The week that has just ended will undoubtedly go down in history as the singular most disastrous one for Sri Lanka internationally.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa took on the challenge and accepted the invitation to address the Oxford Union in a show of faith that the Sri Lanka’s government has nothing to hide and fears absolutely no one in terms of threats of prosecution for crimes against humanity or war crimes – and flew into the bastion of democracy and parliamentary politics to a storm of gigantic proportions. Not only was he met with hundreds of LTTE-supporting Diaspora but faced a cancellation from the prestigious Oxford Union Society to boot and of course there was the small matter of the so-called latest “revelations” from Britain’s Channel 4 Television network.

As always, Channel 4 released its “new evidence” at a crucial moment for Sri Lanka.
Clearly the revelations from Channel 4 News was – to the average viewer at least –  perceived as being another feather in the cap of what has now proven to be the colossus that is the media department of the LTTE. And it is not stronger anywhere in the world than in Great Britain. Over 300,000 Tamil Diaspora have made Britain their home whether through purely legitimate means or illegitimate means but the fact is they are in Britain and they count when it comes to marginal constituencies for all three major political parties in Queen Elizabeth’s Britain – with or without the Great.
Channel 4’s latest pronouncements were brushed aside by the Sri Lankan High Commission in London as being pure and simply an “elongated version of what was previously broadcast” – but that was not enough for the professionals at Channel 4 News. They were adamant that the video was genuine, it had not been dubbed and they promptly sent it to the United Nations panel investigating whether or not Sri Lanka has a case to answer in terms of crimes against humanity. The President ordered his Foreign Minister to deal with it which he duly did in the form of a well attended press conference.
The President’s departure itself did not augur well. Forty five passports were submitted to the British High Commission but due to the exceedingly short time period 18 of the passports including that of the Chairman of SriLankan Airlines did not come back with the necessary visa. The President ordered that they resubmit the passports and catch the flight to London the next day. Eventually Mrs. Rajapaksa did not actually arrive having been alerted that the visit was breaking apart at the seams with the Oxford Union cancelling.
The President arrived in London and checked in to the ultra plush Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane; the High Commission had booked rooms in many of the British capital’s leading hotels: the Hilton on Park Lane, on Edgware Road and the Lancaster Hotel which was ever so convenient being within spitting distance of the High Commission in Hyde Park Garden. Indeed it is within a snowball’s throw of the High Commission as S.B. Dissanayaka was to find out later in the week. Occupying the suite that the legendary pop star Michael Jackson also once occupied, the President was well shielded from the unusually cold weather — indeed the snow too, and of course from the hundreds of Tamil Diaspora who decided to protest by camping in front of the hotel and the High Commission offices.
These did not worry the President in the least, having had protests of the same type in Colombo too in a career spanning some 40 years. They were chanting “Rajapaksa murderer,” “Rajapaksa be damned” and “Rajapaksa the perpetrator of war crimes” but this had little effect on the President who was insulated from the din the protesters created. At Heathrow airport around 200 valiant supporters of the LTTE were present, complete with  LTTE flags and created a huge din – only to find out that the Presidential entourage had exited via the VIP exit away from the chaos enacted inside the public arrivals area.
The accompanying ministers and MPs, especially Sajin Vaas Gunawardena and G.L. Peiris, were busy meeting with various British officials in an attempt to secure for the President high profile meetings which alas came to nought, apart from the arrival of Dr. Liam Fox who has an abiding interest in Sri Lankan affairs going back many years. Dr. Fox’s office however was quick to announce that Dr. Fox’s attendance was in his private capacity.
Contrary to numerous claims, the relationship with the Government of Sri Lanka and the public relations firm Bell Pottinger has been described as “never… better”. The interview with the Times of London newspaper was however contentious with plenty of complaints that the President’s answers were taken out of context. Tim Ryan, the Bell Pottinger chief, had given the President a candid take on Sri Lanka’s reputation describing that their job was to fight through the 30% adverse impact Sri Lanka currently has and had forewarned the President not to expect too much from the one interview to a national British newspaper. There were others however, who had a different take: that the President would make a better impact with a television interview, where the combination of TV and the internet would make a far bigger impact.
On Thursday, December 2 evening,  the President attended a function at the Sri Lanka High Commission. A large crowd of protesters outside, were chanting and generally causing great inconvenience to the residents and traffic around the area. However when they saw a plush limousine leaving, the crowd surged towards it. S.B. Dissanayaka later described that the vehicle he was travelling in was  hit by “stones” – until it was pointed out that there are no stones and pebbles just lying around the well-paved streets of London! It was then accepted that the vehicles were attacked by snowballs thrown by the protesters. SB maintained he was hit by ‘a large stone.’
The President however made his exit from the High Commission with little fuss and returned to the Dorchester. He had just been made aware that the LTTE-leaning Diaspora had obtained a warrant against all the military security personnel in his entourage and that the suggestion was that the Diaspora were attempting a “mass arrest.”
The President ordered that the military personnel be returned to Colombo but was immediately struck down by those very men who made it clear that they were most definitely not leaving “Sir” and going back. Confronted with this brand of loyalty the President decided to immediately return to Sri Lanka – and a hurried check-out was made. The President’s security personnel – police and army – were so rushed that transport was not immediately available. Therefore, a luggage room, No. 740 at the Dorchester was used to store all the bags.
The President was adamant about staying the length of his planned visit and return on Friday. He said that he was not scared, he had no need to be afraid and he would never be afraid. It was to his great consternation that he found himself being dictated to by his security personnel who refused to leave him with the police personnel in the entourage.
The aircraft that had brought Lalith Weeratunga to London had been kept back in London – to be on stand-by after the Oxford Union cancelled their invitation. It was this aircraft that was utilized by the Presidential entourage as well as regular passengers flying SriLankan from London. However there was a slight change as ordered by Sajin Vaas Gunawardena: the stop en-route in Male was removed and Colombo made the first stop.
The Diaspora rumour machinery was hard at work claiming that the President had actually not left London but instead was holed up in the VIP area of Heathrow. These claims had no basis whatsoever as established independently by The Sunday Leader. The President arrived back in Colombo at approximately 3 pm Friday afternoon.
Prior to his hurried departure, on Wednesday evening the President was quite calm and relaxed and spent time meeting members of the Sri Lankan community who had called on him at the Dorchester. A steady and almost never ending stream of visitors were all personally greeted by the President. During this session, a man who told the President that he was a Tamil and that he had connections to the website TamilNet and to Oxford and Cambridge to boot, also did the rounds even going so far as to enter the bedrooms in the Presidential Suite; the President smelling a rat propelled the man away and immediately raised the alarm himself in choice language which would have put Dutugemunu to shame.
He demanded to know what was happening from his security people, saying all they did was to strut up and down in their ties and suits but they were not even aware of who was coming into contact with the President. “I may well have been killed,” he thundered only to be told that the man had entered with High Commission staff. Not true said the High Commission. With G.L. Peiris said another. Not true. Those close to the President moved a discreet distance away whilst the President continued sternly admonishing his security detail. Sajin Vaas being the only one around who didn’t move away, it was left to him to soothe the President. Many in the entourage said that there were many “Mohideens and Babus” around the President in a reference to the assassins of President Premadasa.
However, the Times of London photographer was not allowed to bring his gear in; though security relented at the last minute after a ministerial intervention.
The President ordered G.L. Peiris to check on the videos released by Channel 4 including the short footage on Colonel Ram who the Diaspora claim was killed by the forces whilst in custody. Colonel Ram was a prominent LTTE cadre operating in Batticaloa and the video shows him visibly terrified – the question being asked as to why the recording was made and more pertinently how it ended up in the hands of the Diaspora. Sources knowledgeable on military matters said that it indicated the full impact that Sarath Fonseka’s Military Intelligence Unit had at the time.
Of great concern to President Rajapaksa of course was the cancellation of the Oxford Union talk. Not so much because he was not able to deliver that talk but that he was disappointed that aspiring politicians – as indeed the members of the Oxford Union have been for generations – succumbed to the threats of disruption and violence by groups very much aligned to a world-class terror organisation which was roundly defeated by the Sri Lankan military.
The President was of the view that the pro LTTE Diaspora, never really expected that he would take on the invitation to attend Oxford. He was more disappointed that the event did not go ahead as he had made the opportunity of a Question and Answer session – no holds barred as he put it – at a location which he described himself as the cradle of free speech. It proved, the President told members of his inner nexus that Sri Lanka had nothing to hide. In the past there were veiled threats of exercising lax International Jurisdiction laws in Britain against him. He was in Britain for five days and the LTTE-elements had failed in their attempts – instead obtaining a rather “vexatious” warrant against Major General Chagi Gallage.
Nirj Deva Aditya, the MP who has a long history of supporting Sri Lankan issues was scathing in his condemnation of the Oxford Union Society. Describing the cancellation as “outrageous” and clearly “lacking in spine” Nirj Deva posed the contentious question as to whether these students had the necessary mettle to be politicians of the future if they were in effect giving way to terror threats. In a climate where globally countries are united in their resolve not to negotiate with terrorists – as in the case of Somali pirates for example – Deva appeared to be reflecting popular international sentiment on these issues.
Diplomatic analysts in London pointed out that the claims made by Channel 4 was not referred to by the BBC giving rise to thought that Channel 4 appears to be toeing a very pro-LTTE line. Professor G.L. Peiris noted that each time Channel 4 released “sensational” evidence it almost always coincided with a PR-sensitive time for Sri Lanka. That in itself was simply more than a coincidence, though sources at Channel 4 were quick to deny that – saying that they had very much more evidence some of which was far too gruesome to broadcast.
All in all, President Rajapaksa’s decision to visit Britain and in effect throw the gauntlet at the Diaspora who the Government of Sri Lanka say are hindering the progress that unity would bring turned out to be a PR disaster. That in turn is highly unlikely to go away unless and until the government in Colombo makes full and frank statements on matters that drive the allegations machinery: the thousands of photographs and reports of atrocities. There is no time like the present for the government to do so than now. A clear case of needing to have an ambience of Mutatis Mutandis today rather than tomorrow.

Procedure for changing the Constitution

Constitutional Monarch

The Constitution can be amended by passing a bill with a two-third majority of Parliament.  However any constitutional changes that affects certain entrenched Articles of the Constitution needs a two third majority and approval at a referendum.  For example a change that affects Article 13 (which devolves power to provincial councils) or Article 3 (which establishes the sovereignty of the people) would require a referendum.  A referendum is only successful if the total number of ‘Yes’ votes amount to an absolute majority of the total valid votes cast at the referendum.
If Parliament seeks to amend the Constitution via an Urgent Bill, the President is required to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.  In its opinion, the Supreme Court is required to state a) whether the Bill actually changes the Constitution and b) whether a referendum or whether a simple a two third majority is sufficient to make the proposed changes.
On Monday, August 30, the President and Cabinet of Ministers introduced an Urgent Bill to make changes to the Constitution.  On Tuesday, August 31, the Urgent Bill was referred to the Supreme Court.
Key Proposed Changes to the Constitution

•    Removal of the two term limit: There will no longer be a limit on the number of times an individual can be elected to the office of the President.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment: the Constitutional Council will be replaced with a new Parliamentary Council. The President will seek the ‘observations’ of the Parliamentary Council in making appointments to key government posts.  However where the Parliamentary Council fails to communicate its observations to the President within the specified time, the President can proceed to make appointments solely at his discretion.

Restricting the role of the Election Commission: The Election Commission will no longer have the power to issue directions to prevent political parties from using state resources to advance their campaigns during elections.  Further the private media will be under a duty to comply with guidelines issued by the Election Commission.

Proceedings before Court

The reference by the President was heard by a special Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Bandaranayake, Sripavan, Ratnayake, Imam and Suresh Chandra.  The Attorney General advanced arguments on behalf of the Government, and explained the proposed changes to the Court.  A summary of his arguments is as follows:

•    Changes enhance the franchise. Removal of the two term limit is in fact an enhancement of the franchise of the people.  It will introduce a “galaxy of choices” in terms of presidential candidates.  “The people’s choice will be unfettered.”

•    Improve accountability: Mandatory attendance at Parliament by President will bring the President more in to the process of the Parliament, and thus make him more accountable to the people.

•    From the outset it was clear that 17th Amendment could not work.  In its original 17th Amendment judgment, the Supreme Court “prophesized” that the 17th Amendment would not work.  The 17th Amendment is a directory and not a mandatory provision of the Constitution.  Therefore the current proposal to repeal it, would not affect the sovereignty of the people.  (That is the 17th Amendment does not affect ‘sovereignty’ which consists of fundamental rights, franchise and powers of government.)

• The Constitutional Council was inherently flawed. It was impossible to reach a consensus on who should be appointed to the Council.  Further, the Constitutional Council consisted of members outside Parliament; therefore, it was impractical for the members to reach a consensus.  The new Parliamentary Council would consist only of members within the Parliament.  Therefore, it is bound to work better than the Constitutional Council.

Intervienients’ Arguments

In proceedings like this, there is a process for interested parties to intervene and raise their objections to the proposed amendments.  There were six intervening parties representing different interest groups, including the Centre for Policy Alternatives and Ravaya newspaper. The six intervening parties were as follows: Jayamapthy Wickramaratne appeared for Lal Wijenayake and Chandra Jayaratne, Saliya Peiris appeared for K.W. Janaranjana of Ravaya, J.C. Weliamuna appeared for Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, Viran Corea appeared for the Centre for Policy Alternatives and Rohan Edirisinha on behalf of himself.  We have summarized the key arguments raised by the intervening parties.

•    Manner in which these Amendments are sought to be made violate the first principles of Constitutionalism. The manner in which these changes are sought to be made demonstrate a shocking disregard for basic internationally accepted norms of constitution making.  These changes affect the independence and integrity of democratic institutions of this country.  Yet these proposed changes were hatched in secrecy with no public consultation.  The Constitution is meant to protect and empower the people from those who wield political power.  If the Constitution can be changed by the wielders of power without participation of those whom a constitution is designed to protect the basic rationale for having a Constitution is undermined.

•    What is the urgency? The Bar Council of Sri Lanka has passed a resolution stating that amendments to the Constitution ought not to be rushed through as ‘Urgent Bills’.  Bill are deemed urgent, when the Cabinet decides they are ‘urgent’ in the national interest.  The Attorney General has not made clear why these changes have to be made ‘urgently’.  It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the changes are being rushed through to avoid proper judicial scrutiny and consideration by civil society. It is important to note that the intervening parties only received their copy of the Bill after the Attorney General started to make submissions to the Court.  The Supreme Court should use this opportunity to lay down guidelines and criteria for the introduction of Urgent Bills.

•    The Supreme Court has a special responsibility.  The Basic Structure Doctrine as developed by the Indian Supreme Court requires that even with a two third majority basic features/ values of the Constitution cannot be amended.  The rational of the Basic Structure Doctrine requires that when those who wield power want to introduce amendments to benefit themselves, and NOT the people, the Supreme Court has a special responsibility to protect the people.  Similarly in the United States there has long been a thought that even if the Supreme Court was to be deferential to the political branches when it comes to political matters, the Court had to accept a special responsibility to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.

•    Survey of Constitutions from around the world reveals necessity of term limits. It is important to see what the practice in other countries is with regard to term limits on the head of government.  First, there are no term limits on countries with parliamentary forms of government.  This is because of the nature of the parliamentary system where you elect a party not a person, and the presence of the prime minister is always balanced by the presence of an opposition in parliament.  Further, the prime minister can at any time lose his position if he does not have the support of a majority of parliament.  Term limits are always found in countries with an executive president.  If you look around the world the following countries do not have term limits:  Azerbaijan,  Singapore,  Syria,  Turkmenistan, Vietnam,  Venezuela, Yemen,  Belarus,  Costa Rica,  Cuba,  Niger,  Algeria,  Burkina Faso, Libya and Uganda.  Except for Costa Rica, all of these countries are one party states or dictatorships.
Singapore is often portrayed as a model of development, but it is important to remember that it is a one party state.  In its 94 member parliament, 82 are from the ruling party, 9 are appointed members and only 3 are from the opposition.  Only a few countries have removed term limits and still managed to avoid being a dictatorship: Peru, Chile and Uruguay.  In these countries a President can hold office for unlimited number of terms, but the terms can’t be consecutive, thus providing for an important safeguard.  With this proposed 18th Amendment to the Constitution, Sri Lanka will be joining ranks of one party-states and dictatorships.

•    Term limits provide an important check on the concentration of power.  First, the longer a President holds power, the line between the ruling party and the state becomes blurred.  Second, the longer a president holds office; the balance of power between the three arms of government will tilt to the Executive.  Third, term limits allow for those aspiring to power to wait for their chance to run for office.  Thus, it prevents aspiring candidates form resorting to unconstitutional action to get in to power.  Fourth, the term limits promote a party based as opposed to a personality based form of democracy.  Fifth, defeating a long sitting president is a very difficult task.
The sitting President has unrivaled and unfettered access to public resources and campaign funds.  Even in the most consolidated multi-party democracies, there are always flagrant abuses of state resources during elections.  Therefore, having a President that can run for an unlimited number of terms, will significantly weaken the chances of other candidates to wage successful election campaigns.

•    Removal of the two term limit violates the mandate of President Rajapaksa. The proposal to remove the two term limit violates the mandate given by the people at two successive presidential elections.  In 2005, Mahinda Chinthanaya 1 promised to abolish the Executive Presidency before the end of the first presidential term.  Mahinda Chinthanaya 2 promised to a) reduce the powers of the executive presidency, and b) make it more accountable to parliament.  The proposed changes are totally contrary to these promises contained in the Mahinda Chinthanaya.

•    This change requires a referendum because if affects the sovereignty of the people.  (As noted above a referendum is only required when any proposed amendments to the constitution affects certain provisions.  On the surface the proposed changes don’t affect any of those provisions). However it was argued that these special provisions need to be interpreted more broadly.  For example, the referendum clause doesn’t say that a referendum is required if the writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is to be taken away.  But surely, if the proposed amendments tried to take away the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, then that would require  a referendum. Similarly, the proposed changes need to be seen in a broader context and how they undermine the sovereignty of the people.  Any change that affects the sovereignty clause (Article 3) requires a referendum.
Sovereignty includes the powers of government and fundamental rights of the people.  The removal of the two term limit will affect the balance of the three branches of government; in particular it will remove an important safeguard against arbitrary government action.  Similarly, the 17th Amendment strengthened the sovereignty of the people by providing an important check on arbitrary executive action.  Further the 17th Amendment, served to enhance the independence, legitimacy and efficacy of the institutions that facilitate the realisation the fundamental rights of the people. (For example, the Judiciary, the Human Rights Commission, the Elections Commission, the Public Service Commission and Police.)  Therefore, as these changes affect the fundamental rights of the people, the balance of powers of government, they ultimately affect the sovereignty of the people, and requires a referendum.

•    This change requires a referendum because if affects the Provincial Councils. One must read the Constitution as a whole.  The proposed amendments seek to significantly do away with the powers of Finance Commission and the National Police Commission.  Such amendments require further special procedures set out in Art 154G (2) – (3), that is, the change must be gazetted and referred to all the Provincial Councils, so they can express their views on the proposed changes.

•    Attorney General is incorrect to submit that the 17th Amendment is directory.  The text of the Constitution, the intention of the framers, the rationale or purpose of the 17th Amendment and the determinations of the Supreme Court (in the 17th, 18th and 19th Amendment cases) show that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution is mandatory.  The Hansard proceedings of the debate on the 17th Amendment especially the speeches of Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake and Wimal Weerawansa, make it absolutely clear that the intention of the framers, the intention of the legislature was that the provisions of the 17th Amendment were to be mandatory.

•    Toothless Parliamentary Council. The proposed alternative to the Constitutional Council would result in the politicization of key government posts. The proposed alternatives would curtail the freedom of thought and conscience of key public officers and commissions.

•    Reducing the powers of the Electoral Commission will undermine the future of free and fair elections. The proposed amendments will do away with a key safeguard that prevents the abuse of state resources by the ruling political party.

Oppression of Private Media. The proposed amendments allows the Election Commission to impose guidelines on private media during elections.  The private media ought to be able to function freely, enabling voters to freely decide at an election.  This would undermine the general public’s right to information.  The right to information is the staple of their right to thought and conscience (protected by Article 10 of the Constitution).

Outrageous Process And Substance

Rohan Edrisinha

Rohan Edrisinha lectures at the Law Faculty, University of Colombo and is also a Director at the Centre for Policy Alternatives. In a succinct interview conducted by Vikalpa today, Rohan flags serious concerns over the government’s proposed 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Salient points made by Rohan are;

•    Significant problems with the process through which the Amendment was introduced – it was rushed, not consultative and couched in secrecy. Few outside government even had access to the proposed Amendment before it was sent to the Supreme Court.
•    The Amendment goes against the promises in the President’s own Mahinda Chintanaya in 2005 and 2010.

•    Completely undermines the 17th Amendment, with severe implications for, inter alia, the conduct of democratic elections.

•    Cumulative effect of the proposal totally undermines the depoliticisation of democratic institutions.

•    Hopes the Supreme Court will say  a referendum is needed before such a fundamental change to the Constitution is introduced.

In Strange Proposals And Broken Promises: Constitutional Reform in Sri Lanka, Rohan speaks more broadly on the significant challenges facing democracy and constitutional reform in post-war Sri Lanka.

•    The 18th Amendment to the Constitution: Process and Substance, the President has proposed to make changes to the constitution via an Urgent Bill.  The changes known as the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, seek to remove the two term limit on being elected to the office of the President and the Constitutional Council under the 17th Amendment.

Article courtesy Groundviews http://www.groundviews.org/

Impunity at any cost

The fact that he was convicted on evidence mainly led by members of the opposition – two of whom have benefited from the government – showcased nothing more than that Sri Lanka practised a system of kangaroo justice. The former number 3 supremo of the LTTE was being fast tracked to rehabilitation and high position, a junior ranking officer Shavendra Silva was being despatched to the United Nations and General (ret’d) Sarath Fonseka, modern day Sri Lankan hero and former commander of the victorious Sri Lanka Army was incarcerated at Naval Headquarters.
This impunity – this disregard of the acceptable decorum — was not the sole preserve of the government. In Zimbabwe it may well have been and it may have been so during Idi Amin Dada’s Uganda. The Leader of the main Opposition party, Ranil Wickremesinghe was clinging on to power in a disgusting show of manipulative politics and kept the much hoped for reforms at the UNP hanging by its coat tails. Not to be outdone, lest someone stands up and takes notice, a Saudi Arabian family descended to the lowest ever possible depths of depravity by hammering in 24 iron nails into the body of a Sri Lankan maid from Matara.
Something clearly was amiss with the karma of this country and that is perhaps why there is an unhealthy reliance on the supernatural in this co called island of Serendipity. The more that the Sri Lankan government hides its face in the sand, the more mileage the claims of crimes against humanity receives. The international community may well perceive that Sri Lanka’s present actions are but mere confirmations that something, anything, untoward did happen during the final stages of the war. Every action the government is now taking be it regards Fonseka or the IDPs or the handling of NGOs is angled towards the thinking that the government is afraid of being found out. It may well be worth them remembering that it is usually the guilty who are afraid.
The President felt a need to address the burning issues faced by his northern brethren and called a meeting of the various Bishops at Temple Trees. Along with the other senior members of the ruling body were Basil Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Dr. Rajitha Senaratne. The Bishops without exception declared themselves happy at the progress the government was making. They were more than appreciative of the demining process which was all in all, a veritable achievement. Basil Rajapaksa pointed out that in the entire process not a single civilian life was lost, showing that the process employed in Sri Lanka was beyond reproach.
A foreigner – part of the demining team — had died he acknowledged but no civilian casualties. The Bishops were in unison pleased with the progress given the various impediments and wanted Basil Rajapaksa to spearhead various other efforts even though Basil explained that he had his plate full as it was. There was some concern about the progress of the fishing industry in the northern parts.
The President stepped in quickly to explain that the Minister, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne was doing a grand job and that the ministry had a well laid out strategy to open up the industry and to assist fishermen in their return to work. The President said that in Senaratne they were lucky to have a talented and dedicated Minister. The Bishops were greatly reassured by the President’s statement and carried on with the rest of the agenda. The Defence Secretary confirmed that some of the areas around Palaly airport were needed but that a number of other properties would be released. Those that were being taken over or had been taken over would be paid appropriate compensation. At the United National Party there was nothing but chaos. Last week saw Wickremesinghe have his one to one meets with Sajith Premadasa and had agreed before hand that no information would be released to the media until after all the discussions and agreements had been concluded. Premadasa was hounded by many a scribe only to be politely but firmly turned away. A final meeting was planned for Sunday evening at the house of Karu Jayasuriya in Colombo.
However on Sunday morning the chaos was compounded by a story in a weekend English newspaper. The newspaper that is connected to Wickremesinghe carried what turned out to be a one sided leak clearly made by Wickremesinghe judging by the content. Not many in the party believed the Leader of the UNP to keep his word and not leak information. Premadasa nevertheless was seen at Karu Jayasuriya’s house on Sunday evening.
Analysts familiar with Premadasa opined that Premadasa would have been candid in his talks with his Leader – and were under no illusions that Premadasa would have taken the UNP Leader to task for engineering the leak – unfortunately for Wickremesinghe he had used the services of a one time military matters journo to write it all up and it was so much in favour of his own line of thought that there were not many who did not know both the source of the leak and the scribe who wrote it! Later on Monday Wickremesinghe told some of his group that newspapers were notorious for making up stories from titbits and conjecture. He spoke as though he had personal experience of these matters – which he in this case probably had. The long, tall and short if it all was as a UNP Provincial Councillor from the Hill Country predicted some months ago: there will be no change at the UNP. The Councillor acknowledged that there may well be some cosmetic change for the sake of change. What was apparent during these one to one talks that the prince in waiting and his established leader had was that Karu Jayasuriya was almost adamant that he wished to retain his position. The UNP constitution had no room for two sets of deputies and any offer as reported in other media, being offered to Premadasa would have to be voted on at the Working Committee and confirmed at the National Convention. Either that or Jayasuriya would have to step down or up or sideways even, for Premadasa to be installed as Deputy Leader.
Sajith Premadasa was overheard at a dinner to say that he did not wish to have any positions: he merely wanted to ensure that the UNP would make substantial changes in the strategies it is adopting to ensure that the UNP would be victorious at any electoral forum. Perhaps Premadasa was being naïve: it may well be easier for him to lead a wild elephant by its trunk than to hope that Wickremesinghe would so much as make Premadasa’s possible entry to the leadership of the UNP anything other than easy.
Within calamity and chaos there almost always emerges a winner: in the case of the chaos that is going on at the UNP that winner is none other than Ravi Karunanayake. In a very clear case of divide and rule Wickremesinghe has been seen to be propelling Karunanayake to the senior levels at the UNP, ignoring many others who have had a lifetime of political service to the UNP. It shows however that these so-called experienced hands, apart from bleating that they have been yet again left out, do absolutely nothing else.
There has not even been so much as a whimper of protest from any of the other seniors who could justifiably question why Karunanayake is being so propelled. Notwithstanding this however, Lakshman Seneviratne, Dayasiri Jayasekera and Ranjith Madduma Bandara made serious claims regarding the appointment of the National Organiser’s position.
The UNP Leader has been asked to take whatever proposals he wishes to make to the Working Committee and thereafter to the Convention to be ratified. It is unlikely that Premadasa will play ball with Wickremesinghe who is not keen to go to the Convention without having agreed the details before hand. Sajith Premadasa on the other hand is known to want the voting to be extended to provincial councillors and local government members. That in itself is almost anathema to Wickremesinghe who prefers the molly cuddling he receives from the Working Committee.

By Faraz Shauketaly

Rather like tethered goats, democrats in Sri Lanka stand watch over a complete breakdown of popular concern for the plight that has befallen the pearl of the Indian Ocean. The people clearly are immature or as a colleague put it last week, mere by-standers.

Wickremesinghe amended minutes

They elect – time after time – at election after election, a bunch of legislators who all fail in their duty by the constitution.
To make matters far easier for all Sri Lankans, and its elected legislators, it’s all written down for them. Article 28 (C) states that, “it is the duty of every person in Sri Lanka to work conscientiously in his chosen occupation”. And all of our elected legislators have certainly chosen their occupation without any let or hindrance from anyone least of all from the very people who elect them into high office. The Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are not justiciable and perhaps there may well be a case to change that part of the Constitution in order that legislators are legally bound giving rise to the public’s ability to sue their legislators for dereliction of duty. If it were enacted within the Penal Code we would have the real possibility of the public charging legislators for Criminal Breach of Trust. That is what the tethered goats in Sri Lanka – read as “us” – really need.
For once, though, we have an almost rare universal appreciation of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, showcasing indeed, what he is capable of, for Sri Lanka. The President’s actions, in dismissing his maverick political ally, Mervyn Silva was met with an enthusiasm – from the maha janathawa — that displayed itself only in May 2009.  On the morning that the MP from Kelaniya was to be unceremoniously sacked, he had already informed President Rajapaksa that he was resigning his post. In fact he had asked for full coverage on radio and TV.
Dutifully and perhaps with some expectation if not trepidation, outside broadcast units were despatched to Park Road where they waited and waited. Mervyn was all set to resign, saying he had done no wrong and if he had upset the government in anyway they could accept his resignation and that would be that. Not long to go before the cameras, Mervyn had a set of visitors, all of whom had supported him. They were councillors from the Kelaniya Pradeshiya Sabha, who told their local hero that there was no way that President Rajapaksa would take any action against Mervyn. The President they said, valued Mervyn far too much to take any kind of severe action. ‘Stay on, why should you resign’ was their considered advice. Mervyn stayed put, his bruised ego somewhat mended.
News of this filtered to the President who immediately summoned Mervyn to Temple Trees. Rather unknown to him, the President had also summoned a whole host of SLFP seniors including Maithripala Sirisena. The President after having a short exchange of words with Mervyn adjourned to a different room to meet the party seniors. The President and his colleague were in effect absolutely fed up with Mervyn and his antics. If it were mere antics that would have been tolerable to a point they said: but ever since the President had brought him into the front-line of politics, Mervyn had shown nothing but a scant regard for the rule of law.
He had closed down bars that had licences and generally caused mayhem in the area disregarding the law and establishing a micro-kingdom in the Kelaniya area. The President readily agreed saying that even after the previous incident at SLRC, he had wanted to punish Mervyn but was precluded because the staff there had assaulted Mervyn. If he had taken action against Mervyn at the time, he would send a wrong message out: that everyone unhappy with his ministers could assault them and get away with it. That was why he had no option but to soft peddle. This time the President was determined.
Armed with the backing of the party seniors, Mahinda Rajapaksa told Mervyn he had no choice and that he would be removed. “Let me resign,” bleated Mervyn. “No, Mervyn, you are my friend but your actions have left me no choice, nothing.”
Once the news of the sacking was released there was widespread acclaim. The President had finally delivered what was expected of him in Article 28(C) of the Constitution, even though Mervyn Silva had not. (It is the duty of all persons in Sri Lanka to work conscientiously in his chosen occupation.) There was hope, after all, that President Rajapaksa may well turn his attention towards Article 28(D) of the Constitution next: to preserve and protect public property and to combat misuse and waste of public property.
The President caught many off-guard with his decision showcasing that he discusses matters only on a need-to-know basis. The Defence Secretary for example was quite unaware even late in the evening that Mervyn was being sacked. It showed that President Rajapaksa was not in the habit of discussing politics with Defence officials and vice versa, unless of course there was a clear need. Many a message was sent to Mervyn on these lines: do not go off the rails, bide your time and be patient. Mervyn, though, with predictable opprobrium, claimed that members of the Opposition Parliamentary Group had already visited him leading some of us to believe that the circus is here for sometime yet.
Ravi Karunanayake acting on his own account or by proxy for his Leader, wandered into the Southern Province holding little pocket meetings within the arteries of Sajith Premadasa’s electorate culminating in a meeting after dark in Beliatta. Here in a seat that has produced one of Asia’s post powerful political dynasties and the pint-sized man with the huge ego, Ravi Karunanayake fell foul of the Premadasa following. Chaos, fisticuffs and the inevitable damaged vehicle later, there were loud claims as to who the perpetrators were. Sajith Premadasa was quick to distance himself from these “gutter politics” saying it was simply not his style. Violence he said was not part of his political implements.
He did have a point: there was no doubting the grass roots appeal Premadasa enjoys. Whilst ordinarily there would be no “harm” in Karunanayake going off into a district that was anyway well served by two members of parliament – Sajith Premadasa and Dilip Vedaarachchi – which would be his right as a senior member of the party, to have done so when relationships are at an acrimonious level was nothing short of ill-conceived political mischief. It is more so when the UNP appears to have a serious split within its ranks and there are so many moves afoot to present the UNP’s unity.
This form of political chicanery will serve no earthly purpose and would only go to showcase the deep divisions that exist in the UNP. Sajith Premadasa had visited Central Colombo at the invitation of the organiser there, Mohamed Mahroof. Karunanayake had arrived in Beliatta on his own and importantly for custom, courtesy and decorum, without an invitation from Dilip Vedaarachchi. Karunanayake’s actions were seen as that of a bull in the China shop.
The piece de resistance of the UNP’s constitutional reforms came at the Working Committee meeting. Fresh from his visit to the Ashram in South India, Ranil Wickremesinghe called his Working Committee to sit. The meeting was a charade in its entirety and served to showcase the UNP Leaders’ penchant for procrastination. Wickremesinghe has proven himself to be a master of procrastination.
The meeting started innocuously enough: asked to explain why he met the President and especially what it is he went to discuss, Wickremesinghe said that he was discussing the changes to the Executive Presidency in its different forms. He was confronted with the fact that no sooner had he started discussions with the President, with whom Wickremesinghe has a close and easy camaraderie, that two members of the opposition had crossed over to the Presidential side. The membership was unhappy that Wickremesinghe sought to see the President on his own and assured the members that he had visited the President last Tuesday to seek an appointment for the entire committee to discuss matters with the President.
Matters moved on a bit and it was time to show support for the Leader even if it meant descending to the gutter. Ranjith Atapattu from the Hambantota District made the astonishing claim that Sajith Premadasa was not helping matters in their district. Ananda Kularatna also joined in the vein saying that even though Atapattu, Cyril and he were the seniors in the area they had never even had an invite from Premadasa to have tea and discuss matters.
Atapattu, the head of the UNP Ex-Parliamentarians Group, had promised them he would bring up the matter of allowing provincial councillors and local government members to be allowed to vote on the reforms. He completed his speech but did not speak on what he had promised his members. Jayalath Jayawardena spoke up saying that it was clear the party was going through contentious times and that it was best that the Convention not be held just yet. He added for effect, if it was to be held now, he for one would not be attending.
Ranil Wickremesinghe then appointed yet another committee. This comprised of four legal eagles in the form of Tilak Marapona, Daya Pelpola, Ronald Perera and Wijedasa Rajapaksa. They were tasked with drafting the new party constitution which would be required at the next Convention. Immediately questions were asked as to the time frame, the new committee saying it was not possible to say with any accuracy when it would be ready. Ranil Wickremesinghe too colluded by saying that it was not possible to give a time frame.
Sajith Premadasa then spoke and enquired as to what would happen at the forthcoming local and Northern provincial elections. Who would be in charge and be responsible he asked and suggested that the party not leave it to the last minute. Clearly quite sure that planning would be of the essence apart from time. He then went on to the point he had asked at the previous working committee – which was as to whether the provincial councillors and local government officers would also be able to vote. Premadasa wanted a vote taken now saying he would accept the decision even if it went against his own thinking on the issue.
Wickremesinghe  did not remark and it was noted that the time was approximately 4.30 pm. Premadasa also took to task Wickremesinghe for admitting Mangala Samarawickrama to the Working Committee saying the rules did not permit anyone to be appointed at this stage. Wickremesinghe sheepishly admitted that being so but said that he had promised Mangala this some time ago. Nevertheless Wickremesinghe got his own way proving yet again that he operates upon the UNP as though it is nothing more than his personal fiefdom.
Other members also spoke on the same matter and by the time it was approximately 6.30 pm Wickremesinghe appeared to wish to wind up the meeting. Not before Lakshman Seneviratne sprang to his feet asking the Leader to respond to Sajith Premadasa’s suggestion of voting on the issue now. Wickremesinghe did respond this time – saying that it was Lakshman Seneviratne himself who had proposed that the previous meetings’ Minutes be passed and that indeed those minutes had been passed in “toto” and therefore, there was no need to talk or vote on anything as the 6-member committee suggestions had been passed in “toto.” There was nothing, said Wickremesinghe with a straight face, in the Minutes of Meetings to suggest otherwise.
An indignant and furious Lakshman Seneviratne said ‘yes, we passed it with amendments to be discussed.’ The Minutes of course had no reference to that! It had been deliberately left out. Those who prepared the Minutes included none other than Wickremesinghe himself. Soon after that Wickremesinghe left the building.
Wickremesinghe’s actions deliberately leaving out the amendments proposed the previous occasion and the effect this would have was that the voting on the reforms – whenever that came – would be limited to the Working Committee, where his support is much stronger than if he was to go to the grass roots. It was agreed that Ranil, Sajith and Ravi would all meet to sort out their differences which was worrying almost the entire party. Wickremesinghe was expected to make that meeting in the course of next week.
Internationally the US Senate put out its report on Sri Lanka which casts doubt on the independence of the Lessons Learnt Commission. In the United States itself 57 legislators signed a petition asking their Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton to launch an investigation against Sri Lanka’s track record on Crimes Against Humanity. In Sri Lanka the government had terminated the visas of two foreign nationals attached to the NGO Non-Violence Peace Forum. The organisation appointed a local as Acting Country Director and instructed Florington Asirwatham to close down the Human Rights Defenders Protection Programme. HRDPP provided a modicum of comfort to human rights activists and had now sent home local staff working within that unit. It was an ominous sign with no apparent vacuum available to human rights activists in Sri Lanka.

The LTTE chief renditioned by Sri Lanka from Malaysia, has spoken from being under house arrest and declared that “in our lifetime, there will be no more armed struggle”. Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Leader on Tuesday, July 27, KP struck a conciliatory tone immediately.

K.P.

It was clear that there was an implied and tacit agreement on the part of the government to allow KP some freedom not otherwise afforded to others who are captive. This tacit agreement manifested itself in many forms: the use of the internet, the use of a mobile telephone just for starters. KP confirmed that he had visited the Wanni and also the camps. He admitted to being “very sad” at the plight that innocent men women and children had to face as a result of the LTTE military defeat.
KP was pragmatic and realistic: he assured this columnist that there was no way, that in “our lifetime” there would be a resurgence of the separatist war. KP went on to say that the monies being now collected by the Tamil diaspora was being done so by giving the Tamil people false hopes and in essence leading them up the garden path. The Tamil people in the West were being told lie after lie and their media spin departments were extremely vociferous and worked hard. The government must, he advised, combat this problem and enlighten the diaspora of the ground reality.
Speaking with the confidence of the leader of the Tamil people or at least the diaspora, KP made it plain that the people suffering were “my people” and said that it was his first mission to help those suffering along the way to a permanent peace.
What is clear is this: that either way, the government faces a tough call when it comes to a decision about rehabilitating KP and letting him play the lead role to gather together the diaspora in aid of the cause of a permanent peace. They may well be gambling with a possible resurgence or they may well take the view that the LTTE is done with forever.
Either way the government is set to take the least contentious route and use KP as a state witness on the way towards achieving their objective of a permanent peace with the minority Tamil people.
KP also spoke to a daily newspaper the day after he spoke to us. We reproduce some of his comments not published previously:

Wathsala: So what was the deal?
KP: (laughs) Deal means? What deal? What do you mean?

Wathsala: What do they plan for you? What are they going to do with you? The deal: that you struck with the ruling family, the Rajapaksas; that you relinquished control of vast sums of monies to the Rajapaksas in exchange for the relative freedom that you have, that you will not go to prison that you will be given a modicum of freedom in exchange for information and money that you controlled!
KP: No, no no. (laughing) there was no such deal. I relinquished control of my responsibilities with the LTTE in 2003. Thereafter I had no proper role to play. I did not have big sums of monies as you say. This is all propaganda. I have no knowledge of these matters.

Wathsala: What about the ships? You were in charge of those things. What happened to the ships? To which brother did you give up those to?
KP: Many of the vessels were destroyed towards the end of the war. There was nothing to give up.

Wathsala: But they were not all destroyed. What happened to them? You must know that?
KP: There was perhaps two or three ships in the end. The government may well have captured them I do not really know for sure but if they did it was maybe two or three ships. No more.

Wathsala: Where were you captured?
KP: In Malaysia.

Wathsala: So what was the Thailand angle?
KP: Maybe speculation, but I was held in Malaysia.

Wathsala: Who got you?
KP: The Malaysian intelligence. I was taken away to the airport and I was handed over to the Sri Lankan intelligence when I was on the aeroplane. I came on SriLankan Airlines from KL. They blocked business class off and after they boarded the other passengers they put me on the business class. Before they kept me 24 hours.

Wathsala: Under what conditions are you being held? How do you feel right now?
KP: I am under sort of house arrest and I am guarded. Well I am under guard, arrested, I feel like the other people who are arrested. I don’t really know the location. It’s a house.

Wathsala: So what about you personally? Will they invite you to join hands with the government in the pursuit of peace? Will you be imprisoned? You personally is what I would like to know.
KP: Well we have discussed. I want to help my people and if they are talking of a permanent peace then I am willing to help my people to solve the problem of permanent peace. My first mission is to help the people. Actually a lot of people are suffering. First I have to bring them to a normal life. I was not involved very much for the last year. I feel however that everyone, all the Tamil people as well must all focus on the rehabilitation and the development. I don’t agree that we have some people who are suffering and the other people who are talking. I don’t agree with that.

Wathsala: What was your role in the year before the end of the war?
KP: We tried to end or stop the war and we spoke with everyone, the UN, other countries. We tried to bring this to a peaceful end. The war. From January to May but we could not end it.

Wathsala: What was your role. Were you the banker or the chief procurer for the LTTE?
KP: No I was in charge of International relations – I was the peacemaker.

Wathsala: Is it true that you controlled vast sums of monies?
KP: From 2003 thru 2009 I don’t know. But there was also a lot of debt. I finished in 2003.

Wathsala: When did you last visit Sri Lanka?
KP: During President Premadasa’s time when we had some peace talks. After that never I visited Sri Lanka.

Wathsala: Have you visited Batticaloa since your return?
KP: Not Batticaloa but I have been to the Wanni. I invited a delegation of senior diaspora to come here and see for themselves what is going on and so that they can be practical and all help and work together with the government to start on resolving the problems in a peaceful way.

Wathsala: How sad were you when you visited your former battle ground?
KP: When I visited the camps I was very sad; the suffering that innocent civilians had to go through because of the war, it was sad. It moved me to tears. I resolved even stronger then that we had to start the peace by ensuring these people were all returned to their homes. The humanitarian problem to be sorted first.

Wathsala: So you never gave the government any money!
KP: No never, I believe in the truth and honour my word. This is absolutely not true, it must be talk from some of the diaspora.

Wathsala: So how old are you? Do you have a family? Children?
KP: Well I am 55 years; I have a wife she is Thailand and I have a daughter who is 18.

Wathsala: Do you speak to them by phone daily or maybe through Skype? Any plans for them to visit you? Or are they fearful?
KP: Not daily perhaps two or three times a week. Let’s see, maybe they will come to visit me lets see.

Wathsala: Is it true that the government has obtained your help to help to bring the diaspora back here and to obtain their help too towards development, rehabilitation and peace?
KP: We had discussions. They spoke of a way to make an NGO  help these people. I got nine senior members of the diaspora to come here in June and visit and see for themselves the efforts and the task the government is faced with. They saw with their own eyes. Here they saw how people are suffering for their food for example. And the diaspora are in a different world. I want to show them the real picture. Together we can solve the problem.

Wathsala: Did you go with diaspora delegates anywhere?
KP: Yes to the Wanni.

Wathsala: What did you feel?
KP: I couldn’t sleep for many days thereafter. I felt I have to work much harder to help my people. The suffering. I was moved to tears for my people. A lot of people are suffering.

Wathsala: So KP when you revisited Kilinochchi, how and what did you feel? Did you see that in spite of the millions of dollars collected and spent on arms and ammunition your LTTE did not do anything for your people. How did you feel about that? About no development?
KP: About development we have to start from zero. In the Wanni most of the people were affected. I feel the LTTE money and the diaspora money should come to help the people and development.

Wathsala: Now that the war is finished, do you feel that it was worth it? The entire 30 year effort?
KP: Everywhere in the world there have been wars and experiences for a long time: the Punjab, the IRA, Kurdistan. The world order has also changed and unfortunately we had a bitter experience.

Wathsala: Are you sad that so many, so many young people lost their lives?
KP: Exactly. These people gave their lives to the cause and we finally lost all and so very sad yes.

Wathsala: So how strong is the LTTE internationally?
KP: Some of the people at the LTTE don’t speak the truth at all. Some of them still lie saying that Prabha is alive and the battle is still on. It’s all impossible. They are not on the ground, I have visited the camps. The boys and girls in the camps spoke to me they said they want to get on with their lives. Not even 1 per cent said that they wanted to return for the war. I spoke to some personally, privately. They all said they wanted to go back to a normal life. There’s no point in some of the diaspora talking of continuing the war. They lie and are not in touch with reality.

Wathsala: So do you feel that the LTTE will never emerge again in Sri Lanka ever again?
KP: We did this war for some 35 years. The freedom struggle. We gave it 35 years of our life. The world order has changed and will never support an armed struggle. It is now time that they will only support peace when we talk and solve it peacefully. I do not think that in our lifetime it will happen. The world itself has changed.

Wathsala: But the quest for funds continues. They continue to collect funds. That has not stopped.
KP: Yes that is true. But it cannot last for long. When the work of the NGO starts and when the diaspora themselves see that development is happening there will be a gradual understanding and along with that the funding will come down. Slowly slowly people are getting information that the lies being said now will come to light.

Wathsala: What has happened to the ships?
KP: I gave up control in 2003 to someone else to manage. Some of the vessels were destroyed. It is not in my hands since 2003. I heard though I am not 100 per cent sure, that the government may have got two or three ships in their control.

Wathsala: So you have no knowledge?
KP: (Laughs.) I am not involved, don’t have first hand knowledge but I understand that two or three maybe the government has recovered.

Wathsala: Did you have any knowledge of your impending arrest?
KP: None at all. Completely surprised. Until the Malaysian Intelligence turned up at that hotel.

Wathsala: Any political ambitions? Are you going to be a free man?
KP: Well I have no political ambitions other than to solve the problems of my people in my lifetime. I would love to be free yes of course. But let us see.

Wathsala: Finally would you like to say something instead of just answering the questions?
KP: I want to bring my people back to a normal life, the diaspora must come and see for themselves about the suffering and help. The Tamil people must come together. That is what I want to say.
Wathsala: It’s been good talking to you, thank you very much.

The President at Kataragama

In a contentious Working Committee meeting held earlier in the week, there were those UNP stalwarts who expressed their dismay, disgust and utter contempt for the actions of a few, who they say, had helped heap public scorn on their beloved party. Leading the condemnation of these antics was the former MP for Kalutara, Lakshman Wijemanne, now a Provincial Councillor.

A fiery speaker, a known UNP loyalist and widely held as being a person who treads the Middle Path, Lakshman Wijemanne was scathing in his attack of a parliamentary colleague. Said he, “this illustrious Member of Parliament, resorted to calling various members of the Kalutara membership and urged them to make trouble when the leader visited Kalutara on July 9. He urged them in a number of telephone calls to cause pandemonium and mischief no sooner the leader arrived. This is the only way this MP had assured the members from Kalutara that we can give Ranil a message. Don’t forget he urged. Cause maximum havoc.

Lakshman Wijemanne

Rattle and shake the leader down.” To calls of “Who is it? If it’s true tell us who it is! Tell, tell” urged the bulk of the Working Committee. “I will I will, be patient, let me finish what I have to say first” shot back the diminutive Wijemanne, who had recently celebrated his 50th birthday.

Wijemanne urged them to listen. “This MP”, he continued, “assumed that I – the organiser for the Kalutara District – would be oblivious to his calls and mischief making. In fact, what I did was to tell the people that if we had a problem with the leader or any problem with party issues, we would go to our Maha Gedara and within the confines and privacy of Sri Kotha – our Maha Gedara – we could discuss matters to our hearts content with the leader. Not in public not at an inappropriate forum. Certainly not. There was a place a time and a method to anything. So I put them in order. The leader came, spoke and left without incident of any sort. That was the leadership I gave my people in Kalutara”.

Wijemanne thundered, “There was no need for two cent worth mischief like this” (thuttu dekay wada owna naha). Not only did these calls come before the leader arrived but also whilst the leader was present in Kalutara. During the meeting too, calls were received asking for information as to ‘what was happening’.
The cries for “Who, tell us who it is” was at a crescendo: “Why,” said Wijemanne, “it is none other than our Member of Parliament, Mr Lakshman Seneviratne who indulged in this third rate behaviour”.

Lakshman Seneviratne was immediately on his feet. “It was our leader,” he said, “who in the years 1995 through to 1997 who used us to tune the constitution to his own liking and who has created mistrust of the UNP. It was his blatant favouritism that has brought this party down”. He pointed out that in the case of Lakshman Wijemanne himself, the leader had not quite been democratic. When Wijemanne entered parliament he left the Provincial Council. The party leader should have then appointed Jayantha Abeywardena to the Provincial Council. Instead, when Wijemanne was defeated at the last general elections, the leader sent him back to the Provincial Council. “That was the sort of leader we had,” charged Lakshman Seneviratne.

The scene for the battlefront was clearly set at Sri Kotha, where room two was the chosen one to hold the Working Committee. Usually two doors would be open to let people in but Monday saw just the one door and the presence of four policemen at the entrance. Clearly, someone was expecting trouble. That trouble came in the form of Upali Piyasoma. The leader said that he had been removed from the Working Committee and should therefore leave. Piyasoma disputed that saying he had the letter of appointment.

Not so, thundered the other side, you have a letter removing you from the Working Committee (WC). The leader assured the members that this would not start unless those unauthorised left the room. Piyasoma did leave but not before he made a thundering speech, in which he berated the hapless Ranil Wickremesinghe.
It was noticed during the WC meet that when various members were being disciplined for whatever misdemeanours, the usual practice of seconding the move was not done by the members but by the leadership instead.

The matters moved on a bit when the leader explained the discussions they had with the President. The broad terms were the opposing of extending the presidential term to three, the implementation of the 17th Amendment and of course whether the Executive Prime Minister would be chosen by a vote of the people or the parliament.

When this matter was introduced, veteran lawyer K.N. Choksy, a one time Ranil supporter, was on his feet. He objected in strong terms to the composition of the Reforms Committee who he said had no expertise in these matters. National List members were being given undue prominence instead of people in the know. It will be remembered by all of course that Mr. Choksy was left out of the national list this time round.

Sajith Premadasa the so-called ‘leading contender’ for the leadership, spoke and wanted four categories of people who would be able to vote on these reforms. The leader said that these matters should be discussed at yet another meeting which he would call once he returned from a visit to India. Mr. Wickremesinghe was visiting South India where he was to visit a monastery / ashram.

There were numerous calls for the party membership to be disciplined and to act with decorum. Upali Samaraweera the former member of parliament recalled how when Gamini Dissanayaka and Lalith Athulathmudali were having trouble they were both put into a room, the door shut and asked to come out only after they resolved their differences. That was decorum which the party was lacking now.

Ananda Kularatne, Sajith Premadasa and others wanted the franchise to be extended down towards the grass roots. The leader promised to look into this without delay, soon after his return from India and wanted the matter sent to the National Convention with least delay, indicating perhaps that Wickremesinghe was in touch with his flock.

Rosy Senanayake was also of the view that the party should not give so much prominence to new members. Perhaps directly alluding to the role played by Wijedasa Rajapaksa, a relative newcomer. Others though were of the view that to have the likes of Rajapaksa – newcomers – meant that some “out of the box” thinking would emerge and the party certainly needed fresh ideas and innovative ones at that.

Thalatha Athukorala was of the view that the best course of united action would be for the various positions to be filled by consensus – eradicating the need for an election. This, she said, would demonstrate party unity. Whether Mr. Wickremesinghe wishes to step down, ahead of such decision making, remains to be seen – previous form being a poor indicator in this regard.

The President in the meantime made an unscheduled visit to Kataragama on Monday. He had asked his nephew, the Chief Incumbent at Kataragama, Shasheendra Rajapaksa, to keep the matter quiet as he did not wish for his security personnel to disrupt the large crowds of devotees. This year, some 11,000 people had trekked from the North through the jungles to arrive in Kataragama. The President spent some time mingling with the crowds and instructed the police and others to facilitate their movements in every way possible. He solved a problem of a shortage of water bowsers by immediately making a call and issuing a directive.

Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Leader Sajith Premadasa said that he was happy with the progress made so far on reforms. He confirmed that he would make a decision whether to seek any position after the due process had been followed in terms of the UNP constitution which had to be voted on at the convention and then implemented. Premadasa also confirmed that there was a role for Ranil Wickremesinghe in the future within the UNP as much as every member who has a role to play. “Every one of our members has a role to play and to ensure that the party would be victorious”, he concluded.

By Faraz Shauketaly In Killinochchi – Photos by Chanaka Ratnaweera / MEDIA Colombo

In a trailblazing move, the Cabinet of Ministers held its weekly pow-wow in the northern town of Killinochchi. The move was met with mixed reactions in Colombo but in the former LTTE stronghold of Killinochchi, the move was greeted with great enthusiasm.

Killinochchi Gamini Gunaratna tank

The town itself had taken on a carnival atmosphere, the streets were bedecked with Sri Lankan flags and the school children and government officials had all put on their Sunday best for the visiting Sri Lankan President and his Cabinet of Ministers as well as assorted Ministry Secretaries and others. Some of the students were studying in a building which had its roof probably blown off during the LTTE years. The point was to showcase their plight to the visiting Education Minister, as well as the President and others.

Picture of Mahinda Rajapaksa at tamasha in Kilinochchi and Kilinochchi Iranamadu Dam

No one in Killinochchi faulted the President for pitching up with his Cabinet. An enterprising young woman who ran a small tea kiosk not far from the 58th Division Headquarters, told me that she wished – no prayed – that “God would allow the President to come to Killinochchi everyday” as business was booming and that the President attracts lots of people and the town was very full indeed.

The reaction in Colombo was one of incredulity and downright disgust at the apparent impunity with which the government has spent non-existent monies on taking the Cabinet to the former rebel stronghold. The majority of the ministers were flown in with some going back by road – a clear indication that costs were not quite saved as the ministerial backup vehicles would have made the journey to Killinochchi in any event.

The President however was keen to point out that it was not always commercial considerations that mattered. To get things done, it was essential for the ministers to be on hand on the ground. It was far easier to meet the rest of officialdom, identify and resolve issues there and then. The President’s actions, rather reminiscent of the “hands-on” action of President Ranasinghe Premadasa, was in fact welcomed by most though there were the usual sour-grapes remarks from within the Cabinet too.

Said a couple of one-time senior ministers presently downgraded in Cabinet, “Nothing much was discussed. The fuel reductions were already on the cards. It was nothing much of a meeting.” There was intense speculation as to the cost – a helicopter ride of 25 minutes duration each way costs in the region of US$ 2,500. Even the use of air force equipment would mean a cost of around US$ 2,000 for the same journey. It is entirely feasible that 10 round trips – with each journey ferrying perhaps six ministers – cost in the region of US$ 15,000. Then there was the cost of hiring the audio visual paraphernalia, all of which was transported by road from Colombo using a private company.

The cost of security was also immense though to charge the entire cost to the Cabinet itself would have been an unfair comparison; the armed forces having a considerably large contingent in place in the Killinochchi area in any event. It did not detract from the fact that there were armed personnel – either Army or Police – each 100 yards on both sides of the A9 in Killinochchi. It was probably a jolly good strategy that foreigners were not allowed into Killinochchi anyway as the conclusions likely to be drawn was that the North was very much under forces occupation.
The Cabinet, chaired by the President, discussed matters that were relevant to the area: demining for a start. The President pointed out that much of the demining effort and indeed cost, was led by none other than the Government of Sri Lanka, whilst acknowledging the foreign contribution mainly by Australia.

Killinochchi the former LTTE administrative headquarters cantonment was really not able to cope with the great number of additional visitors who had gravitated towards the town from places as far as Tangalle. There was no real hotel to speak of let alone a decent enough guest house. Yet the visitors made do, in the process visiting many of the monuments to a war victory well won by the armed forces. The war monument at Elephant Pass was a popular stop as was the tank that made a hero posthumously of Corporal Gamini Kularatne.

The pristine board announcing “Elephant Pass Rest House” was of course nothing more than a mirage as our attempts to find it was met with a stern rebuke from young Army personnel who demanded to know if we did not know that there was no rest house now. Oh dear, here’s me thinking that as part of the reconstruction work they had also refurbished the rest house and its board and had opened for business. No no no, they assured me, that was in the past, now we have just the ruins. And the sign board of course. Quite!

Ranil Wickremesinghe at long last was seen to actually make a positive contribution towards good governance in this country. It was not lost on the majority of people of whatever political hue and persuasion. RW’s meeting with the President to discuss constitutional reforms was actually brokered by that veteran of UNP stalwarts, former Chairman, accountant and textile magnate Malik Samarawickrama. Samarawickrama, a long standing confidant of Ranil Wickremesinghe and most certainly a UNP loyalist, returned from an overseas trip to broker a deal between the government and the UNP. In a meeting that lasted approximately an hour, Samarawickrama and President Rajapaksa discussed matters freely and fairly.

The former Chairman of the UNP has a number of angles, all of which lead towards the Rajapaksas. For example Samarawickrama is in an unique position to explain to the President quite just how the issue of GSP+ would affect garment manufacturers. The appealing nature of Samarawickrama as far as the President was concerned is that Samarawickrama was able to be discreet of his discussions with the President and that Malik was able to be direct, unambiguous and give a realistic version of how GSP+ would or would not affect garment industries in Sri Lanka. Additionally of course Malik explained the mechanics of the troubles that were the UNP.

The President readily agreed to Malik’s suggestion that he enter into a dialogue with the Leader of the Opposition on returning Sri Lanka to an Executive Prime Ministerial type of governance. The former Chairman of the UNP having set the scene up – of which he was quite proud of — then sent in the cavalry in the form of Ranil Wickremesinghe and his senior aides to discuss modalities with the President. On the day of the meeting with the Wickremesinghe delegation, Malik had a one on one with the President who told him that senior government ministers did not really trust Wickremesinghe and that in fact they wished that the President distanced himself from him.

Malik countered this by assuring the President that Wickremesinghe’s intentions were purely in the interest of the country and there was no other agenda behind it. Samarawickrama who is something of an established rugby aficionado has a good relationship with the younger Rajapaksa who also share Malik’s passion for rugby. Some of the Rajapaksas commented on how genuine Malik’s intentions were rather than letting partisan politics cloud his judgement. No reason to think that Malik will be branded a traitor then.

Finally the meeting was held and when it finished one of the UNPers said that he hoped that the President would not take this round of discussions to repeat what he had earlier done: taking over UNP MPs. The President reacted by saying that it was they who came and not that he canvassed them. He challenged the statement by saying that GL and Karu Jayasuriya were also here and we could ask them now the circumstances of their crossover. Ranil saved the day for probably all concerned when he said that it was time to let by-gones be by-gones and that we should work together.

The long awaited report on reforms within the United National Party (UNP) was delivered to its Leader and immediately led to charges that Wickremesinghe was merely buying time and prolonging the agony that is the opposition in Sri Lanka. The proposals will now be forwarded ‘without delay’ to the party’s Working Committee who will then send along their proposal to the National Convention. There will be a clear 30 day lead time to notice the members of the National Convention which was due to be held on August 7.

It is now expected to be pushed back even further – a clear indication that the UNP is continuing a highly publicised debate on its party leadership issues whilst the business of governance carried on without an opposition who appeared to be listing as each day goes by. Some stalwarts said that they expect that even in six months’ time the UNP would still have Ranil Wickremesinghe as the leader of the party, a sure indication of the level of despair that even party members have come down to – let alone voter apathy for the UNP. Monday next sees the Working Committee debating the proposed reforms.

The commitment on the part of the Sri Lankan government to providing a solution to the establishment of a lasting peace amongst all communities certainly appears to be real. Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Leader from within the Conference Room at Army Headquarters, Iranamadu, Senior Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne confirmed that the government was in fact addressing the issue of the Tamil worries and fears. He acknowledged that clearly there was a case as evidenced by the fact that there was a concentrated effort made by the Tamil community to try and solve their issues themselves – hence the war.

Saying that this administration more than any other had spent more on northern development and continued to do so, he said that and the full implementation of the 13th Amendment would go a long way in allaying minority fears and would be a significant contributor to fostering trust amongst the majority and the minority.  Whilst the people appear to have copious quantities of hope, on the face of it they appear not to have hope in trust.

By Kalana Senaratne

The panel and its mandate

Ban Ki-Moon and President Rajapaksa

The statement attributable to the UNSG’s spokesperson, issued on June 22, refers to the fact that the UNSG had appointed a panel of experts which will “advise him (the UNSG) on the issue of accountability” concerning alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed during the final stages of the war. The panel “will look into the modalities, applicable international standards and comparative experience with regard to accountability processes, taking into account the nature and scope of any alleged violations in Sri Lanka.” Also, “It will be available as a resource to Sri Lankan authorities should they wish to avail themselves of its expertise in implementing the commitment.”

The mandate does not refer to ‘investigation’. That needs to be appreciated. However, conflicting reports seem to float around. Some news reports suggest that the Chairman of the Panel (M. Darusman) has referred to the word ‘investigation’. If so, some clarification would be necessary. One doesn’t know whether the UNSG has given a different brief to the panel, because Darusman ought to have known the serious connotations attached to the word.

There is also the following phrase: “In the conduct of its mandate, the Panel hopes to cooperate with concerned officials in Sri Lanka.” Here again, there are conflicting news reports. ‘Cooperation’, one would believe, involves, or should involve, an element of travelling; in this case, to Sri Lanka. But when the government issued its response stating that the panel-members will not be granted visa, a clarification was issued by the UN that the members were not required to travel. Here again, the UNSG’s office is either contradicting itself, or is trying to please a different number of actors simultaneously.

Then, there is the question of ‘bias’. This accusation of bias concerns the composition of the panel. But this issue needs to be viewed in some perspective.

The UN has, at most times, faced this problem when appointing such panels. Fundamentally, such problems are bound to arise, because on the one hand there is the need to ensure that there is no bias, but on the other hand, there is also the need to ensure that certain eminent or well known persons are appointed. The UN/UNHRC ran into some problems when it decided to establish the fact-finding mission concerning Gaza.

When former Irish President Mary Robinson declined the invitation to head the fact-finding mission which looked into the Israeli attacks, there was the setting up of the ‘Goldstone panel’; which included Judge Richard Goldstone, Desmond Travers, Hina Jilani and Christine Chinkin. The problem here was not about ‘eminence’. All of them, in particular Judge Goldstone and Prof. Chinkin (of LSE) were extremely eminent legal scholars. The problem was that all of them had, prior to their appointment, issued letters which vehemently condemned the Israeli attacks; Judge Goldstone, Travers and Jilani via an Amnesty International petition stating that they were ‘shocked to the core’ by Israeli action, and in the case of Prof. Chinkin, it was through a letter published in British Sunday Times, stating that the Israeli bombardment of Gaza was not a case of self-defence but a war-crime.

There is, in that regard, some concern with regard to Marzuki Darusman; mainly due to his involvement in the ‘Udalagama Commission of Inquiry’, via the IIGEP. Yet, if then, that same argument of ‘bias’ can and should be raised against Sri Lanka’s own domestic commissioners as well; particularly with regard to the chairman of the recently appointed ‘Lessons Learnt’ Commission.

Finally, there is the following: that the panel will be “available as a resource to Sri Lankan authorities should they wish to avail themselves of its expertise in implementing the commitment.” Such words sound comforting, no doubt. But this is where matters turn serious. What happens if the Sri Lankan authorities do not wish to avail themselves of the panel’s expertise? Would the UN respect the government’s discretion? I do not think so. Such inaction would be used against Sri Lanka and it is felt that Sri Lanka should have stated, that while it opposed the establishment of the Panel, it would be willing to take note of the recommendations once the final report is made available.

One cannot predict, conclusively, what these recommendations are going to be. In general, much of what can be recommended is contained in the work of another member of the panel, Prof. Steven Ratner (see Steven R. Ratner and Jason A. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law, Second Ed., 2001), wherein the general impression formed by the authors about the Sri Lankan conflict seems to be that both governmental and non-governmental forces in Sri Lanka have been involved in the commission of atrocities.

The politics of the UN and the West

In these matters which involve the UN, one needs to be mindful of the ‘bigger picture’: the ‘international factor’, which is an eclectic mix of numerous actors, playing different roles.
The fundamental problem as regards the position of the UNSG is that it is the most glorified bureaucratic position in the world; very simply because the UN organization is the largest bureaucracy in the world. The preservation of that bureaucratic role, in turn, depends to a large extent, on the goodwill of the major powers (this would include the Permanent Members of the Security Council, the major financial contributors to the UN budget etc.). Every single UNSG needs to be mindful of the pressure that can, and would, be exerted not only by the ‘West’, but also by the ‘Rest’ (Ban Ki-Moon would be mindful of the fall of former UNSGs Boutros Ghali due to the US veto, and Kurt Waldheim due to the Chinese veto), and that the role of the UNSG is, to a great extent, shaped and formed according to the interests of the major powers in the world.

In this regard, it needs to be noted that ‘political power’ exerted by the major powers is a problem that affects the roles of many others within the UN structure. Take, for instance, the principal judicial organ of the UN – the International Court of Justice. It is well known within international law academia — and as a couple of leading European scholars have pointed out during lectures — that one significant factor which stood in the way of the re-election of Sri Lanka’s Judge C.G. Weeramantry was the US’s dissatisfaction with Judge Weeramantry’s strong Dissenting Opinion — in the ICJ’s Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, 1996.
To return to the case of Sri Lanka, all this means that the UNSG cannot ignore the pressure exerted by certain Members of the UN against Sri Lanka. Psychologically, there is also that tremendous desire to act (‘to do something’ and show the world that he is doing something) with regard to a small case like Sri Lanka, because the UNSG would have realised that he is utterly helpless when it comes to doing anything of serious importance or value with regard to other major crises in the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Israel etc.).

So, there is pressure that comes principally from the Western powers (and of course from the separatist elements elsewhere). But this Western block is one which has unfortunately lost its moral and ethical right to ask other states to respect international law; largely due to the horrible precedent set in the form of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the cunning and deliberate efforts made by the US and the UK to change the rules of international law, the ‘rules of the game’ (especially on the use of force, humanitarian/human rights law), and to legitimize everything in the name of the ‘Global War on Terror’ and the 9/11 ‘Grotian moment’ which calls for changes in the law (did the West also forget that Sri Lanka’s war on terror started decades ago?).

But also, take a very simple example such as the voting pattern of the 10th (Israel) and 11th (Sri Lanka) Special Sessions of the UNHRC. It was almost the same block of States which voted against Sri Lanka, that had abstained from voting during the 10th Special Session on Israel (that block includes the following: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the UK in particular). What more of ‘Western legitimacy’?

If then, in a world where the US and the UK can easily escape from being held accountable for the atrocities committed by them and where the UN and the UNSG have been unable to establish any viable accountability process, the West does not have a moral right to be serious about ‘accountability’ vis-à-vis Sri Lanka. As a believer in the critical third-world approach to international law, such double-standards and ‘Western hegemony’ should not be allowed to prevail. Rather, as Profs. Tony Anghie and BS Chimni have argued, the West and the UN — when dealing with the issue of accountability concerning internal conflict situations — should place greater emphasis on the wishes of the people within the State. This is of extreme importance, because unlike in an ‘international’ or ‘inter-State’ conflict, the UN needs to be mindful of the serious issue of ‘ethnic reconciliation’ that has arisen in the case of post-war Sri Lanka.

‘Post-war’ Sri Lanka: problems and contradictions

Now, having said all that, one needs to return to Sri Lanka. While this over arching global picture points to a significant erosion of ‘Western’ legitimacy and that of the role of the UN in general, the question that needs to be asked is; what of Sri Lankan legitimacy? Has Sri Lanka acted responsibly, especially since the end of the war? Sadly, this is not so.

Firstly, the political leadership, in addressing the issue of ‘accountability’ conveniently forgot that it had made a political commitment in that regard, in May 2009, in the UNSG – President Rajapaksa ‘Joint Communiqué’ and that the Resolution (S-11/1) adopted at the UNHRC 11th Special Session endorsed the “joint communiqué issued at the conclusion of the visit and the understandings contained therein.” Much could have been done by the Sri Lankan political leadership. But procrastination crept in. Also, very little was done by the government to ensure that a comprehensive and detailed response to the allegations leveled against its armed forces was issued, or in the case of specific incidents of serious crimes, a proper investigation took place. Instead, it took one year to appoint a ‘Lessons Learnt’ Commission, which, again, does not address the underlying problems concerning the need for independent and impartial investigations, or even a broad reconciliation process.

Secondly, related to this was a certain arrogance Sri Lanka showed in its diplomatic dealings. One such case was the unceremonious sacking of its Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Dayan Jayatilleka. This was a serious strategic blunder; not only because of the most successful and vital role played by Dr. Jayatilleka, but also because Sri Lanka proved to the ‘international community’ that: a) it was not too concerned about the impression it creates in the eyes of its supporters right in the middle of such a crucial diplomatic centre as Geneva, and b) it believed, naively, that the threat of an ‘international investigation’ had become non-existent (had vanished) soon after victory was secured at the 11th Special Session.

Thirdly, Sri Lanka is beginning (if it has not, already) to look very much like Israel. Firstly, it blocked Canadian MP Bob Rae and now, it states that no visa will be granted to the UNSG — panel members. Countering Western hegemony is not done through the rejection of visas. (One also remembers the way in which Israel blocked the members of the Goldstone mission and UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk). And in another sense, Sri Lanka too seems to be engaged in ‘double-standards’. There was a time, somewhere in March 2009, when reports appeared that the Israeli Ambassador (in Delhi) had visited Colombo to lodge an official complaint concerning the strong anti-Israel remarks of Sri Lanka’s then PRUN in Geneva (Dr. Jayatilleka). But today, Sri Lanka is seen heading an inquiry which looks into Israel’s human rights violations. There’s something terribly wrong here.

Fourthly, there certainly could have been greater domestic political consensus on the question of how Sri Lanka should address the issue of an alleged ‘war-crimes’ investigation. This did not happen, and the reasons are well known.

Conclusion

Sri Lanka should realise that it cannot (and should not) depend and rely on the goodwill and sympathy of a few major powers (China, Russia, India) to help it always overcome the threat of an ‘international investigation’. Such dependency doesn’t do any good, and doesn’t take the country forward. What Sri Lanka needs to do is to take principal control of this issue, and rely on the support of her powerful friends when and where necessary. That can happen only if, inter alia, there is a much more broader and genuine ethnic reconciliation process. That cannot be done only by a few lawyers and bureaucrats. It should involve the people, belonging to all segments of society.
(Kalana Senaratne, LL.B, LL.M (University College London), is currently a post-graduate research student at the University of Hong Kong)

Sri Lanka has a new dimension: it has the world’s largest concentration of God’s Forgotten Children. A government that has won a 30-year old bloody uprising that saw the mindless slaughter of its own people by its own people and whose end eluded successive administrations, appears incapable of bringing peace to the island – and an opposition whose leader has had to resort to writing his own column in a weekend newspaper to sing his own praises.

Has Sri Lanka really descended to such depths of despair that the only ropes of hope are the pages of a weekend newspaper who in their generosity invited Ranil Wickremesinghe to praise himself in those august pages? A country whose people are lavish in their welcome and whose smile is globally one of the better brands, is unable to be so fortunate as to have a real opposition – so necessary to have checks and balances in any democratic society leave alone one emerging from the horrors of a virtual apocalypse better known as the separatist war.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, the beleaguered leader of the opposition and the United National Party, in whose care the stewardship has been for 16 turbulent years, has had to resort to defending himself in a Sunday newspaper instead of responding directly to The Sunday Leader that had raised questions concerning finances and other practices that was considered sharp practice at the least. And once again Wickremesinghe’s judgment is suspect. Instead of taking on the accusations, he has all but retreated into a shell, only to delegate the clearing up process to a long standing friend and political partner. His reaction, or lack of it rather, leaves one to wonder if taken as a whole, Ranil Wickremesinghe is not suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome (AS).

The symptoms are plainly visible to even a casual observer. Asperger’s Syndrome is defined as “a developmental disorder that affects one’s ability to socialize and communicate effectively with others.

Sufferers with Asperger’s Syndrome typically exhibit social awkwardness and an all-absorbing interest in specific topics”. Typically the disorder causes, one to a) engage in one-sided, long-winded conversations, without noticing if the listener is listening or trying to change the subject (b) to display unusual nonverbal communication, such as lack of eye contact, few facial expressions, or awkward body postures and gestures (c) showing an intense obsession with one or two specific, narrow subjects, such as financial statistics, train schedules, weather or snakes and the achievements of past leaders (d) appearing not to understand, empathize with or be sensitive to others’ feelings (e) having a hard time ‘reading’ other people or understanding humor (f) speaking in a voice that is monotonous, rigid or unusually fast. All the above however spells disaster for any politician but most tellingly, is a catastrophe to sprightly and vibrant opposition expectations within 40% of this country’s voters.

As the UNP continues at a leisurely pace with its proposed reforms, with much negative hopes amongst members of its Working Committee, the business of administering the country goes on unabated.

At the Cabinet Meeting held on Wednesday night, the ministers was informed of a problem at the Jayewardenegama Housing Scheme. This rather ancient housing scheme had a few houses – around 20 in number – which were allocated as government quarters. A number of those residents have by now clearly overstayed the facility granted and had even retired from service. There were allegations that some had even sold on their rights and moved on – a clear breach of the rules. Some of the residents had filed action and had their case thrown out even at the Appeal Court. The lower court had issued a deadline of 14th May by which they were asked to vacate the premises with fiscal powers to be used thereafter to secure possession after eviction.

Ministers Susil Premajayantha and A. H. M. Fowzie opposed the sanctioning of the eviction; Dr Rajitha Senaratne, on whom the President seeks guidance on land matters, explained the legal process which had followed this matter. He explained the fact that a court had ordered the eviction and that the residents had lost at the Court of Appeal too. The President who had listened intently to the arguments being put forward said that the cabinet cannot intervene with a matter that was clearly decided upon by the judiciary. There was no facility for the cabinet to be involved in subverting the jurisdiction of the court said the President. The only time that the cabinet had actively done so was in the national interest when the Supreme Court ordered the fuel prices to be brought down to Rs 100, he said.

The Disaster Management Minister Fowzie wanted the cabinet to ignore the entire issue. President Rajapaksa emphasising that to ignore the judiciary was impossible said that he could understand Fowzie saying that but not when Susil Premajayantha said the same thing as he was a lawyer and the lawyer was trying to ignore a court order. No, this will not do said the President. We will take a decision that the law must be the law and that the Cabinet of Ministers had merely noted these events and that the due process must be followed including the use of fiscal powers if need be.

The President added that in the past it was only when it was monumentally in the national interest had the cabinet ignored the judiciary; he said that when the Supreme Court ordered the reduction of fuel prices the Cabinet had stepped in but that was incomparable to this issue now. He declined to accede to Fowzie’s line of thinking.

A paper was presented proposing the payment of gratuities to CTB (Ceylon Transport Board) employees. It was suggested that the Treasury handle this. Gamini Lokuge suggested that the Central Bank be asked to handle this and make arrangements and provision. President Rajapaksa insisted that the matter be looked upon immediately and that a solution be decided upon very quickly as it was unfair that these people were unable to get their gratuity money after having worked for so long just because the CTB had spent those monies too. The President was reminded that a committee had been appointed to which the President responded by saying that the committee must then take a decision very quickly.

Secretary to the Cabinet, Sumith Abeysingha who was previously at the Treasury and who made way to accommodate Dr. P. B. Jayasundera when he returned to the Treasury Secretary’s post, presented a paper on ‘Advisors to Ministers.’ John Seneviratna had proposed that there be a limit of two per minister. Bandula Gunawardena said the problem however appeared to be that previously there was no such limit and ministers had a lot more leeway leading to the present unhappiness. “That,” said the President, “is precisely why the people had given us a 2/3rd majority to correct such poor practices so that we could correct the situation,” giving his nod in effect to limiting the ministers to two advisors.

Rishard Badiudeen said “No sir, we got 2/3rd this time because there were so many advisers the last time” at which point the entire cabinet broke out in laughter and the President quipped, “That’s a good one”. The President however declined to support any more than the two per minister as proposed.
The cabinet took on a more sober attitude when the President asked Professor G. L. Peiris to explain about the GSP+ issue. Professor Peiris explained that the EEC had extended the GSP+ facility for a further six months on the strict understanding that the Government of Sri Lanka would undertake to comply with various requirements. There were a set of 15 requirements said Peiris.

The Minister of External Affairs had a rapt audience taking in every word as did President Rajapaksa. The Minister explained that some of the requirements asked for by the European Union was impossible to comply with within the time period of six months as it required amendments to the constitution as well as passing legislation to amend various parliamentary acts. With some of the requirements, he said, there was a clear invasion of sovereign rights – like the imposition of conditions insisting on the implementation of the 17th Amendment. That, said Peiris, was not acceptable to any country which had even a modicum of self-respect.

The Professor went on, “they want us to repeal the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) as well”. President Rajapaksa said that the Sri Lankan delegation had made a good presentation to the EU on the GSP+ issue. However, he said that despite this presentation, the EU had succumbed to the pressures and lobbying of people like President Chandrika Kumaratunga and some NGOs run by people like Weliamuna and Paikiasothy (Saravanamuttu). In fact, he said, the EU team had these people’s reports in their hands when they were discussing with the Sri Lankan team. The President did not bother concealing his disgust or anger “at the antics” as he termed it, of these NGOs.

Defiant, the President said it was imperative we do not rely on foreign aid. The aid they promise comes with a number of strings attached which are not always for the benefit of our people, he said. The situation is now ripe, said the President, to move forward — unafraid to develop the country’s economy. He urged his colleagues to focus on this aspect of government policy. The President said that when our foreign reserves were at an all time low of about US$ 1 billion, the exchange rate was Rs 108 to the US Dollar. The reserves were now US$ 6 Billion. The President reminded his colleagues that the current rates were being held artificially through Central Bank decisions in order to aid exporters.

The President was keen to point out that the GSP+ cost the exporter 15 percent but that on the other hand he had intervened to keep the USD exchange rate favourable to the exporter. At the end of the day, said the President, the exporters will have to decide what they wanted: the 15% or the favourable exchange rate in mitigation.  This comment however seemed an exercise in denial and was of little relevance to the GSP+ conditions and ultimate withdrawal.

Pavithra Wanniarachchi suggested that Sri Lanka go for a retaliatory import tax of 15 percent on imports from the EEC; Champika Ranawaka said that might be too extreme.

Meanwhile, the President said that over 300,000 IDPs had been resettled and efforts were being made to release all by the end of the year. He commented how “at the beginning the foreigners were critical of us saying that we were putting up permanent structures in the camps questioning our intentions.

But we were only going for quality unlike some of the structures put up by UN agencies that had collapsed as the quality was poor. Even with the demining process just one or two units were funded and that too by Australia. The other eight units were paid for by the Sri Lankan Treasury, indicating our commitment to the entire resettlement process.”

The President also responded to D.E.W Gunasekera who said that about 600 female cadres had been rehabilitated by stating that he was aware of that but also aware that a number of these people had become beggars in Matara and that the President had no idea why and how that had come about.
G. L.  Peiris had not quite finished: he told his colleagues that Denmark and Spain had opposed Sri Lanka the hardest, Germany was flexible with Italy being fully supportive of Sri Lanka. Professor Peiris was particularly piqued that the EU wanted an undertaking in writing from the Sri Lankan Government that the conditions would be met.

Champika Ranawaka said that the opposition would now create a fear-psychosis amongst the people by claiming that factories would be closed as a result of the GSP+ issue. The President said “that is why, I said at the Victory Day event that we must not depend on foreign aid and that we must develop our economy.” The President wanted the message on the inequality or unfairness of the EU proposals to be made known to the people. Take the message to them he said to his ministers. The President said some of these matters may well be implemented by the Government of Sri Lanka in good time but not when dictated to by foreign powers.

In conclusion, Professor Peiris said that the EU requirements were lop-sided and that even the Ambassadors of Germany and the UK in Sri Lanka had told him that these conditions were unfair. G. L. Peiris said that despite these statements, the letter from Kathy Ashton and Karl De Guscht was proof of their double standards, as in the opening paragraph it said that they welcomed Sri Lanka’s actions in the past few months.

After the Cabinet Meeting was over, a group of four ministers were gathered discussing the GSP+ and G. L. Peiris’ explanation. One of them said it was ironic that both Denmark and Spain were represented in Sri Lanka by a husband and wife team. A Minister who is always attired in a suit said that was right, that it was Harry Jayawardena and his wife Priya and that Harry had been recently appointed a knight by the Danish Queen and that Priya Jayawardena was looking after King Juan Carlos’ interests in Sri Lanka. The talk switched to what the President had said earlier, that NGOs and CBK were at the forefront of lobbying against Sri Lanka. The suit attired Minister said that Harry had sent his daughter to a tea party hosted by the Muzammil’s where Anoma Fonseka had been the chief guest during the presidential campaign and that Harry had met Anura Kumara Dissanayake too at the same location.

One of his colleagues then quipped that now that Harry has been brought into the government fold again, perhaps he would keep the Danes better informed of his President’s efforts to solve the Northern issues and may even ask his wife to do the same with the Spanish King.

Meanwhile the opposition’s reaction to the whole GSP+ issue and others has been typical. Having declined from a responsible opposition to an irresponsible bunch of losers, their knee-jerk reactions to burning issues in the country is nothing short of pathetic.

Reacting to the GSP+ development the UNP’s Ravi Karunanayake said that it shows to what low ebbs the relationship between the EU and Sri Lanka had descended. Karunanayake said that when the EU asks for a written commitment from Sri Lanka, there was no doubt that there existed a severe problem.

Karunanayake said that it was ironic that all the EU was trying to do was to ask the Sri Lankan government to implement its own constitution. Commenting on the President’s statement about the exchange rate and the GSP+ issue, Karunanayake said that it highlighted the naivety of the governments’ economic policies.

At least Ravi Karunanayake for better or for worse, is trying.  Unfortunately, with a leader running in all directions minus his compass Karunanayake’s utterances amount to nothing short of a damp squib.