Sunday Times 2
Drama at the High Posts Committee
The High Posts Committee, comprised of Parliamentarians representing different political parties, is not usually a place of controversy as there are well established practices for the screening of nominations.
For example, the process of approval for Sri Lanka’s ambassadors abroad includes newspaper notification which calls for any public objections to be filed and taken up by the High Posts Committee in confidential sittings after which approval the nomination is forwarded through the Foreign Ministry to the country of posting.
Since ambassadorial appointments fall within the authority of the President, such nominations are not usually questioned in a “hard” manner. To my knowledge only one nomination was actually turned down in the distant past by the High Posts Committee.
Although both government and opposition members sit on this committee, a cordial atmosphere prevails, enabling speedy approval, sometimes after a short delay to accommodate any serious objections. The controversy which arose recently with two political nominations was, therefore, unusual and worth examining, since the objections involved substantive issues of governance.
There was also good news in that the Foreign Service nominations, including two outstanding women diplomats to Britain and Viet Nam, were approved by the High Posts Committee without any dissent. However the political nominees, apparently one from each side of the Government, ran into a storm. The manner in which the two nominees in question handled the controversy indicates what we may expect from these two eminent persons once they take up their duties to represent the country.
In the case of Professor Arusha Cooray, an unassuming, courteous woman with family political connections, the issue was of her dual citizenship and long period away from Sri Lanka. However, in the face of the delays and call for a report from the Foreign Ministry, she chose to maintain silence in keeping with the confidential traditions of the High Posts Committee.
The Foreign Ministry which was asked for advice, provided the information that all Foreign Service (SLFS) officers had to be Sri Lankan nationals on joining the service and if they should chose to take any other nationality thereafter, this would have to be notified to the Ministry and resignation from the service could be called for. This is, in fact, a very old rule coming from a time when it was felt that divided loyalties would pose issues for government security and confidential communications. The Foreign Ministry letter clarified that there was no such rule in respect of political ambassadorial appointments; nor does such a practice exist in respect of high level appointments to the public service.
However, what is now called the Central Bank bond scam has raised public awareness on the problems of holding dual nationality, for example, permitting the evasion of local responsibility including summons to court. Not only under this Government but also under the previous government, there were well known cases of ambassadors who appear to be reluctant to face charges in their country of birth and who are evading summons under the cloak of dual citizenship.
It is clearly time for this issue of dual citizenship with regard to those holding high office in Sri Lanka to be looked at afresh. This is not just a question of the passing of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and the strictures prohibiting MPs from holding dual citizenship, but real legal problems can and have arisen. Perhaps the answer is to have those holding dual citizenship sign an agreement putting on hold their second citizenship and agree to respect local regulations and due legal process before they begin to function as representatives of the government. Many foreign governments insist on this compliance when granting diplomatic status to incoming appointees so as to be very clear on their legal responsibilities.
The other political nominee at the heart of the controversy, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke, chose a different path from Professor Cooray, bringing his case before the public in several newspaper articles. In so doing he broke the tradition of not publicly lobbying members of the High Posts Committee. It is a matter of conjecture whether his article in the local press praising one member of the High Posts Committee as a suitable Prime Minister could be considered a conflict of interest and even detrimental to that MP whom people may now think is vulnerable to such flattery.
It brings to mind the story of how politicians of the ilk of Philip Gunawardene threw an East European ambassador out of his office for daring to request secret information – such was the high standard of behaviour of our politicians in those days with regard to matters of national interest.
There is also considerable speculation as to why President Maithripala Sirisena had insisted on this nomination going through, overriding the objections of many organisations representing a large group of the public and over the protests of some members of the High Posts Committee. Sri Lanka-Russia relations have returned to an even keel with the resolution of the tea and asbestos crisis last December — and recently Aeroflot announced the return of its flights. Many officials have contributed to these developments without fanfare.
Dr. Jayatilleke will bounce back from adversity, having survived many setbacks in his diplomatic career which would have felled any professional officer – from the Vatican refusal to accept his nomination thus requiring these duties to be handled from another European station during his tenure of office in Geneva, then being recalled from Geneva and surviving all those protests from Paris such that the Foreign Ministry was hard pressed to keep a strong professional deputy in place to pick up the pieces. The pity of it is that all the recent manoeuvres in the High Posts Committee, protests and counter protests have been splashed in the media. This can only cast a negative shadow on Sri Lanka’s image abroad and the credibility of its representatives since formal diplomacy requires ambassadors to speak for their country rather than for themselves.
But this is also a problem of our times when so many politicians are putting their personal opinions in the public space such that no one knows whether this is official government policy or not. Little wonder the general public is losing faith in its politicians every day and some even calling for a third force like our cricketing hero, to declare his candidacy following the example of Imran Khan in Pakistan. It is, however, not a useful comparison since Imran Khan hadchosen political life a long time ago and has pursued his ambitions for high office relentlessly .
(The writer is a retired Sri Lanka Foreign Service diplomat)