Political pots and kettles in an all-black Parliament

Dulles Alahapperuma, having first entered Parliament in 1994 and having retained his seat in the General Election in 2000 surprising decided not to contest in 2001.  He had his reasons.  His argument was that he was ‘too white’ to be in Parliament.   

‘Most people in Parliament are brown, but no one realizes this because there’s no contrast to make the brown stand out.  When there’s white, it shows.   This makes “brown people” uncomfortable.  I don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable and I don’t want to be where I don’t fit in.’

Brown, to him, was metaphor for taint.  He didn’t want to be a part of that tainted and tainting story.  He did return to parliamentary politics and I am not sure how he justified this to himself or those who thought he made sense with the white-brown parable, but that is another story. What’s important is the parable.  

Parliament and parliamentary politics is not ‘brown’ but ‘black’ in the main.  It’s about pots calling kettles black and vice versa, and where there’s anything relatively clean every effort being made to discolor.  People give in and give up.  People compromise.  People slip.  And once you slip, you get covered in brown and black.  Most walk in dirty, some get dirty once in.  

We are seeing this in the back and forth pertaining to the Central Bank bond issue scandal.  We have the President announcing that the Commission appointed by him to investigate the matter has found Ravi Karunanayake guilty of wrongdoing.  We have Karunanayake claiming that he is innocent and that the President was selective when briefing the nation about the Commission’s findings.  We have the Prime Minister claiming that there was hanky-panky in bond issues from 2008 to 2015, i.e. before the Yahapalana Government came to power.  He has not echoed Karunanayake’s sentiments nor backed the innocence-claim. 

Karunanayake, however, has said ‘neither the Prime Minister nor I have committed anything wrong.’  The news story was headlined thus: ‘Ravi says he’s as clean as PM.’  That’s a mischievous re-wording of course, but it catches a salient point viz the claiming of innocence.   ‘We are both white,’ he is basically saying.  Another way of putting it is, ‘I am as good as he is, and if he is bad then that’s how bad or good I am.’  It’s one step short of saying ‘we are in cahoots in this matter.’  

One notes that Wickremesinghe has not returned the favor.  

Ranil Wickremesinghe has not said 'I am as clean as Ravi is.'  He has not said 'Neither Ravi nor I have done any wrong.'  

More importantly, the Prime Minister has not denied the findings of the Commission of Inquiry that the President detailed in his special statement on the matter.  He has not returned endorsed Karunanayake’s claim.  He has not said ‘I am as clean as Ravi’ or ‘neither Ravi nor I have committed anything wrong.’  

Is that telling, then?  Is all this ‘telling’ and if so what’s being told?

Let’s put all this in brown-white terms.  The President has described someone as being brown.  The moment he does this, he is claiming that he is white.  When Karunanayake says ‘he’s told only half the story,’ he is essentially saying ‘the President could be brown too!’  When Karunanayake says ‘I am white’ he’s saying others are brown.  When the Prime Minister says ‘it was all brown before 2015,’ he’s implying that it was all white thereafter.  When Karunanayake says ‘I am like the Prime Minister,’ he’s essentially purchasing claimed purity or whiteness.  

Taken together they are all brown.  For this reason they all have the fallback ‘I am like you, no better and no worse.’  And perhaps in order to convince themselves and each other they’ve indulged in fisticuffs in Parliament.  

What then is left to say of ‘yahapalanaya’?  What then is left to say of ‘change’?  Pots and kettles, is that what we have to conclude?  All brown and no room for white, is that what they want us to conclude?  The more important question is, ‘is there anyone who is white in Parliament?’  And if there are white people in Parliament, what on earth are they doing there?  

This UNP-SLFP (or Maithri-Ranil) Yahapalana combine has lost the right to use the term.   They have spent three years pointing fingers at the previous regime, which was of course as brown as the current lot.  If that (pointing fingers) was all they did, we could still suffer them, but they’ve dipped their always-brown hands into the National Kitty.  

It is too late for the likes of Karunanayake to salvage pride by employing the ‘at least’ option; e.g ‘at least a commission was appointed, at least a report came out of it, at least some of the findings were made public.’  The whole story is not made of what the President revealed plus what he did not.  The whole story is a brown story.  An ‘all brown’ story.  

It is a story which has all the characters saying ‘I am as clean as he/she is,’ which ladies and gentlemen essentially means ‘I am as corrupt.’  It is said with gusto.  It is said with a devil-may-care air.  It is said with an unsaid ‘so what?’

That’s where we are right now.  The Parliament is brown.  Only one question remains: ‘are we as brown and if so do we want to remain brown?’   Or ‘black’ if we don’t want to use Dulles’ color preference which one feels was inspired as much by dirty politics as by the mud-slinging that passes off for political debate in Parliament and outside it.  

Either way, it is certainly not ‘white,’ or if that’s an insult to non-white people, then it’s not squeaky clean.  It’s dirty.  

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

Read more

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

"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

Read more

Onella Karunanayake has a point

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.  

Read more

Cabinet re-shuffle: the cards that keep floating to the top

President Maithripala Sirisena was hopeful.  He said the Cabinet reshuffle will provide a new impetus to Sri Lanka's development.  Prof G.L. Peiris was generous.  He said that it is unfair to blame Ravi Karunanayake for the economic failures and fiscal shortcomings of the government since he operated with clipped wings considering that the Treasury was under the Prime MInister and the banks with Kabir Hashim.  

Dullas Alahapperuma was cute.  He wonders why the government shifted Karunanayake after he had been named the best in the business of ministering finance just a few months ago. He also asked why Mangala Samaraweera who was showered with praise for his diplomacy was removed from the Ministry of External Affairs.  Valid points, these.  

While we wait on the relevant gazette notification there’s speculation about demands being made for control of various state institutions.  The Development Lotteries Board, SriLankan Airlines, the Colombo Stock Exchange and some sections of the Plantations Ministry have been mentioned in pound-of-flesh terms.  Apparently Karunanayake wants these.  Of course it would look utterly silly for such institutions to come under the purview of the Ministry of External Affairs and therefore there’s talk of an additional tag being conferred on Karunanayake.  It could very well come to pass because all it takes is to come up with some economy-related name and a ‘state minister’ label.  Job done.  

Let’s leave speculation aside. Let’s go with the real.  

Dullas has a point.  Prof Peiris has a point.  The President cannot but utter something optimistic.  However, as has been pointed out and not too kindly, booru kuttama mona vidihakata anuvath booruwomai enne.  ‘Booruwa’ is Sinhala for donkey (and booru would be donkeys) but in the context of the kuttama (deck of cards) it refers to the Jack.  The proper transliteration would have ‘joker’ instead of booruwa.  Well then, this is how it would go: whichever way one shuffles a pack of  jokers, jokers are what you would get.  

It’s a tad harsh but if it points to a certain dilemma.  There can be many reasons for a cabinet reshuffle.  If there was a loyalty-shift in Parliament and some ministers crossed lines, then of course empty portfolios would need filling.  Death also necessitates shift, depending on the size and importance of the particular ministry.  In this instance, the only possible reason is incompetence.   

Is the government telling us that Karunanayake did a bad job, as did Samaraweera?  What guarantee is there that either would handle a different subject better?  If removal from one ministry indicates inability, inefficiency, corruption etc., then shouldn’t the wise course of action be to appoint better people to these positions?  If Karunanayake cannot handle money, why is there talk of offering him some bucks-related institutions?  Weren’t there better people? 

From the point of view of the political project of this government it is hard to find fault with Samaraweera.  One may find the project itself to be sophomoric and even disastrous in terms of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country, but if portfolios are about briefs and delivery, he has got a pass mark.  Not so Karunanayake.  All the indicators add up to an F, even if one were to give some compensatory brownie points for ‘inheritance’ (i.e. from the previous regime — provided of course that all the horror stories told over and over again are defensible).  

If the Finance Manager of a corporate is found to be incompetent would he or she be moved into HR and the HR head be made Finance Manager?  No.  The Finance Manager would be hoofed out, with or without compensation, depending on whether his ‘incompetence’ included hanky-panky.  In this instance, incompetence seems to have been established, but Karunanayake is still a member of the cabinet and the portfolio he now holds is as important as the one he lost, one can argue.  It’s not even a punishment transfer then!  

There seems to be the mistaken notion that party seniority or political clout is cause enough to demand portfolios and control of institutions/sectors.  We seem to have developed a political culture where the decision-makers have to make sure that every district, every ethnicity, every religious community, every constituent party in the case of a coalition government and even certain castes have to be represented in Cabinet.  Add to this the need for some gender-balance cosmetics and a bit of youthfulness and one cannot envy the task of the President and Prime Minister, especially since they have their own party-problems to sort out at least in part through portfolio-offer.     

They cannot complain though.  The President and Prime Minister did themselves in when they came up with the 19th Amendment which included a neat escape clause for them to go around the size-limit pertaining to the cabinet.  The kind of horseplay we have witnessed over the past few weeks could have been effectively prevented had they played statesman instead of politician, especially given the yahapalana rhetoric they indulged in and the political momentum they had.  

Make no mistake, this side of radical constitutional reform, we will continue to see these kinds of reshuffles by this and subsequent regimes.  Whichever way the reshuffling is done, it will smack of pound-of-flesh demands, trying to balance necessity with the need to retain political stability by the purchase of loyalty, and ultimately a musical chairs game among the incompetent, greedy and corrupt except that the number of chairs will be a constant.  

Things can be done differently.  While conceding that different political formations with different histories and predilections produce different systems, the Swiss example does have some lessons which unfortunately our constitution-makers either ignored or were ignorant of.  Switzerland, since 1948, has had just seven ministries which together are broad enough to cover all subjects.  The titles of the ministries themselves are enshrined in the constitution.  

There are no escape clauses such as those embedded in the 19th Amendment.  There are no ministerial goodies to be offered in return for switching political loyalty.  The incompetent and corrupt cannot hide, if such be the case.  There’s no frenzied shuffling.  The competent are known and are appointed.  They have to work hard.  They can’t pass the buck.  They can’t say ‘I couldn’t do it because such and such institutions were not under my control.’  And, if anyone is found to be out of order, he or she will not be accorded the out of switching ministries with a colleague.  

We are not Switzerland.  However, since there’s a lot of talk about reforms and constitutional amendment, and since the entire cabinet reshuffle has taken the appearance of a circus, the sober thing to do would be for the President and the Prime Minister to revisit the clauses pertaining to the cabinet.  Numbers matter, of course.  Subjects however are more important.  The reshuffling exercise has established this beyond a shadow of doubt.  

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

Read more

Cut out the cut-out heroes!

Hail the self-labelled 'Wise Man of Parliament'!!!!!

Someone said that Ranil Wickremesinghe had ordered his ‘cut-outs’ to be dismantled.  I haven’t seen any RW cut-outs.  So if an order had been issued it must have been on the following lines: ‘Make sure there are no cut-outs of me!’  

Whether any of this happened we do not know.  One thing is certain: a Ranil Wickremesinghe larger-than-life would not attract.  If a move was made, it was wise.  If a move hasn’t been made, that’s wise too.  

What’s disappointing is that RW hasn’t rapped the knuckles of the cut-out heroes in his party.  It is disappointing because these very same worthies were howling not too long ago about Mahinda Rajapaksa’s cut-outs.  Some of them said that cut-outs take away from the city’s beauty, never mind that they didn’t attribute the ‘beauty’ part of it to the very regime they vilified.  But they were right.  Beautification is no license for subsequent desecration.  

It is funny, really.  There’s Wijedasa Rajapakshe claiming that he is the Wise Man of the Parliament. 'ප්‍රාඥයා' (‘Praagnayaa’) actually translates as ‘intellectual’ but ‘wise man’ somehow goes better with the pomposity.  This ‘wise man’ held membership in two political parties, both representing both the lumpen proletariat and the lumpen bourgeoisie.  

He uttered not a word of protest about the dictatorial nature of the UNP Constitution.  Nothing about the Central Bank bond issue. His intellect, sorry wisdom, appeared to have gone to sleep when Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed three party loyalists to inquire into the bond matter which implicated a hand-picked Governor and a hand-picked chairman of a bank who was also a party man.  He went along with his leader’s attempt to institute an all powerful executive prime ministership in place of the much vilified all powerful executive presidency.  He did his bit, wisely, to help scuttle electoral reform.  He looked the other way when his party dumped the Right to Information Act.  Wise.  Very wise.  

Then there’s Sujeewa Senasinghe, the copper-colored MP who has done nothing of significance in or out of Parliament.  He claims or rather he has got his minions to claim that he is our future.  One worries.  Period.  

Oh, Ravi!  That’s Ravi K.  K for Karunanayake.  He’s a big boy.  He’s gone to town.  Lee Kuan Yew described Sri Lankan politics as a periodic auctioning of non-existent resources.  He got it all wrong.  Ravi K is bragging about doing what he has not done as though the doing/not-doing was all done with his own money even as the said money is essentially public funds.  He’s a master at taking credit for what other people have (claimed to have) done.  Check the hoardings.  It’s Ravi who brought down prices (they are all up now, but that’s another matter) of less than a dozen items, some of which hardly figure in the average consumer’s desirable-list.  He brought down the price of fuel, he would have us believe.  He’s done everything.  

And he’s cute.  He’s even inserted a picture of the President (leader of the SLFP and not UNP, let us not forget) to decorate his brag.  Smart.  He is Mr Generosity Unlimited.  Lovely.

Then there’s  Upul Shantha Sannasgala grabbing the walls for his campaign.  He’s used to it, being a well-known tuition master who has been peddling his wares in much the same way for several decades now.  

There are others and no doubt we’ll see other wise and generous people from other parties including those who claim they too are our future laughing at us from walls and hoardings.  But those other parties were supposed to be like that.  The UNP was supposed to be different.  

How could we forget Harin Fernando.  He came to Colombo with a bunch of people. They came in ‘CTB buses’.  Harin no doubt would have hired these buses.  They remain public property though.  Harin’s face was plastered all over those buses.  That’s ‘difference’?  A ‘better political culture’?  What does the Wise Man say?  What does the philanthropist say?  What does the Man of the Future say?  

So what has changed from the Rajapaksa days, huh?  

Read more

Land-grabbing yahapaalanaya-style

 [Political buddies Ravi K and Upul J doing the same-old same-old?]

It is not news when some company takes a state institution to court.  It happens often enough.  In this world very few people if at all do not absolve themselves of guilt before or when they commit an act which others or the law might consider wrong or illegal.  That’s why there is litigation.  That’s why there are plaints and plaintiffs, defence and defendants.  

Each suit however has a story.  Some are juicy and some are boring.  Some reveal structural flaws and some reveal unwholesome cultures of being and doing.  It’s the last kind that one sees in an otherwise ordinary and even common plaint filed in the District Court of Colombo.

Crown City Developers (Pvt) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Abans Group of Companies, has petitioned court against the Board of Investments (BOI).  The plaint refers to attempt by the BOI to terminate agreements which in manner and intent are ‘malicious, capricious, unlawful, illegal and against the terms and conditions of the said agreement’.  That’s legal jargon of course and of the kind that get copy-pasted from one plaint to the next.  

But what really happened?  Crown City has not had any issues with the BOI and vice versa in 15 years.  Even as recent as November 2014, the two parties communicated to apply for and obtain approval for the construction of a warehouse building and logistic center.   

Then, at the end of March 2015, less than three months after the country elected a new President who appointed a new Cabinet, the BOI writes to Crown City seeking termination of agreements.  Two weeks later the BOI further informs Crown City to cease construction on the property.  Interestingly, prior to the first communication of this kind, i.e. on March 11, 2015, the BOI informs Crown City to hand over an unutilized 14 acres of land.  Land, then, appears to have been the issue.  Even more interesting is the fact that the BOI has not specified the reasons for seeking termination apart from the vague and indeterminate ‘[failure] to fulfil the terms and conditions of the said Agreements’.  Highly suspicious and certainly irregular.  

Since the BOI has not specified reason it would be harsh and unfair to indulge in conjecture.  We can however state some facts.

Interest in the plot of land in question has been expressed by a person ‘having business connections with business entities in direct competition with the plaintiff and/or occupying premises adjacent to the plaintiff and/or who would greatly benefit from use and/or occupation of the said property’ (from the plaint).  The plaint indicates that this person holds powerful office.   

Interestingly, again, Crown City has of late (i.e. since the new Government took office) been subject to what might be construed as undue harassment by the Customs and the Inland Revenue Department.  

Now it could be that Crown City has been up to no good and that the previous Government looked the other way.  Theoretically then there’s nothing wrong in these state agencies (empowered by ‘good governance’ pledges perhaps) taking interest in their operations.  

On the other hand, what we have are three state agencies (BOI, Customs and Inland Revenue) and an interested party who is a politician.  The plaint alludes to evidence of this politician’s interest in the property.  

The politician has a name.  Ravi Karunanayake.  He is the Minister of Finance.  He has direct or indirect say in the BOI, Customs and Inland Revenue.  These are dots.  They can be joined.  Conclusions can be drawn.

Now we cannot predict how the court will rule.  There is litigation, there is determination.  There are out-of-court settlements and there is the withdrawal of cases.  Anything could happen.  Who can tell, perhaps Crown City might ‘settle’.  If the settlement benefits any entity that Karunanayake is associated with then there’s something seriously wrong that has happened.   Even if there is a settlement, having claimed breach of contract the BOI cannot back off without appearing to have represented the interest of the minister and nothing else.  

Has Ravi Karunanayake abused his position?  The BOI Chairman is Upul Jayasuriya a known UNPer, ardent critic of the previous government and one of the immediate beneficiaries of the power-change in January.  The two are either friends or political associates.  Has Jayasuriya abused his position?  Is there mutual back-scratching happening here?  We do not know.  We hope not, in fact.  However, as things unfold, we will know.  One way or the other.

Read more

What’s the deal Ravi K?

The previous regime was the most corrupt in remembered history, according to those who sought to bring it down.  That’s a claim that is a common cry by the Opposition.  The regime of Chandrika Kumaratunage was similarly chastised.  The lady was even dubbed ‘Chaura Regina’ (The Thieving Queen).  

This Government, however, moved quickly to bring to book alleged wrongdoers.  High ranking individuals associated with the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency have been arrested, charged or questioned.  A special unit to investigate financial corruption has been set up.  And it is not just politician and officials, even top business persons are being investigated.  Lilith Jayaweera, for example.  

All this is good.  Good to investigate and if wrongdoing is proven, then good to charge and convict.  However, any legal system that is selective in such matters is an insult to the intelligence of the public it purports to serve and is morally bankrupt to boot.  That’s exactly what the discerning public might be forced to convict if one corrects all the dots that are getting placed with respect to the travails of and the possible resurrection of the troubled Ceylinco Group.  

The big boss of Ceylinco, Lalith Kotelawala was charged with defrauding depositors.  He spent time in jail.  His wife Cecille, also charged, fled the country.  The depositors have fought hard for many years to win some compensation. Some had lost their life savings.  Some committed suicide.  They are yet to recover.  

What might have been seen as a silver lining, namely the promise made by Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake to ensure that they are compensated PROVIDED THEY WITHDRAW THEIR CASE, now looks like yet another red herring.  

The reason for doubt comes in the form of mysterious purchasing of Ceylinco Insurance shared by entities that have or are suspected to have close business relations with Lalith Kotelawala.  It might be the case that Kotelawala is using these entities to win back control of Ceylinco Insurance.  

Kotelawala was a strong backer of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe during the latter’s failed bid to become President in 2005.  Is a ‘friendly’ Government going to give a leg up to a man who has fallen quite a bit from the dizzy heights he strolled in happier times?  

What is the Securities Exchange Commission saying about all this?  What is the Central Bank, a co-respondent in the case filed by the depositors, saying?  Is it all about good friends and old boys’s clubs?  Is it an us-them case where ‘our guys’ can do no wrong (as in they CAN do wrong and get away) but ‘your guys’ will be drawn over the coals?

We saw Ranil Wickremesinghe shamelessly defending the Central Bank Governor who has not been cleared by the committee investigating the controversial bond issue (‘Not directly involved’ implies ‘could have been indirectly involved’, and indirect involved is what insider trading is all about!).  No steps have been taken to act on the recommendations of the committee. 

For these reasons we are compelled to ask Ravi Karunanayake whether or not he (or the Government) has cut a deal with Kotelawala and if so what the deal is.  Of course deal-makers don’t easily acknowledge the fact.  However, if Kotelawala does make a come back, under whatever conditions, it would be a signal to what the people can look forward to (with anguish and trepidation of course).

Read more

If rice is too expensive, eat cake yako!

Pic courtesy www.justasiam.wordpress.com 

Kolombians are a distinct people from Colombo who know much -- so much that they are wont to think that others don't know and can't think. They have things to say.  A lot of things to say.  The entire country can learn from them. This is the seventeenth in a series published in 'The Nation' under the title 'Notes of an Unrepentant Kolombian'.  Scroll down for other articles in this series. 

Those who thought that lunacy was defeated along with Mahinda need to think again.  The other day someone forwarded me a complaint of sorts posted on Facebook, clearly by one of those people who sorely need a brain implant.  I got my driver, who has passed the A/L to translate for me.  This is the complaint:

When Johnny was in charge of Sathosa (that’s the CWE, he translated for me and it took a while to figure what that meant) Samba Rice was Rs 60/kg while White Rice was Rs 55.  Today you can’t get any rice for less than Rs 90/kg and Sathosa only has Keeri Samba which is priced at Rs 117/kg.  Back then when 500g of carrots sold at Rs 80, Sathosa sold it at Rs 50.  Today 500g of carrots sell at Rs 200.  There are no vegetable being sold at Sathosa. 

Clearly whoever posted these facts is missing the bus by quite a margin.  First of all they don’t seem to have understood the election result.  Mahinda didn’t lose. They didn’t lose.  The Kolombians won.  It’s not the same thing.  True, we always win whatever the outcome, but this time we got a bonus of actually having our Kolombians running things for us – much better than having yakkos doing it for us. 

Sure there’s this issue of lowering the price of bread which none of us are exactly cheering since it allows yakko kids to have sliced bread sandwiches are thereby claim to be equal to Kolombambinos, but that aside, this rice price hike is something that had to happen. 

What our rice-eating non-Kolombians (who unfortunately we have to share this island with) don’t get is that rice is old fashioned.  We’ve always been on a mission to get it off our national plate. 

Our beloved conquerors destroyed all the reservoirs they could find.  Hit the tank, hit the stomach and the rest is a piece of cake was how they reasoned.  We, Kolombians, their legitimate successors naturally felt that it was a good strategy.  Successive Kolombian decision-makers (and mind you, D.S. was not one of them – Banda was, but that’s another story) have gone out of their way to get this done. 

JR started things rolling with his liberalization. By the time Chandrika came along it was in full swing.  The entire agricultural research apparatus was decentralized into oblivion.  I’ve heard that our rice-eating ancestors (idiots all of them) had developed thousands of varieties to fit different soil, climate and weather conditions but you won’t find any of our grainwashed (and ‘brainwashed’ too I might add) professors in any of the agriculture departments in any of our universities encouraging students to write undergraduate dissertations on traditional rice varieties.  Why?  Simple.  We’re serious about this get-out-of-rice business. 

So why should anyone even question our man Ravi Karunanayake (who is merely continuing the good work he started 13 years ago when he launched his destroy-sathosa-crusade, as someone pointed out) when he’s only implementing a centuries old plan to strengthen the position of the true owners of this island, the Kolombians? 

Get a life, you dumb rice-gulping bums.  Eat cake.  

Other articles in this series:

Have a free lunch on Election Day

Shortcuts to becoming a Kolombian 
A Kolombian's worst nightmare
The Bourse is ours!
You name it, Kolombians own it
We shall not be re-named
Get off my walkway! 
Thank you Mahinda for the Avacado Prawns!
English is a feel-good thing na?
Dear Percy, your membership card is ready
Forget Mahinda and Maithree, Alistair Cook is the Kolombian choice!
One day we will acquire 'class conciseness'!
Mahinda, Maithripala and their Money-Pestos 

Kolombia and Kolombians all the way!

Maithripala's victory: the yakkos did it (for us)! 

Kolombian loyalists take over and how!

This 'ihapaalana' stuff is driving me nuts! 

Spare us the sliced-bread nightmares Ravi!

Read more