.

The Eppawela Phosphate Project - A Revealing Financial Analysis

by Premila Canagaratna
Much has been written about the Eppawela Phosphate deposits and the proposed joint venture project for "exploiting" them. Many are the voices that have been raised in opposition to this project. The environmentalists talk of irreparable environmental damage; the historians and the archaeologists of the cultural importance of the area; and religious leaders of the loss of homes and land. The list goes on and on... And the one main argument used by the proponents of the project to counter the mounting objections is that Sri Lanka is in desperate need of the foreign exchange that this project will bring into the country’s coffers. All the more reason, then, for an in-depth financial analysis of the venture. The results, to say the least, are astonishing. It would seem more appropriate to say that, more than the phosphate deposits, it is the people of Sri Lanka as a whole who are being targeted for ruthless exploitation.

We shall endeavour not to burden the reader with a flood of figures, and where figures are unavoidable, we shall round up amounts to make it an easier read. Wherever necessary, we have done the arithmetic ourselves, assuming a very conservative annual inflation rate of 1.5 per cent for world prices based on "current" levels indicated in the official Report of the Negotiating Committee; the same basis has been followed for cost of production, based on levels indicated in the Dharmabandu Report. The 30-year span of the project can, for our purposes, be split into a first 12-year period when raw rock phosphate is exported unprocessed:, and a final minimum 18- year period when processed fertilizer will be exported. The figures presented will be the 12-year averages and the 18 year averages for the two periods.

The Sri Lanka Government, according to the official Negotiating Committee, wanted to enter into a Joint Venture "with a foreign investor(s) having the required experience and technology", which was how Freeport McMoran was chosen in the first place. Yet, strangely, Freeport and the other foreign investor, Tomen Corp. of Japan, despite "a serious attempt" by the Committee, declined to sign the Mineral Investment Agreement (MIA), preferring instead to have a locally registered Project Company act as their representative (Page 3 of the Negotiating Committee Report). Of course, the Project Company’s major shareholder was to be Freeport (subsequently undergoing a name change to IMC-Agrico, according to the same official Report) with 65% of the equity, Tomen Corp. with 25% and the Government-owned Lanka Phosphate Ltd. with the balance 10%, gifted free by the other two shareholders, or so we are told by the Committee.

The reluctance of the two foreign participants to be signatories to the MIA is not hard to comprehend. The Project Company, though ostensibly the Joint Venture partner with the Government, has neither the experience nor the technology to literally get the phosphate off the ground. The answer, to everybody’s obvious satisfaction, was for the Project Company to enter into a separate Technical Advisory Services Agreement (TASA) with IMC-Agrico, its major shareholder who happens to have the necessary expertise and experience, and make that an integral part of the MLA. A word here about Tomen Corp. would not be out of place: Japan, which carefully monitors and strictly enforces laws to guard against environmental pollution back home, is not averse to having one of its industrial giants create environmental havoc in Third World countries in the heady pursuit of corporate profit.

To cut a long story short (or somewhat shorter), the TASA provides for IMC-Agrico to be financially "compensated" for assisting the Project Company "in all negotiations with contractors for designing, engineering, procurement, construction, installation etc. of the plant, right up to commissioning, advice on operation procedures, supervision and maintenance." The TASA is to terminate 5 years after commencement of commercial operations. But more of that presently.

Before we focus on the TASA, or the Agreement-within-an-Agreement, let us consider the potential revenues that would have been generated, and the dividends that would have accrued to IMC-Agrico and Tomen Corporation (the major shareholders with 90 per cent of the equity investment of US $ 425 million) had the two foreign corporate entities been the actual Joint Venture partners as originally envisaged, instead of a "Project Company" that is, in truth, no more than an advantageous sleeping partner.

The MIA enables the foreign investor to export 3.6 million tons of raw rock phosphate within the first 12 years of the contract. The average 12-year export FOB price would be US $ 46.73 per ton, generating in all US $ 168.22 million as gross revenues.

Let us now consider the expenses involved. First comes the cost of extracting the rock phosphate, which, at an average of US $ 6.63 (Dharmabandu Report, Page 7) per ton over the 12- year period would work out to a total of US $ 23.86 million.

There is also another "cost" involved - that of a royalty payment. The Project Company will, in keeping with the MIA, pay a royalty of 5.5% to the Sri Lankan Government on every ton of rock phosphate extracted. The average royalty of US $ 2.57 per ton would drain the Project Company’s profits by US $ 9. 25 million, bringing that amount into the country’s coffers.

Putting together IMC-Agrico and Tomen Corp’s two "cost centres" for the 12-year period, we have US $ 23.86 million as cost of extraction, and US $ 9.25 million as royalty, making a total expenditure of US $ 33.12 million. The royalty of US $ 9.25 million certainly seems a lot of money, at least by our Third World standards. But that figure pales into insignificance when one considers the magnitude of the return on the investment. The foreign investors are still left with US $ 135.10 million after paying Sri Lanka, the owner of the deposits, a paltry 9.25 million US dollars as royalty. And yet those involved in negotiating this project would have us believe that they have done us proud in getting the foreign negotiators to agree to such high royalty rates! Considering the current world market value of the raw material involved, those willing to accept such a ridiculous offer as fair and equitable are either ignorant of commercial realities or, worse still, downright dishonest - to themselves and to this country.

Could it be that the Board of Investment (BOI), collectively, became an innocent victim, and was taken for the ride of its short yet oh-so-sweet life by the foreign investors? If that be the case, then what the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, C. V. Gooneratne, said will certainly come true - that "...this massive investment will encourage other investors both from the US and elsewhere". It most certairdy will for, after all, one good robbery deserves another. And there’s never been, nor will there ever be, a shortage of robber-barons waiting in the wings to play the Third World for suckers and make a killing.

Here is an interesting, and revealing, alternative scenario. The Government could earn the same US $ 9. 25 million over a 12-year period by merely extracting and exporting 230,723 tons, as against the huge 3.6 million tons to be shipped out by IMC-Agrico. That works out to under 20,000 tons of a non-renewable resource each year compared to a whopping 300,000 tons vanishing each year thanks to the foreign investors’ predatory plans. And this 20,000-ton target is an eminently achievable one, because the Government-owned Lanka Phosphate Limited, alone and unaided, currently mines 40,000 tons of phosphate a year for local consumption.

Of course, Sri Lanka, for argument’s sake, could also mine 3.6 million tons of rock phosphate over a 12-year period and earn US$ 144.36 million, which is an astronomical increase on the US$ 9.25 million the country would get as royalty under the MIA. But what is important to stress is that such massive exploitation of a limited and nonrenewable natural resource is, in the long term, a suicidal course to follow. In the present context, to also export without any value addition is a commercially senseless proposition. Moreover, why sell, nay sell-out, within a brief 30 years, the whole of this valuable resource when phosphate is so vital for the future well being of our own country’s largely agriculture-based economy?

The Sri Lanka Government-owned company now produces 40,000 tons of rock phosphate each year, all of it for our own farmers’ use (Page 1 of Note by C. V. Gooneratne in 1997). What we say next does sound truly weird but, believe it or not, in terms of the proposed MIA, this ‘right’ will be denied immediately the project comes into operation, and the Sri Lanka Government itself will thereafter have to buy rock phosphate for its farmer-citizens from the Project Company at US$ 40.85 per ton (the world market price of $43 less a discount of 5%) once extraction of ore begins! Please be assured, this is no joke.

Only those who through age have reached an advanced state of imbecility would accept without murmur a situation where Sri Lanka, from Year One itself, has to buy back its own rock phosphate for what will average out over the 12-year period to US$ 44.16 per ton, after allowing the foreign investors to mine it on payment of a pittance of US$ 2.57 per ton (average) as royalty. The figures are truly staggering: we purchase our own rock phosphate back over a 12-year period, paying US$ 21.20 million for it, while we get paid as royalty a laughable fraction of that amount - US$ 1.23 million. The difference of US$ 19.96 million, in rupee terms and at today’s exchange rate of Rs. 73.25, is a colossal sum. To be precise, Rupees 1.46 Billion, in return for Rupees 90 Million. And this, remember, is only over the first 12-year period of a project designed to span 30 years, possibly more, the Agreement also providing for possible export of raw rock phosphate beyond the original 12-year period.

IMC-Agrico and Tomen Corp. will be permitted to mine a total of 26.1 million tons of rock phosphate over a 30-year period. Of this, we have so far only dealt with the 3.6 million tons that will be mined over 12 years and exported as raw rock phosphate, the balance 22.5 million tons, from Year 13 onward, are to be processed in Trincomalee to produce Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) and other fertilizers.

That leads us to some more interesting, if speculative, figures. Were Sri Lanka to mine and export, without processing, all 26.1 million tons of its rock phosphate, it could earn US$ 1.40 Billion over the 30-year period. On the other hand, royalty payments under the Agreement for that 26.1 million tons would amount to only US$ 81.8 million. And the direct benefits to Sri Lanka from this project are estimated at around US$ 319 million, according to the official Report of the Negotiating Committee on the Joint Venture Project. So, all in all, Sri Lanka would willingly and wantingly kiss good-bye to a cool 1.3 Billion US dollars in valuable foreign exchange over 30 years. Work that out in rupees at today’s rate of exchange, and wow! Yes, nit-wits don’t come any better, and the foreign investors’ negotiating team must have been over the moon at its other fortuitous discovery.

Lest readers are unaware, the major part of the foreign investment in this Joint Venture is the cost of the heavy equipment needed to process the raw rock phosphate. The cost of equipment needed for mining the rock itself is minimal and Sri Lanka could very well afford the funds necessary for this purpose without foreign collaboration.

The Dharmabandu Report puts the cost of processing a ton of DAP fertilizer at US $ 115, which when averaged gives US $ 131.47 per ton. The Report has the following figures: 3 tons of Eppawela rock required to produce 1 ton of P205, and 0.46 tons of P205 are needed to make 1 ton of DAP fertilizer. So from the 22.5 million tons of rock phosphate to be mined from Year 13 to Year 30, the Project will have 7.5 Million tons of P205, ending up with 16.3 million tons of DAP fertilizer for export. The total cost of processing will be US $ 2.14 Billion. The cost of extraction, from Year 13 to Year 30, of the 22.5 million tons would be US $ 186.91 Million. The (averaged) royalty payment would be US $ 72.55 Million, giving a final cost of production of US$ 2.40 Billion. The gross revenue from the sale of the 16.3 million tons of DAP fertilizer, at an average of US $ 630 per ton (based on current world prices indicated in the official Report by the Joint Venture Committee) would bring US $ 10.27 Billion.

After deducting all costs the Project Company will still be left with a whopping profit of US $ 7.87 Billion! And that’s only for the last 18 of the 30-year period of the Agreement. We have already noted that the clear profit from the export of raw rock phosphate over the first 12-year period would be US $ 135.10 Million, giving the Project Company an overall profit of over US $ 8.05 Billion.

Based on the equity participation, IMC-Agrico’s 65% of the profit would give it US $ 5.20 Billion, Tomen Corp.’s 25 % taking just over US $ 2 Billion, and the Government Lanka Phosphate Ltd. getting a paltry US $ 800 million.

So even after inexplicably upping the cost of their investment from US $ 260 Million to US $ 425 Million, IMC-Agrico and Tomen Corp, between them, would get an unconscionable profit of US $ 7.20 Billion. Understandably, the experienced duo of foreign investors did not relish the idea of having such allegations levelled at them. And this is where TASA, the Agreement-within- an-Agreement, comes in, helping largely to skim off the cream, so to speak, by way of "reimbursements" and drastically reducing, on paper, the percentage return on their modest investment. There is ample evidence to suggest that the original figure of US$ 260 million is, in fact, a reasonable estimate of the actual capital requirements of the project. The upward revision was no doubt a ploy, partly to accommodate the equity ‘gift’ to Sri Lanka, partly to make the investment appear bigger than it really is - but largely, as can now be seen from the financial projections, to ward off the inevitable accusations of unconscionable profits from a very modest investment. Over-valuing of plant and machinery is a time-honoured ruse in joint-venture projects involving foreign parties.

Thanks to TASA, IMC-Agrico gets the following tid-bits, all officially incorporated in the MIA as payable by the Project Company. (If the reader gets the impression that what has been offered, and accepted, is rather like giving IMC-Agrico a whole book of signed, blank cheque leaves, to be filled in as they saw fit, that impression is not altogether without basis.) Here, then, is a summary of the tid-bits to be found in Annex "F" to the MIA, pages 7-8:

* Reimburse all costs associated with personnel supplied by it for the project. This would include salaries, foreign assignment premiums [Direct Salaries] and other benefit allowances paid directly to such personnel by IMC-Agrico, or paid a incurred by it for the benefit of such personnel.

* Reimburse an amount equal to 50% of the Direct Salaries paid to such personnel by IMC-Agrico. (This is to cover IMC-Agrico’s home office administration overhead expenses connected with such personnel).

* again reimburse an amount equal to 50% of the Direct Salaries paid to such personnel - this time to cover IMC-Agrico’s "indirect employee benefit expense’ in connection with such employees.

* Reimburse all travel and other business expenses (other than overhead costs such as office rent and utilities) reasonably incurred by IMC-Agrico or the personnel supplied by it for performing IMC-Agrico’s responsibilities under the Agreement.

* Reimburse all amounts actually paid to other parties (Third Party Expenses) for the purpose of performing IMC-Agrico’s authorised duties under the Agreement.

Quite apart from the above "reimbursements", the Sri Lankan negotiating team agreed to pay IMC-Agrico the following "fees":

* A Construction Fee of 2% on all costs and expenses incurred by the Project Company in the construction, installation and start-up of the Facilities (including all Project Company activities associated therewith) up to the commencement of Commercial Operation.

* Upon commencement of Commercial Operation of the Plant and continuing for the remainder of the term, an Operation Fee of 2% of the net revenues of the Project Company from sale of Products and rock phosphate. "Net Revenues" meaning gross revenues less all costs, expenses and fees incurred by the Project Company under the Export Distributorship Agreement.

Ah, yes. We almost overlooked the additional tid-bits offered to IMC-Agrico by way of another Agreement (also incorporated into the MIA) and which also is to remain in force for five years after commencement of Commercial Operation.

In return for acting as the Project Company’s exclusive Export Distributor, IMC-Agrico or one of its Affiliates, will enjoy the following discounts on the Gross Selling Prices:

* On finished products (such as DAP fertilizer) a discount of 4.5% for quantities not exceeding 415,000 tons a year.

* On quantities above 415,000 tons a year, a discount of 4%

* On exports of raw rock phosphate, a discount of 2%

As already noted, it is impossible to quantify the actual amounts that the Project Company would have to remit overseas each month to IMC-Agrico in foreign exchange as "reimbursements", "fees" and "discounts" under the numerous headings in the Technical, Services and the Export Distributor Agreements. That the final figure will be very, very substantial, and enormous, is hardly in doubt. The major loser in this massive rip-off will be none other than Sri Lanka. The country will be lucky to get even a fraction of the originally projected US $ 800 Million after all the reimbursements, fees and discounts are set off as "expenses" against the Project Company’s profits.

Adding insult to injury, in the circumstances, is the reference in the Report of the official Negotiating Committee to the various benefits supposedly accruing to Sri Lanka from the Agreement which are, like Mark Twain’s response to reports of his premature demise, highly exaggerated. Also very questionable. For example, Sri Lanka is "gifted" with 10% equity of the joint venture - the cost supposedly being borne by the other two parties. Truth to tell, this is only a book-keeping entry and does not cost the two parties anything in real terms.

The estimates of tax and defence levies collectible by Sri Lankan Government authorities from the project are also highly questionable. The projected Port Authority revenue of US$ 137 million is dependent on many variables. But what we have to keep in mind is that once the phosphate reserves are completely exhausted at the end of the 30-year contract, Sri Lanka will be forced to import fertilizers, probably from IMC-Agrico itself. Using the same conservative annual inflation rate of 1.5%, the current price of a ton of DAP fertilizer would, in 30 years’ time, have moved up from US$ 463 to US$ 713 per ton. Sri Lanka currently uses 130,000 tons of fertilizer each year. Since Lanka Phosphate Limited mines 40,000 tons of rock phosphate a year, imports now account for the balance 90,000 tons. Even assuming no increase in the use of fertilizer over the 30-year period, the annual cost to this country of imported fertilizer in Year 31 will be US $ 64,170,000. In short, the much vaunted direct benefits of US$ 319 million from this project, or US $ 10.6 million for each of the 30 years, will get erased in just under five years after the project ends!

Yes, all can’t be winners, as the saying goes. And losers make up the other side of the coin, so to speak. One hardly needs to be a financial wizard to figure out on which side of the coin Sri Lanka will find itself throughout this project. Environmentalists are constantly accused of being idealistic and not "looking at the big picture." Well, that is exactly what we have endeavoured to do in this exercise. The Eppawela project, an environmental disaster in waiting, will, if implemented, prove to be an economic disaster as well. Which of the twin disasters will prove to be the last straw is anybody’s guess.

Proposals of the Liberal Party for a new Constitution

Introduction
The Liberal Party welcomes the decision of the government to introduce changes to the Constitution. When the government first brought forward its proposed package of changes, the Liberal Party was strongly supportive of them, in particular the sections about devolution, because it believed the changes represented a move towards the affirmation of plurality and the entrenchment of protection for all segments of the population. These principles the Liberal Party believes are essential in a Liberal Democracy.

Though the Package contained several laudable ideas, the Liberal Party believes that in the present context it is necessary to go further and engage in a fundamental revision of the Constitution. In this respect it welcomes the government proposal to introduce further changes. It also welcomes the recognition by the United National Party that the 1978 Constitution requires fundamental changes if the sovereignty of the People, that was so sadly abused under that Constitution, is not to continue in danger. The recognition by the UNP of the need for independent institutions that are not subject to the power of government, i.e. of temporary majorities, is a major step. We trust that the parties of the government too, which suffered in the past from UNP abuse of governmental power, will recognize the need to institutionalize the protections that the nation as a whole needs.

It is in this spirit that the Liberal Party offers its own proposed alterations. These are so comprehensive that in effect they amount to a proposal for a new constitution. This we feel is to be welcomed, in that it is clear that the 1978 Constitution, made in a spirit of ruthless majoritarianism, practically provokes those in power to excess. The assertions of the present government when in opposition that changes were essential is paralleled by the anxieties of the opposition now. Given how volatile the situation in this country is, we trust that both major parties, and all others will welcome our suggestions and pay due heed to them in advancing their own proposals.

We plan therefore over the coming weeks to issue suggestions as well drafts of chapters that we hope other parties will take into account in making their own proposals. These will not follow the present structure of the Constitution, since we hope each week to address both areas in which consensus seems likely as well as those in which far-reaching changes would be in the end beneficial to all parties.

Foreword

One of the most important objectives of a Constitution should be its Norm Setting Function. In the 1978 Constitution it seems to have been thought that a Chapter on Directive Principles would suffice. This however is insufficient, coming as it does after Chapters on The People, The State and Sovereignty, Buddhism, Fundamental Rights, Language and Citizenship.

On the contrary, all these should be subject to Basic Principles’ ie. A Constitution should be a value laden document enshrining values and principles by which a country is to be governed. As the Constitutional Expert Rohan Edirisinha suggests, a chapter similar to the first Chapter of the South African Constitution, which is entitled Founding Provisions should be included. Chapter one of the Constitution should include Founding Provisions which include basic values and principles such as accountability, transparency, responsiveness and openness, equality, non-racialism and non sexism, the supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and a multi-party system of representative government.

The current first chapter includes statements of what purport to be fundamental facts without examination of the principles on which such ‘facts’ are based. It moves on to some practicalities, again without reference to principles. Finally it goes on to details about the trappings of sovereignty without explaining what such sovereignty is designed to achieve.

The Liberal Party proposes therefore that the First Chapter should include norms and clauses that ensure the furtherance of those norms and the protection of Constitutional Rights. Amongst these perhaps the most important in the present context is the enshrinement of the independence of the Judiciary. While deferring for the moment our detailed proposals for the chapter on Basic Norms, we would draw attention to amending the present clause that says that says that.

(c) the judicial power of the Peoole shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law;

The highlighted sections (‘by Parliament’ and from ‘except...’ to the end) should clearly be deleted. Furthermore, the chapter on the Judiciary should be amended in the light of international norms and modern developments in Constitution making. The power of the Executive to appoint judges should be curtailed. A Judicial Services Commission consisting of the stakeholders in an independent judiciary should nominate persons for appointment to the superior courts of the land. Parliament should not have the power to investigate allegations of misbehaviour against judges.

Before that however, the Constitution should in its second chapter deal with Fundamental Rights and their justiciability. It is only after such principles have been established that chapters on Citizenship and Language should be placed.

The Constitution should then go on to the Legislature, before referring to the Executive, since it should be manifest that the former should act as a check on the latter. Again, our detailed proposals on the Legislature will follow. We will begin here however with some suggestions with regard to the Executive, again not the Presidency, as to which more debate might be anticipated, but the Cabinet.

In this respect, we would remind the President of her pledge to reduce the size of the Cabinet. Without finding fault, we accept the fact that, in the present political context, it is difficult to act in a statesmanlike fashion in such areas. It is for that reason that we believe Constitutional safeguards are essential. It is in that spirit that we offer the following far-reaching but we believe generally acceptable proposals, as amendments to the current chapter on The Cabinet. Notes on important changes follow -

Chapter on the Executive

1. The President shall be responsible to Parliament of the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security.

2. There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic. The number of Members of the Cabinet shall be restricted to a maximum of 12 and shall included Ministers with responsibility for the following functions -

a) Finance
b) Defence
c) Foreign Affairs
d) Justice
e) Social Affairs
f) Infrastructual Development
g) Home Affairs
h) Agriculture, Lands and the Environment
i) Trade and Industries
j) Fisheries, Ports, Shipping & Aviation

3. Ministers shall be appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament, and they shall be individually and collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament. They may be dismissed by the President, who shall appoint a successor subject to the approval of Parliament. Members of Parliament appointed to Cabinet Ministries shall be required to resign from Parliament before taking up Cabinet office.

4. The President shall be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers but shall not be in charge of any particular subject. However the President shall be responsible for overall Policy and Planning.

5. There shall be a Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers who shall be appointed by the President. The Secretary to the Cabinet shall, subject to the direction of the President have charge of the office of the Cabinet of Ministers, and shall discharge and perform such other functions and duties as may be assigned to him by the President.

6. (1) There shall be for each Ministry a Secretary who shall be appointed by the Minister concerned with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission.

(2) The Secretary to the Ministry shall, subject to the direction and control of his Minister, exercise supervision over the departments of Government or other institutions in the charge of his Minister. The Secretary may be dismissed by the Minister, who shall appoint a successor subject to the approval of the Appointments Commission. The Commission may appoint anyone who has held office as Secretary to a Ministry to any other post in the Public Service. In the case of anyone who, prior to his appointment as Secretary was in the Public or Local Government Service or in the service of any public corporation, he/she shall be deemed to have been temporarily released from such service and shall be entitled to revert to such service without loss of seniority upon his so ceasing to hold office as Secretary.

Notes

The principle change enunciated above is the separation of the Executive and the Legislative by removing Ministers from Parliament. This principle is in fact accepted in other countries with an Executive Presidency, such as the United States and France. Unfortunately Prof. A. J. Wilson did not, in his sadly naive book on the 1978 ‘Gaullist’ Constitution as he called it, examine why J R Jayewardene ignored that aspect of Gaullism although he had praised it earlier.

The answer is simple. By placing Ministers subject to the President within Parliament he ensured the total subjection of the Legislature to the Executive. Ministerial position becomes the height of ambition for parliamentarians; naturally their examination of legislation, their budgetary deliberations, their monitoring of expenditure, all are performed in the shadow of the greater authority.

In France however, and in particular in America. there is a true separation of powers, and therefore genuine mutual control. In such a situation the Judiciary too can be more independent, without being overwhelmed by the Executive Branch. For that reason it is only logical, inconvenient though it would be for an all-powerful executive head such as the 1978 Constitution envisaged, to remove the Executive Branch in its entirety from Parliament.

Other proposals above include the limitation of the size of the Cabinet. It is clear now that, when this is not done Constitutionally, even the best intentioned executive head, as the current President in 1994, is subjected to various pressures. When a President decides to use to the full the powers of patronage the present situation allows, the result is a vast number of Ministers of all sorts, all maintained with their entourages at State expense. Very few of them however fulfil a function, apart from that of patronage, which would not be more efficiently performed by non-political officials.

LEGALWATCH
Community based correction system for minor offenders

by Nayana
The many high-profile legal controversies that have surrounded this Government’s tenure of office have often tended to obscure from the public eye the parallel attempts made by the Justice Ministry in consultation with members of the Judiciary and the Bar to streamline the justice system for the benefit of the public.

As this is a Herculean task in a system rusted by decades of complacency, lethargy, scarce financial resources and the usual smattering of corruption, the improvements made so far may appear small to those who find themselves unwillingly dragged into the system either as complainant or alleged wrongdoer. Nevertheless significant cost cutting and time saving measures have been introduced into the codes of civil and criminal procedure, the law of partition, testamentary proceedings and the law of evidence. The Penal Code was also amended for the first time in its 100 year old history.

As part of the quest to "transform the legal system of this country from the bullock cart age to the present age" — the words of the Minister when addressing Parliament during the Budget Debate two years ago — last week saw the introduction of a new system for dealing with minor criminal offenders, namely "community based correction".

Sri Lanka’s prisons have long been grossly overcrowded, and furthermore, the majority of those inside are incarcerated for non-payment of fines and not because the gravity of their offences was thought to merit a jail term. This is contrary to modern thinking which views imprisonment as a method of last resort. The maintenance of unnecessary prisoners is also a considerable drain on State funds.

Community based correction, sometimes also known as "community service orders", is intended to be both punitive and rehabilitative. It is meant to be used when the offender’s conduct is considered serious enough to merit some form of punishment but not serious enough to require his incarceration. It enables the offender to make reparation to society by performing unpaid service in a manner beneficial to the community while not disrupting the offender’s home life, job or education.

The Administration of Justice Law in 1973 first introduced the idea into this country and it was followed by Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1979 under which a community service order could be imposed in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment or in default of payment of a fine. Community service was initially restricted to State or State-sponsored projects but in 1985 the categories were broadened to include service in government departments, public corporations, charitable institutions, social service organizations and places of religious worship.

However a survey carried out by the Ministry of Legal and Prison Reforms in 1990 revealed that during the period 1988-90 community service orders had only been utilized by one High Court Judge and four Magistrates who between them had issued 357 orders. Among the reasons said to have been given by Judges for not making such orders was that the paper work involved in preparing the necessary reports and the requirement for supervision of the offender placed an unacceptable burden on the time and resources of the Court.

Taking note of the need to limit the role of the Court to actual sentencing and to create a separate administrative infrastructure to implement and supervise the scheme, members of the Legal Draftsman’s Department and the Law Commission, with assistance from the Government of Australia, last year prepared the draft legislation which has now been passed by Parliament as the Community Based Corrections Act.

The Act provides for the establishment of a Department of Community Based Corrections headed by a Commissioner for the implementation of the scheme. Senior State Counsel Suhada Gamalath was appointed Commissioner under the Act and the Australian Government provided training facilities for the Commissioner and seven other officers.

The Act also allows for the Minister by Gazette notification to bring the scheme into operation gradually on a territorial basis, and from last Thursday the scheme has been in operation in the judicial divisions (Magistrate’s Court areas) of Colombo and Colombo Fort.

Under the new law a court may impose a "community based correction order" on a convicted offender wherever there is no mandatory sentence of imprisonment and the maximum prison sentence prescribed by law for the offence does not exceed two years. In entering such an order the judge is required to have regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and other relevant circumstances as well as the facilities available for carrying out the order.

Before sentencing, the judge must call for a pre-sentence report in order to determine whether the offender is a suitable person for the imposition of such an order. This report must be prepared by an officer of the Community Based Corrections Department by a date specified by the Court and made available to the convicted person and the Attorney-General who are entitled to make objections to any of its findings, cross-examine the author of the report and lead evidence relating to the matters contained therein.

It is here that one can see that first possible pitfall in the new scheme. A similar requirement presently in force relating to reports from Probation Officers in the case both of offenders and children for adoption has led to inordinate delays due to the failure of the officers concerned to make their reports on time and a readiness on the part of courts to grant such officers an unlimited number of dates. Professor Vijaya Samaraweera in a report on the legal process relating to children published in 1997 cited the case of a boy produced before the Juvenile Court at Bambalapitiya, Colombo, whose case was called 23 times for the Probation Officer’s report which had yet to be completed.

It was therefore a salutary measure to start a new department for the supervision of the community based corrections scheme and it is to be hoped that by keeping it small and expanding it gradually, proper standards will be maintained. Nevertheless it will also be necessary for the judge to keep a firm hand, both on the question of "dates" and also on any tendency to turn the scrutiny of the officers report into a mini-trial with unduly protracted cross-examination and the like.

In any event, the consent of the convicted person has to be obtained before a community based correction order is imposed. Such orders must by their nature be consensual,, since adverse consequences could follow from sending unwilling persons to perform services in the community. However, it may also be desirable to provide some incentives to an offender to go out and work rather than stay back and be maintained in a prison cell at State expense.

In the case of offenders who are in employment or anxious to better themselves with job training or further education, the advantages of community service are obvious. An order will not be imposed in a manner that impinges on the offender’s normal schooling or employment and where facilities are available the community service order itself can provide for attendance at educational or vocational training programmes. It is understood that Government Railways and some private sector business institutions have pledged their cooperation in this regard.

However in order to deal with those offenders who may feel that life is more comfortable sitting in a prison at State expense, some further incentive might be considered such as wiping the offender’s conviction off the record after a certain time if he has opted for community service. However fairness would require the postponing of such an option until facilities for community based correction are available Island-wide.

Noncompliance with a community based corrections order (other than for good cause such as illness) is itself made an offence punishable after summary trial. However an offender on community service can inform the Commissioner of his unwillingness to continue with the order, and the Commissioner, after giving credit for the time served, can prescribe imprisonment or some other form of lawful punishment for the remainder of his time. Once again the incentive aspect mentioned above should be considered so as to avoid the chance of offenders quitting the scheme out of indolence.

The community based correction contained in the Act also allows the Court to order offenders who need it to undergo treatment for drug or alcohol addiction or submit themselves for psychiatric treatment.

The previous law on community service came in for criticism due to the lack of guidelines as to the length of time for which such orders should be made. The Schedule to the present Act prescribes a scale depending on the gravity of the sentence that could otherwise be imposed. Thus at the lowest end of the scale where the offence is punishable only with a fine not exceeding three thousand rupees, a court can prescribe 50 to 75 hours of community service over a period of three months. At the maximum end, where the offence is punishable with one to two years’ imprisonment, the offender can be required to perform from 200 to 300 hours of service over a period of one year.

It is the duty of the Community Based Corrections Department to supervise the offender who is not allowed to leave a designated area without the Correction Officer’s permission. At the successful conclusion of the period of service the Commissioner has to issue a certificate to that effect, while, on the other hand, the commission of another offence during the period of service renders the order liable to be cancelled and some other form of punishment prescribed.

Sacks strongman Wiranto
Indonesia’s Wahid walks the tight rope

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
At the referendum on 30 August 1999, the people of East Timor chose independence to remaining as an autonomous province of Indonesia. The violence that erupted and continued unabated for some time compelled the United Nations Security Council to send an Australian-led armed international force to stop the violence and to keep the peace.

The orgy of violence left Dili, the capital of East Timor, completely devastated. Thousands of refugees poured into West Timor. The international community was appalled. Investigations were initiated to probe into the allegations that human rights violations including genocide had been aided and abetted by the Indonesian armed forces. The violence in East Timor was attributed to armed militias assisted by Indonesian military forces. The army was then under the command of General Wiranto.

Probe panels find Wiranto responsible

Recently, the UN and the Indonesian Human Rights Commission published separate reports confirming that the blame for the atrocities committed in East Timor, after the 30 August vote for independence, was on Indonesian militias backed by the Indonesian army. They accused 33 persons, including Wiranto and five other senior officers, for the atrocities.

The reports demanded that Indonesian military chiefs responsible for the orgy of violence should be tried before an international tribunal, because otherwise justice would not be done. They said that Indonesia did not have credible independent legal systems to conduct the prosecutions. But the Indonesian government feels that they themselves could dispense justice.

At the time that the investigation reports were published, President Abdurrahman Wahid was in Davos, Switzerland attending the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. He said that an international tribunal was unnecessary and that Indonesians themselves could conduct such a trial. In order to avoid a confrontation between Indonesia’s fledgling democracy and the powerful Indonesian military, the US and UN’s Kofi Annan were willing to give Abdurrahman a chance.

Abdurrahman asks Wiranto to resign

Demonstrating his government’s seriousness, Abdurrahman Wahid called upon former army commander General Wiranto to resign from his cabinet post as political and security affairs minister because he was "implicated in the reports". The president wanted his defence minister, Yuwono Sudarsono, to convey his order to Wiranto. He dismissed concerns about how Indonesia’s powerful military would react by saying: "They will listen to us."

When the dismisal order was conveyed to General Wiranto, initially there was no response but later the general refused to resign until the president returned to Indonesia on 13 February from his 13-nation tour of western European and Asian capitals.

Wiranto admitted that some lower ranking members of Indonesia’s military may have committed the atrocities but denied that the army actively supported the violence.

Wiranto rejects liability

Armed forces lawyers, anticipating that Wiranto and other officers would be accused by the investigating panels, denied that the military were involved. "There is no evidence that Wiranto violated human rights in East Timor." The military denied any involvement in the violence in which more than 250 people died before armed international peace-keepers restored order.

Wiranto said the armed forces "never issued an order, let alone encouraged (soldiers) to burn cities, kill many people and create a mass exodus. The burning occurred after the referendum because there were some factions who lost. They became emotional and disappointed and reacted with destruction."

In his defence, General Wiranto cited as an example the My Lai massacre of villagers in Vietnam by American troops. "When one of the US officers in Vietnam during the Vietnam War killed a number of innocent villagers, the My Lai incident, I don’t think the commander in chief of US troops in Vietnam, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked to be legally responsible," he said.

But Jose Ramos Horta, an Indonesian independence activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 said Wiranto should be brought to trial before an international tribunal. "In this day and age you cannot kill hundreds of people, destroy a whole country and then just get fired."

General Wiranto

General Wiranto is an enigmatic military man turned politician. Still in his fifties, Wiranto was appointed to the most senior position in the country’s armed forces in February, 1998. His rise was rapid and his decline was equally swift. Wiranto is from Java, the traditional power base of the Indonessian political and military elite. He was a firm Suharto loyalist and rose rapidly through the ranks, serving as a presidential adjutant to Suharto in the early eighties. He was promoted to a number of key posts and later became aide de camp to Suharto.

Within the armed forces, Wiranto is said to have carried out many reforms. He has purged several powerful figures closely associaated with the former Suharto regime and urged a more moderate policy towards students and street demonstrators.

Yet the fact remains that he owes his position entirely to Suharto and remains in close touch with the former president. Although he has portrayed himself as a moderate, many feel that he was directly implicated in the worst of the violence in East Timor. From the beginning he was displeased at president Habibie’s willingness to allow a referendum in East Timor. He did little to prevent the killings carried out there by militias trained and assisted by his troops. And yet he has cleverly distanced himself from the violence in East Timor, until the publication of the incriminating reports.

An unpredictable and irrepressible president

President Abdurrahman Wahid, or ‘Gus Dur’ as he is popularly known, is one of the most popular figures in Indonesia. He is described as being ‘unpredictable’ by nature. In fact, an oft-repeated joke in Jakarta is that there are three things that you can never be certain about — life, death and Gus Dur.

The frail 59-year old Muslim cleric is the head of the influential 30-million strong Muslim organisation known as Nahdlatul Ulama. Yet, he has had a long reputation for religious tolerance and moderate politics and has often spoken on behalf of the Chinese and Christian minorities in Indonesia. Wahid is one of the staunchest proponents of ‘panchaseela’, the philosophy that underpins Indonesia’s 1945 constitution.

Wahid maintains that faith is a personal affair. Soon after Suharto’s fall from power there were insistent calls for Islam to be institutionalised as the state religion but Wahid opposed the idea saying that such a couse of action would spell disaster for Indonesia already split by ethnic separatism and inter-religious tension.

Wahid is nearly blind and has suffered two debilitating strokes. He took office after forging links with the nation’s highly influential military elite through his talks with then chief of staff General Wiranto on reducing ethnic tensions. Wahid may not be universally liked but he is extremely influential due to the strength of his personality.

Strangely in this time of national crisis, with separatist movements flaring in several areas like Aceh and Ambon and Muslim-Christian violence surging, the president has spent a large portion of his first three months in office abroad. But this has not stopped him from stirring the political pot at home, for reasons that often seem unclear.

After his demand for General Wiranto’s resignation last week, the president announced that he had reached a cease-fire agreement with separatist rebels in the province of Aceh. A separatist leader hotly denied this and the matter seems to have been dropped.

Abdurrahman Wahid changes course

Indeed, after more than three decades of Suharto’s dictatorial rule, Indonesians are getting used to Abdurrahman’s peculiar style of leadership which had always been uniquely Abdurrahman Wahid’s.

True to form and in keeping with his reputation for unpredictability, a week after the confrontation with Wiranto began, President Abdurrahman Wahid suddenly reversed himself. He said in newspaper reports, that he trusts General Wiranto and is ready to forgive him. The president recalled how several years ago in his days as a dissident religious leader, Wiranto had saved his life by warning him of a government assassination plot.

Again, "I trust Mr. Wiranto," the president said in Rome, giving an interesting twist on his recent warnings that military officers were planning a coup against his government.

For the moment at any rate, the president seems to have become one of the General Wiranto’s defenders. "I believe in Mr. Wiranto," he reportedly said: "Why? Because I know him. It is other people who know nothing about him who make generalisations about him."

At the same time, despite the new tone of his remarks, the presideent seemed to repeat his demand for General Wiranto to quit, saying: "I hope he resigns before I come back. But if not, we will implement what we said before: those who face prosecution should be ‘non-active’ and be replaced temporarily."

Ironically, the president’s seemingly impulsive comments have eased the atmosphere in Jakarta and Indonesians are bemused over the contradictory positions enunciated by their garrulous leader. Even the speaker of the house, Akbar Tandjung, commented, "We are reminding the president not to make statements that could cause confusion among the people."

Sunday Island Politics
Will UNP support Govt’s constitutional proposals?

By Deshavimala
The Peoples Alliance government and the United National Party are at crossroads over the constitutional crisis faced by the government. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who assured his support to President Chandrika Kumaratunga in writing a few weeks ago to support a new constitution wrote again on Wednesday as he received no response to his earlier letter. Wickremesinghe in his second communication said that the earlier package presented to parliament in October 1997 as a sessional paper of the SLFP should be placed in parliament if the PA wanted his support to get the required two thirds majority in the House. The UNP leader’s position is a reminder to the government that he will support the 1997 package and not any new one the government proposed.

Wickremesinghe has also mentioned that President Kumaratunga accused him in the past of not affording the required sixteen votes in parliament to have the package through. With the UNP leader’s present stand it will be impossible for the government to secure his support for a new constitution now examined by the PA which has given up the concept of regional councils with regard to the nature of the state. Several ministers led by the Leader of the House Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and also backed by political parties in the PA committee on constitutional reforms opposed the concept of the union of regions claiming it would disintegrate the small island nation in the future.

President Kumaratunga is keen to finalise the new draft constitution by the end of this month to present to the Tamil parties and then to the UNP before the LTTE is invited. The UNP unlikely to support anything other than the October 1997 document may lead to the constitutional process dragging on till this parliament is dissolved.

The government has prepared the ground for Norway’s Foreign Minister or his deputy to visit Sri Lanka in mid March to play the role of the facilitator for talks with the LTTE. President Kumaratunga last week hinted that if the UNP does not cooperate, the only alternative open would be to go for a referendum to get the new constitution passed. Under the present constitution, if a referendum is held, government should come back to parliament for approval of the proposal as the referendum alone has no legal validity. The President in the meantime blames the present constitution of late President J. R. Jayewardene as a fraud because it was never approved by the people.

President Jayewardene campaigned at the 1977 general elections in the company of his deputy R. Premadasa seeking the peoples mandate to change the Westminster system of government into the presidential system. He received a five sixth majority and changed the constitution as he pledged to change the system of government as envisaged in his manifesto during that election.

UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe in his attempts to bait his five rebels who defeated him in the Supreme Court summoned a meeting of his parliamentary group and the working committee last Monday. When the parliamentary group met, members expected the UNP leader to disclose the action he will take against the rebels a second time, but he played a different game. He asked his chief whip in parliament, W. J. M. Lokubandara to direct the rebels to vote against the extension of the emergency which was due to be debated on Wednesday and also to ask the two rebel ministers to give up their portfolios if they wanted to remain in the party.

The UNP which during the past emergency debates was not present in the House at voting time, this time stayed in the House and opposed the motion by name to put the rebels in an embarrassing situation. To avoid their predicament the rebel UNPers absented themselves from parliament pleading sickness that day.

During the group meeting, MPs Ravi Karunanayake, Jayalath Jayewardene, Sarath Kongahage, Rajitha Senaratne and Abdul Cader complained that the PA attacks on them were not taken seriously by the party and the state terror was still continued citing the latest case of the singing duo Rukantha and Chandralekha. They alleged that the presidential security men were behind most of those attacks. They said that four underworld criminals had been arrested at Baddegana Sanjeewa’s house while hiding there and added that Sanjeewa, a member of the PSD, had tried to prevent the arrest by using his influence. Wickremesinghe said he would meet the Speaker the following day in that regard and would also write to the president about the continuing state terror in the country.

As promised Wickremesinghe met the Speaker the next day and urged him as the custodian of the privileges of members of the House to protect his MPs. Speaker K. B. Ratnayake said he would bring the issue before the President who was the Defence Minister and also to the notice of Gen. Anuruddha Ratwatte, Deputy Minister of Defence.

On Wednesday Wickremesinghe wrote to the President about the state terror and the involvement of the PSD on attacks on UNP MPs and its supporters. Ravi Karunanayake told Wickremesinghe that the party should lobby at Aid Group level to tell what was actually happening here as the government boasted of being the protector of democracy and human rights. Karunanayake also suggested that UNP members in local bodies and provincial councils should move motions to condemn state terror and the result of the presidential election.

Senior member Ronnie de Mel who spoke about the government’s proposed constitutional reforms suggested that the party should insist on the government to honour its pledge to abolish the executive presidency. Wickremesinghe who agreed with de Mel’s suggestion said he would place the proposal before the Working Committee that evening.

De Mel believes that if the PA is forced to scrap the executive presidency and return to the executive prime minister system before the dissolution of this parliament, the UNP will stand a chance to defeat the PA at the next general election and come to power. The PA in its new constitutional reforms have pledged to do away with the executive system but nothing concrete has been made public so far with regard to that issue.

PA sources say that the government is likely to introduce a new constitution giving effect to it after President Kumaratunga completes her second term of office as Executive President.

Last Tuesday Wickremesinghe sent a short letter to Special Assignment Minister Nanda Mathew which read- "In terms of article 8.3 (a) and (b) of the constitution of the party, I hereby direct that with immediate effect all members of the party who are members of parliament shall sit in parliament in the opposition benches with the United National Party and no such member shall sit in the government benches and every such member shall act in accordance with the directions of the party whip in accordance with chapter 13 of the party constitution".

Party Whip Tyronne Fernando too was directed to inform Amunugama and Mathew about the decision of the party with regard to sitting on the opposition side in parliament. Mathew on receipt of Wickremesinghe’s letter sent his reply to the party general secretary, Gamini Athukorale drawing a parallel between him and the CWC leader Arumugam Thondaman. Mathew in his letter also questioned why the UNP has failed to take the Thondamans’ to task for sitting with the government while being elected on the UNP ticket.

It is surprising that Mathew while being in the UNP opposition for nearly six years was not aware of the agreement signed between Gamini Dissanayake and Mr. S. Thondaman with regard to the CWC‘s rights in parliament. The late Mr. Thondaman’s agreement with the UNP gave him freedom to act in the interests of his party. The CWC and the UNP are two entities though the CWC contested under the UNP ticket. Mathew therefore cannot draw a parallel with the Thondamans’ with regard to his present plight.

The five rebels have no such agreements with the UNP to give them freedom to act in whatever way they want. The rebels like the other UNP MPs are covered by the provisions of the party constitution as they are now members of the UNP after the judgement went in their favour.

Though Mathew in his letter claims that the UNP leader was adopting double standards, the fact remains that Mathew is not covered under the Thondaman agreement with the UNP in parliament. A former UNP Minister quipped, "If Nanda likes to continue as a minister he could join the CWC".

Mathew has sought a clarification from Athukorale why equality of treatment was not meted out under the provisions of the party constitution. Athukorale says that the party was keen to afford him equal treatment and that was why he was requested to sit in the opposition like the other UNP MPs in parliament.

The rebels while being in the government want to oust the UNP leader. Rebel Wijayapala Mendis has already staked his claim to be the UNP leader while calling for the resignation of Wickremesinghe. Mendis had pointed out that Wickremesinghe should resign after the party suffered a series of electoral defeats under his leadership. Mendis’s move to take over the leadership is not liked by even those who have links with him in the UNP as his image was tarnished by the PA government which he now supports. It found him guilty of an improper land transaction.

The PA gave a live telecast of that debate in parliament and Mendis’s rival Jeyaraj Fernandopulle from Katana used that opportunity to further tarnish Mendis’s image of his fifty year long political career. Mendis having undergone all those insults supported the candidature of President Kumaratunga last December.

Before deciding to put Mendis as the candidate for the UNP leadership, the rebels made attempts to convince several other UNPers to bring party Chairman Karu Jayasuriya to replace Wickremesinghe. Jayasuriya who is known as a moderate politician liked by everybody in the party and has been loyal to the leadership openly announced his loyalty to Wickremesinghe to prevent rumours floating that he was going to take over the leadership. Since his entry into politics through the UNP, Jayasuriya known as a gentleman politician has never been ambitious.

Executive Presidency

While the party senior Ronnie de Mel advocated abolishing the executive presidency, several other members of the party working committee held different views when the matter came up before the committee on Monday. At the outset de Mel placed his proposal in writing and said he regretted being a member who assisted in the preparation of that system of government. "I have been there to witness the drafting of the 1972 and 1978 constitutions but I am sorry to say today that both those constitutions were framed in a manner to protect the governments and not the people", de Mel admitted. He then pointed out the dangers posed to society and the people by the immunity granted to the President by the present constitution.

Hemakumara Nanayakkara moved that the matter should be discussed at length before arriving at a decision. He said he respected the views of de Mel but if the party moves to abolish the system that it introduced it would be seen as a confession by the party against itself. "I feel that certain amendments should be moved to the system rather than abolishing it", Nanayakkara observed.

Mano Wijeratne endorsed the views of Nanayakkara and added that the people of this country should have the right to elect the leader of their choice and the presidential system should be considered carefully before taking a decision. Several others also spoke in favour of the system while maintaining that it helped the development activities of the country. The UNP leader said that it would be placed before a joint meeting of the Working Committee and the parliamentary group for a decision.

The committee then took up the issue of appointing an opposition leader to the North Western Provincial Council. Messrs. Johnston Fernando, Asoka Wadigamangawa and Nimal Bandara are the three contenders for that vacancy. The crisis heightened because UNP’s chief minister aspirant Gamini Jayawickreme Perera refused to take oaths claiming that the poll was rigged and marred by violence. The other members took oaths taking the party leadership by surprise. Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku urged Perera to take oaths to resolve the crisis. Perera said he could not act against his conscience to take oath in an election that was totally rigged.

W. J. M. Lokubandara moved that those councillors who took oaths should attend council meetings full time to protest against the conduct of that election. "The President promised to inquire into our allegations and report back in a month but that promised was never kept", Lokubandara observed saying that the presence of councillors was essential to protest against this broken promise of Chandrika. Ronnie de Mel endorsed that view and said that the Council should be made a platform to protest against the PA. The Working Committee empowered the party leader to take the final decision with regard to the appointment of the opposition leader to that council. If Wadigamangawa and Bandara are not given preference over Fernando it may lead to some members in that council joining the rebel group of Amunugama. Rebel parliamentarian Chula Bandara has said that he will return to the party again if his brother Nimal Bandara was made the opposition leader.

Wadigamangawa says that he should be given the post as he has decided to stay full time in the council without contesting the next general election. He sacrificed his seat in parliament to contest the NWPC election.

Working Committee member and former UNP Minister A. R. M. Munsoor expressed his dissatisfaction over the decision to accommodate Segu Issadeen on the national list to parliament. There was a running battle for that vacancy between them. When the crisis reached its peak, the Working Committee empowered the party leader to decide between the two and Wickremesinghe appointed Issadeen.

Issadeen is the former Chairman of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress led by Minister Ashraff. Parliamentarian Azwer stood up to bring Munsoor under control when the latter continued to protest. The vacancy on the national list occurred following the death of parliamentarian Amarabadra Dissanayake who represented the Kegalle District. The Muslims in Kegalle expected that a Muslim from that district would be appointed. The UNP already has a Muslim MP there. He is Kabir Hashim.

Tamil Parties

President Kumaratunga met the leaders of Tamil political parties last Tuesday at Temple Trees in her consultation process on the constitutional reforms. The Tamil United Liberation Front was represented by R. Sambanthan, Mavai Senathiraja and Anandasangari, the EPDP by Douglas Devananda, Igneswaran and Thavarasa while the Ceylon Workers Congress was led by R. Yogarajan with R. Rajaratnam. PLOTE leader S. Siddhartan, TELO Leader Sri Kanthan and the SLMC General Secretary Rauff Hakeem were also present. Cabinet Ministers G. L. Peiris, Dharmasiri Senanayake, Batty Weerakoon, S. B. Dissanayake, Sarath Amunugama and Nanda Mathew assisted the President.

The government team discussed with the minority groups the moves discussed about the identity of the Sri Lankan state. President Kumaratunga explained that different views had been expressed by the constituent parties at committee level but added that no firm decision had been taken so far. Those in the Tamil delegation asked whether the concept of regional councils under the union of regions would be changed. The President replied that suggestions have been made in various forms about the nature of the state but no decision has been taken. The Tamil delegation noted that they favoured the concept of regional councils under a union of regions. This concept has met with stiff opposition by those in the government itself with Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake spearheading the campaign against the union of regions.

The Tamil political parties met President Kumaratunga a second time on Thursday at Temple Trees. At this meeting Ministers Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, Alavi Moulana, D. M. Jayaratne, and M. H. M. Ashraff were also present. The only new face in the Tamil delegation was TULFer Joseph Pararajasingham who represents Batticaloa District. The subjects on the agenda were the judiciary, land and the executive presidential system. There was agreement with regard to matters concerning the judiciary. The Tamil delegation wanted certain inclusions made to the chapter on lands. The issue of the executive presidency was then taken up.

President Kumaratunga stressed the need to abolish the system and added that she wanted to end it during her tenure of office. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and the Tamil parties noted that if the system was to be abolished, a system must be introduced to elect the leader by the vote of the people as it was done under the present system of government. Both sides agreed that the present system should end with the tenure of office of President Kumaratunga this time. It would mean that the Executive system will be there till the year 2006. The President agreed to meet the delegation again on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the Kumaratunga government is also busy preparing for the next general election. There is possibility of an early dissolution of parliament after the conclusion of the budget debate. The President is meeting PA district level organisers at present to discuss strategies to win the next election. On Tuesday she met the organisers from Kegalle District comprising provincial councillors, local body members led by minister Dharmasiri Senanayake.

The President analysed the ground situation in the district at electoral level and raised many questions regarding the areas where the PA had performed below expectations. She directed the ministers to remedy the shortcomings in the district and requested Minister Senanayake to launch more housing, irrigation and water facilities to the district. The minister pointed out the areas that needed such facilities and the president assured to provide the necessary funds.

While President Kumaratunga is preparing for a general election, the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is also busy meeting his organisers at electoral and district level. A Committee has been set up to interview and appoint organisers to the vacant areas. UNP Chairman Karu Jayasuriya is heading the committee to appoint new organisers. Wickremesinghe met several MPs and organisers this week to get their views about the present situation in their districts and electorates. Most of them complained that they could not proceed with their organisational activities at grassroot level because they were under threat from PA thugs. The UNP leader said he knew the problems faced by state terror and advised the MPs and organisers to fearlessly carry on and that he would take the agitation against state terror to the streets soon.

The UNP leader summoned his parliamentary group for an emergency session on Friday morning. It was the second meeting this week of the group. The MPs were told that he had decided to take to the streets the agitation against state terror and it would be done at provincial level. The MPs in the Western Province were asked to join the protest the same morning near the Liberty Plaza. Party General Secretary Gamini Athukorale was directed to lead the protest. All MPs, Provincial Councillors and Municipal Councillors rallied at the roundabout at Liberty Plaza carrying placards and shouting slogans in protest against state terror. The placards alleged the involvement of the presidential security division on violence perpetrated on UNPers. An effigy of a policeman attached to the PSD was burnt before the protesters dispersed.

While the UNP demonstration was going on at the Liberty Plaza roundabout, President Kumaratunga summoned her parliamentarians to Temple Trees that evening for a group meeting. It was the first PA group meeting summoned after she took office a second time. The President was due to brief the group on the constitutional reforms process at present. The meeting commenced late evening on Friday. She was also due to discuss the budget that will be presented in parliament tomorrow.

The Mulberry Group in the PA also met a few hours before the group meeting. They discussed shortcomings in certain ministries and decided to place their observations before the parliamentary group. They were expected to complain to the president about the conduct of some ministers who have deprived them of giving jobs to their supporters and how some ministers filled vacancies only with their nominees overlooking those in the electorates of the Mulberry members.

Hours before the commencement of the PA group meeting, President Kumaratunga sent a letter to the Opposition and UNP leader acknowledging receipt of the latter’s second letter. Wickremesinghe sent his letter on February 10th but the president’s acknowledgement was dated January 11,2000.

Following is the text of the letter-11 January 2000, Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Opposition Leader, Opposition Leader’s Office, Parliament, Sri Jayawardenepura, Kotte, Dear Leader of the Opposition, I received your letter dated February 10,2000. I will be sending you a detailed reply with regard to the issues that you have mentioned in your letter. Thanks, Yours Sincerely, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.

Errors in dating letters at the presidential secretariat occurred earlier too when she sent a message of condolence to the wife of late Kumar Ponnambalam. Ponnambalam died in January this year but the president’s letter was dated May last year. Later a clarification was sent to Ms. Ponnambalam apologising for the error made by the secretariat.

Continued...

  | NEWS | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |