The politics of courtesy, respect and submission

Sinharatne Bandara (far right) is the kind of public servant this country needs

It is no secret that among the least respect people in Sri Lanka are politicians and police officers.  Other state employees, barring perhaps the security forces, are not respected much either.  Corporate entities on the other hand, among whom are the biggest crooks, embezzlers and wheeler-dealers, appear to be a rarified lot, perhaps because of the way they are cocooned and remain distanced from the public eye.  

What’s strange about this lack of respect is that it is a mind-thing.  When encountering arrogance, ignorance, sloth, incompetence and requests for bribes, the citizen rarely objects.  There is then a culture of resignation and consequently submission.  It is a culture that entrenches wrongdoing, emboldens the wrongdoer.  The hassle of it all and of course the low returns or even overall losses on investment probably contribute to the silence and inaction.  We suffer through it and we go home and bitch about it.  That’s about it. 

Then again, there are exceptions.  There are people who stand up, people who say ‘no’ or ‘no way!’  Consider the following story of a man called M.W.S. Bandara who worked at the Provincial Road Development Authority, North Central Province, posted in social media by his son Pandula Nayana Bandara.  The original was in Sinhala and was titled ‘බෑ ඩෝ’ which could be translated as ‘No can do!’ or ‘Forget it!’ (if one were polite) or ‘Buzz off buster’ or worse!  

M.W.S. Bandara worked at the Provincial Road Development Authority, North Central Province. He was the former General Manager. 1998. A provincial council minister had asked him to give a contract to a henchman. ‘No can do’ he said. His car was smashed up.

2001. The same minister pressurized him to approve tenders submitted by his henchman. ‘No can do’ he said. He was fired. He was vilified as a thief. He went to court. He was reinstated 11 years later along with compensation in 2012.

2012. Pressure was brought on him to sign a document approving a forged bill for Rs 1.4 billion. There were daily calls. A lot of pressure. Threats. ‘No can do,’ he said. A druggie of the area was employed to throw dirt in his face.

2015. Once again pressure was applied to sign documents for this same forged bill stating an amount of Rs 1.4 billion. He explained why it was not possible to pay the amount. He made sure that even a successor would not be able to approve this. He was made to retire at 57 although he was entitled to stay on until 60. He filed a case and it is still being heard. He will win it along with compensation.

This is how you say ‘no can do’ to politicians who want you to bend or break the rules. All you need is a backbone.

Yes, yes, I’m saying all this for the information of the dude who is acting like Veerappan these days.

That’s ma DAD!

This post was obviously promoted by the sil redi case where two high ranking officials were found guilty of violating established procedure, abuse of authority and irresponsible behavior in the management of public funds, among other things.  The example demonstrates that being firm, honest, disciplined and responsible could involve high personal cost.  Clearly it indicates that the overall institutional structure and the rules pertaining to them are too weak to protect honest public servants.  Consequently they empower the crooked politician and disempower the people.  

Clearly the citizens are also complicit in all this, as mentioned above.  Perhaps, for this reason, it is also incumbent on the citizen to reflect on citizenship, the rights therein and the related responsibilities even as collective action is plotted to enact more robust laws and put in place mechanisms that inhibit those inclined to abuse a flawed system.  In other words, just as we need more people like Mr. Bandara in the public service, we also need more citizens like him who in their everyday object to the objectionable even as they are grateful for the professionalism and courage of the Bandaras of this country.  

Here’s an example.  

On the 31st of August a convoy of vehicles, accompanying a VIP obviously, was causing a lot of unease on the Colombo-Kandy road.  There had been six vehicles including an ambulance, a back-up vehicles and several Defenders which were probably part of the security detail for the particular VIP.  Now there are no laws to state that ordinary traffic should make way for any VIP.  There’s courtesy at times and there’s submission to directives of the Traffic Police at other times.  We should mention that such ‘movements’ and the inconvenience caused to the general public were strongly objected to by those who promised to do away with all that on January 8, 2015.  On this day, like other days and occasions, the ordinary citizenry made way for the arrogant politician.  All, except one.  He did not budge. 

Finally, close to the restaurant called ‘Avanhala’ in Warakapola, this individual thought ‘enough is enough’.  Mahesha Thirimanne stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road, got out and spoke his mind.  What he told those in the back up vehicles in Sinhala can be translated thus:

“You have no legal right to inconvenience me or anyone else in this way.  Remember that if your boss and others like him had actually done their job over the past 70 years neither you nor I would have had to deal with a traffic problem.  All you can do is shoot me, but remember that it’s the taxpayers’ money that went to purchase your vehicle, we pay for the fuel, we pay your salaries, we pay for your uniforms, even your gun and the bullets are purchased by our money.”

Perhaps the recipients of this tirade were too shocked to respond. Perhaps as of now (but perhaps not so in time to come) their bosses and the government are too weak and/or unstable for arrogance to have rubbed off on them.  Anyway, they were silent.  No, they were silenced.  They were silenced by a citizen who knew his rights and responsibilities, and had the courage to say “no.”

I submit that in the absence of the political will (for obvious reasons of protecting self-interest), it is countless acts of courage such as these are what will create the culture necessary to obtain a change for the better.  This is not to say that courtesy is out of order or that we need to be disrespectful; by all means, but only where such is deserved.  One recalls the relevant line of the relevant stanza from the Maha Mangala Sutta:  පූජාච පූජ නීයානං — ඒතං මංගල මුත්තමං (Pūjā ca pūjanīyānam — etam mangala muttamam or “[to] honour those who are worthy of honour; this is [a] blessing supreme”) and of course the recommendation of giving those unworthy of such honour a wide berth.  

When the principle is adhered to, then, the honorable public servant and the public service are strengthened, the errant politician is made wary and there is hope for a better tomorrow for both  citizen and nation.  

The proposition is simple, really: we can either be a Bandara or a Thirimanne, or we can continue to be short-changed, insulted and humiliated by the arrogant and crooked. 

Read more

Back to White-Vanning days?

Supreme Court under a cloud!

Back in the day a new term entered the political lexicon of Sri Lanka: white-vanning.  It was about the use of vehicles, typically white vans, to abduct certain characters that the then regime felt were unsavoury.  

At times it was used to obtain information on LTTE activists and activities that could have endangered hundreds of lives, as in the case of the brother-in-law of then Senior Superintendent of Police Sarath Lugoda.  The man was abducted in Kirulapona and found a few days later in some other location.  Such abductions were justified then as necessary evils in the face of a ruthless terrorist organization.  One recalls that former president the late J.R. Jayewardene famously said in the early days of the ‘ethnic’ conflagration, ‘in times of war the laws are silent.’  

White-vanning, metaphorically speaking, was not always birthed by such ‘national security prerogatives,’ even if this was morally defensible.  It was used to silence (through fear or elimination) political rivals, just like in the UNP-JVP period of terror (Bheeshanaya) of 1988-89 when ‘crushing the insurgents (or ‘the corrupt, oppressive regime’)’ was an alibi for many to bump off opponents, whether the rivalry was political or business-related.   Of course, in comparison, the excesses of the previous regime are mild, but that’s no consolation either for the victims and their loved ones or democracy and civilization in general.  

Now white-vanning was supposed to be a thing of the past.  Indeed, there have been no killings that could even remotely be associated with the regime.  Abductions, yes, but still very minor.  There have been on the other hand, a readiness to unleash force to put down protests.  There’s also intimidation of the media and abuse of state media institutions.  These are ‘balanced’ one might argue by the passage of the Right to Information Act.  If we talk relative merits, we can always be happy with the status quo, even if it degenerates a little more.  The Rajapaksa years, after all weren’t rosy and neither was the time of Chandrika Kumaratunga.  And then we had the JR-Premadasa years, which were positively horrendous.  

But perhaps the first sign that this regime is seriously getting ready to ‘white-van’ is the concerted effort to silence public interest lawyer and presidential candidate Nagananda Kodituwakku.  

Kodituwakku is a thorn in the flesh of the corrupt and the slothful.  The cases he’s taken on recently in the public interest have been responded to with an unconscionable ‘look the other way’ by the judiciary.  The measures taken are not illegal. You can, for example, take refuge in what could be called ‘dating,’ i.e postponing the consideration of the particular case.  

Serious crimes of omission and commission such as the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment in 1988 have been opened up for debate by Kodituwakku through litigation.  The case has been passed from judge to judge, which itself can imply (in the very least) an abdication of judicial responsibility.  

Now here’s the time line which has led to what to me is a clear case of judicial white-vanning.  

Kodituwakku files  a case citing judicial corruption (SC/Writs/03/2016).  Among those charged is a justice of the Supreme Court.  The particular judge has had at least two run-ins with Kodituwakku, who has on February 9, 2015 requested a different bench, excluding the judge concerning the case CA/Writs/65/2015.  The action, Kodituwakku has stated in the said application followed severe criticism leveled by the President of the Bar Association against the improper appointment of the said judge as the President of the Court of Appeal by then president Mahinda Rajapaksa.  A different bench was duly appointed. 

Subsequently, a similar submission is made before a bench presided over by the same judge on May 21, 2015 hearing the Write Application No 83/2014.  The objection was on the issue of ‘losing trust and confidence’.  The judge determines that the matter would be referred to the Chief Justice: “… Matter be referred to the Chief Justice for making a serious allegation of contempt. Registrar is directed to send the record before the Hon’ Chief Justice…”

The Chief Justice, in his judicial wisdom, the record indicates, has not taken the submissions of the allegedly errant judge.  

The judge in question, let us note, was charged for judicial corruption on February 15, 2016 by Kodituwakku before the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption.  This was for the abuse of the office of the President of the Court of Appeal to confer favours to the former Executive President Mahinda Rajapakse. Kotituwakku argued that this was clear by the way the Writ Application (CA/Writ/434/2014) challenging the then President Rajapakse’s nomination for a third term was handled by him.  The Writ Application simply disappeared after it was filed at the Court of Appeal.  It was white-vanned, one might say!  Anyway, that complaint prompted a formal inquiry and as of now the recording of Kodituwakku’s evidence has been completed.

Now, for the record, Kodituwakku 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.   And now the allegedly errant judge has accused Kodituwakku of “improper, insulting, intolerable, unbecoming and contemptuous behavior’ and is moving to have his practice be suspended or that he be removed from the office of Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court.

Now is this a mere matter of egos or the splitting of hairs between two men, each for reasons of convenience?  Theoretically it could be just that.  

On the other hand, Kodituwakku’s intervention with respect to the 14th Amendment is a slap in the face of all three branches of the state — the judicial, legislative and executive.  It was an amendment which was initiated by the then incumbent executive, President J.R. Jayewardena to a) bypass a draft amendment that was following established procedure, and b) allow persons defeated at a General Election to enter Parliament through the ‘National List.’  Jayewardene sent a typewritten version of HIS draft amendment along with a handwritten note to the then Chief Justice requesting determination on constitutionality.  This version was not gazetted and was not placed on the Order Paper.  The people’s trust was betrayed in the instant that the Chief Justice took it up for perusal.  It was Jayewardene’s draft that was taken up in Parliament following the discretion of the then Speaker.  In every single election held since then the 14th Amendment was referred to make room for political losers, with full complicity on the part of the particular Executive and the particular set of legislators.   

In the matter currently in court, courtesy the stubborn litigant Nagananda Kodituwakku, the record shows that the judiciary has been lax or worse in moving on the illegality of the 14th Amendment.  

In this context, one has to wonder when the umbrage taken by this judge is just a matter of bruised egos or objection to an unconscionable affront or whether the judge is but an instrument of a larger collective of individuals who feel threatened by the lawyer.  Given the almost two decades worth of injustice meted out to the people over and above the burdening the same with patently anti-democratic and illegal legislation, given the navel-gazing by all three branches of the state on this very matter for the very same period, and given the by now clear fact that Kodituwakku has pulled the carpet from under the feet of these very same branches of the state, we have to wonder if this is a classic case of legal white-vanning. Indeed, Kodituwakku is of the opinion that the moves against him are due to his uncompromising stance vis-a-vis any person holding any public office including the judiciary particularly after steps have been taken to charge several judges for judicial corruption.

The matter has not yet been concluded in the Supreme Court.  Let us not be presumptuous.  Let the judges judge and consequently judged in view of the history of events, statements, interventions, sloth, negligence and ignorance.  However, let us be vigilant simply because the very judge who is moving to silence Kodituwakku has been pencilled in to hear the case.  If the Supreme Court does not understand the meaning of the term ‘conflict of interest,’ and if this judge does not see fit to excuse himself then his judicial ‘fitness’ needs to be questioned.  At best it can be seen as an attempt to draw Kodituwakku into a fight and make him ‘prove’ unfitness, but it is more likely that it would force Kodituwakku to object and request a different bench.  In short, ‘constructive postponement.’  Should we laugh or should we cry?

One thing is clear though.  If Kodituwakku is subjected to legal white-vanning, “regular” white-vanning cannot be too far away.

Also read: Executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state: ALL OUT OF ORDER 

Read more