Ajith Siriwardane Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Former Chief Justice Sarath N Silva said yesterday the President had been vested with powers to dissolve Parliament under 33 (2) C of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

He told Daily Mirror that this special provision was incorporated into the Constitution under duties, powers and functions of the President in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

He said this special provision says that in addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.

He said the 19th Amendment brought in by the Ranil Wickremesinghe government in 2002, sought to remove the powers of President to dissolve parliament and make provisions that the President can dissolve Parliament only on the basis of a resolution passed with a simple majority in parliament, but this was challenged in the Supreme Court by several petitioners and the SC gave a ruling that it should be approved by a two thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people in a referendum.

He said the present government amended Article 70 of the Constitution in the manner that the President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament: 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.

He said when amending Article 70, section 33 (2) C was introduced in the 19th Amendment in 2015 in accordance with the judgment of the SC and added that the prevailing provision of the Constitution was 33 (2) C.

The President can act on his own in a critical situation or on a resolution approved by the Parliament when dissolving Parliament. This new section was incorporated to evade a referendum,” he said.

All types of people have suddenly become constitutional experts, legal pundits, democratic veterans, angels of law & order but let us stop & first ask ourselves some questions & see how best we can find the answers

• What type of democracy prevails in Sri Lanka? Is the head of State – the President, the Prime Minister or the Speaker?
• In 2015 January did Sri Lanka have a Presidential Election or a Parliamentary Election?
• If Presidential, then have the people voted for a President or a Prime Minister?
• If people voted for a President in January 2015 how did the President appoint a Prime Minister? Was there provision in the constitution for him to do so?
• Was the sitting PM removed before appointing Ranil as Prime Minister & gazetted too? If not is this appointment legally valid?
• Is it constitutionally possible to appoint Ranil as PM in January 2015 (note only the 18^th amendment to the constitution applied at this stage)
• Ranil had only 46MPs in Parliament in January 2015, on what legal & constitutional basis was he made the Prime Minister?
• What is the legal & constitutional provision of a National Government mentioned in the 19a and the National Unity Government that comprises the parties led by UNP?
• If there is a National Government why did only UNP & SLFP sign a 2 year MOU? What was the position of this national government & 2 year MOU when that term expired in August 2017? Did the national government legally stand?
• Can only the SLFP & UNP sign a 2 year MOU because both of them did not contest independently but through alliances, why was an MOU not signed with all alliance heads?
• Everyone speaking of following the democratic process were silent in April 2015 – when Parliament was supposed to be dissolved & elections held which did not happen? Can someone explain how this did not fit into the democratic process violation?
• The President is elected by the People directly – how democratic was it to help draft 19a that transferred the power given to the People and hand it to Parliament which reduced the President’s term to 5 years and reduced his ability to dissolve Parliament
• Isn’t 19a deciding on a reduced Presidential term of office a violation of Article 3 of the Constitution that gives inalienable sovereign rights to the People? If People elect the President the People should also decide if there is to be a change of years in office not the Parliament.
• How legal is it to also allow Parliament to decide how many times a President can contest? Shouldn’t that too be the decision of the People? A contestant has a right to contest & the People have the right to reject or elect that contestant. Isn’t that true democracy?
• The National Government was only mentioned for the 100 day program such a set up was not in the election manifestos of the UNP or SLFP in August 2015 – on what basis was this National Government continued – there was no national crisis? (even during the military operation the Opposition did not wish to support the ruling government by forming a national government)
• What has this National Government done in the ‘National Interest’ of the country?
• How legal & constitutional is it to allow defeated candidates to enter through the National List? Where are all the proponents of democracy opposing this?
• Why are those speaking of MP ‘buy-overs’ & corruption now silent in 2014-2015 when MPs of the Rajapakse govt crossed over to topple him & 26MPs were enticed from the SLFP in March 2015 to form a 77 member government?
• The President is elected by the People – the Prime Minister is not, why has the 19a limited scope for the President (powers given to him by the People) to remove the Prime Minister as could be done previously?
• Why are all those preaching democratic process now silent when the assurances made to the people was a 25member cabinet which rose to 30 and then by April 2015 ended up with 45 cabinet Ministers, 55 non-cabinet & deputy ministers. Why this selective democracy outcries?
• What legal right does the Parliament have to pass 19a that usurps the executive powers given directly by the People to the Executive President & transfer those powers to a Prime Minister not elected directly by the People?
• On 26 October 2018, the President decided to remove Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister & hand over the Premiership to Mahinda Rajapakse. What is the unconstitutionality in this? Please quote necessary clauses from the constitution for violations.
• The appointment of new Prime Minister was made after all the SLFP MPs in the National Unity Government exited thus making null & void the unity government as the MOU was signed between only these 2 parties. What is illegal or unconstitutional in this?
• Whereas the sitting PM was not removed before appointing a PM in January 2015, not only the sitting PM was removed but a gazette notification of the said removal & another gazette notification of the PM appointment was made in October 2018. Where is the unconstitutionality if any?
• There have been plenty of governments that have run as minority governments and 113MPs is not necessary to run the government.
• Where does it say that the President can only appoint as PM the person who has the most MPs in Parliament?
• Doesn’t the constitution say that the President can appoint as PM the person HE FEELS has the most confidence in Parliament?
• Can the President remove the Prime Minister? Doesn’t 48(1) give 3 opportunities to dissolve cabinet including sacking the PM & under other reasons” 47 (2)
• Isn’t Sri Lanka’s Executive Head & 1^st citizen, the President? Yes
• Isn’t the President the Head of the Government? Yes
• Isn’t the President the Head of the Cabinet? Yes – 42(3)
• If the President has all these powers why can’t he change the Prime Minister who is not elected by the People?
• If anyone feels that any constitutional provisions have been violated why are they not going to Supreme Court to get a determination? Making the Speaker hysterical & a laughing stock is not the solution.
• What are the provisions available for the President to dissolve Parliament?
• Is the sovereignty in the hands of the People or Parliament? Certainly People
• If the sovereignty of the people is being violated, can the President use his executive powers & take action under Article 62
• Has the 19a tried to usurp the powers of the People and give it to Parliament?
• How come all those crusading against illegalities & demanding democratic process was silent regarding the unceremonious removal of Chief Justice Mohan Peiris. He was simply not allowed into his chambers. His term is included in Wikipedia as the 43^rd ‘defacto Chief Justice’ how morally & legally right is this?
• How legal is the FCID & all other corruption units set up directly under the supervision of the PM?
• How legal & ethical was it to appoint a finance minister in 2015 who was facing a case for money laundering?
• How legal was it to transfer the Central Bank, Exchange & Securities Commission & Statistics directly under the PM? Was this not to facilitate the Central Bank Bond Scam?
• Is it also legal for a foreigner to be appointed as Governor of the Central Bank & was this person not responsible for the Bond Scam & will that foreign citizenship factor affect legal action to be taken for the economic chaos that has arise as a result?
• All those crying foul & issuing statements on upholding democracy were not to be seen or heard when the Ranil Wickremasinghe government did not hold a single election from August 2015 to February 2018 – why?
• How legal has it been to ask people to come to give statements & then order their arrests & refusal for bail? How legal was it to even open magistrates office late in the hours to imprison people arrested?
• How legal are the investments, land sales, national asset sales taken arbitrarily via bills that have been passed ad hoc & by a Speaker who has shown his open bias?
• How legal has been the reparations bill compensating LTTE when LTTE remains banned in Sri Lanka still.
• What is the legality in co-sponsoring the Geneva Resolution which is arguably legally questionable too given that all UNHRC Resolutions & Investigation stemmed from a personal report commissioned by the UNSG which did not have the mandate of the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council?
• How legal is it to shelve the COPE report & BOND COMMISSION report which should be released to the public

Answering some of these questions will help any to understand the precarious situation the Ranil-led government has put the country in. Allowing unnecessary foreign meddling into the internal affairs of a sovereign country, opening internal systems for foreign perusal & adjustments which no government is bound to do, which has only compromised our internal security systems & exposed our weak points for them to manipulate at will.

None of these countries are concerned about democracy – they probably don’t even understand the word leave alone wanting to abide by it. They preach to us about human rights & rule of law & then sell arms for profit which are devastating Yemen & leaving these innocent people in starvation & hunger. Countries who can do this have no moral right to be coming preaching to us or any other country.

Sovereignty is in the hands of the People & it is the People of Sri Lanka who must decide not foreign nations or the UN and it is time people elected by the People stop going crying to foreign countries for help, it only shows they are incapable of leading without being spoon-fed by them on how to rule according to their agendas & dictates.

Shenali D Waduge

තිස්ස ගුණතිලක

යහපාලන අටමගලය අවසන්වී ඇ‌ත. එය දින ඉකුත්වූ පල්හෑල්ලකි. ශ්‍රී ලංකාව මුළු ලෝකයේම සිනහවට ලක්කල විගඩමකි. දූෂණය පිටුදකින්නට පැමිනියවුන් එතෙක් මෙතෙක් ලක් ඉතිහාසයේ සිදුවූ දූෂිතම මංකොල්ලය සිදුකලේය. මහබැංකු සුරැකුම්පත්වලින් හොරකම්කල මුදල රැපියල් මිලියන 11,000කට වඩා වැඩිබව වාර්තාවෙයි.

හොරැ අල්ලන මුවාවෙන් ජනතාවට බේගල් ඇ‌දබා පාලනයට පැමිනියත් අල්ලපු හොරෙක් නැත. වූයේ එජාප නායකත්වය හොරෙක් වීම පමනකි. රටක් පාලනය කිරීම තබා මුන් හොරකමක්වත් හරියට කරන්න නොදන්නා තකතීරැවන් පිරිසකි. එහෙව් රැලක් අද නැති අගමැති තනතුරක එල්ලෙන්නට බහුතරයක් සොයයි. මෙහිදි සොරාගත් මහබැංකු මුදල්ද කරලියට පැමිනේ. ඒ‌ එජාප නායකත්වය හැරයාමට සැරසී සිටින්නවුන් මුදලට ගැනීමටය.

එදා ඩී එස් ලා බිහිකල ඩඩ්ලි, ජේ ආ‌ර්, ප්‍රේමදාසලා වැන්නන් පෝෂණය කල එජාපය ගෙෳරවාන්විත පක්ෂයක්ව තිබිනි. අද එහි නායකත්වය ජරාජීර්ණවී තිබුනත් බිම්මට්ටමින් ඊට එකතුවන සාමාජිකත්වය ජාතිකත්වය අගයන පිරිසක් බිහිකර ඇ‌ත. එජා පක්ෂය නියෝජනය කරමින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුල අද මොවුන් සිටිනවා ඇ‌ත. ඔවුන් රටත් ජාතියත් විපතට පත්වී ඇ‌ති මොහොතක ජාතිකත්වය තනිනොකරනු ඇ‌ත.

අද අප රට පත්වී ඇ‌ති දේශපාලන වාතාවරනය ජාතිකත්වය විජයග්‍රණය කරන තත්වයකට පත්කරගතහොත් එය අවුරැදු 206 කට පසු (1803 ජයග්‍රාහී ලේවැල්ල සටනින් පසු ) නන්දිකඩාල් වලදී අප ලබාගත් පලමු ජයග්‍රහණයේ පලමුවන දිගුව වනු නොඅනුමානය. එජාපය නියෝජනය කරන ජාතිකත්වය අගයන පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුල සිටින මහජන නියෝජනය ජනපති හා මහින්ද ප්‍රමුඛ  පිරිස සමග එක්වී අද රට හා ජාතිය රැකගතහොත් ලක්මෑණියන්ගේ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨ දූපුතුන් ලෙස ජනතාව ඔබ පුදනු ඇ‌ත. අනාගත සෑම මැතිවරණයකදීම ඔබට උපහාර දක්වනු ඇ‌ති.

අනෙක් අතට රනිල් ප්‍රමුඛ එජාප නායකත්වය කෙසේ හෝ මේ මස 14 වනදා බහුතරය ලබාගත්තත් ජනාතාව තුල ඔවුන් කෙරෙහිවූ ස්ථාවරය සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම බිදවැටී හමාරය. ඒ‌ පසුගිය වසර 3 1/2 තුල රටේ ආ‌ර්ථිකය කාබාසීනියා කල අයුරැත්, රටේ ආ‌ර්ථික මර්මස්තාන පිටරැටියන්ට විකුනා දැමූ අයුරැත්, ජනතාව බදු බරින් පෙලූ අයුරැත්, ඉතිහාසයේ සිදුකල දැවැන්තම බැදුම්කර මංකොල්ලය තමුන්ගේ ඇ‌ස්පනා පිට සිදුකල අයුරැත්, ජනතාවට මේ කල්පයේ අමතක නොවන බැවිනි. වරක් කාටත් හොරෙන් කොටින්ට උතුර හා නැගෙනහිර ලියා දුන් එජාප නායකත්වය තවදුරටත් ජනතා අප්‍රසාදය නොතකා පාලනය ගෙනයාමට උත්සාහකලහොත් ජනතාව ඔවුනට නිසි පිලිතුරැ ලබා දීමට මැතිවරණයක් පැමිනෙන තෙක් බලා නොසිටිනු ඇ‌ත.

ඔබට සුභ පැතුම්

තිස්ස ගුණතිලක සිඩ්නි නුවර සිට

2018 නොවැම්බර් මස 08වනදා

ආචාර්ය වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

ඇමෙරිකා ජනපද සංගමයෙන් අපේ රටට තානාපති නෝනා කෙනෙක් පත්කරලා. ඒ නෝනාට ඇලෙයිනා බී. ටිප්ලිට්ස් වගේ නමක් තියෙන්නේ. නම මොකක් වුනත් කමක් නෑ. අපිට වැදගත්වෙන්නේ ඒ නෝනා කරන වැඩනේ. අලුතින් තානාපති කෙනෙක් පත්වෙලා ආවාම මුලින් ම කරන්නේ අපේ ජනාධිපතිතුමා මුණගැහිලා අක්ත පත්‍ර භාරදෙන එක. මේ නෝනා තවමත් ඒ වැඩේ කළ බවට නම් ආරංචියක් නෑ. ඒත් ආ පයින් ම කතානායකතුමාවත්, දෙමළ ජාතික සංධානයෙන් සහ ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණෙන් සමන්විත විපක්‍ෂයේ නායකයාත් මුණගැහිලා. කතානායක කරූ ජයසූරිය මහත්තයා මුණගැහුණාට පස්සේ ඒ නෝනා කියනවා තෝරාපත් කරගෙන ඉන්න නියෝජිතයෝ එකතුවෙලා ප්‍රජාතාන්ත්‍රිය විදිහට” දැන් අපේ රටේ තියෙන ප්‍රශ්නය විසඳගන්න කියලා.

ජනාධිපතිවරයා කියලා කියන්නෙත් අපේ රටේ මිනිස්සු එකතුවෙලා තෝරාපත් කරගත්ත නියෝජිතයෙක්. එහෙම නැතුව එංගලන්තයේ එලිසබෙත් රැජින විසින් පත්කරලා එවපු නියෝජිතයෙක් නෙවෙයි. අපේ රටේ ජනතාවට අයිති විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරවන්නේ මේ විදිහට අපි තෝරාපත් කරගෙන ඉන්න විධායක ජනාධිපතිවරයා මාර්ගයෙන්.

අපේ රටේ ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකයකුත් තියෙනවා. ව්‍යවස්ථායක බලයත් අයිති අපිටමයි. අපිට එකතුවෙලා ඒ බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්න බැරි හින්දා අපි තවත් පිරිසක් ඒ වැඩේට තෝරාපත් කරගෙන තියෙනවා. ඒ අයට අපි කියන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරු කියලා. ඒත් අපේ ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලය මුළුමනින් ම නියෝජනයකිරීමේ ඉඩක් අපි ඒ අයට ලබාදීලා නෑ. සමහර කරුණු කාරණා සම්බන්ධයෙන් තීන්දු තීරණ ගන්න කෙළින් ම අපේ කැමැත්ත ඕන වෙනවා. අපි අපේ ඒ කැමැත්ත ලබාදෙන්නේ ජනමත විචාරණ මාර්ගයෙන්.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ට අපි පවරපු කාර්යයක් තියෙනවා. ඒ තමයි අපේ රට පාලනයකරන්න උවමනාකරන නීති, අණ පනත් සම්පාදනය කරන කටයුත්ත. ඉතින් ඒ අයට අපි පවරලා තියෙන්නේ ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලයක්. ඊට අමතරව අපේ අධිකරණ බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්න ඕනකරන ආයතන හදලා දෙන වගකීමත් අපි ඒ අයට පවරලා තියෙනවා.

හැබැයි අපේ රටේ විධායක බලය අපි පවරලා තියෙන්නේ ඡන්දයෙන් තෝරා පත්කරගත්ත ජනාධිපතිවරයාට. අගමැතිවරයෙක් පත්කරනවා කියලා කියන්නේ, ඇමැතිවරු පත්කරනවා කියලා කියන්නේ, ඒ අය ඉවත්කරනවා කියලා කියන්නේ අපේ විධායක බලයට අයිති වැඩ. ඒ, ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලයට අයිති කටයුතු නෙවෙයි. ඒ වගේ ම, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව කැඳවන එක, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වාරාවසාන කරන එක, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරවන එක අයිතිවෙන්නෙත් අපේ විධායක බලයට. මේ කටයුතු ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලයට අයිති නෑ.

ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලය වගේ ම විධායක බලයත් රටේ ජනතාවට අයිති එකක්. අපි තෝරාපත් කරගත්ත පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ට අපේ ව්‍යවස්ථාදයක බලයෙන් යම් ප්‍රමාණයක් ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීමේ වගකීමත් අපි තෝරාගත්ත ජනාධිපතිවරයාට අපේ විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීමේ වගකීමත් අපි පවරලා තියෙනවා. මේ දක්වා පවත්වපු මැතිවරණවල දී, ජනාධිපතිවරණවල දී අපි කරලා තියෙන්නේ මේ විදිහට අපේ බලය ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීමේ වගකීම පවරන වැඩේ.

ඉතින් 2015 ජනවාරි 8 වැනි දා පවත්වපු ජනාධිපතිවරණයේ දී අපේ මුළු රට ම තනි ඡන්ද කොට්ඨාශයක් විදිහට ක්‍රියාකරලා රටේ ජනතාව තමන්ගේ විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීමේ වගකීම මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මහත්තයාට පවරලා දුන්නා. මේ විදිහට පවරලා දුන්නේ ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍යයට අයිති බලයක්. මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මහත්තයා ඒ බලය නියෝජනයකිරීමේ වගකීම පවරාගත්තේ අවුරුදු හයක කාලයක් ‍සඳහා. අපේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාව ආරක්‍ෂාකරලා, අනුගමනය කරන්න එතුමා ඒ වගකීම පවරාගන්නා අවස්ථාවේ දිවුරුම් දීලා තියෙනවා. අපේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ තමයි අපිට අයිති ඒ බලය සංග්‍රහකරලා තිබුණේ.

මේ පරමාධිපත්‍යය බලයේ කිසියම් වෙනසක් කරනවා නම් ඒක කරන්න ඕන කොහොම ද කියන එකත් අපේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ දක්වලා තියෙනවා. අපිට හිමි මේ බලයෙන් – ඒ කියන්නේ ජනාධිපතිවරයාට අපි පවරපු විධායක බලයෙන්; අංශු මාත්‍රයක්වත් එක පෑන් ඉරකින් කපලා, අවලංගුකරලා දාන්න පාර්මේන්තුවට බෑ. මේ බලයේ යම් වෙනසක් කරන්න ඕන නම් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ මන්ත්‍රීවරු 150 කට වඩා ඡන්දය දීලා සම්මත කරගත්ත යෝජනාවක් ජනමත විචාරණයකටත් ඉදිරිපත්කරලා සම්මත කරගන්නත් ඕන. ඊට පස්සේ ඒ විදිහට අනුමත කරගත්ත යෝජනාව ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ අත්සනින් සහතික කරන්නත් ඕන.

ඒත් 2015 අප්‍රේල් මාසයේ 28 වැනි දා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ මන්ත්‍රීවරු එකතුවෙලා සම්මත කරගත්ත ජනතාවගේ විධායක බලය අඩුකරන යෝජනාව ජනමත විචාරණයකට ඉදිරිපත් කළේ නෑ. හැබැයි මේ විදිහට සම්මත කරගත්ත යෝජනාව නම් කරලා තියෙන්නේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය කියලා.

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ තවත් ඉතාමත් වැදගත් වගන්තියක් තියෙනවා. ඒ තමයි 75. (අ) වගන්තිය. ඒ වගන්තියෙන් කියනවා “ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ හෝ එහි යම් කොටසක හෝ ක්‍රියාකාරීත්වය අත්හිටුවන්නා වූ නීතියක් පැනවීම පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් නොකළ යුත්තේ ය” කියලා. මේ 75 කියන වගන්තියෙන් තමයි පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ජනතාව විසින් පවරපු ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලය පැහැදිළි කරලා දෙන්නේ.

ඒත්, 19 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය කියලා සම්මත කරගත්ත යෝජනාවෙන් මොකක්ද කරලා තියෙන්නේ? ජනතාවගේ විධායක බලතල විශාල ප්‍රමාණයක් ජනතාවගෙන් අහන්නේ නැතිවම කප්පාදු කරන එක නෙවෙයි ද? ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ යම් යම් කොටස්වල ක්‍රියාකාරීත්වය අත්හිටුවන එක නෙවෙයි ද?

අපි ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක් පත් කරගන්නේ අපිට අයිති විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරවන්න. ජනාධිපතිවරයාට ඒ වැඩේ තනියම කරන්න අපහසු හින්දා අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයක් පත්කරගෙන ඒ අයත් එක්ක එකතුවෙලා “ජනරජයේ ආණ්ඩුවේ පාලනය මෙහෙයවීම සහ ඒ පිළිබඳ පාලනය” සිදුකරන්න එතුමාට සිද්දවෙනවා. ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 42. (1) වගන්තියෙන් කියන්නේ මේ ගැන.

දැන් අපි ආයෙත් හිතමු. මේ බලය අයිති කාට ද? ජනතාවට. මේ බලය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්න අපි පත්කරගන්නේ කවුද? ජනාධිපතිවරයා. ඒ වැඩේ එයාට තනියෙන් කරන්න අපහසු හින්දා එතුමා ඒ වැඩේට හවුල් කරගන්නේ කවුද? අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලය.

42. (3) වගන්තියෙන් කියැවෙන විදිහට “ජනාධිපතිවරයා අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ සාමාජිකයෙක් ද අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ ප්‍රධානයා ද වන්නේ ය.” මේ කියන කතාව හරියට ම හරි. විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීමේ වගකීම අපි එතුමාට පවරලා තියෙන හින්දා තමයි මෙහෙම වෙන්නේ.

මෙතෙන් දී අපි තව කාරණයක් තේරුම්ගන්න ඕන. ඒ තමයි, මේ ඇමැතිවරු හැම කෙනෙක් ම ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් පත්කරන අය. මොකද එතුමා විසින් ක්‍රියාත්මකකරන්නේ ජනතාවගේ විධායක බලය. මෙතැන දී කරන්නේ ඒ බලයෙන් යම් ප්‍රමාණයක් විෂයානුබද්ධ විදිහට වෙනත් පිරිසක වෙත නියෝජනය කිරීමක් විතරයි. එහෙම නැතුව අපේ විධායක බලය මේ විදිහේ පිරිසකට සින්නක්කරව පවරාදෙන්න අයිතියක් ජනාධිපතිවරයාට නෑ. ඒක තාවකාලික නියෝජිතයන් පිරිසක් පත්කරගැනීමක් විතරයි.

ආණ්ඩුවේ පාලනය අවුලක් නැතිව මෙහෙයවන්න ඕන හින්දා ජනාධිපතිවරයාට පුළුවන් “තමන්ගේ මතය අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශ්වාසය උපරිම වශයෙන් ඇති පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරයා අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයා ලෙසින්” පත් කරගන්න. 42. (4) වගන්තියෙන් කියන්නේ මේ ගැන.

ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි. “අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයාගේ අදහස් විමසීම අවශ්‍ය යැයි ජනාධිපතිවරයා සළකන අවස්ථාවන්හි අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයාගේ අදහස් ද විමසා, අමාත්‍යංශවරයන්ගේ සංඛ්‍යාව ද අමාත්‍යාංශ සංඛ්‍යාව ද ඒ අමාත්‍යවරයන්ට පවරන විෂයය සහ කාර්යය ද නිශ්චය” කරන්න පුළුවන්. 43. (1) වගන්තියෙන් කියන්නේ මේ ගැන.

ඊට පස්සේ 43. (3) වගන්තියෙන් මෙහෙම කියනවා. “ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් කවර අවස්ථාවක දී වුව ද, අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලය වෙත පවරන ලද විෂයය සහ කාර්යය වෙනස්කිරීම සහ අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ සංයුතිය වෙනස්කිරීම ද කරනු ලැබිය හැක්කේ ය.”

ඉතින් මේ හැම කාරණයක් ම ඉතාමත් හොඳින් තේරුම්ගන්න අපිට පුළුවන්. මේ හැම වගන්තියකින් ම කියන්නේ අපි ජනාධිපතිවරයාට පවරපු විධායක බලය ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීම සඳහා එතුමා විසින් අනුගමනය කළ යුතු යම් යම් ක්‍රියාමාර්ග කීපයක් ගැන. ඒත් 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය කියන ලියැවිල්ලෙන් කරලා තියෙන්නේ මොකක්ද? මේ විදිහට තමන්ගේ පහසුව වෙනුවෙන් පත් කරගන්න අයව අවශ්‍ය අවස්ථාවල දී ඉවත්කරන්න තියෙන බලය එක පෑන් පහරකින් නැතිකරලා දාන එක නෙවෙයි ද?

මේ විදිහට නැතිකරලා තියෙන්නේ ජනාධිපතිවරයාට අයිති බලයක් නෙවෙයි. මේ නැතිකරලා තියෙන්නේ ජනතාවට අයිතිවෙලා තිබුණු බලයක්.

19 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය කියන ලියැවිල්ලෙන් ජනතාවට අහිමිකරලා තියෙන්නේ මේ බලය විතරක් නෙවෙයි. 70. (1) වගන්තියෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයාට පවරලා තිබුණු පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමේ බලයත් ඉතාමත් බරපතල විදිහට මේ ලියැවිල්ලෙන් කප්පාදුකරලා තියෙනවා. ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි. ජනතාව සතුව තිබුණු ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලය පවා බරපතල විදිහට කප්පාදුකරන්න මේ ලියැවිල්ල යොදාගෙන තියෙනවා. මේ කාරණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් පෙන්නන්න පුළුවන් හොඳම උදාහරණය තමයි අපේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ තිබුණු 85. (2) වගන්තිය.

85. (2) වගන්තියෙන් දක්වලා තිබුණේ ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන වැනි කටයුතුවලට අදාළ නොවන පනත් කෙටුම්පතක් ජනමත විචාරණයකට ඉදිරිපත් කරලා අපේ අනුමැතිය ලබාගැනීමට තිබුණු ඉඩ ප්‍රස්ථාවයි. මේ වගේ යම් පනතක් අනුමතකිරීම පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් ප්‍රතික්‍ෂේප කරනවා නම් ඒක ජනතාවට ඉදිරිපත් කරලා අනුමත කරවාගන්න ඒ මාර්ගයෙන් ඉඩක් දීලා තිබුණා. ඒත් 19 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය කියන ලියැවිල්ලෙන් කරලා තියෙන්නේ ඒ ඉඩ ප්‍රස්ථාව මුළුමනින් ම කපාහරින එකයි.

ඒ කියන්නේ ජනතාවට අයිතිවෙලා තිබුණු ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලයකුත් 2015 අප්‍රේල් 28 වැනි දා කඩිමුඩියේ සම්මත කරගත්ත 19 වැනි සංශෝධනයෙන් ඉවත්කරලා තියෙනවා.

මේ විදිහට 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය කියන ලියැවිල්ලෙන් ඉවත්කරලා තියෙන්නේ, කප්පාදුකරලා තියෙන්නේ විධායක ජනාධිපතිවරයාට අයිති බලතල නෙවෙයි කියන එක අපි තේරුම්ගත යුතුයි. මේ හැම දෙයක් ම ජනතාවට අයිතිවෙලා තිබුණු බලතල. අපි කරන්නේ ජනාධිපතිවරණ සහ මහ මැතිවරණ මාර්ගයෙන් අපේ බලය ක්‍රියාත්මකකිරීමේ වගකීම ඒ ඒ ආයතනවලට තාවකාලිකව පවරලා දෙන එක. මේ බලය නැතිකරලා දාන්න පුළුවන්කමක් ඒ ආයතනවලට නෑ.

ඒත්, 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය කියන ලියැවිල්ලේ අදහස් ඇතුළත් කරපු ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් තමයි දැන් භාවිතයේ තියෙන්නේ. මේක වුනේ කොහොම ද? ජනමත විචාරණයක් පවත්වන්නේ නැතුව ජනතාවගේ බලය කප්පාදුකරපු ලියැවිල්ලක තියෙන නීතිමය වලංගුභාවය මොකක් ද? අපි මේ ගැන හිතමු.

ආචාර්ය වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

iamwaruna@yahoo.com

2018 නොවැම්බර් 7

සැළැකිය යුතුයි: 18 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ බලතල අසීමිත ලෙසින් වැඩි කළ බවට චෝදනාවක් තිබෙන නිසා, මෙම ලිපියට ඇසුරු කළේ 2001 අවුරුද්දේ ඔක්තෝබර් 3 වැනි දින දක්වා සංශෝධිත (එනම් 17 වැනි සංශෝධනය ඇතුළත්) ව්‍යවස්ථාවත් 2015 මැයි මස 15 වැනි දින දක්වා සංශෝධිත (එනම් 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය ඇතුළත්) ව්‍යවස්ථාවත් බව සළකන්න

NUTA Sri Lanka

 ජාතික විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්ය සංගමය මීට ටික වෙලාවකට පෙර කොළඹ 07 මලලසේකර මාවතේ පිහිටි අල්ලස් හෝ දුෂණ  කොමිෂන් සභාවේදී කතානායක කරු ජයසුරිය මහතාට එරෙහිව පැමිණිල්ලක් ගොනු කළේය. ආරම්භයේදී මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයා ලෙස පිළිගෙන  දින කිහිපයක් ඇතුලත සිය ස්ථාවරය වෙනස් කිරීමට හේතු වූ කරුණු සහිතව පැමිණිල්ල ගොනු කර ඇත.

මෙහිදී අදහස් දැක්වූ මහාචාර්ය චන්න ජයසුමන මහතා පැවසුවේ කතානායකවරයා ව්‍යවස්ථා විරෝධීව, සම්ප්‍රදාය විරෝධීව, සදාචාර විරෝධීව, සාතිශය බහුතර ජනතාවගේ අභිලාෂයට එරෙහිව අත්තනෝමතිකව කටයුතු කරන බවයි. විවෘත විශ්ව විද්‍යාලයේ නීති අධ්‍යයන අංශ ප්‍රධානී ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ කථිකාචාර්ය රාජා ගුණරත්න මහතා පැවසුවේ 1994, 20 අංක දරන අල්ලස් පනතේ 70 වගන්ති ප්‍රකාරව රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාට පක්ෂග්‍රාහීව කටයුතු කිරීමෙන් කරු ජයසුරිය මහතා වසර දහයක කාලයක උපරිමයකට යටත්ව සිර දඩුවම් ලැබිය හැකි වරදක් බැලූ බැල්මට  කර ඇති බවයි.

ආචාර්ය  මාදුරුඔය ධම්මිස්සර හිමි ප්‍රමුඛ විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරු පිරිසක්  පැමිණිල්ල ගොනු කරන අවස්ථාවට සහභාගී වූහ.

Dr Sarath Obeyskera

When one reads about the new Slogan So Sri Lanka I wonder whose not so bright idea is this ?There was a confusion about this slogan as it surely looks incomplete ! One would say So(rry) Sri Lanka when one  watches  TV in Sri Lanka and news abroad about Sri Lankan Not  So promising future due political unrest .Couldn’t this wise people in J Walter Thomson or Dentsu Grant has given any meaning to this So” stupid slogan ?

We Sri Lankans are quite good in creating surprise moves like creating such a slogan .

God bless So   Sri Lanka

In colloquial language urban youngsters sometime say  SOrima thamai

ආරියරත්න ගනේගොඩ ජායාරූපය – අනුරුද්ධ මැදවත්තෙගෙදර උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය මූලිනුපුටා දමා හොරු කණ්ඩායම හිරේ විලංගුවේ දමන බව පවසමින් 2015 ජනවාරි 8 වැනිදා ජනතාවට ලබාදුන් පෙරොන්දුව පුස්සක් වී ඇතැයි ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ මනෝහරද සිල්වා මහතා එළිය සංවිධානයේ මෙහෙයවීමෙන් පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවක දී මාධ්‍යවේදීන් නඟන ලද ප්‍රශ්නයකට පිළිතුරු දෙමින් පැවැසීය.

එහිදී ඒ මහතා මෙසේද පැවැසීය.

ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන විසින් අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය ධුරයට හිටපු ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ පත්කිරීම නීති විරෝධී යැයි බොහෝ දෙනෙක් සඳහන් කරන්නේ ව්‍යවස්ථාව පිළිබඳ කිසිවක් නොදැනය. ඒ ගැන කනගාටු වෙනවා. ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ මතය අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශ්වාසය උපරිම වශයෙන් ඇති පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරයාව ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය ධුරයට පත්කර තිබෙනවා. ඒ සමඟම ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් එසේ නිශ්චය කරනු ලබන අමාත්‍යාංශ භාරව කටයුතු කිරීම සඳහා අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයාගේ උපදෙස් මත පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරුන් අතුරෙන් අමාත්‍යවරුන් පත් කළ යුතු වෙනවා.

ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් කවර අවස්ථාවකදී වුවද අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලය වෙත පවරන ලද විෂය සහ කාර්ය වෙනස් කිරීම සහ අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ සංයුතිය වෙනස් කිරීමටද කරනු හැකිය. අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ මුළු අමාත්‍යවරුන් සංඛ්‍යාව 30 නොඉක්මවිය යුතුයි.

අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ සාමාජිකයන් නොවන අමාත්‍යවරුන්ගේ සහ නියෝජ්‍ය ඇමැතිවරුන්ගේ සංඛ්‍යාව 40 නොඉක්මවිය යුතුයි.

19 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථාව අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමත් අගමැතිවරයා ඉල්ලා අස්වීමත් නිසා ඒ සමඟම ඇමැති මණ්ඩලයත් විසුරු වෙනවා.

43 (3) උප වගන්තිය අනුව ජනාධිපති කවර අවස්ථාවකදී ඇමැති මණ්ඩලය සංයුතිය වෙනස් කරන්න පුළුවන්. අගමැතිවරයා පත්කළාට පසුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවටවත් කථානායකවරයාටවත් එය වෙනස් කිරීමට නොහැකිය.
එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිත්‍ය නියෝජිත හිටපු තමරා කුනායගම් මහත්මිය

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ඇති වී තිබෙන මෙම සිද්ධිය පිළිබඳව බටහිර රටවල් විවිධ කෝණවලින් බලනවා. එසේ විවිධ කෝණ මඟින් බලමින් විවිධ දේවල් බටහිර නායකයන් තම සිත් තුළ ධාරණය කරගන්නවා.

මෙවැනි සිද්ධීන් නොව මෙයට වඩා බලවත් දේවල් රට රටවල සිදුවෙනවා. එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ රජය කටයුතු කළේ බටහිර රටවලට විශාල ගැතිකමක් දක්වමින්. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ මෙම සිද්ධිය අල්ලාගෙන ජාත්‍යන්තර වශයෙන් බටහිර රටවල් බහුතරයක්ම බොරු ප්‍රචාර ගෙනයනවා. එලෙස කරනු ලබන්නේ ඇමෙරිකාවට යටත්ව කටයුතු කරන රටවල්.

මෙම පෙරළිය ජාත්‍යන්තරව ප්‍රසිද්ධියක් ඉසුලුවත් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට මෙය දැඩි ප්‍රශ්නයක් වෙන්නේ නෑ. හිටපු පාලකයන් ජාත්‍යන්තර වශයෙන් විවිධ වුවමනාවන් සඳහා වෙනත් කණ්ඩායම් මෙරටට ගෙන්වා ගැනීමටත් ඔවුන් මාන බලමින් සිටිනවා.

මාධ්‍යවේදී සී.ඒ. චන්ද්‍රප්‍රේම
මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ හිටපු ජනාධිපතිවරයා ලෙස පත්කිරීමත් සමඟ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය රට තුළත් පිටරටවලත් සාවද්‍ය දේවල් ප්‍රචාරය කරමින් සිටින බවට වාර්තා ලැබෙමින් තිබෙනවා. 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය කෙටුම්පත් කෙරුවේ නීතිඥ ජයම්පති වික්‍රමරත්න මහතා බව අමුතුවෙන් කිවයුතු නැහැ. 19 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයේ පිටපත් කිසිවකු ළඟ නැහැ. මෙම ව්‍යවස්ථාව සම්මත කරන විට එදා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව පෑලියගොඩ මාළු වෙළෙඳසලේ මෙන් ඝෝෂාකාරී තත්ත්වයක පැවැතියා.

ආරියරත්න ගනේගොඩ

ජායාරූපය – අනුරුද්ධ මැදවත්තෙගෙදර

උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

රට දේශපාලන වශයෙන් ව්‍යාකූලත්වයට පත්වීමට ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 19 වැනි සංශෝධනය හේතුවී ඇති බවට සංවාද සිදුවෙනවා. ඒ ගැන මොකද හිතන්නේ?

1978 ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාව විධායක බලතල සහිත ජනාධිපතිවරයකුගෙන් යුතු එකක්. ජාතික පරමාධිපත්‍යය ඍජු ලෙසම නියෝජනය කළේ විධායකය විසින්. එහි විධායකය ගැන කියන 8 පරිච්ඡේදයේ අනුව ඕනෑම වේලාවක හේතුවක් දක්වන්නේ නැතිව අගමැති ඉවත් කරන්න ජනාධිපතිට බලයක් තිබුණා. අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලය තිබෙන තාක්කල් අගමැති එම ධුරය දරනවා. නමුත් ඉල්ලා අස්වුණොත් මන්ත්‍රිකම නැති වුණොත් හෝ ජනාධිපති විසින් ඉවත් කළොත් එම ධුරය දරන්නෙ නැහැ.

ඒත් 19 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය කරන අවස්ථාවේදී එය සකස් කළ අය වංචාවක් කළා. විධායකය අහෝසි කරන්නට කිව්වා නම් ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණය කියනවා 2/3 ඡන්දයෙනුත්, ජනමත විචාරණයකිනුත් සම්මත කළ යුතුයි කියලා. ඒ නිසා එම පරිච්ඡේදය වෙනුවට 19 සංශෝධනයට අලුත් පරිච්ඡේදයක් දමා ගත්තා. එතකොට උසාවියේදී කතා කරන්නෙ අලුත් පරිච්ඡේදය ගැන විතරයි. උසාවියටත් මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්ටත් කලින් තිබුණු එක පේන්නෙ නැහැ.

එතකොට ඒක විධායකය මඟින් අගමැති ඉවත් කරන ආකාරය ඉවත් කිරීමද වංචාවක් කළා කියන්නේ?

ඒක නොකළ යුතු වරදක්. 19 සංශෝධන කෙටුම්පත ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට ඉදිරිපත් කළාම වගන්ති 6ක් ව්‍යවස්ථාවට පටහැනි නිසා ඒවාට ජනමත විචාරණයක් අවශ්‍ය බව කිව්වා. නමුත් ඒ වන විට මේ වැදගත්ම වගන්තිය එම කෙටුම්පත මඟින් ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබුණෙ නැහැ. ඒක ඇතුළු කළා නම් ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණය ඒක ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කරනවා. එහෙම වුණා නම් වංචා සහගත ලෙස 19 සංශෝධනය කළ නොහැකි වෙනවා.
ඒ වගේම 19 සංශෝධනය 46 වගන්තියේ අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයා, ඉල්ලා අස්වුවහොත් හෝ මන්ත්‍රි ධුරය අහිමි වුවහොත් වශයෙන් සඳහන් කරලා ඇමැති මණ්ඩලය පවතින තාක්කල් අගමැති සිටින බවට කාරක සභාව පවතින තාක්කල් අගමැති ඉන්න බව කියා සිටියා.

ජනාධිපතිට අභිමතය පරිදි අගමැති ඉවත් කරන්න තිබූ ඍජු බලතල ඉතා සූක්‍ෂ්මව ඉවත් කළා. උසාවියෙත්, ජනතාවගෙත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවෙත් ඇස් වහලා තමයි ඒ තක්කඩි වැඩේ කරලා තියෙන්නේ. එහෙත් කෙටුම්පතේ තිබුණා නම් අපි ඒක අභියෝගයකට ලක් කරනවා. ඒත් කාරක සභා අවස්ථාවේ කළ වංචාව නිසා එවැනි අවස්ථාවක් නැතිවුණා. ජයම්පති වික්‍රමරත්නල කරපු හපන්කම් තමයි ඒවා.

ඒ වගේම ලෝකෙට කිව්වා විධායක ජනාධිපති පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට යටත් කළා කියලා. ඒත් ඒක පට්ටපල් බොරුවක්. 19 සංශෝධනයට 33 ‘ආ’කියලා නව වගන්තියක් ගෙනාවා. ‘මහජන ආරක්‍ෂාව සම්බන්ධයෙන් ලෝකයේ බලපවත්නා නීතිය ඇතුළු යම් ලිඛිත නීතියක් යටතේද ස්වකීය බලතල කාර්ය සහ කර්තව්‍ය යථා පරිදි ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම සහ යථා පරිදි ඉටු කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට වගකිව යුත්තේය’ මේක තක්කඩි වැඩක්. මේ වගන්තිය 9 පරිච්ඡේදයේ 42 වගන්තියේ තිබුණා. එතැනින් ඉවත් කර වෙන තැනකට ගෙන ලෝකයට පෙන්නුවා විධායක ජනාධිපති පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට යටත් කළා කියලා. මේකත් තවත් තක්කඩි වැඩක්.

එමඟින් අගමැති ඉවත් කිරීමේ බලතල ජනාධිපතිගෙන් ඉවත්වී තිබේද?

එහෙම ඉවත් වෙලා නැහැ. 19 හදපු අයට වැරැදීමකින් වෙන්න ඇති එසේ වෙලා තියෙන්නේ. නැත්නම් ඒ වචන කිහිපය ඉවත් කරනවා. 48(1) තුළ ‘පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරිනු ලැබීමත් මහ මැතිවරණය අවසාන වීමත් අතර කාලය තුළ හැර ධුරයෙන් ඉවත් කරනු ලැබීමෙන් හෝ ඉල්ලා අස්වීමෙන් හෝ අන්‍යාකාරයකින් හෝ අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයා ධුරය දැරීම නතර වූ විට… යනුවෙන් සඳහන් වෙනවා. මේක ඉංගී්‍රසි පිටපතෙහි තිබෙන්නේ ඡර ඤඥචබඩ (අභාවය) කියලා. ඒත් සිංහල පිටපතෙහි පැහැදිලිවම තියෙනවා ධුරයෙන් ඉවත් කරනු ලැබුවොත් කියලා.

ඒ අනුව ජනාධිපතිගේ විධායක බලය පැහැදිලිවම ඉතිරි වෙලා තියෙනවා. ඒත් පිරිසක් තර්ක කරනවා කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය විසිරුණාම තමයි එහෙම වෙන්නෙ කියලා. ඒත් සමස්තයක් ලෙස සලකන කල විධායක බලතල සහිත ව්‍යවස්ථාවක්. ඒ බලය ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් තමයි ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්නෙ. ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 4 (ආ) වගන්තියේ පැහැදිලිවම කියනවා ‘රටේ ආරක්‍ෂාව ඇතුළු විධායක බලය ජනතාව විසින් තෝරාපත් කර ගනු ලබන ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් ක්‍රියාත්මක කළ යුත්තේය’ කියලා. ඒ වගේම 19 ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 33 වගන්තියෙ හි තියෙනවා ‘රජයේ ප්‍රධානියාද, විධායකයේ ප්‍රධානියාද, ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රධානියාද, සන්නද්ධ සේවාවන්හි ප්‍රධානියාද ජනාධිපති වන්නේය’ කියලා. ඒ අනුව ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රධානියා අගමැති නෙවෙයි. අගමැතිට විශේෂ බලයක් තියෙනවා කියලා කිසිම තැනක සඳහනක් නැහැ.

ඊළඟට ‘ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ මතය අනුව පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශ්වාසය උපරිම වශයෙන් ඇති මන්ත්‍රිවරයා අග්‍රාමාත්‍යවරයා ලෙස පත්කළ යුත්තේය’ කියලා සඳහන් වෙනවා. පක්‍ෂ නායකයා ලෙස වෙන කෙනෙක් සිටියත් ජනාධිපතිට අවශ්‍ය කෙනා පත් කළ හැකියි. ඒ බලතල පාවිච්චි කරලා ජනාධිපතිට ඕන අයෙක් පත්කළ හැකියි.

ඒත් ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවේ කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය තවමත් පවතින බවට අදහසක් පවතිනවා?

කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය හැදුවේ ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයක් ලෙසයි. කැබිනට් ඇමැතිවරු 48ක් සහ රාජ්‍ය හා නියෝජ්‍ය ඇමැතිවරු 45 දෙනකු සිටිනවා. එක් පාර්ශ්වයක් ඉවත් වෙනකොට එම කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය අවසන් වෙනවා. එතකොට අගමැතිත් ඉබේම අහෝසි වෙනවා. අමුතුවෙන් අස් කරන්න දෙයකුත් නැහැ.

නමුත් ඉවත් කිරීමේ බලය ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ තියෙනවා. ඒ අනුව බොහොම පැහැදිලියි මේ ඉවත් කිරීමත් පත් කිරීමත් දෙකම ව්‍යවස්ථානුකූලයි. මම දැක්කා ජයම්පති වික්‍රමරත්න මහත්තයා කියා තිබෙනවා සන්ධානය ඉවත් වුණත් මුස්ලිම් කොංග්‍රසයේ එක් මන්ත්‍රිවරයකු ඉන්නව කියලා. ඒක විකාර තර්කයක්. එක්කෙනෙක් හිටිය කියලා ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් හැදෙන්නේ නැහැ. ඇමැති මණ්ඩලයේ පදනම තමයි ජාතික ආණ්ඩුව, පදනම බිඳ වැටුණම ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවක් ඉතිරි වෙන්නෙ නැහැනෙ. අවුරුදු 2කට ගිවිසුම් අස්සන් කරලා නීති විරෝධීව තමයි එම ජාතික ආණ්ඩුව ඇදගෙන ගියේ.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව කැඳවන්න කියලා මන්ත්‍රිවරු 118ක් අස්සන් කරලා කථානායකගෙන් ඉල්ලා තිබෙනවා. ඒක කළ හැකිද?

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වාර අවසාන කිරීම හා කැඳවීම ජනාධිපති සතුයි. නීතිපතිත් ඒක දැනුම් දී තිබෙනවා. ඒ නිසා කථානායකට ව්‍යවස්ථාව උල්ලංඝනය කරන්න බැහැ.

රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතාට විශ්වාසය පළ කිරීමේ යෝජනාවක් ගේන්න මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්ට හැකිද?

එහෙම කරන්න බැහැ. නමුත් ජනාධිපතිතුමාට ලිපියක් භාර දෙන්න පුළුවන් මෙයාට තමයි වැඩි දෙනෙක් කැමැති කියලා.

නියමිත කාලයට පෙර පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමට හැකියාවක් තිබේද?

19 ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 17 (1) මඟින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හරින්න පුළුවන් කියා තිබුණත්, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් එහි නොසිටි මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්ද ඇතුළුව මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්ගේ සංඛ්‍යාවෙන් 2/3ට නොඅඩු සංඛ්‍යාවකගේ යෝජනා සම්මතයක් මඟින් ඉල්ලීමක් නොකළොත් අවුරුදු හතර හමාරක් යනතුරු කළ නොහැකි බවයි සඳහන් වෙන්නේ. මේක 19 සංශෝධනයෙන් කොට තිබෙන බොරුවක් ලෙසයි මම දකින්නේ. ජනතාවට එම ආණ්ඩුව එපා නම් වෙන ආණ්ඩුවක් පත් කිරීමට තිබෙන අයිතිය අහෝසි කිරීම සාධාරණ නැහැ. ජනතාවගේ බලය තමයි මේ උදුරාගෙන තිබෙන්නේ. ජනාධිපතිගේ බලතල උදුරා ගන්න ගමන් පරමාධිපත්‍යයත් කොල්ලකා තිබෙනවා.

අය-වැය පරාජයට පත්වුවහොත් එම ආණ්ඩුව පවත්වාගෙන යා හැකිද?

එහෙම වුණොත් අගමැති අයින් වෙලා අලුත් අගමැති කෙනෙක් පත්වෙනවා. අලුත් කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයකුත් පත්වෙනවා. සාමාන්‍යයෙන් මතයක් තියෙනවා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවන්න පුළුවන් කියලා. ඒත් ඒක තීන්දු කරන්න ඕන ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයයි.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම ජනාධිපතිගේ කාර්යභාරයක් නිසා ඒක ශේ්‍රෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේදී ප්‍රශ්න කළ හැකිද?

ව්‍යවස්ථාවට පටහැනිව කරනවා නම් පුළුවන්. ජනාධිපතිතුමා කටයුතු කළ යුත්තෙත් ව්‍යවස්ථාවට අනුකූල ලෙසයි. රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයා බහුතරය ගැන කතා කරනවා. ඔහුට මැතිවරණයෙන් ලැබුණේ 106යි. ජනාධිපතිතුමා තමයි ඔහු අගමැති කළේ. ඒත් 2018 පෙබරවාරි 10 පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණයෙන් ඔහුට ජනමතයක් නැහැ කියලා තහවුරු වුණා. සියයට 32.1%යි ඡන්ද ලැබුණේ.

මේ අවස්ථාවේ තානාපතිවරුන්ගේ කාර්ය භාරය නීත්‍යනුකූලද?

තානාපතිවරුන් කැඳවීමත්, තානාපතිවරුන් පැමිණීමත් වැරැදියි. ඔවුන්ට මෙවැනි අවස්ථාවක එක පැත්තකට පක්‍ෂව කතා කරන්න බැහැ. ස්වාධීන රටක අභ්‍යන්තර කටයුතුවලට මැදිහත්වීම ජාත්‍යන්තර ප්‍රඥප්ති උල්ලංඝනය කිරීමක්.

19 වැනි සංශෝධනයේ වැරැදි නිවැරැදි කරගත හැකිද?

කෝටි 130ක් ඉන්න චීනයේ ඇමැතිවරු 30ට අඩුයි. මෙහේ 48යි. අනෙක එක පවුලක් ඉලක්ක කරලයි මේක ඇති කළේ.

ඒ වගේම අද තිබෙන ව්‍යාකූලතා ඇති නොවන පරිදි එය නිවැරැදි කළ යුතුයි සියලු දෙනාම එක්වෙලා.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ බලය පෙන්වනතුරු පෙර පැවැති තත්ත්වය පිළිගන්නා බව කථානායකතුමා නිවේදනය කරනවා?

එයාට දැන් එජාපයේ විධායක සභාව වගේ ක්‍රියා කරන්න බැහැ. කථානායක ලෙසයි කටයුතු කළ යුත්තේ.

රාජාසන කතාව ලබන 14දා ජනාධිපති විසින් ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට නියමිතයි. එය පරාජය වුණොත් ඇති වන තත්ත්වය කුමක්ද?

රාජාසන කතාව කියන්නෙ පවතින ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රතිපත්තිනෙ. ඒක පරාජයට පත් වුණොත් අගමැති ඇතුළු කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය අයින් වෙන්න ඕන. අය-වැය පරාජයට පත් වුණත් එහෙමයි.

රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයට කියන්න පුළුවන්ද තවදුරටත් මම අගමැති කියලා?

ඔහු ඉවත් කරලා අවසන්. එහෙම කියන එක වැරැදියි.

මොකක්ද මේ 113 ගැන උනන්දුව?

අගමැති පත් කරන්න 113ක් අවශ්‍ය නැහැ. ඒත් අය-වැයේදී අවශ්‍යයි. නැත්නම් ආණ්ඩුව පවත්වාගෙන යන්න මුදල් නැහැ. අනෙක් අතට රාජාසන කතාව ජය ගන්නත් ඕන. ඒවට තමයි 113 අවශ්‍ය වෙන්නෙ.

සංලාපය: දෙනගම ධම්මික රණවීර

ඩබ්ලිව්.කේ. ප්‍රසාද් මංජු උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වාර අවසාන කර ඇති අවස්ථාවක කථානායක කරු ජයසූරිය මහතා නිවේදන නිකුත් කිරීමෙන් ලංකා පාර්ලිමේන්තු ක්‍රමයම බරපතළ අර්බුදයකට ලක්වන බව හිටපු අගවිනිසුරු සරත් එන්. සිල්වා මහතා ‘මව්බිම’ට ප්‍රකාශ කළේය. කථානායකවරයාට කිසිසේත්ම ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ බලතල ඉක්මවා කටයුතු කිරීමට නොහැකි බවද ඒ මහතා පෙන්වා දෙයි.

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේදී කථානායකවරයාට තියෙන්නේ එකම එක භූමිකාවයි. ඒ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව රැස් වන වෙලාවෙදී මුලසුන දැරීම පමණයි. කථානායක කළ යුත්තේ දෙපැත්තටම නැතිව ස්වාධීන වී මුලසුන දැරීම පමණයි. නැත්නම් නියෝජ්‍ය කථානායක මැතිසබයේ මුලසුන හොබවනවා.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු සැසිවාරය අවසන් කර තිබෙන අවස්ථාවක ක්‍රියා කරන්න කථානායකට කිසිම පදනමක් නැහැ. කථානායක යම් කිසි පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරුන් පිරිසකගෙන් ලියුම් ගත්තා නම් ඒ අරගෙන තියෙන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු සැසිවාරය අවසන් කරපු අවස්ථාවක. පාර්ලිමේන්තු සැසිය නැති අවස්ථාවකදී එහෙම කරන්න බැහැ. ඊට නීතිය අනුව කිසිදු පිළිගැනීමක් නැහැ. ඒ මත නිවේදන නිකුත් කිරීමට පටන් ගත්තොත් කථානායකට තියෙන ස්වාධීන තත්ත්වය නැති වෙනවා.

කථානායකට ආණ්ඩු පිහිටුවීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් කිසිදු බලයක් නැහැ. අඩුම තරමේ කථානායක කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයේ සාමාජිකයකුවත් නොවේ. ආණ්ඩු පිහිටුවීමේ බලය සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම තියෙන්නේ ජනාධිපතිතුමාට.

මම අර ආණ්ඩුව පිළිගන්නවා, මේ ආණ්ඩුව පිළිගන්නවා කියලා කථානායකට කියන්න බැහැ. ජාතික ලැයිස්තුවෙන් පත්කළ මන්ත්‍රිවරයකුට ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ බලතල ඉක්මවා යන්න බැහැ. එහෙම කරන්න බැහැ. එය නීති විරෝධීයි. එහෙම කළොත් නොයෙක් ප්‍රශ්න ඇති වෙන්න පුළුවන්. එහෙම කළොත් කථානායකගේ ස්වාධීනකම දැඩි අභියෝගයකට ලක්වෙනවා. අපේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු ක්‍රමයටම මේක කැළලක් වෙනවා.

හෘද සාක්ෂිය අනුව ක්‍රියා කරනවා කියලා කරු ජයසූරිය කථානායකවරයා කියනවා. මේක හෘද සාක්ෂිය අනුව ක්‍රියා කිරීමට වඩා එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයේ වුවමනාවට අනුව ක්‍රියා කිරීමක් බව පැහැදිලි වෙනවා.

කථානායක විනිසුරුවරයකු වගෙයි. මැච් එක ගහනකොට විතරයි අම්පයර්ගේ භූමිකාව තියෙන්නේ. දැන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සැසිවාරය කල්දාලා. එතකොට මැච් එක ගහන්නේ නැහැ. මැච් එක ගහන්න එක පැත්තක ක්‍රීඩකයන් නැති වෙලාවේ අනෙක් පැත්තේ ක්‍රීඩකයන්ගෙන් විතරක් අහලා කථානායකට ප්‍රකාශ නිකුත් කරන්න ප්‍රවෘත්ති නිවේදන නිකුත් කරන්න බැහැ.

කථානායක ධුරය කියන්නේ බි්‍රතාන්‍ය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවෙන් උපුටා ගත්තු ආයතනයක්. බි්‍රතාන්‍ය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ කථානායක කවදාවත් කියලා නැහැ මං අර ආණ්ඩුව පිළිගන්නවා, මේ ආණ්ඩුව පිළිගන්නවා කියලා. මහ රැජනගෙ විධායක බලය ඉහළයි. එම විධායක බලය තමයි ජනාධිපති ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්නේ.

හෘද සාක්ෂිය අනුව ක්‍රියා කළා කියලා කරු ජයසූරිය කථානායකවරයා ප්‍රකාශ කරලා තියෙනවා. හෘද සාක්ෂිය අනුව නොයෙක් නොයෙක් අවස්ථාවල කරු ජයසූරිය මහතා ක්‍රියා කර තිබෙනවා. එක පාරක් හෘද සාක්ෂිය අනුව එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයේ සිට එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානයට ආවා. ඇවිල්ලා ඇමැති ධුරයක් ගත්තා. ආපහු හෘද සාක්ෂිය අනුව එක්සත් ජනතා නිදහස් සන්ධානයේ සිට එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයට ගියා. ඔය විවිධ දේවල් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදීත් වෙනවා. හෘද සාක්ෂිය කියන එක වෙලාවෙන් වෙලාවට වෙනස් වෙන්න පුළුවන්.

ඒක නිසා මේ වගේ ප්‍රකාශ නිකුත් කිරීමට කථානායක කරු ජයසූරිය මහතාට ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙන්, නීතියෙන් හා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ස්ථාවර නියෝග අනුව කිසිම අවකාශයක් නැහැයිද හිටපු අගවිනිසුරු සරත් එන්. සිල්වා මහතා වැඩිදුරටත් ප්‍රකාශ කළේය.

මතුගම – වසන්ත කුමාර උපුටාගැණීම  මව්බිම

“සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිතුමා හදලා තියෙන්නේ නිශාචර කැබිනට් එකක්. මේ දිවුරුම් දීලා තියෙන ඇමැති ලැයිස්තුවෙන් දවල් කාලෙ දිවුරුම්දීලා ඉන්නෙ ෆවුසි ඇමැතිතුමා විතරයි. මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහත්තයගෙ ඉඳලා එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයෙන් බාගත්ත අශෝක ප්‍රියන්ත දක්වා අනෙක් සියලු දෙනා දිවුරුම් දුන්නෙ හඳපානේ” යැයි ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණේ කළුතර දිස්ත්‍රික් පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රි වෛද්‍ය නලින්ද ජයතිස්ස කීවේය.

පළාත් පාලන ආයතන නියෝජිත පිරිසක් අමතමින් හොරණ පැවැති රැස්වීමකදී වෛද්‍ය නලින්ද ජයතිස්ස මෙසේ කීවේය.

රෑට, රෑට හොරෙන්, හොරෙන් එකා දෙන්න දිවුරුම් දීලා හදන ඇමැති මණ්ඩලය මොකක්ද? 2015 ජනාධිපතිවරණයට කලින් සිරිසේන මහත්තය කිව්වෙ “රටකට ඕනෑ අපමණ අගයක්, ඒකට ඕනෑ මෛත්‍රි යුගයක්” කියලායි. ඊට පසුව අවුරුදු හතරක් යන කොට දැන් අපට කියන්න වෙලා තියෙන්නෙ” “මන්ත්‍රි කෙනකුට අපමණ අගයක්. ඒකට ඕනෑ මෛත්‍රි යුගයක්” කියන්නයි.

රටක ඉදිරි ගමනේ සුක්කානම දේශපාලනයයි. ආර්ථික, සමාජ, ක්‍රීඩා, සෞඛ්‍ය, විද්‍යාව, තාක්ෂණය මේ ආදී සෑම ක්ෂේත්‍රයකම ගමන් මඟ තීරණය කරන්නෙ දේශපාලනයයි. මේ දේශපාලනය කරන පිරිසට බලය ලබාදෙන්නෙ ජනතාවයි. මැතිවරණවලදී තමන් සතු පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය තමන්ගෙ නියෝජිතයන් අතට පත් කරන්නෙ ජනතාවයි. ඉතිරිය කුඩා ඉරි කෑලි දෙකක් වුණාට එමඟින් පවරන පරමාධිපත්‍ය ඉතා විශාල එකක්. අනුලංඝනීය බලයක් එමඟින් ලැබෙනවා. ඒ නිසා මන්ත්‍රිවරු ජනතා නියෝජිතයන් වෙනවා. ජනතා නියෝජිතයන් මඟින් නිරූපණය වෙන්නෙ ජනතාවයි. පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අරගෙන යන්නෙ අපට කතිරය ගහපු ජනතාවගේ හෘද සාක්ෂියයි.

රුපියල් කෝටි පනහට – හැටට එහෙට මෙහෙට පනින මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්ගෙන් ජනතා පරමාධිපත්‍ය ආරක්ෂා වෙනවාද කියන එක ප්‍රශ්නයක්. විධායක ඔටුන්න බිම තියන්නම්, අලුත් ඡන්ද ක්‍රමයක් ගේන්නම්, අලුත් දේශපාලන සංස්කෘතියක් හදන්නම් කියල ආව සිරිසේන මහත්තයා ඉඳිවල්ල පොළොවෙ ගැහුව වගේ රටේ මිනිසුන්ගෙ බලාපොරොත්තු සීසීකඩ වීසි කළා. එදා රාජපක්ෂ භීෂණයට මුහුණ දෙමින් ආණ්ඩුව පරාජය කරන්න කටයුතු කළ ජීවිතවලට වග කියන්න සිරිසේන මහතා සූදානම්ද? 2014 නොවැම්බර් වෙනකොටත් රටේ ජනතාවට තිබුණු දැවැන්ත රාජපක්ෂ විරෝධය සිරිසේන මහත්තයාට තිබුණෙ නැහැ. ඔහුට තිබුණෙ තමන්ට අගමැතිකම නොලැබීමේ ප්‍රශ්නය පමණයි. අද මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මහත්තයාට තියෙන්නෙ ඊළඟ ජනාධිපති අපේක්ෂක කම ගැනීමේ ප්‍රශ්නයයි.

තමන්ගෙ බල වුවමනාව වෙනුවෙන් ලක්ෂ ගාණකගේ ජනවරමට පස්ස හරවන්න පුළුවන් අය රටක නායකයා නෙමෙයි. මිනිස්සු හැටියටත් ඒ අයට සලකන්න බැහැ. ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ විරුද්ධ වෙන්නෙ මේ දේශපාලන කුමන්ත්‍රණයට හා මේ ජඩ දේශපාලන සංස්කෘතියටයි. විධායක ජනාධිපති කමේ තියෙන කැතම කැත බලතල පාවිච්චි කරලා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍ර විරෝධී සදාචාර විරෝධී, ව්‍යවස්ථා විරෝධී ලෙස වැඩ කරන්න කාටවත් ඉඩ දෙන්න බැහැ. මේක රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහත්තයාගෙ අගමැතිකම ගැන ප්‍රශ්නයක් නොවෙයි. ඔහු කළ දේවල්වල හැටියට රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා අගමැතිකමේ සිටිය යුතු අයකු නෙමෙයි. හොරු ආරක්ෂා කළා.

මහ බැංකුව බිඳින්න මුල්වූ, හම්බන්තොට වරාය විකණ­ූ, ජනතාව මත අධික බදු බර පැටවූ වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ගෙදර යා යුතුමයි. ඒ ගැන කතා දෙකක් නෑ. නමුත් ඒක සිදුවිය යුත්තේ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී විදියට. ව්‍යවස්ථාවට අනුකූලවයි.

හෙට දවස වනවිට මෛත්‍රි – මහින්ද දීගය අවසන් වෙලා සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිවරයා අගමැතිකමට වෙන කෙනකු පත් කළොත් අද කෑගහන රාජපක්ෂ හිතවාදීන් මොකද කියන්නෙ මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මහත්තයා එහෙම කරන්න බැරි කෙනකු නොවෙයි.

පොහොට්ටුවෙ කට්ටිය තමන්ගෙ පින්තූරය කටවුට්වලට නොදා මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගෙ පින්තූරය විතරක් කටවුට්වලට දැම්මොත් ඒ කාරණය වුණත් මහින්දගෙ අගමැතිකම අහවර කරන්න මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේනට හොඳටම ඇති. සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිවරයාට හුරේදාන, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වහපු එක පරම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය යැයි කියන දිනේෂ්, වාසු, වීරවංශලාට තරු පේන්නෙ අන්න එදාටයි. ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණේ සටන ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය වෙනුවෙනුයි. රටේ දේශපාලන සදාචාරය වෙනුවෙනුයි. රාජපක්ෂ පරාජය කරන්න ඡන්දය දීපු ලක්ෂ 62ක ජනතාව වෙනුවෙන් පමණක් නොව රාජපක්ෂට ඡන්දය දීපු ලක්ෂ 58 ඇතුළු කෝටියකට අධික ජනතාවට ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය අවශ්‍යයි.

මතුගම – වසන්ත කුමාර

Editorial -Courtesy The Island 

November 7, 2018, 10:18 pm
The first step in treating a seriously ill patient is diagnosing his or her disease. He or she has to be rushed to hospital and nowhere else. Nothing is stupider than to consult anyone other than a qualified doctor on his or her condition. Likewise, a country’s political ills, caused by constitutional ambiguities, should be identified properly before remedies are adopted; the only institution which is qualified and empowered to handle this task is the apex court.

Unfortunately, where the current crisis situation in this country is concerned, the Supreme Court has been totally ignored. Political leaders including the President, lawyers, the media, civil society groups or foreign diplomats and the Speaker have no authority to interpret the Constitution. They can shout for or against the recent change of government till they are blue in the face, but their views lack legal validity.

The present crisis situation has triggered a flurry of diplomatic activity in Colombo. Foreign envoys, representing powerful nations, are acting as if they thought the clash between the UNP and the SLFP-SLPP alliance could lead to a world war unless nipped in the bud. They are meeting both sides to the conflict, either openly or on the sly, and some of them have gone so far as to make public statements, suggesting solutions. The question is whether such actions will be allowed in other countries which cherish their sovereignty and are even ready to fire nukes to protect it.

If the US happens to experience a constitutional issue, will it allow the Russian ambassador, or any other foreign envoy in Washington for that matter, to run around like a headless chicken, giving his opinion thereon and telling the White House or the Congress what to do? A Sri Lankan military attache had to be recalled from London for making what came to be known as a throat-slitting gesture to a group of LTTE activists, who were protesting near the Sri Lankan High Commission. What would happen if a Sri Lankan diplomat ever tried to tell Prime Minister Theresa May how to handle Brexit or tackle the issue of British MPs refusing to eat halal meat?

Curiously, none of the overly concerned diplomats weeping buckets for Sri Lanka’s democracy have urged the warring parties to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the constitutional issues underlying the current political crisis.

The ongoing crisis management process, where various persons are trying to resolve the present crisis without moving the Supreme Court, is like performing a life-saving surgery without a surgeon. We can only hope that the patient—Sri Lanka’s ailing democracy—will survive the operation. The current political battle is also like a boxing match refereed by cornermen instead of a professional referee.

In an interesting turn of events, two senior parliamentary officials are reported to have said they will abide by the President’s gazette in making arrangements for the reopening of Parliament on Nov. 14. Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has declared that he does not recognise the new government until and unless it proves it has a majority in the House, and, in the meantime he will stick to the pre-Oct. 26 status in the House. Here is a situation where the Speaker refuses to follow a presidential directive, but the parliamentary staff has chosen to do otherwise! What will be the Speaker’s reaction?

Meanwhile, the UNP and the SLFP-SLPP combine should not lose sight of the danger of seeking help from external forces. There is said to be no such thing as a free lunch. Foreign help for the parties embroiled in the ongoing power struggle does not come without strings attached. Whichever side emerges victorious, the country will be the loser in that it will have to divest itself of an airport or a port or a container terminal or another section of its oil tank farm in the East or vast extents of land.

 Asoka Weerasinghe  Kings Grove Crescent  .  Gloucester  .  Ontario . Canada

7 November 2018

Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario
M74 1A1

Dear Hon. Premier Doug Ford:

 Re: Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam, Conservative MPP for Scarborough-Rouge Park’s
Statement at the Ontario Legislative Assembly on 30th October, 2018 (Hansard) on Sri Lanka.

As a Sri Lankan-Canadian Ontarian, permit me to share my observations on your Conservative MPP Vijay Thanigasalam’s disingenuous and mischievous Statement about today’s Sri Lankan politics.

Honourable Premier, all what I can say is —here we go again with bitter smarting Tamils in Canada who resented and cried that their Tamil Tiger ruthless terrorists leader  Velupillai Prabhakaran and his ruthless terrorist gang were annihilated on 19 May 2009 by the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government’s Armed Forces.  By that time his Tamil Tiger terrorists in 30 years of warring  for the want of their separate, mono-ethnic, racist Tamil State, Eelam, had killed over 100,000 innocent Sri  Lankans, the majority were from my Sinhalese community.   The Tamil Tiger terrorists ASSASSINATED two heads of states, Rajiv Gandhi of India (21.5. 1991), and President  Ranasinghe Premadasa  of Sri Lanka (1.5.1993).  They also ASSASSINATED Alfred Duraiappah, Mayor of Jaffna, (27.7.1975); Thomas Anton, Deputy Mayor of Batticaloa (26. 19 1995); Sarojini Yogeswaran, Mayor of Jaffna   (17. 5., 1998); P. Sivapalan, Mayor of Jaffna (11.9. 1998) ; Lakshman Kadirgamar, Minister of Foreign Affairs (12.8.2005); Ranjan Wijeratne, State Minister of Defence and Former Foreign Minister (2.3’1991); Vice Admiral Clancy Fernando, Navy Commander (16. 11. 1992), and the catalogue of  assassinations of prominent Sri Lankans goes on and on, and on.

In his statement  of Tamil TRUTHS, Vijay certainly hid these Tamil FACTS from the members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly. His knuckles should be rapped by the Speaker for the misguiding untruths spewed out at you all in the Ontario Legislative Assembly purposely failing to adhere to the code of conduct  of honesty and making a mockery of the Queen’s Park Legislative Assembly..  Vijay might have thought that he was standing at attention at a Legislative Assembly in his Tamil Tiger leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s hometown in Velvettithurai, in North of Sri Lanka.

My request and warning to you Honourable Premier and to the Members of the Legislative Assembly is that MPP Vijay Thanigasalam is making an effort to paint the Tamils as lily-white, innocent victims and perhaps Babes-in-the-Woods.  Take all what he said that day with a pinch of salt, as the Tamils who are trying to defend their cause for a separate, mono-ethnic,  racist Tamil state, Eelam in the North and East of Sri Lanka are a horde of no good disingenuous separatist Tamils.

Premier Ford, I’d hate to rain on his parade, but I am prepared to challenge him in front of the Members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly at an appropriate venue.  It will be a work in progress to understand what the separatist Canadian-Tamils are upto in the Province of Ontario since later 1983.  Invite me.

2, Tamil Truth :  In Vijay’s statement to the Legislative Assembly is said – :”The recent appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka without any Justice for war crimes against humanity and Tamil genocide is extremely alarming for the protect of Tamils in Sri Lanka”

Tamil Fact : What?  This MPP Vijay of yours is up the creek to a black-hole of lies  He talks of ‘Tamil Genocide’ linking those words to Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Let’s get this right.  Please ask this MPP Vijay Thanigasalam how he would  reconcile with his charge of Tamil Genocide” when it was the, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s edict to his Armed Forces  was to deal with the Tamils in the North and East humanely.

So the Sri Lankan Armed Forces by 19 May 2009, rescued 295,873 Tamils from the clutches of Tamil Tigers, who had marched them from the West Coast to the East Coast, using them as a human shield for 30 long months under the scorching  Jaffna-Kilinochchi sun, marching them like unwashed cattle.  Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa did it, and Vijay knows it, and he hides this  amazing humane  Class Act from you all.  There shouldn’t be Tamil Genocide” in this humane equation.  What?  Was MPP Vijay hallucinating  after a breakfast of a coconut shell full of illicit Jaffna  kassippu when he made his statement in Ontario’s Legislative Assembly at Queen’s Park.  What he said to you all were tosh, were all poppycock, were all strings of wade hanging from the stalls of a Tamil Scarborough Market.

Tamil Fact:  What? This Vijay is up the creek when he talks of Tamil Genocide” linking these words to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa who is now appointed as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.

Perhaps, Premier Ford, you may want to ask your MPP Vijay Thanigasalam to reconcile the charge of Tamil Genocide” with the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa without starving to death the rescued 295,873 Tamils from the clutches of the Tamil Tiger terrorists, housed them in temporary refugee camps and prepared  one million hearty meals a day – breakfasts, lunches and dinners, to feed them to sustain their lives.  Vijay knows all about it, and decided  disingenuously and mischievously hide this fact from you all. He is one no good MPP in your caucus.  Embarrassing, isn’t it?  Well, rap his knuckles Premier Ford.  Rein  Vijay in and read him your Conservative  Riot Act.

He also hid the fact from you all that over half of the cooks who prepared those one-million meals a day were from the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.  The majority of the soldiers were from the Sinhalese community.  I say eat your heart out Vijay… eat your hearts out Amnesty International…eat your hearts out Human Rights Watch.

All you guys were not honest were you when you tried your shenanigans talking of Tamil Genocide in SriLanka to gullible western politicians.  Too bad!

3 Tamil Truth:  MPP Vijay Thanigasalam in his statement to the Ontario’s Legislative Assembly  at Queen’s Park said during his diatribe against Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was appointed as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka late last month, ...Tamil genocide in 2009, including Massacres, rapes…….”  Hummm…Vijay is up the creek again.

Tamil Fact:   It does seem that his breakfast of illicit Jaffna kassippu had not left his system yet, when it was time for Vijay to make this statement.  And he was too young to suffer from Dementia.  He was confused.  I doubt he was talking of the Sri Lankan soldiers.  It were his Tamil Tiger terrorists  indeed who were maestroes of massacres.

Here are some examples of a scores of hundreds of massacres that they were involved in.

1. On 30 November 1984, the Tamil Tigers crept into the adobe huts in the Dollar Farm and Kent Farm in Welioya in the indigo dark morning and chopped with machetes like butchers and shot with Kalashnikovs massacring 62 unarmed civilians including women and children who were fast asleep;
2. On 14 May 1985, the Tamil Tigers shot and killed 120 Buddhist devotees meditating under the sacred Bodhi Tree in the Sacred City of Anuradhapura.  and they wounded and maimed for life 85 others.  Vijay knew it.
3. On June 1987, Vijay’s buddies, the Tamil Tiger terrorists massacred and brutally mutilated 33 novice Buddhist monks and their mentor Chief Priest Ven. Hegoda Indrasara at Aranthalawa in Ampara.  The bus that they were travelling on a pilgrimage was ambushed and the massacre took place.  Vijay, knows of it and didn’t admit to you all.  Bad politician!
4. On Friday, 3 August 1990, Vijay’s buddies the Tamil Tigers Terrorists opened fire and killed 103 Muslims and injured 70 others while they were praying at the Meera Jumma Mosque, in Kathankudy.  And Vijay knows of it  Pointing the finger at Sri Lankan soldiers for alleged masacres doesn’t cut mustard

Premier Ford.  Your caucus member for Scarborough–Rouge Park is on another agenda.  Wanting to hurt my Motherland, Sri Lanka unfairly.  And I tell Vijay with a copy of this letter to you is…”No..No…don’t even try it and fool yourself, Vijay.  You try it one more time you will hear my voice of protest loud and clearly as the ding-dong of London’s Big Ben.”

Tamil Facts :  Vijay Thanigasalam, complained to the Legislative Assembly in his Statement alleging  rape” by the Sri Lankan soldiers.  He has no way to substantiate his case. He has no foot to stand on over this charge.

But here is what happened which will quash his statement.  This Vijay is something else Premier Ford.,  You might find him an embarrassment in your caucus and a good candidate to read the Conservative Riot Act to get him on  the right track of being an honest politician and not a Humbug.

When Hillary Clinton during her hustings toi win Tamil votes for her Presidency, foolishly, like Vijay, pointed her finger at Sri Lanka accusing the soldiers using rape as a tactic to win the Eelam war.

After Sri Lanka Government’s vehement protest seeking from her to provide examples of such acts or apologize to Sri Lanka’s soldiers.  Well…what do you know, Premier Ford!

The Ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s issues at  the US State Department Melanie Vervrer backtracked on August 5th, 2009 by issuing this statement in a letter

In the most recent phase of the Sri Lanka conflict from 2006 to 2009, we have not received reports that rape and sexual abuse were used as tools of war as they clearly have in other conflict areas  around the world.”

So I tell your Caucus member VijayThanigasalam  to get off his high-horse and attend to his constituency affairs, and don’t meddle with Sri Lanka’s internal affairs, as he is already caught in a web of deceit and humbuggery,  And I, Asoka Weerasinghe, who is on a Mission to guard the good name of my Motherland, Sri Lanka, which I am still romancing with having left  her 62 years ago.

My humble request to you Premier Doug Ford is rein in the MPP for Scarborough-Rouge Park,  and tell him not to meddle with Sri lanka’s  Internal Affairs if he is not on top of issues and Facts.

He is mudding the waters and only getting my goat with stupid statements as he did,  What was he trying to prove, To be recognized as a smart politician!  That is too much to ask for with such stupidity coming out of him.

I could go on destroying every point of his statement to the Legislative Assembly, as he is on a Mission to destroy Sri Lanka.  As far as I am concerned, your caucus member is a sheepish, no good Humbug,

Before I conclude this letter, I wish to make two points for your understanding off this Eelam War:

One.  When the Tamil Tigers (aka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) were annihilated on 19 May 2009, what it did was to give back to the 20.5 million Sri Lankans their Human Right of right-to-life, which was hijacked by the Tamil Tiger terrorists for 30 bloodying years.

Two.  Vijay in his statement to the Legislative Assembly said that he wanted the International Community to get involved to find a solution for the protection of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

I am not sure when Vijay last visited   Sri Lanka.  I ask him to go back to Sri Lanka and walk the mile long business drag in Pettah, in the heart of Colombo., the capital of Sri Lanka,  What he will find out is that of every five business establishments, three will be owned by Tamils – Sari Emporiums, Gold Jewellery Stores, Spice markets, Thosai boutiques, etc.  And 80% of their patrons are from the majority Sinhalese community.  Vijay should ask the Tamil owners, why aren’t you picking up a plane ticket and come to Canada saying that you are a refugee.  The roads are paved with gold!” 

The answer would be, What for Vijay.  We are happy as clams here.  We are minting millions of rupees almost every day.  Na, count me out of this  infectious fraud!  I am not a refugee.  Never had been one.  Sri Lanka is my home.  I want to bury my bones here.  This is my Motherland!”

Very sincerely,

Asoka Weerasinghe (Mr.)

Beacon Hill North, Gloucester, Ontario.

Cc: House3 Leader. Hon.Todd Smith  <todd.smithco@pc.ola.org>

Deputy Premier, Hon. Christine Elliot <christine.elliott@pc.ola.org>

Attorney General, Hon. Caroline Mulroney <caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org>

Ontario NDP Leader, Hon. Andrea Horwath <ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca>

Ontario Liberal Leader, Hon. John Fraser <Jfraser.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>

Vijay.Thanigasalam@pc.ola.org

Natalia kusendova <natalia.kusendova@pc.ola.org>

By P.K.Balachandran Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

By Charles S.Perera

Every day children are born most of them, unless they are born mentally handicapped, grow to be matured men or women experiencing the simple duality of life –the good and the bad. When we are babies and children we think that all solutions can be solved by crying and yelling at parents and others that pass by making them understand  by gesticulation or crying loud for what we want.

But  that way of satisfying our demands ends as we grow up learning from teachers , books, thinking and reflecting,  how to live , what we expect from life. Then we learn by experiencing through human relationships how to react to what we think is good or what we think is bad. It was easy with our parents we can be peaceful or aggressive with them and their reactions would be mild or manageably harsh .

But later on   our relations with those  outside our homes are unpredictable they may some times be enriching experiences, or dangerous  experiences which  may even cost our lives. Life is a constant learning experience.  It is that which  makes us wise or foolish.

In our selected professions too we have to learn to adopt ourselves  to situations , be it may be as a teacher, as a doctor, as a lawyer, as a labourer or as a politician.  If we do not  adopt ourselves correctly then we may not be successful in our chosen profession.

In Sri Lanka  after 70 years of Independence we have our own politicians, parliamentarians. Have they adopted themselves  as good politicians or parliamentarians ? Most of  the parliamentarians in Sri Lanka are lawyers, doctors, or simply men with experience in dealing with people  to solve their social or economic problems.

If some citizens not satisfied with what is taking place as they are not happening for their personal benefits  take arms to fight against the antagonists and try to wrench from them what they need, they become terrorists and their  antagonists may then  take arms to stop them and eliminate them.

If the politicians and parliamentarians act in like manner  they will also be terrorists and the government may take appropriate action as those taken against the terrorist.

But do we expect Parliamentarians act like terrorists ? No .

Why ?

Because we do not expect such behaviour from them as they are experienced men and know how to act wisely and patiently, with people of different ideas, beliefs and cultures. They are not children who cry and yell  demanding what they want, but act peacefully using common sense and using their experience in their human relations as politicians who stand for the interest of the country and its people with different political views and expectations.

As we grow up we should  learn to see  reality through maturity of  thoughts interacting with men and matters  and stand by those realities  rather than vacillate unable like children to decide what to do or wher to go. See for instance an experienced politicians who was many times the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka  and the leader of the UNP for over 20 years,  a lawyer, who lost 30 elections still  unable to face defeat as a man,  and unable to take a decision on his own.   He cannot accept to be told that he is no more the Prime Minister.

What then is such a  man  who cannot accept eight worldly conditions (asta loka damma) gain and loss (labo-alabo), grace  and disgrace (ayaso-yasoca) insults and praise(ninda –presansa),  enjoyment and suffering (sapanci  – dukkham), if not he is not  a wise man and has still learnt nothing of life.

It is now evident that  Ranil Wickramsinghe has no existence of his own. He  depends on others. As the Prime Minister he depended on Paskaralingams and Charitha Ratwattes, foreign NGOs and lots of yes men who are after their own benefits.  Now holed up in Temple Trees Ranil Wickramasinghe ex Prime Minister  depends  on friend  Karu Jayasuriya-an indecisive vacillator, foreign journalists, embassies, of USA,UK,Germany,France and European Union.  These are his life support of existence as a rebel ex-Prime Minister.  He tells them the possibilities of street fights, he has stressed that  one does not know what arises in a situation like this . A few desperate people he tells them, can start off a blood bath.

Ranil Wickramasinghe  is insinuating  before   the foreign embassadors  a calamitous situation and indirectly requests them to be on guard to defend Sri Lanka and perhaps be ready with  an army contingent. He had already written to these embassies  requesting them to demand  the   UN to be in readiness to send  a UN peace keeping force. (https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2018/10/31/call-for-ranil-to-be-indicted-for-high-treason/)

Doesn’t this show that Ranil Wickramasinghe has not reached mental maturity, but  instead descending  to the childhood level of  having fear  and yelling for security ?  Unfortunately he seems to have suddenly found himself in a kindergarten class with all his political companions, Karu Jayasuriya, Harin Fernando, Ajith Perera, Ravi Karunanayake, Harsha de Silva, Rajitha Senarathana, Mangala Samaraweera, Majuba Rhaman  and even Gomin Dayasiri in the same class.

A lollipop for a crying and yelling child is what money does to young growing up politician  give them a bundle of money they immediately  become manageable by the one who provides him with the toy bundle. Manusha Nanayakkara found it was more democratic to join the Government of  Prime Minister Rajapakse sworn in by the President and in the morning he took oath before the President to be a Minister in the Cabinet of the new Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse. And in the evening he comes back to Ranil Wickramasinghe  the ex Prime Minister and says he made a mistake  about understanding democracy and says democracy is besides  Ranil Wickramasinghe.

Sampanthan and other TNA Parliamentarians refuse to grow up and remain eternal children.

Strangely though even the foreign Ambassadors have a problem growing up. The new Ambassador of US Alaina Teplitz, true to their nature of destabilising the governments of developing countries , goes to the former Prime Minister crying over his lost jobn trying to sympathise with his plight and give some hope that he still has Ambassadors coming to tap on his back.

But yet there are wise men even when they are old- Lord Michael Naseby at 82 years  who had once been a Deputy Speaker of the House of Parliament, who  is wise and refuses to be a child.

Lord Michael Naseby  has warned the UK Parliamentarians that it is not their role to interfere in to internal affairs of Sri Lanka and says that he is fully aware that all actions taken so far  by the President of Sri Lanka are Constitutional. He says that Sri Lankans  should be allowed to settle their own problems without foreign intervention and that he has met the President of Sri Lanka several times and that he is a wise man.

Ruwan Rajapakse 

There is a popular belief in Sri Lanka that is well supported by a kind of postmodern pseudo-intelligentsia, that all politicians are rogues”. This fascinating meme – a viral idea that fits snugly in our consciences – is an intellectually vacuous concept. Yet time and time again it is craftily touted by people with vested interests, who often are on the loosing side of a major political struggle, and wish to detract support for the winners. Aside from the ostentatious and hypocritical nature of this presumption (especially when politicians themselves speak to it), there are good practical reasons for caring citizens to steer clear of this type of shallow, counterproductive analysis.

How on earth can we improve over time if we are unwilling to spot subtle differences in the choices that are made available to us? Sociologists tell us that progress is made through consistent, small wins. Like in nature, where tiny genetic mutations aggregate over many generations to produce entire new life forms, it is the seemingly small differences in the attitudes and skills of our representatives which ultimately amount to vast sociopolitical progress (or regress) over time.

The transition from a chaotic, war-torn country into a peaceful and more prosperous one is an excellent example from our own country’s recent past. This transition was led by an administrative team that was explicitly chosen by some of us; a team that succeeded where others had failed miserably for over three decades. They clearly had something better in them that suited the purpose, that some of us saw. So we absolutely must pay close attention and make definitive choices, or risk drifting into some clandestine political agenda that has little to do with mainstream interests like economic development.

In the present context of the so-called constitutional crisis, the better administrative team would be the one that has a clearer top-level agenda for responsible and purposeful government producing practical results, and not metaphysical rhetoric. Facilitation of economic growth and individual financial autonomy, skilled defense of an economy against global churn or downturn, liberalization of human values and improvements to the system of justice, prevention of terrorism, the enhancement of public services and utilities, and the facilitation of better lifelong education are obvious competency areas to watch out for amongst the two factions. Proof of even a marginal difference between the two factions is worthy of decisive support in favor of one side over the other.

The RW-led Yahapalanaya government performed abysmally in this regard, in comparison with the previous MR one. To put it plainly, they won on a deceitful ticket of dubious merit – the cry of rogues, rogues”, a well-know political gambit that appeals to the downtrodden, who observe the rich and powerful strutting their stuff with envy, and pity themselves. They did little except to weaken government and bestow undue power on their otherwise apathetic leader, whilst allowing their cronies to embezzle over 10 billion rupees from the state coffers on the side.

The only serious charge that was substantiated through the Yahapalanaya government’s infamous campaign against corruption”, was that of the reallocation of some state funds outside of financial regulations (FR) by the previous MR government, as a grant for prayer cloths for Buddhist devotees! This is after operating a special police taskforce for over three years to bring to justice those involved in supposed major financial crimes. Mind you, this special” taskforce operated with brazen political bias under the direction of the Prime Minister, arresting or questioning all and sundry from the previous government on a daily basis, alas to no avail.

Let us come to the crux of the dilemma facing us today. Let’s be generous, and steel man the case for a so-called constitutional crisis”. President MS, after working closely with, or rather attempting to work closely with the RW team for years, found himself to be increasingly irrelevant, and witnessing a rogue political agenda that was derailing Lanka’s economic progress. Worse, he found himself to be the target of a plausible assassination plot with high government connections, and made a quick decision to use his political clout to kick RW and his team out and restore some semblance of controlled, purposeful government. He consulted his legal advisors, and finding a loophole in the constitution that would serve him well in explanations later on, sent RW his dismissal note, and appointed his more capable former ally MR as the new Prime Minister.

Here is my key point. The same pundits who touted the all are rogues” theory (like the JVP for instance) are screaming that due process is sacrosanct, and if process breaks down, all hell breaks loose. Who says? Why, if there weren’t revolutions in human society, we’d be stuck in a tribal, Neolithic world. Constitutions are drawn up (and amended) to uphold values and good practices as best understood at a given time in history. They however are ultimately just a means to an end, which is the overall wellbeing of the people at large. Means do not always supersede ends (just as ends do not always supersede means), especially if the means are preventing us from stopping a calamity like bloodshed or economic regression in this case.

We create due process to help us preserve human wellbeing based on existing knowledge, and when we discover a novel situation that needs urgent action outside of previous precedent, we first break the coded rules in the interest of time, and then amend them for future benefit. That’s why there have been hundreds of unconstitutional Executive Orders and Acts of Congress with sweeping consequences in American history, why the Australian Prime Minister was sacked unconstitutionally by the Governor General in 1975, and how Abraham Lincoln emancipated slaves.

President MS’s little constitutional coup is not such a remarkable action. So he exploited a loophole in the 19^thAmendment to sack a grossly underperforming Prime Minister. The Supreme Court is the final authority to decide on the constitutionality of this action. Perhaps RW knows in his legal mind that MS was technically correct, since there doesn’t appear to be any move so far to clarify the matter with the Supreme Court. In any case MS did it to right a pretty bad situation. The rupee was in freefall, the Prime Minister was covering up the bond scam against a mountain of evidence, there appeared to be no purposeful moves to defend and strengthen the economy, taxation was rising with no corresponding increase in available public utilities or benefits for the disadvantaged.

In fact, benefits to the disadvantaged were being taxed, agriculture was neglected, infrastructure development was neglected, and there was evidence of a plot to murder The President. So all in all a good political move! Strongman-ish perhaps in nature but bloodless and easily democratized through parliament within the next few days. The President struck when the iron was hot, to the chagrin of his incompetent opponents who were trusting precedent and loyalty – two worthless values in the face of real problems.

A couple of other points for us to ponder on the present political situation. We now see yet another red herring being tossed up in the air, to distract us ordinary folks from the core issue of the failure of RW to perform sensibly. It is once again a version of the pitiful cry of rogues, rogues”, this time taking the form of financial inducement for taking up ministerial posts. Listening to the first three audio recordings of MP Ranga Bandara’s phone conversations and his subsequent analysis of them, it is plainly apparent that the said Ranga Bandara is the one who is stitching three different conversations with three different people together, with his own unsubstantiated explanation of what is going on.

The first conversation sounds like a credible one, between himself and S.B. Dissanayake, a Government minister. In summary, the minister was urging him to cross over and join the the new government, before the 30 available cabinet positions are taken up by others. A perfectly reasonable and ethical conversation, that a minister from the new government would have with a UNP MP, to canvass support against RW, whose leadership they (the new government) consider as an active obstacle to the nation’s progress. The second and third conversations, which are suggestive of inducement, are between Ranga Bandara and two perfectly unknown persons, one of whom claims to be an agent of SB Dissanayake, and the other whom Ranga Bandara claims to be an agent of Yoshitha Rajapakse. Where is the evidence that SB Dissanayake offered money to Ranga Bandara, or that these two unknown people are in fact agents of the new government? Why, any pickpocket can be hired from the street to discuss a bribe over the phone, claiming to represent someone else.

I wouldn’t fret over this red herring, unless we can find evidence that clearly shows these two people acted on SB Dissanayake’s instructions. Transparency international has submitted this evidence” to a court this morning, lets see what the legal experts have to say.

The other more general point was that, for the umpteenth time, the RW camp is trying its level best to turn away our attention from administrative performance towards abstract morality. Getting the speaker to voice his personal displeasure over the immorality” of RW’s sacking and the prorogation of parliament, the talk of bribes, the talk of dictatorships and unconstitutional government, prostration in front of foreign emissaries etc., are all part of a clever yet (unfortunately) regressive political campaign to gain sympathy and rekindle the nonperforming Yahapalanaya government. I urge all well meaning representatives and citizens to not get lost in these dubious details, but to stay focused on the big picture and act accordingly.

Was there not a gross failure in the administration of our country over the past three years, and didn’t The President make the right move to change the administrative leadership? Sift through the evidence and come to your own conclusions, ladies and gents.

Bodhi Dhanapala, Quebec, Canada

The daring but calculated political moves of Sri Lanka’s president have given a golden opportunity for the so called political scientists” and constitutional experts” to come out of the woodwork in numbers,  to  elucidate matters for plebeians like myself. Sirisena, declared a Mugabe by the Economist,  called a Naive  Godaya” and ridiculed even by the likes of Nalin de Silva,  has proved that he  is a master of political chess, capable of eating hoppers wih Kautilya and get  Machaivelli  to  cook noodles at the Temple Trees for him, and kick out Machiavelli  when the time came.

Like most Sri Lankans, I read the political analysts  driven by the need to understand the drama that is unfolding in Sri Lanka.  However, whether you open the pages of the Island Newspaper, Daily Mirror, Colombo Telegraph or Lankaweb,  on finds roughly the same set of pundit pontificating with great certainty, seemingly forgetting that they had themselves argued for the very opposite in previous parallel circumstances. One is reminded of George Bernard Shaw’s remark that if you ask ten such analysts for directions,  they would point in twenty different directions.

The Island, 5th November carried an article by Dr. Jayadeva  Uyangoda where he says  that Sirisena

was actually the last hope of democracy in Sri Lanka, at a time when Sri Lankan politics under the existing regime, was moving in the direction of what we political scientists call ‘hard authoritarianism.”

So, we are told that, contrary to G. B. Shaw’s adage, political scientists do seem to agree on something. But then, I see articles by Dyan Jayatillke, another political scientist” who likes to mention the name of Gramasci or take  tit bits from Cuban scripts  to justify his position where he  takes a diametrically different view. So, the analysts  don’t even have the unanimity that even astrologers manage to cobble together. Shouldn’t these people give us our money back?

Plato, the author of the Republic, was surely one of the earliest political scientists. Uyangoda seems to have forgotten that hard authoritarianism” is claimed to be an essential quality of the ruler, as long as the ruler  was also a philosopher! Unlike Plato, Uyangoda has his own prescription for the ideal prince
and this does not involve any philosophic capacity. Let us continue with Uyangoda, who says

To stop that nightmarish drift (towards authoritarianism), a regime change was needed. For a regime change, a credible presidential candidate other than Ranil Wickremasinghe was needed. A man or woman who could personify the democratic political hopes of future generations of our citizens, particularly the young ones and first-time voters, needed. The new leader had to be one who had not earlier tasted political power as a government leader, and therefore unsullied by a record of corruption, abuse of power, megalomania and personalized rule, and limitless political ambitions”

So, are we to believe that a long-standing  general secretary of the SLFP and many-times minister had never tasted political power as a government leader, and never knew corruption? If we go back to 2010 presidential elections, and the danger of authoritarianism, one has to look at what Uyangoda said of the common candidate Gen. Sarath Fonseka!  Furthermore, in Sirisena’s address to the nation he accused Wickremasinghe of his authoritarianism, cliquish decision making  and participating in a bank-bond heist. So, according to Uyangoda’s logic, I would conclude that Uyangoda agrees with Sirisena that a regime change” is needed. If so, why is Uyangoda claiming even personal despair!

There is not one word in Uyangoda’s recipe about the excessive executive powers of the president which was a main theme of the 2015 election, allegedly engineered by the West. Instead he prescribes that we search for a specific kind of person for the leader!

One has to go away with the feeling that political science” is some kind of science where the guiding principles are deep secretes and we never see the rational principles guiding them? Or, like the Wizard of Oz, it is nothing but a put up job, with no substance to it what ever when you look close? Sheer humbug? The only professional political analysts are the NGO spokesmen who utter the views of their pay masters and get paid, while getting free column space in our newspapers.

Let’s look at another political  analyst, Dr. Kumar David. He analyzes Sirisena’s moves in 2018 as a Putsch” and a  secretive power grab. He has to go back to the 1922 Italian Fascist movement to even understand what has happened. However, according to Dr. David, Sirisena’s 2014 Hopper move on the political chess board was  a selfless act of political heroism. That it was a regime change financed by the West exploiting local grievances and ethnic divides  is never mentioned by this political observer who claims to watch the international picture. I do not remember if he quoted Rosa Luxemberg or Althuser  to prove” that 2015 was indeed Kosher.

In 2010 Dr. David was even able to produce dialectical arguments to demand that everyone should vote Sarath Fonseka, the ideal person” to save Sri Lanka!  He ridiculed the old left” for hanging onto the Rajapaksas just to safeguard their perks”. Unfortunately, Dr. David has over the years proved that his dialectical materialism can be used to prop us neo-con regimes like the UNP, or defend fascist terrorist one-man dictatorships like the LTTE.

Dr. David is not just another political scientist. He is a distinguished engineering professor and text-book-reading revolutionary, and hence I expected him to be more capable of rational and quantitative thinking well beyond the usual haul of social scientists”. But no. His political prejudices overwhelm even his engineering training. I realized this when he  began to adulate the LTTE terrorists for their technical prowess when they put out a baby plane assembled from a kit and sent it to bomb Colombo! Although now retired, at the time I was a teacher  in a Quebec technical college, and I knew how a few of our  students – a bunch of buddies –  would get together to pass their summer holidays building a plane from a kit that they can buy for a few thousand dollars. So, the LTTE aeronautics was no big deal. But perhaps Dr. Kumar David  may have had some atavistic or other sympathies that blinded him to the facts, and so it is understandable that he viewed the Rajapaksas as the very devil, while Prabhakaran was a liberator?

If we leave aside the political scientists, and look at the constitutional lawyers”, we might expect  a greater level of objectivity. But alas NO.  If you knew the political disposition of G. L Peiris and that of Prof. Savirti Goonaskera (two colleagues of the Colombo Law faculty), that was the only necessary and sufficient condition needed to say how they  interpret the 19th amendment with respect to President Sirisena’s actions. We could also predict how the whole of  the Friday Forum” would react, even without knowing the individual opinions! Of course, there are rare analysts who do not fit in. I would have predicted that Laksiri Fernando, Kumar David and Jayamapathy Wikramaratne to be in the same camp in interpreting the 19th amendment, and in the camp opposite to that of Dyan Jayatilleke and Wijayadasa Rajapaksa.   Laksiri Fernando’s  case turns out to be the exception which proves the rule.

Constitutions aside, if the President thinks that the  Prime minster is planning to kill him, and if they detest each other, shouldn’t the President remove the prime minster as soon as possible? Amazingly, no political analysts has addressed this common sense question.

So, why don’t these people very humbly say that they are expressing their considered personal opinions, instead of pretending that what they say has a theoretical basis” in political science”, or constitutional law”? Why does Dr. Uyangoda have to put out grand-staged statements like what WE POLITICAL SCIENTISTS  call hard authoritarianism”, where it seems that the WE” refers only to a few political cronies who are as lost as he has been, possibly since 1971 in a political wilderness of their own making?

Sri Lanka has had a political philosophy far superior to  all current political science”, inspired by the Buddha’s teaching of universal love and the Lichchavi approach.  When Uyangoda and others gave it up  1971,  and when Philip Goonawardena, N. M. Perera and others gave it up in the 1930s, and embraced the immoral idea that the end justified the means”, Lanka  took to the path of confrontation and violence.

Bodhi Dhanapala, Quebec, Canada

නීතිඥ අරුණ ලක්සිරි උණවටුන

ජනාධිපතිවරයාට පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසරවීමට බලය ලැබෙන අවස්ථා 03ක් ඇත. ඒවා නම්…..

1. පාර්ලිමේන්තු ව මුල් වරට කැදවා වසර 4 1/2 ක් ගතවීම. (70 වන ව්‍යවස්ථාව)
2. පාර්ලිමේන්තුව මුල් වරට කැදවා වසර 4 1/2 කට පෙර නම් පාර්ලිමේන්තු වේ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් 2/3 කගේ කැමැත්ත තිබීම.(70 වන ව්‍යවස්ථාව)
3. ජනමතවිචාරණය ක් මගින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවන ලෙස ජනතාව විසින් අනුමත කිරීම (86, 3 සහ 4.(අ), 4.(ඉ), 33.2.ඇ, සහ 70 ව්‍යවස්ථා)

මෙම ක්‍රම වලින් නොවන වෙනත් ක්‍රම වලින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරවා දැමීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයා ක්‍රියා කළහොත් එය බරපතල අහිතකර ප්‍රතිඵල අත් කරනු ඇත.

(පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසිරවීමට ජනතාවගේ කැමැත්ත ලබා ගැනීමට ජනමතවිචාරණයක් පැවැත්වීමට ජනාධිපති ට ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙන් බලය ඇති බව දැනගත් වහාම අරලිය මැදුරේ ඇත්තෝ, එංගලන්තය සහ ඇමෙරිකාව ගොලු වී ඇත.)

*****

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවීමට ජනතාවගේ මතය ලබා ගැනීමට ජනමතවිචාරණයක් කැදවන්න එපා…!-නීති විශාරදයෙක් ජනාධිපති ට කියයි.

ජනවරම ලැබුණොත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවන්න ම වෙනවා. පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවීමට ලැබෙන ජනවරමට එරෙහිව අධිකරණය ට යන්නත් බෑ. එක්තරා නීති විශාරදයෙක් ජනාධිපති ට කියයි.

*****

අරලිය මැදුරෙන් අදෝනා ….!

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවීමට ජනමතවිචාරණය ක් තියන්න දෙන්න එපා. ඇමතිධූර නැතිව අපට චන්ද කරන්න බෑ. ජනමතවිචාරණය උඩින්ම දිනාවි. ඊට පස්සෙ අපට පාර්ලිමේන්තු මැතිවරණයෙන් මන්ත්‍රී වෙන්නත් බැරිවෙනව. අරලිය මැදුරෙන් අදෝනා  ….!

******

අලුත්කඩේ කලු සුද්දන් කියන පරිදි මුලින්ම පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවන්න එපා.

ජනාධිපතිතුමනි…….! 

අගමැති පත්කිරීම….පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වාරාවසාන කිරීම සම්බන්ධව ඔබ කර ඇති සියලු ක්‍රියා නීතියට අනුකූලයි. අලුත්කඩේ කලු සුද්දන් කියන පරිදි මුලින්ම පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවන්න එපා. වහාම ජනමතවිචාරණයක් කැදවන්න.. ජනමතය ලබාගෙන පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවන්න. අඩුව තියෙද්දි අත පුච්චාගන්න එපා….. මැතිවරණ වලට වියදම් කිරීම බස්, දුම්රිය, පොලීසි ගිනි තියනවට වඩා ලාබයි කියා රටට කියන්න.

*******

ජනාධිපතිවරයා ජනමතවිචාරණයකින් බලය ලබා නොගෙන පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවාහැරියහොත් මැතිවරණයෙන් පසුව ශක්තිමත් විපක්ෂයක් බිහිවී නැවත රට ආරාජික වේ.

*****

By P.K.Balachandran Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, November 6: The Sri Lankan political situation is currently in a kind of mess not seen in recent times. President Maithripala Sirisena, who is the Executive head of the country, is at loggerheads with the Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya.

The conflict between the two high constitutional functionaries may lead to an ugly brawl in parliament when it meets on November 14. And if the fracas goes beyond limits, it could result in a complete constitutional breakdown.

The ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is brazenly defying the newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, even refusing to vacate his official residence Temple Trees” though he was sacked on October 26.

President Sirisena says that his differences with Wickremesinghe are so deep and pronounced that if the latter defeats Rajapaksa in the No Trust Vote in parliament and has to be sworn in as Prime Minister he will quit the Presidency within hour.

Dissolving parliament  and ordering fresh elections is one way out of the conundrum. But parliament cannot be dissolved now except through a resolution passed by two thirds of the membership of the House.

However, dissolution will be the last option to be exercised. It is generally not favored by Members of Parliament (MPs). They would lose their pension if parliament does not complete its five year term.

If parliament cannot be dissolved, what is the way out?

There are straws in the wind which suggest that behind the hyperbolic and high voltage rhetoric from both sides of the political divide,  there are tentative moves from both sides to form a national government comprising the United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance (UPFA) led by President Sirisena and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, and a section of the opposition United National Front (UNF).

UNF’s Move

Perhaps it was the fear of dissolution which made UNF stalwarts Champika Ranawaka, Kabir Hasim and Rajitha Senaratne to publicly propose, as early as October 31, that a national government be formed again.

But the trio’s appeal fell on deaf ears at that time. President Sirisena and the newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, were confident that they will get overwhelming support in parliament to run the government till elections come in mid- 2020.

However to their dismay, the UNF stood together. The expected mass defection did not take place. Poaching of UNF MPs has clearly been a hard task, despite the large amount of time given by the President by proroguing parliament from  October 27 to November 15.

There is still intense distaste in the UNF over President Sirisena’s use of Machiavellian subterfuge to sack its leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his Council of Ministers and appoint Rajapaksa as Prime Minister on October 26.

The ruling Sirisena-Rajapaksa group claims that it already has around” 113 MPs (the number required to form a government and defeat a vote of no confidence in the House with a total membership of 225). But there is no certainty about such support.

As on November 6, the Sirisena-Rajapaksa group needs nine more to get 113 to remain in the government, and the UNF-Tamil National Alliance combine has 114.

The Sirisena-Rajapaksa group is hoping that it will be able to get more MPs by the time parliament resumes on November 14. But loyalties are extremely fragile in Sri Lankan politics. Vadivel Suresh crossed over from UNP to UPFA on day one; went back to UNP on day two; and on the third day, went back to the UPFA to be sworn-in as State Minister.

MPs may change sides even after being sworn-in as ministers. Manusha Nanayakkara shifted from UPFA to the UNF after taking oath as a Deputy Minister.

Even if the Rajapaksa government is defeated on the motion of no confidence, and Wickremesinghe stakes a claim to the Premiership again, the President may not agree to re-appoint him. The constitution allows the President to choose any MP who, in his opinion, is likely to command the confidence of the House.

Sirisena has already publicly stated that if Wickremesinghe becomes Prime Minister again, he will quit the Presidency within an hour”. Therefore the appointment of Wickremesinghe appears to be out of the question.

It is to prevent these that the President is now reaching out to the United National Party (UNP)-led UNF, albeit in a subtle way.

At the public meeting held in Colombo on Monday, Sirisena invited UNF MPs to support Prime Minister Rajapaksa. He assured that they need not be worried about their future.

Earlier, at a public function, he had praised the contribution of UNP leaders of the past such as D.S.Senanayake, Dudley Senanayake and R.Premadasa, while lambasting the present leaders (Wickremesinghe and his cohorts).

Sirisena portrayed the UNP of the past as a nationalist and pro-people party in contrast to the present UNP which he dubbed as an anti-people organization working with an agenda set by foreign (Western) powers.

Dark Horse Sajith Premadasa

Sirisena’s mentioning  President Premadasa was partly motivated by a  desire to get Premadasa’s son, Sajith Premadasa,  to cross over.

In Monday’s speech Sirisena also revealed that he thought highly of UNP members Sajith Premadasa and parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. The President said that he had in fact offered the Premiership to Karu Jayasuriya first, when his party men were demanding the dismissal of Wickremesinghe. But Jayasuriya declined the offer.

The offer was then made to Sajith Premadasa, but he too declined. It was only thereafter that he invited Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sirisena said.

The public narration of this part of recent history indicated that Sirisena could function with Jayasuriya and Sajith, something he would not be able to do if Wickremesinghe were Prime Minister.

As part of the strategy to consolidate the regime, a proposal to form a national government composed of several parties may be made and propagated.

But this national government will have no truck with Wickremesinghe and his loyalists, given President Sirisena’s openly declared incompatibility with them.

This may lead to a split in the UNP, with an anti-Wickremesinghe group joining the government. Bulk of the UNF MPs may also pledge support to the national government, because the alternative, which is the dissolution of parliament, is undesirable.

By P.K.Balachandran/Daily Mirror

Colombo, November 6: Crossovers from one party to another in Parliament have been a constant feature in Sri Lanka in recent years. They were endemic in India till the Constitution was amended by the 52nd Amendment in 1985 and by the 91st Amendment in 2003 to make defections difficult.

There are mixed feelings among political scientists about crossovers. At times, they have helped form stable Governments, and at other times they have brought down Governments creating instability.

In 2001, a severe political crisis-afflicted the Sri Lankan Parliament, which had been elected only in the previous year.

Numerous MPs from the ruling Peoples’ Alliance (PA) quit the group and joined the Opposition led by Ranil Wickremesinghe of the United National Party (UNP).
In June 2001, 11 members of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and National Unity Alliance (NUA) had quit the PA, peeved by the sacking of Minister Rauff Hakeem by President Chandrika Kumaratunga.

On October 10, 2001, with the political crisis in the PA deepening, eight Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) MPs: S.B. Dissanayake, Wijepala Mendis, Ananda Moonesinghe, Bandula Nanayakkara, G.L. Peiris, Ediriweera Premaratne, Jayasundara Wijekoon and Mahinda Wijesekara and four MPs of the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) crossed over to the Opposition.

This created a fear in the government that it could lose a vote of no confidence. Parliament was dissolved and elections to Parliament were held in December 2001. The instability in 2000 and 2001 was due to the bad way in which the war against Tamil Tigers was going, and the poor condition of the Sri Lankan economy at that time.

The Parliamentary elections held in 2004 did not give a decisive mandate. The new United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance (UPFA) led by President Chandrika Kumaratunga was able to get only 105 seats in a House of 225.

Being the single largest party, the UPFA formed a Minority” Government. But post-election defections from the Opposition front gave the Government then headed by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, 129 supporters in Parliament, which enabled Rajapaksa to rule comfortably.

However, the defections were engineered by largesse handed out in the form of Ministerial Posts and other benefits, which made the process of political accretion unsavoury.

Parliament had become a marketplace for buying MPs.

In the 2010 elections to Parliament, the UPFA under President Mahinda Rajapaksa won 144 seats. Even though the Rajapaksa Government was blessed with an overwhelming majority, it encouraged crossovers from the Opposition with the distribution of Ministerial posts to give Rajapaksa an aura of great power and invincibility.

In the elections held in August 2015, the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, won 106 seats and the UPFA, 95.
However, though short of the required 113 supporters, the UNF was able to form a Government by getting various parties to support it.

The apple cart was upset when on October 26, 2018, President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and his cabinet and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as PM, even though the latter had only 95 MPs backing him.

To get the required 113 seats, Rajapaksa set about catching MPs with offers of Ministerial posts and allegedly with large amounts also.

President Sirisena prorogued Parliament from October 27 to November 15 allegedly to give Rajapaksa enough time to acquire a majority by engineering defections from the UNFGG.

Whether Rajapaksa would succeed in getting a majority or not would be known when his Vote on Account or the No-Confident Motion is put to vote after Parliament is convened on November 14.

Vocal sections of society, comprising the educated middle class mostly, are critical of the defections and the way they are engineered. But the hoi polloi appear to be keen on getting a strong, performing Government which will deliver the goods and look after the downtrodden.

They feel that Rajapaksa would provide such a Government in contrast to Wickremesinghe.

Therefore, there appears to be a difference between the way the elite and the middle class see defections.

Many feel that Sri Lanka should have an anti-defection law to prevent political horse trading.

But as seen earlier, defections have, in some situations, helped form stable governments and in some others destroyed governments and forced fresh and expensive elections on the people.

However, what is truly despicable is the purchasing of MPs with money and other inducements with no connection whatsoever with policy or ideological issues.
It is the purchase of MPs and their willingness to sell themselves to the highest bidder, which have made defections ‘vulgar.’

About 40 countries have anti-defection laws. India has been having one since 1985. Between 1985 and 2004, 113 Indian legislators in Parliament and State Assemblies were unseated for defecting from one party to another.

Under Indian law, a Legislator will be unseated if he voluntarily gives up his membership of the political party he represents; if he votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to the direction issued by his political party or without obtaining prior permission.

As per the 1985 Act, a ‘defection’ by one-third of the elected members of a political party was authorized and declared legitimate. Later, in 2003, two-thirds of the MPs of a party would have to defect for the defection to be recognized as legitimate and condoned. The 2003 condition made defection more difficult than it was under the 1985 law.

However, there will be no disqualification if an entire political party merges with another; if a new political party is formed by some of the elected members of a party; if he or she or other members of the party have not accepted the merger between the two parties and opted to function as a separate group from the time of such a merger.

Under the 1985 Act, courts were barred from entertaining petitions against disqualification. Decisions on expulsion and unseating were left to party leaders and the Speaker or Chairman of the legislature.

But this was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. Currently, the anti-defection law comes under Judicial Review.

Critics of the anti-defection law say that it prevents free speech and allows party heads to dictate terms to members of their parties in the legislature.

Bound hand and foot by their party leaders, legislators are unable to correct wrong policies and prevent political disasters.

For instance, in the Maldives under Abdulla Yameen’s Presidency, 12 MPs of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) were unseated in 2017 for planning to join the Opposition in voting for the ouster of the controversial Speaker Abdullah Maseeh Mohamed.

It was only after Yameen’s defeat in the September 23 Presidential election, that the Supreme Court reinstated them.

Given the unsavoury role of the anti-defection rules in the Maldivian Opposition’s struggle against Yameen’s autocracy, the anti-PPM parties, which now have a majority in Parliament, have repealed the anti-defection law.

New Zealand has given up its anti-defection law. The US allows defections on the grounds that the law violates individual freedom.

According to an Indian Supreme Court ruling in 1992, the anti-defection law does not violate any rights or freedoms, or the basic structure of Parliamentary democracy.

Since the final decision on punishing defectors is subject to appeal in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, many defectors go to the courts and manage to hold on to their seats.

Therefore, anti-defection laws have their upside and downside. It is also noted by scholars that while older democracies like those in the West do not feel the need to have an anti-defection law and are quite comfortable with dissenters, the younger democracies, which fear political instability, show greater eagerness to enact anti-crossover laws.

(The featured image at the top shows the UNP MP Vadivel Suresh crossing over to the UPFA by garlanding the newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa)  

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

I will not step back from the decisions I have taken and will not bow down to pressure,” Sirisena told the Ratama Rakina Jana Mahimaya” rally here on Monday.

The President also said that the government formed by the newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa already has 113 MPs on its side to defeat any No Confidence Motion against him. The opposition United National Front (UNF) has presented a No Confidence Motion against the government headed by Rajapaksa.

Speaking further, the President informed that when he was on the lookout for a Prime Minister after he won the Presidential election in January 2015, he had first offered the post to Karu Jayasyuriya and Sajith Premadasa, but both had refused to take up the post.

I invited Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to take up the Premiership about eight months earlier. But he refused it saying that he cannot let down the leader. Then I invited Sajith Premadasa to take up the premiership about two months earlier as I could not work with Ranil Wickremesinghe. He also refused it,” he said addressing a rally in support of the new government.

The President said he wanted to select a leader suitable for the country and with whom he could work and added that he selected Mahinda Rajapaksa, who valued nationalism and tradition.

We cannot work on foreign agendas,” Sirisena said.

Speaker Jayasuriya’s Statement

On the other hand, Speaker Jayasuriya said in a statement that he will have to continue with the previous statuses in Parliament until a clear majority is shown in parliament as a majority of the MPs have requested him to accept the previous composition (with United National Front leader Ranil Wickremesighe as Prime Minister).

Parliament is to meet on November 14 as per a gazette notification issued by the President. But speaker Jayasuriya said that the President had verbally told him that it would be meet on November 7.

The Speaker said in a statement that MPs had pointed out that changes which had been made in parliament were against the Constitution and the parliamentary tradition and they had requested him to accept the previous composition in Parliament.

He said he cannot remain silent anymore on the information received by him saying that peoples’ representatives are being offered perks and privileges, violating democratic principles.

Addressing the rally, the newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa said that he will work closely with President Sirisena for economic development and people’s welfare.

Meanwhile, President Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) asked the Speaker to withdraw his statement.

:Making such a biased statement is unconstitutional and illegal. Decision on certain matters have to be taken according o the Constitution. The Speaker has no right to decide, who should be the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should be appointed by the President,” Foreign Minister Sarath Amunugama said.

He said Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had been appointed by the President according to the Constitution and added that proroguing of the Parliament could also be done only by the President.

Former Deputy Speaker Thilanga Sumathipala said the Speaker has no provision to take a stance like this and requested him to withdraw the statement. He said that the Speaker is trying to destabilize the country.

(The featured image at the top shows Speaker Karu Jayasuriya and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe greeting President Maithripala in better times. Photo.Presidents Media Division)

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, Nov 5 (newsin.asia): Sri Lanka’s Executive and the Legislature seem to be heading for a head-on clash when parliament meets on November 14.

Parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, on Monday said he will not recognize the new government sworn in by President Maithripala Sirisena recently until it proves its majority in Parliament.

The Speaker also vowed to summon parliament by November 7 based on the verbal assurance given by the President that parliament will be convened on November 7 and restore stability in the country”.

But the newly appointed Foreign Minister Dr.Sarath Amunugama reacted sharply to this saying that the Speaker has no right to say what he did because it is not for him to pronounce whether a government and its ministers are legitimate or not. It is the prerogative of the President of Sri Lanka to appoint anyone, who in his opinion, commands the majority in the House.

the parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya

Dr.Amunugama added that Speaker Jayasuriya is partisan when he ought to be neutral.

In a statement, Jayasuriya said he would continue to recognize ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his administration as the government in power as the President’s decision to sack Wickremesinghe and dissolve the earlier cabinet was unconstitutional.

The majority of members are of the view that the changes are unconstitutional and against traditions,” Jayasuriya said in the statement.

Until the group demonstrates a majority in parliament I re-iterate that I am compelled to recognize the situation that prevailed earlier,” Jayasuriya added.

Summoning parliament

The President had earlier told foreign envoys presenting credentials that parliament will meet on November 5. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had stated that publicly. But the President told the Speaker later over phone, that the House will meet on November 7. Eventually, he issued a proclamation saying that parliament will gather on November 14, two days ahead of the original schedule.

But the Speaker is holding on to the view that the President should keep his verbal promise to summon the House to meet on November 7. He then went on to say that he will act on that promise and summon the House by November 7.

President’s Party Raps Speakers

The United People’s Freedom Alliance, which is headed by President Sirisena, in a statement said they rejected the Speaker’s statement saying ‘he did not have a legal right to chose the Prime Minister’ while the United National Party, headed by Wickremesinghe welcomed the Speaker’s decision.

Sri Lanka has been plunged into a political turmoil since Oct 26, when President Sirisena, in a surprising move dissolved his cabinet and sacked Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and appointed former President Mahinda Rajapakse to the post.

President Sirisena made the decision after his United People’s Freedom Alliance pulled out of the national unity government which it had formed with Wickremesinghe’s United National Party.

A new caretaker government has since then been appointed, with Wickremesinghe and other political parties calling the move illegal and urging Speaker Jayasuriya to convene Parliament to prove their majority.

On Oct 27, President Sirisena prorogued Parliament till Nov 16, but on Sunday evening he issued a special gazette notification saying Parliament would convene on Nov 14.

 

BY Ambassador Dr Palitha Kohona,Former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. Courtesy The Island

November 6, 2018, 9:11 pm

The change of Government in Sri Lanka, following the unceremonious sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe by President Maithripala Sirisena, has given rise to a crescendo of alarmist commentary in the Western media, which is slowly seeping in to the non-Western media as well. One after the other, the Western media outlets have taken a critical approach to the change and have begun to characterize the replacement of the Prime Minister as a “Crisis”. Suave, comfortable in a European life style, fluent in the only European language he knows, English, neo liberal in thinking, and from an elite background, the former Prime Minister is fondly addressed as “Ranil” by the European diplomats and the dominant Western media representatives. He moves in Western circles with ease and is the darling of the mainly Western funded NGOs. Ranil enjoys an easy relationship with the Occident, having cultivated individuals and institutions there over the years.

The sacking of Ranil was unexpected, caught the Western diplomats by surprise and they reacted with undiplomatic shock. It disrupted a securely established network of relations and convenient expectations. The discomfiture in this group was palpable. Certain heads will roll and promotion prospects of others will suffer in some diplomatic establishments of the West. Being caught so totally unprepared is a reflection of the effectiveness with which Ranil and his cohorts managed the Western diplomatic community and Western media representatives along with the active concurrence of the mainly Western funded NGO community and resident American and European nationals. They simply swallowed the government line, living in a make believe world that did not reflect real world of Sri Lankan politics, and were blissfully unaware of the gathering storm of popular resentment. Others appear to have just hidden their heads in the sand and fervently hoped that the suggestions of a brewing storm was just a bad dream.

In a strange use of terminology, the Western media has chosen to characterise Ranil’s sacking as demonstrating a “lack of respect for democratic institutions” such as the Parliament despite the reams of legal justification provided by experts and the explosion of popular support that followed for the action. It is probably a forlorn hope to expect them to tag the sacking by a fond color like the “Orange Revolution – Ukraine” or a season “Arab Spring”. Both of which enjoyed Western sponsorship, now quietly forgotten due to the mayhem that followed.

The irony is that the same commentators never expressed their derision in such strong terms when local government elections kept being postponed sine die, when a parliamentary report on the scandalous Central Bank bond scam by Ranil’s close friend Arjuna Mahendran was sidelined by a prorogation of parliament, or when Ranil engaged in unruly and unparliamentary behaviour in Parliament when confronted with this issue. The agonised concern of the West would have sounded more convincing had there been a more even handed approach and the commentary of Western diplomats would have found more sympathetic listeners. There are lessons for both sides here.

But more importantly, consistent with established diplomatic practice, it would have been more appropriate if the Western diplomatic community and the UN representative had been more circumspect and even handed in expressing their support for democracy rather than instinctively rushing to endorse only Ranil as the guardian of democracy. In this instance, the measured tones of the Indian and Australian response suggests a greater appreciation of the real situation.

A diplomat needs to read the tea leaves of domestic politics more cleverly. There was little room for speculation or for error in the case of Sri Lanka unless it was self induced. The vast majority of the population of Sri Lanka was clearly hoping for a change in the leadership of the country. When the party owing allegiance to Mahinda Rajapaksa won over 239 of the 340 local government bodies contested in February the message was stark. The huge and adoring crowds that flocked to listen to Mahinda conveyed an obvious message. In September, a peoples’ march ‘Janabalayaa Kolambata,’ organized by the youth wing of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s SLPP brought over 300,000 people from across the country  to Colombo, demanding an immediate dissolution of the government. A similar crowd gathered in pouring rain when the President and his new Prime Minister addressed them in front of the Parliament on 5 October. University students, industrial unions, farmers, even university professors and doctors had been mounting protest action against government economic policies. The strikes affecting various parts of the economy were to a considerable extent a reflection of the disaffection felt by the people. The voices of the disgruntled had reached a crescendo but appears to have by passed the Western diplomatic community.

The heads of the highly influential Buddhist establishment, including the prelates in Kandy, and the minority Catholic establishment had forcefully reflected the popular sentiment. Sadly, either the West chose to ignore the clear signs on the ground or simply misread the signs.

Within an hour of the announcement of the sacking of Ranil, Sri Lankan media broadcast images of people lighting celebratory fire crackers across the country including in the Tamil-dominated Jaffna which is still trying to recover from the devastation of the terrorist conflict. Consistent with the traditional form of celebrating victory, many businesses provided milk rice to passers by along main roads. Leaders of business had already begun to express their dissatisfaction with Ranil’s lack of firm leadership, the absence of direction in economic policies, the implementation of policies without much consultation with the key stake holders, the erratic policy implementation, the lack of confidence in the business community, etc. The signs were obvious, only if one wished to take note.

The President articulated many of these sentiments a few days after the sacking. He highlighted Ranil’s inability to connect with the common people and his disrespect for those outside a small circle of the Colombo-based elite, and his disregard for the country’s sovereignty and his tendency to favour foreign business over locals. Ranil’s lack of enthusiasm to bring the Central Bank scammers to justice had annoyed the President who was elected on a platform of introducing good governance. He obviously felt aggrieved by Ranil’s supercillious attitude towards him as President. The President said, “Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe’s political conduct was unbecoming of civilized politics and belittled the victory achieved risking my life in 2015. I believe that Mr Wickremesinghe and his group of closest friends, who belonged to a privileged class and did not understand the pulse of the people conducted themselves as if shaping the future of the country was a fun game they played.” The President was more scathing and critical in his comments at the address on 5 October.

“Corruption and fraud spread widely in the country”.

PM Wickremasinghe, was increasingly seen as a puppet of the West, particularly the U.S., supporting their geo-political agenda in Asia. Sri Lanka has a history of rebellious politics and being perceived as pro West is not necessarily a guarantee of popular support.

The West also has been trumpeting the dangers posed by Rajapaksa, allegedly an ally of China. He has also been described as authoritarian and poer hungry. This may have gone down well with certain sections of the Indian establishment but not necessarily with the vast majority of Sri Lankans who entertain historical sympathies for China. While it is true that Rajapaksa obtained significant loans from China to fund development projects, to characterise him as pro China is a convenient excuse for not understanding him well or simply succumbing to assessments provided by Ranil and the NGO community. During his presidency, Rajapaksa turned to China for funding assistance only after being snubbed by India and international funding agencies. The EU had withdrawn the GSP Plus facility from Sri Lanka and the US had pulled the Millennium Challenge Account. After ending the terrorist inspired conflict Rajapaksa was in a hurry to develop the country and China was willing to help. It is important to remember that while Rajapaksa borrowed from China to fund development projects, (ONLY 8% of Sri Lanka’s external debt is owed to China) that also after lengthy negotiations, it was Ranil who injudiciously gave the port of Hambanthota on a 99 year lease to Chinese companies. Rajapaksa could hardly be described as anti West when his choice for advanced studies for two of his sons was England (and not China) and three of his brothers have homes in the US. He visited the US almost every year when he was President.

The narrative purveyed in the Western media characterises the situation in Sri Lanka as a “crisis”. This reflects the views of mainly Western funded NGOS and of Ranil. “The current constitutional crisis is unprecedented in that Sri Lanka has never had the legality and legitimacy of its government called into question in this way. We regret and deplore the course of action that has resulted in this unnecessary crisis and democratic backsliding,” the Centre for Policy Alternatives, a Western funded local NGO said in a statement. But those who make this assessment have not challenged the sacking before the courts which incidentally consist predominantly of judges appointed in the last three years, during Ranil’s tenure as Prime Minister. Now the Speaker of the Parliament, perhaps egged on by Ranil’s party and the encouraged by the stance taken by the West, has refused to recognize the new Prime Minister.

The U.S., the UK and some other European countries have publicly articulated concerns about Russian and even Chinese interference in their domestic electoral processes, but the behaviour of their own missions in Colombo has not contributed to enhancing their reputations with the majority of the people. The contradiction looms large to all observers. Again this might be a case of misreading the mood of the majority or simply dismissing the wishes of the majority despite all their purported commitment to championing democracy. Western ambassadors have met publicly with the ousted PM, Ranil, NGOs and opposition groups and issued statements from their capitals calling for the “Immediate convening” of parliament and “restoration” of democracy. Many in Sri Lanka have queried the propriety of such blatant interposition in the domestic political processes.

During a meeting with the President on 30 October, the EU Ambassador Tung-Lai Margue warned that if democratic norms and constitutional provisions are not observed in handling the on-going political crisis in Sri Lanka, the EU may consider withdrawing the trade concessions the island nation enjoys under the General System of Preferences Plus (GSP Plus). A similar threat by Japan and the US have been reported in the pro Western media. One notes an unfortunate return to the days when the West insensitively threatened and pulled out financial concessions from the previous Rajapaksa administration forcing it to reluctantly move further towards China. There were also statements demanding that Sri Lanka abide by the Resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka, especially the much derided Res 30/1, despite almost the entire country having objected to its provisions and some even suggesting that the then Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, who cosponsored it despite the overt opposition of the Ambassador in Geneva, be hauled before the courts for treason. One is confused by the approach of the US which has recently, on the basis of national interest, denounced even solemnly concluded treaties.

Sirisena has quietly told the Western envoys that they appeared to be “unaware of the pulse of the people”. The President has advised the envoys to understand the common man’s thinking, and that the people are with him. He has also told the envoys that it is best to leave the governance of Sri Lanka to Sri Lankans and that the government and the people of Sri Lanka know best what is good for them.

BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

There are no legal arguments that the appoint of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as the prime minister of the country was a legitimate decision of the president. In fact, Mr Rajapaksa wanted to go to an election, but there is a constitutional restriction for it. Mr Rajapaksa always said that the current government is a caretaker government until a new government will be elected by people at the next general election.

Mr Ranil Wickramasinghe does not accept the legitimacy of the appointment of Mr Rajapakse or he doesn’t like to resolve the problem going to the Supreme Court or face to a general election at this moment.  In short, Mr Wickremasinghe indirectly showing that his status should be confirmed by his supportive diplomatic missions in Colombo but not by the people of Sri Lanka. We have a reasonable question what type of democracy, he is talking about.

As Mr JR Jayewardene assumed, does Mr Wickramasinghe too assumes democracy is as a wish of himself. Does he has no faith on the principles of democracy?  It also seems that Mr Wickremasinghe attempts to interpret the democracy as the way he is thinking. Why the Western democratic countries cannot explain this simple truth to Mr Wickremasinghe, who is attempting mislead the public.

I think at this moment, it is quite good having a public referendum to determine who is the prime minister.

Chandre Dharmawardana, Ottawa Canada

According to a news report, a scientific meeting of the Dept. of Agriculture (DOA)  was held in Peradeniya on the 6^th and 7^th   of September 2018 on  Agriculture beyond production”. One aspect  of this topic was bringing farm produce to the consumer with the minimum of waste. It is well known that 40% to 60% of agricultural products get wasted, attacked  by bugs, microbes, vermin etc.,  and become rotten before it reaches the market, especially in tropical countries. Another aspect of this study was an evaluation of potentially toxic  pesticide residues found in vegetables.

A journalist writing in the Irida Divaina (http://divaina.com/sunday/index.php/visheshanga2/6301-2018-10-04-10-13-56) claimed that the The bundle of leafy vegetables has got fire in it- there is danger hidden in Gotukola and Mukunuwaenna. Sometimes 700 times more than the safe limit of pesticide residues are found in these vegetables. Farmers spray poison even before the plants get sick”. We explain that the above declaration of danger to health  is  a false alarm.

Concern about toxins” in food has been sharpened by the organic food movement. It is currently in a global  market struggle to capture supermarket space for its products. Here the upper-class elites who adopt Californian concerns,  and the romantic traditionalists who claim a golden past”  have joined hands. They espouse organic food”,  and seek  a Toxin-Free Nation” even in Sri Lanka by adopting many myths of Western green” activists. They have their own myths too – ancient Lankans were well-fed and lived long, Methuselah-like, using only traditional agriculture without pesticides and fertilizers, except for natural fertilizers”.  They ignore the written record of multiple famines, and the record of sequential droughts seen in the rings of South-Asian tree trunks studied by dendro-climatologists. The heady claim that Lanka was the granary of the East is a literal truth to these romantics. In reality, the common people teetered between subsistence and famine, while only the palace and temple had it  good.

Given the heightened concern about  pesticide residues in food, the presentation by  Ms. Y. Lakshani, a scientist from the laboratory of the Registrar of pesticides has attracted media interest.

The study was in collaboration with J.A. Sumith, K. Rajapaksha, B. Bambaradeniya and T. Chathurangi from Wayamaba University. Popular leafy vegetables like Gotukola (Centella asiatica) and Mukunuwenna (Alternanthera sessilis) grown in Kalutara, Puththalama (Puttlam) and Nuwara (Kandy) districts had been tested;  residues of four popular pesticides were found in 50% of the samples, most of which came from the Puththalama area, with the Kandy district coming second.

Four insecticides were found in significant quantities in vegetables. Of these, the most significant amounts were for the insecticide  Prifenofos and the fipronil.

1. fipronil is used to control ants, beetles, cockroaches, fleas, ticks, termites, mole crickets, thrips, rootworms, weevils, and other insects. The maximum allowed limit (MAL) on this insecticide residue on leafy vegetables is five parts per billion (ppb) in some countries. That is,  only one tea spoon of the residue finely distributed in one thousand metric tons of the vegetable is allowed! On the other hand, the US limit is one ppb, while twice as much is allowed in tea, and 10 times as much are allowed on rice! Does the pesticide become ten times less toxic when found in rice?

No at all. The maximum allowed limit quoted is NOT a measure of toxicity;  it is a measure of good farming practice (GFP), with differing  GFP based MALs for different crops, and in different countries. The public, journalists, Green-Lobby groups like the AVAAZ team, and even many medical doctors who write about public health matters do not understand that this MAL has nothing to do with toxicity.

While the Dept. of Agriculture  is interested in ensuring GFP, scientists should  instruct reporters to use these numbers correctly. They should not use these tiny ppbs  to fan public fear.  What they need is not the GFP-MALs, but the admissible daily intake (ADI)  for chronic toxicity arising from the ingestion of such insecticide residues. These are stipulated jointly by the WHO and FAO. Chronic toxicity is the form of slow poisoning that occurs if you take a small amount of a substance for many years. If the intake is less than the ADI, then there is no health risk.

The WHO-FAO (Sept. 2016) ADI of fipronil is  0.0002 mg/kg of body weight. So, an adult weighing 60 kg should take less than 0.012 mg of this insecticide daily, to avoid chronic toxicity. According to Ms. Yhoshida Lakshani, gotukola and mukunuwenna had 372 ppb of fipronil residues. Thus, eating such  gotukola or Mukunuwenna  becomes risky on eating about 35 grams (7  spoons) of it without cooking or cleaning.  Washing will not remove these insecticides as they are largely water insoluble.

However,  washing and cooking are very important as vegetables in tropical countries are contaminated with amoeba, shigella, E-coli, hookworm and other organisms. They are more dangerous than small amounts of insecticide residues found in crops.

Furthermore, if vegetables are cooked with some water in an open pan (i.e., adopting the Sri Lankan method of making a ‘maelluma’ ), the pesticide  volatilizes with the steam. According to research by Xavier and collaborators ( Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Volume 186, p 5429) even sun drying, or dipping in solutions of tamarind, turmeric, vinegar and slaked lime and wet scrubbing could remove more than 90 % of fipronil residues.  Even if nothing is done, the fipronil disappears with a half life of about four  days. So, not applying the insecticide close to harvesting greatly reduces the level of fipronil contamination.

In fact, most of these pesticides are not needed for growing Mukunuwenna and Gotukola.

2. Profenofos. This insecticide is used against MealyBugs, caterpillars, and aphids. The European MAL for this is 10 parts per billion (ppb), while the US limit is 1000 ppb, i.e., some 100 times higher. This does not mean that the substance suddenly becomes 100 times less toxic when inside the USA, but simply that different farming practices (mainly used on cotton) are used, and within those practices, one may tolerate 100 times more insecticide residues than in colder Northern Europe.

From a health point of view, the  Admissible Daily Intake  for chronic toxicity applies.  The WHO-FAO stipulates 0.03 mg per kg of body weight per day as the ADI, while china uses 1.0 mg/kg of body weight. An adult weighing  60 kg may take up to 60 mg every day.  According to a Divaina newspaper report (3-11-2018)  Ms.  Lakshani had found some 7583 ppb of this insecticide while the MAL quoted by her was 10 ppb. So, the reporter had concluded that the pesticide residues were alarmingly high and pose a health risk. Instead, if we use the Chinese ADI value of 60 mg, given a contamination level of 7583 ppb, a 60 kg man  must  eat over 79 kg of vegetable per day. If we use 0.03 mg/kg of body weight as the ADI,  it is still about 2.4  kg  of the contaminated vegetable DAILY to run a health risk!

Hence the claim that eating such vegetables pose a health risk is utter nonsense. However, the use of excess pesticide is a waste of money. Nor should we load it to the ecosystem even if the decay times are short. We should also not take to organic farming” fashionable among the elite classes, because of its negative environmental  impact.  Such farming needs more water, more land and more manual labour to obtain mere meager harvests. Manual labour (as opposed to no-tillage agriculture) strongly increases soil erosin.

The other pesticides detected, namely , Phenthoate (insecticide) and Tebuconazole (Fungicide) have admissible daily intake (ADI) amounts such that a 60 kg adult has to take 0.06 mg to 1.8 mg to reach chronic toxicity. If the gotukola or Mukunuwenna had, say 300 ppb of the pesticide, it is necessary to eat about 3 to18 kg of the vegetable DAILY for there to be a health risk from the pesticide residues. Since even a  goat wouldn’t eat such large amounts of gotukola daily, these residues pose absolutely no health risk to us.

5. Glyphosate.

Although glyphosate  has been very much in the news, it has not figured at the Peradeniya meeting.  Instead we go to the Sri Lanka Medical Association journal (SLMA) where  a lecture by Dr. Sanath Gunatilake (SG) is reported in August 2018.  SG is a California doctor who joined with Ms. Seananayke (a Kelaniya psychic), and Dr. Jayasumana (a very recent medical graduate)  in publishing an article claiming that glyphosate together with arsenic and hard water causes kidney disease in the North central province. SG claims that the adjuvants (substances added in small amounts to glyphosate formulations) are a thousand times more toxic than glyphosate. Yet, he ignores that these same adjuvants are also found in greater amounts in common shampoos and household detergents. Field trials by Professor Acquavella showed  that the adjuvants are found in parts per trillion (truly negligible and at the limit of detection) in the blood of farmers who use the herbicide regularly.

Dr. Gunatillake too makes the mistake that the agricultural MALs  determine toxicity.  SG and the public who read the websites and newsletters of EcoWatch, Organic Consumers, Dr. Mercola, Moms across America, Whole-Food consumers, Beyond Pesticides, Detox, Food-democracy-Now, Avaaz team, Alliance for Natural Health,  etc., ignore what the MRLs imply, and talk of alarmingly dangerous levels of pesticides in food” after comparing pesticide residues with the MALs.

Contrary to what seemed to be assumed by Dr. Gunatilake, and by most members of the public including various Jurors who pronounce on glyphosate lawsuits,  we already noted that the MALs are NOT related to the health risk from the contamination, but to good agricultural practice! When Dr. SG  claims  (SLMA Journal) that Taiwan set a limit of  1 ppb of glyphosate in Oates, he should ask why America allows 30 ppm of glyphosate in the same Oates, i.e., 30,000 times more! It clearly cannot be a matter of toxicity of the glyphosate residues to human health!

According to the WHO-FAO 2016-May press release, the admissible daily intake (ADI) for glyphosate residues is 1 mg per body weight. That is, a 60 kg person can regularly ingest up to 60 mg of glyphosate daily without risk of chronic toxicity. Dr. Sanath Gunatilleke seems to think that even 10 ppb is too  unsafe, because Taiwan sets  an MAL of 1 ppb. Now, if the  Oates had 10 ppb, to reach the unsafe ADI, an adult must consume  6000 kg, or six metric tons of Oates daily! And yet, Dr. Sanath Gunatilleke had stated this Taiwanese concern about  1ppb of glyphosate in Oates, without blinking in front of the Sri Lanka Medical Association.

Sometimes MALs are mere weapons of trade wars. In Sri Lanka it has been a political weapon in the hand of the Toxin-free” lobby which ignores particulate dust,  exhaust-gas pollution, urban garbage mounds, and  many other  acute  health risks.  Sri Lanka lost over 60 billion in three years due to the ban on glyphosate, debilitated the tea farmer and destroyed the maize farmers. But Dr. Gunatilleke and others who follow him  seem to believe that that these MALs, and not the ADI that are a measure of the safety threshold. In fact, he seems to go even further.

We present below, a figure from Dr. Gunatilleke’s address published in the SLMA journal, where we have added the caption Cum Grano Salis” – that is, we are saying, take all this with a grain of salt”. Why? The data” in the blue region are  far too close to instrumental error to be trustworthy.

We have added the blue and red ellipses. The region enclosed in blue in this figure contains claims of studies at levels of glyphosate below 2ppb. In effect, results in this regime are effectively beyond standard analytical techniques, and so great care must be taken in quoting or using such data” unless they have been confirmed by several laboratories having the protocols and capacity to do analytical work with  picogram” accuracy.

Dr. SG is claiming essentially that the effect of very low doses (below few parts per billion) of glyphosate has not been tested. Taking such trace amounts in isolation, without including the effect of a multiplicity of other substances and ions is nothing but simple falsification of biochemistry.  It is no different to the claims of homeopaths about just the memory of a drug in water is enough to cure a disease, even without the drug being present”.

Dr. SG  gives several items indicating Endocrine disruption at 0.17 parts per trillion,  chronic effects of Roundup at 4 parts per trillion, Hepatorenal effects at 90 parts per trillion. These are simply an exercise in gullibility. Furthermore, claims of highly questionable individuals like Seralini (2012) are listed and presented as Peer-Reviewed” research. In fact , Seralini et al.  have a habit of publication by press release”since they had to retract their publications from peer-reviewed journals when false claims were detected (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/)

The region in the figure enclosed in the RED ellipse involves glyphsate-herbicide toxicity claimed to be caused by the presence of adjuvants which are a 1000 times more toxic” than glyphosate.  But such adjuvants   may only be present in the blood at mere parts per trillion! If we picked one man out of the whole world population, that is 1 in seven billion. One in a trillion is one man from nearly a hundred such worlds! These are not credible quantities.

Dr. S. G. refers to the work of Mesnage et al (2013) and claims that if adjuvants are included, then the toxicity increases by 1000 fold. Is he talking of chronic toxicity or acute toxicity? Is he talking of ingestion via the gut or via the lungs? Toxicities differ in all different cases. What has been presented in Dr. SG’s figure has no connection with what happens in the field-environment. But artificial in-vitro situations can be created where only  glyphosate and adjuvants are present in a test tube at the ppb levels, together with a few victim cells. Even then the results remain inconclusive! Has Dr. SG or Dr. Mesnage tested common detergents and shampoos (containing similar adjuvants) at parts per trillion level for their toxicity” as well?

The kind of claims  by Dr Sanath Gunatilleke and his team are possible because most people are not used to thinking quantitatively. They do not understand that one part in a trillion is like finding a needle in a whole solar system of needles. And yet, public policy is dictated by such mythology.

It is  not only parts per trillion chemistry that Dr. Gunatilleke puts into his grain of salt. He also abuses basic synthetic organic chemistry and established knowledge in bond energies as well stereo-chemistry.  He repeats an unsubstantiated  claim of the computer engineer Dr. Stephanie Seneff that glyphosate can become a building block” into DNA and disrupt” the biochemistry of the body by substituting for glycine.  After all, Stephanie Seneff is also said to claim that those who purchase her life-style program can live to the age of 111 years!

[The author was the Professor of Chemistry and Vice Chancellor of Vidyodaya (now Jayawardenapura) University in the mid-1970s, and  pioneered food technology and environmental science  programs in Sri Lankan academia. He currently works in Canada, on topics related to quantum physics as well as environmental science. His most recent contribution to environmental science was on Cadmium in fertilizers, soil and food”, Environ. Geochem. Health. 2018 Jun 23. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0140-x.]

Chandre Dharmawardana

Many of you may have listened to the interview given on 5th November on the Pathikada-Sirasa program, with Bandula Jayasekera himself hosting the interview.

The lawyer held the view that this government should have been allowed to continued to run its course, and gave mainly legalistic arguments, or arguments based on predicting the future, including the claim that “any Booruwek” (donkey) can beat Ranil Wickremasinghe.  He contends that there are “young people” in these parties who will take the baton into their hands. This too is a whimsical prediction and he couldn’t  name any favourite horses.

Only recently, at the no-confidence vote against Ranil W,  a gang of “Booruwas” (using Dayasiri’s parlance) in parliament couldn’t beat Ranil W, and nor did they succeed in August 2015.  As for the future, he predicts that MR, and the country  would have done better if MR had waited till the election is proclaimed. We  should  not take predictions seriously, be they made by astrologers, or by lawyers. But let us look at the claim that the government should have been allowed to continue till it comes to term, beyond the legalistic (not to be confused with “legal”) flavour given to this claim. We look at it from a commonsense point of view.

We as some simple, common-sense questions.

If the president and the PM detest and distrust each other, shouldn’t one of them go? Does the government enjoy the confidence of the public? That the Ranil-Sirisena government had lost the support of the public is seen in its dismal performance at the February 2018 local government elections, and its hesitancy to go to the polls in regard to local as well as provincial governments. That it only pays lip service to the constitution is evident. You just have to see how the government ignored the ruling given by the Supreme court regarding the Local Government elections amendment. The supreme court demanded a referendum but the amendments were  pushed in thorough the “back door”,  the report of the delimitation commission  were derailed, and elections delayed. This was just one example of the  highly unconstitutional things done by this  government. Various controversial free trade deals and other legislation have been approved when the house was not vigilant, or when there was some crisis in the country.

This method of making commitments without the knowledge of parliament has been a hall mark of Mr. Wickremasinghe’s rule even in earlier times when he was in power.  Even the cease-fire agreements with the LTTE was crafted by Mr. Wickremasinghe in a most undemocratic manner – perhaps he discussed it only with his advisors from the LTTE diaspora, but apparently not with any elected legislator. While some emotional topics should not be aired in public too soon, was there ANY discussion with competent civil servants or military leaders? Even the conflict between Ranil Wickemasinghe and Chandrika Kumaratunga was due to Wickremasinghe’s unconstitutional acts where he went beyond the President. Mangala Samaraweer’s complete genuflection  in Geneva had never been discussed by the cabinet or sanctioned by the parliament, but it is certain that he had the private support  of Mr. Wickremasinghe’s private cabal   and powerful external forces. Mr. Wickremasinghe’s approach to the so-called National question may even be the right approach, but it is not the democratic approach to execute  secret  back-door actions given that such actions imply long-term consequences. Mr. Wickremasinghe, an experienced,  educated and respected leader, had a golden opportunity in 2015 to ride the high moral road and push his considered approach, but he failed beyond  all expectations.

Even the Bond-scam, various coal-tender scandals, port-city or Hamabantota handovers, re-negotiation of highway contracts, non-existent Volkswagen factories,  Glyphosate debacle costing the nation some sixty  billion, etc.,  can all be regarded as part of the on-going corruption and mismanagement  taken over from a previous highly corrupt administration; but the clear assault on the sovereignty of the nation was the unmistakable new character of the Yahapalanaya government that was actually far more dangerous to the future of the nation. It is surprising that Gomin Dayasiri had decided to ignore this, and was ready to allow this government to continue to rule for approximately another two years. Does he not admit that the government is made up of the foot-note brigade on the other hand, and the masters of paying only lip service to the constitution. Does Mr. Dayasiri  completely dismiss the possibility of the president being deposed, and a puppet chosen by the West put into the chair of the president, as argued by Prof. Gerald  H. Peiris in an Island newspaper article?  Giving  a further window of time for this possibility, even if rather slim, is surely to turn common-sense upside down.

A highly controversial aspect of the government, linked to its assault on the sovereignty of the nation is its continued attempt to craft a constitution using an NGO weighted process, especially when it is obvious that the government does not have the confidence of the country to engage in such a far reaching endeavour. An amateur who found the study of chemistry too hard for him and switched to law has come through a back door opened for him by his Marxist cronies to write the constitution. His mess up of the 19th amendment and the confusion caused is clear testimony to his incompetence. Mr. Gomin Dayasiri himself acknowledges this fact, but seems oblivious to the  greater damage that is already set to be done if this government were allowed to continue, and push forward the constitution that will get passed by parliament via some subterfuge. Western governments who are complicit in this effort  are waiting to support and underwrite any act of this government, however unconstitutional it is, if the objectives of the international community” could be achieved within any  remaining lifespan of the Yahapalanaya government. Their objectives involve the creation of a constitution, a country  and an economy that will splintered enough to be at their mercy of global capital. A secret meeting of a group of Western diplomats with the Speaker, where the speaker has agreed to keep the names and the content of the discussion secret from the members of the parliament or the president  is another serious breach of the right of the people for transparency. Was it after this meeting that the speaker suddenly decided that as far as he is concerned, Mr. Wickremasinghe’s government is still in office?

So it is clear that Sirisena’s decision to end this government which has flouted the constitution far more frequently than the Rajapaksa government, turns out to be  a life-saving decision even for the constitutional process. It may very well be the case that Sirisena acted for egoistic reasons; he found himself in a hard place, not seeing any way to  continue in high office without going to the extreme of joining hands with Rajapaksa. It may be that all this fitted in with the ambitions of Rajapaksa.  But the fact is, Sirisena’s  move has saved the country from imminent danger in the hands of  those who were churning up the  waters,  for the benefit of  their masters who were waiting to reach the benefits accruing from disaster capitalism”. But Gomin Dayasiri fails to see all this, and condemns Sirisena’s daring and unhesitating acts as unconstitutional”, even though he himself admits that the 19th amendment is unclear and maladroitly crafted.

Of course, escaping one set of devils does  not mean that there are no other perils on John Banyan’s path.

Chandre Dharmawardana

By Noor Nizam, Convener – The Muslim Voice”. November 6^th., 2018.

The advice of The Muslim Voice” is that we should see reality now. Though the Muslim political leaders will finally crawl towards Mahinda and Maithri (MY3) at the last moment, signals are now confirmed as suggested by “The Muslim Voice” earlier that both Muslim leaders, especially Rishard Bathiudeen is trying to make a deal with Basil Rajapaksa to cross over at the appropriate moment. “The Muslim Voice” thinks that former minister Basil Rajapaksa knows much about the activities of these deceptive Muslim leaders”, Rishad Batiudeen and Rauf Hakeem. We should therefore warn Hon. PM Mahinda Rajapaksa, Hon. Basil Rajapaksa and Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma to be ALERT about the MUNAAFIKK” (deceptive) Muslim politicians, who will be FLOCKING to them to gain personal benefits trying to say they are the Muslim votes. They should handle them carefully and make sure that they will NOT try to dominate the MY3-Mahinda New Government with their UNTRUSTWORTY PRANKS”, if it be so, that their support should be imperative to show a majority in parliament on November 17^th., 2018.

When dealing with these deceptive Muslim leaders – Hon. PM Mahinda Rajapaksa, Hon. Basil Rajapaksa and Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma should NOT forget those Muslims, Muslim voters and Muslim politicians who stood with Mahinda pela”, Basil, Gotabaya and Namal since they were defeated in January 8th., 2015. In recent times, the Beruwela, Aluthgama and Eastern province Muslims have extended their support to Mahinda Rajapaksa with a hope of understating and trust that the New PM” will resolve their issues democratically and listen to them.

They are the people/Muslim representatives who should be our VOICE in the new Mahinda – MY3 government. The Muslim Voice” hope and pray that this message will reach all Muslims and Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa our new PM, Hon. Basil Rajapaksa, former Defense secretary Gotabya Rajapaksa and Hon. Dallas Alahapperuma who are entrusted with negotiating with the Muslim leaders to support MY3-Mahinda government on November 17^th., 2018 when parliament is reconvened. The fact remains NOW, the Muslim voters are acting on their own and do NOT wish to be represented by these “MUNAAFIKK and DECEPTIVE POLITICIANS”.

The Rajapaksa family should not disappoint the Muslims who stood with Mahinda pela”, Basil, Gotabaya and Namal since they were defeated in January 8th., 2015 when dealing with the two deceptive (MUNAAFIKK) leaders of the SLMC and ACMC.

 lanka C news

රවුෆ් හකීම් මහතාගේ නායකත්වයෙන් යුතු ශ්‍රී ලංකා මුස්ලිම් කොංග්‍රසය හා රිෂාඩ් බදියුදීන් මහතාගේ නායකත්වයෙන් යුතු සමස්ත ලංකා මහජන කොංග්‍රසය ජනපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා සමග අවබෝධතා ගිවිසුම් අත්සන් කිරීමට සූදානමින් සිටින බව වාර්තා වෙයි.

කෙසේ වෙතත් අදාල ගිවිසුම සම්බන්දයෙන් කව දුරටත් සාකච්ඡා සිදුවෙමින් පවතින්නේ යයිද සදහන්ය.

මෙම පක්‍ෂ දෙක පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ආසන 12ක් නියෝජනය කරන අතර ගිවිසුම් ගත වීමෙන් පසු ආණ්ඩුවට එක්වීමට නියමිතය.

මේ අතර මොනයම් හේතුවක් මත හෝ ගිවිසුම් වැඩපිලිවෙල අසාර්ථක වුවහොත් එම පක්‍ස දෙකේ මන්ත‍්‍රීන් අවම 05 දෙනෙකු ආණ්ඩුවට එක්වීමට නියමිත අතර ඒ බව දැනටමත් පක්‍ෂ නාකයන්ට දන්වා ඇතැයිද වාර්තා වෙයි.

 lanka C news

පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීම සම්බන්දයෙන් ජනාධිපති මෛත‍්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මහතා ව්‍යවස්ථා විශාරධයන් කිහිප දෙනෙකුගෙන්ම උපදෙස් ලබාගෙන ඇති බව විශ්වාස කටයුතු ආරංචි මාර්ග සදහන් කරයි.

19 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය අනුව වසර හතරහමාරක් යන තෙක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරීමේ බලය ජනාධිපතිවරයාට සීමා කර ඇති නමුත් මහ මැතිවරණයක් කැදවිය හැකි ආකාර කිහිපයක්ම ඔවුන් විසින් ජනාධිපතිවරයාට පෙන්වා දී ඇත.

පිරිසක් පෙන්වා දී ඇත්තේ 19 වන සංශෝධනය නොසලකා පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැරිය හැකි ප‍්‍රතිපාදන ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ ඇති බවයි.

එමෙන්ම පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා මහ මැතිවරණයක් අවශ්‍ය දැයි ජනමත විචාරණයක් කැදවා මහජන මතය අනුව මහ මැතිවරණයක් කැදවිය හැකි බවත් තවත් පිරිසක් පෙන්වා දී ඇත