Connect with us


Duel with Dual Citizenship



The 20A almost failed to get passed through because President Gotabaya wanted the ban on dual citizens holding the highest offices binned. A worry that was not there before the 19A has now become a passionate concern.

Interestingly, the very people who opposed the 20A (from the Government side) were the very ones who wanted Gotabaya Rajapaksa as Sri Lanka’s President. When he was persuaded to run for presidency he was a dual citizen. Throughout the presidential campaign he was a dual citizen. He only renounced his US citizenship just a few months before the elections.

Yet, his dual citizenship was not a concern to any who supported his ascent to presidency. His opposition – the Yahapalana Government, certainly tried their level best to use Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s dual citizenship against him. This was laughable and only served to discredit them further.

Hypocrisy and Vindictive Politics

After all, having appointed a foreigner as the Central Bank Governor, their worry over a dual citizen cannot be taken seriously. The Yahapalana Government on blind faith co-sponsored the UNHRC Resolution against Sri Lanka. After thus caving into US pressure so treacherously, to anticipate such a move from Gotabaya Rajapaksa was hypocritical. The Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration risked antagonizing our neighbour by politely sitting on the ECTA. The Yahapalana Government, on the other hand, signed with flourish an FTA with Singapore that spelt doom for our trade, industries and manpower.

Clearly, the Yahapalana Government’s concerns over dual citizenship were not genuine. The sole objective was to prevent two of the Rajapaksa brothers from contesting at the presidential elections. This is the point that President Gotabaya directed the attention of his MPs and clergy. He noted that the clause on dual citizenship stemmed from vindictiveness. Therefore, the principle on which this is based on is unacceptable and on that basis the clause needs to be rejected.

However, he assured, at the ongoing exercise of making the new constitution, genuine concerns over dual citizenship can be revisited and the ban can be re-imposed. Clearly, no one in the Government could reject this irrefutable logic and so supported the 20A.

Now that the Government MPs have supported the 20A with the intention of repelling this clause from the new constitution, they have an important task ahead of them. That is, to genuinely analyze the real reason to oppose dual citizens in high offices. The clause was removed because the principle in which it was introduced was corrupt. Then, they cannot re-introduce it on a corrupt principle of their own. That is, their decision cannot be influenced by the effect this would have on Basil Rajapaksa.

Pros and Cons of Dual Citizens

Many unfairly equate dual citizens to the Tamil Diaspora. While some of the Tamil Diaspora may be dual citizens, not all dual citizens are part of the Tamil Diaspora. Therefore, to take a decision on a whole group based on the reservations against some in that group is wrong.

On the whole, one million Sri Lankan expatriates (in which group a subset are dual citizens) remit USD 7 billion annually. As was pointed out by an FB post, when we travel overseas, Sri Lankan expatriates (who may hold dual citizenship) host and save us from food and lodging expenses. Sometimes they even chauffeur us around, saving us from our transport expenses. They send us fancy goods or essential items not available in Sri Lanka. They also fight in our stead with their host governments.

Furthermore, the Yahapalana era attests to the frightening aspect that the physical presence of the Tamil Diaspora is not needed to carry out its separatist agenda in Sri Lanka. Therefore, simply banning dual citizens from becoming leaders or decision-makers alone is not enough. We need to include the matter of foreign funding and influence into this debate.

In the US, it is not enough to be a citizen to hold a high office like the presidency. One must be born in that country as well. However, our best brains are draining out of SL to end up in the US. So, naturally the US can be picky where as it is not clear if SL can afford the same luxury.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a case in point. Certainly he became the Defense Secretary because his big brother was the then President. However, nepotism may secure the job but keeping the job is up to the individual. Gotabaya Rajapaksa not only justified the appointment by defeating the LTTE, but also proved himself as an administrator with a vision with his urban development projects. Today he is the President of SL all on his own merit.

The bottom line is, as a Colonel Gotabaya Rajapaksa outperformed the Generals in the same Army he served. The Generals before Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Administration too received political support to defeat the LTTE. Gotabaya Rajapaksa as Defense Secretary managed to convince President Mahinda that Sri Lanka was on the winning path. Had he failed, then the political will of that administration too would have waned.

In the 10 years in the US, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was in an environment where he met intellectuals and academics from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds on a daily basis. Coupled with the Sri Lankan Army’s “nothing is impossible” motto, he had developed an attitude to think “outside the box” (a phrase he uses frequently).

It is clear that an outstanding officer had returned home as an exceptional human being. He is however not an isolated case. Many Sri Lankans returning home have undergone this transformation.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that as dual citizens these individuals have pledged their allegiance to another country. Interestingly, as natives we have never pledged a similar allegiance to our own country. This natural bond one forms with his birth country that defines him and his loyalty to his adopted country that caters to his comforts would be a very difficult one to gauge.

Loyalty is one that can only be proven with action and time and can be fickle at the most unexpected moment. This makes the question of loyalty so serious and significant that it pales all pros of a dual citizen. Decisions of leaders affect the whole nation. Therefore, we must be without a reasonable doubt on the integrity of prospective candidates – whether they be dual citizens or not. In the question of dual citizenship, however, it is important that our leaders and decision makers should not have an escape route from the effects of their own decisions.

It is thus hoped that our own lawmakers, intellectuals, academics and other analysts and opinion-makers would initiate this debate in earnest. It would of course help the country that if this debate was engaged with an open mind. If the participants enter the debate with a preconceived opinion, and interpret facts from that perspective then this would become a lost cause.





Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


An easily preventable ‘road accident’



A few days ago, a young university lady lecturer was run over by a lorry at the Wickramasinghe Pura junction, Battaramulla. She was using a phone call while crossing the road. She was distracted by the call and lost sight of the moving traffic at this dangerous junction. She paid for her mistake with her precious young life.

It is common to see women and young working girls on roads, holding phones to their ears. This has almost become a fashion.If using a phone while driving a vehicle is an offence, it is difficult to see why it is not an offence to use a phone while walking along the busy streets full of untrained drivers and undisciplined riders?

As for the other causes of the aforesaid fatal accident, of what use is the invisible traffic light installed at the badly designed junction which is meant only to control traffic moving along the main road. It fails to warn the undisciplined drivers coming down from Wickramasinghe Pura. There is no light to control their entry into the main road.

The writer who lives in the area has faced many bad experiences at this spot mainly caused by drivers coming down Wickramasinghe Pura, failing to give way to vehicles on the right on the main road. The steep gradient of this road adds more to this problem.

Eng. Anton Nanayakkara

Continue Reading


Beware of ides of March



A JVP protest against ETCA. (File photo)

The Sri Lankan government is getting ready to sign ETCA (Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement) with India amidst stiff resistance from the members of the professional groups who consider it as an open invitation to India to exploit the weak Sri Lankan economy as well as the Sri Lankans who are in an unenviable situation.

At a recent discussion on the deliberations on international trade agreements, one professional pointed out that the subject of trade agreements in Sri Lanka was managed only by one senior official of the Sri Lankan government. In all other countries, the subject of international trade agreements is discussed and determined by a group of highly-skilled professionals, who look into many aspects such as international trading practices, local imports and exports, the impact on the local population, employment, other local resources, economic trends. Social mobility of the local population, social aspirations of the population are some areas which should receive clinical evaluation from the professionals who investigate the subject of international trade agreements. Do we conduct such in-depth studies before committing ourselves to vital pacts with powerful nations like India, indefinitely? If so, Sri Lankans would be eager to get feedback from the Sri Lankan government about the feasibility of ETCA.

The CEPA (Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement), which was rejected by many of the professional bodies as well as trade unions, was withdrawn by the then government. It was a step in the right direction. But ETCA, which we expect to be more comprehensive in all aspects and have a bigger impact, is going to be approved and implemented by the present government. When facing India’s rulers and formidable officialdom, Sri Lanka, as a country which has burrowed substantial amounts of money on account of the recent crisis, has little bargaining power.

It is morally wrong for the government to place the country in such a perilous situation. How can a small nation be expected to stand firm and take the right decisions unfavourable to powerful and strong India even regarding matters which will have destructive repercussions on the economy and the people of Sri Lanka?

Sri Lankan government led by President Ranil Wickremasinghe and the SLPP MPs should postpone the signing of the ECTA and open discussions with the professional groups, trade unions and interested political and social organisations about the details of the ETCA in the month of March and listen and amend the agreement suitably or reject it.

Ranjith Soysa 

Continue Reading


A tale of two taxes and political duplicity



By Taxpayer

Rishi Sunak, a British politician of Indian descent and the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, recently disclosed his personal tax returns, revealing he and his wife, Akshata Murty, paid over 500,000 pounds sterling in taxes last year. This hefty sum has sparked public debate, drawing comparisons to the dire economic situation unfolding all over the world. It has particular relevance to us in the so-called “Wonder of Asia”, where citizens battle crippling inflation, intolerable cost of living, shortages of essentials and unbearable taxation. While on the surface, these appear as separate issues, a closer examination reveals deeper complexities and major underlying questions about wealth, fairness, equity, and the role of leadership in navigating economic distress in this paradise isle.

Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty, the daughter of an Indian billionaire, have been subject to intense scrutiny regarding their considerable wealth and tax contributions. Despite Murty’s substantial inheritance, Rishi Sunak has been forthright about the couple’s tax payments, emphasizing their commitment to fulfilling their fiscal obligations. In an era where tax avoidance and evasion among the wealthy are hot-button issues, especially in our wonderful Motherland, Sunak’s openness about his tax affairs has garnered both praise and criticism.

Sunak’s admirable efforts at releasing his tax returns is a welcome step, offering some insight into his personal finances amidst widespread concerns about his wealth and potential conflicts of interest in the performance of his duties as a politician. Most importantly, his significant tax contribution demonstrates compliance with the law and highlights his personal financial attributes in a see-through manner. However, critics argue that focusing solely on the total amount ignores the underlying details.

A large portion of their income came from capital gains, taxed at a lower rate than income tax. Additionally, Murty’s non-domiciled status in the UK meant she initially avoided paying taxes on foreign earnings, but later opted to pay UK tax on all her worldwide income, mainly to quell public criticism. These nuances leave some people questioning the true fairness of their tax liabilities, particularly when compared to the average UK taxpayer.

Sri Lanka’s economic woes are starkly different amidst the worst-ever financial crisis. These issues have caused immense hardship for ordinary citizens, with many struggling to be able to afford even the basic necessities. The government, grappling with mounting debt and dwindling reserves, has been forced to impose austerity measures and seek international assistance. The situation stands in unadulterated contrast to Sunak’s personal finances, highlighting the vast disparities in economic realities between wealthy individuals and nations facing financial peril.

While comparing Sunak’s tax bill directly to Sri Lanka’s national debt is impossible, the situations raise crucial questions about equity and leadership. In Sri Lanka, public anger simmered over perceived mismanagement and corruption, leading to protests in the form of the so-called “aragalaya”, and calls for accountability and system change. In the UK too, concerns remain about the fairness of the tax system and the ability of the wealthy to navigate it differently. While Sunak has implemented policies aimed at alleviating the cost-of-living crises, some argue that they are insufficient, particularly for the most vulnerable.

Ultimately, the situations in the UK and Sri Lanka, though seemingly disparate, offer valuable lessons in navigating economic complexities. While praising Sunak’s transparency is important, it should not distract from addressing systemic issues within the UK tax system. Simultaneously, international cooperation and support are crucial to help Sri Lanka emerge from its crisis. Building bridges through responsible leadership, equitable tax policies, and international solidarity are essential steps towards a more just and sustainable future for all.

In recent years, discussions surrounding the tax contributions of public figures have become increasingly prominent, in many areas of the world and most certainly in this emerald isle as well. The spotlight often falls on politicians and high-profile individuals, scrutinizing their financial practices and contributions to the public coffers. Sunak’s openness about his tax affairs contrasts sharply with the opaque and dastardly practices of many politicians in Sri Lanka, where hidden incomes and tax evasion are rampant.

It is a well-known open secret that Sri Lankan politicians engage in dubious financial practices to conceal their wealth and evade taxes with a perfect and unwavering blind eye being turned on these miscreants by the authorities. The suspicions of exorbitant wealth hidden, in the country as well as abroad, by Sri Lankan politicians further exacerbates the sense of injustice and inequality prevailing in the country. The issue of tax evasion and hidden incomes among Sri Lankan politicians is not merely a matter of financial impropriety but also a reflection of the broader governance disparities facing the nation. Despite numerous anti-corruption measures and pledges by successive governments to combat graft and sleaze, progress remains elusive.

High-ranking political stooge types of officials continue to amass wealth through illicit means, shielded by a culture of impunity and weak enforcement mechanisms. One of the primary reasons for the persistence of tax evasion and hidden incomes among Sri Lankan politicians is the lack of accountability and transparency which is inherent in the country’s political system. The absence of robust oversight mechanisms allows corrupt individuals to operate with a licence of safety for the ability to shield their ill-gotten gains and filthy lucre from public scrutiny. Furthermore, the close ties between political elites and business interests facilitate the siphoning of public funds and the accumulation of wealth at the expense of ordinary citizens.

In contrast to the opacity and corruption prevalent in Sri Lanka’s political landscape, Rishi Sunak’s example underscores the importance of transparency and integrity in public office. As the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Rishi Sunak has not only tried hard to manage the UK’s finances responsibly but has also demonstrated a commitment to openness regarding his personal wealth and tax contributions. By setting a positive example of accountability, Sunak highlights the contrast between responsible governance and the entrenched corruption plaguing many developing nations, the topmost position of which is occupied by our Pearl in the Indian Ocean.

Addressing the issue of tax evasion and hidden incomes among Sri Lankan politicians and their stooges as well as their goons, requires a multifaceted approach encompassing legal reforms, institutional strengthening, and greater transparency. Legislative measures must be enacted to close loopholes and strengthen anti-corruption laws, ensuring that those who engage in illicit financial activities face extremely severe consequences. Additionally, independent oversight bodies should be empowered to investigate allegations of corruption and hold perpetrators accountable, aiming to put the perpetrators behind bars.

The stark disparity between Sunak’s tax transparency and the deplorable state of Sri Lankan politicians trying hard to hide their unholy incomes, underscore the urgent need for reforms within the latter. Sri Lanka’s endemic corruption and tax evasion perpetuate iniquity as well as inequality, undermine trust in democratic institutions, and hinder economic progress. Only through concerted efforts to promote honesty, transparency, accountability, and good governance can Sri Lanka hope to address these systemic challenges and fulfil its potential as a prosperous and equitable society. We cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel as there is no guarantee that even if there is a drastic political change, the newer strains of politicians would go hell for leather to put the perpetrators behind bars through our legal system.

It was Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, who famously said: “Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” Sri Lankan politicians are no different at all; they are as bad as the rest of them in the whole wide world. Yet for all that, be rest assured, people of this country, that the Sri Lankan law-makers will never take any meaningful steps to punish other politicians of their own clan or even those belonging to other parties of various hues, even when they are well-known to be corrupt. The operative axiom is “you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours.” If we anticipate any restorative action at all to be taken in redressing corruption and tax evasion by successive generations of Sri Lankan politicians, it is likely to be an elusive expectation of monumental proportions.

Continue Reading