Editorial
Elephant in the room gets spotted
Wednesday 7th April, 2021
Never a dull day in Sri Lanka, where controversies crop up so rapidly that nobody can keep track of them. The latest issue is the government’s contention that the removal of Chief Justice (CJ) Mohan Peiris, in January 2015, was unconstitutional. Justice Minister Ali Sabry himself said so in answer to a question raised by a government MP, in Parliament, on Monday. He promised to take remedial action after consulting Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. Why has this issue been catapulted to centre stage all of a sudden?
It is being argued in some quarters that the ruling party propagandists engineer controversies, from time to time, to prevent their opponents from flogging an issue hard and long enough to turn public opinion against the government.
It is a supreme irony that Mahinda Rajapaksa, under whose presidency Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was removed as CJ in 2013 amidst protests and Mohan Peiris appointed to that post, and Maithripala Sirisena, who used his presidential powers in 2015 to defenestrate Peiris and reinstate Bandaranayake as the CJ, are now together in the SLPP coalition. One may recall that Sirisena, as a senior member of the Rajapaksa Cabinet voted for the impeachment of Dr. Bandaranayake, in Parliament.
Opinion is divided on the removal of CJ Bandaranayake. The Rajapaksa government should have refrained from resorting to such a course of action for the sake of democracy, which is underpinned by the principle of separation of powers. Intoxicated with power, it was no respecter of democracy.
The UNP’s arguments against the impeachment of CJ Bandaranayake were compelling; the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), which probed her, refused to allow her witnesses and failed to specify what the due process was. Most of all, the UNP said the Rajapaksa government had bungled its impeachment project; the resolution passed in a hurry to impeach the CJ sought and secured parliamentary approval for the appointment of the PSC, which probed her; it did not specifically seek approval for her removal, according to the Order Paper, the then UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella told the House.
But if the impeachment process had been flawed and the removal of CJ Bandaranayake wrong, as argued by the UNP and some legal experts, a proper way to right the wrong would have been for President Sirisena to have Parliament undo what it had done. The yahapalana government, which mustered a two-thirds majority for the 19th Amendment, could have accomplished that task easily. Instead, President Sirisena chose to override Parliament. Sadly, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka egged him on to do what he did, unmindful of the politico-legal consequences of his arbitrary action.
President Sirisena’s line of reasoning was that Dr. Bandaranayake had been removed from office wrongfully in January 2013, and the post of CJ had therefore not fallen vacant. He declared the appointment of Peiris as the CJ null and void ab initio, and reinstated Dr. Bandaranayake, who retired soon afterwards. Sri Lanka had three CJs on three consecutive days—Peiris, Bandaranayake and her successor K. Sripavan!
A person has recently been arrested for posing as a President’s Counsel. But, strangely, the yahapalana government, which claimed that Peiris had functioned as the CJ ‘illegally’ and removed him unceremoniously, stopped short of taking any action against him for having been in that post for two years. If it is true that his appointment was invalid, as Sirisena and the UNP claimed, then it follows therefrom that everything he did as the CJ lacked legality. Peiris drew the CJ’s salary, enjoyed the perks of office, functioned as the Chairman of the Judges’ Institute of Sri Lanka, heard cases, gave judgments and signed vital documents. Why didn’t the yahapalana government take any action against Peiris and/or the person who appointed him CJ? Sirisena and his erstwhile yahapalana chums owe an explanation.
Interestingly, the implication of Justice Minister Sabry’s statement at issue is that Sirisena, as the President, violated the Constitution by removing CJ Peiris. If so, action will have to be taken against Sirisena. The SLPP ought to explain why it is keeping Sirisena within its ranks.
If the current Parliament resolves that the government’s contention that the removal of CJ Peiris, in January 2015, was unconstitutional is valid, then it will follow from such a resolution that the reinstatement of Dr. Bandaranayake as the CJ in January 2015 was not legal, and, worse, doubts may even be cast on the legality of the appointment of her successor as well in that if Peiris had not been removed, his term would not have come to an end in mid-January 2015. It will be interesting to see how legal luminaries look at this issue.
One need not be surprised if the government does not proceed beyond the Justice Minister’s statement on the removal of CJ Peiris. Troubled by many problems including intraparty rivalries and clashes and the prospect of the SLFP breaking away in case of action being taken against Sirisena over his failure in 2019, as the President, to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks, the government obviously does not need another issue to contend with.
Editorial
From ‘traitors’ to ‘racists’
Saturday 7th December, 2024
The Rajapaksa governments used labels such as ‘traitor’ and ‘terror sympathiser’ to vilify their political opponents. They effectively created a bogey to rally support for their repressive actions, on the pretext of protecting national security, which they made out to be their raison d’etre. They succeeded in marketing their brand of patriotism to retain their hold on power and go on enriching themselves until they bankrupted the economy, provoking the public into rising against them. Most of those who voted for them became so frustrated in the end that they switched their allegiance to the JVP-led NPP, enabling its mammoth electoral wins.
The NPP government has moved to the other extreme. It promptly dubs those who flag potential threats to national security as ‘racists’ and enemies of ethnic reconciliation in a bid to prevent its opponents from criticizing its policies and actions aimed at consolidating its electoral gains in the North and the East. Several persons have already been arrested over what the government calls the dissemination of false information to promote racial disharmony and derail its reconciliation efforts. The CID has gone to the extent of using the much-dreaded Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which the NPP bigwigs condemned during their opposition days, to deal with some social media activists who have highlighted a recent commemoration of slain LTTE members, including Velupillai Prabhakaran. It is a case of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
Thankfully, the draconian police action against the aforesaid suspects has not passed muster with the judiciary. When some of them were arrested and produced in court, recently, Colombo Chief Magistrate Thilana Gamage pointed out that the CID should have taken action against the organisers of the commemorations at issue rather than those who reported on them. The suspects were released on bail. On Thursday, Colombo Additional Magistrate Manjula Ratnayake likened such police action to shooting the messenger, when the CID produced in court another person arrested for using social media to highlight the commemoration of dead LTTE members. That suspect was also granted bail.
If anyone abuses social media to incite racial hatred and disseminate misinformation to disrupt social order by destabilising ethno-religious relations and instigating violence, he or she must be severely dealt with, according to the law. But that task does not require the invocation of the PTA; there are enough and more other laws that can be used for that purpose. Above all, arrests must not be politically motivated, and the police must not provide their service to the politicians in power as stormtroopers or hunting Mastiffs on the pretext of bringing ‘the enemies of national reconciliation’ to justice. They must desist from making arrests at the behest of politicians. Many police high rankers unashamedly did political work for previous governments so much so that one wondered whether they had sold their souls to the rulers of the day, such as the Rajapaksa brothers, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena. Worryingly, some of those puppets in uniform are occupying key positions in the Police Department and serving the interests of the incumbent government. No wonder they swoop on the critics of their current political masters at the drop of a hat.
The Rajapaksas realised that they had failed to fool all the people all the time, only when they had to head for the hills, with angry mobs in close pursuit, after bankrupting the country. Their method of labelling and vilifying their political opponents came with a short sell-by date. It will be a huge mistake for the JVP/NPP leaders not to learn from the dreadful experience of the Rajapaksas. Demonising political rivals is no substitute for effective governance and fulfilling promises.
Editorial
Mega crises and ad hoc remedies
Friday 6th December, 2024
Sri Lanka is facing a severe rice shortage, and the situation is bound to take a turn for the worse unless remedial action is taken forthwith. The country has produced enough paddy, according to the Department of Agriculture, and the government itself has said there are sufficient stocks of paddy! If so, why has a rice shortage occurred?
Minister of Trade and Commerce, Food Security and Cooperative Development Wasantha Samarasinghe told Parliament on Wednesday that rice millers had agreed to release 200,000 kilos of rice daily to be sold at the maximum retail price (Rs. 220 a kilo) through the Sathosa retail outlets. Implying that all necessary action had been taken to break the back of the rice crisis, Samarasinghe claimed that a banking issue that had prevented millers from increasing the amount of rice released to the market had been sorted out with a presidential intervention. He should have revealed what that issue was. The NPP leaders are beginning to sound like apologists for the powerful millers, just as their predecessors did.
Sathosa has only 443 retail outlets countrywide, and obviously they cannot cater to more than 22 million people belonging to about 5.1 million families. The Ministry of Agriculture informs us that Sri Lanka’s daily rice consumption is about 6,500 MT and the amount of rice the millers have reportedly offered to release a day is woefully inadequate to meet the demand for rice.
The harebrained manner in which successive governments have sought to tackle the rice issue exemplifies a local saying; what they have been doing is ‘like using a loincloth to control dysentery’.
The government says it has decided to lift restrictions on rice imports temporarily and the State Trading Corporation and Sathosa will import 70,000 MT of rice urgently. When imported rice stocks will arrive here is anyone’s guess, and the possibility of private importers colluding to keep the price of imported rice artificially high cannot be ruled out; the paucity of regulations as well as the impotence of governments and the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) allows anti-competitive practices to thrive at the expense of consumers.
In October 2024, addressing an NPP election rally in Polonnaruwa, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake declared that there were sufficient stocks of rice in the country and ruled out the possibility of importing rice. A senior economist attached to the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, reportedly informed President Dissanayake at a meeting, in October, that the country had sufficient rice stocks, according to the Agriculture Department database, and there was no need for rice imports. He brought to the notice of the President that rice shortages occurred whenever millers were asked to adhere to the prices stipulated by the CAA. Minister Samarasinghe and NPP MP and National Organiser of the All Ceylon Farmers’ Federation, Namal Karunaratne, have also confirmed that the country has sufficient rice stocks. Thus, it is clear that the large-scale millers have created an artificial shortage of rice to jack up prices.
On listening to President Dissanayake and other NPP stalwarts during their election campaigns, people must have expected them to get tough with the millers, after forming a government, and ensure that the interests of consumers and farmers would prevail. But the action they have taken to solve the rice crisis is anything but tough. The President’s recent meeting with a group of powerful rice millers responsible for market manipulations looked like a convivial confab.
When rice imports get underway, the large-scale millers usually release more rice to the market, as we have seen over the years, and imported rice remains unsold as Sri Lankans prefer local rice varieties. Most of all, changes in market dynamics cause paddy prices to fall during harvesting periods much to the detriment of farmers’ interests. Millers laugh all the way to the bank. Everything possible must be done to prevent unsold imported rice stocks from ending up as animal feed.
The government must summon courage to grasp the nettle if it is genuinely desirous of safeguarding the interests of rice consumers and paddy farmers. Ad hoc remedies and mere rhetoric won’t do.
Editorial
Agents provocateurs?
Thursday 5th December, 2024
Monday’s police attack on a group of Development Officers (DOs), who are attached to state-run schools as teachers, during a protest near the Education Ministry, Battaramulla, has given the public a foretaste of what is to come. Governments in this country readily go to any extent to safeguard their interests and nip protests in the bud to prevent them from snowballing. Only President Gotabaya Rajapaksa chose to handle protests differently; he even designated an area near the Presidential Secretariat for agitations. His strategy backfired; the Galle Face Green became the cradle of an uprising that led to his ouster. The SLPP-UNP regime under Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency went on the offensive and had protests crushed in the most brutal manner; in most cases, riot police personnel outnumbered protesters! The incumbent dispensation has apparently taken a leaf out of Wickremesinghe’s book in handling protests.
The DOs on the warpath are demanding that they be absorbed into the teacher service immediately. The government claims that they protested while a discussion was in progress in the Education Ministry on how to solve their problems, and the police moved in to maintain order. The protesting DOs, most of whom are believed to be NPP sympathisers, may have thought that they would be able to crank up pressure on ‘their government’ to redress their grievances expeditiously, without being roughed up by the police.
The JVP-led NPP government, whose leaders used to shed copious tears for protesters and take up the cudgels for trade union rights, has faulted the DOs for having staged what they call an unnecessary protest; it has sought to absolve itself of the blame for the police action at issue. General Secretary of Ceylon Teachers’ Union, Joseph Stalin, who took on previous governments with might and main, to the extent of crippling schools with trade union action, to win teachers’ demands, has made only a whimper of protest against Monday’s incident. Curiously, he has condemned the police action while urging the government to look into it. He has thereby sought to separate the police from the government in a sharp contrast to what he used to do; he would lay the blame for police crackdowns on workers’ protests at the feet of previous governments. He is beginning to sound conformist. The JVP trade union leaders in the current Parliament have also been critical of the protesting DOs.
There was something disconcerting about Monday’s protest in Battaramulla. Three police personnel involved in dispersing the protesters suffered cut injuries and had to be rushed to hospital. The protesting DOs were obviously unarmed, and the question is who attacked the police. Deputy Minister of Public Security Sunil Watagala said in an interview with ITN, on Tuesday night, that razor blades had been used to injure the police officers. Were the attacks carried out by some agents provocateurs who infiltrated the demonstration to discredit the protesters’ cause and provoke the police into unleashing force? If so, who sent them there? The protesters themselves caught a suspect and handed him over to the police. He was later identified as a military intelligence operative, according to a report we published yesterday.
The police and intelligence outfits usually cover protests from all angles, and even obtain drone footage to capture aerial perspectives of such events, as is known to the media. They must have done so on Monday because the DOs’ demonstration was held on the eve of the commencement of the first debate in the 10th Parliament—on President Anura Dissanayake’s Policy Statement. So, the police should be able to trace the person or persons responsible for attacking them. If they cannot find the culprit/s, who operated in the open on Monday, how can they be expected to solve far more serious crimes committed on the sly?
It behoves all trade unions leaders who are genuinely committed to serving the interests of workers and safeguarding their rights to pressure the law enforcement authorities and the government to have Monday’s attacks on the police thoroughly probed and the perpetrators thereof brought to justice immediately.
-
Editorial6 days ago
Greed for diplomatic appointments
-
News5 days ago
AKD gladdens Ranil’s heart
-
Business5 days ago
Central Bank aware of upside and downside risks to its inflation projections
-
Business6 days ago
Dialog sets new standards in AI-driven creativity
-
News5 days ago
SJB questions NPP over MPs’ perks and privileges
-
Features6 days ago
Compensating a ‘parlour’ owner in Cambodia
-
Features5 days ago
Inside the ancient Indian ritual where humans become gods
-
Editorial5 days ago
Corruption and hypocrisy