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

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

Editorial

ME War and the loser

Published

on

Thursday 12th March, 2026

It is not possible to predict who will emerge victorious in the ongoing war in the Middle East or whether the conflict will end without a clear winner though US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have the world believe that they will surely be the winners. The US-Israel military power is doubtlessly far superior to that of Iran, but in a war of this nature, military might alone does not guarantee a clear victory.

Difficult as it may be to predict who will win in the current Gulf conflict, the overall loser is already known; it is the world economy. Global markets are heavily reliant on President Trump’s assurance that the war will not last long, and the release of the G7 strategic oil reserves to stabilise the world oil supply. But Trump’s most intense airstrikes on Tuesday have not yielded the desired results. Iran remains defiant and has raised the stakes for the global economy by threatening to bring oil exports from the region through the Strait of Hormuz to a complete halt unless the US and Israel stop attacks. It continues to fire missiles and carry out drone attacks on US interests in the region. Trump has announced that the US will seriously consider providing security to the ships sailing through the Hormuz Strait, but whether the US is equal to the task is the question. It is being argued in some quarters that Trump and Netanyahu have already bitten off more than they can chew.

There is reason to believe that Trump went to war with Iran without a proper assessment of the ground situation. His plan was to make short work of the current Iranian regime with shock-and-awe aerial bombardments and the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but his plan has apparently gone awry. The slain Iranian leader’s son has been elected the Supreme Leader. Trump may have expected the Iranian anti-government protesters to make the most of the ongoing bombing spree, come out in their millions and bring down their embattled regime, but they are silent today. Perhaps, they are too scared to challenge the beleaguered regime, which has warned that ‘every soldier has his finger on the trigger’ and protesters will be treated as traitors. It is also possible that the protesters are now disillusioned with the US after realising that Washington has sought to use them as a cat’s paw in its efforts to grab Iran’s oil resources.

Has the US made, in Iran, a military miscalculation similar to the one in Afghanistan? The US Intelligence community and the military estimated that Kabul was resilient enough to hold out for several months after the withdrawal of the US troops in 2021. But that city fell to the Taliban in days, causing the then US President Joe Biden to admit that the collapse had happened “more quickly than the US had anticipated”.

Iran may not have anticipated a joint US-Israel military operation of this magnitude. It remains to be seen whether Iran can sustain its missile and drone attacks vis-à-vis the US-Israeli air strikes on its arms stockpiles and military installations. However, what one gathers from the views of military analysts is that it is very unlikely that President Trump will go so far as to deploy ground troops in Iran, with about 59% of Americans opposing his war, according to opinion surveys. In its war for oil in Iraq, the US had the backing of a much broader international coalition.

Nothing could be more humiliating to the US than Washington’s call for help from Ukraine to deal with the Iranian drones. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom President Trump once showed the door during a White House meeting, has confirmed that the US sought his help to defend its allies in the Persian Gulf against the Iranian drones. Did Trump start a war without a proper assessment of the enemy’s drone capability?

The enormous economic cost of the Middle East conflict will have to be borne by not only the parties thereto but also by the entire world. Trump’s assurances and the G7 responses have prevented panic in global markets, but unless the US and Israel end the war soon and take steps to keep the Strait of Hormuz functional, oil prices will soar again, pushing the world closer to a global recession. If Trump and Netanyahu stop their war midway, they will face a domestic political backlash. Trump and Netanyahu have the Epstein files and corruption charges to contend with, respectively. The Trump administration is facing midterm elections in November. Politically speaking, Trump and Netanyahu are on a tiger ride in the Middle East.

The biggest challenge before the US and Israel in the ongoing conflict is to prevent Iran from shifting the war to the economic front, and make the global economy scream.

Continue Reading

Trending