(A rejoinder to the statement made by the Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike)
Being one of those inveterate Sinhala chauvinists I was overjoyed to read the statement of the Prime Minister Madame Bandaranaike which appeared in the Sunday papers. This was the second time that my heart went into raptures, the first time being when I heard our ExPresident Wijetunga say that the problem was not an ethnic problem but a terrorist problem. Now here comes no less a person than Sirimavo Bandaranaike to tell us that it has nothing to do with ethnicity, and that it is a social problem, an economic problem, that has to do with under-development which in her own words, 'transcends ethnicity and other societal divides'.
It is certainly a slap on the face of those like G.L. Peiris and his collaborators thriving on ethnic studies and conflict resolutions who have been drilling into our heads that this is an ethnic problem resulting from the grave injustices committed by us against the Tamils over the years.
However Ms. Bandaranaike's analysis of the problem does not come as a surprise to me, for I well remember those words of hers when she confronted Mr. Amirthalingam on this issue not very long ago, somewhere in 1977. I remember her words almost by heart.
"You speak of the oppression of the Tamils. That was your propaganda. It is pointless saying that to me, because I know the facts and the misinformation methods pursued against our people. Of course, there would have been administrative mistakes, errors of judgment, human failings, in a long dependent country struggling to stand on its own. But oppression or deliberate discrimination, never. The strident claims of a few ambitious persons for special Tamil people within Sri Lanka were born long before the SLFP or even the UNP was founded. It was the same claim that was later advanced to Federalism and Eelam. And many inaccuracies and distortions including that of our national history became necessary to propel that political line, where as the facts and statistics of national performance will show that the Tamil people in this country must have always been among the most privileged minority in the world".
I am sure that it must have been these very sentiments lying deep within her heart that would have prompted her to break her long silence and come out with her perception of the present problem. I can well imagine how difficult it would have been for her to have remained silent for so long, concealing her true sentiments. She may also have been infuriated by the vulgar endless cacophony of the propackage vendors, Sudu Nelum mongers, and their NG0 cohorts in recent times.
This is certainly a major victory for all of us and members of the Maha Sangha who have right throughout maintained that there is no ethnic problem and that no solution needs to be found for a non existent problem, and thereby earned the wrath of the highest in the country and were branded as traitors to the country for saying so.
But what intrigues me is how Ms. Bandaranaike whilst dismissing the validity of the ethnic interpretation goes on to recommend the solution - the proposals of the package to solve the social problem that she perceives. How could a set of solutions advanced to solve a particular problem be valid for the solution of an entirely different problem, unless of course the new labeling of the problem is a mere cosmetic exercise to deceive the people, to sell the same old wine in new bottles (PA wine in a blue bottle?) and provide an innocuous cover to carry on with one's diabolical plans. I would not attribute such Machiavellian maneuvers to our gracious lady. It may be that some one with such Machiavellian plans has convinced her that the remedy that she is seeking for is also there in the package that has been put forward? It is our duty to enlighten her.
Right in front of me is a document which I feel has great relevance to what Ms. Bandaranaike is after, and would be of immense help to her in the quest for the solution to the social problem that she has perceived. It is written by an eminent economist, a former governor of the Central Bank, a former SLFP senator, and a close associate of her late husband. In this extremely well written document Tract on Economic Impossibility of Regional Devolution, Mr. N.U. Jayawardena takes up the social and economic issues emanating from the proposals contained in the package. He has shown in very lucid terms the economic disaster this country would face the day these proposals are implemented. I would only quote the last paragraph in this document for the benefit of our gracious lady.
"Be that as it may , if matters were to come to pass that the Sinhalese were persuaded to accept the proposals for Regional Devolution, even in a modified form, despite their demonstrated contradiction with the economic fundamentals, which should greatly concern them, then such conduct would surely confirm the insight expressed in the celebrated folklore: 'Sinhalaya Modaya, kavum kanna yodaya', which rendered in English reads: 'Sinhalese are utter fools and are only clever in wolfing oil cakes!' It is futile to add more in appreciation of the proposed regime of Regional Empowerment!"
It grieves me to think that Sirimavo Bandaranaike too has ultimately come to repose her faith, like all other politicians on the wisdom of that celebrated saying, 'Sinhalaya modaya....'
An unusual legal debate with significant ramifications for freedom of expression in Pakistan and the content of news bulletins on radio and TV channels is beginning to take shape.
On June 17 and June 25, 1996, a three member bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising the Chief Justice, Syed Sajjad Ali Shah and Justices Fazal Elahi Khan and Raja Afrasiab has held preliminary hearings in Islamabad to determine the admissibility of a constitutional writ petition moved as a public interest litigation by former Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Javed Jabbar (who served in the first Cabinet of Benazir Bhutto 1988-1990) and by Dr. Mubashir Hasan, former Minister of Finance (who served in the Cabinet of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto 1972-77) in which the Court has been requested to interpret the applicability of the guarantee of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as being applicable to all mass media in the country including radio, TV, cinema, etc.
The petitioners have referred to the guarantee of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Their contention in that the content of news bulletins on government-controlled radio and TV excessively projects the ruling party at any given time, suppresses from public knowledge the pluralism and diversity of political opinion in the country and therefore deprives citizens of the right to receive a balanced and impartial range of information.
The two co-petitioners have also requested the Court to declare as being illegal and invalid the recent award of permits by the government to favored cronies of the establishment for the first-ever privately owned FM radio stations and TV channels in the country. The petitioners have pointed out that no prior public notice was given before the media permits were awarded depriving interested citizens from competing in the bidding process.
At the first preliminary hearing on June 17, the Chief Justice after listening to the submissions made by Javed Jabbar observed that the petition did raise complex and significant issues that merited careful consideration. To determine the maintainability of the petition directly in the Supreme Court as compared to admissibility in a High Court, the Chief Justice ordered issuance of notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan and to the respondents which include the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Pakistan Television Corporation, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Shalimar Recording Company Limited (a government-controlled company that operates the STN TV channel that is obliged to transmit PTV news) and the companies representing the private party that has been recently awarded permits to set up FM radio stations and TV channels.
The filing of the petition has evoked considerable interest in the public and in the media because the one-sided government propaganda transmitted through the news bulletins of radio and TV in Pakistan everyday are treated with derision and contempt by the vast majority of the people. It is a common practice in Pakistan to switch to the BBC Radio's South Asian Service every evening and to satellite TV and other radio and TV services to learn about events within Pakistan.
The two petitioners have also stated that due to the low level of literacy in Pakistan, the vast majority of people are dependent on radio and TV where there is virtually no freedom of expression in the political programmes in comparison to the coverage provided by a fairly independent and vigorous press which, however is read by only about 15 million readers out of a total population of 130 million people.
This petition has been filed at a time when the judiciary and the executive in Pakistan are experiencing an unprecedented phase of conflict.
The only period when the opposition received daily and balanced coverage on radio and TV in Pakistan was a four month phase from December 1988 to March 1989 when one of the petitioners, Javed Jabbar, was in charge of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
The second petitioner, Dr. Mubashir Hasan is an activist on a number of policy issues and makes a notable contribution to public discourse.
Both petitioners have a reputation for independent views.
A notable feature is that the two co-petitioners are appearing in person before the Court and have not engaged any lawyer to represent them.
The six respondents are represented by the Attorney General of Pakistan and by other senior lawyers.
As the writ petition filed by the two former Cabinet Ministers has the potential to adversely affect the monopoly of the government over the political content of radio and TV as well as the potential to threaten certain commercial interests, there is already an apprehension amongst friends and well-wishers of the two Ministers that their citizens' rights and their security are at risk.
The first indication was provided on June 26th 1996.
On the second anniversary of a great broken promise - the PA's failure to abolish the Executive Presidency - The UNP has called on President Kumaratunga to resign, while some of the Government's main constituent parties are insisting that the Executive Presidency must be abolished.
It is now two full years since President Kumaratunga solemnly pledged to abolish the Executive Presidential system and restore the supremacy of Parliament.
In its election manifesto the People's Alliance accused the UNP of deception and manipulating the situation to stay in office.
On page 6 of its Election manifesto the PA says............. "The Executive Presidential system which has been the bane of our country since 1978, will be abolished as a matter of the highest priority, and the supremacy of the people's political will restored by means of a return without delay to the system of Cabinet and Parliamentary Government. The contemporary experience of our country leaves no room for doubt that the concentration of an unparalleled volume of power in the Executive President, without any viable or effective system of checks and balances, is wholly destructive of core values anchored in freedom, initiative and creativity in sum all that is best in human nature individually and collectively. The Executive Presidency has debased and debilitated all other institutions (such as the Courts, Parliament and the media) which had enriched the political life of the nation. The P. A. is irrevocably committed to the empowerment of our people by the restoration of the Cabinet system of government, headed by a Prime Minister having membership of and responsibility to Parliament, while a ceremonial or titular Head of State will act on advice tendered to him/ her by the Cabinet of Ministers."
On this second anniversary of a broken promise, The Sunday Times spoke to different political leaders on this matter.
Minister Srimani Athulathmudali, leader of the DUNLF said "My party has always stood for the abolition of the Executive Presidential system, as stated in the election manifesto of the PA of which my party is a constituent. I have categorically stated that the abolition of the Executive Presidency should not be tied to the devolution package.
LSSP General Secretary Batty Weerakoon said "My understanding is that the move for the abolition of the Executive Presidency is proceeding. We believe that the Executive should be in Parliament. The present proposals, I gather are on these lines."
UNP media spokesman Karunasena Kodituwakku: Today, foreign investors not even a pavement hawker believe what the Government says.
The PA pledged with much fanfare to abolish the Executive Presidency, but the promise has been broken. The President even gave time frames. The people were deceived. The President must resign. She has a serious credibility problem.
The U. N. P. considers this broken promise a great betrayal of the people. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike promised 'Sinhala Only' in 24 hours. Sirima Bandaranike promised more rice, even from the moon. The promises were broken. The daughter has now done the same.
Communist Party leader, Peter Kenaman: Our Party most certainly believes that the Executive Presidential system restricts the power of Parliament. We were glad the PA's mainfesto stated that the Presidential system would be abolished. The government though it promised two years ago has done nothing. The Government must realise that it has to work to a programme as promised and keep to it.
Senior lawyer S. L. Gunasekra of the Sri Lanka Ekiya Sanvidanaya said: I have always maintained that the Executive Presidency must be abolished. It is wrong to give so much power to one person. It is clear that the Government will not abolish it. As far back as 1994 the late Gamini Dissanayake gave a guarantee that if the PA wanted to abolish the Executive Presidency the U.N.P. would support it.
The President is now stalling by saying that instead of piecemeal amendments, the abolition must be done as part of a comprehensive Constitutional reforms. She missed her chance when Mr. Dissanayake offered to co-operate. Despite the promises in the mainfesto it is obvious that she is never going to do it. It is another broken promise among many others.
Nihal Galapaththy of the National Salvation Front: It is two years now, since the assurance was given by the President, both verbally and in writing that she would abolish the Executive Presidency. It is immoral for the Government to carry on this system.
The President wants to keep the powerful post.
Continue to the News/Comment page 3 - Gowda's Tamil minister drops Ealam bomb
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk