he told The Sunday Leader in an interview.

Following are excerpts: 

Q: How confident are you of victory for the SLFP-JVP alliance at the forthcoming elections?

A: I am 100% confident of victory for the alliance at the next election. Judging from the results of the last election, we would win 12 to 14 districts, which we lost to the UNP as a result of our votes being split between the PA and JVP in the 2001 December election. Now, as a result of the formation of the alliance, we will poll those votes and are sure of victory in those districts.

Q: At the 2001 December general election the UNF coalition polled 45,000 votes more than the PA and JVP votes put together. Therefore, what is the basis for your optimism?

A: Under the PR system, which is existent in our country, the results are analysed on the basis of each district. A district like Colombo, where there is a massive voting strength, was won by UNP. In Colombo central alone the UNP got a majority of 75,000 votes. In the Nuwara Eliya District, the gap between the UNP and the PA-JVP combination was very wide. In Kandy too the gap was very wide. As a result of this phenomenon, UNP got more votes than the PA-JVP combination but when the members of parliament are elected on the basis of districts, this does not affect nationally.

My optimism for our victory is based on several matters. One reason is that UNF government that was in power for the last two years has become extremely unpopular among the masses including those who voted them at the last election. That is because the UNF government did not have a clear policy in order to solve any of the problems faced by the people. If I am to mention some, the burning problem is the unemployment issue. The government was not able to bat an eyelid in the direction of solving the problem of unemployment. The unemployment rate has gone up terribly and the scenario was made worse by throwing out nearly 40, 000 people on to the road from their places of work.

Then the rising cost of living. The government did not have a policy to bring it down. Ever since it assumed office, the cost of living spiraled without any constraints. Because of certain fiscal measures that were introduced in successive budgets the cost of living went up, causing immense hardship to the working class and the low-income groups.

Then the most agonising feature is the acts of corruption that are reported practically daily. Apart from what is reported in media regarding corrupt activities of the ministers of the government, there is much speculation of very agonising stories of corruption indulged by the ministers and high-ranking officials and political stooges of the UNF. The most frustrating feature is the leader of the government - that is the Prime Minister - does not seem to be concerned about these acts of violence which have been proven prima facie by the media and the public institutions.

The general hardship imposed on the public by increasing prices of fertiliser, which is an essential commodity for the agriculturists including the small plantation owners and the paddy cultivators and ordinary farmers is large.

Q: What is the justification for the dissolution of parliament when the government enjoyed a majority in parliament and had only served two years of its term?

A: Well, the performance of the UNF government deteriorated to such an extent that people began to feel that there is no government in Sri Lanka. As regards to north and east matters, I believe the government was giving in too much to the LTTE and also gave a free hand to the LTTE. I think the government was weak in enforcing even the MoU. The LTTE took the government for granted and the government found itself in a position where it could not turn back from that weak position.

Despite wide publicity the economic front had no tangible improvement. The 5.5% GNP is a normal rate of development in our country. We have been enjoying that rate of development even when the war was on. The minus development that we experienced in 2001 was absolutely due to reasons beyond the control of the government like the drought, the economic recession in the world, the attack on the World Trade Center and the airport at Katunayake.

Then the huge allegations of corruptions against important ministers of the government is also one factor that makes all of us feel optimistic about winning the election. If the President had allowed the UNF government to continue, it would have invariably destroyed the social and economic fabric of the country.

The other glaring factor is the politicisation of the police, which was used by the government in order to harass political opponents and to protect the criminals, and people who were engaged in vice like drug peddling and big time kassipu manufacture and smugglers.

Q: How do you justify President Kumaratunga's takeover of the Defence Ministry and other ministries?

A: The Defence Ministry was taken over to ensure that the MoU signed between the LTTE and the government was adhered to by both parties. This is also by stopping the LTTE acting in violation of the provisions of the MoU and putting up camps even in government controlled areas and to check the LTTE bringing in arms in violation of the MoU since this would definitely endanger the safety of the country.

It was very obvious that the government was not able to contain many acts of violations. Some of the LTTE cadres that infiltrated the Muslim villages in the east continued to kill and harass the Muslims and damage their property. The government failed to contain acts of lawlessness. The situation was becoming worse day by day and the government was turning a blind eye. The President made several requests and she kept on repeating those requests asking the government to contain the acts of lawlessness that were prevalent and increasing in the north east. She was compelled to take over the Defence Ministry since there was no change in the situation.

Q: Despite taking over the Defence Ministry, the Manirasakulam camp continues to be in Trincomalee and President Kuma-ratunga has not taken any action to dismantle it. Even after PA Parliamentarian Mangala Samaraweera announced that the LTTE put up 13 more camps in Trincomalee, the President did not take any action. Your views?

A: I agree the camps that were there are still there. The removal of the camps at this stage could have been done only through re-activating the armed forces, which would have been detrimental to the ceasefire that is prevalent in the country. But the Defence Ministry has been successful in ensuring that no more camps were put up.

Q: Given the policy differences between the SLFP and JVP on crucial aspects with regard to the peace process and the economy, do you think a stable government with a consistent policy can be formed?

A: I think originally there were certain differences between these two parties with regard to the devolution of powers and economic policy. These matters were given adequate attention and prolonged discussions were held in order to sort out the issues and to settle them. Now I believe both parties have come to some compromise with regard to these aspects where they differed earlier. The JVP has publicly announced they will not implement the JVP policy but work towards implementing a common programme along with the SLFP.

Q: Does it mean the JVP will be agreeable to the devolution package proposed by the PA?

A: Well, the JVP has said more than once they are prepared to bow down to the opinion of the majority in the party in regard to solving the ethnic problem and their concern is towards the solution of the problem rather than sticking to dogmatic concepts.

Q: In the event the alliance is elected to office at the elections, will you continue with the present MoU recognising the LTTE as the sole representatives of the Tamils?

A: As regards to the concept of recognising the LTTE as the sole representatives of Tamils, we have certain reservations. I think that is a concept which we will have to discuss with the LTTE. In regard to the MoU we have already made our position clear that we will abide by it. But we are of the view that it has to be amended after discussion with the LTTE. From the very beginning our position has been that this MoU needs to be amended. We will endorse the MoU signed between the government and the LTTE subject to amendments.

Q: Are you prepared to resume negotiations with the LTTE on the basis of the interim administration proposals forwarded by it?

A: No. On principle we are prepared to resume negotiations with the LTTE but its interim administration proposals are not acceptable to us. Nevertheless the LTTE and our party can take this matter up at discussions that would be held in future.

Q: The LTTE has clearly stated that any future negotiations will have to be based on the interim administration proposal. Your opinion?

A: These are matters that are open for discussion. If both the alliance government and the LTTE are prepared to resume talks, the basis on which the discussions should commence can be sorted out at that time. In my opinion, the views held by either side should not scuttle the discussions for peace in future. If the problems have to be sorted out, no individual opinion should be allowed to scuttle the prospects for peace.

Q: JVP Propaganda Secretary Wimal Weerawansa is on record that the MoU is no longer in force. Is that the official position of the alliance or Weerawansa's personal view?

A: President Kumaratunga announced the official position of the PA and perhaps of the alliance when Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said he had nothing to do with the peace process soon after President took away the Defence Ministry. In fact, it is at that time that the President said the MoU was not signed between the Ranil and the LTTE but the Prime Minister and the government and it does not mean that the MoU is invalidated.

Q: Would the new alliance continue with an open economic policy and the economic reform programme including the privatisation programme in consultation with the donor agencies such as World Bank, IMF and ADB?

A: Well the economic policy has been pronounced in the programme that was signed between the two parties and that is going to be essentially a mixed economy with a leniency towards an indigenous, national economic concept - to give emphasis for the protection of the local industrialists, agriculturists and to safeguard the interests  of the indigenous business community.

Q: How would the alliance be affected by the decision of the Sihala Urumaya to field 262 Buddhist monks to contest the forthcoming election?

A: I do not know the attitude of the alliance to that suggestion. I am personally very much against it. I, being a Buddhist, would like to see the clergy of my religion remaining in such a position where we can look up to them for spiritual leadership rather than dabbling in today's chaotic politics.

Q: Academic  Dayan Jayatilleke at a seminar titled 'Peace Process And Politics' presided by Lakshman Kadirgamar last week questioned why the President who negotiated for nearly 10 months with a party that killed her husband to arrive at an alliance gave up in three months with the government when the issues at stake for the country were much higher. What are your comments?

A: After taking control of the ministries, the President invited the UNP for a formation of a consensual government. But the Prime Minister's attitude was very discouraging and even at subsequent discussions, he was not looking at it from a national point of view but from a personal point of view. He wanted nothing else but the Defence Ministry. This was in spite of a ruling given by the Supreme Court that the Defence Ministry could be held by none other than the President according to the constitution.

I think this was the stumbling block for a compromise between the PA and the UNF. At the end they were coming out with a different tone but I think the President did not have much faith in the sincerity of the government. On the other hand, the clamour for the dissolution of parliament was also very strong and was ever escalating.

Q: Do you think the Prime Minister could have pursued the peace process without the defence powers in his hands?

A: It may be that the Premier may not have been in a position to go on, but the President said that if he were to face any problem and if there was a requirement for any powers from the Defence Ministry to be utilised in the process, she would gazette such powers under the Prime Minister. But the irony is that the Premier was not amenable.