Connect with us

Features

Felix Dias’ draconian laws helped conspirators’ acquittal

Published

on

60th Anniv. Of Coup ’62-Legal Aspects

by KKS PERERA

The UNP and the Tamil parties vehemently opposed the controversial The Criminal Law (Sp Provisions) Act, No.1 of 1962. The government was determined to bring the coup accused to book ‘by hook or by crook’. The bill was post-hoc and applied with retrospective effect. Trying the accused under the normal laws of the land would have created two problems for the authorities. Primarily, punishments laid out in the existing laws were insufficient to deal with a conspiracy to overthrow an elected regime. (This situation may not have been previously envisaged). Secondly, and more importantly, the evidence extracted from suspects during interrogation would not be available under oath in a court of law; and it would prove difficult to build up a case against them without the use of such confessions. The new law created new courts, new offenses and enhanced punishments.

It also purported to give legal effect [ex post facto] to the confinement for 60 days of any persons alleged to have committed an offense against the State. It broadened the class of offenses that the three judges chosen by the Minister of Justice for the examination without a jury and consent to arrest without a warrant, for waging war against the Queen. The new law stipulated minimum penalties for the offense; and for scheming to wage war against the Crown. Section 11 of the new Act provided that the AG might, before or at any stage during the trial, pardon any accomplice with a view to obtaining his evidence.

Section 12 amended the laws regarding evidence that no confession made by an accused in the custody of a police officer could be proved against him and that a confession by one of several co-defendants could not be used against the others, were changed. It allowed statements made in the custody of a police officer who was not below the rank of an Assistant Superintendent, to be used against any of the suspects charged. It laid on the accused, the burden of proving that a statement by him was not voluntary. It removed the effect of several sections of the Evidence Ordinance. Many vital and age-old protective rules of evidence were removed. The Act included a clause for removal of the right of appeal to any court in Ceylon (except to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London), in Trials before three judges without a jury.

Criticism of the new Act-

Debating the bill in the House on February 23, 1962, the opposition members made highly critical speeches denouncing certain clauses:

J R Jayewardene-MP- ‘’Section 440 A of the Criminal Procedure Code in sub section (b) says this:

‘The governor may, by warrant under his hand, direct that the person charged shall be tried before the Supreme Court at Bar by three judges without a jury.’

Now this new Bill seeks to omit the words, ‘the person charged shall be tried’ and insert the words, ‘the trial of such offence shall be held’. We want to know what the reason is for that’’.

Dr N M Perera-

‘’What is the difference?’’

J R Jayewardene- “The amended section will read: ‘The Governor may under his hand direct that the trial of such offence shall be held…’ Why exclude certain words and why include certain words?’’

A Amirthalingam MP–FP

“We speak of a particular person being tried of an offence. But here we are told of the trial of the offence. This is absurd…it conveys no sense…in a piece of legislation, every word matters’’.

J R Jayewardene– “You can commence a trial-at-bar… without a single accused being present in court. There are sections which say the accused need not be present. You can commence a trial without a scrap of evidence being led in magistrate’s court. You can commence a trial, without any charge’’.

V A Kandiah- TC

‘’This is a very serious matter. It undermines the judiciary itself. It undermines and destroys all our respect for administration of justice’’.

HANSARD-Feb 23, 1962:col. 2511/2519

JRJ stated his party strongly resists any attempt to overthrow an elected regime by unlawful means or by force, they were similarly opposed to enactment of this type of Draconian legislation.

Legal action against suspects – misfortune continues:

The AG filed action against 24 suspects on June 23, 1962. Judges were nominated by the Minister of Justice to constitute the bench of Trial-at-Bar no. 2 of 1962, which commenced at a special court set up at Flag Staff Street, Navy Headquarters before Their Lordships, Mr Justice T S Fernando Q.C.[President], Mr. Justice L B de Silva and Mr Justice Sri Skanda Rajah.

GG Ponnambalam QC, raising a preliminary objections, stated: “the judicial power of a state is vested in the hierarchy of the judiciary. We must be careful to distinguish the judicial power of the state and the powers of the judge which is sometimes referred to as judicial powers.”

EG Wikremanayake QC, pleaded that the constitution of this court was contrary to law, with all the lawyers defending their clients following suit.

Ponnambalam continuing his submission, stated that the sovereignty of the legislature to enact Law was limited. Justice Fernando—”I think court has no power to deprive the legislature of its right to pass legislation. The court must exercise its powers very carefully.”

Ponnambalam said that the courts need not examine the motives and objects of these Acts but when any provision of an Act was questioned in court, the court should examine it. In Ceylon, the legislature’s powers are limited. Ceylon is not a sovereign legislature in that respect. However, on October 3, 1962, at the end of submissions, the judges declared that they have no jurisdiction to hear the case…, the Minister had acted ultra vires in making a direct appointment of the three judges. The government drafted a fresh Bill that allowed the Chief Justice to appoint the judges. The adversity, however, did not end there. The second court dissolved itself as well, citing an instance of one of the judges, Hon A W H Abeysundera, QC, who served as Attorney General having for a short period, been involved in the investigations.

The AG’s position was that, due to subsequent unanticipated developments, the plan to topple the government was called-off by the perpetrators.

The judgment stated:

“The evidence in support of an indictment charging conspiracy is generally circumstantial. It is not necessary to prove any direct concert or even any meeting of the conspirators; as the actual fact of conspiracy may be inferred from the collateral circumstances of the case…. Upon each of the isolated acts, a conjectural interpretation is put; and from the aggregate of these interpretations, an inference is drawn”.

Queen Vs Liyanage; NLR-202

President of Trial-at-Bar, M C Sansoni J, delivering the judgment on April 5, 1965, stated, (excerpts from the judgment):

“In our order of 25th February 1963, we stated that ‘we share intense and almost universal aversion to ex post facto laws in the strict sense’. The third charge, that of conspiring to overthrow the government, was framed in terms of the retroactive amendment of section 115 of the Penal Code, made by the Criminal Law (Special) Act No I of 1962.

Eleven sentenced: 10 years RI and Confiscation of Property.

They entered into an agreement with a common design. There may be one person round whom the rest revolve-or a chain of conspirators each communicating only with the one next to him.” see–R. v. Meyrick [121 Or. App. Rep. 94 at 1021.]”—-Queen vs Liyanage-, NLR-205

The court also held that:

“We have not forgotten that some of the prosecution witnesses, who are obviously accomplices, were giving evidence under a conditional pardon, ‘with halters round their necks’; and with a natural inducement to earn it. Is their evidence to be forthwith struck out or disregarded? ….”

Queen Vs Liyanage–NLR -213

The Trial-at-Bar bench quoted in their judgment, an extract as declared by Willes J. in Mulcahy v. The Queen [1 (1888) 3 H. L. 306 at 321.],: “As soon as he has subverted the Government, the rebel is out of danger” (unlike the murderer and the thief). As the penal law is impotent against a successful rebel, it is consequently necessary that it should be made strong and sharp against the first beginnings of rebellion; against treasonable designs which have been carried no further than plots and preparations,” it further said, “We convict 11 defendants on all the counts; and we impose on each of them, a sentence of ten years RI, the minimum prescribed by law, also forfeiture of properties …”

-M C Sansoni, President, Justices H N G Fernando, & LB de Silva.

Justice L B de Silva, whom the son of CC Dissanyake refers to as: “My father’s partner at bridge, was one of the three judges who conducted the trial at bar and convicted him.” –TDSA Disanayake.-‘Politics of S.L’-Vol III.

The Judicial Committee of Privy Council comprising Lord McDermott, Lord Pearson, Lord Morris, Lord Guest and Lord Pearce held:

“The Ceylon Government has no powers to pass the new law …., which is utlra vires, bad in law, and had denied a fair trial.” Lord Pearson delivering the verdict further stated: “This is an appeal against…Supreme Court of Ceylon…each of the 11 appellants was sentenced to…they were not tried by a Judge and jury…the trial was long and complicated…all the accused were in very rigorous custody…” Concluding the verdict they stated…, “…Although Criminal legislation which can be described as ad hominem and ex post facto, may not always amount to an interference with the functions of the judiciary….the convictions cannot stand. … these appeals should be allowed and the convictions should be quashed.”

Excerpts from writer’s Manuscript on 1962 Coup, titled, ‘Bloodshed ’62: Aborted or Abandoned?’—kksperera1@gmail.com



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

The Trade Game’s New Rules: Sri Lanka’s Shot at Winning

Published

on

The global trading system, once a beacon of predictability and cooperation, is in tatters. For decades, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) upheld a rules-based order grounded in principles like the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause, ensuring equitable treatment among trading partners. This framework fostered an era of unprecedented economic integration, lifting nations—large and small—through the tide of globalisation. Yet, that era is fading fast. The United States, long a champion of this system when it suited its interests, has detonated its foundations with escalating tariffs and unilateral protectionism. These measures, often targeting economic rivals like China, flout the WTO’s core tenets, replacing multilateral consensus with a power-driven free-for-all. The US’s selective tariffs—disregarding MFN principles—signal a retreat from cooperative trade norms, fragmenting the global economy into blocs shaped by political expediency rather than economic logic. For smaller nations like Sri Lanka, this shift is both a peril and a puzzle: the rules we relied upon are gone, and the future is being forged around us, whether we act or not.

This upheaval is not merely a bilateral spat between superpowers; it’s a seismic reconfiguration of global trade. The US, despite trumpeting its goods trade deficits, quietly maintains a surplus in services—a complexity drowned out by the rhetoric of protectionism. Its push to resurrect domestic manufacturing, especially in critical industries like semiconductors and steel, hints at a broader strategy to insulate itself from foreign competition. Historical parallels loom large: the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised US duties on hundreds of imports, deepened the Great Depression by choking global trade. Today’s interconnected supply chains amplify that risk, where a single tariff can ripple across continents, slashing demand and destabilising markets. The likelihood of a full-blown trade war grows, with tit-for-tat retaliations threatening to redraw economic alliances. Growth forecasts for 2025 are already tilting downwards, and for Sri Lanka—just emerging from the bruising IMF-prescribed reforms—this instability could snuff out nascent recovery. Yet, amidst this chaos, the future is taking shape. Regional blocs are coalescing, new trade routes are emerging, and nimble nations are seizing opportunities. Sri Lanka cannot afford to stand still as the world moves forward.

Opportunities and Strategies for Sri Lanka:

Exploiting Trade Diversions and Gaps

The fracturing of traditional trade flows offers Sri Lanka a chance to step into the breach. As US buyers grapple with higher costs from tariff-hit countries like China, Sri Lanka could position itself as a viable substitute. Our apparel sector, already a global player, could capture market share lost by pricier competitors, while rubber products and electronics components—where we have latent capacity—could find new buyers. Beyond substitution, we could embed ourselves as a cost-effective link in supply chains shifting away from China, offering stability to multinationals wary of volatility. The actionable path is clear: identify tariff-affected goods where Sri Lanka holds competitive edges, then aggressively market these through international trade fairs, digital B2B platforms, and targeted outreach to US importers. This requires swift coordination between the Export Development Board and the private sector to seize the moment.

Strengthening Bilateral Trade Negotiations

While the WTO weakens, bilateral deals gain prominence. Sri Lanka must negotiate preferential trade agreements or tariff concessions with the US, focusing on key exports like tea, garments, and spices. Our status as a developing nation, potentially via the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), offers leverage—though its reinstatement has been erratic since its lapse in 2020. Diplomatic and economic lobbying in Washington, backed by a clear case of mutual benefit, could restore or expand this access. Beyond the US, forging similar pacts with other major markets—such as the UK post-Brexit or Japan—would bolster our position. This demands a dedicated trade negotiation team, armed with data and a compelling narrative of Sri Lanka as a reliable partner in a turbulent world.

Diversifying Export Markets

Over-reliance on any single market, particularly the US, is a liability in this volatile landscape. Sri Lanka must pivot towards emerging economies and regional players—India, ASEAN, the Middle East, and Africa—where tariff structures are less prone to sudden shocks. India’s growing consumer base, for instance, could absorb more of our tea and apparel, while the Gulf’s demand for construction materials aligns with our rubber and coir strengths. Supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to tap these markets is vital, through trade facilitation hubs, subsidised market research, and digital tools like e-commerce platforms. The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce could lead here, bridging SMEs with opportunities abroad.

Investing in Value Addition and Branding

Exporting raw materials confines us to low-profit cycles. Shifting to high-value, branded goods—think premium Ceylon teas with traceable origins, eco-friendly packaging, or artisanal spices—could transform our economic profile. Take tea: instead of bulk exports, we could market single-estate blends to affluent consumers in Europe or North America, commanding triple the price. Government support is key—tax incentives for innovation, grants for sustainable packaging, and training for entrepreneurs to build global brands. The success of Dilmah, a homegrown name, proves this model works; scaling it across sectors could redefine Sri Lanka’s export identity.

Attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

As multinationals flee US-China trade tensions, Sri Lanka can pitch itself as a neutral, cost-effective production hub. Our strategic location, skilled workforce, and existing Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are assets—if we market them right. Streamlining FDI approvals, cutting red tape, and offering tax holidays could lure firms in textiles, electronics, or even renewable energy components. Look at Vietnam, which has soaked up billions in FDI by positioning itself as a China alternative; Sri Lanka could emulate this with a fraction of the scale but equal ambition. The Board of Investment must prioritise this, showcasing our stability amid global upheaval.

Cushioning Vulnerable Sectors and Building Resilience

Not all sectors will thrive in this shift. Those hit by reduced global demand—say, gemstone exporters reliant on Western jewellers—need a lifeline: subsidies, credit guarantees, or export insurance to weather the storm. More broadly, Sri Lanka’s lack of a coherent industrial policy is a glaring weakness. Selling off state development banks like DFCC and NDB was a strategic blunder; we need a new institution tied to a long-term industrial vision, fostering manufacturing and innovation. Education, too, is underfunded—government spending is at historic lows, leaving us unprepared for a skills-driven economy. Job support programmes and a task force to tackle immediate business and worker uncertainties are urgent steps to shore up resilience.

Partnering with Regional Blocs

Isolation is not an option. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is moribund, crippled by India-Pakistan tensions, but alternatives beckon. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) offers a platform to deepen ties with India, Bangladesh, and Thailand, prioritising collaborative growth. More ambitiously, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—the world’s largest trade bloc, spanning ASEAN, China, Japan, and Australia—looms as a game-changer. Could Sri Lanka join? It’s not a member yet, but observer status or a phased accession isn’t implausible. Our proximity to India, an RCEP signatory, and our trade complementarities (e.g., tea for China’s market, apparel for Southeast Asia) make a case. Joining would require aligning regulations, boosting competitiveness, and lobbying through diplomatic channels—perhaps via ASEAN ties. Even short of full membership, negotiating parallel deals with RCEP nations could integrate us into their supply chains, amplifying our reach. Regionalism, not nationalism, is our shield against global fragmentation.

The way forward

The rise of protectionism tests Sri Lanka, but it need not break us. History warns of downturns, yet today’s stakes—jobs, wages, stability—are too high for inaction. The government must act boldly: unite resources, strengthen resilience, and prioritise citizens over short-term politics. Economic openness and social cohesion remain our north stars. As the world reshapes itself, Sri Lanka must carve its place—not just to survive, but to thrive.

(The writer is Professor of Marketing University of Surrey. Views expressed in this article are personal)

by Prof. Chanaka Jayawardhena
Chanaka.j@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Features

David Attenborough and Sri Lanka – a tribute for celebration of 99 years on the planet!

Published

on

Sir David Attenborough

BBC Earth recently launched a seven-part documentary series titled ‘Asia’, showcasing the region’s diverse wildlife. The Guardian referred this documentary as a masterclass in television, in which every element is cooked to perfection. The narration was done by Attenborough, and it also featured Sri Lanka’s wild elephants. Series producer Matthew Wright told The Daily Telegraph that “every recording session includes a pronunciation guide, no matter who the narrator is. But David politely said he doesn’t need it because he’s been to most places and met most of the animals we cover – so you hear his great voice pronouncing all these words correctly straight off the bat.”

by Tharindu Muthukumarana
tharinduele@gmail.com

(Author of the award-winning book “The Life of Last Proboscideans: Elephants”)

Sir David Attenborough has been an internationally recognised household name. On May 8, 2025, he did celebrate 99 years on this planet, and he remains as dynamic as ever. Fans of his span multiple generations, from the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers to Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, and even Gen Alpha. On that account, it’s no surprise that Time magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world. As a nature documentary narrator, he had touched on many natural subjects. Attenborough’s voice is distinguishable, and it’s remarkable that, despite his age, it remains in high demand. Having said that, something special for us Sri Lankans is that he had narrated various documentaries related to Sri Lanka as well. This article features a glimpse of it.

Attenborough’s dream to visit Sri Lanka and how it got shattered

In the year 1945, Attenborough won a scholarship from the University of Cambridge to study zoology and geology. He completed his degree in natural sciences in 1947 and was anticipating a career that would ultimately take him to remote and exciting parts of the world. This was during an era when World War II had just ended. Soon after, he was called for National Service and enrolled in the Royal Navy. But as he joined, his main interest was not fighting in a war but to travel somewhere romantic where natural beauty is concerned. During his training period at Gosport, he met old naval hands who talked a lot about Trincomalee. As you may know, at that time Trinco was the home port of the Eastern Fleet of the Royal Navy. Young Attenborough was captivated by Sri Lanka’s natural beauty and hoped to be posted to Trinco after completing his training. But, unfortunately, his dreams got shattered when he was sent to join an aircraft carrier that was being mothballed as part of the Reserve Fleet in the Firth of Forth. He served in the Navy for two years but was not involved in any war during his service.

Having said that, there is lingering doubt: ‘What if Attenborough got the chance to come to Sri Lanka during his naval days?’ Would he have made Sri Lanka his home like Sir Arthur C. Clarke did? I will leave it to you to decide!

Narration on sperm whales in Blue Planet II

Blue Planet II is a 2017 marine life documentary series created by the BBC and narrated by Attenborough. The filming process spanned over four years, encompassing 125 expeditions across 39 countries. This series featured sperm whales found in Trincomalee waters. A superpod is a vast assembly of whales, where they interact through physical contact, socialising, and communication. Sri Lanka provided an incredible opportunity to witness this phenomenon. The documentary showcasing it became the most-watched television programme in the UK in 2017. In China, its popularity was so immense that it reportedly impacted the nation’s internet speed due to the sheer number of viewers. Additionally, British universities, including the University of Southampton, saw a significant rise in applications for marine biology degrees after the documentary aired.

In April 2018, spurred by the rising public awareness generated by Blue Planet II, the British government revealed it was contemplating a nationwide ban on single-use plastic items. Reports also indicated that Queen Elizabeth II’s move to prohibit plastic bottles and straws within the royal estates was partially influenced by the documentary. A study conducted in 2020 further suggested that the programme had a lasting impact, significantly heightening political, media, and public engagement with plastic pollution in the UK—an issue that had previously struggled to gain momentum. According to Sri Lankan tourism experts, this documentary had a positive impact on whale-watching tourism in the country.

Narration for Sri Lanka’s mangrove conservation project

A few years ago, a non-profit environmental conservation organisation, called Seacology, did an important project to help Sri Lanka to preserve and replant all of its mangrove forests. For this project a mini documentary was made, and the narration was done by Attenborough. This project conserved about 21,782 acres (8,815 hectares) of mangrove forests on the island. Furthermore, it offered alternative career training and microloans to 12,000 underprivileged women living in 1,500 hamlets near the country’s mangrove forests. This initiative also replanted 9,600 acres (3,885 hectares) of mangrove forests that had been cleared, using seedlings cultivated in three Seacology-funded mangrove nurseries.

Narration on mugger crocodile in Planet Earth III

In 2023, the BBC launched a wildlife documentary series titled Planet Earth III, narrated by Attenborough. In it, a scene that was shot in Yala National Park was included, and The Daily Mail regarded this as “stunning shots of a crocodile surprising a group of deer”. This involves, during the dry season, how a mugger crocodile waits for the opportunity to grab its prey. As time passes by, a herd of spotted deer arrive at the waterhole to quench their thirst. However, the crocodile was successful. Attenborough says in the documentary that “These crocodiles have learnt to exploit the deer’s desperate need for fresh water.” According to the cameraman Abdullah Khan, to take that shot, it took about five weeks of filming.

Narration on Sri Lankan elephants

BBC Earth recently launched a seven-part documentary series, titled ‘Asia’, showcasing the region’s diverse wildlife. The Guardian referred this documentary as a masterclass in television, in which every element is cooked to perfection. The narration was done by Attenborough, and it also featured Sri Lanka’s wild elephants. Series producer Matthew Wright told The Daily Telegraph that “every recording session includes a pronunciation guide, no matter who the narrator is. But David politely said he doesn’t need it because he’s been to most places and met most of the animals we cover – so you hear his great voice pronouncing all these words correctly straight off the bat.”

It gave special attention to cheeky elephants on the Buttala-Kataragama road, which have a behaviour of staying in the middle of the road and soliciting food from motorists. The elephant named ‘Buttala Raja’ stole the show. In the documentary, Attenborough says, “Raja’s persuasive charm has earned him a reputation. He knows which vehicles aren’t worth bothering with and which have the potential to deliver a feast. Raja’s gentle nature has won many hearts.” A cropped video clip from that documentary, which shows those elephants, went viral on social media sites recently.

In conclusion, as Attenborough celebrates 99 years, I wish him a joyful year filled with exciting adventures and remarkable discoveries. Also, not to mention what we Sri Lankans always say: “Ayubowewa! (May you live long)”.

Continue Reading

Features

A wake- up call

Published

on

President Dissanayake

I have not, for many months, written about the current political situation, not least because I had really no idea where we were heading. I thought the President elected last September was the best alternative we had, but that was no great recommendation given the other candidates. Sajith Premadasa was the best of the rest, to my mind, but he did seem to carry a lot of old Ranil Wickremesinghe baggage, and he did not develop the vision of his father, by far the most productive President we have had.

Premadasa adjusted the opening of the economy which, to give him his due, J R Jayewardene had initiated, to introduce a healthy dose of social recalibration, with enormous emphasis on rural development which had been ignored in the first 11 years of UNP rule. I was sorry that Sajith seemed instead to go along with the Westernised model his principal economic advisers trumpeted. Given how Donald Trump has now upended the gospel of free trade which the West imposed on us for years, it is a good thing that the extremists did not have a free hand for the three months before Trump turned everything upside down.

The current government however was not as independent in its approach as I would have liked, and perhaps under the influence of the most effective of American ambassadors in recent years has seemed to go along with many of the remedies that the previous government has put forward. But there was one area in which they did shift from the lethargy of Ranil Wickremesinghe. This was with regard to the most important, to my mind, of World Bank recommendations—pursuing the plundered money. Obviously Ranil, given his own record and that of those who made him President, was not likely to act, though I was deeply ashamed that more decent folk such as Indrajith Coomaraswamy remained mealy-mouthed and allowed the rot to carry on.

Indeed, the evidence that is emerging about the role of the Presidential Secretariat in continuing corruption suggests that things got worse in the two years of Ranil’s Presidency. Though I may be more indulgent to Gotabaya Rajapaksa than he deserves, it is worth noting that there are no allegations of his office being the fountainhead of corruption while he was President, though he seems to have given a free hand to the most monstrous of the hangers on of the Rajapaksa clan, let alone its members. But Ranil’s antics with his friend Lord Francis Maude suggest that he was no better than those characters, though obviously he worked in more subtle ways.

But though the NPP seemed to present a sea change as far as dealing with corruption is concerned, they are painfully slow. It is disappointment about this that was the most important reason for its loss of support at the local government election. Efforts to convince itself with specious arguments that it in fact won the election are pitiful. Worse, they may become a substitute for analysis of what went wrong.

It is useless to complain that governments have to proceed slowly. This is what we have been told for years, and while there are traces of some efforts being made, the general impression is that this government will fail miserably to check corruption. If not corrupt itself, for the moment, unless it acts some of its members will begin to think there is nothing wrong with corruption. For one still remembers how swiftly members of Chandrika Kumaratunga’s cabinet lost their ideals – I recall my brother-in-law telling me with surprise that Srimani Athulathmudali was pretty bad, though that may have been due to those who controlled her then – and I recall too how the promise of Yahapalanaya was destroyed, with the President soon enough following Ranil Wickremesinghe in paving the way for his near and dear to make money.

There are enough mechanisms in place to act, and the government also has a majority to introduce new mechanisms. The argument one hears from those who probably did not vote for this government but were happy to give it a chance is that they have no experience, and there is no professional capacity to innovate. But they do have enough experts with goodwill towards them who could advise productively.

I cannot understand for instance why they have not made use of Nigel Hatch, who did yeoman service for them in cases before the courts to highlight the double dealing of the government with regard to postponement of elections. Perhaps, the problem was that he was approached to represent the party through the Prime Minister, and she has less authority than her position would imply. But surely those who do have authority must understand the need to make sure that the capable are entrusted with responsibilities commensurate to the problems before us.

If they are diffident about their capacity to communicate, they should once again make use of the Prime Minister and her staff. Her Secretary is a capable man, but he seems unable to assert himself, and will not take decisions. To move from corruption to diffidence about productive action, it is worrying for instance that he seems to have shelved the admirable project about mangrove restoration that has been presented to him. That had been initiated by Ruwan Wijewardene before the big wind came and blew him away. But surely Pradeep Saputantri can understand English as well as Ruwan, and he should be able on his own to get the Prime Minister’s approval to take things forward. Sending things up and down for comments takes ages and is no way to give the country the action it so urgently wants.

The President must realise that, though the honeymoon is not yet over, it soon will be. Premadasa was up and running as soon as he was elected; so were J R and Mahinda with regard to their most productive activities. Nothing can be done about natural disasters, but a combination of strikes and what seems incompetence in vital areas will make unpopularity increase in leaps and bounds. I hope the President will not be carried away by the pleasures of travel and forget the hopes the country had in him six months ago.

by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Continue Reading

Trending