Simmering crisis behind estate satyagraha 

By our Political Correspondent

But it appears that the scenario behind the scene is quite different. The reality is the crisis is still simmering. Many plantation workers are not too happy over the collective agreement the unions signed with the Employers Federation for the second. They said the new agreement had not changed the situation much.

In June 2000, Mr. Thondaman signed a collective agreement with the Employers Federation under which he agreed not to agitate for any salary increment for the next two years. The two parties agreed that the basic salary per day should be Rs. 101 while the price share supplement was fixed at Rs. 6 and the attendance incentive wage at Rs. 14 per day if they record more than 90 per cent attendance. The total came to Rs. 121. 

On the day they signed the agreement on 20th June, 2000, the value of the rupee fell by Rs. 7 in comparison with the dollar. 

To cushion the rising cost of living due to the deflation of the rupee, the government in August, 2000, decided to pay a cost of living allowance of Rs. 400 to all public and private sector employees. 

A gazette notification which was published to this effect however said that this Rs. 400 will not be added to the salary of any employee who had entered into a collective agreement. Therefore, the plantation workers were denied the Rs. 400 cost of living allowance.

Mr. Thondaman maintained his silence on this matter. During the October, 2000 elections, the CWC made a statement that the workers would be paid an additional Rs. 10 per day, but the demand did not materialise. 

Thereafter, the CWC in November-December, 2000, staged a ten-day strike against which the Employers Federation went to Court on the strength of the collective agreement. The court decided that the workers should not go on strike in accordance with the collective agreement.

S. Sathasivam, a UNP parliamentarian and former CWC member, formed a separate trade union called the Ceylon Workers Alliance to bring about a new awareness among the estate workers and to educate them on the hypocrisy of the CWC. 

In view of this situation and the court decision which was in favour of the Federation, Mr. Thondaman's CWC organised a Satyagraha which crippled the estate sector during the early part of this year.

Another collective agreement was signed thereafter between the CWC and the Employers Federation under which Thondaman agreed not to ask for a wage increase till June 2002. But the workers were not benefited by the 15th March 2001 agreement which almost came to the same Rs. 121 wage, but in a different format. 

On this basis of the agreement, the basic wage of Rs. 101, with the daily price share supplement of Rs. 15, the attendance incentive payment of Rs. 5 per day paid monthly for attendance on 75 per cent or more of the number of the days work was offered. Although the payments on daily share supplement, the attendance incentive varied in their amounts from June 2000 agreement, but the basic computation came to the same when the salaries were compared. Under the latest salary structure, the total still remains at Rs. 125 as against June, 2000 total.

Plantation workers tend to think that the CWC has betrayed their cause by signing the agreement from which they derive only very little benefit.

Arumugam Thondaman is well aware of this but he is maintaining silence and assessing the situation, but now he may take a decision soon because his position has been threatened, specially because of Mr. Sathasivam's union. Mr. Thondaman may fall in line with the UNP if the UNP makes the right move before the 11th of April where the actual voting of the budget will take place.

However, it appears now that the UNP is not much interested in defeating the government. 

The UNP is also lagging behind the government in making a serious assessment of the peace moves initiated by the government. 

In the meantime, it is reported that a powerful UNPer who is yet to enter the realm of politics is trying to win over a tender of the Colombo Municipal Council to convert a part of the Vihara Maha Devi Park into a Disney Land. But the matter has caused concern in the UNP over the manner in which the man had allegedly ditched the man behind the project. 

Eliminate hatred from the struggle for power 

By Victor Ivan

The main reason that has contributed to the failure of the political parties to reach a consensus among the political parties is hatred and suspicion that prevail in the power struggle. The political culture of Sri Lanka is such that the parties which come to power use state power to the maximum to oppress the opposition parties. This oppression affects not only the leading members of the opposition parties but also village level members and followers of those parties. On the other hand a party in power oppresses opposition parties on the grounds that they are at the receiving end when the situation is vice versa. In these circumstances, the opposition parties are determined to come to power as early as possible and by whatever means in order to put an end to their oppression. The government party too is compelled to follow a policy of keeping its power by any means due to fear of victimisation in the event of the opposition coming to power. This has also contributed to the violence that exists in the never ending political competition.

Unless this contradiction in Sri Lanka's politics is resolved, It is not possible to reach a consensus among the political parties on any matter of national importance. That is why the Alliance for Democracy emphasizes the necessity of a programme of reform.

For this purpose an eleven point programme has been drafted and it was submitted to an all-party group of representatives summoned to the Parliamentary Committee room on March 27 for the purpose of getting an idea as to how it would be received by the political parties.

No government agrees to a discussion of a programme of political renewal. It has been a characteristic not only of the PA government but also of the UNP government in the past. The very idea that there must be a revival of democracy implies that the existing democracy is incomplete. However, every government in power would like to say that there is sound democracy under it. Therefore a government in power would inevitably oppose such a programme of reform. 

The first to raise the question as to where we are heading and how it will end in an emotional tone was Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse, the Minister of Fisheries. He said that when the UNP was in power. they were accused of anti-democratic activities and irregular transactions by the PA and that now his government was being accused by the UNP, of similar offences. He also said that the country would benefit if all the parties got together and evolved a common programme, instead of making accusations and counter-accusations against each other. The opposition speakers appreciated Mr. Rajapakse's approach.

The discussion summoned by the Alliance was attended not only by Mr. Rajapakse, but also by Mr. Rauf Hakeem on behalf of the Muslim Congress and Mr. R. Yogarajah on behalf of the Workers' Congress all of which are partners of the PA government, and by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe and Mr. Karu Jayasuriya from the UNP, Mr. Nandana Gunatilake and Mr. Jinadasa Kithulgoda on behalf of the JVP, Mr. Ananda Sangari and Mr. Mavai Senathirajah of the TULF, Mr. A. Adaikalanathan of the TELO and Mr. S. Vinayagamurthi of the Tamil Congress. Representatives of the all Religious Conference, the Association of Professional Organisations, the Editors Guild and other Trade Unions and Organisations, too participated as observers.

Although it was not possible to reach a consensus on all matters in the eleven point programme, everybody agreed on the necessity of a programme of reforms that would help create an atmosphere in which all the political parties would be able to function honourably.

Everybody accepted the idea that the Executive Presidency should be made accountable to Parliament. JVP said that they stood for the total abolition of the Executive Presidential system, but that if all parties wanted a reform to make it accountable to Parliament then the JVP would not oppose it.

The question whether the President should have the right to hold ministerial posts in addition to the post of President was also discussed lastly. Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe's view was that the President should have no right to hold any ministerial post. The Tamil Congress too held a similar view.

(The writer is the Editor of Ravaya)

Richard was killed for his journalism

By Batty Weerakoon

Mr Ivan's thesis is that Defence Minister Ranjan Wijeratne "wanted to have Richard de Zoysa assassinated not because he was a media person but because he was an active follower of the JVP."

Mr. Ivan does not himself make the charge that Richard belonged to the JVP. That he was in the Minister's view "an active follower of the JVP" is by no means any evidence of Mr. de Zoysa's links with the JVP or of Mr. Ivan's personal insight on the matter. All that Mr. Ivan can state as his own perception is that it was known to Richard's mother and to his close friends that he was "maintaining a close connection with some leaders of the JVP".

Mr. Ivan makes a further statement that the present leader of the JVP, Mr. Somavansa Amerasinghe before he fled the country was hiding in a house of which Richard had been in charge. This house, he says, belonged to a person who at the time was abroad. This again is not credible evidence on which a person could conclude that Richard was what might be called a "JVPer". Mr. Ivan says that it was through the intervention of the Defence Minister that the CID was prevented from searching this house. The Minister referred to could be none other than Mr. Ranjan Wijeratne. Why one may ask, did the CID want to search that house if not to look for Somawansa Amerasinghe. If that be so the further question is as to why that same Minister should intevene to stop the search for Somawansa Amerasinghe. This needs explanation from Mr. Ivan. Why should a Minister who on Mr. Ivan's own showing had Richard killed because he was maintaining close links with men like Amerasinghe, shield such men from the CID? All those who had the privilege of any association with Mr. Wijeratne would know that this was not quite like him.

I had not the good fortune to know Richard when he was alive. But I came to know his mother very closely when I appeared for her both in Courts and outside in her attempts to bring to book her son's assassins. Her own tragic plight brought her close to the mothers who had lost their sons and daughters at the hands of the vigilante squads deployed by the then Government. A person's links with the JVP was not seen by her as an offence or something unacceptable. She did not approve of what the JVP was doing at the time but she had no feelings against it and would have seen no reason to hide from anybody - and least of all from her lawyer - any connections her son may have had with that party or its leadership. In fact when Rajiv Wijesinghe stated in an article of his (written much later) that Richard had his JVP connections and Manorani did not consider it a serious assessment of her son's political positions. Herself the daughter of a renowned journalist (Richard was named "Manik" after his journalist grandfather) she knew how important it was for a serious journalist to maintain his connections with all actors in an event of significance. It appeared to me from all accounts that Richard had no fixed political positions although he was able to have a rapport with persons of different political views.

Richard's diaries were taken away by the police on the very first day of the purported investigation into his abduction. Wild allegations were made by persons (even in Parliament) purportedly on the basis of these diaries. After the Government has ceased to talk of any investigation into the abduction and the case against the abductors was suppressed Monorani wanted the diaries returned. The Attorney General who apparently had them in his possession refused her request and she had to go to the Fundamental Rights Court to assert her rights. 

The diaries were then handed over in open Court. Manorani wished me to examine the diaries and I saw that there was nothing in them to suggest any motive for Richard's killing. There was an entry which mentioned a meeting with a JVP leader. Richard's reflections on answers given by him to his questions are the clearest indication of his distance from and even bafflement with JVP thinking.

Mr. Ivan is freely substituting brazen speculation for truthful matters of fact. He writes, "Mr. de Zoysa had a close connection with Lalith Athulathmudali as well as the JVP leaders. Perhaps both these factors might have contributed to his death. Although the PA government had wanted to appoint a Commission to inquire into Mr. de Zoysa's assassination his mother Dr. Manorani Saravanamuttu opposed it."

Mr. Ivan starts his exercise with the thesis that Mr.Wijeratne, Minister of National Security wanted Richard killed because he was an active follower of the JVP. But a little way down in his article he brings in this other reason for the killing. Mr. Wijeratne had apparently no problem with Mr. Athulathmudali. The latter's soured relations were with President Premadasa. One is compelled to wonder whether Mr. Ivan is shifting focus from Mr. Wijeratne as the killer to someone else. Or is this just confused or irresponsible thinking? Mr. Ivan's brazen statement that Dr. Saravanamuttu opposed the appointment of a Commission to inquire into her son's assassination is demonstrably false. The principal single killing case that was probed by the Commission into Involuntary Removal and Disappearance of Persons chaired by Mrs. Manouri Muttettuwegama was that of Richard de Zoysa. 

The Commission Report (1997) bears me out on this. It reproduces Dr. Saravanamuttu's evidence too. In her evidence she had absolutely no doubt that her son was executed solely because he was an IPS journalist keeping the world informed of the human rights situation he was witness to. I have myself seen his telegraph scripts. The political setup here was not willing to allow him to leave the country to assume his new appointment with IPS at its Lisbon station. 

(The writer is the Minister of Justice)

More News/Comment

Return to News/Comment Contents