• SLPP Chair and ‘independent’ Opposition MP Prof. G.L. Peiris weighs in on the UNHRC Resolution's impact on IMF/GSP+, the GoSL’s credibility issue with foreign nations, growing repression-militarisation, and lack of ‘real’ change in the SLPP revival   

BY Buddhika Samaraweera “Independent” Opposition MP Prof. G.L. Peiris, who, along with several other MPs, left the Government led by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and since declared themselves as a group of independent Opposition MPs, spoke with The Morning about the current state of the SLPP (of which he is the Chairman), the Parliamentary group he represents, and the country. Following are excerpts of the interview: What is your opinion regarding the ‘Let us rise again’ programme currently being implemented by the SLPP? I don’t think that it is at all convincing, because there is no difference with regard to the methods and culture. The way that the policies are decided upon, and decisions are made within the party remains very much the same. It is that system that has attracted so much public opposition and hostility. When they say “rise again”, people must perceive a difference, i.e., leaving behind what people have rejected and raising something new, and something that people have confidence in.  However, if it is the same thing that is going to happen, there cannot be any confidence in anything constructive happening. They can get thousands of people to participate in a rally, but that cannot be treated as a yardstick of success. I don’t think that anything has happened so far with regard to the revival of the SLPP that can be considered as a real change.  You still hold the position of the SLPP Chairman, but you represent a different group. What is the situation in this regard? We maintain that it is us who represent the ideal values and thinking of the SLPP. What is binding to us is the programme that the people endorsed at the Parliamentary Election held in August 2020. The election campaign was led by former Prime Minister and incumbent MP Mahinda Rajapaksa. He is the Party Leader, and I was the Party Chairman, and we travelled all over the country together. We placed before the people a clear programme of work.  We told the people that if we were elected to office, this is the programme that we would implement. The people then returned the SLPP a victory in record numbers, approximating almost two-thirds of the total number of MPs. What happened thereafter? Did the SLPP act in conformity with that mandate? They turned that mandate upside-down.  We said that we reject the policies of the United National Party (UNP), and that we are proposing alternative policies. However, it all ended with the majority of the SLPP MPs supporting the UNP candidate (a reference to President Ranil Wickremesinghe), thereby rejecting their own candidate. That was a clear breach of faith with the people who elected the SLPP.  However, we have remained true to the promises that we made to the people, the policy that we laid before the people, and the policy from which we received such a strong endorsement. That is why we maintain that it is we who remain faithful to the policies of the SLPP that the people accepted.   What is your reading of MP Namal Rajapaksa's bid for national leadership? I think we should allow the country to express an opinion on that. The best way of finding out the opinion of the country on that matter is holding an election that is shortly due, the Local Government (LG) election. The law requires that this election be held before 20 March 2023.  Let that election be held, and if the present Government is very confident in their victory, there is no reason to think of one excuse after another to postpone the election. If that election is held, the result will answer this question much more convincingly than I, or anyone else, can. If at some point the SLPP removes you from the party chairmanship, do you intend to take legal action? When it comes to the party chairmanship, the SLPP can decide on a change in line with the party’s constitution. It must be done in accordance with the provisions of the SLPP constitution. That is not an issue.  But if any attempt is made to remove me or any of the members of our group (a reference to the SLPP MPs who recently left the SLPP led Government and since declared themselves independent Opposition MPs) from the membership of the party, we will very strongly resist it in court. That is because the party has no right to do so. We are absolutely confident that the party will not succeed in such an attempt. Do you think that the people will accept your group of independent MPs favourably in the upcoming elections? I think so, because we did not walk out of the party all of a sudden. That is not the way we behave responsibly within a party. We raised our questions within the party, discussed them with the leadership, and tried to bring about the changes that we thought were desirable. It is not like we did that on one isolated occasion; many of us made such attempts over a considerable period of time.  However, it became more and more clear to us that the way the SLPP does things would not change. Every attempt was made to alter that state of things, but it became increasingly evident that it was not going to happen. It was then that we decided to embark on a journey of our own, in keeping with the aspirations of the people. Almost all the parties representing the Opposition, including your group, recently formed an alliance to urge the Government to not delay the LG election. What intervention is expected to be made through that alliance? We were able to get all the political parties and groups within the Opposition on one stage. That alone is a considerable achievement. Although these are parties and groups with different views, with regard to this fundamental matter of the need to hold elections on time, we agreed that there is only one possible view. If the Government does not hold elections on time, one cannot regard that society as a democratic society at all.  Our alliance will be a response to any attempt on the part of the Government to postpone elections. Towards that end, we will do everything possible in Parliament, take this issue before the people, and if necessary, we will resort to legal action to protect the franchise of the people. Does your group of independent Opposition MPs intend to join an alliance with any of these other parties to contest the upcoming elections? That has to be decided in the future. This is only the beginning of a journey. At this point, our central preoccupation is to consolidate our group. We started that programme in Anuradhapura, and we then went to Kandy. We are having the unveiling of our political and economic programme of work on 13 November.  As far as the electoral schedule is concerned, matters such as whether we will align ourselves with anybody else, or whether we will have arrangements with different groups with regard to future elections, are to be decided in the future. However, we are talking to all major political parties right now. We are not operating in isolation. We have had structured meetings with all these political parties and we will continue that exercise. There is a thought that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is emerging as the most popular party in the country. Are you interested in an alliance with them? We are talking to the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) as well. We met them in Parliament. We would like to have an understanding with all different groups in the Opposition. There is no exclusivity. The JVP, as a force within the Opposition, is very active throughout the country. They are making a contribution to the present political discourse. So, we are certainly talking to them among others, such as the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), the Supreme Lanka Coalition, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the Tamil National Alliance. As a former Foreign Minister, what is your view on the Wickremesinghe-led Government's foreign policy? I think that we have antagonised all the countries such as India, China, Japan, and the US, with which we should have very firm and healthy relationships. The basic problem has been the lack of credibility. A good instance is the assurance that we gave to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as recently as June of this year.  We said that we would repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA) and bring about fresh legislation. Until that is done, we said that there would be a moratorium that we would not make use of the PTA, but we reneged on that. Not only did we use the PTA, but we did so in situations that have absolutely no relationship to terrorism.  How can we then expect the international community to take us seriously when other promises are given? For instance, the Government has now stated that international mechanisms are not required because it will establish a local truth-seeking mechanism, but what is the credibility of those assurances when what we have promised in the past has been violated with impunity? Then, the Government cannot expect the promises that will be given in the future to be believed. It was recently reported that the Government is planning to de-politicise Sri Lanka’s diplomatic missions. Do you think that the Government sincerely wants to achieve this, and if so, is it capable of doing so? If there is the political will, it can be done. The question is whether there is the political will. This is a Government that is susceptible to enormous pressure, as it has no legitimacy. A situation like this cannot be found anywhere in the world. It is absolutely unique. One cannot find a President who is not supported by his own party in Parliament.  Here, the President is entirely dependent on the rival political party. It is a very precarious situation. At any moment they can withdraw their support to him, and then he no longer has the capability to get legislation through Parliament and financial provisions from the Government.  Also, when depoliticising the diplomatic missions, the criteria should be to look at the appointments that have been made so far. Look at the record number of advisors who have been appointed to the Presidential Secretariat and other institutions in a situation where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. That way of handling governance does not inspire any confidence that appointments will be given on merit. It is a very good thing if it is to be done, to depoliticise the foreign service and to give appointments on merit, but there really has not been much evidence of that so far. What reforms do you propose to improve Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps? We already have a system of recruitment and competitive examinations. All of that has to be done without interference by the political leadership. What is your opinion about the protest movements in the country at present? The protest movements are to be expected because they are an expression of the extreme anguish and suffering of the people. The World Food Programme has indicated the dire situation with regard to many families that are affected by malnutrition, while professionals are leaving the country in huge numbers, life-saving drugs are not available, the cost of living has gone through the roof, and many people have lost their livelihoods.  In that situation, people who cannot feed their families get onto the road. It is a reality that the Government has to recognise, and it should find solutions to the issues. The answer is not repression. The answer is not to channel all Budget resources into defence establishments. That is a gross distortion of the priorities. A country cannot be run on the basis of a military culture. Various alliances are being formed in the country at present with political parties and other organisations. What is your opinion on this? Alliances will become relevant at election times. The election that is to be held in the near future is the LG election. Once the date of that is announced, there will be discussions among political parties about the arrangements that they are going to make with one another. What will be the impact of the UNHRC Resolution which was recently passed on Sri Lanka? It will have serious implications, firstly on the discussions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and then regarding the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) concessions. That is not a gift or an entitlement. It is a set of privileges that Sri Lanka enjoys with regard to the entry of our exports into the markets of Western Europe, which is one of our largest markets.  We have a huge competitive advantage because we don’t pay import duty at all. That means that revenue is lost by the EU. The taxpayers in the EU are funding this programme. They are doing it conditionally. The gist of the UNHRC Resolution is that those conditions are being violated by Sri Lanka. If that is the case, then the EU cannot continue to make the GSP+ benefits available to Sri Lanka.  There is a definite connection between the UNHRC Resolution and the continuation of GSP+. There is also a direct correlation between the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) Resolution and the attitudes of the IMF. Then, there is also the danger of individual countries imposing trade sanctions. Therefore, the UNHRC Resolution cannot be dismissed as something that has no consequence. It has to be taken seriously. It is seen that the US has a cordial relationship with the President. Does it give a licence to the President to engage in certain undemocratic acts? The US has maintained a cordial relationship with Sri Lanka at all times. Relations among governments are not dependent on individuals. The pillar of US foreign policy is respect for democracy, human rights, participatory values, and minority rights. All that is part of the US political culture. These are well reflected in their foreign policy, and those are the areas in which problems arise when it comes to Sri Lanka. How should Sri Lanka maintain its relationship with China, as China is a crucial point in the debt restructuring process? There is no exclusivity in our relations with any country. We have to have cordial relations with all countries. That is the way that the foreign policy can be successfully handled. Obviously, it is not happening in Sri Lanka at the moment.  Some of the decisions that have been made recently do not reflect the kind of maturity and sensitivity that is required to achieve that equilibrium among other countries. They are all our friends, and there is no reason as to why we should not have amicable relations with any of them. How do you see the current education policy? How can there be an education policy when children are dropping out of schools because they cannot get proper meals? Assemblies are now being cancelled because children cannot stand straight at assemblies, as they have not had proper meals. Before he began to preach, even the Buddha ascertained as to whether the person he was addressing was properly fed. Otherwise, they would not be able to concentrate on what was being preached.  Likewise, the basic human needs have to be addressed first. Sri Lanka is now sixth in the whole world in terms of child malnutrition at present. It is unrealistic to talk of education reforms in such a context. We should first ensure that students are able to attend schools, and that they are properly fed.  Also, to solve any problem, one should accept that there is a problem. If they shut their eyes to reality, they cannot solve any problem. The Government says that there is no health issue and no increase in child malnutrition. If that is the attitude, no problem can be solved. We accept that these issues cannot be resolved overnight, but the Government should work sincerely to address these issues.