• Opposition parties plan huge protest rally
• Government's referendum manifesto this week
• No decrease in gas price: Shell
• SB defends President's action
• Danger, danger-dictator
• Govt. gets the blame
• SLAirlines cutting down 
• Police inspector guilty of harassing woman
• Power cuts to go or not?
• Change of peak hour on census day
• Killing of students sparks clashes in Kalmunai town
• ECG bypass raises concern
• Right of reply
• Phone case: suspect pleads guilty
• Plans to save billions on drugs
• Fighting cocks and crestfallen cops
• Choice between cohabitation and confrontation - THE PRESIDENCY
• Taking the country towards a constitutional nadir - Focus on Rights
• CBK inviting more trouble
• The powerless grin and bear - Clinically Yours by Dr. Who
• Musharraf in India for landmark summit

Opposition parties plan huge protest rally

 

	Speaker Anura Bandaranaike with members of the joint Opposition at the Speaker’s official residence ‘Mumtaz Mahal’ on Friday when they called on him to ignore the prorogation order and summon Parliament on Monday. Pic. by Gemunu Wellage.
Buddhist monks are in the forefront of some of the campaigns carried out over the current political crisis. Here Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe along with  the chief incumbent of the Kotte Naga Vihara Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera and the chief incumbent of the Abhayaramaya temple Ven. Muruthettuwe Ananda Thera at a discussion on a common action programme against the government’s decision to prorogue Parliament.
	Members of the Samastha Lanka Pevidi Sanvidanaya taking part in a religious programme before explaining their position on the current political situation. Pix by Ranjith Perera and J.Weerasekara.

The UNP and other opposition parties are planning to bring tens and thousands of people to Colombo on Thursday for a massive demonstration and rally to protest against the shutting down of parliament.

Party sources said yesterday more than 100 unions and other groups had pledged their support for the massive rally and the people would converge on the city from all main highways. The venue for the rally would be announced today.

Representatives of several unions and other groups attended a meeting at the Colombo Mayor's office on Friday to map out plans for the protest rally.

UNP Assistant secretary Gamini Atukorale said another meeting would be held tomorrow to finalise plans.

He said the UNP would go all out against the prorogation and the referendum which it saw as ploys to save a crumbling government.

Meanwhile TULF Vice President V.Anandasangari, told The Sunday Times pledging full support for the protest said the President's move were undemocratic. 

He said his party had lost all confidence in the Kumara–tunga administration.TELO leader Selvam Adaikalanathan said the government was trying a political gamble with the lives of people.

All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) leader A.Vianayaga-moorthy said that instead of solving problems the government's new moves would, only create new problems.

SLMC leader Rauf Hakeem, whose sacking last month precipitated the current turmoil, described the referendum as a political fraud, a waste of money and time.

In an interview with The Sunday Times he accused the president of using this exercise to divert attention from the division and crisis in her government.

He said that by playing deadly political jokes and trying to take the people for a ride the government was provoking constitutional anarchy.

JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva said his party was launching a massive protest campaign on its own, starting with a rally in Galle on Thursday.

Sihala Urumaya leader Tilak Karunaratne said they were studying the government's moves and motives and would take a final decision tomorrow. 

Meanwhile, the PA is also planning a massive campaign in support of the upcoming referendum.

Senior government sources said the PA would have a two-pronged attack with a powerful media campaign being spearheaded by Ministers Mangala Samaraweera and Anura Priyadarshana Yapa. 

They said that in addition to this, Ministers Anuruddha Ratwatte and Sarath Amunugama would lead the political campaign with meetings being conducted at every electoral level to educate the public on the necessity to have a new constitution.

The sources said MPs had been instructed to carry out an active campagin to ensure a 75% 'yes' vote at the referendum.

Government's referendum manifesto this week

By Shelani de Silva

Dr. Amunugama told The Sunday Times that the manifesto would be ready this week and it sought to explain the need for the abolition of the executive presidency, changes to the electoral reforms, the devolution and the setting up of indepnedent commissions for elections, the police, the public service and the judiciary.

No decrease in gas price: Shell

By Tania Fernando

Spokesperson for Shell Gas said the company is still making a 15% loss and is looking for ways and means to recover this loss. 

"There will be no decrease in the price of gas", he said yesterday.

Government officials have in the last few days been saying the price of gas will be reduced by Rs. 50 along with price reductions in other commodities and that recommendations have been made accordingly.

A member of cost of living sub-committee, Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, has said the sub-committee has gone into all aspects and recommended a price reduction in gas.

"With others entering the market there is a opportunity to give the consumer a price reduction in gas", he said, adding that they have held discussions with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, which is directly and indirectly involved in the supply of gas.

He also said that though Shell Gas claims to be making a loss, it could not be so.

Meanwhile, though the minister had said that new entrants are coming into the market, the company that was planning on entering the market has yet to receive final approval from the government.

SB defends President's action

By Ruwan Weerakoon

A: No changes are taking place within the SLFP and I remain the General Secretary. An SLFP government is in place and the SLFP is also in the process of reorganising. We are trying to evolve it into a very professional political force.

Q: There is speculation that you are attempting to resign or about to be removed from your post. Is it true?

A: I am not resigning and I will not be removed either. 

Q: But your brother Saliya Dissanyake on a private television channel this week pronounced that you are a formidable minister. Are you a strong minister?

A: Yes, I am. But there is no need to discuss the issue of my removal.

Q: Do you say that you are in a very strong position in the SLFP?

A: The President who also heads the SLFP has said I am the best general secretary the party has had so far.

Q: You have been a supporter of Chandrika Kumaratunga from the very beginning of her political career. But now you are reported to be on a collision course with her. Do you have any misunderstanding with the President?

A: This is not the first time that we have had disagreements with each other. There must have been a hundred other instances before. 

These are not personal problems. They are questions pertaining to policies, structural work and planning. 

The problem is that the President trusts people in whom I have no faith and vice versa. So there are disagreements. But these are minor issues.

Q: Do you say that a coterie of her advisers misleads her?

A: No, she is not angry with me due to being misled. The ideals of the President and mine on governance and even party work sometimes clash. 

Q: You have begun to advocate a national government to overcome the current political impasse. Is it still your stance?

A: The best way to address the ethnic conflict is through a national government. There is international support for conflict resolution.Even they are affected by the terrorist problem in Sri Lanka. Therefore we have to make use of the opportunity. 

By remaining divided aggravates the situation. We need consensus and a common approach. But there are sections of the people who have no desire to end this costly war because it is a money-spinner for some individuals. It is a racket. 

It is our responsibility to address this issue without being sectarian and putting political agendas before national interest. 

The question also affects investors and the business community. The end result is lack of development. When we assumed office, we promised to make the private sector the engine of growth. President J. R. Jayewardene paved the way and the UNP has pursued it. We were also committed to the same principle.

But the present situation is rather unpleasant for both industrialists and investors. The JVP should take the responsibility for the breakdown in our structures. They have no national thinking. They have been most destructive right throughout. They make it impossible for a plan of action to be put in place.

Against this backdrop, the main political parties also act without responsibility. We are not without blame. But what should happen is that we should look at the broader picture and forge ahead together. 

It is a question of power. We have played into the hands of communal and sectarian political forces. But we should realise that we need consensus and a common agenda to overcome our gravest issues.

Q: How amenable is the SLFP to your concept of a national government? Are there many opponents to this proposal?

A: Of course there are opponents. They obstruct the path and even the President is not in favour of them. But I hold fast on to my views.

Q: The joint opposition has recently given notice of a no-confidence motion to the Speaker against the government. Meanwhile, the President has prorogued parliament. The same scenario prevailed when the UNP was in power and an impeachment motion was presented against President Premadasa. Parliament was prorogued even then to evade the issue. As the then opposition, the SLFP heaped scorn on the UNP alleging that the accused had shut down the courts. Isn't it the same now?

A: I agree. President Kumaratunga prorogued parliament because there was no option. There is a political crisis in the country and as the head of state and the leader of the PA there was no other course of action available to her. 

As things stand at present, we are not certain of a majority in the House. As the head of state, what is wrong in taking all measures to safeguard the government she leads?

Q: What do you think would have been the outcome if the no-confidence motion was proceeded with?

A: There were three possibilities: defeating the motion, getting defeated or coming up with an equal score. But in the present situation, there was nothing else to do than proroguing.

Q: Do you think that she suspected the possibility of the motion being carried through?

A: May be she felt that we could get defeated. There is nothing wrong in playing for time and avoiding the acid test. What she did was absolutely correct. 

Q: The UNP claimed that they already have 115 members on their side and expressed confidence that they could muster the support of four Cabinet ministers and several MPs at the crucial vote. As the SLFP General Secretary what is your view on this matter?

A: I don't think there would be defections. We have diverse viewpoints as in other parties. I don't think the SLFP or the PA affiliated parties would support the motion. 

I know the UNP has initiated many schemes to buy our loyalty. I can't say that nobody would leave the party but I am certain there won't be any mass exodus as boasted by the UNP.

Q: Does that mean that at least a few would defect?

A: I don't think so. As much as the UNP is trying to win them over, we are also trying to prevent them from leaving our folds. 

Q: Your government is now proposing constitutional reform and as a prelude has proposed the holding of a referendum in August?

A: This is just to find out whether a new constitution is required or not. I do have misgivings about the way it was proposed and our approach. I am concerned about certain legal aspects which were also raised by Minister G. L. Peiris. But referring this vital question to the people is the right thing. We should know what the people have to say.

Wayback in 1993, when we began a victorious path with the southern provincial polls, we wanted to introduce a new constitution. We are still trying to do that. 

Q: But it is rumoured that a group of PA legislators have decided to abstain from being active in the referendum. Is this correct?

A: That is not true.

Q: What is your opinion on the prorogation of parliament without consulting the Cabinet?

A: It would have been better if the President consulted us. But sometimes when we discuss matters at Cabinet level, before we could take a breath, details of what transpired get published in newspapers. In that sense, it was better that she decided on her own.

We have a big problem. Journalists, especially those in The Sunday Times, don't allow us to uphold Cabinet responsibility and maintain its secrets. Criminals rule the roost through the newspaper industry today. 

How many significant things do we discuss at Cabinet meetings? Should we have all these things published?

Q: But the truth is that Cabinet ministers themselves leak the information?

A: But it is wrong for journalists to sneak information from ministers. I think splashing vital and confidential information in the newspapers is an irresponsible act. The journalists who gather information using ministers and the ministers who supply information are both at fault.

Q: Was there a specific reason for not attending Thursday night's SLFP central committee meeting?

A: The truth is that the President and I have still not ironed out our differences. 

I am still the SLFP central committee secretary too. I did not attend the session due to the affection I have for my party and my government. 

I believe in lying low until these differences are ironed out. 

Q: Why don't you meet the President one to one and resolve these problems?

A: The President invited me twice but I could not make it. But I am certainly going to meet her and settle this issue soon.

Danger, danger-dictator

The implications

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Some motions and bills that are yet to be moved or presented have also lapsed and will have to be re-introduced . But motions which have already been presented remain valid and could be taken up when Parliament begins a new session on September 7.

Parliament sources said the controversial motion of no confidence in the government- the move which precipitated the suspension had been duly presented and would not lapse. It could be taken up as it is in the new sessions as could the other controversial motion to impeach the Chief Justice. This also was duly presented and entertained by the Speaker despite the challenge by the Supreme Court.

According to Article 70 (4), of the Constitution all matters which have been duly brought before Parliament and have not been disposed of at the time of prorogation of Parliament, may be proceeded with during the next session. 

When Parliament begins a new sessions the committees will have to be re-appointed and if necessary reconstituted.

Parliamentary sources said reports by the Parliamentary committee on Public Enterprises relating to the CWE and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation were ready for presentation, but were not presented in Parliament because government members had asked for more time to study the reports.

Some months ago UNP member John Amaratunga was elected as chairman of COPE at a time when some government MPs were not present. The government was known to be keen on removing him from that post and prorogation could provide that opportunity.

But on the other hand the UNP led opposition now claims that since the government has lost its majority in government, all committees should be restructured to give the opposition a majority stake.
 

By Chandani Kirinde and Laila Nasry

The move has come under fire from opposition politicians as well as civic action groups many of whom see it as arbitrary, capricious, undemocratic and a step towards dictatorship.

The President announced the referendum under Article 86 of the constitution, which states as follows. "The President may, subject to the provisions of Article 85, submit to the People by Referendum any matter which in the opinion of the President is of national importance."

Hence the question to be put to the people has been worded as follows; which is an English literal translation of the Sinhala original.

"Are you in agreement with the proposal that the country needs a new constitution which is nationally important and an essential requirement?"

But the UNP , sees the whole exercise as being unconstitutional and illegitimate. An angry UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe charged that the President was rushing headlong into a dictatorship. He said the president's tactics were not only covert but also cowardly. She was acting totally arbitrarily and did not even consult the cabinet on a such a vital matter as the prorogation and the referendum.

In the view of senior Parliamentarian Tyronne Fernando, the president's move contravenes Article 85(sub section 2), of the Constitution which states as follows.

"The President may in his/her discretion submit to the People by Referendum any Bill (not being a Bill for the repeal or amendment of any provision of the Constitution or for the repeal and replacement of the constitution, or which is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution), which has been rejected by Parliament."

Mr. Fernando said his interpretation was that any amendment or change to the Constitution had to be made by Parliament and not arbitrarily by the President.

He charged that the referendum move was superfluous and a waste of the country's resources and time.

Mr. Fernando and other opposition members have expressed fears that the President would use a yes vote by the people to push through a new constitution bypassing Parliament. Mr. Fernando said his view was that the provision of prorogation had been included mainly to enable an Executive President to address Parliament at a new session commonly referred to as the ceremonial address. But this good provision, which permitted a non-sitting President to address the House, was now being used for political opportunism. " This is a sinister way to abort a motion of no confidence against the government of which she is the head and the coalition of which she is the political leader,"he said.

The JVP which holds 10 crucial seats in Parliament did not join other opposition parties in meeting the Speaker on Friday to protest against the prorogation. But the party was clearly outraged by the President's move. Calling a news conference on Friday JVP leaders said they were starting countrywide an international protest against what they saw as a step towards dictatorship. JVP leaders said they were also taking steps to haul the Kumaratunga administration before the International Court of Justice. 

Political observers pointed out that it was the 1982 referendum which was largely responsible for driving the JVP back into an armed struggle culminating in the second youth revolution of 1988-89.

The reaction from other political parties was equally strong. The NSSP leader Vasudeva Nanayakkara accused the president of acting in an arbitrary manner while a TELO spokesman said it was clear to the party that the President's move was largely a ploy to buy time for a government which was facing defeat. He said putting a vaguely worded and general question to the people on a vitally important issue such as the constitution was ridiculous. The TELO spokesman said the proper procedure was to present the full draft constitution for public scrutiny, get it approved by a two thirds majority in Parliament and then put it to the people at a referendum.

On the non partisan legal front also the response was strongly against the president's move. 

Law lecturer and fundamental rights activist, Rohan Edrisinghe said that the wording in the question itself was sinister.

"Why couldn't the question be a straight forward 'Do you want a new constitution or not'," he asked.

He said the words "nationally important" and "an essential requirement" could be interpreted as an endorsement by the people for any constitution the government wanted bypassing Parliament.

Former Chief Justice S. Sharvananda, who sat on the Supreme Court bench which heard the challenge to the infamous 1982 referendum, gave another perspective to the latest exercise.

He said Article 86 of the constitution gave the President wide powers with regard to calling for a referendum, for it states "any matter which in the opinion of the President is of national importance".

"It all rests with the opinion of the President," he said.

Recalling the first referendum in 1982 which came up before the Supreme Court and was heard by a bench five judges, Justice Sharvananda stated that in a three to two verdict, (he being part of the majority) held that the validity of the referendum could not be questioned and whether the Legislature liked it or not the President could go for a referendum. 

Referring to reports that the upcoming referendum might be challenged in courts the former Chief Justice said it would not be necessary because, "this referendum is just to find out the disposition of the public. There is nothing to challenge in it because it harms nobody." 

However Justice Sharvananda also said that in the upcoming referendum the matter, in question was not specified to the people.

"There can be hundred odd reasons for a constitution to be changed. But people want to know and need to know the specific reasons, to formulate their minds with regard to a referendum." 

Former Attorney General and now UNP frontliner 

Tilak Marapana has a different view. He believes the referendum could be challenged. "You can't waste public money with a vague question to the people," he said.

Mr. Marapana said that in 1982 the then President J.R.Jayawardene brought a bill under Article 85 amending the constitution to extend the term of Parliament for six years. "The then President had the two thirds majority of Parliament and the referendum was part of the legislative process to validate the bill. But this referendum is not of that nature. It is merely to test the public pulse.

"Every party agrees there is a need for a new constitution but the changes have to be explained in detail and the question at the referendum must be specific," Mr. Marapana said.

Former Supreme Court judge K.M.P.B. Kulatunga sees the proposed referendum as "a subterfuge to escape from the consequences of the no-confidence motion and the impeachment."

He said his view was that the referendum was a blatant abuse of power and could be challenged despite some provisions for presidential immunity because the president was not above the law. The former judge said he believed a writ of prohibition could, be obtained from the court of Appeal with the Commissioner of Elections as the respondent..

Mr. Kulatunga said the question at the referendum sounded more like putting an answer in the mouth of the people.

Describing the up coming referendum as a farce, economic disaster, political fraud and unlawful, Mr. Kulatunga said that even if the president obtained a yes vote she did not have even a simple majority in Parliament let alone two thirds as required by the constitution.

More News/Comment

Return to News/Comment Contents