-
G-10 leaders stand firm; PM to convene meeting on Tuesday
-
China tightens grip as Modi’s coalition rocked in Tamil Nadu
-
SJB leadership divided on pursuing Harin’s Easter probe concerns
-
Ministers fear worst is yet to come as Covid-19 cases skyrocket
The delayed Provincial Council (PC) elections have now been pushed till next year without a final decision on the proposed amendments to the elections being reached at last Tuesday’s meeting of governing party members with Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa while another party leaders’ meeting has been scheduled for this Tuesday (11). The Government, it is also learnt, is not too keen on holding PC elections this year.
Meanwhile, the much-anticipated parliamentary debate on the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill that was scheduled for Wednesday (5) did not take place, as Parliament did not receive the Supreme Court’s (SC) determination on the Bill by Tuesday (4).
The decision to delay the debate was taken at the Parliamentary Business Committee meeting chaired by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.
Parliament instead held an adjournment debate on the Covid-19 situation in the country on Wednesday.
Speaker Abeywardena finally received the SC determination on the 15-plus petitions filed challenging the proposed Bill last Thursday (6).
It is, however, interesting that Parliament was set to debate the proposed piece of legislation even before the Speaker had received the SC observations.
However, political circles last week were predominantly focused on two issues – Covid-19 and the ban on chemical fertilisers.
The meeting of the party leaders of the governing alliance chaired by Prime Minister Rajapaksa held last Tuesday (4) evening ran into controversy yet again. Like during the previous meeting that was held on 19 April under the patronage of the Prime Minister, last Tuesday’s meeting became fraught due to the inclusion of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) members other than alliance party leaders in the meeting.
While there are 14 SLPP alliance party leaders, invitations had been sent out to 51 SLPPers for Tuesday’s meeting like during the previous meeting. Some of those invited for the meeting were not even district leaders of the SLPP.
Once again, this posed a problem to the SLPP coalition partners.
The main coalition partner of the SLPP, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), upon hearing of the inclusion of members other than party leaders at Tuesday’s meeting, held a special discussion to discuss the course of action to be adopted.
Yet again, SLFP General Secretary State Minister Dayasiri Jayasekara had observed that the party needed to take a firm stand and not be pushed around by the SLPP and give way to its intimidating tactics. Senior Party Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva had questioned as to what choices or recourse the party had against the SLPP juggernaut.
Jayasekara had pointed out that if the SLPP is allowed to have its own way, the SLFP will continue to be intimidated in the governing alliance.
However, de Silva was backed by Minister Mahinda Amaraweera, SLFP National Organiser State Minister Duminda Dissanayake, and State Minister Lasantha Alagiyawanna, who had observed that the party should attend Tuesday’s meeting and refrain from discussing the impending PC polls of the party’s alternative proposals. This, the group of SLFP seniors believed, would prevent the governing alliance from arriving at a final decision on the impending polls.
Meanwhile, the group of 10 alliance parties (G-10) that boycotted the last meeting convened by the Prime Minister over the failure to uphold the integrity of the party leaders’ meeting, was once again in a dilemma.
G-10 objections
The G-10, led by Ministers Udaya Gammanpila and Wimal Weerawansa and consisting of eight other parties in the SLPP alliance, were firm in their stance that the SLPP should not be given leeway to disrespect alliance partners and bulldoze through with the proposed amendments to the PC elections.
Leaders of G-10 had on Monday met at Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara’s residence to discuss and decide on their participation at Tuesday’s meeting.
However, after much deliberation, it was decided that the G-10 members would boycott the meeting and Nanayakkara was assigned the task of conveying the decision to the Prime Minister.
However, upon being informed of the decision of the G-10 leaders not to attend Tuesday’s meeting, Premier Rajapaksa had asked all of them to meet him at around 5 p.m. at Temple Trees, prior to the party leaders’ meeting.
Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU), led by Minister Gammanpila; National Freedom Front (NFF) which was represented by Jayantha Samaraweera since Party Leader Minister Weerawansa was indisposed; Democratic Left Front (DLF), led by Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara; Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), led by Prof. Tissa Vitharana; Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL); A.L.M. Athaulla; Tiran Alles; Asanka Navarathne; and Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thera had attended the 5 p.m. meeting with the Prime Minister.
Once everyone was seated, Rajapaksa had asked what the issue was. The G-10 leaders had asked Nanayakkara to begin. Nanayakkara had said that governing alliance partners have continuously witnessed the SLPP increasing its presence at meetings and shouting down alliance partners whenever they raised any concerns or issues.
Gammanpila had added to Nanayakkara’s comments asking who had decided the composition of the meeting and on what basis it was done. He had pointed out that the meetings convened by the Prime Minister were not meetings of party leaders, but summits of SLPP members.
Gammanpila had further observed that if such a summit was to be held, the SLPP alliance party leaders should first discuss and decide on the composition of such a summit, giving fair representation to all.
Athaulla had then said that, as the Leader of the SLPP, Prime Minister Rajapaksa represented the party and if it was a party leaders’ meeting, such representation would be sufficient.
However, the G-10 leaders have said they did not have any issue in the senior office bearers of the SLPP attending the party leaders’ meeting.
Ven. Rathana Thera had also added to the conversation, saying he was no longer invited for the governing party leaders’ meeting although he was included in the list of party leaders until last year’s general election.
The Prime Minister had then asked one of his additional secretaries, Chaminda Kularatne, to check whether Ven. Rathana Thera’s name had been dropped from the party leaders’ list. After checking several documents, Kularatne had informed the Prime Minister that Ven. Rathana Thera was indeed invited to the party leaders’ meeting until last year’s general election.
Prime Minister Rajapaksa had asked Kularatne to look into the matter of the non-inclusion of Ven. Rathana Thera and Gevindu Kumaratunge in the party leaders’ list.
Finally, the Prime Minister had once again assured the G-10 alliance leaders that he would not reach a final decision on the proposed amendments to the PC elections that day (Tuesday) and would convene another meeting of SLPP party leaders. This was the second meeting of governing party leaders that was boycotted by the G-10 leaders.
Accordingly, it was decided that the Prime Minister would convene another meeting of SLPP party leaders on Tuesday (11).
The G-10 has firmly objected to several proposed amendments to the PC’s Act. Key among them is the proposal to field three candidates from a party for each electorate. Members of the G-10 have proposed that one candidate be fielded to an electorate from each political party.
The SLFP also subscribes to the G-10’s stance and has proposed that each party should field one candidate from an electorate and reduce the number of bonus seats to an electorate from the proposed two candidates to one. The SLFP has also proposed the abolition of the preferential electoral system for the PC elections.
Governing coalition partner, the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), had also opposed the proposed amendments. The CWC held several rounds of discussions on the matter with other Tamil political parties representing the plantation community in order to propose alternatives. These discussions were led by CWC Vice President Senthil Thondaman.
Covid and fertiliser issue
The party leaders’ meeting last Tuesday had not discussed the proposed amendments to the PC elections.
SLPP National Organiser Basil Rajapaksa, who also attended the meeting, had said at the outset that there was no point discussing the PC elections since the current situation in the country needed to be focused on before holding elections.
The conversation was first directed towards the Covid-19 situation in the country. Health Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi had made a presentation to those gathered about the Covid-19 situation. The Health Minister’s presentation had highlighted the existing health facilities in the country including the total number of ICU beds and available oxygen stocks. However, there were no clear statistics given on the number of dedicated Covid-19 treatment facilities including the number of ICU beds and oxygen for the purpose.
A majority of Government members who attended the meeting had expressed concern over the situation and observed the need for movement restrictions to some extent to prevent the virus from spreading further.
The conversation afterwards was directed towards the issues that have arisen following the Government’s decision to ban all chemical fertiliser and pesticides.
State Minister Jeewan Thondaman and Senthil Thondaman, who represented the CWC, speaking on behalf of the plantation sector, had explained the need for certain chemical fertilisers in order to increase tea yields.
They had explained that urea was an important component for the growth of the tea tree and the sudden switch from chemical fertiliser to organic would have an impact on the yield.
Senthil had pointed out that a decline in the yield would result in plantation companies finding it difficult to pay the hard fought Rs. 1,000 daily wage for the estate sector workers.
Several other ministers at the meeting had also expressed their opinions on the matter. They had all said they were agreeable to the policy adopted by the Government, but that the problem was in its implementation mechanism.
The yield in most crops will see a drastic reduction, causing shortages of certain vegetables in the market, several Government members have noted.
Minister S.M. Chandrasena had also noted that the maize yield will see a decline due to the usage of organic fertiliser.
Hearing all these opinions of the governing party members, both the Prime Minister and Basil have remained silent and said they would look into the matter.
Minister Chamal Rajapaksa was the only Government member who had tried to remain positive, saying a mechanism should be put in place to work through these issues, as the decision must be implemented despite any difficulties.
President stands firm 
Meanwhile, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last week decided to address the Government parliamentary group meeting after about two months. However, despite initial discussions on holding a meeting last Monday, the meeting did not materialise.
The meeting was supposed to focus on the ban on chemical fertiliser and pesticides.
However, the immediate ban implemented on agrochemicals and pesticides was one of the main focuses at last week’s cabinet meeting.
Ministers Gammanpila, Nanayakkara, and Dr. Ramesh Pathirana had explained during the meeting that while they were all supportive of the move, the ban should be carried out in several phases.
Minister Bandula Gunawardana had also explained that if the Government was looking at saving foreign exchange by banning the import of chemical fertilisers, the impact would amount to naught if the State is compelled to import food items to prevent shortages that would arise towards the end of the year.
A majority of the ministers have then pointed out that the Government as well as the country would be dealt a severe blow if a food shortage crops up amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. They had urged the President to reconsider the complete ban imposed on agrochemicals at present and to implement it in several phases since the country does not have sufficient organic fertiliser stocks.
After listening to the concerns expressed by the Ministers, President Rajapaksa had explained that the perceived targets will not be achieved if the ban was to be implemented in stages.
The President had noted that despite deciding to increase the manufacture of organic fertiliser in the country, it still has not happened and the Agriculture Ministry has failed to increase the manufacture of organic fertiliser.
According to the President, it is through a hard decision that the use of agrochemicals could be stopped.
“It will be difficult and there will be issues, but we have to stand firm and once we pass the difficult period, it will be okay,” Rajapaksa had said.
The governing party parliamentary group meeting that took place last week under the patronage of Prime Minister Rajapaksa was also dominated by talks of the Covid-19 situation in the country as well as the ban on chemical fertiliser.
More Chinese visits
Amidst the heating political stage in the country, China seems to be intensifying its interest in Sri Lanka with yet another senior Chinese cabinet minister scheduled to visit the country next month.
Foreign Minister Wang Yi is now expected to visit Sri Lanka next month, becoming the third senior official from China to visit in recent months.
Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe arrived in the country during the last week of April and held talks with President Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Rajapaksa.
During his visit, Sri Lanka and China signed a military co-operation deal.
Last year, member of the Political Bureau of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CCP Central Committee Yang Jiechi was also in Colombo for bilateral discussions. He is also the Chief of Foreign Affairs of China.
Foreign Minister Wang will arrive in the country as part of his visit to the region.
He had also addressed a virtual meeting recently with his counterparts of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and had discussed, among other things, co-operation on the containment of Covid-19 and poverty alleviation.
Sajith’s ceasefire 
Leader of the Opposition and Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Sajith Premadasa last week announced a political ceasefire and urged the Government and others to do their utmost to save Sri Lankans from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
“We have gone into a political truce and are ready to do our utmost to save the lives of 20 million people of this country. I urge all political parties to do the same and forget their differences at a time such as this, when the country has almost come to a standstill as a result of the pandemic,” Premadasa said.
“I also urge the Government to forget its political objectives at this difficult time and do its part to save the nation,” he added.
Interestingly, hearing Premadasa’s comments on a political ceasefire, many Opposition politicians, including members of the SJB, were left chuckling that the Opposition Leader, who had not been engaged in any form of firing since his November 2019 defeat, was now calling for a ceasefire. “He must be asking us to join him and cease fire,” one quipped.
It is in this backdrop that The Black Box learnt of a meeting that was scheduled on 28 April (Wednesday) between members of the SJB and Catholic Bishops. The meeting with the Catholic Bishops was to take place after a group of SJB MPs led by Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella met with several Catholic priests on 26 April (Monday) and handed them a document containing areas of concern in the Easter Sunday ttacks investigation that required a proper probe.
The meeting between the Catholic Bishops and SJB MPs was to take place in Kandy. The meeting was scheduled at the last minute, soon after the meeting with the Catholic priests in Colombo, not leaving much time for the Opposition members to prepare.
Nevertheless, the eager group of Opposition parliamentarians had organised themselves and were all set to travel to Kandy that Wednesday when they were suddenly informed by Party Leader Premadasa that the meeting would have to be rescheduled since the Catholic Bishops expected him (Premadasa) to be present at the meeting and that he was unable to make it that day since he had a prior engagement in Anuradhapura.
Confused by the turn of events, the SJB MPs, who were all set to travel to Kandy, decided to cancel plans and stay in Colombo.
However, a few hours later, a Catholic priest had inquired from the SJB members why they had not attended the discussion with the Catholic Bishops. When the SJB MPs had responded saying the Catholic Bishops wanted to reschedule the meeting when Premadasa was available, the Catholic priest had said that the Bishops had informed Premadasa that they still wished to meet the other SJB MPs as soon as possible to discuss details of the Easter Sunday attacks probe, and that they could meet with him separately at a later date if he was unable to attend.
Finally, the SJB MPs, after apologising for the miscommunication, had requested for another appointment to meet with the Catholic Bishops and explain their concerns about the Easter attacks and lapses in the investigations.
Accordingly, the meeting was fixed for Wednesday (5) in Colombo.
However, the SJB group that was to be led by Premadasa did not meet with the Catholic Bishops last Wednesday as well.
Although the SJB group had first agreed to meet with the Bishops despite it being a sitting day of Parliament, Premadasa at the last minute had informed the Opposition MPs to remain in Parliament, since the President was to attend parliamentary sessions that day, it is learnt.
Despite several SJB MPs saying that a few members could attend the meeting while the rest remained in the House, Premadasa had insisted that all senior Opposition members in Parliament be present when the President attends parliamentary sessions.
Hence, the second appointment to meet with the Catholic Bishops to discuss the Easter Sunday attacks had not taken place.
However, instead of Opposition SJB MPs, several Government officials, including an intelligence chief and a cabinet minister, had met with the Catholic Bishops on Wednesday, claiming for themselves the appointment slot that had been reserved for the SJB.
OIC concerned
Meanwhile, the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) has expressed its deep concerns regarding the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) which allows the State to arbitrarily detain Muslims.
The IPHRC in a statement on 29 April, has condemned the recently introduced regulation under the PTA, namely “de-radicalisation from holding violent extremist religious ideology”, which they fear allows the creation of “reintegration centres” to arbitrarily detain Muslims and subject them to torture and other human rights violations without any legal oversight with impunity.
“These tragic developments are further compounded by reports of a newly imposed burqa ban, under the pretext of counterterrorism measures, which squarely violates minorities’ right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” the OIC’s rights body has observed.
The IPHRC, while taking serious note of the UNHCHR report, highlighted the prevalence of “endemic patterns of custodial deaths, torture and other ill-treatment, and extrajudicial killings with impunity”.
It has further been noted that the Covid-19 pandemic “exacerbated the prevailing marginalisation and discrimination suffered by the Muslim community”, and has urged the Government to immediately repeal the draconian PTA and to impartially investigate the reported incidents of human rights violations by allowing access to justice and free trial to all its minorities.
With regard to the banning of burqa, the Commission has expressed its serious concerns and stressed that such blanket measures would:
(a) violate the Muslim women’s freedom to manifest their religion (ICCPR Art. 18(1); and exercise their choice for identity as guaranteed under (ICCPR: Art. 17(1);
(b) expose them to religious discrimination (ICCPR: Art. 2(1), Art. 26); and (c) violate the rights of its minorities ‘to enjoy their own culture, and to profess and practice their own religion’ (ICCPR Art. 27).
Such discriminatory measures will also cement negative stereotypes against Muslim women, disproportionately restrict their freedom to manifest their religion, cause intersectional discrimination and greater marginalisation as well as stoke undue hostility/physical violence because of their clothing, it added.
The rights body has urged Sri Lanka to protect the rights of its Muslim minority to practice their religion, free from any coercion or discrimination.
The Commission has concluded that such a majoritarian rhetoric and discriminatory measures are contrary to the ideals of pluralism, counterproductive to societal cohesion, and clear manifestations of Islamophobia.
The Commission has further called on the Sri Lankan Muslim community and human rights organisations to exhaust all available domestic remedies including domestic courts for redressal of grievances and repeal of discriminatory laws while calling on the international community to engage with Sri Lankan authorities to seek redressal for the aggrieved minority including by punishing those found guilty as per international human rights law.
Modi’s loss 
Looking at regional politics, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week suffered several political defeats in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, which is believed to be an indication of a voter backlash over the central Indian Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Modi was reportedly expecting to make significant gains in West Bengal, one of few states where his rightwing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) does not have a parliamentary majority.
However, Mamata Banerjee, a powerful regional politician and prominent Modi critic, won a third term as Chief Minister.
The results gave Banerjee’s All India Trinamool Congress a comfortable two-thirds majority, with her party securing 216 seats in the 294-seat assembly. The BJP won 75 seats.
Modi made dozens of speeches on the campaign trail in West Bengal, together with Indian Home Minister Amit Shah.
In Tamil Nadu, the DMK alliance backed by the Congress Party secured victory at the polls. It was after a lapse of 10 years that the DMK recorded a victory at polls.
The DMK secured 146 seats, while the ruling AIADMK is up in 86 seats.
In the 234-seat House, a party needs at least 118 seats to win the election.
The election that concluded recently was the first in the state without two of Tamil Nadu’s towering political figures, M. Karunanidhi and J. Jayalalithaa. The gap they left in the political arena has given rise to other fronts over the last few years.
However, the outcome of Tamil Nadu’s election resulting in DMK’s victory would result in more focus being laid on Sri Lanka and issues faced by minority communities, especially Tamils.
DMK President and Tamil Nadu’s new Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in March this year urged the Central Government leaders to support the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution on Sri Lanka.
Stalin, in a statement, had urged Prime Minister Modi not to take a pro-Sri Lanka stand while voting on the Resolution that took place on 22 March (at the 46th UNHRC Session).
Stalin had said that Modi’s silence “has caused shockwaves to Tamils around the world and in Tamil Nadu” after Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Jayanath Colombage had said that India would vote in support of Sri Lanka.
“Union Foreign Minister Mr. Jaisankar went to Sri Lanka. Mr. Modi and Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa held telephone talks but none of the press reports said that the talks discussed the Resolution,” Stalin had said, and called for Modi to gather support from other member states in favour of the Resolution.
“While Tamils are anxiously waiting for India’s position, it is painful that the BJP Government has allowed the Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary to decide India’s stand. Nine-crore Tamils living across the world will never forgive them if the Tamils’ interests are betrayed,” Stalin had added.