Equal opportunities for all

Eighteenth Amendment for many practical reasons:

Lanka has very strong institutions:

External Affairs Minister Prof Gamini Lakshman Peiris in conversation with Asia Society Executive Vice President Tamie Metzl in New York on September 27, 2010

Q: My first question to you is, if you were a Sri Lankan Tamil who opposed and condemned the violence of the LTTE, but also felt that Sri Lankan Tamils and other minorities were not being treated equally and fairly by the Government of Sri Lanka. If you felt that way, how do you interpret the Government of Sri Lanka’s actions over the past years and how would you feel about your place in Sri Lankan society today and in the future?

A: Well I think the most convincing answer to that was given by somebody who spoke to you in this very hall not so long ago. One of our most distinguished professional is an architect by the name of Angelendran. He happened to be a friend of mine, I know him. I was told that he came here just as I did, he spoke to you and a question was put to him on these lines. “You produced such magnificent work and his work is really magnificent, “how was it possible for you as a Tamil oppressed as you are in Sri Lanka, how was it possible for you to produce work of this quality?” and I was told that Angelendran has given an answer which I think is quite remarkable in many ways. He said, ‘alright I was born a Tamil but, I am a Sri Lankan and I have had every opportunity to engage in my profession and to achieve the heights of excellence as I have done. Nobody stood in my way. There was no discrimination. I was not threatened or discouraged and that it is the answer I am giving you. That is all.

In Sri Lanka we have equality of opportunity, we have free education, from the kindergarten to the University, Tamils have reached the zenith of attainment, in many walks of life, in politics, in professions, in banking, in entrepreneurship, in civil society and that is a demonstrable fact. The LTTE was not really fighting for the rights of Tamils at all. I would vigorously contest that because the LTTE has a claim to exclusivity that was the crux of it, right? The LTTE had claimed that they were the sole an exclusive exponents of the rights, culture and heritage of the Tamil people and anybody that came in the way had to be physically annihilated. So we had Tamil leaders, many of you in the United States are familiar with the name of Neelan Thiruchelvam who was a fellow student in the University of Ceylon before he went to Harvard on Fulbright scholarship, and I went to Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship and our paths crossed again when we entered politics in the same year, in 1994, we both came into the Parliament in the same year.

He was brutally killed. Now when I was handling the peace process on the behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka, my counterpart the late Dr Anton Balasingham in a private conversation with me in Thailand, while we were having coffee together, in spirit of a mea culpa he told me, that the LTTE were very sorry that they have killed Neelan Thirichelvam because he is somebody who might have been very useful, had he been around (inaudible) of course came too late. So one must not confuse these things. It is not as though the Tamils are discriminated against, the Tamils are oppressed, there is tyranny and the LTTE are saviours of the cause of the Tamil people.

The LTTE simply decimated the Tamils who did not agree with the LTTE. Today there is equality of opportunity. The President recently told me why don’t you talk to your friends in the university, in professions, Tamils we would like to welcome them to politics. Earlier it could not happen, it could not be done because they had legitimate fear for their lives. That would be destroyed, it is no longer the case. Well just observe what will happen in Sri Lanka in the next two three years, we will find Tamils who are respected, looked up to by their community, coming into politics more and more. There will be equality of opportunity simply because the LTTE is not around to threaten them and that is very much the reality of the situation that is developing in Sri Lanka today.

Q: And I think that certainly myself and I would imagine, most everybody in this room has no sympathy for the LTTE and were happy to see them gone. I would also imagine that there are either people in this room or watching online in Sri Lanka or elsewhere, who might say that your characterization of the role in the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka is something that they may not agree with. And may be as questioned one rather than putting words in anyone else’s mouth, if there are people who would question the characterization of the position of Tamils in Sri Lanka today, I think your point is very fair, may be if you have a comment on that, lets have that as on category of comments, but we will certainly take you at your word and everybody whose concerned at the brutality that the LTTE showed towards Tamils themselves and moderates who would have played a very constructive role in building society, and yet in your remarks, you talked about terrorism as the cause of the problems and the divisions that Sri Lanka had and yet there is a whole history and obviously the Sinhala supremists movement and the language issues, there were a lot of legitimate grievances, perhaps certainly illegitimate expressions, but some of those grievances were believe, it were legitimate and needed to be, as some would say perhaps, and I would say, there are still ways to go in addressing them and no society is perfect.

United States is far from perfect. One of the approaches you mentioned was the 13th Amendment in 1987. That time there was a philosophy at least that the devolution of power, the de-centralization, was one mechanism, for allowing people to feel empowered and that their voices are heard. There are many who are critical today of the implementation of the 13th Amendment. So my question to you is, do you accept the concept that devolution of some power to the provinces is a key not ‘the’ key to lasting peace in Sri Lanka, and if so, do you believe that the 13th Amendement is, and you briefly mentioned these in your remarks, being adequately implemented?

A: No it hasn’t been adequately implemented over the years but that is part of existing law, so I don’t think anybody would question that some degree of devolution is necessary. It has been implemented in some respects, not fully. Many governments have ruled the country during the last 25 years and now we have this unique situation since 1977, now we have for the first time in Sri Lanka, a Government that has a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Government has now roughly about 161 members supporting it in a Parliament of 225. That’s little more than two-thirds. Now the significance of that is that the first time in a quarter of a century, we have in Sri Lanka a Government with the legal capability to change the Constitution. So that is a unique opportunity. So that is why we are eager to have an open dialogue with the Tamil community and with the other minority communities as well. Of course what is sought to be implemented must also have the support of the majority community and it was the lack of that which inhibited implementation in the past. So I think we need to decide what is the point of departure. Where do you begin? I think you begin by holding free and fair elections which we are doing, without LTTE terror. You then talk to the people who emerge from that process as the legitimate representatives of the Tamil people. That opportunity is now available. And once you decide on a set of proposals that command the acceptance of the country at large, well the government today has the capability to implement it. Several attempts were made in the past, notably in the year 2000, in August 2000 to implement far reaching changes but that failed because of the lack of 2/3rds majority. Now that constraint is no longer there, so I would suggest that is the way to set about it.

Q Over the past year Sri Lanka has seen a massive centralization of Presidential power. Many people would agree, at least as observer, that seems to be the case, with the 18th Amendment that recently became law, abolishes term limits for the Executive Presidency which, it’s certainly an issue which we have struggled with both in this country and even in this city. Yet, it’s a critical issue in many democracies.

It weakens the restrains on the power of the 17th Amendment and it empowers the President to appoint many Commissions that the President wasn’t empowered to appoint previously, including elections, national police, human rights, ombudsman.... and then the list goes on. This happens in addition to the increasingly powerful role the family of the President is playing, the President himself is personally in charge of several key Ministries, Defence, Public Security, Law and Order, Finance, Planning, Religious Affairs, his brother Basil is the Economic Development Minister, his brother Chamal is the Speaker of Parliament, his son Namal is a member of Parliament (elected by the people - MEA... interruptions....). His brother Gotabhaya is the Secretary of Defence, in-charge of Security Forces as well as recently taken on supervision of the Attorney General Office and responsibility for NGO Secretariat and Urban Development Department. So this seems a lot of centralization. The Centre for Policy Alternatives.... (Inaudible) if I can just say,.... but my question is (inaudible).... you probably even know the quote I am about so say...... “.... the Centre of Policy Alternatives has called the 18th Amendment at assault on Constitutional Democracy...... (Inaudible)”. My question to you, is a year after the victory of the civil war, two stunning electoral wins, why is so much emphasis being put on centralization of power and does this come a the expense of the ideas of devolution that you have (interruptions.... ‘no... no’) and secondly, how does this fit into overall sense of checks and balances which is so important to the long-term functioning of a democracy.

A: You know there are several misunderstandings that are kind of implied in that series of questions. Now, the 18th Amendment was necessary for many practical reasons. Now you spoke all Commissions. I think you are referring 17th Amendment, which set up these Commissions and provided for a certain modality to appoint them. It never happened on the ground.

Not many people are aware that when the 17th Amendment was set to the Supreme Court to be tested for constitutionality, the Supreme Court in its judgment made an observation which turned out to be prophetic. They said this simply can’t work on the ground and we envision, not as a matter of mere likelihood or probability, but as a matter of virtually certainty that this will break down. Why? Because for the 17th Amendment to be implemented, there had to be agreement among an array of Opposition political parties, about who was going to be appointed to the Constitutional Council, that agreement was never forthcoming. Then all these parties got together and appointed Committee of Parliament which was mandated to find a practical solution to this problem.

There had many, many sittings but up to now they had not be able, all of them together, to sign a set of proposals which commanded the acceptance of all of them. So you had a situation in which this elaborate machinery has totally broken down. But, we believe the Commissions are necessary. They are a salutatory instrument and now we have made provision for the President to appoint the Commissions after full consultation with the Parliamentary Committee.

A Parliamentary Council consisting of the Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, a representative of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as a representative of the Prime Minister, that is essentially a much more democratic mechanism than a Constitutional Council which consists of people outside who are put on that body for no other reason than their political affiliation. The whole premise of your question is, that was democratic, this is not. How can you possibly argue that de-politicization is going to be achieved by a Constitutional Council whose composition is directly and overtly based on party politics? You can pick up anybody and put him on the Constitutional Council. He is a nominee of a political party, responsible and accountable to nobody other than the political party that appointed him. It is impossible to suggest, that is an acceptable way of achieving de-politicization. Now instead of that, we have put in place a mechanism that is going to work and don’t forget that Sri Lanka has very strong institutions and it is wrong to be cynical.

Now at the height of the war, I am not talking about now, but at the height of the war, the Supreme Court handed down a judgement which declared that road blocks are illegal. At that time, the Government decided to have roadblocks in the city of Colombo to prevent LTTE cadres from moving around and bombing people out of existence. Now organizations like CPA who are fond of litigation and go to a Court asking for various remedies, now one of those organizations, I’m not saying it is the CPA, somebody went to Court and the Court then said ‘dismantle all of this, it is illegal.’

Government said we think this is going to lead to the loss of many lives. But the Supreme Court in its wisdom has declared that this must be done and because we don’t want to challenge the authority of the Supreme Court, with great reluctance and with many misgivings, we are giving effect to this judgement which we know will result in mass murder. That happened. Lots of people got killed. So it is a country with established institutions, very vigorous, virile, assertive and the Executive has always respected even decisions which we knew were going to cause immeasurable harm. So the 18th Amendment is not a denial of freedom, it is simply a way of putting in place salutary mechanisms in a way that would work.

Now the other one, I don’t think that’s fair. Basil Rajapaksa, the brother of the President was elected with the largest majority in the second most popular region in the country. I think in terms of preference votes, he got something like 75 percent of the votes that were polled by his party. The President’s son Namal topped the list easily in the Southern Province. Now being the President’s brother or the President’s son is not a qualification.

It is surely also not a disqualification. So now, these are people who have got into Parliament as a result of the votes of the people. Well, John Kennedy appointed his brother Robert as the Attorney General. He wanted someone he trusted. So dynasties are not exclusively a phenomenon in Sri Lankan politics. What about the Bushes, what about the Kennedys, why are we talking only about Sri Lanka? (applause) So I don’t think that is fair. This is human nature. I don’t think human nature changes that much from North America to South Asia. Look at the Bhuttos of Pakistan, the Gandhis of India, look at the Akinos of Philippines.

Corozon Akino, now her son is the President of the Philippines. Why zero in on Sri Lanka and make out that Sri Lanka is doing something horrendous. The human nature in Sri Lanka is, after all, not very different from the human nature in your own country and in many other parts of the planet.

There I would certainly agree to that point about human nature. Yet I would suggest that in any country, whether in Pakistan or in Philippines or here in the United States, if one power, one family, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Clintons or the Ramsey Elliots began to amass so much power, then there would need to be some process, democratic or otherwise, to challenge that. To be continued