Columns

• Govt. not for withdrawal of civic rights but set to call off cases involving ‘political victimisation’
• Basil Rajapaksa wants SLFP to talk directly to SLPP instead of involving other parties
• Colombo-Beijing relations reach a new high as govt. moves away from the West and India
• Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa continues his silent peacemaker role amidst tensions in ruling alliance

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa playing a silent role in trying to resolve differences among ruling alliance partners. He is seen here taking part in an Avurudu function at Temple Trees

Just three days after the devastating resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa signed the Economic Commission Bill 2021. The controversial legislation is to govern the Chinese-backed Colombo Port City, the man-made promontory just a few hundred steps away from the Presidential Secretariat, across the Galle Road.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Bill and concluded sittings on Friday. Nineteen petitions filed against and 13 intervening petitions were taken up. The bench comprised Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Priyantha Jayawardena, Murdu Fernando and Janak De Silva. The main argument against the Bill was that it violated several clauses of the Constitution and hence required not only a special majority (two thirds) but also a referendum should be held.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Farzana Jameel PC, presented to court several amendments which the Government wants to make. This fuelled hopes at the highest levels of the government that the Supreme Court would approve the Bill with the proposed amendments. The SC  decision on the Bill will be conveyed to the Speaker in the coming days.

The hearings also saw a mild diversion. President’s Counsel, Romesh de Silva, who was defending the Bill declared that even a foreigner can become the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka. In the technical sense, he was right for the legal provisions do not insist on being an Attorney-at-Law. However, it became grist to the mill for groups who were calling for foreign judges to probe alleged war crimes by troops and Tiger guerrillas — an element in the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka.

An untoward incident was to trigger more attention to the new legislation and accentuate a public debate. This was when Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, a ruling alliance parliamentarian, told a news conference that potential financial district would become “a Chinese colony.” It is no secret that the onetime UNP Justice Minister, Rajapakshe, has been deeply disappointed since he did not receive a ministerial portfolio. In fact, during the swearing in ceremonies he walked away, when he learnt that he was being assigned a State Minister portfolio.

At the news conference held at the Abhayarama Temple in Narahenpita, Rajapakshe raised a multitude of issues related to the Bill. He also took the opportunity to take personal swipes at both President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother Basil Rajapaksa, who heads the Presidential Task Force on Economic Recovery. The next day, he complained that President Rajapaksa had telephoned him and allegedly abused him prompting him to reciprocate the same way. President Rajapaksa also complained to the chief incumbent, Venerable Murutettuwe Ananda, who chaired the news conference, about  Rajapakshe’s conduct.

In turn, Rajapakshe not only complained to Police Chief Chandana Wickremeratne, but also to Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. The astute politician that he is, the Premier told MP Rajapakshe “even if the President scolded you, he does not bear that grudge. He is particularly good hearted. Hence, you should not bear such issues in mind. You must forget that episode.” The encounter seems to have ended there. There was no mention of the event at other government fora, a usual practice if a member steps out of line. Ven Ananda had a visit from Minister G.L. Peiris who explained the provisions of the Bill to counter some of the claims made both by Rajapakshe and the prelate himself.

China’s dominance of Sri Lanka’s economy

However, the resultant developments opened the curtains for an entirely new look Sri Lanka.

That indicates the levels to which the country’s relations with China have reached with the Colombo Port City soon becoming a reality. That jewel in the Crown of begging will make China a closer economic partner of Sri Lanka dominating the spheres of finance and foreign investment in particular. China extended a currency swap of US$ 1.5 billion and later extended a US$ 500 million loan. Now, there is talk in financial circles about a further US$ 700 million.

It came at a time when the rupee value which stood at Rs 203 against the US dollar appreciated to Rs 185. “What we say, we deliver,” boasted Ajith Nivard Cabraal, the government’s financial wizard and onetime Governor of the Central Bank. Of course, he left out the most important reason — there was a slide of the US dollar in the world market. The currency swap, officials say, would lead to more Chinese goods entering the Sri Lankan market.

Just this week, a ship loaded with radioactive material entered the Chinese-built Hambantota Port. It was on a voyage from Rotterdam to a Chinese port when the ship developed operational problems. It was only upon discovery of the lethal cargo that it was asked to leave the port. Government officials stoutly defended their action in giving clearance but there were several questions that went unanswered. Opposition groups allege the incident indicated that there would be safe passage for such vessels in the future too.

The greater dominance of China in Sri Lanka’s economy comes at a time when the country’s foreign reserves are dwindling. Added to that, Sri Lanka has antagonised the western bloc of countries, particularly after the Foreign Ministry mishandling issues before the UNHRC where a resolution on Sri Lanka ended in disaster. Added to that are Indo-Sri Lanka relations, which hit a new low, over the East Container Terminal of the Colombo Port. New Delhi is disappointed that the government reneged despite assurances that it would be given to India for development together with Japan. That highlights the increasing role of China in Sri Lanka not only in the economic sphere but also in closer military cooperation.

Since the outbreak of the separatist war, China has remained an uninterrupted supplier of military hardware to Sri Lanka. The post-war scenario has seen a growth in this sphere with training for troops and new hardware. Further enhancement of these measures is on the cards when Chinese National Defence Minister, Wei Fenghe, arrives in Colombo on Tuesday leading a high-level team on a three-day official visit. Material for the modernisation of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force is among the subjects of discussion besides enhanced training facilities in China.

The United States is one of the countries which have expressed apprehension over the contours of the legislation to deal with the Colombo Port City. US Ambassador Allaina B. Teplitz told a roundtable meet of journalists on April 8: “That is a real challenge when you consider the size of the public sector in Sri Lanka and how that needs to be funded and that when you look at investment and why you want it, it is to help bring wealth to this country.  Not just to rent out one office building.  You want to be growing wealth here and creating jobs and making sure that the public is benefiting from that presence.

“So, I think any legislation related to Port City has to be considered very, very carefully for its economic impact.  It also must be considered very, very carefully for unintended consequences, and of course among those unintended consequences could be creating a haven for money launderers and others, sort of nefarious actors who want to take advantage of what was perceived as a permissive business environment, perhaps have activities that actually would be illegal.

“There is a lot that needs to be done.  I do recognise that the government in Sri Lanka wants to take advantage of the investment that is already been made in creating the Port City foundation. But the legislation really needs to reflect these challenges and to be careful about what it might do to open doors to bad practice and unfair competition in the rest of the country.”

Asked whether the U.S. would support any debt relief efforts, Ambassador Teplitz replied, “I think the government’s got to look at its debt burden realistically, practically, and think about sustainability going forward.  It is not necessarily a problem for a government to be carrying debt, but it’s got to be able to pay for that debt in a way that does not then exclude its ability to fund all of the other necessary activities of a government, the social networks and other things that are required.

“So yes, the United States would support the government in managing its debt and finding a more sustainable path forward, and we’d be happy to have those conversations.  We have already indicated that we would like to see more economic stability in the country and that we would want to support that.  We are contributing in a small way to that through our development programmes, but we would be happy to have the larger conversation as well.”

The US apprehensions of a possible haven for money launderers at the Colombo Port City, where the facility of offshore banking is to be allowed, have some serious connotations. Depending on how the system functions, would not the US, with the help of its allies, seek to blacklist the Port City?

Both the Presidential Secretariat and the Chinese Embassy in Colombo were keen to get government MPs to make a field visit to the Port City. Arrangements were made on Thursday for President Rajapaksa to make a presentation to the MPs on the new legislation ahead of the visit. However, this task was undertaken by Presidential Secretary P.B. Jayasundera.  “He (Dr Jayasundera) explained to us the salient points in the Bill and the benefits that would accrue to the country from the Port City,” Anuradhapura district parliamentarian K. H. Nandasena said. The main opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) was opposed to the field visit being arranged by the Chinese Embassy.

Harshana Rajakaruna, (SJB MP for Gampaha District) asked in a twitter message: “Why does the @ChinaEmbsl want to take our Parliamentarians on a visit to the @Port City Colombo ??  There was a prompt response. In a tweet, the Chinese Embassy said “@rajakaruana S @ Port City Colombo Why not? A field study will help to understand better about the project. Seeing is believing. Thousands of visitors from all walks of life have visited the site, even during the pandemic.”

Perhaps no other diplomatic mission is more prompt and extraordinar in their assertions.

Issues within ruling alliance

There were also other political issues that played out this week. A meeting of representatives of eleven partner members of the ruling alliance, set to meet Premier Rajapaksa, last Tuesday fizzled out due to different reasons. Among those who came for the meeting were Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) leader Maithripala Sirisena and General Secretary Dayasiri Jayasekera. Contrary to expectations, other party leaders including — Wimal Weerawansa (National Freedom Front), Vasudeva Nanayakkara (Democratic Left Front) and Tiran Alles (United People’s Party) — were absent. It was only days earlier they had met at the SLFP Darley Road headquarters under the leadership of former President Sirisena and chosen to place their woes before Premier Rajapaksa. A source close to Minister Weerawansa said they feared there was a trap laid out for them and chose not to attend it. They said they would seek another date and time.

In reality, that was not so. A group of fifty SLPP district leaders had been invited to discuss matters related to a possible Provincial Council election and related campaign strategy in such an event. That is after a Parliamentary Select Committee, to be named by the Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, recommends the electoral process for PC polls. The move is expected to take several months since the Committee would first have to hear public representations and formulate a report. Thereafter, necessary legislation would have to be adopted to pave the way for the polls. The SLPP district leaders remained seated as the SLFP delegation discussed with Premier Rajapaksa their views on the electoral process for PC polls.

After meeting Premier Rajapaksa, the SLFP parliamentary group met in the morning at the party headquarters at Darley Road to discuss the issues to be placed. There were two subjects — one was the mode of voting for future Provincial Council elections and the other the May Day celebration. SLFP General Secretary Jayasekera proposed that the party should keep away from any rally. This was to register their protest of the ruling alliance leadership failing to resolve their demands. They will seek a meeting with Premier Rajapaksha.

There were yet others in favour of conducting the SLFP May Day rally in Colombo instead of the previously arranged venue of Polonnaruwa. Some suggested that in the light of COVID-19 spreading wildly, the party should urge district leaders to muster fifty supporters each. By then, like manna from heaven, news had arrived that May Day rallies will not be held this time too, for the third successive year. The decision has been made by Chief of Defence Staff and Army Commander General Shavendra Silva.

The SLFP also undertook an outstanding task that Tuesday. That was a discussion with Basil Rajapaksa — a call re-iterated earlier by President Rajapaksa and Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa — to resolve outstanding party issues by talking to Basil Rajapaksa. As is known, he is the main architect of the SLPP and is widely credited for the party’s presidential and parliamentary election victories. These talks ended in a deadlock. The Sunday Times learnt that Basil Rajapaksa made clear to SLFP General Secretary Jayasekera that issues between their party and the ruling alliance should be settled bi-laterally. He has pointed out that there was no need for involving other partners in the issue, a source familiar with the talks said. In doing so, the source pointed out, that the SLPP chief strategist was trying to separate other partner leaders. A heated exchange put paid to the meeting, the source said adding that another round was on the cards.

In a separate development, SLFP General Secretary, Jayasekera also hit out at former President and party leader, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. This was over a letter she wrote to him urging the cancellation of the SLFP All Island Committee meeting originally proposed for April 5. He said, “I hope that you have understood that the party discipline should be the same to everyone. When the party convention, the Politburo, the Executive Committee and the All-Island Committee decided that they should support Gotabaya Rajapaksa for the presidency, supporting another candidate, urging groups to back another cause and giving leadership is a gross violation of party discipline,” Jayasekera pointed out.

Jayasekera said he had been empowered by the party’s decision-making bodies to expel electoral and district organisers who took part in the meeting on January 16, 2020. He pointed out that the event was under Ms Kumaratunga’s leadership though she had remained the SLFP organiser for Minuwangoda at that time. Furthermore, he has pointed out that Kumaratunga and Ruwan Ranatunga had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Sajtih Premadasa at the Taj Samudra in violation of party principles. Denying accusations that he was ‘destroying the party,’ Jayasekera has added that “you are a leader who worked to get our party into power ending 17 years of  corrupt UNP rule. Yet, you worked against the Central Committee. Can a breach of discipline be compared equal to positions held or outstanding actions?”

For the ruling alliance, two separate issues, one with the SLFP and the other with Minister Weerawansa’s group, remain unresolved. If that in itself is a cause for concern for the alliance leaders, the fact that they have leaned on the SLFP to back them to play the role of the “conscience keeper of ruling disposition” is a cause for greater worry. Such a role has been defined both by Ministers Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila who say they want to “be the opposition from within the government.” This raises the question whether this is because there is no opposition now or is it a tit-for-tat for the group’s voice not being heard at the leadership level? That they have an agenda which is sometimes at conflict with that of the parent SLPP is no secret. When the 20th Amendment to the Constitution was being introduced, they opposed provisions relating to dual citizenship. They said those holding dual citizenship should not be allowed to contest elections. Their effort, however, failed. They succeeded when they objected to the East Container Terminal (ECT) of the Colombo Port being given to India and Japan.

An interesting aspect with regard to these issues is the troubleshooter role played by Premier Rajapaksa in a bid to keep together those who held dissenting views. In other words, he has become the virtual behind-the-scenes peacemaker still saying “yes” or “no” to critical issues among the constituents. Of course, how long he could single handed play this holding role is like asking when will man reach the Mars. At the government parliamentary group meeting last Tuesday evening, such aspects surfaced. When this meeting at Temple Trees ended, MPs present were invited to an avurudhu dinner hosted by the Premier.

The question of civic rights being removed

The government MPs discussed “political victimisation,” a subject triggered by the findings of a Commission of Inquiry. It was headed by onetime Supreme Court Judge, Upali Abeyratne. It was Gevindu Kumaratunga (Yuthukama) who raised the question whether the government would do away with the civic rights of persons accused of causing such victimisation. The discussion came particularly in the wake of a motion dated April 21 listed in the Order Book for Parliament. Speaker Abeywardena had, after a meeting of party leaders, agreed to a debate on the subject for two days – April 21 and 22. He insisted that the government should not deprive civic rights. This ill-treatment had been meted out to even the late Sirimavo Bandaranaike but the “government should not make that mistake.” Adding his voice was Minister Namal Rajapaksa. Minister Johnston Fernando boasted that the government won a major victory.

At the meeting chaired by Speaker Abeywardena they would propose an adjournment debate. “Eka loku satanak,” he said.

Premier Rajapaksa called upon Justice Minister Ali Sabry to present his views. “I also agree,” he said and added that “civic rights should not be taken away. That should not be a part of our agenda.”

Minister Wimal Weerawansa declared that he had become a political victim. “I was remanded purely on a “B” Report. He insisted that those found guilty of deliberate political victimisation, however, should not have their civic rights removed. “Yes, yes,” exhorted Premier Rajapaksa, while adding that “we should not set a precedent.” Minister Johnston Fernando then pointed out that the Commission of Inquiry had in fact recommended the withdrawal of civic rights. Yet, there were others who said that withdrawal was not the answer but punitive action would have to be taken to send those guilty to jail. They argued that those responsible should be punished. One was to cite an instance where a case was transferred to the court in Kaduwela purely for political reasons. Premier Rajapaksa added that he was aware of the instance.

Parliamentarians also discussed the removal of Mohan Peries from the post of Chief Justice. One of them cited an instance where a controversial politician, now in custody, had gone to the official residence of Chief Justice Peiris, intimidated him, and asked him to quit immediately. Premier Rajapaksa told MPs that on no account should “any of our own people” be referred to without proper facts or context. A government source said those remarks were in particular to ensure the interests of partner leaders of the SLPNS (including the SLFP) were not embarrassed but safeguarded. That was how the two-day debate took place in Parliament on Thursday and Friday.

Contrary to Premier Rajapaksa’s claim that withdrawing the civic rights of opposition politicians for alleged political victimisation would set a precedent, the ruling alliance has nevertheless created a new benchmark. That is the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry which had ‘identified’ such claimed instances of ‘victimisation’ and recommended punitive action. The government has now discounted withdrawal of civic rights.

However, it still wants to ask the Attorney General to withdraw cases which are considered “political victimisation” with disregard to the rule of law and all established principles of justice. This precedent, 72 years after independence, is far more damaging and raises the question whether Police and the Courts are needed any more. The Commissions could decide instead. Little wonder Sri Lanka has become a laughing stock.