Editorial

Some thoughts on Independence

Published

11 months ago

2024/02/4

When we saw an incoming email from a regular correspondent to the newspapers titled “Why not sing the National Anthem in the Thai language” in our inbox a couple of days ago, we naturally thought the writer had his tongue in his cheek. He was reacting to a news story in this paper last Sunday that the president had directed his Media Division to prepare the Independence Commemoration Souvenir in the Thai language in addition to Sinhala, Tamil and English to honour the visiting Thai premier. This was not actually the case. The letter writer was advocating a digital souvenir as an economy measure. He had incidentally suggested – seriously and not sarcastically – singing the anthem in Thai.

Be that as it may, given the country’s current travail with everything possible going wrong everywhere, many older people are heard to say “we might have been better off had we remained a British colony.” In that context it would be useful to reflect today, our 76^th anniversary of Independence from British rule, some of the pros and cons of having been under the imperial yoke.

It would be foolish to regard the totality of British colonial rule over this island to have been of absolutely no benefit to us. Negatives undoubtedly abound, notably the notorious Waste Lands Ordinance No. 1 of 1897 declaring all uncultivated lands as state lands under this law. This resulted in the unjust deprivation of the country’s peasantry of commonly held grazing and forest land serving as rainwater catchments.

The sale for a song of such land to British investors to open first coffee and then tea plantations impoverished the Kandyan peasantry and deprived the whole country of the natural catchment of the forested hill country that fed our rivers, regulated the climate and much more. Then there was the brutal suppression of the Uva-Wellassa rebellion of 1817-18 and the scorched earth policy that followed and events that occurred in 1915 etc. There was also the administration of the country in a language most of its people did not understand and the ultimate horror of people being tried for their lives in such a language.

But on the plus side of the ledger was, as in India, uniting the whole country previously divided into several kingdoms, the legacy of the English language and the modernization of the economy with roads, railways, ports, hydro-power and urban infrastructure not forgetting the enforcement of law and order. Colonialism, as everywhere, was exploitative but not without at least some fringe benefits for colonized territories. This was more true of the British than the other colonial powers.

The period between 1931 and 1947 leading up to Independence when the country was governed by two State Councils under British overlordhip saw the opening of the dry zone which arguably was bigger than the Mahaweli Development project that came later. We had universal franchise in 1931 with women getting the right to vote only three years after females had won that right in the United Kingdom.

At the time of Independence, then Ceylon was a jewel in the crown of the British Empire and ours was arguably one of the strongest economies, other than Japan’s, in Asia. It is very well known that Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew once held then Ceylon as a model for his country to emulate. That was then, but where are we now after 76 years of self-rule?

The blame for much of our failures must be squarely laid at the feet of the various post-Independence governments who have ruled us since we were freed of the colonial yoke. The Soulbury Constitution the British left us served us well for 26 years. But our political class with their lack of wisdom threw out the baby with the bathwater. The clause protecting minority rights ended with the 1972 constitution which accorded primacy to Buddhism, the religion of the majority. Sinhala Only was Mr. Bandaranaike’s battle cry but as Tarzie Vitachchi, one of our best known newspapermen so pungently put it, the prime minister later tried to add “but Tamil also” to that slogan!

As Prof. KM de Silva, one of our best known contemporary historians has noted, the 1972 constitution ought to have been a proper manifestation of the people’s sovereignty. But it was written with minimum public participation. As he pointed out, by promulgating the new constitution, the then ruling coalition elected by a landslide in 1970 gave itself a term up to 1977, two years beyond the five years to which it was elected in 1977.

But the J.R. Jayewardene government, elected in 1977 with an unprecedented five sixths parliamentary majority did better, doing away with the next election “with the consent of the people” obtained via what was widely regarded as a heavily rigged referendum. This enabled the then incumbent parliament to remain in office for a further term without an election. But as KM de Silva has said, the system we have been left with “may be described as a centralized democracy in which the most dominant element is the political executive which in comparison with the former constitution has fewer built-in checks on the abuse of political power.”

The various missteps since Independence led to a near 30-year civil war, a bankrupt country with an obscenely bloated public service and a military that is the world’s 14^th largest. Jobs for the boys (and girls) of politicians has resulted in our public service being over five times as big as it needs be. Our youth is quitting the country in their thousands as they see no future here as we prepare for yet another election with little prospect of the widely desired system change.

All News Advertisement

Up Next

Chasing will-o’-the-wisp

Don't Miss

Of that paan

Thilina Walpola

Click to comment

Editorial

Ranil’s advice

Published

19 hours ago

2024/12/21

Thilina Walpola

Saturday 21st December, 2024

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has urged the SJB-led Opposition to act responsibly and help ensure the continuity of the IMF bailout programme, which has enabled the economy to regain some stability. He has also thanked the NPP government for having kept the IMF programme on course.

Wickremesinghe’s exhortation to the Opposition and unsolicited advice to the government are timely but not devoid of politics. He is seeking the credit for what the country has achieved through the ongoing IMF programme, which got underway in earnest under his presidency. In fact, it is doubtful whether any other President would have had the courage to make a host of unpopular yet essential decisions to address the economic crisis. So, Wickremesinghe is not without a moral right to ask the government and the Opposition to act prudently and help the country make the most of the IMF programme. It is hoped that the Opposition and the government will heed Wickremesinghe’s advice and act accordingly.

Sadly, the SJB has chosen to play to the gallery, asking the government to renegotiate the IMF programme. It could not even sort out an internal dispute over its National List appointments, and one of its constituents resorted to legal action. So, how can such a political party claim to be able to make the IMF bend to its will? It is obviously trying to earn brownie points with the public by bellowing rhetoric.

The IMF programme is no economic panacea, but it will surely help Sri Lanka gain economic stability in the short-term. It has already yielded some tangible results. Much more remains to be done to ensure Sri Lanka’s long-term economic wellbeing, and it is up to the current dispensation as well as future governments to develop the economy and achieve debt sustainability.

Nobody likes IMF bailout conditions, which can be extremely harsh, but they are a prerequisite for a bankrupt country’s economic recovery. If Sri Lanka managed its economy properly, it would not have had to ask for IMF help, which comes with constricting conditions. However, what the IMF has prescribed is what Sri Lanka should have done on its own a long time ago.

When a country spends more than it earns and goes on borrowing recklessly from external sources to meet its revenue shortfall, it runs the risk of facing an economic crisis. The Mahinda Rajapaksa government indulged in wasteful expenditure; it spent a great deal of borrowed money on Ozymandian projects. The UNP-led Yahapalana government also borrowed heavily. The JVP backed that administration to the hilt. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, in its wisdom, slashed taxes and tariffs, oblivious to the disastrous consequences of its harebrained action. The Covid -19 pandemic came, necessitating prolonged lockdowns, which took a heavy toll on the economy. The rest is history.

A person who falls into a well has to come out of its mouth, as a local saying goes. There is no other way out. Sri Lanka finds itself in a similar situation. Having ruined the economy, it found itself at the bottom of an economic pit. Thankfully, in answer to its pitiable pleas, the IMF threw a lifeline, which has enabled it to come halfway up. Needless to say, nothing will be stupider than for it to let go of that lifeline.

Editorial

Lest watchdogs should become lapdogs

Published

2 days ago

2024/12/20

Thilina Walpola

Friday 20th December, 2024

The JVP-led NPP’s ascent to power rekindled the hopes of good governance activists for a radical break from the past and a new political culture. The incumbent government came under pressure to ensure the independence and integrity of the parliamentary Financial Committees by allowing them to be headed by Opposition MPs. But the efforts of the campaigners for good governance have been only partially successful. SJB MP Dr. Harsha de Silva has been appointed the Chairman of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF), and the government has said one of the NPP members should head the COPE (Committee on Public Finance).

The government’s position is that the COPE will conduct investigations into what happened under the previous administration and therefore an NPP MP should chair it. The Opposition’s efforts to persuade the government to change its mind have been in vain. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake himself reiterated the NPP’s position in Parliament on Wednesday in response to a request from Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa that the government reconsider its decision.

The COPE plays a pivotal role in exposing irregularities in state enterprises and has the potential to restore public trust in Parliament. According to Standing Order No. 120, the duty of the COPE is to examine the accounts of public corporations, institutions funded wholly or in part by the state and of any business or other undertaking vested under any written law, with the assistance of the Auditor-General. One of the criticisms against the COPE is that its probes do not yield the desired results, and its reports gather dust. But there have been glaring exceptions.

The COPE under Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s chairmanship, during the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, played an activist role, paving the way for the reversal of a questionable divestiture programme—the privatisation of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and Lanka Marine Services. Similarly, the COPE under D. E. W. Gunasekara’s chairmanship was bold enough to produce a damning report on the first Treasury bond scam in 2015, but the UNP had Parliament dissolved, forestalling the submission of that vital document to the House. The COPE carried out its second probe into the Treasury bond scams under the chairmanship of the then Opposition MP Sunil Handunnetti. Thus, the COPE has proved its ability to safeguard the interests of the public, and the precedents it has set should be followed. Handunnetti, who is a powerful minister in the incumbent government, ought to lend his voice to those who are demanding that an Opposition MP be appointed as the COPE chairperson.

Situations could arise warranting investigations that adversely impact the interests of the incumbent government. If the COPE chairperson is a ruling party MP, he or she, under such circumstances, will not be able to act impartially owing to his or her party loyalty. This is why the campaigners for good governance insist that the parliamentary watchdog committees should be chaired by the Opposition.

The government’s argument that it has to appoint one of its MPs as the COPE chairperson because the irregularities to be probed occurred under the previous dispensation, whose MPs are currently in the opposition, is not tenable. The vast majority of the Opposition MPs in the current Parliament were not members of the previous administration, which became a metaphor for corruption, and therefore one of them can be appointed the COPE head.

The COPE will have to probe irregularities in state institutions during the current administration as well, and a ruling party MP functioning as its chairperson will be constrained to act in such a way that he or she is seen to be biased; the integrity of the watchdog committee will be compromised in such an eventuality.

One can only hope that the NPP will change its position and let an Opposition MP be appointed as COPE head.

Editorial

Hobson’s choice and U-turns

Published

3 days ago

2024/12/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Thursday 19th December, 2024

The JVP-led NPP government is quite upbeat about President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s India visit. However, if the joint statement Dissanayake and Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued on Monday (16 Dec.) is anything to go by, the NPP administration has endorsed what its leaders used to flay President Ranil Wickremesinghe for having undertaken to do at the behest of India, much to the interests of Sri Lanka’s interests. Wickremesinghe has thanked Dissanayake for endorsing the Economic and Technological Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) to be signed between India and Sri Lanka. This can be considered a backhanded compliment.

As for the projects of strategic importance mentioned in the joint statement, PM Modi has said nothing new; he has only reiterated what he expected the previous Sri Lankan governments to do. He has highlighted his government’s desire to see the completion of some vital projects such as the supply of LNG to Sri Lanka, a high-capacity grid connection between the two countries, a petroleum pipeline from India to Sri Lanka, and the further development of the Trincomalee oil tank farm. It is a case of Hobson’s choice for Sri Lanka.

The joint statement also mentions some benefits to Sri Lanka in areas such as energy development, education and technology and agriculture.

PM Modi and President Dissanayake have agreed to continue discussions on the development of airports in Sri Lanka. One can only hope that Sri Lanka will not come under Indian pressure to award contracts for airport development to the Adani Group, which is under a cloud. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has accused the Modi government of ‘tweaking rules’ regarding India’s airport privatisation programme in favour of the Adani Group.

Meanwhile, PM Modi said at a joint press conference with President Dissanayake on Monday that they had discussed reconstruction and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, and he hoped that the Sri Lankan government would fulfil the aspirations of the Tamil people and its commitment to implementing the Constitution of Sri Lanka (read the 13th Amendment) fully, and conduct the Provincial Council elections. PM Modi also said he and Dissanayaka were in full agreement that ‘our security interests are interconnected’, his message being that Sri Lanka has to be mindful of India’s security concerns.

The biggest challenge before the NPP government is to justify the numerous about-turns of its main constituent, the JVP, which signals left but turns right erratically, and provides grist to the Opposition’s mill, in the process. JVP leaders are doing exactly the opposite of what they advocated as regards some crucial issues during their opposition days; their policy contradictions are legion. They have made U-turns on the IMF bailout programme, rice imports, taxes, tariffs, petroleum prices, the MPs’ perks and privileges, and a host of other issues.

Addressing a seminar under the theme, ‘Trading, Sacrifice and ETCA’, in Colombo in Sept. 2016, JVP leader Dissanayake said the agreement, if signed, would pave the way for an influx of ‘low-grade Indian IT professionals’ here at the expense of the Sri Lankan youth. According to a report published on the JVP’s official website (23 Feb. 2016), Dissanayake had this to say about ETCA, at the first of a series of seminars held under the theme ‘Denounce ETCA that sacrifices our economy to India!’: “There is a political gamble here. India is trying to intervene in politics in our country. Already, there are many RAW spies in Jaffna. Before our country is made a political playground India wants to gobble our economy. Already India has a monopoly in the vehicle, medicine and construction sectors. Already, they are controlling our economy. Through that they manipulate politics in our country. It is this political need that jumps out of Ranil’s mouth. We would never allow this agreement to be signed.”

The question is what those ‘RAW spies’ in Sri Lanka were doing during this year’s presidential and parliamentary elections.

In a video (dated 19 September 2023) doing the rounds on the Internet these days, Dissanayake opposes the Indo-Lanka connectivity project; he says the proposed projects such as the grid connection, the petroleum pipeline, etc., are detrimental to Sri Lanka’s independence.

It will be interesting to see what the opponents of ETCA, especially the professionals, who backed the NPP to the hilt in the presidential and parliamentary elections this year, have got to say about the incumbent government’s about-turns and acquiescence to India’s demands.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath is heard speaking of ‘bondages’ between India and Sri Lanka, during a brief television interview in New Delhi. Was it a mere lapsus linguae or a Freudian slip reflecting the JVP leaders’ subconscious antipathy towards what they once perceived as India’s suzerainty or hegemonistic interests?