It is now official. President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared this week that the enforcement of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution - part of political proposals to address Tamil grievances - would not be introduced in Parliament until the conclusion of the next Presidential elections as exclusively revealed in these columns last week. He also confirmed the disclosure last week that presidential elections would come first.
Rajapaksa disclosed this in an interview with Narasimhan Ram, Editor of the Chennai-based Hindu newspaper. In the interview published last Monday (July 6), Ram asked about the Government's "political solution" and about "the 13th Amendment plus," - both issues on which Colombo had given firm assurances to the Indian Government.
Rajapaksa replied: "I am waiting for them. The TNA representatives must come and participate in the discussions [on the political solution]. I am getting delayed because they haven't done this yet. (On July 2, leaders and representatives of 22 political parties, including the TNA, participated in the inaugural meeting of the newly-constituted All Parties Committee to build a consensus among political parties for development and reconciliation, giving priority to the speedy resettlement and rehabilitation of the war-displaced.) I am waiting but it will be after my [re]election [as President].
 |
| The National Bhikku Front on a street campaign against power devolution |
"I must get the mandate. After that, the political solution comes. Even tomorrow I can give that - but I want to get that from the people. Even today somebody said: 'The 13th Amendment. We are not for…' I called them and gave them a piece of my mind. I called our party leaders and told them: 'Now what I'm going to tell you, you're not going to tell anybody. It's between you and I.'
"Only party leaders were there. But today a professor from a university called me to say, 'Thank you very much.' I said: 'For what?' He said: 'This morning you have warned all the people about racism. And what you said has been highly regarded. This call is to thank you.' I asked, 'How do you know?' He said: 'No sir, I just heard.' This professor, a Tamil man, had immediately got the news. 'Whether it is Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim, I am telling you all. No racism. Don't try to create problems for me.'
"[As for the political] solution, I'm willing. I know what to give and I know what not to give. The people have given me the mandate, so I'm going to use it. But I must get these people [the TNA representatives] to agree to this. They must also know that they can't get what they want. No way for federalism in this country. For reconciliation to happen there must be a mix [of ethnicities]. Here the Sinhalese, the Tamils, and Muslims inter-marry. In my own family, there have been mixed marriages: Sinhalese with Tamils, Sinhalese with Muslims. This is Sri Lankan society. No one can change this."
In making these assertions, Rajapaksa has clearly set out his Government's new official policy. It assumes greater significance not only in the backdrop of the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) but also because it reflects new thinking. Firstly, he has made clear there will be no federalism in any form as part of proposals to address Tamil grievances. Secondly, the complete enforcement of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, he has made clear, would now rest on a decision by the voters during the next presidential election.
Thrust to power at the November 2005 presidential elections, Rajapaksa did try to seek a negotiated settlement with the LTTE. This is why he ignored some of his own election pledges and chose to pursue the Norwegian-sponsored peace process. He wanted to widen the scope of international partners, but stuck to the Norwegian facilitation and even sent a team to Geneva headed by his Health Minister Nimal Siripala Silva to talk to the LTTE. When the LTTE played truant, he pursued another path - the military option, but to off-set the international outcry to have a 'political solution', he set up the All Party Representative Conference (APRC). The APRC process, for many reasons, became protracted. It was meant to go parallel with the 'military solution', but the 'military solution' was given more focus and eventually won the race.
Till today, the APRC has not been able to come up with its own final proposals.
Rajapaksa's comments that "I am getting delayed to build a consensus among political parties for development and reconciliation" underscores his new thinking. Ahead of the next presidential elections, expected to be in January, next year, he wants a set of proposals to emerge from the political process he has now initiated. In other words, he is now left with a time frame of less than six months for a dual track approach. One is to ensure that Internally Displaced People (IDPs) in camps in the Wanni are re-settled in their homesteads. The other is to ensure that besides the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, a political package, at least with the support of the constituent partners of the Government, is ready.
The Sunday Times has learnt that the current government thinking is to hold the next presidential election simultaneously with a referendum. If the elections are to select a new president, which Rajapaksa is confident of winning, the referendum is to ask the voters whether they are in favour of implementing the entirety of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and or the new political package. How, the questionnaire for the referendum would be formulated and whether the voter will be placed with several options or asked to endorse one package, is still not altogether clear.
However, if one is to go by the current thinking in the higher echelons of the Government, it is likely the voter will have a choice. This is based on proposals for setting up a second chamber, as exclusively revealed in these columns on June 29. Rajapaksa confirmed this when asked by Ram about "this idea of a second chamber." He replied:
"Yes, I want to get representatives from the provinces involved in national policy-making. And if there is anything against a Provincial Council, they can protect their powers constitutionally. I have an arrangement in mind - this is what we call 'home-grown solutions' - but the idea needs to be discussed and the details settled. I don't want to impose any arrangement."
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was born out of India's intervention after the unfortunate ethnic violence in July 1983. When the 13th Amendment was originally tested for its constitutionality before a Full Bench of the Supreme Court at the time, President J.R. Jayewardene and UNP Chairman Harsha Abeywardena petitioned the court in support and 39 persons including Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike petitioned against it. The 9-bench Supreme Court held 5-4 in favour (notwithstanding a conditional judgment by one of the judges which the government took as being in favour) and when it was fixed for a three day debate in Parliament, government MPs from the United National Party (UNP) were kept at the Oberoi Hotel and transported under armed escort daily to the House.
Then Agriculture Minister Gamani Jayasuriya opposed the 13th Amendment in the Cabinet and in public, and was therefore not slotted to speak by his own party despite his request to speak. "That would be like throwing a bomb in Parliament" commented President Jayewardene. The then Opposition Leader, Anura Bandaranaike, gave 30 minutes from his time to Jayasuriya, but the Speaker disallowed it though convention permits the practice. Eventually, Jayasuriya tendered his resignation as an MP and invoked another convention that permits such a person to make a personal statement. Then they said he can make his speech only after the vote.
The bill was introduced by the Minister of Public Administration, a ministry not directly related to devolution and the then Prime Minister R. Premadasa refused to open the debate. Two UNPers voted against the 2nd reading of the bill but voted for it in the 3rd reading.
Such was the controversy surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment at the time.
One of the principal elements of the 13th Amendment was the creation of Provincial Councils as an 'instrument of power sharing' -- a measure intended to satisfy Tamil grievances. The North and Eastern provinces were merged into one unit. In practice, however, the North-Eastern Provincial Council did not serve its purpose and had to function for the most part under a Governor. As a result, it was the seven other provinces where the need for such PCs was not felt necessary, that were saddled with it eventually.
If there was colossal waste of public funds, it amounted to a virtual duplication of functions of the central government in those areas. Waste, corruption and maladministration became rampant in a system which replicated the role of the Cabinet, and the elected representatives were just an extension of the MPs' family and friends.
The controversy over the 13th Amendment, however, has arisen because of some powers vested with the PCs. At present such powers have not been enforced. One such is the conferring of police powers. The other is the distribution of state lands.
Alongside the formulation of political proposals, the Government is to speed up the resettlement process in the one time battle areas. India last week announced a contribution of US$ 100 million (over Rs 1.4 billion) for re-settlement and development. In a Suo Motu speech to a joint session of the Indian Parliament - the Lok Sabha (Lower House) and the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) this week on 'significant developments in our neighbourhood' India's new External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna referred to "the significant conclusion to the military conflict in Northern Sri Lanka" and the death of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran a "proclaimed offender in India".
Krishna added that "the end of military operations in northern and eastern Sri Lanka is an opportunity to rebuild the country..", and spoke of the need to provide relief to the IDPs.
He called for an "inclusive political process of dialogue and devolution" and then went on to say this;
"We have been assured by the Sri Lankan Government of its intention to pursue a political process that envisages a broader dialogue with all parties including the Tamil parties, the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution and to go beyond, so as to achieve meaningful devolution of powers. We will remain engaged with them through this process".
Political analysts here read this to mean that India will keep squeezing the arm of Sri Lanka to implement its baby - the 13th Amendment - and to hell whether it is for the betterment of Sri Lanka.
"As a close neighbour with whom our security and prosperity are inescapably inter-twined, the Government attaches utmost importance to the future course of events in Sri Lanka and has an interest in ensuring that a lasting political settlement is reached", Krishna added.
The Indian offer of financial assistance to the IDPs in Sri Lanka is besides funding from other sources. However, contrary to repeated official claims there is still no official word from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over the Government's request for a standby facility of US $ 1.9 billion US dollars.
The issue took a different turn this week when the United States Government, accused by Colombo of being responsible for the delay of the loan, responded to the charge. Weeks ago, Minister Sarath Amunugama lambasted the US for blocking the IMF loan. The acting US Ambassador James Moore, sought a meeting with Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona to explain the US position. Interesting enough, the Foreign Ministry which issued a statement after the meeting also made an important revelation. First to the statement:
"Mr. James Moore, chargé d' affaires of the U.S. Embassy called at his request on Dr. Palitha Kohona, Secretary, Foreign Affairs today and wished to clarify the U.S. position regarding the IMF loan facility to Sri Lanka.
"Mr. Moore stated that the U.S. government has on no occasion, either publicly or privately, threatened to block the IMF loan to Sri Lanka on political grounds. He explained that the decision will be taken by the Executive Board of the IMF, of which U.S. is a member, based only on economic criteria and not political factors. He also added that the U.S. Government and other members of the Board will review and consider the loan on financial and economic criteria after such time when the Government of Sri Lanka submits the Letter of Intent to the IMF."
Such a Letter of Intent (LoI) from the government of Sri Lanka describes the policies that it intends to implement in the context of its request for financial support from the IMF.
It may be recalled that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked at a news conference in the Treaty Room of the State Department about the IMF loan on May 14, just five days before the LTTE was routed militarily by the armed forces. This was during a joint news conference she held with Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah bin Haji Aman who was visiting Washington. She said:
"With respect to Sri Lanka, we have been very clear in our statements, the most recent one by the President that we have called for a humanitarian cessation of the hostilities and humanitarian relief to be provided to the perhaps as many as 50,000 people - we don't have exact numbers - who are trapped in the fighting. We've called on both sides to cease their hostilities, and we've asked that both sides permit humanitarian relief to be delivered, and at the very least, a high-level humanitarian mission to make an assessment of what relief is necessary.
"Obviously, this is a very troubling humanitarian crisis, and we have been focused on it and trying to convince both sides to cease their hostilities.
We have also raised questions about the IMF loan. At this time, we think that it is not an appropriate time to consider that until there is a resolution of this conflict. And that's what we're focused on trying to help bring about."
For the first time since Sri Lanka applied for the loan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an integral part of the Government of Sri Lanka, has admitted officially that a Letter of Intent is yet to be given to the IMF. Naturally, that would mean negotiations for the loan are yet inconclusive.
And with no finality, the question of the Board of Directors of the IMF meeting to decide on the loan is therefore a long way off.
The Moragoda affair: Right of reply
The attention of His Excellency the President has been drawn to the reference in the “Opinion Column” of The Sunday Times of July 5, to the shifting of the Hon. Milinda Moragoda, MP., from the office of Minister f Tourism to that of the Minister of Justice.
The columnist, quoting political insiders, states that “Rajapaksa was so furious that he wanted to strip Moragoda of Tourism and make him Minister without Portfolio, but that some of his colleagues who left the UNP with him intervened and pleaded that such a move would be a slap on the rest of them as well”.
I am directed to inform you that the change of portfolio of the Hon. Moragoda was not done through anger by the President as stated, but was done in the course of a normal shifting of portfolios, which is the prerogative of the President, and is so understood by the Hon. Moragoda. The reference made to H.E. the President and Minister Moragoda is unfair as well as factually incorrect.
You are also informed that contrary to what was published, no other colleagues of the Hon. Moragoda who left the UNP with him, had intervened or pleaded with the President in this regard, as there was no cause for such intervention or pleading. In fairness to both His Excellency the President and the Hon. Moragoda you are requested to give similar prominence and publicity to this response in the next issue of The Sunday Times.
Lalith Weeratunga,
Secretary to the President
**********************************************************************************************
Political Editor's Note: According to the sequence of events, the removal of Tourism Minister Milinda Moragoda followed the President's displeasure over the new Tourist Board logo 'Small Miracle', a fact not disputed by the President's Secretary.
The political commentary did not contest the President's "prerogative" to "a normal shifting of portfolios" which we are now informed is the official reason for shifting Moragoda out of Tourism into Justice.
We were also informed that Moragoda's colleagues had indeed intervened on his behalf, but if the President's Secretary says none did, we will accept it.
How nice it would also have been if some of the other aspects of the column referring to Moragoda were commented upon by the President's Secretary, such as why the report on the Presidential Commission on Failed Finance Companies has been shelved and not released to the public by the President, and about the propriety of appointing Moragoda to the Justice portfolio when the Supreme Court of this country has held very severely against his conduct as a minister.
|
E-mail