| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
Q: Could you give us a run down of the latest developments in Sri Lanka. To begin with could you give us your reading of the recent election results. The electoral arithmetic is interpreted in various ways. How do you read the results?
A: Well, as far as I can see the results are very good for the UNP in the sense that it was able to get 42% of the votes as a single party while the People's Alliance, with nine or ten parties, with the Muslim Congress and the Thondaman's CWC backing them, managed to get only 48% per cent of the votes. These figures clearly indicate that the UNP, as a single party, has performed remarkably well in spite of the massive intimidation and thuggery which was unprecedented in Sri Lankan electoral history. In the light of that I think the UNP's performance was extremely good. Without thuggery and intimidation there was a possibility of scoring more - about 4 to 5% more. We could have then won the Pradeshiya Sabhas easily. Nevertheless, as you know, under the PR system the percentage factor is the most important thing.
The PA is trying to make much of large number of Pradeshiya Sabhas it won. But at the end of the day, in the final calculations for political victory - at least for political victory in the future - the final count is not based on the number of Pradeshiya Sabhas that you win. It is the total percentage of votes which is vital. On this score the UNP has done remarkably well despite all the disadvantages for a party in opposition. The results are very encouraging for the UNP and if the PA government has any political sense, it must read the warning signals contained in the results.
Q: How do you explain the fall from the heights of 62% in the last presidential elections to 48.6% in the local government elections?
A: I think that is mainly due to rising tide of disillusionment in the country. Number one, I think the question of the cost-of-living is affecting everybody across the board, except the wealthy 3-4% of the people. Number two is the string of broken promises. The PA government came into power on a raft of large promises like Rs. 1,500 for every unemployed youth, Rs. 2,500 for every poor family. None of these promises has been fulfilled. The government also promised to bring peace. She (President Chandrika Kumaratunga) promised peace in one year. She has produced peace proposals which have not brought us anywhere near peace. Her failure in this and other areas has resulted in utter disillusionment. This disillusionment led to a protest vote against the government. This is why I think the presidential vote came down by about 15%.
Q: Prof. G.L. Peiris maintains that the PA had scored 51% of the vote.
A: Prof. Peiris always gets his arithmetic wrong. The 48% they got is with the Independents in the Colombo list. They ran as Independents in Colombo and lost badly. That vote has to be added on and with that the total comes to 48%. The problem with Prof. Peiris is that he thinks he is the only man with brains in Sri Lanka and all the others are fools. That is the unfortunate situation with Prof. Peiris.
Q: Let's get to the peace proposals you referred to earlier. The devolution package is marketed as the ''peace package'' which makes it rather controversial. Do you agree if and when the package is implemented it can bring peace? Or is it a pipe dream?
A: My own personal view is that as long as the LTTE remains outside the peace process you cannot have peace. The Tamil parties in Colombo who are pressing for these peace proposals can't even go north of Vavuniya and they have absolutely no ground support except, perhaps, for the TULF. None of the other Tamil parties can even get more than 200 votes in Jaffna or northern provinces. So what's the use of bringing a peace package if the principal player, the LTTE, is kept out, or decides to remain outside it. It is, therefore, obvious that though the peace proposals sound very good, particularly for our foreign friends, it really, means nothing if the LTTE doesn't get involved in the process. And I don't think the government is very serious about the peace proposals to start with.
Q: What mechanisms or process can be initiated to bring the LTTE into the peace process, considering the three past failures?
A: I know! See what happened to President Jayewardene, President Premadasa and to President Kumaratunga. I think the LTTE is not going to join the peace process that easily and they are going to play very hard to get. That's my own reading. So as long as the LTTE keeps out, these peace proposals will remain as just another academic exercise which amuses only Prof. Peiris and nobody else.
Q: You are painting a very gloomy picture for Sri Lanka because without Mr. Prabhakaran you say that peace cannot dawn on Sri Lanka?
A: Absolutely! If you take the ground situation in the north and the east I think that apart from the Jaffna peninsula and some pockets on the main Vavuniya-Jaffna road, about 90% of the territory in northern province and about 90% territory of the eastern province are controlled by the LTTE. So Prabhakaran still calls the shots. That's the honest truth. He must be either defeated militarily or brought into the peace process. Without either of these I cannot see any hope for peace in the near future.
Q: Do you see any way out of this impasse?
A: The ball is in the government's court. It is the responsibility of the government to initiate the appropriate strategies to restore peace. At this stage the opposition can only respond to the government's initiatives. As far as the UNP is concerned we have acted with the greatest responsibility and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Wickremesinghe, has acted with great responsibility in signing this accord with my sister, the President. I say this because no other Sri Lankan leader of the opposition, including myself, has co-operated with the government in this manner to settle this problem. It stands as a tribute to the UNP and to Mr. Wickremesinghe that the UNP in fact has signed this accord. The UNP is not going to oppose for the sake of opposing. We will co-operate with the government if we think the right measures are introduced for the benefit of the country.
Q: Now that you are on the accord can you give a clarification of what it means? What are the ramifications of such an accord? Does it mean that if the PA government works out an agreement with the LTTE the UNP will not oppose it, or will automatically endorse it?
A: Basically, what it says is that if the LTTE comes into the peace process - and that is a big ''if" - and if an agreement is worked out then the UNP will be bound only to implement the section that we concur with. Say, for instance, there are ten parts to the agreement and we agree to only two parts. Then when we come into power we are bound to implement only those two parts we accepted and not the other eight. The same goes to the PA. Really, on paper, it does not mean anything very much. But, in essence, I think it is a good thing that the two main parties agree on one thing - i.e., to talk to the LTTE on common issues. This, I think, is an achievement.
Q: I think the international community has welcomed this move - and this includes Australia. How do you see the future of the LTTE now that Mr. Prabhakaran and his terrorist tactics have been condemned internationally and that the international community is not willing to accommodate his kind of political violence?
A: The international community has come out very strongly against terrorism and we are very happy about this. But how much influence the international community can wield on Prabhakaran is something I don't know. He is playing the classic game of guerrilla warfare which is not easy for the army to combat. He is calling his own shots and at his own pace. And though he has lost Jaffna he holds on to vast tracts of land in the north and east. He is playing the game according to the way he wants. Though Gen. Ratwatte talks big all the time, the military achievements after the fall of Jaffna has been virtually zero. With the loss of Mullaitivu and with the loss of other camps the army has suffered severe setbacks.
Q: Another worrying aspect is the economy. At the moment it looks as if the private sector - both local and foreign - are a bit reluctant to risk their money in Sri Lanka. Why is that? And what chances are there of reviving the economy?
A: I think there is a reluctance on the part of the investors because of the economic policies of the PA government. They have no clear objectives. They do not know what they want to do. Their policies of privatisation is a total mess. Industrial indiscipline which has been a hallmark ever since she (President Kumaratunga) came into power has resulted in the closure of something like 30 to 40 garment factories in various parts of the country. As the government itself is composed of elements of the centre, right and left I do not think they can ever come out with a coherent, comprehensive and a constructive policy on finance and the economy.
Besides, I have always maintained that we must have a separate ministry of finance for Sri Lanka. The President has no time to handle the affairs of the ministry of finance. It is a full time job. Consequently, we have sent out all the wrong signals to the international investors. That's why they do not come to invest in Sri Lanka. The government is rather lackadaisical and contradictory policies are not attracting the best investors who can revive the economy.
Q: As you know for the first time all three editors of the English newspapers not controlled by the government are being sued by the government. What does this portend for the future?
A: These are very, very dangerous signals for the future particular for a President and a government that campaigned with a promise to maximise freedom of the media. The reaction of the PA government to the media is most disappointing in particular because I don't think the media had ever supported any other leader in the history of Sri Lanka like the way they supported Mrs. Kumaratunga.
Against this background there is no doubt that the government is unnecessarily harsh on the media. They are harassing the journalists. They are using all the legal methods to threaten and muzzle the media. They have even gone to the extent of introducing a new media bill to clamp down on the independence of the media. This government which campaigned vehemently to guarantee the freedom of the media has turned violently against the media mainly because it can't handle criticism. In a democracy they must be able to handle public criticism. But Chandrika and her government- particularly two of the Ministers, not all - can't handle criticism. They think that the press must not focus on their foolish acts of omission and commission that goes on from morning till the time they go to sleep. From the look of it things are going to be much worse for the media and the public at large.
Once upon a time, long before TNL and MTV established their T.V. stations, the United Front Government refused to blaze a trail to become pioneers in the adventure of television broadcasting.
The semi-primitive golden brains that ruled the roost at that time suffered from deep hallucinations and myopic jingoism. They feared that the idiot box would invade our drawing rooms and exhibit decadent western culture and soon the cultural ethos of our people would be corrupted.
Others feared that the cost of maintaining and running a TV Station would be beyond the realm of economic viability. They reckoned that we would, therefore, be indebted to the Japanese or to the donor country for ever.
This was an era of small minds. The outside world was closed to most of us except a privileged few. They continued to teach us the glorious civilisation which stretched back 2,500 years, the peaceful coexistence of our people and the absence of ethnic rivalry. This was an era where the people suffered from acute economic deprivation. The minds of our rulers were so small that they went to the extent of banning rice on Tuesdays and Fridays and restricting weddings to 150 guests.
They pontificated about the glorious heritage of our people but soft peddled burning issues like the rate of murder which was the highest in the world, that our population was extremely dense and we were one of the poorest countries in the world, that we have had ethnic riots where the two communities killed each other frequently etc..
At that time staple foods like rice and flour were so scarce that people searched the dust bins in search of food. But everything was hunky-dory for the rulers. They ate Basmathi rice specially imported from Pakistan and travelled in 'Mercs' to the consternation of the people who voted for them. When the opposition grew, and the press highlighted these wrongs, the Government became hostile. It became famous for muzzling the press. At that time there was no constitution that guaranteed the fundamental freedoms. When the 'Dawasa' newspaper reported that number of people had committed suicide due to the inability of them to find food for their families and others had died of manioc poisoning, the rulers instead of finding food for the people sealed the newspaper. The emergency was proclaimed. A large number of journalists were thrown out into the streets. Lake House became the organ of the Government like it is today.
Then came JRJ and his "Dharmishta" regime. The "Dharmishta" regime had an inaugural baptism of fire when the marauding thugs beat the supporters of the United Front. JRJ opened the economy and enlarged the visions of cloistered bureaucrats. A new constitution was promulgated and for the first time fundamental rights were guaranteed in the constitution..
Two young entrepreneurs, Anil Wijewardene and Shan Wickremesinghe started the Independent Television Network. Within a matter of a few weeks antennas sprouted from houses which did not even have tiled roofs. The idiot box had taken over other forms of entertainment sooner than expected. For a society which had been starved of entertainment, 'canned' packages of hotch potch television programmes were beyond their wildest expectations. "Sesame Street" was a children's programme. Yet it appealed to most men whose tastes without the exposure for television had been no better than the taste of children in other countries.
Then one day, old JRJ decided to address the Nation over Television. Something happened and clear signals were not received. That was the end of the Independent Television Network.
The Government which enlarged the visions of the people by opening the economy long before even Thatcher, used one of the draconian pieces of legislation, The Business Acquisition Act, a legacy of the earlier 'socialist' government, to take over the ITN. It is said that the Army was sent to take-over the ITN. JRJ wanted television to expand to the villages. The Japanese offered a television network that would cover the whole island. Rupavahini was inaugurated.
Then came Ranasinghe Premadasa who used this powerful medium to propagate his image and the work he was doing for this country. The propaganda unleashed by the Premadasa regime, where he was seen opening a bank in the morning in Colombo, opening a housing scheme in noon at Badulla and some other exhibition in Anuradhapura in the evening was something that the opposition could not bear to watch. The people glued to the Television screen watching their favourite teledrama, and was forced to see President Premadasa observing sil.
As long as television was abused by the Government to propagate its political philosophy the opposition had no chance of winning an election. Then came the man from Kandy. He was told about the follies of Premadasa. He permitted other broadcasting and television channels to be established in this country. Like the voters of this country, he genuinely believed that the policy of the PA manifesto was something that every democratic Government ought to follow. He was so naive that he failed to understand that the political reality was that the PA was leading his entourage up the garden path, and that it was only a ruse by the PA politicians to prevent the Government from projecting the political philosophy of the Government, if Dingiri Banda or his government had any.
The state television, for the first time became somewhat independent and the Broadcasting Corporation did not abuse its functions and gave opportunities for the opposition to make statements over the Radio. The opposition put its arms around Dingiri Banda and kissed him with a Judas kiss. The UNP was effectively beaten at the elections. How the PA, after coming into office abused the television and the air waves in the guise of establishing free media and transforming the Rupavahini Corporation to another BBC, is now history.
The PA was aware how during election times some stations like the TNL carried campaigns in support of Ms. Kumaratunga. A. J. Ranasinghe was a presidential candidate. AJR did what JR could never do. He stole the prime viewing time from the Rupavahini news telecast. He was the jester of that time. People laughed their guts out, when AJR rammed the UNP propaganda machine. AJR who had hitherto been branded by the opposition as a 'Serappusupa' - a person who would drink soup made out of slippers worn by President Premadasa, became a mega TV star. His racy wit, and the gutter snipe language, appealed to a large cross section of the people. The whole thing was orchestrated so well that the great Wickrema Wickramasuriya seemed to fail to ignite the campaign blitz in the same way he did in 1977.
The government now knows that if it becomes unpopular the message can be taken to the drawing rooms of the voters through television with several stations operating. Like the newspapers of the government which sing hosannas of the politicians to no effect, with the removal of monopoly the Rupavahini and the ITN had become feckless. The establishment of other stations like the ETV, TNL and the MTV, and some programmes like the "Frontline" and the "Janahanda" and now "Prathiravaya" had become immensely popular with the people.
Free and independent judges and free media is something that everyone craves for when in the opposition. In Government these are manifestations of the decadent West. In government, the kind of democracy they offer to the people is different from what they offer to the people when not in the seats of power. Even the nature of democracy changes with the rulers. We had Sukarno of Indonesia who introduced guided democracy. We have Suharto elected without an opposition. We have Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore jailing his political opponents under the dreaded Internal Security Act(ISA). All in the name of democracy and progress. Singapore which is the model city and a government becomes the refuge of those who aspire to become tin-pot dictators. What a nice feeling if you are able to put all your political opponents in jail for the next 15 to 20 years.
Therefore, the Bill to curb electronic media is a necessity when you are in power at the helm of a five star democracy. Media freedom should be the preserve of a Government aping the west. But not for a poor country like ours which is striving to develop the country and devolve power to the minorities. This freedom if given to the brother of the leader of the opposition will be used by him to thwart any progressive measure of the government. It is not a freedom given to the people but to Shan Wickremesinghe and others who are trying to make a dent in the rapid progress the Government is making towards development.
But it is tragic even Professor G. L. Peiris did not realise the obvious incompatibilities of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Authority Bill with the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Otherwise, as the most learned member in the Cabinet of Her Excellency's Government, he would have advised Her Excellency never to present such a bill which is ultra-vires of the constitution. If the judges concluded that what the minister is striving to achieve was not to infringe free expression and publication and the abstract notion of freedom of thought, but to control various abuses resorted to by companies, then the bill could be made into law by a simple majority. The freedom that our judges enjoy and the support the Bar had given to the judges of this country to ensure that judges remain completely independent of any executive interference are something that Lee Kwan Yew would never tolerate.
We, the lesser mortals and the majority of the citizens of this country would not be affected economically and culturally if this Bill was adopted by the Parliament by a simple majority. This would have happened if the Supreme Court decided that it did not infringe and were inconsistent with Articles 10, 12 and 14. But unfortunately for the Minister who introduced this bill, we have a Supreme Court that is independent and is not beholden to any politician in this country. If these laws were passed, it would be a stepping stone for the future for the muzzling of all freedoms, gradually eroding the democratic structure of this country.
Whenever legislation is brought by governments to restrict the liberty of the subject, it is the legal fraternity that has always fought against such erosions. Often in a political struggle these important contributions are forgotten lest a lawyer becomes a political leader. They have no place in history. How many people remember H.V. Perera who fought to ensure that the Writ of Habeas-Corpus is not taken away by the executive action in the Bracegirdle case. Even the young lawyers have not heard of the contributions the legal fraternity has continuously made to the establishment of democracy in this country. Some of the lawyers were the pioneers in our independent struggle.
When the Broadcasting Bill was published a large number of organisations were concerned about the Bill which they thought would effectively suppress the freedom that had been enjoyed by those Broadcasting Stations. To my mind the contributions that President's Counsel K.N. Choksy made to the development of our law and to guarantee the fundamental freedom of our people should not be ignored.
I saw K.N. Choksy in a completely different perspective in 1987. This was the year when the Police brutally murdered Wijedasa Liyanaarachchi. Mr. Choksy voted with those members who were against rescinding the resolution adopted by the Bar, that no lawyer should appear for the police as long as they did not arrest the police officers responsible for the murder of Liyanaarchchi. He thereafter returned the brief to a police officer who had earlier retained him. Mr. Choksy was a stalwart of the UNP governmenet. Some UNP lawyers were furious. A petition was engineered and sent to the Supreme court citing this case. In his observations to the Supreme Court Mr. Choksy said that as a member of the Bar Association it was his duty to uphold the resolution that was adopted by the entire Bar as long as the resolution was not amoral or illegal. It was Mr. Choksy who consistently opposed the appointment of Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiries. It was his contention that the appointment of Special Presidential Commissions may be ultra vires of the Constitution as under the Constitution judicial power is vested only in Courts. He insisted that the UNP should take a strong political and legal stand against the appointment of Presidential Commissions. His advice was not heeded by the UNP. It was his position that exparte evidence led before Commissions in Public which is extensively reported in the media and is sometimes defamatory of a person violates the rule to law as the person defamed has no right to appear and cross examine and expose him that he was a liar.
Have you ever thought of the freedoms you thought you always had. Have you pondered even if a totalitarian government takes away all other freedoms the freedom you have to think would be inalienable. Have you ever reflected on why this freedom is a freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. The freedom of thought came into contention when the Broadcasting Authority Bill was discussed. Mr. Choksy submitted that the freedom of thought which is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution was not even found in the American or the Indian Constitutions. It was introduced for the first time in the new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore the framers of our Constitution have thought it pertinent to enact that the freedom of thought is a fundamental right which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Our constitution may be the first constitution that provided for such a right. This fundamental right had been brought into our Constitution from the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The Constitution has provided that if Parliament decides to make any law which restricts the freedom of thought it must be approved by a referendum.
Until the Broadcasting Authority Bill was challenged by several petitioners, the Supreme Court has not interpreted or ruled on the scope of Article 10 of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of thought. It was the contention of Mr. Choksy that freedom of speech and publication flowed from the freedom of thought. In layman's language, one cannot make a speech or publish an article without thinking about it. Therefore, it was his submission that any law which seeks to place restrictions on freedom of speech and publications indirectly violates Article 10 and therefore cannot become law unless approved by the people at a Referendum..
The Supreme Court held that "any abridgement, restriction or denial of a fundamental right can be legally made only in the manner and extent provided by the Constitution: as far as the fundamental right of freedom of thought is concerned, no abridgement, restriction or denial is possible except by an Act of Parliament passed by not less than the whole number of Members (including those not present) and approved by the people at a Referendum".
Mr. Choksy further contended that the Bill which gives the Minister the power to give directions to the Broadcasting Authority is a violation of Article 10 of the Constitution. Directions of the Minister interfere with the freedom of thought and therefore the freedom of thought and publications of a person carrying on the business of a rival Broadcasting and TV Station to that of the Government.
The judgement of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Authority Bill is a victory to all those who cherished the fundamental freedoms of the people of this country. A large majority of the people who live below the poverty line, and who are in a constant struggle to keep the pangs of hunger away are not immediately affected by the restrictions placed by the Minister on the issuance of a licence to a TV and a broadcasting station under the proposed bill. But when they become aware and educated about the pernicious provisions of the bill and the abuses of the electronic media by the government they would eventually protest violently against such infringements.
If the bill did become law, the government would then be abusing the powers granted to the minister to cancel any license issued to any broadcasting company. When the ordinary people of this country realise this and they find there is no immediate solution, their children in school become converted to anarchism and become rebels and insurgents. What occurred in 1971 and the 1988 insurgency was when successive Governments took away the fundamental freedoms of those young people and gave them no hope or chance to become responsible citizens. The disbanding of the "Govi Hamudawa" and the introduction of the "chit" system by the United Front Government and giving employment to the catchers and henchmen of politicians drove the youth to the JVP in 1971. A large number of JVP youths in 1971 came from UNP families.
Similarly the Job Bank scheme introduced by JRJ after the famous victory in 1977 drove the youth of the SLFP and Leftist families to the JVP and the DJV in 1987. The restrictions of fundamental freedoms by government in power and the hopelessness of the situation made the youth resort to violence and revolution as the only means of achieving their end. On the face of it, the SLBA Bill if it was permitted to be adopted, would not have had an impact immediately on the people of this country.
The youth would have constantly seen the faces of smiling politicians day in and day out on television. They therefore would have developed a hatred towards them. But due to many stations which are per se independent we have the opportunity of seeing the faces of politicians who hold different views to that of the Government. Therefore Article 10 which guarantees the freedom of thought had played an important role in guaranteeing our freedom to see our favourite channel, whether it is "Sameeparupa" of the ITN, "Jana Mandale" of the Rupawahini or "Always Breakdown" of the TNL. We owe a deep dept of gratitude to all the lawyers who appeared in defending our freedom of thought.
The Bar Association, the custodian of the fundamental rights of the people of this country, even under the new leadership, did not think it was necessary to go before the Supreme Court protesting against the restrictions the bill was going to place on the freedom of thought. The loud exhortations made by the President in a five star hotel were believed not to be an idle boast. This may have been oversight as everyone was enjoying the New Year holidays. The members of the profession had fought and rescued the situation. After the newly elected office bearers sweep the cobwebs of the New Bar Association building, they will be reminded of one of the most important rulings given by the Attorney-General of this country concerning the administration of justice.
When the Attorney-General ruled that Rienzie Arsekularatna did not err in the manner he handled the file of his brother-in-law and that the learned Attorney-General, when he was the President of the Court of Appeal had given similar directions to the judges.
It is important to know what is the considered opinion of the Bar Association on this matter. As the ruling of the learned Attorney-General has confounded many judges even in the Court of Appeal and the general public, it would be important to place this as an urgent matter in the Agenda of the next meeting of the Executive Committee for a ruling. It is important for the general public to know what the official position of the Bar Association is on the matter.
Continue to the News/Comment page 5 - * The evil which the Bill permitted, * The legend that was Daha, * A common voice for South Asia, * New Labour takes charge
Return to the News/Comment contents page
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk