Why Sri Lanka is poor

 

Dinesh Weerakkody has written an interesting article in the Daily FT titled ‘What makes some countries rich and others prone to poverty’ on 18 November.

This topic was much debated and there was no conclusion. In 1970s Swedish economist and sociologist Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1987) raised the question through his work, Asian Drama – An inquiry into the poverty of nations where he discussed the situation of Sri Lanka then Ceylon as well. 

Cultural dimensions

Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede wrote Culture’s Consequences in 1983 where he developed cultural dimensions theory. He identified four dimensions of national cultures, namely, Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty avoidance and Masculinity. Later two more dimensions were added. 

Out of these four, Power Distance and Uncertainty avoidance have relevance to innovation and entrepreneurship. Power Distance expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. Uncertainty Avoidance expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. (https://geert-hofstede.com)

High Power Distance works against innovation and creative thinking of a society. High Uncertainty avoidance limits the risk taking ability of a society which constrains entrepreneurship. Following chart shows those indices of few Asian countries and of USA.

It is difficult to find any direct relationship of these indices and economic statuses of those countries. However in Sri Lanka innovation is affected by high Power Distance which demands conformity by the parents and teachers from the children and students and by the company heads from their employees. The degree of risk taking is affected by moderate Uncertainty avoidance. 

Determinants of national competitive advantage 

Weerakkody quoted Michel E. Porter, a Harvard Professor who has written several books on strategy. Porter identified five forces, driving industry competition. He identified determinants of national competitive advantage as well. Those are firm strategy, structure and rivalry, related and supporting industries, factor conditions and demand conditions. There are two additional variables, chance and government. Porter identified wars under chance. 

War

Sri Lanka had to face a 30-year ethnic war and also two more rebellions in the south after independence. Although Sri Lanka boasts that not a single drop of blood was shed in the name of independence, the country shed enough blood after independence just because it was not able to put the record straight at the time of independence.

Lee Kuan Yew once said the problem of Sri Lanka was the inability to manage ethnic conflict. We still are not able to do so. Managing the ethnic conflict is a prerequisite for sustainable development. That is one major reason why Sri Lanka is in its current status.

Entrepreneurship

Sometime back in Sri Lankan villages, entrepreneur, ‘Mudalali,’ was not placed in high esteem. Instead a school teacher was placed in a high esteem. Knowledge was placed in a higher position than entrepreneurship. The situation changed after the introduction of open economy in 1977. 

There was a cultural change introduced to Sri Lanka with the introduction of open economy. Value given to money increased in relation to the value given to knowledge. Some interpreted and criticised this as a system of getting money even by killing dogs – Ballo marala hari salli hoyala. 

This social recognition was much needed for money and eventually entrepreneurship in order to develop the country. President Jayewardene did this intentionally I suppose. If Sri Lanka wants to improve the current status, entrepreneurship should be respected and valued throughout the country. 

Contentment

In Sri Lankan Buddhist villages, contentment with what one has is practiced. In personal capacity I also practice this. It would give dividends at personal level but not at national level. It would make people less ambitious and in turn less industrious. This would affect Gross Domestic Production (GDP) of a country. 

Contentment with what one has is an age-old tradition of Sri Lanka. It probably came with the introduction of Buddhism. In Asoka’s third minor rock edict – Bhabra Inscription – he has identified several Dhamma texts in Tripitaka and stated as follows:

“These Dhamma texts, reverend sirs, I desire that all the monks and nuns may constantly listen to and remember. Likewise the layman and laywoman. I have had this written that you may know my intentions.” 

One of the Dhamma Texts was – the noble way of life – Aliya Vasani. Scholars say that this would most probably be Ariyawamsa Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 28) (https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html).

Ariyawamsa Sutta talks about contentment with the basic requirements of a Bhikku, clothes, food and shelter. Buddha himself gave much importance to this sutta since he described and valued the contents of this sutta with seven words whereas Satipattana sutta was described and valued in five words only. 

Rasavahini which was written in Polonnaruwa era described many stories that there were all-night sermons of Ariyawamsa Sutta. This would have happened in several centuries so that the value would have been clearly established in the minds of Sinhala Buddhists. 

If we have a content nation it would improve the Gross National Happiness Index. This should be the ultimate objective. However this may work against improving GDP of the country.

Quality

Sri Lankan businessman in general place less importance on quality. They are more interested in short-term gains rather than long-term building of a brand.

Robert Knox who lived in Kandy in the 17th century had this to say about Sri Lankans: “They do much extol and commend Chastity, Temperance, and Truth in words and actions; and confess that it is out of weakness and infirmity, that they cannot practice the same, acknowledging that the contrary Vices are to be abhorred, being abomination both in the sight of God and Man.” 

In export businesses, it is of paramount importance that the quality of the goods supplied is of the quality promised. The cinnamon industry where the production is with the small-scale planters suffered a lot due to poor quality of exports.

Risk-averse thinking

In Sri Lankan society, entrepreneurship is not popular. They like to take lesser risks. In the market there is more demand for accountants rather than engineers or marketers. Accountant is not a forerunner in the field of business but rather he ensures conformity which is very vital in sustainability. If an accountant wants to be an entrepreneur at that point he should shed that mentality of conformity. 

Products of free education have inward thinking. They do not have creative and revolutionary thinking as expected by Ven. Velivitiye Soratha, the first Vice Chancellor of Vidyodaya University. Some of them want to sacrifice their well-paid private sector jobs in favour of Government jobs in order to secure a pension at the end of the carrier and to work leisurely. Work leisurely is a by-product of contentment and it would not serve in achieving Nibbana even. Buddha said in satipattana sutta that one has to work ardently – atapi – for it.

Prevalent Sinhala Buddhist thinking of the country promotes neither worldly achievements nor spiritual achievements. It is protectionist, narrow and arrogant. It inculcates fear and hence is anti-innovative. It has the historical power and potential of creating an inclusive Sri Lanka but it promotes separation. Inherently it should be strong but in practice it is weak. 

Future of Sri Lanka

We have a fiscal deficit in Government accounts and a deficit of balance of payments in national accounts. It was eternal and as a result the country is debt-ridden. Around 50% of top 25 companies are banks and financial companies. Manufacturers and exporters are not duly represented there. Everything is lopsided. 

The future of Sri Lanka lies with the small and medium scale entrepreneurs. In order to support them, an entrepreneur-friendly culture should be created. We need them in thousands or rather in hundreds of thousands. They should engage in manufacturing and exports of products or services as well and connected to international supply chains rather than engaged in mere buying and selling businesses. 

Income distribution of this country is not that good. The country faced three armed struggles after independence. Therefore the benefits of development should go to the masses. The country can kill two birds with one stone with the promotion of small and medium scale entrepreneurs.

Published in Daily FT on 25th November 2016

- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/582149/Why-Sri-Lanka-is-poor#sthash.Jx7Vhwyl.dpuf

President’s speech and a new dimension to transitional justice

President Sirisena seems to be governing by public speaking. He dropped a bombshell by criticising the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and also the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) and Criminal Investigation Department (CID). 

It was reported that the President who left the country after delivering the speech, requested the Speaker to speak to the relevant heads of the Departments to ensure that there will not be interference to their work. 

The Prime Minister who was in Belgium has also spoken to the Speaker to inform the heads of the departments and especially the DG of CIABOC to hold on until he arrives. However the DG of CIABOC who was out of the country at the time the President delivered the speech has already sent her letter of resignation by the time the Speaker has contacted her.  The President accepted the resignation soon after he returned to the country. 

The President has been criticised by many for this speech and there are valid reasons for these criticisms.  The major point was that by his speech the President tried to reverse the trend of investigations of major frauds, malpractices and crimes that had been carried out during the previous regime. Also he was trying to influence the independent commissions appointed under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution which was against the very essence of the said amendment. 

This was proven to a great extent by the resignation of the DG of CIABOC who did remarkable work after being assigned with the responsibilities of CIABOC and against whom the main portion of the speech was directed at. It was reported that the next file the DG was perusing was of Minister Rajitha Senaratne.

The President was also criticised that he was putting the interests of the SLFP ahead of the country and he was trying to safeguard Gotabaya Rajapaksa. All these allegations are apparently true but if there is a deep analysis of the present political situation the reality would be different.

Different agendas 

The main item of the political agenda of this Government is to find a solution for the ethnic problem of this country and to adapt a new constitution. That is the very reason for having this Unity Government. In the political history of this country our leaders and the Governments continued to postpone solutions to the ethnic problem due to political pressure from the opposition. The simple reason is that opposition parties continued to put their own political interests ahead of the interests of the country. 

Well ahead of the last presidential election the Prime Minister mentioned about the so called “Lichchavi system” and a Government of Consensus. The reason is to find out a lasting solution to this problem. Although some extremists believe that after defeating the LTTE completely at war, the ethnic problem is solved, it is not so. 

Even Denzil Kobbekaduwa, one of the greatest soldiers we ever had, said that there should be a political solution to the problem even if he would defeat the LTTE militarily. As Sarath Fonseka said he would not leave this terrorist problem to the next Army Commander, the Prime Minister and the President pledged that they would resolve this issue. 

We have lost all the opportunities we had earlier to resolve this once and for all, and faced a brutal war for 30 long years. The people of this country should realise this rather than living in dream worlds and getting provoked every now and then by extremists with different agendas.

The culture of investigating

The punishing of culprits of the previous regime was not in the agenda of the new Government at the initial planning stages of forming it. This was brought in subsequently at the election campaign. It is true that not only the politicians but also the officials should be punished for their frauds and wrongdoing. 

In India where corruption is very high politicians frequently get punished and go to jail. Good examples are former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and Jayalalitha Jayaram the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. If the culture of investigating against the frauds of the previous regime is brought in, then as the General Public we can have the comfort that this type of investigation will be continued against the future Governments as well. It is a great comfort I would say but at what expense?

It is a well-known fact that there are allegations against current ministers of the Government and also especially against the Ministers of the previous regime. Can the Government go ahead with these allegations and if found correct, file cases against them? In that case can the Government get the approval for the primary objective of the Government which is to find a solution to the ethnic problem and adopting a new constitution? Should the Government sacrifice that objective in favour of punishing the culprits and establishing good governance? These are very tough questions but we should find solutions to these questions. It is like selecting one child out of two.

Four pillars

In Transitional Justice there are four pillars. Those are Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantee of Non-recurrence.  In a post conflict situation like ours what would happen is that the rebels would say there were justified political reasons for their rebellion and as a result there were brutal activities. 

The Government forces would say in order to counter the rebellion they had to engage in counter brutal activities. That is the Truth and how would the justice be enforced? Should we punish the rebels who are no more and Government forces who were engaged in illegal activities? One would argue that the Government forces by and large acted legally and those who were acted in an illegal manner should be punished, in order to safeguard the dignity of the armed forces. If there are a large number of forces who were engaged in illegal activities then there would be resistance from the armed forces.

So how can we engage in Reparation and Guarantees of Non-recurrence? In a similar type of situation the South African Government brought in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. All parties engaged in brutalities came in and revealed their acts. Eventually they were pardoned since these activities were done in the context of the political situation that had prevailed. Those were not cases of personal revenge which if so would be crimes. Finally South Africa emerged from a difficult situation and achieved reconciliation which has far reaching effects.

At present it is true that the defence forces apply pressure to the Government against reconciliation fearing that there would be punishments against them if a mechanism of justice is established. Reconciliation cannot be achieved without the support of all the parties to the conflict. Therefore we should have a mechanism similar to Truth and Reconciliation of South Africa where all of them were pardoned if the truth was revealed. After all the truth should be known whether it was illegal, brutal or legal.

Cost analysis

Similarly the frauds committed under the previous regime should also be pardoned. The reason is this. It is not fair to investigate against the members of Joint Opposition and not investigate against the ministers in the Government who were in the previous regime. This should also be a part of Transitional Justice since the country needs to get the consent of all the parties in achieving a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict and adapting a new constitution. 

If the present value of the future benefits of a resolved ethnic conflict and the benefits of a constitution agreed on by all can be calculated, it would be far greater than the cost of the frauds committed by the members of the previous regime. That is the price to be paid under the democratic governance system under the present circumstances. If the then Government was dissolved soon after the Presidential elections, the situation may have been different. It is also should be noted that the new constitution and the culture should ensure that corrupt persons should be punished in the future. 

Having said that, this also should be said. The President alleged that the DG of CIABOC and the other heads of the departments mentioned had a political agenda. Not them, but the President is having a political agenda. They were carrying out their duty in good faith focused on the duty only and it did not match with the political agenda of the President and with the explanation given above. I think they should be exonerated of that allegation.

However it was evident in the speech that the President was trying to exonerate the members of the armed forces for the crimes they have committed. For those crimes they have committed they or the Rajapaksa family, if found guilty, should be punished. Everything cannot be pardoned and that price has to be paid by them. 
Published in Daily Ft on 28th October 2016
- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/576462/President-s-speech-and-a-new-dimension-to-transitional-justice#sthash.eaCbBfj5.dpuf

Reconciliation and war mentality

Major General Kamal Gunaratne who commanded the 53rd Division of Sri Lanka Army to defeat and kill Velupillai Prabhakaran, the Leader of the LTTE, has written his memoir, ‘Road to Nandikadal’. 

Hats off to Gunaratne and his fellow commanders and troops for achieving this target of defeating the LTTE which was unthinkable some time back. Political leadership provided by Mahinda Rajapaksa, administrative support of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, military strategies of Sarath Fonseka and the other commanders contributed to this achievement. 

Gunaratne has given an interview to Daily FT which was published on 6 September. He commented as follows. 

Quote:

Q: You are now retired from the SLA after spending your entire youth fighting the LTTE to bring peace to the country. What do you have to say now?

A: Yes, I hung up my uniform which I wore for more than three decades and I went home on 5 September as a proud soldier of the victorious Sri Lanka Army. I never wanted to retire as a defeated soldier, so I have made my dream a reality. I will be having a simple life with my family. 

Not only me but all my colleagues, who commanded the war, have sacrificed their entire youth in jungles fighting the LTTE. With lots of dedication, commitment and sacrifices, we achieved peace. I think it is the responsibility of the political leadership of this country to maintain an everlasting peace. We talk about reconciliation but listen to those who ask for land powers, devolution of powers, police and judicial powers and demand the removal of the Director of the Kilinochchi Hospital as he is a Sinhalese and to appoint a Tamil official. Just because we sang the National Anthem in Tamil, reconciliation doesn’t take place. The Government should be alarmed by the latest developments, which disturb peace, taking place in the north. The political leadership needs to take them as eye-openers and look at from a wider angle.

Q: Do you mean to say that the LTTE could stage a comeback?

A: If the situations are not handled properly, the LTTE can make a comeback as over 12,400 ex-combatants are living in society. Though they have undergone a comprehensive rehabilitation program, that doesn’t mean that they are 100% transformed into civilians. The new leadership will not be effective as Prabhakaran’s leadership but if a situation is created, the LTTE will make a comeback because the LTTE ideology is still alive. I don’t think that the Tamil political leaders will be satisfied with judicial, land and police powers as the agenda of the Tamil National Alliance is Eelam and nothing else.

Unquote

Maintaining peace

Gunaratne emphasises the point that we should maintain an everlasting peace and at the same time he said that the Government should be alarmed by the latest developments. On one hand it seemed to be that he did not endorse devolution of power including land and police powers and on the other hand he was of the view that the leaders of TNA would not be satisfied anything less than Tamil Eelam.

His method of maintaining peace seems to be continuing suppression of the Tamil people. Not to devolve any power assuming that somehow the Tamil leadership would achieve Eelam is placing the country in war footing forever and it is clear undermining of the efforts of the Government and R. Sampanthan in the path of reconciliation.

Generals should fight wars for which they are capable of and they are not capable of civilian management unless they shed that war mentality. Throughout the last regime war-mentality was prevailing in all the affairs of the Government including relations with UN and Western nations. Mentality of a diplomat was alien to them. Diplomats take firm stands very often but they are capable of handling the situations. 

Denzil Kobbekaduwa, one of the greatest military leaders we ever had, was of the view that although the armed forces could defeat the LTTE, there should be a political solution for the ethnic conflict of the country. Kobbekaduwa did not want to apply his war mentality in civilian affairs and he was able to distinguish the two.

Soon after the end of the war Sarath Fonseka the General who spearheaded the war victory asked for more troops to be stationed in the north to safeguard the captured territory where Rajapaksa the President did not agree quite correctly. 

Dutugemunu’s unorthodox method

Contrary to the stance of a General, Dutugemunu adapted an unorthodox method in a similar situation two millennia back. When marching towards the enemy positions he had taken bhikkus to the battlefield and stationed them in geographical areas captured from the enemy. The act of keeping bhikkus rather than soldiers in those captured areas positively influenced the mentality of the people who lived in those areas and also supported the requirement of the military commanders to have more soldiers at the battle front. Dutugemunu being a crafty statesman knew where to apply the war mentality and where to apply the mentality of a Statesman.

Indian approach

At the time of independence Indian states predominantly divided based on the demarcations of British rulers and the areas acquired from the former Maharajas. South India was divided as Madras Presidency which was under British and the states acquired from Maharajas namely Mysore, Hyderabad and   Travancore-Cochin. These divisions were not done based on 

ethnicity. 

Subsequent to the political pressure to demarcate the states based on the languages used, in 1953 16 provinces using Telugu language in Madras Presidency were clustered and a new state called Andra state was created. The States Reorganization Act was enacted on 31 August 1956 and based on that all the states in India were re-demarcated in line of the languages used. 

Following were the changes experienced by South India. Hyderabad state and Andra state were combined and Telugu speaking Andra Pradesh was created. Travancore-Cochin state and Malabar provinces of Madras Presidency were combined and Malayalam speaking Kerala state was created. Tamil speaking Southern provinces were amalgamated with Madras Presidency which was renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1968. Kannada speaking provinces of Hyderabad state and western Bombay state were combined with Mysore state which was renamed as Karnataka in 1973. Recently a portion of Andra Pradesh was demarcated to create Telangana State.

The Indian Tamil separatist movement was dried away with demarcation of the states based on ethnicity. This move was taken by the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with the blessing of the Tamil political leadership. Sri Lankan Northern Tamils also would behave in the same manner. Thought leaders of communalism should understand the basic requirements of the people and their behaviour patterns before rushing in to judgments.

Prabhakaran was not satisfied until he get Eelam and it was amply evident when he replaced Balasingham with Thamil Chelvam at the peace negotiations during the time of Wickremesinghe Government when Balasingham agreed to internal self-determination. However placing Sampanthan also at the level of Prabhakaran or placing TNA leadership at the level of LTTE leadership is gross miscalculation of the ground scenario.

Equal treatment

In order to prevent an LTTE comeback which is the goal of General Gunaratne as well, the Government in the first place should have treated the Tamil civilians in the same manner the Government treated the Sinhala civilians soon after the suppression of the second JVP insurrection. The Government understood the displeasure of the Sinhala civilians and towards the armed forces and the forces were withdrawn from those areas.

During the election time present Government has pledged to release the Tamil detainees who were kept without filing cases if there were no charges and if there were charges to file cases against them. Also it was pledged to release land of the Tamils acquired by the Army for security reasons since the security concerns are not in existence now compared to the war time. 

Fulfilment of both these pledges is very slow, causing discontentment among the Northern Tamils and strengthening the stance of the Tamil hardliners. One of the major factors of this slow phase is due to the pressure of the armed forces who are obsessed with this war mentality which is a hindrance for the forward march of the nation.

We cannot have a nation eternally divided as Jews and Palestines. Even in Israel there were military leaders who subsequently engaged in peace process shedding their war mentality since there is no way out other than the peace. 

During the six day war between Israel and the Arabs in 1967 Moshe Dayan was the Israel Minister of Defence who was the former Commander of Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and Yitzhak Rabin was the commander of IDF. During the war Israel acquired large territories from Egypt, Jordan and Syria and both Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin were considered war heroes. 

Moshe Dayan later became the Minister of Foreign Affairs and contributed to the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt. Yitzhak Rabin became the 5th Prime Minister of Israel in 1974 and spearheaded the peace process with Egypt and Palestine Liberation Organization. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Later he was assassinated by those who were against the peace process.

Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore, once said Sri Lanka was a nation which was not able to manage the ethnic conflict. We have opened the economy well before India did. If there was no ethnic conflict GDP of Sri Lanka by now would have been in line with that of the East Asian countries. 

It is the time to shed petty conceptions and take productive steps to bring economic prosperity to the country. It is the best service we can do for our children and future generations of this country.

Published in Daily FT on 20th September 2016

- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/568516/Reconciliation-and-war-mentality#sthash.YD81TyUp.dpuf

Brexit: A comparison with Sri Lankan issues

Soon after the release of the results of the British General Election 2015 and in the light of the possible Scottish separatism threats, British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to lead a Government for “one nation” and make “Great Britain greater”. 

He made these comments to neutralise the effect of Scottish National Party (SNP) securing 56 seats out of 59 seats in Scotland in the first time of the British Parliament’s history. SNP managed to secure just five or six seats in four previous elections. The General Election 2015 polarised the British electoral base in an unprecedented manner.

This polarisation extended in the recently-held referendum, Brexit, where the voters had to decide whether to stay with the European Union (EU) or to exit. Northern Ireland and Scotland comprising of Irish and Scottish populations respectively voted overwhelmingly to stay with the EU together with urban English populations such as London metropolitan. Further it was reported that the younger generation voted largely in favour of staying whereas the older generation especially of English peripheral areas voted largely to exit.

During the last regime Sri Lanka also was divided on the lines of ethnicity and religion. Although the last regime was able to defeat the LTTE terrorism decisively, they could not defeat Tamil nationalism since Sinhala nationalism did not allow to do that. Both support each other. The point of view of Sinhala nationalism was that the Tamils should be suppressed in order to avoid any possible uprising in the future. This is the myth behind the unusually large military presence in the north even today.

As a result of this the Sri Lankan polity was divided deeply at the time of the last presidential election. All the ethnic and religious minorities voted by and large for Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa secured the hard-core Sinhala Buddhist votes. With the support of the unhappy block about the governance structure it was not difficult for Maithripala Sirisena to defeat his opponent.

The main argument in favour of exiting of Britain from the EU was that the legal immigrants coming from the Eastern block of EU under the concept of relaxed borders in member countries of EU had taken over the job opportunities of the British. It was also felt by the British that the sovereignty of Britain was at stake in light of the rules imposed by the bureaucrats of EU in Brussels making EU states binding on the same. Therefore the main cause of the exit vote was that rising nationalistic sentiments and sense of sovereignty.

The European Union with the UK would have been much stronger in the light of rising economies such as China and India. Those who do not want to see a politically and economically stronger European Union such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and US presidential candidate Donald Trump downplayed the strong sentiments expressed world over for the UK to stay within the EU. 

The question of sovereignty has often been raised in Sri Lanka when the issue of power sharing came in. It was once again questioned when there was a proposal that foreign judges should participate in the probes of violation of law during the time of war.

As far as the UK is concerned, by joining the EU, British Governments achieved certain national objectives which could not have been achieved by the sovereign British Governments alone. One example in the political field was constraining the nuclear program of Iran. In the economic field it created a single large market in EU. Whenever a government signs an international treaty, sovereignty of that country is affected to a certain degree. When the UK joined the NATO alliance in order to safeguard its sovereignty, it could have been argued that by joining the alliance the very sovereignty that they were trying to safeguard was affected.

In the case of power sharing in Sri Lanka there would be a possibility that certain powers once devolved could not be taken back by the centre without the consent of the periphery. That is a political compromise to keep the periphery within the territorial limits of the centre. In Britain there is asymmetrical power sharing between Westminster and territories of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

When it is proposed to have foreign judges in the probes of violation of law during the wartime it is done in order to establish a credible mechanism facilitating anyone to believe that the justice would be done. Thereby a greater national reconciliation would be possible. Hence the concept of sovereignty could have been interpreted covering the futuristic aspects of a nation as well rather than limiting to a current legal concept.

When the GSP+ facility given to Sri Lanka was withdrawn by the EU during the previous regime, it was argued that by the conditions imposed by the EU the sovereignty of Sri Lanka was affected. Certainly the EU through those conditions dictated the terms to the Sri Lanka Government, but all those conditions which were mainly on human rights, intended to safeguard the interests of ordinary citizens of Sri Lanka. In order to safeguard the sovereignty of the Sri Lankan State, the then Government sacrificed the interests of the ordinary citizens. Therefore by this act whose sovereignty was safeguarded and whose sovereignty was affected?

The citizens of England wanted to increase the portion of the cake they got. They thought that the immigrants from the eastern European countries taken over their jobs. However in fact the immigrants were contributing to the British economy. By advocating Brexit they have probably reduced the size of the cake. The value of the sterling pound in comparison to the US dollar dropped to the lowest in 30 years. Britain would face a bigger problem if Scottish people who decided to stay with Britain at a referendum held in 2014 decide to leave Britain and join EU.

In Sri Lanka we have opened the economy in 1977 well ahead of other South Asian countries. India opened the economy in 1991. 

If we did not have the ethnic problem, by now our economy would have been in line with the South East Asian countries. In the present day context nationalistic views sometimes would go against the economic prosperity which is very important to a nation. It is not the thinking of “ballo marala hari salli hoyala” – earn money by even killing dogs; it is the thinking of getting maximum benefits out of this short life. Benefits can be either economic or spiritual – either attain Buddhahood or become the Emperor. 

Present Sri Lankans, mainly Sinhala Buddhists by and large neither spiritually rich nor economically prospered. They are living their short lives with petty nationalistic dogmas which are a hindrance to spiritual or economic progress. 

They do not know that this thinking drags them, their country and the future of their children down. 

Their priests who understand neither what Buddha said nor do contemporary world affairs think that their duty is to safeguard the Sinhala Buddhism which is quite the opposite of Buddhism. Understanding this is very crucial at this critical juncture of the history of our nation.

Published in Daily FT on 13th July 2016

(The writer can be reached via harsha.gunasena@gmail.com.) - See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/554343/Brexit--A-comparison-with-Sri-Lankan-issues#sthash.cq2F3HHI.dpuf

Stability of the Government

The UNP and its allies secured 106 seats at general election 2015 and the SLFP and its allies secured 95 seats. In the history of Parliamentary elections under the new Constitution only in two instances was a clear majority of 113 seats secured by the winning party. That was in 1989 when the UNP secured 125 seats amidst the JVP insurrection and in 2010 where the UPFA secured 144 seats soon after winning the war. In all other instances there were stable governments with the support of a section of the Opposition either supporting from the Opposition or joining the Government. 

If the Parliament was dissolved immediately after the presidential election in January 2015, the UNP would probably have secured sufficient majority in the Parliament. Also had the President dissolved the Parliament earlier, it would have been advantageous to the UNP. The President himself admitted this at the speech addressing the nation delivered soon before the general election 2015.   

Strategic move

If Rajapaksa continued to be the Chairman of the SLFP, there would be an exodus of MPs from the SLFP to the UNP soon after the presidential election. 

A few members left the SLFP and joined the UNP just before the general election after the SLFP gave nominations to Rajapaksa. In that case the battle-line was clear and the UNP would have been strengthened as a result. 

However, this did not happen since the leadership of the SLFP was handed over to the President. 

This was a strategic move by the ex-President and by the incumbent President as well. The Prime Minister, who initiated consensual politics well before the presidential election, proposed in the Draft Constitution of the UNP that the deputy chief minister of a provincial council should be the leader of the political party which came second in the election. He extended this to the Parliament as well. Therefore the thinking of the Prime Minister and the strategy of the President went hand in hand. Hence the Prime Minister has taken a policy decision after the presidential election not to accept SLFP MPs to his party. As a result it was planned to get SLFP support en bloc. 

However, this did not materialise since the President was not accepted well as the Leader of the SLFP within the rank and file. When he wanted to hand over his powers to the Parliament as promised at the presidential election, the SLFP objected to it and managed to dilute the essence of the 19th Amendment. 

The President managed to get certain control of the party after the general election with sacking the two Secretaries of the SLFP and the UPFA and appointing his loyalists to Parliament through the National List.

Consensus politics

The Prime Minister and the UNP sacrificed a lot in favour of consensus politics. Consensus politics is needed to solve major obstacles faced by the country, namely to solve the ethnic issue, to pass a new Constitution and to face the UNHRC resolution. All are inter-related.

The Government is not functioning effectively. The UNP in general was efficient in governance. But still they could not implement Budget proposals which were changed over and over again. Apart from the basic inefficiencies, the power struggle launched by the Rajapaksa faction also contributed to it.

The President had to unusually enlarge the Cabinet in order to get more members from the Rajapaksa faction. Presently 37 members out of the estimated 43 members of UPFA who support the Government got portfolios of Cabinet Minister, State Minister or Deputy Minister; 86% of them got portfolios compared to only 50% of the UNP members who got portfolios (Table A).

Irrespective of the patronage they obtained, SLFP ministers on and off had to say that they wanted to defeat the UNP and appoint their own Prime Minister as a result of consensus politics of the UNP and its Leader. This is as a reaction to the claims of the Rajapaksa faction. 

The President keeps on attacking Rajapaksa rather than engage in governing. Rajapaksa now tries to woo the Prime Minister and suggests that presidential system should be abolished not for the benefit of the country but to attack the President. It was said that if there are two factions of the SLFP, the UNP would be benefited in future elections. Therefore it looks like the tail is wagging the dog. The Government should act rather than react. At least they should know how to talk in one voice.

The President should realise that his party is the minority partner of the Government and he himself was elected out of non-SLFP votes.  During the time when Wickremesinghe was the Prime Minister in 2001, he did not apply consensus politics and the decisions were taken by him and not by the President. Now under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, powers of the President were curtailed, partly as a result of the efforts of the President himself. Therefore, the real leader of the Government should be the Prime Minister and the President should respect that situation. 

It should be noted that the President’s act to curtail his own powers, quite contrary to the behaviour of his predecessor, mustered much respect to him locally as well as worldwide. 

However in the present context he cannot exercise the power to the extent that if his own party would be the principal partner of the coalition. He should learn to respect the view of the principal partner. There should be a common understanding of the two leaders to this effect and they should talk in one voice. Otherwise there is no point of talking about consensus politics and understanding between two major parties to solve the problems of the nation. There is no necessity of having a cold war under consensus politics. 

Government is stable

The Government is stable in numbers of the Parliament (Table A). With the recent crossovers it is estimated that there are 43 members of the UPFA with the Government. Hence 52 members are with Rajapaksa, including the Communist Party member who said he would act independently. With these 43 members and the 107 members of the UNP including the Muslim Congress member and the Speaker, the Government have 150 members, which is a two-third majority of the Parliament. 

This National Unity Government is for solving unresolved national problems as stated above which cannot be solved without the support of TNA. 

Therefore the Government is very stable and has sufficient numbers in the Parliament to address national issues. Civil society and the people who brought this Government into power need only that. Hence it may be the time to end the numbers game within the SLFP which cannot be greater than any national issue. 

According to Table A, all in all there are 91 Cabinet, State and Deputy Ministers and in this respect there is not much of a difference from the previous regime. 

People should be aware of the price they pay in order to adopt a new Constitution and to solve the ethnic problem once and for all. However if the country can in fact achieve those objectives, the price is cheap. 

Numbers game

Why does it look like the Government is unstable? It is because the SLFP and the President are in a numbers game with the Rajapaksa faction and the Government does not talk in one voice. Although it is not, it looks like they do not talk to each other and they express and exchange their views through public forums. Hence there is no policy consistency. We were thinking of solving national problems with consensus and now the Government does not have consensus even to increase VAT. Under these circumstances no foreign investor would invest in Sri Lanka even though the President, Prime Minister and the Government try hard to achieve it.

The way to counter the threat of Rajapaksa if any is to work hard and do a good job rather than having kneejerk reactions and voicing different opinions; to speed the investigations and apprehend the real culprits rather than making way to believe that the Government is on a witch-hunt; and to tell the people the truth of the economic situation of the country and give a reasonable plan to overcome it.

Published in Daily FT on 27th April 2016

- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/538368/Stability-of-the-Government#sthash.HLuZg14C.dpuf

Neutral umpires vs. home umpires

Should foreign judges participate in the probe initiated by UNHRC?

Soon after the end of war in May 2009, the Secretary General of the United Nations visited Sri Lanka and at the end of the visit there was a joint declaration by the President of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon. The following was stated in the last paragraph of the Joint Statement:

“Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The Secretary General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The Government will take measures to address those grievances.”

President Maithripala Sirisena

​

The resolution A/ HRC/30/L.29 was jointly sponsored by United States of America and Sri Lanka at the 30th session of the UN Human Rights Commission in September 2015 and was unanimously approved in October 2015. The following was stated in the sixth paragraph of the said resolution:

“Welcomes the recognition by the Government of Sri Lanka that accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law and to build confidence in the people of all communities of Sri Lanka in the justice system, notes with appreciation the proposal of the Government of Sri Lanka to establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality; and also affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”

In January 2016, President Maithripala Sirisena in an interview with BBC said that foreign judges and prosecutors should not be involved in an investigation into allegations of war crimes. “We have more than enough specialists, experts and knowledgeable people in our country to solve our internal issues,” he said. 

“This investigation should be internal and indigenous, without violating the laws of the country, and I believe in the judicial system and other relevant authorities in this regard. The international community need not worry about matters of State interest.” The President reiterated this subsequently in an interview with Al Jazeera and at a speech given at the National Law Conference in Wadduwa.

In late January Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in an answer to a query of Channel 4 News said that the Government hadn’t ruled out foreign involvement in the proposed war crimes investigation. He further stated: “Yes… We are standing by our commitment to the Geneva resolution.”

In February Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said in Washington that he was willing to consider international participation in investigating possible war crimes during the 26-year Tamil insurgency.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

"The President has no right to hamper the long-term interests of the country for short-term political gains and the President and the Government can decide whether we need neutral umpires or home umpires."

“I think it is only fair that the victims of the war would want some form of guarantee that the new courts will deliver justice and accountability in a fair manner, and for that we are willing to consider the participation of international actors… They could be judges, they could be forensic experts, investigators, prosecutors, all these options are being looked at.” 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, who visited Sri Lanka in February, said it was Sri Lanka’s sovereign right to decide on the involvement of foreign judges in a mechanism set up to investigate alleged war crimes. However, he criticised the Sri Lankan Judiciary of being highly-politicised over the years and therefore emphasised the importance of the involvement of foreign components to ensure a credible and impartial investigation into such violations.

In March the UN Secretary General’s Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq said the Human Rights Council could evaluate for itself how the process of the probe should proceed, but the UN wanted to make sure there was a credible investigation into the allegations. “We have made clear what our guidelines are and what a credible investigation will entail. So we will continue to be in dialogue to make sure it happens.” 

In Parliament delivering his maiden speech, Minister Sarath Fonseka called for the participation of international observers and advisors for UN inquiry on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. He said that there needed to be no fear about international participation. He led the Army according to the international law. Allowing foreign participation will increase the credibility of the inquiry, he added.

It seems to be that the Sri Lankan Government is totally in disarray in respect of foreign participation of the possible inquiry of violation of international law during the war by both parties.

Investigating violations and reconciliation

During the past regime Sri Lanka had a notorious reputation internationally that the regime did not stand by the commitments made. It took an unprecedentedly long time to implement recommendations of its own LLRC. Some recommendations are not yet implemented. The main reason is that the fear of response of the Sri Lankan polity, mainly the majority Sinhalese. 

Many a time it was argued as follows. “Any action to rake up the past now will be counter-productive particularly to the Tamils who have been the victims of the brutal past. The Tamils right now are aiming get away from the past and look towards the future. They have been the worst victims of the past which they want to forget. Any action by the international community should be to heal the wounds of the Tamil people. The Western concept of raking up the past for reconciliation is not going to work in Sri Lanka.”

It was also implied that Sinhalese were of the view that it was in order to carry out illegal acts of harming even the civilians to destroy the LTTE which had no sense of legality.

Therefore there is a concept in general that both Tamils and Sinhalese do not want to dig into the past and it was only the Western countries are asking for it. This is not true. On the part of the right-thinking Sinhalese, it is a gross insult to them. On the part of the Tamils, it is suppression of their feelings towards their loved ones especially civilians who were killed during the war.

On the part of the Government, according to early reports there were zero casualties. Much later the Government admitted that there were around 7,000 casualties. Therefore the real picture was hidden from the Sinhalese. On the part of the armed forces, there was no necessity to exercise undue force on the LTTE since during the latter part of the war it was eminent that the LTTE was going to lose. Therefore as Commander of the Army during the war Sarath Fonseka stated, these charges should be investigated not only for the sake of the Tamil victims but also to re-establish the credibility of the Army. He said he had given legal orders and if there were soldiers who had acted illegally or if there was anybody who had given illegal orders, they should be punished. 

Therefore who creates this mentality that there would be uprising of the Sinhalese if there would be investigations about violations of international law during the war? Those who supported illegal orders, if any.

Shouldn’t we investigate this if there were international allegations that 40,000 civilians were killed and there were brutalities against the Tamil civilians? On the other hand shouldn’t we investigate this in order to re-establish the credibility of the Army which defeated the most dangerous terrorist group which was hitherto believed to be undefeatable? They lost the credibility due to these charges levelled against them. This is neither Western thinking nor so-called Sinhala Buddhist thinking nor Tamil nationalist thinking. This is pure Sri Lankan thinking.

Ensuring a credible investigation

According to the UNHRC resolution, it is not mandatory to have foreign judges in the bench. They can be observers. Therefore, the President is correct to that extent. But we should ensure a credible investigation. If the President thinks that the Judiciary is now impartial just because he does not interfere with the Supreme Court decisions contrary to the behaviour of his predecessor, he is sadly mistaken. 

It was he who appointed the Judge to the Supreme Court who had to step down with serious allegations. By the time he was appointed to the SC, he had similar allegations and the President and the Government were blind-eyed to those. There is a Magistrate who repeatedly violated laws of the land by illegally keeping an elephant calf. No action is being taken by the Judicial Services Commission. 

There is a SC Judge who was at the bench when the anticipatory bail application of Gotabaya Rajapaksa was heard. The decision was in favour of Rajapaksa and the decision was criticised by many. This Judge did not participate a similar case filed by Basil Rajapaksa, citing the reason that the family was known to the Judge. 

There is a SC Judge who was earlier punished by the JSC for giving intentionally wrong judgments, appointed by the current President. The Magistrate who refused the bail application of Yoshitha Rajapaksa was criticised by the High Court Judge. Sometime back Transparency International alleged that the Judiciary was the most corrupt institution in Sri Lanka after the Police. Therefore, participation of foreign judges improves the credibility of the whole process.

We have precedence for this. Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike appointed a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1963 in addition to the usual judicial process to probe S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s assassination comprising Justice Abdel Younis of Egypt, Justice G.C. Mills-Odich of Ghana and our own Justice T.S. Fernando who heard the case in local courts.

Neutral umpires the need of the hour

In test cricket, the concept of neutral umpires was first introduced in Pakistan in November 1986 at a test series with West Indies. Earlier there were accusations that the home umpires were biased towards the home side. Accusations were levelled against Australia, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Therefore this initiative was taken by Pakistan Captain Imran Khan, who later said that it was a part of physiological war against legendary West Indies team captained by Clive Lloyd. 

Two umpires from India were invited and the five match series was won by West Indies 3-1. Imran Khan later said that to win a match and stop the defeat in the other was itself a big achievement. Later ICC has taken the baton from Imran Khan. In the present day context, if there are no neutral umpires we can imagine the outrage if a home umpire appears guilty of favouritism.

This is the very reason we need foreign judges in the probe initiated by UNHRC especially in a highly-polarised polity based on ethnicity in Sri Lanka. The President has no right to hamper the long-term interests of the country for short-term political gains and the President and the Government can decide whether we need neutral umpires or home umpires.

Published in Daily FT on 19th April 2016

- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/536905/Neutral-umpires-vs--home-umpires#sthash.Bl2CYB3t.dpuf