Connect with us

Opinion

Truly insane: An all-party administration under Gota

Published

on

By DR. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA

“We want the donkey removed and they are trying to change the saddle!”

Ayatollah Khomeini, during the Iranian Revolution, 1979

Having done the right thing, though belatedly, by de-linking from the Rajapaksa regime and taking its seats in the Opposition as a group of Independents, the SLFP-led 11 parties Group of 40 MPs is heading in exactly the wrong direction, at the wrong time.

Instead of increasing its distance as quickly as possible from President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, it is engaging in a dialogue with him and is willing to entertain the possibility of forming a government under him (though not with Mahinda Rajapaksa as PM), even while a single one of his powers have not been touched.

Talk about incredibly bad timing: not only are unprecedented numbers demonstrating for the resignation or removal of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the latest public opinion poll by Dr Ravi Rannan-Eliya’s Institute shows that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s popularity has “cratered” as the report’s authors say. Of every 10 people, only one supports him and 9 want him gone.

The formula of an all-parties government at this moment of the crisis is ridiculous. With a single exceptional scenario which does not apply here, the formula refers to a reshuffled government under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa with all the powers he enjoys. If anyone agrees to participate in any interim/all-parties government under him, they must know that Gotabaya can tear up the arrangement and throw out that government any day of the week. That alone should expose the idea as a farce.

Secondly, no government that is formed under Gotabaya will be an all-parties government. Neither of the two major Opposition formations, the SJB and the JVP, will be suicidal enough to agree. So, the all-parties government will simply be an SLPP plus SLFP and 11-parties government, i.e., a reshuffle of the old governing coalition of 2020, with the only difference being that there will be a new Prime Minister, one who is not Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Thirdly and perhaps most fundamentally, forming any kind of administration under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, at a time when there is an unprecedented outpouring of mobilized national and social sentiment demanding unambiguously that Gota should leave, is a slap in the face of the people. It is also an act of political suicide on the part of those parties that participate in such a coalition.

There is only one, single exceptional scenario under which it will be tolerable to form any kind of administration while Gotabaya remains President. That scenario is if (a) the 20th Amendment is repealed, (b) the 19th Amendment reintroduced, and (c) a compressed timeframe for Gotabaya’s departure from office is publicly announced. It is only those features that will make any administration an Interim administration. It is also only such conditions that will permit a broad-based administration to be formed with any degree of public acceptability and legitimacy.

In short, an all-parties government can be a legitimate project only AFTER the 20th amendment has been repealed, the 19th amendment reintroduced and Gota has announced an early departure date.

A formula which tosses Mahinda Rajapaksa out but keeps Gotabaya Rajapaksa in and on top, is a formula for an old repaired prop for the Gotabaya presidency which has been rejected by the sovereign people.

The larger reality on the ground is the unprecedentedly massive mobilization of all sectors of the people in almost all parts of the island. The parliamentarians must realize that they are marooned in an ocean of public opinion and social action; an ocean that is becoming increasingly turbulent and rough.

The inability of many parliamentarians to see this obvious reality, reminds me of Lenin’s term “parliamentary cretinism”. Sri Lanka’s parliamentarian seem to be suffering from a bad case of this malady. How else could they be chattering about things as diverse as all-parties administrations under Gotabaya Rajapaksa or the abolition of the executive presidency which is a painfully protracted process?

There are only three parliamentary moves that have any resemblance to the reality outside: (a) a No-Confidence motion (b) the repeal of the 20th Amendment and reintroduction of the 19th and (c) an impeachment. All else is a diversion and delay.

How then to get Parliament to see sense and play its role in the fulfilment of the explicit wishes of the people?

The parliamentarians must get off their high horse and understand that at this exceptional moment in history, their role, and the role of Parliament is that of an adjunct, an auxiliary of the massive struggle of the multitude.

The struggle is almost certain to reach new heights in the month of May. The pressure will become irresistible. One hopes that this pressure will also impact on the Parliament achieve what rationality and good sense will not.

The future of the political parties and politicians will depend on whether or not they are seen to collaborate with a detested Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency, the main enemy of the mobilised people. Those who do prop him up at this moment, even under the guise of an interim or all-parties government, will be socially isolated and wiped out at the first election that comes down the pike.

More basically, the future of politicians and political parties will depend upon the role they play against the backdrop of the unarmed revolution that is underway. Are they with the democratic revolution or against it? Are they attempting to channel the revolutionary energies of the people for their narrow political ends or are they ready to be the agency of the people’s struggle and implement the agenda already spelled out by the people?

At this point it will be pertinent for parliamentary politicians to recall the words of Fidel Castro, who said: “Who will make the revolution? The people, with or without the [Communist] Party!”



Opinion

British PM Starmer’s vain attempt to defend Reeves

Published

on

Reeves and Starmer

British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves’ tax-hiking budget prompted criticism from businesses and farmers, and despite Labour pledging to boost the economy at the centre of its plans, growth has been sluggish. Now the chancellor is facing questions about whether she exaggerated her experience on her online CV and her use of expenses while working in the banking sector before she became an MP.

Her career at HBOS has come under scrutiny, after the BBC revealed that Reeves and two colleagues were the subject of an expenses probe while she was a senior manager at the bank. The initial stage of the HBOS investigation found that a whistleblower’s complaint was substantiated, and the three employees appeared to have broken the rules, according to a senior source with direct knowledge of the probe. The BBC has not been able to establish what the final outcome of the investigation was and it might not have concluded.

A spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor had no knowledge of the investigation, always complied with expenses rules and left the bank on good terms. A spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor had no knowledge of the investigation, always complied with expenses rules and left the bank on good terms. A spokesman for Reeves confirmed that dates on her LinkedIn were inaccurate and blamed an administrative error by the team.

Last year, her LinkedIn profile was also changed to describe her role at HBOS as “Retail Banking”. It had previously claimed she worked as an economist at the bank, but she instead held a management role in the bank’s customer relations department, which dealt with complaints. Entering Parliament in 2010, an early mentor on economic policy was Alistair Darling – the last Labour chancellor, during the financial crisis.

She quickly rose up the party’s ranks, shadowing roles at the Treasury, Work and Pensions, and the Cabinet Office.

Throughout Jeremy Corbyn’s four and a half years as Labour leader, she remained on the backbenches because she felt she could not endorse his policies. Called a “Red Tory” by some in the party, she described this as a “very unpleasant period” in an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson.

In October 2023, she admitted she “should have done better” after it emerged some passages in her book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, had been lifted from other sources without acknowledgment. She told the BBC some sentences “were not properly referenced” and this would be corrected in future reprints.

Last July, Reeves became the country’s first female chancellor and quickly faced what she described as “tough choices”.

She claimed a “black hole” in the nation’s finances meant winter fuel payments would have to be cut for millions of pensioners and National Insurance hiked for employers.

Despite Labour’s attempts to win over businesses during the election campaign, many were disappointed they bore the brunt of the £40bn in tax rises announced in her first Budget. Before winning power, Reeves promised she would govern with “iron discipline” and bring stability to the public finances, leading to comparisons with Conservative “Iron Chancellor” Margaret Thatcher.

On Friday, Reeves was asked about the expenses claims directly. She said: “No-one ever raised any concerns about my expenses when I worked for Halifax Bank of Scotland.” She said her expenses had been “signed off in the proper way” and “no issues were ever raised” during her time at the bank.

Her expenses were signed off by her manager, who was also one of the three employees who were the subject of the expenses probe. Reeves left the bank in May 2009, as did her boss. The other senior manager was on sick leave in May and never returned to work at the bank. There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues and a spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor left the bank on good terms. Reeves has accepted the findings of another part of our investigation, this time over her CV. We established that the chancellor had exaggerated the length of time she worked at the Bank of England. The BBC News investigation revealed that concerns were raised about Reeves’s expenses while working at HBOS between 2006 and 2009. A detailed six-page whistleblowing complaint was submitted, with dozens of pages of supporting documents including emails, receipts and memos.

The complaint led to an internal investigation by the bank’s risk department.

This was passed to internal audit, which reviewed the allegations and concluded that they were substantiated and there appeared to be evidence of wrongdoing by Reeves and her two colleagues, according to a senior source with direct knowledge of the investigation. What we have not been able to establish is what happened next and whether the bank ever reached a formal conclusion.

On Friday, Science Secretary Peter Kyle told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the reporting was “inaccurate”.

Both he and Siobhain McDonagh, a Labour MP who appeared on BBC’s Politics Live on Thursday, raised comments by a former HR manager, Jane Wayper – which, they said, disproved the BBC News’s story.

Wayper spoke to the BBC after being given permission to do so by Reeves’s team.

She provided an on-the-record statement which said she “would have been made aware of any investigation which concluded there was a case to answer” on the basis that she “would have been required to organise and oversee a disciplinary process”. However, the BBC has not reported that the case reached a formal conclusion, or that there was disciplinary action. Kyle incorrectly claimed that the quote had not been included in our report – but it had been in the article since it was first published on Thursday morning. He also incorrectly referred to Wayper as the head of HR at the bank. In reality she was an HR business partner working in the department where Reeves worked. On Friday, Reeves was asked about the expenses claims directly. She said: “No-one ever raised any concerns about my expenses when I worked for Halifax Bank of Scotland.” She said her expenses had been “signed off in the proper way” and “no issues were ever raised” during her time at the bank. Her expenses were signed off by her manager, who was also one of the three employees who were the subject of the expenses probe. Reeves left the bank in May 2009, as did her boss. The other senior manager was on sick leave in May and never returned to work at the bank. There is no suggestion any of the departures were linked to the investigation or spending issues and a spokesman for Reeves said the chancellor left the bank on good terms. We established that the chancellor had exaggerated the length of time she worked at the Bank of England. Reeves has often said she spent the “best part of a decade” working at the bank when setting out her credentials to run the economy to voters.

However, her LinkedIn profile said she only worked there for six years – from September 2000 to December 2006. A year of that time was spent studying at the London School of Economics (LSE).

The BBC has now established that Reeves left the Bank of England in March 2006, meaning the time she spent working there amounts to five and a half years. A spokesman for Reeves confirmed that dates on her LinkedIn were inaccurate and said it was due to an administrative error by the team. Her profile on the social media site has since been updated.

Shame on both the Prime Minister & the Chancellor!!

Sunil Dharmabandhu

Wales, UK

Continue Reading

Opinion

Wasting time at channelling centres: A call for change

Published

on

Visiting a channelling centre should be a straightforward process—book an appointment, arrive on time, see the doctor, and leave with a treatment plan. Unfortunately, the reality is far from this ideal, as I recently experienced firsthand.

I accompanied a friend of mine who had an appointment with a specialist at a well-known channelling centre (CC). The doctor was scheduled to begin consultations at 6:30 AM, and his appointment was number seven (7), with an assigned time of 6:35 AM. Simple calculations revealed that the doctor would have had to examine six patients in just five minutes—a timeline that seemed neither practical nor fair to those in need of thorough medical attention. Wanting to be considerate, we estimated that at least five minutes should be spent per patient and arrived at the centre at 7:00 AM. To our disappointment, we were informed by the receptionist that the doctor had not yet arrived.

By that time, around twenty people were waiting, ten of whom were visibly unwell and could have been patients. A particularly frustrated patient mentioned that on his previous visit, the same doctor had arrived two hours late. Upon further inquiry, I discovered that the doctor, scheduled to start his consultations at 6:30 AM, was in fact performing surgical operations at another hospital at that time. If such commitments were known in advance, why was his channelling session scheduled for an impossible hour? Why does the channelling centre assign specific times that have no relation to actual consultation times?

This issue is not confined to a single doctor or one particular CC—it is a systemic problem that affects countless patients nationwide. The lack of proper scheduling and coordination leads to unnecessary delays, causing immense distress to those who are already suffering.

Moreover, the infrastructure at these centres is equally inadequate. Parking facilities are either non-existent or located far from the premises, while doctors enjoy reserved spots. The irony is that the very people who need the service—the patients—are left in discomfort and frustration.

This situation demands urgent attention. Channelling centres, doctors and the Ministry of Health must work together to create a more humane and efficient system that respects patients’ time and well-being. Simple adjustments, such as realistic scheduling, improved communication, and better patient facilities, could make a world of difference.

After all, roles are interchangeable—today’s doctor might be tomorrow’s patient. It is time to rethink and reform the system to benefit all involved.

I would say these small but essential changes too would lead to a “Lassana Lanka”.

D R

Continue Reading

Opinion

In Loving memory of our Seeya – Late Mr W P Upasena

Published

on

Its been a year since you left us, and while the pain of your absence remains, so too does the warmth of your memory. There is not a day that goes by where we don’t think of you.

We are deeply grateful for the love, wisdom, and kindness you shared with us all. Your unwavering support, gentle guidance, selflessness, and extensive knowledge left an incredible mark on everyone who knew you. You were not only the cornerstone of our family but also a source of inspiration for all who crossed your path.

As we gather to honor your life, we extend our heartfelt thanks to friends, family, and well-wishers who have supported us over the past year. Your love, and kind words have been a source of strength and comfort during this journey.

Though you are no longer with us in person, Seeya you continue to live on in our hearts and through the values you instilled in us. We will continue to honor your life by cherishing each other and carrying forward your legacy of love, compassion, and integrity.

May you attain the supreme bliss of Nirvana, Seeya.

Fondly remembered by:
Achchi, Loving Children & Grandchildren

Continue Reading

Trending