Issues

One way for the common man - anyway.... Democracies do not  mess with the...

 Fallacies abound in Defence Ministry statement yet they claim

Though I read the on-line editions of Sri Lankan newspapers and other websites devoted to Sri Lankan affairs to keep me abreast of developments I normally stay out of internal politics.

However recent events, particularly the abduction and the manhandling of a journalist from a local newspaper Keith Noyahr and the consequent train of disconcerting happenings culminating with a Defence Ministry statement published on its website compelled me to write this.

Concerned

Since I do not fall into the category of "defence analysts" the ministry refers to and living far away from Sri Lanka as I do, thankfully I do not fall within the remit of the Defence Ministry. Nor am I overly concerned about the threats that are so facilely dispersed by the ministry against journalists and others who officials perceive as traitors.

This particular statement, which I notice the Defence Spokesman Mr Keheliya Rambukwella had neither owned nor disowned saying the views expressed are those of the editors of the website, would suggest that the Defence Ministry should be rightly renamed the Offence (or should it be Offensive) Ministry given its contents and tenor.

Since I am not a contributor to the Sri Lankan media I am not quite sure whether what I am about to write will be accommodated or what at what length. All the same I have decided to send this to the editor of The Sunday Leader as I consider it perhaps the only newspaper that would publish an article that points out several fallacies and misconceptions in the statement as this newspaper has been bold enough to expose often the fault lines in governance in Sri Lanka and especially the overbearing influence of the Defence Ministry and those associated with it, on the politics of the country.

The right

Despite being abused, threatened, physically attacked and its property destroyed, The Sunday Leader has not hesitated to have its say, which is a brave thing to do in a country where the right of dissent especially with regard to the conduct of the war against a terrorist group and the human rights situation, is being systematically curtailed not by law but by outlaws.

Mr Rambukwella has said the views expressed in the defence website attacking certain media organisations and naming newspapers is the opinion of the website's editors.

I find that absurd, not to say funny. The statement in question is not the personal view of an editor or editors but clearly the view of the Defence Ministry. That would be clear to any reader of even average intelligence.

There could certainly be confusion and misunderstanding about some of the observations made in this statement because of the extremely poor quality of its English. If the Defence Ministry or whoever wishes to make its position understood it should state its case in the clearest language. Unfortunately clarity as well as a basic knowledge of English are sadly lacking here. As an academic I find that particularly disconcerting for it could also point to a lack of clarity in thought and confusion of ideas.

Agreeement

Since President Mahinda Rajapakse is the Defence Minister I wonder whether he is in total agreement with the thoughts expressed in the statement and it has his imprimatur. Otherwise it would be a ministry statement without the approval of the minister.

In any event Mr Rambukwella is wrong to dismiss this as the opinion of web editors when it is a statement issued by one of the key ministries in the administration and is therefore an essential part of the government in power.

Let us look at the statement proper. First the threat posed. The ministry assures (it is not certain who) that it will "take all necessary measures to stop journalistic treachery against the country." I wonder whether there is deliberate confusion here between "country" and the "present government". They seem to be used interchangeably.

Clarify

For a ministry which undertakes to "clarify" its intentions, it certainly fails. What are "all necessary measures?" Do they include abduction, beating, torture, abuse, incarceration and even killing? The ministry appeals for public support. Would not the public like to know what these measures are before it extends the desired support?

As a student of military affairs for over two decades I was intrigued by some of the remarks made as though they were irrefutable. Let me consider just one of the four main areas of concern to the ministry due to space constraints- criticism over military operations.

It is claimed that military operations are "planned and conducted by the officers with 30-40 years of service. These officers are battle hardened and also equipped with the sound knowledge in warfare obtained by experience and professional education."

Qualified

"The ministry is in the view (sic!) that it is no one other than the military officers who are qualified to plan, conduct and analyse military operations" and not media persons who do not have such background knowledge or experience.

The logic appears to be that only a goat knows good mutton.

How sound is this argument? The Chinese writer Sun Tzu's work The Art of War is the oldest available treatise on war and strategy. This seminal work was the fundamental study for many military men and revolutionaries for centuries. Even today it is a "bible" for the military. But Sun Tzu was not a soldier though he had a military mind. True he was later given command by the Chinese king of the day but he was essentially a theorist.

Admiral Yamamoto whose forces launched the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour did so after studying Sun Tzu. But he failed to achieve his main objective which was to keep America out of war long enough for Japan to become victor in the Pacific. That was his failure.

On the other hand Mao Zedong who was also a dedicated student of Sun Tzu was able, with his peasant forces, to defeat the more disciplined army of Chiang Kai-shek and confront the Japanese, finally succeeding in his revolution in 1949.

Take the great Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap. He was first a school teacher and a journalist writing to newspapers during which time he was an avid reader of Sun Tzu. Only much later did he became a professional soldier defeating the French at Dien Bien Phu and subsequent the far superior American military machine, forcing the US to quit Vietnam.

Mistakes

Even the most powerful nations and great military minds are liable to make mistakes, do make mistakes, make battlefield errors and suffer defeat as the examples given above indicate.

On the other hand relatively weaker and less well- equipped forces but more determined and cleverly- led could inflict defeat on modern armies as in the case of General Giap's superb victories over the French and Americans.

The point here is that long experience, military capability and learning, superior,   modern weaponry do not guarantee battlefield victory.

One may win the battle but lose the war is an oft quoted saying.

This should be clear to any competent senior officer, especially to those with 30-40 years of battlefield experience and professional learning who plan and conduct operations as the defence ministry claims. 

Argument

If the Defence Ministry argument is that military campaigns and operations are planned and launched by professional soldiers of experience so should be beyond reproach and should not be questioned, how does the ministry account for the several failures the Sri Lankan military has suffered over the years against the Tigers? 

I doubt whether the ministry will claim that it has never suffered setbacks since the military campaign started in earnest after July 1983 when terrorism became a real threat. How many major military camps have been overrun, men killed or wounded, equipment captured or destroyed and territory lost? How many offensives have come a cropper? What happened to the air bases at Katunayake and more recently at Anuradhapura. Those might not be "operations" in the strict sense of the word but they were defence and security lapses. War is surely not only offensive operations but also defence and defence preparedness.

Failures

These failures are historical facts not of the distant past but in the last 10 years. No amount of rewriting of history can or will erase those facts and are certainly etched in the memories of the families that lost their loved ones.

Just as the Sri Lanka military has had successes it has also suffered failures.

Two issues arise out of this. One is that history undermines the ministry's implied claim that military plans and operations conducted by officers of experience and learning are not only unquestionable but are necessarily military successes. Then who is responsible for the debacles. Surely not the media!

Questions

My understanding of the role of the journalist, certainly in countries where I studied and worked, is to ask the necessary questions, seek answers and explain such military failures, for instance, because the public (from which the ministry seeks support) has a right to know. Only an informed public can make more balanced and informed decisions. Today military and security matters are the rightful preserve of media coverage and inquiry in many countries in the world where democratic principles are observed and a free and probing media are an essential part of society. It is only repressive regimes that are unsure of themselves but assume infallibility, that deny the right of probity at the pain of physical violence.

The Defence ministry cannot demand public support. It has to be won and it is the duty of the media to help the public reach the best possible judgment.

Those in the Defence Ministry who claim to have done professional studies should know that over the centuries the greatest military men and the most powerful military machines have been defeated.

Faulty

If they read about Napoleon's generals they would realise that faulty military planning and poor decisions by commanders led to Napoleon's defeat. Remember what happened to Hitler's invincible armies?

Maybe some of these educated soldiers should read or even re-read von Clausewitz's Vom Krieg (On War) perhaps the most important and influential work of military philosophy in the western world along with that of the ancient Athenian writer Thucydides' Peloponnesian War of 400 BC.

When the Defence Ministry says that journalists and writers should not analyse military operations and campaigns because they have no battlefield or professional experience I strongly suggest ministry officials from top to bottom to read, for example, Corelli Barnett, one-time lecturer in defence studies at Cambridge University. He was an author and historian not a full time professional soldier. He wrote a number of books one of which was The Desert Generals in which he analyses in detail with illustrations and maps desert campaigns in World War 11 and explodes the myth about Field Marshal Montgomery's military genius.

Defeat

Viscount Montgomery of El Alamein (so named after his defeat of Field Marshal Rommel in El Alamein) was one of Britain's war heroes especially because of his defeat of Rommel's Africa Corps at El Alamein. Corelli Barnett tore away layer by layer the aura of Montgomery created by Montgomery's own spin doctoring and self-publicity.

Barnett argues that Montgomery's victory over Rommel owes much to the military capability of General Sir Claude Auchinleck. Much of that knowledge is derived from correspondence with Major General Dorman-Smith who was director of military operation in Cairo.

Military matters

I suspect that Sri Lankan defence analysts do the same and communicate with knowledgeable persons on military matters. 

Barnett was never considered a traitor for downgrading Montgomery which he would have been had he lived in Sri Lanka. How many other journalists round the world expose military weaknesses, failures, corruption because it is a duty they owe the public as it is their husbands, sons, brothers and sisters who go to the front and get maimed or killed. Military men are not infallible. That is an attribute only the Pope can claim.

I do not think that Sri Lankan journalists like their counterparts elsewhere do not analyse military matters in a vacuum. They talk to other military persons, some retired some still serving who provide them with the information, expertise and the tools of analysis. I have now and then read former top commanders interviewed or asked for their comments. That is why some of the analyses are so very detailed and specific. 

The ministry is trying to blame journalists for trying to obtain information. It is their job to seek information and impart information. That is a fundamental right guaranteed by international conventions.

Messenger

If the ministry claims that information is obtained from serving officers, it is the responsibility of the ministry to plug the leaks. Instead of stopping the message, the ministry is trying to kill (perhaps literally) the messenger.  

I would imagine there is bad or pernicious reporting and newspaper commentary at times just as there is bad planning and operational errors in the military.

The answer to that is to provide the information and reply to any media mistakes with corrections or clarifications as they do elsewhere in the world. If that is done the public, whose support is sought, will be able to judge where the truth appears to lie. The defence ministry cannot convince the public by denying the media the right to communicate with the public. It cannot claim that it has the monopoly on truth. It cannot and will not earn the support or the respect of the public in the long term by bashing the journalists in the hope of intimidating them into silence through fear.

Those are the traits of a repressive regime trading on patriotism not one that prepared and armed for open debate.

I would like to make one other point. It has often been reported in the media that the defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse is an American citizen. So when there is so much talk about patriotism is it not proper to ask where he was when Sri Lanka was fighting the Tamil Tigers. When his country needed him was he not paying allegiance to another country?

The French statesman Talleyrand was correct when he said war is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.

One way for the common man - anyway for the VIPs

By Ranjith Jayasundera

The recent changes arbitrarily imposed upon motorists by the police, without the consultation of the Colombo Municipal Council have not just brought untold chaos to some of Colombo's busiest districts. They have also caused a phenomenal surge in the fuel consumption for commuters taking some very common routes.

The 'security' restrictions preventing buses and heavy vehicles from using the north Colpetty segment of Galle Road in front of Temple Trees have diverted all of this traffic onto the smaller roads such as Dharmapala Mawatha and Sir James Peiris Mawatha along the Beira Lake, further straining these streets.

The final blow to the city's traffic chaos was the erection of a mandatory checkpoint at the Galle Face roundabout, where all vehicles proceeding through Galle Face are searched individually. The resulting choke on Galle Road is catastrophic during peak traffic hours.

Illegal

"When the road is then blocked for some VIP during peak hours, the traffic can get backed up as far as all the way to Panadura," lamented former Colombo Deputy Mayor Azath Sally, who followed his observation with a plethora of reasons that these moves are entirely illegal.

"By law it is the CMC that has authority to make changes to the traffic plan. However the Defence Secretary just summoned the police on one day at 3.30 in the afternoon, planted this one way system on them and demanded that they enforce it the very next day," Sally alleged.

The former Deputy Mayor's words are echoed in a Supreme Court opinion voiced last December, in which a three-judge panel comprising of Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, and Justices Shiranee J. Thilakawardena and J. Balapatabendi ordered several officials including the Defence Secretary and the IGP to dismantle all permanent checkpoints and stop arbitrarily searching civilians without suspicion.

Decision

The case, Fundamental Rights Application 297/2007, was decided on December 3, 2007, with arguments having been heard but a week earlier on November 28, 2007. Interpreting the Motor Traffic Act as "the applicable law," the Supreme Court highlighted that "a police officer not below the rank" of ASP or SSP may affix signs only for "the temporary regulation of traffic."

"Hence permanent boards that are now seen in many of the  streets purportedly by order of the SSP (Traffic) are patently illegal and deny to the people the equal protection of law guaranteed by Article 12 (1) of the Constitution," the Supreme Court declared, further ruling that "such illegal signs be removed forthwith and proper orders be made if necessary, in terms of the Motor Traffic Act."

Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse gave the judiciary a big slap in the face - telling the Chief Justice who is boss - by not only failing to abide by his orders on removing existing signs but causing further chaos to Colombo's traffic plan seven months after the Supreme Court ruling.

As of now, the "bambu usavi" that he told Lakehouse employees Poddala Jayantha and Sanath Balasuriya about, have done scant little to contest the Defence Secretary's rejection of its written order, as is evident from the fact that not only do checkpoints and arbitrary traffic signs remain, but they appear to be 'breeding' at quite a rate.

Alas! there is but a remote possibility that Colombo Mayor Uvais M. Imitiyaz - who just recently realized that he had 4.5 million rupees of tsunami aid materials collecting dust around his house - or what remains of the once proud CMC would assert its authority in Colombo's traffic regulations.

The new one way system in all its glory also has an economically crippling effect on commuters in central Colombo, as routes that used to be short and easy to traverse have now been replaced with outlandish detours.

As a simple example, the drive from the Colombo University Library to the Cinnamon Gardens Police Station, used to be a quick 600 metre drive up Reid Avenue. With the new one way system, the detour makes the shortest available route 2.2 kilometres long, nearly four times longer than the original route, causing a motorist to guzzle up four times as much fuel to reach the nearest police station from the University Library.

Medical emergencies are also imperilled. Before the one way system was implemented, an ambulance from the Nawaloka Hospital would have had to travel just 1.5 km to reach an immobilized accident victim at the Colpetty market, but the new one way system would force the ambulance into a potentially lethal detour, forcing it to travel 2.88 kilometres (almost twice the old distance) to reach a dying patient.

Ambulances would also have to dodge - at their peril - the many busses diverted from Galle Road onto these smaller roads for the protection of Temple Trees,

The table on this page illustrates some more examples of travel between residential and commercial areas, and how the new traffic plan will help to empty fuel tanks over five times as fast as before in the case of some common routes.

Although accident victims stand a risk of perishing in the absence of timely medical care due to the lopsided nature of the new traffic plan, it is unlikely that ministers will be delayed en route to their many meetings and dalliances.

Apart from closing down roads to facilitate a smooth ride for every minister of something or another, these VIP convoys do not  seem to be held to the one way system, and regularly swoosh past and through the boundaries enforced upon commoners "by order of SSP (Traffic)".

"Even the simplest planning has not been done" in implementing the traffic system, Azath Sally explained. "If you look at the whole plan on a map, you can see there are many more lanes going in one direction than in the opposite direction. What happens then is simple. Junctions get heavily congested because one part of the road is wider than another."

The first segment of the one-way traffic system was rolled out on December 31, 2006, with scant little warning. The Sunday Leader spoke to a motorist who was travelling frequently on that day between Colpetty and Bambalapitiya, using Duplication road in both directions.

"In the morning I was taking Duplication road going south, towards Bambalapitiya. When I was coming back I turned onto Duplication Road from Vajira Road, and continued towards the Liberty Plaza roundabout, on the left hand side of the road."

"Just as I was coming to the roundabout, a blue van turned out from the Colpetty Market side and was heading directly towards me. Both drivers panicked, braked and swerved to avoid each other, but in the same direction. It was by inches that we avoided a collision," he related, angrily.

"There were police at the roundabout. But they were too busy removing the traffic cones for some VIP convoy to bother warning either of us that there was any danger. There were no traffic signs, and the police did not even notice, as we both drove on. I did not see any traffic signs for this new system until I was returning back to Bambalapitiya. The 'one way' system was only marked in 'one direction!"

Since the system was first implemented now over 18 months ago, the police have at least taken the trouble to place temporary road signs at all affected roads and junctions, however it is deplorable that so long after this "test" was begun, permanent signs are yet to be put up, and the road markings have not yet been updated.

The question is whether a showdown is imminent between the Supreme Court and the police and defence secretary, as the latter parties are acting in violation of a direct instruction given by the former, and doing so with the same impunity with which they conduct their day to day activities.

Given the almost limitless power enjoyed by the defence authorities under the Rajapakse regime, the only institution that is currently in a position to ensure that the Constitution-the supreme law of the land-prevails over the whims of the government, is the Supreme Court.

Democracies do not  mess with the judiciary

By Sonali Samarasinghe

Here's the thing. The ruling party has allowed itself to degenerate into a fa‡ade for the interest of a handful of corrupt politicians, their greedy family members who descended upon the country like crows to a dung heap and opportunistic businessmen, rather than remain and grow as a force where policies are formulated and political decision making is carried out.

Holding elections however much one may pretend it is free and fair, doth not a democracy make. Often it heightens ethnic divide like we have seen in Kathankudi and the rest of the east. Simply put, Democracy cannot survive in a culture of impunity where civil society and media are branded traitors, where there is no confidence in government institutions and where there is no respect for the rule of law.

Die

We said last week that Democracies don't let their people die. Neither, President Mahinda Percival Rajapakse may perhaps be surprised to hear do democracies mess with the judiciary. And that is exactly what Chief Justice Sarath Silva alluded to in a statement made last week in open court. There is, he said, a conspiracy to oust him. Reportedly making these comments during a fundamental Rights Petition hearing filed by the High Court Judges Association regarding a salary increase for judges, he vowed to fight to correct the salary anomalies in the judiciary before he retired.

Chief Justice Silva is due to retire by June 7 next year, his 65th birthday. That President Rajapakse and those in his cabal work on a hotch potch of promises, broken pledges, ambivalence and often downright treachery and chaos is now rather well-publicised.

Mistake

Simply put a meeting with a ministerial official could mean anything as long as one doesn't make the mistake of relying too much on the contents of what actually transpired at the meeting. Having been promised by the Finance Ministry at a discussion with the Chief Justice no less that there would be an increased allowance of 1/4th of the salary for judges and it would be made pensionable income, later, not surprisingly, the Finance Ministry headed by President Rajapakse went back on its word stating it could not accede to the request.

Instead the Ministry declared it had no funds to finance such an increase in pay as it would lead to all sorts of other complications such as a blanket increase in salary for all other public servants. The Chief Justice was to accuse the Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission and the Secretary of the Salaries and Cadre Commission of deliberately creating a crisis situation when the matter of a new salary structure had already been discussed in the presence of President Rajapakse.

No need

There was no need,the Chief justice said, to bring in the Attorney General into the issue as this was now not a question of law but one only of sanity and sense. It was not immediately clear whether the Chief Justice meant that in matters requiring sanity and sensibility the office of the Attorney General would be redundant, but it is highly unlikely. Attorney General C.R.de Silva was present at the hearing and was to explain reportedly that a misunderstanding seemed to have occurred over the contents of discussions had with President Rajapakseÿ on the one hand and a meeting had with the Secretary of the JSC on the other. But let's leave the web of promises aside for the nonce and deal with the more sinister issue of a possible conspiracy to oust the Chief Justice.

Amidst a culture of impunity and total break down of law and order replaced by kangaroo courts and the law of a particularly hideous jungle, the judiciary in this country stands as the last bastion of hope for the people.

A time

Once long ago my mother bought me a hard cover book from Doulos - the floating library that from time to time docks at the Elizabeth Quay in the Colombo Port. It was the book of Ecclesiastes. In it was a wonderful verse. 'There is a time for everything under the sun,' it said. A time to cry, a time to laugh, a time to die a time to dance. A time to pick up, a time to throw down and a time to throw stones and a time not to throw stones. Ask the wife in Kotahena whose husband was abducted last week, the little boy in Wellawatte whose father did not come home last night, the young girl whose fianc‚ was evicted from a Colombo lodge. Ask the motorist who remains in a queue of metal for hours while sweaty check point personnel asks inane questions, ask the family whose mother was killed in a bomb blast in Kandy, in Moratuwa, in Piliyandala, ask the families of 12 journalists hacked to death, ask civil society and you will be told this. You will be told this is no time to weaken the judiciary. It is our only hope in a hopeless world.

Ten years ago we were supportive of the Chief Justice as he was tried in the media over a personal issue, we have been equally harshly critical of him when in our view critcism was due. We have praised him for his public spirited judgements when praise was due especially in the field of environment law and some human rights issues such as the forcible eviction of Tamils from the city. But never more alarmed are we that there is a conspiracy to oust and thereby weaken the judicial backbone at such a crucially dark hour than we are now. There is a constitutional mechanism to remove a Chief Justice from office through impeachment.

Expose

Democracies do not conspire against Chief Justices, dictatorships do. The Chief Justice has vowed he will expose those behind the conspiracy before he leaves office in June next year. But will that be too little too late. How many more lives must be lost, how many more injustices must the people suffer before somebody in public service says enough is enough? Is the Chief Justice powerless in this conspiracy? How does he propose to defeat this conspiracy to oust him? On his shoulders lie the responsibility to uphold the best tenets of justice and fair play. He is after all the fulcrum of the Judiciary.  

Whether one likes it or not. A blow to the centre would result in collapse. It would undermine the rest of the judiciary and leave a fractured infrastructure ready to be exploited and abused The conspirators know this. It is the easiest trick in the book. And a malleable judiciary thrown into chaos will be the ideal tool for the ruling cabal. Note this well. We are living at a time the president has suspended a section of the Constitution, namely the implementation of the 17th amendment and with itthe appointment of the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions including the Judicial Services Commission. Already we saw earlier this year a deep concern amongst appellate court judges as appointments were made to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court by President Rajapakse arbitrarily.

Alien

For a man like Rajapakse who has lived in the alley ways of Medamulane, the concept of law  is alien. For him it is a matter of nuisance, this little something called Democracy and the rule of law. And a bendy Chief Justice appointed at his whim and fancy at a juncture such as this will ensure that the judiciary will become the play thing of the President. Consider. PresidentÿÿRajapakse will be able to make appointments by-passing the Constitutional Council. If there is a conspiracy against the Chief Justice with the intention of ousting him before his retirement which is not due till June 7 next year then with the CC not operating the President can easily manoeuvre a Chief Justice of his choice who will not even have a semblance of independence.

By gad, he could appoint Donald Duck or worse still Mervyn Silva if he wanted to and no questions asked. And a conspiracy theory in such a backdrop is more than plausible. Chief Justice Sarath Silva has in our view had his good moments and his bad. But in the recent past he has given a number of judgements that have not only upheld the rule of law, justice and equality but has also alleviated the suffering of the masses. The ruling on the removal of all permanent check points from the city for instance. A ruling for which he was publicly attacked by the government and lampooned by several government goons and ministers. His judgements on the forced eviction of Tamils from Colombo, on the ban on use of loud speakers including in places of worship at ungodly hours eliciting praise from all right thinking citizens; these give a context to the claims by the Chief Justice that there is a conspiracy to oust him before his time is up.

Irritation

The increased militarisation of our society and some judgements the Chief justice has made, against the directions and orders of the likes of the President's brother and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse, it is more than likely that Chief Justice Sarath Silva has become an irritation to the Rajapakse clan. He may well be what is known as a thorn in the flesh. And an ouster of the Chief Justice under these circumstances may just be the final stage in a long drawn out conspiracy to establish a full blown dictatorship. Therefore as much as there is a need for the Chief Justice to throw more light on this conspiracy charge, the government and more particularly Treasury Secretary Punchi Banda Jayasundera must come clean on what exactly was promised at that meeting where salary anomalies were purportedly discussed and why he went back on his word. From the Public point of view the most desirable method would be to summon Punchi Banda before the Supreme court where answers to these important questions may be elicited as had been done to others like the Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Authority.In the meantime the public of this country are burdened underÿ aÿ ruling regime going into dictatorship mode. And the problem with dictatorships is that it is very often ruled by dicks.