Sunday Times Editorial

UNP, SLFP need to come to the centre

08 January 2017

President Maithripala Sirisena must be wondering what on earth happened to the time that has so swiftly gone by since his surprise election victory exactly two years ago. He now finds two-fifths of his term is already over, with precious little to show for it. He assumed the high office he holds under exceptional circumstances. He brought with him some fellow travellers disgruntled for the indifferent treatment in the old Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, but Mr. Sirisena rode to power and place essentially with the support of his hitherto political arch rival, the UNP.

The minorities and a minute breakaway faction of the then ruling party, the SLFP, pushed him over the bar to clinch the crown. Yet, he seems to have acquired for himself only a crown of thorns. President Sirisena’s Administration has been plagued by dissension from within the Government and within his own party. So much so, he is unable to face the people at an election in so short a time since becoming Head of State and Head of Government. This is an unprecedented situation probably comparable only to the 1960 elections when the UNP lost a snap poll only a few months after its win, and in 1971, when the SLFP-led United Front Government faced a bloody youth uprising less than a year after a thumping electoral victory.

This week’s public spectacle surrounding the refusal by the Minister to accept the Local Government Delimitation Committee Report, the President delaying the signing of the controversial Hambantota Port agreement with the Chinese, the public embarrassment the Government faced over the foundation stone laying ceremony for a car assembly plant, and last but not least, the rejection by the President of the Task Force recommendation for a foreign judge to sit on a virtual war crimes tribunal, was the epitome of a dysfunctional Government at work.

All this commotion has given the ‘Joint Opposition’ a sniff at returning to public office, something many still feel is far too premature to happen despite ongoing bungling of statecraft by the dis-united Government in office. This experiment in National Government borne out of special circumstances that was primarily aimed at ousting a political dictator in the making, has gone awry. The bickering is now intensifying and the President no less is complaining the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing; he is, no doubt, referring to himself as the left hand.

Last week, his frustration spilled over when he appointed one of his economic advisers to counsel him on the Hambantota port cum industrial zone project — a veritable port city in the South. He seemed convinced by a complaint from the Ports Minister who has said that he has been left out of the decision-making process over a crucial project under his very nose.

Sections of the Government have worked ‘on the blind side’ as a rugby scrum-half would do, with the Chinese Ambassador on the Concession Agreements for the port and the industrial zone, while the Ports Minister was possibly distracted with another project – putting up a massive Christmas tree on Galle Face Green. There was no edification coming even at a news conference as to what these concessions were as the two Ministers baulked at the assembled media corps and walked away without giving the answers.

Coming as they did one after the other, the public being misled to believe that the world famous German car manufacturer, Volkswagon was opening a plant in Sri Lanka showed how desperate the Government was for at last, some ‘good news’ for the people that foreign investments are a coming and jobs for the jobless are a coming. That VW was in deep, deep trouble but was still investing in Sri Lanka seemed too good to be true. Now, the Government has been forced to backtrack on the claim that foreign investors of repute from the West are here. Even then, this project was something that was mooted during the Rajapaksa era only to have been stalled due to micro competitors, which is one case of abuse of power and corruption during that time.

The people are therefore, left with few options. The classic local idiom, which is now considered sexist and therefore politically incorrect was that the choice is between a woman with a cold and a woman with a cough. What is their future? Do they go with the present or return to the past? This Government lost its credibility very early in its tenure with the Central Bank bond scandal, which continues unresolved to this date. While the State’s anti-corruption units are pursuing previous holders of public office for misusing official vehicles, the new players have invested their monies won from the bond scam in commercial banks.

It is not that these happenings are unknown to the masses as well. Out in the countryside, at least south of Polonnaruwa, there is a groundswell of public opinion developing against this fledgling Government. The Government’s own hierarchy is now speaking out against its own team. One Minister (who says he’s fit to be the President himself) finds this Government to be run by a “clique”. He is not incorrect. The President is complaining that his partner, the UNP, is pulling down his party (SLFP) cut-outs in the provinces and permitting his arch-rival (SLFP dissidents) cut-outs to remain standing.

On the foreign front, Sri Lanka had regained the friendship of the West, but abandoned the Non Aligned Movement, capitulated to China and kept India guessing, All the effort put into a hard fought battle (in ousting a potential dictator) is coming to naught. In fact, the bad old days of not so long ago seem even preferable to the present confusion and become mixed signals to some who were in the vanguard of those battles then.

Politicians in power must exude confidence, but unless they do so with an understanding of actual realities on the ground, all will be lost. Unless the President and the Prime Minister speak with one voice, and act together, the country might see a replay of the Dudley Senanayake-J.R. Jayewardene syndrome that divided the UNP of yesteryear. The left of centre SLFP and the right of centre UNP must both come to the Centre.

A moribund Administration will have to be activated if any development plan is to work, and the people must not lose trust in their Government leaders. People must not be made to prefer the very system that they detested not so long ago. All will be lost if that happens.

Ceylon Today Editorial

Darker side of Southern Projects

08 January 2017

The delay in entering into the agreement with the firm China Merchant on the amended Hambantota Port 99-year lease has run into snags which the Chinese investor wants ironed out immediately. Reports say it wants the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority to also be a signatory to the agreement as an attesting witness to the project about which the ports authorities have not been too happy.

The agreement, set to have been inked today as one of the government's significant projects in its macroeconomic plans to trigger higher GDP, create vitally needed jobs and enhance more vitally needed revenue, has been dragged down by the self-styled Joint Opposition that has suddenly launched a dog-in-the-manger opposition to it with hallucinations about the loss of 15,000 acres of agricultural land in Hambantota, which, in any case, they did not exploit and develop during their two terms in office, either for agriculture or any other economically profitable venture.

Let's face a few facts about this issue before we go on. The original Hambantota Port project handed to the Chinese by the Rajapaksa Government in 2010, with an attendant absurdly high debt burden was, as far as the Chinese were concerned, exclusively in pursuit of Beijing's Maritime Silk Route ambitions now branded as the One Road, One Belt Project ostensibly to help the economies of the couple of dozen countries roped into that project with massive infrastructure assistance, the Port and Mattala Airport projects functioning essentially as twin extension of the Silk Route architecture masquerading under the guise of projects aimed at enhancing the country's infrastructure. That was the essentially military/economic framework to which Rajapaksa subscribed his government's fullest support when he entered into the original Hambantota Port and Mattala Airport projects.

By using the Joint Opposition to stage protest demonstrations against the imagined 15,000-acre issue, MR has in fact only made it abundantly clear that what they wanted was the admission by the government that the 15,000 acres would be made of individual and non-contiguous parcels of land spread far and wide in the Southern Province...and that is a far cry from the contiguity essential for the southern project as a close-knit affair that dovetails into China's Silk Route motives. The amended terms of agreement helped soothe the trade and defence/security fears of India and other concerned countries about the original plan inked by the Rajapaksa regime.

One needs to stay focused on the fact that such agreements are with Chinese State owned or controlled firms which are euphemisms for being effectively Chinese State agencies set up for the extension of the government's 'One Belt, One Road' initiative.

The rehashed agreement has done away with any terms or implied provisions under which China can use the harbour and the planned economic development zone for any form of military objective. With the Ports Authority in charge of all security operations within the Port project area, China has suddenly baulked at this prospect and insists on the SLPA also being a signatory to the agreement, obviously wanting to know the exact extent of the security monopoly vested in the SLPA by the government which is most likely not included in the draft agreement in its current form. This is one of the main reasons perhaps for the postponing of the signing of the agreement which will be thrashed out anew and hence caused the postponement of the signing set for yesterday. Obviously the SLPA will implement those security arrangements by using the Sri Lankan Navy, Army,

Air Force and Police. That will not be, much, to China's liking because of obvious reasons. Therein lies an indication as to why India did not raise hell about the new agreement because from India's national security/defence perspectives the new agreement strikes out any potential militarist danger to India. In addition to this, the JO protests pushed government into admitting that the 15,000 acres will be not a contiguous area that can be monopolized by Chinese interests and in fact more easily come under Lankan security as easily manageable smaller units spread out in Hambantota, Matara, Galle and even Tissamaharama. Not only will this allay security fears in Delhi and the US but will help spread out new employment opportunities in the entire South instead of just in the environs of Hambantota only.

All of these new features could even make China pull out of the project. President Sirisena himself, who perhaps will have the final say in the matter because of his obligations under new understandings and agreements with India and the US, is very unlikely to allow the government to yield to facets in the agreement which will not be consistent with Sri Lanka's new obligations under the emerging larger role she is playing in wider-Asia-Pacific defence/security commitments.

Weekend Nation Editorial

More time for constitution, a sensible move

08 January 2017

The Parliamentary debate of the proposed constitution scheduled for this month has been postponed while more time is to be allocated for public consultations. The Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reforms is meeting student groups and more consultations are to be held with the civil society later.

This appears to be a sensible move especially with the Joint Opposition’s threat to defeat the proposed constitution on grounds of alleged federalist tendencies. As in the past, it is natural for nationalist groups to oppose any moves to devolve more power particularly to the North and the East.

As the debate on the new constitution continues there have been efforts to unduly expedite the process and fix an early deadline for passing a new constitution. However, it is not a sensible move to finish this in a hurry as it is a futile thing to adopt a constitution without the blessings of the broad majority of the people.

Presently, there is much confusion over the matter and there is total lack of clarity on the nature of the document we are going to develop. For example, though there had been a lot of talk and electoral promises by both political parties to do away with the executive presidency there seems to be no political consensus over its abolition. Also, there seems to be sharp division over the degree of devolution and whether it is going to be a secular constitution.

Constitution is the supreme law of a country from which all other laws derive their authority. Therefore, drafting of such a document has to be done with utmost care and patience as it needs the tacit approval of all the people.

As the foundation of all laws and the state itself, it needs to be a document that reflects some general consensus among the people of a country. In other words, it has to be a consensus document on how the country is to be governed.

Reaching consensus in a country is a difficult task and it becomes more difficult when it has to be done in a multi-racial, multi-linguistic and multi-religious environment.

The other point that needs to be remembered is that constitutions are made for a long period. The national and international experience is that when such documents are drafted and enacted with the approbation of the people they tend to last long.

However, no constitution is permanent. A country has to undergo changes from time to time and in reflecting such changes its constitution also has to undergo changes. Nevertheless, a long lasting constitution is necessary for the stability and unity of a country.

If we look at our own history, it is clear that none of our constitutions have been in operation for long. Independent Ceylon’s first constitution popularly known as the Soulbury Constitution which came into operation in 1948 was more or less a consensus document. It was drafted following consultations with people of all walks of life for several years.

After 25 years of its existence, in 1972 we replaced it with our first republican constitution following the desire of our people to become a fully independent and sovereign republic moving away from the Dominion status granted by the British. For whatever reasons, it was passed by the Constituent Assembly without the participation of the Tamil community.

The first republican constitution lasted only for six years and the second republican constitution which was introduced by the J R Jayewardene government in 1978 has been in operation for thirty-seven years. Now, there is general consensus among all political parties that there is a need for a new constitution. Thus, Sri Lanka is going to have its fourth constitution in relatively a short period of 66 years.

On the contrary, the constitution of the United States has survived for the past 225 years while our neighbouring India’s first republican constitution promulgated in 1950 has lasted to date. These constitutions have received approbation of the people and nobody talks about introducing new constitutions in these countries.

All this makes one thing clear, that is that a constitution need not be promulgated in a hurry. If a new constitution is to receive the approbation of the people, its provisions should be drafted after extensive debate and discussion in the country. A rigid time frame of six months or one year should not be a barrier to come up with the proper document. Drafting and adopting the right constitution is vital even if it is going to take a longer period.

Sunday Observer Editorial

The need to ‘be the change’

08 January 2017

Some called it a ‘revolution’, but a war and corruption-battered nation did not see it quite that way even if they did vote for a significant political change two years ago. Today the current coalition government marks the second anniversary of the presidential election that brought it to power. 

The National Unity coalition, officially named the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG), is the second such coalition in Sri Lanka in which the political parties in the coalition control, both, the presidency as well as the parliamentary government. The current coalition has the advantage of actually contesting and winning power jointly, in both arms of government, the presidency and the parliamentary government. Thus, we do not have an SLFP presidency and UNP government. Rather, both institutions are held by the National Unity coalition. 

The main theme of UNFGG’s election campaigns for both, the January 2015 presidential election and the August 2015 parliamentary elections was the implementation of good governance as opposed to the ‘bad’ governance of the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. That the majority of the citizenry did agree with this charge of bad governance by the Rajapaksa regime was clear by the results of these two elections. 

The UNFGG coalition promised sweeping changes in both, the system of running the country, as well as the style of running it. For decades, since the current constitution set up a new political system in 1978, the misdemeanours of successive presidencies and governments have been seen to signify critical deficiencies in that political system. 

This accumulated negative experience culminated with the worst ‘bad governance’ or, misgovernance, that occurred during the last regime. It was the shock of the sheer scale of authoritarianism, blatant violation of constitutional practices, political violence, nepotism, and corruption in the Rajapaksa decade that saw the birth of the UNFGG with the most detailed election platform for systemic change. This week, we assess how much change has been implemented and, the state of the nation as a whole under UNFGG rule. 

It is possible to argue that there have been changes for the better on the basis of the clear reduction in the incidence, per year, of the types of misgovernance listed above during the past two years of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regime as compared with the incidence of such misgovernance during the Rajapaksa regime. Inevitably, the government has done better in some areas and not so well in others. Social action groups and rights groups, that have long raised a plethora of issues of rights violations and maladministration, today, agree that there is considerable improvement in these aspects. Certainly, the number of rights violations has declined although there continue to be incidents of unlawful or poorly justified arrests, detentions and suppression of protests. 

In the area of maladministration there has been heartening change. At long last, after a decade of governance by whim and political opportunism rather than systematic planning, today, the country’s administrative systems are reverting to proper institutional operation. 

Gone are the tragically wasteful personal fantasies being enacted by egoistic politicians and their immediate family across the spectrum of national life - from urban ‘beautification’ to fairy tale ‘port cities’, to Commonwealth Games and even rugby. Rather, enthusiastic experts and planners, for long ignored in favour of sycophantic charlatans, have already come up with realistically ambitious and comprehensively detailed plans for economic and social development. Others as well as activist groups have enthusiastically participated in the endeavour for post-war national reconciliation and constitutional change. 

The Port City fantasy, likely to forever mar the once wide horizon at Galle Face Green, has been reconfigured with much difficulty to avoid at least some damage to the sea and urban environment, while, hopefully reducing the astronomical financial cost to the country. How the even more disastrous Hambantota port and Mattala airport projects will be reconfigured to similarly reduce environmental, social and financial carnage remains to be seen. 

At the same time, the nation, today, has been inspired by imaginative new programs launched by the government such as, the Megapolis plan, the Trincomalee industrial hub proposal, and the quick initiatives to address the rising problems of road and rail transport. Overall economic development, however, has been slow partly due to the coalition’s own delays, and partly due to the global downturn. This is most seen in the continued poor performance in foreign investment. 

Most significant has been the immense effort and wide scale public participation in the constitutional reform process. This government has overseen a public consultation process across the country as has never been experienced before. 

The aspect that is the brightest success of the National Unity Government has been in inter-ethnic harmony and social peace. The minority communities today feel more secure than they have been in decades, even if there are many residual issues arising from the war that need closure. However, key aspects of ethnic equality, especially, in official language usage, remain tragically unresolved despite decades of internal war and human sacrifice. In that sense, a full peace, is yet years away. 

If development is a major plus point for the Yahapaalanaya regime, corruption issues have only declined, though significantly. Too many reports of minor and major corruption by senior and mid-level officers of the regime – even ministers and deputy ministers – are emerging to allow those alert anti-corruption groups to relax. While even Transparency International (Sri Lanka) has welcomed the improvement in the corruption aspect, the fact that even politicians of a self-termed ‘good governance’ regime have not hesitated to indulge in corruption, indicates how deep this malaise runs, how much more effort and vigilance is needed to make the change. 

It is not enough to preach ‘good governance’, prosecute past corruption and even reduce current corrupt practices. In order that a fundamental change occurs, those governing, must themselves live out the new style of governance. To make changes, especially, as national leaders, one must ‘be the change’.

Sunday Island Editorial

Vokswagen and Hambantota

08 January 2017

 

In March last year the Fortune magazine ran an article simply titled "Hoaxwagen" illustrated with a photo of a spanking new Volkswagen car spewing a cloud of noxious black smoke from its tailpipe. No explanation of what that article was all about was necessary. The whole world by then knew all about how a renowned automaker, whose legendary ‘Beetle’ held the world in thrall for several decades, had in the words of one writer "incinerated" its reputation by a massive emission fraud. Here in Sri Lanka we were awaiting the construction of a Volkswagen assembly plant at Kuliyapitiya under an agreement signed between the local project partner and the Board of Investment. Given the power of the VW brand, it was no surprise that our political leadership massively touted the coming project for which there was a ceremonial groundbreaking early in the New Year with no less that the president and prime minister in attendance.

But the people of Sri Lanka did not know until the smelly stuff hit the fan last week, with a television station quoting a spokesperson for VW saying there was no plan at present to bring their brand here, that there was going to be no Volkswagen assembly at Kuliyapitiya in the foreseeable future. It was only on Jan. 2, 2017, that an amended agreement between the local partner and the BOI was signed removing all references to Volkswagen in the original agreement reached in August 2015. In September of that year, the emissions scandal broke hitting the iconic German automaker with all kinds of trouble both over the scale of the offence and the huge penalties running into billions of dollars it would attract. It is amazing that the concerned authorities here did not follow-up whether intentions inherent in an existing agreement could be realized under the changed circumstances. Since the story broke the prime minister went on record saying that Newsfirst need not have gone to Volkswagen in Germany to find out whether they were coming here. If he had been asked, he would have said that they were not, given the circumstances they were placed in. The fact that neither the German ambassador nor a representative of VW was at the groundbreaking was an obvious pointer that there will be no VW involvement in the project that was being launched.

The opposition would undoubtedly seize the propaganda potential of this mess. We do not know whether somebody pulled the wool over somebody else’s eyes and for long pretended that nothing was amiss with the proposal that had been presented and the agreement that had been signed. If not, it behooves on those who made much of VW assembling vehicles here to have gone public with the real picture before a television station chose to rub egg on the face of the entire government. But why people who should know better did not make their own checks on the real picture in the context of the scandal that hit VW and apprise the political leadership of the existing situation is what defies comprehension. Was our mission in Berlin unaware that the much touted project was not going forward? Was Colombo not so advised? These are matters that bear examination. The local partner of the project is believed to be exploring the possible assembly of other European brands at Kuliyapitiya. Whether he would succeed or not and whether such brand owners would invest remains to be seen. The site was allocated on a basis that is no longer valid. So would possession remain?

There has been a lot of flak, rising to a crescendo last week, about government plans to rescue the Hambantota harbor ‘sinking’ under a load of debt. This port was built on borrowed capital with little or no thought given on how the massive debts incurred were going to be repaid. It has already incurred huge losses and will continue to do so unless some plan to make it economically viable is devised. The incumbent government is seeking to do so through a joint venture with a Chinese partner who will take the majority 80 percent equity in the JV with the Sri Lanka Ports Authority taking the balance. This is obviously not the best arrangement. The government would normally have liked to keep control and limit the foreign partner to at best a 49 percent minority. But this would not have been possible if the rationale for the deal – enabling Sri Lanka to meet its debt obligation over the construction cost – was to be realized.

There is also the question of the period of the lease of the harbor. Ports and Shipping Minister Arjuna Ranatunga said last month that the Chinese originally wanted a 199-year lease and then came down to 99-years. He was thinking of a 50-year lease but that seems wishful. There has been a lot of airy fairy talk about Hambantota being close to major international shipping lanes along which hundreds of vessels sail every day. If a fraction of that number could be persuaded to take their bunkers there, the port could be very profitably operated, it ws said. But experts point out that ships will not make purely bunkering calls; they would want to load and discharge cargo and receive ancillary services like ship chandling and many more. The previous regime had to virtually force car carriers to do their business at Hambantota which was attracting the label of being a port at which no ships called. That port has various geographical advantages that would serve China’s strategic needs now and in the future. That is why China more than anyone else would be willing to invest there. Also, China has the will and capacity to invest in ancillary industries that would give the port business.

In this matter Sri Lanka is like somebody who is forced to make a distress sale. In such circumstances buyers will try to get the best bargain for themselves and China is no exception. But the former president who bears responsibility for landing Sri Lanka in the soup both with regard to the Hambantota port and the Mattala airport, both regarded as personal vanity projects in his home district, is the least qualified to fault his successors trying make the best of a bad situation. Rajapaksa has problems with the sale of family silver. What did he do with prime Galle Face land on which hotels are now rising? The Port City was also a deal in a hurry with no alternative proposals invited and all stops pulled off to sign the agreement while Chinese President Xi Jinping was here. What’s going on can be criticized – but not by Mahinda Rajapaksa.