The Island Politics

Tenth SAARC summit in Colombo

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
The Charter mandates leaders of SAARC countries —Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, The Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka — to meet at least once a year. Accordingly, with three exceptions, they have met every year since 1985, when SAARC was established in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

In 1989, the Summit did not take place as scheduled because President Premadasa refused to hold a Summit in Colombo so long as Indian troops were in Sri Lanka. Again, there were no Summits in 1992 or 1996, as Sri Lanka and India respectively were given extended periods of chairman until the next summit was held.

Nuclear tension in South Asia
The Colombo Summit is being held in circumstances somewhat different from those that prevailed at the ninth summit in Male in May 1997. Then, Inder Kumar Gujral was prime minister of India, India’s attitude towards her SAARC neighbours, as articulated in the "Gujral doctrine", and the close rapport that Gujral had with all his counterparts and especially with Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, ensured a smooth summit at which cordiality prevailed.

The Tenth Summit in Colombo is being held in aftermath of the May 1998 nuclear test explosions by India and Pakistan. Relations between these two prominent member states are at a low ebb. There was even a possibility that the Summit may not take place this year. But arrangements are complete to hold the Summit in Colombo from 29-31 July.

Slow progress
SAARC leaders will have to look seriously at the achievements of the past thirteen years and identify the reasons for the slow progress of SAARC compared to that of ASEAN and other regional organisations. For more tangible and rapid progress there has to be a common conception about the future of South Asia and a demonstration of political will among leaders to implement plans already in place.

The SAARC Charter states specifically that the objectives of the Association shall be confined to accelerating economic growth, social progress and cultural development but it also clearly states that "co-operation within the framework of the association shall be based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territoril integrity, political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and mutual benefit."

Among the general provisions in the Charter are that: "Decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of unanimity" and "bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from the deliberations." The principle of unanimity has been welcomed by all the members for it ensures that no undesirable decisions would be thrust upon them in the regional forum.

Bilateral and contentious issues
On the other hand, India alone is against bilateral and contentious issues being taken up in the SAARC forum. India feels that she would be cornered by her neighbours if bilateral and contentious issues are discussed. This crippling restraint would seem to exclude any discussion of the nuclear threat to the countries of South Asia consequent to India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons.

However, the Male Summit did break new ground in relaxing the inflexibility about bilateral issues being taboo by agreeing that "a process of informal political consultations would prove useful in fostering good neighbourly relations, relieving tensions and building confidence as a means to promoting peace, stability and amity and accelerated social and economic co-operation in the region."

Security concerns
Each of the major powers in the region — India and Pakistan — have hitherto pursued their perceived security objectives and tested nuclear weapons ostensibly to enhance their own national security. With a nuclear deterrence in place it is now time for India and Pakistan to settle their long-standing differences over such disputes as Kashmir and reduce the tensions created by the possibility of a nuclear conflagration which can prove disastrous to all countries in the region.

Even though bilateral relations cannot be formally placed on the agenda of the Colombo Summit, it is to be hoped that, in the spirit of Male, "informal political consultations" could take place to emphasise the need for India and Pakistan to be alive to the serious threat to the security of all SAARC countries if current tension should escalate any further.

Poverty alleviation
One of the areas in which SAARC has moved very slowly is the vital question of poverty alleviation which President Premadasa pushed to the forefront of the SAARC agenda at the sixth summit in Colombo in 1991. That Summit decided to establish an Independent South Asian Commission on Poverty Alleviation, consisting of eminent persons from each SAARC member state, to conduct an in-depth study of diverse experiences of the seven countries on poverty alleviation and to report to the Seventh Summit their recommendations on the alleviation of poverty in South Asia.

The Seventh Dhaka Summit in April 1993 accepted the report of the eminent persons group and decided "on the eradication of poverty, preferably by the year 2002 A.D. through an Agenda of Action." That was the last Summit president Premadasa attended. With his untimely demise soon afterwards, poverty alleviation in South Asia seems to have been placed on a back burner.

The 1997 Male Summit referred to poverty alleviation only in the most perfunctory terms. The Male Declaration merely stated: "Government were unequivocal in their commitment to the eradication of poverty in South Asia at the earliest, preferably by the year 2002 A.D. through an Agenda of Action." These pious intentions seem to have been lost in the intricate web of the SAARC organisational infrastructure and bureaucracy.

Preferential and free trade
The 1991 Colombo Summit also declared the commitment of governments to the liberalisation of trade in the region "through a step by step approach in such a manner that all countries in the region share the benefits of trade expansion equitably" Sri Lanka made a specific proposal to establish a SAARC Preferential Trade Arrangement (SAPTA) by 1997. SAPTA entered into force on 7 December 1995. The 1997 Male Summit recognised the importance of moving into a South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) by as early as the year 2001.

Sri Lanka was the first South Asian country to implement a policy of trade liberalisation, beginning in 1977. Tariff liberalisation has been effected in successive phases with a uniform tariff rate of 15 percent by 1998. Other countries started liberalising their trade later in the 1980s and early 1990s. India, for example, began market reforms in 1991. A maximum import tariff rate has been progressively reduced from 150 percent to 50 percent in the 1995-96 budget. Pakistan has similarly reduced maximum import duty to 35 percent by 1996.

However, notwithstanding tariff reductions, other obstacles to trade liberalisation remain Quantitative restrictions and non-tariff barriers are still in force, often negating the benefits promised in the tariff concessions. For progress towards a viable SAPTA and to the early establishment of SAPTA, efforts should be made to remove existing non-tariff barriers.

Moreover, according to SAPTA rules of origin, manufactured products must either be "wholly obtained" within preference receiving SAARC member countries, or must have a 50 percent local content. This makes a number of manufactured products from Sri Lanka ineligible for concessions. The range of goods on which Sri Lanka could obtain concessions is thereby limited.

Areas of SAARC activity
SAARC countries implement national programmes through an Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) on a variety of topics including agriculture, communications, education, environment and meteorology, health, prevention of drug trafficking and drug abuse, rural development, science and technology, tourism, transport and women in development.

In its thirteen years of existence, SAARC Summits have made declarations and produced regional conventions on a number of matters such as the suppression of terrorism, the establishment of a food security reserve, preferential trade and the promotion of tourism.

But Sri Lanka’s President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga candidly posed a relevant question at the 1997 Male Summit: "Does the proliferation of activities over the last decade signify anything more than the growth of barren foliage on a vast tree? What fruit has SAARC truly borne?"

A long-term vision
The 1997 Ninth Male Summit decided that a Group of Eminent Persons (GEP) should develop a long-range vision for SAARC through formulating a SAARC Agenda for 2000 and Beyond. They would also undertake a comprehensive appraisal of SAARC and identify measures and mechanisms to revitalise the organisation.

The GEP consists of one representative from each member state, with the discretion of each member state to appoint an additional representative. The GEP’s report will be presented to the Heads of State or government at the Colombo Summit.

People-to-people contact
Beyond national programmes, SAARC endeavours to foster people-to-people activities which would help to bring South Asians closer together in understanding and mutual interest. Already, since the establishment of SAARC there is an emerging consciousness of a South Asian identity in the region. Chambers of Commerce and Industry, speakers of parliament, Parliamentarians, accountants, architects, lawyers, university women, media persons and others meet regularly under SAARC auspices. Cultural festivals and sports competitions are being held.

When the people of South Asia, home to some one-fifth of the world’s population, realise the benefits to be derived from regional co-operation, it will be easier to break down bureaucratic barriers and counter the lack of political will.

L E G A L W A T C H
Discrimination unlawful with or without FR application

By Nayana
Arbitrary discrimination by public authorities is unlawful and will not be permitted, irrespective of whether or not there is an application under the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution.

This was the clear message contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piyadasa and others vs Land Reform Commission and another, delivered on the 8th of this month.

Justice Amerasinghe, with Justices Wijetunga and Gunasekera in agreement, stated that an arbitrary departure from a published scheme of land distribution by the Land Reform Commission amounted to an unlawful discrimination and a violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.

Even though the application before the Court was not made with reference to the fundamental rights chapter, "the fact remained that acts of officials contravening the provisions of Article 12 are unlawful, not permitted and of no force or avail in law".

The Court went on to state that "whether Article 12 existed or not, the reach of public policy would sufficiently prevent invidious discrimination". It was said that the courts would not allow a power to be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or with unfair discrimination, neither in the making of rules nor in the enforcement of them.

The case in question was an application for a writ of mandamus directing the Land Reform Commission (LRC) to transfer to the six petitioners certain paddy lands in the Ratnapura District which they had been cultivating as tenant cultivators with official permission under a Government scheme which, they claimed, would entitle them to purchase these lands.

The chain of events that led to the filing of the case began in the early 1990s. It was common ground that in 1991 the then Government had approved a scheme to sell at concessionary rates to tenant cultivators the paddy fields of estates and plantations vested in the LRC.

The evidence indicated that the land in question had consisted of paddy fields on which cultivation had been abandoned sometime in the 1980s and some rubber seedling nurseries subsequently established on parts of it. The Court found that the land had consistently been referred to as "abandoned paddy lands" in official records, and that the petitioners had been allowed to cultivate them from 1992 in keeping with a policy decision of the Government.

The LRC had strenuously objected, maintaining that the lands had never been used for paddy cultivation and that the petitioners had committed criminal trespass. However they could not explain why, in that event, the authorities had not taken any action against the petitioners for several years. The LRC officials in fact went so far as to suppress the record of an inquiry at which evidence favourable to the petitioners had been given, and this suppression was one of the factors that led the Court of Appeal to refuse to grant mandamus and necessitated the petitioners’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

The evidence also showed that in 1993 a survey had been carried out preparatory to transferring the lands to the tenant cultivators - a status the petitioners were entitled to claim on the basis of official records.

Having invited applications in the prescribed manner from tenant cultivators who wished to purchase, arrangements were made to hand over deeds in 1994. But while other cultivators in the area received their deeds in due course, and the Regional Director of Agrarian Services sent the petitioners’ deeds to the LRC, no transfer was made to the six petitioners.

Throughout 1995 the LRC resisted making the transfers. While some Government personalities of the area such as Athauda Seneviratne, Vasudeva Nanayakkara and the late Nalanda Ellawala intervened to recommend the petitioners’ applications, the principal opponent to the transfer of the lands appears to have been Deputy Minister for Education, W.D.J. Seneviratne, also from the area.

G.S. Kumarasinghe, Director, District Land Reform Authority, in a letter written to the Chairman, LRC, in March 1995, dealt with the Deputy Minister’s objection with these words:

"The Hon. Deputy Minister of Education, Mr W.D.J. Seneviratne, M.P. for Ratnapura, has objected to the issue of these deeds, but I would like to point out to you that we are bound to issue these deeds as per decision of the Cabinet because these Ande Cultivators have been duly registered and their fields have been surveyed at their expense and plans have been approved and the money too has been recovered from the Ande Cultivators. Otherwise, in the event they take legal action against us in courts, we have no reasons to show why we are unable to issue these deeds to them."

This letter received a special commendation from Justice Amerasinghe in his judgment: "Kumarasinghe, in my view, did what is expected of every public officer: without fear or favour, regardless of the pressures exerted, he gave his considered opinion."

However the LRC Chairman, aided by the Secretary to the Ministry of Plantation Industries, continued to resist making the transfer on various grounds including the fact that the land allegedly had gemming potential. As State grants of land are always given subject to the State retaining mineral rights, there was no question of the petitioners being enriched by any gems that might be found, but the Ministry Secretary went further and recommended that the State Gem Corporation be allowed to auction the lands for gemming and after completing gemming, to "consider granting deeds to the farmers".

Apart from the obvious impracticability of this scheme from the cultivators’ point of view, this would have amounted to an entirely new policy decision being formulated by the Ministry Secretary and the LRC Chairman in the teeth of the earlier Cabinet decision - something the Supreme Court refused to countenance with these words:

"A decision had been taken by the Cabinet of Ministers with regard to the sale of paddy lands to tenant cultivators. The criteria for carrying out that decision were announced by the (then) Secretary to the Ministry. Those criteria were satisfied by the petitioners. The Ministry stated that those who satisfied the criteria would be given their deeds of transfer. In fact, some persons who were in similar circumstances were given their deeds. In my view, it was not open to the Secretary or other officials to arbitrarily suspend the operation of the announced scheme in relation to the petitioners, or to amend the scheme, by interposing the condition that the lands earmarked for allocation to the petitioners should first be auctioned for the purpose of gemming."

However in 1996 the Chairman, LRC, came under further pressure from Deputy Minister Seneviratne who alleged that the petitioners had falsely got themselves nominated as tenant cultivators of what was actually a rubber land through the influence of the UNP’s Minister of Lands and Ratnapura District MP Gamini Atukorale - a claim which the official records did not bear out. He was joined by another Deputy Minister, Pavithra Wanniarachchi, in calling for the land to be "alienated to landless people".

In the face of these pressures, the Chairman LRC passed the buck by seeking directions from the Ministry Secretary "in view of the contradictory material submitted for and against the proposed alienation". The Secretary apparently made no response and the Chairman conveniently suspended the alienation in the meantime.

The Supreme Court described the situation in these words: "As we have seen, the Government decided in 1991 to sell lands to tenant cultivators ......... The criteria to be satisfied were laid down by the Ministry and published with the assurance that persons who satisfied the requirements would be given their deeds of transfer. An official of the Land Reform Commission has correctly certified that those criteria were satisfied by the petitioners. Caught between the competing demands of politicians who had interceded on behalf of the petitioners, on the one hand, and others, the Chairman of the Land Reform Commission, instead of performing his duty to comply with the policy of the Government and implementing the publicly announced decision of the Ministry, referred the matter to the Ministry in the belief that he had divested himself of his obligations. If, as he obviously supposed, it was a clever device to slip aside his duties and befool the petitioners and others into thinking he had no duty, he was, in my view, mistaken."

The Court accordingly granted a writ of mandamus and gave the LRC six weeks to execute transfer deeds in favour of the petitioners. The Court also awarded costs of Rs.5000 each to the petitioners, to be paid by the LRC.

Apart from providing a study in bureaucratic obstruction the full details of which cannot be reproduced here, this case illustrates the nexus between writ applications and fundamental rights which is not always appreciated by a public and a legal profession geared to thinking of fundamental rights only in terms of applications under Article 126(2).

For a start, there is also Article 126(3) which states that where, in the course of a hearing of a writ application (mandamus, certiorari etc) in the Court of Appeal, it appears to that Court that there is prima facie evidence of an infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right, the Court shall forthwith refer such matter for determination by the Supreme Court.

The significance of this clause is that it provides an avenue for fundamental rights matters to be brought before the Supreme Court through the traditional public law remedies which are less restrictive than Article 126(2) with regard to time limit and locus standi. No reference was made in the case under discussion only because the Court of Appeal, at least partly due to the suppression of facts by the respondents, dismissed the petitioner’s application without referring the Article 12 aspect to the Supreme Court as it might have done.

As mentioned at the beginning of this column, the Supreme Court, to which this case eventually came as part of its appellate rather than fundamental rights jurisdiction, held that a contravention of Article 12 by a public official was unlawful per se, irrespective of whether it was expressly challenged under the fundamental rights chapter. This is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution which declares that fundamental rights "shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government" - Article 4(d).

The addendum by the Court that even without Article 12, public policy would not allow for arbitrary, capricious or unfair discrimination is significant in the light of Article 15(7) of the Constitution which permits restrictions to several fundamental rights including Article 12 to be imposed by law on grounds of national security, public order, public health and morality etc. The judgment would suggest that even restrictions imposed under Article 15(7) would not be upheld if they are "arbitrary", "capricious" or amount to unfair discrimination.

The week that was
Premadasa family raises hot air

By Shan Wijetunge
Last Wednesday's cabinet meeting at the Temple Trees generated a certain amount of hot air with the Ministers Mahinda Rajapakse, Mangala Samaraweera and the president crossing swords about the Premadasa family.

G.S.T. or D.K.T?
When the Cabinet meeting started at 7 p.m. there were two outsiders, Dr. B. Jayasundara from the Treasury and Mr. Dixon Nilaweera, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, who had come to appraise the Cabinet on the Goods and Services Tax.

After their clarifications, there was a spate of questions and comments. Minister Fowzie took the lead. He argued that because of the GST, everything has gone up in price. He maintained that even the eating houses have raised the prices of food items, take aways etc.

The two officials explained that the tax does not apply to essentials. Minister Fowzie did not agree. And his disagreement was shared by Ministers Dharmasiri Senanayake, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, and others. Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle proposed a new name for the tax. It should be called D. K. T. (Duppatha Kana Tax Eka) the tax that bleeds the poor he said.

Hiding Premadasa's doings
When the Cabinet discussion came to the subject of murders committed during the Premadasa regime, both Ministers Mahinda Rajapakse and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle alleged that attempts are being made even now to hide certain unsavoury facts about Premadasa. Minister Mangala Samaraweera, who denied the allegation asked what these matters are?

"What about the matter about Chitta Vivekashramaya?" Minister Mahinda Rajapakse asked, "Nothing about the picture from the President's house, auctioned in London. A priceless picture featuring the Mulgirigala temple. Only the Sunday Leader reported about it. Not a word in our "Daily News."

The President remarked that it was given publicity in the Sunday Leader at the instance of Ranil who wanted to attack the Premadasa family. What has to be done is not merely to attack Sajith. Before doing that, we must look at the political trend, she remarked.

Her remarks on attacks by Mahinda Rajapakse led to a heated exchange of words between Minister Mahinda Rajapakse and her. No one made any attempt to intervene. They just watched the fun in silence.

The meeting that Never was!
While the Premadasa family was occupying the centre stage of the Cabinet, a group of supporters of Sirisena Cooray planned to organise a meeting. The venue selected was the Sucharita Hall in Colombo Central. However, Mrs. Hema Premadasa, President of the Sucharita Movement and its Secretary, Vijitha Kadiragonna did not permit the use of the hall. Therefore, the venue was shifted to Poorvarama.

Not a single Provincial Councillor who had earlier expressed willingness to participate attended the meeting. Not even Mr. Sirisena Cooray!

Richard Pathirana meets the Mulberry Group
The Minister of Education won the praise of Mulberry Group when he, together with high officials of the Education Ministry met the members of the Mulberry Group by prior appointment and listened to their views. Political victimisation was the main topic of discussion. It was decided to appoint a committee to check the veracity of complaints.

Anura comes closer to the Prime Minister
Anura, the subject of intense speculation during the last few weeks, is rather quiet these days. Yet, he accepted an invitation by the Prime Minister to accompany her to the funeral ceremony of Venerable Ananda Maitriya. Dr. Sivali Ratwatte also joined them for the trip to Balangoda by helicopter.

Dinner for media men
The President threw a dinner party for media men last Thursday night. Top rankers in print and electronic media had been invited. Invitations had been apparently extended to middle level journalist in state media outfits.

Conspicuous by their absence were the editors of Sunday Leader, Sunday Times and Sunday Lakbima, perhaps because the papers concerned have been sued by the government for criminal defamation of the President.

Proceedings went on in a very warm atmosphere and the President made her comments on various papers with emphasis and occasionally with a smile. "A balanced newspaper is a myth. "She commented. "The duty of the media is to report the truth."

The Editor of Ravaya wanted to ask a political question. There was no objection. He wanted to know whether there is going to be a Joint Operations Command under the President. The President denied it. She said that it is a canard invented to bring about friction between her and the Deputy Minister of Defence.

Some of the editors wanted to know why the government refrained from publishing advertisements in the Upali Group newspapers. "The government is not foolish enough to pay money and listen to abuse"! replied Minister Mangala Samaraweera.

Party Leaders
The former Opposition Whip, Wijayapala Mendis attended the meeting of Party Leaders held at the office of the Speaker at his office on Wednesday. He was accompanied by A. C. S. Hameed. By that time, it has been decided to appoint W. J. M. Lokubandara as the Opposition Whip and the Speaker informed accordingly. Several MPs from almost all parties were present.

Programme of parliamentary activities for the month of August was taken up for discussion. The main subject was the motion of no-confidence against Minister Mangala Samaraweera. It had been decided to table this motion on the 4th of August. The Speaker suggested that the debate should start at 9.30 a.m. and be finished by 3.30 p.m. Ranil objected to the limited time allocated and pointed out that less important subjects such as the Galle harbour had taken more time. "This is a charge against the government". he said. It was finally agreed to extend the time till 5.30 p.m.

Goods and Services Tax was also taken up and it was decided to debate on it at a separate date.

Blowing hot and cold over Kandalama

by S. J. Anthony Fernando
Time was when Kandalama was a hot political topic in the early 1990s. So hot it was taken up as a national issue by the then opposition (now constituent partners in the People's Alliance Government) along with certain organisations as an environmental hazard to beat the then government of President Ranasinghe Premadasa.

The spectre of constructing a hotel overlooking the picturesque Kandalama tank seemed to conjure unimaginable environmental horrors in the minds of these critics including certain members of the Buddhist clergy with even certain Catholic clergymen and nuns throwing in their lot in a determined bid to see that no stone was unturned (including perching themselves on Dambulugala in a mass Satyagraha Campaign) to force the abandoning of the hotel project.

Despite these protests launched islandwide, the hotel project went through attracting investment. The hotel has scaled the pinnacle of success by earning international accolades, ironically for enhancing the very environment which the critics said was endangered.

The fact that the Kandalama hotel won the most prestigious Green Globe Award not only this year but three years in succession giving it the stamp of the most eco-friendly project is without doubt an honour to be shared by those at the helm of affairs in the country at the time who did not give into the ravings and rantings of those who were out to make political mileage in the guise of environmental hazards, calling for the scrapping of the project.

Strange
But alas strange are the ways of politics. The very same P. A. critics who instigated people and brought them out on street protests over Kandalama Hotel (despite the PA claim there was no freedom to protest that time) are now falling over each other to pay tributes to Kandalama Hotel for this unique achievement without so much as an apology that they had erred in protesting or giving even an honourable mention to President Premadasa and others for resolutely standing firm on the issue.

It is interesting to read, in this background, some of the comments made by the president and ministers in their messages to the supplement published (in Daily News of 7th July 98 — Page 13) to mark the occasion of the Kandalama Hotel winning the Green Globe Award.

This is what President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga states: "I offer my congratulations to Kandalama hotel for its unique achievement of winning the green globe award not just once but three years in succession. To be identified internationally as an eco-friendly hotel brings credit not only to the company and the tourist industry but also to the country."
Minister of Tourism, Mr. Dharmasiri Senanayake, in his message congratulate the Kandalama hotel on their achievement in becoming the pioneers of eco-tourism in Sri Lanka.

The message from Mr. Nandimithra Ekanayake, Minister of Forestry and Environment, who was in the vanguard of P. A. protests in the area over Kandalama is interesting: "This is a landmark event in sustainable development in Sri Lanka as this project has proved that development need not be at the expense of the environment but could be environment friendly and sustainable."

What is more this is what Mr. Janaka Bandara Tennekoon, Deputy Minister of Labour and MP for Matale District another vehement critic of the project had to say: "My heartiest congratulations to Aitken Spence Hotel Managment (Pvt) Ltd. and to the Director/General Manager and staff of Kandalama Hotel for winning the "Green Globe Award" for the third consecutive year......

"This is indeed an honour to me as the Member of Parliament in the area where Kandalama Hotel is located and along with the Hon. Minister of Tourism will certainly help to boost tourism and to achieve the final goal by making the proposal a reality."

Quite thought provoking words from those who opposed the project from its drawing board stage.

Progress
I can vividly remember the time when the protests erupted no sooner the project got underway. It was a time when President Premadasa after overcoming the immense loss of life and property caused due to JVP terrorism had restored peace and put the country back on track towards rapid economic development. He succeeded in attracting unprecedented investment and aid for various projects and programmes.

Kandalama Hotel project was one of them. With the country on course towards accelerated development on all fronts — rural, urban as well as industrial and infrastructure, his detractors devoid of much political ammunition after the effective elimination of JVP terror clutched at whatever issue that came by to bludgeon the then government.

Besides the Kandalama Hotel project, the provision of facilities for VOA at Iranawila, privatisation programmes, Air Lanka, Air bus deal were among other issues where they almost brought the roof down. But after the PA came to power all these issues became non-issues with the PA going through these deals without a murmur.

Such horrifying stories like the Kandamala tank would get polluted, or overflow its banks causing mass destruction to life and property and harming the farming community, together with the prospect of pollution of cultural and social life of the community with influx of hippy type tourists created quite a stir in the country. This was despite the explanations given that the project has been so designed not to disturb the ecology but rather enhance it, instead of cutting trees more trees would be grown and that there was no danger of the tank overflowing or the supply of irrigation facilities to farmers being disrupted in anyway.

I had the opportunity of visiting the Kandalama site when it was being prepared for the project. It looked a desolate place with huge rocks around the area. Mr. Melroy Perera, the architect on site explained how they hope to build the hotel to harmonise with the landscape. With graphic details he explained that the hotel would be constructed at such an elevation that if the Kandalama tank was to overflow its banks and cause destruction the hotel would first be under water. Nor would the capacity of the tanks in any way be reduced. Though these issues were explained through the media they were ignored and the protests went on regardless.

However President Premadasa, a keen environmentalist himself, insisted that as in any project the people in the area first should be taken into confidence and their co-operation solicited. Through his intervention the entire neighbourhoods received a face-lift through infrastructure development like new roads, water supply, housing and electricity. More trees were grown to make it more idyllic. Soon the opposition to the project started waning when the protesters, mostly from outside, found it difficult to muster support from the area.

Fears
As regards the fears of cultural and social pollution of the area it was pointed out that there were small scale tourist lodges in and around Dambulla vihare, posing much greater risks of hippie type foreign tourists polluting the area than the high income group tourists patronising Kandalama Hotel situated miles away from the sacred area. What better way to earn money from tourists than by letting them savour our scenic beauty and admire historical sites. But no, this project would spell disaster not only to Dambulla but to the entire country was the cry of the protesters.

Now, with such disinformation and rumours being laid to rest, it is at least heartening to see those who opposed now admiring one of projects commenced under President Premadasa like so many of his concepts and ideas are now being followed by the self same critics — devoid of course of the same results.

One is reminded of the oft repeated saying of President Premadasa when confronted with so much wild rumours, insults, disinformation, misinformation and insinuations thrown at him at the mere drop of a hat. He would say "the truth will prevail some day". And it is apparent that day by day the truth is emerging with his critics wittingly or unwittingly gravitating towards his concepts and programmes for the welfare of the people.

Reality of the once despised Kandalama Hotel now becoming the most admired by the P.A. is another classic example of the P.A. basking in the reflected glory of some of the achievements under the open market policies initiated by UNP regimes since 1977. We have seen many such on-going projects completed and opened by the P.A. with great fanfare as their own projects.

Apart from a few projects initiated by P.A. being opened what we hear after nearly four years of P.A. in office is still a plethora of more promises, proposals and plans and foundation stone laying ceremonies with many promises and plans initiated soon after P.A. taking office falling by the way side.

It is now transparently clear that the P.A. has had no other alternative than to fall back on the same entrepreneurs and companies, which were nurtured and developed under the open economic policies in previous years (most of them branded as UNP cronies) and vehemently opposed by P.A. parties, to keep the country head above water through export earnings, opening of industries to provide employment and sustain the economy as the engine of growth.