.

p
"A correct relationship between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition is necessary"

As a teenager at Royal College in the 1950s, Indika Gunawardene and three of his friends made waves by discarding their trousers and shirts for the national dress as everyday school wear. Three of the "revolutionaries" returned to conformity some months later while Gunawardene stayed with that dress till the end of his school career.

"Perhaps that was a mistake," the Housing and Urban Development Minister said reflectively in a recent interview. He has been non-conformist in other ways too, most notably when he, as Philip Gunawardene’s eldest son, chose to quit a Central Bank job and become a full timer in the Communist Party while the old war-horse was a Minister in the Dudley Senanayake government.

"My parents came to see me," he said. "My father was quiet. Mother wept. Father was worried about the allowance the CP would pay me. He said ‘Don’t take that money. I will give it to you.’ What bothered him was his belief that those funds came from the Soviet Union. It wasn’t much, just Rs. 150 a month."

All that was a long time ago. From party full timer he became a full timer in the trade union movement where a stipend better than Rs. 150 was possible. In 1977 he found himself expelled from the Communist Party for running as an Independent at the general election. Although he lost, he made his presence felt particularly at Kaduwela from where he got the highest number of preferential votes when he ran at the 1992 Provincial Council elections.

"I’ve been working right throughout at Kaduwela which is my base. I won last time because I contested in 1977," he said. As a Minister of the CBK Government, Gunawardene, now 56-years old, who read agriculture at the University of Leipzig specialising in farm management economics, was first given the Fisheries Ministry when the CP nominated him for cabinet office. He was then switched to housing and urban development in the last reshuffle.

Some excerpts from the interview with The Sunday Island

Five years down the road, what do you think the government has achieved?

Our only achievement is that we have ended a very dark period in this country’s history. Seventeen years of UNP rule saw gross human rights violations. Law and order deteriorated to abysmal depths. Society was brutalized. The country had a very bad international image. I think we have overcome all that. That’s our outstanding single achievement.

What about the failures?

Our promise of abolishing the Executive Presidency and ending the ethnic conflict has not yet been realised.

Why?

I think that the SLFP as the dominant party of the PA has not achieved the bipartisan politics that we need. We have not been able to get the support of the opposition (in those areas where such support is necessary). Part of the blame is theirs, but not all of it. Even in the matter of privatisation there has been UNP opposition. Agreement is first necessary for solving the national problem. Even on economic issues we must have agreement. We need a multi-party government. JR tried a one party government and failed. Anybody else who tries it will also fail. Sri Lanka in its present stage of development must be a multi-party democracy.

Are you suggesting a national government?

I don’t think a national government is necessary. Given the present policies of the UNP and SLFP a national government is not possible. But multi-party consultation should continue. A correct relationship between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition is necessary. It is not impossible.

How does your openly stated support for privatisation mesh with your party’s position?

We entered the Front recognising Chandrika’s leadership. Her views were well known. She advocated a market economy with a human face. That was very clear at the time we entered the coalition. I entered parliament and took cabinet office with that knowledge. In that position we accepted the principle of privatisation and private sector participation in developing certain sectors of the economy. But we said that in certain sectors like, education, health and transport the State would take responsibility to some degree. In areas which were not mentioned, it was understood that the private sector could participate. Communist Parties in many parts of the world have accepted that the private sector can participate in many areas of the economy.

And foreign investment?

In areas which can advance, we must welcome foreign private capital. I can mention two successful privatisations which I have supported - telecommunications and steel. Steel is under me. (Smiles) I am the political boss.

What about plantations?

Have we solved the problem in plantations by privatisation in the way it was done? Further land reform where the small holding sector is expanded should be introduced. Sri Lanka needs a thorough land reform today in the rural areas. The focus must be on land to the landless.

And water supply and drainage?

We need heavy investment in the water sector. We need Rs. 45 billion spread over five years at Rs. 9 billion a year. I requested Rs. 9 billion and got Rs. 4 billion with foreign assistance. I am yet short of Rs. 5 billion. We are reaching a stage where foreign loans we have taken are becoming a burden to the Board. We can’t take more loans without increasing the tariff. We are being pressed by lending agencies to increase the tariff. We can’t get out of this situation without foreign investment. We will go for increased foreign investment in drinking water supply and drainage. We are seriously considering BOT proposals. It will need a very strong regulatory framework first.

How will the investor recover his money? By charging?

Yes. We want to control the tariff. In Colombo there is terrible waste with half the supply wasted. The CMC has failed to control this, the Water Board has failed. If I can stop the waste, I don’t need to increase the tariff. There are leaks and uncollected bills. Only 30% of the towns have a 24-hour supply. Foreign investors are prepared to control wastage and reduce the tariff. There is no alternative but private sector investment.

And housing?

We have a special project to remove slums and shanties and re-house 66,000 families through a sustainable development project. We must end discrimination in allocation of housing. The UNP and the PA gave everything (available) to their people. We want to give all occupants of tenement gardens free housing. The project will be financed by the proceeds of the sale or exchange of prime land they squat on. We’ll be selling that land and providing them housing in the city with high-rise buildings going up ten floors. There’ll be a township at Wanathamulla with 20,000 units. Premadasa built houses and gave them to UNP people. Pieter (Keuneman) built houses and gave them to CP people. But all the people must be looked after. We are progressing very satisfactorily on rural housing and for the first time we are going into plantation housing. We are giving the land and assisting in the building. With regard to housing for fishermen, we are working in some targeted areas. The neglected group is the middle class - they are the opinion makers. We’ve given substantial concessions to the private sector in the housing front, but it is not responding other than the Ceylinco Group which has taken on a project at Athurugiriya.

Why is the private sector foot-dragging?

The construction industry has slumped. Demand for land has gone down. I think our bureaucracy is anti-private sector. We are facing grave problems in the construction industry. Banks are not supportive. Cement and steel prices are continuing to increase.

What role do you see for your ministry?

When this ministry was created there was a conscious decision to change its role from the previous housing and construction to housing and urban development. Policy guidelines have been set out by a Presidential Task Force. In future, this ministry’s main activity will be urban development. The task force recommended a National Physical Planning Agency to prepare a national physical plan for the entire country. A body appointed by the President is preparing guidelines for a national spatial plan for the whole country. Regional plans are being prepared first for the Western Province including the Colombo Metropolitan area. The Western Province will remain the main area of growth for the next decade. Ruhunupura in the south and Trincomalee have been identified as potential growth centres. A coastal belt from Colombo to Trinco has been identified as a growth area. All this will take time, but we have a vision and a plan which will be available for any future government.

But will you be here to oversee this? There is all this reshuffle talk.

I don’t think I’ll be moved. But even if I am, the work must be done and the plan there for whoever will take over to implement.

L E G A L W A T C H
Nuwara Eliya residents take on CWC in Court

by Nayana
The Supreme Court last Friday granted leave to proceed in a fundamental rights case filed by three members of the National Movement Against Terrorism together with five residents of the Nuwara Eliya District over last month’s transfer of Senior Superintendent of Police Pujitha Jayasundera.

The petitioners allege that the transfer was made for political reasons, to appease the Ceylon Workers’ Congress after its leader S. Thondaman had expressed his displeasure to the Government at the SSP’s handling of a dispute that had arisen between the CWC and the NMAT.

The officer himself did not challenge the transfer, but the petitioners claim that their own right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the law under Article 12(1) of the Constitution was infringed when there was political interference with the discharge of duties by the police. They also allege discrimination contrary to Article 12(2).

In addition, they have stated that they fear further infringements of their rights to equality and equal protection, as well as their freedom of speech and assembly, unless Jayasundera’s transfer is cancelled, as otherwise all officers will in future be reluctant to perform their duties impartially.

The nine respondents comprise the Inspector-General of Police, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, the transferred SSP (against whom no relief is sought), the CWC and four of its members including leader S. Thondaman, and the Attorney-General as required in this type of case.

The petition starts with a recital of what the petitioners allege to be a history of discriminatory politics by the CWC in Nuwara Eliya, where they are the dominant political force, against the Sinhala residents of the District who are in a minority. They allege instances of pressure on the Police not to enter the plantation sector in search of terrorist suspects and also cite the unique admission system governing entrance to Sri Pada Teacher Training College which differs from the system applied to all other teacher training colleges and is heavily weighted in favour of applicants from the CWC’s constituency.

They also claim that where Sinhala and Tamil students have been studying together harmoniously in the same schools and colleges, the CWC has insisted on the establishment of separate schools for the Tamil and Sinhala students. The allegedly forced partition of the Government Technical College at Nuwara Eliya, and the laying of a foundation stone for a separate Tamil school in Kataragama are examples cited by the petitioners.

The CWC’s response to these allegations will only be known when they file objections to the petitioners’ application and this column will give them coverage.

The incidents which gave rise to the petitioners’ action centred round an indoor public meeting that was to be held by the NMAT, with Police permission, at the auditorium of the Nuwara Eliya Public Library on 30th April, one day before May Day.

The purpose of the meeting was said to be for the presentation of a "national plan against terrorism" and they began their publicity campaign around 25th April. This included the construction of a huge "banner" (actually a collection of banners strung together) attacking Tiger terrorism which was completed on the 28th.

In the evening of the 29th, CWC cadres, some of them allegedly armed with automatic weapons and using government vehicles, had demanded the removal of this banner. The petitioners claim that the CWC’s opposition was due to the fact that the CWC had a record of being sympathetic to the Tigers. They have cited newspaper interviews given by its leader S. Thondaman where he is quoted as saying that "To brand the LTTE as terrorists is nonsense" and that the success of the LTTE against the Sri Lankan Army must be because Prabhakaran has the blessing of the Gods.

A heated dispute had gone on throughout the night of 29-30th April between representatives of the CWC, NMAT and the Police in which Minister S. B. Dissanayake is also alleged to have got involved by telephone. The outcome was that the Police informed the NMAT that they could not provide their supporters with protection and asked them to remove the banner.

The banner was then taken down, but the NMAT meeting at the Public Library went ahead. Though not referred to in the petition itself, newspaper reports annexed by the petitioners suggest that a procession of NMAT supporters and residents of the town thereafter headed to the place where the banner had been and where CWC workers were now putting up a stage which they claimed was for a religious function. The CWC leader has alleged that his party workers were attacked.

Claiming that communal violence would occur if the SSP Nuwara Eliya was allowed to continue, the CWC leader started pressurising the Government for his removal. The People’s Alliance was at that time facing difficulty in forming a government in the Central Provincial Council without the support of the CWC.

In early May an inquiry was conducted by the SSP Matale Austin Gunatilake who, according to newspaper reports at the time, did not recommend any action against SSP Jayasundera. Nevertheless he was transferred to an unspecified post at Headquarters, which led to public protests in Nuwara Eliya and Colombo.

On 6th June, IGP Lucky Kodituwakku was quoted as saying that Jayasundera’s transfer was in accordance with the requirements of the Police Department and that he had been moved to Colombo to take over a better position. On 8th June the IGP issued a statement saying that the transfer was not a routine one but was made "in the best interests of the public" as his continuance at Nuwara Eliya "would have created an abyss between communities and any bona fide action taken by him could have been misconstrued by one community or the other".

On 15th June, Deputy Defence Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte speaking in Parliament in response to criticisms from a CWC Member about the actions of the NMAT in Nuwara Eliya, stated that the Government had ‘`taken action" against the Police officer responsible: "Api - rajaya - e sambandayen kriya kale police niladhariyata viruddhava kriya kala."

These matters are relied on by the petitioners to prove that the transfer of Jayasundera was punitive and politically motivated.

While fundamental rights actions brought by Police officers claiming that their transfers were politically motivated have resulted in redress for the officers concerned, the petitioners in this case have to cross an additional legal hurdle and satisfy Court that their rights as citizens are also infringed by such transfers. It will be a case that explores new ground in the field of fundamental rights litigation in Sri Lanka.

The Congo Peace Deal

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Six nations involved in Africa’s international conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) signed a cease-fire pact in Lusaka, Zambia on 10 July, but not the rebels trying to topple President Laurent Kabila. The agreement would end the fighting between government and rebel groups and among the rebels themselves. Kabila’s embattled government was trying to avoid being overwhelmed by the rebels, who have accused Kabila of corruption, mismanagement and warmongering. Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola have backed Kabila out of financial and security interests, while neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda are supporting the rebels.

Zambian President Frederick Chiluba, Chairman of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU), said the rebels would sign later, after he had decided on the validity of conflicting leadership claims among the rebels. There was no agreement as to who would sign on behalf of the Congress for Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD), one of the main rebel groups which had split in two.

The heads of state of DRC, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda and Rwanda, plus Angola’s defence minister, went ahead and signed the accord. The RCD, the Congo Liberation Movement (CLM) and other unarmed opposition groups are expected to sign the agreement later.

Background to the present conflict

In August 1998, ethnic Tutsi soldiers launched an uprising in the eastern Congo aimed at toppling President Laurent Kabila’s regime, set up on 17 May 1997, when he overthrew the dictatorship of president Mobutu Sese Seko. The rebels established control over much of the east of the country. A summit of seven heads of state from central and east Africa set up a committee to negotiate a ceasefire.

France organised an operation to evacuate hundreds of foreign nationals from DRC’s capital Kinshasa as rebel troops prepared to close in on the city. The rebels announced the creation of a political party, the Congolese Rally for Democracy.

At this point, Angolan troops entered the DRC to aid Kabila’s forces. Kabila spurned peace talks in Pretoria. His Angolan and Zimbabwean allies drove the rebel forces back with heavy losses from positions close to Kinshasa. Ugandan troops moved in to help the rebels, who claimed to have consolidated their control in the east.

A rebel delegation travelled to Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, to take part in peace talks among the six nations involved in the conflict. Kabila and the heads of state of Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda and Rwanda agreed on an "immediate cessation" of hostilities. However, fighting continued and the campaign headquarters of government forces fell to the rebels.

The rebels launched a major offensive on three fronts in an advance on Kinshasa. Kabila then invited the rebels to take part in a national debate on the "legitimacy of power".

In April 1999, Kabila held peace talks with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni at Sirte, Libya. By May the DRC government had taken the initiative and a split in the rebel leadership led to the creation of a new interim body. Rwanda announced a unilateral cease-fire, though the rebels vowed to fight on. Kabila’s allies — Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola — rejected the cease-fire as "false".

Early this month (July 1999), six countries involved in the conflict signed a cease-fire agreement after 13 days of talks in Lusaka, with the rebels to follow suit in the coming days. Other signatories to the accord were Chiluba, a representative of the Southern African Development Community, and observers from the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity.

Congo Peace Agreement

The Congo peace agreement stipulates that the UN Security Council would be requested in collaboration with the OAU to constitute, facilitate and deploy a peacekeeping force under a UN Charter Chapter Seven enforcement mission.

The parties to the conflict also agreed to address the security concerns of Rwanda and Uganda, which had triggered the latest war. In this context they committed themselves to the process of locating, identifying, disarming and assembling exiled Rawandan Hutu Militia and exiled Ugandan armed factions. Countries of origin of members of the armed groups committed themselves to taking all the necessary measures to facilitate their repatriation.

The signing of the peace agreement was witnessed by host nation Zambia, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the UN and ministers from the 14-nation Southern African Development Comm-unity (SADC).

The accord calls for an end to hostilities within 24 hours of the signing, and the withdrawal of all foreign forces after six months. It also outlaws attempts by any of the forces to occupy new ground, and movement of military forces and resources from one area to another without prior agreement among the parties involved in the conflict.

The agreement stipulates that armed groups in the DRC, including the Interahamwe Hutu militia responsible for inciting the 1994 Rwandan genocide and still perceived as a threat by Kigali and Kampala, will be tracked down and disarmed. This stipulation is seen as the most difficult to bring about. The deal also calls for the government of the DRC, both rebel groups and unarmed opposition groups to enter into dialogue on the country’s political future within 45 days of the ratification.

This political dialogue will also address the creation of a new national army incorporating rebel forces as well as the organisation of elections. All prisoners of war are to be released in collaboration with the International Comm-ittee of the Red Cross.

Congo — a troubled land

A century ago, the DRC was King Leopold’s Congo Free State; later it became the Belgian Congo, and Kisangani — known then as Stanleyville — was the meeting place for ivory hunters, arms dealers and soldiers of fortune.

Today the DR Congo, formerly Zaire, is the third largest country in Africa, home to about 50 million people and about 40 times as large as Sri Lanka. It is endowed with vast natural wealth and varied geographical terrain, offers good opportunity for the development of a strong and unified country. Mineral exports have contributed largely to the GNP. The DR Congo has the potential not only to be self-sufficient in food but also to be a net exporter. The Congo river carries the second largest volume of water in the world and the hydroelectric capacity to cover all of Africa’s current and future electric needs. However, the DR Congo remains one of the poorest countries in the world.

The latest fighting has carved the DR Congo into vast, undefined zones of rebel and government control. Millions of people have lost their homes and major industries — including the country’s potentially lucrative mining sector — have all but collapsed.

Kabila’s legacy

In 1965 Mobutu Sese Seko staged a coup against Moise Tshombe and took control as president of Zaire. For nearly twenty five years Mobutu ruled with an iron hand, suppressing rebellions, mobilising international support and promoting economic growth.

When Mobutu consolidated his grip on power, he was elected unopposed to three seven-year terms of office from 1970 to 1991. At the end of that dark period in the history of Zaire, Mobutu, suffering from cancer, went to France to take treatment.

Meanwhile, Laur-ent Desire Kabila led the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation (ADFL) of Zaire and closed in on the capital. Kinshasa. Mobutu was forced to flee the country and Kabila assumed power as president of Zaire whose name he changed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

On 2 August 1998, fighting broke out in Congo, with Rwanda and Uganda now supporting anti-Kabila rebels made up of ethnic Tutsis and disgruntled members of Kabila’s army.

An African solution

In ending the conflict, the United Nations have preferred to remain on the sidelines and allow regional efforts launched by the OAU to proceed. The Congo peace deal has been hammered out by Africans themselves with very little help from outside.

A contentious issue was the question of the control of the estimated 50% of Congo territory occupied by the rebel forces and also the question of integrating the official Congo national army and the rebel forces. One of the unusual arrangements that will be put into effect in the formation of a joint military commission of the belligerents.

Other matters discussed at the Lusaka

Summit included: the formation of an inclusive, national army, embarking on national political negotiations to create a new Congolese political order and the restoration of a single administration for the entire central African nation.

Role of the UN and of the OAU

The United Nations plans to send a team to Congo to determine what type of mission would be required to ensure the cease-fire holds, including its size, mandate and logistical needs. The Security Council has to approve any such mission, which would "no doubt be large, expensive, difficult and beset by risks." But already, several African countries have indicated a willingness to make observers available for the preliminary mission, estimated to need about 500 people.

The United States, which has shunned African peacekeeping initiatives since 18 US soldiers were killed in Somalia in 1993, has said that if asked it would take part in any "internationally recognised" peacekeeping effort for Congo.

An attempt to enhance the flavour of Ceylon Teas
Chemicals in the ‘Cuppa that Cheers’?

by Niresh Eliatamby
Some of Sri Lanka’s tea manufacturing and brokering circles are abuzz with the news of a massive threat looming in the near future for the tea industry, cornerstone of the country’s economy.

This time, the villain of the piece is not the Russian Rouble, the embargo on Iraq, or competition from Kenya and India.

Instead, it is a chemical compound named ‘ ‘Methyl Salicylate," which gives many of our teas their distinct flavour.

The, problem, in a nutshell, is that some people in the tea industry are adding the chemical Methyl Salicylate into the product, probably inside some factories, in order to enhance the flavour of teas which don’t have enough natural Methyl Salicylate in them.

This particular chemical has no known harmful effects. In fact, it is one of the key ingredients of many things commonly used by people, including natural tea, salonpass, wintogeno, and oil of wintergreen.

The problem is that tea, especially Ceylon Tea, is being touted in the west as a health drink, with nothing but natural ingredients. Countries with high standards for consumer products, like those in Europe, are not likely to take kindly to the fact that Ceylon Tea now has a chemical additive in it, albeit a harmless one.

What many in the tea trade fear is that this rash strategy of a few will result in a loss of reputation for Ceylon Tea, with an inevitable accompanying drop in prices.

Who is adding the chemical is the multi-million dollar question.

"This is like cutting your own throat. In my view, it is not likely that plantation companies will do this type of thing" as a company policy. It is very short-sighted," said Dr. W. W. D. Modder, Director of the Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka, when The Island contacted him on the issue.

Industry experts suspect that some officials in a few factories are adding the chemical, hoping to get high prices in the short term from buyers who don’t know that the rich flavour is being obtained artificially.

‘When buyers get to know that some teas have an artificial flavour, it could have very bad consequences for Ceylon Tea as a whole," warned Chanaka Wickremasooriya, Head of Research at NDBS Stock Brokers.

What is most disturbing is that more and more plantations appear to be chemically enhancing their teas, turning a blind eye to the consequences.

The fallout from this may occur sooner than expected.

This week, one European multinational firm contacted tea authorities in Colombo. It is becoming more and more obvious that some plantations are using methyl salicylate, the foreign buyer said. Please do something to stop its use, before buyers start getting jittery about having chemicals added to their cuppa.

From the foreign buyers’ point of view, they don’t want Ceylon Tea to get a bad name either. After all, they make a lot of money from our cuppa, just as much as Sri Lanka does.

Dr. Modder and his TRI research team are at the forefront of the controversy. But they have a problem.

"Right now, there is no scientific method to distinguish between natural methyl salicylate and methyl salicylate added during the production process, since they are one and the same chemical," said Dr. Modder.

The TRI has already sent several scientists to Germany to work with scientists there, trying to develop a method to do this.

"Until we can scientifically detect the difference, we cannot legally prove that a particular tea has been artificially enhanced," said Dr. Modder.

Methyl salicylate is in fact the chemical produced by tea bushes in the Uva region which gives the distinctive "Uva" flavour. This chemical is produced during the dry season, from mid-July to the end of September, and requires certain wind, sunshine and humidity conditions as well.

So when the climatic conditions are correct, the tea bushes in Uva produce lots of methyl salicylate, resulting in rich flavour, and high prices. Teas in other regions don’t have this flavour, since they don’t produce much methyl salicylate, although plantations in the Dimbulla and Nuwara Eliya areas have a small amount of it.

Basically, if the tea bush doesn’t produce enough methyl salicylate, the Uva flavour is less, and prices are less. Hence the attraction for planters or plantation companies to add the chemical during the factory process.

This is made more enticing because methyl salicylate can be bought over the counter from any pharmacy, in the form of Oil of Wintergreen, a commonly used medicine for a variety of ailments.

All the planters or plantation companies have to do is add a few drops during the factory process, and you get great tasting Uva tea.

To most of us, there is no difference in taste between the artificial and natural varieties. We just wouldn’t know.

But experts like tea tasters do know. With years or decades of tea tasting experience, they immediately detect the artificial taste. Many such samples have been sent to the TRI, for scientific testing.

In fact, some people seem to have been overdoing the enhancement, because in some cases, teas have been found to have far more methyl salicylate than the tea bush normally produces.

Disturbingly, there have been a few signs that one or two plantations in the western mountains, outside the Uva, have started trying this technique as well.

Up to now, the problem has not been very significant. Although no-one knows for sure how widespread the addition of the chemical is, experts are guessing that less than one or two percent of Sri Lanka’s plantations are doing it.

In fact, most plantations of the western mountain ranges, or the mid and low country teas, can’t do it at all, since it would be hard to explain to buyers how teas from those areas can have an Uva flavour!

The problem is one of quality. Once finicky buyers start believing that Ceylon Tea is losing its quality, prices will fall. In fact, if even one country in the European Union starts asking serious questions, Ceylon Tea will start having a tough time in the entire EU.

Another problem is that if those adding methyl salicylate do get away with it, other tea industry people may start adding other chemicals to enhance their teas. This would lead to more problems in a market which is rigidly controlled by brokers and buyers, and is one of the most carefully watched commodities markets in the world.

The Week That Was
Tension simmers in the aftermath of the break-up of UNP demos

by Shan Wijetunga
The UNP and the JVP held protest rallies against the government for not honouring its pledge to the people to abolish the Executive Presidential system.

The People’s Alliance had in fact promised in writing to the JVP that it will do away with the Executive Presidential system one year after it comes to office, but as even after five years of its governing the promise was not fulfilled the JVP decided to remind the government of its promise with a protest.

Mr. Gamini Athukorale, General Secretary of the UNP initiated the proposal to hold a protest approved by the UNP. This was separate from the JVP’s protest.

Party MPs of the Colombo district and organisers of party’s cluster groups in the Colombo district were summoned to Sirikotha last Monday to discuss the protest rally.

The party decided to hold the protest rally at the Lipton Circus, Colombo with three protest marches commencing at Borella, Maradana and Havelock Town to join the main protest rally at the Lipton Circus and then go in procession to Temple Trees to present a memorandum to the President.

The organisation of the protest march from Havelock Town was entrusted to Gamini Lokuge, from Borella to M. H. Mohamed and from Maradana to Karu Jayasuriya.

Later party leader, Ranil Wickramasinghe last Tuesday invited the President and the Secretary of the party to his office to review the orgnisation of the protest rally and the processions where it was decided that not one but three memoranda signed individually by the three organisers of the protest marches be handed over to the President.

Meanwhile Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna politburo met at its headquarters at Attidiya and decided to hold protest rallies for one week in Galle, Kandy and Kurunegala in addition to the rally opposite the Colombo Fort railway station.

Later the JVP leaders met representatives of the Nava Sama Samaja Party, Eksath Samajavadi Peramuna and the Muslim Eksath Vimukthi Peramuna at their headquarters at Attidiya and decided not to hold any protest marches.

Attacks

The first signs of goon attacks on those supporting the protest campaign were evident last Wednesday night when an unidentified gang attacked some JVP members putting up posters against the executive presidential system.

By noon on Thursday the whole area around the Colombo Municipality was crowded with armed police personnel.

General Secretary Athukorale informed the UNP leader of the presence of armed policemen around the area where the protest campaign was to be held.

Ranil replied "This government came to power to protect democracy. It was only yesterday that the government announced that it had created an environment for anybody to carry out protests freely. Under such circumstances if the government attack our protest rally it is they who will have to bear the brunt,’’ and instructed Athukorale to proceed with the protest rally as planned.

As was expected the protest rally was attacked with batons and tear gas. There were also persons in civvies brandishing iron rods attacking the protesters.

After the situation calmed down the UNP leadership decided to organise protests against the government for its attack on a democratic process and as a first step it was agreed to call for a press conference on Friday and if necessary take legal action on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.

The JVP protest rally held opposite the Colombo Fort railway station ended peacefully.

PA meets UNP

A few hours before the UNP protest meeting People’s Alliance and UNP delegates met in the parliamentary complex on the invitation of the Business leaders to discuss the ethnic issue.

The government was represented by Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Minister of Port Development and Rehabilitation, M. H. M. Ashroff, Governor of the Western Province, K. Vignaraja and the UNP led by Karunasena Kodituwakku and D. Swaminathan. Lalith Kotelawela represented the Business Community. They discussed the memorandum presented by the Business leaders and the spheres where the PA and the UNP could not agree.

After Dr. Kodituwakku explained the UNP’s stand on certain issues, A. C. S. Hameed asked whether the executive presidential system would be abolished if the UNP supported the constitutional amendment proposals.

Prof. Peiris replying stated that if the minority communities agreed to the consensus reached by the UNP and the PA on the proposals the government was prepared to abolish the executive presidential system.

When Hameed reiterated that if a definite decision would be provided on the abolition of the executive presidential system certain agreements could be reached on other proposals.

Prof. Peiris stated that he would consult the President and let Hameed know of her views.

Prof. Peiris then contacted the President over the phone on the subject and informed Hameed the President had no objections whatsoever regarding the abolition of the executive presidential system and that the abolition of the executive presidential system was one of the amendments in the constitution.

Sarath Amunugama

UNP MP, Dr. Sarath Amunugama who has publicly advocated of a national government including all the political parties met Ranil Wickramasinghe last week and explained his proposal for a national government.

Amunugama had more reasons to meet his party leader because rumours were afloat that he was considering leaving the UNP.

After meeting the UNP leader, Dr. Amunugama met EPDP leader Douglas Devananda last Saturday at a dinner and informed him of his national government plan to solve the ethnic problem.

Dr. Amunugama also met representatives of the other Tamil political parties last Wednesday in the parliament.

Among those present at the discussion were Douglas Devananda, PLOTE leader D. Sidharthan, Dr. Vigneshwaran of the EPDP, Dr. Thavarasa and P. P. Devaraj of the CWC.

The discussions were centered on the decentralisation of power, civil administration and the re-introduction of the village committee system.

In his effort to form a national government, Dr. Sarath Amunugama is supported by professionals such as Bradman Weerakoon, W. D. Ilapperuma, Godfrey Gunatilake and A. B. Elkaduwa.

Channel Nine

The usual cabinet meeting held last Wednesday at the Temple Trees proceeded smoothly in the earlier stage when approval had to be given on proposals submitted to the cabinet.

But the problems arose when Minister D. M. Jayaratne informed of certain news reports alleging acceptance of commissions in order to permit the functioning of a TV channel named "Channel Nine.’’

Hot words were exchanged between the President and Minister Mahinda Rajapakse involving a person named Lakshman Hulugalle and a reputed film actor.

It was the view of most cabinet ministers present that these allegations were an attempt to sling mud on the government and specially on the President.

The cabinet therefore decided to appoint a committee to inquire into these allegations.

p1
Were these acts discriminatory?

(Contenued From Last Week)

by Neville Ladduwahetty
The constitutionality of the Citizenship and Franchise Acts of 1948 and 1949 together with the Parliamentary Elections Amendment Act of 1949 were first challenged in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and later in the Privy Council in Britain.

In the case involving G. S. N. Kodakan Pillai, who had been excluded from the voter registers by P. B. Mudannayaka, a Registering Officer, District Judge N. Sivagnanasunderam ruled that the Citizenship and Franchise Acts of 1948 and 1949 were ultra vires the legislature. This case came on Appeal before the Supreme Court, with N. Sivagnanasunderam as First Respondent, and a unanimous judgement was delivered on 28 September, 1951 by a panel of three judges, Jayatileke, C.J., Pulle, J., and Swan, J.. Extracts from their judgement are given below:

"In our opinion the decisions in the three cases relied on by Counsel do not support the proposition for which he contended, namely, that it is proper to travel outside the language of the impugned enactment and to take evidence as to whether or not, in their ultimate effect, they are of a discriminatory character. After careful consideration of these authorities we have come to the conclusion that if s.3 (1) (a) of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Act, No. 48 of 1949, read with the Citizenship Act, No. 18 of 1948, does not offend against s.29 of the Ceylon (Constitution and Independence) orders in Council, 1946 and 1947, it does not matter what effects they produce in their actual operation".

"With the policy of the Act we are not concerned... What we have to ascertain is the necessary legal effect....."

"The first respondent appears to hold the view that the Indians who were qualified for the franchise under the laws prior to the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Act, No. 48 of 1949, had acquired a vested right to continue to exercise the franchise and that if any legislation, in its administration, had the effect of taking away the franchise from large sections of the community, such legislation would for that reason be discriminatory. This view cannot be supported. The Parliament of Ceylon has the power to alter the electoral law in any manner it pleases if it thinks it necessary to do so for the good government of the country subject to the limitations in section 29. It has the power to widen or narrow the franchise".

"For these reasons we are of the opinion that ss. 4 and 5 of the Citizenship Act, No. 18 of 1948, and s. 3 (1) (a) of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Act, No. 48 of 1949, are not invalid "New Law Reports, 53, 25).

Wilson (1994) comments on this judgement as follows: "Their observations on the Indian Tamils and Section 29 of the Constitution suggested that in a keenly contested judicial decision, where the political executive could be seriously embarrassed, the court was likely, in the final instance, to come down on the side of the state" ("S.J.V. Chelvanayakam - A Political Biography", p. 39). To assert that all three judges came "down on the side of the state" to prevent the executive from being embarrassed is to insult the integrity and the professionalism of these judges as well as the institution they represented. The Privy Council of Britain upheld the decision of the Supreme Court. Did they also come "down on the side of the state" so as not to embarrass the executive in Sri Lanka? Wilson’s remarks are in poor taste.

Not satisfied with the judgement of the Supreme Court, the matter was further challenged in the Privy Council in Britain, with G. S. N. Kodakan Pillai, Appellant, vs. P. B. Mudanayake et al., Respondents. In delivering the judgement, Lord Oaksley made the following observations:

"If there was a legislative plan the plan must be looked at as a whole and when so looked at it is evident in their Lordships’ opinion that the legislature did not intend to prevent Indian Tamils from attaining citizenship provided that they were sufficiently connected with the island".

"It is as the Supreme Court observed a perfectly natural and legitimate function of the legislature of a country to determine the composition of its nationals. Standards of literacy, of property, of birth or of residence are as it seems to their Lordships standards which a legislature may think it right to adopt in legislation on citizenship and it is clear that such standards though they may operate to exclude the illiterate, the poor and the immigrant to a greater degree than they exclude other people do not create disabilities in a community as such since the community is not bound together as a community by its illiteracy, its poverty or its migratory character but by its race or its religion. The migratory habits of the Indian Tamils (see paragraphs 123 and 203 Soulbury Report) are facts which in their Lordships’ opinion are directly relevant to the question of their suitability as citizens of Ceylon and have nothing to do with them as a community".

"For all these reasons their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the Citizenship and Franchise Acts are intra vires of the Ceylon legislature and they therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellant must pay the cost of the appeal" (1954, New Law Reports, 54, 433).

From 1931, issues relating to Franchise had to be reconciled with conflicting interests. Even The Order in Council of 1931 that had existed as the basis for Franchise during the Colonial period since 1931, caused considerable apprehension in India when it was first introduced. The Government of India made representations to His Majesty’s Government about the modifications made to the original proposals of the Donoughmore Commission. The response of His Majesty’s Government was "that these proposals (Order in Council of 1931 ) did not seem to His Majesty’s Government to involve any racial discrimination against Indians, whereas some of the Indian protests amounted in effect to a claim to a position of privilege rather than of equality" (Soulbury Commission Report, 1945).

From the foregoing it is clear that in addition to the Sri Lankan Government, the British Government and her Judicial Institutions also determined that the legislation relating to Citizenship and Franchise from 1931 was not discriminatory. Since "A majority of the Ceylon Tamil MPs in the T.C. (Tamil Congress)... supported the legislation" (Wilson, 1974), they too found these Acts to be non-discriminatory at the time they were introduced. To now claim collectively that the Acts were discriminatory shows that when it comes to "keenly contested" issues, judgements are influenced more by advantages in the politics of circumstance than by any objective assessment of the merits of the issues.

SUMMARY

The Citizenship and Franchise Rights of Indian Tamils of recent origin can be summarized; follows:

1. During the Colonial period, from 1931 until 1947, the qualifications for Franchise were established by the Order in Council of 1931. Voter registration required formal applications to be submitted for review and approval. As for Citizenship, the Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka were British subjects as were the rest in Sri Lanka.

2. The British Government concluded that the qualifications in the Order in Council of 1931 were NOT DISCRIMINATORY.

3. The number entitled to Franchise in 1947, the last election before Independence, was ONLY 242,403 of a total Indian Tamil population of 780,589. Therefore, ONLY A 31 % MINORITY WAS ENTITLED TO THE FRANCHISE.

4. The remaining 538,186 (69 %) was made up of dependent as well as those who were over 21 years of age but did not qualify for franchise. This 69 %, "the overwhelming majority", HAD NO FRANCHISE. Therefore, they could not be DISFRANCHISED of a FRANCHISE THEY NEVER HAD.

5. With Independence in 1948, Sri Lanka had to establish guidelines for Citizenship and Franchise. These were the Acts of 1948 and 1949. These Acts were based on qualifications developed JOINTLY with the Indian government in 1941. The MAJORITY of representatives of the TAMIL CONGRESS, SUPPORTED this legislation.

6. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and the Privy Council of Britain ruled that these Acts were NOT DISCRIMINATORY.

7. Had the 31% who enjoyed Franchise Rights prior to Independence cooperated and applied for Citizenship and Franchise in a timely and orderly fashion, as they did in 1931, most of them would have secured these Rights for themselves and their dependants. Instead, their political leadership encouraged them to boycott the process. THIS POLITICAL LEADERSHIP MUST THEREFORE TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT FACILITATING AND ENCOURAGING THOSE ELIGIBLE FROM SECURING THEIR DUE RIGHTS.

8. Of the 69% majority, other than dependants of those who qualified for citizenship, the rest had to revert to their original nationality or become Stateless. The Indian Government at first refused to accept responsibility because of the overseas Indians in the rest of the world, but later, recognized they were morally obliged to do so because of the special circumstances that concerned the sodium of their nationals in Sri Lanka. In 1964, the Indian Government finally accepted responsibility for 600,000 of these Indian nationals.

9. The political, social and economic obligations to the larger Sri Lankan nation prevented the Sri Lankan Government from widening the qualifications for Citizenship and Franchise to include ALL Indians living in Sri Lanka. These obligations were made public from the 1930s and was the basis for consistent objections to the presence of the immigrant Indians, whose "abiding interest!’ In Sri Lanka was questionable. The importance of "abiding interest" was recognized by the Donoughmore Commission in 1928, as well as the Soulbury Commission in 1945. Furthermore, the Privy Council in 1954 stated: "migratory habits of the Indian Tamils .... are directly relevant to the question of their suitability as citizens of Ceylon and have nothing to do with them as a community".

10. The statement that due to the Acts of 1948 and 1949, an "overwhelming majority" was disfranchised, or that "over a million Indians of Recent Origin lost their citizenship" is TOTALLY INCORRECT and is a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT. The 69 % Majority DID NOT QUALIFY even before the Acts, and most of the remaining 31% who may have qualified were discouraged from applying in a timely fashion by their political leadership.

11. By NOT exercising her rights to make qualifications for citizenship more restrictive, and by keeping to the same terms as those of the Joint Report with India of 1941, Sri Lanka acted responsibly while protecting her interests and meeting her obligations.

Thus, the facts presented herein clearly show that the accusation that the overwhelming majority of the Indian Tamils were deprived of their voting rights is a myth. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan Tamil leadership who initially voted in support of the legislation regarding these voting rights, now claims this very same legislation as being a cause for grievance for all Tamils, and has embodied it as the 4th Principle of Thimpu. Any issue that permits such a dramatic reversal of position does not meet the test of a "Principle".

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