Connect with us

Editorial

Abolishing executive presidency non-issue at present moment

Published

on

There are many who believe that Mr. Karu Jayasuriya, though not in active politics now, is the best president this country never had. His accomplishments in the political field are too numerous to list and his integrity is widely acknowledged. Given the proximity of the event, people even in this country notorious for their short memories, remember his sterling performance as speaker in October 2018.

That was when then President Maithripala Sirisena, elected to office in 2015 mostly on anti-Mahinda UNP votes, triggered a constitutional crisis by appointing former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister while Ranil Wickremesinghe held that office and retained a parliamentary majority. The result was two concurrent prime ministers. The wild scenes in parliament then with chillie powder thrown and other missiles flung and the speaker physically restrained from taking his seat cannot be forgotten. Jayasuriya demonstrated guts showing he would not be intimidated by thuggery.

Karu Jayasuriya has assumed the leadership of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) from Ven. Madulwawe Sobhita Thero who played a major role in fielding Maithripala Sirisena as a common opposition candidate in 2015. Sirisena was committed to abolishing the executive presidency running against then President Mahinda Rajapaksa who, abolishing the constitutional two-term limit on the presidency, unsuccessfully sought a third term for himself. Ven. Sobhitha’s untimely death undoubtedly enabled Sirisena to welsh on his promise of abolishing the executive presidency.

Among those who have recently held that office, Gotabaya Rajapksa, despite the ignominy of the manner of his exit, stands out as the only president who did not promise to abolish that office. Mahinda Rajapaksa did so in 2005. Chandrika Kumaratunga who talked of a bahubootha constitution came closest to getting rid of the office in 2000 but her attempt to retain transitional provisions in a new constitution retaining executive powers for herself until the end of her term resulted in that effort being aborted.

With the presidential election approaching at the end of this year, Karu Jayasuriya has once again brought up the question of abolishing the executive presidency. In a recent statement he said: “The NMSJ has been conducting discussions with social groups across the country. Based on the views expressed in those discussions, it is understandable that there is a widespread opinion among the people that the executive presidency should be abolished. Therefore the prospective candidates in the upcoming presidential election should state their positions regarding the abolition of the presidential system in their election manifestos. Those who promise to abolish it should also state the timeline for fulfilling it.”

With the clock ticking and the election drawing nearer, the matter of the abolition of the executive presidency seems to be a non-issue at this particular moment. Whether it will remain so further down the road or surface once again is an open question. President J.R. Jayewardene was not elected for his first term as president. As is well known, he scored a landslide five sixths parliamentary majority in the 1977 general election under the first-past-the-post Westminster-style election, became prime minister and thereafter created the executive presidency deeming himself the first executive president.

He was elected president for the first time only in October 1982. Thereafter, he extended his massive parliamentary majority for a further term through what is widely perceived, though not conclusively proved, as a rigged referendum. He purportedly obtained the people’s consent for a further term, without an election, for the incumbent parliament to retain his 1977 majority. It has been argued that the concentration of power in an executive presidency enabled the defeat of the LTTE after a near 30-year civil war but these are imponderables that could forever be debated.

Karu Jayasuriya’s NMSJ is not a political party. It is an influential social movement led by a trusted retired politician who has acquitted himself well in various elected and unelected positions including cabinet minister, mayor of Colombo, ambassador to Germany, business leader and, early in his career, a voluntary military officer. Whether NMSJ has the muscle to get the various presidential candidates who will run later this year to declare, with a time-frame, in their manifestos their stance on abolishing the executive presidency is something that remains to be seen.

The aragalaya demanded “system change.” Although it achieved the ouster of the Rajapaksas from the heights of power, there was no system change. What it created was the paradox of Ranil Wickremesinghe, who led the UNP to a zero seat defeat in August 2020 being first appointed prime minister and then president by a president on the run. RW who returned to the legislature on the UNP’s single national list seat, no doubt, has established more than a semblance of normalcy and hopes to be elected president on the back of this performance. Abolishing the executive presidency is not a part of his present agenda although the subject had been perfunctorily discussed.

The incumbent is busy cobbling a broad alliance on the back of which he hopes to be elected. The principal contenders are not likely to include the abolition of the executive presidency in their manifestos whatever NMSJ requests. The top priority of the electorate will be setting the economy right and easing the cost of living. Other things, most voters are likely to feel, can come later.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Reform imbroglio

Published

on

Friday 9th January, 2026

The SJB-led Opposition is in overdrive to move a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, for numerous shortcomings in the government’s education reforms, including content deemed unsuitable for children, flaws in modules, etc. The Opposition’s move is bound to fail in Parliament, where the government commands a two-thirds majority. But a debate on the no-confidence motion will provide the Opposition with an opportunity to gain some propaganda mileage at the expense of the JVP-led NPP, and the Prime Minister. Therefore, speculation is rampant that the government will do everything in its power to scuttle the Opposition’s no-faith motion. The JVP/NPP does not scruple to violate parliamentary traditions and Standing Orders when it has to defend its interests. The deplorable manner in which it prevented the Opposition from moving a no-confidence motion against Deputy Minister of Defence Aruna Jayasekera over some matters related to the Easter Sunday terror strikes is a case in point.

The general consensus is that education reforms are long overdue. However, reforming the education system is a very intricate task that has to be carried out carefully with the help of all key stakeholders. Intoxicated with power, the NPP government has blundered by rushing headlong to prepare an education reform package and trying to shove it down the throats of other stakeholders, triggering a backlash.

It has now been revealed that most of the modules prepared hurriedly under the current education reform programme contain flaws. But the government has declared that it will forge ahead no matter what. The arrogance of power blinds governments to reality. Supermajorities are jinxed in this country; they drive governments to perform dangerous high-wire acts without safety nets and suffer falls. Secretary of the Workers’ Struggle Centre Duminda Nagamuwa has aptly likened the NPP’s education reform programme to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s disastrous organic farming experiment which contributed to the downfall of the SLPP government.

A group of representatives of several education sector trade unions and professional associations, at a press briefing in Colombo, yesterday, pointed out numerous flaws in the NPP’s education reforms. They also said the government had not provided schools with facilities needed for the implementation of the education reforms. General Secretary of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union Joseph Stalin claimed that some schools were collecting money from students to buy smart boards, etc. The soaring cost of living has left most parents struggling to make ends meet. They cannot cough up any more money for their children’s education. Therefore, the government must put an end to the practice of schools raising funds at the expense of parents.

The critics of the controversial education reforms have called upon President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to direct PM Amarasuriya to abandon them. They are labouring under the misconception that President Dissanayake is not responsible for the education reforms at issue, and the blame for them should be laid solely at PM Amarasuriya’s doorstep. What they should bear in mind is that the controversial education reform package carries the imprimatur of President Dissanayake, who has been defending it to the hilt both in and outside Parliament. One may recall that in July 2025, taking part in a parliamentary debate, President Dissanayake waxed eloquent, endorsing the education reforms; he said no one could be satisfied with the current education system, the young generation it had produced, or the economy it has fostered. “Therefore, we urgently need comprehensive education reform. The proposed education reform is not merely limited to curriculum revision but will simultaneously elevate both the social and economic spheres of the country.”

Interestingly, both the opponents and proponents of the education reforms have concocted conspiracy theories. In response to the government’s claim of a conspiracy behind the campaign against the education reforms, the SBJ has argued that the conspirators may be some JVPers trying to smoke out PM Amarasuriya so that one of them could secure the premiership. If so, isn’t the SJB giving a boost to their campaign by singling out the PM for attack and moving a no-faith motion against her?

The only way the government can pull itself out of the current imbroglio is to put its education reform package on hold without delay and bring the key stakeholders to the table for a serious discussion.

Continue Reading

Editorial

The strange case of Sara Jasmine

Published

on

Thursday 8th January, 2026

The JVP/NPP leaders seem to have forgotten that serving justice for the Easter Sunday terror victims was a central plank of their election platform in 2024. They delivered thunderous speeches replete with theatrics at election rallies, condemning the previous governments for their failure to trace the masterminds behind the Easter Sunday carnage. They garnered favour with the families of the Easter Sunday carnage victims and other seekers of justice to win elections. Sadly, a fresh probe, launched into the Easter Sunday terror attacks, following the 2024 regime change, has been relegated to the back burner for all intents and purposes, and the government leaders have the audacity to give evasive answers when they are questioned on vital issues pertaining to the investigations into the Easter Sunday terror attacks. What transpired in Parliament yesterday is a case in point.

SJB MP Nizam Kariapper asked Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. (retd.) Aruna Jayasekera why four military intelligence officers who served under the latter when he was the Security Forces Commander in the Eastern Province, in 2019, had not been arrested and grilled in connection with the Easter Sunday terror attacks although the police had identified them as suspects. Jayasekera said he would not answer that question as investigations were still on. SJB MP Mujibur Rahman asked Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala a question about Sara Jasmine or Pulasthini Mahendran, the widow of Mohammed Hashtun, who carried out a suicide bomb attack on St. Sebastian’s Church in Katuwapitiya in 2019. Claiming that she had fled to India and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa himself had vouched for that fact when he was in the Opposition, Rahman demanded to know why the government had neither obtained an arrest warrant for her nor taken up the issue of her escape to India with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indian Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. Minister Wijepala’s reply was that there was no conclusive evidence that Sara had fled to India and a warrant would be obtained, if necessary.

MP Rahman’s claim about Dr. Jayatissa’s averment that Sara fled to India should be viewed against a very serious allegation made by Dr. Jayatissa, as a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed the Easter Sunday carnage. In an interview with BBC in 2019, Dr. Jayatissa declared that according to ‘investigative evidence’ he was privy to, India had been behind the Easter Sunday terror attacks. So, why the NPP government has not taken up the issue of Sara’s disappearance with India is the question. Minister Wijepala’s claim that there is no credible evidence to prove that Sara is in India is not convincing. Is the NPP government wary of taking up that issue with New Delhi lest it should antagonise the Indian leaders?

The incumbent government cannot be expected to allow the aforesaid four military intelligence officers to be arrested or even questioned as it does not want to open a can of worms. There is a clear case of conflict of interest where those intelligence operatives and Jayasekera are concerned. The same is true of Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, retired SDIG Ravi Seneviratne, and CID Director, retired SSP Shani Abeysekera. The CID, which was under Seneviratne and Abeysekera in 2019, has come under fire for its failure to prevent the Easter Sunday terror attacks and properly investigate terrorist activities in the Eastern Province, particularly the execution-style killing of two policemen in Vavunathivu, a few months before the carnage. The conflict of interest at issue has had a corrosive effect on the integrity of ongoing investigations into the Easter Sunday attacks.

It is imperative that a serious effort be made to arrest Sara, who was privy to the inner workings of the National Thowheed Jamaath, which carried out the Easter Sunday attacks, and therefore can reveal who actually masterminded the carnage. After all, the JVP/NPP leaders pledged to unravel the truth about the Easter Sunday bombings swiftly and have justice served expeditiously.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Workers’ fund under political gaze

Published

on

Wednesday 7th January, 2026

The lessons of history often go unlearnt in Sri Lankan politics, defined by policy contradictions and about-turns. The NPP government is planning to relaunch a risky mission that a powerful regime once had to abandon for fear of a backlash. Yesterday, Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe told Parliament that the NPP government had given thought to introducing a pension scheme for the private sector workers because the current lump-sum Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) payments did not help achieve the desired social security goals. The government apparently had him send a trial balloon in the House. Going by what he outlined, the NPP government’s private sector pension plan is similar to the one that President Mahinda Rajapaksa unveiled in Budget 2011 and made an abortive attempt to implement.

Presenting Budget 2011, President Rajapaksa revealed his intention to set up what he described as an Employees’ Pension Fund, which curiously had the same initialism—EPF—as the Employees’ Provident Fund. He proposed contributions from employees and employers to the fund to be set up.

Every employer would be required to transfer gratuity payments to the proposed pension fund, President Rajapaksa said, noting that employees too would have to contribute two percent of their pension fund balance to be withdrawn; a private sector worker would have to contribute to the pension fund for a minimum of 10 years to qualify for a pension, and the fund would be managed by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank.

The Rajapaksa government was planning to steamroller the Private Sector Pension Bill through Parliament in June 2011 to provide post-retirement monthly pension benefits to employees in the private and corporate sectors. A major point of contention was a provision that would have helped convert a portion of the Employees’ Provident Fund savings, paid as a lump sum upon retirement, into a monthly pension, effectively eliminating a significant part of the lump-sum payment option.

In an editorial comment on Budget 2011, we argued that the Rajapaksa government was playing with fire, and any attempt to implement the private sector pension scheme at the expense of the EPF or part of it would run into stiff resistance from workers. Intoxicated with power and impervious to reason, that regime tried to bulldoze its way through. Trade unions opposed the Bill tooth and nail, claiming that it aimed to end EPF lump-sum payments in respect of a portion of the accumulated funds, and replace it with a monthly pension starting at age 60, irrespective of the actual retirement age. An employee retiring at the age of 55 would have to wait five years to receive any benefits from that portion of his or her savings, the warring trade unionists argued, expressing concerns about those disadvantages and a lack of transparency about how the funds would be managed. The JVP was among the opponents of that controversial Bill. It was widely feared that the Rajapaksa government intended to use the large EPF asset base for other purposes.

The Rajapaksa government used force in a bid to overcome resistance, but in vain. In June 2011, mass protests erupted and a violent clash at the Katunayake Free Trade Zone, resulted in the death of a worker and forced the Rajapaksa government to suspend and eventually withdraw the ill-conceived Bill. The Rajapaksa regime accused the JVP of instigating violent protests against the Bill to advance a sinister political agenda. The withdrawal of the Bill helped bring the situation under control.

Ironically, the incumbent NPP government is trying to do what its main constituent, the JVP, together with workers, other Opposition parties and trade unions vehemently condemned the Rajapaksa administration for, about 15 years ago. Those who fail to learn from history are said to be doomed to repeat it.

Continue Reading

Trending