Connect with us

Features

Right to Recall Repeal of Port City Act

Published

on

by Kumar David

The column today is about two separate matters. First, something futuristic but this country can never in a 100 years take a step forward unless there is a mechanism to remove from office outright scoundrels in public life. The second important topic is that right now this nation and its people must make it clear to future investors, global or domestic in the Port City (PC) that intolerable promises, if enacted, will be repealed. Let there be no crocodile tears as in the case of Argentina that Sri Lanka will be going back on its obligations since no country is bound by unconscionable promises that damage national interest. Let all be warned.

I will keep both sections short. I have learned that then, there is a chance people will read what one writes. The 2,000 and 3,000 word harangues in newspapers and websites are invariably not read to the end. I know from reader’s comments that they have given up in boredom halfway. If Shakespeare thought “brevity is the soul of wit and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes” who are we to reckon that we can do better?

 

Right to Recall

 

I am well aware that implementation of the Right to Recall (R2R) is complicated. R2R is a procedure by which people can recall a person they have elected, for example a MP, for abuse of power or corruption. I also grant that in a proportional representation system where the unit of election is a whole district, unlike in constituency type electorates, it is difficult to identify who can participate in a recall referendum. A way has to be found round these difficulties otherwise a country can never enjoy electoral democracy while at the same time turning out of office rascals, scoundrels and opportunists if elected to parliament or provincial councils.

 

I quote at length from Wikipedia. “A recall election (also called a recall referendum, recall petition or representative recall) is a procedure by which, in certain polities, voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before that official’s term has ended. Recalls, which are initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition, have a history dating back to the constitution in ancient Athenian democracy and feature in several current constitutions. In indirect or representative democracy, people’s representatives are elected and rule for a specific period of time. However, where the facility to recall exists, if any representative who comes to be perceived as not properly discharging responsibilities can be called back at request of a specific proportion of voters”.

 

A Constitution Amendment Bill to recall MPs and MLAs was introduced in the Lok Sabha by C. K. Chandrappan (1935-2012), Kerala State Secretary of the Communist Party and Lok Sabha member, in 1974. Atal Bihari Vajpayee (not Prime Minister at the time) supported the bill but it did not pass. Since then, recall has been implemented at Municipal level in Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Rajasthan. And R2R legislation has been enacted and is on the statute book in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh for levels below parliament and state legislatures.

 

The reason legislation in the US and India has been confined below national and state, apart from the greed and resistance of the representatives themselves is complexity of execution. A president can be removed by impeachment and a prime minister by a vote of no confidence but that’s outside the direct intervention of the electors. What is imperative is a mechanism for voters to rid themselves of people they have elected if later he/she turns out to be a blackguard. An unfortunate necessity in any nation that habitually elects blackguards.

 

There are variations in R2R legislation formats between the US and India and between different Indian states. These details are of little significance for us now since the first priority is to popularise the concept and win mass acceptance. That should be easy, people will without hesitation endorse the concept but they will want to know more about implementation details. I am only kicking off the idea and asking others, more intelligent and knowledgeable to follow up. What is important at the moment is extensive public discussion. No civil society or political organisation will right now have the gumption to flag it but this will change because it has to. The political entities that may have the courage to invoke some debate are the NPP and the JVP but they too will not touch it till the existing system rots a lot more. For now I am only planting a seed.

 

Port City and Scoundrel Protection Acts must be repealed

 

The immediate task is to mount public protest campaigns and demonstrations to prevent passage of the Port City Bill (PCB) and the resolution before Parliament to grant scoundrels associated with the (Raja) Paksas and human rights violators impunity (Scoundrel Protection Resolution, SPR). Civil society, religious dignitaries, non-government political parties, student and women’s movements, citizens of all races and faiths, diaspora groups of all ethnicities and the people must campaign to throw back both. That’s the priority and it may be doable. However since a majority of SLPP, SLFP, and pro-Paksa perfidious Tamil parties and the Muslim turncoats who voted for 20A cannot be expected to suddenly sprout a conscience, there is a possibility that PCB and SPR will be passed. (What on earth is the LSSP doing? Tissa is angry that economic policy has failed to ameliorate the hardships of the poorest; but the Dead-Left has kept mum on PCB and SPR).

 

What if despite angry protests these two nasty proposals are passed. The Supreme Court is deliberating the constitutionality of PCB (why not SP too?). It may or may not demand that some provisions be put to a referendum, but after 20A no one is celebrating the court’s independence or high moral stature. What options are available if PCB is enacted and SPR endorsed? A declaration must be issued with the determination of Martin Luther nailing the Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints’ Church, Wittenberg that the next government reserves the right to reverse anything done under the PC Act. Chinese, foreign and local investors must have the riot act read out. If they act at the invitation of a morally decadent government in the teeth of the opposition of the people they have been warned!

 

The French Revolution was not bound by Louis XVI’s commitments nor were China and Vietnam beholden to decisions prior to October 1948 and April 1975, respectively. Argentina type ambiguity must be precluded; everybody, foreign or local, must be told clearly that anything done under the provisions of PCA will not be binding on future governments. If enacted sans a two-thirds majority and unless in addition ratified at a referendum it will be deemed unconstitutional. Furthermore, the American Ambassador, at a recent news conference, sounded a warning that the PC may be flagged by global authorities for fear of money laundering.

 

The weak link in building a united movement against PCB are Sajith Premadasa cum SJB which instead of expressing unconditional disapproval and demanding that the Bill be withdrawn have proposed technical amendments and pleaded with the Paksas to bring the proposed commission under parliament. This discordant note is rooted in the SJB’s class nature. The pro-business wing under the influence of Harsha de Silva, Eran Wickramaratne and I daresay Sajith himself would be satisfied with provisions to ensure that in addition to the Chinese, Western companies too could participate. From JR’s day the neo-liberal investment policies of the UNP sought to open Lanka to global markets unconstrained by domestic class concerns.

 

To add to this confusion SJB spokesperson Dayan Jayatilleke (official or unofficial?) has become jarring says Krishanta Prasad Cooray in Colombo Telegraph, 23 April. If DJ is serenading to his master Sajith’s dog whistle then it matters; if not don’t bother with the rest of this paragraph. If one can infer that on strategy Sajith rejects an opposition united front against the Double-Paksas, and on policy he desires retention of the Executive Presidency (EP), then both put Sajith on collision course with regime-opponents (though in line with DJ’s backing of the 52-day Mahinda Rajapaksa Prime Ministerial obscenity). SJB internal confusion on both counts is a hitch. There must exist explicit formal pronouncements on its position on EP and Sajith must state explicitly if he now regrets voting in favour 19A. Also let there be a pronouncement on whether the SJB intends to go it alone.

 

The labour market will be greatly affected – see Ceylon Federation of Labour General Secretary TMR Rasseedin’s statement “Colombo Port City Bill frontal attack on working people” in the Sunday Island of 18 April. But apart from this frontal assault on the working class the provisions of the Bill are so designed to cater to the interests of society’s upper classes and investors with hardly a concern for the welfare of the people at large. Even Tissa Vitarana warns “The luxury lifestyle of the few must be checked (soon) as otherwise those who are hungry may (be forced to) take to the streets”. [Parenthesis added]. While most criticism of PCB has focussed on sovereignty concerns and the undermining of parliamentary oversight it is important to understand its negative class implications. This underscores why the SBJ is pussyfooting. Eran Wickramaratne’s attack on SPR in Parliament was withering. Was it not obvious that PCB and SPR are twins born of the same womb, an executive presidency seeking authoritarian powers? How the SBJ can reconcile opposition to SPR with support for the executive presidential system is incomprehensible.

 

I have reached nearly 1650 words, but you will forgive me as I have touched on two important topics.

Manifesto of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association

(The HSRA was suspended by Gandhi in 1922 for being too radical)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Govt. actions must be for people’s benefit

Published

on

President at the Independence Day ceremony on Saturday

By Jehan Perera

The government celebrated the 75th Anniversary of its independence from colonial rule under tight security.  President Ranil Wickremesinghe did not even deliver a speech on the occasion.  He had an excellent written speech, but chose not to deliver it for reasons not known.  The speech was circulated later. The exclusion of the general public from the parade grounds was another notable feature of the Independence Day event.  Under normal circumstances, Galle Face green where the celebration took place, is packed with people who come to enjoy the sea, the fresh air and the vast expanse of greenery.  The spectacle of a military parade and an air show provided an occasion that people would not have wished to miss if they had been given the chance to attend it.  But the government was clearly insecure and wanted to make sure it controlled the situation, which accounted for large security deployments.

The general public were kept away from the celebrations as the government feared that if they were permitted into the area some of them might protest.  Indeed, the previous night a sit down public protest (satyagraha) organised by a mostly youthful group of protestors was water cannoned and forcibly broken up.  The youth were protesting against the misallocation of resources for celebration at a time when the country’s people have little cause to celebrate.  Although there was a large presence of security forces, they stood by when a group of political thugs attacked the peaceful protestors.  When the satyagrahis resisted the attack they were chased, beaten and arrested by the security forces. The government was less concerned to win the hearts and minds of its people than to conduct its Independence Day event without disturbance.

 Ironically, the manner of the celebration, with the general public not present at the site of celebration, and security forces out in strength on the roads, was reminiscent of the days of war that the country experienced decades past.  In those days too, the Independence Day celebrations took place under tight security, with the people preferring to stay in their homes than to brave possible LTTE bombs. This throwback to the past is relevant as those years of war have contributed in no small measure to the economic collapse that has befallen the country and blighted the life of its people.  More than 70 percent of the population have reduced their food intake and 40 percent of the population have descended below the poverty line.  In recognition of the connection between ethnic conflict and economic underdevelopment, President Wickremesinghe has prioritized a political solution to the ethnic conflict without delay.

PUBLIC ANGER

The public protests against the celebration of Independence Day was not only in Colombo but also in other parts of the country, most notably in the north of the country.  The main Tamil political party as well as smaller ones also called for a boycott of the Independence Day events and did not participate in them.  University students in Jaffna declared a hartal and flew black flags.  Most of the people, however, showed no interest either way. There was no display of national flags in a spontaneous manner nor did the government make such an appeal.  It seemed as if the government was celebrating Independence Day for itself.  Gleaming new vehicles with police escorts drove in assorted governors, ministers and other dignitaries into the stalls where they would seat themselves with all the national television stations focusing on them. However, to the general public watching the celebrations on their television sets, the sight of the luxury vehicles bearing the dignitaries would have been infuriating.

 Not even a year ago, these same political leaders were hiding in the face of the protest movement that took to the streets in the aftermath of the collapse of the national economy and declaration of national bankruptcy.  The general public, many of whom had never taken part in public protests, came to the streets to protest.  They came from near and far, children with their parents, the elderly and the differently abled, to demand the exit of the government leaders who had stolen the wealth of the country and brought the masses of people, including them all, to near penury.  These same people who watched the Independence Day events on television would have been greatly angered to see those same political leaders now disembarking from luxury vehicles while they scraped the bottom of the barrel in their homes.  What they demand from the government, both in street protests and in their homes, is an end to impunity for corruption, abuse of power and extravagance in  public life, which the government appears to be shying away from.

 The question arises for whose benefit was Independence Day celebrated in this manner?  Independence Day in a situation of economic collapse was celebrated in a most unimaginative manner.  The government tried to heed the public opprobrium regarding the cost of the event, and reduced the size of the military parade.  It also axed the cultural parades that represent the aesthetic side of life.  Independence Day should have been celebrated differently, not for the political leaders and not for the international community, but for the people.  This event did not receive much international publicity.  It would not have changed the way the world sees us.  It did not touch the hearts of the Sri Lankan people either.  They were watching on their television sets and conscious of the expenditures that were being incurred for no good reason, and certainly not for their benefit.

BOLD PLEDGES

The celebration of Independence Day could have been done differently.  The government could have recognised the poverty that has ravaged the lives of the people.  It could have organised an Independence Day event that demonstrated an ethos of care for the people.  It could have brought a thousand schoolchildren from the poorest families around the country, and from all ethnicities, religions and castes, and made them a symbolic presentation of schoolbooks and school clothes that would have reflected the government’s commitment to invest in the country’s children.  This was an opportunity lost and would work to the detriment of the government which will be reflected in its electoral performance at the forthcoming local government elections. President Wickremesinghe’s pitch that the country needed a plan to become a developed country in 2048 is to miss people’s concerns to get by the day.  In his televised speech to the nation he said “Let us devote ourselves, unite as children of one mother. Let us make our country one of the most developed in the world by 2048, when we will celebrate 100 years of independence.”

 Despite all the criticism of the priorities of President WIckremesinghe and the government there are still many who continue to place their hope that the president will succeed in problem solving that is in the national interest.  One of President Wickremesinghe’s bold pledges has been to resolve the ethnic conflict that gave rise to three decades of war and to reach a situation of national reconciliation in this 75th year of Independence and “unite as children of one mother”.  When he first committed himself to this task three-months ago, there was some anticipation that this ambitious task may even occur prior to Independence Day itself, or “mission accomplished” would be announced on the auspicious day.  This has not been the case and it appears that even the first steps are yet to be made.  Now the focus of attention will be the president’s policy statement on February 8 when he reconvenes parliament following its prorogation by him a fortnight ago.

 National reconciliation in an ethnically divided society is never an easy proposition.  It requires the support of multiple actors in multiple sectors.  An indication of the president’s determination in this regard was the singing of the national anthem in both Sinhala and Tamil languages at the Independence Day event. This was after a lapse of four years and reflects the president’s resolve to overcome the divisions of the past.  It must be noted that it was under his leadership as prime minister in the period 2015-19 that the national anthem was sung again in Tamil on Independence Day after the passage of many decades.  There are elements in the president and his government that require support from civil society.  We need to overcome the legacy of past mistakes and forge ahead to a future in which lessons have been learnt and mistakes not repeated.

Continue Reading

Features

Issues in fully implementing the 13th Amendment – Police Powers

Published

on

President J. R. Jayewardene and Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord, which paved the way for the 13th Amendment..

By C. A. Chandraprema

While most provisions of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution have been implemented, sticking points have persisted with regard to two matters – the devolution of police and land powers. Appendix I of the Provincial Councils List in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution provides for the devolution of police powers. The implementation of these provisions will entail the division of the Sri Lanka Police Force into a National Police Division which includes special units such as the CID; and a Provincial Police Division for each Province, headed by a DIG.

According to Section 6 of Appendix 1, the IGP shall appoint a DIG for each Province with the concurrence of the Chief Minister of the Province. If there is no agreement between the IGP and the Chief Minister, the matter will be referred to the National Police Commission, which after due consultations with the Chief Minister shall make the appointment. Thus, the effective appointing authority of the provincial DIG is the Chief Minister. Section 11 stipulates that all Police Officers, serving in units of the National Division and Provincial Divisions, in any Province, shall function under the direction and control of the provincial DIG who, in turn, will ‘be responsible to’ and ‘under the control of’ the Chief Minister in respect of the maintenance of public order and the exercise of police powers in the Province.

According to section 12.1, it is the Provincial police forces that will maintain law and order and be responsible for the prevention, detection and investigation of all offences in the Province except for the 11 specified offences allocated to the National Police Division which are as follows: international crimes, offences against the State, offences relating to the armed services, offences relating to elections, currency and government stamps, offences against the President, Ministers, MPs public officials, judges, etc., offences relating to state property, offences prejudicial to national security, offences under any law relating to any matter in the national government list and offences in respect of which courts in more than one province have jurisdiction. Most of these offences are not really a part of day to day police functions and occur infrequently. Thus, under the 13A, it is the Provincial Divisions which will handle the bulk of actual day to day police work.

Provincial Police to the forefront

Signifying the extent to which the National Police Division will be expected take a back seat, Section 10.1 of Appendix 1 requires members of the National Police Division to ordinarily be in plain clothes, except when performing duties in respect of the maintenance of public order. For all practical purposes, the only uniformed police force, visible to the public, will be the Provincial Police. Recruitment to the National Police Division is to be done by the National Police Commission and to the Provincial Police Divisions by the respective Provincial Police Commissions. According to Section 4, the Provincial Police Commissions will be made up of a) the Provincial DIG, b) a person nominated by the Public Service Commission, in consultation with the President; and c) a nominee of the Chief Minister of the Province. Thus the Chief Minister has complete control over both the Provincial Police Chief as well as the Provincial Police Commission.

In addition to the above, according to Sections 7 and 8 of Appendix 1, the Provincial Police Commissions, which are completely under the sway of the Chief Minister, will have a say in deciding on the cadre and salaries and even the type and quantity of firearms and ammunition used by the Provincial Police forces. However, the potentially horrendous implications of Sections 7 and 8 are mitigated to some extent by the proviso that ‘uniform standards and principles’ shall be applied across the board with regard to these matters for all Provincial Police Divisions.

When recruitment for the Provincial Police Forces are to be carried out by Provincial Police Commissions which are completely under the sway of the Chief Ministers of the Province, the politics of the Province will become the politics of the Provincial Police force, as well. The most obvious foreseeable result of recruiting, within the Province for the Provincial Police force, is that the Northern Province Police force will be predominantly Tamil, the Eastern Province police force largely Tamil and Muslim, and the police forces of all other Provinces, predominantly Sinhala. The implications of politicians, elected on communalistic political platforms, having armed police forces under their control, to further their political objectives, should be clear to anybody. For a country like Sri Lanka which has experienced protracted conflict between ethnic and religious groups, the police powers provisions in the 13A are a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

An equally important consideration is the fact that crime prevention, detection and investigation is very much an inter-provincial, countrywide activity in this country. The creation of nine separate Provincial Police Divisions, answering to nine different lines of command, will seriously hamper the crime fighting capacity of the police which we now take for granted. Today, the IGP and the police force, under him, acts on the imprimatur of the national government, and its outreach extends to every nook and corner of the country. If the 13th Amendment is fully implemented, and the principle day to day police functions, such as maintaining law and order, and crime fighting, becomes the exclusive preserve of the various Provincial Police forces, whose authority does not extend beyond the borders of their Provinces, even pursuing a criminal across Provincial borders will become a tedious, process heavy with bureaucratic procedures and the entire country is going to suffer as a result. (The Colombo and Kotte city limits will not belong to the Western provincial police division but to a Metropolitan police under the National Division according to Item 1 on the Provincial Councils List.)

Readers may recall the 2005 incident during the ceasefire where some policemen, attached to the National Child Protection Authority went into an LTTE held area in search of a fugitive European pedophile and were arrested by the LTTE police. If the police powers in the 13A are fully implemented, in a context where some Provincial administrations are going to be openly hostile to the national government, as well as to other Provincial administrations, similar incidents will become day to day occurrences. The sheer practical impossibility of effectively carrying out police work in a small, densely populated country divided into nine separate police jurisdictions, manned by police forces under nine different lines of command was one of the main reasons why the police powers in the 13A have remained unimplemented for the past 37 years.

Political control over Provincial Police forces

While the IGP will nominally remain the head of the Sri Lanka Police force, even under the 13A, actual day to day police work will become the preserve of the provincial DIGs, acting under the direction and control of the respective Chief Ministers. Under Section 12.4(b) of Appendix 1, the IGP’s discretion in matters related to crime fighting will largely be centered on assigning investigations to units of the national division, like the CID, if he believes that is required in the public interest. But even to do that, he will need to ‘consult’ the Chief Minister of the Province and to have the approval of the Attorney General. Appendix 1 does not have provisions for any mechanism to enable the Provincial Police forces to work in unison in crime fighting or indeed any mechanism that can respond expeditiously to crime fighting requirements throughout the country.

The 13A was passed into law nearly four decades ago, in a different era. In the new millennium, the dominant trend has been to prevent politicians from influencing the police force but the provisions in the 13A seeks to do exactly the opposite.

Even though the new millennium has seen three Constitutional Amendments, (the 17th, 19th and 21st) promulgated for (among other things) the depoliticisation of the police force, Appendix 1 of the Provincial Councils List in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, was left largely untouched. I use the word ‘largely’, because the 17th Amendment did make a few changes in Appendix 1, but that was only to reduce the powers of the President. The Chief Minister’s powers over the Provincial Police remained untouched.

The total and complete politicisation of the police force, envisaged in the 13A, renders it out of step with the times. It was just a few months ago that the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was passed and under its provisions, the President cannot appoint the IGP unless the Constitutional Council approves his recommended candidate and the President cannot appoint the Chairman and Members of the National Police Commission except on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council.

How will the people of this country react if the police powers, envisaged in the 13A, are implemented, and they wake up one morning to find that the Chief Ministers have been given effective control over the appointment of the provincial DIGs and complete control of the Provincial Police Commissions?

How will the people react when they find that the country has been rendered ungovernable overnight because the police force has been fragmented into nine separate police forces, under nine different chains of command? The gestation period for the fallout resulting from a wrong decision with regard to the police powers laid out in the 13A will not be years or months but weeks and days. Hence this is an area where the government will have to proceed with great caution.

Continue Reading

Features

Valentine’s Day gig in Kolkata

Published

on

Yohani: Super excited to perform in Kolkata

Yes, Valentine’s Day is fast approaching…one week from today, and there’s going to be lots of action on Tuesday, February 14th.

The showbiz scene will have plenty to offer those who celebrate this day.

Our very own Yohani, who is now a mega star in India, will be in Kolkata, on Valentine’s Day.

And this is what she has to say:

“See you all on 14th February, 2023, as I would be coming for my maiden gig in the city of joy. Super excited, thrilled to meet you all.”

However, a Valentine’s Gala will be celebrated, four days ahead – on February 10th – at the Claireport Place Banwuet and Convention Centre, in Toronto, Canada.

This event, they say, has been put together to support a very talented young band (youths of Sri Lankan origin), called BluPrint, whose passion for Sri Lankan music has thrilled Toronto audiences for the last seven years.

The members have been a part of a series of sold out concerts, starting from API concert series, in 2016, to BluPrint’s Roots, in 2022.

Continue Reading

Trending