A Reply to Harsha de Silva

By Charles S.Perera

It is strange to see the present ragtags-the remnants of the former Yahapalanaya who ridiculed democracy, and devastated the country politically,economically, and socially for four and half years,  now thundering in the parliament and out side about a disappearing democracy they in fact seem to know nothing about.

Among the remnants  of the Yahapalanaya now in the opposition are some who are supposed to be educated. But the question is, are they wise.  Wisdom is not what you put inside as knowledge, but what comes out from that accumulated knowledge. But these yahapalanaya remnants lack that wisdom to think and evaluate circumstances from past experiences.  These are the ones who came to parliament in 2015 thanks to the traitorous midnight escape of Maithripala Sirisena from SLFP to the opposition to be their common Presidential Candidate.   If not for Maithripala Sirisena  none of them would have been in parliament  then or now. 

But they have no gratitude for that.  The yahapalanaya remnants are now seeking  their own salvation by throwing on to scaffold President Maithripala Sirisena who enabled them to become  parliamentarians,  as responsible for the massacre of  Easter Sunday. Aren't they all init under the doctrine of  collective responsibility ?

These partners of the former Yahapalanaya little realise they as members of the Yahapalanaya  are all responsible for that massacre of the innocents, more Harin Fernando who now breys louder than ever, forgetting that he had failed in his duty to God and Country, by  having failed to inform the Archbishop what his father had warned him not to do that Easter Sunday.

There is Harsha de Silva with a doctorate to decorate his name, who talks without reflecting or trying to understand the real issue with the presentation of the  20th Amendment. He as an intelligent man should not be swayed by emotions. When he led the footnote group at the COPE he showed how much he is involved in all the degenerative political maneuvers of the RanilW led Yahapalanaya-the Bank robbery, mismanagement of the government, Easter massacre, involvement in the MCC, Singapore Trade Agreement,  selling of Hambantota Harbour,  negotiating to sell the Colombo Port East Terminal to India etc.

Lets see what Harsha de Silva  with a doctorate tells about 20A. He speaks about removing the National Procuration Commission and curtailing the powers of the Auditor General which he says is inviting corruption. If he would read the 20A alongside the Constitution he would see that removal of the 19th Amendment has put the Constitution to what it was before the introduction of the 19th Amendment. The functions of the Auditor general will continue as it had been before. In tender procedures new transparent methods with modern  technology could be adopted.

The difficulties arise also  from the fact that the opposition has not placed the same trust on the President Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the large majority of people have placed their trust on him, as evidently shown through the Presidential and then the Parliamentary Elections. The Opposition should respect the large majority of the people who voted to elect the President,  and then give a near two third majority at the parliamentary elections.. 

The Opposition led by Sajith Premadasa who is known to think differently takes his position as the leader of the Opposition on the belief that the  Parliament is a place to criticise the Government and to show the people that what the President is doing is not in the interest of the country and the people but to look after the interest and the benefits of the Rajapaksa family.

 If the members of the opposition have peanut sized  brains they will know that in the Parliament there is no family, but parliamentarians elected by the people. The people know this and they are no more concerned with this “family talk” except those supporting the UNP, and the SJB.

Harsha de Silva and his former yahapalanaya colleagues  should get out of their box to understand that the democratic  role of the opposition in parliament is other than being aggressive and jumping to criticism. They should instead  follow Ranil's Lichchavi approach which unfortunately he failed to put into practice. The Parliament should be a place where there is an intellectual approach to any problem giving place to a rich  dialogue , discussion, constructive criticism, suggesting different approaches to the problem under discussion. 

This approach even the JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayaka seems not to know.  He spent 28 minutes in the well of the parliament shouting at the speaker and those who raised objections  taking pride in the fact that he  is the person who has made many speeches and stood up long haranguing  accusing the members of the government. He seemed to be happy with his role which for an outsider is really foolish. He spoke nothing of value or interest.  These parliamentarians have to change their attitudes and become responsible members of the opposition. They should contribute memorable speeches, make workable suggestions  without talking like hooligans.

Harsha de Silva was not even sure of his facts.  He was speaking  in praise of the 19A and its procurement guidelines, conceding that there were issues regarding the Procurement Commission. If there are issues why not adopt a new transparent system outside Commissions.  Why always think in terms of corruption when the emphasis should be on using efficient foolproof methods that will eliminate corruption.

Harsha de Silva is not true to himself when he says that “ the public should not buy into the view  that the 19th Amendement was a barrier to effective governance and economic growth. Harsha de Silva in trying to defend 19A is displaying his inability to evaluate the circumstances that led to the failure of Yahapalanaya. With 19A Yayhapalanaya could neither continue to govern,  nor  go forward with the absurdity of the it. If Harsha de Silva is now singing hosannas to 19A as an effective efficient piece of legislature he is not worthy of the Doctorate he  adds before his name. It is here Harsha de Silva should show his intelligence. 19A was an obstacle and a  failure- the Commissions were not functioning as they should, Commissions made wrong appointments, there was an inefficient  parliament not functioning for the benefit of the people, taking wrong decisions, signing wrong contracts, and the President could not dissolve it. It had to continue on its path of destruction   for four and a half years. Was that democracy ? Has one heard of such a parliament anywhere else in the world ?  

And that is what Harsha de Silva supports and praises and tells the people not to buy into the view that the 19Amendment  was a barrier to effective government and economic growth.  Harsha de Silva where did you see effective governance  and economic growth during the past four and a half years from 8 January 2015 ?  You display your inability to see things as they were and try to fool the people, Harsha de Silva.

The 20A then he criticises without giving adequate reasons imaging things reading beyond the text. He imagines what the Parliamentary Committee to replace the Constitutional Council  proposed in the 20A would be like imagining how it would function and how the President would react to observations made by the committee.  Are these valid arguments against 20A ?

These are meaningless arguments. He could make suggestions which are more democratic. He says that SJB and the government differ on the need to have civil society persons. But have the civil society representatives been useful during the last four years ? They were  accused of being NGOs.

In jumping to criticise the 20A, Harsha de Silva  takes an aggressive path instead of making suggestions to change the Amendment . Why stand against it when the 20A is only a proposal and you expected to make suggestions to change it ?  The Opposition will stand against it , de Silva says, but  that is the wrong way of looking at it . Why stand against it ? Is it because you take the role of the  opposition,  as a role  to  stand against  proposals by the Government ? Harsha de Silva,   in democracy there should be constructive criticism, discussion and compromise ? That is how it should be with the 20th Amendment. 

But Harsha de Silva says that he is  against the 20th Amendment.  If one starts having already decided where one  stands on the  20th Amendment,  then democracy cannot function as it should. One should instead start with an open mind looking at the issue  objectively. That should be the quality of a good politician. 

“ The theoretical relationship between compromise and democratic regimes (is) that ... of arriving through discussion at political agreement with one's opponent …”

The Government had explained that the 20th Amendment removes the 19th Amendment, to make the constitution what it was before the 19th Amendment was introduced.  Therefore the Auditor General will function with all legal paraphernalia as he did before the introduction of the 19th Amendment. In that there is no weakening of the Auditor General's functions.

Harsha de Silva is creating mental images of what would happen and jumping to conclusions. If he gives more thought to facts,  and figures out  issues intelligently he will see that nothing has changed after removal of 19A except that the constitution has gone back to what it had been before.  There is no rule that says a member of the opposition should be the heads of COPE and COPA. 

Harsha de Silva is merely criticising for the sake of criticism.  He as an experienced politician and with a Doctorate in addition should know that the opposition has to allow the Parliamentary Democracy to Function. The President and the Government have been elected for five years and they should be allowed to continue to rule the country for the scheduled period of time. The opposition is not to put barriers against the government, with the intention of toppling it. 

But an intelligent leader of the Opposition would  contribute for  a healthy political dialogue , discussion and compromise to come to political agreement. 

Harsha de Silva accuses the government is deploying 20A under a smokescreen to fool the people.  The people understand , but it is the opposition that seems to have not understood.

Harsha de Silva and Yahapalanaya  had tried in different ways from the day the President was sworn in,  to stop the President from taking up his duties to carry forward his proposals for the development of the country. Even today the role of the opposition has taken a different path from democracy,  to hinder the President from continuing to rule the country.

Now the latest gimmick to embarrass the government on 20A is demanding who is the author of the Amendment. as  it is on that, the validity of the Amendment depends.  These are normally prepared by the legal draftsman based on the instructions issued after Cabinet approval.  Therefore the cabinet as a whole helped in the preparation of the 20th Amendment.