Archive for December 30th, 2006
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
The last day of year 2006 will fade away today. Tomorrow will see another new year dawning. In retrospect the passing year was nothing to yearn for as far as Sri Lanka was concerned.The new year too has nothing bright to offer.Dark clouds of war gather across the political horizon as both the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) headed by Mahinda Rajapakse and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) prepare themselves for massive confrontation.
There was however a tiny ray of hope in this gloomy, bleak scenario.Eight men and three women endorsed ,on the sixth of December, a set of Constituted reform proposals. The eleven belonged to the panel of experts appointed by President Mahinda Rajapakse to advise and assist the All Party Representative Conference. The APRC comprising members of political parties represented in Parliament was entrusted the task of formulating proposals to resolve the national question through Constitutional reform.
The experts panel consisted of seventeen eminent persons. Of these eleven endorsed one report described in the media as the “majority” report. . Four others presented another “minority” report. Two others submitted a “dissenting” report each. Eleven out of seventeen amounts to almost a two -thirds majority. Apart from that the “majority” was multi – ethnic in composition with six Sinhala, four Tamil and one Muslim representative. All three women experts too had signed it. The other three reports were signed by Sinhala persons. While the majority report was ready to propose maximum devolution the other reports were not prepared to go that far.
As stated in these columns three weeks ago the majority report was a very pleasant surprise to this writer. Given the hawkish overtones of the Rajapakse regime I was quite pessimistic about the APRC exercise. The history of this country is replete with instances of similiar attempts beginning with a hopeful bang and ending in a pathetic whimper. Various Sinhala leaders have used the rationale of “consensus” to convene all – party or multi – party conferences in the past. With different parties pulling in different directions these confabulations meander aimlessly on. The ultimate product diluted considerably aims at the lowest common factor.No worthwhile purpose other than “buying: time is served.
The APRC too would have gone the same way but for the appointment of the expert panel. While the political representatives debated and discussed the experts set about their task more diligently. While the political parties extolled the virtues of village based de- centralisation the experts constructively tackled devolution on a viable basis. Despite divisions ,the expert panel has on the whole produced two major reports and two dissenting reports. The progress chart of the APRC during this corresponding period is quite disappointing.
If Mahinda Rajapakse is genuinely keen on resolving the national question on a just and honourable basis the majority report provided him with a firm basis to do so. Mahinda is lucky to have the solid backing of Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremasinghe in efforts to resolve the ethnic problem. No other Leader ever had such a firm commitment from the leder of the opposition. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United National Party (UNP). A bi – partisan consensus could be on the cards if both parties work together.
Instead of utilising this rare opportunity and building further on the majority expert report Rajapakse seems to be doing the opposite. Mahinda has reportedly been unhappy about the report. News reports to that effect have not been contradicted. On the other hand the GOSL went to unusual lengths in disassociating from the Majority report. Govt Spokesperson Priyadharshana Yapa was “compelled” to issue a statement in convoluted language casting aspersions on the majority report. This was done as instructed by President Rajapakse
Extracts from a news report stated –
“The elements and institutions in question, have given this misconstruction to the proposals of the Experts Panel, solely going by news sources, without a proper grasp of the reality or, have chosen to arrive at this irrational conclusion, in a bid to belittle the political and legal validity of the laws and regulations enforced, with a view to decisively defeating the LTTE’s fascism,” Information Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa said yesterday.
Mr. Yapa in a statement expressed regret that four separate reports had come forth instead of one report, based on the unanimous consent of the Experts Panel.
“Unfortunately, the views of the experts too, appear to reflect and underline the division of our society on the North-East issue. If the experts could achieve oneness in submitting the report, it would have certainly been to the honour of the Panel. However, some party, either for cheap publicity or, with the despicable motive of distorting the sacred objective of the Government, has placed the proposals on a grotesque path. This is to be regretted,” Mr. Yapa said.
The Minister added: “The attempt to place the Government stamp on this set of proposals, has coincided with the placing of the proposals on the grotesque path… However, the Government is confident that it will receive the final, undivided decision of the All Party Representative Committee shortly”.
Apart from this official outburst many Sinhala hard – liners too began criticising the majority expert report. Wild accusations were levelled against the signatories. Conspiracy theories were floated about hidden motives. Sections of the media too were castigated about giving publicity to the expert report findings. Charges were insinuated about mala fide “leaks” to the media. The impression projected was that some major calamity was about to befall the Country because details of the majority report had been allegedly “leaked” to the media.
What was tragi – comic about this situation was that some journalists , pseudo – journalists and military advisers posing as scribes were also beating their breasts about “leaks”. It is common knowledge that most bits and pieces of information is gleaned by journalists from informed circles. If a journalist or journal gets information that no other paper has it becomes a “scoop”. In the case of the majority expert report the publicising of that report by sections of the media amounted to a scoop. But in Mahinda Rajapakse’s topsy – turvy Lanka the “scoop” was maligned as a “leak”.
The four reports were presented to the APRC on the evening of December 6th. Copies of the various reports were being circulated around in Colombo power corridors from about the 4th. Any enterprising journalist with the right contacts could have laid his or her hands on a copy of any report if they wanted to. If this writer in Canada could have had copies of both the majority and minor report shortly after they were presented to the APRC on the 6th then there was every chance of media persons in Colombo getting a copy too.
The entire expert panel exercise was not something secretive. Ideally it should have been open and transparent. The only valid argument against premature media publicity is that subjecting deliberations to public scrutiny could have resulted in some unhelpful behaviour. For one thing people may take up pugilistic positions on the one hand or simply stay mum on the other. Besides in intellectual exchanges of this type participants should be free to change their positions if they so wished. Media publicity would prevent a free flow of ideas and pressurise entrenchment of opinion.
But once the reports are out then it is only proper that they be out in full in the public domain. Media publicity is very necessary.The people have every right to know particularly in matters like this where Constitutional reform is at stake. If Mahinda Rajapakse was genuinely keen on resolving the issue through maximum devolution then the best option for him would have been to publicise the majority report as much as possible. Thereafter the SLFP and UNP could have taken it up in their bilateral discussions and arrived at a conclusion. This in turn would have influenced the APRC to go along with it.
Instead of that the Rajapakse regime has been orchestrating a campaign to discredit the majority expert report. It has jumped the gun and dissociated itself with it when there was absolutely no need to do so. Moreover an official statement has been issued too. There is an unseemly haste to confine the majority report to oblivion. The anger against media sections which revealed details is seemingly due to the fact that media publicity has spotlighted the report in a positive light.
There are also reports that explanations should be called from the four public servants who signed the majority report. I think these reports are incorrect because even Mahinda Rajapakse cannot be that stupid. The four Government servants were appointed as experts to prepare and endorse a report. It is their right and privilege to do so. They were not Govt functionaries in the panel. Asking them for explanations is therefore idiotic and Mahinda is not a moron.
In a bid to whip up opposition to the expert report a misinformation campaign is on to distort some of its recommendations. On the question of a North – East merger for instance the majority report does not have any fixed position. It outlines four possible options. But the idea is being propagated that the majority experts want the N – E merger to be on for ten years till a referendum. This is not correct. Also the report does not explicitly state whether the Country should be unitary or federal. It provides for maximum devolution amounting to federalism within a united Country.The report also proposes reforms that would facilitate good governance.
As far as the minority communities of the Country are concerned there is no denying that the report has proposals of a very positive nature. This perhaps explains the support of minority community representatives for these proposals. It is also important to remember that at least half the number of Sinhala representatives on the panel too subscribe to this report. Among those opposing are persons whose hawkish outlook on the national question is well – known.
The new year dawns with prospects of further and enhanced war looming large.The majority report of the experts panel provides a window of opportunity to bring about a political settlement. That window should not be closed. The report should not be abandoned.
transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com
transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com
December 30th, 2006
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
Several positive recommendations have been presented in the majority report presented by eleven members of the expert panel.Of course these are suggestions incorporated in a preliminary report. Some of these ideas could be modified or altered in the final report. This report will be nominally that of the APRC. While the nomenclature will be that of the APRC there is nothing to prevent the Conference adapting or adopting the recommendations as their own.A news report in “The Morning Leader” providesa limpse into the thinking of APRC chairman Tissa Vitharana on the issue.
The Chairman, All Party Representative Committee (APRC), Science and Technology Minister Prof. Tissa Vitarana will submit a comprehensive set of draft proposals to resolve the ethnic conflict reflecting the thinking of the APRC and the Experts Committee reports early January.
The report will provide for the province to be the unit of devolution and will not make any reference to a unitary state. Minister Vitarana is expected to submit his report before the APRC meeting scheduled for the second week of January.
Minister Vitarana said the task before him is to come out with a solution that addresses the grievances of the Tamil people and meet their aspirations. “I have said categorically, our need is not to satisfy the LTTE but forward a solution which will be acceptable to the Tamil people,” he said.
The Minister further said it was on that basis as recorded in the minutes that the JVP, JHU and the MEP co-operated in the APRC but charged they took a different position outside claiming the objective of the APRC was to satisfy the LTTE.
The UNP will also participate at the next meeting, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe said Tuesday..
Minister Vitarana said the Experts Committee reports will not be rejected by him as demanded by the JVP but would use the proposals that find common ground with the APRC.
The Minister who confirmed his report would in all likelihood be ready for the next meeting said it will reflect the thinking of the APRC.
“In doing that, I will incorporate those ideas from the reports submitted by the Experts Committee which fit into that view point,” he added.
The Minister said everyone in the Experts Committee has agreed that the province should be the unit of devolution and that more or less everyone in the APRC was also of the same view.
“Then everyone following our visit to India accepted that the devolution from the province should go down to the village. I will incorporate that in my report. Where there are commonalities in the various reports as well as the APRC, I will put them down as one set of ideas,” the Minister added.
He further said where there are differences in the two reports and where he feels the APRC will be happy with an intermediate position, it would be presented accordingly.
“If I feel the APRC will go along with the position in one report as opposed to the other then I will put that position forward,” the Minister also said.
He said if there were positions that cannot be reconciled, he would present it as a separate option.
Whatever the merits of the majority report and the bona fide efforts of Tissa Vitharana to achieve a satisfactory compromise , there is no doubt that the majoritarian supremacists, national socialists, saffron neo – fascists and hawkish racists will be out to prevent it from being incorporated in the final report. Mahinda Rajapakse is likely to go along with that position unless other pressures are exerted.
For Rajapakse to strike a moderate course Five factors are important.
Firstly there should be internal pressure from within the ranks of the SLFP on him. Instead of letting the extremists and fellow travellers of the JVP – JHU hijack the party saner and moderate SLFP’ers should appeal to Rajapakse on this matter. It is time for people like Anura Bandaranaike, Mangala Samaraweera, Sarath Amunugama, Sushil Premjayanth,Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, AHM Fowzie, Alavi Moulana,Dilan Perera etc to make their presence felt.Even Chandrika Kumaratunga could press from the outside.
Secondly Ranil Wickremasinghe and the UNP should take a firm position. The expert majority report is not to appease the LTTE but to satisfy the people of this Country wanting to live in a united Country with equal rights. Beleaguered as Wickremasinghe may be due to internal dissension it is time for him to be decisive and proactive.Ranil must shed his customary “inactive” approach and strike out firmly. He should call for and initiate bi – partisan discussions on the expert majority report as a starting point.
Thirdly the minority parties should openly and strongly support the expert panel majority report. It is indeed bizarre that none of the Tamil parties including the TNA, EPDP, TULF (Anandasangaree) EPRLF (Naba) PLOTE have commented on the report. The EPDP is the only Sri Lankan Tamil party in the APRC. Its nominee S. Thavarajah was not even present when the reports were presented. The Tamil parties could express reservations on some of the proposals but call for further talks between the SLFP and UNP on the basis of the report. They could support the report but call for further improvement. The parties representing the Muslims and Up – Country Tamils could also follow suit in similiar fashion.
Fourthly the left parties within the Government like the LSSP and CP should also support these proposals openly. This will help counter the pressures on Rajapakse from the MEP within the Government and the JHU – JVP from outside. The statement issued by Vasudeva Nanayakkara on behalf of the DLF is a model to follow.The DLF feels that the proposals are not adequate but welcomes them as a basis for further negotiation. Vasudeva warns that the proposals should not be diluted in further discussions.
Fifthly there is the International Community. The IC consisting of Western nations and India and Japan could also back this report directly and indirectly. The progress of the expert panel in formulating reports was expedited by Indian influence. International persuasion is crucial in making Rajapakse go in for meaningful discussions. Only International pressure could restrain Rajapakse from jettisoning the majority report or whittling it down to a caricature through APRC deliberations.
Countervailing pressure is urgently needed to convince Mahinda Rajapakse of the Majority report merits. Only external input can help persuade the President in this. Time is of the essence.
transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com
transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com
December 30th, 2006
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
The expert panel report “A” is described in the media as the “Majority” report of the expert panel. Eleven out of Seventeen experts comprising six Sinhala, Four Tamil and One Muslim have signed the report. Efforts are underway by “intolerant” forces to make President Mahinda Rajapakse throw the report overboard. The report however has many positive features and the people of Sri Lanka have every right to examine the proposals before arriving at an informed decision.
The full text of the 37 page report has already been posted on this website. Some of the salient features of the report are given below briefly.
Let us look at some of the highlights in the report.
1. Sri Lanka will not be defined as unitary or federal..
2. Every one of the constituent peoples of Sri Lanka will have the right to internal self determination.
3. The Constitution will have a comprehensive Bill of Rights. Group rights will be recognized. Section 29(2) of the Soulbury Constitution will be included.
4. Powers will be devolved on Provinces which will be the units of devolution. There will be Provincial Legislatures and Provincial Governments.
5. Four options have been given with regard to the issue of the merger of the North and East to a single Province. One option is for a permanent merger with internally autonomous units for Muslim and Sinhala minorities. Another option is for a temporary merger with a referendum in the East at the end of 10 years.
6. The Tamils of Indian origin will have an internally autonomous Zonal Council within the Central Province and a Cultural Council recognised by the Constitution.
7. There will be 4 Lists of power distribution, namely, National, Provincial, Concurrent and Local Authorities. The subjects in the Concurrent List will be deemed to be Provincial subjects for the North-East while the other Provinces will be able to have them as concurrent at the outset and gradually make claims to convert them to provincial subjects.
8. Sri Lanka will have a President and two Vice Presidents, each belonging to a different community.
9. There will be a Senate with the Senators elected by the Provincial Legislatures. One of the Vice Presidents will be the Chairman of the Senate.
10. Sinhala and Tamil will have parity of status as the official languages of Sri Lanka. Sinhala, Tamil and English shall be the national languages of Sri Lanka. All three national languages could be the medium of instruction in schools and in universities.
11. The Provinces will have powers over state land.
12. The Provinces will have their own Police Forces.
13. The Provinces will have substantial fiscal powers, including the powers to have access to international finances.
14.. The public service will be restructured so as to make devolution of powers to be effective.
15. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal will reflect the ethnic composition of the country in their compositions. The Court of Appeal will have Divisions in the Provinces. The North-East Provincial Government will have powers over lower courts in the Province.
16. There will be a Constitutional Court outside the judicial hierarchy. This Court will adjudicate on matters of interpretation of the Constitution, and the legality of laws before or after enactment. The Court will also adjudicate on executive actions of the President.
It would also be of relevance in knowing more about the seventeen experts who prepared the four reports. Thumbnail sketches about them are given below.The Report submitted by experts 1 to 11 is referred to as the Majority Report by Group “A”. The dissenting Report by experts 14 to 17 is referred to as the Minority Report by Group “B”. Experts 12 and 13 submitted short Riders adverting to the Reports by Groups “A” and “B”.
Members of the Experts Panel
1.Dr. Nirmala Chandrahasan
* Was Acting Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Colombo in 1983.
* Daughter of the Late Dr.E.M.V.Naganathan, deputy leader of the Federal Party, and daughter-in-law of the Late S.J.V.Chelvanayakam, QC, leader of the Federal Party.
2.Dr. Shivaji Felix
* Consultant Constitutional Law Expert with a Doctorate on Federalism.
* Son of the Late J.A.R.Felix, former Commissioner General of Inland Revenue.
3.Deshamanya R.K.W.Gunasekera
* Legal luminary.
* Consultant to former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga on constitutional issues.
* Chancellor of the Peradeniya University.
4.Mr. Asoka Gunewardene
* Chairman of the Finance Commission.
* Was Secretary to several Ministries as an officer of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service.
5. Mr. Faisz Musthapha PC (President’s Counsel)
* Legal luminary
* Was former High Commissioner for Sri Lanka in the United Kingdom.
6. Dr. Rohan Perera PC
* Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
* Recently elected by the U.N. General Assembly to the International Law Commission
7.Mrs Therese Perera PC
* Legal Draughtsman of Sri Lanka.
* Wife of Dr. Rohan Perera.
8. Mr. N. Selvakumaran
* The Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Colombo.
* Was a member of the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission.
9.Dr.K.Vigneswaran
* Formerly of the Sri Lanka Engineering Service, was the Secretary to the Chief Minister of the North-East Province.
* Was a Member of Parliament, during presentation of Constitutional Bill of 2000.
* Was recently conferred Honorary Life Fellowship of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka.
* General Secretary of the Akhila Ilankai Tamil United Front.
10. Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne PC
* Author of a book on Fundamental Rights in Sri Lanka.
* Senior Advisor in the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs.
* Played a key role in constitutional reforms from 1995, culminating in the Constitutional Bill of 2000.
* Member of the Central Committee of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party.
11. Mrs. Malkanthi S.Wickramasinghe
* Secretary to the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs.
* Former Additional Legal Draughtsman.
* Daughter of the Late K.B.Ratnayake, Speaker of the Sri Lanka Parliament.
12.Deshamanya M.D.Dharmasiri Pieris
* Formerly of the Ceylon Civil Service, and Secretary to Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike.
* Chairman of the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, succeeding the Late Lakshman Kadirgamar.
13. Deshamanya K.H.J.Wijayadasa
* Formerly of the Ceylon Civil Service, and Secretary to Prime Minister Premadasa and subsequently Secretary to President Premadasa.
* After retirement from the public service, he joined the United National Party from which he has now resigned.
14.Mr. Gomin Dayasiri
* Senior Lawyer frequently consulted by President Rajapakse.
* Member of the Government delegation to Geneva for talks with the LTTE.
* Counsel in the court cases by the JVP seeking de-merger of the Eastern and Northern Provinces.
* Son of the Late N.Q.Dias, former Defence Secretary under Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike.
15. Deshamanya H.L.de Silva PC
* Legal luminary
* Consultant to successive Sri Lankan Governments on constitutional matters.
* Member of Government’s team to Thimphu for talks with Tamil organisations and to Geneva for talks with the LTTE.
* Senior Counsel in the court cases of the JVP seeking de-merger of the Eastern and Northern Provinces
16. Mr. Manohara de Silva PC
* Renowned Lawyer and member of the Jathika Hela Urumaya.
17. Prof. Gerald H. Peiris
* Professor Emeritus in Geography of the University of Peradeniya.
* Author of several books and research papers.
transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com
transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com
December 30th, 2006