It was the time when Lalith and Gamini were bitter the
president JR for nominating Premadasa as the candidate and they were conspiring
to form a new party.
Both left UNP and .planning to take over the helm
One prominent land developer who was famous for illegal, landfilling was carrying out unauthorized development in Rajagiriya
I was the chairman of SLLRDC , at that time. My engineers objected to him for filling and building a bridge over the Canal. After he ignored the advice by engineers I personally visited the location to advise him not to do so, but his brother who was at the site threatened me.
I took action to complain to Borella police which planned to
arrest him and place behind bars
I spoke to a known judge (who is no more) and explained to
him about the incident
He said that we should teach such people a lesson and guided me on how to proceed
Same day early morning I received the customary 4 am
telephone Call from the estate of the land developer where the President was
visiting
I was asked about the incident and received a very cordial
advise to get the developer down with the ASP and force the land developer to
apologise
His words were this man is a supporter but take any
relevant action after apology and get the Ministry Secretary to intervene”
I did so and the matter was closed after the developer was told to. build the bridge to the specification of the corporation
Though the matter died down I was subjected to
indirect harassment by citing false allegation against me by him
In the meantime, another developer who was later an Ambassador was filling land in Jaela and we objected
He was forced to get the design from the corporation for drainage and also to build a lake in the site
That was done to prevent filling with no proper drainage.
Corporation forced him to use the services of out in house engineers and the developer invited me to the inauguration of lake dredging
Without knowing his ulterior motive I visited the land, where the developer placed a garland around my neck and published a photo in the national papers.
At that time a luxury Toyota car was missing from Mahawali
Pool and Premadasa deployed A DIG To hound both Gamini and Lalith
It would have gone unnoticed, but to my unluck, the same developer was caught for having a car transferred illegally from Mahaveli Ministry which was under Gamini who has already left the party.
The first developer who filled land in Rajagiriya took a copy of the Newspaper cutting with the photo where I was garlanded by the second developer from Jaela claiming that the developer is a supporter of Gamini and I am also a supporter of Gamini! ( I have never even met Gamini at that time )
The first developer prepared a dossier with that information and included another false information claiming that I was a supporter of Lalith. He substantiated that claim by writing a petition that I was deploying a surveyor for land surveying of SLLRDC who is a friend of Lalith!
As expected Premadasa called me to the secretariat in the presence of the ministry secretary and treasury secretary where he placed the dossier in front of me and asked me for explanation
Both secretaries knew that I was above board and rescued me
by defending me.
Finally, I was asked to send a letter closing the matter.
The first developer hanged a mammoth banner in front of the corporation in Sinhala naw ( ships) Kaapu Lalith and Mahaveli gilapy ( gulped )Gamini
Well I did not bother to remove them after the demise of Premadasa DB took over and Gamini came back to the party Same developer hanged a Banner Ape’ Gamini Weerayata Jaya Wewa” And now all three have died tragically and we live to see the mess this country is now in
This is the type of politics the leaders were playing
The selection of the UNP’s presidential candidate would take some more time as the TNA, yesterday, has said it is not ready to accept Sajith Premadasa as the candidate of the coalition to be formed.
The TNA has pointed out that Premadasa will not get the votes in the North and the East as his position on the national question is not clear.
Ministers Dr Rajitha Senaratne, Mangala Samaraweera and Malik Samarawickrama met with TNA members R. Sampanthan and MA Sumanthiran at the Minister Samaraweera’s residence, yesterday, to discuss matters pertaining to the formation of the UNF and naming its presidential candidate. The meeting commenced around 11 am and lasted for nearly one and a half hours.
Minister Samaraweera pointed out that Premadasa commanded the support of the majority of the UNP’s rank and file and that majority had already endorsed his candidacy. The UNP would soon nominate Premadasa as their nominee to the UNF and the minority and minor parties should ensure his victory.
The TNA members, however, responded that Premadasa did not have proper understanding of the national problem and not proposed a solution.
Minister Samaraweera then said that Sumanthiran was against Premadasa and had been able to get other TNA members to oppose Premadasa’s candidacy.
MP Sumanthiran, however, rejected Minister Samaraweera’s accusation and said that his party was not swayed by an opinion of a single individual. The talks between the TNA and Premadasa so far have not been successful. Premadasa could not respond clearly to the TNA’s question as to what the Tamil electors in the North and East would get by voting for him.
Asked to explain what the Tamil electors would expect, the TNA members responded that they would not expect anything more than what had been promised as solutions by former Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga, in 2000, and Mahinda Rajapaksa later at an All-Party Conference.
The TNA said it was ready to support Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe came forward as the presidential candidate, for he had a clear understanding of the national problem and had been consistent in his opinion for years on the matter of solving the national problem, Sampanthan said at the meeting.
The TNA agreed to meet Premadasa again. Addressing a meeting of leaders of civil society and trade union representatives at Temple Trees yesterday, the Prime Minister pointed out the UNP’s vote base would not be enough for anyone to win the next presidential election.
The Prime Minister had said that the party’s Working Committee would pick the Presidential candidate of the UNP and that nomination would finally have to be approved by the UNF’s leadership council.
President Maithripala Sirisena, who is the Chairman of the SLFP, could not unilaterally decide to sack him, MP S.B Dissanayake said, yesterday, commenting on the announcement that his party membership had been suspended.
Dissanayake said: “Only the Central Committee of the SLFP can take away my membership. A number of people who took part in the CC meeting told me that they had not talked about suspending MPs. Thus, the Chairman can’t take a unilateral decision.”
A. H. M. Fowzi, who has also been suspended, said that he had been an SLFP member for 40 years and he had been sacked without any warning. “This is not fair. None of us have received this in writing yet. We will decide what to do when we get the letter,” he said.
On Saturday, the SLFP suspended the membership of five of its national list MPs, for joining other political parties.
They are Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena, S. B. Dissanayake, Dilan Perera, Vijith Wijayamuni Zoyza, and A. H. M. Fowzi, according to political sources.
The party will write to them, informing them of its decision to suspend them.
SLFP General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekera said: “These MPs will receive their charge sheets soon. Disciplinary inquiries will be conducted against them for supporting other political parties while holding SLFP membership. They have already been removed from the positions they held in the party,.”
MPs S. B. Dissanayake and Dilan Perera obtained SLPP membership on August 29. MP Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena joined the SLPP earlier. SLFP MPs A. H. M. Fowzie and Vijith Wijayamuni Zoysa crossed over to the government, last year.
Continuing with the subject of land, one of the most important topics for Sri Lanka and its citizens, the Bim Saviya title registration is the present topic of discussion. How aware are the citizens of this new system, were they involved before its implementation, were they given a chance to raise questions and seek answers and how knowledgeable are the supposed legislators and lawyers enacting these foreign infused land registration systems is what we as citizens should have the right to know and have our questions answered.
It seems that there
is a new established parliamentary procedure to pass statutes. No one knows how
and when and when laws are passed by parliament. Recently the CB officials said
it was not possible to carry out an investigation on money transfers of the
Batticaloa campus under the amended act as it did not even define an offence.
Isn’t it a grave mistake amending
statutes in an arbitrary manner, without
the knowledge of the officials in the
country.
Another Good example
is Bim Saviya, where no one was aware of the
introduction of Australian law[restricting access to court] and the introduction of the Electronic Land
Information System [ LIS] came into operation. These statutes have already come
into operation mainly targeted at reaching a higher positions in the Doing Business Index. The
result is that the new systems will be totally incapable of providing the much
needed protection to the people
What is Bimsaviya?
Firstly, this is a foreign land law introduced to Sri Lanka
by Act 21 of 1998. It is globally referred to as Title Registration.
This foreign property law practiced in prosperous nations
for over 150 years has repealed the existing Common Law and the Roman Dutch law
which was practiced in Sri Lanka for over 100 years.
Every land statute in the future will have to be subject to
the provisions of Act 21 of 1998.
No one seems to be bothered about the indigenous laws that
existed prior to colonial invasion & occupation that lasted over thousands
of years!
What is the objective of Bim Saviya
or Title Registration
1] is to survey all land in Sri Lanka belonging to the State
(Govt) & private owners according to a new surveying system called
Cadastral system. Estimated blocks of land to be surveyed is said to be
8.5million.
2] plans of 8.5 Million blocks will be registered in the
land registry with owners name . Each
block will have an identification number of 12 digits and the owner will be
able to view ownership from the computer using the number
All original deeds will be taken and replaced with one-page
Certificate of Title with owners name and plan depicted on it. Originals will
be destroyed.
All original deeds will be taken and replaced with one-page
Certificate of Title with owners name and plan depicted on it. Originals will
be of no value but I would strongly recommend the owners to retain the original
deeds, extracts and the certified copies of their deeds
Who decides ownership
of individual blocks of land after survey is completed?
Under
the new system the ownership is to be adjudicated by a Commissioner of Title. A
new position that has been created. The Commissioner will re-register owners
that are already registered in the old deed register. Quite a lot of scope for
mischief! Shouldn’t the Courts be doing adjudications?
Why is the Judiciary
not handling adjudication of rights of owners?
Unknown to most the judicial powers has been transferred to a
new office – Commissioner of Title. Why has no one objected? There were
objections It is unfortunate that the recommendations made by the Bar
Association and the amendments to the law to prevent fraud made by the Ministry
of Justice were not considered by
parliament, prior to introducing the electronic methods to the land registry, affected
by fraud and malpractices. Even the
lawyers are silent!
The importance of the Judiciary handling adjudication comes
because the quality of legal documents and books kept to support the rights
(deed registers) in land registries have deteriorated. The Registrar himself
says 50% of the deeds are forged. Therefore, the role of the judiciary is
pivotal for adjudication rather than a Commissioner who may not be knowing
anything about land rights or land laws!
What is
the most important feature of the Bimsaviya new law that will affect the land
owner?
First and foremost is that the owner cannot go to court for any
matter after obtaining the Bimsaviya deed. For an example if the owners name is
replaced by a forged entry the ‘law of indefeasibility’ will operate. That
means no one can remove the name of a owner not even court of law. So if the
register is having a forged owner’s name the court cannot remove the name. This
is quite serious and demands how far the Govt or lawyers addressed this aspect
before implementing Bimsaviya.
What
remedy is available to land owners if justice is denied?
Under the Bimsaviya land title is guaranteed by the Government.
The Government according to Act 21 will protect the owners from fraud or
forgery. This statutory state guarantee of Title is backed by a new insurance
scheme. An Assurance Fund (TAF) has been established under Section 62 of Act 21
of 1998 by the then Government. The Fund is supposed to provide compensation to
owners for any loss suffered as a result of fraud or error in registration.
We have to wonder whether
the architects of this Act purposely created this Fund anticipating acts of
forgery & fraud and compensating with some for land taken from owner via
forgery was the reason for introducing this Act. Who actually proposed this Act
to Sri Lanka? Who drafted the Act – our lawyers or foreign lawyers?
Can the
Government Assurance Fund under Bim Saviya afford to compensate owners for loss
of land rights in lieu of court intervention?
If colonial statutes were not bad enough – when new laws that
replace these colonial statutes which have provisions favorable to fraudsters
how can a Government guarantee protection? How can a Government simply say it
has a Fund to compensate and then walk away from the injustice to the land
owner?
Bimsaviya is simply a cut & paste from statutes of Australia
& New Zealand – while these two countries have large funds in their
Assurance Funds what does Sri Lanka have?
The Ministry of Justice did make amendments to the existing law
to prevent fraud in Bim Saviya but it is now over 9 years and nothing has been
done.
Has this
law been approved by the Attorney General’s Dept who is responsible to assure
that statutes do not violate the constitution?
All statutes have to be approved by the AG before
implementation.
Why was
the law not contested at the Bill stage?
The Act was introduced in a hurry much like most Bills allowing
no public discussion. Hardly anyone knew about the revolutionary change
introduced to property law. It questions on what basis Parliamentarians who
voted in favor of the Bill did so without raising any question or objections.
It would be good for Parliamentarians to seek legal advice for important Bills
in future. By not raising their doubts and simply voting for this new Land Act,
Sri Lanka’s Parliament has put Sri Lankan land owners in a vulnerable
situation.
Are
there other countries following Title Registration – Bim Saviya?
Not surprisingly it is World Bank that is insisting Commonwealth
Countries to introduce this new law. Prof Tang Hang Wu, Prof of Law, Centre for
Cross-Border Commercial Law in Asia, Singapore wrote a paper on Title
Registration titled A aw which favors forgers: Land fraud in two
jurisdictions”
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2325/
The paper was written following the shocking judgement on Title
registration in the highest court of Malaysia. The judges allotted the land in
favor of the owner who registered the name with a forged document (this is
precisely what can happen in Sri Lanka)
What
will be the situation in Sri Lanka vis a vis its Courts?
A series of judgements from various jurisdictions does not favor
the law. The Judges are imposing very strict penalties on conveyancing
professionals who attest documents without identifying owners. Judicial
precedence in the latest case in UK gave a drastic decision recently – the
court ordered solicitors who attended the land transaction to make financial
contributions to the owner who lost the land due to forgery (Dreamyar vs
Mishcon de Reya)
What
advice can be given to a buyer under Bim Saviya
Buyers must first investigate who owns the land. The owners name
is on the computer but is the person who signs & takes the money the real
owner?
It is good to take precautions, prove transaction process and
identify all parties who participated in taking the money & documents to be
notarized. Keep a copy of the original submitted by your notary as the land
registry will retain documents only for 10 years (request a copy from your
notary)
Judicial precedence in other jurisdiction have emphased that the
owners and notaries should be able to produce documents to prove that they used
maximum due-diligence to deal with the true owner. Retain the copy of the ID.
Photo of the owner, address and phone numbers of the notary who attested the
document & all identifications of brokers and third parties who took part
in the land transactions.
Are
deeds (especially lease deeds) prepared by notaries (after the lands are
governed by Bim Saviya) valid?
No – not valid under Section 47 of Act 21
What
is the role of the Land Bank Act with Bim Saviya since Bim Saviya is the final conclusion register for lands in Sri Lanka?
Section 73 Act 21 of 1998 / Bim Saviya Act is very clear –it does
not permit any other land register.
Can an owner write a Last will under Bim Saviya
Yes, last wills can be written. Ownership however
cannot be granted jointly as the Act 21 of 1998 does not permit coownership.
What will happen if all deeds are computerised, original deeds are
destroyed and computers get hacked and all records eliminated
The Electronic register is already in place known as the Land
Information system [ LIS]
In other countries the law is monitored by Professors of
law. Under the Electronic Transaction Act of Sri Lanka, the Minister of
Lands has the power to continue the process. Even land documents can be signed
with electronic signatures one day, which the act has not permitted to
date.
Other nations are very cautious in introducing fully automated
methods without the introduction of statutes to preserve the identification of
owners. The damage that could be done to the property rights of a country was
demonstrated by USA reporters —They prepared a electronic land sale document
for the Empire State Building with forged signatures sent to the land registry
The fictitious sale of the Empire State building took place in 90 minutes.. The
land registry did not have the identification laws in place to
prevent the registration.
The legal education in the university and the Law College has to
be changed to have counsel and academic staff to address the issue of
unrestricted entry of technology and land statutes drafted by foreigners
.
If an application is made to court, courts may seriously
consider to revert to the deed registration system to operate the
electronic register, unless the transaction speed is considered more
important than preventing fraud.
People’s lobby groups to demand Parliamentarians be more
responsible and accountable for Bills/Acts re Land in Sri Lanka
These aspects of land laws are brought to you by lawyers who are
well versed and researched in land laws both in Sri Lanka & abroad. If not
for a handful of patriotic lawyers we would not be knowing even this much and
simply calling ourselves a democratic country is not enough if there is no
transparency or involvement of the Citizens in lawmaking. The Nation must thank
them for the silent role they play.
As things stand the BimSaviya together with the new
controversial land Bills being presented including the Land Privatization Act
spells dangers for Sri Lanka.
The public are asked to raise more questions so that we may find answers and share these amongst the rest of the citizens to become aware of what our Parliamentarians are hiding from us
Major split in the yahapalana vote All ‘also rans’ floundering Second and third preference hopes unrealistic
With the JVP fielding its own candidate, the yahapalana vote bank breaks up in a very significant way. At the presidential elections held in 2010 and 2015, the JVP vote was a part of the anti-Rajapaksa common candidate’s vote bank. This time however, it will not be possible for the JVP to avoid fielding a candidate of its own if the UNP fields a party member as a candidate. Some think that Karu Jayasuriya may be able to get the JVP to stand down and obtain their vote. But if the JVP allows their members to vote for the member of another party that will set in motion a process whereby the JVP ultimately gets swallowed up by the other party that their voters vote for.
All the small parties that have had semi-permanent links with a bigger party have haemorrhaged leaders, members and voters to the bigger entity. It happened to the LSSP and CP after the 1950s when they began collaborating with the centre-left SLFP. Today the LSSP and CP have become permanent allies in an unavoidable marriage with the larger social democratic entity they linked up with – the SLFP and its successor the SLPP. The Sri Lanka Mahajana Party which linked up with the SLFP in 1994, has virtually disappeared from sight. There are plenty of examples like that. The monk Dambara Amila was once a member of the JVP.
Today, he has no association with the JVP but is a prominent member of the NGO cabal supporting yahapalanaya. Up to now the JVP has been a cadre based political party. That never changed even when they contested the presidential election of 1982. At the Parliamentary elections of 1994, 2000 and 2001, they relied only on their party vote. At the Parliamentary election of 2004 they for the first time, began joining coalitions with the SLFP to fight elections. One parliamentary election and one presidential election later, by 2008, the end result of this was that they had lost a good number of leaders, cadres and voters to the UPFA with Wimal Weerawansa breaking away to join the Rajapaksa camp.
Bitter experiences of the past
At the presidential election in 2010 and 2015 the JVP supported a common candidate, with the second attempt being successful. Then the JVP fell a victim to its own success because they had to share the blame for the misdeeds and failings of the government they had helped bring into power. They have now run out of options and strategies. Since they have now fallen down a well, the only way out is through the mouth of the same well. In promoting a common candidate in 2010 and 2015, the JVP set aside its own identity as a Marxist Leninist party and joined a loose coalition led by the UNP which had as its main aim the dislodging of the Rajapaksas from power.
With the JVP’s move to field Anura Kumara Dissanayake as its presidential candidate, they have now taken that approach to its logical conclusion and for all practical purposes shed the red colour and their Marxist Leninist ideology and positioned itself as a liberal alternative to the UNP and the SLPP. They tried out this approach in a limited way at the local government elections in 2018, and they found that it would work up to a point by attracting the voters disgruntled with the UNP to their side. If they are to harvest the floating vote that may be leaving the UNP, they have to field their own candidate and to maintain a sufficiently people-friendly image.
This is why Anura Kumara Dissanayake had shed the red shirt of radicalism for pastel coloured alternatives and why the red banner of the party has been replaced by a shade of purple. This is the JVP in sheep’s clothing – a new approach taken with the hope of swelling their ranks by harvesting disgruntled voters from the yahapalana project. There have been many twists and turns in the JVP’s history. They moved from armed insurrection to popular politics after getting out of jail in 1977. They reverted to armed insurrection again in the mid 1980s, to be followed by another phase of engaging in democratic politics after 1994.
They started collaborating with the SLFP in mid 2001 when the so called ‘pariwasa government’ was set up with the JVP helping to prop up the failing PA. This was taken to a new level when the JVP entered into a coalition with the SLFP to contest the 2004 Parliamentary election. The JVP soon left this coalition and opted to remain independent in Parliament until the presidential election of 2005 when they once again helped the UPFA to win the Presidential election of that year. Their justification for supporting Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2005 was on the argument that it was necessary to keep Ranil out. By 2010 the JVP had come to the conclusion that Mahinda Rajapaksa should be kept out and Ranil Wickremesinghe brought into power as the Prime Minister. At the 2010 presidential elections, they promoted the idea of fielding a common candidate to defeat the Rajapaksa government. This succeeded in 2015.
The JVP has tried everything they possibly can in the past quarter of a century and now they are trying the only remaining option – to give up the red and radicalism and to try and become at least the third force in politics like the Liberal-Democratic Party in Britain. The JVP has been making the moves necessary for this transition – no red, no radicalism and a stated willingness to accept the rights of gays and lesbians.
It’s unlikely that the JVP would be inclined to help another party to capture power in the future because they would have to share the blame for bringing that other party into power. That would have already happened to the JVP with the yahapalana fiasco except for the fact that they have got this opportunity to harvest some of the floating vote by posing as the cleaner option within the yahapalana camp. In normal circumstances, the constant fielding of outsiders as their candidates leads to a dissolution of the party. The JVP is fortunate that the yahapalana government was such a failure. If they had been even moderately successful, the above mentioned process would have taken place in reverse and the main partners in the government the UNP and the SLFP would have eaten into the JVP base.
But because the main yahapalana partners were so unsuccessful, the JVP has now got an opportunity to eat into the vote banks of the SLFP and the UNP. The JVP’s experience with forming partnerships with larger entities for a common cause has not been good. In 2010 when the JVP supported Sarath Fonseka’s bid for the presidency along with the UNP and the TNA, a large segment of the JVP’s activist cadre with Premakumar Gunaratnam at their head broke away to form the Frontline Socialist Party. Simultaneously, the JVP lost control over the Inter University Students Federation which they have never regained.
So there is a need for the JVP to reassert their own identity. Upstarts like like Nagananda Kodituwakku were stepping into the void left by the JVP which was collaborating with parties like the UNP, the TNA and the Muslim political parties. The announcement of Anura Kumara Dissanayake as the JVP candidate and the rally at Galle Face to announce that candidacy was clearly an attempt to claw back lost ground.
‘Also rans’ in trouble with JVP’s entry
In fact the proliferation of presidential hopefuls at the 2019 presidential elections was because the JVP was not in the scene. The moment the JVP announced their candidacy we saw that it acted as as dampener on the enthusiasm of some of the potential ‘also ran’ candidates. The JVP is appealing to the same constituency as Nagananda Kodituwaku, Rohan Pallewatte and other would be Presidents. Uvindu Kurukulasuriya the editor of the Colombo Telegraph website once announced (we fervently believe, only tongue in cheek) that he will be voting for Madhu Roxz a youthful Youtube crack pot celebrity wearing what looks like a leg warmer on one arm who had early on announced that he will be running for president. Madhu Roxz is now nowhere to be seen.
Many such candidates will opt out now that the JVP is in the ring. Nagananda Kodituwakku who is the longest standing ‘also ran’ in the race due to his involvement in public interest litigation. Disturbing questions are now being asked about Nagananda’s candidacy as well. Last week youtuber Darshana Handungoda charged that Nagananda had not yet relinquished his British citizenship and had not yet made public the Constitution that he promised the people. Handungoda ominously stated that Nagananda had been engaged in fund raising activities even though he has not up to now relinquished his British citizenship and he expressed the fervent hope that this would not turn out to be a scam.
This is a moment when the potential also rans are facing a reality check. Even though it is speculated in some quarters that the JVP may at the last moment do what they did in 1994 and stand down in favour of a candidate who pledges to abolish the executive presidency, it is unlikely that they would do that this time. They need to reassert their separate identity while at the same time reinventing themselves to appeal to a wider vote base. Now that Anura Kumara Dissanayake has come forward as the candidate the JVP will have no option but to put their best foot forward and to gather as much votes as possible – all of it coming out of the yahapalana vote bank.
If the JVP had not supported the common candidate in 2015 albeit indirectly, Maithripala would have lost to Mahinda Rajapaksa. It can clearly be seen that the UNP (both factions) are still wooing only the minorities with increased appearances in the north. The Tamil and Muslim votes are crucial no doubt, but so are the JVP votes. Even if the UNP gets all the Tamil and Muslim votes in the country, they will not be able to win unless they are able to get the JVP votes as well. In 1982, when Hector Kobbekaduwa was made the SLFP presidential candidate, he made an attempt to get Dr Colvin R. De Silva to stand down but failed. Given how important the JVP vote is, its surprising that the UNP has not yet approached the JVP and requested them to stand down.
At the moment perhaps the UNP is preoccupied with their internal battles. But once they decide on a candidate, that candidate will have to go to the JVP’s Pelawatte headquarters with the same enthusiasm that they go to the north today. The JVP’s entry into the contest skews things for the yahapalana camp to such an extent that one has to pose the question as to why the UNP is fighting one another for the presidential candidacy at all. They will be better off talking to the JVP and asking them who their preferred candidate is and then making their choice accordingly. That’s how important the JVP vote is for the yahapalana camp.
For the first time in the history of presidential elections in this country, a discussion has ensued about the second and third preferences that voters can cast. This discussion is being fuelled mainly by the yahapalana side which hopes that though the yahapalana vote may not remain together at this election the way it stuck together at the 2010 and 2015 presidential election, still the yahapalana partners would have enough in common with one another particularly the need to keep the Rajapaksas out of power at all costs, to come to an arrangement whereby all pro-yahapalana types cast the second and third preferences for one another.
For example, if the JVP is contesting separately this time, the yahapalana types hope that the JVP voters’ second preference would be cast for the UNP candidate so as to ensure that even if the JVP candidate does not win, that it would help keep Gotabaya Rajapaksa out. One problem in this anticipated second preference is that the JVP cannot ask its voters to cast their second preference to the UNP candidate or indeed any other candidate. They can’t even make a general statement like telling the voting public to vote for any candidate other than Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The moment they do that, they will be acknowledging that there are other alternatives to which the people can vote other than the JVP. Asking your voters to cast a second or third preference for some other political entity is a sure fire way of losing votes to that named entity.
The second and third preferences
The more radical offshoot of the JVP the Frontline Socialist Party is also fielding a candidate at the Presidential elections. The JVP can’t afford to ask their voters to cast their second preferences even to the FSP who were their comrades until a few years ago because that would immediately result in a gravitation of JVP voters towards the FSP. In such circumstances, how can one expect the UNP candidate to be able to harvest the JVP’s second and third preferences? It can be argued that since the JVP has worked together with the UNP at two presidential elections in 2010 and 2015, that the JVP voters will of their own accord without any need to be told to do so, cast their second and third preferences to their erstwhile UNP partners.
That is not an improbable scenario. After all Anura Kumara Dissanayake was in the National Executive Council, the Anti-Corruption Committee set up by the UNP Cabinet in the immediate aftermath of the January 2015 change of government. AKD was also the head of the Rapid Response Sub-Committee of this Anti Corruption Committee. By appearing on the same stage as the UNP, the leaders of the JVP have given their rank and file the impression that the UNP is a friendly force. So there is a distinct possibility that some of the JVP constituency will of their own accord cast their second preference to the UNP candidate. This in the medium to long term will be a sure fire way for the JVP to lose its base to the UNP. In fact, if the JVP is to maintain its identity and keep its vote base together, they will have to actively discourage the casting of second and third preferences.
The actual fact is that no political party or individual contesting a presidential election can afford to ask their voters to cast their second or third preferences to any other party or individual because that would be a case of committing suicide in stages. In 1982, at the first presidential election, we don’t recall ever hearing Dr Colvin R. De Silva telling his voters to cast their second or third preferences for Vasudeva Nanayakkara or for Hector Kobbekaduwa because they were colleagues who had served in the same government together and were potential allies in the future as well.
A presidential election is a headlong battle to win votes for oneself. Recommending or endorsing anyone else as a candidate suitable to receive second or third preferences will result in a flight of original votes to that endorsed candidate. If someone is deemed suitable to receive a second preference as a potential alternative, it will be only a matter of time until that organization starts hemorrhaging supporters to alternative entities. Presidential elections are not the only elections around. There are parliamentary, provincial council and local government elections. If a voter sees a good candidate at the parliamentary, PC or LG level in a party to whom he cast his second preference at a presidential election, that voter will switch his allegiances to that good candidate.
Encouraging or indeed even tolerating a second or third preference vote at a presidential election will be a sure fire way of turning the party vote into a semi-floating vote in the medium to long term. This is not a situation that will be relished by any political party – least of all the JVP. If some members of the JVP have now come to the conclusion that the UNP candidate is worthy of their second or third preference, then it will be only a matter of time until they become UNP like Nandana Gunatillke, the JVP’s presidential candidate of 1999 who is now a UNP local government representative!
So the JVP, UNP and SLPP and indeed all political parties and even individual candidates will all have to actively discourage the casting of second and third preferences at the presidential elections if they value their identity.
It was first of May 1993 when tigers exploded a
bomb to kill President Premadasa
I was a chairman of a corporation hand-picked by Premadasa though I have never done any politics before that
We were obliged to attend 1st of May parade with the UNP union on 1st in May
I was in the front of the section of union members of and
walking along the road towards Galwala junction
We were stopping on and off to keep the pace and Thondaman’s
union has joined the parade in front of us near Dimo
Same time we saw Premadasa passing the parade in the same Land Rover imported by Montague Jayawickrama which was bulletproofed by the company where I was working, who was waving to the participants with Mohideen who was sitting in military fatigue in the front
One hundred yards before Galwala we heard the bang which sounded like firecrackers
Some people in front of us who have joined the parade may have perished and saved our life!
Most of the People ran away, but without knowing that he was dead, I told our people to continue walking towards Galle Face where final parade to
be held where Premadasa was to make a speech
We still did not know that he was dead and waited in the
Galle Face
Everyone knew that there was an explosion but none were aware that Premadasa was one of the victims
I told some of my colleagues that he may be watching from
Presidential Secretariat to see that we have not left the parade
Then we see Ranil and Sirisena Cooray arriving at the stage and sitting and having a discussion and no announcement was made by the duo
I walked back home and got a call from my wife who received
a message from an Australian friend that Worldwide news already
announced that Premadasa was dead
Whatever said and done, we saw how DB was peacefully coronated with the leadership of this duo
O who was on that stage that day to continue to run the country and hold the most peaceful election for Chandrika to come to power.
In an African country, there could have been a coup to take power but it was prevented.
Same people who may have got houses from the Gamudawa program lighted crackers despite the fact that they should have been mourning.
My contention is that son of same Premadasa and nephew of Cunning fox JR should get together and work out a plan to save the country and democracy unless GR has other plans to develop the country by marrying democratic rules with enhanced Discipline of this unruly nation
17th September which is the birthday of JR ( and also mine!!) maybe the day these two can get together !!!!
MP Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe said he would not contest the upcoming parliamentary election if there was no congenial political atmosphere in the country.
I, as a civilian, will do some social service and will continue my profession,” he said.
Mr. Rajapakshe said he would only support a presidential candidate after considering his past records, political maturity, education and added that he should be able to uphold democracy and work for the betterment of his own country.
The prospective candidate should have a programme to bring down the two million women employed in the Middle East as housemaids to Sri Lanka and support them develop their economy. And also he should have a programme to use the labour of two million youths employed as three-wheeler riders productively. He should guarantee to carry forward the policy of C.W.W. Kannangara,” he said.
When asked about the UNP presidential candidate, he said it was a waste of time to talk about it and said people had already rejected the UNP as a party which sells the country and divides it.
He told a news conference on Thursday that he was ready to face any disciplinary action taken by the UNP and that he was waiting for such a move by the party.
The UNP has a right to take disciplinary action and we also have a right to go to court. They have to do that with the party constitution prepared by me and Thilak Marapana.,” he said.
Last week saw United National Party (UNP) members aligning themselves into two camps – one supporting its long-time leader, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, the other backing Party’s Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa.
Premadasa had been far from being subtle when it comes to his desire to contest the upcoming Presidential Election on the UNP ticket.
He started his campaign fairly early on, with the backing of a number of Party strongmen.
Yet, his plans were somewhat scuttled when Party Leader Wickremesinghe also expressed the desire to contest the Presidential Election, during a meeting with a few of his loyalists.
However, the last week was abuzz with the expectation of the two leaders meeting and the much-touted talks were finally held on Tuesday (10) night at Temple Trees, but unfortunately for the Party, the talks ended without a concrete agreement on the issues at hand. The discussion that began at 9:50 p.m. had ended a mere one hour later.
Premadasa, however, told the media later that further discussions will be held and a candidate, who can lead the Party to victory at the next Presidential Election as well as next year’s General Election, will be earmarked soon.
He added that he is optimistic about the outcome of the discussions.
However, unsurprisingly to many, on the following day, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe had reportedly held a secret meeting with a number of UNP Working Committee and Parliamentary Group members loyal to him.
Several Party leaders had participated in this meeting on the invitation of the Premier and UNP General Secretary, Minister Akila Viraj Kariyawasam.
The meeting took place from 8 p.m. to midnight where they had reportedly evaluated the loyalties of all Parliamentarians and Working Committee Members of the Party.
According to internal political sources, it had been discussed at length that there is still a chance for the Premier to win the majority of the Parliamentary Group and the Working Committee and the steps that should be taken towards this end.
Furthermore, they had spoken about three MPs that are allegedly on the side of UNP Deputy Leader, Minister Sajith Premadasa. The Premier had allegedly said that those three MPs had gone beyond their limits and that they will be dealt with accordingly in time.
The sources said that Leader of the House, Minister Lakshman Kiriella, Ministers Daya Gamage, Navin Dissanayake, and Ravi Karunanayake had participated in the meeting.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had repeatedly emphasized that the leader who protected the Party during trying times, should be the one to contest the upcoming Presidential Election.
Wickremesinghe is apparently quite confident in his victory if he decides to come to the fray and highlighted his long political career during which he had held numerous positions.
However, he had also stressed that at the age of 70, he is not hesitant to hang up his hat and quit politics after long years of service to the Party.
While meeting a group of UNP members from the Biyagama and Kelaniya electorates Wickremesinghe had launched into a description of his long years of political career and reminisced on how he took over the Party leadership at a time when its leaders passed away one after another and how he resurrected the Party during difficult times. He had also stressed that it was his duty to ensure victory for the alliance to be set up under his leadership.
In another surprising move, last week Premadasa met President Maithripala Sirisena’s brother, business tycoon Dudley Sirisena, in secret.
The focus of the meeting was apparently to gain the Sri Lanka Freedom Party’s support to Premadasa, in the event he does not receive candidacy from the UNP or in the event leaders of the UNF or DNF which is to be formed under UNP leadership, refrain from supporting his candidacy.
Whatever happens in the next few weeks, and whoever wins the bid to contest the upcoming Presidential Election, cracks have already appeared within the once formidable United National Party.
If the leaders are not able to get their act together and unite for the sake of their Party and its future, it is inevitable that the Party that produced the first Prime Minister of Independent Ceylon, will be splintered into at least two groups.
According to political sources, the meeting between UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa and leaders of the UNF will be held at Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s residence tonight.
Political sources also revealed that the scheduled meeting tomorrow between Minister Sajith Premadasa and the TNA is likely to be postponed.
Meanwhile, the UNP disciplinary committee has recommended suspending the party membership of non-cabinet Ministers Ajith P Perera and Sujeewa Senasingha.
UNP Political sources stated that the decision of the disciplinary committee was handed over to Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasingha and General Secretary Akila Viraj Kariyawasam.
Non Cabinet Ministers Ajith P Perera and Sujeewa Senasingha are accused of violating party rules and regulations and discipline.<
Colombo, September 12: The Chairman of the Sri Lankan Election Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya, has reportedly decided to hold the Presidential election before December 7 and to call for nominations before September 30.
What is noteworthy this time round is that there is no clarity as to which of the candidates (tentatively in the field), is the front runner. There is no discernable wave” for or against any candidate, including Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is being touted by his Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) as a star contestant with a magic wand to set right everything that has gone wrong in Sri Lanka.
Most surprisingly, the ruling United National Party (UNP) is yet to decide on who it should field, even though one of the claimants to the party mantle, Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa, has been publicly campaigning as if he has been officially nominated.
The moods of the various politico-ethnic or politico-religious constituencies are still shrouded in mystery. For example, it is not certain if the Sinhala-Buddhist constituency, which is about 70% of the voter population, is predominantly behind the SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa who is being trumpeted as the Sinhala-Buddhist-nationalist icon. It is not clear if Gotabaya is under challenge from Sajith Premadasa, whose claims to be a Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist cannot be brushed aside.
The minority Tamils and Muslims are currently sitting on the fence having been let down by both the national mainstream Sinhala-Buddhist dominated parties, namely the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the ruling United National Party (UNP).
The minority parties have their wish-lists which they are discussing with the mainstream parties. But it is not certain which of the mainstream political parties would be able to accept them, and that too, publicly.
SLPP
The SLPP had a jumpy start with uncertainty over Gotabaya’s release from US citizenship but it has crossed the hurdle. However, he still has four problems dogging him: First, he has a case in court relating to alleged misappropriation of public funds for the construction of a memorial for his father D.A.Rajapaksa in his hometown. Apparently under directions from President Maithripala Sirisena, the Attorney General is pursuing these cases to weaken Gotabaya politically ahead of the Presidential election.
Secondly, Gotabaya is facing dissonance with the minorities. The Tamils blame him for the ruthless way in which he fought the last phase of Eelam War IV and allegedly sanctioned White Van” abductions of terror suspects during the 2006-2009 war. The Tamils are put off by the way Gotabaya brazenly surrounds himself with ex-Generals who led the war. The Tamils fear that he would behave like a military man as Lankan President. The Tamils also dislike his dismissive attitude towards their demand for devolution of power.
As for the Muslims, they see Gotabaya as the root cause of the intimidation and riots they were subjected to after the victory in the war against the Tamil Tigers in 2009. They fear repression if he became President. However it appears that the Catholics and other Christians have veered to Gotabaya’s side after the incumbent UNP-SLFP government failed to protect them against Muslim extremist terror.
The minorities are important in a Lankan Presidential election because together they are 30% of the population and to win, a candidate has to get 50 percent plus. Gotabaya undoubtedly has a strong Sinhala-Buddhist base, but he has to get at least 25% of the minority votes, especially if Sajith Premadasa, another Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist, is pitted against him by a united UNP.
The third problem that Gotabaya faces is his reluctance to campaign in the open. So far, he has spoken only to the business elite and intellectuals in closed door meetings. Even his popular older brother and former Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa has not started campaigning.
The fourth problem Gotabaya is facing is the uncertainty about SLPP’s alliance with the SLFP led by President Sirisena. The SLFP, the mother party of the SLPP, has been reduced to a rump in parliament, but still it has loyal voters, albeit small in number. As Keheliya Rambukwella, spokesman of the SLPP, said, in a Presidential election every vote is valuable. However, the SLPP finds it difficult to accept the SLFP’s grandiose demand that the election be fought under the SLFP symbol and not the lotus bud of the SLPP. The SLPP believes that the lotus bud is now well recognized as the symbol its iconic leader Mahinda Rajapaksa who showed his mettle in the local bodies elections in 2018 in which he bagged 45% of the votes in the Sinhala areas. However, it is expected that, eventually, the SLFP will settle for less in order survive politically.
UNP
The UNP is badly divided between Leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremsinghe and the Deputy Leader and Housing Minister Sajith Premadasa. Uncharacteristically, Sajith declared his intention to contest without taking Leader Wickremesinghe into confidence and without going through the set procedure for nomination.
A majority of UNP MPs and even close confidantes of Wickremesighe jumped on to the Sajith bandwagon because, in their view, Sajith is the only top UNP leader with the common touch” in contrast to Wickremesinghe who is seen as being too uppity and aloof to swing votes of the hoi polloi. Wickremesinghe also has a proven track record of losing Presidential elections where personal charisma counts.
But Sajith and his backers found that Wickremesinghe is a hard nut to crack. Wickremesinghe is the acknowledged leader of the UNP with a fund of experience and with a firm hold on the party machinery. He used this to good effect by stubbornly refusing to endorse Sajith’s candidature. Finally, Sajith had to come down from the high horse and declare publicly that he wishes to become President with the blessings of seniors like Wickremesinghe and parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya.
Eventually, both Sajith and Wickremesinghe realized that a united the UNP might win the election, but a divided UNP will be defeated because in the coming election no constituency can be taken for granted. Every vote has to be fought for.
But Wickremesighe, who is still not convinced that Sajith is the best UNP candidate, put a few demands as a condition for his support. First, he asked him to agree to the abolition of the Executive Presidency and replacing it with the Westminster-style parliamentary system. Second, he wanted to be appointed Prime Minister. And third get the support of the minorities.
Sajith may have difficulty in rejecting the demand for abolishing the Executive Presidency outright as it is an unfulfilled election promise made in the last Presidential election and has a wide measure of support from the minority parties and also progressive opinion.
However, Sajith will have difficulty in meeting some of the other demands of the minority parties especially the Tamils’ demand for devolution of power beyond the 13 th.Amendment and on the lines of the recommendations of the committees formed to formulate a new constitution. The Tamil National Alliance would insist on the establishment of accountability mechanisms to address issues of human rights and alleged war crimes. The Muslim parties would demand stern action to curb Islamophobia among the Sinhalese majority. Firm commitments in these matters may adversely affect his prospects among the Sinhala-Buddhist majority. The minority parties prefer Wickremesinghe to Sajith, but would accept Sajith if he turns a new leaf.
Sajith and Wickremesinghe are expected to meet again. It is not clear if this will happen soon. The suspense thus continues.
The JVP is in the also ran” category. But it can take away some Sinhala-nationalist voters who are alienated from the non-performing mainstream parties. One Muslim leader even said a section of Muslims might vote for JVP’ s Anura Kumara Dissanayaka as a mark of protest against the SLFP, SLPP and UNP.
The cost of printing school uniform vouchers could have been reduced by about 25% if photos of the President, Prime Minister, Education Minister and State Minister of Education at the back of the vouchers were removed, it was revealed at the Presidential Commission on last Thursday.
General Manager of Printcare Secure Ltd., Ranga Sooriyaarachchi informed the Commission that their company printed over 05 million school uniform vouchers for 2019 and quoted Rs. 2.09 to print each voucher.
The size and weight of the voucher is given in the tender document and vouchers were oriented in a special paper including security features,” he said.
The cost of that paper covers to at least 80% of the printing of each voucher and he added that they calculate the amount of paper by inches and then convert it into kilograms. “Paper Mills sell by the weight,” he said.
Chairman of the PCoI, retired Supreme Court judge, Upali Abeyrathne asked the witness whether the size of the voucher could have been reduced if the photos were not included. Witness said that they could have reduced size.
Therefore the weight can also be reduced?” the chairman asked.
“Yes,” the witness said.
“Therefore could the cost too be reduced if the size was smaller?” Abeyrathne asked. The witness affirmed that statement and said that the price could be reduced by about 25%.
It was earlier revealed that the Education Minister Akila Viraj Kariayawasam had instructed the former Secretary to the Ministry of Education, W.M. Bandusena to place photos of the President, Prime Minister, himself and the State Minister at the back of school uniform vouchers in August 2016.
This is the first time that a photo of a politician was inserted into the school uniform distribution process.
This is not the first time that Kariyawasam got his photo printed on items distributed among schoolchildren. The PCoI had earlier investigated an allegation that Kariyawasam’s decision to insert his photo and his signature into school textbooks from 2018 had involved an extra cost.
In a major boost for Sri Lankan students, the UK has this week launched a new ‘Graduate Immigration Route’ for international students choosing the UK for their higher education.
This new scheme allows students pursuing their higher education in UK to stay and work, or to look for work, for two years following the completion of their education. It will provide greater opportunities for talented international students to remain in the UK for two years to work once they have successfully completed their studies.
The route will be available to all students who have successfully completed a course of study at undergraduate level or above at a recognised Higher Education Provider. The new scheme will be introduced from the 2020 – 2021 academic year.
The Graduate route demonstrates that UK is focused and committed to attracting the best students from around the world, and demonstrates the value we place on the contribution of international students to the UK and its economy.
Sarah Hulton OBE, British High Commissioner said: This is excellent news for Sri Lankan students who want to study overseas. It will give them the flexibility to build on a first-class UK education with the opportunity to work and get life experience. It’s a win-win for the UK and for Sri Lanka”.
British Home Secretary Priti Patel said: The new Graduate Route will mean talented international students can study in the UK and then gain valuable work experience as they go on to build successful careers. It demonstrates our global outlook and will ensure that we continue to attract the best and brightest”.
Often referred to as a ‘Post-Study Work visa’, the new Graduate Route will launch for the 2020/21 intake of students to UK universities. After the two years, they will be able to switch onto the skilled work visa if they find a job which meets the skill requirement of the visa. Further details will be announced in due course.
The visa will offer opportunities to work or look for work after graduating. This new visa will also include safeguards to ensure only genuine, credible students are eligible.
To
answer that question, it is essential to first know how successful Mrs. B was
in her foreign diplomacy and a comparison of the periods and scenarios during
her rule and that which Gotabaya is likely to inherit. Mrs. Sirimavo
Bandaranaike became the world’s first female prime minister and held power from
1960-65 and 1970-77. She was not only the PM but the Minister of Defense and
External Affairs too. This aligns to the recent policy declarations made by Mr.
Gotabaya Rajapakse. Sri Lanka had the best period of foreign diplomacy under
Mrs.B – countries of the world still fondly remember Sri Lanka because of the
relations Mrs.B nurtured while keeping national interest uncompromised. These
are ingredients the nations looks forward to in a Gotabaya Rajapakse
presidency!
Mrs.B & Non-Aligned Nations
The principle concept
of the non-aligned nations was that – nations may be small & militarily
weak but they too have a role to play in world politics. Non-involvement was
replaced with non-alignment alongside engagement.
1961 Belgrade: Movement of Non-Aligned Countries Summit wherein, Sri Lanka became one
of 25 founding nations of the Non-Aligned Movement.
1976 Colombo: Non-Aligned Summit
Dr. Vernon Mendis
appointed Secretary General of the Conference
Ms. Manel Abeysekera
in charge of protocol
Held in the BMICH gifted
to Sri Lanka by China in 1973
Mrs. B Chairperson of NAM
Outcome of that was
her ability to balance relations with both India-China /India-Pakistan and
maintain a neutrality during the regional wars and even playing role of
mediator. Her skillful use of personal diplomacy was seen in the manner she
negotiated bilateral agreements while also securing foreign aid. All this she
did while securing the national interests of the country and not an inch did
she compromise Sri Lanka’s national interests. Nationalizing petroleum
distribution, tea & rubber did not go too well with western governments but
she went ahead nonetheless. Whether LTTE & JVP are the gifts she received
for her nationalism is something to seriously think about. TNT/Prabakaran
emerged the same year Mrs.B made Ceylon a Republic. JVP
It is this ability
that has etched her place in history. She proudly stood and was proudly
welcomed among the other greats of the time – Tito, Jawahalal Nehru, Fidel
Castro, Sukarno, Nkrumah and Nasser.
She is far more
fondly remembered by even her advisories than those who have willingly
compromised the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.
Mrs. B did all this
as a virtual novice to politics. She was driven into politics following her
husband’s ghastly assassination in 1959. The situation is not the same for
Gotabaya Rajapakse. He has been very much involved in politics serving in a
formidable role as Defense Secretary outshining all his predecessors and being
the guiding light behind the war victory. Post-conflict his administrative
acumen was shown in turning Colombo to one of Asia’s finest cities. Both took
to their roles as a duck to water.
Petty politics has
been the downfall of Sri Lanka’s progress. Non-aligned policies failed as a
result of the UNP leadership taking a pro-West policy and successive UNP
governments have continued to adopt same strategy inadvertently distancing
themselves from good relationships within the Asian region.
Mrs.B & India
It is in first
realizing the potential advantage of Sri Lanka’s geopolitical positioning that
any leadership can adopt strategies to protect and enhance Sri Lanka’s
geopolitical advantage while meeting the aspirations of countries seeking
relations with Sri Lanka.
Not only did Mrs.B strengthen
Sir Lanka’s geopolitical advantage but struck cordial ties with the Nehru
family as well as other political counterparts. She ensured that they treated
her on par with them and not given any inferior role. What is noteworthy and
poignant is that she did not shirk an inch of Sri Lanka’s national interest and
she appointed the cream to be her nominees – Shirley Amerasinghe was High
Commissioner to New Delhi. When the Indians were stalling during the
Srima-Shastri repatriation pact, all she said was that she would leave Delhi
unless the agreement was ready for signature and that was that. (In October
1964 – 525,000 persons of Indian origin were repatriated to India while 300,000
were granted Sri Lankan citizenship). This is the type of leadership the nation
looks forward to in Gotabaya Rajapakse
Note: In 1974 of the
remaining 150,000, she agreed to grant 75,000 Sri Lankan citizenship &
75,000 Indian citizenship but the UNP for vote bank politics decided to grant
all 150,000 Sri Lankan citizenship.
Another fete of Mrs B
is the resolution of the maritime boundary between India & Sri Lanka
resulting in Kachativu being declared Sri Lanka’s as a result of research &
guidance of Foreign Secretary W T Jayasinghe and Legal Advisor Christopher
Pinto.
With the Ranil
Wickremasinghe government severing ties with China, Gotabaya Rajapakse will
find himself in no different a position Mrs.B faced during the Sino-India war
of 1962. For Mrs.B the animosity between India & China meant that it would
affect Asian solidarity and she organized a Colombo Conference to mitigate
& mediate. Fast forward with 21st century being Asia’s century
and the rising power houses of India & China showing growing tensions,
Gotabaya Rajapakse too finds himself in a similar position. Just as Mrs.B
thought rightly, advisors of Mr Rajapakse must also look at the larger picture
of the need to mediate to stabilize Asia.
Mrs.B & China
Sri Lanka began
post-independence diplomatic relations with China in 1957 under rule of SWRD
Bandaranaike though for centuries Sri Lanka has had ties with China previously.
The aid received by Sri Lanka from China during Mrs.B’s tenure came as soft
term aid for development. BMICH stands as a monumental gift from China to Sri
Lanka. She was much saddened when Premier Zhou En Lai could not attend the
opening in 1973 due to cancer to which he succumbed in 1976 but China’s respect
was shown by sending one of China’s 10 Marshalls who led the Chinese
Revolution. Many of Sri Lanka’s proud monuments are pinnacles of Sri
Lanka-China relations – Hambantota Port, Nelum Pokuna, Supreme Court Complex,
Norocholai coal power plant, Lotus Tower to name a few.
With US pivot to
Asia, renaming of United
States Pacific Command (USPACOM) to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command on 30 May 2018, increasing US military and
non-military presence in Asia, pressures to sign MCC, SOFA & ACSA – the
Indian Ocean has become a volatile zone.
Mrs. B
failed to make the Indian Ocean a zone of peace engraved in her NAM Summit in
Lusaka in 1970 as a strategy to prevent power rivalries and her response to the
expulsion of the indigenous natives by Britain to occupy Diego Garcia as a US
base. Noteworthy is the manner that a UN Resolution was proposed by Sri Lanka signed
by NAM countries but abstained by US-UK & France. Resolution 2832 (1971)
declared the Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace and it would be poignant for the
Gotabaya Rajapakse team to see the relevance of this declaration in the present
context of power rivalries.
At the
Viyathmaga Convention, Mr. Gotabaya Rajapakse clearly indicated that there has
to be a synergy in National Security Policy and National Economic Policy &
Nation’s Foreign Policy. Undoubtedly so.
Mrs.B etched her
place in economic diplomacy among the Group of 77 at a time when the UN
Conference on Trade & Development (UNCTAD) was formed her nominee Dr.
Gamini Corea went on to serve as its Secretary General.
Mr.
Rajapakse can take a leaf from Mrs.B – foreign policy under Mrs.B was the best
period Sri Lanka can proudly recall. Sri Lanka was respected by both West &
East. The West in particular respected her steadfastness and resolve despite
being a small nation. She steered foreign policy by ensuring a professional
foreign service. Career diplomats were those patriotic and who put the country
first. She appointed some of the best and respected personnel to head missions.
She made it a point to read every diplomatic dispatch sent to her and ensured
each had a personal comment and this is the type of direct involvement Mr.
Rajapakse should follow. President Premadasa was also one to follow up on every
instruction given and that ensured no lethargy or delay in carrying out orders
given.
The UNP
derogated her as ‘kusi-amma’ but her tenure remains the golden age of
diplomatic engagement and foreign policy successes.
Mr. Gotabaya Rajapakse need not follow anyone’s footsteps but in looking back to take a leaf or two out of any success story – he surely has to look at Mrs. B’s foreign policy and diplomatic relations for no government before or after has succeeded to outmatch what she achieved.
Unknown to most Sri Lanka is facing unprecedented interferences most of which when known will be too late to reverse. Every aspect of danger centres on the periphery of land, its ownership and its grabbing legally via statutes being drafted by non-Sri Lankans. These questions and answers from an attorney knowledgeable in electronic land laws and local and foreign land statutes provides readers an understanding of what is at stake and the need to demand that Parliament wakes up to the irregularities taking place and lawyers take a more responsible and pro-active role in land rights.
Why is land important to a sovereign country? Land provides the basis for political organization. There is currently no state without land. Land often constitutes the most important measure of the space where sovereignty is exercised. If the governing statutes are drafted by foreigners and without a land policy lands are alienated and leased out to foreigners, there will be no space to exercise sovereignty.
How many laws enacted during colonial rule continued after independence in 1948?
Most of the laws continue without any revision. Some of these laws date back to 1864. Serious note has to be made that they date back to 1864. As a result, land fraud and corruption are plausible as there are no laws governing land registries, land contracts etc. only a set of optional rules under the colonial laws which address these. The validity of this was seen recently when the Registrar General released a news item that 50% of lands registered in the Government land registry are fraudulent. This is shocking news.
Did independent Sri Lankan Governments attempt to change the land laws after independence, if not why?
No Government since independence has encouraged local research. Presently a new administrative process is adopted to allow foreign organisations, economists and foreign lawyers to be allowed to research and revise land laws merely to obtain a higher standard in the foreign Index called the Doing Business Index. [without any interest to safeguard and secure the land rights of owners in the country] We are simply dancing to international tunes without realizing the dangerous ramifications.
Were there attempts by lawyers to change the land laws after independence.
Amendments were introduced to the Conveyancing and registration system mainly to secure and protect land owners and their rights, to protect the identity of the owners and to protect the deeds and documents that are often reported lost in the registries. The successive governments have not considered the attempts of the local lawyers to adopt new modern localized laws in place of the colonial ones.
What are the implications of not changing the colonial land laws?
Serious obstacles are faced by land owners and the chaotic and iniquitous state of the land market in Sri Lanka as a result of the laws that date back to 1864.
How do prosperous nations legislate their lands
They progress by modernizing the laws and interacting with experts and professors of law of their countries and of other prosperous nations. Their land laws conform to local conditions and needs, such as community property rights and the protection of resources. What can be done with land or property and its usage is discussed with the people of the country, this is the principle rule they observe. They also maintain that all laws are strictly observed as the Rule of Law is synonymous with land rights. These are areas Sri Lanka has not ventured into. There is no proper dialogue between Parliament – People – Lawyers/Experts.
How have international agencies exerted pressure upon Sri Lanka’s land laws?
Before independence the colonial rulers governed our lands. Presently on the basis of the Atlantic Charter the governing system had moved to the UN agencies – Presently we continue with the post war world order created by the Atlantic charter, the FAO, World Bank, Global Land Tool Network [GLTN], International Federation of Surveyors [FIG] and a new organisation promoted by the USA Government called the Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC] are engaged in our law making while our legislatures and lawyers remain clueless.
The frightening aspect of this was seen when a foreign embassy carried a paid paper advertisement Example Advertisement made by foreign Embassy for land titling in Sri Lanka. The Bim Saviya re-engineering report is made by a company selected by them to commence re-engineering and technology being introduced to land registries with foreign law.
What is the effect of long term leases?
The law requires the leases to be registered and copies of leases to be available in land registries for public inspection. These laws are not observed. The next generation will not be able to determine their rights once the 99 year lease period is over . –[All leases should be registered under The State Land act 8 of 1947 and the Act 21 of 1998]
How legal is the land privatization special provisions act and the Land Bank Act ?
They have been drafted without the knowledge of the existing statutes that are introduced recently by another set of foreigners restricting the land rights of owners and without the knowledge of the fact that the country has insecure land registries which do not safeguard the interest of the grantees.
Example the restriction on the right of grantees under Bim Saviya – Grantees cannot transfer land to spouses they cannot take loans from banks jointly with spouses, they have no access to court if their lands are taken by forgery or fraud. They cannot subdivide land without expensive procedure. They can obtain compensation from the Government under a statutory insurance scheme if they are affected by land fraud. The grantees will be affected by the personal laws the women will be deprived of their right to nominate their heirs.
They will be affected by unreliable land registries, Even when introducing the electronic register they failed to introduce the basic laws to protect the registered owners [preserve and archive the identification of owners to protect from forgery]. The grantees will be vulnerable, fraudsters can easily forge their signatures. Already the corruption level has increased, the lands are being blocked out and sold.
What is the Land Bank Act is a special register to be established to register lands.
Act 21 of 1998 had already introduced a comprehensive compulsory register which states that it is final and conclusive and does not have any room for another register –A violation of the law given in Act 21 of 1998
Who is drafting the present statutes?
It is strange that the lawyers and the people in the country remain silent when foreign agencies and foreign economists are making changes to our land laws since 1952 [vide Book on Title Insurance written by Dr A.R.B.Amerasinghe the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development [present World Bank] made their first research report about the land ownership of Ceylon. It was a report termed “Insecurity of Land Title’, required to introduce a foreign law to govern land rights.]
Are the statutes available to the public? No
It is strange that the public and lawyers are brain washed to the extent to be silently accepting the rules—
1] to wait until a bill is gazetted and within 7 days of the date of the gazette to rush to court [when bills are introduced by foreigners]
2] to accept the provision in the constitution that we cannot contest any of the statutes if they are passed even if they are in violation of the constitution.
How can foreign land grab under numerous investment nomenclatures be stopped if it means the land will be lost for posterity?
Land statutes should be drafted and considered with local research teams. They should immediately remove all restrictions that does not permit locals to interact and participate in the law making. Follow the prosperous nations where they prohibit foreigners from intervening.
What is the environmental impact of the land for foreign investments?
The usage of land rights for example as given in the land privatisation act is to ‘to do anything an owner requires‘ this is not permitted internationally as land does not belong to one generation vide the laws of International Federation of Surveyors and other UN organisations. Land must be kept for future generations with minimum pollution.
What is the role of the legal fraternity of Sri Lanka in assisting the Citizens uphold the sovereign land rights?
To immediately to commence legal education to include the modern subjects relating to property law with technology. The country does not have intellectual independence as the legal education system is limited to the colonial statutes both in the University and the Law College. The syllabus needs serious revision to conform to the needs, demands and threats that requires the legal fraternity to have the fundamental knowledge to address any threats on behalf of the Nation & its people.
Under the guise of development, on account of corruptions within the political system and the lack of knowledge regarding global transnational land grabbing nexus Sri Lanka’s legal fraternity are unable to address the threats legally and as a result the Nation and its Citizens are likely to suffer. The immediate need is to therefore stop foreigners drafting Sri Lanka’s legal statutes, changing Sri Lanka’s land laws and registries but in turn appoint a team of local lawyers & experts to immediately study where such interventions have taken place and where Sri Lanka is likely to find threats to its sovereignty & territorial integrity & immediately reverse these detrimental decisions while also studying all colonial statutes and relooking at ways to change them to suit Sri Lanka and not foreign investors or foreign governments.
Privatization
of government owned banks has been an issue in Sri Lanka since early 1990s and
many have no idea why the issue was emerged at that time, and it seems that now
the issue has involved in politics rather than considering the facts related to the requirement of privatization
or popularly called expanding the ownership of government banks. Why this issue emerged in an inappropriate
time in the country, where is preparing for elections, is difficult to
understand and the government had plenty of time since 2015 to openly talk
about the issue and educate people on the issue. The management of banks in Sri
Lanka had been associated with many problems since beginning of the organized
banking system in the country in 1800s and the appointing a banking commission
in 1930s was the best example to such problems. However, the recommendations of
the commission did not solve the issues and the problems in relation to the
banking and banks management in the country expanded to the future. The major
recommendation of the Pokkanavala Commission or popularly called the Banking
commission supported to establish Bank of Ceylon with a private and public
partnership, the ownership structure was changed when Mr. T.B.Illangaratne was
holding the portfolio of Finance and new trading bank called People’s Bank
under the fully ownership of the government was established during the tenure
of Mr. Illangaratne. Banking has considerable problems in many countries
worldwide and it doesn’t want to involve in petty politics and the problems
relation to the management of banks need to consider independently.
Late
1980s I participated in an exercise of risk assets review in (Corporate and
Medium Market) Bank of Ceylon with consultants of the World Bank and found
large scale misuse of bank loanable funds by bank executives granting credit
facilities to customers who had no credit quality. Based on findings I drafted a credit policy
manual for the bank and don’t know whether the manual is operative at this
time. I also advised to develop risk assets acceptance criteria for corporate
and medium market and gave the structure of criteria, I don’t know whether
successfully done the job. We also developed a case study named Contrite
Contractors” to train credit officers. When the COPE discussion was going on
about the audit report of People’s Bank, it revealed that the banks in Sri
Lanka is still providing credit facilities for contrite contractors
restructuring facilities have not settled within the framework of extension. The bad debt level of the bank had been in a
higher level compared to the level of trading banks in other countries and the
accounting practice of the bank was not consistent with international
practices. If the identified bad credits
were written off at that time, the net worth of the bank would have negative
and as the owners of the bank, the government had not abilities to allocate
funds from the annual budget to recapitalize the bank. The corporate and
executive management had not understood what should do to reform the management
of bank and most of them were dices of political chess board.
When
I was watching the program of government committee (COPE) about People’s Bank,
I was surprised about the management style of government banks and it was
reflected the stupidity of bank management using loanable fund and observed
that politics and political influences are destroying the public financial
institutions. The chairman of People’s Bank mentioned capitalization issue
which is the major issue of the banking system in Sri Lanka, but he did not
elaborate the issue people to understand the problem, which was unable to
convince people the nature and the size of the problem. Chairmen and the board of directors of
government banks have no idea what is the role of them as top managers and they
are working like cheeky monkeys or children playing with the capital of the
government and customer deposits.
Chairman of the COPE committee was talking about customer deposits and he never talked about government
capital, which is owned by public in Sri Lanka. The COPE chairman should have
explained the problem with a broader study of the issue to public as people of
the country was observing what was going on.
The
major issue of banks in Sri Lanka is difficulty to maintain required capital level
(combine of Ordinary Shares, Preference Shares, Convertible Notes, Retained
Earnings, General Reserves, Minority interests in Subsidiaries, Provisions,
Subordinated Debt, Perpetual Floating Rate Notes etc) for individual
operations. In early 1980s Bank for
International Settlements insisted to maintain capital adequacy based on risk
adjusted assets (Capital / Risk adjusted assets) and this international
regulation pressed the banking system in Sri Lanka to maintain capital
requirements with a view to demonstrate the international standards. The depreciating the domestic and foreign
value of Sri Lanka’s monetary unit with the introduction of market economic
system in 1978 clearly created a monumental demand for credits in the economic
system. To satisfy credit customers,
banks had problems without sufficient capital and liquidity, and increasing
non-performing credits in banks due to various reasons (Especially credit
frauds, granting credits on political
influence, Fat game at Citi style frauds in Hong Kong Citi Bank, unmitigated
corruptions in government banks and ignorance of bank management) created the
capital crisis.
Capital
crisis had many banks in the world after ending cold war in early 1990s, some
banks were closed and many banks were rescued by using various techniques and
managerial strategies. For example, many banks in Australia in early 1990s had
tremendous problems, using a variety of techniques (Making right issues, offering
shares for capital, privatizing government banks, merging banks etc) the
banking system was rescued and now banks have prudent management policies.
Capital crisis of bank must be solved educating people because bank employees
and ordinary people of Sri Lanka have no idea about this issue and when I tried
to settle the problem, I was threatened in late 1980s.
The
most important point is that there are plenty of strategies to resolve the
problem. However, in early 1990s the
government attempted solve the problem using stupid method and it would have
the style of Arjuna Mahendran or Paskaralingam or any non-Sinhala solution but
they were stupid and banks need finding a permanent and acceptable solution to
the people. There are active strategies
for capital problems.
Obtaining loan from
international financial institutions offering shares of banks to the value of
loan amount and the condition of the loan should be share buy back by each bank
using annual profits and gradually taking the ownership of banks to the
government. The use of this method would
help to learn management strategies under the guidance of international financial
institutions. This also supports for
disciplines in bank management.
Offering bank shares to
insurance and superannuation organizations in the country and implementation of
share buyback.
Offering shares to small
domestic companies and rural people to expand to share ownership to rural poor.
Offering shares to
deposit holders of the bank and reducing the cost of interest expenses. This strategy will increase the profitability
of banks and increase the ability to share buyback. And ensure the rights of
minority shareholders of banks.
Privatization
of public bans creates high risk to the government of Sri Lanka because it
could use to control the government policies as well as to money laundering
purposes. Therefore, lateral thinking
about the privatization program is vital.
Sri
Lanka desperate for capital and because of this condition the country should
not get caught to robbing banks programs.
(Next
I would like to write on liquidity issue and issuing relating to credit
management)
As reported in the media, Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe is to hold crucial talks with his deputy Sajith Premadasa amid a deepening crisis over their party’s presidential candidacy.
Although there were
disputes among the hierarchy of the UNP back in 1988 on similar matters the
issues were not taken out onto the streets like today. Whatever the outcome of
the meeting, the obvious question is what makes it different to the country whether
the presidential candidate is Ranil or Sajith. The easiest way to get some idea
is to compare the ruling periods of Ranil’s uncle J.R.Jayawardane (JR J) and
Ranil with those of Sajith’s father R.Premadasa.
Ranil’s political
ideologies are heavily in line with the west similar to JRJ. On the other hand,
Sajith is promising to follow his father’s footsteps if elected president.
UNP, under JRJ, which came to
power promising a Dharmista Samajayak”
cultivated a ‘bicycle chain’ culture to beat opponents, mass rigging of
elections, thuggery, an underworld, etc. and was said to have practiced same
with the full patronage of its highest level. We remember how civil rights of the late Prime
Minister and the leader of the SLFP Mrs. Bandaranaike were expunged using the
mammoth parliamentary powers and how she was kept out of the main political
stream throughout the UNP regime led by JRJ as President and R.Premadasa as PM).
One could ask the question, remembering
how personalities like Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra were beaten up when
participating in a protest rally, whether anyone had the freedom to protest
when the ‘bicycle chain’ culture was at its peak. One could also ask how the
Supreme Court judges were humiliated for exercising their judicial freedom by
delivering a right judgment in favour of Mrs. Vivienne Goonawardane and the
reaction of the JRJ regime at that time. The repercussions of the ‘kalu
juliya’ were quite evident and continued for several decades.
Due to the short-sighted policies of
the UNP led by JRJ and then followed by R. Premadasa, thousands of lives of
Sinhala youths, who were forced to take-up arms against suppression (among many
other things), were lost during the infamous ‘bheesana samaya’. People of this country remembered atrocities
committed under ‘bheesana samaya’ and since then the UNP (once considered as a ‘one party’
political giant) was rejected several times by the people of this until 2015,
except its narrow win in 2002 with the support of LTTE and other parties formed
on racial groupings.
During
the short period in power, 2002-2005, Ranil signed an unconstitutional and
hence illegal agreement with a murderer, Prabhakaran, who was wanted by the
Interpol and was sentenced to 200 years imprisonment by the high court of the
country. An enormous support was given to the terrorist outfit during his
tenure of office under this treacherous agreement. Fortunately, the people of
this country was clever enough to sense the danger posted on the national
security and the sovereignty of the country and to defeat the UNP and its
short-sighted leader twice, once in 1994 and then in 2005.
The entire country is now aware of what
the UNP regime (which came to power in 2015 promising a Yahapalanayak” ) has done, commencing from its notorious Bond Scam,
hunting political opponents, selling national assets, disrespecting rights of the people by not
holding elections, completely disregarding
country’s national security and the economy.
Both the presidential aspirants of the
UNP, Ranil and Sajith, who are confused and apparently depressed due to their
own failures, could not yet feel the heartbeat of the people and the dangers
facing the country today. Instead they are still singing the old songs of
maximum devolution” to please the extremist racial elements aiming their votes
to stay in power.
With the UNP (at the time of writing) yet to decide on their choice of candidate for the upcoming Presidential Election, former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa, representing the SLPP seems to be leading the race for the presidency.
The will of the people should never be taken for granted, and this election may well swing either way – but it is worth considering the potential impact it could have on national security and best course of action for the country if the frontrunner, Gota, manages to win. The tragic events of 21 April have once again brought the subject of national security to the fore as the most pressing issue in this country.
Now Sri Lanka faces threats from groups few expected to manifest on this small island of ours. ACLED, the conflict monitoring body, has reported that ISIS has initiated an unprecedented emphasis on its global presence and operations in 2019, following their loss of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2018. Nearly 60% of Islamic State’s activity in 2019 has taken place outside of West Asia – mainly across South Asia and Africa.
Clearly, national security will be an utmost concern to those casting their votes in the upcoming election.
National Security policies
The current surge in popularity of Gota’s candidacy can to some degree be attributed to the people’s disgust at the apathy and sheer negligence by some in the current administration towards national security. The political dismantling of the security apparatus, coupled with a failure to address the warnings provided resulted in one of the most horrific acts of terrorist violence witnessed by this country in recent history. When the citizens of this country head to the polls, many will cast their votes to the candidate that can win their confidence in remedying the egregious failures and lapses of judgement that led to the horrors of the Easter bombings. Gotabaya’s head start in this regard and his (and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s) record of eradicating LTTE terrorism will place him in a strong position at this election.
Gotabaya has repeatedly emphasised that national security will be his top priority if he is elected.
National security is of course a continuing obligation, and what is more important than election-time platitudes, is the action taken once the next government is in office. The mistakes that led to the Easter attacks must be addressed. This will have to involve difficult, forthright and introspective analysis within the Government agencies. The rush to dismantle the security apparatus by the present regime was criticised by many, but few expected the consequences to present themselves so soon.
The overhaul of Sri Lanka’s national security strategy will be a difficult but vital process and must include;
Provision for the National Security Council to be established as a legal institution with a clear mandate and agenda – Its functions must be officially set out with consistent meetings to assess and strategise in relation to security. The NSC should have specialised national security advisors and a permanent secretariat to ensure that the functions of the agency are carried out systematically and efficiently.
Co-ordination of agencies
Different sectors of security such as the intelligence, police and civilian sectors often operate according to competing interests and rivalries. Such disunity is clearly inimical to the interests of security. Strong leadership is needed to harmonise the workings of these different sectors.
Move beyond reactionary policy-making
We often see an intransigent and short-sighted approach to making policy, which should never be the case for security. Concerns should not only be viewed individually, but as a whole with a long-term strategy. Policy development should be clear in its strategy and must have contributions from a wide range of expertise. It will not be enough to react, ad hoc, to each threat – but to analyse the root causes behind radical ideology. The focus should be on identifying risk factors and operating on preventative steps to pre-empt extremist activity.
Tackle corruption and inefficient at bureaucracy at all levels
This is a pervasive issue in Sri Lanka and one of the largest barriers to the nation’s progress and the citizen’s confidence in its security.
Ensure adequate expertise
Security is often viewed as the exclusive domain of the military, but it is in fact a multi-faceted issue that benefits from a wide range of input. Academics and professionals can provide invaluable contributions of expertise in areas such as international relations, law, economics, public relations, defence analysis, technology. Effective security policy requires a cumulative effort of combining all these different fields of research.
Business confidence
The steep drop in business confidence in Sri Lanka has been drastic. May 2019 saw the lowest level of business confidence in over a decade. There is an intrinsic relationship between a country’s economy and its national security. A stable country promotes investment, attracts foreign expertise, encourages domestic talent to remain, brings in tourists and boosts business confidence. On the other hand, a strong economy allows a country to invest in its people, to raise people out of poverty and to eliminate the harsh living conditions that allow violent extremism to fester.
Countries such as Singapore (which Sri Lanka often aspires towards) would never have experienced a fraction of their success without the stability they could offer potential investors. In half a decade, with negligible national resources, Singapore was able to transform their economy far beyond expectations. Whichever, side comes into power after the upcoming elections in Sri Lanka, they must ensure consistent economic policies and be able to win the confidence of investors through stability.
International relations
The failure of the present government to react to warnings provided by Indian intelligence clearly demonstrates a breakdown in communication. It also shows the importance of collaboration with international partners to counter extremism.
Undoubtably, many Western countries will not be thrilled at the prospect of a Gota presidency. This is the result of a mismanagement of international relations that must not be repeated. Countries such as the US have by far the most experience indealing with terror groups such as ISIS, much more than Sri Lanka. However, this does not mean that we have to capitulate to any infringement of national sovereignty. The first Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kwan Yew was famous for his integrity – once refusing to yield to the CIA who were discovered conducting illegal operations without governmental consent, who then tried to bribe him with millions of dollars to keep quiet. Instead they were forced to retract and apologise.
China has increasingly become one of Sri Lanka’s most important strategic partners. The UNP Government’s ill-advised decision to halt Chinese development projects backfired spectacularly in a clear demonstration of the perils of being too reactionarily political with international business. Both GR and MR are well-known to have better relations with China, and we may see increased investment if GR wins the Presidency. However, many people (both domestically and internationally) are concerned about increased Chinese presence in Sri Lanka. Whether or not these fears have merit, it is less than ideal to rely entirely on one country for development. Our partnerships with many other countries still hold much potential.
India will be closely watching this election, and their fears of Chinese influence in Sri Lanka must be assuaged. If they are diplomatically balanced, India can provide a much-needed boost to Sri Lanka’s economy with investment and trade. Furthermore, as our closest neighbour they will be highly concerned about the advent of fundamentalist extremism in Sri Lanka, and keen to collaborate to ensure security in both countries. Whilst Rajapaksas’ relations with India had decidedly cooled after the last Presidential elections, it seems that they have taken steps to remedy this – as seen in the concerted diplomatic push seen during MR’s visit to India.
It is clear that national security is given high priority on Gota’s agenda, and the current climate places him in a strong position for the Presidential Election. However, there is a long road to establishing security in this country – and we must prioritise a holistic approach to security. We should prioritise addressing past mistakes, eradicating inneficient bureaucracy/corruption and incentivise young educated Sri Lankans with international exposure to return and contribute their skills to the country.
The writer is a Lawyer with LLB (Hons), LLM (Public International Law), Barrister-at-Law (England and Wales), Partner at the West End Law Centre and Postgraduate (PhD) Researcher at the University of Durham.
By Noor Nizam – Convener “The Muslim Voice”, September 12th., 2019.
The behaviour of the
Bohara family/visitors shown in the video is “NOT” acceptable and
should not be tolerated.
The Bohra community
visitors to Sri Lanka should leave Sri Lanka alone. They should “NOT”
create unwanted problems to the Muslim community among the majority Sri Lanka
people. The behaviour of the Bohara family/visitors shown in the video is “NOT”
acceptable and should not be tolerated. It is very clear that one can
understand that these women and men seen in the video have had a hidden agenda
to “disgrace” Sri Lanka in the face of the international internet
viewers. The police should trace these characters through their pictures/video
stills and arrest them at the airport when they are leaving Sri Lanka and probe
further their unscrupulous intentions and nip it at the bud.
We cannot allow one or
two foreigner Bohars to create communal problems to the Muslims in Sri Lanka,
Insha Allah.
Anjula Mahika Weeraratna and Yohan Perera Courtesy The Daily Mirror
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said today, as the UNP leader who had protected the party during trying times, he would contest the upcoming presidential elections if he could win and if otherwise, he would opt out.
He said he held a myriad positions during his political career and and now at the age of 70 years it would not be difficult for him to opt out of politics.
The Prime Minister said this at Temple Trees when he met a group of veteran UNPers from the Biyagama and Kelaniya electorates before leaving to Mannar for the inauguration of school buildings under ‘the best school is the closet school’ project.
The Prime Minister recalled how he took over the party leadership at a time when its leaders passed away one after another and how resurrected the party during difficult times and added that it was his duty to ensure victory for the alliance to be set up his leadership .
Some of the seniors were seen with watery eyes when listening to him recall his political journey.
The Court of Appeal today directed the Colombo Magistrate’ Court to acquit all accused including former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the Avant-Garde case filed by the Bribery Commission.
The decision was announced by the judge bench comprising Justices Achala Wengappuli and Arjuna Obeysekara, after considering the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
https://youtu.be/btGBcML41HA
Earlier today the Court of Appeal had also allowed the revision application filed by former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Avant-Garde floating armoury case, setting aside the order of the Colombo Magistrate’s Court.
The order was delivered by Appeals Court Judges Achala Wengappuli and Arjuna Obeysekara today (12).
The Bribery Commission had filed the case against Rajapaksa alleging that he had incurred a loss of Rs 11.4 billion to the government by approving the maintenance of the floating armoury owned by Avant-Garde Maritime Services (Pvt) Limited.
The Colombo Magistrate’s Court had rejected the preliminary objections raised by the former Defence Secretary challenging the allegations levelled against him by the Bribery Commission.
He then lodged a revision application stating that the rejection of his preliminary objections is unlawful, which was allowed by the Appeals Court to proceed today.
The court stated that it is of the that prosecution by” the commission, as per Section 78(1) of the Bribery Act, has now become an obsolete or redundant function with no corresponding power being conferred upon the commission in this regard under the provision of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption Act No. 19of 1994.
The prosecution by” the commission is therefore clearly legislative residue from Section 78(1) from the statutory provisions that existed before the amendments brought in by Act Nos. 19 and 20of 1994, with no corresponding power conferred on the Commission to institute proceedings, it said.
In the circumstances, the orders of the Magistrate’s Court and the Provincial High Court are tainted with illegality and thereby subjected to be interfered with by the Court of Appeal in exercising its powers of revision, according to the Appeal Court decision.
Therefore the Court of Appeal set aside both the impugned orders and quashed the pending criminal proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court for want of jurisdiction.
The Appeals Court directed the Colombo Magistrate’s Court to discharge the petitioner and 2nd to 8th accused-respondents from the proceedings of the case forthwith.
