• PC polls likely in December or January 2022 

• Group of 11 govt. allies meet to discuss PC polls 

• 11 allied parties to hold joint May Day rally 

•  US releases report on SL human rights 

• Govt. and China to prioritise BRI projects 

The Government is currently laying the groundwork to move forward from the whole United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution saga and focus has been laid on the holding of the delayed provincial council elections.  The Government, however, is yet undecided on the electoral system under which to conduct the provincial council (PC) elections with new amendments being presented before the Cabinet of Ministers for consideration. The proposals presented are to hold the elections either under the old system or to amend the PC Elections Act and hold the elections under a new hybrid system.  Minister of Public Services, PCs, and Local Government Janaka Bandara Tennakoon had presented two proposals to the Cabinet during the end of March. One was to hold the impending elections under the old electoral system and the other to hold the polls under a proposed new hybrid electoral system.  However, the discussion on the draft bill was postponed by a week until last week’s Cabinet meeting since the Cabinet of Ministers had requested time to study the contents of the proposed draft bill.  “The cabinet paper presented by the Minister has made two proposals. One is to adopt the new draft bill that was presented to Cabinet last week or to proceed with the old system, which is the proportional representation (PR) system,” sources said.  According to the new draft, 70% of the members elected to PCs will be on the electorate basis, while parties that were unable to win electorates will be assigned the remaining 30%. When questioned as to whether the process pertaining to the latter 30% would be on the PR system, the source noted that although it was a hybrid electoral system, it cannot exactly be called a PR system. “Once the electorate is won by one party, the remaining 30% will be proportionately divided among the parties that could not win the electorate,” the source explained. It is learnt that the Government is determined to hold the PC elections, although when that would be is yet undecided. However, government sources say that the elections are likely to be held after October this year, since there are several pieces of legislation that would need to be amended.  However, when the cabinet paper on the draft PCs amendment bill was taken up at last week’s Cabinet meeting, Ministers Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Dr. Bandula Gunawardana, and Dullas Alahapperuma had opposed the proposal of having three candidates per party, per electorate/seat. Gammanpila had explained that the proposed hybrid system in the cabinet paper would defeat the requirement of having one candidate responsible for an electorate as well as further intensifying the battle for preferential votes.  However, Ministers Johnston Fernando, Rohitha Abeygunawardena, and Pavithra Wanniarachchi have opposed the views put forward by Gammanpila.  Weerawansa had then noted that it was not appropriate for the Cabinet to make a final decision on the method to hold the PC elections since there are many political parties that are represented in Parliament that are not part of the Cabinet.  To overcome the stalemate, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has proposed holding a party leaders’ meeting to make a final decision on the amendment.   The President has requested Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, who had joined the Cabinet meeting from his residence via Zoom, to hold a party leaders’ meeting to reach a final decision on the electoral system for the PC elections.  The decision on the cabinet paper was therefore once again postponed. The Prime Minister is currently recovering from a surgery and although the party leaders’ meeting was to be convened prior to this week’s Cabinet meeting, the meeting was not convened as of Saturday (3).  Also, the delimitation process has hit a legal snag, making it impossible to conduct the polls in terms of the present law in force.  Meanwhile, Election Commission (EC) Chairman Nimal G. Punchihewa had told the media that the Commission was yet to be officially informed about any government decision to hold the PC elections.  He had said that the elections could be held soon only if an amendment to the existing Act is passed in Parliament.  According to a senior government source, the elections are likely to be held around December this year or January 2022. The process of presenting the proposed new draft bill on PCs to Parliament for approval is likely to take close to two months. Once the bill is enacted, the delimitation process is expected to take at least three months. Once the delimitation report is publicised, a period of one month is granted for appeals. Once the delimitation process is completed, it would take at least two months to hold the elections.  This entire process is likely to place the time frame for elections around this December. However, the GCE Ordinary Level (O/L) examination scheduled for December is likely to push the election to around January next year.  Nationalists object  Several leading Buddhist monks who played a key role in ensuring the victory of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Government, last week objected once again to the Government’s move to hold the delayed PC elections. These monks expressed their objection in writing to President Rajapaksa.  The monks had claimed there was no need to hold elections to the now defunct PCs. The letter was written by Ven. Omare Kassapa, Ven. Muruththettuwe Ananda, Ven. Bengamuwe Nalaka, Ven. Kirama Vimalajothi, Ven. Prof. Iththedemaliye Indasara, Ven. Prof. Medagoda Abhayatissa, Ven. Prof. Malwane Chandarathana, Ven. Hegoda Vipassi, Ven. Welimitiyawe Gnanarathana, and Ven. Dr. Kapugollawe Ananda Kiththi Thero.  According to the monks, the Government should focus on formulating and implementing the proposed new constitution before moving to hold PC elections.  In the letter, several key points were noted by the monks to justify their call to not hold elections until a new constitution is adopted.  Following are the points highlighted in the letter: 

1.   There’s a high probability of changes being made to the structure and powers vested with the PCs in the proposed new constitution. Hence PC elections should be held according to the provisions in the new constitution under its new legal framework. It is not justifiable to hold elections under the old system in such a scenario. 
2.   Even if PC elections are held without giving due space for a new constitution that is expected by the public, a new bill would be required to abolish the preferential voting system, which is another expectation of the people. If such a bill is to be hurriedly approved to hold this election, it would result in grave issues over delimitation that would in turn cause a risk of electorates being divided on ethnic and religious lines. Therefore, holding elections under the old laws according to the old electoral system would also go against the wishes of the people. It would therefore be logical to prepare a new bill in line with the new structure and powers for the provinces that would be outlined in a new constitution. 
3.   The public would be displeased with the Government if it moves to hold a non-essential election purely for political reasons in the backdrop of a threat of a third Covid-19 wave. 
4.   The PC elections were postponed during the former Government’s tenure. Therefore, the blame of delaying PC elections cannot be placed on the incumbent Government. In such a scenario, the holding of elections as an emergency due to the fear of being blamed for delaying the holding of PC elections is not justifiable. 
5.   There were no public protests over the lack of functional PCs during the last three years. Hence, there won’t be any space for public protests if the elections are postponed till the adoption of a new constitution. 
6.   It is important for the Government to invest in ways to expand economic opportunities for the public at a time when the country is facing an economic crisis. It is therefore not suitable for the Government to spend public funds amounting to around Rs. 5 billion to hold PC elections. 

The letter by the monks was also copied to all parliamentarians.   However, with focus being laid on the proposed new constitution, a senior governing party legislator has expressed concerns over the long-drawn process of formulating the legislation.  Constitutional law expert, MP Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe (PC), stated in an interview with The Morning: “If you are going to make a constitution in two years, at least in four months, the draft should be released. But four months have passed, and even the foundation of the new constitution is not yet there. Specialised groups or committees cannot make constitutions – nowhere in the world has this happened. The Indian Constitution was drafted through a constitutional council from within the Parliament, under Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. In 1786, 13 states in the US got together and asked James Madison to make the Constitution. In Sri Lanka in 1948, the Soulbury Commission Council drafted a constitution. In 1972, when Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike wanted to change the Constitution, she faced a problem, as the Soulbury Commission said that it could not be done. That is why Madam Srimavo went for a revolutionary constitutional drafting method and made one from outside the Parliament, through a constitutional council, under Colvin R. De Silva. That occurred outside the common law. J.R. Jayewardene didn’t have a problem during his time, because in 1972, a clause was added on how to change the Constitution or make a new one – through a two-thirds majority.”  He has further noted: “In 1972, one of Madam Sirimavo’s main promises was to make Sri Lanka a sovereign country through a republic constitution – she asked for two-thirds from the people and she got it due to this reason. J.R. Jayawardene also said that he wanted an executive presidency and asked for power and similarly, the people gave two-thirds – both of those governments got a clear majority and they kept their promises. J.R. Jayawardene did not appoint a committee but he drafted it using A.J. Wilson – the son-in-law of S.J.V. Chelvanayagam. He drafted it in a month. Today, we have given one year for a committee to make a constitution but that means even a proposal cannot be expected in one year.”  Rajapakshe had also made an interesting comment saying that the Government would not be able to implement a new constitution and that it would lack the required votes in Parliament.  Allies meet separately  With government moves to hold PC elections this year, a group of allies of the SLPP Government met last Thursday (1) evening at MP Tiran Alles’ office on Rosmead Place, Colombo 7, to discuss the current political situation in the country.  The group of 11 political party leaders affiliated to the SLPP alliance, first met in February, following the controversy surrounding a statement made by National Freedom Front (NFF) Leader Minister Wimal Weerawansa and calls by some SLPPers to oust Weerawansa from the Government.  The group met on several occasions afterwards and decided to maintain their alliance as a pressure group on the Government.  Last Thursday’s meeting was attended by 11 governing party leaders including Weerawansa, Dayasiri Jayasekara, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Gammanpila, D.E.W. Gunasekera, Prof. Tissa Vitharana, M. Athaullah, Gevindu Kumaratunga, Asanga Navaratne, and Alles.  The group had discussed the current political situation in the country as well as the growing dissention among the public over the rising cost of living. Afterwards, the discussion had focused on the impending elections.  Since PC elections are likely to be delayed till the end of this year, the group had decided to discuss the matter at a future meeting.   The group had also discussed the possibility of taking some proactive action targeting this year’s May Day. The party leaders have discussed the holding of a joint May Day rally this year and agreed to further discuss the matter at the next meeting.  The next meeting of the 11 party leaders is likely to take place this week.  The first two meetings of the party leaders were hosted by the NFF (Weerawansa), the next two meetings by the Communist Party (Gunasekera), and the last meeting by the National People’s Front (Alles). The sixth meeting of the group is to be hosted by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).  SLFP gearing to take charge  The main coalition partner of the Government, the SLFP, last week launched its aggressive reforms process. The programme was launched last Tuesday (30 March) after a visit to the Dalada Maligawa by the party’s Central Committee members and meeting with the Mahanayaka Thero.  The delegation was led by Party Leader, former President, MP Maithripala Sirisena. After the visit to Kandy, the SLFPers held a workshop in Matale where the current political situation as well as party reforms were discussed in detail.   The main objective of the reforms process, as explained by Sirisena, was to launch the programme aimed at forming a future SLFP-led Government.   Meanwhile, the SLFP last week also handed over its proposals to the proposed new constitution.  The SLFP has covered all key areas in its proposals and had made several key political proposals as well.  Some of the salient features among the proposals are that devolution should be carried out at district level through district councils. According to the proposal, there would be one minister for each council along with the council members.  Electoral reforms have also been proposed by the SLFP. Under the proposal, a mixed electoral system that is on first-past-the-post and proportional representation (70% and 30% respectively) is to be introduced.  The party has also proposed the formation of a second chamber that would include the district ministers as well as several other members, similar to the former senate.  Minimum mandated women’s representation of 25% is to be applied to all bodies that represent the public.  Another proposal was to limit the number of cabinet ministers to 30 and the inclusion of the portfolios in the constitution to ensure uniformity and continuation of policies.   All international agreements should be presented to Parliament and ratified by the House, according to the SLFP.  As for the executive presidency, the SLFP has proposed to retain the executive presidency albeit with amendments to the powers vested with the post.  The responsibility of addressing issues pertaining to animal cruelty and the environment is to be solely vested with the government and head of state.  In relation to the judiciary, the SLFP has posed that provincial high courts be vested with the authority to hear cases related to human rights to ensure the effective hearing of such cases and permitting appeals and other matters to be taken up in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.   In order to address grievances of members of the judiciary, the SLFP has noted the importance of setting up a new system for members of the judiciary to appeal in the event they feel unfairly treated by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).  Mangala’s take  Meanwhile, former Foreign Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera last week came out to express his take on the latest UNHRC Resolution on Sri Lanka and the build up to it.  “I felt it my duty to speak about this as the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time when Sri Lanka along with the US, UK, and 40 other countries co-sponsored the 30/1 Resolution on Sri Lanka,” he said.  He explained that in the joint communique which was issued at the conclusion of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s visit to Sri Lanka on the invitation of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the two sides had agreed to conduct an inquiry into the alleged war crimes and the alleged human rights violations in the country. Within four days of Ban Ki-moon's arrival, the UNHRC in Geneva had called a special session on Sri Lanka to discuss the situation here.  For this session, Sri Lanka very hurriedly presented a resolution to the UNHRC, the 25/1 Resolution of March 2014 on promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka and to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties.  “In fact, this resolution, if it would have been implemented, would have been quite good and that is why the majority of the international community hoped Sri Lanka would be bound by their promises and therefore, 29 countries voted in favour with 12 voting against,” Samaraweera noted.  He went on to say that in 2009, 29 countries had supported Sri Lanka where they had even promised an accountability mechanism to look into human rights violations, talked about improving the human rights situation here, and even talked about the 13th Amendment for the first time in an international forum like the UNHRC. “They got 29 countries to support them but unfortunately from that point onwards, like all other promises of the Rajapaksa era, they didn't bother to implement many of them. And that is why the trust within the international community kept decreasing and in 2012, 29 fell to 15 in terms of the countries that supported the Sri Lankan Government. In 2013, only 13 countries supported us. In 2014, the UN Human Rights Council passed the Sri Lanka Resolution by a vote of 23 to 12, with 12 abstentions.  “So, it is in this context that I went to Geneva as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, just a couple of weeks after the election. My first visit was to meet my good friend and who I call my sister minister, Sushma Swaraj Ji. On the very day I was sworn in, I was in India meeting her and then, I went to Geneva to meet the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein. I made a very special request from him not to go ahead with the 2014 Resolution because the first report of that resolution was to be tabled in Geneva in March 2015.” Samaraweera explained: “Fortunately for the country, the Government changed on 8 January. I was there in February, I believe, and we got them to agree not to table that report in March and instead, we requested time till September to submit our own resolution which will cover the question of reconciliation and accountability. In fact, I told Prince Zeid, quoting from our manifesto of the presidential election, item 93, ‘since Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome Statute regarding international jurisdiction with regard to war crimes, ensuring justice with regard to such matters will be the business of a national independent judicial mechanism’. So, we said, give us a little more time until September where we will present our resolution for a national independent judicial mechanism, and the Prime Minister along with a group of top-level experts drafted this resolution and then we invited the US Ambassador and UK High Commissioner to co-sponsor it.” The former Foreign Minister also claimed that the idea that the former Government had sponsored a foreign resolution was a lie. “We managed to get the powerful countries to back us and each and every word in that resolution was approved by (former) President Sirisena. For example, President Sirisena's speech from 4 February 2016, and I quote, ‘I clearly state that we are facing these resolutions to protect the pride and dignity of our country, our people, and our security forces and also to make our tri-forces to be internationally renowned armed forces. We should face these resolutions with patience, discipline, and decorum so that our country should be respectfully recognised by all international organisations including the UNO and all states in the world.’ These are the very words of our President and as a result, Sri Lanka got the friendship and the support of the whole world. In fact, when our joint resolution was presented in Geneva in September, not one country opposed it. “Now, this time, when an investigation was initiated in Geneva, Pakistan and China got up and opposed that. However, all power blocs supported us in 2015. We had the support of the US, the European Union, the UK, Japan, India, and most of all China and Russia. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe this was one of the golden moments in the history of foreign policy in this country. Whatever anyone says, I will challenge them anywhere to argue that this was actually a golden moment where we stuck to our word, carrying out a balanced foreign policy which all countries appreciated. That is why we achieved so many rewards but the three which come to my mind at the moment are that we were able to secure the GSP+ (Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus) concession again for Sri Lanka, which we had lost a couple of years before. With the direct intervention of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and myself in Geneva, we managed to get the Green Card for the fishing community of Sri Lanka to sell their tuna fish in the European Union which was banned under the earlier regime. Also, after having discussions with Samantha Power, who was the US Ambassador to the UN, we requested that our Army again be submitted for peacekeeping matters. We were admitted and I believe even today, there are members of the armed forces gaining quite high salaries working in the peacekeeping forces.”  US report on SL  The US State Department last week released its country-wise Human Rights Report for the year 2020.  The executive summary on Sri Lanka has referred to the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. “The Sri Lanka Parliament passed the 20th Amendment to the Constitution on 22 October. Opposition political leaders and civil society groups widely criticised the amendment for its broad expansion of executive authority that activists said would undermine the independence of the judiciary and independent state institutions, such as the Human Rights Commission and the Election Commission, by granting the president sole authority to make appointments to these bodies with Parliament afforded only a consultative role,” the report had stated.  The report had also noted significant human rights issues. “Significant human rights issues included unlawful killings by the Government; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government agents; arbitrary arrest and detention by government entities; arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy; restrictions on free expression and the press, including unjustified arrests of journalists and authors; widespread corruption; overly restrictive nongovernmental organisation laws; interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; serious acts of corruption; lack of investigation of violence against women; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence targeting members of ethnic minority groups; crimes involving violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons; and existence or use of laws criminalising same-sex sexual conduct,” the report had added.   Proscriptions  Meanwhile, news of the Government banning a number of Tamil Diaspora groups, including some influential organisations based in the UK as well as some individuals, broke last week.  Some of the groups were banned in 2014 but were de-listed by the Government in 2015.  The Global Tamil Forum (GTF), British Tamil Forum (BTF), Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), National Council of Canadian Tamil, Tamil Youth Organisation, and the World Tamil Co-ordinating Committee were among the groups that were proscribed by the Ministry of Defence.  They have been banned under Regulation 4(7) of the United Nations Regulations No. 1 of 2012.  The gazette notice issued to ban the organisations has been signed by Defence Secretary Kamal Gunaratne.  The Government has also banned a number of individuals based in the UK, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and several other countries.  Among those banned are GTF Spokesperson Suren Surendiran, who had been engaged in talks with then Foreign Minister Samaraweera and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) after the former Government lifted the ban on some of the Diaspora groups.  The former Government had de-listed most groups considered as being moderate in their views, in an attempt to seek their support for the reconciliation process and development of the North. However, the incumbent Government, by proscribing these groups, has clearly noted that it considers these groups as still being linked to terrorism and a threat to national security. The latest ban had been enforced just prior to the UNHRC sessions in Geneva that commenced in late February.  The Tamil Diaspora have been critical of the current administration on the human rights issue and had been lobbying for support for the Resolution against Sri Lanka in Geneva.  However, the Government says it will ban all groups who promote the ideology of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or separatism in Sri Lanka.  Co-Cabinet Spokesperson Minister Gammanpila told the media that Sri Lanka is not prepared to engage with such groups or individuals.  Gammanpila had said that Sri Lanka will closely engage with the expatriate community but will ban any group or individual who promotes the ideology of the LTTE.  “The LTTE is proscribed in Sri Lanka and separatism is banned under our Constitution,” he had noted.  He had further stated that anyone who propagates the ideology in Sri Lanka or overseas and anyone who promotes separatism will be banned.  Meanwhile, the GTF last week expressed its disappointment at the proscription of a number of Diaspora groups and individuals, including the GTF, by the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL).  “We are thoroughly disappointed by the banning of several Diaspora groups and individuals by the GoSL since this action has no legal, political, or moral basis and is an outright abuse of the UN Regulations for self-serving purposes,” GTF Spokesman Surendiran had told The Morning last Monday (29 March).  Surendiran had added that the GTF is involved in furthering the political rights of the Tamil people in the country, and the provision of relief and engagement in rehabilitation efforts in all areas of Sri Lanka, including past collaborations with South-based nongovernmental organisations. As such, Surendiran said that the ban’s impact on reconciliation would be “immense”.  UK support  The UK has offered to support efforts in Sri Lanka to make meaningful progress on justice, accountability, and human rights.  Minister of State for the Commonwealth and UN at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Lord Tariq Ahmad said that the UK stands ready to engage constructively in this respect.  He recalled that the UNHRC concluded its 46th Session on 24 March, adopting important resolutions on Sri Lanka, South Sudan, Syria, Iran, Myanmar, Belarus, and Georgia, among many other pressing issues.  “I welcome the adoption of the Resolution on Sri Lanka. This signals the international community’s continued commitment to post-conflict justice and accountability. It also responds to the deeply concerning report by the High Commissioner who warned that Sri Lanka risked returning to the grave violations of the past,” he had said.  Lord Ahmad had said that it is therefore right that the UN should continue its monitoring and collect evidence to support future accountability processes.  Chinese BRI  Chinese President Xi Jinping last Monday had said that China is willing to work with Sri Lanka to enhance Belt and Road co-operation and contribute to the economic revival of Sri Lanka in the post-pandemic era.  Xi made the remarks during a phone call with President Rajapaksa.  He pointed out that since the onset of the pandemic, China and Sri Lanka have pulled together and helped each other, writing a new chapter of China-Sri Lanka friendship.  The Chinese President said that China attaches great importance to the development of bilateral ties and stands ready to work with Sri Lanka to determine the strategic direction and achieve steady growth of the relationship.  He said China will continue to provide as much assistance as its capacity allows for Sri Lanka’s fight against Covid-19, and seek to gradually carry out co-operation in fields like aviation and education while keeping pandemic control measures in place, and continuously explore new channels and areas of collaboration.  “China stands ready to steadily push forward major projects like the Colombo Port City and the Hambantota Port, and promote high-quality Belt and Road co-operation, providing robust impetus for Sri Lanka’s post-pandemic economic recovery and sustainable development,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry quoted President Xi as saying.  Xi Jinping emphasised that China and Sri Lanka are strategic co-operative partners that enjoy sincere mutual assistance and ever-lasting friendship.  “China will never forget Sri Lanka’s valuable support for the restoration of its lawful seat in the UN, and is willing to make continuous joint efforts with Sri Lanka to firmly support each other on issues concerning respective core interests, defend our legitimate rights, promote international equity and justice, and safeguard the common interests of developing countries,” he said.  President Gotabaya Rajapaksa said that Sri Lanka warmly congratulates the Communist Party of China (CPC) on the 100th anniversary of its founding and highly appreciates the historic achievements made by the CPC.  Particularly, under President Xi’s strong leadership, China has made great achievements in economic development and the fight against Covid-19, Rajapaksa said.  Sri Lanka thanked China for its valuable support, and is willing to collaborate closely with China to firmly support each other’s positions on issues concerning respective core interests and safeguard common interests. Sri Lanka hopes to learn from the CPC’s governance experience, and especially looks forward to strengthening exchanges and co-operation on poverty alleviation and rural vitalisation strategies.  The Sri Lankan Government is willing to work with China to expand co-operation in fields like infrastructure and tourism, and smoothly advance major projects such as the Colombo Port City.  President Rajapaksa said he is confident that these efforts will boost Sri Lanka’s economic and social development.