Focus on Rights

Laying blame and absurdities galore

By: Kishali Pinto Jayawardene

For this editorialist and sundry others who arrive at such simplistic equations, several home truths clamor to be heard. In the first instance, none but the Government and the Government alone could be blamed for what happened to the Constitution Bill in Parliament this week. That an obstructionist Opposition may be called to account for its lapses in the reform process in the past is as much a home truth but that is a debate for a different moment in time. As far as the events of this week are concerned however, the blame lies fairly and squarely on the Government. Indeed, one would be hard to put one's finger on a clumsier exercise of engineered constitutional reform than what the country witnessed this month. 

It is in this sense therefore that the Constitutional Reforms Bill can claim many parallels with the aborted Equal Opportunities Bill of not so many moons ago, quite apart from the fact that they both originated from the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Ministry. 

Apropos, of course, a concession which is only but fair that there was a fair amount of sincerity in their genesis. For the sake of argument however, let us consider these parallels. Both laws had, as their basis, an acknowledgement that the divisions of the past and the present need to be healed for the country to progress. So far, so good. It is, of course, in the manner of tackling this process of healing that opinions differed. The Equal Opportunities Bill attempted to meet this issue in one way. The Constitutional Reforms Bill attempted to do it in another way. But quite apart from agreement or disagreement as to the substance of their contents, both Bills were pipped at the post for reasons that had much to do with political naivete as with political arrogance. Thus where the Equal Opportunities Bill was sprung on the public without adequate preparation, thus provoking a hysteria which was out of proportion to its aims and objectives, the Constitutional Reforms Bill was no better.

Consider this scenario. Three years back, a set of constitutional reform proposals are finalised and handed to the people. They lead to extensive discussion and heated disagreement as well as agreement but political opportunism on both sides of the political divide overtakes the reform debate and in the eyes of all and sundry in this country, they are consigned to the utmost darkness. Suddenly however, one month after the then incumbent President assumes a new lease of office, the reform discussions are reopened. This time around however with a significant difference. The talks are held in private, between the main Opposition party and the Government. 

Various titbits are leaked out but there are no official communications and no clear idea of the various horse deals being engineered. Even more suddenly, on one balmy Tuesday evening, word goes around that the finalised document has been referred to the Supreme Court as an urgent Bill bypassing the opportunity to make representations before the Court on the substance of the Bill and that a mere three days has been reserved for discussion thereafter in Parliament. The Bill itself contains some 253 clauses, each of them dramatically impacting on the manner in which the country is governed. The argument that these clauses reproduce in substance what was agreed upon in 1997 is a fallacy which will be dealt with later in this column. Likewise, the argument that the holding of a Referendum would have given the people sufficient time to study the Bill and vote accordingly. For the moment, let us add in our relating of the absurdities that happened in Sri Lanka in August that, adding fuel to the fire, a Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution is also announced some three days later. This amendment is also immediately referred to the Supreme Court as an urgent Bill in a politically manipulative exercise that is so disingenuous so as to make even the most ardent government apologists blush amidst their protestations.

It is in this context that our editorialist condemns the hysteria that was raised as being "xenophobic and racist." And it is in this context that our editorialist is completely and utterly wrong. This is not to deny the existence of xenophobia or racism in this country. Rather, it is to point out that the argument does not hold good in its application to explain away the opposition manifested this month from forces as fundamentally diverse as the Maha Sangha, the Sihala Urumaya, the JVP, the National People's Party, pro devolution academics, activists and from others including the GMOA. Given the quick succession of events of such a constitutionally subversive nature in one week, it was natural and logical that a storm of protest would have been raised. To have expected a different reaction would have been naïve in the extreme and more so, given the immense distrust in which all politicians regardless of party affiliations are presently regarded in this country.

And now we come to those protesters who argue that the Constitutional Reforms Bill contained nothing more than the cumulative effect of discussions on constitutional reform held from 1997. Thus, in the pained words of Foreign Affairs Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar who, this week, qualified as a surprise recruit to these ranks, ""this Constitution Bill is the most discussed Constitution to date in this country". This assertion, like Janus, has two faces to it. While on the one hand, it may be true as far as the substance of the document is concerned, it is certainly not true as regards its most crucial aspects. Immediate examples are none other than those clearly problematic provisions relating to the Executive Presidency and the Interim Council for the North and the East.

Apart from these, the fundamental rights chapter has also significant differences with certain safeguards in freedom from arbitrary arrest and the rights of prisoners being taken out. Again, importantly, while the 1997 draft had provision for infringement of fundamental rights by courts exercising original criminal jurisdiction, that again is not there in the Constitution Bill. Similarly, despite guarantees to the contrary, the 25% quota representation for women in local government bodies has been diluted to the extent as to deprive it of any practical effect. Surely, the argument is only but reasonable that the people as a body should have been informed about these changes before the Bill was steamrolled through the court and almost through Parliament? For the argument here does not concern the ultimate right to decide as what should be or not be in a Constitution. 

The argument here concerns the right of a citizen to know its precise provisions, be fairly heard and to be considered before finality is reached. Granted, there are those who would argue that this lobbying action would have been possible in the three days that the Bill was due to be whizzed through Parliament. There are also those who prefer to bypass the ugly truths of electoral history, both past and more recent, and hold that a future Referendum would have been sufficient to set the process right. One is only but left speechless in the face of such innocents. Ultimately, what happened this week was that confronted with an impotency of the law and the Constitution, the public arena was effectively taken over by the protesters. And by paving the way for this to happen, the Government not only failed in their legal and parliamentary steam rolling but played into the very hands of those xenophobists whose existence in this country cannot be denied. 

It all added up to a political blunder of gigantic proportions. And to maintain otherwise as a springing board to projecting even more blatant juggernaut tactics of constitutional reform in the future can only result in even graver consequences.

U.N. seeks to protect children in war

The council unanimously adopted a resolution dedicated to protecting children in war zones and calling on all states to condemn and prosecute those responsible for the "deliberate targeting of children in situations of armed conflict." 

A similar resolution was adopted in August last year — the first time the council had addressed the issue.

The latest resolution includes a reference to a recent addition to the 1989 Convention of the Rights of the Child that requires signatories to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. They must also ensure that no one under 18 is compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.

Some 300,000 children are said to be recruited into armies, mostly by rebel groups, from Sierra Leone to Sri Lanka. Between 1986 and 1996, two million children were killed in wars, six million were wounded and two million became orphans, U.N. agencies estimate.

Some 13 million children have been violently uprooted from their homes within their own countries, such as in Angola or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to Save the Children UK.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently outlined 55 proposals for protecting children, including sanctions against countries, guerrilla groups or corporations that commit grave abuses against them. 

Olara Otunnu, the lead U.N. official for dealing with children in armed conflict, has pushed for the international community to make any assistance to parties involved in fighting contingent on observing standards for the protection of children. 

The U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) hailed the latest Security Council resolution in a statement on Friday, saying it "underlines the urgent need for an end to impunity for those who commit crimes against children." 

"The council has reminded the world that it is both immoral and illegal to make children the victims and protagonists of war," UNICEF said. 

"It has helped to maintain awareness of the unacceptability of turning children into soldiers, of forcing millions of children and women to flee their homes, and of subjecting children to forced labour, sexual abuse and the pressure to commit atrocities," the statement added. 

Countdown

Sanity forestalls much violence 

 By H. Chanda Dhamma

Though one cannot condone the tactics allegedly used by the People's Alliance government to woo United National Party MPs for the vote on the constitution, it may be a consolation that peaceful protests were allowed and that indeed prevented any violence or loss of lives. It was also largely due to sanity prevailing within the government hierarchy in deciding to abandon the reform process at the eleventh hour, notwithstanding the obvious loss of face.

Be that as it may, last week's events have given the UNP victory in round one. The UNP may have won one battle, though not the war against the PA. But a defeat for the UNP last week would have doomed the party at the polls for sure. In that context the UNP had cause for celebration.

And celebrate they did in style at the Colombo Mayor's official residence. Party members were cock-a-hoop about having outwitted the over ambitious PA strategists. The morale of the UNP was definitely high- an important factor with the countdown to the elections already on.

Everything at the party was fine except the foul buriyani (not fowl buriyani!) that was provided by a caterer from Colombo Central. But if the buriyani tasted bad, the high drama that was enacted before the eyes and ears of the country last week no doubt left a bitter taste among those who witnessed some of it on their television screens.

Both leaders, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe were frantically telephoning their MPs, the former canvassing the constitution and the latter trying to block the two-thirds majority. The scenes were reminiscent of what Ranil's father, Esmond, then press baron of Lake House did in 1964, canvassing MPs to defeat the Press Council Bill.

But Esmond would certainly have been proud of Ranil's political ploys last week It was decided to send wavering MPs overseas under the 'monitorship' of John Amaratunga- 'Sir John' in UNP circles- and the strategy appears to have paid off!

But even Ranil Wickremesinghe had anxious moments. There was one instance where the UNP leader was trying to contact a former minister representing an electorate famous more for its coconuts than its politics. When he couldn't, the Opposition Leader's staff had called saying Minister Mahinda Wijesekera was on line. The elusive MP quickly came to the phone and the call was then taken by Mr. Wickremesinghe! 

The PA too took drastic action, quickly filling the vacancy created by the "resignation" of MP Jayasena Rajakaruna who was always opposed to devolution and canvassing the 'moderate' Tamil MPs. Of the latter, only R. Sampanthan was 'for' the reforms, with Joseph Pararajasingham being 'dead against' with the others vacillating somewhere in between. The PLOTE would have voted 'for' and the TELO's solitary MP would have voted 'against' had the count been taken but all this only goes to show how divided the Tamil political spectrum was. 

But while the turmoil on the constitutional reforms gathered momentum, there were those who significantly played cameo roles and the most notable among them was Fisheries Minister Mahinda Rajapakse.

Minister Rajapakse informed President Chandrika Kumaratunga that he was not in agreement with the proposed constitution in toto- despite earlier government statements that the cabinet endorsed the reforms "unanimously".

But the high point of Rajapakse's defiance came when the minister walked into a crowd of demonstrators near Parliament on Tuesday and said, "haamuduruwane, kalabala wenne nethuva inna". Some of Rajapakse's cabinet colleagues believe he was only playing to the gallery with one eye on the Sri Lanka Freedom Party leadership. With posters appearing the next day thanking the Minister for "saving the Sinhala race" some even suggest that the appointment of Ratnasiri Wikremanayake as Premier was expedited to nip in the bud any serious challenge for the No.2 slot by Rajapakse.

But, if the Buddhist monks were happy with the Fisheries Minister they were very unhappy with the President. They feel President Kumaratunga ignores their advise at all times. Hence the President earned the dubious distinction of being the first Head of State to be snubbed by the high priests who refused her request for an appointment.

As for the debate itself, the Bill was presented in Parliament on Monday by Prof. G. L. Peiris. But the man who claims credit for the reforms spoke not a word about it either in Parliament or outside during those crucial days- and this from a man who suffered from such verbosity about the constitution that he came to be known as 'package pappa'! this silence was deafening.

The Professor was only called upon to present the Bill-for the first reading- and then call for its debate-the second reading. The VVIP helicopter which brought President Kumaratunga from Temple Trees to Sri Jayewardenepura by-passing the slogan shouting public by the roadside landed inside the Parliamentary complex itself and its noise was heard even inside the chamber.

It took the usually late Chandrika Kumaratunga all of seven minutes to appear in the chamber and kick-off the second reading but that was amidst scenes bordering on hooliganism that outranked the PA's disturbance of former President R. Premadasa when he addressed Parliament in the midst of the impeachment crisis.

This sense of agitation against the Bill spilled on to the streets on day two of the debate and Minister Alavi Moulana was at the receiving end. His limousine was virtually lifted off the road and he was heard to remark later that he had been in the thick of many trade union battles but that this was his worst experience yet. There were other ministers whose cars were attacked with umbrellas and spat on with betel.

As for the debate itself, veteran leftist Vasudeva Nanayakkara would have been a unanimous choice for the 'man-of-the-match' award and the runner up would have been Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirga-mar who made an impassioned, emotional plea to both sides- who accorded him the singular honour of listening with pin-drop silence.

There were those who suffered as well. Minister M. H. M. Ashraff had to speak for two-and-a-half hours just to prevent Dixon J. Perera from speaking and that must have been a hard task for a man whose dreams of a vice-presidency turned into a nightmare. Vasu battered Batty Weerakoon so effectively that he was seen leaving the chamber with a cellular phone at his ear.

But there was always a tangible sense of tension in the House. Every time a door opened on either side of the House MPs would look to see whether one of their colleagues had crossed-over. Opposition MPs were warned that cabinet ministers were waiting to 'catch' them in the toilets and strike a bargain. But in the final analysis, the UNP leadership prevailed save for the loss of Mervyn Silva and Harindra Corea.

More than being a victory for the UNP, the inability to muster a two-thirds majority was more an embarrassment for the President and her closest political advisors, Ministers Mangala Samaraweera and S. B. Dissanayake ("the commandos") and Mahinda Wijesekara and Sarath Amunugama ("the Special Forces Unit").

Apparently these advisors themselves were misled by their propagandists and this faux pas was criticised severely by senior SLFPers A. H. M. Fowzie, Mahinda Rajapakshe et al . who accused the 'junta'- of misleading the President and ending with egg on their collective faces.

In the midst of all this there was also a flutter that a UNP organiser in the Colombo district who had directly and indirectly benefited financially from this government, had met with the President in the middle of all this commotion. They had apparently met earlier too on a flight that took the President to London recently on a private visit.

The PA was first interested in this organiser because they felt he was trying to convey a message from Opposition Leader Ranil Wickreme-singhe. The organiser had indeed apprised the party leader of his meeting with the President but the meeting we hear shad nothing to do with politics- it had everything to do with himself.

Needless to say, UNPers were seething with fury that in the midst of such intense back-stabbing and bribery here was a man who was a UNP electoral organiser who was beyond all political intrigue-only trying to get brownie points with Her Excellency!

But the President herself was not amused and in fact was distinctly in a bad mood on Tuesday, knowing that the end was nigh for her beloved reforms. On Wednesday, she visited her mother at 'Tintakel' at Rosmead Place and spent quite some time with the lady. By about eleven o' clock that night, Ratnasiri Wikremanayake was asked to come for the swearing in as Prime Minister next day. Other cabinet ministers were asked to be present, but they were not told why.

So, on Thursday, Trade and Commerce Minister Kingsley Wickremaratne came late for the function only to be told by his cabinet colleagues that the President had given his portfolio to someone else. A dejected Wickremeratne was then seen loitering in the corridors of power waiting to see the President-probably to ask whether there was anything else for him but then, the President left the enclosure in another direction.

It was only then that his colleagues told Wickrema-ratne that he could go and sign the oath of office form and though he did not actually take his oath before the President this time around, he remains the Minister of Trade and Commerce- the President sure does give an allowance for those who get late!

And among others wandering around the corridors of power was Ms. Kusum Wickremanayake, the wife of the new Prime Minister, in the news in her own right being the key personality in a furniture scandal 'furore' in the Seva Vanitha movement.

It was Minister Fowzie who spotted her and asked to come and join the rest. However her invitation to the event had been directly from the President herself who wanted her to be with her husband in an official photo-shoot. And she was all over the new PM, holding and never letting go of his hand, while the embarrassed PM appeared disinterested in the exercise!

That, in a nutshell, was the week that was. Now, the question is what next? Dissolution of Parliament is the next step followed by elections. Already the president is on record saying she believes a mandate from the next election- and not a two thirds majority- is all that is needed to amend the constitution and that would give an indication of the government's line of thinking. The President's pronouncement followed S. B. Dissanayake's startling revelation to this effect on a TV show the day before.

But, one question about the week that was: when it was known that the government could not obtain a two-thirds majority, why didn't the UNP ask for a vote and defeat the Bill?

The PA Government lost in the Western Province Provincial council this week when a motion calling for the withdrawal of the new constitution was taken to vote.

The UNP voted on that occasion, obviously with the nod of its leader.

If the UNP leader gives his nod the PA can lose the Western, Central and Uva Provincial Councils.

This can set the trend around the country and give a message to the people that the PA has begun losing. Why Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe cannot use his expertise which he used to block the 2/3rds in Parliament this week to defeat the PA in the Provinces with a general election around the corner is un-imaginable.

Or is there more to it than meets the eye?