The assassinations of two parliamentarians in the Trincomalee district within ten days by the LTTE have sent shockwaves through the corridors of power, with a warning that the strategic port city is becoming a hotbed of terrorism.
First it was TULF’s Arunachalam Thangathurai who was killed in the heart of the Trincomalee town and then UNP parliamentarian M.E.H. Mahroof who was gunned down on the Trincomalee-Kuchchuveli trunk road which is under the control of the armed forces.
In addition to this, it was disclosed last week that powerful sea mines had been found near the Trincomalee Naval base.
Through all this, the LTTE is obviously sending an unequivocal message that the East is becoming more and more politically unstable.
The LTTE had targeted two MPs from the opposition on an apparent attempt to exert more pressure on the government since the government has to take responsibility for the deteriorating situation in the East.
So the strategy is to bring pressure on the government to deploy more troops in the East to make it more secure.
But could the government pull out troops from the North at a time when the army is already over-stretched?
At the same time, it is also evident that the LTTE is not comfortable in the North, finding it difficult to carry on in the face of the large-scale military onslaught by the troops.
Nobody could give a specific reason for the killing of UNP MP Mahroof who maintained good relationship with Tamils in the area. He was one of the MPs who opposed the setting up of a South-Eastern Council for the Muslims, a view shared by a majority of Tamils in the East.
So it shows the contradictory stance of the LTTE in assassinating Mr. Mahroof. It killed an MP who opposed the SLMC demand for a separate Muslim Council but at the same time the Tigers maintain ties with some Muslim leaders in the East.
The situation in the East, particularly the political climate, was discussed at length on Wednesday when Minister G.L. Peiris met some Tamil party leaders over lunch in Parliament.
EPDP leader Douglas Devananda and PLOTE leader D. Siddharthan along with P.P. Devaraj from the CWC and Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvam from the TULF were present.
Dr. Peiris spoke about the extraordinary political situation in the East and told the Tamil leaders they should arrive at a viable solution with regard to the Muslim unit in the East.
However, there appeared to be many differences over the matter though the TULF had agreed in principle to a separate Muslim Council in South Eastern region. The UNP parliamentary group also discussed the situation in the East, especially the assassination of Mr. Mahroof.
The group observed three minutes silence in memory of Mr. Mahroof and party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe made a statement saying that government had not been able to maintain the security structure that were put in place by the UNP government in the Eastern Province.
The UNP group also discussed the question of electoral reforms. In fact, the leader of the party had earlier decided to discuss the electoral reforms at length at this meeting but in view of Mr. Mahroof’s death, the issue did not receive much attention. Answering a question, A.C.S. Hameed said the UNP had participated in the Select Committee strictly on the understanding that whatever agreement was reached on various issues would be subject to the party’s approval. John Amaratunga wanted the UNP members of the Select Committee to give a briefing at the Group Meetings about the discussions that took place. W.J.M. Lokubandara said the party should oppose the devolution package and therefore nothing would be gained in discussing the electoral reforms.
Mr. Hameed said Mr. Lokubandara’s contention was correct because the UNP must decide in the first instance whether it wanted to support the package and if the decision was not to support the package then dicussion of various issues, including electoral reforms would be futile.
Mr. Wickremesinghe said he had already agreed that there should be a full discussion on the electoral reforms and he would fix a date soon for this purpose.
Besides this, another point of contention among the UNPers is ‘Prathiba Pranama’ - ceremonies organised to felicitate Anura Bandaranaike on his completion of 20 years in politics.
The assassination of their Trincomalee district MP and the Bandaranaike felicitation were two events which took an uppermost place within the UNP.
There appeared to be lukewarm support from the UNP when Mr. Bandaranaike visited Kandy last week to pay homage to the sacred tooth relic.
Kandy Mayor Harindra Dunuwila was seen only at Peradeniya where Mr. Bandaranaike was received. Kandy district parliamentarian Lucky Jayawardana was also seen along with national list MP Sarath Kongahage who was present at all ceremonies at the Peradeniya Gardens and Maligawa in Kandy.
Though most of the Kandy MPs backed out, there was a fairly good response from the people who gathered at the D.S. Senanayake Hall in Kandy to greet Mr. Bandaranaike.
Sarath Amunugama, a one time supporter of the late Gamini Dissanayake was billed to speak on Mr. Bandaranaike at the ceremony but he did not turn up. Another prominent UNPer in the area allegedly made an attempt to scuttle the ceremonies.
The politico telephoned colleagues and told them it would not be prudent to attend the ceremonies.
When the organisers observed that Dr. Amunugama was not present to deliver his speech on the political life of Mr. Bandaranaike, they turned to Mr. Kongahage who agreed to speak.
Mr. Kongahage in his address said Mr. Bandaranaike was a gentleman to the very letter who would eventually become the leader of this country after Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe. He said Mr. Bandaranaike was an honest leader, because he admitted recently that he joined the UNP on the invitation of Sirisena Cooray, though Mr. Cooray was now being held on charges of trying to kill Mr. Bandaranaike’s sister.
“That’s why, I call him a gentleman,” Mr. Kongahage told a packed audience. But what most of the UNP MPs did not know was that a special unit of the UNP is monitoring the ceremonies connected with Mr. Bandaranaike’s felicitation to be used for future stocktaking of the party.
Mr. Bandaranaike’s Kandy ceremonies came to an end without much fanfare when most of the district MPs kept away. Former Minister A.C.S. Hameed communicated with Mr. Bandaranaike and told him that he was unable to come due to heavy commitments elsewhere.
But later Mr. Bandaranaike learnt there was a mix up in the invitations and that most of the invitees had not received their cards on time.
The Kandy ceremonies were organised by Keheliya Rambukwella, a former DUNFer. He was to host a lunch but he had not prepared enough food for the whole of Mr. Bandaranaike’s entourage numbering about 30 and some of them had to go elsewhere for meals.
Meanwhile Mr. Bandaranaike could be quizzed in the Working Committee over a speech made by him in Kandy. He had allegedly said former President J.R. Jayewardene made a mistake by stripping his mother of her civic rights. He said that similarly the President was making mistakes by appointing Presidential Commissions to probe UNPers.
A section of the UNP Working Committee had expressed the view that Mr. Bandaranaike should not have referred to the actions of the former President as a member of the UNP and its Working Committee. They point out that the decision to strip Ms. Bandaranaike of her civic rights was taken on the recommendation of a Presidential Commission that probed abuse of power during the 1970-1977 regime. The decision was made collectively by the whole Cabinet of which the present leader was also a member. It is likely that a resolution to this effect could come up in the Working Committee soon.
Some Working Committee members are of the view that though the UNP practices liberal democracy, they should be beholden to their leaders. “All the successive leaders have followed this. It is the tradition of the UNP,” one Working Committee member said.
He said leaders such as Mr. Bandaranaike had no base in the UNP as the Bandaranaikes were basically opposed to UNP policies. But certain others think that Mr. Bandaranaike is truly a liberal democrat, and his thinking is more UNP than anything else. Even within the UNP he fought against the leftist elements to make it a liberal democracy, they say.
In their opinion, Mr. Bandaranaike is even fit to be the leader of the UNP, if he is ready to take the reins.
They also found fault with the hierarchy for not supporting Mr. Bandaranaike’s ceremonies through district-level organisations.
By Thursday, Mr. Bandaranaike was getting ready for the main felicitation ceremony at the BMICH with former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as the guest of honour.
By evening it appeared that Premier Bandaranaike would not speak at the ceremony for specific reasons. Sources close to her say that if she were to trace political history she would inevitably have to refer to the court battle between the SLFP factions where the son clashed with the mother. Others say Ms. Bandaranaike was bold enough to participate as the chief guest and to host a lunch for Ms. Bhutto.
When Minister G.L. Peiris visited the Prime Minister early last week to take his oaths as the Acting Finance Minister, Ms. Bandaranaike inquired whether he could attend the lunch hosted by her in Ms. Bhutto’s honour.
She told Dr. Peiris that apart from him only one other Cabinet member, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, had been invited.
In any case, most of the Ministers did not want to participate in this controversial lunch fearing they might offend the President who is now on a private visit to Britain with her children.
Mr. Bandaranaike on his part is taking any obstacles in his stride and facing his way to make his felicitation ceremony a success.
On the government front, the main thrust was how to get the political package through Parliament. If it fails to get the necessary number of votes in Parliament through the assistance of the UNP leader, the government would have to look for an alternative solution. In the meantime Anura Bandaranaike and Minister G.L. Peiris had talks under the auspices of the Japanese Ambassador.
The talks were fruitful as far as the government is concerned but the UNP leadership, not aware of such a development until it took place, is worried. Therefore it seems the UNP is coming to a position where it will not support the package, neither will it oppose the proposals in a non-binding referendum. The government is apparently designing the referendum in a manner that would put the UNP in an awkward if not embarrassing position.
But the more pertinent question is, after the referendum, what next?
Through the referendum the government could ask the people whether to go ahead with the proposed constitutional reforms and if they succeed the next step would be to have a constituent assembly which would adopt the new Constitution by majority vote.
Meanwhile, the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs met last week to re-consider the proposed electoral system which was opposed by many in the government and the opposition.
The earlier proposal would have reduced the number of elected MPs to 99 while another 99 were to be elected on a regional PR basis making the total 198. But most government and opposition MPs opposed the move to have 99 MPs on the PR list at the discretion of the General Secretaries of the respective political parties.
When the Select Committee met, Minister Peiris said the Committee would have to finalise its report before November.
Minister S. Thondaman at this point queried as to how the government was going to release the Select Committee report.
Dr. Peiris said some may agree with the govt.’s point of view and the others may not. So they would be compelled to release the majority decision.
Replying to Mr. Thondaman, Dr. Peiris also said there was provision to release a dissenting report too along with the majority report.
Thereafter, Dr. Peiris said that majority of the PA and UNP members were opposing the proposed electoral system under which the number of directly elected parliamentarians would be reduced to 99.
Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvam, however, said if they were to increase this number, they would also have to increase the number of members elected under the PR system.
However, Minister Peiris asked members to come up with suggestions as to how they should introduce a new electoral system.
Minister Indika Gunawardene said he would favour the PR system on a district basis rather than on a provincial basis, since people who are contesting would not have enough resources to face an election on a provincial basis. Everybody seemed to agree with this suggestion and when another MP proposed that the percentage of votes polled by each party should be taken on a national level, Dr. Peiris asked UNP representative Tyronne Fernando as to what was his party’s stand on this.
Mr. Fernando said the UNP had so far not taken any decision and they would let him know in a few weeks time.
Mr. Thondaman who intervened once again asked as to who would decide on the PR list, whether it would be left to the electors to decide or whether the discretion would be given to the party secretary. All agreed that the electors should be entrusted with the task of electing even the nominees on the PR list by using one preference vote.
Thus an elector would have two votes at a General Election to elect the representative of his electorate through direct vote and select his choice on the PR list at a national level.
DUNF parliamentarian Ravi Karunanayake at this stage wanted the Select Committee to discuss the paper submitted by the DUNF on this matter but Minister Peiris said that it would be a time consuming exercise and they wanted to finish everything by November.
Minister Thondaman posing another question asked as to why they could not implement the German system fully.
The German system is designed to enhance minority representation in Parliament and very few knew it could be unfavourable for the majority.
Though Mr. Thondaman’s question went unanswered at the Select Committee, Dr. Peiris later discussed this matter with several others including Attorney General Sarath Silva.
Besides the decision to submit the Select Committee report on constitutional reforms before November, President Chandrika Kumaratunga has decided to suspend the 1.5 billion rupee Presidential Palace project at Kotte, until the government fully reviews the whole project.
The President had apparently telephoned her Secretary K. Balapatabendi to inform him of her decision while Minister Indika Gunawardene made a long statement in Parliament not knowing President Kumaratunga’s decision. Mr. Gunawardene told Parliament on Wednesday he had no intention of advising the President to halt work on the project. The Minister defending the government’s earlier decision said the proposal was reasonable in view of the economic and other factors involved.
He said it was an extension of the scheme begun by the previous government to develop Sri Jayawardenepura as the administrative capital of the country.
However, to coincide with the President’s decision to suspend the project, the people whose land had been earmarked for the proposed project filed action in the Supreme Court on Thursday invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 126 which deals with fundamental rights.
The matter is scheduled to come up in Court on Tuesday and will be supported by President’s Counsel K.N. Choksy.
At the same time the Supreme Court is likely to deliver the judgment in the Sirisena Cooray case shortly. According to the submissions made by Mr. Cooray’s lawyers the state has failed to justify the arrest and subsequent detention of former UNP General Secretary Sirisena Cooray.
In another political development the arrival of Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to offer “good offices” to find a solution to the ethnic crisis has caused problems within Tamil political circles.
The initial reaction came when ACTC leader Kumar Ponnambalam was told by the officials of the Australian High Commission that all appointments to meet the Foreign Minister had been arranged by the government.
When Mr. Ponnambalam learnt that his party was not listed to meet Mr. Downer to discuss current political issues involving Tamils he left a letter at the High Commission addressed to Mr. Downer. Extracts from the letter:
“I write this letter to request a meeting with you on behalf of the above party.
“The above party is a recognised political party, but with no representatives in Parliament at the moment. But more importantly, ours is a party that does not support the government nor work for the government. As it is common knowledge, both locally and internationally, that the three Tamil parties in Parliament, with whom a meeting has been arranged with you, support more the cause of the government than that of the Tamils in this island, a meeting with a Tamil party that has absolutely no connection with the government will undoubtedly enable you to get a more balanced position of the true situation prevailing in this island at the moment on the nationality problem and allied topics.
“I, therefore, earnestly request an opportunity to meet you in order to place before you other views of the ongoing war, about refugees, rehabilitation and reconstruction and the destiny of the so-called “peace process.”
Mr. Ponnambalam’s anxieties are understandable being the leader of a recognised political party which enjoyed people’s confidence at one stage, but gradually diminished with the latest political trends in the North and East. Mr. Ponnambalam tries hard to keep his party alive by taking a more radical line as opposed to the Tamil moderates.
He is one of the outspoken critiques of the PA government, but in the present political context it would seem reasonable to give a fair hearing to any recognised minority political party which wants to air its views concerning the political future of Tamils. Mr. Downer also had dicussions with the UNP.
It is reported that he was impressed by the government’s political package and said that Australian investments in Sri Lanka would certainly rise if the government pushes the package through Parliament.
Mr. Downer’s discussion with Minister G.L. Peiris was fruitful. The Australian Foreign Minister said they did not want to be a third party in the negotiating process but he offered to help if it was necessary. The Australian Foreign Minister appeared to have understood the current internal problem fully but the stumbling block at present seems to be the UNP’s contention that the LTTE should be invited to the negotiating table before any solution is finalised.
The government’s position appears to be that all parties represented in Parliament should reach an accord on what they should do before talking to the LTTE on the proposed constitutional reforms.
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page