Connect with us


20A and dual citizen



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 *


The Grim Reaper in overdrive



Tuesday 20th April, 2021

April is the cruellest month, one may say with apologies to T. S. Eliot, on seeing the increase in fatal road accidents during the festive season in this country. During the last five days alone, 52 lives have been lost in road mishaps, and about 670 persons have suffered injuries, according to the police. In fact, the number of deaths due to road accidents averages eight a day, and road fatalities receive media attention only when there happens to be an uptick therein. Not even coronavirus carries off that many—for now, at least.

With an average of 38,000 crashes that cause about 3,000 deaths and 8,000 serious injuries annually, Sri Lanka has the worst road fatality rate among its immediate neighbours in South Asia, a World Bank study has revealed, as we pointed out in a recent comment.

Why this unfortunate situation has come about is known to the authorities tasked with ensuring road safety. The traffic police have identified 25 causes of road accidents, prominent among them being reckless driving, negligence, indiscipline, drivers’ lack of knowledge of road rules and regulations, fatigue, human error, driving under the influence of liquor and drugs, pedestrians’ disregard for road rules and safety measures, poor conditions of vehicles and road infrastructural defects. Other causative factors, identified by independent experts, are an exponential increase in the number of vehicles, irregularities in the process of issuing driving/riding licences and lapses on the part of the traffic police themselves.

Given the sheer number of causes of road mishaps, a multi-pronged strategy and a long-term, holistic approach are needed to tackle them. But it may be possible to contain the problem to a considerable extent if steps are taken urgently to deal with reckless driving, indiscipline, driving under the influence of liquor and drugs, and road infrastructural defects. Last month’s tragic bus accident in Passara shook the country, it killed 14 passengers. The driver of the ill-fated vehicle was responsible for the mishap, but it could have been prevented if the Road Development Authority had cared to remove a boulder that had rolled onto the road, blocking part of it, or at least put up speed breakers and warning signs near the bottleneck. Such issues can be sorted out immediately.

Police deserve praise for taking tough action against drunk drivers. Drunk driving is easy to detect. In most cases, there is no need for even breathalyzer tests. But the problem with narcotic addiction among drivers is that there are no outward signs of impairment. Medical experts inform us that drugs such as cannabis, methylamphetamine and ‘ecstasy’ greatly impair drivers’ ability to control speed and judge distance and hinder coordination. The need for facilities to conduct roadside drug testing to detect narcotic addicts behind the wheel has gone unheeded although many drivers, especially truckers and busmen are hooked on drugs. Bus owners’ associations have been calling for action against drug addicts in the garb of bus crews, but in vain.

Meanwhile, random checks in urban areas to nab drunk drivers have stood suburban liquor bars in good stead because most people patronise these watering holes due to lack of police presence around them. This is something the traffic police should pay attention to. If they step up checks in suburban areas as well, they may be able to net many more drunk drivers, who pose a danger to all road users.

Road accidents are as much of a scourge as the current pandemic; they kill about 1.39 million people around the world annually, according to the World Health Organisation. One is at a loss to understand why there has been no sustained global effort similar to the campaign against COVID-19, to obviate the causes of killer road accidents; this is doubly so for this country where road fatalities outnumber the pandemic-related deaths. It is unfortunate that road traffic deaths get reduced to mere statistics and then forgotten.

Continue Reading


It’s sovereignty, stupid!



Monday 19th April, 2021

Sri Lanka’s sovereignty has taken centre stage thanks to the Colombo Port City Economic Commission (CPCEC) Bill. The Opposition and its allies are all out to scuttle it, claiming that it will severely undermine the country’s sovereignty, which the government vows to protect at any cost. The UNP has joined others in challenging the Bill in the Supreme Court. This, it has done while seeking to justify its decision to appoint its leader Ranil Wickremesinghe to Parliament via the National List; he unsuccessfully contested the last general election from the Colombo District.

If the government, the Opposition and their supporters are so concerned about the country’s sovereignty, they must respect the franchise of the people in whom sovereignty resides. Sovereignty and franchise are inseparable. How could the aforesaid politicians reconcile their much-advertised campaign for protecting sovereignty with their endorsement of the practice of appointing as National List MPs unsuccessful candidates and others of their choice in violation of people’s franchise.

The situation took a turn for the worse, under the yahapalana government, which not only appointed a bunch of defeated candidates to Parliament as National List MPs but also made some of them Cabinet ministers! Almost all political parties with parliamentary representation have undermined people’s franchise in this manner. Even the JVP, which never misses an opportunity to take the moral high ground, failed to be different. The lame excuse that political leaders trot out for this blatant violation of franchise is that the law provides for such appointments. If this despicable practice is to be considered acceptable simply because certain bad laws can be interpreted to justify it, then the Executive President should not be faulted for exercising all dictatorial powers the Constitution has vested in him.

Moreover, it has now been revealed that the J. R. Jayewardene government smuggled some sections into the election law to enable the appointment of outsiders to Parliament as National List MPs. The Provincial Council Elections Act was amended in a similar manner in 2017 to postpone the PC polls indefinitely. Questionable practices and actions based on such rotten laws cannot be considered legitimate by any stretch of the imagination.

The National List mechanism, which was devised purportedly to bring in eminent persons as MPs, has in effect empowered political party leaders to violate the people’s franchise with impunity. Therefore, the legal provisions that allow defeated candidates and outsiders to enter Parliament via the National List must be abolished; they are antithetical to democracy and have a corrosive effect on people’s franchise and sovereignty. Strangely, not even those who undertook to usher in good governance, in 2015, cared to get rid of these bad laws.

It is being argued in some quarters that when the seats of appointed MPs fall vacant, only the National List nominees or those whose names appear on district nomination lists should be appointed to Parliament in keeping with Articles 99 and 101 of the Constitution. But we believe that only the National List nominees whose names are made public before parliamentary elections must be brought in as appointed MPs; the appointment of unsuccessful candidates as MPs is an assault on democracy.

Technically, people who vote for a particular political party/independent group also endorse its National List nominees, who arguably attract votes. In 2015, the JVP had, as one of its National List nominees, former Auditor General Sarath Mayadunne. A lot of people must have voted for the JVP to have him in Parliament to fight against corruption effectively. But no sooner had he been sworn in than he resigned, paving the way for the appointment of a defeated JVP candidate. What the JVP did was tantamount to taking the voting public for a ride. Other political parties, too, have done likewise unashamedly.

At present, the National List can be abused to appoint any party member to Parliament, and anyone can obtain the membership of a political party by paying as little as Rs. 10. One may argue that all it takes to render people’s franchise irrelevant is Rs. 10! What moral right do the politicians who unflinchingly make use of bad laws to defy the will of the people have to fight for democracy, sovereignty and franchise?

Continue Reading


The finger on the spot



A television interviewer last week asked Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda what is to be done when a robber enters your home? Is he not to be chased off? The program in which the minister appeared was dealing with the long festering problem of a South Indian fisheries fleet brazenly crossing the International Maritime Boundary (IBM) and entering Sri Lanka waters. These illegal fishermen are not just poaching in our waters. They engage in bottom trawling, using large vessels with powerful engines, destroying the marine environment and seriously eroding the replenishment capacity of this country’s fish stock, a process affecting the livelihood of our fishermen in the short, medium and long term.

The minister responded with a question of his own. What do you do when the robber is armed?, he countered. Devananda put his finger on the spot; perhaps not literally in that the Indian fishing fleet routinely crossing the IBM is not armed to its teeth though its quite probable that there are a gun or two in individual trawlers or boats. What he was in effect saying is that the poachers are backed by the might of India and there is very little that we can do about it. What the minister said evoked painful memories of Operation Vadamarachchi of May and June 1987 when the Sri Lankan forces were on the verge of defeating the Tamil Tigers waging war on the Lankan state.

What did India do? Alleging that the people living in the war-wracked area were starving, several Hercules transport planes escorted by Mirage jet fighters intruded into this country’s sovereign airspace for a claimed “humanitarian operation” – the infamous parippu drop as we came to know it. The signal was unmistakably clear. Either halt the military operation or face the consequences. That would be an Indian invasion of this country. Then President J.R. Jayewardene, fighting an insurrection in the South and a civil war in the North was in a tight bind from which there was no escape. The rest is history. The Indo – Lanka Agreement between Jayewardene and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India was signed and the so-called Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) followed. But there was no disarming of the LTTE as promised. Thanks to what India did then, the civil war raged till 2009 when the Tigers were eventually defeated.

This country’s predicament over the rape of our marine resources, grievously affecting the livelihoods of our fishermen eking out a precarious livelihood, and also endangering the very existence of the fisheries industry in the North of this country, is very similar to the parippu drop of not so long ago.

During the decades of the war, the imperatives of fighting the separatist-terrorists required long periods where our fishermen were banned from venturing out to deep sea. They were confined to a coastal fishery and this left expanses of our territorial waters wide open to Indian fishermen to exploit. Those years and what happened then deeply ingrained in the Indians the conviction that they could fish as they like, wherever they would, regardless of the International Maritime Boundary and the Law of the Sea. There were rich picking to be had and the opportunity was seized.

After the war ended and normalcy – or at least some semblance of it – was restored, there was no keeping the Indian fishermen, often manning trawlers owned by Tamil Nadu politicians and their patrons, to their side of the IBM. For several long years efforts at resolving this problem have been made. There have been some placatory noises from the Indians but little attempt, leave alone a serious effort, to tackle this issue. Contacts have been made at the highest levels of government and all they have produced are platitudes about adopting a “humanitarian approach” to the problem. The humanitarianism is all about allowing Indian fishermen to enhance their livelihood, never mind the super profits made by capitalist politically-backed trawler-owners hiring those fishermen to crew their vessels. Nary a word about our own fishermen, long left to fend for themselves as best as they can while the Indians rob what is rightfully theirs.

No end to this situation is in sight. There are occasional reports of poachers and their vessels taken to custody by the Sri Lanka Navy. More often than not, after a little fuss, bother and diplomatic niceties, the fishermen and (emphasis ours) their craft are returned so that they can poach another day. Earlier this year there was was an incident when an Indian fishing vessel poaching in Lankan waters reacted aggressively to a naval craft attempting to arrest it. This resulted in the sinking of the trawler and the death of one of its crewmen. Predictably there was a blaze of publicity and protest in the Tamil Nadu press about the Sri Lanka Navy killing Indian fishermen. Such incidents are clear indications of the sensitivity of the problem at hand. We have to live with the reality that we cannot wield the big stick to protect what is ours. But the government is under pressure from fishermen North and South to do something about it. Devananda has talked about issuing passes for a limited number of Indian fishing vessels, excluding big trawlers, to enter our waters.

But as one northern politician said in a television program, 500 will come if 50 passes are issued. Indian fishery interests are saying “why exclude the trawlers?” In any case do we have the capacity (or the political will) to effectively police our waters, protect the interests of our fishermen and the sustainability of our marine resources against a monster predator from across the Palk Strait? D we always have to bow down to Big Brother?

Continue Reading