In the aftershocks of External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris' visit to India last week and the disastrous Joint Statement (disastrous to Sri Lanka), President Mahinda Rajapaksa was grappling with one of the main outcomes of that statement; devolution of power.
Most Sri Lankans would have felt that the issue of devolution, something that engaged the attention of political parties and civil society groups for more than two decades, was a by-gone thing. Devolution surfaced with India's active intervention in the post-1983 riots, and was engraved in the country's constitutional canvass through the 13th Amendment and the Provincial Council Law. It was the theme song spearheaded by India and backed by several western countries in the guise of a 'political settlement' that they said was required for the ending of the quest for a separate state by force of arms.
 |
| Garment workers who staged a protest against the private sector pension scheme demonstrate their opposition by tearing off the President’s cut-out that stood at the Katunayake junction. |
The provincial councils came into being in 1987 amidst a violent uprising. The current incumbents in office, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and its many coalition partners as well as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) were in the thick of things opposing the establishment of these provincial councils. As time went by, the boycott of these councils by these parties became a thing of the past and their own members became ensconced in these very same councils enjoying the perks and privileges they afforded from fax machines to duty free vehicles.
In the years that followed, the debate continued, how much devolution would stop the 'war', and how much would be a stepping stone to a separate state. There was general agreement that devolution was acceptable, but there continued to be sharp differences on what the formula ought to be.
External Affairs Minister Peiris in a previous avatar as Minister of Constitutional Affairs tried to bring forth what was known as a 'package' of constitutional reforms which included providing for Regional Councils. This was under the stewardship of President Chandrika Kumaratunga. The move failed with the United National Party (UNP) which introduced the provincial councils in the first place burnt the draft proposals within the precincts of Parliament and put paid to this 'package'.
With that, Kumaratunga's government collapsed shortly thereafter and Peiris himself defected to the UNP to be a Minister not before trying to coax Rajapaksa too to cross over to the UNP in a discussion at Visumpaya (the former state guest house 'Acland House') where Peiris stayed at the time. Other Ministers in Kumaratunga's cabinet viz., S.B. Dissanayake and Mahinda Wijesekera who also defected to the UNP, had also been present. Rajapaksa had told the trio that he would not join the UNP and any differences with Kumaratunga should be sorted out within the party.
Peiris' agreement with the Indians that President Rajapaksa's government would develop on the 13th Amendment therefore was received with scepticism from those within the government, especially the hardline elements.
Chief Ministers’ meeting
In this backdrop, Rajapaksa summoned his Provincial Chief Ministers and Governors for a meeting at 'Temple Trees' this week. The discussion was to revolve around the 13th Amendment and devolution of power. All eight of them were present, with the ninth - the Chief Minister for the Northern Province yet to be elected.
The discussions focused on the financial allocations for the provinces. The concerns of the respective areas were raised by those present, the refrain being that they were short of funds.
Western Province Chief Minister Prasanna Ranatunga raised concerns about tax collection within the province (Colombo, Gampaha and Kalutara) saying that the council was earlier able to collect BTT (Business Turnover Tax), but with the change in the taxation system it was deprived of this revenue.
After nearly 25 years of this system of local administration, Chief Ministers were complaining that some subjects that had been devolved under the law to the councils had not received financial allocations. These included co-operatives and local government institutions, they complained.
The all important issue of education, a subject devolved to the provincial councils, was another major worry for these Chief Ministers. Many of them complained of a disparity in the distribution of resources. It was pointed out that trained teacher appointments were a bone of contention. Some 2,600 trained teachers have passed out and 2,000 of them have been appointed to National schools (which come under the Central government) while only 600 have been assigned to provincial schools. There are 9,000 provincial schools in the country.
The controversial subjects of land and police powers, however, were significantly not brought up during these discussions. Speculation was rife that any development on the 13th Amendment would necessarily have to mean the granting of land and police powers to the provincial councils. This has been a long standing demand of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The plantation-based Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), however, has made it clear that it would rather have the Police under the Central government than any Chief Minister in the Central Province where the bulk of its members live.
The fact that neither of these twin issues was discussed is significant in that Rajapaksa did not even want to toss the idea across for a discussion. The only minority Tamil Chief Minister in the country, Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillaiyan, was also present, but he too did not raise the issue. "I was expecting the issue of devolution to be taken up for discussion," he said when he was asked if these two matters were discussed. "But all the chief ministers were talking about administrative matters relating to their councils, so I too raised the issue of the appointment of English trained teachers," he said.
Chandrakanthan himself was in a dither recently. Five stalwarts of his party, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), were arrested by the police on charges of killing Madyalahan Rasamanikkam, 32, the co-ordinating secretary of Pillaiyan's one-time comrade-in-arms and now bete noir Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias 'Col. Karuna', now Deputy Minister of Resettlement.
The victim, Rasamanikkam was shot dead in his wheelchair. He had earlier been shot and crippled by the LTTE for taking part in an anti-LTTE demonstration in Batticaloa in 2006 after 'Col. Karuna' broke away from the LTTE. Last week, Rajapaksa called Pillaiyan to 'Temple Trees', put his arms around him and said he will call for a police report to ascertain the facts of the shooting. One of the TMVP members arrested is a member of a Pradeshiya Sabha.
No indication of developing
13th Ammedment
The President ended the three-hour meeting with the chief ministers and governors saying that he would appoint a committee to go into their grievances. Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa, Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena, Treasury Secretary Punchi Banda Jayasundera and Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga were also present. There was, therefore, no indication that the President was thinking of developing on the 13th Amendment as envisaged by the Joint Statement signed in New Delhi by Peiris and his Indian counterparts.
While discussing this vexed issue, the President was weighed down by two other happenings outside. One was the continuing demand by the Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA) for higher wages, and the other was the demand by trade unions to scrap government plans to introduce a new pensions bill that was to convert part of the provident fund into a pensions fund.
Rajapaksa was no doubt disturbed by the fairly large turn out by garment workers in the Free Trade Zone area, close to the international airport. The demonstrators blocked traffic for several hours and in one incident brought down one of the massive cut-outs of his that adorn the public highway from the international airport to Colombo. Police launched an immediate investigation to find out who was responsible.
Back in 'Temple Trees', Rajapaksa showed some reluctance to proceed with the Pensions Bill if there was growing dissatisfaction with its provisions.
FUTA officials were also bickering about their salaries, and there were rumblings about government going ahead with 'military style training' for new entrants to universities.
When the President met FUTA officials this week, they seem to be outnumbered by a heavy presence of ministers and officials representing the government. There were 11 on the FUTA side and as many as 40 on the government side, among whom were Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake, Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, Higher Education Ministry Secretary Sunil Nawaratna, and Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera. The FUTA delegation was led by Sumanasiri Liyanage, a senior political science lecturer at the Peradeniya University.
The President began by saying that he didn't like to have discussions with those who had started trade union action. The outnumbered FUTA members, however, stood their ground and said that they had handed over a letter to the Secretary long before they began trade union action.
Rajapaksa said that he hadn't received the letter, though no investigation was made if the letter had actually been received and not passed down to him for his attention. The preliminary sparring done with, the President said that the Treasury did not have the money to meet the demands of the lecturers, and also went on to blame "interested political parties" influencing members to take strike action or other trade union action.
He said that at a time when the country was under "international pressure", the intellectuals in the country should not go around discrediting the government. FUTA officials were quick to point out that when they made these same demands previously, they were told not to make such demands at that time "because the final phase of the military operations against terrorism was on".
The President argued that if lecturers and professors were given big wage increases, the minor staff and drivers would also make similar demands. The position of the FUTA members was that such comparisons were unfair, and that several university teachers were seeking foreign employment and leaving the universities. They also pointed out that top officials of statutory bodies like the Central Bank, the Ports Authority and the Petroleum Corporation got higher salaries than university lecturers.
The FUTA delegation drew reference to the previous responses to their demands on the same issue, first made in January 2008. They pointed out that in August of the same year, a committee had been appointed to go into these matters. In 2009, discussions were held with Minister Basil Rajapaksa who they claimed had promised an increase in the allowances of academics, and then in August 2010, these demands were discussed with the President himself.
Very confrontational
This week's talks between the government and the FUTA delegation were "very confrontational", according to one of the participants. Eventually, after two and a half hours, the President indicated he had enough of it, and left the meeting, without any finality reached, suggesting that the FUTA team discuss matters further with the remaining Ministers and government officials.
With FUTA members on strike, the country's seats of higher learning remain either closed, or badly affected. Due to trade union action, described as the 'resignation from voluntary positions' such as Department Heads, for instance, the Kelaniya University's Senate could not meet for the want of a quorum. In many faculties no lectures can be conducted as the Department Heads are in charge of the keys, and they are absent. The Board of Examinations cannot meet as a result. Most of the 15 campuses are not functioning, with Peradeniya the worst affected. FUTA members insist this is not a strike, but it seems it is as bad.
Its members are demanding the implementation of a salary structure which was recommended by the committee appointed by the UGC (University Grants Commission) which provide for the lowest recruitment salary of a lecturer be increased from Rs. 27,000 to Rs. 70,000, and the senior most professors lowest salary be increased from Rs. 57,000 to Rs. 168,750. They point out that their academic allowances has been reduced by 30 percent to 25 per cent, their vehicle permit which was available after 5 years of service is now given after 12 years, that they have no medical nor fuel allowances, no railway warrants and their demand to have a quota to get their children entered into schools at Grade 1 have not been met.
If such headaches were not bad enough for the President, former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka was bad mouthing Rajapaksa and his brother, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Making a statement from the dock in a High Court trial in which he is charged with making a false statement and thereby inciting communal ill will, Fonseka made some scathing remarks about the Rajapaksa brothers in the war effort against the LTTE.
That the comments coincided with the celebrations to mark the second anniversary of the defeat of the LTTE were not lost on many. A dock statement, however, does not carry the same weight as giving evidence from the witness stand because the statement is not subjected to cross-examination.
The President's request to the FUTA delegation not to strike because the country was facing "international pressure" may not have impressed the university teachers, but it was a fact that Rajapaksa would not have conceded lightly.
The Indian Joint Statement last week was bad enough. The UN Secretary General's Panel of Experts report is hanging like a sword of Damocles. And next week, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meets to debate and pass resolutions on various issues revolving around human rights violations worldwide.
The Rajapaksa government is being represented by a Ministerial delegation headed by Disaster Management Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe with the subject of Human Rights under his belt, and inclusive of Irrigation Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva and Attorney General Mohan Peiris. They have been in Geneva for a week now lobbying envoys, especially of the 47 members of the UNHRC. Their task is to ensure that no negative resolutions are either moved or passed against Sri Lanka, especially in view of the UN panel report that has called for an international mechanism to investigate "allegations of human rights violations and humanitarian laws" in the final stages of the war against the LTTE exactly two years ago.
Minister Peiris in Beijing
In the meantime, Minister Peiris, after his debacle in New Delhi proceeded to the more friendly Beijing where he was more warmly welcomed. Here, there was no Joint Statement or communiqué issued, and Peiris had to dictate his own statement for the Ministry of External Affairs to release in Colombo.
Peiris when he visited India was not accompanied by any top officials or India affairs experts from the ministry. It was the first time an external affairs minister had gone on his own for a crucial meeting at a critical time for Indo-Lanka relations .
But when he went to Beijing, he was accompanied by External Ministry official Shobini Gunasekera who had earlier at the Sri Lanka embassy in Beijing.
Afer Peiris held talks with his counterpart Yang Jiechi, the External Affairs Ministry in Colombo in a statement said:
"Minister Peiris briefed his counterpart in detail about Sri Lanka's position on a range of issues connected with the Darusman Report, the work of the Lessons Learnt and reconciliation Commission and initiatives on the part of the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee appointed by the Government of Sri Lanka.
"With regard to the developing circumstances generally, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi assured Prof. Peiris that China has total confidence in the capability of the government and people of Sri Lanka to resolve their own issues. He said that China will stand by Sri Lanka in achieving the tasks of reconciliation and reconstruction….".
The rest of the statement referred to China's support for economic development projects in Sri Lanka and tourism.
It is unfortunate the Peiris was unable to convert this unilateral statement into a joint statement. That would have carried more weight. However, the 'China statement' stands out starkly with the 'India statement' of last week. Unlike in the 'India statement' which made no reference to the 'Darusman Report' (the External Affairs Ministry nomenclature for the UNSG panel of Experts report) despite the subject being raised in New Delhi by Peiris, at least in the 'China statement' the Sri Lankan Minister can say that the report was discussed.
There is no specific mention that China has totally rejected the report, but it does indicate (and we have no reason to suspect that Peiris is to be disbelieved) that the matter was raised and China has not given any adverse comment on it.
As far as the Rajapaksa government is concerned it is unfortunate that Peiris was unable to grab a firm commitment from China on this crucial matter. What is more, the Xinhua report on the talks is slightly different from the Peiris release.
In the absence of an official statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry on the talks, political and diplomatic analysts over the years have taken the official news agency, Xinhua report to reflect Chinese policy. Their report datelined May 25, the day after the Peiris-Jiechi talks only says this;
"China believes that the Sri Lankan government and people have the capacity to achieve national reconciliation, social stability and economic progress, said Yang".
There is no direct or even indirect reference to the 'Darusman Report' or any hint of support for the Sri Lanka government's call for its rejection.
So, if Peiris says the report was discussed, why China remains silent on its support for Sri Lanka on the matter remains a mystery, though again, China very rarely shows its hand too early.
Unlike in the case of India, however, the only return China seems to have got is Sri Lanka's continued support for the 'One China Policy', something Xinhua has not even bothered to mention in its coverage of the meeting.
Peiris then left for Bali to lobby Non Aligned Foreign Ministers who are meeting there, but he has not been able to clinch a firm commitment of support which he can officially claim.
Back in Geneva, the Samarasinghe team is handling the situation and initial reports indicate that they may have been able to stall moves to have Sri Lanka brought under the radar at the UNHRC sessions. These reports say that Western powers are split on whether to take the UN panel report up for discussion, now or later because they have a host of other issues on their plate, especially the situation in Libya where they are directly involved in military action on the basis that human rights violations are taking place in the North African country.
The importance of the UNHRC sessions is that investigations into allegations of violations of human rights and humanitarian law can be conducted by a world body under the UN sanction only if the General Assembly of the UN approves it, or any inter-government agency approves it. The UNHRC is one of those agencies.
|
E-mail