They only talk about preventing two thirds majority

By Tharindu Prematillake
The Minister of Export Development and International Trade, Professor G. L. Peiris has been a seasoned politician for several decades. In addition, he is an authority on constitutional affairs, the legal system, and international relations.
The Nation sought Professor Peiris’ views on several hot button topics ranging from, regaining GSP+, actions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki moon, General Fonseka’s court martial and the general election.
Here are the excerpts of the interview:

Q: What are the main features of the upcoming election?
A: A principal feature of it seems to be that there really is no contest at all. The outcome is taken for granted. The clearest indication of it is that during the last two weeks or so the main speakers of the opposition have consistently been saying that their aim is to prevent the government from getting a two thirds majority. Many speakers from the opposition have expressed their thoughts in the clearest of ways that the purpose of them running the campaign is to ensure that the government does not secure a two thirds majority. That means they have already conceded defeat, they are not campaigning to win the election, they are not campaigning in order to form a government. They only want to reduce the governments majority. In other words, they accept that the present government is going to come to power. So, that is a great confession on the part of the opposition. That explicit indication is that they know they don’t have any chance of winning and they don’t entertain any thoughts of winning, and that is why the outcome is not in any doubt at all.

Then, there really is manifest indication of strong support and people wanting to give the Government the authority to deliver. There is massive appreciation for the fact that the country was rescued from the thralldom of terror. Many of the election rallies are attended by women. Women, more than anyone else, appreciate this stable peace which has come. When the child went to school in the morning the mother was in a very disturbed state of mind and many people stood outside the gates of the school until school finished. But now, mothers can go about their work without stress or worry. They appreciate that. It was something that had been once written off as impossible.

What the President has consistently said is that this gives us an opportunity to address in earnest the economic development. For the last 15 years whatever we tried to do, there has been inseparable obstacles. How can you bring investment or tourists into the country when bombs are going off and there is violence? Now see the number of tourists coming into the country. Hotels are full. We expect by next year around 600 million dollars to come in through tourism. There is that spirit of resurgence and optimism with regard to the future. The people feel that they have to give the government sufficient authority to deliver. Just as much as it has successfully confronted the challenge of terrorism, give the government the clout that is necessary to deal with the economy. That is very much the mood of the country.

Another reason why the people are very eager to give the government a strong majority in parliament is the feeling that the overwhelming mandate which was given to the President on the 26th of January is incomplete and that one further step has to be taken to enable that mandate to be implemented in full on the ground. That is the President must have a strong Government backing him in parliament. The executive Presidency of Sri Lanka is a very powerful institution with wide powers, responsibilities and functions attributed to it. However, the President governs the country through parliament. He requires parliament for two purposes. One is to pass legislation reflecting the policies of his Government. The second is to find the financial resources which are necessary to carry on the administration. Now the election will take place on the 8th of April, and the new Parliament has been summoned to meet on the 22nd of April. One of the first tasks of the new parliament would be to pass the budget. Parliament is necessary to put at the disposal of the government the money that is required to run the administration. Sir Ivor Jennings, in his monumental work on parliament, says that the control of public finance is the essential function of parliament. So a strong parliament is necessary.

Q: The government is asking for a two thirds majority to change the present electoral system. Is this a good enough reason for the people to vote for the government? What are the main objections you have towards the present system?
A: The people certainly want to give the government a two thirds majority. Having travelled all over the country I know that; that is definitely the feeling of the country. There are many reasons for that. One is the deep desire to change the present electoral system. I’m sure that if you hold a referendum in this country 90 percent of the people would say that the present electoral system should be abolished. That it is a total liability and that from every conceivable point of view it does immense harm to the country and the political culture. I mean just look at the roads of Colombo, the posters.

The system is entirely obnoxious for several reasons. One is that it promotes intra party rivalry instead of inter party rivalry. That is people, who work together in a spirit of brotherhood, friendship as members of the same political party or as members of the government, find themselves pitted against each other for ‘manapa’ or preference votes. And it becomes a ferocious campaign that brings out the worst in human nature. No quarter given no quarter asked. There are indications of that in different parts of the country. That is inherent in the system. So, it is detrimental to solidarity, unity and a spirit of fraternity in promoting the public good.

The second objection is that it is the root of corruption. Under the first past the post system you can contest the territorial constituency, let’s say Dehiwala or Ratmalana. If an up and coming person wants to run for election he will be able to contest from the electorate and manage his campaign with a reasonable amount of finances. Today what is happening? You can’t contest Dehiwala or Ratmalana you have to contest the entire District of Colombo. The District of Colombo consists of around 1.6 million voters, and you’ll have to run an organisation that is for each of the electorates. Whatever campaign that you do has to be for the entire area. Now that kind of money nobody has, and even if you do you won’t want to use it. Then you collect large sums of money and when the time comes the financiers will come asking for it. That is why I say this is the root of corruption.

Thirdly, it destroys the essential link between the Member of Parliament and the constituency. That is an essential characteristic of any vibrant system of representative democracy. In this system, there is no such person as a member for the electorate of Avissawela, Kaduwela or Maharagama. So, a constituent in any of those areas, who has a problem, does not know who to go to. There is nobody who holds special responsibility. What is wrong is there are no by-elections. A by-election is a way to test the government’s popularity. From time to time you hold by-elections. By-elections are caused by death, resignation and so on. Then you can test the pulse of the people. Today, there is no by-election: if there is a death or a resignation then the next person on the list comes in. That’s also not good because for six years for the entire life span of the government there is no way of ascertaining what the public mood is.

There is another consideration which is coming to the surface in the current election campaign. Now the law prohibits you from putting up posters indicating your number. A candidate would want to give publicity to his number because there must be an identification of a name with a number, in order to prevent confusion in the mind of the voter. So, every candidate is keen to impress on the mind of his voters the number that has been allotted to him. One of the ways of doing this is by a poster which is probably the cheapest way. But posters are considered illegal and are taken down by the police. But those who have enormous resources can advertise. They can take out paid advertisements in the print media and also slots on the electronic media. Those are enormously expensive. Advertising charges are especially high during the election period. So, you have to pay much more for advertising during the election period than during other times. That is legal. But posters are illegal. That means the wealthier you are the better capability you have to comply with the law. If you’re short on resources you find yourself compelled to break the law. So, to ensure that you don’t break the law you have to be in possession of very large financial resources. That is why I say that the most basic criticism of the electoral system is that it operates entirely in favour of the wealthy. And it does not offer any scope at all for people of modest means. It is an elitist system. That is why there is such strong feeling in the country that this system must go.

Now, the tragedy of the situation is that for a long time there has been this robust feeling that the present system is bad and that it must be abolished. Everybody agrees that it is bad but it has never happened because of the difficulty that has been encountered in formulating a system that commands the support of two thirds of the Members of Parliament. But indications today are unmistakable that there is strong support for the reform of the electoral system, and that is one of the reasons why the people of this country would like to give the Government a two thirds majority to enable the changes in the electoral system.

Q: High ranked British Government representatives attended the Global Tamil Forum. The Secretary General of the United Nations has expressed his interest in appointing a committee to advise him on how to deal with Sri Lanka with regard to Human Rights issues. What are your thoughts on these latest international developments? Will these developments play a role in how people vote at the election?

A: People are conscious of the fact that there is great danger to the country at the international level. The LTTE has been destroyed militarily. That itself is a singular achievement. No foreign government thought that the LTTE could be vanquished by military means. Foreign governments with very considerable expertise in the field, embassies and high commissions which have military attaches never believed that the LTTE could be destroyed militarily. But that happened. It didn’t happen coincidentally. It was a combination of factors, political determination, willingness, effective leadership, and courage in dealing with foreign born pressure. Of course, the LTTE has been defeated militarily and it cannot raise its head. There will not be a war in this country. That is the truth. But the danger continues in another respect. The money that was collected by the LTTE during the last 20 years is still in their hands. The financial empire they have built over the years through narcotics, gun running and money laundering all of that. They also have an exceedingly sophisticated communications network.

Some of the events that have taken place in the recent past show that groups that are supportive of the LTTE are trying to achieve the LTTE’s objective by different means. The purpose is the same. The LTTE used guns, bombs, and suicide squadrons. That era is over, but the forces that are active against Sri Lanka at the international level are still continuing to implement the agenda of the LTTE resorting to other methods. What they have basically resorted to is an economic war against Sri Lanka. Take for example the You tube campaign in the United States. Those are LTTE groups running a very persistent campaign in the United States calling upon consumers not to buy Sri Lankan apparel products. A lot of money, finesse in advertising and very sophisticated media methodologies are used in that campaign.

Take the meeting of the global Tamil forum. It was addressed by the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The question is not what Miliband said or did not say, his very presence dignifies that gathering. What is that gathering advocating? It advocates provisional transnational government outside the shores of Sri Lanka. This discussion is taking place in a country that has proscribed the LTTE and banned it as a criminal, illegal organisation. What were the outcomes of the deliberations at the Tamil forum? That the military leaders and other leaders of the country should be brought before an international military tribunal; secondly, that there should be a boycott of goods from Sri Lanka, thirdly the principle of self determination. All of which are contrary to their professed position with regard to the LTTE. So, it is very clear that there is an economic onslaught on Sri Lanka taking place today. There are efforts to destroy our economy, to prevent investment in to the country, to deny access to our goods to the markets of the West, to dissuade tourists from coming here and to raise issues concerned with human rights. All of this is to isolate Sri Lanka in the world. The methods are different, but the objective is the same.

The forces that rally against Sri Lanka are very powerful. The Sri Lankan electorate is conscious of that. And therefore, they feel that the mandate which they gave the President can be fully implemented only if they take this further step of giving him a strong Government in parliament. That connection has been strengthened by other circumstances and developments. This includes the action which the Secretary General of the United Nations announced. He indicated his intention of appointing a committee of three experts to probe allegations in respect of human rights in Sri Lanka. The President of Sri Lanka received the letter from the Secretary General, Bank Ki moon. In response to that letter, the President spoke to Ban Ki moon over the phone. Within that telephone conversation, President Rajapaksa indicated very strongly his view that this action was totally indefensible: that it is discriminatory and that no such action has been taken against other countries where problems in this field are much more acute than in Sri Lanka. He also explained that there has not been an objective appraisal of the Sri Lankan situation and that the Secretary General’s office was succumbing to pressure exerted by countries which were motivated by domestic political considerations, the need to please the Tamil diasporas and that these actions where not in any way motivated by genuine concerns of Sri Lanka and her wellbeing.

What gives us deep satisfaction is the strong support that we received from the Non Aligned Movement which consists of no fewer than 118 countries. The communication of Ambassador Abdul Aziz, he spoke to the representative of the UN indicating the strong opposition of the Non Aligned Movement to the action that the Secretary General was going to take. Something that is worth pointing out is that the Secretary General’s office deliberately avoided the Security Council. Had this been taken up in the Security Council then there would have been voices raised in favour of Sri Lanka. It is not unlikely that the veto power would have been used by some countries. So, the Secretary General’s office is not giving an opportunity for those countries to express their views.

Also what is unforgivable is that the leadership of the UN does not appear to take into account decisions taken by UN bodies when they are supportive of Sri Lanka. What is detrimental to Sri Lanka is blown up, and the maximum use is made of it. But the alleged violations of human rights was discussed in Geneva at the Human Rights Commission and a decision was reached overwhelmingly in favour of Sri Lanka. I think the vote was 29 in support of Sri Lanka, eleven against with six abstentions. The African bloc, the Asian bloc, Russia, China, the Arabians they all supported the Sri Lankan position. Now, that is ignored and the attack on Sri Lanka continues regardless of any decision supportive of Sri Lanka that is made by organs within the United Nations system. They will not stop until they feel that they have destroyed Sri Lanka internationally. It is not in any way a balanced strategy. It’s an acrimonious destructive attitude.

Our principal contention is that the international community needs to recognise that we are a country emerging from a painful conflict. And it is now dealing with the challenges relating to economic development. What we expect from the international community is support, goodwill and understanding, not destructive criticism and not obstruction at every point. I think one of the useful documents which have been produced with regard to these matters is the ‘Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate’ that was a document published on the December 7, 2009.

The title of the document is ‘Sri Lanka: researching US strategy after the war’. The chairman of the committee is Senator John Kerry and the ranking member of the committee was Richard Lugar. This report indicates clearly that the situation in Sri Lanka has to be understood and that many of these harsh criticisms are lacking in balance or objectivity and that they are very biased and prejudiced views. The report says that the criticisms serve other purposes which have to do with domestic politics of other countries, and the self serving concerns of some groups. Sri Lanka is becoming a political football. There is a great deal of material on this report by the committee on foreign relations of the United States senate which sets out dispassionately the reality of the current Sri Lankan situation. These realities should be taken into account by the international community when judging Sri Lanka or when evaluating or assessing the present condition in Sri Lanka. Those realities have largely gone by default.

So, the people of Sri Lanka realise that there is this danger, this degree of vulnerability and that there really is an urgent need for them to support the Government and to ensure that the gaining which we have achieved by the eradication of terrorism is consolidated. Today, those gains are threatened and are in peril and there is a duty on the part of the electorate to protect the Government to ensure that those victories are preserved and that the lives that were lost and the effort that was put in to the war has not been in vain.

(Continued on page 10)