He make or break the SLFP?
Ticise SLFP's electoral reforms saying Cabinet approved it Concern over moves to present 20A as an urgent Bill sans public debate; 255-member House proposed
appeal to give him two days' time to return to them. "We never arrested you when you returned to Sri Lanka. We gave you the opportunity to come here. We cannot grant you more time since you were wanted for questioning for several weeks," a detective who recorded a 16-page statement told the younger Rajapaksa. A Police source claimed they feared giving time would have led to crowds converging at the Kaduwela Magistrate's Court to stage a protest. Basil Rajapaksa also said that if he was not arrested, he was prepared to remain in the FCID office overnight. His appeals were turned down.
There is an interesting aspect to these developments. If such a situation were to arise when the previous Government was in power, the resultant state media blitz would have branded those involved as "traitors" or anti national elements who were responsible for heinous crimes. But under the coalition Government's Yahapalanaya, in keeping with the pledge at presidential election, they had ensured a relatively free media. That, no doubt is a welcome move. In that climate, it is not only the ruling coalition that got its share of media exposure but those in the Opposition too. Whilst this should be the case, the Government's message particularly on the current investigations into cases of bribery, corruption and malpractices is not reaching the public. The previous Government ensured its MPs took part in television talk shows to keep such issues alive. They did so at public meetings and news conferences too. Even those dealing with the probes were asked to face the media. Surprisingly though, the ruling coalition appears to be more focused on news releases and that too on speeches and actions of their own leaders. This is whilst the Opposition receives its share of positive exposure. Despite the presence of known communication experts in their midst, that the UNP dominated Government faces a serious shortcoming in this field is an indictment on the leadership. They are either oblivious to realities or are too busy otherwise.
It is known that the troika running the country -President Sirisena, Premier Wickremesinghe and former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga -- have been discussing matters relating to investigations into bribery, corruption and other malpractices by the previous regime. They did focus on some serious cases but veered around to ensure that cases of bribery and corruption related to the previous Government be taken early. Whether this was part of their pre-election strategy is unclear. This is whilst some of the most serious cases have been left hanging and investigators kept guessing what to do next. Different leaders have adduced different reasons. In keeping with this move, a onetime high ranking official of the previous administration, the onetime head of a regulatory body and a member of the clergy are to be arrested in the coming week with regard to the alleged misappropriation of state funds amounting to Rs. 600 million. FCID investigators say the evidence in this case is overwhelming.
This is another reason why Sirisena, during his address to the nation made repeated references to fighting bribery and corruption. He wanted to make the point that neither he nor the Government had given up the fight. He declared, "I will take every step possible, especially to protect and strengthen the people's freedom and democracy and through these means eliminate corruption and fraud, thereby pro- tect the genuine rights of the people." He said, "Every action will be taken to reduce and eliminate corruption and fraud, theft or waste." He likened those people who preferred a corrupt system to those who wanted to remain as slaves when slavery was being abolished in America. They (meaning the previous leadership) misled the public when action is taken to eliminate corruption and fraud. Interesting enough, Sirisena is underscoring a point, though not consciously, that contributing to such a misleading situation is the lack of information disseminated by his Government. He could easily have overcome such a situation if he did harness the wider media support he has. Of course that is a responsibility for his coalition leaders too.
Other than his public plea to detractors in the SLFP, President Sirisena did explain himself on a variety of issues. Responding to his critics who said he lacked strength and was weak, he said "my behaviour in the last 100 days was not to use the unlimited powers that are available" to his office. "Why? Because you elected me to distribute this power. I came for that purpose. I came to remove the unlimited powers held by the Executive President." However, what is at issue is not the use or abuse of the executive powers of the Presidency. It is rather a question of how assertive he has been in guiding the state machinery against bribery, corruption and other acts. This is particularly in the light of various pressures being brought to bear on constituent leaders of the coalition and a public perception that the Government had relented on more serious cases.
He also devoted a substantial part of his speech to foreign policy issues to make the point that Sri Lanka was now not internationally isolated. They were "divided over us. They now place their trust in this Government, and me, just as you did, and believe that as Head of State I would protect the freedom of this country and its Democracy, Human Rights and Fundamental Rights." To back up his assertions he referred to his visits to India, Britain, China and Pakistan. What seemed a moot point was his remarks to questions on what has been done in the 100-Day Programme of Work. He replied "Some of these valuable actions are neither physical in nature nor visible to the eye."
Sirisena also sounded a note of caution to the media. He noted, "I recall how prior to January 8 those who yielded political power spoke to the heads of media institutions, news directors and news editors. Are we to transform the freedoms we have obtained to that of the wild ass? I see how some of the media institutions behave today. I am surprised how they use these freedoms in a wrong manner. It must be noted that we have firmly established the democratic rights of the people and the freedom of the media."
Sirisena's comments on the issue cannot be questioned. He is obviously unhappy about some media. However, it is pertinent to recall the sayings of at least two of his predecessors -- Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa. In the weeks and months after they assumed office, they vowed at different fora to protect media freedom but later became highly critical and went after it. Kumaratunga's tenure saw the killing of a tabloid journalist, serial criminal defamation cases being filed against editors and publishers and periodic clamp down of censorship where even the use of a map of Sri Lanka, available with tour operators the world over, was prohibited. In marked contrast, Rajapaksa publicly claimed that "there was no censorship" during his tenure. Privately, it was another story where different forms of pressure were used forcing media practitioners to practice self-censorship. Physical attacks, including murders of journalists were chronic. Sirisena's remarks nevertheless raise some concern.
If indeed there are errant media as he perceives, his advisors should have asked him to deal with them under the law. Sweeping remarks whether media freedom is the freedom of the 'wild ass' tend to reflect more on his image. It could be misconstrued to mean he was reacting to criticism against him as media's experience with his predecessors has shown. On the other hand, if indeed there has been abuse it is incumbent on his office to explain what they are.
More than the media, the internecine issues within the SLFP are the main cause for concern for Sirisena right now. In the event his MPs do not facilitate the passage of the 19A and thereafter the 20A, his choice is now clear. He would have to dissolve Parliament. His own credibility as a leader is at stake. Will he become a lame duck President? This raises more questions for him. MPs who did not support him face the risk of not receiving nominations for parliamentary elections. Will the SLFP dissenters who back Rajapaksa then rally round him to form a new party and contest both the SLFP and the UNP? That would be to the advantage of the UNP. Yet, with public sympathy veering the Rajapaksa way, the result of Government's own shortcomings, both Sirisena and his Government would have kicked into their own goal.