US highlights Admiral Zheng He’s intervention here as propaganda war takes new turn

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 467

Published

  2023/04/26

High-tech Chinese research ship Yuan Wang 5 enters the strategically located Hambantota port, in April 2023. The vessel’s entry into Sri Lankan waters was delayed due to the then government succumbing to Indian pressure. India had expressed concerns over the possibility of the vessel's tracking systems attempting to snoop on Indian defence installations.

Sri Lanka is caught up in the China-Quad battle. The Indian participation in the ‘Quad’ project has further complicated matters for Sri Lanka. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster, last July, following a US-backed protest campaign that overwhelmed the seemingly invincible administration, underlines the urgent need for a thorough examination of external interventions.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Indo-Pacific Defense Forum is published by the US Indo-Pacific Command, in line with overall US strategy. In its latest issue (Volume 47, Issue 04, 2022), it dealt with current Chinese strategies. Interestingly, reference was made to Chinese Admiral Zheng He’s voyages to Sri Lanka. Zheng He’s first visit took place in 1405. The Chinese fleet arrived in Sri Lanka exactly 100 years before the Portuguese, 233 years before the Dutch and 397 years before the British.

The main article, headlined ‘Pulling back the curtain: the truth behind China’s maritime militia’, expertly addressed the issues at hand. It was authored by Gregory B. Poling, Tabitha Grace Mallory, Harrison Pretat and the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. They aptly sub-titled it ‘A revealing analysis of Chinese maritime militia.’

Basically, they compared Admiral Zheng He’s expeditions with the ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative. Reference was also made to what the Forum staff called the toppling of the ruling Kingdom in Sri Lanka’

This particular reference was to the conflict (1410-11) between Admiral Zheng He’s forces and Kotte King Alakeshvara that resulted in the latter’s capture and the subsequent removal to China. Alakeshvara was later released and moved back to Sri Lanka though he was never given an opportunity to govern the Kotte Kingdom again.

The focus on Admiral Zheng He’s fleet exploits in this part of the world, particularly the ouster of king Alakeshvara, should be examined, taking into consideration the overall US strategy, coupled with that of the ‘Quad’ alliance, comprising the US, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously, the US and its allies intend to propagate, what they called, Chinese expansionist policies on the basis of Admiral Zheng He’s voyages, across the Indo-Pacific and into Africa.

But China never plundered the wealth of other hapless countries, or enslaved them the way the West has done the world over and, in the case of the US, under its manifest destiny. So has the time now finally arrived for reckoning with Washington continuing to think that it can do as it pleases, wherever and whenever?

Sri Lanka is caught up in the China-Quad battle. The Indian participation in the ‘Quad’ project has further complicated matters for Sri Lanka. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster, last July, following a US-backed protest campaign that overwhelmed the seemingly invincible administration, underlines the urgent need for a thorough examination of external interventions.

Economic ruination, caused by reckless economic policies, coupled with waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, at every level, has opened Sri Lanka for external interventions. Admiral Zheng He’s actions are raised at a time when the US is working overtime to undermine Sri Lanka’s relations with China. Interested parties propagated the so called Chinese debt trap in the run-up to the 2015 presidential election, won by Maithripala Sirisena, and Chinese loans remained a contentious issue, nine years later.

Sri Lanka is among the countries repeatedly humiliated after being labelled by the West as being entrapped by the Chinese. This narrative is primarily based on the 99-year lease of the Hambantota port, finalised in 2017 by the Wickremesinghe-Sirisena government.

Sri Lanka utilised USD 307 mn, obtained from China’s Eximbank, at 6.3 percent fixed interest rate, to complete phase one of the project, as scheduled, within three years. It would be pertinent to mention that China granted a 15-year commercial loan, with a four-year grace period, to launch the project in 2007, at a time the Sri Lankan military was struggling on the Vanni front. Regardless of the costly war, Sri Lanka sustained the Hanbantota project. The war against the LTTE was brought to a successful conclusion in May 2009. Then President Mahinda Rajapaksa inaugurated the first phase of the Hambantota port, in November 2010.

Two years later, Sri Lanka secured a second loan – a staggering USD 757 mn, from the same bank, at 2 percent interest rate for the second phase of the Hambantota port, but the overall project went awry. Altogether Sri Lanka obtained five loans, between 2007 and 2014, for the construction of the port. As a result of the failure on the part of the Hambantota port to generate revenue, as expected, Sri Lanka was forced to hand over the port to China, on a 99-year lease, in 2017. However, USD 1.2 bn cash infusion, obtained from China Merchants Port Holding Company Limited, on the lease deal, was not utilised to pay back the Eximbank of China.

2019 Easter Sunday attacks

The continuing US attacks on China-Sri Lanka relations must be a matter that should receive serious attention from the government and the Opposition. The reference to Admiral Zheng He’s actions in 1410 by a publication issued by the US Indo-Pacific Command reveals the level of US desperation. At the same time, Sri Lanka cannot turn a blind eye to growing Western concerns, primarily fuelled by the US, and that of India.

Actually, their approach towards Sri Lanka should be re-examined against the backdrop of the leasing of the Hambantota port to China. One-time President of the Bar Association and Yahapalana and present lawmaker Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, has warned of dire consequences unless the Hambantota port was not taken back, through parliamentary intervention. The warning was issued in the wake of him being stripped of the Justice Ministry portfolio, in August 2017, over strong criticism of the leasing of the Hambantota port and the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.

Wijeyadasa Rajapakse has asserted that debilitating Western interventions would continue as long as the Hambantota port remained in the hands of the Chinese. Having warned of further threats, posed by powerful enemies, the then UNP lawmaker is on record as having said that he sought to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to abolish the agreement on the Hambantota port. Rajapakse told the writer: “Several months after I handed over the Bill to the Office of the Secretary General of Parliament, I was informed of the Attorney General Department’s decision with regard to my Bill. It is certainly an unfortunate situation.”

By then, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse had switched sides and was on the SLPP list for the Colombo district, at the 2020 General Election. The SLPP candidate made available, to the writer, a copy of a letter he received from Tikiri K. Jayathilake, Assistant Secretary General (Legislative Services).

The following is the text of Jayathilake’s letter, dated February 27, 2020: A Bill to abolish and repeal the concession agreement for the establishment of a Public-Private Partnership for Hambantota Port by and among Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Government of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited, Hambantota International Port Group (Private) Limited and Hambantota International Port Services Company (Private) Limited.

This has reference to the request made by you to introduce the above Private Members’ Bill in Parliament. The above Bill had been referred to Hon. Attorney General on 2nd Oct. 2019 to obtain his opinion under Standing Order No 52 (3). As per the opinion of the Hon. Attorney General, repealing of the Concession Agreement will have an impact on the funds of the Republic, thus it attracts the provisions of Article 152 of the Constitution. In terms of the said Article such a Bill can only be introduced by a Minister unless such Bill or motion has been approved either by the Cabinet of Ministers or in such manner as the Cabinet of Ministers may authorize.

Therefore, I would like to inform you that a Private Member could not introduce a Bill in parliament, which attracts the provisions of Article 152 of the Constitution (end of letter).

Wijeyadasa Rajapakse handed over the Bill to Parliament on July 30, 2019. Rajapakse wanted to abolish and repeal the Concession Agreement entered into on July 29, 2017. The former minister cited four reasons for his decision to move a Private Member’s Bill against the Concession Agreement (1) The agreement hadn’t been endorsed by two-thirds majority in Parliament (11) in terms of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority Act, the ownership, control and operation of all Sri Lankan ports are vested with the SLPA, therefore the Concession Agreement is illegal (iii) the Concession Agreement has exposed Sri Lanka to severe danger and (iv) foreign powers continuously interfered and threatened Sri Lanka’s defence, thereby exposing the country, and its people, to grave danger.

In case the Parliament endorsed a Bill to abolish and repeal the Concession Agreement, gazette bearing No 2044/20 dated 66.11.2017 and gazette No 2048/32 dated 66.11.2017, too, would be abolished and void in law.

Wijeyadasa Rajapakse declared: “The Concession Agreement violated the Constitution. In terms of Article 157 of the Constitution, such a pact cannot be finalized without having two-thirds parliamentary approval. The cabinet collectively violated the Constitution by handing over the strategically located port on a 99-year-lease to China, the emerging Superpower. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against China or any other country. My constant stand that angered an influential section of the UNP is the opposition to privatization of state assets.”

Under President Ranil Wickremesinghe privatization agenda is back in a big way with even cash cows being earmarked for sale. In fact, Wickremesinghe, in no uncertain terms, has repeatedly declared that privatization is a high priority of his government and mandatory to turnaround the economy.

GR on H’tota deal

Lawmaker Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, on July 30, 2019, said the Attorney General’s Department owed an explanation as to why it sat on hardcore NTJ member Zahran Hashim’s file for nearly two years. The Department’s lapse was revealed during the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) proceedings from May 2019-Oct 2019. The PSC consisted of Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri (Chairman), Ravi Karunanayake, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, Rauff Hakeem, M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, Ashu Marasinghe and Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa. Subsequently, the Presidential Commission that probed the Easter Sunday carnage confirmed the findings of the PSC pertaining to the Department’s lapse. Specific recommendations were made in respect of two senior AG’s Department officials. But, the recommendations were never implemented. Obviously Wijeyadasa Rajapakse was certainly not the only person concerned about the Hambantota port deal.

Within a week after him being sworn in as the President, Gotabaya Rajapaksa caused quite a stir when he declared that the leasing of the Hambantota port to China, for a period of 99 years, was a mistake. Gotabaya Rajapaksa went to the extent of asserting the need to renegotiate the deal.

Responding to Bharat Shakti Editor-in-Chief Nitin A. Gokhale, the President assured that he would remain neutral in the power struggles of world powers, while also working together with all countries.

“When I say neutral, we don’t want to bandwagon one country or get into a balancing act; we don’t want that. That is why I said neutral. We are so small that we cannot survive if we get into this balancing act. We don’t want to get in between the power struggles of superpowers or world powers so, basically, we want to work with all the countries and we don’t want to do anything which will harm any other country.”

The President added: “We understand the importance of the Indian concerns; we can’t specially act or engage in any activity which will threaten the security of India; that we know. We are in the region and India is a big power, a big country. Though we want to be an independent, sovereign nation, we don’t want to get involved. We have to understand the points of view of other countries and act accordingly. But what everybody wants today, the most important thing is economic development.”

Commenting specifically on the Hambantota port deal, the President said: “Even though China is a good friend of ours and we need their assistance to develop, I’m not afraid to say that was a mistake. I will request them to renegotiate and come with a better deal to assist us. Today the people are not happy with that deal, we can think of one year, two years, five years, we have to think of the future, what will happen? So giving a small land for investment is a different thing. To develop a hotel or a commercial property is not a problem, that’s not an issue. The strategically important, economically important harbour, giving that is not acceptable. That we should have control. We have to renegotiate.” China simply dismissed the then Sri Lankan leader’s move. The original agreement remains intact.

US, China agendas proceed

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is no longer the President. The then President not only antagonised China, but Japan as well. Cancellation of the Japanese-funded Light Train Transit (LRT) project, a couple of weeks after the last General Election, in August 2020, caused irreparable damage to Japan-Sri Lanka relations. Who really influenced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to do away with that project? In between, calling for renegotiation of the Hambantota port deal and the cancellation of the LRT project, Gotabaya Rajapaksa accepted Prof. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan’s recommendation in respect of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MMC) Compact. Based on that expert recommendation and in the best interest of this country, he also had the nerve to discard that US proposal without any hesitation. That may have piqued mandarins in Washington to no end to fast track his ouster with the help of the convenient Aragalaya.

The President obviously found himself in an extremely delicate and difficult situation as pressure mounted on him from both sides hell-bent on advancing their agendas. The strategy should be examined, taking into consideration the overall ‘Quad’ response to Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka.

Perhaps Gotabaya Rajapaksa didn’t receive the backing of both camps. Those who advised the President on vital affairs caused instability at all levels. The ill-advised banning of chemical fertiliser imports, in April 2021, at the onset of a rapidly developing financial crisis, set the stage for a high profile campaign, dubbed Aragalaya, less than a year later. Within four months, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was ousted. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who exploited the public protest campaign to the hilt, succeeded Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in July last year, to complete the remainder of his predecessor’s term. But, Wickremesinghe is taking an extremely controversial route, regardless of consequences, domestically. Postponement of Local Government polls indefinitely, a new ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka Act’ and the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act indicates Wickremesinghe’s path which may be examined, taking into consideration the secret CIA Chief’s visit to Colombo, in February, literally in the dead of the night.

The Katchatheevu politics

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 466

Published

  2023/04/19

An aerial view of St. Anthony’s Church on the Katchatheevu island on the day of the Church feast in the first week of March, 2023

…and move to license poaching in northern waters

The Sectoral Committee
on International Relations
should examine the highly
contentious proposal to
regulate Indian poaching
in Sri Lankan waters.
Talks are continuing on
the setting up of a licensing
system to address a
long standing problem.
The intensity of poaching
has only increased since
the conclusion of the war,
over a decade ago. Today,
the Indian fishing fleet
operates in Sri Lankan
waters with impunity
though on and off arrests
sometimes hinder them.
During President
Ranasinghe Premadasa’s
honeymoon with the
LTTE, the latter, on several
occasions, rounded up
Indian fishing craft to discourage
them. However,
Indian poaching never
ceased and now they
have an opportunity to
legitimize the invasion of
the smaller neighbour’s
waters.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Sri Lanka Navy is under fire for having a Buddha statue on the Katchatheevu/Kachchativu Island, situated 50 nautical miles from the northern mainland.

Responding to accusations, Navy headquarters emphasized that as most of the naval personnel, attached to the Naval Detachment, on the Kachchativu Island, were Buddhist, they pay homage to a modest Buddha Statue installed in close proximity to their billet.

Those deployed on the island are accommodated in a temporarily-constructed billet as no other fixed structures, besides St. Anthony’s Church, are allowed therein.

The Hindu , in its online edition, on March 31, 2023, dealt with the issue. In a story headlined ‘Installing of Buddha statues in Sri Lanka’s Kachatheevu raises hackles,’ senior correspondent R. A. Radhakrishnan quoted Pattali Makkal Katchi leader, S. Ramadoss, as having said that Buddha statues were a national security threat as it would be the first step for something more sinister. Ramadoss wanted New Delhi to take steps to remove the statues.

The Hindu writer, R.A. Radhakrishnan, found fault with President Ranil Wickremesinghe for essentially following the policies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Perhaps Ramadoss should explain how the installation of a Buddha statue, or two statues as alleged by some interested parties, could threaten a nuclear armed member of the US-led ‘Quad’ security alliance. Ramadoss, another opportunist politician, owed an explanation, regarding his unprecedented threat assessment. Before long, some other politician would probably claim that the Chinese plan to build a listening post on that island.

The Katchatheevu issue, too, is all part of the propaganda project directed at Sri Lanka. One fine day, the same lot would question the need for an SLN detachment on Katchatheevu. In fact, such external interventions pose quite a significant threat to post-war Sri Lanka.

The Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC), chaired by retired Vice Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, MP, should examine the contentious Katchatheevu issue, taking into consideration the overall challenges caused by the developing political-economic-social crisis. The responsibility on the part of the executive, legislature and judiciary, had to be scrutinized against the backdrop of the China vs ‘Quad’ battle.

The 12-member SOC, included war-winning Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, now a member of the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB). Field Marshal Fonseka and R.A. Weerasekera, in spite of their much publicized differences on political issues, should adopt a common agenda at the SOC. The Katchatheevu issue is certainly not an isolated development but part of a strategy meant to target Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately, political parties, represented in Parliament here, seem incapable of addressing the growing challenges. Bankrupt Sri Lanka, caught up in the China-Quad battle should expect the continuation of instability as the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa dispensation tries to stabilize its hold at the expense of the long overdue Local Government polls. There cannot be any dispute that the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) is in line with the current dispensation’s overall strategy to suppress growing political dissent.

Regardless of repeated vows to defeat the ATB, both in and outside Parliament, the Opposition lacked the wherewithal to thwart the government’s agenda. Their only hope is the Supreme Court. The recent SC determination on a Bill, titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka,’ pleased the vast majority of people. Therefore, those who are determined to thwart the ATB should move the SC, as the last resort, to derail the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa strategy.

Unfortunately, an issue such as Katchatheevu is going to be put on a back burner.

Gandhi bust at Temple Trees

IPKF memorial at Sri Jayewardenapura, Kotte

In early Oct. 2019, the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe unveiled a bronze bust of Mahatma Gandhi at Temple Trees. The event, also attended by Yahapalana President Maithripala Sirisena (now an Opposition MP), and the then Indian High Commissioner here, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, coincided with the 150th birth anniversary celebrations of the non-violent architect and leader of the Indian freedom struggle.

Both President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe paid floral tributes to the Indian leader.

Sri Lanka also issued two commemorative stamps. Celebration of Gandhi Jayanti each year, in Sri Lanka, is a dual celebration of Mahatma’s birth anniversary, as well as the celebration of his connection with Sri Lanka. Altogether, there are six statues of Gandhi, including in Jaffna, in the Northern Province.

Sri Lankans never found fault with the Yahapalana government for the installation of the bronze Gandhi bust at Temple Trees. Perhaps, against the backdrop of protests against a Buddha statue on the Katchatheevu island, the government should be asked to explain its criteria in installing a bust of any kind of a foreigner in Temple Trees, or any other government building or state/private land.

During Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first tenure as the President, Sri Lanka built a memorial for the Indian Army at Sri Jayewardenepura, Kotte. Years later, the Sri Lanka Army found a long forgotten memorial built for Indian troops, killed in an abortive airborne raid on an LTTE stronghold. The memorial consists of seven structures and has the names of 33 personnel. Both memorials are open to the public. Indian leaders, ministers and diplomats pay floral tributes at these memorials.

Regardless of the Indian intervention that caused a massive destruction here, no one has ever questioned the rationale in memorials for the Indian Army here. Sri Lanka must be the only country to erect memorials for foreign armies responsible for the deaths of its citizens – by direct action and by training thousands of terrorists. Can we ever forget how the Indian Army rigged the elections in the Northern and Eastern Province, during the 1987-1990 period, for the benefit of those chosen by Delhi at that time, and the Tamil National Army (TNA) it trained, comprising members of Tamil groups aligned with the Indian Army and Intelligence Services at the time?

The likes of Ramadoss have conveniently forgotten the Indian intervention here. Instead of apologizing for deaths and destruction caused here, over a decade after the eradication of terrorism, they are still pursuing an agenda inimical to Sri Lanka. However, Sri Lanka should be grateful to New Delhi for giving up its claims on Katchatheevu, in 1976. The uninhabited island is situated on this side of the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary. The Indo-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Agreements of 1974 and 1976 settled the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Palk Straits, Palk Bay and in the Bay of Bengal, respectively. This includes the Katchatheevu issue, as well.

Katchatheevu and related issues

The Katchatheevu issue cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the large scale poaching, in Sri Lankan waters, by the massive Indian fishing fleet. In spite of on and off talks, at different levels, during the war and after, the Indian fishing fleet continues to cross the maritime boundary, almost on a daily basis. A section of them also engage in clandestine operations. The recovery of large stocks of Kerala ganja, on this side of the maritime boundary, is evidence that regardless of regular sea patrols, smuggling of contraband, including substandard chemical fertilisers, is continuing.

The LTTE operated across the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary until late 2008. With the eradication of the LTTE presence, north of Mannar, up to Pooneryn, by November, 2008, the LTTE lost the Tamil Nadu route. Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion in May of the following year. The LTTE received the support of some Indian fishermen while there were some instances of them being harassed and even killed.

But, well over a decade after the war, Indian poaching remains a serious issue. In fact, over the past few years, poaching has intensified, with the Indian fishing fleet brazenly carrying out often illegal and destructive fishing operations, including bottom trawling, on this side of the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary. Such large scale invasions, almost on a daily basis, cannot happen without New Delhi issuing orders to its Navy and Coast Guard to turn a blind eye to such blatant violations.

Unprecedented Indian support, in the wake of the continuing economic crisis, appears to have weakened Sri Lanka further. Regardless of on and off arrest of poachers, the Indian fishing fleet carries on at the expense of our mainly poor fishermen. It would be pertinent to ask how our High Commissioner in New Delhi, Milinda Moragoda, intended to address this issue. Career Foreign Service officer Niluka Kadurugamuwa is our Deputy HC there. The Foreign Ministry here should explain its position on the developing situation.

One-time UNP Minister Moragoda quite convincingly dealt with the fisheries issues in his ‘Integrated Country Strategy: For Sri Lanka Diplomatic Missions 2021/2023. Priority vise, the fisheries issues were addressed last in the High Commissioner’s list of seven objectives. Let me reproduce the relevant section as it is: Mission Goal 7: Promote Sri Lanka’s interests in protecting its ocean resources

Mission Objective 7.1: Engage with Indian authorities (Central government, relevant state governments and other stakeholders) for a mechanism acceptable to all sides for the resolution of fisheries-related issues.

Mission Objective 7.2: Engage with Indian authorities for setting up a training centre for a marine disaster task force.

Mission Objective 7.3: Promote joint research in fisheries as well as in other marine and mineral resources.

The report referred to poaching and bottom trawling by Indian fishermen across the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary while emphasizing the need for sustainable and long-lasting solutions. The fisheries issues were quite appropriately referred to as challenges.

What is the status of the Lankan High Commission’s engagements with the government at the central and state levels, and also with major stakeholders, in Tamil Nadu, to curb poaching and IUU (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) fishing? Had the HC been able to convince Indian authorities of the adverse effects of bottom trawling?

Perhaps an assessment in terms of financial losses, incurred by our fishermen, due to a steady loss of livelihood ,due to Indian poaching. The relevant ministries should seriously address this issue.

Devananda decries Indian fishers

Catholics arrive on the Katchatheevu island for the annual Church feast this year (Pics courtesy

Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda recently raised the issues at hand at a meeting with Deputy Indian High Commissioner, Vinod K Jacob. Following the meeting that took place on March 21, at the Fisheries Ministry, Devananda’s Office issued a brief statement, in Tamil and Sinhala. The Indian HC didn’t issue one, though one cannot expect a diplomatic mission to brief the media of all developments.

Nelson Edirisinghe, Media Secretary to the Fisheries Minister, quoted Devananda as having told Jacob that Indian fishermen didn’t comprehend how their illegal activities, on this side of Indo-Lanka maritime boundary, affected the lives of fishermen here.

Devananda was further quoted as having alleged that the irresponsible Indian response to legitimate actions taken by the Navy here to protect fishing resources and the lives of the northern fishermen, caused diplomatic problems between the two countries.

Northern fishers have repeatedly alleged Devananda, leader of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP), one-time Indian sponsored terrorist group, of planning to legitimize poaching by setting up a licensing system.

Controversy surrounds the move amidst accusations of attempts to legitimize poaching, which would make a mockery of the maritime boundary and may cause fresh issues. Once created, there would be no turning back from the so-called licensing system, whatever the other issues – related, or otherwise – could be. The fisheries issue is expected to be high on the agenda when President Ranil Wickremesinghe visits New Delhi.

Minister Devananda is on record as having said that the proposed licensing system was meant to reduce tensions between the two fishing communities and prevent bottom trawling. Devananda, who had survived several LTTE assassination attempts, and served the cabinets of successive governments, since Ranasinghe Premadasa’s time, owed an explanation how proponents of this plan expected to rein in the Indian fishing fleet by issuing permits to some of them?

How to enforce the restrictions on the movement of fishing craft, across the maritime boundary, in terms of the licensing system, as India never took tangible measures to stop illegal crossings even at the time of the conflict. The explosive Sri Krishna affair of 2007 revealed how India allowed LTTE operations – transferring of arms, ammunition and equipment from floating LTTE arsenals to smaller trawlers operated by LTTE cadres. The proposed licensing system may aggravate the situation. The possibility of Tamil Nadu politicians and their henchmen taking advantage of the licensing system, too, cannot be ruled out as it is well-known that some leading politicians there are owners of fishing fleets.

Northern fishers allege that Minister Devananda is taking advantage of the situation to enhance his sphere of control. The relevant Sectoral Oversight Committee in Parliament should look into this matter and initiate a wider discussion on the issues at hand. Obviously, there is much more to this than meets the eye.

It would be a grave mistake on Sri Lanka’s part to take the proposed licensing system lightly. It would be interesting to know who really initiated the move to have a licensing system. Was it Devananda or some other interested party?

Is Speaker’s announcement consistent with SC determination?

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 465

Published

  2023/04/12

Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’:

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena made the following announcement immediately after the opening of Parliament on April 04, 2023. The Speaker declared: “I wish to make an announcement in respect of the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ The court has determined that none of the provisions in the Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, the court has determined that the Bill can be passed by a simple majority in parliament subject to the amendments which have been mentioned in the determination. I order that the full determination of the Supreme Court be published in the official proceedings of the parliament today.”

Education Minister Susil Premjayantha was the first to address the House after Speaker Abeywardena made several announcements. The video released by parliament showed all seats around Premjyantha empty.

Samagi Jana Balawegaya

(SJB) and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa MP who was present in parliament raised the continuing crisis at the Ruhuna University. Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella was seated next to lawmaker Premadasa while SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara sat behind the Opposition Leader.

In spite of the fact that April 04 being the only day the parliament met this month, the House was largely empty. Quite surprisingly, no one present sought a clarification as regards Speaker Abeywardena’s statement on the ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ Bill.

If not for Gevindu Cumaratunga, MP, and leader of civil society organisation Yuthukama, Speaker Abeywardena’s announcement would have gone unchallenged before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. In fact, those responsible for very serious offenses probably thought the Speaker’s announcement on the SC determination would go unchallenged.

Lawmaker Cumaratunga dropped a bombshell at a hastily arranged media briefing at the Communist Party Office at Punchi Borella. Cumaratunga brought the latest development to the notice of the writer before he called the media briefing where he questioned the possibility of Speaker Abeywardena and Parliament being part of a conspiracy to deceive the Parliament, thereby mislead the public.

Speaking on behalf of the Uthara Lanka Sabhagaya (ULS), MP Cumaratunga explained how the Parliament deprived its members’ copies of the SC determination before the announcement was made. Had there been copies of SC determination, those present could have immediately realised the Speaker’s announcement was contrary to the SC ruling, lawmaker Cumaratunga declared. Did anyone instruct those responsible for releasing such communications received by the Speaker from the Chief Justice not to do so?

There hadn’t been a previous instance of such an important SC ruling brazenly misinterpreted, deliberately. Who prepared the short notice in English read out by the Speaker?

The CJ’s communication in English conveniently allowed the Speaker to make the announcement, too, in that language only.

Unfortunately, Cumaratunga’s media briefing didn’t receive the attention it deserved. Actually, the media due to ignorance on their part or otherwise largely ignored the issue at hand. Many an eyebrow was raised at lawmaker Cumaratunga’s shocking exposure, that hadn’t jolted the Opposition into action at least by last Friday.

The joint Opposition should have written immediately to the Speaker in that regard. Regrettably, the joint Opposition missed that opportunity.

It would be pertinent to ask whether the Speaker would respond to MP Cumaratunga’s accusations before the next parliamentary sittings. Parliament cannot allow further deterioration of public confidence in the country’s supreme institution.

Perhaps the Opposition should raise the issue at hand with the Committee on Ethics and Privileges as a matter of utmost importance. One-time Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa heads this committee. Interestingly, a new controversy over a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament has erupted in the wake of a contentious move to summon SC judges before the Ethics and Privileges Committee.

The Bar Association’s declaration against the bid to summon SC judges over the March 03 ruling in respect of the Local Government polls should be appreciated. The statement dated April 05, warned the government of dire consequences unless the ongoing course of action was reversed.

However, deliberate misinterpretation of SC determination on the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka underscored the Wickremesinghe –Rajapaksa dispensation’s readiness to do whatever if felt required. The latest action stressed their readiness to go the whole hog.

As Prof. Charitha Herath, former outspoken Chairman of the parliamentary watchdog committee pointed out, President Ranil Wickremesinghe brazenly took advantage of the developing political-economic-social crisis to advance his agenda. Herath, like colleague Cumaratunga accommodated on the SLPP’s National List quit the government parliamentary group last year. Both voted against UNP leader Wickremesinghe at the July 20, 2022 vote in which the incumbent leader received 134 votes of parliamentarians for him to be elected President to complete the remaining period of the previous President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was ousted by violent mobs despite him having been elected with a landslide majority.

A significant SC determination

The SC determination was contrary to what the Speaker announced in parliament that the court determined that none of the provisions in the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution.

In fact, out of the 134 clauses in the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’, the Supreme Court had determined that 46 clauses required either to be passed by a 2/3 majority and 2/3 majority plus a referendum. The Speaker’s declaration cannot be justified under any circumstances though he ordered the publication of the SC determination in full in the day’s proceedings.

Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, wasn’t present at the time the Speaker made the announcement.

The landmark determination was made by the SC bench consisting of Justices Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, Kumudini Wickremasinghe and Arjuna Obeysekere.

Petitioners were retired Lt. Col. Anil S. Amarasekara (Counsel Manohara de Silva, PC, with Haripriya Kumarage), Jehan Hameed (Canishka Witharana with Sawani Rajakaruna), Anura Darshana Perera Abeysekera (Counsel Canishka Witharana with Sawani Rajakaruna), Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Prabath Gammanpila, MP, (Counsel Manohara de Silva, PC, with Haripriya Kumarage), Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera (Counsel Manohara de Silva, PC with Haripriya Kumarage), Ven. Athureliye Rathana thero of Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya (Counsel didn’t make representations in court), former JVP MP Wasantha Samarasinghe (Counsel Chamara Nanayakkarawasam with Dimuthu Fernando and Patali Abeyarathna).

The SC bench, too, appeared to have deviated from the usual presentation of such determinations of the court. However, having perused the 54-page document titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’, there cannot be any doubt the Speaker’s announcement contradicted the determination of the highest court in the country. But one can also assert that the section of the judgment titled ‘Determination’ didn’t clearly reflect the severity of the SC response to the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’

Let me reproduce the section titled ‘Determination’ (page 53): “We have examined the other provisions of the Bill and are of the opinion that, subject to the above (emphasis mine) none of the provisions in the Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, we make our determination that the Bill can be passed by a simple majority in Parliament, subject to the amendments stated above (emphasis mine)

‘We wish to place on record our sincere appreciation for the assistance given by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the petitioners and the intervenient- petitioners in the consideration of the Bi1l.

We also wish to place on record our sincere appreciation to Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, Governor of the Central Bank for assisting the court in making this determination.”

But consideration of what the SC bench referred to as amendments meant that the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ is flawed.

Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to name intervenient petitioners, Ajit Damon Gunewardene, Murtaza Jafferjee, Dumindra Rajith Ratnayaka (Counsel Shivaan Coorey with Amanda Coorey, Dinithi Panambara, Damithu Surasena and Chamath Surasena), L.Y. Dharmasena ( Counsel Nilshantha Sirimanne with Deshara Goonetilleke), Chandra Jayaratne (Counsel Chandaka Jayasundere, PC with Viran Corea, S.A. Beling, Sayuri Liyanasuriya and Imaz Imtiyaz).

The counsel for the intervenient-petitioners assured the SC that no constitutional provisions have been violated by the proposed Bill. They assured the court that the proposed Central Bank Act explicitly provided for the financial stability, economic development, and accountability of the Central Bank.

Respondent was Attorney General (Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC), while the AG was represented by Viraj Dayaratne PC, ASG with Mahen Gopallawa SDSG, Nirmalan Wigneswaran DSG, Sureka Ahmed SSC, Amasara Gajadeera SC and Indumini Randeny SC.

Addressing the media at the Communist Party Office, Punchi Borella, lawmaker Cumaratunga asked who took the responsibility for preparing the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ Acknowledging that the AG has assured to make the necessary amendments at the Committee Stage, the civil society activist emphasized the powers that be owed an explanation how 46 clauses out of 134 (nearly one third of the Bill) were found to be contrary to the Constitution.

Unprecedented onslaught on new Bill

A careful examination of the high profile but thoroughly disputed Bill underscores the irresponsibility on the part of those responsible for the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’

The crux of the matter is that the SC explicitly held that the Central Bank cannot be made independent of the Executive, in the formulation of monetary policy as well as the parliamentary oversight. And the acceptance of the proposed Bill would infringe Articles 3, 4, 43 and 48 of the Constitution. Obviously, the SC has largely accepted submissions made by Counsel for the petitioners.

Did the Cabinet of Ministers headed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who also holds the finance portfolio discuss this Bill? Did the President’s Counsels among the ministers, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, and Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Sabry express opinion on this contentious matter?

Counsel for petitioners has drawn the attention of SC to Article 148 of the Constitution which read: “Parliament shall have full control over public finance. No tax, rate or any other levy shall be imposed by any local authority or any other public authority, except by or under the authority of a law passed by Parliament or of any existing law. “

But, those who decried the new Bill must keep in mind that Parliament cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for the developing crisis.

Had Parliament exercised full control of public finance, how could those who moved SC against the controversial Bill explain the circumstances under which Treasury Bond scams were perpetrated in 2015 February and 2016 March during the tenure of yahapalana government. In fact, Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera and Wasantha Samarasinghe’s JVP backed the yahapalana government to the hilt.The country wouldn’t have had to default on external debt last May if the Parliament fulfilled its responsibilities with regard to public finance. For those who considered SC determination a setback for the incumbent government, particularly President Ranil Wickremesinghe should also examine exactly how successive governments ruined the economy.

The government sought to introduce a new Bill against the backdrop of severe criticism that political interference caused the economic devastation. There is no point in denying the fact that the Central Bank and the five-member Monetary Board contributed to the collapse of the national economy caused by ill-conceived decisions such as abolition of long established foreign exchange controls under the yahapalana rule for inexplicable reasons and doing away of a range of taxes by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government at the worst possible time and its refusal to seek timely IMF intervention for the 17th time until it was too late for the country and its own good.

Incumbent Central Bank Governor Dr. Weerasinghe’s harsh talk to MPs on Aug 31, last year and his statements before parliamentary watchdogs within weeks after assuming the hot seat set the record straight. The circumstances under which the national economy collapsed during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency are clear. Of course, Dr. Weerasinghe’s statements should be the basis for an examination of the political-economic-social crisis. The responsibility of the executive, legislature and judiciary should be examined taking into consideration Dr. Weerasinghe’s views.

The SC dealt with major differences between the proposed Central Bank Act and the current Monetary Law Act. The primary objective of the flawed Bill is to maintain domestic price stability, whereas the current law ensured both price stability and financial system stability. The proposed law prohibited monetary financing through purchase of government securities in the primary market though the current Monetary Law Act allowed purchasing of Treasury Bills.

The proposed law excluded public debt management from the Central Bank. This is meant to separate monetary policy and public debt management. The new law provided for a transitional provision for continuing public debt management pending the establishment of a public debt management apparatus.

The AG’s Department asserted that restriction of the government’s role in respect of monetary policy would not amount to alienation of the executive power, as the necessary link between the Executive and the governing bodies of the Central Bank is preserved.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues is the Clause 3 wherein proposal was made: “The Central Bank shall have its principal place of business in Colombo, and may have such branches, agencies, and correspondents in other places in Sri Lanka or abroad, as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its business.”

Declaring that the words “and may have such branches, agencies, and correspondents in other places in Sri Lanka or abroad, as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its business,” are unwarranted and unjustified, the SC determined Clause 3 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

SC also ruled that that Clause should be passed in Parliament by a special majority in terms of Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

It found fault with the following Clauses (5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 31, 40, 43, 47, 59, 73, 80, 84, 85, 86, 100 (3), 102, 103(5), 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113(2)(b), 190,120, 123 and 133.

Perhaps, the controversy surrounding the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ should be examined taking into consideration how the yahapalana government abolished time-tested exchange control laws in 2017 and how it contributed to the current crisis.

Then what about private foreign exchange dealers who continue to enable the international drug mafia to freely convert their ill-gotten lucrative drug proceeds from rupees to hard currencies without any questions being asked.