Features
Amendment 21A: President and Cabinet Responsible to Parliament
by Neville Ladduwahetty
During the course of a special televised statement, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is reported to have stated among other Amendments to 21A, an Amendment to make the President and the Cabinet of Ministers responsible/answerable to Parliament. Since other Amendments proposed are limited to reorganising one organ of government, the Parliament, what is addressed herein involves the relationship of two separately elected organs of government to which the Peoples of Sri Lanka assigned their sacred sovereignty, namely the Executive and the Legislature.
While Amendments or reforms relating to one organ of government such as the Parliament could be undertaken without seeking the opinion of the People, the question is whether powers Constitutionally assigned could be withdrawn from one organ and transferred to another without seeking the opinion of the People. Furthermore, since the intended 22A is supposed to abolish the Executive Presidency, the conclusion the public could rationally arrive at is that the Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister to make the President and the Cabinet responsible/answerable to Parliament, could be achieved without seeking the opinion of the People through a referendum.
OPINION of the SUPREME COURT
The unanimous judgment given by a panel of seven Supreme Court judges becomes aptly relevant. They stated in SC FR 351 – 3612/2018: “the first rule when interpreting Constitutions is that words in a statute must be given their ordinary meaning”. Based on this rule, while Article 3 states: “Sovereignty includes powers of government…”, Articles 4 (a) and 4 (b) state the specific powers of government assigned by the People to the Legislature and the Executive.
Article 4 (a) states: “the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People by a Referendum”. AND Article 4 (b) states: “the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People”.
It is in this background that the Determination of the Supreme Court in S.D. No. 04/2015 should be revisited in the event the President is to be responsible to Parliament. The Court stated: “In fact, Mr. Sumanthiran contended that Article 42 is identical to corresponding provision in the 1st Republican Constitution of 1972, which stated in Article 91 that “the President shall be responsible to the National State Assembly for the due execution and performance of the powers and functions of his office under the Constitution…. Thus, the position of the President vis-a-vis the legislature, in which the president is responsible to the legislature was left untouched by the 1978 Constitution.”
What is of serious concern is how Article 91 of the 1972 Constitution came to be incorporated “untouched” in the 1978 Constitution when the political systems under which the two Constitutions operated were as different as chalk and cheese. For instance, the 1972 Constitution specifically states in Article 4: “The sovereignty of the People is exercised through a National State Assembly… Article 5 states: “The National State Assembly is the supreme instrument of State power of the Republic. The National State Assembly exercises – (a) the legislative power of the People (b) the executive power of the People (c) the judicial power of the People”. Thus, the 1972 Constitution caters to a system that is based on a single “supreme instrument of State power. On the other hand, the 1978 Constitution caters to a system where the where powers of government are separated between the “Legislative power of the people” and the “Executive power of the people”. Under such circumstances, it is beyond comprehension how provisions applicable to the arrangement that recognizes a single authority of State power could possibly be also applicable to a system of government where the sovereign People gave a mandate to divide their sovereignty between separate organs of State power.
How such a provision where the sovereignty of the People is exercised by a single all – encompassing entity, the National State Assembly, in which the President elected by Parliament is responsible to the legislature REMAINS “untouched in the 1978 Constitution” in which the sovereignty of the People is exercised by a separately elected President and a separately elected Parliament as separate organs of government is a judicial conundrum. What is tragic is that this seriously flawed notion has persisted without question since 1978 and would continue if a bold initiative is not taken by the legal fraternity to correct this legislative misadventure.
If the first rule of interpretation is to go by the ordinary meaning and Article 42 remains, there is a strong possibility, however flawed, that the President and the Cabinet would become responsible/answerable to Parliament. This would mean that the Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister in 21A would be subject only to a 2/3 majority. The need for a referendum would not arise either on spurious grounds that Article 4 is not an entrenched Article even though Courts have repeatedly state that Article 4 should be read with Article 3, or on blindly accepting existing constitutional provisions without questioning fundamentals.
It is only if Courts indulge in the luxury of exploring fundamentals that they would realise that the inclusion of Article 42 in the 1978 Constitution is misplaced. This means that under provisions of the 1978 Constitution, the President cannot be responsible to Parliament. The only way the President is required to be responsible to Parliament is by seeking the consent of the Peoples through a Referendum.
JUDGEMENT RELATING to the CABINET
Another issue of concern relates to the Cabinet. The judgement in S.D. No. 04/2015 states: “The People in whom sovereignty is reposed have made the President as the Head of the Executive in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution entrusted in the President, the exercise of Executive power being the custodian of such power. If the People have vested such power on the President, it must either be exercised by the President directly or someone who derives authority from the President. There is no doubt that Executive power can be distributed to others via President. However, if there is no link between the President and the person exercising Executive power, it may amount to a violation of mandate given by the people to the President”.
Continuing the judgment states: “Though Article 4 provides the form and manner of exercise of the sovereignty of the People, the ultimate act or decision of his executive functions must be retained by the President. So long as the President remains the Head of the Executive, the exercise of his powers remain supreme or sovereign in the executive field and others to whom such power is given must derive the authority from the President or exercise Executive power vested in the President as a delegate of the President”.
Therefore, the conclusions that could be drawn from the judgment is that the Executive power of the President is independent of Parliament, and since the Cabinet derives its authority from the President, the Cabinet too must necessarily be independent of Parliament. Consequently, any attempt to alter this relationship between the President/Cabinet and Parliament must necessarily require an endorsement from by the people through a Referendum.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion that could justifiably be reached from the material presented above is that an Amendment that attempts to make the President to whom the people have unequivocally assigned part of their sovereignty to exercise their Executive power, responsible to Parliament to whom the People have assigned a separate part of their sovereignty, cannot be made without first seeking the consent of the people through a Referendum. Furthermore, since the Cabinet derives its authority from the President, the constraint that is applicable to the President is equally applicable to the Cabinet.
If the intent is to prevent an individual such as a President from exercising unfettered Executive power, Parliament could legislate broad benchmarks and guidelines for the Executive to abide by, and for Parliamentary Oversight Committees to monitor and report to Parliament. Such an arrangement would be in keeping with the core principles of the present Constitution.
The focus at this moment of desperation should not be to engage in a contest as to which branch has more power, but together focus on restoring the economy for the sake of the People. The notion that these Amendments are undertaken in response to the boisterous voice of some is a misplaced distraction because the concern of the silent majority is for essentials of livelihood that is not getting the attention it deserves. Therefore, the need of the moment is for both branches of government to work together without competing as to who has more power.
A suggestion that would have a significant impact on the overwhelming majority is availability of petroleum products. Therefore, instead of depending on credit lines, the government should take a bold initiative and consider negotiating with Russia to set up a refinery in Trinco of sufficient capacity to furnish local needs and export any excess. In the interim, Sri Lanka should negotiate with China to secure excess petroleum products in their possession due to devaluation of the yuan and the slow down of their economy due to COVID-19. Such interim arrangements should not be a concern for India, because LIOC already has 35% of Sri Lanka’s market share. Engaging with India, Russia and China to resolve Sri Lanka’s desperate energy needs would be in keeping with its Neutral Foreign Policy. It is only such bold initiatives that will prevent Sri Lanka from experiencing instability of a nature hitherto unknown.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
