Connect with us

Editorial

20A and dual citizen

Published

on

The 20th Amendment to the J.R. Jayewardene 1978 Constitution was done and dusted on Thursday night with the Gotabaya-Mahinda Rajapaksa government comfortably clearing the two thirds majority barrier. Since President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election as the country’s seventh executive president in November 2019, nothing kicked up as much controversy as the 20th Amendment which the government was clearly intent on enacting despite, in our view, the far more important challenge of Covid-19 confronting our country and its people today. “First things first,” we said in this space last week, least expecting the powers- that-be to elevate the Covid nightmare above 20A on the national priority list. And so it sadly was, although the virus was spreading far too fast for comfort necessitating more and more stringent restriction in many parts of this island, particularly in the Western Province.

Government propagandists worked overtime to sock home the message that the president and the government elected some months after Gotabaya’s decisive victory had received a massive mandate and were fully entitled to press on with 20A. Although the present rulers came very close to getting what Junius Rex, the old fox who drafted the 1978 constitution, had calculated to be a never-attainable two thirds majority, they ignored the fact that neither President Rajapaksa nor his government said anything about a 20th Amendment in the manifestos they presented the country. There is not an iota of doubt that the people were very well aware that those who are now in office were ironclad in their ex post facto opposition to the 19th Amendment – despite all but one of them voting for its enactment. While it was clearly stated that the incumbents will bring a new constitution, the voters were never told that a 20th Amendment would be presented and passed in an almighty hurry. Claiming a massive mandate for doing what was accomplished last week was clearly not in order.

The 1978 constitution that established the proportional representation system of elections in place of the previous first-past-the-post Westminster model the country had followed since Independence, sought in vain to impose an anti-defection deterrent. It attempted to to ensure that MPs elected on party lists would lose their seats if they chose to defect. But this endeavor has proved to be a dismal failure. We’ve had a great many defections since then, with the numbers growing last week, but no single lawmaker who changed sides has lost his or her parliamentary seat. The less said the better about inducements and/or considerations that influenced switching allegiance. The people well know that there are no free lunches and many of the defectors have fed well, nay very well, at the trough. One of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) members who voted for 20A was quoted in a newspaper saying she didn’t take even a cent for what she did. It sounded better in the original Sinhala – “sathayakwath gaththey ne, puluwan nam oppu karanna.” (I didn’t take even a cent, prove it if you can). Explaining her vote on the floor of the House on Friday, this National List lady said that she, like Antonio in Julius Caesar, “loved her country more” (than she loved her party)

This newcomer to politics was the so-called ‘owner’ of the SJB which was among the recognized political parties in the books of the Election Commission. When Sajith Premadasa and his supporters broke away from the green party, they acquired the SJB label to enable them to field their candidate list as a party at the last election. We do not know what the arrangement was, but Ms. Diana Gamage was included in the SJB National List after the election. Digressing from the thrust of this commentary, let us say here that the dozens of unknown or barely known political parties cluttering the Election Commission’s ‘recognized party’ register should be cleaned out as they have been and will be continue to be used for political expedience. The new system of elections promised in the next constitution, which the president says will be in place for his second election anniversary (November 2021), could ensure this.

To return to the subject under discussion, the dual citizen provision in 20A merits special mention. Nobody would dispute that particular provision in 19A clearly targeted the Rajapaksas – specifically Gotabaya and Basil, who were citizen of both Sri Lanka and the USA. It was clearly venal in intent. While Gotabaya renounced his US citizenship to run for president, braving a welter of legal challenges against his candidature and suffering many campaign disadvantages over the risk factor (would his candidature be annulled?), Basil Rajapaksa did not do so. Among the stalwarts of the SLPP-led alliance publicly denouncing doing away with the 19A provisions on dual citizen are three party leader-ministers, Vasudeva Nananayakkara,Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila. They are now on record saying that they were voting for 20A, including the dual citizen provision, on the basis of an assurance by the president that the new constitution to be enacted by November 2021 will retain the 19A prohibitions on dual citizen.

The unanswered question that remains hanging in the air is why a year-long window favoring dual citizen is being kept open if the prohibitions will be reimposed in the new constitution next year. Has any assurance been given that this opening will not be used? No answer was forthcoming during the 20A parliamentary debate. We believe that dual citizen should not only be prevented from running at presidential and national election but also not be permitted, with foreign allegiance, to assume any high public office in this country. Disgracefully, the authors of 19A during their previous tenure in government, started the rot by appointing dual citizen as ambassadors. The icing on the cake was appointing a Singapore citizen as Central Bank governor. He is now a fugitive of the bond scam investigation.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Barrels vs bombs

Published

on

War and politics are full of uncertainties and surprises. When one heard US President Donald Trump bragging that the US and Israel had won the war against Iran at the end of the third day of bombing itself, one was reminded of US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, and his realistic assessment of war. Eisenhower famously said, “… every war is going to astonish you in the way it occurred, and in the way it is carried out.” Fielding a question at a press conference about how the US would respond to a potential conflict involving China and Taiwan, he said the war was inherently unpredictable and responsible leaders could not forecast exactly how it would unfold.

Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have thought they would be able to bomb Iran into submission and engineer a regime change in Tehran in a matter of few days after killing Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the war is dragging on with no end in sight, and Iran has opened a new front in the economic sphere. It has effectively turned the world’s most important oil chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz, into a strategic lever, countering US-Israeli bombs with barrels of oil, so to speak.

Trump recently reassured the world that the war would be over soon, and G7 countries released part of their strategic oil reserves when oil prices began to climb, but Iranian attacks on six ships in the Hormuz Strait have caused oil prices to soar again despite the release of as many as 400 million barrels of oil by the International Energy Agency, with the US alone pledging to contribute 172 million barrels. Iran has warned that it will not allow “one litre of oil” to be exported from the region while US and Israeli attacks continue. Many economies are already groaning under high oil prices, and some of them have adopted energy-saving strategies that hurt their industries and citizens. There is no way the US can absolve itself of responsibility for this situation, with fears being expressed of a possible global recession, which will lead to job losses, drastic welfare cuts and many other untold hardships for countless people across the world. The IMF has warned of an increase in global inflation if the Middle East conflict continues.

President Trump initially gave flippant answers to serious questions about escalating oil prices, claiming that the US would gain from oil price increases, and he prioritised defeating Iran over bringing oil prices down, but the sobering economic reality made him swallow his pride and waive US sanctions on Russian oil as a desperate measure to stabilise the global energy market. The waiver is said to be effective only for one month, but unless oil prices come down, it will have to be extended. This move has gladdened the heart of Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond measure. The reason the US gave for imposing sanctions on Russian oil was that Russia used oil money to fund its war against Ukraine.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described the waiver of sanctions on Russian oil as a ‘narrowly tailored, short-term measure’ that applies only to oil already in transit and will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government, which derives the majority of its energy revenue from taxes assessed at the point of extraction. But Russia’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev wrote on Telegram that the US was “effectively acknowledging the obvious: without Russian oil, the global energy market cannot remain stable”. President Putin has expressed a similar view.

The western allies of the US have not taken kindly to the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz in no way justifies lifting sanctions on Russia, French President Emmanuel Macron has said after a discussion with other G7 leaders on the economic fallout from the Iran war. Countries like Ukraine ought to realise that their interests do not figure in the Big Powers’ scheme of things. No sooner had Trump asked Ukraine for help to counter Iranian drones on its allies in the Middle East than he lifted sanctions on Russian oil.

The US and Israel have said it is they who will decide when to end the ongoing war. But Iran has said although they started the conflict it will decide how and when to finish it. The UN, which has outlived its raison d’etre for all intents and purposes, has called for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East. It is doubtful whether the parties to the war will heed the UN call, but it will be in their interest to do so, and pave the way for the de-escalation of the bomb-barrel conflict, as it were, which has adversely impacted the entire world. More than 4.2 million people have already been displaced in the Middle East region, mostly in Iran, according to the UN. Trump ought to heed Eisenhower’s view of war.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Astrologers’ ire

Published

on

Saturday 14th March, 2026

Some prominent astrologers are up in arms, claiming that the JVP-NPP government has not officially recognised the list of traditional New Year auspicious times or the nekath seettuwa they have submitted. They have been holding press conferences and raking the government leaders over the coals (pun intended) for what they describe as a sinister move to devalue the cultural significance of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. All previous governments officially endorsed the nekath seettu, according to which New Year activities are usually conducted.

The Department of Cultural Affairs has responded, saying that two groups of astrologers have submitted two different nekath seettu, and it will make a final decision after allowing public and expert views to be expressed thereon. It has also said that it, together with the Ministry of Buddhist and Religious Affairs, will continue to take necessary steps to safeguard and promote the country’s cultural values, including longstanding New Year traditions.

Sri Lankan governments want the public to do as they say, and they do as astrologers say. In the final analysis, the whole country does as astrologers say. There was a time when even military operations in the North and the East were conducted according to auspicious times. Many of them ended in disaster, and ones that were not launched according to auspicious times yielded the desired results in 2009. Interestingly, the President who provided political leadership for the country’s successful war on terror, suffered an ignominious defeat by advancing a presidential election on astrological advice. No astrologer could predict that another President would have to flee the country and resign.

Some critics of the incumbent government have claimed that it is not keen to recognise the New Year auspicious times officially as it is led by a bunch of Marxists who place no value on cultural practices. They have pointed out that Marxists generally treat astrology as superstition or a cultural phenomenon rather than a legitimate system within Marxist theory. However, Karl Marx has not made any specific reference to astrology though some Marxist scholars have taken a critical view thereof. In the 1950s, German philosopher, Theodor W. Adorno, a major Marxist influenced social theorist, wrote about astrology and horoscope columns in newspapers and magazines as part of his critique of mass culture under capitalism. He viewed astrology as a symptom of irrationalism and conformity in capitalist societies, where people are distracted from systemic social problems and instead turn to vague supernatural explanations. This view has gained currency among not only Marxists but many non-Marxist scholars and thinkers. One may recall that Voltaire also famously said, “Superstition is to religion what astrology to astronomy—the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the earth.” This is particularly true of Sri Lanka and some other countries in this region.

If auspicious times are based on mathematically determined planetary positions, how come there are two lists of nekath. How is the government going to decide which list is correct? One can only hope that the government will not favour the group of astrologers backed by NPP politicians. There is hardly anything that Sri Lankan politicians do not politicise. Unless the government handles the nekath issue carefully and resolves it to the satisfaction of both sides, there may be what can be described as an astrologers’ war, and the people who rely on the official nekath seettuwa to conduct the New Year rituals will be confused and the political opponents of the JVP/NPP will surely weaponise the issue.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Heed ominous signs – II

Published

on

Friday 13th March, 2026

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have not been able to stabilise the global oil market with their rhetoric and assurances. Their airstrikes on Iran’s naval ships, and mine-laying vessels, etc., have not helped make the Strait of Hormuz safe for international navigation. Iran has attacked six ships so far in that vital choke point. Oil prices began to climb again yesterday despite the release of 400 million barrels of oil, as part of a coordinated International Energy Agency action involving several countries. The US announced that it alone would release as many as 172 million barrels of oil to stabilise the market.

Having carried out successful attacks on vessels passing through the Hormuz Strait and sent the global oil market into panic mode, Iran now says it will stop attacks only on several conditions—end of US-Israeli military attacks, a binding guarantee that there will be no future strikes, recognition of Iran’s sovereign rights, and compensation for war damage. The US and Israel have ignored these conditions.

Prudence demands that Sri Lanka brace itself for an energy crisis. But the JVP-NPP government is all at sea, and its response to the crisis appears to be all over the place. It is apparently labouring under the misconception that it will be able to reduce fuel consumption and manage the crisis simply by jacking up prices. There’s no shame in rationing fuel during a global crisis, as we argued in a previous editorial comment. The previous government introduced a QR based fuel rationing system, which helped it not only overcome a crippling fuel crisis but also retain its hold on power. In fact, some economic advisors reportedly pushed for fuel rationing to prevent a crisis in early 2022, but the Rajapaksas ignored their counsel only to head for the hills with angry protesters in close pursuit a couple of months later.

Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe has claimed that recent panic buying and hoarding of fuel led to a depletion of the country’s petroleum reserves. His claim should be taken with a pinch of salt, for he is trying to justify the huge fuel price increases, but the government could have controlled that situation by resorting to QR-based fuel sales. The same method can be used to prevent many people from using extra gas cylinders to stock up on LPG at the expense of others. Some Litro agents themselves are known to hoard gas and sell it at a black market premium.

Thailand has said its energy reserves are sufficient for about 95 days, but it has already adopted emergency measures to curtail energy consumption. Many other countries have done the same. Pakistan has set an example worthy of emulation. The emergency fuel crisis management measures adopted by Pakistan include a four-day work week for state institutions, work from home for about half of employees in public and private sectors, except essential services, temporary closure of schools and universities, the introduction of online learning, 50% cut in fuel allocations for state vehicles besides the removal of around 60 percent of official vehicles off the road, restrictions on official travel and encouragement of virtual meetings in government institutions. Sri Lanka should learn from Pakistan’s fuel-saving approach.

In this country, no opening ceremony is considered complete without the presence of either the President or the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister. We have had Presidents, Prime Ministers and ministers travelling all over the country, attending various ceremonies and meetings all these years; the incumbent rulers are no exception. The President, the Prime Minister and ministers can inaugurate projects and attend meetings remotely, and help save a lot of fuel and millions of rupees spent on security arrangements, etc. Why should the President travel all the way from Colombo to faraway places to attend District Coordination Committee meetings when he can address them online? Government politicians and officials ought to stop running around like headless chickens and help save fuel and state funds.

It is high time the government stopped dilly-dallying and introduced QR-based fuel rationing.

Continue Reading

Trending