Editorial

Not for the first time has a single member embarrassed his political party so much in the public eye as the fake doctorate holder who last Friday crashed into fellow motorists, sending them to hospital.

In the year since the incumbents waltzed into office, it may be unfair to single out this one party man as the solitary embarrassment to the ruling party. Others too have made their contributions in varied ways towards this exercise, individually and collectively.

Last week’s incident, or accident, involving this particular member saw his party colleagues, even the head honchos, rallying in support of the same man they strenuously defended over his non-existent doctorate. That is party camaraderie, however much it betrays the fact that there’s no ‘system change’ as promised to the people. This member received over 100,000 preferential votes from his district at last year’s election, and it is anyone’s guess how many believed in his party to vote for him.

Last year, no disciplinary action against him was taken by his party other than asking him to step down from the high post he held as Speaker of Parliament, when he could not produce the higher educational qualifications he claimed he had. It would clearly have been untenable for him to have continued in that post.

In the case of the infamous Watergate scandal some decades back, it was not the break-in of an opposing political party’s election office so much as the presidential cover-up that caused an uproar in the USA. It resulted in the downfall of the sitting president. Likewise, what is abhorrent in last week’s incident—or accident—involving this party man is the clumsy effort at bending the rules that has exposed the President’s high ideals that have earned him wide respect in this country, and even abroad—that ‘no one is above the law’; that ‘all are equal before the law’. These oft-quoted quotes, drilled into the public domain on every occasion as Opposition members are dragged before courts on allegations of violating laws, sound hollow. There is a demand to turn the searchlight inward, for the ruling party to practise what it preaches.

The local police made a hash of the ‘cover-up’, either by design or born from the prevalent DNA within the service to muddy the tracks of errant VIPs for fear of being reprimanded or seeking promotion. The Police Chief tried to wipe the egg off the face of the entire service by ordering a layered inquiry—an investigation within the police investigation. They seem to have sacrificed the policemen who bungled the inquiry into the accident.

But what of the mud of criticism that will stick to the ruling party whose ‘holier than thou’ image is difficult to live up to given that its members are, after all, human with human frailties? The recurring instances of refusing to take responsibility and professing their innocence while blaming everyone other than themselves are increasing, displaying a deficiency in political leadership.

Draft anti-terror law: Rule out abuse

The lesson here is that irrespective of whether constitutions, political or electoral systems or national security laws are debated and in question, the proof is equally in the skilled (legal) crafting of the pudding as in its eating (good implementation). Nations of the Global North, which had for long criticised Sri Lanka’s national security laws for being ‘draconian’, were, however, quick to pass legislation that far surpassed the severity of Sri Lanka’s PTA following the September 11 attacks in 2001 against the USA.

The US Patriot Act is a case in point, greatly expanding law enforcement and surveillance powers. ‘Extraordinary rendition’ of terror suspects and the practice of interrogation methods classified as torture, such as waterboarding, became not only normalised but also justified by US presidents and their lawyers after that. It was legal to seek out human ‘targets’ in other sovereign nations, without any by-your-leaves.

At home, the Government has gazetted a draft of a new anti-terror law. This is in pursuance of a promise to replace the PTA, which was a plank of the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) party’s election campaign in 2024.

It is encouraging that the draft replacement for the PTA has brought in ‘intentionally or knowingly provoking a state of terror’ as one component of the definition of an ‘offence of terrorism’. Less clear is another component of that offence which relates to ‘intimidating the public or any section of the public’. Questions will inevitably arise as to what ‘intimidation’ amounts to.

That intent is supposed to be read in conjunction with one or more acts that will cause a ‘consequence’, including, for example, ‘causing serious damage to any place of public use’. In addition, the offence of ‘terrorist publications’ raises apprehensions regarding the potential prosecution of media and journalists regardless of a ‘good faith’ defence that is provided but which will be a matter that will be decided only in court.

The primary concern with the PTA for decades has been the mechanical issuance of presidential detention orders and its abuse by state agents—in tandem with provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act—against journalists, trade unionists and dissenters, including poets and even comedians.

Earlier, Emergency law had also been exploited for that same purpose: to crush peaceful dissent. The most recent attempt came in the wake of Cyclone Ditwah when the Deputy Minister of Public Security held forth to the police on the need to use newly promulgated Emergency Regulations to act against those criticising the President. That ‘advice’ was shrugged off by the President himself thereafter. But there seems to have been no reprimanding of the Deputy Minister. The fact that this threat emanated from within the Government ranks raises questions as to the multiple contradictory voices heard and the multiple confusing signals that are being passed, with the omnipresent temptation to abuse such a requisite law.