Sudath Gunasekara

2.3. 2018

Arjun Mahendran has left the country and now he is absconding. Now that he was not found in Singapore where is he? Is he hiding in UK, USA or in the moon as planned? Probably Ranil will know best. I believe he will never come back and he will escape the Sri Lankan law. Then what next? Are we going to leave it at that? What plans the President has up his sleeves if he has any, I doubt?

On whom are we going to fix responsibility regarding this mega robbery which has completely ruined a nation with spillover bankruptcy effects for decades and generations to come on the entire banking system in this country, the national economy and the whole nation where the per-capita loan liability is said to be already over Rs 400,000?

How the conspiracy was hatched and carried out AND BY WHOM

The whole country knows that it was Ranil Wickramasinha who brought his buddy Arjuna Mahendran to Sri Lanka and got him appointed as preplanned as the Governor of the Central Bank in spite of strong objections raised by the President, the de jure Head of the State

It was he who invited him to come offering the Governorship of the CB

It was he who got the CB under him as pre-planned, from the Finance Ministry

It was he who took full responsibility for his selection and insisted that Mahendran should be appointed, when the President objected for his request to appoint his buddy

When the matter was raised in Parliament it was Ranil who defended him in the House on 17th March 2017

It was also Ranil who introduced the new system of Bond auctions as revealed by Arjuna Mahendran before the commission in his evidence

It was also Ranil who got the President to dissolve Parliament in August 2017 a day before the Dew Gunasekara COPE Report was to be presented to Parliament and thereby avoided the Report being debated in Parliament.

(This lapse led to the second Bond Scam the subject of the present debate)

He also appointed his own commission of Party lawyers and got Mahendran exonerated before the President appointed his Commission

Then he also wanted Mahendran appointed for a Second term which the President refused and got Coomaraswamy appointed

After that Ranil appointed Mahendran to another high post under his Ministry disregarding and ignoring his highly questionable role in the CB scam and also ignoring the President, probably thinking that it was he who got Mr Sirisena elected as the President, which is partly true.

When he was asked to give evidence before the Commission he got the Commissioners to send him a list of questions to be asked AT THE INQUIRY in advance carefully prepared, so that he can come prepared to answer them, perhaps designed to exonerate him.  This is like the Commissioner of Examinations sending the Question papers to a candidate and accepting his answer scripts at the examiners home and pass him with distinction. What is more he got his own Attorney General to lead his evidence, who did a shoddy job to save his master.

He also got Ravi Karunanayaka the Finance Minister his confidante and Deputy Leader of the UNP to instruct all State Banks to bid at the auction at lower interest ( 9.5%) so that Ajun Aloysius, who was perhaps advised in advance either by Mahendran his father-in-law who was living with him in his home  or jointly by Ranil and Mahendran to quote 12.5 % interest as pre-planned.

He was also responsible for increasing the 10 billion to 40 billion as Mahendran has revealed in his evidence before the Commission

It was also he who got Sujiva Serasinha, the Author of the infamous Book on CB SCAM, and got him appointed to the COPE as a member.

It was also he who sent Mahendran to Singapore when dark clouds were gathering over the sky.

(It is beyond comprehension how and why a suspect of such a crime was allowed to leave the country by the Custom Authorities, unless there was some powerful intervention behind it). Ranil should know better than anybody else as to how he left Katunayaka Airport without any problem. Ranil knows better than any if Mahendran is arrested and grilled by the CID and by people like Dappula Livera and Kodagoda he will spill out all the beans and the entire gang of Alibaba and 40 thieves and all others who have jointly conspired, aided and abetted in different ways assigned to them by the leader, like writing books, adding foot notes and those benefitted directly or indirectly will be exposed.

In this backdrop I don’t think this man will ever come to Sri Lanka. The perpetrators must have done their homework so that he could be kept in hiding safely.

Why can’t the President or law enforcing authorities take action against Ranil taking these commitments as evidence of serious crimes and take action accordingly? Of cause one could argue that he cannot be treated under that law as he has not duly singed a personal bond in court to that effect. Can’t his undertaking on behalf of Mahendran be accepted as a verbal bond under common law. I am sure what I have said here could be converted to legal jargon to frame the charges. Why can’t the President direct the authorities to arrest Ranil under a Presidential Order and keep him there at least now until he produces Mahendran before the court? Now that Ranil is in Singapore I am sure he can bring his friend in the same plane and produce in courts without any problem.

Therefore the citizens of this country who are the owners of the Central Bank should demand the President to give directions to the CID at least now to arrest the Golden brain, whoever it is, that conspired, planned and executed this crime with a gang of thieves and who is also doing everything he could, under the sun to protect Mahendran his erstwhile friend for nothing but shear political and personal gain. I don’t think anybody needs to name him. The President should know it better than anybody else. So I leave it to him to decide. I do not know whether he will take the correct decision. But as responsible citizens it is our duty by the country and its people to raise these issues for public debate. If he takes the correct decision on this issue at least now I have no doubt that he will at least partially emerge out of the abysmal political mire in to which he has fallen, not because of anybody else’s fault, but only of his own fault and lapses and lack of far sight.  It will also open the doors for an entirely a new political culture in this country, free from corruption and misgovernment, which the people of this country have been desperately dreaming for decades.

Those of you who read this will know many more involvements and finer points than I do. I beg your pardon for shortcomings in this note.

PS:The background for his selection

Mahendrans are Ranil’s Family friends and strong UNP supporters. Mahendran is also said to be his school mate at Royal. He has been appointed to several posts even in 2001 when Ranil became PM. During that time he also appointed Charless Mahendran, Ajun’s farther to the UN.  While he was there he is supposed to have given some vital secret information to Ranil bypassing Chandrika, over which Chandrika got damn annoyed and dissolved the Parliament making room for the 2004 General Elections that routed Ranil’s Government and sent him to the opposition. It is in this background one has to understand as to why Ranil brought Mahendran to the Central Bank.

In this back drop, there couldn’t be the slightest doubt that Ranil should know where Mahnedran is hiding. As such it is his bounden duty as well as legal obligation to produce him before the CID, failing which action has to be taken against him. This I believe is the responsibility of the President. Here the President has to transfer back the CB to the M/Finance at least now without allowing the chicken pen to be under a cunning fox.

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

 Ceylon Today ……..

The Government is yet to take a final decision on the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.It was earlier reported that President Maithripala Sirisena had disbanded the said Committee.Addressing the weekly Cabinet media briefing yesterday (28), Co-Cabinet Spokesman, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne denied such reports.He added that although a few suggestions were made in this regard during the Cabinet meeting held on 27 February, no final decision had been taken regarding…… the fate of the CCEM. He said that one of the suggestions was for the CCEM to look into long term projects. “But we did not reach a decision on the Committee.”The Minister pointed out that the Government had decided to adopt a timeline based approach on economic and development activities as there was limited time remaining before the year 2020.We are looking at expediting projects and the work related to them based on their importance. We have one and a half years to finish these development activities,” he added.”

We have attended many CCEM meetings chaired by the PM .Decisions were made at these forums and clear instructions were issued to ministers and officers who attend the meetings I remember when I went to a CCEM meeting regarding Galle Shipyard Project, where the previous minister was given clear instructions to allow the investor to re mobilize and commence development subject to submission of the required bank guarantee.

It seems like that the officers have agreed to allow mobilization of the investor (project was approved by the Cabinet and work commenced in 2013)

Minister comes out of the CCEM and takes his own decision not to allow mobilization.

Minister was changed and the matter was again up at a CCEM as well OCEM and again decisions were not implemented

This matter was also taken at the forum chaired by Hon Minister of Southern Development and yet the subject Minister did not allow

What is the purpose of having forms such as EODB ,CCEM.OCEM etc if effective implementation of the decisions made at the forums  were not carried out ?

I am not sure how NEC (National Economic Commission ) appointed by the President and chaired by a  professor can do a better job.

I also remember the Committee of Development Secretaries appointed by the then President Premadasa ,and chaired by none other than Mr Paskerelingam exercising the powers vested to the committee by HE the President

All the decisions made at this forum ( i.e. Development of Muthurajawela as  Industrial Park using Reclamation with Sea Sand ) were implemented pronto and results could be seen in few months later .

We need a mighty powerful Secretary to the Treasury who has the confidence of the President who can take decisions and convey to Ministers and Secretaries,

This is why I advocate in having Benevolent Dictator who has a vision and a mission.( with support from a super secretary ! )

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

මාධ්‍ය නිවේදනය  මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රය

තඹුත්තේගම පැවති ගොවි උද්ඝෝෂණය පහරදී මර්ධනය කිරීමට උත්සහ දැරීම සහ උද්ඝෝෂකයින් අත් අඩංගුවට ගැනීම තරයේ හෙළා දකින බව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රය පවසයි. 

එමෙන්ම මෙම ගොවි උද්ඝෝෂණය අතරතුරදී   පොලිසියට සහ රථවාහන වලට පහරදීමේ සිදුවීම පිළිබඳව දැඩිව අවධානය යොමු කළ යුතු බව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රයේ විධායක අධ්‍යක්ෂ කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන්  සඳහන් කරයි. මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණය  අතරතුරදී සුදු ටීෂර්ට් වලින් සැරසුනු පිරිසක් පොලිසියට පහරදීම සහ  දේපල හානි කිරීම සිදුකර ඇති බව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රයේ නිරීක්ෂණය වී තිබේ.

මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණය සංවිධානය කළ ගොවි නායකයින් ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රය වෙත පැවසූවේ  සුදු ටී ෂර්ට් හැඳි පිරිස තමන් නොහඳුනන බවයි. මේ අනුව මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණය අතරතුර පොලිසියට පහරදීම සහ දේපල හානි කිරීම සිදුකර ඇත්තේ බාහිර  පිරිසක් බවට බරපතල සැකයක් පවතින බව මේ වනවිට සැඟවී සිටින එම ගොවි නායකයින් පවසන අතර එය නොතකා හැරිය නොහැකි කරුණක් බව  ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රයේ අදහසයි.

මේ පිළිබඳව අදාල පරීක්ෂණ වලදී අවධානය යොමු විය යුතු බව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රය  අවධාරණය කරයි.

එමෙන්ම ජල අයිතිය උදෙසා සිදුකළ මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණය හිංසාකාරී ලෙස මර්ධනය කිරීමට කටයුතු කිරීම ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම්  කේන්ද්‍රය හෙළා දකියි.

මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය

ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රය

lanka C news

ජනාධිපති මෛත‍්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මහතා විසින් අතුරුදහන් වූවන් සෙවීමේ කාර්යාලය සදහා පත් කර ඇති කොමසාරිස්වරුන් සම්බන්ධයෙන් හිටපු ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා දැඩි විරෝධය පල කරයි.

හමුදාව යුද අපරාධ කලේ යයි දැනටමත් ප‍්‍රසිද්ධියේ ප‍්‍රකාශ කල අය හා එක්සත් ජාතික පක්‍ෂ ක‍්‍රියාකාරීන් පිරිසක් ඒ සදහා පත් කර තිබීමෙන්ම පෙනී යන්නේ හොරාගෙ අම්මගෙන් පේන අහනවා වගේ වැඩක් යයිද ඔහු පවසයි.

මාර්තු 02 වැනිදාවක 1818 මහා පාවාදීම සිදු වූ බවත් අද දිනයේද මාර්තු 02 වැනිදා එවන් මහා පාවාදීමක් සිදු කර ඇතැයිද රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා වැඩි දුරටත් සදහන් කරයි.

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Former President and MP Mahinda Rajapaksa has said that India was not interested in building ports and highway projects in Sri Lanka when it was first offered, the Hindu said.

In response to a question on increasing interest from China in Sri Lankan projects, Mr. Rajapaksa has told reporters in Bengaluru on Wednesday on his return from Tirupathi that Sri Lanka offered development projects including ports and highways to India first.

However, somehow they were interested in building the port at Hambantota. The government did not want it at that time because it was war time I think. What else to do? We went to China and when we mentioned about this, they immediately accepted that proposal. In any case, it was only a commercial transaction,” he said.

He said that they knew how to pay it back. We knew the importance of Hambantota port. When they offered it, what is the main duty of the leader? To look after the country.”

Unfortunately, he said, the current government sold everything. In our policy there is no privatisation and we do not believe in privatisation. The present government sold it for 99 years.”

Mr. Rajapaksa said that his country had good ties with India. But India misunderstood us in the past. In fact, an Indian Ambassador had told me that India is like a teenage girl because teenage girls often misunderstand,”

On further prompting, he said it was Nirupama Rao, the former Indian ambassador, who had made the comparison. While India’s external policy towards Sri Lanka is good, the former President said that some cases need discussion.

On the victory that his Sri Lanka People’s Party attained in local body elections, Mr. Rajapaksa said We won by a majority. People have given a mandate. We had said that this is not a local government election, but a referendum against the national government. Within these three years, whatever government has messed up, people showed dissatisfaction with the government.”

BY W.K. Prasad Manju Courtesy Ceylon Today

The possibility made available to candidates who forfeit their deposits to be selected as members of the local bodies is a clear manifestation that the new election system is unfair and anomalous, said ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Hence with a view to eliminate these irregularities, all political parties should ensure that these anomalies are eliminated, he added.

“Any political party that wins is entitled to rule, and the representatives should be appointed in accordance with that. It is the failed group which is creating impediments. Therefore, everyone must remember that the masses are fully alert and awake in the circumstances,” he pointed out.

While roundly condemning the attack launched on the farming community in Tambuttegama, he went on to highlight the arrest of 59 farmers by the Police, which had plunged their families into deep despair.

RANJITH SOYSA

We read the sensational , yet the unbelievable statement of Yahapalnaya Minister and the Cabinet spokesman (!!!), Rajitha Senaratne that this government had not co-sponsored Geneva Resolution 30/1 (Island 1 March) .Given below is an extract from US State Department  website in which then Secretary of State ,USA praised Sri Lanka for co-sponsoring the resolution for truth ,justice, reparation, transitional justice etc

Will the minister issue a confirmation advising the cynical public that US Secretary Kerry’s statement  was in fact a fiddle.de.dee.?

Statement by Secretary Kerry: Resolution on Sri Lanka at the 30th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

“Today the United States, Sri Lanka, and our partners tabled a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that represents a landmark shared recognition of the critical importance of truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence in promoting reconciliation and ensuring an enduring peace and prosperity for all Sri Lankans.The Sri Lankan government’s decision to join as a co-sponsor paves the way for all of us to work together to deliver the commitments reflected in the resolution.

In the past year, the Sri Lankan people have twice voted to put Sri Lanka on the path to peace and turned their country away from a divisive approach that for too long sapped Sri Lanka’s strength.  This resolution demonstrates our support for Sri Lanka as it takes courageous steps to strengthen its democracy and restore civil liberties for all Sri Lankans, while also addressing the painful experiences of the past to ensure they never recur.

This resolution marks an important step toward a credible transitional justice process, owned by Sri Lankans and with the support and involvement of the international community.  The resolution will help families of the missing find answers about their loved ones.  And it lays out a path to provide truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence that the Sri Lankan people deserve while safeguarding the reputation of those, including within the military, who conducted themselves with honor and professionalism. As I promised in Colombo earlier this year, the United States will remain steadfast in our commitment to walk with Sri Lanka as it takes these important but challenging steps.”

The report of Rajitha Senaratne reminds one of Bernard Shaw who said “He knows nothing and thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career”\\

RANJITH SOYSA

Roel Raymond   Courtesy  roar.media

Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s ‘Padmaavat’ (changed from the previously named ‘Padmavati’ following protests in India), is in cinemas in Colombo and is a tale of love, honour, valour, dignity, and sacrifice. A Rajput king falls in love with a ‘Singhal’ (presumably Sinhalese, but definitely Sri Lankan) princess, and takes her back with him to Chittor, where their love withstands the greed of a Khilji sultan.

While the movie is based on a 1540 CE poem written by Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi, it deviates from the original text in many areas: in the poem, a talking parrot ‘Hiraman’ tells Rajput king Ratan Sen of the Singhal princess Padmavati’s beauty, prompting him to seek her hand in marriage. In the movie, Ratan Sen chances upon Princess Padmavati while hunting in the Singhal jungles.

In the movie, Brahmin courtier Raghav Chetan (who tells Khilji sultan Alāʾ ud-Dīn Khaljī about Padmavati’s beauty, inciting the siege of Chittor), is banished from the kingdom for spying on King Ratan Sen as he kisses Rani (Queen) Padmavati, but Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s poem speaks of the Brahmin being removed for fraudulently winning a contest.

Rani Padmavati circa 1765. Image courtesy bnf.fr

On many other occasions the movie deviates from the original text, as is to be expected in an adaptation, but in one area both the poem and the movie stand tested: the historical accuracy of the character Padmavati, or Rani Padmini as she was also known. Was she real, or was she the fictionalised product of the poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s imagination?

By most accounts, Padmavati was a fictionalised character, although Ratan Sen, Alāʾ ud-Dīn Khaljī and the siege of Chittor in 1303 are rooted in fact. Ratan Sen was ‘Ratnasimha‘, a ruler of the ‘Medapata’ or Mewar kingdom in 1302 –1303, and Alāʾ ud-Dīn Khaljī the second and most powerful ruler of the Khalji dynasty that ruled the Delhi Sultanate.

Khaljī, whose ambition was to be the next Alexander the Great, laid siege on Chittor in 1302-1303, and took the city after eight long months. While historians attribute Khaljī desire to extend the borders of his sultanate as reason for laying siege on Chittor, legend has it that it was the Queen Padmavati that Khaljī wanted.

The legend extends south of the Indian subcontinent, where here in Sri Lanka, Rani Padmavati is by one account thought to be a Sinhalese princess, and by another account the daughter of a Rajput prince living in Sri Lanka.

Padmavati in Sinhalese culture

Writer and history researcher Hasitha Abeywardena told Roar Media that the renown Professor Senarath Paranavithana had, at a speech made at the Sri Vijayasundararama in Dambadeniya in 1958, talked of a close association between the Rajputs and the Sri Lankan monarch during the Dambadeniya era (1220 -1345)—during which time, Ratan Sen, Alāʾ ud-Dīn Khaljī, and Padmavati were thought to have lived.

Rani Padmavati with Rajput king Ratan Sen. Image courtesy youtube.

“In those days, in addition to a battalion of Sinhalese soldiers, the King’s army (of the Sri Lankan kingdom of Dambadeniya) had a battalion of Aryan soldiers,” Abeywardana quotes Paranavithana in his blog. “The commander of the Aryan battalion was called a ‘takur’ ( meaning ‘leader’ in Hindi).”

“The Rajput battalion was instrumental in diffusing an internal coup and ensuring the continuation of the monarch. It was during this time that a Rajput king married Padmavati, a Sri Lankan princess,” he writes.

In another article titled ‘The Rajput people of Sri Lanka’ (published in the book, ‘Collected articles of Paranavithana’), Professor Paranavithana suggests that Padmavati may have been the daughter of a Rajput prince living in Sri Lanka, Abeywardana told Roar Media.

Although the movie depicts Padmavati’s father Gandharva Sena as the ruler of Singhal at the time, there is no account of a Sinhalese king by that name. That, nevertheless, does not rule out the idea that Gandharva Sena may have been a provincial ruler, a chieftain or a Rajput prince who lived in Sri Lanka, as suggested by Professor Paranavithana.There have also been local adaptations of the tale of Padmavati, with, according to Abeywardana, Sri Lankan dramatist John de Silva  (1857 – 1922) writing a stage play by the name of ‘Padmini’ in 1910.

Actress Deepika Padukone portraying Rani Padmavati in the 2018 movie ‘Padmaavat’. Image courtesy NDTV.com

“According to L.D.A. Ratnayake who authored the biography of John de Silva, the play was written in 1910 and had 22 scenes and 34 songs. The play was aimed at arousing patriotic feelings among the Ceylonese community, as Padmavati was considered a woman of great valour and beauty,” he explained.

Abeywardana also spoke of the famous Sinhalese song ‘Dakkoth Padmavati‘, which speaks of the beauty of Rani Padmavati (‘Dakkoth Padmavathi – Aaley nokara baree’. If one sees Padmavati – one cannot but love her) and said the song was first included in the play ‘Padmavati’, produced by Charles Dias (1878-1944) another doyen of Sri Lankan theatre at the turn of the last century.Abeywardana said the song was also reproduced by Professor Siri Gunasinghe in the movie ‘Sath Samudura‘ in 1967. The story of Padmavati has gone beyond the shores of Sri Lanka and India than first imagined: in addition to there being Persian, Tamil and Bengali adaptations of the story, in 1923 French composer Albert Roussel set the story of Padmavati in a two-act opera.

While pundits on either side are unable to historically verify the existence of the Sinhalese princess Padmavati, what is clear is that she has captured the imagination of popular culture, both here and abroad, literature having immortalized her throughout the centuries.

Cover: A rendition of Rani Padmavati, or Rani Padmini, as she is also known. Image courtesy scroll.in

Courtesy: Roar 

Padmavati is a part of the folk lore of both India and Sri Lanka for centuries.

Please visit this link on YouTube for the number of songs in Sinhala on  “Dakkoth Padmavati” .

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dakkoth+padmavathi+song

https://youtu.be/Dl9kWuLVWog

සිංහල සංගේදම

මේ වනාහී කලියුගයේ ආරම්භය නොවේ. කලියුගයම වන්නේය. මහාචාර්ය රාජ් සෝමදේව වනාහී ඊනියා බටහිර පුරාවිද්‍යා පර්යේෂණ සම්ප්‍රදායන් සමග ගොඩනැගුණු, එහෙත් ඉමක් කොනක් නොපෙනෙන අපේ මහා ඉතිහාසය පිරික්සන්නට නම් අපේම පර්යේෂණ ක්‍රමවේද අවශ්‍යයැයි සිතා ඒවා ප්‍රවේසමෙන් නිර්මාණය කරමින්, ඉතිහාසය සිසාරා ඇවිදින්නෙකි. හාල් හුණ්ඩුවෙන් සේරුවෙන් මැනිය යුතුමය. අපේම ක්‍රමවේදයක් නොමැතිව අපේ ඉතිහාසය පිරික්සීමෙන් ඊනියා බටහිර මිණුම් දඬු වල ආනුභවික සාමාන්‍යකරණයන්ට හසු නොවන බොහෝ ඉතිහාස කතා වැලලී යන්නට පුලුවන. 
අප මිත්‍ර මහාචාර්ය සෝමදේවයක් සිංහල සංගේදම සමග ඇති ශාස්ත්‍රීය ගණුදෙනුව බොහෝ පැරණිය. එනිසාම අප එතුමාගේ පර්යේෂණ හා වැදගත් අනාවරණ ගැන නිතර සෙවිල්ලෙන් විමසිල්ලෙන් පසුවන්නෙමු. වරෙක එතුමා බලංගොඩ ඉලුක්කුඹුරේ ගල්ලෙනක කැනීම් කරද්දී අපි එහි ගියෙමු. කුරගල සම්බන්ධයෙන් පර්යේෂණ පවත්වද්දීද අප බුද්ධි මණ්ඩල සභිකයන් සක්‍රිය ලෙස දායක වූහ. එහෙයින්ම මහාචාර්ය සෝමදේවයන් අසාධාරණයකට ලක්වෙද්දී ඒ පිළිබඳව අපේ විරෝධතාව දැක්වීම මිත්‍ර ධර්මයක් සේම ජාතික මෙහෙවරක්ද වන්නේය.

සෝමදේවයන් අභ්‍යුපගමනය කර ඇත්තේද, සොයා යන්නේද, සොයා ගන්නේද වසර දෙදහස් පන්සියයට ඉහත සිංහල ඉතිහාසයයි. එය සුළුපටු ලෙහෙසි පහසු කටයුත්තක් නොවේ. ජාතියක ඉතිහාසය මෙපමණ යැයි කියා තිබියදී මහාචාර්ය සෝමදේවයන් උත්සහ කරන්නේ එය ඊට අඩුයැයි කියන්නට නොවේ. ජාතියේ ඉතිහාසය තවත් වසර තිස් හතලිස් දහසක් ඈතට දිවයන බව කියන්නටය. එය පුරාවිද්‍යාඥයකුට ජාතිය වෙනුවෙන් කළ හැකි මහා සේවයක් වන බව දේශප්‍රේමී සියල්ලෝ දනිති.

රාවණ යනු පුරාවිද්‍යාත්මක සාධක වලට වඩා ජනශ්‍රැති මූලික සාධක මත, ගම්‍ය වූවකි. එහෙත් දැන් ඒ සංකල්පය හුදු පුරාකතා මාත්‍රයක්, වීර කතාවක් වනු වෙනුවට හෙළ ඉතිහාසය පිළිබඳ දැවැන්ත පුරාවිද්‍යා ගවේෂණ සම්භාරයක් ඔස්සේ සත්‍යෙක්ෂණය වෙමින් පවතී. ඒ මහා ගවේෂණ වල මහා චාර්ය රාජ් සෝමදේව යනු පතාක යෝධයෙකි. රාජ් සෝමදේවයන්ගේ දියුණු ශාස්ත්‍ර ඥානය හා විද්‍යාත්මක ක්‍රමවේදී්‍ය භාවිතාව අපි හඳුනාගෙන ඇත්තෙමු. එහෙයින්ම අපි සෝමදේව දකින්නේ ජාතික වස්තුවක් ලෙසය. පියවරෙන් පියවර අපේ ජාතියේ ඉතිහාසය ගොනු කරමින් අප මහා ඓතිහාසික ජාතියක් බව සිංහලයන් හා ලෝකය අමතා කියන අපට සෝමදේවගේ පර්යේෂණ වල සොයාගැනීම් සපයන්නේ මහා වාරුවකි;රුකුළකි.

කුරගල වෙනුවෙන් සටන් කළ බොහෝ දෙනාට තිබුනේ ජාතික කැක්කුමකි. එහෙත් කුරගල සටනේ තීරණාත්මක ප්‍රහාරකයා මහාචාර්ය රාජ් සෝමදේව බව අපි වගකීමෙන් කියන්නෙමු. එතුමාගේ කුරගල වාර්තාව වනාහී වෙනත් කිසිදු පාර්ශවයකට ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කළ නොහැකි ශාස්ත්‍රීය වාර්තාවකි. එය හිතළුවක් නොවේ. මහා දැවැන්ත අධ්‍යයනයකින් පසුව ලියූවකි. හැගීම් වලින් පමණක් රට ජාතිය රකින්නට තනන සිංහලයාට සබුද්ධික ප්‍රාමාණික අරගලයක් සඳහා අවතීර්ණ වන්නට සෝමදේව වැනි අපේ කාලයේ ප්‍රාඥයින්ගෙන් ලැබෙන්නේ මනා මාර්ගෝපදේශනයකි.

රට නසන කාපාලුවන් ආරක්ෂක මුරකාවල් මැද වීථී දෙවනත් කරගෙන යද්දී, සාමාන්‍ය වෑන් රථයක ඔහේ ගමන් බිමන් යන රාජ් සෝමදේව ගැන අපිට විටෛක ඇත්තේ බියකි. ඒ ඔහුගෙන් ජාතියට ලැබෙන දායකත්වය නිසාම ඔහුට සතුරන් සිටින බව අප දන්නා නිසාය.

එහෙයින් අප කියන්නේ මහාචාර්ය සෝමදේවගේ ගමනට හරස් කපන්නේ ද්‍රෝහීන් බවය. සෝමදේවයන්ගේ වෘත්තීය ප්‍රගමණය හා ඔහුගේ ගවේෂණයන්ගෙන් ජාතියේ ඉතිහාසය හරිහැටි අර්ත දක්වන්නට ලැබෙන වාස්තවික තොරතුරු නුරුස්සන ගිහියන් මෙන්ම පැවිද්දන්ද යැපෙන්නේ කාගේ බුරියානි වටලප්පන් වලින්දැයි, ඩොලර් වලින්දැයි අපි දනිමු. මෑතකදී පුරාවිද්‍යාව අරක් ගෙන සිටින යහපාලන රජයේ වන්දිබට්ටයෙකුට මණ්ඩය පුරාවටම ඒවා ලැබෙන්නේ දැයි මේ සිද්දියෙන් කුකුසක් ඇතිවේ. ඒ මන්ද සෝමදේවයන් රස්තියාදු කරවමින් අවසර පත් නොදී සිටින්නට තරම් ඔහු ගේ කුහක වත හෙළි පෙහෙළි වූ නිසාය.

මහාචාර්ය රාජ් සෝමදේව යනු ජාතික වස්තුවකි. ප්‍රාඥයෙකි. ශාස්ත්‍රඥයෙකි. එවැන්නෙකුගේ ශාස්ත්‍රීය ගමනට අත නොතබනු. අප එසේ කියන්නේ සෝමදේව අපේ පෞද්ගලික හිතවතකු නිසා නොවේ. ඔහු ජාතියට අයත් නිසාය!!

සිංහල සංගේදම

Lionel Rajapakse

Former President Mahinda Rajapakse has gone to a Pooja at Tirupati Kovil in India again! Is this good news or bad news? Is it going to have a positive or negative effect in voter’s minds?

Some people might say this is nothing to do with his politics and it is a personal matter. Is it?

This may be good news for a minority of people who have a blind faith in god. How about the majority who thinks openly and rationally? Is this a message for them to indicate Mahinda hasn’t changed? I am sure people who voted for SLPP on Feb 10^th believed Mahinda will not repeat his mistakes and they hoped he will correct his weaknesses.

How the young voter’s minds going to react when they see their future leader worshipping an unseen god in a foreign Kovil?

It is hard to understand why such a strong person like Mahinda making regular visits to this Indian Kovil. As he once said, he didn’t want any foreign element to interfere with the issues in Sri Lanka. Then, what he is asking from this god in a foreign Kovil? Even in the January 2015 Presidential election where Mahinda lost his presidency, 5.7 million Sri Lankans trusted and voted for him. In the Feb 10^th local government election, Sri Lankans showed they are still there to protect him. So, what is the use of asking any more help from this invisible god?

R Chandrasoma

With the rise of vehicular traffic in congested road-systems, accidents are common and the injuries incurred are often horrific. Amputation of a whole limb is not uncommon and such ‘amputees’ are restored to good health except that there are bereft of a part of the body that was once intimately tied to their personhood. After a complete recovery, the victim feels unusual twitches and pains in the non-existent appendage – called a ‘Phantom Limb’. The victim senses pain in a limb that does not exist – he says that it (the phantom limb) is being ‘twisted’ by an imagined enemy and implores help from those around. The pain is real – but it is in the head rather than in an imagined limb.

At first, the analogy between the Phantom Limb and Tamil Politics will seem farfetched but let us flesh-out the details. The Eelam of the Tamils governed by the redoubtable Prabhakaran  was ‘removed’ physically by MR and his forces. This defeat can be compared to the surgical removal of a cancerous limb that – if allowed to remain attached – would have destroyed the whole body. While disaster has been miraculously averted, the body-politic feels ‘phantom pains’ which are the dying cries of the Eelamists who shout about the ‘injustice’ done to the Tamils. This ‘injustice’ is fictitious and is the political equivalent of pain in a phantom limb. There a fools – of the political kind –  who speak of a ‘National Question’ that remains unresolved. Such difficulties did exist when the ‘dissident limb’ was intact and attached to the ‘political’ body. Its removal by the heroic forces of MR and other nationalists has annulled the problem – but the phantom pains persist and the cries of the decaying forces of Eelam are heard world-wide.  Astonishingly, the Ruling Yahapalana  pipsqueaks are cocking their ears.

මතුගම සෙනෙවිරුවන්

සමානුපාතක නියෝජනය හඳුන්වා දෙමින් මැතිවරණ පැවැත්වීමේ ඉතිහාසය අසූව දශකය තුළින් ඇරඹුණකි. ගම්සභා ක්‍රමය වෙනස් කරමින් දෙමළ බෙදුම්වාදීන් සතුටු කිරීමට ගත් උත්සාහයක් ලෙසට දිස්ත්‍රික් සංවර්ධන සභා ක්‍රමය ගෙන ආයේ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයයි. වැඩිකලක් යන්නට මත්තෙන් එයද අසාර්ථක උත්සාහයක් බව තේරුම් ගෙන ග්‍රා මෝද මණ්ඩල ක්‍රමය හඳුන්වා දුනි. පසුව මේ සියළු බලතල එකක් යටතට ගෙන ඒමේ ක්‍රමයක් ලෙසට ප්‍රා දේශීය සභා පණත 1987 දී සම්මත කරගන්නා ලදී.මනාප පොරය ඇරඹුණේ එලෙසයි.සමස්ත බල ප්‍ර දේශයම ආවරණය කරගනිමින් ග්‍රාම රජ්‍යක් නිර්මාණය කිරීම එහි අරමුණ වුවද පක්ෂ දේශපාලකයන්ගේ මැතිවරණ කලාපයක් ලෙසට එම ක්‍රමය විකෘති විය.ගමේ මන්ත්‍රී වරුන් කොන්ත්‍රාත් පස්සේ දුවන පිරිසක් බවටද චන්ඩිකම් මැරකම් වලින් ප්‍ර දේශය බිය ගන්වන පිරිසක් බවටද මේ ක්‍රමය තුළින් ඉස්මතු විය.පොලිසියට මෙන්ම නිළධාරීන්ටද සිය රාජකාරි කිරීමට ඇතැම් මන්ත්‍රීවරු ඉඩ නුදුන්හ.ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාව යනු පළාත් සභාවට යෑමට අවසර පත්‍රයක් සැපයීමක් වුවද පසු කලකදී මේ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ද ඉක්මවා පැරෂූට් අපේක්ෂකයන් පළාත් සභාවට පත් විය.මේ තත්ත්වය මත විශේෂයෙන්ම සමානුපාතික නියෝජනයේ තිබෙන බරපතල දුර්වලතා හේතු කොට ගෙන එම ක්‍රමය ඉවත් කොට යළි කොට්ඨාශ ක්‍රමයට පරිවර්තනය වීම සුදුසු යයි සමාජය ඉදිරියේ මතයක් ශක්තිමත් විය.මෙම මතය තහවුරු කරලීමට මැතිවරණ ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණ සඳහා පාර්ලිමේන්තු තේරීම් කාරක සභාවක් පත් විය.එහි වාර්තාව 2007 වර්ෂයේදී නිකුත් විය.

        කොට්ඨාශ ක්‍රමය නම් පැරණි ගම් සභා ක්‍රමයයි.එහෙත් එම ක්‍රමයට යෑමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුව නියෝජනය කරන සුළු පක්ෂ අකමැති විය. විශේෂයෙන්ම මිශ්‍ර මන්ත්‍රී සමාන්තර ක්‍රමයකට අකමැති විය.මනාප ක්‍රමයෙන් ලැබෙන බෝනස් ආසන ගම් සභා ක්‍රමයෙන් නොලැබේ. එසේම පක්ෂ පවත්වා ගෙන යෑමේදී පහළම මට්ටමේ සිටින නියෝජිතයන් ගේ දායකත්වයද එලෙසම අහිමි වේ. පළාත් පාලන ආයතනය ඉහළින් සිටින පළාත් සභා සහ පාර්ලිමෙන්තු මන්ත්‍රී වරුන්ට පෝස්ටර් ගසන රැස්වීම් සංවිධානය කරන පිරිසක් එවිට නැතිවේ. ගම්සභා ක්‍රමයට පැහැදිලිවම විරුද්ධත්වය ප්‍රකාශ කරන ලද්දේ දෙමළ සහ මුස්ලිම් පක්ෂයි. තමන් ගේ ජනවර්ග වල ශක්තිය වර්ධනය කර ගැනීමට සමානුපාතික නියෝජනය ඉතා අවශ්‍ය බව ඔවුහු තේරුම් ගෙන සිටියහ.රජය සමග කේවල් කළ හැක්කේ එවැනි නියෝජනයක් තිබීමෙන් බවද අවබෝධ කරගන සිටියහ. එහි අනෙක් පැත්ත නම් උතුරු සහ නැගෙනහිර පළාත් වල කාලයක සිට සිංහල ජනතාව පලවා හැරීමෙන් පසු ඉතිරිවූ ජනගහන ප්‍රතිශතයයි. එය වඩාත් දෙමළ සහ මුස්ලිම් පක්ෂ වලට වාසිදායක විය. එම නිසා එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයත් ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයත් සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම කොට්ඨාශ ක්‍රමයට පරිවර්තනය වීමට අකැමැත්තක් දැක්වීය. එහි ප්‍රති ඵලය වූයේ මිශ්‍ර මන්ත්‍රී සමානුපාතික ක්‍රමයකට අවශ්‍ය උපදෙස් ලැබීමයි.එය සිදු වූයේ 2015 ජූනි මස 15 දින නිකුත් කරන ලද ගැසට් නිවේදනයක් මගිනි.

        කොට්ඨාශ ක්‍රමයෙන් සියයට හැත්තෑවක් සහ සමානපාතික ක්‍රමයෙන් සියයට තිහක් ලෙසට මුල් වාර්තාවෙන් ගණනය වුවද පසුව එම ක්‍රමය වෙනස් කර සියයට හැට සහ හතළිහ බවට පත් කරනලදී. මුල් ක්‍රමයට පක්ෂ නායකයන් එකඟත්ව ඇති කර ගෙන සිටි අතර 2013 වසරේ කොට්ඨාශ සීමා නිර්ණයට ජයලත් රවි දිසානායක මහතාගේ මූලිකත්වයෙන් කමිටුවක් ස්ථාපිත කරන ලදී. එම වාර්තාව 2014 දී නිකුත් වූ අතර ගැසට් පත්‍රයට ඇතුලත් කරලදී. නමුත් 2015 වසරේ යහපාලන රජය පත් වූවායින් පසුව පළාත් පාලන සහ පළාත් සභා ඇමති  ෆයිසර් මුස්තාපා විසින් අශෝක පීරිස් මහතාගේ මූලිකත්වයෙන් කමිටුවක් පත් කර පැවති සීමා නිර්ණය යලි සලකා බලා සංශෝධනය කොට 2017 පෙබරවාරි මසදී ගැසට්ටුවට ඇතුලත් කරන ලදී. මෙම ගැසට්ටුව මගින් සුළු පක්ෂ වලට අවශ්‍ය පරිදි සංශෝධන රැසක් සිදු කර ඇත.එඩේරමුල්ල කොට්ඨාශය අක්බාර් ටවුන් ලෙසට නම් කරන ලද්දේ එම කමිටුව විසිනි.රිෂාඩ් බද්යුදීන් විසින් කපන ලද කල්ලාරු වනාන්තයේ කොටසක්ද ඇතුලත් කර මුසලි ප්‍රාදේශීය සභා අංක 07 කොට්ඨාශය නම් කරන ලද්දේද මෙම කමිටුව විසිනි.එසේම වවුනියාව බෝගස් වැව ගම්මානයට ග්‍රාම නිළධාරි වසමක් පවා නම් නොකර එය වවුනියා උතුර මරුතොඩ වසමට යා කර වවුනියා දකුණ සිංහල ප්‍රා දේශීය සභාවෙන් වෙන් කර ඇත්තේ මුල්සීමා නිර්ණ කමිටුව විසිනි.

       2017 නොවැම්බර් මස 02 දින නිකුත් කරන ලද ගැසට් පත්‍රය මගින් පළාත් පාලන ආයතන වල සභික සංඛ්‍යාව දක්වා තිබේ. ඒ අනුව කොට්ඨාශ මට්ටමින් තේරී පත් වීම මනාප ලැයිස්තුවෙන් තේරී පත්වීම සහ බෝනස් ආසන එහි දක්වා ඇත. මෙම ගැසට් පත්‍රයේ පළාත් පාලන ආයතන දෙකක් ගැන සඳහනක් නොවීය. එකක් නම් තමන්කඩුව ප්‍රා දේශීය සභාවයි. අනෙක නම් අඹගමුව ප්‍රදේශිය සභාවයි. මේ ආයතන දෙක පිළිබඳව 2017  අශෝක පීරිස් සීමා නිර්ණ කමිටුවේ වාර්තාවේ සඳහන්ය. එහෙත් එය වෙනස් කරමින් නොවැම්බර් 02 දින අති විශේස ගැසට් නිවේදනයක් ප්‍රකාශයට පත් විය.එයට අනුව අඹගමුව ප්‍රා දේශිය සභාව අඹගමුව නොර්වුඩ් සහ මස්කෙළිය වශයෙන් සභා තුනකටද තමන්කෙඩුව ප්‍ර දේශිය සභාව පොළොන්නරුව ප්‍රාදේශිය සභාව ලෙසටද නම් කෙරිණ. සැබවින්ම මෙම තීරණය සීමා නිර්ණ කමිටුවේ තීරණයක් නොවේ. දැන ගන්නට තිබෙන ආකාරයට  ඔක්තෝබර් අවසන් සතියේ දී තොන්ඩමන් දිගම්බරන් මෙන්ම මනෝ ගනේෂන් වැනි ඇමතිවරු සමග අගමැතිවරයා  කරන ලද සාකච්ඡාවකින් පසු ගන්නා ලද කැබිනට් තීරණයකි. එයට ජනාධිපතවරයාගේද අනුමැතිය හිමිව තිබේ.

      කොට්ඨාශ ක්‍රමයේ අර්බුදය හෙළි දක්වන එක් නිදසුනක් අඹගමුව තුනට කැඩීමෙන් හෙළිදරව් විය. අඹගමුව යනු පැරණි අඹගමු කෝරළය මත නිර්ණය කල අඹගමුව ගම්සභාවේ විකාශනයකි.එහි කොට්ඨාශ ගණන තිස්පහකි. නව සීමා නිර්ණයේදී මන්ත්‍රී කොට්ඨාශ තීරණය කරන කල්හි. අඹගමුව පැරණි ගම්මානයන්ට අදාල වසම් හතරක් හෝ පහක් මන්ත්‍රී කොට්ඨාශයක් ලෙසට ගෙන ඇත. නමුත් නෝර්වුඩ් සහ මස් කෙළිය කලාපයේ සෑම ග්‍රාම වසමකටම මන්ත්‍රී කොට්ඨාශ ලාබ දීමෙන් අඹගමුවට කොට්ඨාශ දහතුනක්ද නොර්වුඩ් වලට දොළසක්ද මස්කෙළියට දහයක් වශයෙන්ද නිර්ණය වී තිබේ.මෙහි ප්‍රතිඵලය කුමක්ද. අඹ ගමුව ප්‍රාදේශිය සභාව පොහොට්ටුව විසින් ජයග්‍රහණය කරන ලදී.ඒ කොට්ඨාශ දහතුනෙන් හයක් ජයග්‍රහණ කරමිනි. එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය ජය ලබා ගෙන තිබුණේ කොට්ඨාශ තුනකින් පමණකි. නමුත් එ.ජා.ප.යට මනාප ලැයිස්තුවෙන් ආසන හතරක් ලැබී තිබේ. එවිට ඔවුන් ගේ සම්පූර්ණ ආසන ගණන 07 කි. පොහොට්ටුවට එවිට හයකි. අවසානයේ මනාප ලැයිස්කුව නිසා එ.ජා.ප.යට එහි බලය පිහිටුවා ගැනීමට හැකිව තිබේ. එසේම හැටන් දික්ඔය නගර සභා සීමාවෙන් වසම් කීපයක් ඉතාමත්ම ජාතිවාදීව කඩා අඹගමුවටත් මස්කෙළියටත් එක් කරලීමට මෙම අති විශේෂ ගැසට් නිවේදනයෙන් උත්සාහ කර තිබේ. ඒ අනුව අඹගමුව තුළ කුකුළාටද ආසන හතරක් ලැබී තිබේ.අවසානයේ කුකුළා නොමැතිව එ.ජා.ප.යටවත් පොහොට්ටුවටත් බලය පිහිටුවන්නට ලැබෙන්නේ නැත.හැටන් දික්ඔය නගර සභාවේ කුකුළා නියෝජනය කරන මන්ත්‍රී වරයාට කෝටි ගණනක් මුදලක් තක්සේරු කර ඇත්තේ එ.ජා.ප. යට බලය පිහිටුවීම පිණිසය.මේ ලෙස දිවයින පුරාම එ.ජා.ප.ය ශ්‍රී ල.නි.ප.ය  සහ කුකුළා එක් කර ගෙන ප්‍රා දේශිය සභාවල බලය පිහිටුවන්නට උත්සාහ දරමින් තිබේ.සේරටම වඩා අර්බුදයක් ව තිබෙන්නේ කාන්තා නියෝජනයයි. එය පක්ෂ නායකයන් ඒකමතිකව ගන්නා ලද අදූරදර්ෂී තීරණයකි. නමුත් එ.ජා.ප.ය කඩිමුඩියේ එම පණත සම්මත කර ගැනීම නිසා නව අර්බුද රැසක් නිර්මාණයව තිබේ.මෙවැනි අර්බුද නිර්මාණය කරලීමට අමාත්‍ය ෆයසර් මුස්තාපා ද වගකිව යුතු බව මෙහිදී සඳහන් කළ යුතුය. ඔහු ජාතිවාදීව කල වෙනස්කම් කිසිවෙකුට සොයා ගන්නට බැරිතරම් සූක්ෂම වී ඇත.

        දැන් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුළ තිබෙන බල අරගලය වනාහි වඩා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී ක්‍රමයකට යෑමට  තිබෙන අකමැත්ත ප්‍රකාශ කරන්නකි.ඉදිරි පළාත් සභා සීමා නිරණ සහ මනාප ලැයිස්තුව අනුවද නොසිතූ විරූ අර්බුදයක් ඉස්මතු වන විට වත්මන් පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී වරු තමන් එකමුතු වී කල ගොන්කම් ගැන පසුතැවෙන්නට  සිදුවනු ඇත. එහි බර සහ පීඩනය දැනෙන්නේ සමස්ත ජනතාවටයි.විදෙස් අත පෙවීම් සහිත ආරාජික රජයක් කෙරෙහි විශ්වාසය තබනවාට වඩා වෙන විකල්පයකට මේ රට ගෙනියන්නට සිතිවිල්ලක් පහළ කර ගැනීමට අවස්ථාවක් එළඹ තිබෙන බව මේ අනුව කල්පනා වේ.  දළදා වහන්සේ මුදුන් මල් කඩ සේ සලකන රටකට දේශපාලනඥයන් ගෙන ඇති පලේ කුමක් දැයි ඒ අතරම සිතේ.

මතුගම සෙනෙවිරුවන්

BY MALINDA SENEVIRATNE

Editorial Courtesy The Island

It is reported that ‘serial entrepreneur’ Elon Musk is planning to build a hyperloop between Washington DC and New York to enable a trip between the two cities in less than half an hour. Amidst what has come to be known as the tubular tizzy Musk’s futuristic vision has generated, comes the news of a hyperloop project in Sri Lanka, of all places. It is the brainchild of none other than Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. There is a difference, though. Musk is all out to facilitate swift transportation and Wickremesinghe fast borrowing.

The yahapalana government has proposed new laws necessary for the implementation of its debt hyperloop project. It has presented to Parliament the Active Liability Management Bill (ALMB), which seeks parliamentary authorisation for borrowing over one trillion rupees from local and foreign sources in excess of the existing borrowing limits. The ALMB seeks to grant the government carte blanche anent the utilisation of borrowed funds; the politicians responsible for handling them will be free from civil or criminal liability.

Yahapalana politicians’ antipathy towards time-tested systems and mechanisms is monumental. They overlooked the direct placement of Treasury bonds and opted for the auction method. Thus, they prepared the ground for the mega bond scams which have caused staggering losses to the state and workers’ savings fund. They don’t seem to have learnt from the bond frauds which have taken a heavy toll on their electoral performance. They are also all out to introduce what is called the National Payment Platform (NPP), which even the Central Bank has vehemently objected to.

A huge underhand payment is believed to have been made to a private company involved in the controversial NPP scheme in an ad hoc manner. Let the Opposition take this up in Parliament and demand a response from the government. Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe, who plays an activist role, can also order a probe and ascertain whether there has been some financial hanky-panky.

Setting a thief to catch a thief is the best way to set about dealing with thefts. Now, the Joint Opposition (JO), consisting of a bunch of holier-than-thou worthies, known for spouting off about the financial improprieties of the current administration, has taken exception to the ALMB. Anyway, even the police enlist the support of lawbreakers who are blessed with adequate grey matter to solve crimes committed by others, don’t they? So, the JO’s efforts to defeat the ALMB are welcome.

Among the notable critics of the ALMB is former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He has said, in a media statement, the yahapalana government has got into this mess and is desperate to borrow money because of the harebrained measures such as thumping pay hike for the public sector and the drastic reduction in the prices of fuel gas etc. it adopted to win elections in 2015. His government was also known for a borrowing frenzy and, therefore, one may ask him whether he has any moral right to be critical of the present regime’s loan spree. However, his warning of the dangers of the ALMB with a built-in indemnity clause should be taken seriously.

It is said that a rupee saved is a rupee earned. The yahapalana government had better eliminate waste and cut down on its expenditure urgently as the first step towards overcoming the country’s pecuniary woes. Corruption has also cost the public purse dear. The government’s much-publicised anti-corruption drive has come a cropper to all intents and purposes. Some of its big guns themselves are indulging in corruption in what appears to be an effort to make up for lost time. Obtaining more loans with no action being taken to stop waste and corruption is like dumping funds into a bottomless pit.

In the run-up to the recently concluded local government polls, President Maithripala Sirisena expressed displeasure at the way the economy was being run; he promised to take over the task of managing the economy first thing after the polls. It is now patently clear that the self-proclaimed economic experts in the yahapalana administration have failed pathetically. Will the President make good on his promise?

The ALMB must be resisted tooth and nail and defeated lest the country should become the Greece of Asia before long. There is a hidden danger which we mustn’t lose sight of. If the new borrowing laws come into effect with immunity being granted to political leaders from civil and criminal liability, they will surely be abused by future governments as well. There is the possibility of another loan crazy Rajapaksa government being formed and what the situation will be in such an eventuality is not difficult to imagine. Therefore, even the backers of the current dispensation ought not to hesitate to oppose the ALMB.

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera visiting Professor at Northern Kentucky University for Geopolitics ,Global Leadership and the Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies Sri Lanka(INSSSL) was invited to speak at the prestigious American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) ,Greater Cincinnati Chapter and to the Northern Kentucky University Master of Public Administration Students on 20th February 2018.

Drawing his 13 years of experience in the Government Prof.Abeyagoonasekera spoke on the topic of Public Sector Leadership for the 21st Century”. Following is an abstract of his speech.

Let me begin with the great musician Leonard Bernstein who spoke few days after President Kennedy’s brutal assassination , where does this violence spring from? From ignorance and hatred—the exact antonyms of Learning and Reason: those two words of John Kennedy’s were not uttered in time to save his own life; but every man can pick them up where they fell, and make them part of himself, the seed of that rational intelligence without which our world can no longer survive”^[1].

JFK was to say in his last speech America’s leadership must be guided by learning and reason.” I think the world in which we live have put their leaders on a pedestal, removing them from the next layer of experts in public service. This is unfortunately evident in most societies. As a global community we have failed miserably to save innocent lives from conflicts around the world.

To build any successful nation you need intelligent leadership with technical knowledge on how to solve problems. Political leadership cannot be limited to rhetoric alone. Political rhetoric vs practice is a subject discussed widely these days.  In my recent article Sri Lanka: The New Regime and the Revolution, I wrote, what you see today is leadership with a bipolarity syndrome. Bipolarity in politics has never been so rife in modern history. The politics of bipolarity spans across oceans from leaders around the world who are loud but inconsistent. Sufficiently exposed to bipolar political promises, public absorption of rhetoric has reached the point of exhaustion.

Due to this you will witness inconsistent policy from the policy makers which public administration will have a challenging task to execute and deliver with efficiency.

The exact origins of the field of Public Administration are disputed, but one could look at the Woodrow Wilson’s seminal essay The Study of Administration,” published in 1887, as a pivotal moment and one possible origin.            According to Wilson there should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less business like, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness. This is one reason why there is such a science.”

Woodrow Wilson, considered public administration a sub discipline within political science. In the 21st century there are numerous areas a public administrator should be proficient in. The discipline has grown far beyond its initial boundaries of political science to embrace theories, concepts, and tools from all the social sciences according to Cropf and Wagner^[2]. Today you will have Anthropology, Economics the Managerial Approach including Budgeting, Finance,cost effectiveness, Sociology, Jurisprudence and I include a very important area Geopolitics”.

According to the 1929 newspaper in Ohio and The Washington Post” both printed a one-liner quip on this topic that specifically referred to Americans Wars do some good, but they are a rather expensive way to teach Americans geography.” If I ask this audience how many of you learned about Helmand province because of the war in Afghanistan I am certain you will agree with me that wars have taught you geography. It was not the case in the past unfortunately. Geopolitics is an essential subject in this century, especially with the complex issues we are facing in the 4th industrial revolution environment. I draw your attention to one such complex variable urbanization. According to United Nations, In 2010 for the first time in history, the urban population surpassed the rural population, and by 2050, it is estimated that at least two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. Globally, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas, with 54 per cent of the world’s population residing in urban areas in 2014. In 1950, 30 per cent of the world’s population was urban, and by 2050, 66 per cent of the world’s population is projected to be urban. We need to teach geopolitics to our policy makers and administrators since they might make decisions without understanding this complexity. Political science and jurisprudence have been considered the sole prerequisite of statecraft but in the 21st century  with all other sub-discipline knowledge, sound knowledge of geography and geopolitical analysis is important. You cannot make analysis in foreign policy without understanding the terrain of your nation and the outside world.

Public Administration is a profession achieving its status by refining its content with the academia (Universities, training centers and professional associations). Training from Academia and raw experience are at crux. There should be an atmosphere conducive to systemic training and expansion of knowledge in Public Administration. It should be borne in mind that, without an efficient public administration no nation could move forward. Unfortunately there is a missing layer of technocrats in the Democratic process today at all levels in public service, which starta from the top layer of policy making. Populism gets us not the best leaders and this is proven in many nations. The academic inputs to public policy formation and experts with know how to execute policy is pivotal. If you take the advisory positions to President of US most of the Presidential advisors back in the 60s and 70s had a convincing thesis a book in hand. The important question is whether there is a convincing thesis in the present day advisors?

1. A. Muttalib examines the relationship between Democracy, Bureaucracy and Technocracy, (Refer to diagram); where Democracy, Bureaucracy, Technocracy contradict each other but Public Administration is the bridge among them. Democracy is the base – Bureaucracy is the structure – Technocracy the ‘know how’ to solve the problems.

Plato’s Republic clearly highlighted the importance of Meritocracy” for successful political system were an educated and engaged citizenry and a wise ruling class is necessary. If western democracy will keep failing to give us the right solutions, Liberal democracy will be seen by Asians as a model that does not deliver efficient results.

Asia could drift towards a technocracy a model operated by technical experts and expert government servants which deliver quick results. China has proven clearly more than the 100 liberal democracies around the world that 625m people were taken out of poverty from this model. Singapore has proven as an East Asian miracle performing through a meritocracy at its highest value delivering results to the public. The Public health, water safety, education, infrastructure and all economic indicators are at the highest level.

According to former Chancellor of the University of Peradeniya, Prof. M. O. A. de Zoysa, Ninety four MPs have not passed their GEC (O/L) examination while there are only 25 graduates among the 225 legislators in the present Sri Lankan Parliament.

Hence, it is questionable whether the 21st century complexity can be managed with the existing system. According to Parag Khanna America has more than enough democracy. What it needs is more technocracy—a lot more.” I recommend you his book Technocracy in America. A very long time ago Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America”, identified the limitations of democracy. Accordingly, Democracy is not an end in itself. The greater goal is effective governance and improved national well-being.

Now let me end with a list of challenges for the public sector leadership in the 21st century.  Understanding the complex environment we live today with non linear problems immersing from the 4th industrial revolutio

^[1]Leonard Bernstein ,25 November 1963
n is essential. Efficiency of delivery of solutions with the growing demands in this complex environment has to be understood. Weak political systems will create inconsistant polices which will be a difficult task for the public administrators to implement such policies. State building can happen only if the Government is effective and efficient. Independence of public administration is another challenge as Woodrow Wilson also identify in the early days. He says fortunately insisted upon by our civil- service reformers; namely, that administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.” Transparency and fighting corruption should be an essential component. However, most importantly, Technocracy should also be introduced to the system, as an essential component for the Government sector.

^[2]Cropf, Robert A.; Wagner, John L. (2017-09-01). American Public Administration: Public Service for the Twenty-First Century (Kindle Locations 649-650). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, February 28 (The Citizen):  Political instability continues to plague the Sri Lankan National Unity Government, despite vigorous efforts by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to patch up the differences and continue the Good Governance” regime till the next parliamentary elections in August 2020.

In addition to inter-party differences (between Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party and Wickremesinghe’s United National Party) there are equally strong intra-party differences.

The SLFP is divided into two groups, one loyal to President Sirisena and the other loyal to former President and former SLFP chief, Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is now leader of the Joint Opposition Group in parliament and the de facto head of a new party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP).

Having done extraordinarily well in the February 10 local bodies elections, which turned out to be a referendum on the performance of the National Unity Government, the SLPP has been attracting SLFP rank and file and middle order leaders who want to climb on to the Rajapaksa bandwagon.

These leaders and workers have been pressing President Sirisena to allow the SLFP to team up with the SLPP as after all the SLPP is only an offshoot of the SLFP and Rajapaksa had been a leader of the SLFP till January 2015.

But Sirisena would have none of it as he had broken away from Rajapaksa with some followers in 2014 and contested the January 8, 2015 Presidential election as the candidate of the Joint Opposition led by the UNP. He won the election beating Rajapaksa. Since then the two have been irreconcilable.

The poor performance of the SLFP in the February 10 election has been a powerful motivation for SLFP cadres to push for unity with the SLPP. While the SLPP became the single largest party in 239 out of the 340 local councils which went for the polls, the SLFP was on top in only 10 councils.

But if the SLFP was to leave the coalition, it would have to join SLFP and that as junior partner with Sirisena working virtually under the tutelage of Rajapaksa – a distasteful prospect for President Sirisena. Hence Srisena rejected it and proposed that the alliance with the UNP could continue with Wickremesinghe replaced by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya ,a non controversial  UNP leader. But this proposal had to be dropped no sooner than it was made.

The UNP too did very badly, becoming the single largest party in only 41 out of the 340 councils. The dismal performance of the party led to two conflicts: one inter-party and the other  intra-party.

With the nationalist, Left of Center and populist  SLPP sweeping the polls, the UNP’s younger cadres wanted their party too adopt a similar policy. But the leader ,Wickremesinghe and his cohorts, are  dyed in the wool neo-liberals ,pro-West and Right of Center. The UNP cadres demanded that Wickremesinghe step down and make away for a leader with a different policy and appeal.  But they could not succeed because there was no leader with wide support. The UNP had no successor to Wickremesinghe as every other top functionary had only sectional and limited appeal.

And the UNP had to close its ranks in order to face the onslaught from the SLFP and its leader, the President of Sri Lanka, Sirisena. The SLFP blamed the UNP for its defeat saying that the UNP had totally mismanaged the economic ministries and the Foreign Ministry which it  controlled as per a understanding reached in 2015.

When Sirisena proposed that Speaker Karu Jayasuriya be Premier, the UNP cadres rejected it as he could become a puppet of Sirisena’s.  They felt it would be better to stand by Wickremesinghe. The SLFP then pushed for the candidacy of senior SLFP leader Nimal Sripala de Silva. But this did not find favor with the UNP.

The  SLFP then wanted the President to sack Wickremesinghe..But it was pointed out that under the 19 th.Constitutional Amendment of 2015, the President cannot dismiss a Prime Minister unless he loses the confidence of the House in voting on a money bill.

Sirisena then talked his party men into accepting the continuation of the alliance with Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister till the next  parliamentary elections in August 2020.

But to safeguard the SLFP’s political interest, he  promised to get a great say in the running of the economy and foreign policy. He dropped the plan to give 70,000 tablets to rural schools and lifted the ban on the weedicide glyphosate. He also raised the price of imported potatoes. He said that his National Economic  Council will give the government its basic economic policy and make course corrections.

But problems remain. The promised shuffle of UNP ministers amounted to nothing. The promised new blood was conspicuous by its absence when the team was announced on Sunday.

Frustrated by this and other issues, the State Minister of Irrigation, Palitha Range Bandara, openly announced on Monday that if Wickremesinghe does not bring the changes in the party structure and policies within a reasonable  time period, he along with other UNP MPs, would move a Motion of No Confidence against Wickremesinghe.

Meanwhile, the leader of the SLFP, President Sirisena, said that he would need two week’s time to reshuffle SLFP ministers, thus hinting that it will be very delicate task.

(The featured image at the top shows President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in consultation) 

Turkey’s denial for full EU membership a case that has been going on for 30 years is a lesson to other non-European nations like India, Japan, South Korea that loves to go behind the West functioning as their lapdogs and being their loyal strategic partners believing that the EU considers them on par with them. That is not so, it is unlikely to be ever so and it is nothing but wishful thinking. Turkey has been very loyal to the West but Turkey cannot or is not even been considered for full EU membership and that reveals much and exposes the true racism that is EU.

Who differentiated & labeled people by race? Western European colonial invaders. There is no denying that this labelling laid the foundations to the differences tied to race and the differences associated by racism as a result.  It was these Western European colonial invaders who created a legacy of features that defined people, separated them and labelled them by education, legal status, religion and nationality. None of these differences existed before arrival of these Western imperialists. Forcible conversions too started with the Abrahamic faiths – people had little choice. They fell to coercions and adopted the new faith or had to face death unless they converted. This is how Abrahamic faiths expanded and these faiths continue their expansion in more subtle and profound ways.

It was these invaders both Christian & Islamic that brought in the notion of ‘inferiority’ ‘superiority’. Their faiths, their cultures, their ways were and had to be above all others. Supremacy in both cases were tied to religion and based on domination over others thus the colonizers mentality was that they were supreme over the colonized. It was a case of ‘us’ ruling over ‘them’ – Europeans thought themselves the dominant race and the colonized were the subjects, the slaves or subordinates.  Thus, the notion that the Europeans believed themselves to be ‘civilizing’ the rest of the world which Rudyard Kipling termed as the ‘White Man’s Burden’. The Roman Empire was built on slavery.  Racial difference soon became tied to the colour of the skin. Whites believed themselves to be superior on account of their skin colour. The European invaders built their colonies on racial hierarchy going to the extent of devising legal codes with terms that clearly distinguished the division – ex French Code Noir (Black Code), Black Friday, Black Market, Black Wednesday, Black list. Everything bad was generally associated with black and everything good was automatically associated and linked to white. This had been dented into the psyche of both the white and the non-white through education, society etc. It has been a systematic indoctrination process over 500 years.

With time the US & Europeans came to regard racism as a politically evolved ‘natural order’ and ingrained into every system they championed. Who introduced racial segregation laws & restrictions on black voters? Who exercised racial domination like public lynching, racial slurs, brutal and deadly intimidations, racial terms and jokes?

Who introduced the apartheid system in South Africa? Who disallowed people in love to marry simply because one partner was white and the other black? Who established separate residential areas for whites, blacks and mixed races?

ABC of Racist Europe by Daniela Ortiz clearly establishes the racism that exists

https://archive.org/stream/TheAbcOfRacistEurope/ABC_OF_RACIST_EUROPE_ortiz#page/n25/mode/2up

The Ottoman Empire was founded Fon 27 July 1299 by Osman 1 a Turkish chieftan and became one of the largest empires to rule the borders of the Mediterranean Sea covering a population of 14.6m with Constantinople as its capital. The Ottomans were originally not followers of Islam but followed a shamanistic religion. The Turks invaded Europe, won the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 and conquered the Balkans upto borders of Hungary.

Western Europeans feared that the success of the Ottoman Empire would bring about the downfall of Christendom. 3 crusades in 1366, 1396 and 1444 were launched to counter this. Incidentally, Ottoman’s greatest military assets were the Janissaries, paid army of Christian soldiers who were Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Bosnian and Albanian. In other words they were mercenaries or sepoys. While the Byzantine Empire began its collapse the Ottoman Empire rose & expanded resulting in the invasion of Thrace (comprises southeastern Bulgaria (Northern Thrace), northeastern Greece (Western Thrace) and the European part of Turkey (Eastern Thrace). Constantinople was captured in 1453 and its name was changed to Istanbul, Athens fell in 1456, but 1529 Ottomans moved up Danube river and besieged Vienna.

The Empire officially ended in 1924 with the abolishing of the caliphate by the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

Turkey

Colonial borders or rather artificial borders drawn by colonial invaders are party to much of the conflict prevalent today. These borders were drawn with a pencil completely ignoring that the line would divide people, families, tribes, cultures etc. Thus, Middle East was divided by British & French through the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement which betrayed British promise to Hussein Ibn Ali emir of Mecca who provided military support against the Ottoman Turks in WW 1 and the hatred of Arabs in Syria for French Rule. The Emir’s son seized Damascus and proclaimed himself king of Syria but was ousted by France who was in control of Syria & newly created Lebanon. Britain gave Emirs son the new state of Iraq comprising cities of Baghdad, Basra, Mosul. Emir’s other son was given TransJordan (desert between Iraq, Palestine, Syria) Iraq & Transjordan became Jordan. The 40m Kurds (with no state) are the biggest losers and the biggest victims from the artificial partitioning. Britain & France left Middle East in the 1940s.

Majority of people of Turkey converted to Islam only during 8^th & 9^th centuries while others chose to remain nomadic.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, modern Turkey’s foundation began after becoming a republic on 29 October 1923 with the Treaty of Lausanne which established the present boundaries of Turkey. The Treaty repatriated 1.5m Greeks living in Turkey to Greece and 800,000 Turks living in Greece & Bulgaria to Turkey. In 1924 the Caliphate was abolished.

Turkey’s 1^st President was Mustafa Kemal Ataturk until 1938 when he was succeeded by Ismet Inonu. He forbid polygamy, forbid covering face, Islam ceased to be state religion in 1928 & Latin was substituted for Arabic. Constantinople was renamed Istanbul in 1930. Ataturk nationalist programs aimed at self-sufficiency without foreign capital. Turkey became member of League of Nations in 1932. In exchange for rejecting Soviet demands in 1947 US assistance was given through Truman doctrine a policy of aligning to the West. Turkish troops even fought in the Korean War and Turkey was given full membership of NATO in 1952 with US air & missile bases established in Turkey.

In 1961 constitution was changed the following year Turkey supported US during the Cuban missile crisis. Turkish troops invaded Cyprus in 1974 gaining 30% of its land. Another new constitution was adopted in 1982 giving military influence over civilian matters. US used Turkey to launch air strikes against Iraq in 1991. The Turkish Parliament however, refused US permission to invade Iraq from bases in Turkey though US could fly over Turkey.

Turkey’s desire to remain secular was seen by the manner successive attempts to bring pro-Islamic rulers failed – the Welfare Party was even banned in 1998 and a newly created Virtue Party was also banned in 2001. Erdogan who had been previously banned from running for elections was allowed to do so.

In 1999 Turkey was invited to apply for membership to the EU though Turkey was rejected in 1997. Even by 2002 EU had refused to set a date for negotiations. The excuse given for Turkey’s human rights and democracy record. In reality it was because Turkey was an Islamic nation. Germany, France & Austria voiced concerns of Turkey integrating its 80m Muslims into EU society.

Ergodan became Prime Minister in 2003 & declared Turkey is very much ready to be part of the European Union family.” Two years later formal discussions to admit Turkey to the EU begin. By 2010, EU was stalling with excuse after excuse not to admit Turkey.

In 2014, Ergodan is elected President and two years later fresh negotiations for Turkey’s EU admission commences once again. It was in April 2017 that the European Parliament called for the formal suspension of Turkey’s EU membership.

For 30 years EU countries have been dithering about accepting Turkey to the EU.

There is nothing other than racism behind not accepting Turkey as a full EU member state though Turkey is expected to align with the West in all of its diplomatic affairs.

It just exposes EU bloc of nations in the manner they use and dump non-white Christian nations in world politics.

Shenali D Waduge

 ගෝඨාබය රාජපක්ෂ හිටපු ආරක්ෂක ලේකම් 

හිටපු ආරක්‍ෂක ලේකම් ගෝටාභය රාජපක්‍ෂ මහතා විසින් නිකුත් කරන ලද නිවේදනයක් මෙහි දැක්වෙයි.

නීතිය අවනීතිය කරණ වත්මන් රජයේ පොලිස් විමර්ශණ

පසුගිය කාලය පුරා අවන්ගාර්ඩ් මැරිටයිම් සර්විසස්, රක්නා ලංකා ආරක්ෂක සේවා, ගුවන් හමුදාවට මිග් යානා මිලදී ගැනීම, ඩී ඒ රාජපක්ෂ පදනම වැනි විෂයන් රාශියක් යටතේ විවිධ විමර්ශණ පවත්වමින් මගේ චරිතය ඝාතනය කිරීමට උත්සාහ දැරූ වත්මන් රජයේ අලුත්ම ප්‍රයත්නය වන්නේ හිටපු පුවත් පත් කතෲ වරයෙකු වන ලසන්ත වික්‍රමතුන්ංග මහතාගේ ඝාතනයට මගේ සම්බන්ධයක් ඇතැයි රටට ඒත්තු ගැන්වීම බව හා ඒ මගින් හෝ මා අත් අඩංගුවට ගැනීමට හේතුවක් සොයාගැනීම බව මෑත කාලීන ප්‍රවෘති හා ආන්ඩු පක්ෂයේ විවිධ දේශපාලනඥයින්ගේ ප්‍රකාශ වලින් පෙනී යයි.

පසුගිය සතියේ රජයට සම්බන්ධ ආරංචි මාර්ග උපුටා දක්වමින් පසුගිය සතියේ එක්තරා වෙබ් අඩවියක පවසා තිබුනේ දැනට අත් අඩංගුවේ පසුවන පොලිස් නිලධාරියෙකුගේ සාක්ෂි අනුව ලසන්ත ඝාතනයට හමුදා බුද්ධි අංශ සම්බන්ධ බවත්, එවකට ජාතික බුද්ධි අංශ ප්‍රධානී වූ මේජර් ජෙනරාල් කපිල හෙන්දවිතාරණ යටතේ හමුදාවේ ඝාතන කල්ලියක් ක්‍රියාත්මක වූ බවත් එකල හෙන්දවිතාරණ වාර්ථා කලේ ගොඨාභය රාජපක්ෂට බවත්ය.

මෙය පැහැදිලිවම ජනතාව නොමග හැරීමට හා සත්‍ය තොරතුරු වසන් කිරීමට ගන්නා හාස්‍ය ජනක උත්සාහයකි. ලසන්ත වික්‍රමතුංග ඝාතනය වූ කාලයේ මේජර් ජෙනරාල් කපිල හෙන්දවිතාරණ හමුදා සේවයෙන් විශ්‍රාම ගොස් සිටි අතර ඔහු ආරක්ෂක අමාත්‍යාංශයේ ජාතික බුද්ධි අංශ ප්‍රධානී තනතුර දරමින් ජාතික ආරක්ෂාව පිලිබඳ උපදේශන හා සම්බන්ධීකරණ කටයුතුවල පමනක් නියැලී සිටියේය. ජාතික බුද්ධි ප්‍රධානී යනු හමුදාවට අයත් නොවන ආරක්ෂක අමාත්‍යාංශය යටතේ පැවති සිවිල් තනතුරක් පමනක් නිසා කපිල හෙන්දවිතාරණ යටතේ කිසිදු හමුදා ඛන්ඩයක් ක්‍රියාත්මක නොවීය.

හමුදා බුද්ධි අංශ වල පාලනය ඇත්තේ යුධ හමුදාව යටතේ මිස කපිල හෙන්දවිතාරණ රාජකාරි කල ආරක්ෂක අමාත්‍යාංශය යටතේ නොවේ. හමුදා බුද්ධි අංශ ක්‍රියාත්මක වන්නේ යුධ හමුදා බුද්ධි අධ්‍යක්ෂක මන්ඩලය යටතේයි. එවකට එහි ප්‍රධානියා වූයේ අධ්‍යක්ෂක ජෙනරාල් ප්‍රධාන මාන්ඩලික බ්‍රිගේඩියර් අමල් කරුණාසේකරයි. ඔහු වාර්ථා කලේ හමුදාපතිවරයාටයි. මේ කියනා අවධියේ හමුදාපතිවරයා වුයේ ලුතිනන් ජෙනරාල් සරත් ෆොන්සේකා වූ අතර යුද්ධයේ උච්චතම අවස්ථාව වූ මේ කාලයේ හමුදාපති සරත් ෆොන්සේකාගේ අනුදැනුමෙන් තොරව කිසිදු බුද්ධි අංශ හමුදා ඛන්ඩයක් ක්‍රියාත්මක වුවා විය නොහැකි බව ජාතික ආරක්ෂක කටයුතු පිලිබඳ අල්පමාත්‍ර අවබෝධයක් හෝ ඇති අයෙකු දනී.

මෑත කාලීන දේශපාලන මඩ ප්‍රචාරණ වලට අනුව ලසන්ත ඝාතනය සිදු වූයේ මිග් ගුවන් යානා පිලිබඳව මා හට එරෙහිව ඔහු විසින් කරන්නට ගිය හෙලි කිරීම් නිසාය. මේ සාවද්‍ය ප්‍රකාශය කරනා අයට අමතක වී ඇති කරුණ නම් මිග් ගුවන් යානා පිලිබඳව මට අපහාස වන ආකාරයට අසත්‍ය ප්‍රවෘතී ප්‍රචාරය කිරීම පිලිබඳව ලසන්ත කතෘත්වය දැරූ සන්ඩේ ලීඩර් පුවත් පතට මා විසින් එදා නඩු පැවරූ බවය. එම නඩුවෙන් මා දිනු අතර, අසත්‍ය චෝදනා කිරීම පිලිබඳව සමාව ඉල්ලා ප්‍රසිද්ධ නිවේදනයක් පලකරන ලෙස උසාවිය විසින් ලසන්තගේ පුවත් පතට නියෝග කරන ලදී. ඒ අනුව සන්ඩේ ලීඩර පුවත්පත ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ මගෙන් සමාව ඇයැද සිටියේය.

ලසන්ත වික්‍රමතුංගගේ චෝද්නාවලට මා පිලිතුරු දුන්නේ ඒ ආකාරයට ගෞරවාන්විතව රටේ පවතින නීතිය තුලය. පුවත්පත ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ වරද පිලිගෙන සමාව ඉලලා සිටි නිසා ඉන් ඔබ්බට මා හට ඔවුන් සමග ගැටලුවක් නොතිබුනි.

නමුත් මෙහිදී මතක් කල යුතු වැදගත් කරුණක් නම් ලසන්ත ඝාතනය වන්නට සති කිහිපයකට පෙර ඔහු විසින් එවකට හමුදාපතිව සිටි සරත් ෆොන්සේකාවද දැඩිලෙස විවේචනය කරමින් ලිපි පෙලක් ලියන ලද බවයි. නමුත් මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් සරත් ෆොන්සේකා මා කලාක් මෙන් නීතිමය ක්‍රියාමාර්ගයක් ගත්තේ නැත. විවේචනය පිලිබඳ දැඩිලෙස කුපිතව සිටි ඔහු ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් ගත් ක්‍රියාමාර්ගය කුමක්ද කියාත් අද ලසන්ත ඝාතනය ගැන පක්ෂාග්‍රාහී විමර්ශණයක් පවත්වන රහස් පොලීසිය සොයාබැලිය යුතුය. වෙනත් කරුණක් සඳහා වරක් රහස් පොලීසිය මගෙන් ප්‍රශ්ණ කල අවස්ථාවක ලසන්ත ඝාතනය සිදුවූ අවධියේ කොළඹ ප්‍රදේශයේ මෙහෙයුම් බාරව සිටි 112 බල සේනාධිපති බ්‍රිගේඩියර් කැප්පෙටිවලාන යන නිලධාරියා යටතේ සිටි හමුදා ඛන්ඩ වල ක්‍රියාවන් ගැන සොයා බලන ලෙස මම රහස් පොලීසියට පැවසුවද දේශපාලන බලපෑම් මත එය සිදු නොවූ බව පෙනීයයි.

එදා විපක්ෂ නායක රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා ලසන්ත ඝාතනය ගැන පාර්ලිමේන්තු වරප්‍රසාද යටතේ ඍජුවම චෝදනා කලේ හිටපු අමුදාපති සරත් ෆොන්සේකාටය. හිටපු කතානායක වරයෙකු වන ජෝෂප් මයිකල් පෙරේරාද එයට සමාන ප්‍රකාශයක් කලේය. මේ අය අද බලයේ පැමින සිටිනා නමුත් හුදෙක් දේශපාලන අරමුණු මුල් කරගෙන එදා ඔවුන්ම කල චෝදනාව අමතක කොට ලසන්ත ඝාතන විමර්ශනය වෙනතකට හැරවීමේ දීන ප්‍රයත්නයක යෙදී සිටිති.

ලසන්ත ඝාතනයට හේතුව අපාහාසාත්මක ලිපි නම් ඔහුගේ අපහාසයට ලක්ව එයට එරෙහිව නඩු මගට ගිය මා ගැන සෙවීමට අද පොලීසියට තිබෙන උනන්දුව ලසන්තගේ අපහාසයට ලක්ව ඔහුට එරෙහිව කිසිදු නීතිමය පියවරක් නොගත්, එසේම ලසන්ත ඝාතනය කලායැයි සැකකරනු ලබන හමුදා බුද්ධි අංශ වලට අණ දිය හැකි බලයක් එදා තිබුන හිටපු හමුදාපති සරත් ෆොන්සේකා ගැන සොයන්නටත් පොලීසියට තිබිය යුතුය.

විශේෂයෙන්ම වර්ථමාන අගමැතිවරයා එදා ලසන්ත ඝාතනය සම්බන්ධයෙන් චෝදනා කලේ එවකට හමුදාපති වූ සරත් ෆොන්සේකාට නිසා අද රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා යටතේම තිබෙන පොලීසියට එදා ඔහු කල චෝදනාව ගැන පරීක්ෂණ අරඹන ලෙස නියෝගයක් දීම පහසුවෙන්ම කල හැක. ඒ වෙනුවට අද කුහක දේශපාලනඥයින් කරන්නේ නරියාට කුකුල්ලු බාර දුන්නාක් මෙන් සරත් ෆොන්සේකාට පොලීසිය බාර දිය හැකිදැයි යෝජනා කිරීමයි.

අවසාන වශයෙන් රටේ ජනතාවට අප කිවයුත්තේ හුදෙක්ම දේශපාලන අරමුණු මුල්කරගෙන පොලීසිය පවා බොරු සාක්කි නිර්මාණය කිරීමේ කටයුත්තට යොදා ගනිමින් වර්ථමාන රජය ගෙන යන මර්ධනකාරී වැඩපිලිවෙල ලංකාවේ නීතිය ක්‍රියාත්මකවන ආකාරය පිලිබඳව රට තුල පමනක් නොව ජාත්‍යන්තරවද මහත් අපකීර්තියක් ගෙන එමට හේතුවන බවය.

නීතිය අවනීතිය වූ රටක පුරවැසියන්ට ඇති එකම විසඳුම අයුක්තියට එරෙහිව නැගී සිටීමයි. එහෙයින් ලෝකයේ බොහෝ රටවල බිහිවූ මෙවැනි දුර්දාන්ත රජයන් අවසානයේ ජනතාව විසින්ම පලවා හැරියාක් මෙන් නුදුරු අනාගතයේදීම ශ්‍රී ලාංකික ජනතාවද මේ අසාධාරණයන්ට නිසි පිලිතුරු දෙනු ඇත.

ගෝඨාබය රාජපක්ෂ
හිටපු ආරක්ෂක ලේකම්

By C. A. Chanadraprema Courtesy The Island

February 28, 2018, 10:36 pm

In a recent article titled “Yahapalana government as a hyper-debt regime”, Professor Milton Rajaratne of the University of Peradeniya has pointed out that even though the yahapalana government accuses the Rajapaksa government of having imposed an immense debt burden on the country, the present government too has borrowed ‘surprising amounts’ of money. Rajaratne points out that by the time Rajapaksa rule ended on 9 January 2015, the total government debt stood at Rs. 7.3 trillion and the debt burden of the country, as a percentage of the GDP, stood at 71.3%. He states that despite the rhetoric of cutting down on debt, under the new government, the debt burden had rapidly increased from 71.3% to 79.3% within two years and based on the statistics reported by the Central Bank for eight months up to August 2017, this figure would have reached 90% by the end of 2017. This would indicate a growth of almost 50% in the total debt burden in just three years.

Rajaratne has also stated that under the yahapalana government, economic growth has been much slower than the growth in borrowing and that government debt has outgrown the per capita income at a rate of more than 200% and that an increase in debt with a decrease in economic growth eventually leads to a debt trap. He has also pointed out that foreign debt has grown faster than domestic debt between 2014 and 2017. While domestic debt has increased by 40%, foreign debt has grown by 60% – an alarming development. The increase in the foreign debt component has not only intensified the debt burden but has heavily increased external dependency as well. Rajaratne has argued that his findings nullify the claim of the coalition government that Rajapaksa rule has overloaded the country with debt and that this claim is only political propaganda. Statistics prove that if the Rajapaksa government was a debt regime, the coalition government is a hyper-debt regime.

Minister to have unbridled power over finance

It is in this context, that the yahapalana government has introduced in Parliament the Active Liability Management Bill with the stated objective of managing public debt and ensuring that the financing needs and payment obligations of the Government are met at the lowest possible cost over the medium to long term. This Bill aims to authorize the government to raise a sum equal to 10% of the total outstanding public debt – which works out to well over Rs. One trillion. This money is to be used for the purposes of refinancing public debt. The annual borrowing limit set by Parliament through the Appropriation Act will not apply to the money raised under this proposed law.

Under this proposed legislation, the Minister in charge of the subject will be authorized to make the decision as to which debt will be refinanced with this money and the procedures applicable to the refinancing of that debt. Every regulation made by the Minister shall, within three months after its publication in the Gazette, be brought before Parliament for approval. Any such regulation which is not so approved shall be deemed to be rescinded as from the date of its disapproval, However, anything done by the Minister before the regulation was rejected by Parliament, will still be valid and legally binding on the government. Furthermore, this proposed legislation seeks to provide immunity from civil or criminal liability to those handling this money so long as they can prove that they acted in good faith and exercised due diligence and reasonable care.

Joint Opposition parliamentarian Bandula Gunawardene has petitioned the Supreme Court requesting a ruling that this Bill has to be passed with a two thirds majority in Parliament and also a referendum because it is in conflict with the entrenched Articles of the Constitution relating to the people’s sovereignty and the manner in which that sovereignty is exercised through the legislature. The petition states that the proposed law will abrogate the powers of the parliament to have full control over public finance as provided in Article 148 of the Constitution and make inoperative the powers of the Central Bank and the Monetary Board to manage public debt in terms of section 113 of the Monetary Law and will instead empower the Minister with the authority to regulate and control matters in relation to public debt.

The Petition states that the overall effect of the proposed law would be to create a system that has no meaningful guidelines but functions on the arbitrary decisions of the Minister and the Cabinet, thus paving the way for the mismanagement of public finances and possible fraud and corruption. In this regard, the petition points out that the immunity given by clause 9 of the proposed Bill to public servants, members of the Monetary Board and other persons, including private persons, from civil and criminal liability will further endanger the economy of the country. By extending this immunity to ‘agents’ of the Central Bank, who may also include non-public servants, the executive is vested with powers to arbitrarily exempt such non-state parties from civil or criminal liability.

The petition further points out the danger in removing the control and regulation of public funds and debt, which are parts of the consolidated fund, from the management and control of both the Central Bank and the Parliament, especially by empowering the minister to deposit such money in ring-fenced accounts at Commercial Banks. The petition points out that this will enable the Minister and the Cabinet to discriminate between licensed commercial Banks by empowering them to decide arbitrarily in which commercial banks to deposit such funds without any guidelines.

That the yahapalana government would present such a Bill in Parliament in the wake of the Central Bank bond scam which has shaken the entire country, shows how thick skinned this government is. The proposed Active Liability Management Bill seeks to vest unrestricted power to borrow and dispose of over Rs. one trillion on the very individuals who were called on to give evidence before the Bond Commission not so long ago.

By Rohana R. Wasala Courtesy The Island

At the outset, I’d like to make it clear to the reader that the word ‘nationalism’ (and related forms) is used here in its basic meaning of ‘the love of one’s country, the principles, and efforts that the feeling characterizes’. But in Sri Lanka today, anti-nationalist agents, propagandists and critics use the term in its negative secondary sense of ‘the extremist form of love of one’s country that is characterized by a feeling of superiority over other nations or countries’ to attack the patriotic majority of Sri Lankans. I make no apology for believing in nationalism being the positive concept that is described in the first definition. There are no Sri Lankan nationalists of the secondary variety. Patriotic Sri Lankans are multiethnic. Sinhalese Buddhists who form the majority community are humble to a fault in their interactions with people of other races and religions.

The resounding victory of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) symbolized by the Pohottuwa (Lotus Bud) at the recent local government election is something that was eagerly wished for and confidently expected by the sensible majority of the Sri Lankan electorate. The extremely unpopular yahapalana government will be unable to follow its original plans through, including its controversial constitution making project (which was itself predicated on false war crimes allegations against Sri Lanka at Geneva). This is the first time since 1948 that a party/alliance in power lost at LG polls. But this time the local government election assumed national importance; people took it as an opportunity to give vent to their suppressed anger and disaffection with the government over its performance at the national level. It became an unofficial referendum on the government. The anti-government vote means that the yahapalana regime can no longer find refuge in the so-called popular mandate they claimed to have got in 2015. From the nation’s point of view, this is a crucial moment in the political history of our country.  The tide has finally turned in favour of their (i.e., yahapalanaya’s) challengers. All kinds of misinterpretations of the election result that are being offered and the wily ruses that are being practiced in order to flout the anti-government will of the vast majority of the people will have unfortunate consequences.  Forestalling that tragic eventuality is the responsibility of the 225 people’s representatives in the current parliament.

Official opposition and TNA leader R. Sampanthan’s fallacious argument in his recent parliamentary speech as reported in The Island of February 22, 2018 (‘Lotus Bud will bloom into Eelam’) that former Mahinda Rajapaksa got only 45% of the vote at the countrywide  LG elections as against 55% against him might convince only some idiots and fanatical supporters of the yahapalana regime. To arrive at the figure 55%, he simply adds up the measly percentages scored by his yahapalana comrades in arms of 2015 (the UNP, SLFP, TNA, JVP, etc) more against each other than against Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is well known that by now they have fallen foul of each other, but are obliged to maintain a façade of unity in disunity for the sake of common survival. So, the votes they polled cannot be added up as votes cast against Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is more rational to invert Sampanthan’s argument and say that Mahinda Rajapkasa has emerged as the leader who is the least disliked, that is, the one most approved of in the whole country. His equally untenable argument that the ‘Lotus Bud will bloom into Eelam’ because, as he falsely implies, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s alleged appeal to what Tamil racists including himself denounce as Sinhala chauvinism will leave the Tamil people no option but to create a separate state. A cooler analysis of the LG election results than octogenarian Sampanthan would like to accept will demonstrate the fact that, in national politics, Mahinda Rajapaksa is more popular even among the Tamils than he himself is in his own region.

Sampanthan is making history as a unique Leader of Opposition who is anxious to save an unpopular government from being ousted in the national interest. JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the chief organizer of the opposition is no better. He is seemingly  worried about the purported rift between the prez and the pm that is likely to endanger the government’s survival.  All this means that the official opposition has abandoned its legitimate role of offering an  alternative to the government, but is serving as a faithful sidekick to it. The role of a democratic opposition is today being played by the Joint Opposition.

Fr J.C. Pieris of Galle laments the decisive rejection of the JVP at the LG polls in an opinion piece in The Island of February 21, (‘This deadly illusion of democracy’).  He expected the JVP to do well in the election as crusaders against corruption in politics. Corruption is bad and it must be eliminated for the country to make headway.  However, the problem cannot be solved until and unless the government and the opposition address it together as a national issue. Like many other vital issues, the problem of corruption has been heavily politicized. What has always happened and is still happening is that both sides (which periodically alternate in governing the country) use corruption allegations, whether true or false, against each other as weapons of attack, while doing hardly anything to stop the evil of corruption itself. This by itself is a crime. Though corruption is a perennial problem and it must be tackled sooner or later, it is not the burning issue that the yahapalana apologists make it out to be. The infinitely more important issue that must be resolved is the real danger of the country being divided on ethnic lines based on a federalist constitution thrust on us from outside. No one can object to JVP’s anti-corruption ideology. But the truth is that the JVP has had no chance yet to enjoy power at the top and demonstrate its own often touted incorruptibility. Sadly, in the absence of a clear vision and a visionary leadership, the JVP is going the way of all its predecessors – coming with a bang and dying with a whimper. It may be that their empty rhetoric fails to convince the masses. This time it has been soundly beaten by its chosen target for elimination – the bloc represented by the genuine SLFP (of the pre-yahapalana days), and now by the SLPP or the Lotus Bud alliance.

A prominent member of the SLPP, Wimal Weerawansa, has characterized it as a ‘second 1956 revolution’, a change that involves a decisive victory by the nationalist forces over the UNP-led pro-Western neoconservatives cum neoliberals. Former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, the unofficial leader of the SLPP and the rallying point of forces opposed to the present government,   proposes that the current parliament be dissolved forthwith and a new parliament be elected in order to install a stable government; if that is not possible, he demands that the Joint Opposition be recognized as the official opposition for the rest of the government’s term. A spokesperson for the SLPP has hinted that members of the SLFP faction in the government could join them in defeating controversial harmful legislation moves, if any, by the yahapalanaya. However, that could only be a kind of tacit agreement between the members of the heavily defeated SLFP and the blossoming  new party the SLPP.

When the nationalists, coming from all communities, organized as the SLPP under the iconic leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa are democratically elected to power in the near future, in less than two years’ time in fact, they will have to restore the country to the point where it reached in the 2009 to 2014 period after overcoming  the separatist terrorism that had plagued it for nearly thirty years. That feat of 2009 was achieved by the nationalists with the willing support of all the communities that the Sri Lankan nation comprises. Soon they will have to launch a sound instauration program  whose crucial features must be, in my opinion, the following three, as articulated by a young intellectual of our time, legal luminary Dharshan Weerasekera:  1. A comprehensive plan to destroy the Tamil separatist movement once and for all, 2. A comprehensive economic plan, and 3. A comprehensive plan of constitutional reform (lankaweb.com/news/items/2018/02/13). This is a job for the nationalists.

 lanka C news

පසුගිය කාලය පුරාම සාමාන්‍ය මහා ජනතාව අතර අල්ලසට දුෂණයට විරුද්ධව ලොකු හඩක් රට පුරා තිබුණු බවත් එය මැතිවරණයේදී ජනතාව විසින් ඔප්පු කල බවත් එක්සත් ජාතික නිදහස් පෙරමුණේ ප්‍රධාන ලේකම් මෛත්‍රී ගුණරත්න මහතා පවසනවා.

ඒ මහතා මේ බව පැවසුවේ ගාල්ලේ පවතී ජන හමුවක් අමතමිනි.

මෙහිදී වැඩි දුරටත් අදහස් දැක්වූ ගුණරත්න මහතා කියාසිටියේ පසුගිය පළාත් පාලන මැතිවරණය මේ ආණ්ඩුවට විරුද්ධව ලැබුණු ජනමතයක් විදියටයි අපිට තේරුම් ගන්න සිදුවන්නේ,එහිදී බහුතර ජනතාව අගමැතිවරයා ප්‍රමුඛ ආණ්ඩුව යන ගමන වැරදි බව තීරණය කරලා තියනවා

යහපාලන ආණ්ඩුවට මිනිස්සු ඡන්දය දුන්නේ අල්ලස්,වංචාව,හොරකම,දුෂණය තුරන් කරන්න.නමුත් මේ ආණ්ඩුවෙන් ඒ ජනතාව වෙනුවෙන් සාධාරණය කලේ නැහැ.ඒ වෙනුවට අලුත් විදියකින් හොරකම,වංචාව නීතිගත වුන එකයි වුනේ.අපි එදත් හොරකමට විරුද්ධව සටන් කළා,අදත් ඒ සටන කරනවා” ඒ මහතා පැවසිය.

තව දුරටත් අදහස් දැක්වූ ප්‍රධාන ලේකම්වරයා,

අද බලන්න මේ ආණ්ඩුව කැබිනට් සංශෝධනයක් ගෙනාවා,එක ගෙනත් අවුලක් වෙනුවට අවුල් ජාලයක් නිර්මාණය කළා, අද ඇමතිවරු කියනවා මට එපා මේ ඇමතිකම, මට ඕනේ අර ඇමතිකම කියල.මේ මොන ආණ්ඩු කිරීමක්ද, ඉතිහාසයේ කවද්ද මෙහෙම ආණ්ඩු කෙරුවේ

ජනතාව මහා බැංකු වංචාවට විරුද්ධව ලොකු හඩක් නැගුවා, මේ රටේ සිවිල් සංවිධාන, විද්වතුන් හා නිදහස් මත දරන පුරවැසියෝ මාධ්‍යවේදීන් සියලු දෙනා කිව්වා ලංකා ඉතිහාසයේ වෙච්ච ලොකුම හොරකම මහා බැංකු වංචාවට දඩුවම් දෙන්න කියල.මේ සම්බන්දයෙන් ජනාධිපති කොමිෂම වැරදි කරුවන් පෙන්වා දුන්නා, නමුත් අද මහා බැංකු වංචාවේ මහමොලකරුවන්ට නිතිය භාරදීලා දැන් හොරු අල්ලන්න කමිටු පත්කරනවා.ගමේ මිනිහෙක් පොල් ගෙඩියක් අඹ ගෙඩියක් කැඩුවට දඩ ගහනවා, හිරේ දානවා.කොන්ඩ කටුවකින් සීගිරියේ චිත්‍රයක් හුරපු ළමයට සිර දඩුවම් දුන්නා.එහෙම රටේ මහා බැංකුව කඩපු මිනිසුන්ට දඩුවමක් නැහැ

අර්ජුන මහේන්ද්‍රන්ට රටෙන් පැනල යන්න ඉඩ දුන්නා, අද ඔහු සිංගප්පුරුවෙත් නෑ කියනවා.අධිකරණය යවපු සිතාසිය අයෙ හරවල එවනවා.මේ රටේ නිතිය ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙන්නේ ගමේ ඉන්න පුංචි මිනිස්සුන්ට විතරද කියන ප්‍රශ්නය දැන් හැම කෙනෙක්ම අහන ප්‍රශ්නයක් බවට පත්වෙලා

අගමැතිවරයාට මේ බැදුම්කර වංචාවේ ප්‍රධාන චෝදනාවක් එල්ල වුනා.ඔහු තමයි අර්ජුන මහේන්ද්‍රන් මහා බැංකු අධිපති විදියට පත් කරන්න කියලා නිර්දේශ කළේ.අද නිතිය භාර ඇමති අගමැතිවරයා දැන් ඔහුට පුළුවන් වෙන්න ඕනේ තමාගේ මිත්‍රයා ලංකාවට ගෙන්නලා නිතිය ඉදිරියට යොමු කරන්න.නමුත් අපි විශ්වාස කරන්නැහැ එක එහෙම වෙයි කියලා

ජනාධිපති තුමාටත් අපි කියන්න ඕනේ ජනතාව පසුගිය මැතිවරණයේදී ලැබුණු ජනවරමට අනුව අපිට පෙන්නේ ජනතාව කිව්වේ අගමැති මහබැංකු වංචාව සම්බන්දයෙන් චෝදනාවට ලක්වෙලා ඔහු ඉවත් කරන්න කියලා, නමුත් අද ඔහුට පොලිසිය භාරදීලා ජනතාවගේ විශ්වාසය නැති කෙනෙක්ට පොලිසිය භාර දීම අපිට අනුමත කරන්න බැහැ.මේ වෙන දේවල් වල හැටියට යහපාලනය ගෙනත් ජනතාව මේ රටේ පුරවැසියෝ බලාපොරොත්තු වුන අපමණ අගය මේ රටට හා ජනතාවට දෙන්න පුළුවන් කියල අපි හිතන්නැහැ”

– කේ.ටී.දර්ශන

President should remove SLFP from national govt – Sarath Wijesekara ජනාධිපති රටට ආදරේ නම් ශ්‍රීල.නි.ප මන්ත්‍රීවරු ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවෙන් ඉවත් කර ගත යුතුයි

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

February 27, 2018, 8:57 pm

JVP leader and Chief Opposition Whip, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, on Feb. 19, 2018 declared that those who had joined forces to oust the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the Jan.8, 2015 presidential election would never get together again.

An irate Dissanayake warned SLFP leader President Sirisena not to entertain the hopes of securing a second five-year term. The JVPer also warned UNP leader, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, that he would never be the President. Wickremesinghe unsuccessfully contested the Nov. 1999 presidential election.

A dejected JVPer said so at the first parliamentary session, following the humiliating defeat suffered by the UNP, the SLFP and the JVP at the Feb. 10 local government polls. Dissanayake acknowledged that the Marxist party couldn’t secure anticipated polls result, though some progress was made. Dissanayake asserted that some gains had been made in the predominately Tamil northern region.

It would be pertinent to examine Dissanayake’s assertion that those who had been involved in the high profile 2015 political project wouldn’t join forces again.

Having assumed JVP leadership on Feb. 2, 2014, Dissanayake paved the way for the party to join the UNP-led alliance. Dissanayake replaced Somawansa Amarasinghe, who assumed the party leadership about six years after the extra-judicial execution of party founder Rohana Wijeweera in government custody. The UNP executed Wijeweera on Nov. 13, 1989, in Colombo. Amarasinghe passed away, in June 2016, following a brief illness.

Under Dissanayake’s leadership, the JVP threw its weight behind the UNP-TNA (Tamil National Alliance) combine to help Maithripala Sirisena thwart twice-president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term. Dissanayake took over a much weakened JVP due to heavyweight Weerawansa switching allegiance to Rajapaksa during his first presidential term. Subsequently, Dissanayake suffered another setback due to Kumar Gunaratnam forming his own outfit, the Front-line Socialist Party (FSP).

In the wake of the recent drubbing, at the countrywide polls, three years after the Jan. 8, 2015 presidential election, the JVP has declared its intention not to continue with the UNP-led political alliance against Rajapaksa. The JVP announced its decision after having blamed Sirisena and Wickremesinghe for the debilitating defeat suffered in the hands of Rajapaksa, whose re-emergence as the most influential political leader obviously stunned the Marxist party.

The JVP also joined forces with the Joint Opposition to question the validity of the UNP-SLFP arrangement, alleging that their pact lapsed in Sept. last year, therefore the continuation of the National Unity Government cannot be accepted. The JVP didn’t find fault with the yahapalana partners failure to extend the agreement until they were routed at the Feb. 10 polls. The JVP cannot be unaware that the UNP-SLFP agreement had lapsed four months ago. The SLFP purposely refrained from extending the agreement as it felt it could be severely disadvantageous due to the UNP being implicated in the Treasury Bond scams that had been perpetrated in 2015 and 2016.

However, Dissanayake made no reference to the origins of the UNP-led political alliance that ousted Rajapaksa, three years ago.

An unprecedented alliance

The alliance that successfully challenged the Rajapaksas came into being in late 2009 in the run-up to the Jan. 26, 2010 presidential polls. The alliance backed war-winning Army Chief General Sarath Fonseka. After having alleged Fonseka as well as the Rajapaksa brothers, Mahinda, Gotabhaya and Basil, had committed war crimes, the US Embassy, in Colombo, played a critical role in the formation of the alliance. The US succeeded in its efforts though, at the onset, minority parties, particularly the then four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA), was skeptical about the project. The US also brought the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) into the project meant to defeat Rajapaksa. The US compelled the TNA to back Fonseka, while the JVP, too, played a significant role in the campaign.

Somawansa Amarasinghe had been in command of the party, with Dissanayake being a member of the parliamentary group, at the time the JVP joined the original US-led project to elect Fonseka president. The project went awry. The JVP ended up alleging that the Rajapaksas of perpetrating what was then called computer jillmart (manipulating computers to fix the polls result).

The US role in a despicable bid to change the government in Sri Lanka (as it has done in many countries world wide) wouldn’t have come to light if not for the secret revealing WikiLeaks. Thanks to WikiLeaks, the electorate is aware how the US Embassy ran a political project to defeat the war-winning president. Disclosure of classified diplomatic cables, pertaining to the then SLMC Chairman and Opposition Leader of the Eastern Provincial Council, Basheer Segudawood, as well as TNA leader R. Sampanthan, sent shock waves through political parties. However, the electorate hadn’t been largely unaware of the political parties here being used by the US Embassy to implement its strategies.

After the 2010 project to instal Fonseka as the president went awry, the UNP quit the alliance to contest parliamentary polls on its own. A disappointed Fonseka had no option but to team up with the JVP to contest on the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) ticket. The grouping managed to secure just seven seats, including two National List slots. Among the five elected were Fonseka and World Cup winning cricket captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, from Colombo and Kalutara districts, respectively. The Rajapaksas angered especially by Fonseka’s foul mouthing used the existing system to punish him by depriving him of his parliamentary seat. Later Fonseka registered his own, Democratic Party and contested the parliamentary polls in Aug. 2015 at which he suffered a terrible defeat with many of his close supporters having abandoned him along the way. Fonseka couldn’t even retain his seat. The UNP accommodated him on its National List in spite of him not being a member of the party and hadn’t been on its lists at the last parliamentary polls.

The JVP has now distanced itself from both Fonseka and Sirisena and obviously in a quandary.

The JVP had been deeply involved in the both the 2010 and 2015 projects. Interestingly, on both occasions, so called common candidates, Sarath Fonseka and Maithripala Sirisena, though being backed by the UNP, contested on the New Democratic Front (NDF) ticket, an offshoot of the Democratic United National Front (DUNF). Chairman of the outfit, N.M. Shalila Moonesinghe, was arrested in Oct. 2017 for having transferred more than a million USD illegally from the Far Eastern International Bank of Taiwan, to his personal bank account at the Bank of Ceylon. At the time of his arrest, Moonesinghe, a British national of Sri Lankan origin, functioned as Chairman of LITRO Gas, a state-owned enterprise.

None of those political parties, including the JVP, had ever commented on the case involving the NDF chairman. The National Election Commission (NEC) is yet to initiate action in respect of Moonesinghe registering a political party through some devious means, way back in 2009. Now that Dissanayake has declared that the 2015 group would never get back together to back a presidential candidate at the next presidential poll, in 20 months time, the JVP’s position would certainly have a bearing on the overall political situation and is likely to be advantageous to the Rajapaksas.

The NDF, with its swan symbol, is unlikely to receive an opportunity again to participate in a high profile campaign again though incumbent president Sirisena remains its man.

JVP’s dilemma

The JVP managed to secure six seats at the last parliamentary polls, in Aug. 2015 The JVP parliamentary group comprised two National List members. In spite of promising to introduce a new political culture, the JVP, too, accommodated two defeated candidates, Sunil Handunetti and Bimal Ratnayake on its National List slots.

In the run-up to the Feb. 10 local government polls, the JVP really believed that it could comfortably gain sizable electoral gains at the expense of the UNP and the SLFP. The JVP asserted that the situation couldn’t have been better for the party to register its best performance, at national level, especially in the wake of the UNP being humiliated over Treasury Bond scams, involving Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL), and Sirisena accused of shielding some of those facing corruption and alleged murder charges. A confident JVP went to the extent of declaring intentions to achieve kingmaker status at the next presidential and parliamentary polls. Instead, the electorate has delivered a humiliating snub to the JVP, perhaps for its perceived role in backing the government at crucial junctures, especially in helping to get certain anti-democratic legislations passed with 2/3 majoprity, at the commencement of a crucial period with provincial councils polls for nine regions, followed by presidential and parliamentary polls.

In fact, the JVP has been compelled to acknowledge, in parliament, that those who had believed in the SLFP policies voted for the rebel SLFP group thereby strengthening the hands of the former president. Obviously, the JVP ended up with egg on its face due to its failure to achieve noticeable progress in urban areas or provinces.

The JVP like all other political parties and civil society organizations that campaigned for Sirisena at the 2015 presidential poll, repeatedly stressed that Rajapaksa couldn’t secure 50 per cent of the vote. They pointed out that for those who had called the Feb. 10 polls a sort of national referendum on the performance of the three-year yahapalana government suffered a debilitating setback. The overtly pro-government civil society outfit ‘Purawesi Balaya’ that briefed media twice and Government National List MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne underscored that Rajapaksa couldn’t secure the required 50 per cent of the votes cast to claim victory. In fact a pathetic attempt was made to portray Rajapaksa’s failure to achieve 50 per cent as defeat for the Joint Opposition/Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna at the next parliamentary and presidential polls.

Crisis faced by anti-Mahinda elements

The SLPP polled 44.69 per cent of the votes cast at the LG election. The UNP obtained 32.61 per cent. The UPFA polled 8.90 per cent. The SLFP polled 4.48 per cent. The two governing parties secured together 45.99 per cent, almost 46 per cent. Rajapaksa led SLPP polled 44.69 per cent, nearly 2 per cent less than the other three parties put together.

But those wanting to use these figures to depict a defeat for the SLPP at a referendum, had conveniently forgotten that the vote received by the SLFP and the UPFA couldn’t be under any circumstances counted as anti-Mahinda vote. The majority of those who had exercised their franchise in support of Sirisena are likely to switch their allegiance to the SLPP at the forthcoming PC polls, followed by presidential polls and parliamentary polls.

The JVP secured 6.26 per cent and the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi polled 3.06 per cent. Let me reproduce the relevant section from a statement issued by TNA leader R. Sampanthan following local government polls drubbing: “If one was to add the percentage of votes polled by those two parties together with the percentage of votes polled by the UNP, the UPFA and the SLFP, the total would be 55.31 per cent. So, in other words, parties opposed to the SLPP have polled 55.31 per cent and the SLPP has polled only 44.69 per cent. This is indisputable.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the Presidential Election, held in 2015, polled 47.58 per cent. The votes he polled at the Presidential Election, in January, 2015, were more than the votes he polled at the LG election. There have been three elections in recent times; the Presidential Election in 2015, the Parliamentary Election in 2015 and the Local Government Election held this month. In none of these elections has former President Mahinda Rajapaksa been able to obtain more than 50 per cent.

His vote has always been below 50 per cent at the Presidential Election, at the Parliamentary Election and at the Local Authority Election. So, there is nothing to get excited about: elections are held; parties win; parties lose. The Local Authority Elections have been held and you have won. One does not dispute that fact, but the fact of the matter is that you have polled only 44.69 per cent as opposed to 55.31 per cent cast against you. So, what is there to get excited about? Nothing at all. Parliament is not constituted on the basis of votes cast at the Local Authority Elections. Parliament is constituted, – the President is elected, on the basis of votes cast at the Presidential Election – at a Parliamentary Election held for that purpose in keeping with the Constitution and the laws of this country.”

Why worry?

Those who had claimed that Rajapaksa lacked electoral support to achieve 50 per cent of vote cast at 2015 national elections and the 2018 countrywide local government polls, in spite of rhetoric, seemed to be seriously concerned about the rapid reemergence of Rajapaksa.

Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera in the run-up to the Feb. 10 polls warned that the yahapalana project could be in jeopardy in case Rajapaksa led the SLPP to victory. Samaraweera’s fears have now been realized and an unexampled threat emerged at a time the government is struggling to come to terms with the TNA demand for a new Constitution. The TNA itself is under heavy pressure in the north with the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF) making progress in the north at the recently concluded polls.

Sampanthan cannot ignore Rajapaksa himself declaring that he wanted the post of the Opposition Leader. Rajapaksa has challenged Sampanthan’s right to remain the Opposition Leader in the wake of the JO/SLPP consolidating its position in areas outside the Northern and Eastern provinces. Sampanthan must be really worried over the situation developing in the Northern Province, particularly in the Jaffna peninsula where the stage is set for a virulent political battle at the forthcoming second Northern Province Provincial Council polls. The TNA-held council will be automatically dissolved in Oct. this year. The TNA faces the challenging task of dropping incumbent Northern Chief Minister, retired Supreme Court judge C.V. Wigneswaran, from its list of candidates. Wigneswaran’s next move can cause turmoil in the Northern Province and undermine the TNA hold, especially in the wake of the TNPF taking a harder stand on the accountability issue. Having made electoral gains in the Jaffna peninsula at the recently concluded polls, the TNPF, ahead of the next Geneva sessions, is now campaigning for the Sri Lanka issue to be moved from Geneva to the UN Security Council. The TNA alleges that the Security Council should now move in as Colombo hasn’t adhered with Geneva Resolution 30/1. The TNPF leadership recently asserted that in case the matter cannot be taken up in New York, the UN should consider the setting up of an international war crimes tribunal.

Wigneswaran is likely to come under pressure to throw his weight behind the TNPF at the coming PC polls campaign. The possibility of the outspoken politician, who is now at loggerheads with the top TNA leadership, joining the fray, too, cannot be ruled out.

(To be continued on March 7)