Mawbima News

The Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) says the characterization of the final phase of the war by the President of the nation as a &#8220humanitarian operation&#8221 does not bode nicely with his Government’s guarantee of a credible inquiry.

TCSL Co-Spokesman, Elil Rajan in a letter UN Particular Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth has mentioned &#8220We also would like to remind you that the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka in his speech to the UNHRC on the 2nd of March stated that only UN assistance will be sought and not involvement. Hence in the absence of substantial international involvement in the design and delivery of an accountability mechanism and offered the attitude of the present Government towards the credible allegations against the armed forces we have no explanation to think in the Sirisena Government’s promise of a credible internal inquiry.&#8221

We publish under the letter in full

Kilinochchi

01 April 2015

Mr. Pablo de Greiff

UN Specific Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth,

Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence

 

Dear Mr. de Greiff,

&nbsp

Transitional Justice and Domestic Mechanisms for its realization in Sri Lanka.

We are thankful for your visit to Kilinochchi today and take this chance to spot on record in writing, particular troubles of significance that we hope to raise with you in your brief meeting with us these days.

1. Lack of progress to date in initiating a process of consultation with victims in designing an internal mechanism in pursuit of truth and justice.

The Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) sought and was granted a deferral of the report of the OHCHR Inquiry on Sri Lanka (OISL) on the promise of placing in spot a credible internal mechanism in the pursuit of truth and justice in Sri Lanka.

(Please see attached marked as ‘A1’ our letter to the High Commissioner on the deferral of the report and marked as ‘A2’ our statement on the decision to defer the report).

There was no credible proposal in the public domain that the Government had place out when it sought the deferral. The UN Human Rights Commissioner in his address to the Council on the 5^th of March 2015 insisted that GoSL ought to consult the victims in designing this internal mechanism. To date no such approach has been initiated[1].

The Prime Minister of Sri Lanka throughout a recent pay a visit to to Jaffna[two] has mentioned that discussions are underway with the help of the South African Government to set up a Truth Commission. He further elaborated that the suggestions of Sir Desmond de Silva, a single of the authorities appointed by the prior Government to guidance the Presidential Commission on Missing Persons, has been tasked with identifying the legal framework required to provide for such an internal mechanism. The existing Government has also decided to let the Presidential Commission on Missing Persons continue its investigations regardless of its flawed mandate and modus operandi.

(Please see attached, marked as ‘A3’ the statement by the Tamil Civil Society Forum and the Welfare Organisation of the relatives of these forcibly disappeared communicating our decision to not to attend any additional hearings of the Commission)

We submit that it is a lot more than clear from the above that the existing Government has accomplished very small or absolutely nothing to seek the advice of the victims in the style of its internal mechanism. The entirety of the method is becoming made in secrecy. From what has been produced public GoSL is attempting to show progress by rehashing the previous regime’s approach of talking to the South Africans and utilizing the solutions of a particular person whose credibility and standing are very suspect.

2. Lack of political will in the pursuit of truth and justice.

In a speech delivered in Parliament lately the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka stated as follows:

“As you are aware, in the spirit of operating in harmony with the international community, the Government has extended invitations to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. Some sections of the former regime contact this a betrayal of the armed forces. Nonetheless, this is furthest from the truth. Our objective, Hon. Speaker, is to clear the name of our armed forces who have received wide international recognition as expert and disciplined forces”[3].

The Foreign Minister’s assertion that the objective of his Government’s engagement with the UN (and concomitantly the guarantee to establish a domestic mechanism) is to ‘clear the name of the armed forces’ is deeply problematic.

The Government’s partiality towards the armed forces was produced even clearer by President Sirisena in the order that he issues granting Common Sarath Fonseka with the title of Field Marshal. In that order the President asserted that Sarath Fonseka is bestowed with the honourary rank of Field Marshal for ‘outstanding gallantry, meritorious efficiency and distinguished service to the nation in the course of the humanitarian operation and the defeat of terrorism in Sri Lanka in May 2009’[four]. The characterization of the last phase of the war by the President of the country as a humanitarian operation does not bode well with his Government’s guarantee of a credible inquiry. These statements by the President and the Foreign Minister we are afraid show no departure from the policy adopted by the former Government on accountability.

We also would like to remind you that the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka in his speech to the UNHRC on the two^nd of March said that only UN help will be sought and not involvement[5]. Therefore in the absence of significant international involvement in the design and delivery of an accountability mechanism and provided the attitude of the present Government towards the credible allegations against the armed forces we have no cause to believe in the Sirisena Government’s promise of a credible internal inquiry.

3. On the exhaustion of domestic remedies:

The point is repeatedly made that domestic treatments will have to be exhausted for an international process to be entrusted with the burden of discharging accountability. Beneath the former Government the UN method concluded that the domestic treatments had been exhausted and that there was no political will for accountability[6]. With the removal of the former Government by the Sirisena Government the argument is made afresh that domestic treatments will have to be again demonstrated to have been exhausted. The UN system took 5 years to conclude that domestic remedies had been exhausted with the earlier regime. We worry that any efforts at locating truth and justice will be totally washed away as the argument is becoming produced once again that domestic treatments will have to be verified to be inadequate again below the new regime.

We think that the domestic treatments exhaustion criterion ought to be viewed a lot more holistically by very carefully searching at the contextual and structural factors that historically clarify the lack of accountability and the pervasive nature of impunity in Sri Lanka. A closer evaluation of these aspects will aid much better explain as to why impunity reigned not just below the previous regime but also beneath all successive governments in the previous 40-50 years.

Our understanding is that a vast majority of the Sinhala Buddhist population in the South condones the war and impunity for violations committed in its name as a necessary and unavoidable price in the try to retain the united and unitary character of the state. Hence even really minimal action taken against the Sri Lankan Armed Forces has been interpreted as a betrayal of the Sinhala Buddhist Nation and an act that amounts to siding with foreign, alien powers that seek to include and destroy the Sinhala Buddhist nation-state of Sri Lanka. In this imagination Tamils, Western Governments, the UN and all these who demand accountability are regarded as to be participants of the foreign conspiracy that is seeking to break the unity and territorial integrity of the state.

It is most unfortunate not even the Sirisena Government is willing to tackle this fear by addressing it straight. No Government in post-independent Ceylon/Sri Lanka has made an attempt to address these issues honestly and hence unsurprisingly Sinhala Buddhist ideology has received democratic endorsement repeatedly at Sri Lankan elections. This is why even President Sirisena was unwilling to make any substantive guarantee with regard to accountability in his election manifesto and in truth repeatedly claimed that it is his victory alone that will be able to safeguard the former President from international attempts at holding him to account. Post-elections, we are witnessing a continuation of this dormant and idle political technique of wooing the Sinhala Buddhist vote base. The very best example of this is how the deferral of the OISL report is being trumpeted as a main victory for the Sirisena Government with an eye on the upcoming Common elections. Unless the Sirisena Government is willing to accept and clarify to its electorate that the violations committed by the Sri Lankan Army were morally wrong there is no real hope for accountability and non-recurrence. As an individual who believes that transitional justice need to be viewed from a contextual and holistic picture we believe that you will understand the complicated set of factors that very best aids us understand historically the lack of accountability for the violations committed in the troubled history of post war-Ceylon/ Sri Lanka.

4. The need to have for criminal prosecutions as portion of a holistic transitional justice programme in Sri Lanka.

We are provided to comprehend that criminal prosecutions will not function in the internal mechanism design that the current Government is drawing up. To tackle impunity and to ensure non-recurrence we believe that criminal prosecutions are an essential element of any transitional justice programme in Sri Lanka.

5. Institutional Reforms should encompass reform of the state structure.

A holistic transitional justice programme ought to consist of institutional reforms that will guarantee non-recurrence of mass atrocities. This is traditionally defined as institutional reforms of the security sector and the law enforcement authorities including the court system. We think that in the Sri Lankan context that this has to go even deeper. Unless the unitary character of the Sri Lankan State imagined and constructed around a Sinhala Buddhist Nation-State is abandoned Tamils will not feel safe in this island. This necessarily indicates an internationally mediated approach towards finding a sustainable and just political remedy. Such reforms need to also incorporate the repeal of draconian legislations such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

We conclude expressing hope that you will engage in fruitful discussions that lend towards a nuanced and honest assessment of the possibility of Transitional Justice in Sri Lanka.

(Signed)

Elil Rajendram

Co-Spokesperson

Tamil Civil Society Forum

---

&nbsp

[1] UN Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Opening Statement, 28^th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Offered at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15642#sthash.XXYsHubz.dpuf : “I urge the authorities to seek advice from deeply with the folks, especially victims, in order to design mechanisms that will work and not repeat the failures of the past”

[two] Video Footage of Public Meeting of the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in Jaffna, 27 March 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UquXJjUkQjI&ampfeature=youtu.be&ampt=10m7s

[three] Hansard, 18 March 2015, Column 216, available at http://parliament.lk/uploads/documents/hansard/1426856082005040.pdf

[4] Added Ordinary Gazette Notification No. 1906/51, (March 22, 2015) accessible at http://documents.gov.lk/Extgzt/2015/PDF/Mar/1906_51/1906_51%20E.pdf

[five] Complete text of the Statement delivered by Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and Leader of the Sri Lanka Delegation, at the High Level Segment of the 28th Session of Human Rights Council, 02 March 2015 offered at https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/foreign-affairs-minister-mangala-samaraweeras-unhrc-speech-these days-complete-text/

[six] Oral Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on on the promotion of accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka (24 February 2014) accessible at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.CRP.2_AV.doc.

By Wijayananda Jayaweera –

The new clause 26 of the proposed constitutional amendment permits private broadcasters to ignore the Election Commission&#8217s media recommendations if the broadcaster informs the EC in advance of its intention to assistance a distinct a political celebration of its decision. The very first version of this text even allowed the state broadcaster to take a partisan position throughout the election, but now the new text has restricted the partisan broadcasting only to private broadcasters. Irrespective of this alter what this provision makes it possible for is a completely ill advised practice which has all the potentials to undermine the conduct of a free of charge and fair elections. The need to go into such operational details about election associated media functions in a constitutional text is also unheard of.

Let me explain as to why this provision is an ill conceived 1.

I have no quarrel if a national newspaper requires a public stand to support a particular candidate or a political celebration during an election. The newspapers are published entirely by private enterprises without utilising any frequently owned public sources for its sustenance. The readers who wants to reinforce their personal electoral positions would free to obtain the newspaper which publicly assistance their preferred political position or the candidate.

But broadcasting is a fully different matter. Theoretically, each and every person of Sri Lanka can establish his or her newspaper, but scarcity of broadcast frequencies allows only few privileged persons to own and operate the broadcasting solutions. As a result, permitting private broadcasters to turn out to be partisans in the course of an election is certainly an abuse of that privilege. The private broadcasters, though are organised as private enterprises can not operate with no use of the spectrum, which is clearly a public property. The spectrum is allocated to both public and private broadcasters, below a licence, on the understanding that they have to supply must carry solutions in the public interest. A fair and extensive coverage of the election is a single of those have to carry solutions which should be provided by broadcasters, irrespective of their ownership sort.

This would imply that all broadcasters ought to give due weight to the coverage of main parties throughout the elections with suitable coverage to other parties and independent candidates with significant views and perspectives, thus enabling the voter to make a well informed choice.

Allowing private broadcasters to become partisan broadcasters throughout elections would skew the election benefits due to the fact it engages far a lot more significant financial interest and significantly more effective messaging from the strong groups. A biased report in a newspaper is just not the very same as biased manifested via Television. Following all selection of media does not operate in the very same way. If I am a proper wing supporter I only buy and study correct wing newspapers, so my selections are respected. But considering that Television is primarily an entertainment medium I watch the entertainment shows I like, whatever channels they are on. Thus, permitting private Tv channels to take sides during an election will be a excellent disadvantage to these parties and candidates who cannot retain the support of private broadcasters. This will produce a very uneven playing field for the contestants who are not supported by private broadcasters.

None of the current private broadcasting institutions are owned by means of a transparent and justifiable licencing method. As a result they are not really accountable to the audiences and there is no independent oversight authority to see that broadcast media functions in the public interest. On top of that, the proposed exemption which permits private broadcasters to ignore the suggestions established to make certain a fair coverage of elections, would make it even constitutional to skew the elections via partisan broadcasting by the strong.

Election is a time in which voters are expected to make properly believed out informed choices, largely based on the political experiences reflected through news media. Allegations of media bias are really common at election time and usually they are tough to either prove or disprove. But it is crucial to have a method of checks and balances specifically for broadcast media to look out for and right any imbalances in coverage. Were the camera shots and angles manipulative? Were the queries balanced? Have been the substantial viewpoints covered? Have been the opinion polls credible and expert ? and so on?

We know that the much more commercialised a particular media method is, much more probably it is that politics will be framed as a game rather than troubles. This sort of framing needs much less interest and expertise from the audience. It is precisely for that purpose why we require media guidelines which would compel the private broadcasters at least for the duration of the election occasions to engage their audiences much more as citizens than mere customers.

Can we truly assure a fair and honest coverage of electoral politics if we make it completely legal for the private broadcasters to turn into partisan and ignore the Election Commission&#8217s media suggestions?. It is true, that in the US the first amendment disallows regulating media behaviours in the course of elections, regardless of any objectionable or irresponsible election coverages they may do. But in all other established democracies obligation of fair, impartial and non partisan approach to election coverage is ensured across all variety of broadcasting media by way of guidelines on election coverages issued by an independent Election Commission.

For that reason, we must request the legislators to withdraw the proposed exemption which exclusively allows private broadcasting solutions to turn out to be partisan broadcasters for the duration of the elections, which is entirely unwarrented and undemocratic.

By Nihal Jayawickrama –

The Bill for the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been drafted, published in the Gazette and placed on the Order Paper of Parliament without having any opportunity for public consultation. As soon as a lot more, a government has arrogated to itself the sole energy to draft a constitution, ignoring the reality that the constitution belongs to the complete country and all its inhabitants. It is a social contract amongst the citizens and the state, whereby the folks agree to submit themselves to the energy of the state, and agree to the manner in which that power will be distributed, exercised and limited amongst the institutions of government. A constitution must not be the solution of political bargaining amongst competing political parties nor should it outcome from the application of the celebration whip.

The proposed Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution appears to have been drafted with care to reflect some of the commitments created in the typical programme of the typical candidate for the presidency which received the overwhelming support of all ethnic and religious groups of this nation. Nonetheless, a reading of the Bill reveals a number of provisions which, if enacted, could impede the governance of this nation, and interfere with the lives of ordinary Sri Lankans as nicely.

Access to Details

The proposed new Post 14A seeks to introduce a new fundamental proper, namely, the proper of access to info, notwithstanding the reality that the proper to seek, obtain and impart information is an element of the “freedom of speech and expression such as publication” which is currently guaranteed in Write-up 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. What is now needed is a substantive law that offers sensible effect to that basic right. Rather, what is being offered is a constitutional provision that reflects a significant misunderstanding of the concept of access to details. Post 14A seeks to grant every single citizen the basic appropriate of access to any information held by “any other person”, “being info that is needed for the physical exercise or protection of that citizen’s rights”. As far as I am aware, there is no legislation in any country in the globe that gives a citizen the right of access to information in the possession of yet another “person”.

The draftsman has apparently borrowed this provision from the 1996 Constitution of South Africa which was drafted in the context of the “secretive and unresponsive culture” that had prevailed beneath the apartheid regime. The draftsman appears to have ignored the truth that when substantive legislation was enacted in that nation, that error was rectified and the term “private bodies” was substituted for “persons”. In the absence of any such implementing legislation in Sri Lanka, will my neighbour now acquire a constitutional proper to intrude into the privacy of my property in search of info (possibly my study material !) that may be valuable to him for the goal of vindicating his rights in a court of law?

Access to info indicates a appropriate of access to information in documentary kind in the possession, custody or handle of departments of government or other public bodies constituted below the law for any public purpose. It is about open government and accountability and the strengthening of democratic processes. It is not about access to info in the possession of private individuals. Nor must the physical exercise of that correct be restricted below an omnibus clause that consists of grounds such as “the protection of overall health or morals” as stated in the Bill. Exempt documents are normally these that might prejudice a pending criminal investigation, info communicated in confidence by the government of a foreign state, trade secrets, but incomplete scientific investigation, and such like.

Presidential Immunity

The proposed new Report 35 continues to give the President with immunity from civil or criminal proceedings. An examination of comparative constitutions, which includes those of France, South Africa and the Republic of Korea, will reveal that such immunity is enjoyed only in monarchical states and not in democratic republics (where absolutely everyone is equal before the law and topic to the equal protection of the law). Even the President of the United States has not been granted any such immunity under the Constitution of that nation, although the Supreme Court has declined to situation judicial directions in respect of his official acts. Under the current and proposed provisions of the Constitution, even a president’s spouse is prohibited from instituting a civil action for divorce or for upkeep!

Acting President

The proposed new Report 37 states that anytime the President is absent from Sri Lanka or is otherwise unable to perform the functions of his office, the Speaker shall act in that office. This is a departure from previous practice in regard to the workplace of the constitutional head of state. Beneath each the 1946 and 1972 Constitutions, provision was produced for the Chief Justice (or the chief judge of the highest court) to assume that office in the course of such a period if no other individual was appointed to act. If the workplace of President is anticipated to be non-political, it would be inappropriate for an elected politician belonging to a political party even to act in that workplace. Additionally, in terms of Article 66 of the Constitution, the seat of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant if he becomes subject to any disqualification specified in Write-up 91, and 1 of these disqualifications is “if he is the President of the Republic” – even for a day!

In 1975, when President Gopallawa was due to leave the Island on an official check out, the then Speaker, Stanley Tillekeratne, staked a claim to be appointed to act. At the request of the Prime Minister, I sought the opinion of the Lawyer Common on this matter. Mr Raja Wanasundera was of the view that the combination of the offices of Speaker and President would be against the whole spirit of the Constitution. He wrote:

Each as the Speaker and as a Member of the National State Assembly, he is part of the legislature which does not straight exercising executive and judicial powers. The workplace of President is one of the most essential offices contemplated by the Constitution. The President is the head of the Executive. Getting regard to the functions and duties reposed in these offices, it appears to me that the nomination of a person who is a Member of Parliament and the Speaker of the National State Assembly, to act in the workplace of President, would have a tendency to damaging the distinctions drawn in section five of the Constitution.

The incompatibility would clearly arise if the particular person concerned is deemed not to vacate the office of Speaker or Member of Parliament, or both, on acting for the President. If, on the other hand, we take the view that the Speaker vacates workplace on acting for the President, then it seems that a new Speaker will also have to be appointed. The provisions of the Constitution appear to indicate that the workplace of Speaker and Deputy Speaker are various, and the Constitution contemplates that both offices should be filled.

The Attorney Basic concluded that getting regard to the incompatibility referred to above, it was not desirable that the Speaker need to be nominated to act in the office of President. Accordingly, Chief Justice Victor Tennekoon assumed the workplace of President, and Mr Justice Samarawickrema was appointed to act in the office of Chief Justice.

The Constitutional Council

The proposed new Chapter VIIA provides for the establishment of a Constitutional Council. Nonetheless, that chapter does not seem to have taken note of the unfortunate expertise of the preceding Constitutional Council. Five persons are required to be appointed on the nomination of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. What would happen if these two opposing politicians are unable to agree on five or lesser number of persons? Similarly, what would happen if the Members of Parliament of other political parties and independent groups are unable to agree on 1 member to be appointed? Certainly, provision ought to be produced for the President to make such appointments on his personal initiative in such situations.

Secretary to a Ministry

In the proposed new Article 52, provision is created for the appointment of a Secretary for every single Ministry who shall “subject to the path and control of his or her Minister” exercise supervision over the departments of government and other institutions in charge of the Minister. In the 1946 Constitution, the Permanent Secretary exercised such supervision “subject to the basic path and manage of his Minister”. In the 1972 Constitution, the word “general” was deleted. “General direction” related to matters of policy only “direction” on the other hand could be case distinct if the Minister was so inclined. Thereby, the Minister, and via him many Members of Parliament and constituents whom he wished to humour or accommodate, became directly involved in the routine administration and selection-generating processes of government departments.

This modify appeared to have considerable assistance at the time amongst the Ministers considering that many of them believed that Permanent Secretaries who had been appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, occasionally with no prior consultation with the Minister to whom the Ministry had been assigned, had been a channel through which the Prime Minister exercised oversight and influence, if not manage, more than those Ministries. That modify stripped the Permanent Secretary of his independence, and transformed that office into that of a political agent who could be necessary to carry out the distinct directions of the Minister even on matters where independent action was desirable. Obtaining served as a Permanent Secretary under the 1946 Constitution and as a Secretary under the 1972 Constitution, I would strongly urge that the independence of that workplace (and thereby of the public service as a complete) be restored by permitting only “general” path.

Dissolution of a Ministry

The proposed new Article 52 also states that the Secretary to a Ministry shall cease to hold office upon the dissolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, which is an event that would ordinarily happen at the conclusion of a basic election. It is precisely at such a time that a Ministry need to continue to function beneath a Permanent Secretary until a new Ministry is developed or a new Minister is appointed. The conclusion of a common election ought to be the time for an orderly transition, and the Permanent Secretary ought to be the link in between the previous and the future.

Dissolution of Parliament

To curtail the energy of the President to dissolve Parliament in the course of the initial 4 years and six months of its 5 year term (except on a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the complete number of members – including those not present – voting in its favour) as is sought to be done in proposed new Report 70, is a recipe for anarchy. What would take place in a Parliament in which no single celebration has a clear majority, and each government that is constituted is defeated following a few months, or a budget is repeatedly rejected, and members are unwilling to vote for a dissolution till they have qualified for their pension at the end of the fifth year? Surely the President should have that reserve power to dissolve Parliament and contact a general election to ensure that stability returns to governance.

Head of Government

A lot has been made in particular political circles about the lack of a reference to the “head of government”. There was no reference in either the 1946 or the 1972 Constitutions to a “head of government”. As in both those Constitutions, the President (or Governor-Basic in the 1946 Constitution) is the head of the executive (i.e. the government), whilst the Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet of Ministers which is charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic.

The Problem of the Referendum

The proposed new Report 3 offers for the President of the Republic to be “elected by the People”. A national election of a constitutional head of state is a luxury that Sri Lanka can’t afford. This provision is possibly being retained in the Nineteenth Amendment for worry that any other, much more rational, form of election (such as by Parliament) could require approval at a referendum. It is time that this unreal worry, unleashed by a 2002 judgment of former Chief Justice Sarath Silva, is ultimately laid to rest.

Following the common election of five December 2001 at which the UNP secured a comfy majority in Parliament, President Kumaratunga invited her principal political opponent, Ranil Wickremesinghe, to kind a government. In mid-2002, fearing that President Kumaratunga could exercise her power of dissolution at any time, the UNP Cabinet decided to seek parliamentary approval to amend the Constitution, inter alia, to make the President’s energy to dissolve Parliament topic to parliamentary manage anytime the majority of members belonged to a political celebration of which the President was not a member.

Chief Justice Silva constituted a seven-judge Bench, from which he excluded the 3 most senior judges, to examine the constitutionality of the Bill. This Bench held that the proposed amendments to the Constitution infringed Post four. A Bill that is inconsistent with Post four could be passed by a two-thirds majority and does not need approval at a referendum. The Chief Justice, nevertheless, went beyond his judicial role, and trespassing into legislative territory held that Article four was “linked” to Article three which is a single of twelve Articles of the Constitution which need each a two-third majority in Parliament and approval by a majority at a referendum for the adoption of any inconsistent legislation. He therefore retained for President Kumaratunga the energy to dissolve Parliament at a moment of her deciding on, a energy that she exercised a few months later.

Article 83 of the Constitution specifies twelve “entrenched” Articles. These, apart from Report 83 itself, are Articles 1 (The State), two (Unitary State), 3 (Sovereignty is in the Individuals and is inalienable), six (The National Flag), 7 (The National Anthem), 8 (The National Day), 9 (Buddhism), 10 (Freedom of Believed, Conscience and Religion), 11 (Freedom from Torture), 30 (Term of Office of the President), and 62 (Duration of Parliament). Post 4, which describes the manner in which the Sovereignty of the Men and women is exercised – i.e. legislative power by Parliament, executive energy by the President, judicial energy by way of courts, basic rights, and the franchise at elections, is not 1 of them.

It is interesting to recall that in the original draft Constitution ready by the Choose Committee of the National State Assembly, Write-up 4 was also included as an entrenched provision. Even so, on 16 August 1978, when the Bill containing the draft constitution was getting considered in committee, Justice Minister Devanayagam moved that the reference to Article 4 be deleted, and it was so agreed. Consequently, what the legislature deliberately omitted is what Chief Justice Sarath Silva sought to re-introduce. It may be that other judges prior to him have also shared his view, but it is Parliament, and not the Supreme Court, that can add or delete provisions of the Constitution. The sooner that Parliament asserts its authority to do so, the far better it would be for the governance of this country.

Sri Lanka Freedom Party snubs right now made a call for the appointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe&#8216s Royal College classmate Dinesh Gunawardena as the opposition leader.

Speaking at the rally in Ratnapura held to get in touch with for the nomination of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Ministerial candidate, a lot of speakers named for the appointment of MEP leader Dinesh Gunawardena as the opposition leader.

Earlier, Vasudeva Nanayakkara an ally of Mahinda Rajapaksa said that 50 parliamentarians of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party had signed a petition calling for the appointment of Gunawardena as the leader of the opposition.

The present Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has been accused of filling the cabinet with old boys of Royal College.

The Colombo Telegraph earlier provided a list of essential cabinet portfolios which have been designated to Royalists, such as all portfolios related to finance.

Dinesh Gunawardena is a classmate of Wickremesinghe at Royal College and recently participated at a ceremony held to spend tribute to the new Prime Minister and other Royalist Ministers at Royal College.

Earlier, speaking in Parliament Wimal Weerawansa said that the mandate given to President Maithripala Sirisena had been &#8216hijacked&#8217.

&#8220The country voted for a President, and they hijacked it and appointed a Prime Minister and then they have now got there own opposition leader. What type of mockery of the parliamentary system is this&#8221 he asked.

The new appointed Ministers also incorporate Royalists, such as Ranjith Siyambalapitiya and Dilan Perera.

By H. L. D. Mahindapala –

The post-independent period is a unique segment of Sri Lankan history exactly where everything that ought to have occurred, occurred without having breaking up the democratic foundations of the nation which is a exceptional achievement. In the main, the nation faced (1) two left-wing rebellions, (two) 1 Right-wing coup led by the Westernized elite. (three) a 33-year-old north-south conflict which began in 1976 with Tamil leadership passing the Vadukoddai Resolution, (4) paralyzing strikes by the Marxists who were planning to ride into energy on the back of workers, (5) sporadic ethnic riots, (6) roller-coaster financial rides, (7) student unrest in the universities, (8) periodic adjustments of governments at the state and regional government levels, (9) constitutional adjustments leaping from parliamentary kind of government to presidential, (10) foreign diplomatic and military incursions, Indian in distinct, (11) the influence imported ideological waves that swept influential sections of the intelligentsia and (12) the all round transition from semi-feudal, semi-capitalists, semi-colonial phase to a modern day nation, comprehensive with globe conquering cricket group and a competent military machine that rose from a ceremonial army to meet the greatest internal threats to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the nation.

Of all the major events two peaks stand out as the highest. The first took location in 1956 and the second in 2009. Both have been lasting defining moments for the nation. Both were grass root forces. Each have been to regain the lost/threatened heritage of the nation. The “Silent Revolution of 1956” was to reclaim and reinforce the historical roots of the nation – a common phenomenon that rose in rebellion against centuries of colonialism in all post-colonial nations. The “The Triumph of 2009”, although violent, was to regain and defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the national heritage which were threatened by neighborhood and foreign anti-national forces.

Both dates are interconnected. What was won peacefully and silently in “1956” was threatened from the day it was born by the Westernized Sinhala and Tamil elite. The militarized and violent antithetical forces opposing “1956” came up from the Northern political elite. In 1976 the entire Tamil elite decided to opt out of the democratic mainstream and take the gun to reverse the historical gains of “1956”. It can be argued that “2009” rescued from “1956” fading into oblivion.

The Vadukoddai War, endorsed in the Vadukoddai Resolution (1976) officially, was conceived as a method of the ruling Vellahla elite to ride on the backs of the Tamil youth to ride into power. But it backfired on the fathers of the Vadukoddai Resolution. When they legitimized the Vadukoddai violence, power slipped out of the Vellahla elite for the initial time since they rose to rule Jaffna from feudal instances, and fell into the hands of the lower-castes and the rebellious youth who turned their guns 1st on the high class fathers of the Vadukoddai Resolution. The classic Saivite Vellahla fascism was replaced by the political fascism of Prabhakaran. For some time, the 1-man rule of Tamil fascism seemed unassailable and seemed poised to win by defeating the Sri Lankan forces. But winning the “unwinnable war“ changed the political landscape by eliminating Tamil fascism and restoring democracy from coast to coast. The “Triumph of 2009” not only reinforced the historic achievements of “1956” but also stands out as the second decisive and defining moment in post-independent history that saved the Tamils – and the nation &#8212 from the a single-man dictatorship fascist Prabhakaranism. .

*Picture by way of Marithripala Sirisena&#8217s Facebook page 

Historically speaking, “2009” is the logical and inevitable corollary to “1956”. Both reveal the inner dynamics of the invincible grass root forces that will rise, again and once again, to defend its historical heritage. The greatness of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, who was far superior to the theoretically stunted Marxists, was in recognizing the aspirations of the grass-root individuals who have been gasping for oxygen in an oppressive and suffocating colonial atmosphere. Each as a Christian and a scholar of Western classics Bandaranaike was steeped in the greatest of Occidental culture and its roots. Of the Westernized ruling elite of the day he alone felt the pulse of the individuals, leaving the Right and the Left stranded in their ideological deserts. His intellectual rejection of the Western ideologies made him the most perceptive and far-seeing prophet of his time. The Left was buried as well deep in the dying Western theories of Marxism. The Right was too addicted to the colonial traditions which they inherited and perpetuated with hardly any structural adjustments to address the increasing expectations of one of the most politically alert electorates of S. Asia. .

Like all iconic revolutionaries of the colonial and post-colonial era Bandaranaike believed in the superiority of the indigenous culture which he was bent on reviving and reinforcing as a prime political want of the time. Although the Right and the Left had been emphasizing material and bread-and-butter troubles he focused on the cultural aspirations which proved to be stronger than bread. As in most of the post-colonial nation there was nearly a xenophobic rejection of something that came from the West. But Bandaranaike stood in the middle attempting to build bridges amongst the two. He knew he was in an age of transition drifting in between two worlds, one particular dead (colonial) and the other (national) struggling to be born. (Mathew Arnold). If the Western models have been to be incorporated into the neighborhood culture it was to be absorbed with suitable adjustments to local situations. The model for this trend was set, for instance, by Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe, the major light of the Anglican Church. He introduced oil lamps as an alternative of candles in Churches. Like in Buddhist temples, he insisted that devotees getting into the Church must leave their shoes at the entrance. He even introduced a tinge of yellow into the cincture that was tied round middle of the cassock.

Blending each cultures without offending any person in certain was the intended middle path selected by Bandaranaike. He not only gave Sinhala Only but Tamil also. This, nevertheless did not go down effectively with the Anglicized ruling elite of all communities who earned their crust via English. At the exact same time, he was conscious of the require to adopt the overarching principle of getting superior to the White Man just to be his equal. That was his motto at Oxford. He wasn’t going to be overawed by the dominant culture of the colonial masters. When he dropped the Western garb and donned the national costume he wasn’t putting on a “kapati koat” like contemporary day politicos. He pioneered the national dress and expressed his contempt for the Western garb by declaring boldly that you put on the coat and trousers only when you go for dog shows.

The intellectual subtleties and nuances that changed the colonial culture and reinforced the people-based culture was either prostituted or neglected by these who succeeded him, employing his name, which includes his third-rate progeny. We can dismiss his daughter who qualified more in imbibing French wine than in political science at Sorbonne. So let’s take the case of President Maithripala Sirisena’s metamorphosis soon after 1st official pay a visit to to London. Soon after he returned residence he has been projecting the image of a born-again evangelist for the West, distancing himself from his initial Marxist days and the current al-lay, val-lay and pal-lay common man from the Polonnaruwa paddy fields. In his address to the SLFP Organizers meeting he was glorifying his check out to Buckingham Palace where the Queen amazed him by shaking his hand with no wearing a glove. The fact that she provided her ungloved hand to him and his wife, Jayanthi, was marketed by him as a mark of particular respect conferred on him by the Queen. Great old Bandaranaike would have taken it in his stride, becoming familiar the Western culture and the Queen’s antecedents greater than the Queen. But not Sirisena, the boy from al-lay, val-lay and pal-lay from Polonnaruwa. It was like gama-yata magic,

Sirisena also announced with some pride that David Cameron walked out of his official residence to get him on the macadamized entrance to No: ten, Downing Street, with a hand shake and to escort him personally into the inner sanctum of the Prime Minister’s residence. Shaking the ungloved hand of the Queen, which enabled him to touch the skin of the Queen, and David Cameron coming out to greet him outside No: ten Downing Street, were reported to the SLFPers as important achievements of his check out to UK. In gloating more than these experiences there is much more than a touch of the naivety of a very first-timer being overawed by the big names in massive locations.

His report to the SLFPers was meant to impress the party large wigs that his first trip to the West was a triumph of his personal diplomacy abroad and that he is no longer the backward rustic from the paddy fields of Polonnaruwa. Shaking the ungloved hands of the Queen was placed just before the SLFP audience as an additional instance of his breaking the international deadlock that has bedeviled post-war relations with the West.

He also claimed credit for acquiring the West to postpone the scheduled presentation of the UN report on Sri Lanka to UNHRC in March. He said that the planet was divided more than Sri Lanka and his initiatives had united the world. He mentioned that the activity now is to unite. “And it is I who did it,” he announced, exuding a touch of personal glory.

There is some symbolism attached to the Queen offering a gloved and the ungloved hand. The Queen who shakes the hands of tens of thousands yearly, wears gloves partly for hygienic causes and partly for decorum. Her royal wave, for instance, is constantly gloved. She provides her ungloved and gloved hand to thousands and there is practically nothing particular in Mr. and Mrs. Sirisena shaking it ungloved, even though Sirisena gave the impression that it was a privileged concession granted to him and his wife.

All that is properly and good. Sri Lankans ought to share the cordiality that greeted him at Buckingham Palace and No: 10 Downing Street. In Sirisena’s Marxist days, nonetheless, his political guru, Shanmugathasan, would have hooted with belly laughs if he heard that a single of his cadres was ecstatic about the Queen shaking hands, gloved or ungloved. There is no doubt that he would have looked at it disdainfully and dismissively as the hand of a blood-stained imperialist who was heading the global killing machine of UK. But it’s different now. Those days the craze was to pose with Mao Tse Tung. Now the erstwhile radicals take wonderful pride in shaking the ungloved hands of the Queen. Boy, O, boy! How roaring radicals change into pet mice overnight!

The cosmetics at Buckingham Palace and at No:ten Downing Street can be dismissed as much ado about practically nothing. Even prior to Sirisena went to London the West knew that he was there point man in Sri Lanka. They were merely buttering him up to show their appreciation of the shift in foreign policy from the East to the West. It does not price them significantly to shakes hands cordially with their new client state. Clearly, Sirisena has not grasped the hidden meaning of the Queen and David Cameron going out of their way to be added courteous. It could either mean that they were patting President Sirisena on the back for doing the job of overthrowing their bête noir of the West in a bloodless coup. Or it could imply that they are satisfied with the return of a prodigal colonial boy to his old colonial masters. It could also mean that they are glad to welcome one more dependable client state to partner in the Western agenda.

On his return home, the President spoke glowingly of the lovey-dovey affair at Buckingham Palace which, soon after all, is only glove deep. He implied that he had opened up a new era of friendly relationship with UK soon after Mahinda Rajapakse rejected David Milliband’s intrusive intervention to cease the war in 2009. Milliband, working on behalf of the Tamil lobby in UK, was merely attempting to reassert the lost colonial powers by forcing ex-colonial nations to fall in line with their neo-colonial political agenda. That failed. So is it surprising that UK is overjoyed at Sri Lanka returning to the neo-colonial royalty on genuflecting knees?

But, as they say, there is no such factor as a totally free lunch or a handshake. The query, consequently, is how significantly is that handshake going to expense the nation? There is a price tag to be paid. What is the value that the nation is expected to spend in return for the thrill of touching the skin of the Queen? For instance, will it modify the pro-Tamil political stance of David Cameron who is funded heavily by the Tamil Diaspora? When he pressed the hand of Sirisena was he batting for Sri Lanka or for the Tamil Diaspora?

Sirisena’s speech to the SLFPers raised the 4 political sources that matter to him specifically which reflects his new mind set. 1st, he described the Indian Prime Minister Modi who had asked him what he thinks of his experiences following sitting in the Presidential chair for just two months. Oddly sufficient, he skips answering the question, leaving the audience to wonder whether or not he answered the question at all or whether he wants to hold it a secret. Second, he reflects on the Queen’s ungloved handshake in rather ecstatic terms. Third, he gives a glowing account of his meeting David Cameron, the man who hated Sri Lanka below Mahinda Rajapakse. And fourth, he claims that for the 1st time in the history of Sri Lankan politics all the Tamil parties sat with him when he went to Jaffna. All this was wrapped in his general theme of providing into the demands of the TNA. Sirisena appears to have acquired a lot more courage and inspiration following his return from UK to accommodate the demands of the North.

There are two meanings to this constellation of political forces: 1. it is this quartet that brought him into power and he plans to keep it going for his benefit two. it marks the starting of the reversal of history developed in the post-Nandikadal period. Repeatedly he emphasized, most vociferously, the need to give into the 13+ demands &#8212 a common lead to with the quartet that helped him to win. Earlier it was the Wickremesinghe-led UNP that was going all out to accommodate the North. Now the leader of the SLFP too has joined the bandwagon. Is this the which means of the “national government” : giving into the extremist demands of the North with hypocritical JHU and JVP tagging along with Wickremesinghe?

Does this herald the starting of the drift to the dissolution of the state in the guise of constitutional reforms? Or has Wickremesinghe outwitted Sirisena and taken the SLFP below his wing, as the head of the elusive “national government”, to break up the nation? Is this the finish of Bandaranaike’s SLFP, with his daughter, joining hands with Wickremesinghe, to sell the nation down the river? And is the new wave of Mahinda Rajapakse which started in Nugegoda the logical political counter to save “1956” and “2009”? Whichever way you appear at it, the combination of the four forces pointed out above – the Queen, David Cameron, Narendra Modi and the Tamil parties in the Diaspora and Jaffna &#8212 is a significant threat to the nation.

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –

This time it is a diverse strategic manipulation. The master stroke of picking Maitripala Sirisena as Typical Candidate had an air of ethical good quality: offered that Maitri had to threat his neck and given that the then President have to be stopped in his damaging track it had been a sort of relief operation. This time, the ethical air has to be evoked with some difficulty and amidst immense controversy.

Official sources urge that a National Government has be formed with the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party within a single fold, below the President. The idea of National governments is both salutary and sine qua non in instances of crises. War is the common occasion. Sri Lanka has, for now at least, completed the war. The most crucial national duty is to eradicate the Executive President system. Revd. Maduluwawe Sobitha, Jayamapathy Wickremaratne and a host of other individuals should be credited with possessing developed the necessary social consciousness for the modify. Left to the political parties, the latter would have preferred to engage in musical chairs for the workplace of (executive) President. The far more educated classes, experts, and writers had been quick to sniff the require for radical adjust. Revd. Sobitha’s movement gave leadership, path and technique to achieve the need to have that was flourishing in demand.

The guarantee was created formal in the course of election time that the new government under the widespread candidate will within 100 days exorcise the devil in the constitution. It might be Mahinda Rajapaksa then but could be one more subsequent. The point is that there had been increasing realization that it is the constitution that is the root result in. The constitution offers space and chance for even very good males or women to be monsters. Just before he became President Mahinda had been a really sporty guy but with huge energy in his hands he morphed into one thing foreboding and frightful in possibility. Mahinda did one particular signal service: to bring to the public notice the danger of our constitution. The danger was felt below its creator, JR, and beneath CBK and Premadasa but that was not palpable danger. Under Rajapaksa the danger came out into the open. MR carried the function to its logical and disastrous end like in a fated Greek tragedy.

Quickly after Maitri’s victory all opposition rallied round with promises of assistance for the one hundred-day system and the changes to the constitution that have been spelled out. Nonetheless, as time went on-not months but only days- that enthusiasm dropped and faded away. The possibility of a return of Rajapaksa wearing the same stage costume became a reside 1. Even a government companion, the JHU kept nudging that they by no means wanted the executive Presidential system to go and that all they wanted was for the “excessive powers “of the President taken away. In so attempting to differentiate themselves Minister Champika Ranawaka and other isolated JHU personnel did not understand that to start with Mahinda Rajapaksa had been content to occupy the reduced finish of the spectrum of power presented by the constitution. Seeing the opening available at the other end MR moved swiftly to boost the energy of his office toward plain absolutism. The bigger than life portrait of the Absolute President that now presented itself suggested that he could make a criminal an innocent and an innocent a criminal overnight. He could at will make the living element of the dead and he could make the forthright and honest a cringing and servile particular person worshipping at his feet and asking for morsels. Sri Lanka became the land of the Absolute Star!

In the face of a desperate need for numbers to pass the amendment to the constitution sans modification the Maitri-Ranil government had to devise some move. The option had been frightening to conceive of, namely go to the polls right after the 100 days nonetheless with the constitution unchanged and the possibility of a return of a devil at some future date. Maitri would most possibly not be the devil. Somebody else soon after him? Imagine a Wimal Weerawansa in the function? As the cliché states the government was amongst the devil and the deep blue sea. The ‘devil’ in this case is literal.

“So let’s play the devil’s own game,” would have been the considering of the now duo buddies-Maitri and Ranil. They place their heads with each other and got a page off the former President. Induce the necessary numbers from the SLFP and then we are shaped! In this instance, the inducement was status or ‘thaththwaya.’ The likelihood for generating anything is not there.

In came the old pole vaulters from the SLFP. One particular senior MP was appropriately assigned the portfolio of Minister for Disaster Management. One particular former senior lout was fortunately not place in charge of his former haunt. He hasn’t much muscle now to strip CBK naked and send her on the streets crying. Except for just one portfolio provided to a cultured but term-expired character, all others provided as benefits to the new cross-overs constitute innocuous positions. This is the merciful element of the operation.

It all shows what a lot it indicates to our pollies to be deemed a Minister. In countries like Australia, exactly where I live, there is not this hankering following Ministerial portfolios. The answer is, I suppose, in the nature of the economy. Great jobs are available and excellent space for organization is obtainable to men and ladies who have some standing. In Sri Lanka there is the added possibility of milking portfolios for money and perks.

Be that as it may possibly. The move by the government is bad and smelly when looked in isolation from context. But, then, one particular does not interpret events without having the relevant context. In contextual terms the move can only have justification as a signifies to a noble end and as a short-term arrangement to get more than a crisis. The Devil’s Game can, certainly, extricate the devil from our constitution.

From the snares of the devil in the constitution totally free us , Oh Lord!