Wednesday 9th April, 2025

Hardly a day passes in Sri Lanka without the government and the Opposition locking horns and trading allegations of deception, lying and corruption. Deputy Minister of Vocational Education Nalin Hewage, who is at the forefront of the government’s propaganda campaign against the ruling NPP’s political rivals, has caused quite a stir by making a false claim about Sri Lanka’s economic recovery process.

Politicians as well as their mistruths, half-truths and blatant lies are rarely, if ever, out of the news in this country. Politics is generally thought to be a web of deceit, intrigue and lies due to manipulation, horse dealing, dishonesty, power struggles, scandals, corruption and other negative factors it is often associated with.

It may not be fair to paint all politicians with the same brush and label them as liars; there are honourable men and women in politics. However, the general perception is that only the politicians following Machiavelli, who has argued that rulers sometimes have to resort to deception and lying, achieve success in Sri Lanka. This view is not without some merit if our experience with politicians’ claims is anything to go by.

Most Opposition politicians who were lucky enough to survive last year’s Maroon Wave, which swept the NPP to power with a steamroller majority, are lying through their teeth. Denying allegations of corruption against them, they make themselves out to be paragons of virtue, but they won’t account for their wealth. It has now been revealed that the SLPP politicians who lost some of their properties due to mob violence in 2022 falsified the estimates of their losses and obtained compensation far exceeding the actual damages. They also have the audacity to make absurd claims and insult the intelligence of the public. Prior to the 2019 presidential election, the SLPP propagandists claimed that a huge cobra had emerged from the Kelani Ganga and it was a miracle signalling the rise of their candidate to the presidency. When the first Treasury bond scam was committed in early 2015, most UNP parliamentary group members, some of whom are in the SJB at present, told blatant lies in a bid to cover it up.

Deputy Minister Hewage has come under a social media piranha attack, as it were, over his claim at a recent NPP local government election rally in Galle that when the NPP took over the reins of government, last year, Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves had plummeted to USD 20 million, and under the incumbent government they had increased to USD 6.1 billion. Interestingly, disappointed that his claim had not elicited a rapturous applause, Hewage faulted his audience!

Hewage is not alone in claiming that it is the incumbent government that put the economy back on an even keel. Almost all NPP leaders make that claim at political rallies. Besides, they have sought to grab the credit for the completion of some projects previous governments launched, such as the restoration of the Elephant Pass salt factory and the construction of a cold storage facility in Dambulla. What takes the cake is the NPP’s claim that the country has gained nothing since Independence.

It will be interesting to see the NPP’s reaction to Hewage’s claim, which continues to draw heavy criticism on social media. The CID is conducting a probe into SLPP National Organiser and MP Namal Rajapaksa’s law exam results. Going by the absurd claims made by the ruling party politicians, it looks as if the NPP government had to order an investigation into the educational qualifications of some of its own parliamentary group members, especially those who claim to be economic experts.

Tuesday 8th April, 2025

The Opposition has been protesting against what it describes as a veiled threat issued by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, at a recent NPP Local Government (LG) election rally. The United Republican Front led by former Minister Champika Ranawaka has complained to the Election Commission (EC) that President Dissanayake has made a statement, implying that his government will make financial allocations expeditiously only to the local councils the NPP will win in the upcoming LG polls, and others will find it difficult to obtain state funds.

One can argue that it is not legally possible for a government to deprive the local councils controlled by the Opposition of funds, but threats of fund cuts or restrictions, made by the President himself, could demoralise the people who intend to vote for parties other than the NPP in next month’s LG polls. Political power takes precedence over the law, ethics and morals, in this country, and therefore anything is possible.

In politics, words can be as impactful as actions, shaping public opinion and influencing decisions. One may recall that in 2015, the then President Maithripala Sirisena, as the SLFP leader, queered the pitch for his bete noire, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was contesting that year’s general election as the prime ministerial candidate of the SLFP-led UPFA. In the run-up to that crucial election, Sirisena said in a television interview something to the effect that Rajapaksa would not be appointed Prime Minister even if the UPFA won enough seats to form a government. His statement had a devastating impact on the morale of UPFA supporters who wanted to make Rajapaksa Prime Minister. The rest is history. Besides, former Minister S. B. Dissanayake was sentenced to prison for contempt of the Supreme Court over a derogatory remark he made, at a public rally in 2003, about the judiciary and its rulings.

Meanwhile, there are numerous questionable practices pertaining to Sri Lankan elections. Political leaders in power, such as the President, the Prime Minister and Ministers, conduct election campaigns at a substantial cost to the state coffers, as we have argued over the past so many years. When the Presidents and other government leaders stump for their parties, across the country, the public has to bear the cost of their travel, security, etc. The Presidents and Prime Ministers even travelled in the Air Force helicopters for campaign purposes. The state-owned media outfits are misused as propaganda organs of the party in power although they belong to the people who hold diverse political views. A large number of meetings of state officials are held on some pretext or another, ahead of elections, to give a boost to the ruling party’s campaign. These practices are not only unethical but also tantamount to violations of the election laws, as they place the ruling party at an advantage at the expense of its rivals in elections. All Presidents, namely J. R. Jayewardene, R. Premadasa, D. B. Wijetunga, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe unflinchingly used state resources for election campaigns. The public expected a radical departure from the past when they voted the JVP-led NPP into office last year. But what is unfolding on the political front does not offer much hope.

As for presidential statements, it was while speaking at a temple ceremony in the South in 1989 that the then President Premadasa announced his decision to ask India to withdraw the IPKF (Indian Peacekeeping Force) from Sri Lanka. Thus, the Executive Presidents’ statements should not be taken lightly, no matter where they are made.

How can a level playing field be ensured in the upcoming LG polls when the incumbent President himself goes around, issuing a veiled threat that the local councils will face fund cuts or restrictions unless they are controlled by his party––the NPP? It has been revealed in Parliament that at the height of a rice shortage, a few months ago, the NPP government did not supply some popular varieties of rice to the cooperative societies won by its rivals. Such action amounts to collective punishment meted out to the public for defeating the NPP in elections. So, the presidential threat in question, albeit veiled, cannot be dismissed as mere platform rhetoric. The JVP has demonstrated that it is capable of far worse things than fund cuts. The EC therefore must act on the complaints the Opposition has lodged in respect of the presidential statement if it is to arrest the erosion of public trust and confidence in the electoral process. That is also the only way the EC can prevent the public from thinking less of it.

As for President Dissanayake’s statement at issue and the EC’s alleged lukewarm response thereto, Juvenal’s famous question comes to mind: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Who will guard the guards themselves?

Monday 7th April, 2025

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Sri Lanka visit saw the signing of seven MoUs between New Delhi and Colombo. Prominent among them are the MoU on the implementation of HVDC Interconnection for import/export of power, the MoU on cooperation among the governments of India, Sri Lanka, and the United Arab Emirates on developing Trincomalee as an energy hub, and the MoU on defence cooperation between India and Sri Lanka.

The signing of those MoUs, especially the one on defence cooperation, on 05 April, is a textbook example of irony. The significance of that day may not have been lost on keen political observers. The JVP, which leads the ruling NPP coalition, launched its first abortive insurrection on 05 April 1971, and one of the five classes it held to indoctrinate its new recruits, before sending them on a suicidal mission, was on Indian expansionism.

There is no gainsaying that Sri Lanka must not allow its land, sea and airspace to be used against India in any manner—or against any other nation for that matter. President J. R. Jayewardene, in his wisdom, got too close to the US in a bipolar world, and antagonised India in the process. He had the scourge of separatist terror and the Indo-Lanka Accord to contend with. The JVP went all out to scuttle the implementation of that accord, albeit in vain. The US and India have closed ranks today in a bid to thwart China’s rise, and a government led by the JVP has signed an MoU with India on defence cooperation!

The NPP government has violated one of the fundamental tenets of good governance––transparency. There has been no transparency about the aforesaid MoUs, especially the one on defence cooperation.

When the JVP/NPP was in the Opposition, it would flay governments for signing vital MoUs and pacts without transparency. It has kept Parliament in the dark about the MoUs in question. It is apparently emulating its bete noire, Ranil Wickremesinghe, not only in managing the economy but also signing vital MoUs!

India has demonstrated its ability to render Sri Lankan political parties malleable. PM Modi can justifiably pat himself on the back for having tamed the once anti-Indian JVP, which unleashed brutal violence purportedly to extricate Sri Lanka from what it described as India’s tentacles, in the late 1980s.

In 2024, the Modi government gave a diplomatic leg-up to the JVP/NPP, enabling its rise in national politics as a political party with some international recognition, and boosting its chances of winning elections. There is reason to believe that the JVP-led NPP would not have been able to win any parliamentary seats in the North and the East if it had not been in the good books of India. Interestingly, in October 2015, Dissanayake himself stated in Parliament that Jaffna had become a den of RAW spies. “They attempt to create political instability in Jaffna and we should put a stop to it,” he said. Today, the JVP is at India’s beck and call! In 2021, the then former MP Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, who had been a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed the Eastern Sunday terror attacks (2019), told BBC that he believed India had been behind the carnage, and his conclusion was based on ‘investigative evidence’. Dr. Jayatissa is the incumbent Media Minister. The JVP/NPP no longer inveighs against India for what it accused the latter of, in the past. Worryingly, its government stands accused of having blocked local media out of some key events related to PM Modi’s Sri Lanka visit over the weekend.

It is toe-curling to see some JVP leaders who resorted to mindless terror in a bid to scuttle the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord , in 1987, going all out to justify the inking of an MoU on defence cooperation between their government and India, more than three and a half decades later. The signing of that particular MoU marked the JVP’s biggest-ever Machiavellian U-turn. If it had refrained from unleashing terror in 1987, tens of thousands of lives and state assets worth billions of US dollars could have been saved. Most of all, how would the JVP have reacted if a previous government had entered into MoUs with India?