Lanka Lead News

ජාතික ඉතිරි කිරීමේ බැංකුවේ හිටපු සභාපති ප්‍රදීප් කාරියවසම් හට කොළඹ ප්‍රධාන මහේස්ත්‍රාත් අධිකරණය විසින් අද (26) වසර 05ක අත්හිටවූ සිර දඬුවම් නියම කරනු ලැබුවේය.

ඒ නොවටිනා මිළකට සීමාසහිත ද ෆිනෑන්ස් සමාගමේ කොටස් මිලදී ගැනීමෙන් ජාතික ඉතිකිරීමේ බැංකුවට පාඩු සිදුකළ බවට ඔහුට එරෙහිව එල්ලවූ චෝදනාවට වැරදි කරමිනි.

කොළඹ ප්‍රධාන මහේස්ත්‍රාත් රංග දිසානායක විසින් හිටපු ජාතික ඉතිරි කිරීමේ සභාපති ප්‍රදීප් කාරියවසම්ට වසර 05 ක සිර දඬුවම් නියම කර එය වසර 05 කට අත්හිටවූ අතර ඊට අමතරව රුපියල් ලක්ෂ දෙකක දඩයක්ද නියම කරනු ලැබුවේය.

යම් හෙයකින් දඩ මුදල නොගෙව්වොත් ඒ සදහා ඔහුට වසර දෙකක සිර දඬුවම් නියම කරන බව මහේස්ත්‍රාත්වරයා ප්‍රකාශ කර සිටියේය.

ප්‍රදීප් කාරියවසම් යනු හිටපු අගවින්සුරු ශිරානි බණ්ඩාරනායකගේ ස්වාමිපුරුෂයායි.

Courtesy Adaderana

Chief Justice has appointed a seven-member full judge bench to hear the petitions filed against the dissolution of the parliament.

The justices appointed to the bench are,

Nalin Perera
Buwaneka Aluwihare
Sisira de Abrew
Priyantha Jayawardena
Prasanna Jayawardena
Vijith Malalgoda
Murdu Fernando

Thirteen fundamental rights petitions were filed at the Supreme Court asking it to declare that the President’s order to dissolve the parliament is illegal.

The petitions have been filed by political parties including United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) and the All Ceylon People’s Congress. Organisations and activists such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Attorney Aruna Laksiri and also a member of Elections Commission Prof. S. R. H. Hoole have also filed petitions.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has issued an interim order temporarily suspending the Gazette notification issued by the President on the dissolution of Parliament. An interim order was also issued on the Elections Commission preventing the holding of a general election.

The stay orders have been issued effective until December 7 and the petitions have been fixed for argument on December 4, 5 and 6.

Convener Anupa Pasquel

Given the crisis that has arisen today, it is very clear that the sovereignty of the people should be given the opportunity to elect its representatives in accordance with the principles of democracy. However, it seems that various parties seem to be trying to suppress the sovereignty of the people, even with judicial measures. It also appears that several ambassadors are trying to interfere internal affairs of Sri Lanka trying to averting people’s franchise.

The executive, the legislature and the judiciary are the people’s sovereignty. We consider the attempt to suppress people’s franchise via institutions which are established as representative institutions of people’s sovereignty is a grave blow to the democracy.Therefore, the People’s Movement for a General Election was formed with the participation of wide range of stakeholders of the society including the Buddhist monks. intellectuals, artists, professionals and entrepreneurs. The first national conference of the People’s Movement for a General Elections will be held on Wednesday, 28th November at 3.30 pm at Sri Lanka Foundation Institution.

Anu Nayaka of the Malwatta Chapter Most Venerable Niyangoda Vijithasiri Thera, Secretary General of Asgiriya Chapter Venerable Dr. Medagama Dhammananda Thera, Anu Nayaka of the Rohana Chapter Venerable Omare Kassapa Thera, Venerable Elle Gunawansa Thera, President’s Counsel Manohara De Silva, Former Vice Chancellor of Uva Wellassa Univaersity Prof. Premalal De Silva, Former President of the Institute of Engineers, Sri Lanka Dr. Ananda Ranasinghe, veteran filmmaker  Sumitra Peries, Musician Jagath Wickramasinghe, Information Technology Professional Lasantha Wickremesinghe, Consultant Pediatrician Prof. Wasantha Devasiri, entrepreneur Samantha Kumarasinghe, former secretary to the Ministry of Mass Media Dr. Charitha Herath, President of Yuthukama Movement Gavindu Cumaratunga will be addressing the gathering.

Convener

Anupa Pasquel

අනුප පැස්කුවල් කැඳවුම්කරු

2018.11.26
වර්තමානයේ උද්ගත වී ඇති අර්බුදය හමුවේ, ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයේ මූලධර්මවලට අනුකූල ව පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය හිමි ජනතාවට සිය නියෝජිතයන් තෝරා පත්කර ගැනීමට අවස්ථාවක් ලබා දිය යුතු බව ඉතා පැහැදිලි ය. එහෙත් විවිධ පාර්ශව අධිකරණ ක්‍රියාමාර්ගවලට පවා යොමුවෙමින් ජනතාව ගේ පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය යටපත් කිරීමට උත්සාහ දරන බව පෙනේ. තානාපතිවරුන් කිහිප දෙනකු ද ජනතාවට මහ මැතිවරණයක් සඳහා හිමි වූ අවස්ථාව අහිමි කිරීමට අනිසි බලපෑම් එල්ල කරමින් සිටිනු පෙනේ.

විධායකය, ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකය සහ අධිකරණය මඟින් ක්‍රියාත්මක වන්නේ ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යයි. මහජනතාව ගේ ඒ පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය මහජනතාව විසින් පවරනු ලැබූ ආයනත හරහා ම උදුරා ගන්නට තැත් කිරීම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයට එල්ල කරන මරු පහරක් සේ අපි දකිමු. ඒ නිසා දිවයිනේ වැඩසිටින බෞද්ධ භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේලා ප්‍රමුඛ පූජ්‍ය පක්ෂය, බුද්ධිමතුන්, කලාකරුවන්, වෘත්තිකයන්, ව්‍යාපාරිකයන් ඇතුලූ සකල විධ ක්ෂේත්‍ර නියෝජනය කරමින් මහ මැතිවරණයක් උදෙසා වූ ජනතා ව්‍යාපාරය පිහිටුවනු ලැබූ අතර එහි ප්‍රථම ජාතික සමුළුව 28 වන බදාදා සවස 3.30 ට කොළඹ පදනම් ආයතනයේ දී පැවැත්වීමට කටයුතු යොදා ඇත.

සියම් මහ නිකායේ මල්වතු පාර්ශ්වයේ අනුනායක පූජ්‍ය නියංගොඩ විජිතසිරි අනුනාහිමි, අස්ගිරිපාර්ශවයේ මහා ලේඛකාධිකාරී මැදගම ධම්මානන්ද නාහිමි, රෝහණ පාර්ශවයේ අනුනායක පූජ්‍ය ඕමාරේ කස්සප අනුනාහිමි, පූජ්‍ය ඇල්ලේ ගුණවංස නාහිමි හා ජනාධිපති නීතීඥ මනෝහර ද සිල්වා, ඌව විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ හිටපු උපකුලපති මහාචාර්ය ප්‍රේමලාල් ද සිල්වා, ශ්‍රී ලංකා ඉංජිනේරු සංගමයේ හිටපු සභාපති ආනන්ද රණසිංහ, සිනමාවේදී සුමිත්‍රා පීරිස්, සංගීතවේදී විශාරද ජගත් වික්‍රමසිංහ, වෘත්තිකයන්ගේ ජාතික පෙරමුණ නියෝජනය කරමින් තොරතුරු තාක්ෂණ වෘත්තික ලසන්ත වික්‍රමසිංහ, විශේෂඥ වෛද්‍ය මහාචාර්ය වසන්ත දේවසිරි, දේශීය ව්‍යවසායක සමන්ත කුමාරසිංහ, ජනමාධ්‍ය අමාත්‍යාංශයේ හිටපු ලේකම් ආචාර්ය චරිත හේරත්, යුතුකම සංවිධානයේ සභාපති ගෙවිඳු කුමාරතුංග යන මහත්ම මහත්මීන් අදහස් දක්වනු ඇත.

විමසීම් : 0714288220 / 0716369828

By D. Laksiri Mendis,LLB (Cey), MPhil (Cantab)

November 25, 2018, 8:39 pm
After much consideration, I decided to write this article on the above subject as I have had long years of experience in Constitutional Law, Legislative Drafting and Statutory Interpretation in many parts of the world. At present, I conduct lectures on Legislative Drafting and Statutory Interpretation at the Sri Lanka Law College and draft legislation for various international organizations and statutory boards in Sri Lanka and abroad on a regular basis.

BACKGROUND

1. Since attaining Independence in 1948, Sri Lanka had three Constitutions, namely, Soulbury Constitution 1946, First Republican Constitution 1972 and Second Republican Constitution 1978. All three Constitutions differed very much from one another.

2. Soulbury Constitution adopted the Westminster model of Government and His Majesty King George VI of Great Britain was retained as Head of State. Late Sir Ivor Jennings, who drafted the Soulbury Constitution for Ceylon, incorporated section 29(2) from the Irish Constitution to protect minorities. In the Privy Council Lord Pearce held in Queen vs Liyanage (1965) that the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act 1962 ultra vires the Constitution, as the Soulbury Constitution has recognized the doctrine of separation of powers. This case is cited in many Commonwealth countries for constitutional interpretation.

3. The First Republican Constitution 1972 transformed Sri Lanka from a Monarchy to a Republic. Her Majesty the Queen was no longer the Head of State. Instead, under 1972 Constitution, we had a non-executive President. It made several changes to our constitutional order by providing a chapter on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. It also gave foremost place to Buddhism. Under this Constitution, the Public Services ceased to be independent from the executive arm of the government.

4. The Second Republican Constitution 1978 transformed Sri Lanka into a Executive Presidency very different from the Westminster model. It has been called a “Presidential Parliamentary System of Government”. Professor A. J. Wilson called it the “Gaulist Constitution”. It provided extensive powers to the President, so much so that the First President of Sri Lanka, late J. R. Jayewardene said he could do anything except make a man a woman or vice versa. However, the 17th Amendment reduced the powers of the President by requiring the President to act on the advice or on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council. This legislative technique made 17th Amendment operative with a two-thirds majority in Parliament without a Referendum.

5. The 19th Amendment did not change the Presidential System to a Parliamentary System of Government as intended, but repealed some of the provisions of the 18th Amendment and added the Right to Information as a Fundamental Right. It expanded the provisions of the 17th Amendment but did not regulate the use of executive powers of the President in relation to the Legislature. In this context, it is useful to analyze whether the dissolution of Parliament is legal and legitimate by reference to the constitutional provisions of the 1978 Constitution as amended by the 19th Amendment.

NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

6. Constitutional law is a mixture of law and politics. The Constitution cannot be interpreted and applied without taking into account constitutional conventions, practices and politics which have contributed to the making of all Constitutions. In 1979, I published a book titled 1978 Constitution and the Law, in Sinhala in which I emphasized the importance of constitutional conventions and rules relating to the interpretation of constitutional provisions. At that time, I saw the demise of the 1972 Constitution and the birth of the 1978 Constitution from a vantage position, as I served as Senior Assistant Legal Draftsman and Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the Sri Lanka Law College.

7. The 1978 Constitution has a constitutional conundrum as expounded by late Dr. N. M. Perera. He said that if the President and Prime Minister belonged to two different political parties, it can lead to a “piquant situation” or “deadlock”. This defect has not been remedied by the 19th Amendment although it was intended to do so by transforming Sri Lanka into a Westminster model of Government in some form or the other. The poet, T. S. Elliot said that “between the policy and the law, falls a shadow”. In the 19th Amendment, there is a shadow of uncertainty in relation to the provisions pertaining to the dissolution of Parliament by the President. It is intended therefore to unravel the “shadow” of uncertainty by reference to the provisions of the 19th Amendment from a Legislative Drafter’s perspective.

RULES RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

8. Before dealing with the legality and legitimacy of the dissolution of Parliament under the 19th Amendment, it is useful to understand the rules relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.

9. Rules relating to the interpretation of the Constitution can be described as Lex Specialis. These rules are classified as the Literal Rule, Mischief Rule (today referred to as Purposive Rule) and Golden Rule (today referred to as the Dynamic Rule or Judicial Activism).

10. The Honourable Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has adopted all three rules to interpret all three Constitutions of Sri Lanka since the attainment Independence. In relation to judicial review of legislation vis-à-vis the Constitution, especially in regard to fundamental rights, Purposive and Dynamic Rules have been adopted in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

11. The Literal Rule provides certainty to law. In the USA, it is referred to as “textualism”. If the constitutional provisions do not have any ambiguity, the words alone reflect the intention of the Parliament or the Constitution.

12. Late Justices Amerasinghe and Mark Fernando have used the Literal Rule to interpret various provisions of the Constitution for sake of certainty of the law. In Somawathie vs Weerasinghe (1990) and Faiz vs Attorney General (1995), the Literal Rule was applied.

13. In Faiz vs Attorney General (1995), Justice Mark Fernando said “Jurisdiction cannot be expanded by twisting, stretching or perverting the constitutional provisions”. Likewise, Justice Antonio Scalia who was a Judge of the Supreme Court of the USA said in his famous book On Reading Law (2012) – “The descent into social rancor over judicial decisions is largely traceable to non-textual means of interpretation.” He further said “Non-textual interpretation which makes “Statesmen” of Judges, promotes the shifting of the political blame from the political organs of the Government to the Judiciary”. It is humbly submitted that these words of Justice Scalia are of value to the Courts in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

14. However, Justices Ahron Barak, Bagawati, Bandaranayake and Siripavan have used the Dynamic or Purposive Rule in relation to the interpretation of fundamental rights, as such rights need to be adapted and dovetailed into changing social needs and demands. Chief Justice Ahron Barak of Israel has called the Purposive Rule as the ultimate legal principle in statutory and constitutional interpretation. In Sriyani Silva vs Iddamalgoda (2008) and Noble Resources International Pte Ltd vs Ranjith Siyabalapitiya (2016), Justice Bandaranayake and the Chief Justice Siripavan have adopted the Purposive or Dynamic Rule of Interpretation.

15. In the UK and other Commonwealth countries, the Purposive Rule has been introduced by way of legislation or judicial activism. For example, in Australia, sections 15A and 15B of the Interpretation Act adopted the Purposive Rule in an elaborate manner. Likewise many Commonwealth countries have amended their Interpretation Acts to adopt the Purposive Rule of Interpretation.

16. In the UK, Pepper vs Hart (1993) is a landmark decision which adopted the Purposive Rule by way of judicial activism. It empowered the Courts to consult extrinsic material such as the Hansard to ascertain the intention of the Parliament. Hence, the Purposive Rule has gained some dominance in statutory and constitutional interpretation.

17. In Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court has recently rejected the draft clause 200 of the Inland Revenue Bill 2017, which introduced the Purposive Rule to interpret the ambiguous provisions of the Inland Revenue Bill 2017. The Supreme Court held that this provision is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the people, but gave no reasons.

18. Hence, it is doubtful whether the Purposive Rule can be used liberally in Sri Lanka to interpret the constitutional provisions relating to the dissolution of Parliament, when there are two provisions colliding with each other in relation to dissolution of Parliament.

INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 33(2) AND ARTICLE 70(1)

19. The main articles relating to dissolution of parliament are contained in 33(2) and article 70(1) of the 1978 Constitution

20. These two articles appear to collide against each other and therefore it seems difficult to harmonize these two articles on a rational basis.

21. Article 33(2) states that the President can dissolve Parliament without any restrictions. Article 70(1) states that the President cannot dissolve Parliament until four and a half years since the first meeting of the Parliament.

22. It seems to me that Article 70(1) is an “absurd” provision for the following reasons: –

Firstly, if parliament has a two thirds-majority, it can force a dissolution of Parliament by the President.

Secondly, the President can refuse the request at his own peril.

Thirdly, this Article 70(1) does not balance well with the Latimer House Principles, since the Parliament can impeach the President with a simple or two-thirds majority subject to certain conditions. Likewise President should be allowed to dissolve Parliament subject to certain conditions. Hence, Article 70(1), as it stands, is an “absurdity” which can be disregarded on the basis of the Dynamic Rule of Interpretation.

23. In Re the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, [2002] 3 SLR, pages 85-112, a seven-member Bench held that article 70(1) requires a two-thirds majority and a Referendum to make this amendment valid and effectual. However, in the 19th Amendment in 2015, a Bench of three Judges allowed the same provision to be valid without a referendum, so long as article 33 is amended to grant the President similar powers. It seems to me therefore that article 70(1) has been approved by the Supreme Court in a manner inconsistent with the Doctrine of Stare Decisis as outlined in Bandahamy vs Senanayake, 62 NLR 313. (Also see: Dr. Kanag-Isvaran, PC – The Tissue of Justice and Judicial Attitudes in K.C. Kamalasabayson, PC – Memorial Orations 2008-2012).

24. In the interpretation of the Constitution, most Judges and text writers have said that if there are two provisions of the Constitution which are inconsistent with one another, it is axiomatic to interpret the Constitution in the way it can work and not in a way the Constitution can become futile.

25. In the above context, the legal maxim – Ut res magis valeat quam pereat is applied. This legal maxim means it is better for the Constitution to have effect than cease to operate. In the USA, Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch vs Maryland (1819) said that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way it can operate and not in a way it can perish. In Trinidad Cement Company Limited vs AG of Guyana (2008) The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat as amicus curiae argued successfully that the CARICOM economic integration legislation is futile unless the corporate entities are granted locus standi to institute proceedings in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) by adopting this legal maxim – Ut res magis valeat quam pereat, as the promissory clause in the Treaty of Chaguaramus was ambiguous.

Relevance of the Doctrine of Constitutional Necessity

26. In this context, it is also relevant to consider whether the Doctrine of Constitutional Necessity can justify the dissolution of Parliament. In India, Pakistan, Nepal, Grenada, Fiji and many other Commonwealth countries, the Doctrine of Constitutional Necessity has been applied in dealing with a constitutional deadlock. In a book titled God Save the Honourable Supreme Court written by the distinguished Indian Lawyer, Fali S. Nariman cites the case of Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar 2017 (Bench of seven Judges), where constitutional necessity was applied in upholding certain Ordinances which were patently unconstitutional. (See also Qarase and Others vs Bainimarama and Others [2009] 3 LRC 614 – The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles: Practitioner’s Handbook).

27. In this context the application the Doctrine of Constitutional Necessity is justified since there has been a “deadlock” between the President and the Prime Minister for some time. This deadlock has arisen due to divergent policies relating to the sale of national assets, ratification of FTAs without adequate consultation with affected parties, involvement of the PM in the Bond Scam and pursuing a flawed legislative agenda and adopting neo-liberal economic policies unsuitable for Sri Lanka in the 21st century. In this situation, the President has made an attempt to resolve this deadlock by requesting Hon. Karu Jayasuriya, and later on, Hon. Sajith Premadasa to accept the post of Prime Minister. Both refused to accept the proposal.

28. Hence, the application of the Doctrine of Constitutional Necessity may be justified in order to resolve the present constitutional crisis by reference to the people. After all, sovereignty of the people as enshrined in Article 3 is the grund-norm of 1978 Constitution

Concluding remarks and submissions

29. It can be concluded that the Constitution of a country is a “living document” and therefore it must interpreted in a manner it can work and not in a manner it can perish. Hence, the legality and legitimacy of the dissolution of Parliament by the President is distinct from the appointment and removal of the Prime Minister which is not dealt in this article.

30. In dealing with the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, it was said that “The power of dissolution of Parliament and the process of impeachment should be exercised where necessary in trust for the people only to preserve the sovereignty of the people and to make it meaningful, effective and beneficial to people.” – See: Ex Cathedra Statements of Hon. Justice Saleem Marsoof, PC – Some Thoughts on the Sovereignty of the People and the Rule of Law in K.C. Kamalasabayson, PC – Memorial Orations 2008-2012.

31. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution did not resolve the constitutional problem envisaged by late Dr. N. M. Perera. Instead, the 19th Amendment has created many conceptual, contextual and syntactic ambiguities due to ad hoc Committee Stage amendments.

32. It is unfortunate that the Legislative Drafters have not transformed the Presidential System to a Parliamentary System of Government by using the legislative technique adopted by me in drafting the 17th Amendment to the 1978 Constitution. It reduced the powers of the President by requiring him to act on the advice and/or on the recommendations in the exercise of his prerogative or executive powers in relation to certain appointments.

33. In this context, it is recommended that the 19th Amendment should be repealed and replaced by a new 19th Amendment to the Constitution, as it has ceased to be the centerpiece for good governance.

(D. Laksiri Mendis has been an UN and a Commonwealth Legal Expert on Drafting Legislation and Treaties for several years. He served as First Parliamentary Counsel and Head of the Parliamentary Division in Sierra Leone (West Africa) and as Legal Draftsman and Legislative Expert in many Commonwealth countries. He also served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Austria and Permanent Representative to the UN in Vienna.).

(Email: mendis_law@yahoo.com).

By : A.A.M.NIZAM – MATARA.

The 20 odd nations of white skinned former imperialists, colonialists, slave traders and plunderers of international wealth and resources continue to fleece the countries of the world which consists 193 countries under various pretexts and abhorrent justifications forgetting that they are taken together only a minority in the world compared to some people friendly countries in the world.

Following the October revolution in Sri Lanka which was wholeheartedly welcomed by the natives and who continue to hold demonstrations demanding for an election except by a fringe unpatriotic quisling stooges these white skinned scoundrels are using the demented speaker and ousted opposition to slander Sirisena-Mahinda Rajapaksa government and project the new government as an anti-democratic, unconstitutional, autocratic government and obstruct the revolutionary government by threats, intimidation, warnings to impose sanctions, denial of GSP+ facility and warnings to cut aids and other assistances.

The Daily Mirror newspaper which has taken an extra mile to support its UNP masters claims that several countries including US and UK have expressed their concerns over the President’s decision  to dissolve Parliament on November 9, days before it was due to be reconvened and it poses a vital threat to Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions and  such actions jeopardize Sri Lanka’s economic progress and international reputation. It points out that the United States has called on the President  to respect his country’s democratic tradition and the rule of  law.,, and adds that the European Union has said that the decision of President Sirisena to dissolve the Parliament ahead of its planned reconvening risks undermining public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions and processes and further deepens the political and economic crisis in the country. It plagiarising EU statements the newspaper says that a fully functioning Parliament is an essential pillar of democracy and as a longstanding supporter of a democratic Sri Lanka, and the European Union expects a swift and peaceful resolution to the current crisis, in line with the Sri Lankan Constitution.

It was not a secret that that these white skinned minority in the world was responsible for regime changes in Iraq, Tunisia, Libya,. Egypt and Sri Lanka and it is reported that they are planning a similar action to prevent Prince Mohamed Bin Salman becoming the next King of Saudi Arabia but President Trump  is opposing a such move. The two personalities who call themselves as Muslim leaders who trade the interests of Muslims for their personal benefits and who allegedly got Umrah pilgrimages sponsored by the UNP from Bond Scam haram money, similar to JEPPOs keep quiet on this white skinned barbarians threat to Sri Lanka.  They may even if it become necessary justify these threats as Ranil Wickremasinghe justified American atrocities in Iraq in the past.,

The Daily Mirror further states that Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne has also expressed concern on President’s decision to dissolve the parliament on 9 November, and this  action undermines Sri Lanka’s long democratic tradition and poses a risk to its stability and prosperity..The newspaper also states that the UK Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field has called on all parties to uphold the constitution and respect democratic institutions and processes, while Norway has stated that the President’s action undermines Sri Lanka’s long democratic tradition and poses a risk to stability, prosperity, reconciliation and accountability.

The newspaper continuing its pampering the white skinned reactionaries says Switzerland also deplored the decision to dissolve Parliament and has called upon the President to settle the current crisis as quickly as possible while respecting the country’s democratic institutions and processes.”

It is pertinent to ask at this juncture from all these white skinned bluffers where were they when Sri Lanka suffered for 30 years under the jackboots of the ruthless terrorist LTTE when they massacred unarmed women and children, killed young Buddhist monks at Aranthalawa and shot and killed nearly 200 Muslims while they were in prayers at the Kattankudy mosque to mention a few incidents.  It must be reminded that that what they did was when the terrorists erer miserably losing the war making an attempt to stop the war and rescue the LTTE leaders and they failed in this ignominious attempt since Sri Lanka was under an iron willed unwavering and determined patriotic leader at that time.

Commenting on these concerns and threats enunciated by the white skins Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva has said that parliament had been prorogued on many occasions and the current prorogation certainly not a reason to be alarmed of as the President is empowered by the Constitution to prorogue parliament up to two months, Minister Silva alleged that UNP  MP Karu Jayasuriya was seeking a role beyond the scope of the Speaker. Accusing Jayasuriya of collaborating with a section of western bullies to cause instability, Minister Silva said that the Speaker , too, voiced the concerns raised by foreign missions.

Referring to two unofficial meetings the Speaker had with party leaders, Minister Silva said that the UNPer warned of drop in foreign investment and suspension of GSP plus facility in case Sri Lanka ignored international concerns. The minister quoted the Jayasuriya as having said that he wouldn’t stop talking when government representatives at the above mentioned unofficial meetings asserted the Speaker couldn’t act beyond his responsibilities.

Minister Silva alleged the Speaker acted in consent with some foreign powers to trigger chaos on Nov 14. Pointing out that as demanded by EU, Norway and Switzerland, the Speaker was threatening to go for a vote on Nov 14 in contravention of accepted norms, Minister Silva said that the UNPer couldn’t under any circumstances exercise power he didn’t enjoy constitutionally. Minister Silva alleged that Jayasuriya had responded to the situation like a chandiya (tough guy). The Minister said that they wouldn’t allow the law of the jungle to prevail in parliament.

Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara criticized Karu Jayasuriya for what he called ‘entertaining’ foreign envoys in Parliament and inquired if the Speakers of these countries would have allowed the intrusion by our envoys in the affairs of their Parliaments and States. Minister   Nanayakkara said he was shocked to note that the Speaker had entertained foreign Ambassadors at his Parliament office when it remain prorogued to discuss matters that concerned the President, Prime Minister and the State.

Significant among those who were invited were the envoys of the US and the UK as well as those from other western countries. It is common knowledge that some of these countries actively engaged themselves in the Presidential Election held in 2015, in which they played a pivotal role to oust the then regime. He said Jayasuriya was a part of the plot to oust the government in January 2015 and colluded to compel the President to appoint a Prime Minister, who had the backing of only 48 MPs, whilst there was a sitting Prime Minister who had the support of 155 members of the House..

Many patriotic organizations and scholarly personnel have come forward to the streets even with their kiths and kin vehemently condemn these Sudda fellows and in many parts of the country daily demonstrations are being held with the participation of massive crowds and demanding the President to hold elections soon. Petitions are being signed in support of the President and the Prime Minister at these demos.

Under this situation the pseudo patriotism of JEPPO political chameleons have got exposed fully and about their servitude to white skinned barbarians despite their hollow talks about patriotism and confirmed their only desire is to destabilize and destroy this country which they failed twice to achieve despite sacrificing several thousand youth.

Sri Lankan organizations throughout the world too condemn the Kalu Sudda Jayasuriya for his servitude to white skinned barbarians and the reactionaries and call on the President to hold elections soon.  The Society for Peace, Unity and Human Rights for Sri Lanka (SPUR) has called on all Sri Lankans  to respect the authority of the Executive President and abide by the rulings given by Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court.

The SPUR condemns the blatant interference of the European Union, Britain, the United States and a number of other countries who erroneously believe Sri Lanka to be a colonial state under their rule, forgetting that we have been an independent nation for the last 70 years. It says that these so-called guardians of democracy have been joined by a few international agencies and a bunch of tin-pot civil society organizations, who couldn’t muster a crowd to fill a dozen Tuk-Tuks plying on Sri Lanka’s roads.

The organization states the collective body of these paragons of virtue stands condemned for maintaining deathly silence:

1. When Ranil Wickremesinghe became the Prime Minister in 2015 January with only 46 seats in parliament, whilst the party with over 150 seats was condemned to the opposition;
2. When the United States of America blatantly boasted in public that they funded and was a major stakeholder of the initiative to execute Sri Lanka’s regime change;
3. While the Ranil Wickremesinghe led government continued to delay provincial council elections manipulating the parliament to subvert democracy and disenfranchise the voting public;
4. When Ranil’s Finance Minister had to step down due to corruption allegations and the Central Bank was relieved over a billion dollars by Rani’s bosom buddy, Arjuna Mahendran; and
5. While speaker Karu Jayasuriya is crafting a constitutional crisis blatantly violating the law challenging the authority of the President.

In a lengthy article the former Chief of the UN Treaty Section (1995-2006), a former Sri Lanka Permanent Representative United Nations Headquarters in New York and a former Foreign Secretary Dr Palitha Kohona has condemned the world body for behaving like a mere mouthpiece of the West in joining the Western bloc to condemn happenings in Sri Lanka without any balance His article is highlighted here in a brief form.  .He has said that a raucous barrage of statements on the political situation in Sri Lanka is flooding the media from US and other Western sources. Dr. Kohona points out that the US Embassy in Colombo has imperiously called on the President to respect the country’s democratic tradition and the rule of law. He sways the ostensible theme motivating all these interventions appear to be the need to protect the s-called democracy and democratic institutions in Sri Lanka. There is a paternalistic assumption that democracy is somehow threatened, and it is their duty to intervene to protect it. The assumptions that h these Western interventions are based seem to suggest that the events of  26 October and the actions of the President c somehow would be a threat to democracy in Sri Lanka. Dr. Kohona emphasizes that Sri Lanka is the oldest democracy in Asia, the oldest country to enjoy universal adult franchise in Asia, a country that has faced elections on a regular basis and held its course despite being challenged by three bloody insurrections since independence from colonial rule.

Dr. Kohona further states the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister by the President on 26 October and the refusal of the former Prime Minister, Wickremasingha to acknowledge this realty appears to be the root of this disquiet in the West. The fact that the relationship between the President and the former Prime Minister had broken down completely and the governance of the country had grounded to a disturbing crawl while the economy was slithering rapidly downwards requiring drastic measures.

The political editor of Sunday Times, an utterly pro-UNP newspaper owned by Ranil’s family members has said today that that this white skinned diplomats have held a meeting with government Ministers led by Leader of the House Minister Dinesh Gunawardene and warned that some of their countries had been contemplating punitive action such as a halt to aid and other forms of financial assistance including sanctions on politicians and their immediate families  directly responsible for alleged violations of the Constitution. It seems that they have a mindset that we are a colony of theirs and not a sovereign country and they gone far beyond of tolerable limits.  They should not be allowed to act in this despotic manner and some of them should be expelled soon as persona non-grata” to teach a lesson to all of them

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, November 25 (newsin.asia): A Presidential Commission is to be appointed to probe charges of corruption and fraud against ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe,  the Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena said here on Sunday.

Speaking to the Foreign Correspondents Association of Sri Lanka, the President said that there are at this point of time, 17 reports against Wickremesinghe and his cohorts, which had not been investigated because the relevant departments were under Wickremesinghe’s control in the coalition government which existed between January 2015 and October 26, 2018.

The President said that corrupt and questionable deals were made in respect of land and private sector companies from the word go.

Sirisena said that if parliament had passed Wickremesinghe’s Special Land Act, by voice vote as in the case of the recent No Confidence Motions against the government, foreigners would have been able to buy up Sri Lanka’s lands to the detriment of the country.”

The President said that his disagreement with Wickremesinghe could not be described as being purely personal .They were rooted in ideological and policy differences. There were disagreements about how to run the administration.

The decision to sack Wickremesinghe on October 26 and appoint Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister was not taken on the spur of the moment, the President said.

Differences had arisen even at the time of the formation of the cabinet in January 2015 soon after the Presidential election that month.

I wanted the new administration to be run on scientific lines and had appointed a committee headed by Prof.Hettige to make suggestions. They committee did submit its report which I passed on to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. But he took no notice of it. He distributed portfolios in the most unscientific manner. For example, the Higher Education Minister was also Minister for Highways. When I went abroad to negotiate agreements, those governments wondered if Highway  construction was being taught in Sri Lanka’s Higher Educational institutions,” the President said.

Wickremesinghe took the Central Bank under his wing when it ought to have been with the Finance Minister. While the State banks were with the Finance Minister, the Central Bank was with PM Wickremesinghe causing confusion,” the President pointed out.

Central Bank Robbery

Then, within weeks of the formation of the coalition government on January 9, 2015, there was the great Central Bank robbery, ” Sirisena said recalling the billion rupee bonds sale scam involving   Wickremesinghe and his friend, the newly appointed Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran.

I asked Wickremesinghe not to appoint  Mahendran because he was not a Sri Lankan citizen. But he argued that Mahendran he was the best candidate. I yielded because Wickremesinghe had worked hard to get me elected as President. But within weeks, the new Governor was party to the great Central Bank robbery.”

A Presidential Commission was appointed which pointed an accusing finger at Mahendran. He had to go on leave. Since the bank staff had become lethargic in the absence of the Governor I wanted to go to the bank and motivate the staff. But Wickremesinghe told me angrily not to go because the bank came under his purview and not mine. But I stood my ground and told him that as Executive President, I could go to any government institution.”

Again, when the Presidential Commission indicted Mahendran, Wickremesinghe made no effort to trace him and bring him back to the country even though there was a warrant against him,” Sirisena pointed out.

Ethnic Issue

On the ethnic issue too, the President said, he had differences with Wickremesinghe.

I had seen to it that 90% of the lands taken over by the armed forces during the war was returned and I was working towards establishing  a devolution system within a unitary  state. But on the contrary, Wickremesinghe was taking away powers already devolved to the provinces such as Environment and Sustainable Development.”

Economic Policy

Further, Wickremesinghe was continually presenting cabinet proposals based on his neo-liberal policies which were antithetical to the economic interests of Sri Lankans.

Every leader in every part of the world, including Trump, puts his country and its people first and pursues policies which will serve their interests, but Wickremesinghe’s policies were at variance with this trend. I had to stop many of his proposals with the result, there used to be frequent verbal duels in the cabinet,” Sirisena said.

Electoral Debacle

The Lankan President said that matters came to a head after the debacle government parties suffered in the February 2018 Local Bodies elections.

Sirisena told Wickremesinghe that it was because of his economic policies that the ruling United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance and the United National Front were crushed.

I asked Wickremesinghe to step aside and allow somebody else from his party to  take up the Premiership. But Wickremesinghe would not resign. Then, about eight months ago, I asked his party man and parliament Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, to take oaths as the Prime Minister. But he would not. Then I asked Sajith Premadasa. He said he did not want to alienate Wickremesinghe. It was then that I decided to appoint  Mahinda Rajapaksa (former President and leader of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna),” Sirisena recalled.

Assassination Plot

The President then mentioned the alleged plot to assassinate him with the help of a foreigner, a cabinet Minister (Gen.Sarath Fonseka) and an LTTE sniper.

A man who claimed he knew of the plot told the  media about it and named some of the conspirators. But the police chief, without making any investigations, told the media, that the voices in the relevant telephone conversations did not match the voices of those named.

Later, it was established that the voices matched 95% and that some portions had been deleted. The police chief also did not explain why two Light Machine Guns were issued to a police unit and why a sniper rifle went missing.

Despite all this, including the alleged involvement of a cabinet minister (belonging to Wickremesinghe’s party) in a plot to kill the Head of State, Wickremesinghe did not get the plot investigated properly. He did not, even once, brief me about progress in the investigation.

Meanwhile, his ministerial colleagues were going about saying the assassination plot was but a joke or a drama. Can any leader in the world work with such a person?” Sirisena asked.

Not Power Hungry

The President denied that he was power hungry and arbitrary. He recalled that he was the only Executive President enjoying  powers associated with Emperors” to have clipped his own powers through the 19 th. Amendment of the Constitution.

The 19 th.Amendment clipped his powers by establishing Independent Commissions to set up and oversee various aspects of governance.

The President said that he was also compassionate and non-vindictive.

The LTTE had tried to kill me five times. But I pardoned the man whose bid to kill me was proved,” he said.

The President said that he is writing a book on his relations with Wickremesinghe. The 300 to 400 page book will have all the details including some which are repulsive,” he said.

Current Situation  

On the current political situation in Sri Lanka, Sirisena said that there is no national crisis as such, but some unrest confined to parliament.”

He said that normalcy will be restored when the Supreme Court gives its ruling on the constitutionality of the dissolution of parliament and the ordering of fresh elections. The court had stayed the dissolution of parliament till December 7.

I will accept the court’s ruling irrespective of what it is. If it says the dissolution was constitutional, elections will be held. If the ruling is otherwise, the government in place will have to prove majority support. If the government fails to do so, the opposition may put up a candidate for Prime Minister. But I will not appoint  Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister so long as I am alive,” Sirisena said categorically.

I will choose a Prime Minister who is compatible with me (the Executive President)”, he added.

No Confidence Motion  

On his refusal to accept the two No Confidence Motions passed against the government of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, the President said that he will accept the result of the motion if the process is based on the Standing Orders of parliament and if the voting is done by show of hands or by the use of the electronic machine.

Keerthi Godayaya

රනිල්වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ලහි ලහියේරට කාගෙන කාගෙන ගියේ හරි හදිස්සියෙන්වාගේ ය. මේ තකහනියේ, ලහි ලහියේ, හදිස්සියෙන් වගේ, නිනව්වක් නැතුවකාගෙන කාගෙන යාමට හේතුව කුමක්දැයිසලකා බැලිය යුතු කරුණකි.

බටහිරබලවතුන් මෙන්ම රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාදැන සිටි විශේෂතම කරුණවන්නේ රනිල්ගේ   දේශපාලනබලය තමා සන්තකව පවත්වාගත හැකි කාලය දිනවල සිට පැය ගණන්වලට කෙටි වෙමින් තිබූබවය. වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාටසුළු කාලයක් තුල ලොකු කාරනාගොඩක් කිරීමේ උවමනාව තිබු බව පෙනේ. ඔහුගේ කාර්ය භාරය වූයේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාව ග්‍රීසිය මෙන් නැවත හැරවියනොහැකි ආකාරයේ දේශපාලන ආර්ථික පෙරලි රාශියක් හරහා රට උගුලකසිර කර බංකොලොත් කිරීමය. දැන් ග්‍රීසියට නැවතහැරී ගමන් කල නොහැක. ඔවුන් යුරෝපා සංගමයේ මහා ණය උගුලකසිරවී ඇති කොස් ඇටමීයෙකු වගේ ය. දැන්ඔවුන් එදිනෙදා ජීවත් වීම සඳහා ගෙදරබඩු  මූට්ටුවිකුණාගෙන කන ආකාරයට රාජ්‍ය දේපල විකුණාගෙනකමින් සිටිති. වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාකලේ මෙයම නොවේද? ඒආර්ථික වශයෙනි. දේශපාලන වශයෙන් ඔහු රට බෙදාවෙන්කිරීමේ බටහිර න්‍යායය සුක්ෂමආකාරයෙන් ව්‍යවස්ථාව හරහාකිරීමේ ව්‍යාපාරයේ යෙදීසිටියේය.

රනිල්සතුව පැවැති දේශපාලන න්‍යාය පත්‍රයේ ප්‍රධානතමකරුණ වුයේ රට බෙදීමේව්‍යාපාරයට අවශ්‍ය නීතිමයරාමුව හා ආවරණය ව්‍යවස්තානුකුලව සපයාදීමයි. එවන් ව්‍යවස්ථාපිතආවරණයක් මුලින් ලභා දුන් පසුරට බෙදීමට අවශ්‍ය ඉදිරිපියවරයන් ක්‍රමානුකුලව ගැනීමටබෙදුම්වාදීනටත්, රට බෙදීමට කුමන්ත්‍රණය කරන බටහිරරට වලටත් හැකි වන්නේය.

එය ඉටුකිරීමට ඔන්න මෙන්න කියාතිබියදී රනිල්ව අගමැති කමෙන් ඉවත් කිරීම ඇසූසැනින් බලවත් ලෙස කම්පාවට පත්වූහා කලබල වූ අයඅතර ප්‍රධාන වුයේ, බටහිර තානාපති වරුන් හා බෙදුම්වාදී සම්බන්ධන්  ය. පසුගිය දිනකදී සම්බන්ධන් බටහිර තානාපති වරුන් සමග වෙනමම සාකච්චාවක්පැවැත්වීය. එහිදී කතා කල කරුණුමාධ්‍යයට සම්පූර්ණයෙන් හෙළිනොකලද, අපටනම් අනුමාන කල හැකි වන්නේය.  

කිසියම්දේශපාලකයෙකු පසුගිය දිනක කී පරිදි, වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා තව මාසහයක් බලයේ සිටියානම්, කිසිවෙකුටබේරා ගැනීමට තරම් ශ්‍රීලංකාවක් ඉතුරු නොවන්නේය. වෙන කාටත් වඩාහොඳින් මෙය රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ඉතා හොඳින්දන සිටියේය. ඔහුට බටහිරින් ලැබීතිබු න්‍යාය පත්‍රය ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීමට ලැබී තිබුනේ වසරහතරහමාරක් පමණි. ඉනුදු වසර තුනක් ගෙවීගොස් අවසන්ය. තව තිබුනේ වසරඑකහමාරක් පමණි.

වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ක්‍රියාත්මකකලේ පොදුවේ ගත් කල ලිංගිකඅනන්‍යතා නිදහස අපේක්ෂාකරන අයගේ දේශපාලන දහමටඅනුගතවූ න්‍යාය පත්‍රයකි. එය නව ලිබෙරල්වාදී න්‍යාය හාසමග අපුරුවට ගැලපෙන දේශපාලන දහමකි.

බුදුදහමින්ශික්ෂණය වී ඇති ශ්‍රී ලාංකික සමාජයබටහිර රටවල මෙන් ලිංගිකඅනන්‍යතා නිදහස පිළිබඳවඅනුකුලතාවක් නොදක්වනු ඇතැයි ඔවුහු සිතති. එබැවින් මෙමෙ සිංහල බෞද්ධසමාජය විනාශවී යා යුතුය. ඒමත නව ලිබරල් වාදීසමාජයක් ගොඩ නැගිය යුතුය.

රනිල්ගේරට විනාසහ කිරීමේ වැඩපිළිවෙල අංශ දෙකකින් ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීමට ඔහු වග බලාගත්තේය. එනම්, දේශපාලනිකව හා ආර්ථික වශයෙනි. දේශපාලන වශයෙන් මෙය විනාශ කලහැකි වන්නේ රට බෙදීමේ බටහිරන්‍යායපත්‍රය ක්‍රියාවටනැන්වීමෙනි. ආර්ථික වශයෙන් මෙය විනාශ කලහැකිවන්නේ රට නැවත ගොඩයා නොහැකි ආකාරයේ නය උගුලක සිරකරවා, ජනතා දේපල විදෙශීකයනටවිකුණා අසරණ කොට ජාතියේකොන්ද කඩා නිවට නියාලුතත්වයට පත් කිරීමෙනි. ඉන්පසු බින්දුවේ සිට නව ලිබරල්වාදීසමාජයක් ගොඩනැංවීම මොවුන්ගේ අරමුනයි. 

කෙටියෙන්කිවහොත් එය මෙසේ සංක්ෂේපගත කල හැක. “පවත්නාසමාජ දේශපාලන සංස්කෘතිය ලිංගික අනන්‍යතා නිදහසඅනුමත නොකරන්නේ නම් එම සමාජයමුළුමනින්ම විනාශ කර නව සමාජදේශපාලන සංස්කෘතියක් අලුතින් ගොඩ නගන්න” යනන්‍යායයි. මේ කණ්ඩායම කරනුලැබූ ලොකුම දේශපාලන වරද නම් සම්ප්‍රදායික සිංහල සමාජ සංස්කෘතියේ පවත්නාවිශ්වාස, ආකල්ප, ආචාරධර්ම හා ඒවා පවත්වාගෙනයන අද්යාත්මික ආයතන විනාශ කිරීමටපියවර ගැනීමය. ඔවුහු සම්ප්‍රදායික සිංහල සමාජ සංස්ථාවට වෛරකළහ. එනිසා ඔවුහු සම්ප්‍රදායික සිංහල සංස්කෘතික දේහයේ නිල බලා පහරදුන්හ. රට බෙදා වෙන්කිරීම මොවුන් දුටුවේ සිංහල සංස්කෘතිය අඩපන කොට මරාදැමීම අරභයා ඉටුකරගත යුතු අනුලංගනීය අවශ්‍යතාවක් ලෙසය. මේ සඳහා ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට නැවතගොඩ ආ නොහැකි ආකාරයේව්‍යවස්ථාමය ගැටයක් ගැසීමට වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාටතදබල කැසිල්ලක් තිබිණි.

ඔවුනටමෙම විනාශකාරී මාවත තොරා නොගෙන, තම අනන්‍යතාව පිළිගැන්වීමටවෙන මාවතක් තිබුනෙම නැතිද? 

කිසියම්සමාජයක් විසින් ලිංගික අනන්‍යතාවය පිලිබඳනිදහස ඉවසීම සහ පිළිගැනීම එකකි. එහෙත් කිසියම් සුවිශේෂ ලිංගික අනන්‍යතාවක් ඇතිපිරිස් රජ කරවීම සඳහාසම්ප්‍රදායික පවුල් සංස්ථාව මුල් කරගත් සමාජක්‍රමය විනාශ කරදමා, මුළු මහත් සමාජදේශපාලන ව්‍යුහම තමන්ටරිසි පරිදි යලි සැකසීම තවත්එකකි. වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාකිරීමට උත්සහ කලේ මෙකී දෙවැනිකරුණය.

සම්ප්‍රදායික සිහල සංස්කෘතික ලකුණකොළඹින් අතුරුදන් වී බොහෝ කල්ගොසිනි. දැන් එය යම්තරමින් හෝ පවතිනවා නම්පවතින්නේ ග්‍රාමීය සමාජයේපමණි. වත්මන් ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන මහතා සහ හිටපුඅගමැති වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාඅතර ආරවුල හටගන්නේ මේ සියුම්තා සිරිසේනමහතාට වැටහී යෑම නිසා වියහැක. තමා සහ හිටපුඅගමැති වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාඅතර නොපෑහිය හැකිතරමේ සංස්කෘතික වෙනසක් ඇති බව ජනාධිපතිතුමා පවසන විට අපඑය ගැඹුරින් විග්‍රහ කරගත යුතු වන්නේ එබැවිනි.

කොළඹපාලක පන්තිය වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාගේමෙම කුජීතු දේශපාලන කුමන්ත්‍රණය අනුමත කළහ. කවදත් ජාතික ප්‍රශ්න පිළිබඳවඅතිශය අසංවේදී වූ, බහුතරයක් ඇතිඑ.ජා. ප පාක්ෂිකයින්මේ පිළිබඳව වෙනදා සේම අසංවේදී විය.  මේපිළිබඳව සංවේදී වුයේ ග්‍රාමීය    පදනමක්ඇති ජනයාය.  එනිසාමවික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාට තවදුරටත් මේ ක්‍රියාදාමයකරගෙන යාමට ඉඩ දුනහොත්ඉතිහාසයේ තමාට අත්වන ඉරණමපිලිබඳව සිරිසේන මහතා සංවේදී වුවාටසැක නැත.

කුමනඅයුරේ දේශපාලන බෙලි කැපීම් හාපාවාදීම් සිදු වුවද, හිටපුජනාධිපති රාජපක්ෂ මහතා බලයෙන් පහවීමහේතුවෙන් එක යහපත් දෙයක්සිදුවිය. එම පරාජය හාපසුබැස්ම රාජපක්ෂ මහතාට මොහොතක් පසෙකට වී සැම දෙයක්මපිළිබඳවම හොඳින් මැදහත් මනසින් සිතා බැලීම සඳහාවිරාමයක් සැපයුවේය. වෝටර්ලු සංග්‍රාමයෙන් පරාජයවීගෙදර ගිය නැපෝලියන් සතිගණනක්   මුල්ලකවී නිදාගත්තා සේ, මැද මුල්ලටගිය රාජපක්ෂ මහතා සියලු දේපිළිබඳව නැවත සිතා බැලීමටඅවස්තාව උදා කරගත්තේය. කෙතරම්ජාතික සේවයක් ඉටු කලද ජනතාවඔහුව පරාජය කිරීමට හේතුවූ කරුණු තේරුම් ගැනීමට ඔහු උත්සාහ   කලාට කිසිදු සැකයක්නොමැත. ජනතාවට වයිර කරනවා වෙනුවටතමා අතින් වැරදි සිදුවී ඇති බව පිළිගැනීමටතරම් ඔහු නිහතමානී වීමදමෙහිදී වැදගත් ය. 

එමෙන්මරනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාගේඅග්‍රාමාත්‍ය තනතුර යටතේසිදුවෙමින් පැවති විනාශය තේරුම් ගැනීමට ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන මහතාටද කෙසේ හෝ හැකිවීම රටේ වාසනාවකි. එහෙත්ඊට එරෙහි පියවර මීට පෙර ගෙනතිබුනානම් සිදුව ඇති විනාශය අවමකර ගැනීමට හැකිව තිබුණි. කෙසේ හෝ වේවාඅද පවතින දේශපාලන අරගලය නව යටත්විජිත වාදී, නව ලිබරල් වාදී නාගරීක පන්තියහා ජාතිකත්වය අගයන ග්‍රාමීයජනයා අතර ඇති සටනක්බව එතුමා තේරුම් ගෙන ඇති බවඔහුගේ කතාවෙන් පැහැදිලි විය.

මේ සමස්ත අරගලය පිළිබඳව දුර සිට බලාසිටිනා අපිට කිව හැක්කේඔවුන් දෙපලට අප සුභ පතනාබවය. කෙසේ වුවද මෙවරවත්කොළඹා නමැති දේශපාලන පිළිකාව දේශපාලන පිටියෙන් ඉවත් කිරීම මේදෙපල එක්වී කරනු ඇති යයිඅප උදක්ම බලාපොරොත්තු වෙමු.

Keerthi Godayaya

By M D P DISSANAYAKE

Since the end of the War, the number Tamils returned to their original land India had dropped drastically.  At the same time, the number of Tamils arriving in Sri Lanka and taking up residency  from India, Australia, UK, Noway, Canada etc. had increased since Tamils Engineered Sinhala former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe came to power.

The Tamil leaders are quietly very happy of the current situation.  The Tamil leaderS had found a new Prabahakaran in the shadow of Ranil Wickremasinghe.  The Tamils will do their utmost to ensure the return of the most hated Sinhala former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe.

Despite the fact that President Mahinda Rajapakse had provided a conducive climate for Tamils and Muslims in North and East,  the Tamil Leader are demanding more and more with the ultimate object of dividing the small island of Sri Lanka.  Now Norway,  and inexperienced Foreign Minister of Australia Marise Payne are dancing to the tune of Tamils.

The Sinhala Terrorists who caused a massive murder campaign and blood bath in Sri Lanka known as Janatha Vimukthi Peramana  have also joined hands with Tamil Leaders and Ranil Wickremasinghe, strengthening the hands of those who are aiming to divide Sri Lanka and destroy Buddhism.

If Sri Lanka is so bad for Tamils, why not they pack their bags and return to their home land.  The reason they are not returning to India is clearly demonstrated by the living conditions for Tamils in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere, based on their low –caste  origin.

Tamil Nadu ranks the highest among the southern state  in India as far as instances of discrimination against the Scheduled Caste is concerned, according to the National Scheduled Caste Commission of India. (Article 366(24) in the Constitution of India 1949 defines the Scheduled Caste means such cases, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution).

The country where Prince Siddhartha was born and later attained Buddha Status pioneered heavily against the caste discrimination, greatly influenced by the pathetic living conditions of low caste Indians.   

The Living conditions of Tamils in India are deplorable, so why happy Tamils in Sri Lanka seek to go and living in that Hell?

The current electoral system in Sri Lanka is favouring the minorities.  For example, in 2015 General Election, the JVP received 548,944 votes ( or 4.87%) and garnered 6 seats, whereas the Tamil National Alliance secured 515,963 votes  ( 4.62%) and secured 16 seats in Parliament.   These disgusting Tamil Leaders with their 16 seats are playing havoc in Sri Lanka Parliament against the Prime Minister Mr Mahinda Rajapakse.   Where is democracy in Sri Lanka.

Isn’t Sri Lanka is a HEAVEN FOR TAMILS AND HELL FOR SINHALESE?

රනිල් බෝධි පූජා තියන්න කියලා. ඔහු රවටන්නෙ හදන්නෙ කාව ද? දෙවියන් ද? ජනතාව ද? නැත්නම් ජනතාව හා දෙවියන් ද? රනිල්ට ඇති සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතියක් නැහැ. ඔහු මෙතෝදිස්ත සුමන්තිරන් එක්ක එකතුවෙලා ජයම්පති ලව්ව ව්‍යවස්ථා හදවල රනිල්ලාගේ අනුර කුමාර දිසානායක ලව්ව විස්ස පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කරල කරන්න හැදුවෙ සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතිය නංවාලීම නො වෙයි.

රනිල් සිංහල බෞද්ධ විරෝධියකු බව අප කීවේ අද ඊයේ නො වෙයි. ඔහු තනිකර ම බටහිර ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතියෙ. ඔහුගෙ  ආගම මොකක් ද කියන එක මට වැඩක් නැහැ. ඔහුගෙ පියා ඇංග්ලිකන් ක්‍රිස්තියානි. අද එය හඳුන්වන්නෙ ලංකා සභාව කියලයි.  ඔහුගෙ බාප්පා ඇංග්ලිකන් බිෂොප්වරයෙක්. ඔහුගෙ මව බෞද්ධ ඒත් ඒ අයත් එක් කාලෙක විජේවර්ධන ඩෙප්ලා. හිටපු අගවිනිසුරු ඩෙප් ඔවුන්ගෙ නෑදෑ පරපුරේ. විජේවර්ධනලා තමයි ලේක් හවුසියෙ අයිතිකාරයො. රනිල්ගෙ තාත්තා එස්මන්ඩ් වික්‍රමසිංහ වැඩ කෙළෙ විජේවර්ධනගෙ ලේක් හවුසියෙ. එස්මන්ඩ්ලා බද්දෙගම පැත්තෙ. එස්මන්ඩ් තරුණ කාලෙ ට්‍රොට්ස්කිවාදියෙක්. පස්සෙ ලිබරල්වාදියෙක්.

ලේක්හවුසිය තමයි ධර්මපාලතුමාට එළව එළව ගැහුවෙ. ධර්මපාලතුමා අන්තිමට ඉන්දියාවට ගිහිල්ල නැවතුණෙ කළ කිරීමෙන්. විජේවර්ධනලාගෙ ලේක්හවුසිය සිංහල බෞද්ධත්වයට පහර ගැහුව. පනස්හයේ දි ලේක්හවුසිය ම එ පෙරමුණට විරුද්ධ වුණා. ආණ්ඩුවෙ ගුවන් විදුලියත් එහෙමයි. ලංකාදීපෙ ඩී බී ධනපාල විතරයි ම එ පෙරමුණ වෙනුවෙන් කතා කෙළෙ. ඒත් ම එ පෙරමුණ එ ජා පක්‍ෂය අටට බැස්සුවා. මාර්ටින් වික්‍රමසිංහ ජයග්‍රහණයෙන් පස්සෙ බමුණු කුලය බිඳවැටීම කියල ලිපියක් ලියල දහසින් බැඳි පියල්ලක් ලබා ගත්ත.

ඒත් බමුණු කුලය බිඳ වැටුණෙ නැහැ. මේ බමුණු කුලය කියන්නෙ වෛදික බමුණු කුලයක් නොවෙයි. එහෙම බමුණු කුලයකුත් ලංකාවෙ අතීතයෙ තිබුණා. වත්මන් බමුණු කුලය කියන්නෙ බටහිර ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතියෙ බමුණු කුලය. ලේක්හවුසිය පස්සෙ කාලෙක බණ්ඩාරනායක මැතිණියටත් කරදර කළා. ශාන්ත බ්‍රිජට් කන්‍යාරාමයෙ ඉගෙන ගත්තත් ඇය සිරිමාවෝ. පාසලක සංස්කෘතියට හැම තිස්සෙ ම ශිෂ්‍ය ශිෂ්‍යාවන් වෙනස් කරන්න බැහැ. ධර්මපාලතුමා රාජකීය විද්‍යාලයේත් ශාන්ත තෝමස් විද්‍යාලයේත් ඉගෙන ගත් අයෙක්.

බමුණු කුලය තවමත් තියෙනවා. එය තවමත් බලවත්. පාණදුරා වාදයට ප්‍රධාන ආසන්න ම හේතුව වුණෙ ඇංග්ලිකන් හා මෙතෝදිස්ත පූජකවරුන් හා දේශකයන් බුදුදහමට කළ නිග්‍රහ. 1840 දි ඉංගිරිසින් බුදුදහම රැකීමට 1815 ගිවිසුමෙන් වූ පොරොන්දුව කඩ කළා. ඉංගිරිසින් 1815 දී වාරියපොළ සුමංගල හාමුදුරුවන් යාපනේ හිර කර තිබ්බ. 1848 දී කඩහපොල හාමුදුරුවන්ට වෙඩි තිබ්බ. මෙරට ආගමික වාද කියන්නෙ සංස්කෘතික ගැටුම්. යටත්විජිතවාදයට එරෙහි ව කළ සටන්. අමද්‍යප ව්‍යාපාරයත් යටත්විජිත විරෝධී සටනක්. එහෙත් අදත් රටේ බලවත් ඉංගිරිසි ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතිය. බටහිර ක්‍රිස්තියානි නූතනත්වය අද රටේ අස්සක් මුල්ලක් නැතිව පැතිර ගිහිල්ල.  මාර්ටින් වික්‍රමසිංහත් අවසාන වශයෙන් ගත්ත ම ක්‍රිස්තියානි නූතනත්වයෙ.

අද ලංකාව මත්පැන් හා මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය භාවිතයෙන් ඉහළට ම ගිගින්. මිනිමැරුම් ඉහළ ම තලයක. මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවෙ පිහි වනනවා. පාසල් සිසුන් තම වයසෙ ම සිසුන් පිහියෙන් ඇන මරනවා. මේ සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතිය දුර්වල වීමේ ප්‍රතිඵල. සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතිය දුර්වල කෙරුණෙ ඉංගිරිසි ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතියෙන්. ඉංගිරිසි ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතිය ලෝක ආධිපත්‍යය දරනවා. එයට විරුද්ධව සටන් කරන්න ඔවුන්ගෙ උපක්‍රම භාවිතා කරන්න ඕන. අපට අපේ ප්‍රවාද තියෙන්න ඕනෙ.

පාණදුරා වාදය තිබූ දිනවලටත් වඩා අද ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතික ආධිපත්‍යයක් තියෙනවා. අද බෝන් අගේන් ක්‍රිස්තියානිය රටේ ඉහළ තැන්වල ඉන්න අය බිලි බා ගන්නවා. ඔවුන් දෙපැත්තෙ ම ඉන්නවා. මා නම් කියන්නේ නැහැ. අද රට මෙහෙයවන්නෙ ඇංග්ලිකන් සංස්කෘතියෙ රනිල් හා මෙතෝදිස්ත සංස්කෘතියෙ සුමන්තිරන්. රනිල්ලාගේ අනුර කුමාර ඔවුන් දෙදෙනා විසින් දක්ක ගෙන යන්නකු පමණයි. අප ඒ කල්ලිය රනිල් අනුර සුමන්තිරන් කල්ලිය ලෙස හැඳින්නුවා. සුමන්තරන් කොතරම් බලවත් ද කියන එක පසුගිය දා අප පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ දී දුටුවා. හේතුව කුමක් ද යන්න ගැන විවිධ කතා පැතිර ගියත් උසාවියෙත් තම බල පරාක්‍රමය විහිදුවන  සුමන්තිරන් තම බලය උසාවි නොයන නීතිඥ කිරිඇල්ලට පෙන්නුවා. එය පාර්ලිමේන්තු සම්ප්‍රදායට එකඟ ද කියලා ඊනියා කතානායකගෙන් අහල වැඩක් නැහැ.

පහුගිය අවුරුදු තුනහමාරක පමණ කාලයෙහි රනිල් සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතියට එල්ල කළ පහරවල ලැයිස්තුව ඉතා දීර්ඝයි. භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේට රණ විරුවන්ට පමණක් නොව සිංහල ගොවිකමටත් සිංහල වෙදකමටත් පහර වැදුණා. සිංහල ගුරුවරු කියා පිරිසක් අද නැහැ. සඟ වෙද ගුරු ගොවි රණවිරු පංච මහා බලවේගය දුර්වල කෙරුණා. රනිල් අගමැති ධුරයෙන් ඉවත් කෙරුණෙ මේ කරුණු නිසා. එහි දී විධායක බලය ඇති මෛත්‍රිපාල ජන බලය ඇති මහින්ද සමග එකතු වුණා.

අද මේ එකතුවට විරුද්ධව ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතිය අවි අමෝරා ගෙන සටන් කරනවා. එහි දී බටහිර ක්‍රිස්තියානි රටවල තානාපතිවරුන් ද සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතියට විරුද්ධව සටන් කරනවා. මෙය විධායකය හා ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකය අතර සටනක් නොවෙයි. සංස්කෘතීන් අතර සටනක්, බොහෝ විට අවසන් සටන වෙන්න පුළුවන්. ඉංගිරිසි ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතිය ජයග්‍රහණය කළොත් ඉන් පසු සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතිය නැත්තට ම නැති කරල දාවි. මේ සංස්කෘතික ගැටුම,  විධායකය හා ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකය අතර ගැටුමක් ලෙස පෙන්නුම් කෙරෙනවා, පඬි බසින් කියනවා නම් ප්‍රක්‍ෂෙපණය කෙරෙනවා. මෙයින් කියන්නෙ තෙවරප්පෙරුමලා රංගෙ බණ්ඩාරලා ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතියෙ කියන එකවත් ජොන්ස්ටන්ලා බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතියෙවත් කියන එක නො වෙයි. මා සඳහන් කරන්නෙ සමස්තයක් ලෙස ගැටුම මොකක් ද කියන එක.

මෙය අවසාන සටන විය හැකි නිසා ම රනිල් හා සුමන්තිරන් සටන අතහරින්න සූදානම් නැහැ. අනුරලා චම්පකලා රාජිතලා ඉත්තන් පමණයි. අධිකරණය ගැන විවිධ කතා පැතිර යනවා. අපි ඒ ගැන කතා නොකර ඉඳිමු. රනිල්ගේ බෝධි පූජාවෙ ව්‍යාජය තේරුම් ගනිමු.           

 lanka C news

ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා සහ හිටපු ආරක්ෂක ලේකම් ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ මහතා ඝාතනය කිරීමේ කුමන්ත්‍රණයට හිටපු ඇමැති රංජිත් මද්දුමබණ්ඩාර මහතා ද සම්බන්ධ බව දූෂණ විරෝධී බලකායේ කියාසිටි.

එම සංවිධානයේ අධ්‍යක්ෂ නාමල් කුමාර මහතා මාධ්‍ය හමුවක් අමතමින් මේ බව කියා සිටියේ එය තහවුරු කළ හැකි හඬ පට කිහිපයක් ද මාධ්‍ය වෙත මුදා හරිමිනි.

ජනාධිපතිවරයා සහ හිටපු ආරක්ෂක ලේකම්වරයා ඝාතන කුමන්ත්‍රණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් මුලින්ම මාධ්‍ය වෙත සාක්ෂි සහිතව අදහස් පළකරන ලද්දේ නාමල් කුමාර විසිනි.

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

• On 15, the Speaker’s declaration was not consistent with the proposed motion

• It is practically impossible to summon parliament during prorogation

• the Speaker did not see or hear the seconding of Sumanthiran MP’s motion

ere the No-Confidence Motions (NCMs) passed in Parliament? Was the Government of the Prime Minister dissolved on November 14 or 16? These are questions in the minds of many people.
Let’s read Article 48(2) of the Constitution: If Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government, the Cabinet of Ministers shall stand dissolved, and the President shall, unless he has in the exercise of his powers under Article 70, dissolved Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers in terms of Articles 42, 43, 44 and 45.”
Therefore if a NCM was validly passed the President has two options; either (a) to dissolve the Parliament under Article 70, or (b) to appoint a new Cabinet.
On plain reading of Article 70 we find four basic instances of dissolution of Parliament;

i. After expiration of 4 ½ years from the first meeting (Art 70(1);

ii. On the request of the Parliament on a resolution passed by 2/3rd of its members (Art. 70(1);

iii. At any time while Parliament stands prorogued (subject to Article 70) (Art. 70(3);

iv. Dissolution by virtue of Article 62(2) of the Constitution (Art.70 (5) (b).

“On 14 and 16 November, the opposition wanted to hurriedly pass NCMs against the Government. On both days, M. A. Sumanthiran MP brought motions to suspend the operation of STOs”

Can the President first prorogue the Parliament and then dissolve it at any time under Article 70(3)? Since it is practically impossible to summon parliament during prorogation, can the President dissolve parliament without the sanction of 2/3rd of its members during prorogation? (As prorogation and parliament sittings cannot take place at the same time). Since these are issues now before the Supreme Court, I leave them as they are.
NCMs are brought by the opposition expressing lack of confidence in the Government. The procedure is stated in the Standing Orders. According to Article 74(1) business in the parliament is regulated by resolutions or Standing Orders (STOs). The latest standing orders were adopted and became operative from April 15, 2018.
Notice of motions should be given to the Secretary General of Parliament. STO 27;-.

27. (1) Notice of questions or motions shall be given in writing, signed by the Member giving the notice and addressed to the Secretary-General. Such notices may be handed over to the Secretary-General at any time when Parliament is sitting or may be sent to or left at the office of the Secretary- General at any time.

(2) The Secretary-General shall, upon receipt of any notice in respect of any question, unless the Speaker rules any question out of order, include in the Order Book for answer on a day not earlier than seven clear days from the day on which the notice was given:
Provided that, any question relating to a matter of urgent public importance may be asked by the Leader of the Opposition or a leader of a recognized political party at the conclusion of questions after due notice has been given to the Minister concerned.

(3) The Secretary-General shall, upon receipt of any notice in respect of any motion, unless the Speaker rules the motion out of order, include in the Order Book, but unless Parliament otherwise orders, no debate thereon shall take place unless five clear days have elapsed since the notice was given. Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph, notices of motions to be moved at the commencement of Public Business shall be included in the Order Paper if received at the Table on the previous Sitting Day.

(4) No debate shall take place on the giving of notice of any matter.

(5) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, no debate shall take place except on a motion or order appearing in the Order Paper.

Motions should be considered by the Committee on Parliamentary Business, which is to be appointed at the commencement of every session (STO 114). In terms of STO 115 Committee on Parliamentary Business should consider and decide on the time that should be allocated for the discussion of such Business of Parliament and such other matters as the Speaker, in consultation with the Leader of the House of Parliament, may refer to the Committee.
This committee is essential to regulate the business of the Parliament. The Government party plays a prominent role in this Committee. As at the 18th November, no such committee was appointed.

Proceedings on November 14 and 15 

On 14 and 16 November, the opposition wanted to hurriedly pass NCMs against the Government. On both days, M. A. Sumanthiran MP brought motions to suspend the operation of STOs. Such could only be done under STO135;
135. Any one or more of the Standing Orders may be suspended on a motion made after notice by a majority of Members of Parliament at any meeting to enable any special business to be considered or disposed of:
Provided that, a motion under this Standing Order unless proposed by a Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers shall be decided on by a division and shall be declared lost if it appears that less than twenty Members of Parliament voted in the majority in support of such motion.”

Sumanthiran MP had not given proper notice of the motions (on suspension of STOs). Accordingly they were neither in the Order Book nor the Order paper. Further the motions were silent as to (a) the intended special business to be considered on suspension and (b) the specific STO or STOs to be suspended. These mandatory requirements were not met with. The motions were illegal and void. On both days (14 and 16) the STOs were not suspended when Anura Kumara Dissanayake, MP, was proposing the NCMs to the parliament.

Further on Nov.15, the Speaker did not see or hear the seconding of parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran’s motion. The speaker relied on an unknown bystander for information. The Speaker cannot delegate his functions or rely on hearsay evidence.
Therefore NCMs (on both days) should go through the normal procedure. In order to be valid notice of motions should have been given in terms of STO27 and included in the Order Book. No debate thereon could have taken place unless five clear days have elapsed since the notice was given. They should have been presented to the Committee on Parliamentary Business and then entered in the Order Paper. No copies of the motion were given to the members. No debate was held.

Voting

STOs 47 and 48 are applicable for voting;
47. (1) The question shall be put by the Speaker and the votes may be taken by voices, ‘Ayes’ and ‘Noes’, and the result may be declared by the Speaker.

(2) Any Member who is not agreeable with the decision of the Speaker may call for a division for a vote to be taken in any of the following methods as may be determined by the Speaker. In such case the division bells shall be rung for five minutes and thereafter –

(a) a division shall be taken by counting the Members row by row, rising in their places in support or against the motion before the House;

(b) a division shall be taken by the use of the electronic vote recorder. The Members shall press the appropriate button to indicate the decision of such Members within the time period allowed by the Speaker;

(c) a division shall be taken by the Secretary-General asking each Member separately as to how that Member desires to vote and shall record the votes accordingly. The Secretary-General shall first ask the Prime Minister and then the Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Deputy Ministers in the respective alphabetical order of their names and then the other Members in the alphabetical order of their names. Any Member may if he wishes to decline to vote state such fact to the Secretary-General. In such case the Secretary-General shall record the name of such Member as having declined to vote.

(3) The Speaker shall announce the numbers of the votes for and against the decision and if the votes are equal the Speaker shall cast a deciding vote. The Speaker shall then declare the result of the division.

“NCMs are brought by the opposition expressing lack of confidence in the Govt. The procedure is stated in the Standing Orders. According to Article 74(1) business in the parliament is regulated by resolutions or Standing Orders (STOs) The latest standing orders were adopted and became operative from April 15, 2018”

48. In the event of confusion or inaccuracy in the course of a division concerning the numbers or names recorded, which cannot otherwise be corrected, the Speaker shall direct the House to proceed to another division immediately thereafter.” On both days voting was to be taken on four occasions; two on motions of suspension of STOs and two on NCMs.
The first method of taking a vote is by voice”. Only two words acceptable for counting; Ayes” and Noes”: (Sinhala Pakshai” / Vipakshai”).We heard no such words voicing from the house.

If a member does not agree with the decision of the speaker, a division for a vote should be taken. The Bells should be rung. Vote could be taken in one of the three ways. In terms of STO 135, Vote by voice is not permissible on suspension motions proposed by member who is not a Minister. On both days the Speaker admitted the need to have voting by name. Having decided to take vote on division (by name) he cannot thereafter go backwards and have on voice. Further he did not declare the results; instead said of the consent of the majority”, which is not provided in the STOs. On 15, the Speaker’s declaration was not consistent with the proposed motion. The Speaker never declared whether the motions were passed or not. All motions ended with a nullity. Therefore NCMs were not passed according to law. There are dozens of other violations of parliamentary procedures and practices which rendered NCMs null and void. Only few are stated here.

Conclusion

On Nov. 14 and 16, STOs were not suspended. Therefore when the no-confidence motions were proposed, STOs stood operative. All motions were moved violating STOs. Voting was defective. The Speaker’s pronouncements were inconsistent with the motions moved. The entire exercise was a nullity. No damage done to the Government. Cabinet was not dissolved. Therefore the President has no ground to act under Article 48(2).

K.K.S Perera Courtesy The Daily Mirror

• Betrayed his voters, who demoted him to 4th place in preference for ‘Pabha’ in Gampaha Dist

• MR and SLPP will attack previous government including Maithri in their campaign

• What will the executive do if the highest Court would declare that his action is unconstitutional?

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who was parachuted, didn’t make it the hard way; he took to politics only at fifty five when Ranil invited him to become the Chairman of the Grand old Party. He chaired the Parliament which was initially prorogued then dissolved before the SC intervened to suspend the Dissolution resulting in sittings for two days last week which had been marred with violence. The Speaker initially accepted President’s appointment of MR as PM and arranged seating in the House accordingly. A couple of days later he abruptly announced that he rejected the position and revert to Status quo; announced that there was no government or a PM or a Cabinet. Next he allowed a NCM Against the ‘non-existent PM and government’ making a mockery of Parliamentary practices; Standing Orders and all norms.
Karu, after several attempts to kick out his leader and when he failed, in spite of being appointed as the Deputy among the Greens, he led a 17-member senior UNPers to shift loyalties and ‘Make MR’s hands strong’ by accepting plum Ministerial posts. He betrayed his voters, who demoted him to 4th place in preference for ‘Pabha’ in Gampaha District. Can anybody compare such a pathetic, irresponsible man with great Speakers beginning from Molamure.

Back to 16th Century House of Commons

May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose obedient servant I am here”, Said William Lenthall, Speaker of the House of Commons who fell on his knees before His Majesty, King Charles I on January 4, 1642, when he entered the House escorted by armed soldiers, and sat in the Speaker’s chair to seize five members.
Will stand up to executive no matter what it costs me -The Executive Branch has seized the rights and usurped the powers of Members of Parliament who were elected to represent the people….”— Karu J. Former Speaker, as reported by Daily Mirror of November 12, where he should have continued: …Members of Parliament who were elected to represent the people, but instead engaged in political horse-trading while the parties tried to grab power …” [Enormous amounts of foreign currency were being offered, not shockingly, for this has become a tradition for all parties. It was Karu J, who during that fiery Parliamentary election campaign in 2001 who said he would not depend on the weather gods for power for then we will not need a government. But he became Minister of Power who seemed to be so dreadfully in favour of the rain gods, that the CEB imposed 8 -10-hour power cuts. History will remember him as the person who wreaked the most damage on the UNP. Ranil, the ousted PM was charitable or silly enough to take him back and make him the deputy.
Parliament descended into a violent brawl. President Maithripala Sirisena dissolved parliament probably as he failed to secure the 113 to prove a majority in parliament. In spite of having boasted about the support of lawmakers, they couldn’t take the manoeuvre to a successful end. We are dealing with a Constitution which is stuffed with inconsistencies, discrepancies and ambiguities caused by immense tinkering it received since 1978 for a specific problem or task more of a political interest.

Oliver Cromwell 1599 – 1658

Oliver Cromwell, a statesman, soldier, and revolutionary overthrew the monarchy, turning England into a Republican Commonwealth, and assumed rule as Lord Protector of England. Subsequently King Charles was tried, convicted, and executed for treason in 1649. Charles was accused of treason by using his power to pursue his private interest rather than the good of the state. Cromwell was so angered by subsequent happenings that he emptied the chamber and dissolved the Parliament in April 1653 supported by his cronies. Cromwell thundered, you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting”, then he snatched up the mace, symbol of power.
I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.” Saying so Charles placed his head on the block said a prayer and signalled the executioner by stretching out his hand; to be beheaded with one stroke.

Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) or Pohottuwa

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa has obtained the membership of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna –Pohottuwa (SLPP), at his official residence, Wijerama Road, Colombo on Sunday. Something fishy in all these events; what is their ultimate motive? Now he cannot pledge allegiance to both SLFP and SLPP. MR waited for the parliament to be dissolved.Now president cannot hold upper hand. He may win but will he throw Sirisena who not once but twice betrayed MR– into political wilderness; I doubt MR would trust him ? Has MR played his trump card? Will there be more? MR and SLPP will attack previous government including Maithri in their campaign.

Violating all Parliamentary norms, Karu Jayasuriya allowed the opposition to suspend the Standing orders enabling a deviation from the accepted procedures to pass the motion. President Sirisena has at least diluted the critical uncertainty of his first operation of swapping Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with MR had immersed the nation into by going before the people for a verdict. Now others must comprehend the truth—that it’s the People’s Sovereignty, which is the main cornerstone of a parliamentary democracy. Some analysts think Sri Lanka has just been thrust into a worst crisis of democracy after Sirisena announced late Friday evening that he was dissolving the Parliament.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya was caught between two different, moral and legal worlds. The 19th Amendment took away in 2015 his rights as President to dissolve Parliament even if a government loses the budget; the vote on the statement of government policy, or no confidence motion against the PM since the introduction to Article 70 through the Amendment that made it impossible under any circumstances during the first four and a half years of its term. Accordingly, a succeeding government has to be formed only by the same Parliament and only the Cabinet can be dissolved paving the way for a new Cabinet.
Strong points of view have been offered against the dissolution saying the President has no power to do so before four and a half years into the term, as stipulated by the 19th Amendment.

“Karu, after several attempts to kick out his leader and when he failed, in spite of being appointed as the Deputy among the Greens, he led a 17-member senior UNPers to shift loyalties and ‘Make MR’s hands strong’ by accepting plum Ministerial posts”

Some of the fundamental conventions that made the parliamentary system worked under all previous Constitutions, 1948, 1972 and JR’s 1978 all upheld the tradition where it could be dissolved prematurely if necessary for elections to be held. All Constitution of 1948,1972 and 1978 had provisions for premature dissolution of Parliament if the state of affairs warrant it. Let us hope and pray for good sense to reign over political extremist and self-seekers.
Mangala Samaraweera, the sacked Finance Minister, who made it a practice to play with a non-existence ‘mila-suttra’ (Fuel pricing formula?) said, We will fight in the courts, we will fight in parliament and we will fight at the polls.”

The voter requires a rethink before they cast their vote to those who are obviously untrustworthy, unprincipled, politicians, [90% of them] as we have been doing for seven decades or so. A news item in last week’s Daily Mirror says Rs. 26 million has been paid to so-called People’s Representatives out of President’s Fund as medical expenses during the last three years; while the poorest of the poor can get only Rs. 100,000/-. Our unawareness, partisan allegiance or blind loyalties in popular figures is what they value. Good Governance never depends on laws, rules or commandments, but qualities of the men who govern. The method of choosing our leaders is the most significant element of governance.

The million dollar question is what will the executive do if the highest Court would declare that his action is unconstitutional? Further, if the SC holds it as constitutional, does it mean that President can dissolve an elected House at his whim and fancy— just even a day old Parliament? Need the views of legal luminary who are now clearly divided on the issue.

LG elections result expressed people’s dissatisfaction on major issues, corruption, the unprecedented Central Bank bond scam which occurred just 49 days after Ranil Wickremesinghe was appointed with only 43 MPs on his side. The enormous losses incurred including that of ordinary poor workers EPF funds and billions lost on shady deals involved with massive road development projects, coal scam to mention a few. The current crisis needs to be looked at as a systemic crisis, as one of the panelists observed at a TV talk show a couple of days ago.

The people must agitate for a constitutional amendments to reduce the Parliamentary period to three years and numbers to 150, like in Australia, as our politicians are too dishonest and not adequately educated for the future of a nation to be entrusted for longer terms. A Constitution with contradictory provisions one empowering the Executive free will to dissolve Parliament and the other with restrictions to dissolve Parliament has created the current impasse. Will a general election conducted under the same tinkered constitution allowing the sovereign people to exercise their franchise can pave way out of this mess? Will they select the same Knife-brandishing, Miris kudu (chilli powder) throwing and the people rejected ones who entered through the back door to the hallowed precincts of Diyawanna back again? Whatever it is they have a right to demand a General Election on priority.

The unspoken rule of democracy: three stupid ones will always outvote two smart ones.”

– Ljupka Cvetanova

Courtesy Adaderana

Former Minister Harin Fernando states that the country should be rebuilt under the leadership of Sajith Premadasa as Premadasa is the wish of the whole country.

He mentioned this today (25) addressing a electoral board meeting in Badulla Postal complex.

Stating that he respects UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Fernando said that they should instead appoint Wickremesinghe to an honorary position and seek his intelligence.

However, if this change doesn’t occur within the party, he will not contest at elections again, he further stated.

He adds that the President’s behavior has resulted in an awakening of the UNP and that they will carry that pride with them at their vehicle parades from Badulla to Kataragama on the 01st December and then to Kandy on the 02nd December.

He emphasized that the program will be launched throughout the country, encouraging the people.

Courtesy Adaderana

President Maithripala Sirisena on Sunday (25) vowed to never to reappoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister again, reports foreign media.

Mr Wickremesinghe’s party has a majority in parliament and Mr Sirisena’s bid to replace him with the country’s former strongman Mahinda Rajapakse has already failed.

But Mr Sirisena choked back tears in a meeting with foreign correspondents as he accused Mr Wickremesinghe, who he sacked on Oct 26, of being highly corrupt”.

Even if the UNP has the majority I told them not to bring Ranil Wickremesinghe before me, I will not make him prime minister,” he said, referring to Mr Wickremesinghe’s United National Party.

Not in my lifetime,” he added in comments that the UNP said showed the president uses Sri Lanka like his own private coconut estate”.

SEE ALSO: Sri Lanka state banks to borrow up to US$1b abroad before end of 2018
Mr Sirisena dismissed Mr Wickremesinghe following a host of personality and political clashes since they formed a coalition in 2015.

He named Mr Rajapakse as new premier and tried to dissolve parliament but the Supreme Court and legislators blocked the moves.

Mr Wickremesinghe, who continues to occupy the prime minister’s residence, and Mr Rajapakse, who has the premier’s official offices, have both refused to back down.

That has left the country officially without a prime minister, heightening international fears about Sri Lanka’s stability and looming foreign debt repayments.

Sirisena said at his official residence that he will appoint a commission to investigate corruption under Wickremesinghe since January 2015.

He is corrupt. His economic policies are not good for local industries. He pursued an extremely liberal form of government that is not compatible with our culture.”

Mr Wickremesinghe’s UNP hit back at the former ally.

He can choose any superintendent for his private coconut estate, but in government he must recognise the leader of the largest single party in parliament,” UNP spokesman Harsha de Silva told AFP.

Mr De Silva said the UNP welcomed any corruption investigation, but insisted that existing inquiries into high profile murders and corruption under Rajapakse should be pursued with vigour.

Close family and associates of Mr Rajapakse face allegations of murder and siphoning off millions of dollars of public money.

Mr Sirisena almost lost his voice as he recalled how he asked Wickremesinghe to step down in February when their respective parties were beaten in local elections.

I told him that we lost the election because his economic policies had failed. I told Ranil in this very room to step down, but he refused,” Mr Sirisena said.

He added that there had been hundreds” of clashes between the two that had become an open secret in the coalition government.

Sri Lanka’s parliament meets on November 27 and 29 to discuss a motion by the UNP to cut off government spending.

Government finances will stall on January 1 unless a 2019 budget is passed.

If the UNP wins the vote, it could force Rajapakse to withdraw his claim to the leadership, and compel Sirisena to name a prime minister from the UNP.

If the UNP shows a majority, I believe Mahinda will do the right thing (and stand down),” said Mr Sirisena, although he reiterated that he would still not reappoint Mr Wickremesinghe.

Asked if he could constitutionally ignore the leader of the largest party in parliament, Sirisena said he would rely on tradition.

There is a tradition that the person appointed PM should be able to work with the president. I cannot work with Ranil. The UNP will have to bring somebody else.”

By Garry Leech

November 23, 2018 “Information Clearing House“ –   For those who have been following Venezuela closely in recent years there is a distinct sense of déjà vu regarding US foreign policy towards that South American nation. This is because Washington’s strategy of regime change in Venezuela is almost identical to the approach it has taken in Latin America on numerous occasions since World War Two. This strategy involves applying economic sanctions, extensive support for the opposition, and destabilization measures that create a sufficient degree of human suffering and chaos to justify a military coup or direct US military intervention. Because this strategy has worked so well for the United States for more than half a century, our elected leaders see no reason not to use it regarding Venezuela. In other words, from Washington’s perspective, its regime change policies towards Venezuela constitute business as usual in Latin America.

Despite US rhetoric, this regime change strategy does not take into account whether or not a government is democratically elected or the human rights consequences of such interventions. In fact, virtually all of the Latin American governments that the United States has successfully overthrown over the past 65 years were democratically elected. Among the democratically-elected leaders that have been ousted were Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954), Salvador Allende in Chile (1973), Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti (2004) and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (2009). Washington targeted all these leaders with economic sanctions and destabilization campaigns that created the economic chaos and humanitarian crises required to justify a military solution.

The failed military coup was the first major US-backed attempt to oust President Chavez following his election victory in 1998. Following the coup, Washington continued its efforts to install a government in Venezuela that would have the interests of the United States at heart.” It ramped up its support for opposition groups through increased funding for USAID programs in the country with the objective of turning people against the government. Wikileaks published a classified cable sent from the US embassy in Venezuela to Washington in 2006 that stated USAID funding for local programs seeks to influence community leaders by moving them slowly away from Chavismo.” The cable also declared that the embassy’s broader objectives include Isolating Chavez internationally.”The common denominator in all those cases had nothing to do with democracy or human rights, it was the fact that those elected governments had the audacity to challenge US interests in the region. The fact that a Latin American government might prioritize the interests of its own people over US needs is unacceptable in Washington. This attitude was exhibited by CIA director George Tenet during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in February 2002 when he arrogantly declared that Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez probably doesn’t have the interests of the United States at heart.” Two months later, Washington supported a military coup that attempted to overthrow the Venezuelan leader.

In 2015, President Obama signed a presidential order ludicrously stating that Venezuela posed an extraordinary threat to the national security” of the United States. The order was required under US law for the Obama administration to impose sanctions. Two years later, President Donald Trump stated that he would not rule out a military option” for Venezuela. He also intensified the sanctions in order to make it more difficult for the government to address the country’s economic crisis. According to economist Mark Weisbrot:

The sanctions do their damage primarily by prohibiting Venezuela from borrowing or selling assets in the US financial system. They also prohibit CITGO, the US-based fuel industry company that is owned by the Venezuelan government, from sending dividends or profits back to Venezuela. In addition, if Venezuela wanted to do a debt restructuring, so as to reduce debt service during the current crisis, it would be unable to do this because it wouldn’t be able to issue new bonds.

Because the sanctions prohibit Venezuela’s state-owned company CITGO from sending its profits home, the Venezuelan government is losing $1 billion a year in revenues. Ultimately, the sanctions are imposing greater hardship on the Venezuelan people because, as Weisbrot notes, they exacerbate shortages of food, medicine, and other essential goods while severely limiting the policy options available to pull the country out of a deep depression.”

Earlier this month, President Trump turned the screws even more by signing an executive order imposing sanctions on gold exports from Venezuela. The South American nation contains one of the world’s largest gold reserves and has turned to selling some of its gold as a means of addressing the economic crisis. One week after Trump issued his decree, Britain complied with the new sanctions by refusing to handover 14 tons of gold bars worth $550 million to Venezuela. This gold belongs to Venezuela and is simply being stored in the vaults of the Bank of England. As is the case with CITGO’s profits, Venezuela simply wants what is rightfully its own.

The fact that the United States and Britain feel they have the right to decide what Venezuela can and cannot do with its own assets and reserves illustrates the imperialist arrogance of these two nations. These latest US sanctions and Britain’s refusal to hand over Venezuela’s gold further restricts the Venezuelan government’s capacity to address the country’s economic crisis.

And then, earlier this week, it was revealed that the Trump administration is considering adding Venezuela to the US list of state sponsors of terrorism, which would automatically trigger even harsher sanctions. Labeling Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism is as ludicrous as Obama declaring the country to be an extraordinary threat” to US national security. One US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted that it would be very difficult to provide any proof that Venezuela sponsors terrorism. That is because it doesn’t! But the US has never needed proof to intervene in another country, with Iraq and its supposed weapons of mass destruction being the obvious example. Such a move also illustrates the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to demonize and bully weaker countries that refuse to play by its rules.

US regime change policies are being coordinated with the opposition in Venezuela, which mostly consists of the country’s wealthy elites who ran the country prior to the election of Hugo Chavez. The socialist policies of former President Chavez and current President Nicolas Maduro have infringed on the privileges enjoyed by these domestic elites and by foreign oil companies. In response, the country’s wealthy opposition, who still dominate economic activity, have sought to sabotage the economy by scaling back production and by exporting much-needed basic necessities to neighboring Colombia.

Despite its wealth and economic power, the Venezuelan opposition needs the support of the most powerful nation in the world because it cannot win at the ballot box. Since 1998, in election after election, Venezuelans have overwhelmingly supported presidents Chavez and Maduro at the polls. These elections have been monitored by international observers and have repeatedly been deemed free and fair. One famous election observer, former US President Jimmy Carter, stated: As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

The US mainstream media is playing its customary and crucial propaganda role with regard to Venezuela by ensuring that the public only hears the official Washington narrative. This narrative seeks to demonize the Venezuelan government and has repeatedly labeled Chavez and Maduro as undemocratic,” authoritarian” and, ludicrously, as dictators.” The media has also focused attention on food shortages and a humanitarian crisis” that is resulting in Venezuelans leaving the country rather than the incredible social achievements in poverty reduction, education, housing for the poor and participatory democracy.

Meanwhile, the fact that more than five million people in neighboring Colombia were forcibly displaced from their homes by violence over the past couple of decades barely registered a blip on the mainstream media radar. Nor has the fact that more than 4,000 indigenous Wayuu children have died from malnutrition in Northern Colombia over the past decade. We don’t hear about these humanitarian crises because the Colombian government is a friendly regime that serves US interests—as are many other authoritarian allies whose human rights violations are conveniently ignored by the mainstream media.

As mentioned earlier, Washington’s regime change strategy in Venezuela is nothing new. In fact, it is virtually a carbon copy of previous regime change efforts in Latin America. One classic example occurred in Chile after socialist candidate Salvador Allende was elected president in 1970. The Nixon administration’s National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger foreshadowed the arrogance that CIA director Tenet would exhibit decades later when he made his thoughts on the election clear: I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” And so, the Nixon administration set about destabilizing the country with policies that sought to, as one cabinet member stated, make the Chilean economy scream.”

For 18 months, the CIA clandestinely funded businesses, shop owners and truck drivers to shut down and go on strike, successfully making the economy scream” by causing hardships for the Chilean people who had to endure mass shortages of basic necessities. Declassified documents reveal that the United States also provided funding and weapons to opposition groups in Chile while CIA operatives worked with Chilean military officers who were planning a coup to overthrow President Allende. By 1973, Chile had been destabilized sufficiently to justify a military coup. Once in power, the coup leader, General Augusto Pinochet, reversed many of Allende’s policies that had hurt the interests of the country’s elites and US corporations. He also ruled Chile as a dictator for the next 18 years with Washington’s backing as he turned the country into a human rights catastrophe.

A similar process unfolded in Haiti following the election of Catholic priest Jean Bertrand Aristide to the presidency in 2000. His political party Fanmi Lavalas was by far the most popular in Haiti and gained a significant majority in the country’s parliament. As the elected leader of the hemisphere’s most impoverished country, Aristide implemented policies that benefitted the poor in the areas of healthcare, education and low-cost housing. He also doubled the minimum wage, which infringed on the profits garnered by US, Canadian and French companies operating in the country. Washington and its imperialist allies responded by imposing economic sanctions on Haiti while simultaneously funding opposition groups in the country. USAID managed much of the opposition funding and actively campaigned against the raising of the minimum wage. Aristide also faced a campaign of violence waged by paramilitary groups that were funded by France and Haiti’s economic elites. Declassified documents revealed that these armed groups also maintained a relationship with the United States.

In 2004, with the country reduced to chaos following three years of economic sanctions and paramilitary violence, the United States, Canada and France deployed troops to Haiti to overthrow the government. US Marines seized President Aristide and his wife in the presidential palace and transported them to the international airport, which had been secured by Canadian troops. The Haitian president was forced to resign from office and flown with his wife to Africa. The United States then installed a Haitian businessman who lived in Miami as the new unelected president. With the country existing under foreign military occupation, the new president reversed most of the policies implemented by Aristide, imprisoned thousands of opponents and banned Fanmi Lavalas, the most popular political party in the country.

The current US foreign policy towards Venezuela clearly replicates policies implemented in past decades that successfully ousted governments in Latin America. From Washington’s perspective, it makes perfect sense to implement policies that undermine a democratically-elected government in order to achieve regime change when that government prioritizes the needs of its own people over those of the US economy and multinational corporations. The strategy worked in Chile. It worked in Haiti. And it also worked in the other aforementioned Latin American countries. The United States has no qualms about undermining democracy and imposing economic hardships on Latin Americans yet again, this time with the Venezuelan people the target in order to achieve regime change in that country. After all, a country isn’t democratic unless its government has the interests of the United States at heart.”

Garry Leech is an independent journalist and author of numerous books including Ghosts Within: Journeying Through PTSD (Forthcoming, Spring 2019, Roseway Publishing), How I Became an American Socialist (Misfit Books, 2016), Capitalism: A Structural Genocide (Zed Books, 2012); The FARC: The Longest Insurgency (Zed Books, 2011,  Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia (Beacon Press, 2009); and Crude Interventions: The United States Oil and the New World Disorder (Zed Books, 2006).  He also teaches international politics at Cape Breton University in Nova Scotia, Canada.

This article was originally published by “Counterpunch” –

ගරු අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා 2018 නොවැම්බර් 25 වෙනි ඉරිදා අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය කාර්යාලයේ සිට කරන ලද දේශනයේ පිටපත

මාධ්‍ය නිවේදනය

අතිපූජ්‍ය මහා සංඝයා වහන්ස, සියලු ආගම්වල පූජකතුමනි, ශ්‍රී ලංකාවාසී සියලු ජනතාවනි, හිතවතුනි,

මම පසුගිය 15 වෙනිදා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ කරපු කතාවේ සියලුම දේශපාලන පක්‍ෂවලට යෝජනා කළා, ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යට ඉඩ දීලා මහ මැතිවරණයකට යමුයි කියලා. ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ එකඟ වුණා. නමුත් යූ.එන්.පී එක මහ මැතිවරණයක් නැතුව ජනාධිපතිවරණයක් පවත්වමුයි කියලා මඟහරිනවා. අවුල තියෙන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ. ඒ නිසා මේ අවස්ථාවේදී ජනාධිපතිවරණයක් පවත්වන්න කිසිම හේතුවක් නෑ. 2015 අගෝස්තු මාසයේ පවත්වපු මහ මැතිවරණයෙන් කිසිම පක්‍ෂයකට පැහැදිලි බහුතරයක් ලැබුණේ නෑ. එක්සත් ජාතික පක්‍ෂයට ආසන 106 යි, එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානයට ආසන 96යි, වෙනස ආසන 10යි.

ඒ අවස්ථාවේදී එජාපය ප්‍රමුඛ ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටුවා ගත්තේ එජනිස මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් කණ්ඩායමක් සමඟ ඇති කරගත් ගිවිසුම්ක් අනුවයි. පසුගිය ඔක්තෝබර් 26 වෙනිදා එජනිස කණ්ඩායම ආණ්ඩුවෙන් ඉවත්වුණා. ඊට පස්සෙ එජාප මන්ත්‍රීවරු කීපදෙනෙකුම අපට එකතුවුණා. අද පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශාලම කණ්ඩායමට තමයි මම නායකත්වය දෙන්නේ. 1994, 2001, 2004 මහමැතිවරණ වලින් පස්සේ ඒ කාලේ ජනාධිපතිවරුන් වූ ඩී.බී. විජේතුංග මහතාත්, චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග මැතිණියත් ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටුවන්න ආරාධනා කලේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ වැඩිම මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් හිටපු කණ්ඩායමටයි. ඒ අනුව 1994 දී පොදු පෙරමුණත්, 2001 දී එක්සත් ජාතික පක්‍ෂයත්, 2004 දී එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සංධානයත් ආණ්ඩු හැදුවා.   

අපි පසුගිය ඔක්තෝබර් 26 වෙනිදා කලේ දැනටම ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කරලා තාවකාලිකව උසාවිය විසින් අත්හිටුවලා තියෙන මහ මැතිවරණය අවසන් වෙනකන් පමණක් පවතින අන්තර්කාලීන ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටුවීම පමණයි. මේ ආණ්ඩුවෙන් දිගටම රට පාලනය කරන්න අපේ මොනම බලාපොරොත්තුවක් වත් තිබුණෙ නෑ. මුලු රටටම පේනවා ඒකාබද්ධ විපක්‍ෂයෙන් මේ ආණ්ඩුවේ තනතුරු දරන්නේ බොහොම සුළු පිරිසක් කියලා. ඒ, මේක තාවකාලික ආණ්ඩුවක් නිසයි. අපේ ඒකායන පරමාර්ථය මැතිවරණයක් පවත්වලා අලුත් ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටුවාගන්න එකයි කියලා මම අගමැති ලෙස දිවුරුම් දීපු අවස්ථාවේ ඉඳලා කිවුවා. නමුත් අනෙක් පැත්තෙ අයගේ එකම බලාපොරොත්තුව මොනම මැතිවරණයක්වත් නොපවත්වා, අර පරණ ආණ්ඩුවම තව පුලුවන්තරම් ඇඳගෙන යෑමයි. ඕක තමයි මෙතන තියෙන ගැටුම.

සමහර කට්ටිය අහන ප්‍රශ්නයක් තමයි ඡන්දයකට තව මාස 18 ක් වගේ කාලයක් තියෙද්දී ඇයි ආණ්ඩුව භාරගත්තේ කියලා. මට ඇහිලා තියෙනවා එජාපයේ අයත් කියනවා මම ‘ඉක්මන්’ වුණා වැඩියි කියලා. තව මාස 18 කට අඩු කාලයක් ඉවසගෙන හිටියනම් තුනෙන් දෙකේ බලයක් ඇතුව දිනන්න පුලුවන් වෙනවයි කියලා. මෙතන අපි ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටෙවුවෙ දිගටම ඒ ආණ්ඩුවෙන් රට පාලනය කරන්න නොවෙයි, මහ මැතිවරණයක් පවත්වන්න. ජනාධිපතිතුමා ජාතිය අමතලා කිවුවනේ එතුමා මට රට භාරදුන්නේ බැරිම තැනට ආවට පස්සෙයි කියලා. ඉතින් ඒ වගේ තත්වයක් යටතේ මට රට භාර දෙනකොට ඒ වගකීම් භාර නොගෙන ඉන්න පුලුවන්ද? මේක ආණ්ඩු බලය පිළිබඳ ප්‍රශ්නයක් නොවෙයි, මේක අපේ රටේ ජාතියේ, අපේ මතු පරම්පරාවේ ඉරණම පිළිබඳ ප්‍රශ්නයක්.

අවසානයේදී අපිම නම් ඉන්නෙ රට බාරගන්න, විනාශය තවත් උග්‍ර වෙන්න කලින් බාරගන්න එකෙත් තර්කයක් තියෙනවා. ජනාධිපතිතුමා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවලා මහ මැතිවරණයක් පවත්වන්නත්  මඟ පෑදුවා. නමුත් යූ.එන්.පී හවුල උසාවියේ නඩු දාලා පවත්වන්න ගිය මහ මැතිවරණය කල් දාගත්තා. ජනාධිපතිතුමාගේ ගැසට් එක අනුව කටයුතු කලා නම් මේ වෙනකොට නාමයෝජනා භාර දෙන්නත් පටන් අරගෙන. මහ මැතිවරණයක් පැවැත්වීමෙන් කාගේ හෝ අයිතීන් උල්ලංඝනය වෙනවාද නැද්ද කියන කරුණ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසඳන තුරු යූ.එන්.පී හවුල මේ කඩාකප්පල්කාරී වැඩ දිගටම කරයි.

දැන් හිටපු යූ.එන්.පී මුදල් ඇමතිවරයා කියනවා ආණ්ඩුව වෙනස් කරපු නිසා රටේ ආර්ථිකය පිරිහෙනවයි කියලා. පසුගිය ආණ්ඩුව යටතේ ආර්ථිකයේ වෙච්ච දරුණු පරිහානිය නිසා තමයි ජනාධිපතිතුමා මට රට බාරදුන්නේ. මේ වගේ තත්වයක් ඇති වුණාම ඕනම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී රටක කරන්නේ මහමැතිවරණයක් පවත්වලා අලුත් ආණ්ඩුවක් පත් කරගන්න එකයි.  ජනාධිපතිතුමා අපේ ආණ්ඩුවේ හිටපු නිසා දන්නවා අපි අසීරු තත්වයන් පාලනය කලේ කොහොමද කියලා. යුද්දය කරන්න අපි සල්ලි හොයාගත්තා. දශක ගණනාවක් තිස්සෙ කාටවත් කරන්න බැරි වුණ මහා පරිමාන සංවර්ධන ව්‍යාපෘති විශාල ගණනක් අපි සම්පූර්ණ කළා. 2007 ලෝක ආහාර අර්බුදය ජනතාවට දැනෙන්නවත් ඉඩ හැරියේ නෑ.  1930 ගණන් වලින් පසු ලෝකයේ ඇති වූ දරුණුම ආර්ථික අවපාතය 2008 දී ඇති වුණත් ලංකාවේ මිනිස්සු ඒවගේ දෙයක් වුණයි කියලවත් දැණගෙන හිටියෙ නෑ. ඒ කාලේ ලෝක තෙල් මිල ඉතිහාසයේ කවරදාකටත් වඩා ඉහල මට්ටමක පැවතියත්, ඒකත් අපි කළමණාකරනය කරගත්තා.

මම අවුරදු 9ක් ඇතුලත මේ රටේ ඇමරිකානු ඩොලර්ඒක පුද්ගල ආදායම තුන් ගුණයකින් වැඩි කළා. ඒ කාලේ ආර්ථිකයේ සාමාන්‍ය වර්ධන වේගය 7.4%ක්. ඩොලරයක මිල රුපියල් 131යි. දල ජාතික නිෂ්පාදිතයට සාපේක්‍ෂව ණය බර තිබුණෙ 70% ක අගයක. අපි 2015 ජනවාරි 9 වනදා අලුත් ආණ්ඩුවට බාර දුන්නේ ආර්ථික වශයෙන් ඉතාම ස්ථාවර රටක්. නමුත් අවුරුදු 4ක අවපාලනයෙන් පස්සෙ, අද මුලු ආර්ථිකයම දැඩි අවදානම් සහගත තත්වයකයි තියෙන්නෙ. අද මේ රට මුහුණපාල තියෙන ආර්ථික අර්බුදයේ භයානකම පැත්ත තමයි විදෙස් විනිමය ණය බර. මම 2005 දී මුල් වරට ජනාධිපති වෙනකොට රටේ යුද්දයක් තිබුණ. නමුත් ආර්ථිකය ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම මේ තරම් දරුණු තත්වයක නෙවයි තිබුණෙ. ඒ කාලෙත් දළ ජාතික නිශ්පාදිතයට සාපේක්‍ෂව ණය ප්‍රතිශතය 90%ක් තරම් ඉහලට නැගලයි තිබුණෙ. නමුත් එදා ඒ තිබුණ ණය අතරෙ අද තරම් විදේශීය ණය ප්‍රමාණයක් තිබුණෙ නැහැ.

2015 ජනවාරිවල ඉඳලා යූ.එන්.පී ආණ්ඩුව ශ්‍රී ලංකා සංවර්ධන බැඳුම්කර, සවරින් බොන්ඩ්, සින්ඩිකේටඩ් ලෝන්, කරන්සි ස්වැප් වගේ නොයෙක් මූලාශ්‍ර වලින් ලබාගත්ත විදෙස් විනිමය ණය ප්‍රමාණය ගැන විටින් විට ලිඛිතව මහජනතාව දැනුවත් කරන්න මම පියවර ගත්තේ නැවත අපි බලය ගත්ත දවසට, අපිට මුහුණ දෙන්න වෙන  ලොකුම ප්‍රශ්නය මේ ණය ගැනීම බව මම දැනගෙන හිටිය නිසයි. අවුරුදු තුන හමාරක් ඇතුලත යහපාලන ආණ්ඩුව සමස්ථයක් ලෙස ඇමරිකානු ඩොලර් 20.7ක විදෙස් විනිමය ණය පමණක් අරගෙන තියෙනවා. මේ ණය වින්නැහිය නිසා මේ රට ගොඩගන්න කාලයක් ගතවෙනව. මහ මැතිවරණයක් නොපවත්වා, පැවතුණු ආණ්ඩුව දිගටම පවත්වාගෙන යන්න හදන අයට මේ රට ගොඩගන්න බැරි බව කාටත් පැහැදිලි වෙන්න ඕන. ගොඩ අරගෙන  තිබ්බ රට ප්‍රපාතයට දැම්මේ ඒගොල්ලො තමයි. ඒකයි මැතිවරණ වලට ඔය තරම් බය. 

2006 දී යුද්ධය ආරම්භ වුණාට පස්සෙ මේ රටේ මහ ජනතාව, වෘත්තීය සමිති, පාරිභෝගිකයන්, වෘත්තීයවේදීන්, ව්‍යාපාරිකයන් යන සියලුම ජන කොටස් ඒ යුද ප්‍රයත්නයට හානි කරවන කිසි දෙයක් නොකර ඉන්න වගබලා ගත්තා. ඒ ජනතා සහයෝගය නිසා තමයි අපට පුලුවන් වුනේ වෙන කිසිවකුටවත් ඉවර කරන්න බැරි වුණ යුද්ධය ඉවර කරන්න. මා මේ අවස්ථාවේදී ජනතාවගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටිනව මේ වැටී තිබෙන ප්‍රපාතයෙන් රට ගොඩ ගන්න අපට යුද්දය කාලයේදී ලබාදුන් ආකාරයේ සහයෝගයක් ලබා දෙන්න කියලා. මේ රට ගොඩ ගන්න තියෙන අවසන් අවස්ථාව මෙයයි. අපේ උත්සාහය වැරදුනොත් මේ රට කෙළවර වෙන්නෙ ග්‍රීසියට වෙච්ච දේ වෙලා.

රටේ ආර්ථික ආපදා තත්වයක් තිබෙන ලෙස තමයි අපිට කටයුතු කරන්න වෙන්නෙ. යූ.එන්.පී ආණ්ඩුව කරපු ආකාරයට ජනතාව මත බදු පටවන අතර මැති ඇමතිවරුන්ට සුඛෝපභෝගී වාහන ගෙන්වන එකට, නොයෙක් උත්සව වලට වියදම් කරන එකට, විදේශීය ගමන්වලට අධීක වියදම් කරන එකට, තිත තියන්න ඕන. ඊළඟ මහ මැතිවරණයෙන් පස්සෙ, බලය පවත්වාගෙන යන්න පුලුවන් වෙන ආකාරයට අපි ඇමතිවරු සුදුසු ගණනක් පත් කරනවා. මම ඒක කල් තියාම කියන්න ඕන. අනිත් හැම දේකටම කලින් රටේ ස්ථාවර ආණ්ඩුවක් තියෙන්න ඕන. නමුත් ඒ අලුත් ආණ්ඩුවෙන් වියදම් කපා හරින්න උපරිම ලෙස කටයුතු කරනවා.

මේ රට අද වැටිලා තියෙන ප්‍රපාතයෙන් ගොඩගන්න පුලුවන් අපිට විතරයි කියලා ජනාධිපතිතුමත් දන්නවා, රටේ ජනතාවත් දන්නවා. 2005 නොවැම්බර් මාසේ බලයට පත් වුණාට පස්සෙ අපිට මුහුණ දෙන්න වුණේ ලේසි පහසු අභියෝගවලට නොවෙයි. 2007 දී යුද්දයේ උච්චතම අවස්ථාවේදී මගේ ආණ්ඩුව එච්.එස්.බී.සී බැංකුවන් ඩොලර් මිලියන 500ක ණයක් ගත්තාම යූ.එන්.පී එකෙන් බැංකුව වටකරලා කිවුවා මුදල් දෙන්න එපා, දුන්නොත්, ඒගොල්ලන්ගේ ආණ්ඩුවක් යටතේ ඒ සල්ලි ආපහු ගෙවන්නේ නෑ කියලා. 2009 අප්‍රේල් මාසේ යුද්දය ඉවර වෙන ඔන්න මෙන්න කියලා තියෙනකොට, ජාත්‍යන්තර මූල්‍ය අරමුදලෙන් අපිට එම ආයතනයේ සාමාජික රටක් හැටියට එන්න තිබුණු ණය මුදලක් අවහිර කලා.

ඒ අවස්ථාවේදී මම අපේ හිතවත් මැද පෙරදිග රටකට කතා කරලා ඩොලර් මිලියන 500ක පොරොන්දුවක් ඉල්ලා ගත්ත හින්දා ඒ උගුලෙන් බේරෙන්න අපිට පුලුවන් වුණා. ඊට පස්සෙ, ප්‍රභාකරන් මැරුණා. අවහිර කරලා තිබ්බ අයි.එම්.එෆ් සල්ලිත් ලැබුණා, මැදපෙරදිගින් ඩොලර් මිලියන 500 ගන්න වුනෙත් නෑ. පසුගියදා, මූඩීස් ආයතනය විසින් අපේ ණය ශ්‍රේණිගත කිරීම පහලට දැලයි කියලා හිටපු මුදල් ඇමතිතුමා කියනවා. නොදැම්මනම් තමයි පුදුමේ. 2015 අපි යූ.එන්.පී එකට රට භාර දෙනකොට ඔය සේරම ශ්‍රේණිගතකිරීම් ඉහල යමින් තිබුණෙ. ඒවා පහලට එන්න පටන්ගත්තෙ 2015 න් පස්සේ.

මේ ණය ශ්‍රේණිගත කිරීම් ඇතුලේ සියුම් දේශපාලනයකුත් තියෙන බව කියන්නත් ඕන. 2009, අපි යුද්දය දිණුවට පස්සෙ ණය ශ්‍රේණිගත කිරීම් ඉහල දැමිය යුතු වුණත් ඔවුන් අපිව පහලට දැමුවා. නමුත් වෙළඳපොල අපි ගැන තිබුණු විශ්වාසය නිසා ඒක සත පහකට ගණන් ගත්තෙ නෑ. ඒවගේ අභියෝගත් අපට ජයගන්න පුලුවන් කියලා දන්න හින්දා තමයි ජනාධිපතිතුමා අපිට රට බාරදුන්නේ. යූ.එන්.පී එකත් ඕක දන්න හින්දා තමයි දිනපතාම විදෙස් ජනමාධ්‍යෙව්දීන් හා තානාපතිවරුන් ගෙන්වලා මහමැතිවරණයක් පැවැත්වීම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍ර විරෝධීයි කියලා ලෝකය පුරා ප්‍රචාරයක් කරන්නෙ. මහ මැතිවරණයක් පවත්වලා  අපේ ආණ්ඩුවක් බලයට අවොත් මේ සියලුම ප්‍රශ්න විසදනවා කියලා ඒගොල්ලො දන්නවා. ජනාධිපතිවරයාත්, අපිත් එකතු වී හදන ආණ්ඩුව ඉතාම බලසම්පන්න, ජනතා හිතවාදී ආණ්ඩුවක් වෙන බව මතක තබාගන්න.

ඔක්තෝබර් 26 ආණඩු මාරුවෙන් පස්සෙ, තාම මාසයයි. දැන් තියෙන්නෙත් අන්තර්කාලීන ආණ්ඩුවක් විතරයි. බිඳවැටීමේ ප්‍රවනතාවයක් ඇති වුණාම මාසෙන් දෙකෙන් තත්වය අනික් පැත්තට හරවන්න අමාරුයි. රට ස්ථාවර කිරීමට පවත්වන්න හදපු මහ මැතිවරණය කල් දාල තියෙන නිසා ස්ථාවර ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටුවන්න තව ටික කාලක් ගතවෙයි. මේ සංක්‍රාන්ති කාලය තුළ මා ජනතාවගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටින්නේ, අප සමඟ ඉඳලා රට ගොඩගැනීමේ උත්සාහයට සහභාගී වෙන්න කියලයි. අපි 2006 – 2014 කාලයේදී පුලුවන්තරම් ජනතාව පීඩනයට පත් නොවන ආකාරයට කටයුතු කල ආකාරය කාටත් මතක ඇති. අපි ඔක්තෝබර්  26 ආපු ගමන්ම ඉන්ධන මිලත්, අත්‍යවශ්‍ය ආහාර ද්‍රව්‍ය කීපයකත් මිල අඩු කලේත්, පොහොර සහනාධාරයත් යළි ස්ථාපිත කරලා කෘෂිකර්මයෙන් ලැබෙන ආදායම් බදු වලින් නිදහස් කරන්න පියවර ගත්තෙත් ජනතාවගේ පීඩනය අඩුකරලා නිශ්පාදනය වැඩි කරන්නයි. 

2015ට කලින් තත්වයත් ඊට පස්සෙ ඇතිවෙච්ච තත්වයත් මේ රටේ ජීවත් වෙච්ච ජනතාවට මතකයි. 2015 දී මිනිස්සු ආණ්ඩුව වෙනස් කලේ කන්න අදින්න ඉල්ලලා නොවෙයි කියලා යූ.එන්.පී ආණඩුවේ හිටපු කැබිනට් ප්‍රකාශකවරයාම කී සැරයක් කියලා තියෙනවද? ඔහු කිවුවෙ මිනිස්සුන් 2015 ආණ්ඩු වෙනසකට ඡන්දය දුන්නෙ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය වෙනුවෙන් කියලයි. නමුත් ඒ ආණ්ඩු වෙනසින් පස්සෙ, මිනිස්සුන්ට ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයත් නෑ, ඡන්ද අයිතියත් නෑ, කන්න අදින්නත් නෑ. ඒක නෙවයිද වුණේ? අපි මේ ගන්න උත්සාහය ලංකාවට ගොඩයන්න තියෙන අන්තිම අවස්ථාවයි. මැතිවරණ නොපවත්වා දිගටම බලයේ ඉඳගෙන රට විනාශ කරන්න වලිකන බලවේග අපි හැමෝම එකතුවෙලා පරාජය කරලා මේ රට නැවත හරි මඟට ගමු.

ඔබ සැමට තෙරුවන් සරණයි

The text of a speech delivered by the Hon. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Prime Minister’s Office on Sunday the 25th of Novermber 2018.

MEDIA RELEASE

Most venerable members of the Maha Sangha, Clergymen of all religions, People of Sri Lanka, and friends,

In my speech in Parliament on the 15th of November, I proposed to all political parties that we agree among overselves to hold a general election to enable the people to exercise their sovereign right to elect a government of their choice. the JVP agreed but the UNP has been evasively saying that we should hold a presidential election instead of a general election. The problem is in the Parliament. Hence there is no need to hold a presidential election at this stage. No party obtained a clear majority at the general election held in August 2015. The UNP obtained 106 seats, the UPFA obtained 96. The difference was just 10 seats.

A UNP led government was formed only on the basis of an agreement entered into with a group of UPFA Parliamentarians. The UPFA group left the government on the 26th October. Thereafter several UNP Parliamentarians joined our ranks. Today, I am the leader of the largest group of MPs in Parliament. After the parliamentary elections of 1994, 2001 and 2004, Presidents D.B.Wijetunga and Chandrika Kumaratunga who held office at that time, invited the largest group in Parliament to form a government. On that basis, governments were formed by the People’s Alliance in 1994, the UNP in 2001 and the UPFA in 2004.

What we did on the 26th of October was to form an interim government that would have lasted only until the conclusion of the general election that has already been declared, but temporaily put on hold by the courts. We never had any intention of running an administration through the government that has been formed at present.  The whole country can see that only a few members of the Joint Opposition hold office in this government. That is because this is only an interim arrangement. I have been stressing ever since I took oaths as Prime Minister that our foremost aim was to go for an election in order to establish a stable government.  However the objective of the other side is to revive the previous government and to rule the country for as long as possible without holding any election at all. That is the reason for the present political situation.

Some people ask me why I accepted office when there was less than 18 months to go for the next elections. I have heard members of the UNP saying that if I had been patient for another 18 months, I could have won the ensuing election with a two thirds majority. We did not form a government to contunuously administer the country but to hold a general election. The President explained in his address to the nation that he appointed me as the Prime Minister only after things reached a stage where he had absolutely no other option. When the government is entrusted to me in such circumstances, I cannot in all fairness, shun the responsiblity. This was not a question of political power. The fate of our country and the futures of our younger generation was at stake.

Furthermore if after everything was said and done, it was still we who would have to assume that responsibility anyway, there was much to be said for assuming office before further damage was inflicted upon the country. The President dissolved Parliament and paved the way for a general election. But the UNP filed action in courts and got the elections put off. If things had gone according to the gazette notification issued by the President, by now the elections authorities would have started accepting nominations. The UNP will continue to engage in disruptive activites until the Supreme Court decides whether anyone’s fundamental rights had been infringed by the declaration of a general election.

The former finance minister claims that the economy is on a downward trend because of the change of government. The President invited me to take over the government precisely because of the collapse of the economy during the previous government. In such circumstances, what any democratic country would do is to hold a general election and have a new government elected to power.  Because the President was in our government he knows how we handled difficult situations. We managed to find the money to fight the war. We managed to complete a large number of major development projects that no previous government had been able to get off the ground. We did not allow the people to feel the effects of the 2007 world food crisis. Even though the worst global economic recession since the 1930s took place in 2008, the people of Sri Lanka were not even aware that there was such a worldwide recession.

Even though the world prices of crude oil rose to levels never seen before or since during those years, we managed to minimise the fallout from the global oil crisis as well.  Within a period of nine years, my government increased the US Dollar per capita income of the country threefold. The average economic growth rate during those years was 7.4%. The exchange rate was Rs. 131 to the US Dollar. The debt to GDP ratio was 70%. On the 9th January 2015 we handed over to the new UNP government an economically stable country. Four years later however the country is now in a perilous state. The most serious aspect of the economic crisis facing this country today is the foreign currency debt burden.

When I assumed office as President for the first time in 2005, there was a war in the country. However the economy was not in such a bad state as it is now. At that time too, the debt to GDP ratio was 90% but the proportion of foreign currency debt was not as high as at present. I made it a point to inform the people from time to time in writing, of the foreign currency loans that the UNP government was taking through varous sources such as Sri Lanka Development Bonds, Sovereign Bonds, Syndicated Loans, Currency swaps etc, because I knew that once we were back in power, this debt burden would be the biggest problem that we would have to face. Within a period of about three and a half years, the yahapalana government had taken a total of more than UDS 20.7 Billion in foreign currency loans alone. Due to this debt burden it will take a while to turn things around. It should be plain to everyone that those who are trying to revive the previous government and rule without holding elections, are incapable of turning this country around. It was they who destroyed the stable economy that we had created. This is why they are so reluctant to hold elections.

In 2006, after the war with the LTTE resumed, the people of this country, the trade unions, consumers, professionals, businessmen and all sections of the population made it a point to refrain from doing anything that would disrupt the war effort. It is because of that public support that we were able to end the war that no one else was able to bring to an end. I wish to request the people to extend to us the kind of support they gave us during the war, in order to get this country out of the economic crisis it is now in. This is the last opportunity we have. If our effort fails, this country will end up like Greece.

We will have to work on the assumption that there is a situation of national calamity with regard to the economy. We will have to put a stop to burdening the people with taxes on the one hand and then spending lavish amounts on importing vehicles for ministers, spending money on ceremonies and excessive amounts on foreign travel as the UNP  government was wont to do. I have to make it clear that after the next general elections, we will have to appoint a suitable number of ministers so as to be able to have a stable government. Before everything else, this country has to have a stable government. However that new government will have to keep expenditure under strict control

The President and the people of this country know that only we can extricate this country from the crisis it is in.  After we assumed power in November 2005, we had to face many challenges. When we obtained a loan of USD 500 million from the HSBC in 2007 at the height of the war, the UNP surrounded the bank and told them not to give us that loan and if they did, the money would not be repaid under a UNP government. In April 2009 when the war was in its final stages, an IMF loan to which were were entitled as a member state was delayed.

At that stage, I spoke to a friendly Middle Eastern country and obtained a pledge of USD 500 million and we were able to work around that obstacle. Soon afterwards, Prabhakaran died, the IMF released the loan and we never had to take the USD 500 million that had been pledged by the friendly Middle Eastern country. The former finance minister says that the credit ratings agency Moodys has downgraded Sri Lanka. It would have been surprising if they didn’t. In 2015 when we handed the country over to the UNP, all those ratings were going up. They started coming down only after 2015.

I have to say that there is a subtle political element in these ratings as well. In 2009, immediately after the war when our credit ratings should have gone up, we were downgraded. But the markets had complete confidence in our government and no one took any notice of the downgrade. The President entrusted the country to us because he knows that we have the capacity to meet such challenges as well. The UNP too is well aware of that fact – which is why they speak to foreign journalists and diplomats on a daily basis in a campaign to convince the outside world that it is undemocratic to hold a general election. They know that if a general election is held and a government led by us comes into power, we will solve all these problems. The government that we will form together with the President will be a powerful and people oriented government.

It is now barely a month since the change of government on 26 October. What we have now is only an interim government. When a downward trend manifests itself, it is difficult to turn things around in a month or two. As the general election which would have enabled the people to elect a stable government has been delayed, it will take some time for a stable government to be formed. During this interim period, I request the people to stand by us and to participate in the effort to restore economic stability to this country.  The people will remember that during our period of rule between 2006 and 2014, we took every measure possble to avoid imposing heavy burdens on the people. This is why we reduced the price of fuel and some essential foodstuffs soon after assuming office on October 26. We reintroduced the fertilizer subsidy and reduced taxes on agricultural incomes so as to reduce the burden on the people and to increase production.

The people living in this country are aware of the difference in the situation that prevailed before 2015 and after 2015. The Cabinet Spokesman of the previous government has publicly stated on numerous occasions that in 2015, the people had not voted for a change of government due to any lack of  food and clothing. He said that the people voted for a change in 2015 for the sake of democracy. But after that change of government, the people ended up without democracy, without the right to vote and without food and clothing as well. Is that not what happened? The endeavour that we are engaged in now is Sri Lanka’s last chance to come out of the crisis it is in. Let us all join hands to defeat the forces that seek to destroy this country by perpetuating their rule without holding elections.

May the blessings of the Tripple Gem be upon you.

After 443 years of western occupation Sri Lanka gained dominion status in 1948 & became a fully independent republic only in 1972. Sri Lanka has been forging diplomatic relations as per western standards & norms though from pre-colonial days our association with some countries extend centuries back & some of these we cannot forget or set aside easily simply because it displeases the West. We are hurt by the approach that the Western diplomatic corps accompanied by their pro-western mainstream media & NGOs aligned to western policy are adopting towards Sri Lanka. The flogged perception is that Sri Lanka cannot be friends with China & any leader who is friends with China faces regime change. How hurtful can a diplomatic demarche of this nature be to both China & Sri Lanka especially when the West are trading with China far more than Sri Lanka?

Sri Lanka is a developing country. From 1972 we have been suffering some sort of internal conflict covertly ignited by external forces. We have never had a period that allowed us to build our nation on our own & on our terms. If we elect a leader not to the liking of the West he/she is sealed pro-China or anti-West. Does that mean we have to elect only pro-West leaders? That doesn’t sound like democracy does it!

The manner that Western nations & their media network cover Sri Lanka eternally presenting articles, discussions & reviews, it is as if no one in the West is having any relationship with China, at least this is what the educated intelligentsia of Colombo love to believe. They are in for a rude shock as the statistics reveal that the trade ties China has with Sri Lanka is peanuts to what China has with the very countries attacking Sri Lanka because of Sri Lanka’s ties with China.

China has 1.38 billion people. The population of US, Canada, Australia & Western Europe combined is still less than 800m.

China shipped US$2.263 trillion worth of products around the globe in 2017 (International Trade Centre) 48.5% of Chinese exports by value were delivered to fellow Asian countries while 22% were sold to North American importers. China shipped another 18.9% worth to clients in Europe.

What would life be like without any products made in China? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1jZ49xv-oU

The truth is US cannot survive without China! Similarly, China too needs US but it can survive without US though China is an export-led economy, and the American consumer is its largest customer. U.S. depends on China for providing low-cost goods that enable income-constrained American consumers to make ends meet as well as supporting US exports while also expecting China to fund its budget deficits. China holds $1.3 trillion in direct ownership and at least another $250 billion of quasi-government paper. 30% of foreign students studying in US are Chinese (340,000 as of July 2018)!

Let’s take the UK – Some 155,000 Chinese students currently in the UK contribute an estimated £5 billion annually to the UK economy.

Between 1978 and 2016, it is estimated that more than 4.5 million Chinese entered universities in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and beyond.

Chinese students make up the largest portion of international students in Australia. As of 2016 census there are 1.2m Chinese living in Australia. From 2014 to 2018 China has poured $40.4billion worth investments covering over 262 projects.

The number of Indian students in China stood at 18,171 compared with 18,015 in the UK, The Times of India 2016.

Similarly as of 2017 more than 489,000 international students are studying in China! The number of students heading to China from India, Indonesia, Laos, Pakistan and Thailand have also increased by 20% from 2016 to 2017.

According to multinational law firm Baker Mackenzie Chinese outbound foreign direct investment (FDI) has dramatically swung toward Europe in the first half of 2018 and its FDI into North America has dropped by a whopping 92% in the last year, from $24 billion to $2 billion”. Sweden was the top European destination for Chinese investment in the first half of 2018 with $3.6 billion, followed by the U.K. at $1.6 billion, Germany at $1.5 billion and France at $1.4 billion.

Germany’s Angela Merkel has made 11 visits to China since 2005. China has been Germany’s top trading partner for two consecutive years after overtaking the United States and France in 2016. The bilateral trade volume between China and Germany amounted to $168.09 billion in 2017 (increase of 11%)

In 2017, China-EU trade increased by 15.5 percent compared with 2016. China-Europe freight trains ran 1,000 times, with a sharp increase by 158%. The running of freight trains is a vivid microcosm of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Europe. A study by Kevin Smith (2017) demonstrates that the BRI, based on the reduction of transportation costs, would probably increase European countries’ trade by 8%, with landlocked countries benefiting most. It is also very conducive to Eastern European trade (Europenow Journal)

China is Canada’s second-largest economic and trade partner next to US. In 2017, Canada-China bilateral trade was about $94.5 billion. Canada’s largest corporations like Manulife, Sun life, Bombardier, BMO, and Magna International have been operating in China for over 30 years.

In the meanwhile, India-China bilateral trade reached $84.44 billion in 2017. 40 % increase of Indian exports to China in 2017.  India’s imports from China increased by 14.59 per cent to $68.10 billion. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-bilateral-trade-hits-historic-high-of-84-44-billion-in-2017/articleshow/63202401.cms

All of these countries have cross-cultural ties encouraging Chinese tourists again another income source for these countries.

So US is having trade ties with China, Europe, Canada & Australia too & India as well but they all have a problem when Sri Lanka has ties with China. Are we missing something here?

Leaving trade aside Sri Lanka’s ties to China have cultural & historical basis. These are longstanding & cannot be easily forgotten. China has gifted Sri Lanka many monumental & epic buildings – the BMICH is mentioned to highlight the closeness of the bond Sri Lanka shares with China. The words of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike are truly noteworthy When I rather hesitantly expressed my desire to have an international conference hall, the Chinese Prime Minister Chou En Lai said, “Yes, I would be very glad to gift a hall in memory of my late friend. Only, I ask of you that you should name it after him”. The Nelum Pokuna, the Lotus Tower, the Mattala Airport are all gifts to Sri Lanka by China. We cannot forget the support given by China in eliminating LTTE as well as the support extended by China together with Russia & Pakistan against the malicious attacks using the UNHRC legally questionable resolutions.

While, Sri Lanka has at no time declared its desire to severe ties with the Western world by virtue of the hostile manner the West via its diplomats are behaving even the general public are beginning to not only question but are wondering why the West is interfering unnecessarily in the internal affairs of a country so much as to insist on re-installing one individual to power. By the actions of the diplomatic corps they are themselves isolating their importance from the general public.

Sri Lanka is not Colombo & Colombo is not Sri Lanka while at the same time Sri Lankans are not the Colombo elite or NGO coterie that the diplomatic corps regularly associate. Certainly the Western values & cultures gel well with the psyche of the Colombo elite – night clubbing, fast foods, branded goods, embracing anything & everything the West follows but that is not the majority opinion shared by people throughout the island.

The people are already realizing the difference in the hands off approach adopted by China, Russia etc while the West is taking a gun-ho line. Many continue to recall how Afghanistan was bombed & thereafter told that it was because of 9/11 that they bombed Afghanistan though it didn’t matter that none of the terrorists were Afghans. It’s been 17 years now & Afghanistan is still illegally occupied by US & NATO.

We advise these Western/Indian diplomats to take a step back. First ask what have they done to trigger hostility towards them by the majority of Sri Lankans. In the case of India, it has only itself to blame, unwarranted interference & theatrics by Tamil Nadu state using the Tamil card against Sri Lanka, the West too flogged the LTTE/Tamil/separatist card a little too far and continues to do so via the UN/UNHRC. The Western aid carrot & stick approach via human rights & forcing changes to constitution & penal codes which are permanent as against trade concessions which West give & remove at will is something the general public are well aware of. Taking the common man for fools has been another major error of the Western/Indian diplomatic corps & their media. Projecting Rajapakse giving projects to only Chinese & creating a debt trap by China while forgetting the scores of projects that have gone to India & West is nothing that they can hide from the public though they may fool the regular readership of their articles & news releases.

Sri Lanka is a sovereign nation & we must be allowed to have international relations with any country without being told how or with whom & not with whom Sri Lanka should have relations.

It is rather precarious to have Western/India diplomats blowing hot & cold over Sri Lanka’s ties to China while they are regularly fine-tuning their trade-cultural ties with China. This is very unfair on China. Sri Lanka’s relations with China go far beyond present day international treaties or conventions. We are historically, culturally & spiritually bound but none of that has ever come between or stopped Sri Lanka having international relations with other nations. This is something the present diplomatic corps need to wake up to & desist from the ugly manner that they are currently behaving. When taking the theatrics of these diplomats together, they look childish & undiplomatic & unbecoming of any democratic values that they preach.

In conclusion, the words of Sri Lanka’s most talented Foreign Minister, late Mr. Lakshman Kadiragamar is quoted when he unveiled the bust of Prime Minister Chou en Lai at the BMICH on 9 April 2005

When a relationship is based on mutual respect and affection, the size, importance and power of one of the two countries in that relationship does not have a disproportionate influence on the other. China has never sought to influence the domestic politics of Sri Lanka. Over the years China has proved to be benign and sincere with no ulterior motives for befriending Sri Lanka. She has never tried to dominate, undermine or destabilize Sri Lanka.”

Can the Western/Indian diplomatic corps fine tune their diplomacy to be somewhat similar?

Shenali D Waduge

Keerthi Godayaya

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ අද පවත්නා දේශපාලන අර්බුදය පිළිබඳව රටේ ජනමාධ්‍යය තුල සිදුවන සාකච්චා හා දේශපාලන සංවාද වලදී වැඩි අවදානයක් යොමු නොවූ කරුණක් පිළිබඳව පාඨක අවධානය යොමු කිරීම මෙම ලිපියේ අරමුනයි.

සියලුම ප්‍රකාශිත හා අප්‍රකාශිත හේතුනට අමතරව අද පවත්නා දේශපාලන අරගලයේ ප්‍රධානතම, එහෙත් විව්ර්තව ප්‍රකාශ වී නොමැති හේතුවක් වන්නේ එය ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සිංහල කතා කරන ග්‍රාමීය දේශපාලන බලවේග හා ඉංග්‍රීසි කතා කරන නාගරික කොම්ප්‍රදෝරු පන්තිය, එසේ නොමැතිනම්, ගුණදාස අමරසේකර මහතා හඳුන්වන පරිදි, ‘කොළඹ තුප්පහි පන්තිය’ අතර සිදුවන දේශපාලන බල අරගලයක් බවය. 

නිදහස් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ රාජ්‍යය බලය ග්‍රාමීය පදනමක් ඇති නායකයෙකු විසින් අත්පත් කර ගත්තා නම් එසේකල පළමු වැන්නා ලෙස හඳුනා ගත හැකි වන්නේ හිටපු ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා ය. ඉංග්‍රීසි කතා කරන කොළඹ කොම්ප්‍රදෝරු පන්තියට පරිබාහිරව බලය අත්පත් කරගත් පුද්ගලයෙකු ලෙස හිටපු ජනාධිපති ප්‍රේමදාස මහතාව හඳුනා ගත හැකි වුවද, ඔහුට ග්‍රාමීය පදනමක් නොතිබූ නිසාත්, එතුමා කොළඹ නාගරික සංස්කෘතියේම නිෂ්පාදිතයක් වූ නිසාත්, තර්කයේ පහසුව තකා එතුමාව ග්‍රාමීය නායකත්ව කුලකයෙන් මම බැහැර කරමි. අනතුරුව මෙම ග්‍රාමීය දේශපාලන නායකත්වයට නාගරික කොළඹුන්ගේ කරපිටින් එක්වූ තැනැත්තා වන්නේ මෛතිීිිූපාල සිරිසේන මහතාය.

එකල, මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා ජනාධිපති පුටුවේ හිඳ ගැනීම බටහිර න්‍යාය පත්රයනට අනුව වැඩ කරන කොළඹ පාලක පන්තිය හා ඔවුන් මෙහෙයවූ බටහිර බලවතුන් ලැබූ විශාල දේශපාලන පරාජයක් විය. එය ඔවුන් දුටුවේ විශාල දේශපාලන තර්ජනයක් ලෙසය.    

පෘතුගීසීන් ලංකාවේ මුහුදුබඩ කලාපයන් පාලනය කලදා සිට ආරම්භව, ලන්දේසි යුගයේදී තවදුරටත් වැඩි දියුණු කර ගෙන, ඉන් අනතුරුව ඉංග්‍රීසි පාලන කාලයේදී පරිසමාප්තිය කරා ලඟා කරගත් කොළඹ බටහිර යටත්විජිතවාදීන්ට ගැති ලුම්පන් පන්තිය විසින් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ දේශපාලන බලය අත්පත් කර ගැනීම හා එය පවත්වා ගැනීමේ ව්‍යාපෘතිය ප්‍රථම වරට ග්‍රාමීය ජනයාගෙන් අභියෝගයට ලක් වන්නේ හිටපු ජනාධිපති රාජපක්ෂ මහතා බලයට පත්වීමත් සමගය. දේශීය ජනයාට එරෙහිව යටත්විජිත වාදීන්ට ගතු කියමින්, රට පාවා දෙමින් ඔවුන්ගේ සුරතල් බලු කුක්කන් බවට පත් වී සිටිමින් සියලු වරප්‍රසාද ලබාගත් මෙම තුප්පහියන් එවකට බලයට පත් මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂව දුටුවේ තමන්ගේ වරප්‍රසාදීත දේශපාලන බල තුලනය අප්සෙට් කිරීමට පැමිණි ගොරක යකෙක් ලෙසය. කොළඹුන් මහින්දගේ ගොරකත්වය ලෙස හැඳින්වුයේ රාජපක්ෂ සතුව පැවැති සිංහලත්වයටය. ඔහු සතුව කොළඹ තුප්පහි ගතිය අඩු කමය.

නමුත් සිංහල කතා කරන ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සුවහසක් ගැමි ජනයා මහින්ද කෙරෙහි ආකර්ශනය වීමේ රහස වුයේද කොළඹ ලුම්පන් පන්තියේ අවඥාවට හා හාස්‍යයට ලක්වූ ඉහත කිව් ඊනියා “ගොරකත්වයයි.”  එනම් ඔහු සතුව පැවැති සිංහලත්වයයි.

මහින්ද පරාජය කිරීමේ ක්‍රියාදාමය විවිධ අවස්ථා වල විවිධ මුහුණුවරින් ක්‍රියාත්මක කොට අත්හදා බලා අසාර්ථක වූ කොලඹුන් හා ඔවුන්ගේ බටහිර හාම්පුතුන් අවසානයේදී ඉහතකී “ගොරකත්වය” ශ්‍රී ලංකා ජනයාගේ ආකර්ෂණය දිනාගත්, පරාජය කල නොහැකි සැබෑ දේශපාලන කොලිටියක් බව තේරුම් ගත්හ.

ඒ වනවිට එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයේ නව ලිබරල් වාදී දේශපාලන ධජය, ඇමෙරිකා එක්සත් ජනපදයේදී අද සිදුවී ඇති ආකාරය අනුව යමින් සම්ප්‍රදායික ධක්ෂිනාන්සික බලවේග වෙතින් ගිලිහී ගොස් තිබිණි. එය ලිංගික අනන්‍යතා නිදහස (identity politics) වෙනුවෙන් සටන්කරන කණ්ඩායම් විසින් උදුරාගෙන තිබිණි. ජන්නධිපති සිරිසේන මහතා සමනල රැළ ලෙස හඳුන්වන්නට යෙදුනේ මෙම නව දේශපාලන කණ්ඩායම යයි මම සිතමි. 

තුන්වන ලෝකයේ රටවල් විනාශ කොට ගල් යුගයට දක්කාගෙන යන, ඇමෙරිකාවේ යුධවාදී නව යටත්විජිතවාදී දේශපාලන න්‍යායපත්‍රය එමරටේ අනන්‍යතා නිදහස වෙනුවෙන් සටන්කරන කණ්ඩායම් විසින් අද දවසේ ජන මාද්‍යය තුල හා අනෙකුත් දේශපාලනික වශයෙන් වැදගත් මර්මස්තාන තුල මෙහෙයවනවා සේම, ලංකාවේද කොළඹුන්ගේ අධිපතිවාදී, නව යටත් විජිත වාදී,  අභ්‍යන්තර කොලනිවාදී (internal colonialist) දේශපාලන න්‍යාය පත්‍රය මෙහෙයවීම අද වනවිට අතට ගෙන තිබෙන්නේ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයේ බලය ග්‍රහණය කොට නතු කරගෙන සිටින්නාවූ නාගරික ලුම්පන් සංකෘතියේ කොටස් කරුවන් වන දේශීය ලිංගික ‘අනන්‍යතා නිදහස’ (identity politics) වෙනුවෙන් සටන්කරන කණ්ඩායම් විසිනි.

 දේශපාලන සුලුතරයින්ගේ අයිතීන් (minority political rights) වෙනුවෙන් සටන් කරන කණ්ඩායම්, අන්ත දක්ෂිනාන්සික නව යටත්විජිටවාදී දේශපාලන න්‍යාය පත්‍රයන් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටීම දෛවයේ සරදමක් නොවේද? බටහිර බලවතුන්ගේ සෘජු ප්‍රහාරයට ලක්ව තිබෙන සිංහල ජනයා පරිපීඩිත ජන කණ්ඩායමක් ලෙස ශ්‍රී ලාංකික දේශපාලන කතිකාවත තුල නොපිලිගනීමම රටෙහි පවත්නා දේශපාලන තත්වය වැරදි ලෙස කියවා ගැනීමක් ලෙස මෙම ලේඛකයා හඳුනාගනී.

හරිනම් සකලවිධ පරිපීඩිත ජනයා කල යුතුව තිබුනේ සිංහල පරිපීඩිත ජනයා සමග එක්ව සැබෑ පීඩකයා හඳුනාගෙන ඔවුනට එරෙහිව සටන් කිරීමය. ඔවුන්ගේ සටන තිබෙන්නේ සැබෑ පීඩකයා වන කොළඹ තුප්පහි පන්තිය හා ඔවුන්ගේ විදේශීය නව යටත්විජිත වාදී න්‍යායපත්‍රයට එරෙහිවය. එසේ වුවත් සිදුව ඇත්තේ එහි ප්‍රති විරුධ්ධයයි.

ඉහත කී පසුබිම තුල රාජපක්ෂ පරාජය කිරීමට නම් හරියට සිංහල උචාරණය කර ගැනීමටවත් නොහැකි රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ නමැති, තාලයට අත්පුඩියක්වත් ගහ ගන්නට බැරි අයෙකුට නොහැකි බව තේරුම් ගන්නා විජාතික බලවේග, රාජපක්ෂට එරෙහිව ඔහු සතු “ගොරකත්වය” අභිබවා යන සුපිරි “ගොරකත්වයක්” ඇති දේශපාලන විකල්පයක් සෙවීමට යුහුසුළු විය. කොළඹ තෙර්ස්ටන් විද්‍යාලයේ ඉගෙනුම ලැබූ ගොරක යකා” පරාජය කිරීමට පොළොන්නරුවේ ඈත පිටිසර ගොවි පවුලකින් පැවත එන, පොළොන්නරුවේ තෝපාවැව මහා විද්‍යාලයේ ඉගෙනුම ලැබූ සුපිරි “ගොරක යකෙක්” තෝරා ගන්නේ එපරිද්දෙනි. මෙම දේශපාලන තරඟයේදී වඩාත් ග්‍රාමීය පසුබිමකින් පැවත ආ මයිත්රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා වෙත චන්දදායකයින් වඩාත් ආකර්ෂණය විය. 

මෙම බලය පැහැර ගැනීමේදී ඉත්තෙකු ලෙස යොදාගත් සිරිසේන මහතාගේ කාර්යය ලෙස කොලම්බුන් දුටුවේ හුදු ඉත්තෙකු ලෙස පෙනී සිට, සැබෑ බලය මෙහෙයවීම වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා වෙත පැවරීම පමණි. රනිල්ට ජනතා පදනමක් නොමැති බව රනිල් මෙන්ම මෛතීුද දනී.

ජනතාව පැත්තෙන් ගත් කල මෙය නංගි පෙන්වා අක්ක දීග දුන්නට වඩා හපන් දෙයකි. තමන් බලය දුන්නේ මෛත්‍රීට වුවත් බලය මෙහෙයවන්නේ රනිල් බව දකින ජනයාට සිදුවුයේ නංගි සමග දීග ගියා යයි කියා සිතා හනිමූන් ගියද, රනිල් නමැති බටකොළ ආච්චිව මංගල යහනේදී හමුඋනා වැනි දෙයකි.

නමුත් සිදු වුයේ කුමක්ද? ගම මුල් කරගත් දේශපාලනයකට, කොළඹුන්ගේ තුප්පහි දේශපාලනයත් සමග එකගෙයි කෑම කිසිසේත්ම කළ නොහැකි බව පැහැදිලි වීම නොවේද? කොළඹ දේශපාලන න්‍යායපත්‍රයේ අයිතිහාසික කාර්යභාරය වන්නේ ගම හිස එසවීම වැළැක්වීම බව මෙහිදී මතුපිටට පැමිණ හෙළිවූ කරුණකි. එනම් 1815 දී දේශීය ජනයාගෙන් උදුරාගත් දේශපාලන බලය, එම දේශීය ජන බලය නියෝජනය කරන ගැමි ජනයා අතට නැවත පත්වීම වැළැක්වීම කොළඹුන්ගේ අයිතිහාසික දේශපාලන කාර්යභාරය බවය.

ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන මහතාගේ ජාතිය අමතා කල කතාවෙන් පැහැදිලි වූ කරුණක් වුයේ, ඔහු ජනාධිපති වුවද, අගමැති ඔහු යටතේ ක්‍රියාත්මක විය යුතුව පැවතියද, වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ඔහුව   ගනං නොගෙන ක්‍රියාත්මක වූ බවය. 

කොළඹ ඉපිද කොළඹ හැදී වැඩී, එහිම පාසැල් ගිය මෙම ලේඛකයා ගැමියන් පිළිබඳව කොළඹුන් සතු පරිභාවාත්මක ආකල්ප පිළිබඳව මෙසේ සටහන් කරන්නේ තවත් එක් කොළඹෙකු ලෙස ඔවුන් පිලිබඳ මනා වැටහීමකින් යුතුවය. වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන අධෝ වාතයක් තරමටවත් ගනං නොගෙන ක්‍රියා කිරීම පුදුම වීමට කරුණක් නොවේ. එය කොළඹා ගේ ලේ වල තිබෙන දෙයකි.

හිටපු අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා විසින් ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන මහතා තුට්ටුවකටවත් මායිම් නොකිරීම හට ගන්නේ කොළඹුන් සතු අධි මානයේ ප්‍රකාශනයක් ලෙසය. හිටපු ජනාධිපතිනිය වන චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග මතිනියටද වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා සමග වැඩ කරද්දී මෙම අත්දැකීමට මුහුණ දීමට සිදු වුවද, මෙවර සිරිසේන මහතා සහ වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා අතර හට ගන්නා බල අරගලයේ මුලය වන්නේ ගම සහ කොළඹ අතර ඇති බල අරගලයේම කොටසක් ලෙස බව ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන මහතාගේ කතාවෙන්ම හෙළිවේ.

කොලඹා විසින් ගැමියා පහත්කොට සැලකීම බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයින් විසින් තම කොලනීන් තුල එකම ජාතිය කොටස් වලට බෙදා වෙනකොට පාලනය කිරීම අරභයා නිර්මාණය කල සංස්කෘතික විභේදනය හා ඉංග්‍රීසි සංස්කෘතිය අනුදත් දේශීයයන් මුල්කොට බිහි කල අධිපතිවාදී මානසිකත්වයේ ප්‍රතිපලයකි. රටේ ව්‍යවස්ථාව නොතකා පස්සදොරින් බලයට ආ විගස වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා කලේ තමා සහ සිරිසේන අතර ඇති සංස්කෘතික වෙනස බටහිර ලෝකයට පැහැදිලි ලෙස ප්‍රදර්ශනය කිරීමය. එලිසබත් මහා රැජින බකිංහැම් මාලිගයට ගෙනිච්චත් ගමේ සිරා සිරාමයි, නමුත් මම එහෙම නෙවෙයි, මම තමයි සුද්දට වඩාත්ම කිට්ටු කියා පෙන්වීමට හැකි හැම පියවරක්ම රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ගත්තේය.  

මෙහිදී වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා කල පළමු කාර්යය වුයේ තම ස්වාමීන් වන බටහිර බලවතුනට සංකේත භාෂාවෙන් පණිවුඩ දීමය. එනම් වෙනත් විදියකින් කිවහොත්, ප්‍රංශ ජාතික දර්ශනවාදීන් වන Ferdinand de Saussure, හා Roland Gérard Barthes වැන්නවුන් විසින් හඳුන්වා දී ඇති පරිදි නිමිති ධර්මවාදයෙන් (semiotics) පණිවිඩ දීමය. 

වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා අගමැති වූ වහාම අන්තර්ජාලයේ විකිපීඩියා පිටුවට දමාතිබු ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය නිල පටුවේ ඡායාරුපයේ ඇමෙරිකානු ජාතික ධජය රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා පසෙකින් පෙනෙන ආකාරයෙන් ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම අත් වරදක් හෝ අහඹුවක් සේ සැලකිය නොහැක. (දැන් එම පිටුව වෙනස් කොට ඇත)  

අනතුරුව වහාම අර්යසිංහල කමිසය, එනම් ඔහුට අනුව කපටි සුට් එක ගලවා විසි කර, ටයි කෝට් දමා ගැනීමටත්, එසේ ඇඳ ගෙන පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට යාමටත් පටන් ගත්තේ ද ඉහත කී අකාරට බටහිර ස්වාමීනට (semiotic) පණිවිඩ දීමටය. නමුත් ඉතාමත්ම හාස්‍යජනක කාරණය වන්නේ, ජනාධිපති සිරිසේන මහතා විසින් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාව කනෙන් අල්ලා එලියට ඇද දැමු විගස, තකහනියෙම වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා නැවතත් කපටි සුට් එකට බැසීමය. මන්ද, දැන් ඔහුට රැවටීමට ඇත්තේ සිංහල ජනයා වන බැවිනි.  අධික ශීත දේශගුණයෙන් පරිපීඩිත බටහිර ජනයාට ටයි කෝට් එක යනු ඇඳුමක් වුවද, ෆැරන්හයිට් අංශක 100 ක උෂ්ණත්වයක් ඇති ශ්‍රී ලංකාව වැනි රටකදී ටයි කෝට් යනු සංස්කෘතික සංකේතයක් බව වටහා ගැනීම මෙහිදී වැදගත්ය. 

මෙම සංස්කෘතික සංකේතය පැළඳගෙන අවශේෂ ලෝකයට අපගේ ශිෂ්ටාචාර ගතවීම පිලිබඳ පණිවිඩ දීමට අප කෙතරම් දුරට නම් පරිපීඩනයට පත්වෙනවාද? සුද්දට පෙර ශිෂ්ටාරගතවූ අපි, අද සුද්දගේ ඇඳුම ඇඳගෙන දාඩිය පෙරාගෙන සුද්ද අපේ රටට අවාට පසු අපි ශිෂ්ටාචාර ගත උනා වගේ ඇඳගෙන ඉන්න විට, අපේ අයිතිහාසික කතාව රනිල්ට වඩා හොඳින් දන්නා සුද්දට අධෝ මුඛයෙන් හිනා යන එක අහන්නත් දෙයක්ද?

ගොනාට ඇඳගෙන ඉන්නවා වගෙයි කියල සුද්ද කියන්නේ මෙන්න මේවට නේද. අන්න ඒවගේ අපේ හිටපු අගමැති තුමාත්   ගොනාට ඇඳගෙන පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ හැසිරුනේ හරියට පුංචි ළමයෙක් ලොකුම සෙල්ලම් බඩු සාප්පුවට හොරෙන් ඇතුළුවෙලා මුරණ්ඩු ලෙස පිස්සු කෙලින ආකාරයටය.  

ජාතික වැදගත් කමකින් යුතු ප්‍රශ්නයක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී ඇසූ කල එම ප්‍රශ්න වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා විසින් විහිළුවට ගන්නා ආකාරය අන්තර් ජාලයෙන් අනන්ත අප්‍රමාණව අපි දැක ඇත්තෙමු. තමාගේ ආරක්ෂාවට බටහිර රටවල් ඉන්නාබව දැනගෙන සිටි වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා හැසිරුනේ හරියට STF එක තමා වටේ ආරක්ෂාවට තියාගෙන කරාටේ කුන්ෆු දන්නවා යයි කියමින් අනුනට තර්ජනය කරන, පූචානම් දොඩවන මානසික රෝගී චතුර සේනාරත්න වගේය.

To be continued.

Bodhi Dhanapala, Quebec, Canada.

Paul Kreutzer, a US Foreign Policy advisor, writing to the AmericanDiplomacy.Org” lists what he terms Ten principles of operational diplomacy”, and also, eight attributes of a diplomat. Two of the ten principles were Circumspection”, and Perceptiveness”.  Two of the eight attributes were An effective cross-cultural communicator”, and A remover of obstacles”.

As a Canadian of Sri Lankan origin living in Canada’s La belle Province, I am appalled and ashamed by the unfortunate lack of professionalism of our representation in Colombo, Sri Lanka, acting with no circumspection, no perceptiveness,  no cross-cultural understanding, while setting up obstacles for himself and the mission.

It should also be noted that Canada is a country which, as far as I know, stopped giving aid to any Sri Lankan government since the 1990s, preferring to channel its funding to NGOs who are unfortunately not answerable to the Canadian Tax Payer, nor to Sri Lankan citizens.    This stoppage was done many decades ago. Instead, Canadian Diplomats  have proceeded to give unsolicited free advise, while Canadian politicians had chosen to ignore the illegal collection of funds by pro-LTTE groups in Canada in return for tainted votes.  Stewart Bell of the National Post has documented how millions of dollars were raised to buy arms when even leading Canadian politicians of all hues contributed to questionable diaspora fund raisers”, in return for a few ethnic votes.

The most recent act of shame that  appalled  me was a news item which stated that:

Canada’s High Commissioner David McKinnon called out Sri Lanka MP Namal Rajapakse for his comments on twitter.

Interesting to see UNP, JVP and TNA politicians meeting with the members of the international community. Perhaps if more effort was given towards meeting with the people of Sri Lanka and paying heed to their hope for elections, Sri Lanka can finally achieve its fullest potential,” Rajapakse tweeted.

McKinnon responded in kind” to Rajapakse:

You might ask some of your Podujana Party (SLPP) colleagues who they’re meeting with,” he said in response.

Given that MP Namal Rajapaksa’s tweet refers to members of the international community”, why does  His Excellency tweet out assuming the role of  the spokesman of the international community”?

Where is the discretion? Where is the circumspection ? What a knee-jerk? Does the High Commissioner think that he is in his private capacity in a Town Hall meeting” with a Doug Ford?

No, this is not a private person, but a High Commissioner  engaging in verbal tit for tat with a junior MP,  thereby demeaning his mission in Sri Lanka, paid by the Canadian Tax Payer? Clearly, McKinnon enjoys the Mac Kick” of  adrenaline in being, even for a moment, the Grand Knight of the international community –  the gateway of the current political intrigue in Sri Lanka.

Then out spake brave” McKinnon,

the Captain of the Intri-Gate:

To every man upon this earth

A tweet cometh soon or late.

And how can a man tweet

than facing Podujana odds”.

Or was it just a Canadian fart!

With apologies to T. B. Macaulay,  Lays of Ancient Rome”.

KAMALIKA PIERIS

Revised      24.11.18

This essay lists several Yahapalana items which not included in the earlier essays. They are presented as discrete items and not as an essay.

**

On Derana News 31.5.18 it was stated that Ranil Wickremasinghe had forwarded to the Cabinet on three separate occasions, a Cabinet paper to remove the state banks. This was confirmed by President Sirisena. A proposal was made to transfer all the funds in the state banks to private banks. I was against this proposal which was debated for three months. If the proposal was passed, the Bank of Ceylon, Peoples Bank, National Savings Bank and any state pawning outlets would have faced difficulties,” the President said.

**

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe also wanted to bring Samurdhi Bank with assets worth Rs 200 billion under the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry. This could be considered part of a strategy to deny the poor access to their funds. The Samurdhi Bank funds belonged to the poorest segments of the society. The bank had been established to assist the poor and needed flexibility.”Why does such a bank need to be under the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry.

It was not possible for the government to place the Samurdhi Bank under the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry under existing law.  Article 35 of the Divineguma Act, No. 1 OF 2013  states that  the provisions of the Banking Act, No. 30 of 1988 and the Finance Business Act, No.42 of 2011 shall not apply in respect of banks and banking societies established under the provisions of this Act. If the government wants to bring the Samurdhi bank under the Central Bank, it will have to change the Act with a two-thirds majority in Parliament with the concurrent of Provincial Councils.”

**

Many an eyebrow has been raised by a government move to set up a hybrid company as part of the controversial National Payment Platform (NPP) to facilitate ‘single button transactions’. This was decided by the  CCEM  headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe . The CCEM decided to recommend that the hybrid company be formed with the involvement of the Central Bank and the Information and Communication Technology Agency (ICTA). there was the danger of the private company gaining access to all banking information if it is allowed to be formed said experts.  they suspected a government move to bypass the banking system in clearing retail payments. In 2015, the then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake allocated from the national budget as much as Rs. 25 billion for the National Payment Platform. The project however did not get off the ground.

Central Bank Governor Dr. Indrajith Coomaraswamy has written to E. M. S. B. Ekanayake, Secretary to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, that there is no need for setting up a separate hybrid company to handle clearing of retail payments. He has said the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) owned national payment infrastructure provider, LankaClear (Pvt) Ltd. together with licensed commercial banks, is currently handling the task.

I would also like to emphasize that there exists only one organisation for handling clearing of retail payments in most countries. Therefore, in this context, it is not advisable to have hybrid companyin a country  with a population of only 21 million.   In the current context, LankaClear (Pvt.) Ltd. (LCPL) which is owned by CBSL and all Licensed Commercial Banks (LCBs) operating in Sri Lanka, handles retail payment and settlement system in the country.

Any new proposed payment platform will need to fulfill the criteria of Principles of Financial Market Infrastructure (PFMI), user confidence, security, ease of use and integration with other systems, etc. Further, failing to adhere to the PFMIs will curtail financial and technical assistance from various donor agencies to Sri Lanka and will have an adverse impact on the stability of financial system, market confidence, investor confidence, credit ratings of the country, etc.

Considering all the above, CBSL is of the opinion that a new hybrid company is not required and any functions regarding retail payment and settlement systems can be carried out by the existing national payment infrastructure provider i.e. LankaClear (Pvt) Ltd.

**

In 2018, Island ran the headline, foreign investors wooed to invest in Sri Lanka, and take profits away. The news item continued, A New Zealand business delegation that arrived in Colombo was told that foreign exchange control has now   disappeared. That five-decade old Act has been repealed and has been replaced by a much more investor-friendly Foreign Exchange Management Act. It allows you to invest your money in your chosen ventures, make gains and take your profit away as and when you wish, without having to obtain any formal, regulatory approval from the authorities”.

**

One of the main constraints indicated by French Small and Medium Enterprises  investments was that resident visas in Sri Lanka  are provided only for one year and a request has been made to extend this to five years which will enable a number of people to enter the restaurant and café business in Sri Lanka. France was keen on investing in the tourism sector with guest houses and restaurants.

**

Yahapalana told   industrialists that new laws are being drafted to give investment guarantees to both local and foreign investors to safeguard them against any possible nationalization efforts in the future.

**

Mangala Samaraweera said that if they cannot find   locals to fill vacancies in the new industries, ‘if our people refuse’,  they will be brought from abroad.

**

India got permission for beverage factory on a 50 acre land in Gampaha importing fruit pulp and exporting juice. The only raw material from Sri Lanka is our ground water. About 50 million liters of ground water per annum. Residents were not successful when they went to courts about it.

**

6,000 small and medium scale rice mills had closed and 100,000 thrown out of employment as a result of the tax on wheat being removed by the Yahapalana government in 2017. Previously 800, 0000 tonnes of wheat had been imported per year, it had now gone up to 1,700,000. When millers had told the Finance Minister not to reduce the tax on wheat because rice mills will have to close down, the minister had immediately said “Close the factories!”

The rice millers had pointed out that they can’t simply close down the factories because they had employees, bank loans and other commitments. Then the Minister had asked them whether they can’t convert the factories to some other use. You can’t make sausages or ice cream in rice mills, they replied.     A miller said that his own investment as a rice miller was worth Rs. 90 million and that his business was now closed.

**

All stakeholders of the tea industry express their unmitigated and resolute opposition to the intention of the Ministry of Finance to appropriate the funds accumulated by the Sri Lanka Tea Board, which had been collected from the industry for global tea promotion,”

In 2010 the Tea Promotion Board had  levied a fee for to be used for tea promotion. The idea was to create a fund based on a percentage of tea export revenue and this fund was to be managed jointly by both the government and private sector stake holders. Rs. 7 billion had accumulated in the cess fund. . The Ministry of Finance intends to take this money, said the industry in 2016. The tourist cess and the tea cess were transferred to the Treasury despite protests.

**

The present campaign to import cheap tea to bring down the cost of tea exported from Sri Lanka will immediately drive down the prices of local tea making it an unviable crop due to the high cost of production here. This will place the jobs of well over a million people directly or indirectly employed in the tea industry in jeopardy. The campaign to import tea with scant regard for the consequences in order to increase the profits of a few exporters is not sound policy, observed Chandraprema. However Tea Exporter’s Association officials explained that only 292 million kilos are produced locally and this amount is not sufficient and assured that the import of tea would not have a negative impact for the local industry.

**

The Tea Exporter’s Association (TEA) has complained of the high taxes imposed on the sector. Exporters have to renew their license with the Sri  Lanka Tea Board  annually at a cost of Rs. 500,000 for large and medium tea companies and Rs. 50,000 for small companies in 2017.

**

There are plans to take the Tourism Cess fund which has several millions of dollars intended for promotional purpose, under the Treasury. This is to be presented in Budget 2019.

**

In 2015 Lanka Thriposha procured one million kilos of soya and three million of maize at the cost of Rs 271 million outside tender procedure from a single supplier, other players are left out.

**

The country has been made to suffer losses running to billions of rupees owing to a government decision to suspend re-exporting karunka (dried areca nut). The money spinner now has gone to other countries. The country earned Rs 9.1 billion in 2015 by re-exporting karunka. The country initially received Rs 367 million by re-exporting karunka in 2008. Thereafter four companies engaged in the industry. It was the highest foreign exchange earner in 2015 when the suspension was imposed, .In 2015, Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake decided to issue permits for several more companies. The old companies opposed the move. From Rs 9.1 billion in 2015 the income dropped to Rs. 4.9 billion in 2016.

**

The prawn industry is in danger. Yahapalana government has  in 2018 permitted the entry of a new type of prawn  Pacific White Legged Shrimp (Litopenaeus Vannamei) into Sri Lanka . This species was imported by a private company.  According to the National Aquaculture Development Authority (NAQDA), the new species has been imported to Sri Lanka for a pilot project to be carried out by a private company in the Mannar. The matter has been discussed in the Economic Research Council , headed by  Prime Minister  Ranil Wickremasinghe and the Council instructed  NAQDA  to permit the importation of this shrimp species to  Sri  Lanka .

Local experts say this species carries infectious diseases  and will be either a competitor or a predator the local prawn species . The industry believed that the local prawn species Penaeus Mondon, widely bred in Sri Lanka, would be affected by possible diseases if the new species were introduced. Further, the importation of new shrimp species to Sri Lanka is illegal as proper legal procedure has not been followed. Approval of DWC had not been obtained, therefore, it was not clear how the Sri Lanka Customs had permitted the NAQDA to bring down the new shrimp species.

**

The Colombo District Court yesterday issued an order directing the Public Trustee’s Department that 252 last wills pertaining to a  colossal amount of wealth which were under the Public Trustee’s supervision be opened.  The Public Trustee informed court that persons who bequeathed their last wills in the custody of the Public Trustee between 1932 and 1992 have to be opened to fulfill their wishes. The Office of the Public Trustee having made an application to court to open the last wills of 252 persons whose last wills had been lying in a safe for over 70 years, was granted permission to open them before the Registrar of the Colombo District Court in March this year. If there are no heirs living, then Yahapalana gets the loot.

**

In 2017, Yahapalana introduced a Cellular Tower Levy of Rs. 200,000 per month per tower, payable by the mobile operators. This would have a severe negative impact to the mobile telecommunication industry, said critics. The proposed levy will increase the monthly operational cost from Rs 115,000 to Rs 315,000. (Increase of 174%).

For more than two decades Sri Lanka’s mobile industry had been a key contributor to the economy of Sri Lanka, delivering 100% population penetration of mobile services at some of the lowest tariffs in the world. The proposed levy would result in great losses to 3 major international investors, resulting in their possible exit from the market. Three out of the five mobile operators are running at a loss, especially because they are extending mobile services to under populated rural areas.

**

Yahapalana had a deadly economic plan.  Yahapalana wanted to kill off local industries and hand over Sri Lanka’s economy to foreign firms. Yahapalana started by condemning the local industries. The local industries cannot compete with foreign goods, they have no future,    said Yahapalana . Sri Lankan SMEs are lagging behind in terms of technology, mechanization and automation,  Yahapalana continued. We still rely heavily on manual labor. Our industries are burdened with high energy, high labor, inflated raw material costs leading to high cost of production. The smaller the firm the lower the productivity. Imports are cheaper due to mechanization and economies of scale.

The most prosperous areas in Sri Lanka are those where self employment is lowest. And the most backward and poor regions are those with the most self employed, said Advocata magazine Echelon”.   Employment at large firms is steadier and better with inducements such as retirement benefits continued Echelon”.

The process of destroying local industries started under J,R. Jayewardene .There were quotas, licenses and tariffs to restrict the free flow of foreign goods to the country before the liberalization of the economy in 1977.  In 1977, the protective measures adopted prior to the introduction of the Open Economy to safeguard local industries were removed. Anyone could import raw material, machinery and finished products for the local market. As a result many small and medium scale industries collapsed,” said analysts.

Yahapalana wished to complete this process by removing tariff protection. Trade liberalization through removal of para-tariffs was a much needed and long overdue move. Sri Lanka must end its protectionist policies, said Yahapalana. Sri Lanka will abolish para tariffs in 1200 imports.  To start with, para tariffs for around 253 products were to be removed in 2017.   ‘Para tariff’ is an extra tax imposed on goods in addition to the usual duties.

This has led to alarm as to the future of    local industries. Phasing out the para tariffs,  will lead to the closure of our local industries. Yahapalana is out to kill the SME sector, said critics. Our local production base will be  destroyed.

Yahapalana also planned to remove the ‘export cess’ imposed currently on exports of certain basic raw materials, which encourages value addition domestically. Cess is a tax earmarked for a particular purpose such as  product promotion.

The National Chamber of Exporters of Sri Lanka has expressed dismay by apparent moves of government authorities to remove ‘cess’ on imported products hitherto imposed as a protective measure for local enterprises.  The local manufacturing industry survived, if at all, is because of tariffs and para tariffs.

These policy decisions will result in a massive elimination of local SMEs and exporting companies and a great increase in Indian companies, commodities and employees in the country.  They will give an enormous boost to substandard Indian business both directly and indirectly.

SMEs  need a certain amount of protection. Removing the cess will lead to their non-competitiveness and closing down, creating unemployment and adversely affecting the economy. Why do we need to remove para tariffs for salt, yoghurt and butter when there is ample production in the country, they asked.”

At least 162 SMEs have struggled over the past 2 and 3 years to survive. 62 have closed down, 100 on verge of collapse or facing bankruptcy, Appeals to Yahapalana went unheeded. SMEs have collapsed because they have mortgaged their prime assets as collateral to banks and cannot pay back the loan.

A record number of small business faced downsizing or closure in 2017 due to sluggish demand and rising costs.  Retail shops are badly affected and some are managing with only the owners without a single employee.

Yahapalana should give sufficient time to enable our industries to face the challenges arising. At least there should be a scheme to compensate such industries, who are forced to close-down, to diversify and sustain, or at least to pay off the debts and secure their invested capital. ( Continued)

The Daily Mirror of 21 November 2018 reported that the Tamil National Alliance had urged diplomats to use their influence ‘with whoever necessary’ to put the country in the right path, whatever that means. This followed a meeting with 15 diplomats on what they all want to present as a ‘political crisis’. However, what was TNA doing throughout decades of LTTE terror not forgetting that TNA was an alliance created by LTTE in 2001? Did TNA seek intervention to stop LTTE from killing innocent unarmed people? Did TNA stop any Tamil child from being kidnapped & turned into a LTTE child soldier? What has TNA actually done for the betterment of the Tamil people? Since 2012 every budget allocation to TNA for development of the North is not spent & returns to the Treasury while TNA MPs & Chief Minister love to travel the world on a complaining campaign crying crocodile tears on slow development in the North. Tamils are waking up to the TNA lies & will be in for some surprising outcomes soon.

Why didn’t TNA seek ‘international intervention’ when Central Bank was robbed in broad daylight or when elections were not held for over 2 ½ years, why were the international community silent when RanilW was appointed PM with just 42 seats? When LTTE continue to be banned in 32 countries why was the international community mum on UNP MP Vijayakala’s public call for the return of LTTE? Why was everyone silent when good governance promised 25 MPs which became 100 after a few months! There is nothing called selective democracy & if entities claiming to be unbiased & impartial are silent when major faux pas are committed, they have no moral right to pick & choose which incidents they decide to interfere in.

Diplomats do not have a choice in liking or disliking the host country they are assigned to. Whether diplomats like or dislike the face of a host country’s President or Prime Minister is not the problem of the host country or even the government that assigns them. If these diplomats hate the sight of the present PM, they are more than welcome to ask their governments to recall them & replace another.

Therefore, it is not the business of these diplomats to agree or disagree to how a PM was appointed, why Parliament was prorogued or dissolved or what the judges are going to decide. Just as the bribe taker is as guilty as the bribe giver, not only are the diplomats at fault for interfering but the Sri Lankan MPs inviting them to interfere are equally guilty.

It is not in the job description of diplomats to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. That much is given in black & white in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) Article 41. Additionally, Article 2.7 of the Charter of the United Nations also provides that – Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”

The only turbulence in the country is being created by these foreign forces & the local groups they are funding…some are now supposed to be fasting to death, others are indulging in street protests demanding democracy but all conveniently ignoring the fact that UNP TNA JVP CPA and the democracy preachers are the ones that filed petitions against going for an election – why don’t they go demonstrate outside their offices first. Thankfully, these are the same faces that have been recognized as anti-national forces over the years and the general public do not take any of their antics seriously.

We do not dictate how Donald Trump should rule America, we do not interfere in how he handles the feuds with Congress, we do not tell him how to talk to media! how to handle immigrants, South Korea, Syria or Iran, we don’t tell Theresa May how to handle Brexit, we haven’t interfered in France’s fuel dispute & public backlash… in short we don’t tell countries how to run their governments and we expect the same respect from these foreign countries that boast of being the beacons of virtue, democracy, human rights & diplomacy. By their actions we are beginning to wonder if they even know the meaning of the terms they use.

If at all TNA should be seeking international intervention, it is to request them to ask RanilW to leave Temple Trees which he has been illegally occupying since 26 October 2018. Without anyone putting a case against his removal in any court and with RanilW sacked by gazette notification, there is little anyone can say that his removal is illegal.

We are reminded of the Native Indian American saying that the ‘white man speaks with a forked tongue’ (to say one thing but mean something else)

Shenali D Waduge

Sri Lanka : Foreign Envoys flout Principle of Non-Interference/Non-Intervention & Diplomatic Protocols

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2018/11/10/sri-lanka-foreign-envoys-flout-principle-of-non-interference-non-intervention-diplomatic-protocols/

http://www.dailymirror.lk/158654/TNA-urges-the-intervention-of-diplomats-to-solve-the-crisis-situation-in-SL?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Adding to piling examples of flouting parliamentary democracy by the UNP leadership was the removal of civic rights of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the world’s first female Prime Minister on frivolous & cooked up corruption charges merely to prevent her from contesting elections. The decision to go to the extent of removing civic rights of one’s opponent signaled the start of the decline of democratic values & the beginning of revenge & manipulative politics. The timeline of revenge can be seen from the manner that no sooner the new constitution was adopted on 7 September 1978 the UNP Government tweaks the constitution, influences judiciary & even changes Bills to remove political opponents by even going to the extent of removing their civic rights. Can this party be called upholding democratic values or given that the values that the democratic preachers of the West say & do are also the same, UNP finds perfect compatibility with them!

That JR Jayawardena intended to take action against Mrs. Bandaranaike was evident in his appointment of a Special Presidential Commission on 29 March 1978 with Supreme Court Judges Justice Sharvananda & J G T Weeraratne & K C E de Alwis. Government lawyers were headed by A C de Zoysa an active member of the UNP Working Committee. It was no different to the Good Governance government appointing 3 UNP lawyers to exonerate then PM Ranil from any role in the Central Bank Bond Scam.

The 2^nd Republican Constitution was adopted on 7 September 1978. Judiciary was manipulated promoting, demoting & even discontinuing judges of the Supreme Court & High Court.

The Special Presidential Commission presented Mrs. B with 10 charges of abuse/misuse of power, corruption. She challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court in the Court of Appeal. Judges Wimalaratne, Vythialingam & Colin Thome granted a Writ of Prohibition against the Commission on retrospective grounds. JR Jayawardena responded by passing 2 Bills under ‘urgent in the national interest’. The JR appointed Special Presidential Commission to remove Mrs. B’s civic rights looks very similar to the illegal FCID created by his nephew Ranil.

1^st Bill declared null & void the judgment of the Court of Appeal favoring Mrs. B

2^nd Bill cited 1^st Amendment in new constitution that deprived Court of Appeal of its jurisdiction in Writ applications & Amendment was made Retroactive from 7 Sept 1978.

Mrs.B described the action as “This was the first time in the history of this country when Parliament declared void a judgement of one of the Superior Courts of this country.” (7 May 1980) She was denied right to defend herself while the Courts were denied provision to take up such appeals.

It was a slap to the Judiciary & showed UNPs disregard for Rule of Law & unrelenting revenge against political opponents.

What is also noteworthy is that the Bill presented in parliament & referred to the Supreme Court for opinion on 16 November 1978 was NOT the same Bill that was signed off by the Speaker. A vital clause that was passed by Speaker was not included into the Bill sent to Supreme Court. Section 21A was not in the Bill that JR Government presented to Supreme Court. This has eerie similarities to the manner that Bills have been passed by the Ranil Wickremasinghe Government since August 2015 & warrants re-scrutiny by a new government. The Speaker in 1980 was Bakeer Makar.

JR Jayawardena government decided to pass the resolution removing Mrs. B’s civic rights for 7 years on 16 October 1980.

139 MPs voted to remove her civic rights while just 19 voted against it. TNA MP R. Sambanthan is one of those MPs who voted against removal of her civic rights.

Making a historic statement in parliament, she called the Resolution as aiming to assassinate her politically & an act of revenge. She left the Chambers almost in tears.

We must raise our hats to TULF leader & Leader of the Opposition A Amirthalingam addressing Parliament on the same day pleaded not to remove Mrs B’s civic rights.

Amirthalingam debated: …the only forum before which political offences of this type can be agitated is the forum of the hustings. The people have given the verdict. People have returned Sirimavo Bandaranaike to this House. You must respect the judgment passed by the masses of Attanagalla. You have no right now to sit in judgment on what the voters of Attanagalla have done. Retrospectively and retro-actively you are creating offences and are meting out punishment which is not in keeping with the fundamental rights you have guaranteed and which are a violation of the Universal Charter of Human Rights”.

That was not all that UNP Government went on to do. The UNP amended the Election Law to include that persons whose civic rights were removed could not campaign or participate in parliamentary or presidential elections. It was really no different to the 19a insertion that was meant to prevent Mahinda Rajapakse contesting another term or the former defense secretary contesting as dual citizen.

The removal of civic rights was a violation of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights every citizen shall have the right to participate in public life, including the right to vote and to be elected without unreasonable restrictions”

Anticipating national outcry & not wishing that to affect the UNP—JR Jayawardena banned public protests another great ‘democratic value’ being enforced!

When SLFPers gathered outside party headquarters in Maradana, the UNP ‘welcome’ to them according to D. G. de L. Karunaratne was  notorious thousands of UNP thugs, armed with cycle-chains, knives an clubs, descended on the unarmed protesters, attacked them mercilessly and robbed whatever they could lay their hands on”. Such was the human rights delivered by UNP to unarmed protesters. How many today even know of this dark past or as always it is excused as being part of the past to be forgotten.

V.P Vittachchi claims that JR’s actions were nothing but ‘fear of Mrs. Bandaranaike’s charisma’ JR’s nephews actions have startling similarities for fear of Rajapakse’s charisma too.

JR’s revenge was such that he used the Public Security Ordinance to take over the SLFP headquarters in August 1981.

The UNP which pledged to establish a Dharmista (Righteous) society made a mockery of the hallowed concept. Driven by an insatiable thirst for power and revenge they manipulated and prostituted legal, judicial, and constitutional processes for 17 long years” D. G. de L. Karunaratne

The lesson UNP keeps forgetting is – you can bring all the amendments & change all laws to one’s advantage but if the people back a leader, the People’s wishes run supreme. Try as UNP did Mrs. B remained popular among the masses as did Mahinda Rajapakse. What UNP needs to wake up to is that no political movement with a mass base can be permanently destroyed by attacking its leader.

The historic win in 1994 for the UPFA is one such example how People will rally behind the underdog. In an ironic twist of fate, while Chandrika Bandaranaike daughter of Sirimavo Bandaranaike became Sri Lanka’s First Female Executive President in 1994 she made her mother Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister & JR Jayawardena who removed her civic rights was alive to watch.

In a similar twist of irony, JR’s nephew PM Ranil Wickremasinghe who thought 19a would see the last of Mahinda Rajapakse suddenly finds he is ousted in October 2018 & Mahinda Rajapakse is placed as Prime Minister.

Shenali D Waduge

ආචාර්ය වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

එඩිත් එලිසා ෆාන්ස්වත් කියලා කියන්නේ ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගමය වෙනුවෙන් දකුණු ආසියානු කලාපයේ ඔත්තු බලපු, රහස් හොයපු ලොක්කියක්. මුල් කාලේ දී රුසියානු භාෂාවත් රුසියාව ගැනත් පරතෙරට හදාරලා තිබුණු මේ නෝනා CIA සංවිධානයට තරුණ කාලයේ දී ම සම්බන්ධවුනා. ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගමයේ විදේශ සේවයට සම්බන්ධ වෙලා රස්සාව කරපු ක්‍රිස්ටෝපර් වෑන් හොලන් කියන මහත්තයාත් එක්ක 1953 අවුරුද්දේ දී එඩිත් නෝනා විවාහ වුනා. හොලන් මහත්තයා 1955 අවුරුද්දේ ඉන්දියාවේ රස්සාවට ආවා. ඒ, නවදිල්ලියේ තිබුණු ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගම් තානාපති කාර්යාලයේ දේශපාලන නිලධාරියෙක් විදිහට. ඒ එක්කම එඩිත් නෝනාත් ඉන්දියාවට ආවා.

දකුණු ආසියානු කලාපයේ ඔත්තු බලන වැඩේ එඩිත් නෝනාට පැවරුනේ මේ ආගමනයත් එක්කම කියලා හිතන්න පුළුවන්. ආචාර්ය උපාධියක් පවා ලබලා තිබුණත් හොලන් මහත්තයා තානාපති සේවයේ මහ ඉහළ තනතුරු දරපු කෙනෙක් නෙවෙයි. ඒ හින්දා, නෝනාගේ රාජකාරි පහසු කරවන අදහසින් මහත්තයා මේ රස්සාව කළා කියලාත් අපිට හිතන්න පුළුවන්. පාකිස්ථානේ රස්සාව කර කර ඉන්න කාලේ 1959 දී එඩිත් නෝනාට කරච්චියේ දී පුතෙක් ලැබුණා. ඒ පුතා ගැන පස්සේ කියන්නම්.

1969 අවුරුද්ද වෙද්දි දකුණු ආසියානු කලාපය භාර නියෝජ්‍ය සහකාර ලේකම් තනතුරත් හොලන් මහත්තයාට ලැබුණා. හොලන් මහත්තයාට මුවාවෙලා ඔත්තු බලන වැඩේ එඩිත් නෝනා දිගට ම ගජරාමෙට කරගෙන ගියා. 1972 දී හොලන් මහත්තයාට තානාපතිකමක් ලැබුණා. ඒ, අපේ රටට අනුයුක්ත කරපු ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගම් තානාපති විදිහට. ඉතින්, 1972 ඉඳලා 1976 අවුරුද්ද වෙන කල් ම අපේ රටේ රස්සාව කරන්න උන්නැහේට පුළුවන් වුනා.

මේ කාලේ ඇතුළේ එඩිත් නෝනා කරන්න ඇත්තේ මොනවා ද? සුපුරුදු විදිහට තමන්ගේ රස්සාව කරනවා මිසක් ඒ නෝනා වෙන මොනවා කරන්න ද! ඊට අමතරව තමන් යන යන රටේ භාෂාව, සංස්කෘතිය, ඉතිහාසය වගේ දේවල් ඉගෙනගන්න වැඩෙත් එඩිත් නෝනා කරගෙන ගිහිල්ලා තියෙනවා. ඉතින් ඉංග්‍රීසි සහ රුසියානු භාෂා විතරක් නෙවෙයි – ප්‍රංශ, හින්දි, බෙංගාලි, උර්දු, සිංහල භාෂා කතාකරන්නත් එඩිත් නෝනාට පුළුවන් වුනා. මේ හැම හපන්කමක් හින්දා ම තමන්ගේ රස්සාව හොඳින් කරගෙන යන එක එඩිත් නෝනාට අමාරු වැඩක් වුනේ නෑ.

1978 අවුරුද්දේ අප්‍රේල් මාසයේ ඇෆ්ගනිස්ථානයේ විප්ලවයක් සිද්දවුනා ම – ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගමය තමන්ගේ රාජ්‍ය දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව ඇතුළේ විශේෂ රහස් තොරතුරු සහ විශ්ලේෂණ කාර්යංශයක් පිහිටෙව්වා. මේ කාර්යාංශයට පැවරුනේ ඇෆ්ගනිස්ථානයට අදාළ තොරතුරු විශ්ලේෂණය කරලා තිබුණු වාතාවරණය ගැනත් ඉදිරියේ දී වෙන්න පුළුවන් දේවල් ගැනත් වාර්තා ලබාදෙන වැඩේ. මේ කාර්යාංශයේ වැඩ කරපු ප්‍රධාන ම තොරතුරු විශ්ලේෂිකාව තමයි අපි කියන මේ එඩිත් නෝනා.

ඇෆ්ගනිස්ථාන විප්ලවය පස්සෙන් සෝවියට් දේශය හිටිය හින්දා රුසියාව ගැන දැනුමත් දකුණු ආසියාව ගැන දැනුමත් ලබාගෙන හිටිය එඩිත් නෝනාට සිද්දවෙමින් තිබුණු දේවල් ගැන වගේ ම සිද්ද වෙන්න යන දේවල් ගැනත් හොඳින් ම තේරුම්ගන්න පුළුවන් වුනා. ඉතින් 1979 සිද්දවුනු සෝවියට් ආක්‍රමණය ගැන ටක්කෙට ම අනාවැකි කියපු අය අතර ඉදිරියෙන් ම ඉන්න එඩිත් නෝනාට පුළුවන් වුනා.

මේ හැම දෙයකින් ම අපිට පැහැදිළිවෙන්නේ එඩිත් නෝනා කියලා කියන්නේ මොන වගේ කෙනෙක් ද කියන එකයි. ඉතින් 1989 අවුරුද්ද වෙද්දි දකුණු ආසියානු කලාපය භාර රහස් තොරතුරු සහ පර්යේෂණ කාර්යාංශයේ ප්‍රධානියා බවට පත්වෙන්නත් එඩිත් නෝනාට පුළුවන් වුනා. මීට අමතරව, නිතර නිතර ම විදේශ ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ රහස් තොරතුරු පිළිබඳ රාජ්‍ය කමිටුවලට සම්බන්ධ වෙලා වැඩකරන්නත් එඩිත් නෝනාට සිද්දවුනා.

මේ හැම වැඩක් ම බොහොම ඉහළින් අගය කෙරුනා. 1992 දී එඩිත් නෝනාට මහ ඉහළ සම්මානයකුත් ලැබුණා. ඒ සම්මානය දුන්නේ CIA සංවිධානයේ අධ්‍යක්‍ෂවරයා විසින්. ඒක ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගමයේ කෙනෙක්ට ලබන්න පුළුවන් ඉහළ ම මට්ටමේ ජාතික සම්මානයක්. ඒකට අමරතව තවත් සම්මාන මහ ගොඩක් එඩිත් නෝනාට ලැබිලා තියෙනවා. විශිෂ්ඨ සේවාව පිළිබඳ ගෞරව සම්මාන දෙකක්, කුසලතා ගෞරව සම්මාන දෙකක්, වසරේ විශ්ලේෂක සම්මානය වගේ ඒවා ඒ අතර තියෙනවා.

1994 අවුරුද්දේ දී එඩිත් නෝනා විශ්‍රාම ගත්තා. මොකද ඒ වෙද්දි එඩිත් නෝනාගේ වයස අවුරුදු 67 කුත් වෙලානේ. ඒත් ඊට පස්සෙත් විදේශ ප්‍රතිපත්ති සම්පාදන කටයුතුවලට විවිධ මට්ටමින් සම්මාදම් වෙන්න එඩිත් නෝනා කටයුතු කරලා තියෙනවා.

මේ වෙද්දි එඩිත් නෝනාගේ පුතා දේශපාලනයට බැහැලා. ඒ පුතාගේ නම තමයි ක්‍රිස් වෑන් හොලන්. මුලින් ම සම්බන්ධ වුනේ මේරිලන්ත ජනපදයේ දේශපාලන වැඩවලට. ඉතින් ඒ ජනපදයේ නියෝජිත සම්මේලනයටත් සෙනෙට් සභාවටත් තේරි පත්වෙන්න ක්‍රිස් වෑන් පුතාට පුළුවන් වුනා. මේ පුතා ගිය මාසයේ – ඒ කියන්නේ 2018 අවුරුද්දේ ඔක්තෝබර් මාසයේ; සුසාන් කොලින්ස් කියන නෝනාත් එක්ක එකතුවෙලා පනත් කෙටුම්පතක් ඉදිරිපත් කළා. ක්‍රිස් වෑන් නියෝජනය කරන්නේ ඩිමොක්‍රටික් පක්‍ෂය. සුසාන් කොලින්ස් නියෝජනය කරන්නේ රිපබ්ලිකන් පක්‍ෂය. ඉතින් දෙපැත්තේ ඉන්න දෙන්නෙක් එකතුවෙලා එක පනත් කෙටුම්පතක් ඉදිරිපත්කරනවා කියලා කියන්නේ මහ ලොකු වැඩක්. මේ පනත් කෙටුම්පතින් යෝජනා කරලා තියෙන්නේ ඇමෙරිකානු ජනපද සංගමයේ මැතිවරණවලට විදේශීය අත පෙවීම් වළක්වන වැඩපිළිවෙලක්. අනුන්ගේ රටවල්වල ඒවාට ඇඟිලි ගහන එක කොහොමත් හොඳ වැඩක් නෙවෙයිනේ.

මේ පුතා – ඒ කියන්නේ ක්‍රිස් වෑන් හොලන්; ඊයේ (2018 අවුරුද්දේ නොවැම්බර් 22 වැනි දා) අපේ ජනාධිපතිතුමාට ලියුමක් එවලා කියනවා රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයා අගමැති තනතුරින් ඉවත්කරපු එක ගැන තමන් මහා කම්පාවකට පත්වෙලා ඉන්නවා කියලා ඒ ලියුමෙන් ක්‍රිස් මහත්තයා කියලා. ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි. මේ විදිහට ජනාධිපතිතුමා කරපු වැඩ හින්දා ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ නීතියේ පාලනයත් ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයත් අවදානමකට ලක්වෙලා තියෙනවා කියලාත් එතුමා කියනවා. ඒ හින්දා මේ විදිහට කරපු වැඩ අතහැරලා දාලා, ඉක්මනට ඡන්ද තියන්න යන්නේ නැතුව, පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ බලයට ගරුකරලා කටයුතු කරන්න යොමුවෙන්න කියලා එතුමා අපේ ජනාධිපතිතුමාට දැනුම්දීලා.

අම්මායි තාත්තායි එක්ක සෑහෙන කාලයක් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජීවත්වෙච්ච කෙනෙක් හින්දා ක්‍රිස් වෑන් හොලන්ට අපේ රට ගැනයි, අපි ගැනයි, අපේ රටේ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය ගැනයි මහා කැක්කුමක් තියෙනවා කියලා අපිට හිතන්න පුළුවන්. එතුමාගේ අම්මා පවා අපේ විස්තර හොය හොයා අපි ගැන වදවෙච්ච කෙනෙක්නේ. ඉතින් එතුමා තුළ ඇතිවෙලා තියෙන මේ කැක්කුමේ බරපතලකම ගැනත් අපිට ඉතාමත් හොඳින් තේරුම්ගන්න පුළුවන්. අපිටවත් අපි ගැන මේ තරම් කැක්කුමක් ඇතිවෙන්නේ නැහැනේ. ඒකට හේතුවෙලා තියෙන්නේ ප්‍රජාත්නත්‍රවාදයේ වටිනාකම් ගැන හරි හමන් අවබෝධයක් අපිට නැතිකමනේ. ඒත් මේ පුතා එහෙම නෑ. අම්මා වගේ ම අපි වෙනුවෙන් මහන්සිවෙනවා. ඉතින් අපේ රටේ අනාගතය අඳුරුවෙයි කියලා අපි බයවෙන්න ඕන නෑ. අම්මා ඔත්තු බැලුවේත් පුතා තොත්තු දෙන්නේත් හොඳ අනාගතයක් අපිට උරුමකරලා දෙන්නනේ.

අනේ වාසනාවන්!

ආචාර්ය වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

2018 නොවැම්බර් 23

Senaka Weeraratna

A brief talk on Dr. G.P. Malalasekera, founder of the World Fellowship of Buddhists (WFB) was delivered on November 08, 2018 by Mr. Senaka Weeraratna ( Hony. Secretary,German Dharmaduta Society) at the First Plenary Session of the 29th General Conference of the WFB, held at Narita, Japan from Nov. 7-9, 2018.

Here is the text of the Speech:

Mr. Chairman, Most Ven. Sirs, Ven. Sirs, President of the WFB, General Secretary of the WFB, Distinguished Guests, Brothers and Sisters in the Dhamma.

I am indeed privileged to be invited to say a few words in honour of Dr. G.P. Malasekera, the founder and First President of the World Fellowship of Buddhists.

Gratitude is a noble quality. It is also a rare quality. In the Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha identified Gratitude as an ennobling quality.

In one of his finest discourses in the Anguttara-Nikaya the Buddha speaks as follows: “The sum of all that makes a bad man is ingratitude; the sum of all that makes a good man is gratitude “.

PHOTO – Mr. Senaka Weeraratna delivering a brief talk paying tribute to Dr. G.P. Malalasekera, founder of the World Fellowship of Buddhists (WFB), on November 08, 2018 at the First Plenary Session of the 29th General Conference of the WFB, held at Narita, Japan from November 7-9, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2127146450836008&set=a.1644112399139418&type=3&theater

The Buddha further said that it is hard to find people who do kind deeds and people who are grateful for the kind deeds done. In so saying the Buddha placed a heavy emphasis on the need to treasure and value people who do kind deeds and cultivate good virtues.

On this occasion we must express our gratitude as a foremost duty to Dr. G.P. Malalasekera, who is the father of the WFB. His legacy to the cause of advancement of Buddhism by bringing Buddhists of various schools of thought and shades of opinion under one canopy is a stupendous achievement.

Dr. Malalasekera saw elements that unify Buddhists despite differences, and being a visionary, he saw light at the end of the tunnel, that may not have been visible to very many others. He worked tirelessly with the support of the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress (ACBC) of which he was Chairman for 23 years, and other Buddhist groups, based locally and internationally to realize this vision. This gathering here today marks the fruit of his vision.

It is appropriate that we commemorate Dr. Malalasekera almost on the eve of his 119th birth anniversary which falls on 9th November, 2018 (tomorrow). He was born on 9th November 1899.

His father, an Ayurvedic Physician, named him as George Peiris, being the first two names given to him. However these English two first names did not last long. When his father met Anagarika Dharmapala together with his son who was then only 7 years old, Anagarika was able to convince the father and the son to shed the English names and replace them with Sinhala first names – Gunapala Piyasena. This was the time when the Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka and the rest of Buddhist Asia was in full swing.

Gunapala Malalasekera was an exceptionally outstanding student. He had his primary and secondary school education at St. John’s College, Panadura. He entered the Medical College in Colombo, but after two years, he had to abandon his studies due to the death of his father and lack of funds.
Nevertheless he was able to, with the support of his well – wishers, proceed to England and obtain his MA / Ph. D. simultaneously in 1925.

His achievements cover a wide range of fields:

1) Education – Principal of Ananda and Nalanda Vidyalaya – the two premier Buddhist Schools in the country.
2) Scholarship – Pali and Buddhist Studies
3) Teaching – University Professor (Peradeniya Campus)
4) Research – Chief Editor, Encyclopedia of Buddhism
5) Diplomacy – Ambassador to USSR, UN, and UK (High Commissioner) and a few other countries.
6) International Statesman
7) Author of innumerable books, tracts, and Journal articles
8) An unrivaled World Buddhist leader

It was his personal initiative that led to the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress (ACBC) presenting a Memorandum to the then Prime Minister Hon. D.S. Senanayake, in the early 1950s, calling for the establishment of a Public Commission of Inquiry, to inquire into the infringement of the rights of the Buddhist Sinhalese during 450 years of colonial rule and thereafter make recommendations to rectify the historical injustices meted out to the latter.

The failure of the then Government of Ceylon, to act accordingly and undo the wrongs done to the Buddhists during western colonial rule, led to the ACBC to appoint a Committee of Inquiry in 1954. The findings of this Committee (popularly known as the Buddhist Commission) were made public on February 4, 1956 at a public meeting held at Ananda College, Colombo.

Such was the impact of these findings that it led to the Buddhist monks coming on to the streets en masse and campaigning against the Government of Sir John Kotelawala who refused to implement these findings. His opponent S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, leader of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) gave a public pledge undertaking to implement the findings of the Buddhist Commission Report. The outcome was a Buddhist Revolution in Ceylon in 1956 with the election of a new People’s Government under the leadership of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike.

Professor Malalasekera contested for the post of the President of the UN General Assembly in 1962 and lost to Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan of Pakistan, who was elected President of the General Assembly in the 68th session, by obtaining the support of the entire Muslim block of countries, among others. The Buddhist block of countries was relatively weak at that time and it persists to this day in international fora and also at the UN.

Dr. G.P. Malalasekera passed away on April 23, 1973. He was 73 years old.

In conclusion, it must be said that the likes of Dr. G.P. Malalasekera, come once in 100 years to shed light and illuminate the world and steer the global community and family of nations in a new direction and new path.

A word of thanks to the WFB. The World Fellowship of Buddhists is a body of world prestige enjoying the fullest confidence of the Government of Thailand to which we must be very grateful for its generosity and munificence. WFB is also backed by Buddhist communities all over the world.

It is most fitting therefore that we commemorate sincerely in a spirit of thankfulness the father of the WFB by recalling his noble services to the uplift of the Buddha Sasana at every General Conference of the WFB.

Last by not least, I now call upon Dr. Mahinda Malalasekera, Vice – President of the WFB Branch in Sri Lanka (Regional Centre) and nephew of Dr. Gunapala Malalasekera (being his younger brother’s son) to hand over a copy of a recent publication on the life and times of Dr. Malalasekera, published by the Malalasekera Foundation, to Mr. Phallop Thaiarry, General Secretary and Vice -President of the WFB, as a token gift.

Thank you.

Senaka Weeraratna

 lanka C news

තමන් විසින් හිටපු අගමැති රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා සම්බන්ධයෙන් නවතම කෘතියක් සම්පාදනය කරන බව ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා සඳහන් කරයි.

එම කෘතියේ නම ‘රනිල් සමඟ අසාර්ථක දේශපාලන දීගය’ බවත් එය ලබන ජනවාරියේ දී එළිදක්වන බවත් ඒ මහතා සඳහන් කළේය.

කොළඹ පැවති උත්සවයක් අමතමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා මෙම අදහස් පළ කළේය.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී සන්ධාන මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් කිසිවකු හෝ නොමැතිව එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය පමණක් තනියම අදහස් පළ කරමින් තමන් ගැන තම දියණිය විසින් රචනා කරන ලද කෘතියක් දැඩිව විවේචනය කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් අදහස් පළ කරමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා මේ බව කියා සිටියේය.

තමන්ට නැති වීමට ඇත්තේ දෙකක් බවත් ඒ නම් ජනාධිපති ධුරය සහ ජීවිතය කී ජනාධිපතිවරයා තමන් ඒ දෙකම අතහැර යාමට ඕනෑම මොහොතක සූදානම් බවත් එහිදී පැවසීය.

Ajith Siriwardana and Yohan Perera Courtesy The Daily Mirror

House Leader and Minister Dinesh Gunawardane said today they had decided to boycott parliamentary sessions until Speaker Karu Jayasuriya acted according to the Constitution, Standing Orders and parliamentary tradition.

He told a news conference held at the parliament complex that they would take a decision on attending parliament sessions after considering the order paper for the next day.

“We walked out of Chambers in protest of the Speaker’s actions,” Mr. Gunawardena said.

He said even minority governments had been given a majority in the Committee of Selections in the past and neither had a vote been taken on such a committee in parliamentary tradition.

“The vote was taken on a request made by Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Lakshman Kiriella,” Mr. Gunawardena said.

He said the Speaker would be able to act illegally only till the Supreme Court gave its verdict on December 7.

He said the Speaker was convening parliament disregarding the Parliament calendar and without printing the order paper given by the government. ()

By Lakshman I. Keerthisinghe Courtesy Ceylon Today

The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extra-legal actions by State actors, which are designed to restore order, are found to be constitutional… The doctrine of necessity has since been applied in a number of Commonwealth countries, and in 2010 was invoked to justify extra-legal actions in Nigeria – Wikepedia

There appears to be a raging controversy in legal and civil society circles over the applicability of constitutional provisions dealing with the powers of the President of Sri Lanka in removal and appointment of a Prime Minister as well as prorogation and dissolution of Parliament. Article 70(1) on powers to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament has been referred to on the on-going arguments. Article 30(1)states that the President is the Head of State, Head of Executive and of Government and Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces. Article 3 grants the sovereign power to the people, which is inalienable. Under Article 4(2) executive power of the people is exercised by the President who is elected by the people exercising their sovereign power of franchise.

The Cabinet of Ministers is charged with the direction and control of Government (Art. 42(1)). The President is a member and also the Head of the Cabinet (Art. 42(3)). In order to empower the President with the maximum liberty and authority, the Constitution vests in him the discretion to decide the suitability of the Prime Minister. Article 42(4) in 19th Amendment provides as follows: ‘The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament’. The opinion of the President cannot be questioned or tested. He is expected to evaluate prevailing conditions and decide the person in the best interest of the people and the country. President is expected to take into consideration all the circumstances and information at his hand in formulating his opinion.

Best precedent is the appointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe in January 2015, when UNP was still having only few seats in Parliament. He accepted the portfolio without any allegation of any procedural unconstitutionality.

Therefore, RW is ‘estopped’ from criticizing the same procedure as unconstitutional, from which he benefitted in 2015.

Logically there cannot be two members in Parliament who can command the confidence of Parliament simultaneously. Principles of interpretation of statutes provide that whenever any law gives power to appoint, it includes the power to remove too. This principle is embodied into section 14(f) of the Interpretation Ordinance of Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is clear that the President has lawfully appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister in terms of Article 42(4) of the Constitution read with section 14(f) of the Interpretation Ordinance.

Regarding dissolution of Parliament although the proviso to Article 70(1) of the 19th Amendment states: ‘Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour.’ The Doctrine of Necessity may be considered at this stage. The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extralegal actions by State actors, which are designed to restore order, are found to be Constitutional. The maxim on which the doctrine is based originated in the writings of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton, and similar justifications for this type of extralegal action have been advanced by legal authorities, including William Blackstone.

In modern times, the doctrine was first used in a controversial 1954 judgment in which Pakistani Chief Justice Muhhamud Munir validated the extra-Constitutional use of emergency powers by Governor General Ghulam Mohammad. In his judgment, Chief Justice cited Bracton’s maxim, ‘that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity’, thereby providing the label that would come to be attached to the judgment and the doctrine that it was establishing. The doctrine of necessity has since been applied in a number of Commonwealth countries. In a 1985 judgment, Chief Justice of the High Court of Grenada invoked the doctrine of necessity to validate legal existence of a court then trying for murder, persons engaged in a coup against former leader Maurice Bishop.

In conclusion, after considering all relevant matters brought out in the arguments before Court, Their Lordships, the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court would deliver a suitable and appropriate judgement on the issue of dissolution of Parliament which shall be respected, accepted and adhered to by all the citizens of our motherland as the Supreme Court is the sole authority to decide on matters concerning such Constitutional provisions.

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law with LLB, LLM, MPhil (Colombo) Fmr Lecturer Sri Lanka Law College)keerthisinghel@yahoo.co.uk