Let’s dissolve parliament and parliamentarians

About 14 years ago, a young parliamentarian entertained a group of friends by doing excellent impressions of well-known and senior colleagues in Parliament. He had everyone in fits of laughter. Borrowing from the title of a cheap movie that nevertheless produced a few laughs, one of his friends said, ‘You are a parliament joker!’

The funny guy didn’t skip a beat. He smiled and retorted: ‘Why are you trying to devalue me? I don’t want to be a joker in Parliament, I want to be a joker for the entire country!’ That generated more laughs.  

Parliament would be funny if it weren’t such a sad place. It’s a sad apology for what it ought to be and what it used to be. Indeed, it’s not so much that we have parliament jokes but that parliament is a joke. It was already a joke before Ranjan Ramanayake’s theatrics. 

It is funny that for some Ramanayake is a hero. A clown, certainly, but no hero. When someone, who finding himself naked attempts to make a virtue of nudity, it is admirable in that he or she is trying to make the best out of a bad situation. That’s not heroic. Desperate, perhaps, but not heroic. Add wild accusations with absolutely no substantiation and a history of the despicable conduct with respect to engagement with the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, and it’s no laughing matter, clownish though it is. Further, those who cheer the man are essentially demonstrating that they are politically sophomoric and morally and intellectually suspect. 

And yet, Parliament is a joke. This is hard to deny. 

This Parliament has lost its mandate. Twice. The local government elections held on February 10, 2018 showed that parliamentary composition does not reflect the sentiments or rather the preferences of the voting population. The presidential elections held in November 2019 affirmed this fact in no uncertain terms. This parliament should have been dissolved a long time ago. It owes its longevity to the 19th Amendment, a carelessly written piece of legislation. It became law because careless or complicit MPs voted for it.

That however is a single technicality which shows incompetence on the part of representatives and one of many that subverts the spirit of democracy. It could be resolved through new legislation.  

The comical and yet sad nature of things parliamentary cannot be put down to the 19th Amendment, however. The political culture pervading parliamentary proceedings was not created by the passage of the 19th. It was there before. This is why it is not enough to do away with the 19th or dissolve Parliament at the earliest day possible as stipulated by the 19th. It may not even be enough to ‘get rid of the 225’ as some have advocated. The 225 sitting parliamentarians that is. Necessary, obviously, but certainly not sufficient.

We have a problem. The people are often blamed for voting clowns, idiots, crooks and even murderers to Parliament. On the other hand, people have to vote for candidates and not for random people they consider to be decent, honest, serious and competent. 

So, it boils down to the discretion of particular political parties. Parties are loathe, it seems, to think ‘quality’ or rather ‘good quality’ (as in unblemished character, proven competence and integrity). They have gone for ‘spenders,’ those who have the capital to contribute to the party’s campaign coffers. They have picked thugs because mobs are effective substitutes to the harder-to-develop grassroots party machine. Genealogy also counts, clearly. Spouses and children of senior politicians are included in lists. 

When there’s money and a large number of foot soldiers, it is not hard to paint even a devilish candidate as a saint. Even if a political party includes some decent people in their lists, such candidates don’t get seen, so to speak. 

All this is known. People are not happy about the way things are. And yet, the culture persists, hardly moved by the noises of objection. Clearly, parties are not serious. If they were they wouldn’t field such persons in the first place and secondly, wouldn’t smuggle into Parliament through the national list those candidates who have been rejected at the polls. 

We need a new parliament. We need a different kind of parliamentarian. We need a system which does not encourage the good to first look away when bad happens and later do the dirty themselves. 

Let’s put parties on notice. Parties, party leader and nomination committees.  Give us professionals. Give us competent people. Give us men and women of integrity. Don’t give us people who have proven that they are incompetent. Leave out the uncouth. Leave out those whose political journeys have coincided with asset enhancement. Leave out the boorish. Leave out those whose contributions to the law-making exercise have been marked by sloth, intellectual poverty and sycophancy. Give us such candidates and run the risk of being judged for being guilty of and accessories after the facts of further entrenching a stinking political culture.

We need a parliament, ladies and gentlemen. We don’t need to have our lives and futures decided in a wrestling arena by thugs, thieves and bad-mouthed morons. Politicians will do their thing. It would be optimistic indeed to expect them to change now. We can warn them and they can refuse to heed warning. And yet, we get to vote. We can choice the right people and if there are no right people, we can choose not to vote. 

We didn’t need Ranjan Ramanayake to tell us what we all already knew. He is no hero and cannot be one, not for a long time to come. We aren’t heroes but we certainly can be heroic. Just by doing the little things. Decisions. Decision on who we want. Decisions on boycotting that which screams out for rejection. 

The Parliament needs dissolution. The political culture too. Politicians will not dissolve themselves. That’s our job.  

This article was first published in the SUNDAY OBSERVER January 27, 2020

malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

Related Articles:
What is your preference, citizen: pillow talk or public concerns?
A 'working nation' needs a judiciary that works
From 'out of order' to 'order' and justice for all
Credibility gaps and complicities
Towards an intersection of 'rule of law' and 'tradition'

Read more

Credibility gaps and complicities

Is Ranjan Ramanayake a hero or a villain? Depends on who you ask and depends on what you are talking about. If anything he has done or said causes embarrassment to someone or some political group then that person, his/her supporters or the party (as the case may be) would not cheer him. The relevant opponents might. There’s a lot of subjectivity in these Q&A exercises.

The chain of events has thrown up some names. It has revealed some glaring flaws in multiple apparatuses of the state. Such things are not unknown. Even proof of the same is available. And yet, the entire saga of leaked tapes has revived the serious discussion on systemic flaws, political culture, the average political persona and ethics.

Such things need to be discussed. This is good. However, we also see this discussion being displaced by a fascination for the sordid. This is not good.

In all this, ‘due process’ has been subverted, sometimes deliberately and at times by the over-enthusiasm of ‘the public.’ Whether the end justifies the means or not is sadly a question that’s not been considered important enough to discuss. 

Ranjan Ramanayake did not leak recorded conversations. They were leaked by others. Ranjan Ramanayake does not seem to have been interested in exposing corruption. Instead he has encouraged wrongdoing to see that justice is done. Supposedly. When the frills are removed we are left with a politician who has no scruples about bending rules, either through ignorance or arrogance or both, to achieve objectives he has set himself. These objectives are clearly partisan and framed by narrow political agenda. 

Recording phone conversations without the permission of the persons at the other end of the line  is clearly out of order. Leaking such confidential matter without the permission of the relevant persons is also out of order. Ranjan’s act is immoral. We know that the state is in possession of the tapes. It is also probably that others have such taped material in their possession. The state has a responsibility to protect confidentiality. In the case of others it is a moral obligation, nothing more. Who leaked the tapes? We need to know. 

So, let us repeat. Ranjan did not leak the tapes. They were leaked. Claiming after the fact of leakage that exposure was intended is untenable. He was not a whistle-blower. Neither were his intentions honorable or defensible as having the larger interest of the people at heart. That’s all balderdash.

That said, Ranjan’s claims about fellow parliamentarians, if they can be substantiated, are certainly serious. Maybe he is in a land called ‘Nothing Left to Lose’ and if so there’s nothing heroic about it. It more like ‘if I am to drown I will take everyone in the ship down with me.’  

Still. 

Ranjan has unwittingly confirmed what was widely suspected if not known: there’s complicity (at worst) in wrongdoing and there's a massive credibility gap. We cannot trust this parliament. We cannot trust the judicial system. We cannot trust the law enforcement agencies. Worse, considering our own complicities (in general) by way of electing immoral, deceitful and corrupt representatives and by privileging exchanges of a personal nature over those that have relevance to systems of governance, we cannot trust ourselves as a citizenry. That's not a happy state for a nation or a citizenry. 

It is easy to say ‘let’s get rid of the 225.’ We send 225 to Parliament every election, so there’s complicity there, tempered of course by the limitation that our choices are limited by the preferences of party leaders responsible for making the relevant lists. However, if charity is to begin at home, then we can raise voices, stand together and stamp feet. Remain silent and we relinquish the right to complain. 

Now it is likely that Parliament will be dissolved in early March. Then comes the nomination process. If any party fields even a single person who is in the ‘tried, tested and miserably failed’ category on account of sloth, incompetence, bending or breaking rules, unethical conduct or worse, then that party essentially indicts itself. It shouts out, ‘We do not deserve your vote.’ And if the people go ahead and vote for ANY candidate from such a party, then the people indict themselves. They shout out: ‘We happily renounce the right to complain; we deserve to be lied to, robbed and treated as though we do not count.’  

It is hard to imagine that things could get worse than this. And that’s the positive aspect of it all. We can only get better. But that’s up to us. If the major political parties insist on ‘business as usual’ then it is up to the people to put them out of business or make do with inferior and even toxic goods which they must necessarily consume. 

Of course, in all this, we have to presume innocence until proven otherwise. As of now, we have Ranjan Ramanayake incriminating himself as an immoral, unethical and willing-to-bend-rules politician. We have judges who have compromised themselves. We have the possibility that state agencies leaked the tapes. Ranjan has leveled charges at all and sundry. The tapes he tabled in Parliament may or may not offer evidence to the effect that his fellow-parliamentarians were or are guilty of wrongdoing. Investigations are necessary to generate proof one way or another, with the hitch that there’s very little confidence in such processes being independent, efficient or just. 

That said, it cannot be disputed that there’s a stink that has been emanating from Parliament for decades. We put that stink in Parliament. We cannot do much, but there must be ‘a little something’ that we can do. Perhaps we should do ‘our bit’ at every given opportunity.     

This article was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [January 22, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

What is your preference, citizen: pillow talk or public concerns?

Should public figures have private lives? This is probably a question that has been asked and answered countless times across time and space. 

A related question would be ‘can public figures have private lives?’ Again an old question but one to which the ‘possible’ response has and is becoming increasingly muted courtesy technological innovation and surveillance complexities that are hard to notice and even harder to keep track of. 

It is not the case that people didn’t know about others’ lives prior to privacy-wrecking innovations.  People talk. People notice. People put two and two together. People perceive. People draw conclusions. And if the perception are negative, all other factors being equal, it could cost the perceived. 

Politics is an unforgiving vocation when it comes to privacy. This negative is known and politicians probably weigh the possible fallout against the potential benefits. Some have little to hide. Others who have skeletons, do their best to keep the cupboards locked and give the impression that there are no cupboards and no skeletons either. Some are careless. Some try to cover up and get away with it, either because they are clever or have the necessary leverage. Some make things worse by attempting to conceal the in-concealable. Regardless, in general, the old adage, ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity,’ seems to have held.

The original question, then, is one that is as much about ‘the public’ as it is about politicians. The key word is ‘should’. Should or should not, that’s the question that needs to be considered. If the public and the private are for all intents and purposes inextricably entwined, do we consider them to be one and the same? Even if the lines are blurred, don’t we have a choice about which element to privilege in our considerations, either the private or the public? 

Let’s leave aside the despicable and utterly unethical nature of UNP parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake’s conscious practice of recording phone conversations. Let’s leave aside the childish after-the-fact defense of ‘exposing the system.’ Essentially the content in leaked tapes can be divided into two broad categories: a) that which is of relevance to the general public since institutions, processes, representatives and officials are implicated, and b) that which is strictly personal and has such relevance. 

There are no sanctions when it comes to the perusal of such things. To each his/her fascination, one could argue. The problem here is that there’s content that’s of serious public concern and content that’s not. The fascination with the latter could trivialize, displace and even make irrelevant the former.  

We need to acknowledge, as flagged at the beginning, that ‘the sordid’ can have a bearing on the political, it can damage a personality and the party/coalition and even ideology to which the particular individual subscribes. That ‘political’ element however is of marginal worth when one considers the larger implication of the leaks.

The sexual dalliances of any individual is his/her business. If anyone is interested in what another person does behind closed doors that’s voyeurism. ‘Political voyeurism’ if one wants to call it that, is cheap. It can cause damage to the ‘seen’ but it doesn’t exactly cover the ‘seer’ in glory. 

Take the sordid allegations that Prageeth Ekneligoda leveled at Patali Champika Ranawaka. Is it anyone’s business? Was it all true, in the first place? Ranawaka didn’t care to respond at the time, but he cannot be faulted. Those who pen such notes crave response, after all. The reason why it all became serious was the fact that Ekneligoda disappeared or was disappeared. If he was indeed disappeared, then the immediate question is, ‘who had a motive?’ If the allegations were true, then Ranawaka had a motive, we could surmise: vengeance. However, to even name Ranawaka as a suspect, one has to be able to conclude that no one else had any motive to get rid of Ekneligoda, for vengeful or other reasons. The truth is that Ekneligoda made many enemies. He was, all things considered, a shady character and not only because keyhole-journalism was one of his passions (note: such journalism doesn’t require one to peep through keyholes or — a vivid imagination and a deranged mind are adequate ‘journalistic’ tools).

The problem with the Ekneligoda story and the politics that ensued is that the claims are not substantiated. Secondly these unfounded allegations had an extremely negative impact on Ranawaka’s family, including two daughters of schooling age. Thirdly there is no evidence of Ranawaka having had anything to do with Ekneligoda. 

So we have wild speculation. So we have speculation painted as fact. So we have ‘facts’ used to attack Ranawaka politically. As things stand it is highly unlikely that the Ekenligoda piece in and of itself could cause any significant damage to Ranawaka. Even if he did have something to do with Ekneligoda’s disappearance, it is not the truth of the narrative but the damage it has done to Ranawaka and his family that could have generated ‘motive.’ Lots of ‘ifs’ there, take note. 

What is interesting here is selectivity. The allegations were made when Ranawaka was a minister during the second presidential term of Mahinda Rajapaksa. That camp didn’t utter a word then; some in the then Opposition did make some noice. The pohottuwa camp resurrected  Ekneligoda’s article only AFTER Ranawaka moved to the Yahapalana Coalition. And those in the then Opposition who had made an issue of it went silent. 

Thus, it all came down to political loyalties (or otherwise). Not even the sordidness (which itself wasn’t proven and which in any case is certainly not a public-interest matter).

All this is what we expect from politicians in a political culture that’s childish at best and even then only sporadically and an absolute stink at worse. What of the public though?

Why do the public mimic politician? Conversely, is it that the politician is a true representative in that he/she mirrors the priority-confusion and a preference for the sordid on the part of the represented?

The more serious issue pertaining to Ranawaka is the allegation that he fled the scene of an accident which involved a vehicle he was allegedly driving and the allegation that he deliberately misled the law enforcement agencies. Note, ‘allegations’. Remember, presumption of innocence. Such pertinent issues are seldom raised. It’s no different from the behavior of those making a song and dance about ‘war crimes’. Allegations. Presumption of innocence. Such caveats are not flagged. 

Still, this accident-issue is surely more important than the spawn of Ekneligoda’s warped mind. And yet, Ekneligoda wins the day. The personal elements in the leaked tapes win the day over everything that point to serious decay in the institutional and processual arrangement of the state.  

Whose fault? Well, if we want to enjoy the ‘personal’ circus then let’s surrender ourselves to a long sojourn in a land where mismanagement, misappropriation, misrepresentation and other such vile creatures have a ball and rake in the bucks from the public kitty. Let’s not complain.

This was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [January 16, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com.

Read more

A ‘working nation’ needs a judiciary that works

'Order! Order!' 

There are many ways to read the politics surrounding the raiding of Ranjan Ramanayake’s house, his subsequent arrest and the recorded phone conversations. 

Predictably the Colombots cried out in horror. Consumed perhaps by the disappointed of preferred outcomes not materializing on November 16, 2019 and/or anti-Rajapaksa sentiment that has become second-nature, Born Again Democrats, Candlelight Ladies, Funded Voices and other closet UNPers masquerading as liberals and leftists went to town decrying the action. 

Indeed, they had a point. At first glance, it seemed a trivial matter. At second glance, i.e. when ‘reason’ was mentioned, it seemed to be just another case of political victimization. There are more serious cases to investigate, which of course doesn’t mean that lesser crimes should be shelved and lesser wrongdoers allowed to wrong-do again. Still, there was objection from all quarters. 

There was no room for a third glance. It was a full show, free of charge. ‘The Tapes’: that’s the name of the movie that Ranjan Ramanayake unwittingly acted in.  What of due-process now? Those who read out the Riot Act to over-zealous police officers who raided Ranjan’s house are now dead silent on all the un-yahapalana-like activities that their hero has indulged in. 

That’s not surprising. They were up in arms over a story of abduction that an employee of the Swiss Embassy cooked up. When the Swiss, in a series of back-tracking and damage-controlling statements virtually acknowledged they had been suckered, Colomo’s twitterati went silent. They are silent now in the face of what could be called ‘Ranjangate’. 

So we talk of Ranjan’s arrest. We talk of how he slipped. We could also compare him to Richard Nixon, another tape-busted politician in a different country and era with far less sophisticated and accessible technology. Nixon taped conversations and most who conversed were ignorant of the fact. Someone blew the lid and the release of the tapes was sought. He was impeached. Nixon, like Ranjan, did not realize that such recorded information is safe only while in possession.  Ranjan could have been more careful, obviously. In both cases, there was complacency. 

Now some have argued that Ranjan had the best of intentions. Well, the jury is not quite out on that one. He was an out and out operator throwing his weight around and getting people to do his bidding by giving the impression that he was backed by the then President and Prime Minister. Maybe he was someone’s catspaw and if that were the case then it means he was knowingly an instrument in political witch-hunts.  

In any event, the tapes are well and truly undressing the yahapalana regime, down to the underpants and worse. Maybe it’s the shock of the truth that has silenced the Colombots. They would know. I don’t.

What of the ethics of recording conversations without consent? What of making calls to someone in the middle of a media conference without informing the person at the other end of the line that the speaker phone is ‘on’? Most importantly, where’s the discussion on the independence of the judiciary? 

Ranjangate is not about the sordid and underhand operations of the previous government. Such things we’ve seen in other governments as well. It is not about an idiotic politician operating as though life is just like a bad movie. It is not about closet UNPers being unintended victims of their own delusions. It is all about politics of the judicial system. 

Ranjangate has exposed all the flaws of the system. Independence of the judiciary is a myth. There are no checks and balances. Politicians can move judges. Politicians can move courts. If it’s not financial rewards, it’s a career-push. There are deals being made. 

Now it cannot be the case that judges are poorly paid and some of them are tempted to look away or determine in a particular manner for a little ‘something’. The salaries of judges were enormously boosted by the previous regime. Promotions are a different kettle of fish, apparently. Play your cards right and you can move up and move up the ladder fast. There’s unholy lateral movement between the Attorney General’s Department and the judiciary. Defend some cases and you enter the ‘to be considered’ column when it comes to appointing judges. We’ve seen this.  Judges have been pulled out of the Court of Appeal and given the post of Attorney General and later shifted back to the Supreme Court or even elevated to the position of Chief Justice. The Attorney General’s Department finds itself severely compromised by the license that politicians and of course presidents have used to position favorites in the Supreme Court. 

The wording is there in the constitution when it comes to separation of powers. However, as the late Justice C.G. Weera,amtry once said (Lalith Athulathmudali Memorial Lecture, 2012), ‘strong words in a constitution regarding judicial independence can very easily be undermined in practice, unless all members of the executive and the public act in the spirit of this constitutional provision.’  

Ranjan Ramanayake’s antics will no doubt caution all politicians and all judges. Hopefully all public servants and corporate bigwigs as well. If those who are best positioned to do wrong are forced to be wary, we could be happy about it. However, if as Justice Weramantry opined, it boils down to  a matter of ethics, then onus is on the President and his Cabinet on the one hand and the people on the other to set things right. Obviously members of the executive can do much. An alert public is an asset. We should not have to depend on ‘leaks,’ welcome though they are in showing us what we are not supposed to see. 

Ranjangate has compromised many individuals. Ranjan’s initiatives shows that there’s room for manipulation and that manipulation in fact happens often. He has no ethics, that much is clear. However, unintentionally, the man’s antics has opened a discussion on key elements that hinder justice. That’s a good thing. 

Now we know. And now that we know, we can do something about it. Indeed, now that the President knows, HE can do something about it. It’s not about ‘fixing’ Ranjan and everyone he has implicated. It is about fixing the system that allows for match-fixing if you will. Not an easy task, but if Gotabaya Rajapaksa is committed to his promise of ‘a working nation’ it is imperative that he does everything necessary to obtain a working judicial system. He could do it. And we could thank Ranjan Ramanayaka, a despicable and immoral politician though he is, for unintentionally setting things in motion. 

This article was first published in the Daily Mirror [January 8, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The enemy at the gate could be a blessing

Ranjan Ramanayake is an outspoken UNP parliamentarian. He’s so outspoken that sometimes he gets into hot water. Occasionally, though, he is spot on. Just the other day, he was at his blunt best when he took on Mahamood Hizbullah and other Muslim politicians who are all of a sudden playing ‘Representatives of the Victimized Community’ and worse, issuing threats to one and all non-Muslims. Here’s a gist (in translation): “They say they are in fear…aren’t we scared? The attackers didn’t say ‘Buduhaamuduruwane’ or ‘Jesune’…they said ‘Allahu Akbar.’” That’s ‘God (as per the Islamic faith) is greater (or ‘the greatest’).  The Muslim politicians have not shown any remorse or humility about what was done in the name of Muslims by a tiny minority of that community.’'

Make no mistake, the terrorism unleashed on Easter Sunday was planned and executed by those who were (in their minds and in their convictions) of the Islamic faith.  They deliberately targeted churches. They also targeted hotels. The majority of the dead and wounded were of the Christian faith and in the Batticaloa blasts, the victims were mostly Tamils. Sinhalese died. Buddhists died. Muslims also died. Given the rhetoric of the terrorists, given the well-planned and executed nature of the attacks, given the fact that successive governments have turned a blind eye to their operations for well over a decade and that they’ve indoctrinated and recruited hundreds to their cause, it would be folly indeed to assume that they are done and dusted. They, first and foremost, were instrumental in regenerating a nation-wide fear psychosis.  

Ironically and tragically but not necessarily surprisingly, their operations particularly instilled fear among the very community they belong to and in whose name they act(ed), never mind the fact that, arguably, a significant section would not identify with them. Indeed, many Muslims have openly condemned the attack and have named the attackers as the primary source of the anxieties that the Muslims suffered and continue to suffer on account of their actions. I said ‘not surprising’ because following the example of the LTTE, any fear that is generated could, theoretically, facilitate recruitment. Also, given that the ISIS is a global operation, even the decimation of a community could be seen as a worthy sacrifice in terms of the possible broader objective of enhanced recruitment elsewhere.  

It is precisely because of this that regardless of the shameless communalism of Muslim politicians, everyone in other religious and ethnic communities should do everything possible to a) ensure the safety of Muslims and b) to allay all fears they may harbor. It does not matter what their political affiliations are. It does not matter whether or not they were opposed to NTJ, vocally or otherwise. It does not matter whether or not they identify with the Wahhabism that gave rise to the Jihaadists. 

This is precisely why the statement of the Chief Prelate of the Asgiriya Chapter is unfortunate. Indeed, the call for attacking Muslims should be roundly condemned, even as we must treat with suspicion the chapter-verse quotes of the ICCPR by those who selectively do so.  Any statement that generalizes about any community can only aggravate anxieties. They can only agitate the worst DNA strains of the human being. They can only empower the extremists. They can only disempower the peaceful. Fear begets fear. Communalism feeds off communalism. Affirmation of identity does not necessarily mean you have to attack or say anything negative about any other identity based community. We an do without all that.  

And yet, we need to understand that we will have ‘all that’.  We have to work keeping in mind that ‘all that’ is and will be part of the story. Even a cursory read of human history will teach you this uncomfortable truth. This is why we have laws and they are amended from time to time. This is why the business of national security has to be handled by professionals and not politicians. This is why no one should a) take the law into his/her hands, and b) push others to do so.  

More seriously, it cuts a road for outsiders with dubious agenda to write themselves into the overall political narrative. Mangala Samaraweera, a man who does not have what it takes to note that he uses hate speech even when he berates those who do, is small fry in this regard. No, when we have a government that is ever ready to welcome with open arms such operators, the causes for concern are that much more serious and more dangerous than anything that Samaraweera can do; he is but cat’s paw. Cats, ladies and gentlemen, abound.  

For example, just the other day, the European Union mission in Colombo issued a statement of ‘concern’. They are concerned ‘by political and religious pressure being directed at Sri Lanka’s Muslim community which is undermining peace and reconciliation in the country’. They add, ‘prejudiced and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly published by media serve only to fuel intolerance.’  These views, the EU claims, were shared at a meeting with the Prime Minister. They have urged the President, Prime Minister and all political leaders ‘to reassert the state’s commitment to mutual respect, tolerance, and equal treatment under the law for all, irrespective of faith or ethnicity.’ 

Now the last seems above board, even though the word ‘urge’ is distasteful. This comes, one notes, from a group of nations that are the mothers and fathers of intolerance, racism and religious fundamentalism in roughly equal standing to the worst in that category among any other nation. Interestingly, they’ve taken a leaf from the Hizbullah strategy: ‘everyone is to blame but all Musims are innocent!’ Nothing of the rank intolerance, brutality and savagery of those who started all this. Instead, the media is targeted!

Nevertheless, the EU is only ‘Malli’ in the business of ‘boradiye maalu baema’ (roughly, ‘striking while the iron is hot’). The ‘Aiya’ in all this is the Grand Mother of Meddling. The USA. In the midst of all this, made worse by the fact that this country is being run by most incompetent government in post-Independence history, there are matters that can wreck the nation in ways that the Jihaadists cannot even dream of.

Here are questions that perhaps Eran Wickramaratne and Harsha De Silva (I expect) would answer, since they are ‘the economists’ in this government.

Has the Government entered into one, and is in the process of finalizing two other agreements with the USA? If there has been or is any discussion in this regard, does Cabinet know of it? Is the Government planning to introduce several laws and is at least one of them already in place? What is the final version of the ‘Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)’? Does it or does it now award  diplomatic immunity to US armed forces and civilian employees of the U.S department of Defense and will they be permitted to wear uniforms and carry arms while performing official duties? 

Would the said personnel be permitted to import, export and use any personal property, equipment, supplies, material, technology, training or services in connection with their activities according to the agreement, without any inspection, license, other restrictions and or duties? Can vessels, air crafts and vehicles enter Sri Lanka without any restriction/inspection? Will the agreement become binding the moment “a minister” of the S.L. Government sings a letter of willingness.  What is the status of and the full text of the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA)? What is the status of the full text of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact (MCC Compact)?

These are grave matters. They are causes for serious concern. They ought to generate fear and would certainly do so if these agreements come into effect.  We can retire all our favorite definitions of ‘Sri Lanka’ and ‘Sri Lankans’ (Sinhala Buddhist, Part of the IS Caliphate, Multi-Ethnic and Multi-Religion with the Sinhala Buddhists ‘Rabble’ as Servants of the Kolombians or Colombots).  Vassals we would be. For a long time to come. And the pot shots that extreme elements of various communities take at each other would seem like pebble-throws compared to the multiple violations and depravations we would have to suffer. Remember the Chagos Island and the Chagossians. Haven’t heard of them? Well, that might be our fate too.  

malindasenevi@gmail.com

[First published in the Daily Mirror on June 20, 2019]

RELATED ARTICLES: 

'Moderate is a convenient garb for the pernicious

The politics of alienation and isolation
Reconciliation does not grow in the Valley of Lies
And here comes the Equivalency Circus
The prerogatives of humanity and citizenship

අනතුර, ආරක්ෂාව සහ පුරවැසි වගකීම

Easter Sunday Attacks: naming the enemy is a game now!

Ostriches cannot fight terrorists

The problem has to be unveiled

On matters and articles of faith

Read more