Quantcast
Channel: Malinda Words
Viewing all 2513 articles
Browse latest View live

A non-political citizenry for a no-politician democracy

$
0
0
"The most radical idea at this political moment could very well be the notion of a no-politician citizenry, i.e. a movement of the people, by the people, for the people, with or without the state." 

දේශපාලනයේ 'අපි'කව්රුද?

Tilak Disanayake and Hilmy Sally who describe themselves as ‘design engineers and concerned citizens’ have proposed a concept which they call ‘No politician democracy (NPD)’ (see ‘No politician democracy’ in the Daily FT, June 14, 2017).  It is a blueprint (in the making) of a new Sri Lanka which will be, in their words, ‘unitary, secular and sustainable, and will have a thriving, inclusive economy affording opportunities for all its people regardless of gender, race, age, religion, caste or sexual orientation.’

Ask any politician or anyone else for that matter and very few if at all would object to residency in such a republic.  Tilak and Hilmy have promised to detail the ‘how to get there’ of all this shortly and I await eagerly what promises in the very least to be a good read.  They have hinted that their ‘plan’ can come into force if 151 Members of Parliament purchase it.  Given the enormous benefits that politicians have reaped and continue to enjoy one might think it is a hard sell, but this engineering duo believe that the benefits of change would outweigh the costs and the said MPs would be ‘swung’.   

That the country requires radical change is a no-brainer.  That it is urgent is clear.  And yet, for all the need and all the ‘blueprints, the resilience of the institutional arrangement and the current political culture is certainly formidable.  

Lying politicians are certainly responsible for sabotaging the reform agenda that they themselves pledged to implement, but theirs is essentially a part role.  There are structural factors that stand in the way.   

This obviously pleases the politicians who were never serious about reform for they can always blame it on the system (when they are not blaming everything on the Rajapaksas that is).  It won’t be easy to convince 151 MPs because easy money is a happier prospect that hard-earned money.  The carrot called ‘freedom from prosecution’ may look delicious but it will nevertheless be compared to the infinitely more delicious goodies that arrive from tenaciously defending a system that does not prosecute.  

The issue perhaps is about how deeply embedded the individual MP is in this corrupt system. We have to understand that some have invested heavily in all this and those who haven’t secured adequate returns will not feel the prosecution-free pull.  

That’s only part of the problem.  When Dullas Alahapperuma decided not to contest the 2001 General Election he offered the following reason: ‘We [I] are [am] too white; there are too many brown people and their brownness is most evidenced when there is a white contrast.’  He has a valid point that has outlived his political ‘whiteness’.  The more serious issue is that we don’t really have a white (or ‘clean’) citizenry.  In that sense perhaps we do have a decent enough  ‘representative democracy’ and this is something we need to recognize.

Our NPD advocates acknowledge this pervading ‘brownness”:  

The mostly dishonest, incompetent politicians (and their parties) that we elect via easily manipulated polls have ruined the country over the past 69 years.  And we the people have been complicit by electing them.’  

If 151 MPs stand up for NPD it would not be a revolution, it would be a coup.  Given that such a coup would immediately get us a different constitution it could revolutionize the system of governance and pave the way for transparent and efficient institutional arrangements and processes. I am sure that there are many people who would share the vision for Sri Lanka that Tilak and Hilmy have outlined.  They probably have shared their thoughts with movers and shakers.  Perhaps they have even won some of them over and who knows, even convinced some MPs.  Perhaps they could do with some help from below.  

The history of social transformation demonstrates that given certain objective conditions what is required is not a citizens’ majority.  We don’t need, happily, ‘two-thirds plus one’ of ‘the people’.  A critical mass is what is required.  An organized critical mass, one might add, or at least a number of people/groups who although they may not work together are in concert in the matter of action.  

The proposition is mouth-watering given what we’ve had for so many decades.  A ‘no politician democracy’ is a cry that rises from everything vile that politician, political party and politics denotes.   

We are, as Tilak and Hilmy imply, a ‘serial monarchy.’  A republic without meaningful citizenship, a population that is not also a citizenry.  

And yet, it is not that ‘the people’ have not counted.  They have stood up, they have challenged, and they have died. Those who say that independence was won without a drop of blood being shed are ignorant of all that has happened from 1815 to 1948 (and that’s only if we count the British period).  We have seen flashes of the kind of citizenship that Tilak and Hilmy probably envisage, but in non-political terms, especially in times of tragedy.  

It is of course not easy to mobilize the energy, capacity, tenacity and attitude demonstrated in such situation for what is essentially a political project, even though the objective is a no-politician democracy.  This does not mean that it should not be attempted.  

The most radical idea at this political moment could very well be the notion of a no-politician citizenry, i.e. a movement of the people, by the people, for the people, with or without the state.  

Anarchy?  It may look like that, but perhaps such a tendency would be the ‘stick’ that would force those critical 151 individuals in Parliament to take the carrots offered by Tilak and Hilmy.  

They’ve set a ball of ideas rolling, these two.  It’s a big object and one that requires more than 4 hands to keep it going in the right direction.  There’s a lot of space on that surface for many more hands.  One thing is certain:  established political parties and professional politicians are unlikely to lend their weight. 

See also:


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Blog: malindawords.blogspot.com. Twitter: malindasene

The small problem of the big parties

$
0
0

How many times have we heard that there’s no room for any third party in Sri Lankan politics?  ‘Third party’ as in an entity other than the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the United National Party or else coalitions led by one of both.  True, parties with extremely modest strength have on many an occasion effected change, played king-maker and even been part of governments; but always, always, it has been either the UNP or the SLFP that has dominated.  Withdrawal of support or threats of support-withdrawal have often made the particular ‘big party’ in power jittery but invariably the dominant partner has prevailed or else the bringing down of the particular government has resulted in the other ‘big party’ moving in.  

These parties are resilient, no doubt.  Both have on occasion been condemned to the dustbin of history.   Interestingly, the United National Party which has not captured absolute power (Kumaratunge was President when the UNP ruled from 2001-2004 and Maithripala Sirisena is the chief executive now, both individuals leading the SLFP) in 23 years and having been associated with this ‘dustbin,’ making a veiled reference to the Joint Opposition talked about ‘political forces relegated to the dustbin of history’ just the other day.  They are resilient; this has to be acknowledged.

Are they invincible, though?  First of all the notion of invincibility rebels against the well known dictum, ‘all things are transient’.  All things (people, collectives, geographical boundaries and even ideas) are born, suffer decay and perish.  Sooner or later.  The UNP and SLFP are old.  They were formed before most people in Sri Lanka were born.  It is natural then to mistake longevity for immortality.  

We must not forget, however, that the SLFP of Bandaranaike was not the SLFP of his daughter and certainly not the SLFP of Mahinda Rajapaksa or Maithripala Sirisena. The same goes for the UNP.  Ranil Wickremesinghe is certainly not a D.S. Senanayake.  

And of course the country has changed.  The economy has changed.  We have less forest cover. Development priorities have changed as too the thinking on development.  Even the name has changed.  

And yet, we have these two parties.  The older left made its run and one might say squandered excellent chances.   The not-so-young-anymore left tried armed insurrection and thereafter electoral politics but is still nowhere near capturing power.  As Chiranjaya Nanayakkara observed at a rally supporting the United Socialist Alliance presidential candidate in 1988, Ossie Abeygunasekara, ‘the left has helped these two parties into power and helped them out of power’.  The wish, at the time, was for a Left that could stand on its own.  Well, that has not happened and one could attribute this to being out of touch with reality, ideological and political errors or something else.  The fact remains that ‘The Left’ has always been a weak factor in the political equation, at best a wrecker (the JVP in 1971 and 1988-89 for example) or a prop to one of the two major parties.  

Communalist parties have played roles similar to those played by the JVP and it’s fellow old-left parties such as as the CP and LSSP — critical in presidential elections and in general elections where the major parties don’t get clear majorities.  They are less amenable to inclusion in the ‘possible alternative’ category for sheer demographic reasons.  

So on the face of it, regardless of trasience-truisms, on the face of it we have this phenomenon of  the major political parties as permanent fixtures with one or the other always in power.  

Given their track records it is legitimate for anyone to feel despondent.  However, despondency is a close relative of ‘disillusionment’.  There’s where there’s hope.  

The gut reaction could be (and has been) to look to a different party.  This is why other parties get some votes. However, we cannot escape the sobering fact that even at its best showing even the JVP got only 5% or thereabouts of the total votes.  There were more votes spoiled than the amount the JVP secured.  The non-voters also outnumbered the JVP vote.  

What happens, then, is what has been described as the default-option factor.  People are voted out of power rather than being voted into power, typically.  The proponents of this method use the easy (and erroneous) line ‘first things first, we have to get this lot out!’  But politics is not something that begins when Parliament is dissolved or a Presidential Election called.  It does not end when the Elections Commissioner announces the result.  

In the understanding of the political that is longer, i.e. goes beyond ‘elections,’  political parties have failed the people and more worryingly, the people have failed themselves.  If, for example, people abandoned political parties, they sink.  

More importantly, if the idea of political parties was dropped, people win.  They recover some semblance of self respect and dignity.  Since representation is a myth and since what transpires in parliamentary politics is less representation than mis-representation, such an eventuality can only enhance the worth of the citizen.  

So how does this work or rather how can it be made to work?  First, we need to draw a lesson from the fact that exchanging a sooty pot for a sooty kettle still leaves us defaced with soot.  We have as a voting population dirtied our hands by raising them to vote one set of incompetent rogues into power in order to defeat another set of incompetent rogues.  We have to therefore get political parties out of our heads because ‘political parties’ is like a pet parrot, a pet rabbit, a pet puppy or kitten that we love and feed in our minds.  Unless we stop cuddling and taking care of the notion of ‘political parties’ we really don’t have a moral right to take issue with the dominant mode of politics.  

There’s a lesson to be learned from France too.  A coalition led by President Emmanuel Macron’s one year old party ‘La République en Marche (Republic on the Move, or REM)’, won the parliamentary election.   A 42% voter turn out prompted the leader of the party ‘France Unbowed,’ Jean-Luc Mélenchon to observe that the French had ‘entered a form of civil general strike.’  Of course REM is a party but perhaps we can see that tendency as a positive development against the tyranny of ‘big parties’ (and of course their small-party enablers).  What Mélenchon has missed is that when you add the number of those who did not vote to those who did vote for REM, the rejection of the ‘here forever’ political parties is astounding. 


Invincibility of a single political party is a lie and is recognized as such.  The invincibility of ‘political PARTIES’ is a myth that is yet to be acknowledged.  That’s not the fault of the political parties.  We can be a ‘republic on the march’ and certainly not one that sees Macron and REM as heroes for anything other than debunking the French version of invincibility.  

We can be a republic on the march only if we recognize that recovering the republic has to happen first and that nothing inhibits such recovery than the stubborn refusal to evict ‘political parties’ from our minds.

Legitimacy of the coercive power

$
0
0

Protests are part and parcel of a healthy democracy.  Another crucial element of a functioning democracy is the Rule of Law which includes legal protections, enforcement where necessary and recourse to the courts in the event of perceived infringement of rights.  So we have the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the state to attend to these things.  Where there is failure, therefore, we must first and foremost look to the faults of the system or the errors of those paid and/or mandated to keep the system functioning.  

The detractors of the government, especially the Opposition, naturally point out flaws and errors.  There is exaggeration in this exercise and also the typical political blindness to flaws created or ignored when in power and of course the errors. That’s politics.  President Sirisena was part of the previous government, so he can’t point fingers.  There are others in this government who were like him key members of that government.  They don’t have the moral authority either.  As for those who were then in the Opposition, well they also governed this country.  They can’t complain about selectivity.  

In any case, this government pledged to correct these wrongs.  Their competence has been reduced to periodic laments about the legacy that the Rajapaksas bequeathed upon them.  If, as key members of this regime whisper, the Rajapaksas have been condemned to the dustbin of history, it seems that this is a government of scavengers.  

Forget the Opposition and its traditional role of criticizing anything and everything; there are people who supported President Sirisena and the United National Party who are using descriptives that actually echo the Opposition.  They criticize the government for indecisiveness, vacillation and policy paralysis.  That’s my fellow columnist Ranga Jayasuriya, by the way.  

In an article titled “Protests and strikes: What would MR have done if he was in power?” where he also throws in names such as Augusto Pinochet and Deng Xiaoping, Ranga Jayasuriya argues that whether or not they are ideal types (in terms of being democrats) “leaders have to take tough decisions if they are to truly serve the long term interests of their people”.   This side of white-vanning, he interjects.  

Ranga proposes that where it is mandated  [the Government] should make use of legitimate coercive power of the State to make its future vision for the country a reality.  ‘Legitimate coercive power’ is a problematic term.  From where is legitimacy obtained?  What kind of legitimacy flows from mandates when one also uses terms such as policy paralysis, indecision and vacillation (to which of course we have to add incompetence and corruption)?    

Gazetting the Development Lotteries Board under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is enough to stop all talk of competence. That word cannot be used to describe this Government any longer.  Nepotism is thriving under this Government.  

There was a Facebook post recently that puts the issue of corruption in perspective: if you want to rob, go for the big bucks and make sure you tie a politician to your project.  Big bucks were made in the Central Bank bond issue scam.  Politicians are implicated.  Good governance has been observed in the breach.  Time and again.

If this is the case, what moral right does this government have to use coercion on anyone?  Cracking down on protests has boiled down to political survival.  Nothing else.  Today there are protests to protest the use of force on protestors.  We have seen discussions being followed by petitions and petitions being replaced by boycotting of lectures.  There have been other discussions, more protests and a general escalation.  When someone says ‘the students will have to resort to armed struggle’ it is not advocacy but a common-sense prediction.  Of course the protestors are not gaining any moral high ground by breaking the law.  They have damaged public property and they have intimidated journalists.  These are and have to be read as signs of desperation and cannot be be pooh-poohed as international conspiracies, the result of incitement by those condemned to political dustbins and such.  

What is worrying is the likelihood (given political history) that this is the one scenario that the government needs at this point, i.e. the ‘need’ to coerce.  

This is what the eighties were all about: the July 1980 strike and the crackdown on trade unions, the intimidation of the Opposition and rigging of two key elections in 1982, a look-the-other-way approach compounded by unleashing the union of the ruling party on Tamils in 1983, the shooting of two students in 1984 and other such moves sent agitation underground.  When J R Jayewardene capitulated to Rajiv Gandhi is July 1987, the ideal conditions were created for an insurrection.  That Government survived.  The cost to the UNP was deadly, literally.  And we know how the country and the citizens suffered. 

The crisis here is legitimacy.  That which took Mahinda Rajapaksa almost 10 years to lose, this Government started losing in the very first week after Maithripala Sirisena was elected President.  The rate of losing ground increased before the much talked of ‘100 Days’ was over.   The Government has two options.  It must go before the people for a fresh mandate even in the form of the delayed local government elections.  It can also talk of “legitimate coercive power of the state’.  That however involves the acknowledgment that the good governance rhetoric was a cheap lie.  Moreover, few will buy the ‘legitimacy’ claim.    

We are at a critical political junction.  There are vultures in the middle and vultures approaching the middle.  No prizes for guessing the inevitable prey: the people.  


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com. Blog: malindawords.blogspot.com. Twitter: malindasene.



No government in the country or no country in the government?

$
0
0

The Mahanayaka Theras of three Nikayas and other Sangha Sabhas, expressing their opinion on constitutional reform, have made it clear that they are opposed to moves "that could generate crises".  

While calling for immediate electoral reform, this Sangha Council headed by the Mahanayaka Theras that met in Kandy recently has urged that the ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (“Convention on Enforced Disappearances” henceforth) through a bill in Parliament be postponed in order to give parliamentarians more time to study the same.  They have also asked that a special committee be appointed to look into the grievances of Buddhists with regard to religion and culture in the context of ‘prevailing racial and religious unrest’, pointing out also that religious places of archaeological importance should be protected.  Finally, they’ve called for  speedy resolution to the ‘SAITM crisis’.  

Let’s focus on constitutional reform.  Constitutional reform is a serious matter and demands sober reflection on proposals followed by intelligent debate among law-makers, ideally complemented by public discussion on the relevant subject.  That has not been the tradition in Sri Lanka, unfortunately.  

The 13th Amendment, following the Indo-Lanka Accord was introduced in part while the people were kept in the dark about the contents.  Just before the United National Party lost the two-thirds parliamentary edged secured through the shameful Referendum of 1982, the government led by that party muscled in several partisan amendments.  Mahinda Rajapaksa bulldozed through Parliament with the 18th Amendment.  

Even the relatively progressive 17th and 19th Amendments were hardly debated, the former perhaps due to the parivasa circumstances that birthed it and the latter probably because the President wanted certain powers retained and the parliamentarians wanted sway in appointments to the independent commissions.  

This partisan history naturally raises doubts over clarity and intention.  The case for reform has certainly not been helped by vicious and vindictive way in which this administration has gone after military personnel accused of numerous violation even as it has mollycoddled known terrorists and has bent over backwards to please the political and administrative ‘near and dear’ of the LTTE.  

The Mahanayaka Theras, then, are expressing a set of concerns that many nationalists groups have raised.  The concerns are legitimate for other reasons too.  

Those who have backed bills such as this have at times also called for federalism, have demanded that the LTTE be given parity of status, bemoaned the military offensive against the LTTE (even though the LTTE was holding hundreds of thousands of Tamils hostage) and have been marked by a manifest and rabid anti-Buddhist rhetoric. 

However, what mostly strengthens the argument for caution in constitutional reform is the sloth, arrogance and mal-intent demonstrated by this government on this subject.  We already mentioned the 19th Amendment.  It was designed to keep the cabinet inflated through the dubious clause called ‘national government’.  It made the ‘independence’ of independent commissions a joke.  And quite in contrast to solemn campaign pledges, it left the executive presidency pretty much intact.  Even today with a single and modest tweak, the President can turn the political equation upside down.  That ‘privilege’ tells us how much ‘reform’ was deemed ‘enough’ by the reformers.  To the detriment of the citizen of course.

Then there is the zero-action on electoral reform.  This, by the way, is what gives legitimacy to the declaration by the Mahanayakas.  In April 2015, the President vowed to supporters of his party gathered at Vihara Maha Devi Park that he will see election reform through.  It’s more than two years now.  There isn’t even a murmur on this subject.  

Local government elections keep getting postponed for reasons that cannot be denied — this regime is scared to open itself to assessment by the people and each passing day the fear increases.  

The only security (in a relative sense) that parliamentarians have in terms of their political future, under these circumstances, is the very proportional representation system that electoral reform was supposed to do away with or at least amend.  

The Government should, logically and morally, first deliver on promises made to the people of this country before ratifying through legislation international protocols or conventions it has seen fit to endorse.   President Maithripala Sirisena has said ‘anyone watching TV [would] feel that there’s no government in the country.’  He is dismayed that ‘development activities, people's welfare, the peaceful situation in the country’ are not being covered.  

Well, all these claims can be contested and they have for good reasons too.  However the ‘no government in the country’ principally flows from the fact that this government seems answerable to unknown non-nationals and is deaf to the pleas of the citizens.  In other words, there’s no country in this government.  The Mahanayaka Theras’ plea, one could read, is one which argues for the re-inclusion of nation in this government. A tall order at this point, one might say, but then again this is what might give longevity and relevance to this regime.  


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene

The true meaning of ‘Disce Aut Discede’

$
0
0
[A tribute to Lanil Kalubowila]


The first time I heard the words ‘Disce aut Discede’ not only did I not know what they meant, the fact of my ignorance did not bother me one bit.  The truth is, I didn’t understand most of the words among which these three Latin words were couched. I heard people sing the college song at the Royal-Thomian, I read the lyrics in the Royal College souvenir published to commemorate the occasion, but I didn’t understand.  

I assumed it was English partly because there were many English words that I recognized and partly because I didn’t know that there was a language called Latin or that languages could be mixed.  I knew more about cricket than about the intricacies of language use.  I had heard the word ‘out’ associated with cricket and when faithfully recording the ‘results’ of book cricket played with my brother, I remember writing ‘all aut’ at the end of the innings before adding up the scores of the batsmen and the extras.  

I don’t know when knowledge came to me, but I believe that it took all of us a while to figure out what was what about that which was Latin in the language called English which was quite Greek for many of us.  Most of us learned the college song at the Royal-Thomian.  In later years, the school’s public address system would play it every morning and I suppose that’s how young Royalists learn their school song these days.  

I don’t know when exactly or under what circumstances I learned that ‘Disce aut Discede’ was the motto of the school and that it meant ‘learn or depart’.  I am pretty sure that had I read it before hearing it, I would have butchered the pronunciation.   I did recognize the motto had been embedded in translation in a Sinhala school song (which was not really a translation of ‘School of our Fathers’).  It said උගනිව් නැත පිටවෙනු (‘uganiu netha pitavenu’), a fair enough translation of ‘learn or depart’.  And that’s what it always meant.  You are required to learn and if not it is recommended that you leave.  

Now ‘Disce Aut Discede’ does not belong to Royal College.  It is a common enough motto that many institutions of learned have adopted.   King’s School, Rochester, founded in 604 AD, has it, for example, although we really don’t know when this motto came to be associated with this school.  In Royal’s case, it is said that the motto was first mentioned “during the regime of Principal Todd (1871-1878) who constantly reminded the students that they must learn or get out.”  However, the stone engravings at the entrance to the main building, said to have been obtained from the original building of the school founded in 1835 and then called Colombo Academy, does carry the ‘Disce aut Discede’ legend.  

Knowledge comes slowly in these things. To begin with we didn’t know what a motto was and didn’t know we had one.  Then we found out that we had a motto but didn’t now what it meant.  Then we figured out what it meant or were made to learn the meaning by teachers or prefects.  And by and by we learned that Latin and English were two languages and that there were no native speakers of the former.  There were some Latin lines inscribed in the wall behind the stage in the college hall and some of us noticed them.  Some knew the words, some knew the pronunciation and a few knew the meaning of ‘Palmam qui meruit ferat’ (‘let whoever earns the palm bear it’ or ‘may the person who deserves the crown, wear it’ implying the probably more importantly 'if you don't deserve the crown, don't wear it!') and ‘Labor omnia vincit’ (‘work conquers all’).  ‘Disce aut Discede’ of course was positioned above all else in the matter of maxims picked by the early educationists.   

The motto is in the news these days and a lot is being made of a mispronunciation.  But if we really picked up something from that motto, I believe there’s very little to laugh about.  Let me explain.

Traditionally the Head of State was usually the Chief Guest at the school’s prize giving.  One year (I believe it was either in 1979 or in 1983), President J.R. Jayewardene made a reference to the motto during his speech.  Observing that one has to depart whether or not one learns, he expressed the hope that the relevant authorities would change the motto to ‘Disce et Discede’ (‘learn and depart’).  A batchmate of mine, Lanil Kalubowila, convinced me many years later that we had all got it wrong.  

Lanil was handling Human Resources at the Customs at the time and said that he had seen hundreds of mottos over the course of many years. 

“There were results sheets, leaving certificates and character certificates,” he explained.  

“I am not saying this because I went to Royal, but our motto is the best,” he continued.  

He had by that time gone beyond school and all other identifiers including ethnicity, religion and nation.  My friend Kanishka Goonewardena and I who had known Lanil for more than three decades knew he was being honest about lack of bias.

“There is only one thing that is of true worth in life and that is the acquisition of comprehension.  If you don’t want to ‘learn’ you might as well be dead; in fact you ARE dead.”

That’s what Lanil Kalubowila told us the last time we saw him, about three years ago.  ‘Disce Aut Discede’ is of course open to simple interpretation.  JRJ wasn’t wrong, if one were to take it literally.  But then again, words have multiple meanings and phrases can be read in many ways.  

I prefer Lanil’s interpretation which resonates well with some of the values we picked up during our schooldays and certain lessons, simple lessons, such as this: there’s no glory in ridiculing someone on account of ignorance or an error.  

Lanil Kalubowila departed not long thereafter, but not on account of a refusal to learn.  I like to think that he had gathered all that he could in this lifetime given circumstances that are tragic as well as heroic but which do not require elaboration.  He learned, he taught and he departed.  We learned and are still learning.  And among the things we are learning is that ‘Disce Aut Discede’ is no laughing matter (whether or not those who picked it among many possible mottos, were aware of all this) 

  






Let’s define “National Interest” as “A Sustainable Nation”

$
0
0

There’s a descriptive that was liberally used not too long ago to describe Sri Lanka: “failed state”.  Those who used that term not surprisingly were (at the time) ardent cheer-leaders of that 21st Century version of ‘White Man’s Burden,’ R2P (Responsibility to Protect).  The ‘failed state,’ managed to record a comprehensive victory over terrorism, free several hundred thousand citizens held hostage, put a halt to abduction and enforced conscription and made it possible for Tamil politicians to recover voice, dignity and citizenship.  These things didn’t count of course.

The plan was to use the failed-state thesis to legitimate intervention (of any kind) by global powers led by the USA and the EU to get rid of a regime these ladies and gentlemen loved to hate.  There was a hitch: the people of Sri Lanka didn’t buy into all that. Eventually they (the people) did it their way; not because of what such people did but in fact in spite of them. 

It was an easy term to throw around.  In fact such terms are useful for those who object to a given regime.  It is part of a game of vilification.  It misleads and even compromises legitimate objection on account of silliness,  pettiness and mischief-intent.   But let us not lock ourselves in the rhetorician’s tool cupboard.  Let us instead talk of our nation and its national interest, conceding of course that ‘national interest’ is also a close relative (in rhetorical sense) of ‘failed state’.  

We have to acknowledge that children are not safe in our country, that women are vulnerable, that we have agreed by consent or silence to be poisoned and inflicted with all kinds of diseases, and that we have opted for a development paradigm that yields serious natural disasters that destroy property and lives.

What kind of nation are we if we cannot protect our children from preventable horrors, if we allow our waterways and soils to be poisoned and if we destroy our forest cover?  How sustainable are we as a nation, if we consume more than we can afford, waste what we can reuse or recycle, and let a garbage problem literally erupt before our eyes?  Is this also not a nation with a constitution that does not protect the citizenry but in fact encourages wrongdoing, celebrates arrogance and ignorance, and shields the wrongdoer?  What kind of longevity can we reasonably expect as a society if the various communities living on this island treat each other with suspicion, feel insecure and vulnerable, and if their leaders privilege rhetoric and emotion over fact and reason?  

What kind of nation are we if ‘sustainability’ (in practice) is about the continued exploitation of the poor, the humiliation of the weak, the fixation with moment, the non-factoring of future in strategy and implementation, and the pursuit of and indulgence in pampered lifestyles that cost among other things, the environment that is common to all citizens?  Why is it that crisis of one kind or another is portrayed as an anomaly and not symptom of system failure? Why does it seem that politicians need crises for its distracting potential, the one making us forget the one that came before only to be erased from recollection by the one that follows?  
Children. Water. Trees.  We could reduce it all to these three factors.  If we want to go further, we can factor in ‘the health of 4 generations down the line’.  

We can also have a timeline with specific targets such as ’30% of agriculture to be organic by such and such a date’ with that percentage going up by specific degrees in specified time periods. We could do this for renewable energy.  But all this requires holistic approaches when formulating economic and social policies.  We can keep the concept of ‘growth’ but we must ensure that it is the servant of sustainability.

A sustainable nation will be a political and social collective that does not leave anyone behind.  It will see difference as something natural and not as an aberration or threat.  It will see people standing without fear within slapping distance because that is the very distance that makes for embrace.  

A sustainable nation will put out new branches, push itself upwards and seek the cross-pollination offered by all the winds from all the directions, but it will also take care of its roots which, if severed, means death.  A sustainable nation will appreciate history, learning from both the glory and the ignominy, and will have space for each generation to write its own chapter.

A sustainable nation will recognize failure and even as it does will look for solutions.   The true question then is not whether Sri Lanka is/was a failed state but whether or not it is a sustainable nation.  If the answer is ‘it is not’ then the only relevant political question is ‘how do we make Sri Lanka a sustainable nation on all counts?’  


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com

Re-size cabinet to specified subjects in the national interest

$
0
0
Elections are fought over all kinds of issues.  The winners typically secure the rights to interpret mandate.  “This election was about A, B, C or D,” they would say and often give their own interpretation of A, B, C and D, amending the same as per prerogatives of the particular political moment.  

If you were to ask 10 random people what would be the key issue in 2020 would be, you would get more than a single answer, most likely.  Give the same 10 people a list of ten key issues and ask them to pick three and you would probably get many combinations.  Theoretically, if one were to conduct a survey of a decent sample of the electorate, it is possible to figure out what could reasonably be expected to capture the imagination of the voter. In other words, the issue that matters most to the majority or the set of issues that get their goat, so to say.    Put it all in one sentence and bingo!  

So it’s not about ideology, the commitment to doing the right thing, designing the ideal society etc., etc.  It is typically about capturing (or retaining) power.  They won’t tell you that, though.  They will boil it down to something that sounds nice and makes you feel good.  Like dharmista samaajaya (which J.R. Jayewardene’s UNP translated as ‘A just and free society’) or yahapalanaya (Good governance).  Sure, the wheels come off sooner rather than later, but hey, that does not worry the winners because the primary objective has been achieved.  Yes, winning.  

What is so attractive about power, one might ask.  Well, it could be ego; some people like to feel important.  They might get their kicks ordering people around, altering structures, changing processes etc., never mind if it’s for the good or bad, whether it is sustainable or not.  Then there’s the profit motive.   

There’s bucks in politics and we need not labour the point.  

Good governance was meant to correct system-flaws and thereby checkmate those who are in politics for profit.  The Yahapaalanists, it is abundantly clear now, were never interested in yahapaalanaya and have demonstrated that they are not even capable of palanaya (governance), forget the yaha (good) of it.  The generous view would be that they had the heart in the right place but just don’t have the head for such things.  Maybe they knew the word but didn’t know what it meant.  At any rate, we can safely conclude that the word and the idea was not what mattered to the majority in January 2015, but the need to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa.  

This does not mean that we don’t need yahapalanaya (the concept, that is, and not the political formation that claimed copyrights to the term and eventually turned it into a cuss word).  it does not mean that we must continue to suffer egotists and racketeers.  We need good (or at least ‘better’) governance.  And we need to reduce drastically the size of the cabinet.  

Cabinet-size was an issue.  It was always an issue.  Why is it an issue?  Well, the arguments against bloated cabinets has mostly been about the burden on the taxpayer, but it is also about inefficiency flowing from redundancy, lack of clarity and the compromising of streamlining.  Again, we need not labour the point beyond saying ‘think “external affairs” and “Development Lotteries Board”.’  

There is also the problem of ‘executive feel’ if you want to call it that.  We have a political culture where even a member of a local government body believes he or she has executive power.  Parliamentarians see themselves not as lawmakers but as executors.  Just imagine how ministers see themselves!  This is why crossovers are about portfolios.  This is why those clamoring for ministerial posts have argued that regions (provinces and districts), castes, religious affiliation, political parties (in the case of a coalition) and ethnicities etc should be represented in cabinet! Yes, ‘gender’ doesn’t figure as prominently in post-election agitation for portfolios.  

These are political realities.  The logic of parliamentary arithmetic counts, we are told.  A majority has to be cobbled together, it is argued by way of explaining bloated cabinets and institutional distribution that defies all logic.  

So, yes, there is sense in the call for constitutional amendment to set a ceiling on the number of cabinet portfolios.  The 19th had the words but had additional words that made the relevant words irrelevant; the ‘additional words’ being ‘national government’.  What was meant to be limited to 30 is now over 50.  The ceiling was removed, in effect.  

To get back to the issue of ‘election issues,’ if cabinet size and all the attendant ills were to be revisited (as they should) then we have to bring back the discussion on limits.  But would that be enough, is the question that also needs to be asked.  The answer is ‘no’.  What can effectively make parliament an uninviting place for would-be racketeers and people with inflated egos would be to legislate a specific cabinet-size and most importantly to name the relevant subjects.  

In May 2014, Narendra Singh Modi named a 23-member cabinet, the smallest in India since Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s 21 member cabinet of 1998.  The first cabinet of independent Ceylon had 18 members.  Theoretically, some of the subjects of that cabinet (and of course the Indian cabinet of Prime Minister Modi) could be collapsed.  It is possible to reduce the number to 10 or even less.  

What would this do?  It would mean (assuming there are, let’s say, just 10 ministries) that 214 MPs in Parliament would have no portfolios and would be forced to do what they are supposed to do (on paper): legislate.  No ministries, no special budgetary allocations for individual MPs, and we won’t have legislators thinking and acting as executives.  Of course all candidates would aspire (given the current political culture and the big egos that are unfortunately inevitable appendages of candidates) to become cabinet ministers if the particular party wins the election, but we can reasonably expect the overall number to decline over time.  Legislative competence or potential could become a factor in an election once again.  

Does all this resonate with the electorate?  If not, could the electorate be convinced of the importance of a limited cabinet with specific subjects written into the constitution?  Would it be a hard sell?  We don’t know.  However, if elections, democracy and politics is about a conversation and about ideas and the testing of their worth, then perhaps it is not something to be ignored.  
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene.

Laughing at Dayasiri or ourselves?

$
0
0

On Wednesday evening at Sooriya Village, while speaking on relationship-education, vulnerabilities of children, especially girls, in cyber space, what can be done, what is being done and what should be done, Hans Billimoria asked a question from the audience.  ‘Did you get Sanath’s video?’  He pointed to several men and each of them said ‘yes’.  He went on to talk about consent.  Respect.  Knowledge.  
Had Hans asked ‘Did you get Dayasiri’s video?’ or else ‘Did you get that disce amuta disce discarde video?’ the chances are that everyone would have said ‘yes’.  I am pretty sure that Hans could have then proceeded to talk of hypocrisy, arrogance, ignorance, elitism and misplaced notions of self-image.  If he wanted to.   

Salivation.  That’s what it is all about. In both instances.  There’s nothing to dissect in the eyes-wide-open, jaw-dropping, tongue-hanging-out thrills sought by whoever it was that posted the first video and of course whoever passed it around.  The Dayasiri video is different.  That’s Dayasiri Jayasekera, Minister of Sports.  

Dayasiri mispronounced the Latin in the Royal College motto.  He also dropped the ‘Esto’ of the Thomian motto ‘Esto Perpetua’.  He stumbled.  He struggled.  He was reading a prepared text and perhaps the Latin parts were written in Sinhala.  Maybe there was a typo.  Maybe it was hand-written and maybe poor handwriting was what made the Minister of Sports struggle the way he did.    

It’s all over social media.  And it has generated a lot of comment.  ‘He should have made sure of the pronunciation,’ is a point many have made.  True.  As a public figure and one with quite a few years of experience, he should have known better.  ‘He could have spoken in Sinhala!’ some have observed wistfully.  Should have, under the circumstances.  Then of course there are those who are tickled to death by the whole affair.  

They laugh at Dayasiri’s mispronunciation.  They ridicule his ‘poor English’ (what’s ‘rich English’ by the way?).  Some even claim that the missteps, the struggles, the language-butchering and being unprepared are all indicative of general incompetence.  

Who are we laughing at, really?  Did those who laugh at Dayasiri on account of him not doing his homework, also laugh when other politicians messed up?  Did they laugh at Mahinda’s gaffes and pretend they didn’t hear Ranil’s howlers and vice versa as per the ‘prerogatives’ of political loyalty?  Is it only language-related screw-ups that they laugh at?  I mean, when it comes to politicians jumping the gun, dropping bricks and murdering the queen, do we laugh out loud for certain gaffes, polite cough at others and feign deafness at yet others?  

Dayasiri was tripped by pronunciation.  It was not Sinhala.  It was not English.  It was Latin, a dead language!  Around the same time Ranil Wickremesinghe talked about an ඉරටු තියෙන කොස්ස (literally ‘a broom made with coconut husks but [also] with ekels).  He should have said ඉදල (ekel-broom). Dayasiri’s error was mild in comparison.  But Dayasiri continues to be ridiculed, while the Prime Minister’s obvious unfamiliarity with the Sinhala language hasn’t prompted much comment. 

Are all those who laughed and/or still laughs at Dayasiri perfect in their English and in their Latin?  Does it make those who are good in English feel better when someone shows language incompetence?  Is English synonymous with ‘smart,’ ‘wise,’ ‘clever,’ etc for such people?  

Is English-acquisition a defining and important feel-good factor in their lives and is it this that is being affirmed in a roundabout way by Dayasiri’s little word-trip?  Is this a fallout of Puswedilla or is Puswedilla a product of all this or rather a piggybacking on this elitist language trip?  Is it just that psychological hangup that makes some people call others godayas or yakkhos or, in recent times, bayyas?   Is it a chip on the shoulder that prompts people to laugh at and ridicule mispronunciation, perhaps because they believe that mimicking the elite in this way would give them access to elite clubs?  

In the mid 1970s, I listened to a talk given by my father, Gamini Seneviratne, at an event organized by an organization of English teachers.  He was asked to speak on ‘The language of administration’.  I remember him mentioning the Dutch, the Portuguese and British and the languages these colonial powers used in administering the island.  His argument was that it is best to use the language of the people in the matter of administration.  During the Q&A session a lady asked a question. I can’t remember the question, but I still remember her interjecting something that seemed strange to me then but which I later understood was a product of a common malady among English speakers in Sri Lanka.  She caveated her question with the following: ‘We, the elite.”  I remember my father brushing her off with what can only be described as kindness: “If that’s your self-image, there’s nothing I can say.”  

I also remember my father giving a lift to English language educationist Douglas Walatara, who said with good humor, ‘I don’t think you really believe what you said Gamini.’  ‘I do,’ my father said quietly.  

Self-image is the big story that’s missing in the splash over Dayasiri mispronouncing Disce aut Discede.  And it is about two sets of people: those who think they are ‘elite’ (on account of English competency) and those who think they could get membership to elitist circles by a) laughing at those who mispronounce, and b) taking issue with the ‘Sinhala Buddhist Other’ that is the bugbear of English-speaking ‘elites’ at every possible turn.  


A lot of people would have smirked when Sanath’s video was released.  They were, in liking and sharing, disrespecting themselves.  There are many who laughed when Dayasiri slipped.  The truth is that Dayasiri just missed a step; those who laughed didn’t realize that they had been floored long before Dayasiri took the mic.  And in the end, they all laughed at themselves, Kumar De Silva was spot on when he made this observation a couple of days later.  Dayasiri was Dayasiri.  Those who laughed at him appear to have some problem who who they really are. 

See also:  The true meaning of "Disce aut Discede"

O Zorro, Zorro, wherefore art thou Zorro?

$
0
0
There’s a singular vacancy in this country, according to some.  Ranil Amirtthiah of the popular local band ‘Black,’ whenever he speaks and in whatever forum he chooses to do so, is often poetic but sometimes he flushes subtlety down the tube.  He says it straight from the heart, always.  This is clearly evident in a vacancy ad he posted a few hours ago.  

Post: Sri Lankan ZORRO. Area of work: Colombo and suburbs. Job description: to terrorize those "selfish Essential service blackmailers", whip them and show them the righteous path of service to the nation. Salary: the entire nations gratitude.

For those who may not be familiar with the name and legend, here’s a wiki-intro:  

Zorro (Spanish for "fox") is the secret identity of Don Diego de la Vega, a fictional character created in 1919 by pulp writer Johnston McCulley. He is a Californian nobleman living in Los Angeles during the era of Mexican rule (between 1821 and 1846),[1] although some movie adaptations of Zorro's story have placed him during the earlier Spanish rule.  The character has undergone changes through the years, but the typical image of him is a dashing black-clad masked outlaw who defends the commoners and indigenous peoples of the land against tyrannical officials and other villains. Not only is he too cunning and foxlike for the bumbling authorities to catch, but he also delights in publicly humiliating them.

Ranil was of course referring to the current strike by Ceylon Petroleum Corporation workers which is inconveniencing a lot of people, especially those who own vehicles.  ‘Throw them out,’ is a call that has gathered momentum with respect to striking workers.  It is a call that has found some currency in certain circles with respect to striking doctors as well.  

Not all the objectors to strikes are regime-defenders, let us acknowledge this first up.  It is about inconvenience and it is about outrage; anger about services considered to be ‘essential’.  Let us also remember that many of those who are today saluting the Government for ‘sending in the Army’ were chest-beating moral-high-horse objectors when the previous regime opted for such strategies.  One might bet that should the petroleum workers resist and resistance was met with force leading to two or three or more being killed, the very same people who cried with horror over the Rathupaswala killings would say ‘the hooligans deserved it!’  

Yes, it is a story about political loyalties and the moralizing doesn’t quite hide the fact.  The more honest among the advocates of force have demonstrated some nostalgia for the preferred opposition-quelling methods of the previous regime (sans white vans, the advocates hastily add).  That tells a story. 

Let’s ignore the political colour of all this.  Let us focus on the scenario sans loyalty.  It boils down to hope or versions of the same hope: a (benevolent) dictator.  Not too many people are stopping in their tracks to ask themselves, ‘wait a minute, wasn’t yahapalanaya (good governance) about better systems and not about personalities?’  

Ranil has not spelled out ‘dictator’.  He has instead called for a hero who will dash in, whip the pants off the rascals, offer infinite relief to long-suffering citizens and dash out. Just like that! 

Now one could argue that this ‘Zorro-Option’ need not be unleashed only on striking workers but on all those who err including politicians and everyone benefiting from or supporting a system that is flawed, makes for the making of dictators and containing all kinds of loopholes for theft and the escape of thieves.   The problem is that is focuses on individuals and not systems.  

If our hero, as he rides into the proverbial sunset, deigns to look back, he will no doubt find a flawed system more or less intact.   

Here’s another FB post that gives perspective: 1) No petrol in the sheds, 2) Doctors on strike, 3) When they are not on strike there is still a dearth of medicines, 4) People are dying daily from Dengue, 5) There is no proper solid waste disposal system, 6) The forests are being cut down but the President proudly says the Environmental Ministry is under him, 7) There is cocaine instead of regular retail goods in SATHOSA containers, 8) When a politician is found guilty of wrongdoing he is fined Rs 2000.00, 9) The failed Uma Oya Project is rendering people homeless, 10) The Parliament approves leasing of Hambantota Harbor to China.  So much more can be added to this.  For example, the ‘logic’ of lumping lotteries with foreign affairs, and of course the hilarious case of the continued pampering of those implicated in the Central Bank bond issue scam.  The question is, can one Zorro clean it all up?  How many Zorros would we need, to put it another way?

A better leader or better leadership would go a long way in curing the country of at least some of these ills, one could argue.  This is why there are some who call not for a Zorro but for a Gota (that’s Gotabhaya Rajapaksa).  Yes, the term ‘benevolent dictator’ is often used when this ‘option’ is discussed.  It’s a hope, obviously and as is typical not a hope that can be obtained from track-record.  However, we have to recognize the fact that one individual is not a front.  

One Zorro might make for cheers and some relief, but adventurers, Robin Hoods, brigands and troubadours, romantic as they obviously are, have seldom changed systems or altered the course of history. 

At best they offer or make a name or a political moment respectively to a process of system-change already in motion.  In the terms of the political scientist, they give a name to a moment when objective preconditions mature to the point of significant social upheaval.  

This is why we need to debate individual heroes versus collective effort.  Bertold Brecht in “Leben des Galilei” (Life of Galileo) elaborated on this ‘Zorror Wish.’  Andrea Sarti tells the would-be Zorro, i.e. Galileo Galilei, “Unhappy is the land that has no hero.” And Galileo Zorro, if you will, responds, “No, Andrea; unhappy is the land that needs a hero.” 

Of course we can call for ‘Zorro.’ We might even get ‘Zorro.’  We will cheer when Zorro dashes in, but the Zorros in real life don’t ride off into the sunset, they transform into quite un-Zorro-like entities.  No cheering then.  For those who doubt, I invite them to reflect on the Zorros of the past: e.g. Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sarath Fonseka, Velupillai Prabhakaran, SWRD Bandaranaike, JR Jayewardena, Maithripala Sirisena, Chandrika Kumaratunga, Rohana Wijeweera, Ranil Wickremesinghe and (how could we forget?) Yahapalanaya! 




Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene

The bodhisatva prerogatives of love

$
0
0
Pic courtesy 'Vintage Posters of Ceylon,' by Anura Saparamadu

Dhammika Bandara is a man with many hats.  Probably best known as a ‘tuition sir,’ Dhammika is also a poet, a lyricist and a theatre person.  Naturally, he’s also a good story teller.  Last Saturday night, he told a story, after being invited by another well-known lyricist and presenter, Kelum Srimal, to do so.  

It happened at the Nelum Pokuna.  It was at a concert called ‘Esala Tharu Paana’ organized by a group of lawyers practicing in the magistrate courts and featuring Amarasiri Peiris, Nirosha Virajini and Victor Ratnayake.  Kelum wanted Dhammika, who happened to be in the audience that evening, to tell the nidhaana kathaava of a particular song: Hanthanata Paayana Sanda (The moon that shines on Hantane).  It is one of the more popular of Amarasiri Peiris’ songs.  

Dhammika told a story.  There are many ways in which songs get written, he said. This song was essentially a weaving together of three separate experiences or stories.  

Dhammika, then a student at Colombo University, had visited Peradeniya University to meet the inimitable Gamini Haththotuwegama, widely known as the Father of Street Theatre in Sri Lanka.  The magic of that university wears off after some time as far as resident students are concerned.  Dhammika was a visitor.  He spent hours at night walking around the university.  He saw the moon rise.  He would have seen the glow on the Hantane range above the campus.  He had always wanted to write a ‘Peradeniya Song.’  

As a ‘tuition sir’ later on in life he had encountered many young couples in his class.  One couple had caught his attention.  They would sit at the corner of a bench during a break and share a packet of rice.  A few years later while he was walking along the road, a van had stopped near him.  It was the boy.  He was a salesperson and was driving a delivery van.  Dhammika had inquired about the girl.  

The boy explained: ‘She got 4 A’s and went to Peradeniya.  I am a mutt, I do this job.   She’s better off without me; it wouldn’t have worked, sir.”  Dhammika didn’t buy it.  He asked if the girl was in agreement with the boy’s thesis.  Apparently not, but the boy had been adamant; he felt it was the best decision as far as the girl’s future was concerned.  ‘You are a bodisatva!’ Dhammika had laughed.

That day, reflecting on the conversation, Dhammika’s thoughts had strayed to that classic 1976 film Hulavali.  It was a particular episode that had come to mind.  Dhara, discovering that his woman Subha was having an affair with the trader Bibile Aththo had attacked the latter. Subha, distraught, had chided the assailant saying that violence was all he was capable of.  

Dhara is overcome with remorse and decides that Subha should be with Bibile Aththo. He orders her to boil some water, treats the wounds of the injured man, and tells him that he should take Subha with him and take care of her, warning that if he does not he will pursue Bibile Aththo throughout sansara from lifetime to lifetime.  Bibile Aththo had not been looking for a life-partner, but he was left without a choice.  He takes the low-caste woman with him, but suggests that she sheds the clothes that identified her in terms of social status and wears something else.  The clothes are thrown into the river and are later found by Dhara.  No comment.  Just a song composed by Dharmasiri Gamage and sung by Sunil Edirisinghe.  Just a simple observation alavadana yana theruma bosathkama saki (The true meaning of loving, my friend, is to exude the qualities of a bodhisatva).  Dhammika related it much better of course. This is just gist.

And so, right then, the three rivers came together: the moonlight streaming through a particular night in Peradeniya, a boy and a girl whose togetherness was interrupted by an exam result that made them go in separate directions, and the memory of an old film.  All about love. All about the quality muditha embedded in the Sathara Brahma Viharana, that of rejoicing in the joy of another.  Love that overcomes selfishness, love that vanquishes envy, jealousy and possession. Love that gives and in giving rejoices.  And so, in the gathering of waters, the collapsing of eras, Dhammika Bandara came up with a Hantana song that remain long after all the characters involved in its making are gone.  

Kelum Srimal didn’t have to invite Dhammika to tell this story.  The song is beautiful even without the nidhana kathava.  The song, for those who were present, is richer now.  Life is richer.  Some of those who were there if not all would see connections and commonalities between incidents, words, a particular sheen created by moonlight and such things, where previously they would not have.  Time is not linear, some may conclude.  That boy and that girl in that tuition sir’s class have many, many names, someone might think.  

And somewhere, who knows, there will be a lover someday who will rise above his or her circumstances, vanquish jealousy, affirm the paramitas of giving, and with the unguent of a tender melody alleviate the pain of terrible wounds that take so long to heal that they seem incurable.  And there'll be a Dhammika Bandara who will tell the story, hopefully.  

The fault is in the (political) constellations and not the stars

$
0
0
These are not 'the stars', no....most certainly not!
“We must unlearn the constellations to see the stars…” —  Jack Gilbert

Jack Gilbert (1925-2012), celebrated poet from the USA, in a poem titled ‘Tear it down’ was essentially calling for self-criticism, for the recognition and subsequent erasure of bias, and perhaps even reflection on the error (let’s say) of being fixated with political projects or preferred outcomes. 

There were many who voted for Maithripala Sirisena in January 2015 not because they believed a word about the yahapalana promise but they thought that defeating Mahinda Rajapaksa was necessary to stop things from deteriorating. On the other hand, there were many who actually believed in the yahapalana pledge, never mind that you cannot get (as the Sinhala phrase goes) feathers from a tortoise.  Among them was the columnist Nalaka Gunawardena.

Nalaka recently quoted a fruit seller who runs a small retail shop near his house in Kotte, Jayasena.  Jayasena Mudalali had told him a few days before the 2015 General Election that there are no honest politicians and that he would prefer if it were possible to vote for a robot.  Nalaka, at the time, had entertained utopian hopes about yahapalanaya, he confesses, and therefore had not agreed with Jayasena. Nalaka yearns for robots today. 

The biggest problem with those who jumped on the yahapalana bandwagon is the term.  It was a challenge and a good one.  It was an aspiration, a standard to be maintained and it was going to be tough.  

Many who cheered Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe back in 2015 probably knew it would be tough, but what they probably didn’t know was that yahapalanaya was a feather and the yahapalanists were tortoises.  

The problem is that yahapalanaya is an end as well as a process.  Once you embroider the term on to your political flag you cannot play ‘End justifies the means,’ but you have to be alert to the journey, the decisions, each step of the way; and you have to point out deviation.  
Here’s an example.  There were those who demanded that whether one likes the idea or not R. Sampanthan should be made the Leader of the Opposition.  The hesitation of course was  ideological (at best) and racist (at worst), the latter being the more common source of objection.  The argument was about accepted parliamentary practice and the business of numbers.  And yet, the very same lofty principles were duly forgotten when the parliamentary arithmetic changed and it became obvious that the Joint Opposition had more oppositional legitimacy and clout than Sampanthan and the TNA.  

Those who raised shrill cries of horror at corruption, nepotism, abuse of state resources and such during the tenure of Mahinda Rajapaksa are conspicuously silent today.  They are not calling for the blood (or at least a hauling to the FCID) of those accused of swindling the Central Bank (accusation, let us not forget, was ‘crime’ enough for the name-shame game that the yahapalana (sic) media played when it came to those associated with the previous regime).  

The Ministry of Home Affairs has written to public servants in all districts, asking them to arrange all kinds of religious ceremonies to commemorate 40 years of the advent of a particular political ideology and the 40th anniversary of a politician’s first electoral success.  That’s a call for the abuse of public resources, a demand that government servants pander to the interests of a political party and of course a leg-up to the (further) politicization of the public service.  The (obvious) at-odds with yahapalana rhetoric has surprisingly been missed by yahapalana apologists.  

We should not be surprised since yahapalana nepotism first surfaced just days after Maithripala Sirisena became President and no one among the prominent anti-nepotism brigade uttered one word of consternation.  The watchers of the watchdogs were and are silent on the abuse of state media.  They are not exactly howling in protest when the government unleashes violence on demonstrations.  They didn’t say a word about the attempted white-vanning of a student leader.  

And then there’s the issue of postponing elections.  If the country can move along (‘stagger’ if you wish) without local government bodies but just government-appointed ‘minders’ why hold elections at all, one could argue. The same logic could be extended to include provincial councils as well.  But not holding issues is at odds with yahapalanaya, and again that at-odds has not been noticed by the yahapalana cheering squad. 

When one reads the columns of the yahapalana apologists one gets the feeling that at least some of the columnists are embarrassed about what’s happening.  They don’t exactly say it as they should — where a thundering slap is warranted (going by the ease and weight of swing they demonstrated against the previous regime), they mutter ‘tut tut.’ 

Take all that’s happened over the past 2.5 years and imagine that it was the Rajapaksas in power. Now ask yourselves how the yahapalana cheer-leaders would have responded.  It’s a throw-back to the eighties, isn’t it? It is as though people who pretended to be fast asleep during the JRJ-Premadasa tyranny, who were half-asleep during the CBK years and were wide awake during the Rajapaksa tenure, have return to feigned-sleep all over again.  

So what was all the high-minded talk during the Rajapaksa years about, one has to ask.  Were they really worried about corruption? Did nepotism keep them awake at night?  Did they feel stifled by the lack of democracy? Were they upset about violence then but not now because those targeted by Yahapalanists  are dispensable?  Is it just another api venuvenapi thing?

The fault, as they say, is not in the stars but, as they don’t say, it’s in the constellations.  There are constellation-preferences clearly.  It could just be a configuration of stars that make up an ape kattiya (Our Guys). It could be a constellation called ‘Constitutional Reform Closer To Our Hearts.’  Whatever it is, it is not about things that ought to matter more than ideological and political preferences, such as truth, honesty, decency, consistency, equality before the law, accountability, transparency and such.  

Let us not for one moment imagine that the same principle cannot be applied to those who support the Joint Opposition, see Mahinda Rajapaksa (or Gotabhaya) as a saviour.  They look up and they don’t see stars either; they see configurations that spell Joint Opposition, Mahinda or Gota.  If they see corruption, nepotism and other ills today, the chances are that they were blind to these before January 2015.  

Jayasena Mudalali has a point, all things considered.  But if we are a long way off from robot-governments and if we recognize that humans designing robots are never value-neutral, then we have to go beyond the more persistent constellations, i.e. those that describe the dominant political formations in the country which include not just the UNP and SLFP but also the JVP, TNA and SLMC (and their off-shoots). 

The stars that are backgrounded by such constellations are in fact the very stars that are used to create the constellations only to be sidelined post-creation: the people.

Jack Gilbert says ‘The village is not better than Pittsburgh, only Pittsburg is more than Pittsburg’.  We don’t have to look to the constellations, we don’t have to look across the seas and over the mountains.  The fault is right here. Among us.  Within us. So too the solution.


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.   Twitter: malindasene

Onella Karunanayake has a point

$
0
0
Yeah, why single out Ravi!  
Onella WIranthi Karunanayake has asked a valid question: “Why only my father’s name comes up all the time in such a huge government?”

The ‘father’ is of course Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of External Affairs.  Karunanayake’s  name has ‘come up,’ to use Onella’s words because of his close friendship with Arjun Aloysius, the man at the centre of the Central Bank Bond Issue fiasco.  Karunanayake is a target because a) he was at the time the Minister of Finance, b) Aloysius’ father-in-law, Arjun Mahendran, was the Governor of the Central Bank, and c) this ‘friendship’ has found expression in Aloysius pocketing out millions so the minister could enjoy residency in a luxury apartment.

In the note that Onella has posted on Facebook, she proposes (as her father has) that there is a well-orchestrated effort using ‘well paid character assassins’ targeting Karunanayake. The media and the public, she claims, are playing judge, jury and executioner.  She is wondering and she encourages everyone to wonder why only her father is coming under attack.  This ‘focus on Ravi K’ if you will makes her wonder (and she wants us to wonder too) if Ravi K has been handpicked as the ‘Fall Guy’ (again and again).  

It is, as she has pointed out, a ‘huge government’.   Right now, the focus is on her father, she is correct.  Coverage of any issue is fair game.  Coverage of an issue where billions may have been made courtesy the time-tested mechanism of who’s-who is fair game.  Onella may have a point when one considers the fact that even Lake House is covering the case (that’s Daily News and not all Lake House publications, by the way).  Bigger issues have gone under the radar of the state media, but that’s ‘accepted practice’.  Indeed, her father initially remarked that the entire process indicated that things had changed in the country.  Questionable operations of dozens of ministers and officials have in the past been ignored by Lake House editors.  Indeed, some issues have been virtual touch-me-nots to all media in years gone by (and we are not singling out the Rajapaksa era here).  

But why only Ravi K, she asks, and that’s a valid question. Perhaps Daily News has suddenly acquired some freedom; if so, it should be celebrated and not pooh-poohed on account of that newspaper not taking all errant politicians to the cleaners.  In a country where even private media institutions think twice before attacking the government, a state-owned media outfit doing ‘the unthinkable’ has to be applauded.  We can only hope that this move would put all politicians on their toes and also embolden all state media institutions to act in the public interest. 

Onella, then, might appear to have a legitimate grouse.  On the other hand, if one were to check out the political discussions on social media, it’s not just about her father.  It is about the entirety of the ‘huge government’ she talks of.  It’s about Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena and their crimes of commission and omission.  It’s about the previous regime and Aloysius’ operations before Maithripala Sirisena came to power (i.e. before his father-in-law was made Governor of the Central Bank).  

More importantly, what Onella seems to have missed here is that no one is incriminating Ravi Karunanayake as much as Ravi Karunanayake himself.  It is her father who moved into a plush apartment claiming all arrangements were made by his wife and children and that he had no idea who paid whom and how much was paid.  

Pandula Nayana Bandara, a prolific and witty commentator on Facebook put it this way:  

අපි රු 50 ඩේට කාඩ් එකක් ගත්තත්, "කාගෙංද මේක ගත්තෙ??.... කොහෙන්ද උඹට සල්ලි....."කියල කෙලවරක් නැති ප්රශ්න වැලක් අහන අප්පච්චිලා අතරේ රවී කරුනානායක කියන්නෙ දෙයියෙක්..."ඩැඩී... අපි apartment එකක් ගත්ත.. පදිංචියට යමුද...."
"එල එල...."
.......
අපෙ අප්පොච්චිලට රිදෙන්න සෙයාර් කරන්න...

The story is one of interest-conflict.  Ravi Karunanayake, through his response to this story (in his denials, claims of ignorance and feigning of memory-loss) has succeeded in generating a dozen other stories. If anyone is singling out Ravi Karunanayake for attack it is himself, ironically.  Editors, moreover, cannot be blamed for chasing this story. Indeed, they can only be found fault with if they missed it or pussy-footed around it or distorted it altogether, as some Lake House publications have, unfortunately.  Onella may have heard of the term ‘self-incrimination’.  Well, that’s her father, as things stand now. He has joined the media and the public in playing judge-jury-and-executioner, she would have to conclude if she applied the suggestion of ‘open your eyes’ to herself.

All of the above notwithstanding, she may be correct about the fall-guy claim.  Arjuna Mahendran was appointed by Ranil Wickremesinghe and was the Prime Minister’s friend even during his earlier stint as Premier (2001-2004) when Mahendran was Chairman, BOI.  Both the President and the Prime Minister colluded in dissolving Parliament in mid 2015 just before the then COPE released its report on the Central Bank Bond Issues raising suspicious that the move was to save Mahendran’s behind.   The evidence that’s come out since clearly implicates several ministers.  It is hard to think that Ranil Wickremesinghe was not in the know.  If that were the case he is clearly an incompetent leader.  

Maybe all this will come out by and by and indeed one should hope, as Onella has hoped, that the whole story will come out and all those implicated will be named and shamed.  On this, I am in absolute agreement with Onella.  She has a point here.  

Let the Court of History summon all perception-peddlers

$
0
0

Dayan Jayatilleka is absolutely opposed to any move that goes beyond the 13th Amendment (in terms of power-devolution).  ‘Not even a single millimeter!’ is he ready to concede.  He adds a caveat: ‘even the implementation of the 13th amendment must be gradual and conditional on conduct.’

The ‘conduct’ element has been prompted by a recent speech by the Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council, C.V Wigneswaran, delivered in Jaffna to an audience that included some British parliamentarians and members of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. 
Percipere: seize, understand

In that speech, speaking on ‘reconciliation,’ Wigneswaran makes the pertinent point that it is ‘mind-oriented’ as opposed to reconstruction, which is physical.  Therefore, he argues, that one has to appreciate the role of perceptions.  Thereafter, he proceeded to list the relevant ‘percepts.’  Let us note, parenthetically, that the word ‘perception’ derives from the Latin ‘percipere’ which means seize or understand.  

Perspective, in the sense the word is used, is about regarding, understanding or interpreting something.  Objectivity is not assumed, naturally.  In other words, we are not talking about claims that can be or need to be substantiated. 

Anyway, Wigneswaran proceeded to lay out the percepts which, as per his own preamble, would permit others to dismiss as ‘sheer lunacy,’ given different perceptions (if we are to be generous to Wigneswaran).  Dayan has picked the appropriate Voltaire quote here: “if you believe absurdities you will commit atrocities”.   Appropriate because Wigneswaran is not calling for an audit of perceptions in terms of historical evidence (including, if he so wishes, community-glorifying literature, but certainly not limited to such ‘tracts’).  Appropriate, also, because he is essentially mimicking his predecessors in the line of Tamil chauvinists — drawing heavily from the politicizing script of tall tales, creations and/or exaggeration of grievances and the painting of myth and rank falsehood as truth and historical fact.  But let’s put all that as ‘perception’.

Wigneswaran’s exercise clearly and unabashedly is one of setting up preamble to the statement of objective, namely ‘federalism’.  This is how he puts it:

The Sinhalese are allergic to the term federalism since the politicians of both communities have created the belief that federalism is separation or federalism leads to separation. Both ideas are incorrect. Federalism joins together disparate entities of peopleThis perception of the Sinhalese that Federalism is separation and/ or leads to separation has stood in the way of reconciliation.”

Now the above can be dismissed as ‘perception’ or can be countered by a painting of ‘Tamil (chauvinistic) beliefs’ and relevant ‘allergies’.  We can then demonstrate that Tamils and not Sinhalese have stood in the way of reconciliation.  But if we were to strip the federalist ‘imperative’ (couched inside a narrative about perceptions) of its racial frills, we have to contend with the issue of ‘disparate entities’.  That, of course, makes imperative a historical audit or a comprehensive assessment of all claims, ‘perceptions’ if you will.   It will, for example, force us to examine the ‘logic’ of provincial boundaries; i.e. whether or not they contain ‘historical communities’.  All of Wigneswaran’s claims (and of course the claims of other chauvinists, Tamils and also Sinhalese) would have to be ‘strained’ through such an audit to obtain something rational to frame reconciliation with.  

It is clear that Wigneswaran would not want this for if he did (because, say, he was actually convinced that his claims would stand the test of scrutiny with respect to historicity) he would have been the first to call for a historical audit.  Instead, he wriggles around it.  He says, quite pompously and self-righteously, “Lots of our Tamil leaders would shudder to say these truths (sic) for fear they would hurt the feelings of the Sinhalese,’ and adds, ‘by not informing the truth we are consolidating the wrong perceptions fed into the Sinhalese mind.’   

He would have to concede the equal pertinence of a perception along the following lines: ‘Tamil leaders would shudder to utter such preposterous claims for fear that they would be called out for lunacy.’  And this: ‘in truth Wigneswaran is consolidating the perception that Tamil chauvinists such as himself are not interested in reconciliation because they are not interested in eliciting the truth of history-claims.’

This brings us back to Dayan’s ‘conduct clause’.  If Wigneswaran (or anyone else) conducted him/herself in non-lunatic ways (let’s say), should the 13th Amendment be implemented?  The problem is that if we were to probe ‘conduct’ on the basis of lunacy (and there can be many strains to this malady) and the truth-value of history-claims, then we should begin with a review of the 13th Amendment itself by questioning its preamble which, we all know, was obtained from Tamil chauvinist narratives and not from the outcome of a historical audit. 

Of course there are grievances which were and still are real, but for the solution to be a map-based one, then lines have to have history-worth especially since the overall narrative is history-laden.  In any event, quite apart from history, the relevant geographic, demographic and economic elements need to be factored in.  The 13th clearly did nothing of the kind.  

My contention is that a sober laying out of facts would necessitate a review of the 13th Amendment.  Such sobriety would have to include a consideration of claims, tall or otherwise, uttered by the sober or by the lunatics.  Wigneswaran, as things stand, doesn’t seem to be interested.  He is not engaging with the Sinhalese.  He is not interested in the truth. Perceptions dressed up as biblical truth constitutes political bread and butter, one might conclude.  He can peddle absurdities because he can afford to do so.  

He can crank his fairy-tale machine and serve these to a naive audience of foreigners predisposed to a) believing minorities never lie and b) terrorists are actually freedom fighters if they are doing the killing in some other country.  He can do that because it costs him nothing.  He is no fool.  He knows what is what.  He is not interested in reconciliation. He would go with ‘atrocity’ if that’s what it takes to remain politically relevant.  

However, if anyone is truly serious about reconciliation (reconciliation peddlers please note!) then why should there not be a serious discussion about claims?  Why not call for it?  History, as I have argued frequently, ought to chair the reconciliation process if not for anything because (let’s humour him!) Wigneswaran is clamouring for it.  Let the man and his words stand trial before we talk ‘reconciliation’.  The issue of ‘conduct’ would no doubt be resolved in the process along with the the more important issue of conflicting claims (perceptions, if you will).


RELATED ARTICLES:


The legislator’s executive presumptions

$
0
0

There was a time when ‘separation of powers’ was intensely discussed.  It was over a question of territoriality, in particular the transgressions.  The focus was the Chief Justice and the debate was about executive overreach and legislative complicity.  Examples of judicial transgressions were also thrown around at the time, i.e. cases when a Chief Justice played ‘executive’.  Unfortunately, dispassionate intellectualism was evidenced more in its absence; personality, error, ego and expedience took center stage with the various players strutting around as public-interest litigators egged on by cheering squads who had their own agenda. 

In that particular drama the legislative branch, for all the noise therein, was reduced to ‘pawn’.  Part of the reason was of course the overarching character of the executive presidency, courtesy the 1978 constitution.  The 19th has done very little to ‘curb the enthusiasm’ so to speak of the executive presidency.  Even today the individual who can obtain the most amount of change with the least effort is in fact the president of the country.  That said, it is not the case that the law-makers have not arrogated to themselves executive functions.  That is a ‘transgression’ that is not talked of often.  

Tilak Dissanayake and Hilmy Sally who describe themselves as ‘design engineers and concerned citizens’ recently observed that legislators see themselves as executives and not as law-makers.  They weren’t talking about ministers, but ordinary MPs and disturbingly even Provincial Councillors and members of local government authorities.  

One of the reasons for this misperception about role and function is of course the bloated cabinets became the norm ever since Ranasinghe Premadasa used portfolios as a mechanism to deal with dissent following the ill-fated impeachment led by Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayek and G.M. Premachandra (all assassinated subsequently).  That’s how he sorted out parliamentary arithmetic in his favor.  

Later, Sarath N Silva’s horrendous ‘crossover ruling’ allowed the executive president to orchestrate crossovers; giving the particular line-crosser a cabinet portfolio was insurance enough against eviction moves by the party he/she contested from through membership cancellation.  In short there were so many ministers and deputy ministers that Parliament was executive-heavy to the point that the legislative functions were neglected.  Parliaments or rather the parliamentary group of the ruling party/coalition merely rubber-stamped laws and amendments crafted by party leaders to safeguard their interests.   Of the 19 amendments to the 1978 constitution, only one (17th) did not have the party-color painted on it.  It was done in a hurry and under extraordinary circumstances.; too quick for MPs to realize they were acting against their own interest!  The 19th was watered down and this too tells a story.  

The point is that representatives think ‘executive’ and act ‘executive’.  Worse, the public seem to expect representatives to execute!  The was budgetary decentralization evolved has not helped.  What began in 1974 as a ‘District Decentralized Budget’ where allocated funds were used under the direction of a district political authority, is now a Rs 15 million gift to each parliamentarian to be used for the most part at his/her discretion.  The truth is that honesty, competence and cognizance of overall national development thinking are largely absent in the decisions made by MPs with respect to the use of decentralized funds.  Even if this was not the case the fact remains that the authority to do so confers upon them an executive role.  Small wonder that each MP thinks he/she is a mini executive president, a yuvaraja or a regional lord!  

There are MPs of the ruling coalition who claim in private that they cannot go to their respective electorates because they haven’t been able to do anything for their voters.  They are not talking about decentralized funds and what can be done with them, but about helping voters in other ways: transfers, jobs and such.   The fault then lies as much with the people as with the MPs.  The people, in other words, expect their representatives to be executives and not law-makers.

Today, when there are elections, the candidates have ministerial aspirations first and foremost.  They are less interested in legislative functions.  

Here’s something that happened 23 years ago that illustrates the point.  In August 1994 when the People’s Alliance won the most number of seats and Chandrika Kumaratunga cobbled together a coalition that had a majority of one so a government could be formed, one man was peeved.  Jeyaraj Fernandopulle.  He got his supporters to protest.  They were livid that their political boss had been sidelined when the cabinet was formed.  

Whether Jeyaraj had worked harder for the party than someone else should have been immaterial when decisions on portfolios were made.  Whether his district or ethnicity or religious community was ‘under-represented’ is a non-issue because forming a cabinet is less about that kind of cabinet representation but getting the right people in the right executive slot. If every social group (caste, class, age, gender, region, party included in the coalition, religion, profession etc) is to be represented then the entire parliament excluding the Speaker would have to be given a cabinet portfolio or at least a Deputy Minister post and there would still be people who would feel ‘disenfranchised’!  

It is time to make arrangements to turn the Parliament and Parliamentarians into what they were meant to be, the supreme legislative body of the country made of people’s representatives dedicated to making laws.  

The role-confusion by willy-nilly gifting executive roles to secure parochial and short-term political objectives should be unravelled and sorted out because what’s done for purposes of political expedience quickly gets inscribed as cardinal elements of the political culture.  

One way to do this is to legislate the limits of ‘executive encroachment’ if you will; simply by writing into the constitution the ministerial subjects (Switzerland has 7, the USA has just 15, just to give perspective!).  Further, if national development is streamlined using the regional bodies (PCs and local government authorities) then the decentralized budgetary allocations should be channeled to such authorities and not individual MPs.  “Why replicate?”, is the simple question that will not have a reasonable answer and will therefore compel a more sensible approach to disbursement of funds.   

We began with the issue of power-separation.  Let’s end with it.  Let the boundaries be clear.  Let there be less confusion because blurring is an invitation for anarchy, with or without blood-letting, which in the final instance results in the people being cheated and politicians getting rich. 


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email: malindasenevi@gmail.comTwitter: malindasene

The Diyanath Samarasinghe Award 2017

$
0
0
Touched by the Untouchable 

What are gifts and what truly is appreciation?  What affirmations delight and which annoy or diminish us?  In accordance with the philosophical canons that I find logical, I believe that all those who have not obtained marga pala or found entry into a pathway towards enlightenment where there’s no turning back seek or at least are pleased by affirmation.  

The above is a necessary preamble to obtain license for what may appear to be shameless self-indulgence.  On second thoughts, it may be just that.  In defense, let me observe that there are gifts that are so rare that recipient needs to announce to the world the goodness that has humbled him/her, even against the wishes of the giver.  

Let me first offer the following disclaimer: this in no way negates or devalues the countless acts of kindness, generosity, understanding and indulgence that I have been fortunate to benefit from during my life.  I have, I believe, expressed appreciation in most instances except of course to those nearest and dearest to me.  In any case I was not born into and nurtured by a ‘thank you culture’.  A nod of the head, a smile or common agreement that we are all one and therefore it is but natural to help one another — that’s what we do mostly.  I don’t ‘thank-you’ and I get along fine without being thank-you’d.  On occasion, however, I would say ‘pin siddavechchaave’.  

A few years ago I was honored with a literary award.  A friend who was present made the following observation: ‘it’s as though you haven’t won this; as though people don’t want to accept you as the winner or as having won it.’  We both laughed.  A few weeks later I was further honored.  

First, let me describe the heart that had the ink which was used to sketch a line drawing that touched me deep.  In the year 2010, I was the Manager of the National Youth Contingent taking part in the World Youth Chess Championship in Halkidiki, Greece.  The youngest players were 7 years old and the oldest not yet 18.  Some of the younger players were accompanied by a parent.  There was one girl, Yathra, an only child, who had both parents accompanying her.  Susantha was her father.  

Now once a round begins, there’s nothing much that the coach or the manager could do for at least a couple of hours.  The coach, Rajendra Kalugampitiya, and I would spend time walking around soaking up the beautiful scenery of that splendid coast.  Susantha joined us on one of these walks.  Rajendra and I talked about all kinds of things.  On that day the conversation wandered into the subject of love, romance and relationships.  Susantha kept silent but at one point asked a question.  

“Would you be offended if I asked a question?” Susantha was very respectful.  We laughed and asked him to go ahead. 

“හිත හොඳ මිනිස්සු ඇයි මේ තරම් වල්?” (“Why are good-hearted people so vulgar?”)  

We laughed again.  Then I responded: “Susantha, tell me, are you a good-hearted person?” 

We all laughed.

Susantha is a artist.  He is also a poet.  And he honored me with some of the most beautiful lines anyone has ever written to me.
“Should one teach a truant bee
that frolics in abandon
and the nectar swiftly sips
the noble of of buzzing?

Should one to the accomplished archer
that roams the forest teach 
how an place arrow on string to place
and at the correct spot too?

When in search of ocean
defeating even rocks formidable 
should one teach the clear blue river 
this here is the map and here the way?

There are verses that rain
upon a heart that is a poem no less
that can be read, re-read and delight 
and they are sweet, I know, even though I cannot read.





“The warmest wishes to the sweet man named Malinda Seneviratne who was honored with the “Gratiaen" Award, the warmest wishes  -- Susantha, Ayoma and Yathra.”

That was three years ago.  

A week ago, I received another award.  It is almost like a once-in-a-lifetime award.  Indeed the person who gave the award said ‘this is the first time I’m giving this award and it may also be the last time I give it.’  And this, note, was a comment about what was said to be an ‘annual award’.  

I must now write a few words about the giver.  He’s describable in a word: untouchable. In other words, incorruptible.  Indefatigable is another one-word descriptive.  Fighter: that’s appropriate too.  Integrity, yes.  A man who will stand up when others do not.  A man who remains standing when everyone else has gone.  A man who will speak when others are silent.  A man who will look you in the eye when others for reasons of convenience look away.  He stood and stands for the health of the nation in the broadest sense of the word.  He stood and stands for the future, for children, for adults, for trees and medicinal plants, for a clean and non-toxic world, a clean and sustainable lifestyle, for the blueness of water and the raining of beneficial and timely rains.  Dr Diyanath Samarasinghe.



Here’s what he wrote on the back of a simple, colorful and beautiful card: “The Diyanath Samarasinghe Award for Brilliance in Awakening the Public Consciousness”.  He adds, ‘awarded to H.E. Malinda Seneviratne, 22nd day of August, 2017.”  Diyanath has a wonderful sense of humor.  The ‘H.E.’ was a reference to my campaign to be President in 2020!  




The award itself was a beautiful chess, checkers and backgammon set.  Glass.  This he didn’t write but said: “I wanted to give this to someone who propagates chess.”  Diyanath loves the game and has played competitive chess in years gone by. 



The following day, Diyanath sends a ‘citation’.  There’s nothing funny about it.  

An idea born two days ago 
to hold aloft one who helps others see
what lies in plain sight unseen
has already achieved fruition

‘Poojacha pooja neeyanam’
is the spirit that drives the conception
of this offering to a remarkable person 
 Malinda Seneviratne, fellow citizen

People like Malinda
are few and aren’t correctly sung
who see past the misery around
deeper causes that lie beyond

People like Malinda
who can show us hidden causes
are still unable to take us
further, to right action, as he does 

People like Malinda
because he isn’t besotted
with himself as insightful agent 
guide for a populace dim-witted

People like Malinda
for fearlessly being himself
with no necessity whatsoever 
for a cloak of false humility 

People like Malinda
for being one with the rest of the world
seeking ways out of abyss
ever casting unforgiving light


I like Malinda
for being at all times illuminating 
and I like him even more
for accepting this offering

Coming from him, it is something to be cherished, now and always.  It is also an insurance that he has secured not just for himself but for the entire country:  Thou cannot err from this day forth!  That’s what’s not written but is nevertheless the transparent subtext.  


I can but say ‘I am humbled and I will strive to do justice to the honor and the confidence you’ve placed on me.’

’i’ is also for ‘intrigue’

$
0
0
THE CERAMICIST ASELA GUNASEKARA AND HER EXHIBITION 'I'


Who is the fool on the hill?  That’s a question that never came up in any A/L English Literature exam paper in all the years that the Beatles’ song ‘The fool on the hill’ was on the syllabus.  It’s a question I didn’t ask myself when I prepared for that exam.  It’s a question I realized should have been discussed and that realization came when I saw a ceramic sculpture with the song-title about a month ago.  

The fool on the hill

Kuveni, I’ve heard of and the story has disturbed me no end for many reasons.  I had not though of Kuveni as a feeling or more precisely ‘an effusively enthusiastic or ecstatic expression of feeling’ or as an epic poem, I had not. 

Ophelia, when I played Horatio in a Sinhala version of Hamlet almost thirty years ago, was as tragic as she was when I first read that play.  I had never seen Ophelia.  Nor Kuveni.  I’ve seen artistic depictions of Theri Sangamitta carrying a sampling of the Sacred Bo Tree in a begging bowl, but somehow they all seem embellished or distorted now.   An added dimension, strangely and unexpectedly, had ‘shelled’ the Arahat Sangamitta and yet given her in fuller form.  I saw them all the same day I discovered the question regarding the fool on the hill.  

Left to Right: Kuveni's Rhapsody, Sanghamitta, Ophelia and Pandora

Pandora was about a box, about curiosity, flight and the horrors of life and the world.  It wasn’t about escape, it wasn’t about embracing reality and dealing with it.  Now it is.  


There was a conqueror and he came with a note:  ‘The ascetic Siddhartha Gauthama conquering the three temptations: greed, anger and lust. The necessary struggle that preceded enlightenment could not have been easy.  Torment was written on the face.  


How can one capture anything of the notion called ‘anitya’ or impermanence?  To cast it would divest it of meaning.  But then again, if approximation (of capture) is useful for reflection, then I found something useful that day.  


The full moon is for those in the northern hemisphere a ‘man’ and for us in the south, a rabbit.  The full moon is also a moment historically designated for reflection of the eternal verities for Buddhists.  The full moon can be depicted as the Buddha, this I hadn’t known.  


There were other ‘pieces’ that probably spoke a language I understood less, but I ‘heard’ enough, anyway.  Like 'Atlas' who was 'unburdened.' I had never thought of the idea and even if I did I wouldn't have imagined the crumpled, lost and defeated figure that was before me that day  

The true worth of the work of Asela Gunasekara, ceramicist, is best assessed by those who have a deep understanding of art and especially sculpture and within that field, the medium, ceramic.  What I can say is that there’s something about the works mentioned above that made the images remain within or, put another way, held me within them.  

The exhibition, held at the Lionel Wendt Art Gallery about a month ago was titled, simply, ‘i’.  Yes, ‘i’ as in the letter and in lower case.  It had a disclaimer of sorts: ‘imperfect, impermanent, incomplete’.  The title indicated a philosophical exploration but as titles go it could have been an easy excuse for sloth and lack of skill. Words, as is often said, are easy, and can be deployed to express honesty as well as deception.  Untrained though I am in art and art appreciation, I realized quickly that there was nothing trivial, flippant or mischievous about ’i’.    


The above is context relevant to what follows, which is not a review but a sketch of one of the artists featured in that exhibition, Asela Oshadhi Gunasekara.  The other, Akshana Abeywardene, her son, whose photographs were on display is a talent in his own right and deserves a separate feature. Later.  Now, Asela Oshadhi Gunasekara. 

Asela was born in 1973, and had been left-handed, but taught to eat and write with the right hand.  That ‘correction’ may contain a clue to the early part of her life.  She had, as a child, struggled with writing.  The Sinhala characters had come out as mirror images.  She laughs about it, saying that her husband teases her about all this, saying that this forced switch from left to right could be why she is confused.

It hadn’t been a laughing matter when she was a little girl, however.  She was chided at school for poor handwriting.  Whereas she got A’s for religion, language, arithmetic and singing, she got a B for Art and a C for Handwork when she was in the second grade.  The comments are interesting.  She was told to ‘try to draw colorful pictures’ and to ‘practice folding paper.’   Today she says ‘Art should never be a graded subject in school,’ for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with those silly grades.  

Asela had always been interested in art.  She liked it.  “I used to draw everywhere. And I also appreciated.  I was fascinated by the pictures on the back of Readers’ Digest magazines.”

Like almost everyone who was a child in this country over the past 5-6 decades Asela grew up with Sybil Wettasinghe.  That was art.  And stories.  She had been fascinated by two things as a child, nature and books.

“I remember my grandmother showing me birds sitting on a wire.  I must have been two or three then.  This was in Malabe, which was at the time a place where there was enough and more wildlife.  The natural world fascinated me. I collected things like feathers and seashells  My father bought me books.  If anyone asked me what I wanted I would say ‘books.’  My father, who worked in the People’s Bank, had a decent collection of books.  I tried to read everything, including the ‘adult’ books!  My parents had to hide some books from me.” 

By the time she was around 14, Asela remembers, she had become very passionate about art.  She had taken the subject in Grade 6 when she moved from Musaeus College to Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya.

“Unfortunately the teacher wasn’t too encouraging, but I used to look at stuff, like pictures, and draw.  I was always a solitary person, so I had a lot of time.  When I was not studying it was all about reading and drawing.  I did write poetry, first in Sinhala and later in English, but art was what interested me most.”

She belonged to the one and only batch of students who had to take just 6 subjects for the O/L.  There were exams for these 6 subjects but the final grade for the other two would be determined through assessments. For two years she could paint and draw.  The political unrest of the late eighties persuaded the government to scrap the assessments so that particular batch of students had to settle for a 6 subject O/L.  Asela got 5 Distinctions and a single Credit which meant she could pick the stream of her choice for the A/L.   

It was another left-hand and right-hand moment in her life.  Most of her friends had decided to study arts and languages.  She had been good in literature but was pushed into biology.  

“I was disoriented.  I remember the first term; I knew it wasn’t my thing.  I convinced my mother to talk to the teachers so I could switch to the arts stream.  The teachers were not willing.” 

“So two years of your life were robbed?” I asked.

“No, my whole life was robbed. Things could have been drastically different.”

She hadn’t done too well, naturally.  She had wanted to switch and do arts the following year, but her father had discouraged and had suggested that she join a bank.  That’s how she ended up at Standard Chartered Bank, Colombo (1992-97) and in Dubai from 1997 to 1999.  She quit when Akshana was born and it was only after he started preschool that Asela began to think of a different career.  So she enrolled in a two-year degree program in liberal arts at the American College of Dubai, which was affiliated to the Southern New Hampshire University.  

The tsunami brought her back to Sri Lanka in 2004.  She walked into Mel Medura and became a part of Sumitrayo, the well-known program on drug demand reduction, working with Ms Nalini Ellawala, first as an intern and later as an administrative director.  

“I learnt so much there by getting involved in programs and community work.  But I wanted to study, so I got into an online MSc program in HRD at the University of Leicester.  I worked with a HRD consultant for a little while but didn’t really like that work. Then I applied for a vacancy in UN volunteers.    It was called the VOICE Project and was about streamlining voluntarism.  I was a Project Coordinator for nearly two years.  That’s when I finally concluded that working for someone is not going to work for me.”

And that’s how she got back on track, the point when she decided that if left-handed was how she was born then left-handed was how she should be and live, so to speak.  Art.

In fact through all these explorations with various careers, the one constant had been art.  Even while at the bank, Asela says, art had been her refuge.  

“I did something…anything…was always with it….It was not conceptual art….I didn’t know what conceptual art was…I had no formal education and had never really studied it.”

In Dubai she had learnt about stained glass. Her brief venture into liberal arts, although they were introductory courses, had been a fulfilling experience.  

“My professors were good.  I discovered different subjects like psychology, sociology, philosophy and literature, which opened my eyes to different spheres and helped me see things deeper even though they were just introductory courses.  That was in a way a turning point when it came to art as well.   In 2010 when I quit the UN project, I decided that I should study art seriously.  At a creative writing workshop conducted by Ashok Ferry in 2010, I happened to sit next to a foreign lady who gave me the number of Prof Chandrajeewa when I told her I am interested in art. 

“I went to him and that was it.  He knew how to teach technique but more than this he could read personality and guide accordingly.  He knew I wanted to express myself and he let me do just that.  He taught me to think like an artist.  He helped me find myself.  I missed that class when we returned to Dubai in 2011.  I enrolled in a painting class at the Dubai International Art Centre, but after studying under Prof Chandrajeewa, it was a disappointment.  It was too rigid and boring.  So I decided to something else.  Ceramics.


“I had two Ceramic teachers, Michael Rice  from Northern Ireland who taught me pottery on the wheel and Katerina Smoldyreva from Russia who taught sculpture.  It was from Michael that I learnt the conceptual element related to pottery on the wheel. Katerina gave another kind of outlook.  I got a wheel and worked on my own.  I worked with Katerina for about two years and it was from her that I learnt technique as well as the relevance of learning art history. Then I set up my studio.  I owe a lot to these two teachers who introduced me to ceramics.  I knew it was my medium.  I was home with it. In 2014 I started classes for kids and now I have around 20 students.”

Asela’s first exhibition was ‘Dream Catchers,’ held at the Lionel Wendt in July 2012.  It was a group exhibition featuring two painters and a sculptor, all students of Prof Chandrajeewa.  In 2016 October, she was one of several online artists featured at another group exhibition, this time at the Saskia Fernando Gallery.  All the artists were from the online platform ‘Art Space Sri Lanka’.  

“By then I was doing only ceramics. It was more of an exposure.”

Asela Gunasekara’s story is like a journey. She’s wandered along paths cut and ordered for her and when the way ahead although clear seemed meaningless she left it.  She’s wandered thereafter and by a mix of choice and chance discovered a happy creative space, a medium that she feels belonged to and one she moulds even as it moulds her.  Now she searches for herself through her work and ‘i’ is exactly what it claims to be.  It is imperfect because perfection is a brag that’s more often than not a lie.  The Zen masters of Japan, Asela points out, were master ceramicists and they would often pick out the most imperfect work as the masterpiece.  

Her work is about impermanence and that’s a concept that comes from Buddhism, which she claims has inspired her. 

“I come from a very traditional Buddhist background.  My mother was an only child whose mother died when I was small. Her father was a part of my growing up.  He was an ardent Buddhist.  I had no choice but to listen to the sermons.  Some of that must have gone into my head.  Of course some of it I questioned and some parts I discarded. When I studied Buddhism for the O/L it made sense, it was logical.   So it’s there in me as a foundational philosophy.  Not that I can claim to know it or that I understand fully, but whatever is there is part of me and it comes out.  Both my teachers in Dubai were very receptive to Buddhism. We had good conversations about Zen Buddhism.  Michael introduced me to traditional Japanese aesthetics, Wabi-sabi, which is a world view about accepting imperfection, impermanence and the incomplete.”

Wabi-sabi in fact is a concept obtained from the Buddhist teachings of anicca, dukkha and anatma (impermanence, suffering and the absence of self-nature).  Wabi-sabi aesthetics dwell, then, on “asymmetry, roughness, simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes”.

Some of the titles for her sculptures are drawn from stories and this is not surprising.  Apart from the natural world, the stories she’s read and heard and even those which she makes in her own mind inspire Asela, she explained.  

“There’s always a story, a story line; it could be short, but it comes in.  I am fascinated by stories and always have been.  I still remember one of the first books I loved, uda giya baba (the baby that went up).  I loved veda beri daasa (Dasa, the idiot) and the translations of Russian stories that I read as a child.  I loved books with good illustrations and colours.  

“Since I was in a bank, I did banking exams, but gave up at one point even though I had only two more subjects to complete.  I went to Aquinas and inquired about external arts degrees.  I wanted to do an external degree at Kelaniya and took English Literature, Philosophy and I think Economics.   Fr Herman Fernando taught us literature.  He introduced me to contemporary poets and the ballads of John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Paul Simon.  I had to leave because I got married and we went to Dubai, but that was a wonderful experience.”

Then she went on to explain why her exhibits came with titles and explanatory captions.  “The exhibition in 2012 didn’t have any titles or descriptions.  Of course art is a language but maybe it is a language for the artists and not for everyone.  Some or most of the recipients might find it a foreign language.  People were intrigued, they had lots of questions.  

"It made me realize that when you are catering to a general audience it helps to guide them a little.  If there were no titles or descriptions, ‘i’ would have been a different experience for the audience. So, yes, I do take away their right to independent appreciation of the work itself. Some artists argue that this is how it should be, that the viewer has to take whatever he/she wants out of it. I felt however, that for this audience, I should offer some basic guideline.”

Made sense. If not for the ‘note’ on ‘Conqueror’ I would have read it very differently, for example.  Such reading has its merits, no doubt, but in this instance I feel I would have been poorer without the nudge from the artist to read in a particular way.  

Her work is incomplete, naturally.  There’s exploration ahead of her.

“People ask if I have a style and I say ‘no’ because i don’t want to be in a box, be captured by a label.  For now, I am a ceramicist.  But I want to experiment with glass, mixing the two mediums and using them for sculpture.  Conceptually, however, I am a bit lost.  I need to find my way again.  I am not sure where I would go.  I will take it as it comes.”

Asela Gunasekara is an artist who will immediately say ‘not yet’ given her philosophical predilections or even say ‘never will be’ as per the three dimensions of ‘i’ (imperfect, impermanent, incomplete).  She layers her work with herself and the work and the artist do intrigue.  That’s another ‘i’ and not paradoxically.  It all flows from the 'left hand,' now.  And it is all about the exploration of ‘i’.  Simple i. Simply, i.

I am not buying "corruption-inevitability," are you?

$
0
0


Dr Harsha De Silva, Deputy Minister of Policy Planning and Economic Development, has come out strong on the subject of corruption.  He has observed that the entire country is corrupt.  The implication of course is that his government is also corrupt. He has said that he’s ‘sick of it all.’  

The deputy minister should be applauded for having the courage to say it as it is.  One hopes that he will soon disassociate himself from the corrupt regime he is a part of and not give it any further legitimacy.  One hopes, also, that he will in due course detail the corruption and identify the corrupt.  

His, however, is not an isolated cry.  Following the recent resignation of Ravi Karunanayake and the information that has surfaced in the course of investigating the Central Bank bond issue scam, ardent supporters of the yahapalana regime, perhaps in damage-control mode, have taken refuge in the timeless legitimator: ‘corruption there will always be.’  

The subtext is easily obtained: ‘we are not going to get anything better if we throw these people out.’  

That logic could of course be applied to a lot of ills. One could say, for example, ‘there will always be nepotism, abuse of state resources, violation of democratic principles, bribery, embezzlement, petty theft, murder, rape, child molestation, racism, and gender inequality.’  In short, it is a mischievous statement. 

Another set of people, more cautious and cute, while chiding the government for its failures, nevertheless offer legitimacy by interjecting that the alternative would be worse.  They talk of ‘fearful memories (of the previous regime).’  The Friday Forum, while conceding that “the government’s agenda seems increasingly disconnected from the hopes and expectations (of the voters) and that its record on corruption [is] abysmal, interjects ‘the Joint Opposition is a spoiler’.  [There is] abuse of executive power.’  Another ardent critic of the previous regime and campaigner for ‘good governance,’ during a recent television debate cautioned, ‘we can’t go back to the future,’ even as he lambasted the government along the same lines.  

Interestingly, most if not all of those taking this position, had no qualms in supporting people who had corrupt track records or were part of corrupt governments including the one they backed Maithripala Sirisena to oust in January 2015.  At the time it was all about regime-change, never mind the integrity or competence of the would-be replacement(s).

So it’s all about relative merits at best, or more likely a matter of which faces one likes less (or more).  What it also means is that the commentariat is intellectually and morally poor or worse, corrupt.  

What is it that prevents people from imagining a state that is different, a political reality where corruption is seen as corruption and therefore objectionable and not reduced to a debate on degrees?  Perhaps it is a mental block which stops people from imagining a Sri Lanka that is not governed by either of the major parties or coalitions led by them which include smaller political organizations the hands of whose leaders are dirty or bloody or both.  It is that, or else, it is a simple matter of complicity which speaks of a serious integrity-deficit; simply, it is all about assessing marginal benefits against marginal costs.   

The Chairman of the Elections Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya recently attributed declining numbers in voter-registration to disillusionment among young eligible voters, especially in the Greater Colombo area.  That ‘disillusionment’ can be read in many ways.  

One can be worried about it because it could indicate a lack of confidence in the democratic process and institutions, and therefore point to extra-democratic affirmations of citizenship.  On the other hand, it could mean that a significant number of young people are not willing to go along with the kind of pussy-footing that supporters of the two main parties engage in.  They may be unwilling to play the game of relative merits and this can be seen as a positive rather than a negative trend.  

Time will tell if the rejection of the politician and political party implied in these developments translate into extra parliamentary political action or lead to the creation of a new political coalition where such parties do not figure.  In any event, it is time that the citizens of these country do not short-change themselves by backing those they know have short-changed them time and again.  

If anyone says ‘corruption there always was and always will be,’ the chances are that he/she is peddling excuses on behalf of the corrupt or lacks the courage, integrity and commitment. 

The question we should ask ourselves is, ‘are we really that impoverished?’  We need to ask that question because if that is the case then all talk of good or better governance is meaningless.  

Now if we are not impoverished, what next?  First and foremost, we need to shed our fixations on the two major parties and all those other parties, political groups, civil society organizations and the various individuals identified with such entities.  They will not deliver, this they have established beyond all shadow of doubt.  

We are fooling ourselves if we think it is prudent to support this government because it might do this, that and the other close to our hearts or as the case may be desist from doing this, that and the other that we abhor, even if we cannot stand the nepotism, corruption abuse of state resources and the by now established readiness to unleash violence on objectors.  Similarly, we are fooling ourselves if we recall the positives of the previous regime and allow such recollections to erase from memory everything that was despicable about it.  

We simply cannot afford to push the default option button again and again; certainly not if we want a safe and sustainable Sri Lanka and a clean environment for our children.  We simply cannot suffer the corrupt just because the probable replacement is not to our taste.  We need to look for a different pathway to the future and we need to think of different companions on that necessary journey.   Dr Harsha De Silva has expressed disgust and if he were to make a clean break from the disgusting, he would be contributing greatly to the development of a different way of thinking about Sri Lanka, a Sri Lanka that is not willing to be resigned to corruption or be hoodwinked by the notion of corruption-inevitability.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malinsene. This article appeared in the Daily Mirror, August 31, 2017.














   



And we say 'aye' to no-confidence motions against ourselves....!

$
0
0
"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
“Time it was…and what a time it was…it was…a time of innocence…a time of confidences.  Long ago it must be…I have a photograph…preserve your memories… they're all that's left you.”

That’s Simon and Garfunkel and it’s from their song ‘Bookends’ which speaks of aging and nostalgia.  The nostalgia part is something that we often encounter.  For example, we have seen how the passing of years prompts remarks such as ‘never in our days,’ and ‘those were the days,’ if a line is required to lament the present.  And if it is about people, we hear people say ‘they broke the mould when they made him,’ or ‘Here was a Caesar (or an Amaradeva)! When comes such another?’ (Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’: Act 3, Scene 2).  
We need to ask, however, ‘was there ever a time of confidence and confidences?’  When was history ever free of intrigue?  When did righteousness reign supreme for any reasonable length of time?  Sure, there was innocence and the innocent.  There were people who were confident and those who could keep confidences.  And yet, there was also dismay and despair.  There was betrayal and shooting down of expectation.  There was malice and mischief.  Then, as now.  

‘In another era he or she would have resigned!’ Haven’t we heard this over and over again?  Well, in the ‘back then’ of reference, sure, people have resigned.   And many crooks did not, isn’t this also true?  Things were shoved under the carpet, the old boys’ network came to the rescue and bigger battles were left for another day.  Big fish were left alone.  

But let’s talk of confidence and therefore of no-confidence.  The threat of a no-confidence motion seldom made people fret.  The power of numbers was insurance enough.  However, we saw two senior ministers resign in quick succession.  Neither of them acknowledged any wrongdoing.  The government, for its part, clearly in damage-control mode, attributed the resignations to a wholesome political culture they claim to have created.  A different explanation would be that given coalition-unease and rising disillusionment about the government any other course of action may have scuttled the government. 

One of the two worthies has since been put in charge of the subject of rural infrastructure development and he has seen fit to issue directives to his former colleagues in the cabinet. The other continues to hold important positions in the government outside of the cabinet, namely the Constitutional Council.  Clearly, both have consolations prizes and clearly the political leadership has not lost confidence in them.  

It’s not over yet.  Just the other day, Minister Sarath Fonseka said he would give evidence that would prove that former Army Commander, General Jagath Jayasuriya, was guilty of war crimes.  President Maithripala Sirisena retorted, ‘I won’t let anyone touch Jagath Jayasuriya’ or any war heroes for that matter.  

Anyone guilty of wrongdoing during any military operation is no ‘war hero’ regardless of contribution to eliminating terrorism.  

The President could have worded it better, at least in the interest of affirming the basic tenets of good governance.  He did not.  More interestingly, the two statements clearly imply that Fonseka and the President are at odds.  As such there’s two legitimate questions.  Will Fonseka initiate a no-confidence motion against the President? Will the President orchestrate a no-confidence motion against Fonseka? 

Now, it is not the case that every disagreement should prompt no-confidence motions.  This is serious stuff, however.  There’s the charge of Fonseka pandering to interests that are not in concert with the country’s interests.  The President, by presuming outcome of any reasonable process of inquiry, it essentially giving the finger to all notions of justice.  No-confidence motions, then, are warranted.  

Nishan Muthukrishna, an astute and unfortunately self-effacing student of politics, has responded to the question thus:  

“[The] next vote of no confidence should be against the Sri Lankan voter. For electing these people.”

That’s tongue-in-cheek.  It is easy to blame the people.  True, they elected ‘these people’ (‘these’ is a term that could be applied to even those in the current Opposition of course).  However, we have to acknowledge that people can vote for one person or a particular party for a number of reasons.  In January 2015, for example, they felt wanted to oust Mahinda Rajapaksa.  Some of the self-labeled winners of that election claimed among other things that they received a mandate for things peripheral or un-mentioned in the manifesto.  As for the manifesto, it is no longer a document that anyone can swear by, given the callous way in which pledges were abandoned or violated.  

Moreover, the entire system is structured in a way that the people don’t really have a fair choice.  After being forced to vote for one set of crooks, brigands, murderers, wastrels and incompetents over another, after being forced to weigh relative merits, it is unfair to blame the voter and no one else ‘for electing these people’.  

On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the ‘these people’ Nishan refers to, appear to have a lot of confidence in the people, i.e. the voters.  Knowing very well that they have multiple pathways to retain political relevance (national lists, cross-overs or appointment to posts with plush benefits and/or opportunity for self-enhancement), politicians, especially of the two major parties and to a lesser degree the leaders of parties in coalition with then, can count on the people not to upset things too much.  What’s an electoral defeat, after all, if the winner is an old friend or someone with whom it is easy to become friends?  

If politicians had confidence in the people for reasons more nobler than the assurance that they, the people, are not likely to stand in the way of pursuing purely personal goals, we would be living in a different country.   

It would be a country where mandates are taken seriously, where representation means something, and where the knowledge and expertise of the people of the country are taken note of.  In this regard, there’s already our politicians regularly win votes of no-confidence against the citizenry.  

This brings us to us.  The citizens.  We have expressed confidence in our politicians, if not in a shout at least through whisper or simply an ‘X’ on a ballot paper.  Sadly, we have reserved our votes of no confidence for ourselves, or rather for each other.  We are not a ‘yes we can’ citizenry, at least not so in assertion and the transformation of affirmation into collective action.  We are a ‘yes, we can’ people in many if not all spheres of social and economic activity, but we are a ‘no, we probably can’t’ kind of citizenry when it comes to politics.  

We needn’t be so forever, though.  It begins, as always, with each of us as an individual and thereafter in the recognition of similarity in each other and eventually the coming together and moving forward.  

There’s a sign hanging outside the party headquarters and every election office of the two major parties and all parties and groups aligned with them.  It’s a quote and not one from Simon and Garfunkel.  It’s not from Shakespeare.  It’s from Dante Alighieri’s 14th Century epic poem, ‘Divine Comedy: Canto III, Vestibule of Hell’’: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate", most frequently translated as "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” No, it’s not in Italian.  It is in Sinhala and in Tamil.  We just miss the words because we are distracted by the lies, the personalities and our fascination with pressing a button called ‘default option’.    That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we vote ‘aye’ on no-confidence motions on ourselves.  That’s how we let ourselves down.  And that’s how we allow ourselves to be kicked around. 

We can do better.  We deserve a more confident time; a time of confidences, yes.


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com. Blog: malindawords.blogspot.com

The pathetic ‘at least’ whine of Yahapalanists

$
0
0
Cartoon by Anjana Indrajith, Daily FT (January 8, 2017)
In the third week of January 2015, just two weeks after he became President, Maithripala Sirisena appointed his brother Kumarasinghe Sirisena as the Chairman, SLT.  That was the beginning of making a mockery of the term ‘good governance’.  

A month later the Central Bank decided to issue Treasury Bonds in a process which resulted in the then Governor Arjuna Mahendran’s son-in-law making enormous gains.  In June that year, just as the COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) was about to release its report on the controversial bond issue, Parliament was dissolved, effectively quashing that story.  Responsibility for this, we have to conclude, must be equally shared by the President and Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Prime Minister of the ‘Unity Government’ and leader of the United National Party (UNP).  

How about democracy and promised democratization?  In April 2015, addressing a rally at Vihara Maha Devi Park, President Sirisena vowed to institute electoral reform.  Two years later, the 20th is yet to see the light of day.  Forget reform, elections to the local government bodies and provincial councils have been postponed indefinitely.  Anyway, in August 2015, just before the General Election, the President moved to sack the General Secretaries of the SLFP and the UPFA.  A court order was obtained to stop any moves to reverse the decision.  The President, who was also the leader of the SLFP, openly campaigned for candidates of a rival party.  Immediately after the election, the President proceeded to use National List slots allocated to the SLFP to accommodate several loyalists who had been rejected by the voters. It is in this manner that the poster-boy of the yahapalana project demonstrated commitment to democracy.  

Other partners of the project were no better.  The JVP made much of its ‘professional’ national list, but dumped the professionals after the election and made room for party stalwarts rejected at the polls.  In February 2016, the UNP which by the time had a pact with the SLFP for a ‘national government,’ used the same facility to accommodate another loser, Sarath Fonseka.  

Disgraced former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake’s name cropped up several times for dishing out jobs to the near and dear.  There were several diplomatic posts that raised eyebrows on account of the appointed being related to top politicians of the yahapalana government.  It was also the UNP that was hell bent on protecting the Central Bank Governor, Arjuna Mahendran.  

The shrill moralizing in the run up to the January 2015 election appears to have had a very short life.  All relevant lajja-baya (shame and fear) have been abandoned.  This government has shamelessly voted for enhanced privileges which, as Nagananada Kodituwakku has pointed out, are clearly illegal.  

But then, the heavens be praised (as some might say), the President’s brother Lal knocks down and kills two people, flees the scene and later hands himself in. President Sirisena, after visiting the houses of the two brothers who fell victim to his brother’s reckless driving, has promised “to look after the well-being of the families and educate their children,” hopefully with his own money.  

So we had not too long ago, ‘at least Ravi Karunanayake resigned’ and now ‘at least now the law is allowed to take its course.' Never mind that Ravi K was put in charge of rural infrastructure development and now feels fit to issue directives to former colleagues in the cabinet.  Never mind that the President and Prime Minister had to create a 'Lottery-Ministry' of all things to appease the man when the finance portfolio was taken off him!  We also had the ‘better late than never’ brag when the Right to Information Act saw parliamentary passage.  We had ‘better than nothing’ when the flawed 19th Amendment saw light of day.  

And then there’s that other fall back, “there’s a greater sense of freedom”.  It’s true.  There’s a marked and palpable difference between the before and after of January 8, 2015.  However, a few interjections are necessary to obtain the full picture of freedom-relativity and to talk about what’s probably in store.  

Do we have more freedom than we did in July 2008 (i.e. two years and eight moths after Mahinda Rajapaksa came to power, the same length of time between Maithripala Sirisena becoming president and today)?  Of course we do!  Back then we had checkpoints everywhere. Back then there were bombs exploding.  Back then, a war.  Fear. Trepidation.  Now compare July 2008 and June 2009.  More freedom?  Why, of course!  The degree of freedom after the end of the war was of such magnitude that comparison defies quantification.  Now things did go downhill thereafter, but the freedom-resurgence post January 2015 and the setbacks in the 32 months since, has not given us a rise that is of any significance, given the freedom-jump that came with the defeat of terrorism in May 2009. We are comparing ‘times’ here, note, and not personalities, but we could speak in terms of tenure, i.e. the Rajapaksa Watch vs the Sirisena-Ranil Watch.

As for the future, the way things have unfolded since January 2015 (as described above and factoring violent response to protests) doesn’t make for optimism.  The Yahapalanists have lost much ground ideologically and politically.  Therefore, history has demonstrated, exercise of the coercive option in more brutal form cannot be too far away.

Let’s not go beyond that, for now.  Let’s dwell at the here-n-now.  

At the Here-n-Now, we see yahapalanists playing Relative Merits, clutching at straws (like Lal Sirisena) and trying to cover a mountain of inconsistency, abuse, theft, nepotism and incompetency with the thin apologetic two-word gravy called ‘At Least…”  

‘Look, Lalith and Anusha were sentenced,’ they say and then inquire, ‘would this have happened during the previous regime?’  That’s another ‘at least’.  But then, would each and every public official who have done the bidding of yahapalana politicians in contravention of established procedure be similarly prosecuted?  That’s where the brag hits a snag.  

Among those who voted for Maithripala Sirisena in January 8, 2015, a fair number would have figured, ‘it is important to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa in order to stop the country sliding to lawlessness and a possible third post-independence insurrection that could be worse than the second.’  An equal or even larger number may have thought, ‘Maithripala, with the UNP, would set things right’.  In short, they may have believed that the anti-Rajapaksa coalition would deliver on the yahapalana pledge, even if not in 100 days as promised, soon enough.  They may have not entertained the thought that ‘regime-change’ would bring to power people who did not have a clue about ‘good governance’ and worse, would quickly flush the book down the tube.  

So this ‘at least’ thing, is it supposed to be a robust argument for a non-return to the past (of the Rajapaksas)?  That’s a poor consolation prize, isn’t it?  At any rate, if that’s all that it is about, then it means that the At Least Brigade wants the people to be happy with freedom-crumbs and are hoping that crumb-dropping would obtain for them a license to profit in counter-yahapalana ways.  

There’s little merit in bragging about Ravi Karunanayake’s resignation considering the immense lengths which the government went to save him the blushes.  The same with the bond scam.  Arguably, it’s less about a freedom-culture created by yahapalanists than fear of a more alert people who could not stand the misdeeds of the previous regime and are not going to suffer wrongdoing by the present lot in silence.  What yahapalanists should fear is not a return to a past but a march to a different future.   And this is something that ought to worry the other factions of the corrupt club as well, those who were defeated and those who swung now this way and now the other, as fortunes waned and waxed. 


So ‘at least,’ at best, is an apologists’ uttering, an apologist’s vain hope that it would appease those who expected better.  The truth of sentiment can of course be tested in an election, but that’s a word that yahapalanaya is avoiding like the plague.  So they want raucous applause on account of the ‘at least’ argument, sorry.  A slow hand-clap, at best, nothing more.  

Executive, legislative and judicial: ALL OUT OF ORDER

$
0
0
SYSTEM ERRORS MUST BE ELIMINATED!

The presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty is one of the foundational and sacred principles of the judicial process.  So let us not be presumptuous.  However, let us state some established facts.

Nagananda Kodituwakku, Presidential Candidate 2020 and a public interest lawyer has written to the Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting that several cases he has filed not be listed before certain judges he has mentioned by name.  

The cases areas follows: the abuse of National Lists (SC/Writs/05/2015), abuse of tax-free permits by MPs (SC/Contempt/03/2017), destruction of ancient Buddhist religious places of worship in the Northern Province (SC/FR/309/2015), judicial corruption (SC/Writs/03/2016), abuse of public office to defraud government revenue by P.B. Jayasundara (SC/Writs/04/2015), and a ruling against lawyer/activist Nagananda Kodituwakku (SC/Rules/01/2016).

As mentioned above, let us not be presumptuous; the accused have not been found guilty.  What is interesting is the issue that has prompted litigation, in short failure to fulfill constitutional obligation with respect to the (alleged, as of now) illegality of the 14th Amendment, that piece of legislation allowing those rejected at the polls to be accommodated in Parliament through ‘National Lists’.  The relevant judges, Nagananda charges, refused to offer determination and instead passed it on to someone else.  

For the record, the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1988 (just before the United National Party lost its two-thirds majority perniciously obtained through the anti-democratic measure of the 1982 referendum), violated established procedure.  The then President, J.R. Jayewardena submitted a note to the then Chief Justice requesting a determination on constitutionality. 

The 14th Amendment was not included in the Order Paper of Parliament.  It was not gazetted.  The people were not given sufficient time to assess its worth and if thought fit to make submissions to the Supreme Court on the issue of legality.  In fact this particular draft was used to throw out another draft on the same subject that had actually adhered to established procedure.  

It’s obviously a can of worms, but one which has now been opened thanks to a case filed by DEW Gunasekara (possibly inadvertently, according to Rajan Philips) after he was denied a slot in the SLFP’s national list in August 2015, and thanks to the untiring efforts of his lawyer, Kodituwakku.  What it affirms (that’s a soft word which does not mean ‘proves’) is the widely-held notion that the judiciary either functions under the control of the executive or is given to betraying the judicial power of the people that it is mandated to exercise purely on trust.  If it’s a matter of not wanting to incur the wrath of the executive, then we are poor indeed as a citizenry and our sovereignty is not worth the ink used to write the word. 

This particular case, then, involves all three organs of the state, the executive, legislative and judicial. It forces us to wonder why the recent enthusiasm shown by the Government for constitutional reform has tiptoed around the issue of the National List, the illegality of the 14th Amendment and making room for people who have failed to win the trust of the people to legally represent them in Parliament.  

It is in this context that constitutional reform proposed by Kodituwakku need to be discussed.  He has made several recommendations which he believes would make for a corruption-free institutional arrangement where the sovereign rights of the people are upheld at every turn, especially in the courts.  

Among the measures recommended are the following: Ensuring that judicial power of the people shall be exercised by the judiciary, the introduction of the right to judicial review, removal of immunity afforded to the executive president, the removal of the ‘Urgent Bill’ provision, extension of the citizens’ right to reference fundamental rights alleged to have been infringed to a period of six months, the introduction of accountability criteria for the judiciary, prohibition of any judge to take up any position in either the public or private sector after retirement, restricting promotions in  the entire judicial service to career judges on the basis of merit and merit alone, introduction of a case management system with mandatory compliance provisions guaranteeing the speedy disposal of cases, removal of the unlawful court vacation system, and introduction of public interest disclosure law. 

In addition, Kodituwakku has called for the number of MPs to be limited to 125 and the size of cabinet to be limited to 12. Citizens would also be empowered to recall MPs for abuse of office.  He has recommended sweeping changes to the political party system and the process of elections as well radical reform pertaining to labour rights.

What is interesting is that for all the talk of democratization, there has been very little interest on any of these important issues from the lords and ladies of good governance, be they NGO activists, academics or political commentators.  One hopes that given the courage shown by Kodituwakku in a) taking up these issues in court, b) putting his entire career in jeopardy simply because he has proven to be an irritant in court thanks to his forthrightness, and c) bringing it all into the public domain by announcing his candidacy, all these forces will now support the call for constitutional reform along the lines he has detailed.

Kodituwakku has humbly stated that it is not about himself and we have no reason to believe otherwise.  The reforms proposed are not only pro-citizen but they are aimed at correcting fundamental flaws in the entire institutional arrangement that have been neglected for decades, errors that have spawned other errors and rendered the entire edifice untenable.  

It is not the hour of Nagananda Kodituwakku and he will be the first to say it.  It is the hour of the citizen.  Your time.  My time.  Our moment.  Let us not fail to seize the opportunity.



Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com Twitter: malindasene
Viewing all 2513 articles
Browse latest View live