Will govt. do this?

Monday 12th July, 2021

The Opposition has moved the Supreme Court against a controversial ban the government has imposed on public protests purportedly in view of the pandemic situation. Insisting that a directive issued by the Director General of Health Services, prohibiting such events, has violated their fundamental rights, farmers and others say protesting is the only way they can draw the government’s attention to their grievances. Hereafter, farmers will not be able to crank up pressure on the government to make available fertiliser. Consumers will have to resign themselves to exploitation by powerful rice mill owners who manipulate prices with impunity; it will not be possible for consumer rights activists to conduct public protests.

The best way the government could deal with its critics is to disappoint them by getting its act together and living up to people’s expectations; bans and other such measures are the least desirable option, which is counterproductive. True, street protesters are no respecters of the Covid-19 protocol. But it is obvious that the violation of health regulations is not the actual reason for the ban at issue, which we believe is politically motivated.

Farmers’ protests, however, have had the desired impact. The government has woken up to the need to take action to solve the fertiliser shortage. It has ordered three companies to release the stocks of fertiliser they have hoarded, or face the consequences. It should have put its foot down much earlier, but better late than never. One can only hope that the farmers who are prevented from conducting public protests will receive enough fertiliser soon to save their crops from destruction.

Now that the government has given the aforesaid companies a choice between releasing the stocks of fertiliser in their warehouses and facing legal action, will it take similar action against those who are hoarding rice? Let the government be urged to summon the three big millers accused of hoarding paddy—SLPP MP and former President Maithripala Sirisena’s brother, and associate, Dudley Sirisena (Araliya Mills), and L. J. Mitrapala (Ratna Mills) respectively, and State Minister and Sirisena’s relative, Siripala Gamlath (Nipuna Mills)—and tell them that they have the same choice as the fertiliser hoarding companies.

Meals and deals

A photo of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his predecessor, Ranil Wickremesinghe, having dinner together with some others is doing the rounds. Some netizens have blown it out of proportion, and claimed, citing previous instances of convivial meetings between the two leaders, that such events are proof of their camaraderie and even political deals. These critics do not seem to know much about political deals and how they are made in this country.

Meals that rival politicians or businessmen have together do not necessarily mean instances of deal making; our political leaders are not so naïve as to strike deals over meals and allow the pictures thereof to be released to the media. This, however, does not mean they do not cut political deals; they do. Politics and secret deals are joined at the hip.

Quid pro quo

is the name of the game in Sri Lankan politics, where the victor does not go the whole hog to destroy the vanquished politically. Many were the much-publicised probes the yahapalana government launched into serious allegations it levelled against the key members of the previous Rajapaksa government. Some court houses were kept open until midnight to remand the suspects arrested and bussed there by the CID and the FCID after being questioned for hours. At the rate arrests were made and probes conducted, one may have expected all crooks to be thrown behind bars. But nothing came of the grand probes, and cases filed were very weak. The current Rajapaksa government does not look so keen to have the Treasury bond racketeers punished in spite of its election promise to do so. The recommendations of the Easter Sunday Presidential Commission of Inquiry are being implemented very selectively. All this savours of political deals, which were certainly not made at dining tables.

Pictures of convivial gatherings where politicians shake hands, dine and wine may not bear silent witness to secret deals but these instances of enforced camaraderie offer lessons for the ordinary people who are divided by partisan politics and are at war with one another; they must not let politics ruin their relations with others. They should emulate their crafty leaders.