Connect with us

Editorial

Ranil roasted in London

Published

on

Al Jazeera last week released, after some delay, an interview with former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, conducted in London some weeks ago. It is now on You Tube and is bound to go viral especially here in Sri Lanka. Both friend and foe must admit that the Al Jazeera interviewer, Mehdi Hasan, was most unfair to Wickremesinghe in this Head to Head interrogation duplicating the well known BBC Hard Talk show. Why the former president chose to expose himself to the grilling is anybody’s guess. We in this island are very familiar with the pithy Sinhala saying illagena parippu kanawa (literally asking for and eating parippu) meaning knowingly walking into a trap. This is exactly what Wickremesinghe did.

Given his very long political experience, having first entered parliament in 1977 at age 28 as one of the youngest MPs ever, he had served as prime minister on no less that five occasions and as leader of the opposition as many times before finally ascending the presidency in 2022. Though he was elected by parliament to serve out the balance of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s term and not the people, nobody would have expected him to have willingly submitted himself to this ordeal in the presence of a clearly hostile audience. Hasan, sharply dressed, suave, incisive and an obvious believer in a no-holds-barred interview style reveled in roasting Wickremesinghe as presenters do at such interviews as Hard Talk has shown over the years over BBC. True, Ranil was able to fire some of his own shots (“I was in politics before you were born”) but they proved to be of little use before an obviously partisan audience.

Talk shows such as Al Jazeera’s are structured in a format that all the dice is loaded on the interviewer’s side. The respondents, unless they are specially skilled debaters who can stand up bravely to an unfair adversary, are too often cannon fodder. The questions are fired machine gun-style and the respondents given little opportunity to have their their say, the interviewer interupting before the victim, and we use that word advisedly, have the opportunity to get a few words edgewise. We remember one occasion when Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar acquitted himself excellently in a Hard Talk interview with BBC. But he was an exceptionally gifted debater having served Oxford Union as its president before launching on his legal and political careers. Wickremesinghe is himself not a spring chicken. There were occasional flashes of his parliamentary debating style during the show but these were lost on the hostile audience who frequently applauded Hasan.

Given the treatment respondents receive in these high pressure talk shows, why do politicians, both serving and retired, and others who would obviously anticipate a hard time in an unequal encounter subject themselves to such indignities? The answers to this question may be many, one being over confidence in oneself to withstanding a grilling however daunting. Another may be that most politicians believe that bad publicity is better than no publicity. Politics being art of the possible, there will be those who delude themselves that they can give as good as they get as as Kadirgmar demonstrated so many years ago. Another possibility could be the fees such appearances command. Many global leaders, post-retirement, have entered the international lecture circuit at high fees as President Obama has done while others have written international best-sellers.

Whatever it was in Ranil Wickremesinghe’s case, he certainly did not emerge unscathed from the Al Jazeera program. This was equally true when he appeared in an interview some months ago with the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle. However bad a battering respondents in such programs receive, there is no dearth of participants in these talk shows as their frequent telecasting and rankings show. They will, no doubt, continue to be part of the entertainment scene for many years to come. Like audiences at boxing matches show, there is no lack of people to enjoy watching the inflicting of pain upon fellow human beings. Blood lust, after all, is part of human nature.

Post-retirement plums for judges

Justice for All, an organization of senior lawyers, academics and public interest activists including several respected and well known names a few days ago raised a matter that has for many years agitated the public mind. This relates to the appointment of retired superior court judges to various positions, particularly diplomatic, that we have seen in recent years. The trigger that sparked the instant discussion was the naming of the recently-retired Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He succeeds Mohan Peiris, also a former chief justice.

That justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, however threadbare a cliché, nevertheless remains as true as it always was. Thus the question is that will the public be convinced that plum appointments are not rewards for favours from the bench granted to the appointing political authority by serving judges? Also, would such favours be done with an eye on a post-retirement appointment? Apart from the two appointments to the UN in New York of two former chief justices, there was also a retired supreme court judge who was posted to London as Sri Lanka’s high commissioner. He raised many diplomatic and other eyebrows by calling himself Justice so and so in his visiting cards. There was also a retired chief justice who became the governor or the western province and others who became chairmen of banks who functioned with great acceptance.

Nobody can say that all such appointments of retired judges, and there have been many over the years, were bad. Judges of the highest integrity like Justice T.S. Fernando many years ago served this country well as high commissioner in Australia. The Justice for All statement widely publicized in the media covered most aspects of the problem which are many. Hopefully what has been said there will register where it matters and necessary action taken as soon as possible on an undoubtedly urgent matter.

 



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Terror and counter terror:upsetting a rubbish mountain

Published

on

This comment is being written ahead of the normal Friday deadline for printing the Sunday Island due to the forthcoming New Year holidays – that is before sittings of Parliament commenced on Thursday to debate the Batalanda Commission report. But it has also drawn on some of what was said in the early stages of that debate. This widely anticipated discussion will continue for a second day next month after parliament adjourned for the New Year on Thursday evening.

Batalanda and the torture chamber run there in the wake of the JVP’s second adventure between 1987 and 1989 has received a great deal of publicity, particularly in the electronic media, in recent weeks. As readers are well aware, former President Ranil Wckremesinghe, who began his parliamentary career in 1977 from the Biyagama electorate where Batalanda is located, is specifically targeted.

Earlier this year, Wicremesinghe fared disastrously in Al Jazeera’s Head to Head program, modeled on BBC’s Hard Talk, which famously interrogates interviewees with rapidly fired questions, where a very hard time is given to whoever is interviewed in what are often unequal exchanges. We have in this space previously said that it was clearly apparent during the program, which attracted global publicity, that the former president seemed to have knowingly walked into a trap for reasons that are not easily fathomable. Knowingly because the line of questioning was to be expected and the program host’s strategy of embarrassing the guest would have been obvious. But RW accepted an invitation to appear on a show that put him through a mincing machine. The Sinhala idiom illagena parippu kanawa neatly sums up what eventually happened to our former president.

RW was interviewed in London before a hostile audience dominated by LTTE supporters from the Tamil diaspora. The so-called “expert panel” whose comments were invited during the program was loaded two to one against the former president. Only Mr. Niranjan Deva Additiya, commonly known as Nirj Deva, a former British MP who also sat in the European Parliament could be regarded as not anti-Ranil, having served as a special envoy during the Wickremesinghe presidency. The other two panelists were extremely hostile to Wickremesinghe. Interviewer Mehdi Hasan, gave RW barely a chance to answer his questions fired with machine-gun rapidity, intervening and interrupting most unfairly.

Anybody with an inkling of Sri Lanka’s contemporary history beginning from 1971 when the JVP, which had only a year previously supported the United Front coalition led by Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike to roundly defeat the Dudley Senanayake-led UNP, would know that Rohana Wijeweera’s ‘new left’ unexpectedly attempted via a youth insurgency to topple a government it had helped elect months earlier. The rebels were mostly armed with home made bombs and commandeered shotguns supplemented with weapons captured from the armories of several police stations they overran.

The then government brutally reacted to crush the rebellion and dead bodies by the roadside and floating down rivers were a common sight at that time. The official death toll was 1,200 including 37 police officers killed and 195 wounded. Wikepedia citing “reliable sources” estimated 4,000 dead. India and Pakistan were among neighboring countries that assisted with men and material to help the beleaguered government at that time. The US sold us six Bell 47G helicopters which were put into combat after minimal pilot training. Britain and the USSR also provided assistance. The North Korean Embassy in Colombo was closed and it’s personnel expelled. China was suspect although there was no evidence whatever to implicate her.

Wijeweera, who had a scholarship to study medicine at Moscow’s Lumumba University had been taking a pro-Chinese line in the USSR and was not permitted to re-enter Russia after he came here on holiday. He flirted briefly with the China wing Communist Party here led by Mr. N. Sanmugathasan (nicknamed Mao Tse-Shan) and sported a tunic suit, beret and a Mao badge at the Criminal Justice Commission that tried him and other JVP leaders following the 1971 insurrection. The JVP’s second adventure between 1987-89 made 1971 pale into insignificance with the country driven to the brink of anarchy with numerous assassinations of politicians, union leaders and sundry others.

Predictably, the opposition and principally the SJB, that was once very much a part of the UNP at that time, while not defending state terror countering JVP terror then credibly made the point that Batalanda was not the only detention center where third degree methods were used during the northern and southern insurgencies. “Why are you merely looking at Batalanda? What about the other places commanded by ex-servicemen who are now part of your government where these things happened? Are you not going to investigate those places too?,” SJB frontbencher Mujibur Rahman asked opening the debate on behalf of the opposition.

He opened his speech describing the whole issue as one of digging up a rubbish mountain several decades after the events. Countering what Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala who quoted a chunk of the commission report, Rahman did likewise with a lengthy quotation from the end of the report saying that in no way could what the JVP and its armed vigilante squads did in that period be countenanced. The commission had reported on its findings of what happened at Batalanda and not, it was implied, on the context in which such extra legal measures were taken.

President JR Jayewardene expressed a truism saying that “in times of war, laws are silent.” As it happened during the 30-year civil war and the JVP’s 1987-89 insurgency, the state responded to terror with counter terror and there was no serious public opinion among ordinary people against what happened. The JVP which was part of governments and with political alignmnts with the rulers at different times had not, as Mujibur Rahuman pointed out, not bothered to even find out who liquidated Rohana Wijeweera. He alleged that somebody who had been accused as being the killer was recently rubbing shoulders with a high up in the government.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Justice must be balanced

Published

on

Saturday 12th April, 2025

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake will appoint a committee to decide on instituting legal action against those named in the report of the Batalanda Commission, which probed extrajudicial killings, torture, etc., in the Batalanda detention centre, in the late 1980s, Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Ratnayake has said. The commission report has also been referred to the Attorney General for action, according to media reports quoting Ratnayake.

Parliament had a debate on the Batalanda Commission report on Thursday. The government MPs and their Opposition counterparts, true to form, traded allegations and abuse liberally, and it is doubtful whether their debate left the public any the wiser.

The Executive President is vested with powers to appoint committees like the aforesaid one, but such presidential action in respect of the Batalanda Commission report will be seen to be tainted with prejudice, for President Dissanayake is the leader of the JVP, which has prejudged those named in the commission report, especially their erstwhile chum, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, and is calling for punitive action against them.

There is no guarantee that the presidential committee to be appointed will be different from the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and prepared the grounds for her wrongful impeachment in 2013. After all, the JVP/NPP has rejected out of hand the findings and recommendations of the Alwis committee, which has held two former high-ranking police officers accountable for their serious lapses which, among other things, led to the Easter Sunday carnage. So, matters concerning the Batalanda Commission recommendations should be left to the Attorney General although he is not completely independent of the Executive.

It will not be possible to build a strong case against Wickremesinghe on the basis of the Batalanda Commission report, whose recommendations lack specificity, according to legal experts. However, one cannot but agree with the JVP/NPP that all those who committed savage excesses in the name of counterterror operations to crush the JVP’s second uprising in the late 1980s must be brought to justice. Similarly, the heinous crimes the JVP committed must also be probed, and the perpetrators thereof must be made to face the consequences of their actions.

The Batalanda Commission report itself has revealed the JVP’s crimes. The JVP carried out hundreds of political assassinations, committed a large number of armed robberies including bank heists, destroyed state assets worth billions of rupees, such as Agrarian Service Centres, tea factories, Paddy Marketing Board storage facilities, buses, trains and countless CEB transformers, attacked military camps and police stations and grabbed a large number of firearms, most of which have not been recovered. The JVP unleashed mindless terror purportedly to extricate Sri Lanka from what it described as the tentacles of India, which it likened to an evil, giant octopus. Its reign of terror crippled the economy so much so that the then President Ranasinghe Premadasa offered to negotiate with it unconditionally. Today, the JVP leaders are eating out of the Indian leaders’ hands and entering into undisclosed MoUs with the ‘evil, giant octopus’, as it were.

All those who were involved in JVP terror in the late 1980s must be held accountable for their crimes, as former JVP presidential candidate and General Secretary Nandana Gunathilake has rightly said. Justice must not be lopsided, and both sides that unleashed mindless terror and committed brutal crimes in the name of counterterror, plunging this country into a bloodbath, must be made to face the full force of the law.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Trump in a china shop

Published

on

Friday 11th April, 2025

US President Donald Trump has made another U-turn––a historic one. He has suspended unprecedented tariff hikes he announced the other day; he vowed that he would neither pause nor waive them under any circumstances. The 90-day tariff reprieve he has opted for has gladdened many hearts and made stock markets soar across the word, but a global recession is looming with a fierce tariff war between the US and China intensifying.

Trump has jacked up tariffs on all Chinese goods to a whopping 125%. China has stopped dilly-dallying and increased its tariff on imports from the US to 84%. The White House is reported to have said those who do not retaliate will be rewarded. Trump may have expected the Chinese leaders also to bow and scrape before him, asking for a tariff reduction.

Meanwhile, President Trump will have a hard time repairing relations with the traditional US allies in Europe. He did not mince his words, when he said, while announcing the new US tariffs, the other day, that many Americans thought Europe was a friend but it had actually ripped off the US. He has shown, albeit unwittingly, that Europe cannot trust the US as an ally. Besides, Der Spiegel, a German magazine once revealed that the CIA had been operating a global network of 80 eavesdropping centres, including 19 listening posts in Europe.

The White House has sought to help Trump save face; it has claimed that his flip-flop is part of a strategy to further US economic interests globally. But the truth is otherwise. Trump got cold feet as stock markets tumbled the world over, and protests erupted in the US itself against his new tariff policy. Initially, he, true to form, chose to dig his heels in, and even coined a new word to disparage the critics of his tariffs. On Truth Social, he called them ‘panicans’. He said: “The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN. Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!” He also said, “Be cool! Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before. On Monday, he announced from the White House that “we’re not looking at” a tariff pause …” He also bragged in a Truth Social post announcing the 90-day tariff pause, that “more than 75 Countries” had called US officials seeking to strike new trade deals. But it is clear that he had to bite the bullet and suspend the tariff hikes. The EU has put its retaliatory tariffs on hold, as a result.

The suspension of US tariff hikes has brought immense relief to the developing countries dependent on the US as a major export destination, but prudence demands that they continue with their efforts to formulate strategies to ensure the survival of their fragile economies in the worst-case scenario. They had better consider the tariff reprieve at issue only an interval in hell, as it were, and brace themselves for what is to come after three months.

Trump’s strategy of using tariffs to subdue the world has yielded some unintended benefits, the main being that it has prompted other nations, including traditional American allies, to realise the risk of being overdependent on the US as a trading partner, diversify their trade relations as well as exports, and, most of all, look for an alternative to the US. The on-going efforts to adopt an alternative international reserve currency is bound to gain a turbo boost from Trump’s abortive bid to leverage America’s hold on the global economy to undermine other nations.

The world owes President Trump a big thank you—not for jacking up US tariffs and then suspending them but for having revealed how far the US is ready to go to further its interests at the expense of the other nations, including its allies.

Continue Reading

Trending