Connect with us

Editorial

Lawbreakers, masses and asses

Published

on

Monday 3rd August, 2020

The run-up to the forthcoming general election has been without major incidents. One can only hope that the situation will not change within the next two days and in the post-election period. Good news came from Ratnapura, on Friday, while election fever was running high.

Former Power and Energy Deputy Minister and SLPP candidate in the current parliamentary election fray, Premalal Jayasekera, and two of his lieutenants were sentenced to death by the Ratnapura High Court (HC) for killing a UNP supporter and injuring two others in the lead-up to the 2015 presidential election. The other convicts are former Sabaragamua Provincial Council member N. Jayakody and former Kahawatte Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman V. Darshana.

The Ratnapura HC judgment could not have come at a better time. It is sure to have a deterrent effect on the ruling party politicians, their goons and others of their ilk in the Opposition.

The SJB has asked the Election Commission to declare Jayasekera’s candidacy invalid due to his conviction. But legal experts argue that Jayasekera can appeal against the judgement, and it will be interesting to see how many votes he will poll, on Wednesday, while in prison. Many people vote blindly without giving two hoots about even the criminal records of the candidates of their choice. This has helped numerous lawbreakers such as murderers, rapists, fraudsters and robbers get elected as people’s representatives.

Jayasekara polled the highest number of preferential votes (about 155,000), in the Ratnapura District, at the 2015 general election held a few months after the aforesaid murder. He was in remand prison at that time and came to Parliament in prison vehicles thereafter. If the rule of law had prevailed, many others would have found themselves in the exalted company of Jayasekera and his partners in crime.

Political leaders draw a lot of flak for nominating anti-social elements to contest elections. They must not field such characters, but the fact remains that people vote for lawbreakers unflinchingly. One may recall that a drug baron, known as Kudu Lal, was once elected to the Colombo Municipal Council. Everybody knew he was a drug dealer responsible for destroying young lives, but he polled enough votes to be returned. Thankfully, he had to flee the country while the STF was closing in on him. A minister in the Rajapaksa government escorted him all the way to the BIA to ensure the latter’s safety; the former minister who shielded the criminal is contesting the upcoming election on the UNP ticket! Kudu Lal was not nominated by any political party. He contested from an independent group, and therefore it is the people who should take the blame for his election.

One may also recall that in the run-up to the 2015 presidential election, the yahapalana politicians and the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera called for legal action against a Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman (UPFA) who boasted of having raped hundreds of women, in the South. After the election, the rapist sided with President Maithripala Sirisena and was appointed one of the organisers of the SLFP May Day rally (2016) in Galle. So much for criminals and self-righteous politicians!

It is a pity that some people have not realised that neither politicians nor political parties are worth dying for. The man who suffered a violent death at the hands of Jayasekera and others, in Kahawatte, was campaigning for the Opposition common presidential candidate Sirisena at the time of his tragic end. Many others risked their lives to ensure Sirisena’s election. They must be really disappointed that Sirisena is now with the Rajapaksas and contesting the upcoming election, on the SLPP ticket, from Polonnaruwa. Worse, in October 2018, he sided with the Rajapaksas, whom he had vowed to throw behind bars, and made an abortive bid to dislodge the UNP-led government. People must not be so stupid as to harm others or be harmed for the sake of politicians, especially turncoats.

In dealing with politicians, the public had better follow the physical distancing rule which has been introduced to prevent the spread of Covid-19. They must keep politicians at arm’s length if they are to avoid regrets and, thereby, prove that the masses are no asses.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Patriotism, hypocrisy and croc tears

Published

on

Monday 21st September, 2020

The government has taken on UNHRC Chief Michelle Bachelet for her criticism of the 20th Amendment (20) to the Constitution. It has dismissed her concerns as unfounded. The Opposition seems to be deriving some perverse pleasure from the rap on the knuckles the government has received in Geneva.

True, 20A in its present form is a draconian Bill, which, if enacted, will jeopardise democracy, but the question is whether the UNHRC is genuinely interested in protecting human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka. The UN human rights arm is a puppet of the western governments that have weaponised human rights, so to speak, to achieve their geo-strategic and economic goals. It did not call for action against terrorism which plagued this country.

It stands to reason that 20A should be attenuated substantially or rejected. But the UNHRC protests will only help the government drum up support at home for the Bill. In fact, the UNHRC is one of the international institutions that, in a manner of speaking, made the SLPP’s stunning electoral win possible. It will be counterproductive for the Opposition to hitch its wagon to the UNHRC or the western members of the international community.

Sri Lanka’s response to the UNHRC chief was not satisfactory. It should have asked her whether she had studied 20A, which she was criticising. For our money, she has not even seen it. One should read and understand the 1978 Constitution, the 17th Amendment, the 18th Amendment and the 19th Amendment before commenting on 20A. The UNHRC head has apparently gone by hearsay.

The government says the people have given it a mandate to do away with 19A. This is as much of a falsehood as the late J. R. Jayewardene’s claim, in 1977, that the people had given the UNP a five-sixths majority to write a Constitution, which he used to suppress democracy and act according to his whims and fancies. People voted overwhelmingly for the SLPP because they were fed up with the yahapalana government, which bungled on all fronts and, above all, compromised national security. There was no need for anyone to topple that administration; it was collapsing. The SLPP regime is misinterpreting its mandate in a bid to bulldoze its way through. Will anyone sane who voted for the SLPP at the last general election ever want the Auditor General’s powers reduced and constitutional safeguards in place to prevent corruption done away with? Who will want a jumbo Cabinet or a President with powers to do anything except making a man a woman and vice versa?

The need is for 20A to be defeated without the help of meddlesome foreign governments, etc., unless it is revised. This is the uphill task before the SJB-led Opposition, which should not play into the hands of the government by trying to internationalise the issue. Its leaders have to stop talking nineteen to the dozen, win over the public and launch an effective campaign against 20A. The SLPP’s strong point is its brand of patriotism, which it markets very effectively to further the interests of its leaders. Proving that the government is not as patriotic as it makes itself out to be and hides its true intentions behind the façade of patriotism is half the battle in making the public realise the need to oppose 20A in its present form.

The SJB has its work cut out to win public trust, given the presence of many undesirables such as the associates of bond scammers within its ranks. But there is one way it could turn the tables on the government. The latter is blowing hot and cold on the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact, which it condemned as a threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and territorial integrity while it was in the Opposition. The SJB can submit a parliamentary motion calling for rejecting the aforesaid compact so that the government leaders will have to back it or be exposed for their hypocrisy. After all, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has declared that he protested against the proposed MCC deal while he was a member of the yahapalana Cabinet and is opposed to it. He should get cracking.

Continue Reading

Editorial

The 20th Amendment

Published

on

There has been no credible explanation of why the government has remained as coy, as it remains to be to this day, about the authorship of the 20th Amendment. When first asked about it, Prof. GL Pieris, Chairman of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and cabinet minister fended the question saying there were many contributors. He then attempted to close the matter saying the cabinet took “full responsibility” for it. We do not need a law professor and former vice-chancellor widely acclaimed as a legal pundit to say that. If the cabinet had passed it, and it had done so before Pieris spoke, it is quite obvious that the cabinet must accept responsibility and the matter needs no further elaboration. Now Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, the cabinet spokesman, has said (at last week’s cabinet news briefing) that the president had authorized it. Even a school kid studying basic civics knows that ever since the JRJ Constitution was enacted in 1978, the president is both Head of State and Head of Government and he presides over cabinet meetings. Thus he is part of the collective cabinet responsibility. Are we to understand from the latest contribution to the question that although Justice Minister Ali Sabry presented the draft amendment to cabinet, it was the president who gave it to him and presumably asked him to present it?

These maters, no doubt, will be canvassed in parliament when the already gazetted amendment is presented to it. Given the dust this matter has already raised, with criticism coming not only from the opposition but also from sections of the government and those who helped it to come to power, the country has been told that there will be some changes to the draft presented. What these are has not yet been clearly spelled out. They will presumably be introduced at the committee stage of proceedings in parliament. This is a practice that those who are now in power roundly condemned when used by their predecessors. We have heard a lot about various provisions being “smuggled in” during the committee stage discussion of bills before parliament denying those who may choose to mount challenges on the legality of legislation in the pipeline the opportunity of doing so. There can also be no proper study of what is being done if any government resorts to such questionable practices. The Constitution, after all, is the basic law of the land and it is incumbent on those governing the country to have the widest possible discussion on any proposed changes. Committee stage amendments just will not do.

All governments, even those with the necessary two thirds majority to make changes in laws at variance with the constitution, have refrained from making any law that would require a referendum. That is something that has been avoided like the plague. Certainly a referendum is something that costs the taxpayer much more than an arm and a leg and must not be lightly resorted to for reason of expense alone. But this is not why governments of all hues have done their damnedest to avoid them. Politicians in office do not wish to go before the people at any cost unless they are compelled to. We have only known one referendum, that of December 1982 when the J.R. Jayewardene government that had in 1977 won a massive mandate with a five sixths majority, wanted the people’s acquiescence to extend the tenure of then then parliament by six more years. We thus had the infamous lamp and pot game, widely condemned as rigged, that permitted Jayewardene who had a few weeks earlier won a presidential election to duck a parliamentary election. It is commonly accepted that his UNP would have been returned if he did go to to the polls, but not with its 1977 majority, especially with the proportional representation system of elections then in place.

When President Mahinda Rajapaksa wished to change the constitutional barrier placing a two term limit on the presidency in order to seek a third term in 2015, the supreme court did not hold that this required a referendum, in terms of the constitutional provision that matters affecting the franchise of the people must obtain the people’s consent at a referendum. Then Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake held that abolition of the term limit was an “enhancement” of the franchise rather than a diminishing. It may be argued that enhancing or diminishing would either way be a matter affecting the franchise. But that was not how the court, headed by a judge subsequently impeached by the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, saw it. The fact that Rajapaksa lost the 2015 election where he sought the third term, having abbreviated his previous term, is now all water under the bridge.

Government assurances that pluses like the Right to Information law enshrined in the 19th Amendment, which even the ranks of Tuscany must admit had many imperfections, have been widely welcomed. There is no doubt that the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government chose to include provisions like dual citizens not being eligible to run for public office clearly targeting the Rajapaksas was venal in intent. Coming from the UNP who anointed several persons who had opted for foreign citizenship as ambassadors to represent this country was rich, to say the least. There is no doubt that there are many flaws in the 20th Amendment that Mr. Sajith Premadasa has promised to scuttle having (together with Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe) scuttled the UNP. We are glad that eminent persons such as Prof. Savitri Goonesekera, in a contribution she had made to our newspaper today, has focused on some of the weakness in the draft 20A. Hopefully the government will accept democratic dissent in the right spirit rather that taking the easier route of having its way after allowing the opposition to have its say.

 

Continue Reading

Editorial

Blinding ingratitude

Published

on

Saturday 19th September, 2020

A disabled soldier who had lost vision in one eye on the battlefield and became totally blind due to injuries he suffered at the hands of the riot police, during a protest, near the Presidential Secretariat, in Nov. 2017, has moved the Supreme Court, seeking damages. He was one of the protesters who demanded that the disabled military and police personnel who had been compelled to retire before completing 12 years of service due to injuries they suffered, in the line of duty, be given retirement benefits.

The protesting war veterans asked the yahapalana government a very pertinent question: “If the MPs who complete five years in Parliament without risking life and limb are entitled to pension benefits how come we who had to retire owing to battlefield injuries before competing 12 years are denied that right?” We argued editorially that they deserved what they were asking for, and the government had to grant their demands without humiliating them. They are in this predicament because they braved heavy machine gun fire, shelling and walked through minefields to make this country safe, and people belonging to all communities have benefited from their sacrifices. After the war, children resumed schooling without fear of being abducted on the way and turned into cannon fodder, in the North and the East. People have the freedom to elect their representatives in all parts of the country.

During the war veterans’ demonstration in 2017, this newspaper juxtaposed two pictures on its front page; one showed the then President cum Commander-in-chief Maithripala Sirisena raising his hand during a speech at a public event, and the other a row of prosthetic legs the protesting war veterans had placed in front of them. The pictures had the desired impact; Sirisena saw red and complained.

Shabby treatment the armed forces and the police received from the yahapalana government, demoralised them beyond measure. One of the reasons why the intelligence personnel refrained from going beyond the call of duty to neutralise the National Thowheed Jamaath last year may have been their fear of being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. What one gathers from some key witness’ evidence before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry probing the Easter Sunday Carnage is that they were wary of initiating action. Time was when the state intelligence outfits did not waste time, writing letters or making telephone calls, when they received information about possible terror attacks; they sprang into action and eliminated the threats themselves without leaving that task to others. That was how they kept the urban centres, especially the Colombo city, safe during the final stages of the war.

President Sirisena made a public display of his compassion by pardoning an LTTE cadre who had attempted to kill him, but the disabled soldiers had to grapple with the police and suffer injuries and many indignities in a bid to have themselves heard. Sirisena should have met them and solved their problems instead of allowing the riot police to rough them up.

The police steered clear of Zahran and his fellow terrorists who carried out the Easter Sunday terror attacks as they did not want to incur the wrath of the yahapalana leaders who subjugated national security to political expediency. But they used force against the disabled soldiers who were fighting for the rights of disabled police personnel as well.

Those who won the war and undertook to look after the war veterans are now at the levers of power. They ought to ensure that the grievances of disabled military and police personnel are redressed.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending