20th February 2000

Why President's Office sent an angry reply to me

Although the entire document is full of lies, anger and hatred, what it has tried to emphasize again and again is that the President's TV interview of January 3 had the noble aim of protecting the freedom of the media from charlatans masquerading as journalists. According to that interview, if you can call it an interview, the biggest threat to democracy comes now from the media itself.

The media persons who had gone to cover a protest movement on July 15, 1999 were beaten severely by personnel of the President's Security Division, possibly in pursuit of that noble aim. (It was possibly with that aim that circumstances were created for the mysterious death of Rohana Kumara. It could perhaps be with the same aim that a programme of intimidating media persons and artistes with whom the government is not pleased now, has been launched.)

Clearly the foundation of the reply was built with anger for sand, hatred for cement and lies for stone. But leaving aside for a moment the lies, anger and hatred involved, it might be worthwhile making a sober assessment of the politics behind this debate.

I helped in the campaign of bringing Chandrika Kumaratunga to power because I believed that it would broaden democratic freedom in the country. She had said that she would bring peace. She had said that she would abolish the executive presidency and re- introduce the parliamentary form of government. She had said that she would do away with electoral malpractices. She had said that she would widen press freedom and establish the right of opponents to oppose without fear. She had also said that she would abolish crony capitalism.

However, she has made no attempt to fulfill any of the fundamental promises made in that political agenda. It was on questions associated with those public issues and not on any personal grounds that a rift arose between her and me. The disillusionment turned into criticism not in a brief period of 24 hours, but over a long period of time. That criticism led to a parting of the ways and later progressed to political animosity.

The reasons for the anger may be described briefly as follows:

1. At the beginning there was mutual understanding between her and me. It was such that she even discussed internal political problems of her new government with me. I heard from her that a certain minister was making an improper intervention to help a businessman friend of his to get a massive loan from a state bank. She told me about a minister who sent his daughter to an international environmental congress, misusing an opportunity given to Sri Lanka to send four young environmentalists. She might have genuinely believed that she could control the misdeeds of some of her ministers by giving publicity to those deeds. However, it was apparent that she did not welcome any criticism of her or the officials trusted by her, or the activities of ministers close to her.

When a news item appeared in Ravaya about some act of a son of an official trusted by the President, she sent for me and reproached me about it. She said that I had published a story without making any inquiries and that it was a false news item given by an enemy of that official. On that occasion I had to defend the accuracy of that news.

One of the main reasons for the President's anger towards me appears to be the criticisms made by me about PERC transactions. Even at the time she made a cash donation to 'Ravaya' various criticisms had appeared in Ravaya about PERC transactions. She made that donation unconditionally. However her request that I inquire from her before writing about ministries directly under her made me uneasy. I wrote about the Kotagala transaction soon after that cash donation as a subtle hint to her that my policy of criticism would continue unchanged. However, I came to know that this policy of mine made her quite angry.

She summoned Rajan Asirwatham and asked him to institute legal action against me about the Kotagala news story. He did not go so far as to sue me but issued a challenge to me through the media. He had to eventually give up his post without giving any notice possibly because of the wrong manner in which that transaction had taken place. I was vindicated.

2. Some time after this incident the President called me and said that she had some news about Tiru Nadesan and asked me to publish it. I listened to the long story she told me about him.

As for Tiru, he was a close supporter of the President at the time of the election. On hearing that President Wijetunga (on Gamini Dissanayake's advice) was going to summon the mother rather than the daughter to be sworn in as the Prime Minister, President Kumaratunga together with Tiru went to see former President J. R. Jayewardene in order to avoid a crisis. Then when the results of the presidential elections were being announced Tiru too was there at Temple Trees among the group listening to the results.

When the President gave me the story about Tiru, I knew that she had had a row with him. I had to tell her that I would not publish what she had just told me, because there was a contradiction in the story itself. That too was a factor that contributed to her displeasure towards me.

3. Yet another factor was my criticism not only through Ravaya but also in conversation with persons close to her, of her action in willingly retaining the presidential system after coming to power on a promise of abolishing it.

4. Our severe criticism of corrupt practices at subsequent elections had angered her. Her silence and inaction when corrupt practices were taking place during the local government elections of 1995, especially in the Gampaha district which may be considered her power base seriously eroded our confidence in her. Thereafter more recently, a few days before the Wayamba Provincial election, three of us (Sunanda Deshapriya, Waruna Karunatillake and I) saw Minister G. L. Peiris and explained to him, on the basis of information that we had received, what was going to happen there, and requested him to prevent the electoral plunder that was going to take place. However there was no preventive action and when the Wayamba election became an open electoral fiasco, we had to expose to the people all that had happened before the results were announced.

That action put the government in a very embarrassing and difficult position, and the government, instead of correcting its mistakes descended to the level of openly declaring its hatred on us.

5. The strong policy I followed in opposing the appointment of Sarath Silva to the post of Chief Justice and opposing the appointment of an 'outsider' to the post of Commissioner of Elections (in addition to criticizing them through the newspapers I also instituted legal action against those appointments) must have surely annoyed the President.

6. In addition to all this, my demand for the statements of the President's assets and liabilities, and when I found that she was refraining from making those statements available, my informing the Secretary to the President that I would go to courts to get those statements, my questioning whether official gifts received by the President have been handed over to the General Treasury, and my criticism of using very young children on the President's election platforms etc. must have contributed to this general animosity.

In adhering to the laws, especially the leaders of the people must be exemplary. According to the law on assets and liabilities, the President must declare her assets and liabilities and those of her children, before taking oaths or immediately thereafter. Failure to do so is an offence for which I think the punishment is imprisonment and deprivation of civic rights.

There is an accepted policy regarding gifts recived by heads of states. As the expenditure on official gifts is met by the General Treasury, official gifts received, too, should be handed over to the General Treasury.

If not for our clamour against the wrong policy of taking very young children to election platforms how many little children might have lost their lives at the Town Hall bomb incident?

The fundamental issues raised about the President from time to time, naturally would not have pleased her. It is also natural that she would have had the feeling that all those had weakened her political image. None of these public issues were raised by me due to any anger or hatred on my part towards the President. I had a duty and an obligation to raise those issues, whatever the consequences. There can be no doubt that my bona fide actions were in the interest of our society although they may not have been in the President's interest.

The President's interview on January 3 and the article written by me in response to it, and the counter-reply of Presidential Secretariat written with hatred and anger should be considered with the above background in mind. If a person criticizes another, it is natural that the criticized person makes a reply. However, all criticisms should always be based on truth, (especially when a Head of State replies to criticism, or a reply is sent on behalf of the President by her office). The aim of the reply by the Presidential secretariat is to say that I was not close to the President and therefore there is no truth in what I have said.

What has been said to show the distance between the President and me is ridiculous. The article by the secretariat emphasized that after August 1994, when Ms. Kumaratunga was the Prime Minister I had visited Temple Trees two or three times only and that I had met her only on two occasions at the most. The article also emphasized that I had hardly any connection with the General Elections of 1994 or the Presidential Election of that year and that I used to come occasionally, and briefly, to the election office which was being managed by persons nominated by Ms. Kumaratunga, and that I had no role to play or a responsibility to fulfill at these two elections.

There is no necessity for me to say how many times I visited Temple Trees after President Kumaratunga came to power. However. I remember that at the time she was shifting to Temple Trees, I too participated when she showed a small group of persons close to her how there was a secret entrance to one of the bedrooms at Temple Trees used at the time of the previous administration.

On another occasion when several of us were having a conversation at night at Temple Trees, the President had a desire to go out for dinner and I remember how she along with Mangala, Jeyaraj and myself who were with her at the time made a trip to the Hilton Hotel.

The article by the spokesman of the Presidential Secretariat contains several statements which belies what he says about the distance between the President and me.

The chairmanship of Lake House is considered to be one of the key jobs in government. If I had no political closeness to President Kumaratunga and if I had been a person who had played no significant role at all and if I had been a corrupt person who for that reason had been despised by her, a major shortcoming in the article is that it had not explained why she tried to give me the post of Chairman of Lake House. Again the article should have explained also why, if even the distant connection had broken down, she promised to give me Rs. two million when I had asked for assistance amounting to Rs two million and gave me an advance of half a million.

There is no sense in setting out everything that happened in detail. I am in possession of a document that might be useful to explees the extent of the falsehood contained in the article by the Presidential Secretariat. It is a report of a meeting of the propaganda committee nominated by President Kumaratunga for propaganda work at the Presidential Election. The report was prepared by Navin Goonaratne. The hand writing against some names in the report is also Mr. Gooneratne's.

In that report the name mentioned at the top of the propaganda committee is that of Mangala Samaraweera who functioned asPresident Kumaratunga's Co-ordinating Officer. Thereafter, a Victor Ivan is also mentioned. The second page contains a description of responsibilities assigned to various persons. There, a Victor Ivan is mentioned as the person in charge of press propaganda. What is going to be the fate of the country if the office of the Head of State descends to the level of telling such lies as those contained in the article, contrary to official documents.

The article mentions that I had told various persons a story I had heard from Tiru Nadesan that the President was taking bribes. It also says that after drinks at Minister Samaraweera's residence I discussed the matter with Minister Samaraweera with great hatred for the President. Taking drinks, in this article, is mentioned in an abusive tone. There is no reason for the Presidential Secretariat not to know that I have taken drinks not only at Minister Samaraweera's residence but also at the President's residence. I have not heard a story from Tiru Nadesan about the President taking bribes. But it is true that I had told Minister Samaraweera about a story told to me over the telephone about a Pathe Phillips watch.

The article says that there is a cousin of mine among those who obtained jobs in banks from the PA government. The article further says that it has been found that among those given jobs in Banks there are two persons who did not have even the basic qualifications and that one of them is my cousin. It is true that a cousin of mine has got a job in a bank. However his getting it was not a result of any request on my part. The statement that he does not have even the basic qualifications is a blatant lie. As far as I know, he has more than adequate qualifications. I challenge the Presidential Secretariat to prove that he does not have the necessary qualifications. If it is proved I am prepared to say goodbye to journalism. I have not asked the PA government for a job for a relation or even for a friend. I have not even asked for taverns. If the Presidential Secretariat wants to know the occasions where, not ordinary jobs, but big jobs have been given due to relationships, without qualifications, I am prepared to provide the information.

Brief replies to other matters contained in the article by the secretariat are as follows:

* If the story in my article about Sanath Gunathilake's appointment is false, it should be said not by the Presidential Secretariat but by the other two persons connected to the story, namely, Navin Goonaratne and Sathi Wijepura.

* The story that there was a proposal to give me a van purchased for election work should be denied not by the Presidental Secretariat but by the four persons connected with it, viz. Nanayakkara, Goonaratne Wijepura and Gunathilake.

* The story that I grabbed a press belonging to Dr. Ariyaratne is also a baseless lie. Due to Dr. Ariyaratne's request that the publications of Ravaya be stopped because of pressure from the Premadasa Government, the Ravaya staff at the time had to stand up to the situation and publish the paper independently.

* As for the allegation of corruption I may say that I have already declared my assets and those of my family members. I challenge the leaders of the country and the leading figures in the Presidential Secretariat to declare and publish their assets and those of their family members.

* In order to prove that my story about the President's request that I take over the newspaper concern relevant to Leslie Dharmaratne's project report the article says that although the said report might have been given to me, there could not have been any proposal to hand over the business to me because Dharamaratne himself was intending to run it. The spokesman of the Presidential Secretariat has accepted the story about the project report at least to some extent on the assumption that I have a copy of that report. If that business was to be started for Dharmaratne, how is it that the Head of State had to seek other people's advice on the matter?

Special Assignment-

Editorial/ Opinion Contents