Saturday 10th June, 2023

Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa crossed swords in Parliament, on Thursday, with the former reminding the House that the latter’s late father, President Ranasinghe Premadasa, had violated people’s democratic rights blatantly. What one gathered from the Prime Minister’s line of reasoning was that he thought the Opposition Leader, as President Premadasa’s son, had no moral right to talk about allegations of human rights violations against the present government. Sajith responded that not everything his father’s government had done was acceptable to him, and he celebrated only its good deeds.

Premadasa’s presidential legacy has been an asset as well as a liability for Sajith, paradoxical as it may sound. The overall assessment of a departed political leader’s rule is usually influenced by various factors, and public perception of it evolves with biographers, researchers and historians providing fresh insights into discussions, debates and studies on their lives and careers. It is, in fact, a process that goes on for years, if not decades. However, posthumous remembrances of political leaders in this country tend to be shaped by basically what they did during the final phases of their tenures. Hence the need for the heads of state who want the people to have a positive impression of them posthumously not to wait until it is too late to retire or demean themselves by entering/re-entering Parliament after leaving high office.

The popularity of Premadasa Snr. was very low at the time of his untimely demise in May 1993 owing to the assassination of Lalith Athulathmudali, who had broken away from the UNP together with several party stalwarts,following an abortive attempt to impeach the former, and founded the DUNF, which emerged as a formidable political force. The Premadasa government resorted to extremely oppressive measures to hold its political enemies at bay and was accused of killing tens of thousands of youth during the second JVP uprising in the late 1980s. It is the people’s dreadful memories of that phase of the Premadasa rule that PM Gunawardena craftily sought to evoke when he took on Sajith in Parliament, on Thursday, in a bid to defend the incumbent administration against the allegations of human rights violations.

PM Gunawardena specifically took up the issue of mass sackings and blatant violations of labour rights during the Jayewardene and Premadasa governments, which were antipathetic to unionised labour despite having its own trade union wing, the JSS. They turned hostile towards labour unions and did everything in their power to crush strikes. PM Gunawardena was right in pointing out the plight of the workers who took part in a general strike in July 1980; tens of thousands of them lost their jobs, and the JRJ government bragged that ‘the elephant’ had only shaken its tail; it was a dire warning that trade unions would have to face a far worse fate if they resorted to industrial action again.

What PM Gunawardena, however, left unsaid was that his current political boss, President Ranil Wickremesinghe, was one of the diehard supporters of President Jayewardene and President Premadasa and served in their Cabinets. One may recall that when some UNP MPs led by Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake, together with the Opposition, tried to impeach President Premadasa, Wickremesinghe solidly stood behind him in 1991, and remained ever faithful to him until his untimely demise about two years later despite numerous violations of human rights and attacks on democracy on his watch. Mahinda Rajapaksa was one of the key campaigners against the Premadasa government. In fact, it was his public protest campaigns that helped him rise to national prominence and work his way up to become the President. Today, Mahinda has thrown in his lot with Wickremesinghe. So has PM Gunawardena!

It may be recalled that the SLFP, which was involved in the 1980 strike, promised to look after the interests of the terminated workers, some of whom were driven to suicide. But the unfortunate strikers’ problems remained unsolved even under the SLFP-led governments of Presidents Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa. Gunawardena was a minister in those administrations, which did not honour the SLFP’s assurance to the July strikers that justice would be served. One cannot but agree with PM Gunawardena that democracy suffered tremendously under the Ranasinghe Premadasa government, but he needs to be told that the wrongs that previous regimes committed cannot be cited in extenuation of the incumbent dispensation’s undemocratic acts, which are legion. Let that be the bottom line.

Friday 9th June, 2023

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana finds himself in an unenviable position over the arrest of All Ceylon Tamil Congress leader and MP Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, who was granted bail after being produced before the Kilinochchi Magistrate’s Court, on Wednesday. He is under fire from the Opposition, which says he did precious little to prevent Ponnambalam’s arrest, but the government MPs have endorsed police action. Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has said he does not approve of what MP Ponnambalam is alleged to have done, but the latter should not have been arrested on his way to Parliament. He thinks there has been a breach of parliamentary privileges.

Speaker Abeywardana insists that he is without power or authority to prevent the police from making arrests. The question is whether the police would have been allowed to arrest a government MP for berating the police, or whether any action would have been taken against Ponnambalam if he had been supportive of the ruling coalition. When MP Ali Sabri Raheem, who has crossed over to the government, was recently nabbed by the Customs at the BIA, with 3.5 kilos of gold and nearly 100 smartphones, he was allowed to walk free after paying a fine amounting to only 10 percent of the value of the contraband goods, which were confiscated. Pointing out that a smuggler without political connections would have been made to pay a fine equal to the total value of the illicit goods taken into custody, the Opposition has asked why no action was taken against MP Raheem for violating the exchange control laws.

In a widely-circulated video, MP Ponnambalam is seen launching into a tirade against a group of policemen, one of whom pays him back in his own coin, in Vadamarachchi, recently. According to media reports, the incident took place near a GCE O/L examination centre; did it disturb the students sitting the exam, and if so, action should be taken against all those responsible for the commotion. Such behaviour is unbecoming to the so-called lawmakers and law-enforcement officers.

The Vadamarachchi incident would not have developed into a mega issue if MP Ponnambalam had made a statement to the police when he was asked to do so. In fact, there would have been no issue at all if he had refrained from confronting the police personnel, allegedly obstructing them in the process; the situation, we believe, could have been handled wisely. The matter, which is now before a Magistrate, is best left to the learned judge. We only discuss some political aspects thereof.

We usually do not have a kind word to say about the police, but they should be treated with respect, and must not be obstructed while on duty. All politicians, save a few, ride roughshod over the police albeit to varying degrees, but angry reactions from the latter are extremely rare. Will the police stand up to the unruly government MPs as well?

All MPs must be treated equally. What MP Ponnambalam is alleged to have done in Vadamarachchi pales into insignificance in comparison to charges against State Minister Diana Gamage; the CID did not arrest her even though the Colombo Chief Magistrate held that the police could take her into custody without a warrant. What made the police baulk at arresting her? Is it that the government thinks all MPs are equal before the law but the members of its parliamentary group are ‘more equal than’ others?

As for the clashes between the MPs and the police, one may recall that in late 2018, the Rajapakasa loyalists in the UPFA parliamentary group went berserk in Parliament in a bid to prevent the UNP and its allies including the JVP and the TNA from toppling the 52-day government, hurriedly formed by the then President Maithripala Sirisena and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in a questionable manner.

They turned violent in the House, and even lunged menacingly at Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who had to be escorted to safety. They then damaged furniture and microphones in the House and threw chairs at the policemen protecting the beleaguered Speaker. It is a non-bailable offence to damage public property. But no cases were filed against those violent MPs.

What’s the world coming to when the MPs who throw projectiles at the police inside Parliament itself and smash up public property are let off the hook but legal action is taken against an MP for hurling verbal abuse against some police personnel and allegedly obstructing them? The government has made a mockery of its ‘one-country-one-law’ slogan, which it makes out to be its guiding principle. The aforesaid instances of duplicity make one wonder whether that catchphrase should be changed to ‘one-country-two-laws’.

Thursday 8th June, 2023

The Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe administration has earned notoriety for trying to defend the indefensible. Cabinet Spokesman and Media Minister Bandula Gunawardena made a vain attempt at Tuesday’s weekly press briefing to defend the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill (BAB) and dispel fears being expressed about it. Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, who was present there, stuck his oar in; he said there was no reason for the media organisations that neither committed any transgressions nor intended to do so in the future to fear the BAB. His argument is seriously flawed in that dealing with errant media outfits is not the primary purpose of the BAB, which is aimed at facilitating the suppression of the media in their entirety. It is also intended to have the same intimidating and unsettling effect as the sword of Damocles on journalists and media owners; if it is enacted, all electronic media institutions will be at the mercy of the government, which will exercise control over the renewal of their transmission licences among other things. The BAB will inhibit journalists from being critical of the government and exposing its corrupt deals, etc.

Why is the government in a mighty hurry to introduce broadcasting regulatory laws at this juncture? Its focus should be on stabilising the economy, resuming debt repayment and granting some relief to the public. One of the tasks that the SLPP publicly entrusted President Ranil Wickremesinghe with following the ouster of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was to bring order out of chaos. He succeeded in doing so—credit where credit is due. He acted decisively and saved Parliament with the help of the military, who aborted an attempt by a mob to march on it, last year. If the hordes had been able to storm Parliament, the country would have been plunged into anarchy. Considering the positive impact the President’s bold action had on democracy and efforts being made to bring about political stability and revive the economy, only a hypocrite of the worst order will deny him credit for that. Unfortunately, a few months on, the government on his watch is trying to bring ‘chaos out of order’ by undertaking missions that are bound to endanger democracy and the semblance of political stability that has come about, and, worse, negate whatever gains the country has made on the economic front during the past several months.

The country has managed with the existing broadcasting regulatory laws during insurrections, a protracted war, and numerous socio-political upheavals including Aragalaya. So, why should the government make haste to bring in new media laws at present? It had better get its priorities right without biting off more than it can chew and inviting trouble.

It may be that the government is trying to make the most of the current situation and introduce oppressive laws to consolidate its hold on power. One may recall that in the early noughties, Wickremesinghe, as the Prime Minister, endeared himself to the media by doing away with criminal defamation laws and received praise from journalists, and deservedly so. But all the good he has done will be gone in a jiffy if the proposed broadcasting laws are enacted.

The UNP has a history of suppressing media freedom. It had journalists assaulted and murdered. The Jayewardene and Premadasa governments even did not allow the privately-owned television stations to carry local news bulletins. It was President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga who granted the electronic media that freedom, soon after the 1994 regime change. The UNP lost and opted to avoid presidential elections for about three decades, and having secured the presidency fortuitously, it is apparently reverting to its old totalitarian ways, ably assisted by its partner in crime, the SLPP, whose leaders had journalists killed and media institutions torched.

There is no way the government can justify its efforts to introduce the BAB. Some ruling party politicians have said there could be an extensive discussion thereon before it is presented to Parliament, but what is there to be discussed about an irredeemably bad Bill?

The media continues to draw public criticism, and calls are being made for new laws to enable better regulation thereof, especially in view of the phenomenal expansion of social media. But introducing oppressive laws as envisaged in the BAB is certainly not the way to set about it.

Pressure must be cranked up on the government to deep-six the BAB. Journalists and all others who cherish media freedom and democracy must not rest until that goal is achieved. Boot, saddle, to horse, and away!