Columns
Rajapaksa govt. taken aback by PC results
Concerns for the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) Government last week outweighed all others in its decade-long existence. The outcome of the two provincial elections, just after the adoption of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution, reverberated in the dovecotes of power. This is the first time since the military defeat of Tiger guerrillas (in 2009) that the UPFA’s vote base has slid from 60 to just more than 50 per cent. It lost 17 seats in both councils in the Western and Southern Provincial Councils. The sombre message was strong though some embarrassed stalwarts tried to downplay it. Different ministers gave different views, not surprisingly, some contradictory.
Among others, there were two significant reasons — one was the thrust of the campaign. Many a speaker claimed at rallies that the President would face the “electric chair” rather than give into the UN resolution. That failed to win widespread endorsement. On February 16, the Sunday Times Political Commentary revealed how Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena declared Rajapaksa was prepared to face such an “electric chair”. This was during a meeting of ministers and organisers in the two provinces in early February where a DVD on the subject was handed down to them. It gave the outlines of how they should campaign. Rajapaksa also told campaign rallies that the US-sponsored resolution was aimed at a regime change.
Secondly, the voters did not overwhelmingly endorse the unprecedented development work carried out by the Government. In the south, the expressway was extended from Pinnaduwa (Galle) to Godagama (Matara) just before the polls. Beyond that, work to extend it to Hambantota has been fast tracked. Even more, the Hambantota District is the home base of the Rajapaksa family. An international airport, a harbour, an international conference hall, hotel complexes are among the many multi-billion rupee projects that have come up. More development projects are under way. The UPFA that won 66.95 in 2009 slumped to 57.42 per cent last week.
In the Western Province, laudably Colombo and Gampaha Districts are seeing a remarkable change of face as sky rise buildings, asphalted roads landscaped on both sides, jogging tracks and paved lanes hugging waterways continue to take shape. The expressway originating from Kottawa was extended to Kaduwela just ahead of the polls. An ambitious Colombo beautification project is under way.
Despite electric chair warnings, the UPFA could not increase its vote base at Saturday’s PC polls
Not to be outdone, UPFA leaders insisted that the polls were still a mandate for the Government against the UN resolution. Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, a delegate to the Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva said the results also carried a warning. However, his colleague Dallas Allahapperuma argued that it was “not fair” to compare the two March 29 PC polls to the previous ones in 2009. This is after claiming at a pre-polls news conference that the UPFA would receive anything between 65 and 70 per cent of the votes at the two polls. On the last occasion, Southern PC polls were held in April and Western in October of that year. However, in September last year or just six months ago, the fact that the UPFA fared relatively better at the North Western and Central Provincial Council elections was lost on many.
At the NWPC the UPFA not only retained 36 seats but increased its vote from 59.53 per cent at the 2009 polls to 60.16 per cent last September. At the CPC, the alliance, however, won only 34 seats polling 66.4 per cent. At the 2009 polls, it held 37 seats polling 69.43 per cent. Yet, the UPFA holds a two thirds majority in the NWPC. The mounting cost of living, humongous corruption, voter apathy and the deteriorating law and order situation were among the other contributory factors.
Another important outcome at the two provincial polls last week — not a single member of any minority community was elected on the UPFA ticket barring those fielded by the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the All Ceylon Makkal (People’s) Congress (ACMC). These two parties contested under their own party symbols. That was proof enough that they had voted for Tamil and Muslim political parties, as well as candidates from others in the opposition. This has raised an all important question among senior stalwarts of the UPFA — whether Mahinda Rajapaksa, their presidential candidate, will be able to gain 50 per cent plus one vote required to win without the support of the minorities. The embarrassment notwithstanding, this is why the UPFA chose to nominate Nauzer Fowzie, son of Minister A.H.M. Fowzie on a bonus seat for the Western Provincial Council. Nauzer polled 22,175 votes and came 19th in the Colombo District.
The two polls, according to polls monitoring groups, were marked by the rampant abuse of state resources, particularly vehicles. “The use of state resources, including the media and high levels of the government (sic) appearing on State television to promote the fortunes of the ruling party are regrettable,” said the People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL). The Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) added: “There were 409 complaints regarding the misuse of public property, 37% of the total complaints. There were 588 reports on illegal election propaganda, 50 complaints on election related violence and 54 other complaints. 664 complaints have been received from Western Province and 411 complaints from Southern Province. There were also 26 complaints covering both provinces. 1101 is the highest number of election law violations reported to CaFFE since its inception in 2008….”
This not so rosy picture formed the backdrop when leaders of parties that form the UPFA met at ‘Temple Trees’ last Sunday for political stock taking after the two major events. The outcome of last week’s provincial polls did figure though the adoption of the resolution in Geneva took more time. President Rajapaksa was to say that opposition parties were trying to make out that the UPFA Government had lost public confidence because the votes had dropped. He argued that 57 per cent of the votes were a worthy victory. The opposition’s claims were not correct. The Western Provincial Council elections have been held in 2009 when the war was still under way. It was only the Southern Provincial Council elections that took place whilst they were winning the war. Minister Basil Rajapaksa endorsed the President’s remarks and said that was the correct position.
It was Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara (General Secretary, Democratic Left Front) who raised issue over the adoption of the US backed resolution in Geneva. He sought to know what the Government’s response would be. Rajapaksa asserted that the Government would not heed any international inquiry. He noted that even in the event Sri Lanka had agreed, the UNHRC decision after such an inquiry was foregone. He spoke of worst case scenarios and added in such a situation he would set up a caretaker Government and go for an election. He told the UPFA leaders that he would not be the only loser but all of them. Hence, they would all have to take up a common position.
External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris was to raise some controversy over another remark. If he earlier added the abstention votes to the votes in favour of Sri Lanka and declared the country had defeated the resolution, this time he said the money allocated for the international inquiry (around US$ 1.5 million dollars) meant the process would not be hurried through. He drew a sharp retort from Minister Wimal Weerawansa who told Peiris that the outcome did not hinge on the expenditure. “The problem for us,” Weerawansa said, was to “determine why India abstained.” Minister Basil Rajapaksa was to respond that the decision to abstain was taken not by the Congress Government but by the External Affairs Ministry. He said the Khobragade affair, where an Indian lady diplomat serving in New York was cavity searched and indicted for violating US labour laws, contributed. This was besides fears that the investigative mechanisms could also be used against India, he added.
Peiris was to make an interesting revelation. He said that a day ahead of the UN Human Rights Council vote on March 27, Indian External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid had telephoned him. He had said that this time India was going to take “a different approach” at the Council and added that the decision had been made at “the official level.” He, however, had not been told what such an approach would be.
There was official buck-passing between Congress Party politicians and the bureaucracy over India’s abstention on the UNHRC vote. If Khurshid said it was a decision by officials, India’s External Affairs Ministry Secretry Sujatha Singh was to tell the media in New Delhi this week that the decision was “political.” She was responding to claims by caretaker Finance Minister Palani Chidambaram that the Cabinet had not made a decision to abstain and the decision could have been made at official level. Ms. Singh, who literally took on the Congress leadership, argued that no official would take a decision without the endorsement of the political leadership.
It was not difficult for the UPFA leaders to decode Indian External Affairs Minister Khurshid’s message. They quickly discerned that India was not going to vote in favour of the US. This is how a prominent member of the Sri Lanka delegation in Geneva boasted that there would be “a surprise,” as revealed in these columns last week. He chuckled with glee after the voting that what he hinted had come right. However, Indian High Commissioner Kumar Sinha who addressed the Foreign Correspondents Association on Friday claimed the decision to abstain, made ahead of the Council vote, was kept a secret and the Sri Lanka Government was not aware of it.
The party leaders adopted a policy decision that the UPFA Government would in no way allow an OHCHR international investigation in Sri Lanka under any circumstances. Minister Peiris said the OHCHR could conduct its investigations outside whilst Minister and SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem said his party too was strongly opposed to such a move. The same views were endorsed by Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) General Secretary Champika Ranawaka. One UPFA source said there was a detailed discussion on the UNHRC’s calls for a ‘credible’ domestic investigation and on recent remarks made to the local media by Yasmin Sooka. She was a member of UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-moon’s panel of experts. Sooka had warned that there would be sanctions if Sri Lanka did not fall in line with the resolution but did not elaborate.
One Minister, the source said, had declared that if there was going to be any domestic mechanism investigating, its period should not be confined to the time frame of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) — from 2004 to 2009. It should also “cover the period when Norwegians played a role in Sri Lanka, the Indian intervention in Sri Lanka and how India trained various separatist groups.” He argued that the latter’s intrusion in Sri Lanka was the cause for the growth of separatist terrorism. Another said that once the Indian elections were over, the Government should engage the new Government and forge good relations. The discussion also centred on action against some members of the clergy and other individuals, who it was alleged, were having links to what they called the “LTTE rump.” Peiris was to then give a detailed explanation of the new prohibition order published under the “United Nations Regulations No 1 of 2012.” It is based on the United Nations Act No 45 of 1968.
Dated March 21, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa has designated 16 organisations functioning as “terrorist fronts” and prohibited Sri Lankan nationals from any “contact or links” with any of its members. Appointed Competent Authority under these Regulations is Major General (retd.) Kapila Hendawitharana. He is the Chief of National Intelligence (CNI).
Maj. Gen. Hendawitharana told the Sunday Times that in terms of the order Sri Lankans would be prohibited from contact with members of the listed organisations on financial transactions and terrorism related matters.
The 16 organisations in the 39 page order are: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO), Tamil Co-ordinating Committee (TCC), British Tamil Forum (BTF), World Tamil Movement (WTM), Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), Global Tamil Forum (GTF), National Council of Canadian Tamils (NCCT), Tamil Youth Organisation (TYO), World Tamil Co-ordinating Committee (WTCC), Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), Tamil Eelam People’s Assembly (TEPA), World Tamil Relief Fund (WTRF) and Headquarters Group (HQ Group). Some 424 members in each group have been named in effect prohibiting Sri Lankans from having any contact with them.
The substantial effect of an oder under this Regulation is that all funds, assets and economic resources belonging to or owned by the designated persons or entitites remain frozen until they are removed from the designated list. Moving, transfering or dealing with frozen assets without the permission of the Competent Authority is prhibited. In terms of the Regulation, any person who fails to comply with an order to freeze assets is liable to heavy penalties.
A detailed story on the issue appears elsewhere in this newspaper. There is little doubt that some of the designated organisations have committed themselves to separatist ideals. One example would be the Tamil Eelam Government in Exile (TGTE) headed by Viswanathan Rudrakumaran, the New York lawyer who was once reprimanded for misconduct. However, there are others who say they are not and have publicly stated their positions. Some of them are formally engaged by foreign Governments. They include the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) and the British Tamil Forum (BTF). Just before he visited Colombo for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) last November, British Prime Minister David Cameron met representatives of these groups together with others. The GTF has also been engaged by the South African Government and its representative was an official invitee at the funeral of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. In addition, US State Department officials have also been dealing with them.
The Sunday Times learns that President Rajapaksa took steps to keep Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe briefed on the prohibition order on the 16 Tamil diaspora groups. He was told of the ‘national security threats’ the country was facing and the “intelligence reports” the Government has received in this regard. Wickremesinghe left last night to the United States.
The prohibition order will have its direct bearing on a visit the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) have planned to undertake together to South Africa. A TNA delegation headed by its leader Rajavarothayam Sampanthan will first leave for New Delhi in the coming week. The elections there notwithstanding, they propose to meet Indian leaders and top officials. From there, they will travel to Pretoria. With the new order now in force, TNA members would be become liable for questioning if their actions are considered violating the Regulations. The South African Government wants to discuss the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which the Sri Lankan Government is looking at. South Africa’s special envoy for Colombo’s reconciliation process, Cyril Ramaphosa, has declared that he would wish to discuss issues with all stakeholders in the reconciliation process.
The prohibition order also drew an angry response from Colombo-based western diplomats. One of them who did not wish to be identified said, “It seems the Government’s answer to the Human Rights Council resolution. The UN’s own Conventions against terrorism (with local enabling legislation) have been used to criminalise contact between people and even media reportage. This will lead to a fear psychosis.” However, a Government official argued that the order was not the only regulation that was promulgated on March 21. Also promulgated under the same United Nations Regulations No 2 of 2012 was a prohibition order on Taleban and Al Qaida, the two groups outlawed in the United States. That order lists the names of wanted leaders of this group again prohibiting Sri Lankans from having any contact with them. Maj. Gen. Hendawitharana has also been named Competent Authority under these regulations. They have been gazetted under his name.
The Government’s tough stance notwithstanding, diplomats from a few countries that abstained at the UNHRC vote are mounting pressure to initiate a “credible” domestic investigation. They said this would be the way out to avoid an international investigation reaching conclusions. These countries include India, Japan and South Africa. Formidable sections of the UPFA leadership are not in favour of any such move. They argue that the Government had already acted on the LLRC recommendations in this regard. A renewed investigation, they claim, would not only give the impression that the Government has recanted but also accepted a key issue in the latest US resolution. However, there is an instance where the Government has rapidly changed position. A case in point was when the UN Secretary General’s panel of experts (PoE) was deliberating on Sri Lanka. Though the Government took up the public position that it would not have anything to do with the PoE, an official Sri Lanka delegation did surreptitiously meet the three-member panel in New York. Though there were denials after the meeting, the UN panel made specific reference to this in its report.
Though India abstained, its position on the issues was in conformity with provisions on the UNHRC resolution other than the call for an international investigation. India has declared it is intrusive. High Commissioner Sinha spelt out the core issues to the foreign correspondents. They are:
“…the need for expeditious steps towards genuine national reconciliation, including investigations into allegations of human rights violations, restoration of normalcy in affected areas, reduction of ‘high security zones,’ satisfactorily addressing the issue of missing persons and the redressal of humanitarian concerns of the affected families.”
“……show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers, through full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond…”
” …..urged the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil National Alliance to engage constructively, in a spirit of partnership and mutual accommodation, so that the urgent needs of the people of the Northern Province are addressed with a sense of urgency and purpose….will pave the way for genuine reconciliation…..”
In Geneva, sources at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the international investigative mechanism would be in place within three to four weeks. “Once the process is complete, the OHCHR will make a formal request to the Government of Sri Lanka about the composition and request co-operation. A public announcement will also be made at the same time,” the source said. That the Government will reject the move outright is clear from the policy decision made by UPFA leaders. Last Monday, President Rajapaksa telephoned Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff to thank him for his country’s support to Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council. He praised Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram. Premier Shariff was in Britain when Rajapaksa tried to reach him last week.
The main opposition UNP did not focus on the UN resolution at its rallies. In most electorates, candidates spoke largely on cost of living and corruption. If the UPFA turnout, to say the least, was bad, the UNP’s performance cannot be termed too well either. As the main opposition party, it could have garnered a lot more votes than received. Therein lay the dilemma for the party leadership. In the Western Province its votes increased by a marginal 0.68 per cent. If it held 32 seats, it dropped to 30 but party stalwarts argued that the other two seats had gone to Mano Ganeshan’s Democratic People’s Front (DPF).
In the Southern Province, however, the party retained the 14 seats it held before. It was able to register marginal increase in some of the areas. In the Hambantota District, there was a five per cent increase in votes for the party. In the Tissamaharama electorate the UNP votes increased by 9.74 per cent whilst the UPFA votes declined by 13.5 per cent. In the Matara District, the UNP recorded a 1.25 per cent increase as against a drop of 8.78 per cent of the votes by the UPFA. The UNP regained control of the Galle electorate by a small majority of 737 votes.
There is a silver lining for the UNP though internecine rivalries and the party’s continued inaction have led to erosion of support. The party, if it is able to re-activate itself could easily make far greater inroads. For this, there is little doubt that it would have to get its grassroots level organisations in place and stop the bickering at the top. At present, the party is badly hit by a financial crisis and did not receive substantial contributions for its polls campaign. This will be a serious handicap should there be a presidential or parliamentary poll.
Reaping the benefits of this situation was former General Sarath Fonseka’s Democratic Party (DP) which secured nine seats in the Western Province and three in the Southern Province. Of some concern to UPFA stalwarts were the postal votes his party polled. Did a large number from the security forces vote in Fonseka’s favour? The question seems to linger.
Also making significant increases in its vote base was the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). The party is undergoing an organisational change after Anura Kumara Dissanayake took over the leadership. It now holds five seats in the Western Province (9.5 per cent of the votes) and six seats in the Southern PC (polling 6.11 per cent of the votes).
Officials in the Department of Elections discounted reports that the two provincial polls had recorded lower voter turnout. They said the final tallies show that 66.38 per cent of the registered voters had cast their votes in the Western Province and 66.32 per cent in the Southern Province. In the South, this was a three per cent increase from the previous poll in 2009.
The total impact of the overall opposition vote coupled together with no minority groups supporting the UPFA is certainly no good news for the alliance. The question, however, remains how far the largest opposition party in the country could go to challenge the alliance when there is a presidential or parliamentary election. That is with the OHCHR international investigation pending. Despite their ‘not good and not bad’ performance at the recent polls, if the UNP leaders wait for victory to fall on their lap, it would be a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, gearing the party machinery without oil or rather money is not easy either.