Editorial
Sirisena’s revolution
Wednesday 23rd December, 2020
Former President Maithripala Sirisena maintains a very low profile, but he is in the news again. He has waxed eloquent, at a recent virtual symposium under the theme, Shared values and Democracy in Asia’, on what he considers his contribution to the strengthening of democracy in Sri Lanka on his watch as the President. Some of his claims have attracted heavy criticism in social media.
Sirisena never misses an opportunity to claim that it was his desire to bring about good governance that made him break ranks with the Rajapaksa government in 2014, beat then President Mahinda Rajapaksa in the presidential race the following year and help install the UNP-led yahapalana administration after bringing down the UPFA government. This claim, not to put too fine a point on it, is a mistruth. He is on record as having said that when he was a minister in the UPFA government, he did his best to dissuade President Rajapaksa from advancing the presidential election, which was due in 2016. He has also claimed that he left the Rajapaksa regime to save democracy. How can he reconcile these two contradictory statements? If Sirisena had succeeded in persuading President Rajapaksa to complete his second term without opting for a snap presidential election, the Rajapaksa government would have lasted another year or so; Sirisena would not have had any qualms about being in that administration, which he later condemned as a repressive regime. One may recall that Sirisena voted for the 18th Amendment, which vested unbridled powers in the executive presidency, did away with the presidential term limit, and enabled President Rajapaksa to bulldoze his way through during his second term.
What really drove Sirisena to break ranks with the Rajapaksa government, in 2014, was not any desire to protect democracy but his frustration; he had been eyeing the premiership. There were others with prime ministerial ambitions, and he was convinced that he would not be able to achieve his goal. Had he been appointed the Prime Minister, he would not have left the UPFA government in 2014.
Sirisena was lucky to win the presidency, but he did not whittle down powers in that position of his own volition. The 19th Amendment came into being because the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe wanted to consolidate his power in the yahapalana government; he was instrumental in having the executive presidency stripped of vital powers and the presidential term reduced to five years. Sirisena only consented to the UNP’s project for want of a better alternative. He was too dependent on the UNP for his political survival to offer resistance. In 2018, he made a mockery of his commitment to upholding democracy by joining forces with the very Rajapaksas, whom he had condemned as a bunch of self-seeking politicians ruining democratic institutions, to topple the yahapalana government. His plan to win over the SLFP dissidents in the Joint Opposition/SLPP and run for President (in 2019) fell through owing to the collapse of the hurriedly formed government, which lasted only 52 days. The Easter Sunday terror strikes, etc., ruined his chances of seeking a second term. Ironically, Mahinda, who as the President did not appoint Sirisena the PM, had to serve as the PM under the latter albeit for a few weeks!
Sirisena, who deserted the Rajapaksas while being a Cabinet minister as he was unable to achieve his prime ministerial goal, won the presidency, went all out to destroy the Rajapaksas politically, is now back in a Rajapaksa government as an ordinary MP. Worse, his party, the SLFP, voted with the SLPP to do away with the 19th Amendment, which he used to flaunt as his biggest achievement in politics. He and his betes noires have proved that they have no sense of shame, and act out of expediency rather than principle.
Editorial
Draining Diyawanna swamp
Thursday 21st November, 2024
The JVP added Sinhala slang, jilmaat, meaning trickery, to Sri Lanka’s political lexicon, after the 2010 presidential election; it claimed that the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa had secured a second term by means of a computer jilmaat, but it could not prove that allegation. However, there have been numerous instances of legislative and constitutional jilmaat in this country, and they are responsible for the rapid rise of anti-politics. Veteran leftist and former Cabinet Minister D. E. W. Gunasekera has, in a brief interview with The Island, pointed out how a questionable constitutional amendment has been gnawing away at public trust in the electoral process since 1989.
A report in this newspaper yesterday quoted DEW as having said that the 14th Amendment, which inserted Article 99A into the Constitution, in 1988, providing for the appointment of defeated candidates as National List (NL) MPs, was different from the original Bill approved by a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC). He has said the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa, who headed the PSC at issue, himself revealed that fact during a parliamentary debate, but no remedial action was taken.
The deplorable practice of appointing defeated candidates to Parliament is violative of the people’s franchise, and a Bill containing such provision would not have survived judicial scrutiny, and therefore it is possible that the J. R. Jayewardene government resorted to some constitutional jilmaat to secure the passage of the 14th Amendment with the questionable section.
No government has cared to amend Article 99A in spite of their much-avowed commitment to democratic best practices. All political parties have shamelessly used this constitutional provision to smuggle in defeated candidates into Parliament. As long as Article 99A remains unchanged, it will not be possible for the people to get rid of any MP by defeating him/ her in a general election if he/she is in the good books of his/her party leader and his/her party polls enough votes to secure NL slots. Even the JVP-led NPP, which pontificates ad nauseam about democracy, morals and ethics, has appointed defeated candidates as NL MPs. Two of its 159 members in the new Parliament are candidates rejected by the people in last week’s election. The New Democratic Front is embroiled in a dispute over its two NL slots which a large number of its defeated candidates are said to be eyeing.
It is also possible for political party leaders to engineer NL vacancies to appoint anyone of their choice as an MP owing to Section 64 (5) of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act passed in 1988. All political parties have made use of this despicable legal provision to make NL appointments. Such reprehensible laws have come to stay because once they are ratified by Parliament, they become faits accomplis owing to the absence of legal provision for the post-enactment judicial review of legislation, the need for which cannot be overstated in a country like Sri Lanka, where governments do not respect even the entrenched clauses in the Constitution. It may be recalled that in January 2024, the Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe government, which bulldozed its way through, arbitrarily declared that its draconian Online Safety Bill had been passed amidst a noisy protest in the House. In 2017, the Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Bill was passed in a questionable manner, with some sections incorporated into it at the committee stage to postpone the PC polls on the pretext of increasing female representation. It was a typical Christmas Tree Bill, which was substantially different from the Bill gazetted, tabled in Parliament and examined by the Supreme Court. Sadly, yet unsurprisingly, all political parties represented in Parliament at the time voted for that bad Bill, enabling its passage with a two-thirds majority!
The onerous task of draining the Diyawanna swamp, which the NPP has undertaken to perform, should not be limited to ridding the legislature of undesirables; Parliament must also be made to right the wrongs it has committed under previous governments if public trust therein is to be restored. Let the NPP government be urged to use its supermajority to amend Article 99A and Section 64 (5) of the Parliament Election Act as a national priority to prevent the appointment of defeated candidates and those who are neither unsuccessful candidates nor NL nominees as MPs. Similarly, urgent action should be taken to enable the post-enactment judicial review of legislation. That is the least the self-righteous JVP/NPP leaders can do to atone for the sin of having appointed defeated candidates as NL MPs. No clean-up of Parliament will be complete unless the new government takes action to safeguard the people’s franchise, which is the bedrock of democracy.
Editorial
Kiri-Kekiri dilemma and need for austerity
Wednesday 20th November, 2024
The JVP-led NPP asked for a mandate to clean up Parliament, and received a mammoth majority for that purpose. Its stalwart bragged that they had asked for brooms but the people had given them bulldozers. A fish is said to rot from the head down, and therefore Parliament has to be cleansed as a national priority. Let the clean-up begin!
One can only hope that the latest regime change will not lead to another false dawn like the one described in Orwell’s dystopian novella, Animal Farm, where the Pigs, after a successful revolt, decree that ‘all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’. The new MPs and ministers must not be allowed to place themselves above the public and lead the life of Riley. After all, that is what the NPP promised during its presidential and parliamentary election campaigns.
In the late 1980s, during its second uprising, the JVP coined a pithy slogan to mobilise the rural youth against the UNP government of the day, by highlighting a glaring urban bias in resource allocation—kolombata kiri, gamata kekiri (‘Milk for Colombo and kekiri cucumbers for the village’). Under a JVP-led government no room should be left for the people to say ‘methi-amathilata kiri, janathawata kekiri—‘milk for MPs and ministers, and kekiri for the public’.
Indiscipline, corruption, violence, brawls, dereliction of duty, waste, and the MPs’ privileges and perks were the key factors that turned public opinion against Parliament to the extent of a mob led by the JVP trying to march on it in 2022. The JVP, which failed to give Parliament a shake-up with bombs and mobs, and its alter ego, the NPP, are now in a position to achieve that goal democratically. Everything possible must be done to reduce the cost of maintaining Parliament and its members.
SJB MP Hesha Withanage has made a very progressive suggestion, which should have come from the JVP/NPP; he has urged the new government to make all MPs and ministers serve the public on a voluntary basis. The MPs’ official residences in Madiwela are being repaired at a massive cost to accommodate the members of the 10th Parliament, we are told. Addressing the media, yesterday, MP Withanage demanded that the MPs’ housing scheme be handed over to a university which lacks hostel facilities for its students. He said so during the last Parliament as well and his position on curtailing state expenditure on maintaining Parliament and the MPs has been consistent.
Withanage has also called for an end to the practice of providing the MPs with heavily subsidised meals in parliamentary canteens. It is doubtlessly unfair to pamper the MPs while the people who voted for them are struggling to dull the pangs of hunger. Secretary General of Parliament Kushani Rohanadheera, taking part in a television programme the other day, sought to pooh-pooh the claim that the MPs partake of sumptuous meals at ludicrously low prices in the parliamentary canteens, where, she claimed, only ordinary dishes were served. If so, let the menus and the expenditure on victuals served in the parliamentary restaurants during the past six months or so be made public so that the people will know whether their representatives have been eating bandakka and kekiri, as Rohanadheera has claimed.
It is puzzling why the NPP has appointed a 21-member Cabinet to do what three ministers had done for nearly two months. It would have made sense if about 15 ministers had been appointed with an equal number of deputy ministers. When the delayed Provincial Council elections are held, there will be 45 ministers in the provinces. Sectors such as health and education will have 10 ministers each—the Cabinet minister and nine provincial ministers. Sri Lankans are paying through the nose to maintain a bloated state service; there is a public official for every 14 citizens!
A country, which is in the throes of a crippling economic crisis and has defaulted on its debt, cannot afford to provide its MPs and ministers with perks that would make even their counterparts in the developed world turn green with envy. MP Withanage is right in having demanded that the MPs must not be given vehicles at the expense of the public. The most effective way to develop public transport is to make the people’s representatives share in commuters’ hardships by travelling in crowded buses and trains. Then only will they really feel the need to solve the chronic transport issues. The new government, as we have said in a previous editorial comment, should adopt the Swedish model in providing the MPs with facilities. In Sweden, only the Prime Minister is given an official car, and all others including the Speaker receive bus and train passes. They are free to use private vehicles but at their own expense.
The JVP-led government ought to manage state funds frugally, launch an austerity drive, lead by example and usher in national progress for the sake of the people, who answered its clarion call for action. The JVP should live up to its ‘anthem’, which its founder Rohana Wijeweera sang with gusto at party events to energise his supporters:
Kusata sagini/Hadata sogini/Gathata veraheli/Kebeli ella/sathuta senasuma ahimi karalu/Andura dinu kalaya gihilla/Nositha meri meri sathurpayata vakutu vee atha paya hakulla/Negitapalla, negitapalla/Numbalage kalaya evilla.
(Roughly rendered into English, it means that gone is the dark era when you suffered under enemy feet, in rags and on empty stomachs with hearts filled with sorrow; rise awake, your turn has come!)
Editorial
Close that smuggling tunnel
Tuesday 19th November, 2024
The NPP, the ITAK and the Sarvajana Balaya have appointed defeated candidates to Parliament via the National List (NL), making a mockery of their much-avowed commitment to democratic best practices. This has been the name of the game in Sri Lankan politics all these years and one of the main reasons for the erosion of public trust in the electoral process.
The NPP deserves praise for the appointment of a person with a visual disability to Parliament for the first time in Sri Lanka’s parliamentary history. It has fulfilled a long-felt need. Sadly, it has added not just a smidgeon but a scoop of cow dung to the proverbial pot of milk by appointing two of its defeated candidates as NL MPs.
It is said that in this country, in times of yore, some men were tricked into marrying not-so-attractive elder sisters of the women they were betrothed to. Times have changed and this kind of trickery is no longer heard of in matrimonial affairs, but a similar practice prevails in Sri Lankan politics; individuals other than those presented as NL nominees to electors are appointed MPs, and, worse, even total outsiders are brought in to fill NL vacancies, which are often created artificially.
Strangely, the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act provide for undermining the people’s franchise in this despicable manner. As we have pointed out in previous editorial comments, Article 99A of the Constitution allows ‘the persons whose names are included in the lists submitted to the Commissioner of Elections … or in any nomination paper submitted in respect of any electoral district by political parties or independent groups at that election’ to be appointed to Parliament via the NL. In 1988, the then UNP government introduced Section 64 (5) of the Parliament Election Act, inter alia, as an urgent Bill, eroding the essence of the constitutional provisions pertaining to the NL.
The Parliamentary Elections Act of No 1 of 1981, as amended in 1988, allows ‘any member’ of a political party to be appointed to fill an NL vacancy. After parliamentary elections, political parties appoint their NL members, as prescribed by the Constitution, and thereafter engineer NL vacancies to bring in persons of their choice as MPs. It is not possible to have this highly undemocratic practice terminated by judicial means because there is no constitutional provision for the post-enactment judicial review of legislation. This ‘smuggling tunnel’, as it were, must be closed by Parliament itself.
Worryingly, it has now been revealed that the words, ‘any member’, were surreptitiously incorporated into the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act after its ratification by Parliament in 1988!
Not everything the Constitution and other laws provide for is morally right and acceptable. The 18th constitutional amendment, which enhanced the executive powers of the President and removed the presidential term limit, had to be abolished because it was found to be detrimental to democracy. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution was done away with on the same grounds. Therefore, the flawed legal provisions that undermine the people’s franchise and sovereignty must be scrapped without further delay.
We suggest that Article 99A of the Constitution be amended to scrap the phrase, ‘in any nomination paper submitted in respect of any electoral district by political parties or independent groups’, and the words, ‘any member’ be removed from the Parliamentary Elections Act. This is something the NPP, which came to power, promising good governance, ought to do on a priority basis.
Given the shameful NL appointments at issue, it may not be difficult to imagine what the situation would have been if there had been no preferential vote mechanism; political party leaders would have had carte blanche to ensure the entry of unsuccessful candidates in their good books into Parliament at the expense of the deserving ones against the will of the people. That would have led to what is called the dictatorship of party leaders. Needless to say, an electoral process based on the proportional representation system without provision for voters to indicate their preferences for candidates will be antithetical to democracy. Hence the need to defeat efforts being made in some quarters to abolish the preferential vote.
-
Life style5 days ago
King of coconuts heads for a golden future
-
Latest News6 days ago
Colombo district preferential votes announced
-
News4 days ago
NPP appoints two defeated candidates as NL MPs
-
News6 days ago
President warns his party: “We will fail if we view power as an entitlement to do as we please”
-
News3 days ago
‘Gas Cylinder’ explodes; Ranil flays NDF Secy. for submitting Ravi’s name
-
Latest News7 days ago
Gampaha district: NPP 16, SJB 3
-
Sports3 days ago
Making batting compulsory for bowlers has worked – Theekshana
-
Editorial6 days ago
‘Maroon Wave’ and AKD Magic