Editorial

The Colombo Port City

Published

5 years ago

2021/05/30

However hard the government tries to claim that it won a famous victory in getting through the legislature the controversial Colombo Port City Bill, now an Act of Parliament following its certification last week by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, the fact remains that the Supreme Court (SC) found as many as 25 of its 74 clauses in conflict with the constitution. This is more than a third of the Bill that was originally presented and has been described as a “stinging rebuke” by critics. The SC held that many of the clauses, if not amended, required a two thirds majority of the House for their enactment; and there were others that required both the special majority plus the people’s consent at a referendum. It goes unsaid that the government will under no circumstances wade into a referendum. If we by some miracle have one, people will not bother about any Port City question that is put. They will vote on whether they do or do not want the incumbent government to remain in office. That is reason enough for any government to avoid referendums like the plague.

As promised, the impugned clauses were amended in line with SC guidelines to pass muster. After that, there was no need for the two thirds majority – which the government failed to get by a single vote – or any referendum. Readers will remember the one referendum we had was when the J.R. Jayewardene government asked the people to vote for either the ‘pot’ or the ‘lamp’ to indicate whether they consented to extend the massive mandate JRJ won in 1977. He asked for authority to continue to hold, without an election, the five sixths majority he won in that unprecedented landslide. That was in 1982 and the then incumbent Parliament got six more years without an election. There were numerous allegations that the referendum was rigged but nothing was proved. But it was as clear as daylight to anybody with eyes to see that the prohibition on the display of symbols was flagrantly violated.

It is true that JRJ applied some whitewash over this highly undemocratic act of canceling an election. He did that by requiring sitting ruling party MPs who could not carry their constituencies when he sought re-election (actually a misnomer as we will presently explain) in 1982 and the referendum that followed some weeks later. The misnomer is that he was not elected president in 1977. He was elected prime minister and was later “deemed” president by his 1978 constitution creating the executive presidency. Even in the whitewashing, there was dilution. Then Finance Minister Ronnie de Mel was exempted from facing a by-election and moved from Devinuwara to Bulathsinhala and no by-election was held at Panadura, out of the fear of Dr. Neville Fernando elected on the UNP ticket in 1977, who later resigned from Parliament following differences of opinion with the president.

We have been told by government MPs that there was a miscount in the parliamentary voting on the Bill and an inquiry of whether this was so would be held. Although there were different tallies, none of them hit the magic 150 number which constitutes the two thirds majority in the 225-member legislature. Voting in Parliament is now electronic and not physical. Gone are the days of voice votes of ‘ayes’ and ‘noes’, MPs standing at their seats for physical counts, or the calling of names where a vote by name is called for. Mr. Dhammika Kitulgoda, a former Secretary General of Parliament had been appointed as inquirer into this matter but had not begun his inquiry as this is being written. However the government’s Information and Communication Technology Agency (ICTA) was called to investigate and a report, not yet published or publicized, had been presented. Readers will agree that if the finding was in favour of the government contention, this would not have been the case.

We run in this issue a call by Mr. Chandra Jayaratne, a former Chairman of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce who headed the CTC Eagle Insurance Company when the Ceylon Tobacco Company was in the insurance business, calling for the creation of an Independent Parliamentary Counsel in this country. This institution exists in the United Kingdom and Australia and Jayaratne, a civil society activist sees the Port City Bill (now Act) as a good reason for Sri Lanka too setting up such an institution to carry out the duties now undertaken by the Legal Draftsman. The people of this country will join him is asking how a Bill, with more than a third of its clauses in variance with the Constitution, could have in the first place been gazetted and then presented to Parliament with such defects. It presumably went through the Legal Draftsman, Attorney General, Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet before it came to Parliament. In fact the state-controlled Daily News reported over a month ago that AG had informed the Secretary to the President that “provisions of the Bill are not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Bill is not subject to any prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and may be enacted by Parliament.” Thereafter when the various unconstitutional defects were being pointed by counsel supporting the 19 petitions before the SC, a series of intended amendments were presented.

We are all familiar with the police arresting suspects on Friday evenings so that they can be held in custody until Monday morning without being produced before a Magistrate. The Port City Bill was presented to Parliament in the middle of the New Year holiday season limiting the time-frame open for citizen to challenge it. Nevertheless 19 petitions were filed and considered by a five-judge bench of the SC that made a unanimous determination. Whether the creation of the institution promoted by Jayaratne will make any difference to mala fide acts of governments seeking political advantages, we doubt. Perhaps the Port City will make a difference to the economy of our country. But that is no excuse for attempting to push through legislation that is bad in law.

All News Advertisement

Editorial

Jekylls and Hydes

Published

20 hours ago

2025/12/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

Monday 29th December, 2025

Sri Lankan politicians love the media dearly and take up the cudgels for the rights of journalists when they are out of power. The JVP/NPP leaders also defended the media to the hilt while they were languishing in the Opposition. Jekylls become Hydes after being ensconced in power, with the media exposing their failures and malpractices. Those who can, do; those who cannot, attack the media, one may say of the governments in this country, with apologies to Bernard Shaw.

The JVP-led NPP government, angered by bad press, is all out to intimidate the media it cannot control. Previous governments had the police on a string and used them to attack and harass independent journalists. The incumbent administration has gone a step further; the police have reportedly written to the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC), asking for action against Hiru TV for what they describe as broadcasting unverified, misleading news. Thus, the government has used the police to give Hiru a choice between toeing the official line and losing its licence. Thankfully, its efforts have run into stiff resistance, with media institutions and various associations circling the wagons around Hiru.

If the government thinks Hiru or any other media institution disseminates false information to the detriment of its interests, legal avenues are available for it to seek redress. The police must not be used as a political tool to intimidate the media.

Among the current defenders of the media are the SLPP, the UNP, the SLFP, etc. Their leaders are shedding copious tears for Hiru. But it was while the UNP and SLPP leaders were in power that the suppression of media freedom and violence against journalists became institutionalised for all intents and purposes. UNP governments not only throttled media freedom but also murdered journalists. SLFP regimes had media institutions attacked and journalists killed. An SLFP-led government, with the current SLPP leaders at the helm, had media institutions torched and journalists abducted, assaulted and murdered. These sinners currently in the political wilderness are condemning other sinners in power for suppressing media freedom.

The government deserves the bad press it gets. The police have been reduced to a mere appendage of the JVP/NPP. Two of the NPP’s Retired Police Collective members, namely former Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne and former SSP Shani Abeysekera, have been appointed Secretary to the Public Security Ministry and CID Director, respectively. Absurd claims the police make in defence of the government remind us of Matilda, whose dreadful lies made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes.

When the police were asked why NPP MP Asoka Ranwala had not been subjected to a breathalyser test immediately after a recent road accident he caused, they had the chutzpah to claim they had run out of test kits. They transferred two of their officers over the incident to enable the government to save face. They arrested one of their own men assaulted by an NPP MP following a recent police raid on a cannabis cultivation in Suriyakanda. Acting just like legendary King Kekille, they let the MP off the hook and arrested the policeman, who was bailed out; they went on to suspend him from service. A few months ago, they unashamedly sided with a group of JVP cadres who stormed a Frontline Socialist Party office in Yakkala and forcibly occupied it. They go out of their way to ensure that the arrests of drug dealers with links to the Opposition get maximum possible publicity, but they do their best to keep the media in the dark when narcotics dealers with ruling party connections are taken into custody. They crack down on Opposition politicians and activists but steer clear of government members and their supporters. The despicable manner in which they are doing political work for the government reminds us of the Gestapo. Now, they are zeroing in on Hiru TV at the behest of their political masters for exposing their sordid actions.

The only way the NPP government can overcome problems and challenges on the political front and shore up its crumbling image is to mend its ways and fulfil its election pledges while taking action against its errant members who have brought it into disrepute and turned public opinion against it. Shooting the messenger is not the way to set about the task.

Editorial

Executive brinkmanship

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/28

Thilina Walpola

Pressure is mounting on President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to ensure that an Auditor General is appointed without further delay. But he has remained unmoved. He is determined to wear down the Constitutional Council (CC) and appoint one of his party loyalists as Auditor General. The CC has rejected his nominees—and rightly so; they are not eligible. Former Executive Presidents went all out to railroad the CC into rubber-stamping their decisions. They had no qualms about doing so while claiming to uphold the independence of the public service. President Dissanayake has failed to be different. His refusal to compromise amounts to brinkmanship; he is waiting until the CC blinks.

The NPP’s election manifesto, A Thriving Nation: A Beautiful Life, attributes the deterioration of the public service to ‘political appointments’ and state workers making political decisions. Among the steps the NPP has promised to take to straighten up the public service are ‘merit-based appointments and promotions’. This principle has fallen by the wayside where the question of appointing the Auditor General is concerned.

The government should take cognisance of the possible negative effects of the prolonged delay in appointing the Auditor General during a period of disaster response and international relief and rebuilding support.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has called upon President Dissanayake to appoint a person with proven competence, integrity, and independence, who commands wide acceptance as Auditor General forthwith. It has stressed the need to appoint a nonpartisan professional as the Auditor General to safeguard the integrity of the National Audit Office and inspire the confidence of both citizens and international partners in the financial governance of the State.

Transparency International Sri Lanka, the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the other good governance activists, too, have faulted President Dissanayake and his government for the inordinate delay in appointing the Auditor General. They are of the view that a strong, independent Auditor General enables Parliament and the public to scrutinise government expenditure, identify irregularities, prevent misuse of funds, and ensure that those entrusted with public resources are held to account. The delay in appointing the Auditor General has weakened the effectiveness, authority, and the independence of the entire public audit system and created space for inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption, they have noted. The situation will take a turn for the worse if the government succeeds in having one of its cronies appointed Auditor General.

The government is apparently playing a waiting game in the hope that the reconstitution of the CC due next year will provide a window of opportunity for it to appoint one of its loyalists as Auditor General.

Why the government is so desperate to place a malleable person at the helm of the National Audit Office is not hard to understand. If it succeeds in its endeavour, the next Auditor General will be beholden to the JVP/NPP. When an ineligible person is elevated to a high post, he or she naturally becomes subservient to the appointing authority. Such officials go out of their way to safeguard the interests of their political masters in case of irregularities involving state funds and other accountability issues.

A protracted delay in appointing the Auditor General or the appointment of a government supporter to that post will increase the risk of mismanagement of state funds and corruption, lead to the erosion of public trust and confidence in the National Audit Office, undermine legislative oversight and impair fiscal discipline. Most of all, the government’s failure to appoint a competent, independent person of integrity as Auditor General will diminish donor confidence especially at a time when the country is seeking disaster relief funds from the international community. There is no way the government can justify its refusal to appoint the current Acting Auditor General as the head of the supreme audit institution. He is obviously the most eligible candidate.

Editorial

Selective transparency

Published

3 days ago

2025/12/27

Thilina Walpola

Saturday 27th December, 2025

The NPP government has released a cordial diplomatic letter from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, and gained a great deal of publicity for it as part of a propaganda campaign to boost Dissanayake’s image. Such moves are not uncommon in politics, especially in the developing world, where the heads of powerful states are deified and their visits, invitations and letters are flaunted as achievements of the leaders of smaller nations. However, the release of PM Modi’s letter to President Dissanayake is counterproductive, for it makes one wonder why the government has not made public the MoUs it has signed with India?

PM Modi’s Sri Lanka visit in April 2025 saw the signing of seven MoUs (or pacts as claimed in some quarters) between New Delhi and Colombo. Prominent among them are the MoUs/pacts on the implementation of HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) Interconnection for import/export of power, cooperation among the governments of India, Sri Lanka, and the United Arab Emirates on developing Trincomalee as an energy hub, and defence cooperation between India and Sri Lanka.

The NPP government has violated one of the fundamental tenets of good governance––transparency; there has been no transparency about the aforesaid MoUs or pacts, especially the one on defence cooperation. They cannot be disclosed without India’s consent, the government has said. This is a very lame excuse. The JVP/NPP seems to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the public, who made its meteoric rise to power.

When the JVP/NPP was in opposition, it would flay the previous governments for signing vital MoUs and pacts without transparency. But it has kept even Parliament in the dark about the MoUs/pacts in question.

Ironically, the JVP, which resorted to mindless violence in a bid to scuttle the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987, has sought to justify the inking of an MoU/pact on defence cooperation between Sri Lanka and India and keeping it under wraps, about three and a half decades later. The signing of that particular defence MoU/pact marked the JVP’s biggest-ever Machiavellian U-turn. How would the JVP have reacted if a previous government had entered into MoUs with India and kept them secret? It opposed the proposed Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) between Sri Lanka and India tooth and nail, didn’t it?

Whenever one sees the aforesaid letter doing the rounds in the digital space, one remembers the MoUs/pacts shrouded in secrecy, which have exposed the pusillanimity of the NPP government, whose leaders cannot so much as disclose their contents without India’s consent.