Dr Gotabaya Rajapakse became our 7th President on 18 November 2019, just a week ago.
The busy Colombo Streets are already clean. The make-shift vendors have moved out from pavements, so the pedestrians can move freely.
There is no visible garbage dumping in the City, the public responded to the newly elected President call for the maintenance of cleanliness and protection of the environment.
At the Airport, prior to his election, inbound and outgoing women were seen in hundreds wearing Burqa and Niqaab. But today, civilization has returned to the Airport where everyone can be easily identified.
On
a trip down south, from Wadduwa to Mirissa, the hotel operators have confirmed
an instant increase of inbound tourists to Sri Lanka. You will find
today, in addition to major hotels and motels, small operators providing
accommodation are refurbishing their previously closed businesses.
In Hikkaduwa particularly, handicraft operators selling Batik products, paintings, and other ancillary items are back in business with newly found confidence.
The
freedom of movements has been ensured for the public. The VIP fast
drivers are fast disappearing. Unnecessary public receptions to politicians
have disappeared. Sri Lanka is no longer a Paradise of Jokers.
With the invocation of Public Security Ordinance throughout the island, the law and order are being maintained whilst taking prompt action against drug dealers and other illegal activities. The Land, Sea and Air personnel are safeguarding the territory, with a fore-warning to Boats carrying drugs and illegal immigrants.
The upward trend of Sri Lankan Share Indices started one week prior to the Presidential Election, It is continuing signs of a healthy maintainable upward trend. Sri Lankan currency unit Rupee is gradually appreciating from its previous disastrous low levels against major currencies.
The festive season will bring additional foreign exchange through tourism, which will indirectly filter into self-employed personnel. In the coming months, positive improvements are expected as a result of the Consumer Price Index, reduction of unemployment.
Increase in Money Circulation will take place due to the increase in Spending, the influx of direct and indirect local and foreign investments, thus reducing the inflation and interest rates in the medium term.
Dr. Gotabaya Rajapakse has been in Office for just 7 days. In fact, President Gotabaya has not done anything yet, but the Patriotic Sri Lankans have embraced the new values voluntarily.
The President has appointed Prof Lalith U Gamage as the new Governor of Central Province. The Governors of Sri Lanka were not busy people in the past. In the recent past we had some colourful and not so colourful names in our list of past Governors, including Gamini Fonseka, Karunaratne Divulgane, Niluka Ekanayake, Reginald Cooray, Maithree Gunaratne, Hizbulla, Shan De Silva, Sarath Ekanayake, Suren Ragaven, Alawi Moulana, Hemal Gunasekera, Azad Sally etc.
In the list of new Governors, we have witnessed several operators with sound credentials, including very popular Specialist ENT Surgeon Dr Mrs Seetha Arambepola, Lalith U Gamage, Dr Willie Gamage.
These professionals need to be engaged in more productive roles, functioning in addition to their ceremonial roles of Governors.
The
President Gotabaya has repeated emphasised the importance of ICT usage in Sri
Lanka. In this context, Lalith U Gamage could be a key player in the
development of software products with necessary customization to link the
Projects included in the Vision and Mission Statement to facilitate
Performance Evaluation.
The National Capital Territory of Delhi commonly known as the NCR has been facing the worst situation regarding pollution particularly air pollution since long. And same is the situation in several districts surrounding Delhi from the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. In short, a strange blurriness in the shape of smog has shrouded the historical city of Delhi. Smog is a type of intense air pollution. The word ‘smog’ is a contraction of the words smoke and fog. It is considered the most visible kind of air pollution usually composed of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ozone and other particulates. Smog could be a result of coal combustion emissions, vehicular and industrial emissions and emissions from forest and agricultural fires.
Astonishingly
Vineet Agarwal Sharda, a very active BJP leader has an altogether different
point of view with reference to the air pollution caused by the smog. A few
days back, talking to some media-persons in Mureet, he said that Pakistan and
China are responsible for the high levels of pollution in the national capital
region (NCR) and adjacent areas. He alleged either of the two neighbouring
countries could have released poisonous gases into India. He further said, We
must seriously consider whether Pakistan has released any poisonous gas because
Pakistan was frustrated ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home
Minister Amit Shah took charge.”
In the first week of this November, BBC published a report on the worst situation of pollution in Delhi which narrated the facts altogether differently. The report said A major factor behind the high pollution levels at this time of year is farmers in neighbouring states burning crop stubble to clear their fields. Police are wearing face masks to protect themselves from the toxic smog. This creates a lethal cocktail of particulate matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide – all worsened by fireworks set off during the Hindu festival Diwali a week ago. Vehicle fumes, construction and industrial emissions have also contributed to the smog.” Fortunately, there was no reference to Pakistan or China in this report of BBC. In response to Vineet Agarwal’s statement Deputy Director-General Information Department, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Lijan Zhao in a tweet equated BJP leader with a JOKER. Lijan Zhao had been serving at the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad sometime back. This statement of the honourable BJP member would have become more funny and ridiculous if the people of India had believed what he had said; fortunately, they never take such things serious.
In the list of 30 most polluted cities of the world, 22 are in India. The situation was as horrible in 2016 as it is now in 2019. A survey conducted in 2016 said that at least 140 million people in India breathe air that is 10 times or more over the WHO safe limit. This horrible ratio of pollution in the air is the basic reason for the premature deaths of 2 million Indians every year. In urban areas, the basic source of this pollution is the use of sub-standard vehicles and industrial units without sufficient anti-pollution arrangements. On the other hand, in rural areas, the basic source of this pollution is the burning of biomass for cooking and for keeping houses warm. In autumn and winter season air pollution reaches a horrible level because of smoke and smog produced by burning of the remains of crops in agriculture fields. In short, air pollution in India is purely an administrative and managerial problem. If not properly taken care of, the situation would certainly become more painful and agonizing.
In such an already horrible scenario why does the honourable BJP member Vineet Agarwal Sharda expect from Pakistan and China that they would waste their resources on pumping of poisonous gases into Indian air? It is simply an Indian obsession with Pakistan and China that everything bad there is linked with the two neighbouring countries Pakistan and China. This obsession is getting more and more serious day by day. It has become a trend among Indian politicians to point fingers towards Pakistan and China whenever something goes wrong due to ineligibility and inability of the Indian government. Blaming Pakistan and China of ‘pumping’ a poisonous gas to add more pollution to the already most polluted cities of the world seems a ‘mumbo-jumbo’ idea of the BJP politicians who have nothing else to do but raise a storm of blames and allegations against Pakistan and China. In English language, such a situation is called, ‘a storm in the tea-cup’.
There are none so blind as those who do not see.” Matthew 9:26-27
The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
and most wanted terrorist leader after Osama Bin Laden, was killed on October
26th in a US military raid by its Delta Force in the village of Barisha located
to the northwest of Syria. The killing occurred in the de-escalation zone of
Idlib. Baghdadi’s rule extended over 88,000 sq km, stretching across the
Iraq-Syria border. He was cornered by US special forces in the dead-end of a
tunnel, where he detonated an explosive suicide vest, killing himself and three
of his children.
Six months ago, the final known footage of Baghdadi was aired on the militant
group’s al-Furqan media network after the Easter Sunday killing in Sri Lanka,
which claimed the lives of 250 civilians. The local extremist cluster that
carried out the attack was influenced by Baghdadi and his terror network across
South Asia.
Despite the threat of violent extremism spreading in the Island nation, which
was being discussed and documented before the attack, it was not a priority due
to shortcomings within the security establishment. This was highlighted a week
ago by the recently released Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) report, a
post-audit of the 4/21 attack.[1] Identifying deficiencies within the
establishment and lapses in its decision-making process on national security,
the committee’s report reveals the importance and urgency of security sector
reforms to ensure the public safety of Sri Lankan citizens.
The report holds eight recommendations. The first is for Sri Lanka’s
defense establishment to implement ‘Essential reforms in the security and
intelligence sector’ by undertaking a comprehensive review of national
security priorities to identify gaps and weaknesses and areas that require
reform and strengthening. The recommendations suggest coupling an immediate
review of the present structures in place for security and intelligence and
mapping out tasks, responsibilities and possible areas of overlap. The
Parliamentary Select Committee is of the view that the nation has not
identified its national security priorities. It leaves the task of
strengthening coordination among the security establishment and key
stakeholders. The nation requires a National Defence Policy (NDP).
The Geneva Center for Security Sector Governance sees defence policy as part of
a broader concept of a country’s National Security Policy or National Security
Strategy. Defence policy encompasses defence planning and management, which
are consecutive steps towards practical implementation of that policy, down to
actual command and control. The lines that divide all these concepts or phases
are often blurred in practice. In general, defence policy covers everything
from ends to ways and means of achieving national defence objectives and is
guided by codes and principles that are embedded in National Security Policy.”[2] Several South Asian nations do not
possess defence policies shared with their public. Sri Lanka’s closest
neighbour India, for example, has been criticized for not having a defence
policy, a requirement that has been discussed since the time of Prime Minister
Narasimha Rao in the 1990s. According to Prime Minister Rao:
The first criticism has been a
rather extraordinary kind of criticism to say that we have no National Defence
Policy. I would like to submit respectfully that is not true. We do not have a
document called India’s National Defence Policy. But we have got several
guidelines which are strictly followed and observed and those can be summed up
as follows: First the Defence of national territory over land, sea and air
encompassing among others the inviolability of our land borders, island
territories, offshore assets and our maritime trade routes. Secondly, to secure
an internal environment whereby our nation-state is insured against any threats
to its unity or progress based on religion, language, ethnicity or
socio-economic dissonance. Third, to be able to exercise a degree of influence
over the nations in our immediate neighbourhood to promote harmonious
relationships in tune with our national interests. Fourth, to be able to
effectively contribute towards regional and international stability and to
possess an effective out-of-the-country contingency capability to prevent
destabilization of the small nations in our immediate neighbourhood that could
have adverse security implications for us.[3]
S. Kalyanaraman, Research Fellow at Institute for
Defence Studies and Analysis in India, explains: one of the staples of the
popular and even academic discourse on India’s national security during the
last few decades has been the assertion that India does not have a defence
policy. Such a view is widely shared not only by Indian and foreign scholars
and analysts but also by retired high-ranking civilian and military officials.”[4] A National Defence Policy is a
step towards moving away from reacting in an ad hoc manner, while promoting
strategic thinking and action in the realm of national security.
Has Sri Lanka ever attempted to develop a National Defence Policy?
The first draft of the National Defence Policy was prepared in 2016 by
a team of distinguished military officers along with the Institute of National
Security Studies Sri Lanka (INSSSL), a national security think tank. It was prepared
with the leadership of Air Chief Marshal Kolitha Gunathilake, Gen. Udaya
Perera, Gen. Shavendra Silva and many others. After completion, the policy was
submitted to the then Secretary of Defence Karunasena Hettiarachi, who was
instrumental in initiating the process, but failed to take it forward due to
his sudden transfer. The same policy was handed over to the subsequent Defence
Secretaries, Kapila Waidyarathne and Hemasiri Fernando. A second attempt was
engaged after the Easter Sunday bombing with the leadership of General Shantha
Kottegoda and 18 distinguished military officers along with the INSSSL. After
much deliberation, a revised policy was handed over to President Sirisena who
would table this at the Cabinet of Sri Lanka. Had this policy guideline been
taken up seriously before the Easter Sunday attacks, Sri Lanka would have had
progressive reforms in the security sector and perhaps saved many innocent
lives. The PSC report contains several key recommendations and findings
highlighted by the committee, mirrored in the NDP as policy guidelines.
Sri Lanka’s first-ever NDP is an extensive document outlining 6 national
defence interests and 13 objectives, while identifying Sri Lanka’s defence
capabilities and discussing the country’s force structure modernization
efforts. The document identifies the need and the extent to which force
modernization ought to be facilitated for the future well-being of the defence
forces. The purpose of defence policy is to ensure things are done in an
organized manner and objectives are attained while respecting rules. The
reforms discussed at the PSC, for example, of creating a National Security
Advisor (NSA) and National Security Council (NSC), are clearly identified and
discussed in the National Defence Policy. The NSC will be established under a
new secretary-general as a secretariat headed by the President, and it will
have 15 permanent members, including the Prime Minister, NSA, State Minister of
Defence, Minister of Law and Order, Secretary to President, Secretary Defence,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Finance, Attorney General, Chief of
Defence Staff, Tri Force Commanders, IGP and Chief of National Intelligence.
The NDP should be available to the public and, like any other policy, will go
through a periodic review every three years. Such a policy gives strength to
the entire system and improves decision making while prioritizing defence
requirements. The strategies will be formulated by the respective forces and
office of the chief of defence staff (OCDS) to achieve the security
requirements from regime to regime.
In a rapidly changing, complex global threat environment in the international
geopolitical arena, Sri Lanka faces numerous security threats such as
extremism, cyberattacks, financial and economic crimes, maritime intrusions,
environmental degradation and natural disasters. Sri Lanka has lost lives and
property each year as a direct result of these threats. Examples of natural
disasters include the mudslides in Aranayake[5] which killed more than 200 and
displaced 350,000, as well as garbage disasters.[6]
National security issues are at the forefront of the November 2019 presidential
election. It is pivotal we stimulate and strengthen the process using a
National Defence Policy. New threats require new strategies and new
capabilities. They also create new responsibilities. One of the fundamental
questions is how to optimally balance the resources the nation possesses and
how to acquire new resources to address rapidly changing security threats
facing Sri Lanka.
Asanga
Abeyagoonasekera is the director general of the National Security Think Tank of
Sri Lanka (INSSSL) under the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense. The views
expressed here are his own. This article was initially published by Hudson
Institute Washington DC.
http://www.southasiaathudson.org/blog/2019/11/20/implementation-of-a-national-defence-policy-for-sri-lanka
[3] Towards a Clear Defence Policy,”
P.V. Narasimha Rao Selected Speeches. Volume IV: July 1994 – June 1995 (New
Delhi: Government of India, 1995), p. 125.
Milinda Moragoda, Founder of the Pathfinder Foundation and former Cabinet Minister, in a statement called on the new Government to refrain from holding Provincial Council elections prior to the parliamentary elections.
He suggested that the Government should, as part of the expected Constitutional overhaul, seek to mobilize the necessary two-thirds majority to repeal the 13th Amendment and thereby abolish the Provincial Council system at the conclusion of parliamentary elections.
Moragoda reiterated his earlier proposal that the Provincial Councils should be abolished and power directly devolved to empowered and reconfigured local, urban and municipal councils.
“Since these bodies operate closest to the citizenry, they are in a better position to address and solve community-level problems,” he said.
The original intent of the 13th amendment enacted in 1987 was to create more provincial autonomy in order to help resolve Sri Lanka’s ethnic problem. Instead this structure has proven to be superfluous, expensive, divisive and fraught with inefficiency.
Finally, he also proposed that an empowered senate/upper house be set up to address issues concerning religious, ethnic, and regional diversity.
The blame game is on, in the UNP, with the Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa factions holding each other responsible for the party’s crushing defeat at the recently concluded presidential election. The Sajith loyalists are raking their rivals over the coals for not having gone the whole hog to ensure the party’s win. The other side insists that the then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, entrusted with campaigning in the North and the East, succeeded in having the people there vote for Sajith overwhelmingly, but those in charge of the UNP campaign in other areas miserably failed to deliver. Both these groups are not telling the whole truth, we reckon.
The TNA, realising that odds were stacked against Sajith in the electorates outside the North and the East and the central hills, upped the ante; it put forth 13 demands aimed at securing more devolution, bordering on federalism in the hope that the UNP would be compelled to accept them publicly as it was desperate for votes. When Sajith, realising that it was plain political suicide for him to undertake to grant those demands, chose to remain silent thereon, the TNA found itself in a dilemma. It was left with a choice between a polls boycott and backing Sajith. It knew SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa would score a walkover if it boycotted the election and, therefore, decided to back Sajith. It may also have thought its support for him would lead to a quid pro quo. Even if anyone other than Ranil had campaigned in the North and the East, the TNA would still have delivered its block vote to Sajith, for its own sake more than anything else.
The Ranil faction is right in insisting that Sajith’s organisers failed elsewhere. However, the fact remains that the UNP did not throw its full weight behind Sajith. What befell him reminds us of the then PM Mahinda Rajapaksa’s predicament at the 2005 presidential election; the SLFP led by then President Chandrika Kumratunga was not supportive of him. Former President Maithripala Sirisena in Aththai Saththai, a hagiographical sketch, reveals that in the run-up to the 2005 presidential election, Chandirka asked him who he thought would win. When he told her it was Mahinda, she said Mahinda’s win would be good for the SLFP but bad for her. (Mahinda won in spite of her.)
The TNA gave Sajith the kiss of death in that its support for him triggered a backlash in other areas. The UNP made a huge miscalculation; some of its seniors even boasted that Sajith would get a head start with the help of the block votes of the minorities. They said he had bagged 30% of the votes even before the start of the race! They may have expected the votes for Sajith in the North and the East to increase while those for Gotabaya decreased so that there would be a repeat of the outcome of the 2015 presidential election.
‘The most unkindest cut’ for Sajith came from the then Minister Ravi Karunanayake in the Ranil faction. While Sajith was struggling to be the UNP’s presidential candidate, Karunanayake looked down upon him, at every turn, as a total misfit, claiming that the latter had not even passed the GCE O/L examination in Sri Lanka. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka also castigated Sajith initially as a square peg in a round hole though he started singing hosannas for the latter, after being promised the defence portfolio.
Sajith never recovered from Ranil’s claim, at a media briefing, prior to the election, that he would be the PM in case of Sajith’s election as President, for it was Ranil the people wanted to see the back of. Sajith sought to counter that claim by offering to appoint a ‘first-time PM’, but his effort was in vain.
The UNP leader has admitted that his party has alienated the Sinhala Buddhist voters. The erosion of their faith in the UNP did not occur overnight, after Sajith was nominated to contest the presidential election. It is the UNP leadership that should take the blame for this situation.
The UNP has lost a sizeable chunk of its vote base and come to be dependent on the block votes of other parties, which can hold it to ransom. It should have made use of the opportunities that presented themselves after its win at the 2015 general election to woo the majority community. But it did not care to do so. Unaware of the ground reality, Sajith took a leap of faith on 16 November, nay, he dived into the shallow end of the pool.
With ceremonies redolent with symbolism, followed by administrative moves that sent clear messages to the public, Gotabaya Rajapaksa took office as President of Sri Lanka signaling a clarity of purpose and a no-nonsense approach to his duties that lay ahead. The indications are that his will be a leadership very different from that of presidents before him, including that of his brother Mahinda. Unlike previous presidents, Gotabaya is not a politician. The war time defence secretary has a reputation for being a tough administrator and bureaucrat who got things done. As the SLPP’s candidate in this landmark election he ensured that he and his team carried out an exemplary, slander-free and environment-friendly election campaign. This in itself is a sign of a changing political culture.
The messages contained in President Gotabaya’s initial statements – at the Elections Commissioner’s office soon after being declared winner, and at his inauguration ceremony near the historic Ruwanweliseya in Anuradhapura – complemented and reinforced each other. On both occasions he said he was well aware that his victory was delivered by the Sinhalese majority community, and both times he emphasized that it was his duty as president to protect the rights of all including ‘those who did not vote for him.’ He pledged to carry out that responsibility. He also said he would fulfill all his pledges. Months after the Easter Sunday terror attacks that killed 268 innocents, his assertion that he considered national security to be of paramount importance, reassured many.
The intensity of emotion in the welcome the new president received from crowds, wherever he went after the results were known, was unprecedented. But while Sri Lankans celebrated by lighting firecrackers, dancing in the streets and sharing sweetmeats with passers-by, reactions abroad showed an almost surreal kind of disconnect from the euphoria at home. Western media and sections of the Indian press spoke in sinister terms of the ‘return of the Rajapaksas.’ The BBC ran a documentary highlighting alleged wartime atrocities blamed on the defence secretary. Foreign Policy’s article titled “Sri Lanka has a new strongman president’ said “Both minority groups have reason to fear their new government.” A PTI report spoke of Gotabaya reaching out to ‘jittery Tamil and Muslim minorities.’
If sections of the population are cringing in fear as these reports suggest, would it not seem strange that the police, the chairman of the Elections Commission and election monitors – both foreign and local – didn’t notice, and have with one voice declared this to have been one of the most peaceful and free elections?
What is the real source of Western fears of ‘strongman’ leaders in this part of the world?
“A big question for the second round of Rajapaksa rule is whether Colombo will pivot again toward Beijing and what that would mean for the region’s power dynamics,” said Foreign Policy. Strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney told the Times of India, “India faces daunting regional challenges” with “a pro-China communist government in Nepal, an implacably hostile Pakistan and the Rajapaksa family back in power in Sri Lanka.” Noting that Sri Lanka straddles vital sea lanes and is ‘central to India’s maritime security,’ Chellaney sees what he calls a ‘pro-China’ Gotabaya’s rise to power as ‘more than counterbalancing’ the ouster earlier of Beijing-backed Maldivian president Yameen.
In the contest for ascendancy in an emerging multi-polar world, India has become a strategic partner of the US. The US has identified China as its main adversary or ‘threat,’ and expects its partners to do their bit in countering Chinese influence. Sri Lanka, a founding member of the Non-aligned Movement, has historically had cordial relations with China, as well as with the US and India. China under its ambitious Belt and Road initiative now has significant infrastructure investments in Sri Lanka including the Hambantota port, arousing suspicions in both US and India of its possible military use. This is despite assurances to the contrary from both Colombo and Beijing. Under the previous yahapalana regime the country was drawn increasingly into the US orbit. The controversial and secret defence-related pacts being negotiated and/or signed with the superpower could have unnecessarily plunged the country into a conflict that has nothing to do with Sri Lanka.
President Gotabaya made his inaugural speech in Sinhala, but a few sentences in it were repeated by him in English. This was no doubt for the benefit of diplomats present. On the question of foreign relations he said, in English, “We want to remain neutral in our foreign relations and stay out of any conflicts amongst the world powers.” He urged all countries, in their diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka, to respect its unitary status and sovereignty. The president has thus sent a clear signal to the big powers that he will put national interest first, when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Another sentence in English was to say “Corruption will never be tolerated under my administration.” This was possibly a signal to encourage potential foreign investors and trading partners aware of difficulties in doing business in Sri Lanka.
The President has shown diplomatic savvy too, in the manner in which he responded to ‘loaded’ congratulatory messages from the Western bloc. The US and EU in their twitter messages said they looked forward to working with Sri Lanka on matters such as security sector reform, human rights, accountability, good governance, reconciliation and implementing international conventions on fundamental rights. The EU spokesperson’s twitter message went so far as to suggest ‘cooperation in foreign policy and security.’
The President graciously thanking the diplomats for their good wishes, in his replies focused on Sri Lanka’s own priorities such as economic and trade ties, increased inward investment, Sri Lanka’s readiness to create an environment for enhanced investment and trade, etc.
From the president’s speeches and messages so far it may be seen that he is positioning himself for a very different kind of interaction with foreign powers than that witnessed under the Wickremesinghe-led yahapalana government.
India’s PM Narendra Modi was the first to congratulate the president-elect on twitter, saying he looked forward to working with him closely “for peace, prosperity as well as security in the region.” India lost no time sending External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to call on Gotabaya who will visit India 29-30 Nov. By making this his first overseas destination as president he signals the importance of the Sri Lanka-India relationship.
China’s ambassador in Colombo Cheng Xueyuan visited with a delegation. In Beijing the Foreign Ministry spokesperson responding to reporters’ questions on the Sri Lanka election, was reported as saying “China and Sri Lanka are strategic cooperative partners with sincere mutual assistance and ever-lasting friendship,” adding that China was ready to work with the new leadership and government for ‘high-quality BRI cooperation.’ Russia’s president Vladmir Putin in a congratulatory letter said the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa “definitely meets the fundamental interests of our peoples, and is in line with strengthening the regional stability and security.”
Messages coming in from foreign leaders show how Sri Lanka has become inseparable from its strategic Indian Ocean location in the eyes of the world – with all that this implies for big powers maneuvering for advantage in the region. Moving towards a new moment in history, Sri Lanka’s political leaders would need to evolve to meet rising external challenges resulting from these power games.
Analyst Nitin Ghokale for one sees Gotabaya as a leader who has matured with experience. In a detailed TV interview with Strategic News International (SNI), of which he is founder and editor in chief, Ghokale said everybody tends to look at Sri Lanka ‘from the old lens,’ and this leads to a misreading of the situation, because things have changed. Referring to Gotabaya’s reassurances that he was the ‘president of all communities including those who did not vote for him,’ the longtime Sri Lanka watcher said “I think we should take him at face value, because people evolve, they mature.” Ghokale pointed out “There has been a lot of turnaround” in the relationship between the Rajapaksas and the Indian establishment. He candidly admitted to a realization in the Indian establishment that the Sirisena-Wickremsinghe duo “did not deliver as expected” after India “sort of supported them in the 2015 elections.” India was reconciled, though maybe not overtly, to the fact that Gotabaya Rajapaksa was coming to power, he said, and they will work with him. “And he is also willing to work with India. … So let’s look at the current situation rather than going back and looking at what happened in the past.”
The countries which have benefited from Chinese assistance in Asia, Africa and Europe have not suffered a breach of their independence and sovereignty or lost any significant extents of resources.
The world economy, international relations, and geopolitics are at present influenced by two strong ideologies; neo-liberalism and nationalism. First let us see what these terms mean in the context of economic development and independence.
The basis of neoliberalism is the idea that the market is the prime determinant of not only prices of goods, matters related to trade and commerce but also social characters and human values. This would mean there is no need for the government to intervene on behalf of the people and market forces would most efficiently guide the economy with benefits to all stake holders. This theory was first mooted by Fredrich von Hayek and it was more or less a refutation of welfare capitalism advocated by John Maynard Keynes that had been in practice since the end of world war in 1948. These policies had virtually detached the government from the process of management of the economy and given the market a free hand to run the economy. The IMF, WTO and the World Bank were rearranged to serve this purpose with catastrophic effect on third world economies. The poor in the rich countries as well as in poor countries were more or less left in the lurch.
Nationalism is an ideology that promotes the interests of a particular nation and it holds that each country should govern itself without foreign interference. Nationalism could manifest in different forms according to the needs of the times. There had been anti-colonial nationalist movements the world over including Sri Lanka from ancient times. The military battles against South Indian and European invasions, the uprisings against the British occupation were good examples of anti-colonial nationalism. It may be said that several countries have evolved from anti-colonial nationalism to economic nationalism as new problems and the issuing situation demands. Several South American, African and Asian countries after successful anti-colonial nationalist struggles have started their policies based on economic nationalism. They have expropriated foreign owned land and redistributed it among the landless and they have nationalised multinational companies. China developed fast due to policies based on socialist nationalism and now it lends unobtrusive leadership to economic nationalism in the world.
It is no exaggeration to say that as a consequence of the depredations of neo-liberalism, a nationalist wave is blowing across the world. We have seen its effect, though bumbling at this stage, in the USA and UK in the form of Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, Trumpism and Brexit and nascent beginnings in other parts of Europe as shown by electoral results. People in these parts of the world are not happy being left behind by the surge of the super rich. They don’t want their leaders to be engaged in the exploitation of weak countries often spending enormously for military means while they are getting poorer. They would like their leaders to put their house in order first and then develop mutually beneficial relations with other countries instead of trying to dominate the world which has worsened the global problems.
This nationalism if it is to succeed locally has to be in the first place not chauvinistic, racist, aggressive or exploitative. Internationally it has to be mutually beneficial, non-interfering, and non-hegemonic. However, the big powers in this camp such as China may want in return for economic assistance, some loyalty vis-a-vis the opposing camp, a preferential treatment regarding economic programmes, extension of facilities for their transportation etc which by their nature may not be intrusive into independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the host country.
One could get an idea of what is enunciated above by comparing two programmes, one vigorously pursued by the US and the other more gently by China. The former was pressuring our government of the day to enter into ACSA, MCC, and SOFA agreements which obviously were designed to take our country into their economic and military grip. On the other hand the Belt and Road Initiative put forward by China has already found acceptance even in European countries in the G7 group such as Italy. Greece in the brink of bankruptcy may recover due to B & R I. Malaysia has already been benefited to the tune of USD 27 billion. In Africa Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria etc are recovering to some degree from their economic woes due to B & R I. In contrast some of these countries which had entered into MCC agreements with the US have lost large extents of their land to US companies, eg. Congo. And other countries have terminated the agreements when they realized the implications and the real US intentions (see; K.Wickramasinghe – The Island 13.11.2019).
A comparison of Chinese and Indian economies would further elucidate the difference between the two ideologies and the desirability of economic nationalism. China in the nineteen forties was struggling with its poverty, so was India. Now China has totally come out of the grip of poverty while India is still struggling though doing quite well and is expected to wipe out poverty in due course. China developed fast due to its nationalist programmes. They invested in their people first, developed their village economy as a priority, and agriculture based industry and after their people had come out of poverty they looked at more ambitious big industry. India on the other hand allowed to be controlled by the IMF, WTO and the World Bank and their rich became richer while the poor became poorer. Now India seems to have realized their mistake and is turning away from neo-liberalism and moving towards nationalism.
The countries which have benefited from Chinese assistance in Asia, Africa and Europe have not suffered a breach of their independence and sovereignty or lost any significant extents of resources. China has not dictated to any of these countries on how to run their country, how to change their constitutions, how to look after their security, or preached on democracy, human rights, minority rights and other internal affairs. China has not forced or pressurized any of the recipients of its aid to fall in line and join the B & R I. They have instead requested them to evaluate the pros and cons of the project and join if they agree with its broad principles.
China helped Sri Lanka during the war against the LTTE with no strings attached. After the war it gave substantial assistance to build our roads, ports etc and our economy recovered in every respect as shown by all parameters. They did not interfere in our internal affairs, constitution reforms, ethnic issues, during the war or thereafter. With the change of government in 2015 attitude towards China changed, their projects were stopped, and they were grossly humiliated. And they made us pay for it, we had to pay heavy compensation for stopping the Colombo Port City project and we were forced to agree to an arrangement on the Hambanthota Port that is very disadvantageous to us. Even after all that some of the comments made by our ministers on China were not at all friendly, for example the then minister of finance said their interest rates for loans were very much higher than that of other friendly countries. All this was done to please the west but the assistance we got from the west was negligible.
Countries that demonstrate a tilt towards nationalism as an ideology for developing an economic model seem to subscribe to a political philosophy that approaches all issues from the national point of view aimed at meeting national interests. For instance if the majority of people live in the villages and their vocation is mainly farming the village economy should be given priority and it should be based on agriculture. This view may not be to the liking of the imperialists and their institutions like the IMF. They would not approve for instance subsidizing fertilizer for the village farmers. On the contrary they may have design on the farmers’ land such as what is envisaged in the MCC agreement which proposes to build an economic corridor from Colombo to Trincomalee which may by devious means effect the acquisition of a large extent of land for US industry thereby totally destroying the village economy and reducing the land owning dignified farmer to perhaps a labourer in that industry. This clearly illustrates the difference between neo-liberalist imperialism and the more desirable policies based on nationalism. It is this kind of dubious hidden agenda that had made some African countries stop MCC projects in their countries.
Sri Lanka’s economy has been dragged into the doldrums. Its poor are struggling to survive. It needs USD 3 billion per annum to service the loans. Recovery would be impossible without shaking off the neo-liberal shackles and IMF fetters. Sri Lanka has to turn towards economic nationalism. However, Sri Lanka would need what Mao Tse Tung meant when he said “Communist China would look for genuine friendly aid only.”
Former Leader of the House, Parliamentarian Lakshman Kiriella said the name of former Prime Minister and UNP Leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe which was proposed for the post of Opposition Leader, had been officially accepted by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya during the Party leaders meeting which was convened yesterday (21).
He said a letter submitted to this effect by UNP General Secretary, MP Akila Viraj Kariyawasam was officially endorsed by Speaker Jayasuriya during the meeting yesterday.
Kiriella added that another letter that had been submitted to the Speaker, urging him to officially accept UNP MP Sajith Premadasa for the post of Opposition Leader had been dismissed by Speaker Jayasuriya. He asserted that the Speaker has the authority to accept a nomination to the post proposed by a General Secretary of a recognized political Party and not those proposed by other MPs.
The Speaker’s office issuing a Media release yesterday noted that he received a letter submitted to Speaker Jayasuriya by Kariyawasam officially requesting him to appoint Wickremesinghe as the next Opposition Leader. The Speaker’s office also stated that a letter signed by 40 UNF MPs urging Speaker Jayasuriya, to appoint Premadasa as the next Opposition Leader had also been received.
On 20 November, Wickremesinghe made a special statement to the Media, announcing that he would resign from his post as Premier, and yesterday, he tendered his resignation to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the UNP Media unit stated
Since the conclusion of the election, a number of interesting messages have been floating around in social media. Some of these are obviously in support of the Yahapalana Government that just ended.
The resigned Yahapalana loyalists write in hope that the new administration would continue the good work started by the Yahapalana Government. However, it will be difficult for the new Administration to do so for two reasons.
The main reason would be that the new Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Administration strongly disagrees that the work done by the Yahapalana Government was good.
The mandate the GR Administration received was in fact to reverse the steps taken by the Yahapalana Government.
The other reason being, those who ask the new Administration to continue the Yahapalana work contradict themselves. For instance, there had been requests not to place National Security above the Constitution.
This betrays the ignorance of the requester. The basic definition of a Constitution is the primary law and the Constitution of a country is said to be the spinal cord of the law of the land. The law is created to protect the citizen and his right.
Out of all the rights recognised as part of a disciplined, civilised society, the right to live is the most paramount of all. Life is valued greater than any asset or treasure.
That right to life is enshrined in the Constitution and executed via National Security.
Therefore, if in the execution of National Security, steps are taken beyond the written law or the written law is manipulated, then it is not in exclusion of the Constitution but very much in line with its core objective.
Those who voted for the Yahapalana candidate Sajith Premadasa write also of strengthening democracy, an independent judiciary, media freedom, independent commissions, and the RTI legislation.
Those who thus speak are simply repeating blindly someone else’s carefully drafted script, rather than basing their assertion on facts.
It can be said, perhaps somewhat cynically that the Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration had a severe case of election diarrhea. Well ahead of time, elections were held.
It was not just the General or Presidential, but all elections at every level were held.
Areas such as the North that had not experienced any form of democracy or free will for almost thirty years were able to elect their Provincial Council members for the first time under the MR Administration.
While it is noteworthy that elections were finally held in the North, it must also be noted that this was done so despite the resistance from within MR Administration itself.
After the war, all paramilitary groups that were supportive to the then Administration were also disarmed. This allowed the TNA that was the LTTE political proxy to once again regain their stronghold.
Naturally, this meant that the North would not be an electorate that the MR Administration can win.
Therefore, then Ministers such as Patalie Champika Ranawaka were strongly opposed to the idea of conducting any form of elections in the North.
It was because MR, as the then President, overcame such resistance that the TNA today stands exposed as a political entity with a self-serving agenda.
Though the support from the North to GR was abysmal, the TNA also performed poorly during the 2018 Local Government Elections.
In fact, the disappointment of the people had been over the TNA’s overall performance had been manifesting as way back as early 2017.
In April 2017 a group of ex-LTTE cadres took to the streets in protest against the agri-farms and preschools, maintained by the Civil Defence Force, being turned over to the TNA-run Provincial Council management.
Protesters in their hundreds marched down the streets for they feared that if there was such a change in management it would result in the projects running to ruin and they themselves losing their livelihoods.
In an enclave where TNA had been carefully maintaining only one voice of opinion and that too exclusively theirs, this was certainly an unexpected outburst.
None of those who expound on the need for devolution in the name of democracy had ever questioned the silence from the North.
Even the smallest group that has the freedom of expression will have more opinions than members.
Then, the fact that the North has one opinion, and that is maximum power devolution to the point of self-governance and not hum on economic development or any other social need, is strange to say in the least.
Even the protest march against the TNA in 2017 had been dismissed as a one-off incident.
The voice of hundreds of protesters cannot be a “one-off incident”. There had been similar incidents that had exposed the disillusionment people have of the TNA.
The emotional farewell Colonel Rathnapriya Bandu received in January 2018 from the people in Vishvamadu – a hotbed of the LTTE in a different era, passed not so long ago, was astounding.
They grieved over losing the presence of an officer attached to the very Army that destroyed their Tamil Eelam dream.
In the same manner, time and again villagers have been protesting when Army camps within their vicinity had been removed.
They claim the presence of the military was a clear impediment to anti-social criminal activities in the area.
With the absence of the military presence with the removal of the Army, camp has increased these criminal activities and has made the area unsafe for the people. They also claim, for emergency and other needs,
it has always been the Army camp that had come to their assistance and aid and never the elected officials in the Provincial Council.
Thus, when the Yahapalana Government quietly allowed all the Provincial Councils to become defunct by not holding elections after their terms expired, it is hardly surprising that the TNA hardly made a peep as a way of a protest.
The greatest irony is that the Provincial Councils were formed to ensure that the Tamils in the North and the East have power devolved to them.
The then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi did not fly down to Sri Lanka and the then JR Jayawardena Government did not sign the 13th Amendment under duress from India for the betterment of all Sri Lankan citizens.
This was purely done to address a need articulated – violently and otherwise – by certain Tamil groups in the North and the East.
In this context, the greatest protector and defender of the provincial council system ought to be the TNA, who are still on the same page of self-governance.
This exposes the greatest farce of the Yahapalana Government. Their core agenda was the maximum devolution of power and strengthening of democracy. Yet, they could not hold a single Provincial Council election.
The very advocators of the Provincial Council system to the point that they want it to be self-governing did not make a single protest for they knew they would get booted out by the people.
They were, in essence, clinging on to power against the will of the majority. Yet, the Yahapalana Government was able to establish that it had strengthened democracy.
The Yahapalana narrative highlights the establishment of independent commissions. The Election Commission is supposed to be one such independent commission.
Yet, they were unable to hold the Local Government Elections on time and out of the nine, not a single election to appoint a new council for the provincial councils that fell defunct during the Yahapalana era.
The first request the Election Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya made of the newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was to allow the Provincial Council elections to take place. That one statement negates the entire Yahapalana narrative that they strengthened democracy.
It was also very obvious that the members of these so-called independent commissions were working towards their own private agenda.
Professor Hoole, despite being a member of the Election Commission, clearly did not believe in elections. He went to Courts against holding general elections.
While it is true that elections were not due, after Maithripala Sirisena declared his unwillingness to work with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, people ought to have been given an opportunity to elect a stable government.
The only successfully executed project of the Yahapalana Government was to rewrite their failures in a flowery narrative.
To the one who takes a cursory glance, the Yahapalana Government had done an excellent job. Yet, they failed to retain their power seats because they antagonized different people on different levels.
The election is over and a new Government is shaping up. Yet, the voter’s duty is far from done. As citizens, we need to stay involved than blindly following a well-crafted script. Staying informed is the only way to strengthen democracy
The Western Media has predictably greeted the election of our new President with rehashed allegations of war crimes.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election was reported on 17 November (over ten years since the LTTE’s defeat)
On that same date, one newspaper, The London Sunday Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch, led with a story about horrendous crimes committed by British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not all of the information is new. What is shocking is the extent of the crimes and of the tireless efforts of the British Government to suppress the facts.
The Insight team of the Sunday Times and the BBC Panorama programme has been carrying out a year-long investigation.
The Panorama programme was broadcast on Monday (18). They claim that two thick files have been kept under lock and key behind the barbed wire security fences of the Trenchard Lines military base near Salisbury Plain.
The Baha Mousa case
The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) investigated alleged war crimes committed by British troops during the occupation of Iraq starting in 2003; Operation Northmoor investigated alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
The Government’s excuse for calling off the investigations in 2017 was that Phil Shiner, a lawyer who had taken more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off as a solicitor following allegations that he had paid fixers in Iraq to find clients. That does not explain why the files were kept locked up.
Publicity had already been given to some of the cases featured in the Panorama programme. I have myself written about the case of Baha Mousa.
https://pcolman.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/more-fog-of-war-another-british-war-crime/ According to Sir William Gage’s report, Baha Mousa was pronounced dead at 22:05 hours.
A subsequent post mortem found that in the course of his detention Baha Mousa had sustained 93 separate external injuries. He was also found to have internal injuries including fractured ribs.
Baha Mousa was a receptionist at the Ibn al-Haitham Hotel in Basra who was captured in a raid by Britain’s finest on 14 September 2003 after a cache of arms and uniforms was found in his workplace.
The Army had found weapons including grenades, rifles, bayonets and suspected bomb-making equipment. Along with nine others, he was taken in for “questioning”.
Corporal Donald Payne killed a man. That’s what soldiers do. Here is how Payne killed Baha Mousa. Payne violently assaulted Baha Mousa, punching and kicking.
This ended with Baha Mousa lying inert on the floor. According to the Gage Report:
“I find that from the outset of their incarceration in the TDF (Temporary Detention Facility) the Detainees were subjected to assaults by those who were guarding them and, in particular, by Payne.
I find that they were also assaulted from time to time by others who happened to be passing by the TDF.
The assaults by the guards were instigated and orchestrated by Payne. He devised a particularly unpleasant method of assaulting the detainees, known as the “choir”.
It consisted of Payne punching or kicking each detainee in sequence, causing each to emit a groan or other sign of distress.
Baha’s father was a senior Police officer, permitted by the British to carry a pistol and wear his blue uniform.
Colonel Mousa believed the real reason his son was killed was he had seen several British troops opening the hotel safe and stuffing currency into their pockets.
At a court martial Payne was charged with manslaughter, inhumane treatment and perverting the course of justice. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison.
British war crimes in Iraq
Panorama has re-examined the evidence in a number of alleged war crimes cases. One such case was the shooting of an Iraqi Policeman by a British soldier on patrol in Basra in 2003.
Raid al-Mosaw was shot by a British soldier in an alleyway as he left his family home. Major Christopher Suss-Francksen confidently concluded that the soldier was legitimately acting in self-defence.
IHAT detectives spent two years investigating the case and interviewed 80 British soldiers, including the soldier Suss-Francksen claimed had witnessed the shooting.
The soldier told IHAT: “This report is inaccurate and gives the impression that I was an eyewitness.
This is not true.” This soldier and many others confirmed that they only heard one shot which means that Raid al-Mosaw could not have fired first. The Sunday Times states bluntly that Suss-Francksen faked evidence.
IHAT detectives say they found evidence of widespread abuse at Camp Stephen, a British Army base in Basra run by the Black Watch and used as an unofficial detention centre.
One of the detectives told Panorama that the physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, most of whom were innocent, was “endemic” at the base. There was nothing spontaneous about the many horrendous crimes committed at Camp Stephen.
The culture of abuse was sanctioned at senior levels. The open layout of the camp would have made it obvious to officers what was happening. There is a stinking fetor of complicity and cover-up.
Detectives working on Operation Northmoor investigated a night raid in Helmand Province, Afghanistan on 18 October 2012 during which a Special Forces soldier killed four males aged 20, 17, 14 and 12 in the guest room of a family home in Loy Bagh village.
They were merely drinking tea. Relatives had to mop up teeth, bone and brain flesh from the heavily-stained carpet.
Investigators expected the soldier to be charged with four counts of murder and referred the case to the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA).
They also wanted to prosecute the commanding officer, along with his superior, for falsifying a report and for perverting the course of justice. Military prosecutors decided not to bring charges.
Predictably, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to be drawn on whether these claims were new to him, and said that prosecuting authorities for the British Armed Forces are “some of the most rigorous in the world”.
It is instructive to contrast Raab’s attitude with the response of Enoch Powell to the atrocities at the Hola Camp in Kenya in 1959.
https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/powell-speech-kenya-hola Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald (now Warden of Wadham College, Oxford) has examined the evidence gathered by the Sunday Times and concludes: “In 2002, the International Criminal Court was set up, with Britain’s enthusiastic support, to prosecute crimes against humanity where individual nations were too cowardly, incompetent or unwilling to bring their own citizens to justice in the face of compelling evidence of the gravest international crimes. Now, as that Court turns its eyes towards us, we are forced to confront the unnerving possibility that one of those derelict nations might be our own.”
Former Minister Rajitha Senaratne says that Sajith Premadasa is not yet suitable for the position of the Leader of the Opposition.
Joining the ‘Mokada Wune?’ (What happened?) program on Ada Derana, the former Health Minister stated that the crisis within the party was the main reason for the defeat at the Presidential Election.
He also said that the institutes appointed to investigate corruption had become even more corrupt.
Stating that the former Prime Minister was committed to the elections campaign ‘with his soul’, Senaratne said that there is no truth in the allegations against Wickremesinghe.
The qualification to be the Opposition Leader is being able to work together with the international and not the person’s popularity, he further said.
He added that former Minister Sajith Premadasa is a person with little political experience.
Senaratne says he does not see anyone within the party who is eligible for the leadership of the United National Party (UNP) is Ranil Wickremesinghe resigns as the Leader.
Others were too soon to nominate Sajith Premadasa for the presidential candidacy, says Senaratne.
Chief Inspector Nishantha Silva attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has reportedly left the country this afternoon (24), stated Ada Derana reporter.
Silva has been involved in several controversial investigation cases within the CID.
Reportedly, the Chief Inspector has left the country to Switzerland with his family at around 12.50 pm this afternoon.
When Ada Derana inquired on the matter, Police Media Spokesperson SSP Ruwan Gunasekara stated that Silva had not been granted leave.
Colombo, November 24 (The Sunday Observer): After a quiet Monday and Tuesday, things began to get back to normal on Wednesday, but with a difference. People set off for work with a new enthusiasm. Jaded by four years of ‘Yahapalanaya,’ the public anticipates great things from President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
In the short term, it is unlikely that he would face much opposition on the political front. While Sajith Premadasa did creditably, winning 42% of the vote, his United National Party cannot be content with the result. A quarter of Premadasa’s votes came from six districts, in the North, East and Central provinces, in which most voters come from minority communities – votes given to him by supporters of minority parties.
On the other hand, he won only about a third of the Sinhalese Buddhist vote. By this measure, the UNP could end the upcoming general election with fewer seats than it received in 2010.
The biggest challenge ahead for the new President will be to forge a nation out of the country peopled by disparate ethnic groups. This election highlighted the ethnic divide, with the bulk of the majority Sinhalese Buddhists voting for him, but the minority vote going overwhelmingly to his opponent.
During his swearing-in ceremony, at the significant Buddhist Ruwanweliseya site, President Rajapaksa acknowledged his debt to the Sinhalese Buddhist voters who ensured his election. Speaking frankly, he admitted the failure of his expectations of sizeable vote shares from the minority communities. He did, however, make a commitment to representing all Sri Lanka’s people, not just his voters.
Ethnic Issue
The ethnic issue in Sri Lanka dates back to the early period of the British occupation of the island, when the colonial government carried out ‘divide and rule’ policies, perfected in Ireland over centuries.
The loyalty of the Northern people to the Crown of Kandy, reported by Governor North in 1799, was undermined by the British by providing education preferentially to the Northern elite. They empowered Muslim and South Indian moneylenders and traders at the expense of mainly Sinhalese farmers. At the same time, they encouraged the immigration of traders and potential landowners from India and from Penang and Singapore.
By the end of the British period, only the Indian Tamil estate workers lay below the mass of Buddhist Sinhalese in the colonial pecking order – although a small stratum of Sinhalese Buddhists rubbed shoulders with the comprador elite.
This fact underlies the history of ethnic strife in this island, causes the fears of the Sinhalese Buddhist majority.
Even today, Sinhalese Buddhist representation in the ruling elite is relatively small. Rajapaksa’s bedrock of support came from the Sinhalese Buddhist lower classes, the farmers, workers and the self-employed.
Way To End Ethnic Tensions
These ethnic tensions come about as a result of an uneven distribution of opportunities and wealth, and of frictions caused by attempts to even out the inequalities. Given the limitations on resources available to Sri Lanka, efforts at redistribution could only result in equalization of scarcity.
In the long term, these inequalities may only be ironed out through equitable economic growth, which does not leave any class or community behind. This, in turn, requires social and economic modernization, to overturn the legacy of colonialism, our economic backwardness.
The origin of this backwardness may be traced to the grand expropriation of peasant land in the last three- quarters of the 19th century. The Crown Lands (Encroachment) Ordinance of 1841 took over commonly-held lands, including the forests and many commonly-operated paddy fields. The job was completed by the Waste Lands Ordinance a half-century later.
Traditionally, the peasantry operated at three, ecologically-friendly levels. They left the forests as watersheds for rainwater collection and storage, for collection of forest products (honey, kitul sap, herbs and roots), for occasional hunting and for chena (swidden) cultivation.
They reserved home gardens for fruits and vegetables. They left the lowest land for paddy cultivation, which they did for three seasons per year.
The importance of the commonly-held lands lay in the fact that they provided the bulk of the market produce of the peasantry. They used the remainder, after separating the portion going to feudal mesne lords, mainly for their own consumption. The loss of common land and forests meant the loss of the bulk of their market produce, and they became mere subsistence farmers.
Subsistence farmers cannot provide a market for industrial goods, and they cannot invest in innovations and equipment for increasing productivity. Settlement schemes, the Paddy Lands Act and the limited land reform of the 1970s all contributed towards a solution to this problem, but did not prove sufficient to drag the peasantry out of the mire.
On the lands they seized from the peasantry, the British grew first coffee, then tea and rubber.
The plantation system, which they imported from the West Indies, was just a level above slavery. The planters did not invest heavily in agricultural machinery, but depended on large inputs of cheap human labor. Dr SBD de Silva has pointed out that this, too, constituted an under-developed form of mercantilism, rather than modern capitalism.
The young people on the plantations do not, by and large, wish to work as their parents have done. They are better educated and more outward-looking, and most intend to migrate to urban centers.for employment. This would leave the plantation sector with a massive labor shortage, unless mechanization takes place.
Thus, the agriculture sector provides 27% of employment, but only 7% of the gross national product (GDP). This means the agricultural sector cannot function as a market for a burgeoning manufacturing sector, inhibiting the growth of the latter.
To some extent, the overseas labor market has provided an alternative to a developed agricultural sector. Much of the economic development taking place in the island since 1977 has been fuelled by funds remitted by workers overseas. This has resulted in developmental anomalies, such as the proliferation of beauty salons in villages, and in the rapid development of the banking sector.
Workers’ remittances could provide a means for investment in both agriculture and industry.
However, workers’ remittances cannot provide a long-term alternative to developing production, both for the local market and for exports. Sri Lanka is in a position of not being able to pay for imports. It needs both to substitute for imports and to develop its export capacity.
Narrow Export Market
Furthermore, the country’s exports are almost wholly dependent on a few markets, in North America and Europe. There has to be diversification in export destination, as well as in export products.
It is likely that there will be a global recession within the next two years. Sri Lanka, by reason of its dependence on a few markets, both for its products and for tourism, will be highly vulnerable.
The vulnerability of the economy has been exacerbated by the lack of effective governmental direction over the past four years, during which its policies zigzagged all over the field. This led to a drop in economic growth, made all the worse by the Easter Sunday bomb attacks, which devastated the tourism sector.
The Easter incidents made more obvious the renewed breakdown in societal values from which the country had been recovering following the end of the three-decades-long civil conflict.
Selective persecution of the Opposition, in the midst of inaction on law and order issues such as the Bond Scam, led to widespread disdain for the rule of law. This became apparent simply by the rise of reckless driving on the crowded roads.
Thus, the new President (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) comes into office in the face of a daunting task. The manifesto on which he contested indicates how he would set about addressing this mission, of resuscitating the economy and rebuilding society.
Face East, Not West
An essential part of that strategy is to face East, rather than West. Asia, not Europe or North America, is the growth area. It is to India, Japan and China and, to a lesser extent the existing and emergent new regional powerhouses such as South Korea and Vietnam, to which we must turn in building both a regional security framework and bilateral and multilateral economic relationships.
The new markets we must pursue, for which we must develop new products, lie on the axes of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and on the new Mumbai-Moscow trade route.
President Rajapaksa has already opened up official dialogue with India, where he will make his first official visit in the near future on the invitation of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping congratulated him on his election, expressing hope for greater bilateral co-operation and mutual development on the basis of the BRI.
US Hectoring
Unfortunately, while President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has emphasized a foreign policy of friendship with all, but no subordination to any power and the US Embassy sent a conciliatory congratulatory note, the message from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had a hint of hectoring.
This does not bode well for the future, and is unlikely to go down well, considering that the ACSA, SOFA and MCC agreements were hot election issues, very unpopular with the public at large.
The good news is that, by the very fact of getting himself elected, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has set in motion the means of economic and social recovery. On the next day after his swearing in, the first day of trading since his election, the Colombo Stock Exchange All Share Price Index (ASPI) soared by nearly 2%, and has continued to rise. This signifies the rise in confidence felt by the business community, who anticipate a change in the way the economy will be run.
The enthusiasm with which people reported to work may also be a harbinger of change. Commuters noticed that private buses have started operating more in keeping with their schedules. Reports of increased sales of motorcycle helmets indicate a greater respect for the possibility of legal repercussions for wayward behavior.
The legal strictures of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution mean, unfortunately, that there is a limit to the decisive action that can be taken until fresh general elections, unless the new parliamentary opposition (the former government) extend the same co-operation to the President as President Maithripala Sirisena received on his election.
What the past four years have made clear is the extent to which change must take place. The public has reacted very positively to the new President’s rulings on closing roads and enormous security escorts, reinforcing their high regard, and faith in his capacity to carry out the changes that are required.
That regard and that faith may be sorely tested in the coming period, as the country grapples with the problems of history and the challenges of the present, for this is a struggle as difficult in its own way as the battle against violent separatism, which ended in victory ten years ago.
The country will require all the resources it used in that conflict, including patience, fortitude and courage, and a willing and able leadership.
(The featured image at the top shows President Gotabaya Rajapaksa with Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa)
With a few minor exceptions, there are really only two ways to say tea” in the world. One is like the English term—té in Spanish and tee in Afrikaans are two examples. The other is some variation of cha, like chay in Hindi.
Both versions come from China. How they spread around the world offers a clear picture of how globalization worked before globalization” was a term anybody used. The words that sound like cha” spread across the land, along the Silk Road. The tea”-like phrasings spread over water, by Dutch traders bringing the novel leaves back to Europe.
The term cha (茶) is Sinitic,” meaning it is common to many varieties of Chinese. It began in China and made its way through central Asia, eventually becoming chay” (چای) in Persian. That is no doubt due to the trade routes of the Silk Road, along which, according to a recent discovery, tea was traded over 2,000 years ago. This form spread beyond Persia, becoming chay in Urdu, shay in Arabic, and chay in Russian, among others. It even made its way to sub-Saharan Africa, where it became chai in Swahili. The Japanese and Korean terms for tea are also based on the Chinese cha, though those languages likely adopted the word even before its westward spread into Persian.
Tea if by sea and Cha if by land
But that doesn’t account for tea.” The Chinese character for tea, 茶, is pronounced differently by different varieties of Chinese, though it is written the same in them all. In today’s Mandarin, it is chá. But in the Min Nan variety of Chinese, spoken in the coastal province of Fujian, the character is pronounced te. The keyword here is coastal.”
The form used in coastal-Chinese languages spread to Europe via the Dutch, who became the primary traders of tea between Europe and Asia in the 17th century, as explained in the World Atlas of Language Structures. The main Dutch ports in east Asia were in Fujian and Taiwan, both places where people used the te pronunciation. The Dutch East India Company’s expansive tea importation into Europe gave us the French thé, the German Tee, and the English tea.
Yet the Dutch were not the first to Asia. That honor belongs to the Portuguese, who are responsible for the island of Taiwan’s colonial European name, Formosa. And the Portuguese traded not through Fujian but Macao, where chá is used. That’s why, on the map above, Portugal is a pink dot in a sea of blue.
A few languages have their own way of talking about tea. These languages are generally in places where tea grows naturally, which led locals to develop their own way to refer to it. In Burmese, for example, tea leaves are lakphak.
The map demonstrates two different eras of globalization in action: the millennia-old overland spread of goods and ideas westward from ancient China and the 400-year-old influence of Asian culture on the seafaring Europeans of the age of exploration. Also, you just learned a new word in nearly every language on the planet.
Defence Secretary Retired Major General Kamal Gunarathna says that a joint programme will be carried out with the involvement of the Tri Forces, Police and the general public, to combat the drug menace.
He expressed these views after having visited the Mihinthale Raja Maha Viharaya.
The Defence Secretary also said that attention has been drawn towards doing justice to war heroes who were unfairly imprisoned.
The government has informed newly appointed Ministers to pay attention towards curbing unwanted expenditure at state institutions.
Accordingly, the Presidential Secretariat has informed to manage expenses carefully and that each Minister has to report regarding costs under their respective Ministries.
However, instructions have been given not to make any changes in expenses for public welfare.
Meanwhile, all foreign travel of state officials has been temporarily suspended
The Chief Inspector Nishantha Silva who conducted several controversial investigations with Former CID Director Shani Abeysekara has fled the country to Switzerland with his family.
Former CID Director Shani Abeysekara and Chief Inspector Nishantha Silva had carried out investigations into several controversial incidents based on the political requirements of the previous government.
Many factions accused them of carrying out investigations in a biased manner based on political requirements
Our correspondent at the BIA noted that he had left the country with his family at 12:50 this afternoon. He had conducted many investigations into various cases under the directives issued by the Former CID Director Shani Abeysekara.
Accordingly in the midst of various allegations being levelled against him the Chief Inspector of the Criminal Investigations Department Nishantha De Silva has left the country.
Previously the Police Commission had taken steps to appoint Former CID Director Shani Abeysekara as the personal secretary to the Deputy Inspector General of the Galle Police Division.
The 15 Cabinet Ministers’ workload is quite challenging. Each Minister needs to have at least 2 State Ministers. Each State Minister needs to have qualified Professionals and Academics, consisting of at least one identified in each of the allocated Subjects.
In other words, the
structure should provide a direct link to each Page in the Saubhagaya Dekma (
the Presidential Manifesto or Vision and Mission Statement of the President)
assigning the commitments made to the public.
Neither Ministers nor State Ministers are qualified to implement the Manifesto. They are politicians. The Establishment Hierarchy at the Ministries such as Secretaries (previously Permanent Secretaries) and the rest will be responsible for implementing the decisions, within FR and AR. But looking at the Manifesto and Implementing the tasks is not their responsibility. They are different kinds of Animals of their own, within the Box. That responsibility should remain within the Cabinet Ministers, State Ministers, and the Professionals and Academics.
The primary objective of the structure will be to ensure developing short term targets for each Subject. The IT Professionals could quite easily develop a package of Targets vs Performances matrix with drill-down analysis for each State Minister and Cabinet Minister. It will also highlight critical areas where Performances are falling behind the Target and the reasons, with an appropriate plan for remedial actions.
When the Prime Minister
and the President review achievements, probably fortnightly, the
implementation progress can be measured.
In the long run- some
State Ministers and even Cabinet Ministers, need to be provided extensive
training on the Performance Evaluation essentials.
In the first three months, the Prime Minister and the President can obtain first-hand information on capabilities of Professionals, Academics, State and Cabinet Ministers, which will be valuable going forward.
The Vision and Mission Statement of the President should become the Bible for the Cabinet, State Ministers, and the Advisors.
Throughout every Christmas season, customers at supermarkets in Sri Lanka can hear Christmas hymns being sung and the staff wearing red Santa Claus caps, though not all the staff may be Christians.
This no doubt is commercializing religion but why force-feed it on non-Christians too – both employees and customers?
During Buddhist and Hindu festivals however, we hear neither chanting of Buddhist sutras nor Hindu devotional songs at these same supermarkets.
Are we still a European colony?
We can understand if this is confined only to December 24-25. But why continue it for over a month until the festive season ends? This does not happen in Western countries to my knowledge.
Is
not forcing non-Christian employees to wear Santa Claus costumes a violation of
human rights?
Getting the female staff to wear cloth and jacket
during the Sinhala-Tamil New Year is quite different since it a national
festival according to ancient traditions – not a religious festival as such.
We do not mind Sri Lankan supermarkets having Christmas trees during the season provided they have Vesak Lanterns during Vesak and maybe some Hindu symbols during Hindu festivals at least in areas where Hindus are in the majority.
* UNP’s Vibheeshana role * Communalism in minority politics Opportunity for reset in majority-minority relations
What we just experienced was undoubtedly the most eventful week since January 2015. The people of Sri Lanka have voted to end a five year long nightmare. Gota’s victory was not unexpected, but the sheer magnitude of the victory certainly was. What we saw was the reaction of a down trodden, persecuted, humiliated majority community to all the suffering and indignities they had undergone for the past five years. The events that took place in Sri Lanka between January 2015 and November 2019 will be a valuable case study for all multi-ethnic, multi-religious nations as to what could happen when the majority community of a nation is used as a doormat by the minority communities.
Over the past five years, UNP politicians went out of their way to insult and humiliate the Sinhalese and especially the Sinhala Buddhists. The Tamils and Muslims reacted positively to such Sinhala politicians. The way to curry favour with the minorities and to obtain their votes was to heap insults on the Sinhalese. During the past five years, the well known Sinhala ditty “Sinhalaya modaya, kevum kanna yodaya” was the clarion call of the yahapalana government. At election time, the Sinhalese were divided between the two main political parties, a situation which allowed the minority political parties organized on the basis of either ethnicity or religion to tip the balance in favour of one political party or another.
It is no secret that members of the minority comunities generally held the Sinhalese in contempt because they thought they could always prevail against the divided Sinhalese by manipulating the democratic system to their advantage. This attitude cannot be blamed only on the ethnicity and religion based political parties. Such political parties have contributed to the problem no doubt, but this isolationist, exclusivist anti-Sinhalese, anti-Sinhala Buddhist attitude has seeped into the very fiber of the being of most Tamil and Muslim Sri Lankans. There are exceptions to this no doubt, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Tamils and Muslims in this country are communal minded. One has to call a spade a spade and this has to be discussed openly.
Communal minded minorities
The communal mindedness of the Tamils and the Muslims has to be taken out of the realm of taboo topics by the Tamils and Muslims themselves. If one reads Armand de Souza’s book ‘Hundred Days in Ceylon under Martial Law 1915’ and other sources on the 1915 riots, the cause of the communal disturbances was not due to anything that the Sinhalese did, but because a certain community of Muslims did not want a Buddhist procession to go past one of their mosques. At the same time, another community of Muslims in the same area had no issue with the Buddhist procession going past their mosque.
That was in an era when there was no Wahabism, no Al Qaeda and no ISIS and the Muslims were a minority in British Ceylon. It is mind boggling to think that a communal riot can be sparked off simply because a Buddhist religious procession went past a mosque. One would think that a communal riot would need a more cogent cause such as at least a brawl between two groups resulting in several deaths or something of that nature. The very fact that a Buddhist procession could not go past a mosque without sparking off a riot shows that the Sinhalese were treated with contempt by at least a section of the Muslims even at that time.
What has happened today is that with the Wahabi contagion, that attitude seems to have affected the Muslim community in general. Not that this attitude on the part of minority communities has no justification. The average Sinhalese can be bought for a mess of pottage. A few roofing sheets, and some handouts can change Sinhalese voting patterns but that will not happen to the same extent among Tamils and Muslims. As the old saying goes, you get only what you deserve and as far as the Sinhalese go, any negative attitudes the minorities may have towards them was not without justification.
It’s just that during the past five years, this was taken too far for even the cringing, servile Sinhalese to stomach. Many people thought the anti-Sinhalese, pro-minority bent in the UNP was due to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership. It was so to some extent no doubt. We never saw such an attitude in the UNP during the J.R.Jayewardene, Premadasa and D.B.Wijetunga eras. Nor have we read of such an attitude during the Dudley Senanayake and D.S. Senanayake eras. The only approximation to what was experienced under Ranil Wickremasinghe’s watch would be the Sir John Kotelawala era.
However, the anti-Sinhala Buddhist attitude reached a new level of insidiousness with the emergence of Sajith Premadasa in the UNP. What was open and infantile earlier became hidden and crafty. Maximum emphasis was placed on duping the gullible Sinhalese with welfare measures while pledging what was essentially the division of the country to the Tamils. Just days before the election, the then Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa in a statement described the UNP’s policy as follows:
“The chapter on constitutional reform in the manifesto of the UNP presidential candidate contains provisions to replace the unitary state with a formulation that describes Sri Lanka as an ‘undivided and indivisible’ state. This is accompanied by the pledge that governmental power will be devolved to the provinces to the ‘maximum extent possible’. Identical provisions can be seen in the draft constitution tabled in Parliament by the Prime Minister in January this year.
“The UNP manifesto also contains provisions to expand the powers and functions of the provincial councils, to set up a second chamber in Parliament made up of provincial council representatives in order to curb the powers of Parliament, to allow the provincial units to raise funds independently, to place district and divisional secretaries under the provincial councils and to create a Constitutional Court, which will adjudicate in disputes between the center and the provincial units. Like the draft constitution, the UNP presidential election manifesto also aims to turn Sri Lanka into a loose federation of virtually independent provincial units.
“The draft constitution sought to describe Sri Lanka as an ‘ekeeya rajya’ in Sinhala and as an ‘orumiththa nadu’ in Tamil while carefully refraining from using the English phrase ‘unitary state’ which has specific constitutional connotations. Thus the label of a unitary state would have remained in Sinhala while in Tamil and English Sri Lanka would no longer be recognized as a unitary state. A similar deviousness is to be seen in the UNP presidential election manifesto. Though great care has been taken to avoid using phrases like ekeeya rajaya or unitary state, it has a reference in Sinhala to ‘maubime ekeeyathwaya’, which translates into English as ‘the unity of the motherland’.
“The phrase ‘maubime ekeeyathwaya’ has no constitutional value but it can be used to misleadingly suggest to Sinhala readers that the manifesto seeks to uphold the unitary state. Significantly, the UNP manifesto has refused to use even the Sinhala phrase ‘ekeeya rajya’ that had been conceded earlier in the PM’s draft constitution to assuage Sinhala sentiments. There is a clearly apparent hardening of the federalist position in the UNP manifesto. This is the first time that a mainline political party has included in an election manifesto provisions to dismantle the unitary state and to create a federal state in its place. Therefore this is a matter that needs to be taken very seriously.”
A new level of insidiousness
The SLPP was not able to take political advantage of the UNP’s open sellout to the separatist lobby due to two reasons – on the one hand, the constitutional subterfuge involved was too complicated for the average voter to understand – indeed it was hardly understood clearly even by most politicians. Secondly, even if the issue had been understood by the opposition politicians there was not enough time to get the message across to the public. The question is whether Sajith was aware of the contents of the chapter on constitutional reform in his manifesto until it was in print and drew flak from the opposing side? Even though he went around the country brandishing a copy of his manifesto and saying that it was his own thinking, everyone knows that manifestoes are normally not prepared by election candidates themselves.
It’s always a team of experts who prepares the manifesto for the candidate. So was this chapter on constitutional reform introduced into his manifesto without his knowledge? It is well known that the UNP manifesto was prepared in a hurry and was in fact the last manifesto to be launched by the main political parties. The evidence that we have to the effect that Sajith was fully aware not only of the contents of the chapter on constitutional reform but also its implications was that at a press conference held quite some time before the UNP manifesto was released, Sajith stated that his position was ‘the maximum devolution of power within an undivided and indivisible Sri Lanka’.
At that press conference he avoided the use of the term unitary state. This indicates that he was well briefed as to the concepts and terminology involved and the chapter on constitutional reform in his manifesto was not something introduced without his knowledge.
Sajith Premadasa is not Maithripala Sirisena. In 2015, when the newly elected yahapalana government went to Geneva and betrayed the country, they deliberately posted a doctored Sinhala translation of UNHRC Resolution 30/1 on the official foreign ministry website in order to mislead the Sinhala reader as to the actual contents of that document. It was obviously this doctored translation that was given to President Sirisena by his foreign minister. So for a while we saw a war of words between the President and the opposition with the former insisting that Resolution 30/1 was a great achievement and the latter shouting from the rooftops that Sri Lanka had been betrayed. It would have taken months for President Sirisena to realize that the opposition was right.
In Sajith’s case however the situation was obviously very different. He is English educated and quite capable of understanding the connotations of the words used. The indications are, that he knew from the very beginning what the chapter on constitutional reform in his manifesto would contain. In speaking to the Mahanayakes we heard Sajith mention the word ekeeya rajya but that phrase does not appear anywhere in his manifesto. In the manifesto itself we find the phrase ‘maubime ekeeyabawa’ but that is not a reference to a unitary state. However it could be used to mislead those unfamiliar with constitutional phraseology into thinking that it is a reference to the unitary state.
In the last few days in the run up to the poll, Champika Ranawaka went to see the Ven Mahanayake Theras with a letter saying that the UNP was for an ekeeya rajya. This was nothing but the same kind of chicanery that we saw in 2015. Maithripala Sirisena stated publicly that he was going to abolish the executive presidency, and he signed agreements with various political parties and oganisations saying that he would abolish the executive presidency, but his manifesto stated deviously that the constitution will be amended only to the extent that a referendum is not made necessary. That precluded the abolition of the executive presidency. What we saw with regard to constitutional reform in Sajith Premadasa’s manifesto was very similar. The TNA knows that what Sajith promised them through his manifesto was a federal state and they made the decision to vote for the UNP on that account.
All this is a cause for worry because it shows that the younger generation in the UNP has become much more devious and sophisticated in their treachery than the older generation. On the one hand they play the role of a populist politician, patting people on the back, giving people houses and jobs, promising to give Janasaviya on top of Samurdhi, free meals to school children, free school uniforms, free shoes, free sanitary pads for women so as to buy Sinhala votes and then pledging to give the Tamils a federal state so as to get their votes as well. What the 2019 presidential election campaign showed beyond any doubt is that the UNP’s problem is not just Ranil Wickremasinghe, but runs far deeper and getting rid of RW will not cure the problem but will probably make things worse.
Promoting a Vibheeshana
The people realised this instinctively which is why they did not fall for the wolf in sheepskin trick when the UNP and the Tamil and Muslim political parties associated with them dumped Ranil Wickremasinghe and adopted Sajith Premadasa as their champion. They supported Sajith because they thought he could deliver to them what RW could not. Even after this resounding defeat, the Tamil and Muslim political parties have not got out of the “Sinhalaya modaya kevum kanna yodaya” frame of mind. Mano Ganesan and Rishard Baithiudeen now claim that the Tamils and Muslims were not being ‘jaathiwadee’ because they had all voted for a Sinhala Buddhist. Such claims insult the intelligence of the voting public.
The Tamils and Muslims voted for Sajith Premadasa because he was willing to do their bidding – to be a Vibheeshana to the Sinhalese. RW was also willing to do the bidding of the minorities and he too wanted to contest. But the reason why the minority parties backed Sajith was because they thought that the latter would be better able to deceive the Sinhalese. This election result has put paid to that kind of politics. It is certainly true that at a future election the minorities could always pull off another 2015 style coup by ganging up behind a Sinhala leader who was willing to do their bidding, but the reaction to that could well be a 2019 style turn of events the next time around. In 2015, the coup was unexpected. But after the bitter lessons learnt, voters will always be vigilant at every election.
The odds that were stacked against the majority community all these years are now somewhat even. For that we have to thank the yahapalana government formed in 2015. Do we want a ding dong electoral battle between the minority communities and the majority community? That is entirely for the minority communities to decide. There is of course a question over whether the Tamil and Muslim reaction to Gota’s Presidential candidacy was due to his being the main architect of the war that crushed LTTE terrorism and the erroneous belief that he was behind the anti-Muslim Bodu Bala Sena. The BBS was actually used by certain local and international forces including the Jathika Hela Urumaya and Norway, to oust the Rajapaksa government. The US Embassy in Colombo also played a major role in this and we commented on it in this column at that time.
Such factors would have contributed to the extreme reaction on the part of the minorities and it may be surmised that if the candidate had been Mahinda Rajapaksa, the reaction may have been somewhat different. However it is also the reality that the reaction to MR would only have been marginally different. The communal minded majority of Tamil and Muslim voters don’t want to see a proper Sinhala leader in office. Communal politics was first started by S.J.V.Chelvanayagam in the 1950s by mooting a Tamil state A ‘Thamil arasu’. The Tamils of Indian origin were first organised in trade unions which later became political parties. Then the Muslims started communal politics in the 1980s. Because the Sinhaese were divided, it was possible for the Tamils and Muslim political parties to align themselves with various political parties and call the shots in the governments that were formed since the 1990s.
This reached its apogee in 2015, when a President was elected to power without getting the majority of the majority community vote. Outside the north and east, President Maithripala Sirisena had lost the election and he managed to win only due to the overwhelming majorities received from the north and east. Having reached its highest point between 2015 and 2019, the worm has turned, and the Sinhalese have hoist the Tamils and the Muslims with their own petard. Now each Tamil and Muslim individual will have to take a personal decision and decide whether this narrow minded communalism was going to continue or whether they were going to reject communal politics and become members of the SLPP and the UNP instead of being members of Muslim or Tamil based political parties. The choice is theirs.
What the presidential election 2019 showed for the first time was that the Sinhalese can play the same game that the Tamils and Muslims have been playing for decades. Until S.J.V.Chelvanayagam came along in the mid-1950s, the Tamil leadership of the north personified in G.G.Ponnambalam got on fine with the Senanayakes who led the UNP. He was so close to the Senanayakes that he even got involved and fell victim to the internal conflicts in the UNP. Until M.H.M.Ashraff came into the scene in the 1980s with his divisive message, the Musims were well integrated in the two main political parties.
There were more Muslims in the UNP than in the SLFP but both political parties had respected Muslim leaders whose names are closely associated with the histories of those political parties. So it’s not as if national politics has never existed among Tamils and Muslims in this country. In 1952, even Chelvanayagam lost his seat to a UNP candidate. That was before communalism became the main determining force in northern politics. We once had a past that was exemplary. Each Tamil and Muslim living in this country will have to make an individual decision as to whether we are going to go back to the rational past or to continue with the irrational present.
Dr. Sudath Gunasekara Former Permanent Secretary to Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranayaka and Ex- President of the Sri Lanka State Administrative Services Association (1991-19194)
22.11.2019.
H.E. The
President,
Sir ,
Your decision to appoint 15 Cabinet Ministers only, is excellent and highly commendable. The whole country admires it as the beginning of a New Political Culture and Statecraft in this country, as you have promised in your manifesto. This is said to be the smallest Cabinet after 1956. As you know 1956 was the turning point in Sri Lankan politics in national resurgence. The second re-emergence reappeared in 2005 with Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory and culminated in 2009 with the elimination of the LTTE under his leadership and you’re commanding the Armed Forces. But that emergence was short-lived and again robbed by the reactionary forces in 2015.
I suggest you
strict to this policy of a leaner Cabinet even after the next General Election
so that it will turn to be the third turning point, in the political history of
this country after the so-called 1948 Independence, that will be irreversible, and
you will go down in history as a hero who rescued this country from all
colonial legacies and who made this Island nation once again a fully independent
and a free and a proud nation.
This I think is the wish of all those who voted you in. Since this country has failed to emerge as an Independent, free and prosperous country for 71 years due to poor and bad political leadership that was the misfortune and the curse of the nation.
Appointment of
Deputy Ministers
I suggest you appoint only 15 Deputy Minister as well, to these 15 Cabinet Ministries, of cause with clear responsibilities assigned, and refuse the madness of appointing another set of Ministers called State Ministers and Non-Cabinet Minister as it has become a big fast and a Joke as well, just to keep some crazy politicians happy, of course without doing any service to the country. However, for practical purposes you may appoint 2 Deputies to the Prime Minister considering the heavy volume ha has to handle.
Also your attention is drawn to the joke of having another set of Ministers called Ministers of State as if others are not. Similarly, the appointment of non-Cabinet or any other such as Ministers with many other names, like Special Projects and without Portfolio, etc should also be stopped. I would also suggest that even after the next General Elections you strict to this number of Ministers and Deputy Ministers for the next five years ignoring the number set by the Constitution as 30 Cabinet Ministers and 40 Non-cabinet. Those MPPs who are disgruntled may be asked to find other jobs outside the Parliament and the Parliament should cease to be a place providing princely jobs for politicians under your Government at least now. They must be told that they have come here to serve the people and not to bleed them at their expense. If you are strict with these principles, I can assure you that you will definitely get the necessary 2/3 in the next Parliament for you to get a new Constitution based on the civilization of this country passed, making the way for the necessary legal framework.
I also suggest that you reduce the number of MPP to around 130 but not exceeding 150 that could be formed into 15 Executive Committees as it was done during the State Council days where the Chairmen of the Committees can be appointed as Ministers. This arrangement will help you to run a Government even without Political Parties, which has become a bane and a veritable curse to this country.
Moreover, the appointment of National list MP for any existing vacancy may also be withheld until you make a decision on the National List after the next General Election to abolish it.
The National
list
The so-called National list is a major anachronism in our body politics as it serves only political parties to appoint personal friends of party leaders who can never come to Parliament through elections. This system has created a new version of Democracy that could be called backdoor Democracy” This list was invented by political parties just to increase their vote in Parliament only and never to serve the people. None of these National list MPP has done any service up to date. Look at the performance of National list Ministers in the past, particularly men like Malik Samarwickrama, Anoma Gamage, Sarath Fonseka, C H.Marasinha, Jayampathi Wikramaratna, A.H.M Fousi. SB Dissanayaka, M.L.H Hisbulla, and Vijitamuni Zoysa, some of whom are defeated Candidates, a disgrace to politicians.
What is more, is these fellows are not answerable to the people and they are answerable only to their Party leaders as they are appointed by them. So where is Democracy? It is a very big danger to democracy to have such people in Parliament who bark and act only on behalf of their Party leaders who have their own private agendas.
To my knowledge, there has been only one National list MP in the history of this innovation, who has done some useful service to the country. That is Luxman Kadiragamar, the best Foreign Minister we ever had. But one swallow does not make a summer.
Therefore why
have another 29 jokers and parasites like this at public expense, as if 195 are
not enough, whereas actually we can do a better job with a Parliament of 130 or
150 the most. What the people want today is a lean Parliament and a lean
Cabinet of quality men and women who are committed to serve the people who can
make this country a miracle in the world or at least in Asia and definitely not
a set of highway robbers and looters like what we had in the recent past where
the leaders ended up with looting the Central Bank of the nation and thereby
who put it even behind Afganisthan within 4 years.
I assure you, Sir, you can add few more glittering jewels to your crown in addition to what you have already won if you listen to these requests so that you can go down in history as the man who created irreversible history in Good Governance in this country.
Dr. Dietmar Doering -The writer is a German investor, tourism promoter and social scientist based in Sri Lanka Courtesy The Island
Sri Lanka ushered a new era with the election of a typical ‘People’s President’ with a convincing mandate at a critical juncture to lead the country’s 21 million people towards economic prosperity.
With 6.9 million plus votes, the clear verdict of the masses reflected the demand for a strong leader, and the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the President effectively drove home the point that the nation clamored for direction and guidance from a resolute presidency to charter a new and meaningful course for a country at crossroads.
With a significantly high voter turnout, the November 16 presidential polls was free, fair and peaceful. This was also confirmed by EU EOM’s (European Union Election Observation Mission) Chief Observer, Ms Marisa Matisa, who commented that “Sri Lanka’s presidential election was largely free of violence and technically well managed”.
The phenomenal peaceful outcome of the presidential stakes, with a near 80% voter participation, was remarkable. The enthusiasm amongst voters to exercise their franchise to elect a headstrong leader with a vision to open new vistas in terms of economic growth and development was clearly visible. The young, old and infirm queued up with confidence to bring about a change the country at large envisaged for a better tomorrow.
Sri Lanka’s wholly impartial and peaceful presidential election was a splendid example to the world, especially to the western hemisphere, which more often than not tend to heap criticism on the country when it comes to honoring democratic processes. It is no secret that the negative and biased western mainstream media tries to paint a negative picture, whenever elections are conducted in Sri Lanka.
This is absolutely unfair and unjustified. Not only this presidential polls, but even many others held previously were also largely violence-free and described as free and fair. After then President Mahinda Rajapaksa lost to Maithripala Sirisena in 2015, the transition of power was smooth. Even before the final results were announced, Mahinda Rajapaksa vacated his official residence in an exemplary move that saw the newly-elected President taking over the mantle of leadership with ease.
In the just concluded presidential election also, the other main contender, Sajith Premadasa conceded defeat and congratulated the President-elect on his victory in the true spirit of lofty democratic traditions.
However, the western media sought to highlight a few marginal and somewhat irrelevant incidents during the election period in a bid to taint the positive scenario. This has been the general pattern when it comes to countries like Sri Lanka, where they highlight some sporadic minor incidents in a bid to give the story a twist and thereby tarnish the country’s image. Unfortunately, it has become the trend to add a frightening dimension to events to portray to the outside world that all’s not well in Sri Lanka.
Even in Europe, election time is not completely devoid of violence. So was it in Germany, where in the last parliamentary polls, some candidates in the fray faced physically harassment with many political party offices and vehicles also set ablaze. The whole electoral process came under threat by rival parties as a result.
In my view, the last two elections in Sri Lanka were significantly more peaceful than many polls conducted in other democracies across the world. With such political maturity and excellence in conducting elections, I would recommend that observers be drawn from Sri Lanka to monitor polls in western countries.
The 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election campaign was fierce, with the candidates putting up a stiff fight with debates, arguments and counter arguments. However, after the results were announced, they shook hands with the President-elect.
Sri Lanka has proven that it’s a matured democracy with a salutary electoral process. The country’s adherence to democratic principles and traditions are laudable. In this positive backdrop, interferences by western envoys should stop.
Unfortunately, questions on alleged human rights violations that crop up largely on information provided by some foreign envoys based in Sri Lanka to their respective governments, are tainting the positive image of the country in the world.
The question of human rights violations is more evident when it comes to weapons being exported to countries like Yemen. Great Britain and Germany are still exporting heavy weapons to Saudi Arabia knowing only too well the destruction they can cause to the lives of civilians as well.
The hypocrisy of western nations is rarely highlighted in their mainstream media. Only social media streams report on alleged human rights violations they commit.
Sri Lanka should seek to quit its dependence on leading global lending agencies such as the World Bank and IMF as the loans they grant influence policies, especially in developing countries.
With Sri Lanka’s enormous potential, a four-fold increase in tourist arrivals will significantly minimize the dependence on foreign funding. According to leading rating agencies, achieving an annual target of 8 million tourists will translate into a 50% plus contribution to the national GDP.
– Dr. Dietmar Doering
(The writer is a German investor, tourism promoter and social scientist based in Sri Lanka)
I did not vote for you, nor am I aligned with a political party. My family are a colour pallet of green, blue, red and now the new pink. Nor am I a political pundit or have a degree in political science.
I am writing to you as I find your supporters, the social media and your colleagues, appear to be under the illusion that your failure to win the Presidential elections was due to a single reason and that reason being the RW factor.
I am no friend of RW. In fact I have little respect for the supposed gentleman, considering the manner in which he has hogged the UNP party leadership despite successive defeats, without giving the young blood of the party a chance. His obvious favouritism towards his chronies is akin to MR’s nepotism. It is also undeniable, RW’s “I will continue to be the PM” line on the campaign trail may have adversely impacted your elections campaign. However, none of those are the reasons why I didn’t vote for you.
Mr. Premadasa, I didn’t vote for you because:
a) As far as my memory recalls you had never won your Electoral District in your 26 years of service to the public. Granted you have a seat in the deep South, which is the Rajapaksa territory, but in that case, you should have the foresight and political acumen to switch the seat. Correct me if I am wrong, but RW originally contested from Biyagama and then switched to a sure seat in Colombo and so did Ravi K –from Kotte to Colombo. You cannot be heard to say you were not given a seat of your choice. You were the Deputy Leader of the Party and if you could not convince your leader to give you a sure seat, then what confidence do we have of your negotiation skills and success?
b) You were backed by Maithri Gunaratne and Shrilal Lakthileke, who rebelled and supported you to bring in party reforms. You however didn’t stand by them and sold them down the river for a deal with RW. Mr. Karu J suffered the same fate. Therefore, I didn’t consider you trustworthy or loyal and deserving the Presidency. In all of your speeches on the election trail, the word used was “I” not “us”. Brought back the memories of a dictator, not a man willing to work in co-operation. There were enough squabbles between MS and government. I didn’t want the same to continue.
c) During your 26-year political career, you didn’t take a clear stand on any burning issue in the country. The ceasefire agreement, P TOMS, The war on Terror, persecution of our soldiers, Bond Scam, Easter Bombing, MCC Agreement, Sale of Hambantota Port to the Chinese and many more issues were faced by the country, but you remained silent, whilst most of your colleagues had something to say on each of the issues, though some views most certainly, attracted the wrath of the public or escalated your colleagues’ reputation to joker status. Against this background, I most certainly didn’t believe in your promises – to go to the electric chair on behalf of our soldiers or die for the sake of the country. The pledges came far too late. I didn’t trust you to walk the walk.
d) You did not say a word when your colleagues spared no mercy on the Buddhist monks or the Archbishop. Our country is deeply conservative and all religions are highly respected, and you didn’t see that these remarks were affecting your campaign, which convinced me you had poor political acumen and lacked common sense.
e) I was extremely amused at the fairy tale promises you made about working 24 hours for the good of the people, walking on streets with your voters everyday and worshipping them and taking care of all their needs. I was told by my UNP friends, that you were just playing to the masses with those words. Well the masses showed what they thought of such not-so-intelligent remarks, by overwhelmingly rejecting you. It looks like the fairy tales went down well with Colombo 1-15 though. So, who is the real gullible voter I wonder?
f) You promised to deliver a lot, but never explained the method of delivery. Complicated English words thrown together, does not set out a method or formula and you were caught out many a time. I then excused you as there were doubts about your O/L, but that factor too played a part in my decision not to vote for you. MS at least had O/Ls and even then, see the damage he did!
g) You were in charge of the Ministry of Housing for four and a half years. I didn’t see anything novel or innovative in the housing schemes you declared open. I visited some of the areas in which you have established these housing schemes, and I find the occupants absolutely disgruntled; not only had they taken personal loans to complete the houses, they also had to provide the labour forsaking their own daily work, in order for you to declare open the housing schemes on time. The houses had been built in a style of your late father’s era, whereas the designs and technology even for budget houses, had improved and modernized over the years. GR’s idea of a solar panel which generated an income for the household, was far more appealing to me.
h) I am a fan of Yala just like you. I go to Yala on weekdays to avoid the weekend crowd. I have seen you at Yala National Park on almost all of those trips, even on days where there were important parliament sittings and cabinet meetings. We used to always wonder, how you could excuse yourself from these important sittings, to spot an elephant and a leopard, which can be spotted easily on another day. Therefore, I didn’t believe you when you said you will work 24/7 for us voters.
i) Your camp says you didn’t have funds to do the campaign properly. You said you lived in a flat and your slippers were worn. But the complex from which you emerge every morning sure doesn’t look ordinary nor your wife’s dress. I frankly didn’t detect any difference in the GR and SP campaigns where finances were concerned. In fact, you spent more I believe, reserving the front page of popular Sunday Newspapers for your advertisement campaigns.
I saw on the television, RW very prominently campaigning in the North and East. You were prominent in the rest of the provinces. It’s the provinces in which you campaigned that didn’t vote for you.
Therefore, I genuinely believe that blaming RW alone for this debacle, is wrong and unfair. I didn’t vote for you not “because of” RW. In the past, I have voted for others in your party “in spite of” RW. I didn’t vote for you as the country couldn’t risk another experiment on the throne. We had enough of Friday Night surprises and Mr. Bean shows, in the past four and a half years.
You conducted yourself in a decent manner after a huge defeat, and resigned from your post in the party with immediate effect. Although you were not known for any sporting prowess, and I had only seen a propaganda clip of you playing street cricket in Jaffna, I must say you were a good sport in defeat and even attended the final conference at the Election Commissioner’s Office. Thus, I took the time to pen this letter, as you seem to be confused why people didn’t vote for you, despite the promise of a heaven on earth for us voters.
All the best for you future! Hope you will do the needful to win our confidence!
Riyadh, Nov 23, 2019, SPA — His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Crown Prince, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, sent a cable of congratulations to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on taking the oath of office as President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. The Crown Prince said: it is my delight, on the occasion of taking the oath of office, as the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, to send to you sincere congratulations and wishing of good health and happiness and the friendly people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, steady progress and advancement.
