Editorial

Biggest curse

Published

1 year ago

2023/12/6

Wednesday 6th December, 2023

Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe lashed out at SJB MP Rishad Bathiudeen, on Monday, for having cursed a judge while making a speech in Parliament recently. He dismissed as baseless Bathiudeen’s claim that the judge concerned heard only cases involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He is right in having taken up the cudgels for the rights of the judges whose reputations are dragged through the mud in Parliament.

Vitriolic attacks that some MPs carry out on judicial officers by taking cover behind their parliamentary privileges are deplorable; they adversely impact the relations between the legislature and the judiciary. The three branches of government—the legislature, the judiciary and the executive—are the political version of tridosha—va, pitta and kapha, and any imbalance thereof causes problems. Hence the need for the members of the three institutions to act responsibly, minding their limits and respecting each other’s independence. Unfortunately, instances abound where legislators try to undermine the independence of the judiciary and even slander judges.

A recent announcement President Ranil Wickremesinghe made in Parliament has come in for criticism. He said the next presidential and parliamentary polls would be held in 2024 and the local government and provincial council elections in 2025. That statement has come to be widely viewed as an attempt to influence the judiciary vis-à-vis an ongoing case pertaining to the delayed local government polls. It was also tantamount to a bid to undermine the authority of the Election Commission, which is the institution constitutionally empowered to make decisions anent elections. Why the Justice Minister, who cherishes judicial independence, did not take exception to that presidential announcement is the question.

Minister Rajapakshe told Bathiudeen, while upbraiding him, that nobody had cursed the latter for having been a minister in the Mahinda Rajapaksa government. However, the public cursed the Rajapaksa regime for having the likes of Bathiudeen in its Cabinet, especially after a mob attack on the Mannar court complex in July 2012, and an allegation that Bathiudeen had threatened a Magistrate. The Rajapaksa government took on the judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission, whose Secretary Manjula Tilakaratne was assaulted by a group of unidentified men in Mount Lavinia in October 2012. A few months later, it appointed a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to probe the then Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and had her ‘impeached’ in January 2013. Thus, that government became a curse.

The current SLPP-UNP dispensation sought to summon some judges before the parliamentary Committee on Privileges and Ethics over a ruling which annoyed the powers that be. Thankfully, it got cold feet owing to protests. That abortive move however reminded us of how the J. R. Jayewardene government had two judges of the Supreme Court summoned before a PSC and reprimanded in 1983. The houses of some apex court judges were also stoned in that year because a judgement against the police in a fundamental rights violation case filed by a group of Opposition activists angered the UNP government. That regime also tried to impeach the then Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon for making a public speech which President Jayewardene did not take kindly to.

Interestingly, Bathiudeen has been in governments formed by the parties and leaders with a history of undermining judicial independence. (Ironically, the same holds true for Dr. Rajapakshe!) Bathiudeen was in the Mahinda Rajapaksa government as a Minister; he then switched his allegiance to President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and became a member of the Yahapalana Cabinet. Today, he is a coalition partner of the SJB, whose leaders were in the Yahapalana administration as members of the UNP-led UNF. President Sirisena, who leads the SLFP, ably assisted by Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and some prominent members of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, removed a Chief Justice in a despicable manner. In 2015, he declared the appointment of Chief Justice Mohan Peiris, null and void ab initio on the grounds that the post of Chief Justice had not fallen vacant. True, the Rajapaksa government did not follow proper procedure in impeaching Dr. Bandaranayake and therefore she had to be reinstated, but the process that had led to her wrongful removal should have been reversed by the legislature itself.

Bathiudeen, no doubt, deserves the flak he is drawing for cursing a judge, but could there be a bigger curse for the judiciary as well as the country than an unholy alliance of political parties and leaders responsible for stoning the houses of judges, summoning judicial officers before parliamentary committees, and removing Chief Justices arbitrarily?

All News Advertisement

Editorial

Cushioning tariff shock

Published

22 hours ago

2025/04/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Thursday 10th April, 2025

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s letter to US President Donald Trump over the US tariff hikes has received much publicity. The NPP government is reportedly sanguine about a positive response from Washington to its request for lower tariff on Sri Lanka’s exports, especially apparels. Hope is said to spring eternal, and there is nothing wrong with being optimistic, but it behoves Sri Lanka to prepare for the worst-case scenario. President Trump’s mind is so elusive that it is not possible to predict his moves, much less guess what he expects the smaller economies to do if they are to qualify for US tariff reductions, if any. He is eyeing mineral resources in Ukraine in return for US military aid to that war-torn nation. Sri Lanka has no such resources to offer. Is the Trump administration trying to pressure it into going out of its way to help further Washington’s geostrategic interests in this part of the world?

China has retaliated by increasing tariffs on imports from the US thereby aggravating global economic uncertainty. Washington says its tariff increases are reciprocal, and therefore the countries affected by them may think they can gain relief by reducing duties on US exports. But the question is whether such action will help the US rectify its massive trade imbalance significantly. The demand for American exports will not increase substantially even if countries like Sri Lanka lower duties thereon, for factors such as cost and quality basically drive demand. Imports from the West, especially input materials, are not in high demand in the developing world because of the availability of cost-effective alternatives.

So, the Trump administration is likely to insist that apparel producing nations like Sri Lanka import commodities such as cotton fabric from the US so as to give a fillip to the American industries. This is what US Ambassador Julie Chung told former Minister Mano Ganeshan at a recent meeting, according to a report we published on 27 March. Such a move is bound to increase the cost of Sri Lankan apparels because US products are very expensive and will adversely affect the competitiveness of Sri Lanka’s apparels in the global market.

President Trump is hopeful that ‘jobs and factories will come roaring back’ because of the tariff hikes at issue, but he does not seem to have factored in the high cost of production in the US and increases in the prices of imports due to high tariff hikes. Tech analysts have pointed out that Apple iPhone prices would soar if they were to be made in the US, and even if the existing supply chains are maintained, their prices will increase substantially. The same may hold true for other commodities, whose prices remain low in the US at present owing to cheap labour and lax environmental laws in the other countries where they are produced.

The countries hit by the US tariff increases have adopted different strategies to cushion the blow from the drastic US action, which has led to a global stock market rout, and sparked protests in the US itself. India is seeking to strike more trade deals with other nations, according to Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who says such measures have become necessary in view of prevailing global uncertainty. Sri Lanka can learn from how India is trying to mitigate the impact of the US tariff hikes.

Prof. C. A. Saliya, a senior banker turned academic, has pointed out in his latest column, Out of the Box, in this newspaper that if the emerging economies get their act together, they may be able to turn disruptions caused by the isolationist, protectionist, and coercive US trade practices into an opportunity to diversify their exports and trade relations, invest in technology and undertake structural reforms to ensure their economic resilience.

Meanwhile, the formulation of Sri Lanka’s strategy to navigate the new US tariff regime should arise from a tripartite effort if it is to be effective. The government, industrialists and workers should be represented in discussions on the issue. It is high time trade unions shifted their focus from their demand-oriented activism to the pressing need to play a crucial role in protecting the domestic industrial sector. The government should do everything in its power to help industrialists keep costs manageable, ensuring the competitiveness of their products in the global market, and the captains of industry must carry out their export operations in a transparent manner without resorting to sordid practices such as parking most of their export proceeds overseas.

Editorial

Lies, damned lies, and political claims

Published

2 days ago

2025/04/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

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.

Editorial

Who will guard the guards?

Published

3 days ago

2025/04/8

Sahan Weerasooriya

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?