 |
|||||||
| |
|||||||
| Outrage over new retirement age
President
Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga on Tuesday effected some drastic
changes in Sri Lanka's security establishment. A Major General in the Army (Rear Admiral in the Navy or Air Marshal in the Air Force) will now be able to serve until they are 58 years of age. A Brigadier (Commodore in the Navy and Air Commodore in the Air Force) until he (or she) is 56 years. All officers below the rank of Colonel (Captain in the Navy and Group Captain in the Air Force) until 55 years of age. This is subject to the maximum mandatory period of service. In the case of a Lieutenant - 6 years, Captain -11 years, Major - 10 years, Lieutenant Colonel - 8 years and Colonel 5 years. Extensions of service of either a Major General or Brigadier (or their equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force) beyond the age of 55 years or beyond the period or age limit, will in future be made by the President only on the recommendation of a Board. It will be headed by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and include Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Commander of the armed force concerned. The criteria for such extended terms would be "an unblemished record of service, good conduct and the retention of his (or her) services" are in the best interest of the Army, Navy or Air Force. Promotions to the rank of Major General or Brigadier in the Army (or equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force), however, will in future be upon recommendations by a larger board. An unprecedented change in this instance is the participation of one Commander in the promotion of officers not serving in his own organisation. This Board will also be headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. It will comprise the Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Chief of Defence Staff, Commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force. This Committee will set its own criteria for promotions and their recommendations are subject to approval by the President. Until last Tuesday, the prerogative of making such recommendations on extensions of service or on promotion of officers rested in the hands of the Commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force. They forwarded such recommendations through the Ministry of Defence to the President. Since the President is the Minister of Defence (and Commander-in-Chief), transmission of such recommendations through the Ministry of Defence was procedural. However, now the Ministry bureaucrats will have a role in determining the suitability of a senior officer for extension of service or for promotions. It could be salutary on occasions where these bureaucrats are retired senior armed forces officers. They are conversant with the nuances of matters military in respect of extended terms or promotions. But
if bureaucrats who are political appointees to positions in the
Defence Ministry are called upon to serve in the Board, extended
terms of service or promotions, no doubt, could be guided by extraneous
considerations. That could be laying the fast track for further
politicisation of the armed forces. The Chairman of the Board could
be influenced by political parties in power to grant extensions
of service or promotions to their favourites. Does this mean that the time-honoured tradition, since independence 57 years ago, of the Commander of an armed force recommending a senior officer (under him) for promotion can no longer be considered appropriate? What is the need for the two colleagues to concur when one Commander makes a recommendation? Evidently doubts have arisen over the judgements they make. The question is being raised in the national interest in view of the highly dangerous ramifications involved. It is no secret that diverse groups and factions, some politically backed, exist in the armed forces. Their activities have often come to the fore when senior officers vie for extended terms of service or canvas for promotions. Lobbying reaches its peak during this time. Would this not lead to the multiplication of such activity and the creation of more centres of power in all three services? Would it not thus weaken the authority of a Commander, now the sole authority for making recommendations on extended terms or promotions of officers under his charge? Divesting that authority and vesting part of it in a bureaucracy is unprecedented. It can threaten to destroy some of the most formidable organisations like the armed forces tasked with protecting the nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Another aspect is the inclusion of the Chief of Defence Staff in the Board. Such an office has always been, with the exception of one, held by retired armed forces commanders. Their role until last Tuesday has been primarily operational - to co-ordinate tri services (and Police) military operations and ensure their resources are utilised to the maximum. But now, the Chief of Defence Staff is being re-invested with a command responsibility. This is after his retirement from being a Commander, to determine which officer's term should be extended and who should be promoted. If the past is an example to go by, there have been instances where some top officers who failed to achieve their objectives or ensconce their favourites in top slots whilst in service will now have another opportunity to do so. This move clearly dilutes the authority of a Commander who has been bestowed that position only because he is considered fit and proper person to hold that office. With these changes, the requirement to serve a mandatory period in various ranks, a practice from the British Army since independence, will also continue. So will be the requirement to retire at 55 if an officer's services are not recommended for extension thereafter by the Board. The maximum mandatory period of service for a Major General was three years, Brigadiers four years and Colonels five years. These far reaching changes took effect from Tuesday, October 25. This was after President Kumaratunga, in her capacity as Minister of Defence, promulgated Regulations under the Army Act to amend the Pensions and Gratuities Code (1981) of the Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. The amended Regulations were published in a Gazette Extraordinary (No: 1416/11) last Tuesday. In the light of this, the Commander of the Army, Lieutenant General Shantha Kottegoda has won an extended term. He assumed office on July 1 2004 and completed 55 years on November 5 last year. Thereafter, he was granted a year's extension that was to end on November 4 this year. The raise in the upper age for retirement has come as windfall for a number of senior officers. Log Commander of the Army, Major General H.H.W. Krishnaratne completed 55 years (date of birth October 27 1950) after midnight on October 26. Since the Regulations became effective on October 25, just the day before his retirement, he qualifies now to serve until 2008. Chief of Staff Major General Sarath Fonseka who reaches 55 years on December 17 this year will be eligible to continue till 2008. Like all others his case will now have to be considered by the Board. He had completed his mandatory maximum period of three years in the rank and is on his third annual extension of service. Luckier was Major General Susil Chandrapala, Deputy Chief of Staff who was to have retired on October 29 upon reaching 55 years. He had also completed his mandatory maximum period of three years in the rank and was on his fourth annual extension. The list goes on with many other senior Army officers benefiting from the move. In the Navy, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karnnagoda who assumed command on September 1 this year is 53 years old (date of birth November 22 1952). He now becomes eligible to serve a seven year period until 2012. Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Mohan Wijewickrema, who remained in that post for 14 years, was overlooked for promotion as Commander. He is now on leave preparatory to retirement on November 24. One of the first tasks for Vice Admiral Karannagoda, upon assuming command, was to recommend Rear Admiral Sarath Rathnakeerthi as the new Chief of Staff. But this week the Ministry of Defence returned the recommendation and asked Navy Headquarters to forward five names of senior officers for consideration. Besides Rear Admiral Rathnakeerthi, four other names are to be forwarded next week. They are Rear Admirals Sarath Weerasekera, Nandana Thuduwewatte, Daya Dharmapriya and Kumara Bandara Tennekoon. The successful candidate for the number two slot will also be eligible for an extended term. Air Marshal Donald Perera, Commander of the Air Force will reach 55 years of age on November 30 this year. However, if he is allowed to complete the conventional four years as Commander, his term will come to an end on July 16 next year. He assumed command on July 16, 2002. He is now qualified to remain as Commander until November 2010. Chief of Staff Air Vice Marshal Laksan Salgado who is 53 years (date of birth January 8 1952) will qualify to remain in service till January 2010. Otherwise he was set for retirement in January 2007. The new Regulations have also prompted some senior military officers who retired in the recent months to sound out possibilities of being re-instated into service. The increase in the upper age limit for retirement of officers has come as a great triumph for the careers of several senior serving officers. However, middle level and junior officer ranks are both angry and deeply disappointed. They complain it is a terrible tragedy for their careers.
But protagonists of the move say the new measures would halt a "brain
drain" in the upper echelons. In the Army, 13 Majors General
and five Brigadiers would have otherwise retired by end next year.
Moreover, they argue that junior level officers would also receive
equal opportunities when they reach the top since the new process
would take care of them. "This is what those in the top echelons have done," he lamented. A serving Army Captain said, "a time will come soon when we have to wear an insignia depicting a walking stick in our uniform." He was highlighting the stagnation that will occur at middle level ranks with the upward mobility of young officers becoming restricted. He warned that in the years to come more junior officer would have to retire with a paltry pension after remaining in a lower rank for a longer period. This is because of the lack of vacancies. Those affected include a number of armed forces officers who bore the brunt of the near two decade long separatist war with Tiger guerrillas. Many say they are disappointed that the changes took them by complete surprise. It had come without any prior warning and at the least expected moment - barely three weeks to go for the presidential elections. How a new President, to be elected on November 17, will react to these changes remains to be seen. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, the UPFA presidential candidate appears to be in the dark about the new regulations. His security advisers say he was not consulted on the policy change. Other than a matter of courtesy, there is no requirement for the President Kumaratunga, who is the Minister of Defence and Commander-in-Chief to do so. It is also not clear whether UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is in favour of the latest move. His manifesto has pledged to establish six fully equipped brigades. His advisers have said there would be new measures to strengthen the armed forces. However, during the previous United National Front (UNF) Government, then Premier Wickremesinghe set up a Defence Review Committee (DRC). This Committee, in the process of its work, held the view that there was a need to consider revisions in the upper age limit for retirement for officers in the armed forces. But President Kumaratunga, who took over the Defence (together with Mass Communication and Interior) portfolios from the UNF in November 2004, called a halt to the activities of this Committee. Among the many reasons was the fact that the Committee had not heard the views of a broader spectrum of the public or the military. It was headed by a one time Commander of the Army, Lt. Gen. (ret d.) Denis Perera. Thereafter, President Kumaratunga appointed her own Committee on January 1, 2004 to study and report on a Scheme for Granting Extensions to officers of the armed forces. It was headed by P. Abeykeerthi, Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat. Other members were: B.G. Karunaratne, Director General of Establishments, Sunil Sirisena, Senior Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, Major General Jayantha Ranaweera (Army), then Commodore T.S.G. Samarasinghe (Navy) and Air Vice Marshal Ravi Arunthavanathan (Air Force). Thereafter she endorsed the recommendations of this six-member Committee that officers in the rank of Major General in the Army (and equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force) should not be given a "third extension under any circumstances." This is after they had completed their mandatory period of three years and are granted two annual extensions. As a matter of policy, the Committee declared, it does not recommend granting of such extensions beyond the maximum period of time specified for each rank. W.J.S. Karunaratne, Secretary to the President then wrote to the Commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force on May 7 2004 informing them that she had accepted the recommendations of this Committee. They were directed to abide by them as a matter of policy. However, some 18 months later this policy was abandoned when the issue over extensions of service to senior officers in the Army became necessary. The Committee's recommendations were thus laid to rest. Maj. Gen. (retd.) Asoka Jayawardhana, Defence Secretary on April 20, this year, appointed a seven member tri services Committee to review and submit recommendations within four months on Acts and Regulations of the Armed Forces. He told this Committee that Acts and Regulations that govern them may have outlived the changing role and expansion of the armed forces. The
Committee was headed by Rear Admiral Mohan Wijewickrema, then Chief
of Staff of the Navy and comprised Major General Ranjan de Silva
(then Adjutant General at Army Headquarters), Rear Admiral Upali
Ranaweera (then Director General Services at Navy Headquarters),
Air Vice Marshal Ravi Arunthavanathan (Director Administration,
Air Force) Brigadier Mohanti Peiris,(Director, Legal at Army Headquarters)
Group Captain R.L. Dehideniya (Chief Legal Officer, Air Force) and
Commander A.M.A.W. Weerasinghe, (Senior Staff Officer at Navy Headquarters). This six-member Committee examined six different Acts and Regulations: Service Acts, Officers Service and Reserve Regulations, Other Ranks Service and Reserve Regulations, Volunteer Force Service and Reserve Regulations, Pension and Gratuity Regulations and Widows and Orphans Pension Regulations. Significant enough, the Committee has not been able to reach unanimity on the regulation governing the retirement of officers. In their report to the Ministry of Defence, the Committee noted: "The Navy and the Air Force have taken the position of the requirement to review the retirement from 'maximum time in rank' to retirement based on 'age' as practised in almost all Armed Forces in the world whilst adopting an increase in the retirement age corresponding with the increase in retirement age in the public sector in Sri Lanka. The Army, however, whilst agreeing to the retirement of officers based on 'age' indicated their desire that such age based retirement should however be subject to the existing 'maximum time in the rank.' Yet the Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the upper age limit of retirement of senior officers in the armed forces: Lieutenant General Navy and Air Force) 58 years, Major General 57 years, Brigadier 55 years, Colonel 55 years, Lieutenant Colonel 55 years and Major 50 years. The same age, it said, should apply to equivalent ranks in the Navy and the Air Force. The Committee made available separate draft Army, Navy and Air Force Service Regulations. In addition it also provided the draft of a combined Pension and Gratuities Regulations for the armed forces. This was similar to the Widows and Widowers Orphans Pension Scheme Regulations available for the armed forces. This Committee was of the view that armed forces chiefs should be designated Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Navy Staff and Chief of Air Force Staff. That is in place of their being designated Commanders. In making a final decision on the new changes, President Kumaratunga, The Sunday Times learnt, consulted Defence Ministry officials and armed forces top brass. They had given their approval. These unprecedented changes come at a critical moment for the nation. Besides the November 17 presidential elections, it is a well known fact that the Tiger guerrillas have, during the period of the ceasefire, continued to build a stronger military machine. State intelligence agencies confirmed this week that suspicious Sea Tiger activity off the Mullaitivu coast on October 12 (The Sunday Times -Situation Report October 23) was the unloading of a large quantity of military hardware. Amidst mounting violence guerrilla leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is to declare his plans for the coming year in his “Maveerar” (Great Heroes) Day address on November 27. The recent resolutions at Pongu Thamil events and the rise in violent incidents are nothing but a forerunner of the shape of things to come. What of the nation's armed forces? A three and half year ceasefire has seen them being largely ignored by successive governments. Their level of preparedness has receded. And now, a morale problem in the middle level officer ranks has come as a severe blow. That is the pathetic state to which the nation's prized institutions, the armed forces, have been pushed into. |
|||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
