Out old, in new, but no change

From the blue corner

By Paakshikaya

Reading last week's com- mentary by Viruddha Paakshikaya for just a moment I wondered whether Ranil Wickremesinghe had taken to journalism, after his illustrious father. Such was the stirring defence on behalf of the UNP leader's alleged attempts to "clean" the Party of the corrupt.

Viruddha Paakshikaya called upon the PA to do the same on the basis that we may be laughing "from the sidelines" because, as he says, it is not whether one is corrupt or not that matters but whether one can win elections! Trust me, Viruddha Paakshikaya, I will most certainly convey your thinking to our leader, what with provincial council elections around the corner!

Nevertheless, I agree with Viruddha Paakshikaya that morality in public life is a two-way street. But I wasn't just wondering whether your honourable Leader of the Opposition is only trying to get rid of the "old crooks" and bring in new crooks.

I dare say those siding with Wijeyapala Mendis are not necessarily the most honest men in politics, of course, with some exceptions among them. And I don't need to name them Viruddha Paakshikaya, because you did so last week and our readers will easily draw their own conclusion about who among them was honest and who was not.

But, what I am more interested in is, whether Ranil Wickremesinghe is cleaning the UNP stables of the Mustangs to allow the younger stallions and still younger colts to get in.

It will then not be a case of locking the stable doors after the old horses have bolted but opening the doors and chasing the old horses, so the young ones could get in!

I did some research into the friends of the UNP leader (with due thanks to my friends in the UNP) and I have managed to compile a list of names of the "Top Ten" in Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe's business friends.

Some are his old college mates. Others are his new political mates. Out of this Top Ten I found only three of them have not asked him for a favour to further their business interests at the time he was Industries Minister and later Prime Minister - under the UNP.

If necessary, I can name names. Now Viruddha Paakshikaya, please don't think of this as a threat - you did once accuse me of threatening you!

No. Sir. This is only to help you. The UNP and the country to know who Mr. Wickremesinghe's Top Ten business men are; their credentials and what they are after. It will show all of as whether one can genuinely say that the Honourable Ranil Wickremesinghe's "Valiant" efforts to "clean" the UNP is a genuine exercise towards cleaning public life in Sri Lanka or just one step in getting rid of the Old Guard - only to replace with others.

From what we have seen until now, the "New Guard" is younger, slicker, smoother and smarter but crooks nevertheless. Not for them, the transfer of a paltry fifty acres of coconut land or the opening of a small Swiss bank account.

They are after mega bucks, and I am sure Viruddha Paakshikaya is only too aware of them. But I can divulge more about them if and when the need arises.

For the moment, let me revert to Viruddha Paakshikaya's commentary last week. He refers to Commissions of Inquiry and how the Supreme Court has struck down the findings against R. Paskaralingam.

Now we all remember 'Paskey', don't we? He was the UNP regime's Super Secretary, a far cry from our own modest Balapatabendi. He enjoyed such power and privilege that when he left an AirLanka Board meeting midway other AirLanka directors escorted him down the lift and upto his waiting car and then went back to the Board meeting!

This was also the man who had to be 30 minutes away from your President R Premadasa "at all times" or so he said, except, of course when he went almost every weekend to Madras to see his family! Viruddha Paakshikaya what you and I both didn't realise at that time was when Mr. Premadasa said his was a 'one man show' he was absolutely correct - only that one man was Mr. Paskaralingam!

But pardon me, Viruddha Paakshikaya, how I digress. You must accept the fact from the very beginning when you made stinging remarks about the effectiveness of the Bribery and Corruption Commission and cast aspersions on the PA's drive and commitment towards the anti-graft campaign - I agreed.

There's no going back on the fact the PA has reneged on their pledge and made a total hash of those Commissions. I'm ashamed but honest enough to admit that much, Viruddha Paakshikaya.

I cannot agree with Viruddha Paakshikaya more about the Bribery and Corruption Law saying the Commission SHALL comprise three Commissioners and the government not appointing a third Commissioner.

What I, as a loyal true blue SLFPer cannot fathom is what those learned gentlemen from the Attorney General's Department were doing without pointing this out to our Justice Minister and others that matter. Surely in these days when Medical Negligence, is in the news, this must amount to "Legal Negligence", I daresay! But then when I made my own inquiries about this I was told the learned gentlemen of Attorney General's Department may be working according to their own timetable and agendas!

So, Viruddha Paakshikaya I concede I'm defenceless on this argument. But remember that is not to concede that I'm defenceless on the general argument about corruption and the UNP.

I'm therefore glad to see that Viruddha Paakshikaya has the common sense and courtesy to say that the Supreme Court only rejected the findings against Mr. Paskaralingam on a legal technicality and not on the merit of the findings.

Well, we might see Mr. Wijeyapala Mendis also wriggling out of the present impasse on the same premise. But remember, Viruddha Paakshikaya even the Supreme Court decision was a majority two against-one decision. Significantly the Chief Justice held with the minority view.

So, a different Bench can probably hold differently. I presume. Or are they bound by this decision as a precedent? Legal eagles tell me that the matter can be put to a fuller Bench - possibly with five judges.

All this is Greek to me, for I'm no legal eagle but for me what matters is whether corruption in this country's higher echelons is being brought to book.

I remember the words of our illustrious founder S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who, while speaking in the then State Council on the motion to expel six members for bribery said, "everything is done to protect 'big' people when it comes to bribery and corruption while the 'ordinary' man who takes a bribe is thrown to ravenous wolves'".

I am sad to say this but there has been no change in Sri Lanka throughout those long years from the 1930's when SWRD said so to the late 1990's when his daughter is at the helm of a country poised on the advent of a new millennium

I'm sure, like a bad debt we will carry forward this legacy to the next century as well and "Third World" Sri Lanka will remain Third World Sri Lanka - a poor country where its big shots creamed the fat off its land at the expense of the people whom they were elected and selected to represent.

S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike couldn't change that. I'm no longer confident that Chandrika Kumaratunga could change that. And Viruddha Paakshikaya, I'm absolutely certain that Ranil Wickremesinghe won't be able to change that, either!

The Catholic, Protestant and the 'Other'

Northern Ireland on road to peace, but barriers against social integration yet to disappear

By Ameen Izzadeen

BELFAST: Coming from a country ravaged by ethnic hatred and conflict, Northern Ireland to me looked a peaceful country, notwithstanding bomb blasts and shootings in the not so distant past.

I was in Northern Ireland recently when political parties were campaigning for an all-community national assembly soon after its people overwhelmingly—about 71 percent—approved the April 10 peace agreement in a referendum.

The message of the referendum was that people wanted peace. I ventured across to find out how strong their quest or yearning for peace was. I met representatives of political parties, peace activists and common people.

Peace-that's what all of them want. But they all have their own interpretation of what it really means.

A sense of happiness filled my heart because as far as the search for peace in general was concerned, they were all united, though their approaches differed.

But as I delved deeper into Northern Ireland's social fabric, I was saddened. I discovered that the two communities—the Catholics and the Protestants—were too badly divided. At times I felt the Sinhala-Tamil communal division can be termed unity in comparison to the Northern Ireland division.

Dividing Belfast was a wall, ironically called 'the peace wall.' The wall keeps the people of the Catholic and relatively poor West Belfast isolated from those of the Protestant and affluent North Belfast. After building this million-brick wall, I was told the clashes between the two communities drastically declined.

I also saw taxis divided on communal lines. The Catholic taxis in Belfast refuse to ply in Protestant areas and the reverse is also true.

The education system is also divided on communal lines. There are state controlled schools which are largely Protestant. The Catholics go to schools run by the Church.

There are also integrated schools which are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

I visited Oakgrove Integrated Primary School in Derry or Londonderry — Catholics call it Derry while Protestants call it Londonderry. Anne Murray, the principal, has included in the school curriculum activities such as social integration and conflict resolution. Ms. Murray says they try to maintain an ethnic balance in school — 40 percent Catholics, 40 percent Protestants and 20 percent others. I went to a Grade 2 class. Shane Ross, a Canadian journalist with me, asked the students who amongst them were Catholics. Some students put their hands up. He asked whether the rest were Protestants. While they nodded in unison one boy attracted our attention and said he didn't belong to any. Thanks to integrated schools, Catholics and Protestants, are friends here.

The division in the social fabric is also evident in the political field — Catholics, Protestants and 'others'.

Sinn Fein with its slogan of armalite (rifle) in one hand and the ballot box in the other, searched for peace—a search in the dark, until it announced a ceasefire last July and entered into talks first with the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and then with the British government and others in the Northern Ireland political map.

Both Sinn Fein and the SDLP are parties representing the Northern Ireland's 40 percent strong Catholic community, a community which claims they are being discriminated against in education, jobs and other welfare measures.

The Catholic parties are also known as Nationalists. Sinn Fein which believes strongly in the ultimate union with the Republic of Ireland, regards the Good Friday agreement as a step towards that goal. The SDLP on the other hand says the agreement creates a partnership situation with all the people in Britain and Ireland while it bridges the lack of trust between the two main communities in Northern Ireland.

Alban Magniness, former mayor of Belfast and SDLP member at the peace talks, told me that the phrase 'united Ireland had become a cliché. "What we are for is a union of people — peoples of Northern and southern Irelands, peoples of the island of Ireland and the island of Britain. And for us the agreement fulfills these aspirations."

About 51 percent of the Northern Ireland population were Protestants who are largely represented by the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and, the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). Other Protestant dominated parties were the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), the UK Unionist Party and a few other groups. The Unionists were split at the referendum. The difference between the 'yes' and 'no' vote was just five percent among Protestants.

About 9 percent of the Northern Ireland population do not identify themselves either as Catholics or Protestants. They are the 'Others.'

Politics in Northern Ireland differs from that prevailing in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the former, the constitutional status of the province and its people—union with Britain or union with Ireland—remained the main political issue at every election until the May 22 referendum, while in the latter socio-economic issues dominated politics.

This is because since 1974, when Northern Ireland came under direct British rule, London took decisions on socio-economic issues through its Northern Ireland Office.

The June 25 elections to the Northern Ireland assembly, for the first time in 25 years, paved the way for people of the province to have a say in deciding their own affairs.

Now that the elections are over, it is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland politicians to ensure smooth governance. But can they do it?

The DUP led by preacher politician Ian Paisley has vowed to block or delay any legislation which it feels would favour the Nationalists. To do that they need only 30 votes under the April 10 agreement. It says if 30 members petition the assembly, a matter could be designated a 'key decision which would require cross-community support. This method, also known as the double majority system, requires a key decision to be approved by both the Nationalists and the Unionists.

In the new assembly members, irrespective of their political party lines, have to register themselves according to a designation of identity — Unionist, Nationalist or other — for the purposes of cross-community support in assembly votes.

The DUP and its allies have won 28 seats. With the backing of some anti-agreement Unionists in David Trimble's UUP, they may pose a big threat to the working of the new all-community government despite a solemn pledge in the assembly that they will honour the Good Friday Agreement. (More about the agreement and other issues next week).

Milestones of peace, violence

The Irish question is very much rooted in historical events that date back to eight centuries.

The seeds of the crises were sown in the 12th century AD.

Before the English invasion, Ireland was populated by Celtic tribes who were Christianised by St. Patrick in the 5th century AD. Thus the Irish have a distinct identity, an identity different from the English colonialists. This identity clash in the form of a struggle against English colonialism continued for more than 700 years.

In 1916, significantly during an Easter period, the Irish rose in rebellion, only to be crushed by British troops.

In the 1918 elections, about 80 percent of voters in Ireland backed the independence call of Sinn Fein.

In the face of growing resistance, the British agreed to grant dominion status to Ireland in 1921 but divided the island by keeping six counties in Northern Ireland with it. This was basically because Norhtern Ireland's Protestant majority who were settlers from England and Scotland - a form of English Colonisation strategy - opposed the division and wanted to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

On December 21, 1948, Ireland withdrew from the Commonwealth, severing all links with the British Monarchy, and declared a republic with its new constitution staking a claim for Northern Ireland. Britain, however, reasserted that NI was part of the United Kingdom.

For Northern Ireland's Catholic minority who today make up 40 percent of the Northern Ireland population, Ireland becoming a republic dealt a severe blow to their dream of unification . However, undeterred, the Northern Ireland Catholics continued their struggle while the Protestant majority did everything possible to thwart it and maintain the status quo.

This difference in aspirations paved the way for hatred and then violence.

The Catholics charged that they were been discriminated against in job opportunities, education and social benefits and other welfare measures even as the Protestant-dominated Northern Ireland government at Stormont, elected on a first-past-the-post basis, regarded them as anti-state.

Violence broke out in 1968, leading to the dissolution of the Stormont parliament in 1972 and the imposition of direct rule. Frustrated by Protestant politics, in 1974, the disgruntled Catholics set up the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

In 1985, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Irish Premier Garret Fitzgerald signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, allowing Dublin a say in Northern Ireland affairs.

This agreement was followed by the historic Downing Street Declaration between Britian and Ireland in 1993, recognising that the Norhtern Ireland people should decide their future and called for the cessation of violence by the IRA.

In 1994 the IRA announced a ceasefire which was followed by similar calls from Protestant paramilitary forces as pressure for talks mounted on British and Irish politicians. Britain demanded that decommissioning of arms must take place first.

George Mitchell, a US Senator who stepped in as peacemaker in 1996, however, proposed that decommissioning could be addressed during talks.

On April 10, 1998, a successful agreement was signed by all major parties to the conflict.

Return to News/Comments Contents