.

The week that was
The sick pays the price

by Shan Wijetunga
The hardline attitude of the government forced to prolong their strike. The government insisted that the striking doctors should report back for work before holding discussions. The only result was that the sick people, without medical care, had to carry the can. The government’s hand was eventually forced by dozens of powerful unions closing ranks round the doctors. Finally the President had to give in and have talks although the Essential Service Order was not lifted as demanded by the doctors.

The government’s tough line with the doctors made waves in trade union circles. The government’s tough legalistic attitude towards the GMOA strike compelled the other major unions to be concerned about their own relationship with the authorities in case of any future trade union action.

Furthermore the government’s intransigence forced the GMOA to be closer to the UNP and be defended by UNP lawyer MP K. N. Choksy in courts.

Moreover terror acts by organised gang against some doctors and their vehicles and the government’s orders to the police arrest defiant striking doctors were also reasons for the GMOA to seek UNP support.

On the instructions of UNP Leader Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Matara district MP Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena met representatives of the GMOA on Thursday night at the De Soyza hospital and at the Ragama hospital for discussions.

On Friday morning MP Abeywardena met the Opposition Leader and informed him of the stance of the GMOA. Thereafter he met the back benchers of the government in Parliament.

In the meantime MPs Dallas Alahapperuma, Mahinda Amaraweera and some other members of the Mulberry Group were making attempts towards a solution to the doctors’ strike. Their efforts were handicapped by the government’s decision not to hold talks until the doctors report back for duty.

M.P., Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena who informed government back benchers that this problem should be solved regardless of party differences requested them to arrange a meeting with the President and that he would take the responsibility to bring the striking doctors to the discussion table.

Mr. Abeywardena also urged the case filed by North Western Provincial Chief Minister, S. B. Navinna in courts against the doctors be withdrawn.

Ministers discuss doctors’ strike

Ministers Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, C. V. Gooneratne, Mahinda Rajapaksa, S. B. Dissanayake and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle were interested in settling the doctors strike.

Ministers S. B. Dissanayake and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle had several rounds of unofficial discussions with the striking doctors. Later they invited Minister G. L. Peiris for a discussion with the doctors as Minister Peiris is directly involved in constitutional affairs. It was decided to meet doctors at Visumpaya on Friday afternoon. One hour before the scheduled meeting the Secretary to the President, Kusumsiri Balapatabendi phoned Prof. Peiris and informing him that the President was not in favour of such talks and therefore not to attend the discussion. Similar instructions had been conveyed to Minister S. B. Dissanayake by the Presidential Secretariat.

While the attempts by the ministers to settle the doctors strike came to a bitter end. Ven. Muruttettuwe Ananda Thero, President, United Nurses Union held discussions with representatives of 25 major trade unions and formed a combined trade union association to support the doctors’ strike.

It was agreed here to hold a picketing campaign by the members of the 25 trade unions in support of the doctors’ strike.

Meanwhile Opposition Leader, Ranil Wickramesinghe held discussions with the striking doctors last Tuesday. At this meeting Ranil Wickramesinghe explained to the representatives of the doctors union the action taken by the UNP towards a settlement of the strike.

He also informed the doctors that the government had been asked to convene parliament to discuss this problem.

The letter by the leader of the Opposition was sent to Prime Minister, Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

Along with that letter another letter by the doctors was also sent to the Prime Minister.

The two letters were immediately despatched to ‘Temple Trees’ by the Prime Minister.

Birthday of President

The birthday of President, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga was celebrated on a low key last Tuesday (29). The President participated in several religious ceremonies at the Sri Maha Bodhiya at Anuradhapura.

Cabinet meeting

The main topic of discussion at last Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting was the doctors’ strike.

Ministers C. V. Gooneratne, Dharmasiri Senanayake, Mahinda Rajapakse and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle wanted the strike be resolved through discussions with the President.

But the President said "no discussions can be held until the doctors report for duty. This is a conspiracy. We have already brought proposals in the parliament to decentralize power. Because of that we have received the largest possible co-operation of the minorities. What the doctors are trying is to disrupt such co-operation towards the government. What they want is to go back on the 13th Amendment and bring the displeasure of the minorities towards the government.

Minister G. L. Peiris said "I can’t change the amendment to the constitution. I have already proposed to the Parliament for further decentralising of power. But to say that nothing can be done because of the amendment to Section 13 is wrong. There are ways and means of gettings things done in respect of subjects decentralized without touching the 13th Amendment".

But as the ministers sought discussions with the doctors the President promised she would consider a date for a discussion with the doctors.

SLFP Central Working Committee

The Central Working Committee of the SLFP met at "Temple Trees" immediately after the Cabinet meeting. All ministers present at the cabinet meeting participated in this meeting.

The main topic of discussion was the re-organisation of the party.

It was decided to appoint 17 district leaders to re-organise each district in the island. Ministers were appointed as district leaders and it was decided that the district leaders should commence re-organisational work immediately.

There was an exchange of words between Minister Mahinda Rajapakse and Mangala Samaraweera over the appointment of Danny Hittetiyage for a ministerial post in Matara.

The President supported by Minister Mangala Samaraweera was against the appointment. When it was suggested that Danny Hittettiyage be appointed to the ministerial post at Hambantota. Minister Mahinda Rajapakse vehemantly opposed the proposal followed by an exchange of hot words between the ministers.

It is alleged that some of the utterances at this exchange of words which continued for over half an hour were only fit to be labelled as for "Adults Only".

Finally it was President who brought an end to the argument stating that she had to leave to attend a wedding.

Southern Provincial Ministerial appointments

The appointments of ministers to the Southern Provincial Council is causing problems in the PA.

There was no problem in the Galle PC as former provincial ministers for that district, I Wijewantha and Gunaratne Weerakoon were unanimously re-appointed. The problems are with regard to appointment of provincial ministers for Matara and Hambantota districts.

Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had insisted that his nominee M. K. Ranjith (Chandi Malli) be appointed as provincial minister for Hambantota. But the People’s Alliance envisages appointing the Communist Party nominee, Danny Hittetiyage to Hambantota.

The row over the appointment of provincial ministers has caused a confrontation between the People’s Alliance and the Communist Party.

Citizenship and franchise in Independent Sri Lanka

by Neville Ladduwahetty
After Sri Lanka attained Independence on the 4th of February 1948, the Parliament of Sri Lanka passed the following laws in respect of citizenship and franchise: The Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948 that came into operation on the 15th of November, 1948; The Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949 that came into operation on 5th August 1949; and The Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Act, No. 48 of 1949.

The Act of 1948 enabled Indian Tamils to claim citizenship either on the grounds of descent or registration. It has been recognized that few could have claimed citizenship by descent under the provisions of the Act of 1948. However, the Act of 1949 contained "less restrictive conditions for the grant of Ceylon citizenship to Indians than the earlier Act" (Kodikara, 1965, p. 109).

Since domicile was the dominant issue, the residence qualifications as specified by the 1949 Act were, "in the case of a person who is unmarried at the date of his application for registration, or in the case of a married person whose marriage has been dissolved by death or divorce prior to that date, be a period of ten years and in the case of any married person ...be a period of seven years". The Act also required that the period of "absence did not on any one occasion exceed twelve months duration". Some other requirements of the Acts were that the applicant should be in "possession of an assured income ... free from any disabilities" and renounce "all rights to the civil and political status the applicant has had...". It is essential to note that the qualifications for residence in the 1949 Act are identical with those stated in the Joint Report developed between Sri Lanka and India in 1941.

Another factor that is of extreme interest is that "A majority of the Ceylon Tamil M.Ps in the T.C. (Tamil Congress)... supported the legislation". The few that opposed "splintered" from the T.C. and formed the Federal Party who "emerged to champion the rights of the Indians" (Wilson, 1974, Politics in Sri Lanka 1947-1973, pp. 31, 32). On the other hand, objections were raised by the Ceylon Indian Congress in Sri Lanka and the Madras Legislative Assembly of India mainly because of the extension of the period of residence from the 5 years that had existed in colonial Sri Lanka (Wilson, 1974, p. 31).

The Acts prescribed a two year period, starting from 15th August 1949 to 14th August 1951, within which applications for Citizenship were to be submitted. "For most of the two-year limit within which applications had to be filed, the C.I.C. (Ceylon Indian Congress) persisted in its boycott. Then a few weeks before the expiry of the deadline, the boycott was lifted and a spate of inadequately completed applications flowed in. One hundred and sixty thousand of the 237,034 applications were submitted in the last ten weeks" (Wilson, 1974, p. 32).

The Sri Lankan government’s position was that whoever was not a Sri Lankan Citizen was an Indian Citizen. India did not accept this position. Instead, India established her own qualifications for Citizenship as contained in Articles 5 and 8 of the Indian Republican Constitution of 1949, and was prepared to accept only those who qualified under her constitutional provisions. These provisions "... made it difficult for Indians resident outside India to qualify for Indian citizenship and this was made even more difficult by the enactment of a separate citizenship law by the government of India in 1955. Nor did the High Commissioner for India in Sri Lanka show any ready willingness to accommodate Indians in Sri Lanka who applied for Indian passports" (Wilson, 1974, p. 32).

The nett result was the creation of a third category, the ‘’Stateless". These were the Indian Tamils who did not qualify to be either Sri Lankan or Indian citizens. Sri Lanka attempted to resolve these issues during the talks between the Prime Ministers Nehru and Dudley Senanayake in June of 1953. The Sri Lankan proposals were to grant citizenship to 400,000; with an additional 250,000 to be granted Permanent Residence Permits, with the total between the two not to exceed 650,000, and the balance 300,000 were to be accepted as Indian citizens and repatriated. Unfortunately, "Though Nehru was much attracted by the scheme of Senanayake, he could not accept the principle of compulsory repatriation lest it become a precedent for other Afro-Asian countries" (Kumar, 1977, p.36).

These negotiations were followed by the Nehru-Kotelawala talks in which for the first time the question of "illicit-immigrants" was recognized as a part of the Indian Tamil problem, compounding the situation. Finally, negotiations between the two Prime Ministers, Mrs. Bandaranaike and Shastri of India brought this matter to a conclusion. The outcome was the Indo-Ceylon Agreement of October 1964, often referred to as the Sirima-Shastri Agreement. According to this agreement 525,000 Indians and their natural increase were to be repatriated to India; 300,000 and their natural increase were to be admitted to Sri Lankan citizenship; while the future of the remaining 150,000 was to be considered at a later date. In 1965, India accepted 75,000 and Sri Lanka agreed that the balance 75,000 remain in the country.

Thus, the agreements of 1953 and 1964 accepted officially that India was responsible for over 50% of the Indians nationals in Sri Lanka.

(Next week: Political dimensions — national and international)

Mahathir Mohamad prepares for general election

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Malaysia’s economy which slumped with other Southeast Asian economies in July 1997, is beginning to turn around. Patrick Tan, a senior investment analyst explains the economic turn-around: "First, imports are up, showing that consumption is increasing and that people are filling up their inventories Second, we see consumer confidence improving, with car sales, ways a good indicator of that, up significantly. Third, both public and private pending are beginning to gather some momentum."

The Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (LLSE) transactions indicate that the good times are back. The KLSE’s composite index has shot up to over 750 since hitting a low of 262.7 in September 1998. At the launch of the $1 billion sovereign bond in May this year, Mahathir crowed: "People have accepted that our economy has turned around. They are confident about the future of Malaysia and this is why they are willing to put money in the country."

The Malaysian economy is coming out of recession and, going by the recovery trend, it could achieve a growth rate of 2% to 3% for this year, as opposed to the 1% projected earlier by the Government.

Mahathir explains his approach

Inside Mahathir Mohamad’s office is a framed message. "Only those who see the invisible can do the impossible." Indeed Mahathir is the man who flouted economic orthodoxy and imposed currency and capital controls against the advice of all his principal economic advisers and amidst derisive comments from many economists outside the country. Ironically, growing numbers of those same economists now agree that the country is well on the road to recovery and the prime minister can be excused for his buoyant optimism.

Though some marvel at Mahathir’s accomplishment, to Mahathir himself it is no mystery. "I’ve gone against the stream many, many times," the prime minister said in a recent interview, "and it just so happens that in most instances I have been proved correct."

Explaining his approach to reviving Malaysia’s stricken economy, Mahathir said recently. "Well, we started, I started, from the very beginning to find a way to deal with the problem without resorting to the IMF (International Monetary Fund). From the very beginning, I thought that resorting to the IMF would not be good, for the economy in the first place and would weaken our position to the point where we would lose control over our economy and also our politics.

"I came up, with the idea that we’ll adjust everything according to the depreciation in the value of the currency. If the currency is devalued by 20%, okay, we will increase prices by 20%, increase all wages by 20%. That way you will nullify the effect of the devaluation...

"By preventing currency traders from getting hold of your currency, you can stabilize the economy... How do we bring back the money (that was outside the country, as in Singapore)? The answer to that of course is to make the money absolutely valueless outside of Malaysia."

UMNO recovers lost ground

In September 1998, Mahathir faced another crisis. He sacked his deputy and heir-apparent, Anwar Ibrahim, and seemed to have lost his grip. Even Malaysians thought that Mahathir was on the way out. Nine months later, such talk has all but disappeared.

Anwar has been sentenced to six years imprisonment for corruption and is currently being tried on charges of sodomy. A new and widely accepted — even if not flamboyant — deputy prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is in place. And with elections looming, Mahathir has reshuffled his cabinet and he and his party — the coalition-leading United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) — can watch with satisfaction as an opposition alliance squabbles in public.

Elections are due only in April 2000. But the prime minister may decide to go to the polls based on his country’s economic recovery and the dwindling interest in Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction on charges of corruption and his continuing trial for alleged acts of sodomy. At a press conference a few days before the UMNO convention, Mahathir Mohamad dismissed his one time heir apparent as a spent force. "People have generally lost interest in Anwar," he told a news conference on 16 June. "It is a historical event. Over time, it will be forgotten."

UMNO Convention

At UMNO’s annual conference from 18 to 20 June, Mahathir took the offensive against his sacked former deputy and finance minister. "I did not victimise him; I did not conspire to stop him from becoming the UMNO president and prime minister," said Mahathir. "His morals and behaviour prevented him from becoming UMNO president."

Addressing 2000 convention delegates, Mahathir said that the charges against Anwar were true and denied any conspiracy against his former protege. On the contrary, he had discovered that Anwar had his own agenda while in office. Anwar, he said, was backed by powers to usurp power because of his support for the IMF’s economic policies amid the Asian economic crisis. Mahathir accused Anwar of being a corrupt puppet of the West and attacked Westerners as racists trying to recolonize his country. "Now they can no longer control our country through their puppet," he said.

Anwar denies charges, alleges conspiracy

Issuing a statement from Sungai Buloh prison in November 1998, Anwar Ibrahim had refuted in detail Mahathir’s charges against him and alleged that he was framed for challenging the 73-year old prime minister who has ruled Malaysia for the past 18 years.

Anwar wrote: "The push for reform must continue. Why should the people continue to be beaten up by the police, or locked up for exercising their constitutional right to assemble and express their loathing of the Mahathir regime? Are the people expected to continue indefinitely to endure the ranting and raving of a senile, power-drunk tyrant? Long live Reformasi."

Parti Keadilan Nasional

While Anwar languishes in prison, his ophthalmologist wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, has formed a party called Parti Keadilan Nasional, or National Justice Party. From his cell, Anwar is its inspirational leader and mento — and the party’s name is involked in the slogan "Justice for Anwar" that has appeared, along with images of the infamous black eye from a police beating, on Post-It stickers and T-shirts.

But while Anwar is the motivating force, Azizah says the party’s future falls on her shoulders. "People do ask whether Anwar is behind this," she said. "He is, in a way, but he’s also behind bars. So I have to sink or swim."

It looks as if the impact of Anwar’s trial is mainly centred in Kuala Lumpur and the more educated strata of society. In rural areas the concern is more about a bridge to cross the river or rural roads.

And those are issues that UMNO — in power since independence 42 years ago — remains uniquely equipped to address. With branches in every village in the country serving its 2.7 million members, the party’s ability to track grassroots sentiment is unmatched. To ensure continuous and accurate feedback, UMNO has one party official assigned to monitor each 10 houses in every village in the country. That kind of machinery a new party like Keadilan can only dream about. In fact, Keadilan’s glaring lack of political organisers is its most evident drawback.

A divided opposition

UMNO, the dominant party in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, has a five-sixth majority in parliament. Mahathir would like to get at least a two-third majority at the forthcoming election.

Malaysia’s opposition consists mainly of the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia (Pas), the Chinese dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP), the newly formed Parti Keadilan Nasional (PKN) and the Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM).

Pas control Kelantan state and is strong in the northern "Malay heartland". The DAP is the biggest opposition party in parliament. (But together, Pas and the DAP took just 16 of the 192 fedral seats in the 1955 elections). PKN is still in the process of coalescing. The PRM is small but vocal. The opposition parties are a pretty mixed bag united only in their opposition to Barisan. They are still haggling over a common manifesto and are at odds over basic issues.

For instance, Pas has long called for an Islamic state, though, says a party leader, "we will not emphasise that for the elections." The DAP , on the other hand, is nominally multiracial and embraces different religions. Its declared aim is to make Malaysia a meritocracy. But that won’t sit well with PKN, which supports the bumpiutra policy to improve the economic status of the indigenous people, the vast majority of whom are ethnic Malays. So while the joint opposition platform carries an agenda for change, it studiously avoids going into the details of the various objectives of the different parties.

Again, there are differences over election strategy. PKN is out to win outright. But DAP secretary general Lim Kit Siang says: "We have to be realistic. We are not out to topple Barisan but to deny it a two-thirds majority in parliament."

The opposition parties have little hope of making any impact against Barisan unless they agree on sole candidates against the government nominees wherever they contest. But seat-sharing is not going to be easy.

Within the joint opposition, PKN is the popular middle-of-the-road vehicle and the standard-bearer for Anwar. But it is also the weakest group in terms of party machinery. DAP and pas each have a good organisation in place on the ground but no leader as charismatic as PKN’s’Azizah. The opposition parties complement one another, but only if they put a halt to their squabbling. At the moment there does not seem to be an end to that.

Right now, Mahathir Mohamad seems to be confident of yet another election victory. He has recently moved into his new administrative capital, Putrajaya, symbol of the bright high-tech future that he envisions for his country.

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