8th February 1998

From the blue corner UNP must learn to oppose

By Paakshikaya

For General Anuruddha Leuke Bandara Ratwatte, calls for resignation are nothing new.

We remember how the UNP demanded his resignation as Minister of Power and Energy when the entire country was plunged into darkness for three days due to a strike by the Ceylon Electricity Board. The good General did not resign. Instead, he used his power and energy not only to restore electricity but also to go on his honeymoon with his new wife, Ramani.

Then, there were calls for his resignation when his son, Lohan was alleged to have been present at a casino when a murder took place. The General was accused of unfairly defending his son and obstructing justice. But Anuruddha did not resign.

The UNP was third time lucky when the LTTE bombed the Dalada Maligawa in Ratwatte’s home town of Kandy and the UNP in Colombo burnt a ‘Pambaya’ with dark glasses saying it was Ratwatte. He promptly resigned.

Since then, controversy has surrounded this resignation, with calls for its withdrawal and hair-splitting arguments about its validity. What is plain to see is that the UNP is not shy to make political gains out of the Maligawa bombing, though it is accusing Ratwatte of committing the same crime.

It must be said that we SLFPers are bad and hurt about the bombing, perhaps more so than those in the UNP. Lakshman Kiriella, a veteran of hill country politics, for instance, was an angry man when he heard of the bombing, and most SLFPers felt that way. And what they all agree — Minister Ratwatte included — was that there was a definite lapse of security that day at the Maligawa.

On this point we saw an interesting television discussion last week, which, we thought, must not escape comment. There was K. Wijedasa, who, if you remember, was Secretary to President R. Premadasa, blaming Diyawadana Nilame Neranjan Wijeratne for the incident. Neranjan should have looked after the Maligawa, Mr. Wijedasa said, because he looked after security at President’s House when he was Secretary to the President (Mr. Balapatabendi, please take note!)

We cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that President Premadasa never lived at President’s House, Hema Premadasa did. And, the President lived at ‘Sucharitha’ in his beloved Hulftsdorp where, apparently his assassin, Babu had access to the kitchen. We have heard of ‘palace coups’ and ‘Kakkussi coups’, and what better kithen coup than this? But, our point is, if we were to extend Mr. Wijedasa’s argument, then by his own standards, he is responsible for Ranasinghe Premadasa’s death.

But, pardon me, we digress. The issue here is not Wijedasa or Premadasa, it is Ratwatte’s resignation. In that same TV programme, we heard a learned discourse on constitutional law, with references to New Law Reports and Halsbury (God bless him, whoever he is!)

I must confess I am neither learned in the law nor a practitioner of the law. But to my simpleton mind the point that was being made was that once a resignation is handed over by a Deputy Minister or Minister to the President, the resignation is in force. ‘Ipso facto,’ I guess if I remember correctly the little Latin that I learned in school.

Constitutional law, of course, is a realm of the unknown to me. Maybe those interested could seek second or third opinions from the likes of H.L. De Silva, PC or the more readily available lawyers of the Attorney General’s Department.

But, as a student of politics what I want to know is whether the UNP cannot recall — not so long ago — when the entire Cabinet of Ministers — except Saumyamoorthy Thondaman, who was from the CWC, gave undated letters of resignation to President J.R. Jayewardene.

That was under the same JRJ Constitution, if we may call it that. Unfortunately, JR is not amongst as now to give us an interpretation but if we are to extend the UNP’s present day arguments, either JRJ should have resworn the lot or else, everything the UNP Cabinet did since then is illegal. (In legal jargon, they call it ‘null and void’, don’t they?)

Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was Minister of Education at that time — though fifteen years younger and perhaps that much less wiser — and he too gave his resignation letter. There was no need to even date it because by the very fact that they gave it, (as I said earlier, ipso facto) they had quit.

Now, forced to stay at home on Independence Day by the unofficial ‘curfew’ imposed by road blocks and unable to bear the sight of the lacklustre cultural pageant that was dished out. I rummaged through some old newspapers to see what I could ‘dig up’ on the ‘en-masse’ resignation of the UNP ministers. I found that ‘Migara’, the weekend political columnist of the day, made very interesting reading in today’s context.

This is what he says in the WEEKEND of October 31, 1982.

“But on Tuesday evening, President Jayewardene did have some form of dialogue with his Prime Minister and a few other Ministers on the subject of the Referendum. The group of Ministers were, as was to be expected, in full agreement but nothing actually conclusive was decided.

“So, when all Cabinet Ministers walked in for their scheduled meeting almost all of them were taken by complete surprise (some even by consternation) when Cabinet Secretary G.V.P. Samarasinghe presented each one of them with a cyclostyled copy of an undated letter of resignation.

“After a brief outline by President Jayewardene of the decision to hold a Referendum, Prime Minister R. Premadasa proposed to his colleagues that they all, including himself, should tender their resignations as Members of Parliament forthwith to President Jayewardene.

“The brief letter drafted by the Cabinet Office stating only that the Ministers were submitting their resignation” ‘under their hand under Section 66 (b) of the Constitution, said that ‘the seat of a member shall become vacant if by writing under his hand addressed to the Secretary General of Parliament, he resigns his seat’.

“The Ministers were made to understand that the newly re-elected President would accept the resignations of whichever Cabinet Minister at whichever time the President desired.

“The Cabinet of Ministers had of course no other recourse. They all put on their best smiles and signed the letters abdicating their seat (and perhaps their office) when Cabinet Secretary G.V.P. Samarasinghe walked up to each one of them with the undated letter and his golden Parker Pen.

“This golden pen must surely have earned for itself an honourable mention in the Guiness Book of records, for no other pen has been the instrument of so many resignations in so far minutes. Indeed, it would be the proud possession of any national museum.”

As I see it, the only difference between then and now is that then, the Ministers addressed their resignations to the Secretary General of Parliament and resigned from their seats. Now, Anuruddha Ratwatte addressed his resignation to the President and resigned ‘accepting’ the resignation.

So, to my simpleton mind, if, as the UNP says, General Ratwatte has indeed resigned by merely writing that letter, then the entire UNP Cabinet resigned the day they wrote those letters to JRJ. That, of course, was followed by all UNP Parliamentarians writing similar letters. So, if we are to follow the UNP’s belated sense of righteous indignation, their Parliament should have been dissolved that day in October 1982! If anything, the UNP’s actions in 1982 were worse than what General Ratwatte has done now because MPs elected by the will of the people were asked to resign at the behest of one man - JRJ!

As I see it, therefore, if there is a lesson in this at all, it is for the UNP. Has it not been said that it takes time to learn to govern? This government has been accused of not being able to govern. If that is so, then, the UNP, after seventeen years in government will have to learn again to oppose.

Maybe, it also takes time to learn to oppose, and may we in the SLFP wish you many happy years in the Opposition doing just that.

Whether General Ratwatte has resigned or should be re-sworn is of academic interest, isn’t it? There is a war to be won; let us win it first.

Counter proposal receives mixed response

By Roshan Peiris

Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera: Four Mahanayaka Theras have rejected the devolution package. The U.N.P. proposals at least do not seem to infringe on the Unitary Status of the country. I don’t want to comment further until the Maha Sangha fully study the UNP proposals.

M. Sivasithamparam, President of the T.U.L.F said: We want to wait for the second part of the proposals dealing at length with Regional Councils.

It is a vital matter for us. We have suffered enough. Before commenting on the U.N.P proposals, we will hold talks with Minister M.H.M Ashraff to ascertain the Muslim view. It is not clear in the proposals how the minority party people will be chosen for Cabinet appointments. Just taking anyone from the minority parties without assessing whether the person is truly representative of the party will not be enough.

Walter Laduwahetty former Principal of Law College and a respected senior lawyer: I was against the Devolution Package. But I feel the U.N.P proposals with some amendments will go a substantial way in solving the problem.

I am against the idea of a Second Chamber. The former Senate contributed virtually nothing with the exception of senior lawyer S. Nadesan whose views were looked forward to. The Lower House could be enlarged with nominated members and can provide adequate representation for all. This is more than enough. We don’t need any more devolution. Also a second chamber will mean additional expenditure.

I my view the U.N P proposals are trying to depoliticise democracy. It is the politicisation of democracy that has prevented the real practice of democracy. So logically there must be depoliticisation. It is on this that the U.N.P proposals are based. I am totally in agreement with these proposals combined with the independence of the Election Commissioner, Public Services Commission and most important, the independence of the judiciary, as seen in the U.N.P proposals.

Judges for the High Court, the Appeal Court and those appointed to head Commissions of Inquiries must be nominated by the Chief Justice.

The President must leave it all to the Chief Justice. Otherwise the judiciary gets exposed to charges of being partisan.

Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal should act on recommendations of a Constitutional Council, in consultation with the Chief Justice,

“I am in favour of the Executive Committee system as mentioned in the U.N.P. proposals. This Executive Committee system on the lines of the Donoughmore Constitution will give minorities a chance in the Executive Committees. This should satisfy the Tamils, Muslims and other minorities. Regarding the Presidency, I feel the immunity provision must be removed The power of immunity can often be misused?. I am glad that the U.N.P has not tried to placate Tamil leaders such as Kumar Ponnambalam who are going by the theory of two nations. Even on language, we have now gone too far. A Sinhala man in Jaffna cannot ask for anything in Sinhala and in the South it applies to the Tamils. The only way is to have these languages as second languages to be taught in school depending on the medium of instruction of the child .

Gamani Jayasuriya Ex-Minister and leading member of the National Joint Committee which led the opposition to the devolution package:

Whatever the Constitution is, there must be no political party system Before 1948 we had a system above party politics and it suited the indegenous people.

Whether the constitution is proposed by the U.N.P or from heaven I believe that as long as there is a political party system our problems will not be solved. With the abolition of the party system we will have harmony and peace and the ethnic problem will be no more. Political parties are generally not concerned about the welfare of the people . These parties are only a means to grab power.Even S.W.R.D Bandaranaike thought so and G.L Peiris when he was Vice-Chancellor addressing the Association of Professionals expressed similar views. The U.N.P proposals don’t provide the means to abolish the party system. Its Executive Committee system however might provide a basis to solve our countrie’s problems.

Minister S. Thondaman leader of the Ceylon Workers Congress: I don’t like the provision that the President must always be from the Sinhala Community. .What is wrong in having a Tamil or Muslim President elected by the people? Whether U.N.P proposals or not they are all manipulations by the two major Sinhala political parties. The U.N.P proposes sharing power at the centre That will never happen. For another fifty years they will never really share power. I should know I have suffered.

Why can’t we be like Hong Kong, Singapore or China for that matter . Like musical chairs the U.N.P and the S.L.F.P and so on are bent on jockeying for political power. If they are serious the U.N.P should have mentioned that there has to be peace talks with the LTTE, however difficult . Otherwise we cannot solve our problems. We will just go on, as we are.

All are talking about the horrible attack on the hallowed Sri Dalada Maligava. I am very sad about it. It should not have been done. Even a Hindu Kovil with 22 statutes was burnt. . That is why I say both Sinhala parties must get together and solve the ethnic problem instead of having confrontional attitudes.

Tilvin Silva, General Secretary of the JVP: The UNP proposals don’t seem to be any better than the PA package.

The U.N P “Select Committee” has come out with pieces of old Constitutions, Election Commissions and appointment of Vice-Presidents from minority groups, perhaps to add colour to the proposals.

Can the mere elections of Vice Presidents from the minority groups solve the sthnic problem? The U.N.P. is being very simplistic indeed.

It is strange that both the PA and the UNP seem to be unable to identify the core issues of the ethnic problem. We must go to the roots. .”What is needed is an approach that will end the division among our people on social, economic, political and racial issues.

These divisoins have gone on too long in our histroy and we must end them There is no other sugar-coated path, be it from the PA or the UNP.

Ven. Dr Kollupitiye Mahinda Sangarakitha Nayake Thera of the Kelaniya Raja Maha Viharaya: I agree on the formation of a Second Chamber, but the U.N.P must give more details. The Second Chamber must be a forum where the minorities have a fair say .

I am however against the election of two Vice-Presidents. There is no necessity in my view to create these new posts and designations to satisfy minority needs. Having additional Vice-Presidents will add to the expenditure which is already very high. It is better to formulate what sort of service can be done for the minorities . I welcome the proposals for an Independent Police Commissioner, Elections and Public Services Commssions . If this is implemented well, these vital functions could be performed without party political interference.

Desmond Fernando, President of the International Bar Association said, “the UNP’s proposals on national power sharing are constructive and should be embodied in a joint Government and Opposition political proposal to solve the ethnic problem.

It is important that power should be shared at the centre as well as at the periphery. The UNP’s proposals address this important question.

The proposed second chamber and at least one minority vice President who also holds an important office, either as the head of the second chamber of the constitutional council are extremely important and should be implemented.

The UNP proposals clearly seek to remedy two major blunders made by the majority community. The first was the refusal of a seat in the Western Province to the considerable Tamil community resident in the province over half a century ago; this led to a lack to confidence on the part of the Tamil community in the Sinhala majority and to the withdrawal of Sir P. Arunachalam, the founder of the Ceylon National Congress, from the nationalist movement. The second was the monstrous injustice of monkeying with the University Entrance examination to make it more difficult for Tamils to enter the University by Badiuddin Mahamud in the seventies. This injustice was remedied by Ranil Wickremesinghe over a decade later.

However, the proposal to have a Tamil in the Cabinet while commendable is no guarantee that the interests of the Tamils will be adequately safeguarded. The only Tamil with a political base to hold office in Sri Lanka was the late G. G. Ponnambalam. He was not re-appointed to the Cabinet by Sir John Kotelawala when he became Prime Minister in the 1950s. Since then we have had a series of token Tamils in the Cabinet, from Sir Kanthiah Vaithianthan to Lakshman Kadirgamar. Their function has been purely cosmetic for they have all depended for their office on the whims of the Sinhala Government in power. Thus it must be remembered that when the most monstrous injustices were being perpetrated on the Tamils, there was a token Tamil C. Kumarasuriyar in the Cabinet.

Congress pledges to book conspirators

Special to The Sumday Times

Brushing aside the Special Designated Court’s verdict that the LTTE alone was guilty of conspiring to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the Congress, whose President he was, has latched on to the Jain Commission’s interim finding that the LTTE was able to do what it did because of the support and indulgence of the then DMK government in Tamil Nadu.

The party’s election manifesto has pledged to pursue the conspirators and bring them to book.

“The Congress considers it its dharma to pursue vigorously the inquiry into the conspiracy which resulted in the dastardly act. The congress will spare no effort to see that the conspirators are exposed and dealt with according to law,” the manifesto said.

Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia during an election walkabout

“The Jain commission is not just a judicial issue. It is much more than that. It is a moral issue. It is an emotional issue. It is an issue that just cannot be wished away. It affects the Congress to its very core. The Congress wants to tell the nation that under no circumstances it is prepared to compromise on the issue of the assassination of its leader, Rajiv Gandhi.” the manifesto said rhetorically.

Seeking to correct the impression given by Justice Jain that all Tamils of Tamil Nadu supported the LTTE an allegation which many Tamil parties deemed an affront the Congress said. “The congress does not believe that the LTTE was harboured and supported by all Tamils. All that it says is that the Commission of Inquiry has found a section of the DMK managed administration and a section of the DMK party leadership guilty of supporting the LTTE even at a time when it was clear that the LTTE had become anti-Indian. It is the support in the period after 1987 that is in question,” the manifesto explained.

“The LTTE could not have killed Shri Rajiv Gandhi without the support and assistance it received from the DMK led government and a section of the DMK leadership,” it said categorically.

Clarifying that the Congress is not against the Sri Lankan Tamils but only the LTTE, the manifesto said that Rajiv Gandhi felt deeply for the Sri Lankan Tamils. “But he was clear that any solution to the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka had to be found within the constitutional framework of Sri Lanka and in such a manner that the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka was protected and preserved. India’s support to the LTTE ceased in 1987 when it became clear that the LTTE’s objective was to break up Sri Lanka”.

BJP

The BJP, whose coalition is expected to get past the post first, and be invited to form the next government, did not dwell on the LTTE or the Jain Commission’s report in its manifesto. But the party said that it would “support a united Sri Lanka within which the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people should be fulfilled and accommodated.”

The manifesto further said that it “greatly regrets the continuing bloodshed particularly since the Indian people have long standing and fraternal ties with the Sri Lankan people.” Note, the BJP has not singled out the Tamils as being subjected to killings or genocide as was the practice among Indian political parties in previous years. The BJP has also made it clear that India’s fraternal ties are not just with the Tamils, but with all ethnic groups in Sri Lanka. The party apparently has no view on the Jain commission’s findings. At any rate, raking it up would foreclose the option of roping in the DMK if the latter’s support was needed to form a government.

T’Nadu parties

While the national parties have had something to say on the Lankan issue, the DMK and AIADMK, the top dogs of Tamil Nadu politics, have ignored it. Their manifestos do not breathe a word on the Tamil question, the LTTE and the Jain report. The DMK had lost power twice, once in Tamil Nadu and once at the Centre, on account of its alleged dalliance with the LTTE. It has come to a stage when even a mention of the Sri Lankan Tamil issue is considered avoidable. The AIADMK, seeing the plight of the DMK, things so too.

The Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) an offshoot of the Congress and now an ally of the DMK, is even less concerned with the Lankan issue. Its manifesto totally avoids it.

The PMK is a pro-LTTE party and an open champion of the Lankan Tamil cause. But even this party had only one thing to say on the issue in its manifesto. It wanted India to recognise the LTTE as a national liberation movement.

It is only in the manifesto of the MDMK that the Eelam issue has figured prominently. It declared that a separate Eelam was the only solution for the Lankan Tamil problem. But the manifesto hastened to add that the MDMK could not be identified with any particular militant group in Sri Lanka, thus distancing itself from the LTTE, whose champion its chief, V. Gopalsamy was till recently. The MDMK manifesto also made it clear that the party would not allow the Lankan militants to operate in Tamil Nadu.

Both the PMK and the MDMK are minor parties but are now expected to send a couple of people to parliament thanks to their alliance with the AIADMK. However, given the dominant anti-LTTE or anti-Eelam mood among the top dogs in New Delhi, it is doubtful if they can influence the powers that be.

Observers also note that none of the so called pro-LTTE parties in Tamil Nadu, except the minuscule Periyar Dravida Kazhagam, has condemned the patently harsh judgment in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. All the 26 LTTE accused of conspiracy were sentenced to death by the trial court. The reluctance to condemn this is deemed to be an indication that the Tamil Nadu parties now want to have little or nothing to do with the Lankan Tamil issue.

Return to News/Comments Contents Page