By
Lucien Rajakarunanayake
If the visit to India by President Maithripala Sirisena, the first State visit abroad since his election as President, was a huge success, the recent visit to China has also shown the success of the foreign policy of Nonalignment that lays emphasis on friendship with all countries.
pic: parliament.lk
There were many doubts expressed about how good the reception in China would be, especially with concerns raised by the new government here about some development projects funded by China, the most important being the Colombo Port City; work on which has been suspended at present. There were also concerns about the Chinese reception because President Sirisena went there after defeating the person considered to be the closest friend of Beijing in all of South Asia, Mahinda Rajapaksa, under whose regime, China became the biggest donor for Sri Lankan development, as well as the biggest investor in infrastructure projects, especially highways.
In the event, it was a much more pragmatic China that received the Sri Lankan President, with a greater interest in maintaining close friendship, than raising issues that many, especially among those who still think in terms of the foreign policy of the Rajapaksa s regime, believed would sour the visit. What was seen during the visit by President Sirisena was that China considers it more important to maintain the strongest friendship with Sri Lanka, accepting the democratic change of government, while differences on matters of investment are resolved through negotiation that would best serve the interests of both countries.
President Sirisena’s successful visits to India and China, and the important visit to Sri Lanka by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have placed the country’s foreign relations on a new footing of better international understanding. This was seen by the reception received by President Sirisena during his visit to the UK to mark the Commonwealth Day celebrations, when he met with the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition of the UK, as well as the genuine Tamil Diaspora there, which made a significant opening to the European Union.
The new interest shown by the government in resolving issues of human rights, and the emphasis on post-conflict reconciliation, has also brought many friends to Sri Lanka, and a great deal of understanding of the need to support the moves for better democratization in the country, as well as support for good economic development, through foreign investment, and assistance such as the resuming of GSP plus and relaxation of the ban on fish exports to the European Union.
Port City – publicity
On the aspect of China-Sri Lanka business relations, while the company that has signed for the construction of the Colombo Port City has decided to take the matter to Twitter, and even hosted some Twitter bloggers at the site to give obtain the publicity it sought, there are issues that remain about the project not having the necessary reports of important environmental aspects, which that company maintains is the responsibility of Sri Lanka. However, there are many journalists, especially representing the foreign media in Sri Lanka, who have already expressed their own dissatisfaction about the opportunity given to Twitter bloggers to view the site, rather than to the representatives of the mainstream media, both Sri Lankan and international.
From a different perspective, there is also the issue of local contractors who had been hired for various infrastructure projects by the previous regime, work on which were suspended for a month, now agreeing to do such work for nearly 20 to 25 percent less than originally quoted and approved, (often without tenders). This will have an impact on some of the Chinese funded projects, too. What is interesting is where, or to whom, this percentage they are now ready to reduce would have gone to; had the government not changed, and the fight against corruption launched.
Caught in 100 days
While the 100 days keep speeding away, and many political commentators and wide sections of the media are till so full of the failure to reach the 100 day targets, recent developments indicate that much of the 100-Day promise is now being achieved, especially in the battle against corruption. There are many new and big names that are being probed by the new institutions established to fight corruption, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption is clearly calling up more people with big names and even bigger connections for questioning.
The constant talk of “deals” that are being worked out within government to protect the biggies in bribery and corruption, cannot have much sway when orders have been issued to bring Basil Rajapaksa to the courts, Sajin de Vaas Gunewardena has been given bail by the courts and his passport impounded, and Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s bank accounts are being probed on court orders. There are also truly big names allegedly involved in the hedging deal in petroleum – Ajith Nivard Cabraal and P. B. Jayasundera are both being questioned, and the matter of the highly controversial issue of Treasury Bonds has been taken up to the Supreme Court by three much respected citizens.
Another key 100-Day promise, in fact the most important one, that of the changes to the Constitution to remove the exorbitant powers of the Executive Presidency, is very hopefully on the way to realization with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which is now tabled in Parliament.
In keeping with the very nature of democracy there is a strong debate over important aspects of the 19th Amendment, and much of this has now been placed before the Supreme Court. The Court’s rulings on the petitions before it will help in the expected debate in Parliament over this amendment, and there are good signs that there will also be important amendments moved in Parliament, at the Committee Stage, to make this Amendment more effective and democratic in practice.
Executive Presidency
The issue this is drawing more attention in the current debate is about the powers of the President under the 19th Amendment. There are some, who believe its provisions allow for the emergence of an Executive Prime Minister, with no powers for the President, which they see as going against the pledge given to the people in the campaign for the January 8 poll. Others hold the different view that a good democratic and parliament-led process of government, should gave more powers given to the Prime Minister.
This debate seems to be a tainted with political colouring, more than constitutional thinking, and it does seem strange to see people who called for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, now wanting it retained, ostensibly with reduced powers. One hopes that the manifesto of Maithripala Sirisena is read very carefully by these critics of 19A, and takes good note of the people’s mood when they voted to defeat an Executive President who had clearly gained too much power to sustain the democratic process.
What seems to be at the core of much of this debate is the composition of Parliament today, with a new contest for the office of Leader of the Opposition, which has come into sharper focus with the crossover of 26 members of the SLFP to government, forming a Grand Coalition, described as National Government.
There is certainly a public criticism of what many see as the creepy and crawly action of SLFP members who were on the fence during the presidential poll campaign, and even worse, were some of the most vulgar public critics of Maithripala Sirisena, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe at that time. Regrettably, one has to admit that such is the nature of politics in the country today, where profit appears be much more important in peoples’ representation than in business.
Larger bandwagon
There are indications today that there could be more from the SLFP to join the bandwagon of “governance”, by way of profitable office. With the indications that the dissolution of Parliament could not be very far away, this must be seen as a desperate move at profit through governance, seen at its worst.
Yet, one must also be conscious of an important reality. Maithripala Sirisena did seek election to bring about Good Governance. The promise of Good Governance cannot be achieved without a necessary change of the Constitution. It is now clear that the people have a price to pay, much more than the trek to the poll, to ensure that this change takes place. That price is the cost of obtaining a two-thirds majority needed to pass the 19A in Parliament. What is seen today is that the call is for Constitutional Change. The need is for a two-thirds majority. The price for this is what can only be seen as institutionalized bribery by way of profitable office. Let’s hope that by paying this heavy price, we can build a political culture where such institutional bribery by the State shall never be seen again.
Courtesy:Daily News