Centre for Policy Alternatives on 4 February, 2019

Values and Attitudes Survey on 70 Years of Independence in Sri Lanka

This study aims to capture public opinion on areas pertaining to governance, democracy, political ideology, international relations, peace and reconciliation – following 70 years’ of Independence in Sri Lanka. In particular, the youth vote and the extent to which there is a democratic deficit between this sector and their electoral representatives. The overarching idea of the survey is to map out what Sri Lanka may look like once it celebrates 100 years of independence with the millennials in charge of government and governance.

Since 1948 Sri Lanka, considered to be one of Asia’s oldest democracies, carved its own path towards nation building – experiencing many achievements as well as many trials in the process. On the one hand, the country managed to maintain relatively high social indicators, especially in comparison to its South Asian neighbours, whilst on the other, it suffered civil unrest (the Southern Marxist resurrection) and a protracted civil conflict (ethnic conflict between the State and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) that lasted nearly three decades. Despite an end to the civil conflict in May 2009, the country still struggles to find a lasting solution to the long years of suffering and destruction.

Although Sri Lanka celebrates a completion of 70 years’ of independence, it is evident that the country continues to attract ethnic politics, which in turn results in sporadic violence within communities. Despite experiencing an uninterrupted democratic history with regular elections involving a wide participation among citizens, the attraction for authoritarian leadership does not seem to have faded away. Although there have been numerous attempts of reforming the country’s constitution- these efforts have subsequently failed. The Sri Lankan society continues to experience a rapid transformation as a result of globalisation, emerging global and regional powers, and various other political and economic realities. The current behaviour as well as the policies advocated by political parties do not appear to be strong enough to address the deepening challenges faced by contemporary Sri Lanka.

It is in this context that this survey was conducted to assess the opinion of the citizens of Sri Lanka, and their stance on key issues related to democracy and governance. As such, this study intends on enhancing ongoing political debate by influencing policy makers to understand the different dynamics prevalent among various groups, thereby helping people of authority advocate suitable policy reform. In addition, this study provides a snapshot of the attitudes and perception of the public at a time when the country contemplates the drafting of a new constitution. This top-line report of the study shares the findings of the survey in a descriptive form, in order to invite multiple interpretations from various stakeholders. Social Indicator aims to produce its full report with expert analysis and interpretations in the months to come.

Download the topline report in English, Sinhala and Tamil.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 28 January, 2019

Concerns around and challenges arising from Facebook’s communications policy in Sri Lanka

28 January 2019, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) notes with concern the coverage afforded to a meeting with senior Facebook officials, including Ankhi Das[1], the Public Policy Director for India, South & Central Asia, and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Photos of the meeting included what appeared to be the exchange of gifts[2]. The meeting itself was reportedly anchored to “cybersecurity, accessible market space for Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) and the increasing circulation of fake news”. Less publicised was a tweet by UNP MP Harsha de Silva highlighting that the delegation had also met with UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, with similar topics of discussion, and noting that meetings were scheduled with Mahinda Rajapaksa and President Maithripala Sirisena[3].

In March 2018, after Facebook and associated apps were blocked in Sri Lanka following the unprecedented anti-Muslim violence in and around Digana, Kandy, Facebook officials met with officials from the Presidential Secretariat, including Austin Fernando, the then Secretary to the President. In both the Sinhala and English press releases issued by the Presidential Secretariat after the meeting, it was noted that defamation, regulatory mechanisms and surveillance were discussed at the meeting as issues the government was working on. The wording in the press releases, in both Sinhala and English, is vague. It raised the fear that under the guise of measures to control the spread of hate and violence over social media, the government is actually interested in more censorious regulations and draconian oversight of content on social media.

Flowing from this, of significant and growing concern is the fact that in March 2018 and again last week, Facebook did not issue any press release or statement around the meetings, in line with what CPA is informed is corporate policy. There are many reasons to be worried. Successive governments in Sri Lanka have sought – through laws and regulations or far more violent, brutish methods – to control, contain and censor media and content production critical of public officials and policies.

During the political coup instigated by President Sirisena late 2018, the official website of the Prime Minister was wiped cleaned and replaced with a single photo of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa within a day of his unconstitutional appointment. A significant amount of malevolent misinformation was brazenly produced and disseminated by official government accounts, including, astonishingly, by staff attached to the Presidential Secretariat[4]. It was the office of the President that had requested the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) to block Lanka E News, a website extremely critical of the incumbent. In fact, of over a dozen websites blocked by the TRC, at least four requests to do so had come from the Presidential Secretariat[5].

Also, during the constitutional coup, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, MPs aligned to him, his son Namal Rajapaksa, other well-known and much feared family members and a coordinated cacophony of trolls, cyborg accounts as well as vociferous supporters used Facebook and other social media to amplify racism, justify unconstitutional appointments and produce misinformation at heightened speed, scope and scale.

Combined, President Sirisena and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s social media accounts were the greatest threats to constitutional rule and democracy during the constitutional coup, and indeed, remain so. To then witness Facebook sitting in on discussions around “fake news” and cybersecurity led by these actors is quite extraordinary. It is as farcical as imagining the company pictured exchanging gifts with the Russian political leadership after a meeting on misinformation or electoral integrity, and then allowing the Kremlin to issue a press release that defined what the meeting was about. In Sri Lanka, the company’s enduring silence gives rise to significant fears of compliance, connivance or complicity.

CPA recognises that meetings with government officials are inevitable in light of how inextricably entwined Facebook apps and services are in Sri Lanka’s socio-political and economic fabric. There is no rolling-back this. Facebook’s platforms and apps are now the primary vectors of news and information dissemination by far, in the country where content discussed or shared first on social media, shapes the news agenda and framing of print as well as electronic mainstream media.

Our concern is anchored to the company policy which maintains complete secrecy and silence around meetings with senior political leaders – from any party and especially those who clearly are chief architects of or condone misinformation, violence and censorship. Facebook’s investments on, interest in and engagement with Sri Lanka’s complex social media dynamics is new. Significant progress over 2018 risks being completely undermined if the company aligns itself with the worst abusers of the platform in Sri Lanka, as a consequence of myopic media and corporate policies.

 

Related press releases issued by CPA

Related research by CPA

 

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankhi-das-34bb6a14/?originalSubdomain=in

[2] https://twitter.com/PresRajapaksa/status/1087746418087886849

[3] https://twitter.com/HarshadeSilvaMP/status/1087769591768641536

[4] https://twitter.com/groundviews/status/1065317875915739136?s=19

[5] https://groundviews.org/2018/04/11/lanka-e-news-blocked-on-order-from-presidents-office-rti-reveals/

 

Download a PDF of this release here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 11 January, 2019

CPA Calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to Uphold Commitments on Accountability and Security Sector Reform

11 January 2019, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply concerned by the recent appointment of Major General Shavendra Silva as the Chief of Staff, Sri Lanka Army (SLA) and urges President Maithripala Sirisena to immediately review the appointment in light of serious allegations levelled against Major General Silva. These are made in a context where the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) made significant commitments to address accountability and usher in reforms to end the culture of impunity. Inaction at this moment will demonstrate the unwillingness by the political leadership to move forward on its own commitments.

Major General Silva was the commanding officer of the 58th Division of the SLA during the last stage of the war with allegations levelled against him in connection with violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). CPA notes that the United Nations Panel of Experts (POE) names Major General Silva in their report with a recommendation for further independent investigations of violations committed during the war. Subsequent to the POE report, several other reports including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) report, documented violations of International Humanitarian Law & International Human Rights Law.

CPA and several other groups raised similar concerns in May 2015 when President Sirisena appointed Major General Jagath Dias to the same position, urging the GoSL to initiate urgent security sector reforms including the vetting of military personnel. Subsequently the GoSL cosponsored the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 30/1 which contains specific commitments towards accountability and security sector reforms. It is indeed unfortunate that, despite the passage of time, there is limited progress with the full implementation of these commitments. Further, CPA is extremely concerned that repeated promotions of those who face serious allegations sends a message that the GoSL is protecting perpetrators and promoting impunity rather than taking genuine steps towards implementing essential reforms. The Interim Report of the Office for Missing Persons (OMP) recommended in 2018 that state officials including members of the armed forces who are named as suspects or accused in criminal actions relating to abductions and enforced disappearances be suspended or promotions halted pending the final determination of cases.

The promotion of Major General Silva comes weeks prior to when the GoSL is likely to speak of progress made with commitments in Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1. May 2019 also marks a decade since the end of the war and a time when the GoSL should be demonstrating their genuine commitment towards reconciliation. Instead, we are seeing very troubling signs of efforts to exacerbate and further entrench impunity in Sri Lanka.

 

Download this release here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 13 December, 2018

CPA Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Proclamation Dissolving Parliament

13 December 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) warmly welcomes the judgment by the Supreme Court today holding unanimously that the Proclamation issued by the President on November 9 to dissolve Parliament and call for a General Election is ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court’s judgment is historic, coming at a highly charged moment when Sri Lanka’s constitutional and democratic processes are under unprecedented and severe strain.

In making its judgment, the seven member Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera and Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Sisira J de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna S. Jayawardena, Vijith Kumara Malalgoda and Murdu Fernando, have acted to uphold constitutional due process. We commend the Court for strongly signalling its commitment to judicial independence, democracy, fundamental rights, the rule of law, and the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

The judgment follows the Court’s earlier decision to stay the proclamation and grant leave to proceed on a number of fundamental rights applications, including those filled by CPA and its Executive Director, Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu. CPA was the only civil society organisation to petition the Court against the President’s purported dissolution of Parliament, which it has maintained as illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning of the present crisis.

CPA hopes that all political actors involved will now accept, respect and follow the judgment and work to bring about a speedy resolution to the present crisis. Sri Lanka’s democracy, its citizens and its economy can and must not suffer the catastrophic consequences of this crisis any longer.

Viran Corea, Bhavani Fonseka, Khyati Wikramanayake and Inshira Faliq acted as counsel for CPA and were instructed by R.M. Balendra.

CPA’s previous press statements on the matter can be found here, here and here.

 

Download this statement in English, Sinhala, Tamil.

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 30 November, 2018

Centre for Policy Alternatives V Attorney General [SC FR 353/2018] (Fundamental Rights Application challenging the dissolution of Parliament)

12th November 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed papers challenging the proclamation (Gazette Extraordinary 2096/70) issued by President Sirisena purportedly dissolving the Eighth Parliament.

CPA’s position is firm that Article 70(1) of the Constitution read with Articles 33(2)(c) make it crystal clear that the President only has the power to dissolve Parliament once four years and six months have elapsed since the first sitting of the current Parliament, or if two thirds of Members of Parliament pass a resolution requesting dissolution. Since neither of these two conditions have been met, the President’s Proclamation is invalid.

Therefore, CPA categorically opposes this move as it is unconstitutional and ultra vires and accordingly filed papers seeking the annulment of this Proclamation.

Viran Corea, Bhavani Fonseka, Khyati Wikramanayake & Inshira Faliq instructed by R.M Balendra appeared for the petitioners.

Update I: Leave to proceed was granted and arguments were fixed on the 4,5,6 December before a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court
Update II: On the 13th of December 2018, Supreme Court held unanimously that the Proclamation issued by the President on November 9 to dissolve Parliament and call for a General Election is ultra vires and unconstitutional.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 30 November, 2018

Centre for Policy Alternatives V Mangala Samaraweera and Two Others [ SC FR 34/2018] & Bhavani Fonseka and Four Others [ SC FR 33/ 2018]

23rd January 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Two Fundamental Rights Petitions were filed challenging the validity of Excise Notification No 4/2018 of the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2054-42 issued by the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Finance and Media on 18th January 2018. The effect of Excise Notification No 4/2018 is to reintroduce:

  • The prohibition on women above the age of 18 to manufacture, collect, bottle, sell or transport liquor.
  • The prohibition on women above the age of 18 from being employed for manufacturing, collecting, bottling, sale or transport of liquor.
  • The prohibition on “giving” liquor to “a woman within the premises of a tavern”.

The two Petitions were filed on the basis of the violation of specific rights guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights Chapter in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The position of both Petitions is that regardless of whether a woman actually engages in these activities, her constitutional right to make that choice for herself should be respected to the same extent as that of a man.

The first Petition was filed by five women on their own behalf and in the public interest. They are Bhavani Fonseka, Sumika Perera, Anusha Coomaraswamy, Shreen Saroor and Minoli de Zoysa. The five petitioners assert that Excise Notification No 4/2018 is a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 10 [freedom of thought], Article 12(1) [equal protection of the law], Article 12(2) [nondiscrimination] and Article 14(1)(g) [freedom to engage in a lawful occupation, profession].

View the first petition in full here.

The second petition was filed in the public interest by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr P. Saravanamuttu. The petition alleges that the prohibition violates the rights guaranteed under Article 10, 12(1) and 12(2) of women above the age of 18 who constitute a significant segment of the People of Sri Lanka.

View the second petition in full here.

Viran Corea with Sarita de Fonseka, Luwie Ganeshathasan , Khyati Wikramanayake and Inshira Faliq appeared for the petitioners.

Update: Leave to proceed was granted in both the cases and is listed for support on 5th of February 2019.  

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 15 November, 2018

Constitutional Crisis: Questions and Answers II

The Centre for Policy Alternatives has prepared this short guide to answer some further questions that have arisen in the public debate about the constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka. See the previous set of Questions and Answers here.

  1. What was the Supreme Court’s decision on November 13th?

When the President issued a gazette on November 9th containing a Proclamation dissolving Parliament and calling for a General Election, a number of parties made fundamental rights petitions to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of that decision.

On November 13, the Supreme Court issued something called a Stay Order on that gazette. The Stay Order suspends the effect of the gazette until December 7th. The Supreme Court also issued an Interim Order to the Election Commission to prevent it from making any election preparations, also until December 7.

Finally, the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed to all the petitioners. This means that they can now make their arguments before the Court.

 

  1. What will happen next with the case?

The petitioners will now get to argue their case before the Supreme Court on December 4th, 5th and 6th. The respondents in the case, which include the Attorney General appearing for the President and the Election Commission, will also get to make submissions. After this, the Court will make its Determination on whether or not the President’s gazette is constitutional or not. It must do so within two months, however, since the last date for argument is followed immediately by the expiry of the Stay Order on the gazette and the Interim Order to the Election Commission (December 6th and 7th), it is likely the Court’s Determination will come immediately thereafter.

If the Court decides the President’s gazette notification is unconstitutional, then Parliament remains undissolved and the election cannot happen. If the Court decides it is constitutional, then Parliament is dissolved and the election can go ahead. A new date for the election will have to be fixed given its suspension due to the case.

 

  1. Which gazettes issued by the President are now operational?
  • Extraordinary Gazette No. 2095/50 issued on November 4th – reconvening Parliament on November 14 (cancelling the previous Extraordinary Gazette No. 2094/45 issued on October 27th which prorogued Parliament until November 16th)
  • Extraordinary Gazette No. 2096/17 issued on November 5th – bringing the Police from under the Ministry of Law & Order to under the Ministry of Defence and thus the President’s purview; and assigning 42 departments, statutory institutions and State corporations to the Finance Ministry
  • Extraordinary Gazette No. 2094/43 issued on October 26th – removing Ranil Wickremesinghe from the office of the Prime Minister
  • Extraordinary Gazette No. 2094/44 issued on October 26th – appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa to the office of the Prime Minister

 

  1. What are the Standing Orders of Parliament?

The Standing Orders of Parliament prescribe the rules for Parliament and its MPs to function in an orderly manner. Article 74 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to adopt Standing Orders to regulate itself. They contain rules for matters such as the election of various positions in Parliament, voting procedures, rules of debate, guidelines for the business of the various Parliamentary committees and procedures for impeaching or removing various officials.

The Standing Orders are adopted at the start of each newly elected Parliament or whenever the Committee on Standing Orders prepares a new revision. The current Standing Orders were adopted by Parliament and came into effect on April 15th, 2018. The Speaker, through the assistance of the Secretary-General of Parliament, gives assistance to MPs on the correct interpretation and application of the Standing Orders.

 

  1. What does a suspension of Standing Orders in Parliament mean?

Standing Order No. 135 provides that the Standing Orders can be suspended anytime through a motion made by any MP and a majority of MPs voting for it. Standing Orders are suspended to enable any special business to be considered.

Unless proposed by a Cabinet Minister, a motion to suspend the Standing Orders must be decided by a division. A division is a way for a vote to be taken. Under Standing Order No. 47(2) a division can be by any of the following methods chosen by the Speaker:

  • counting MPs rising in their places for or against a motion;
  • using the electronic vote recorder;
  • the Secretary General of Parliament asking each MP separately how they wish to vote and recording those votes.

 

  1. What is a no confidence motion?

A no confidence motion is a motion in Parliament against a Government. If the no confidence motion passes by a majority of MPs voting for it, then that means the Government no longer has the support or “confidence” of the Parliament.

Our constitution does not explicitly provide for a no confidence motion against the Prime Minister, but it does against the Government as a whole under Article 48(2) of the Constitution. Any MP can bring a no-confidence motion against the Cabinet of Ministers.

If a no confidence motion is successful, the Cabinet of Ministers is dissolved, and unless the President has dissolved Parliament as well, he may appoint a new Prime Minister and Cabinet of Ministers under Article 48(2) of the Constitution. This means the President can appoint a new Prime Minister who is in his opinion most likely to command the confidence of Parliament under Article 42(4).

 

  1. How is a no confidence motion voted on?

Neither the Constitution nor the Standing Orders provide instructions on how a no confidence motion can be voted on. However, a no confidence motion would generally be considered a special business of Parliament, therefore first the Standing Orders would need to be suspended (see question 5 above) and then the no confidence motion made.

Article 72(1) of the Constitution provides a general instruction on voting saying that any question proposed in Parliament can be decided by a majority of all MPs present and voting. How the vote is conducted is up to the Speaker under Standing Order No. 47. It may be taken by voice; or by division if any MP requests it, which means through a count of MPs rising for or against the motion; through electronic voting; or by asking each MP individually (see question 5 above).

 

  1. What happened in Parliament on November 14?
  • Parliament convened at 10.00 a.m. on November 14th in terms of the Gazette Extraordinary No 2095/50 issued by the President on November 4th
  • As reported by multiple media reports and as per the statement released by the Speaker’s office, TNA MP Hon. M.A Sumanthiran moved for a motion to suspend Standing Orders.
  • Thereafter, the Standing Orders were suspended after a majority of MPs voted in favour of the suspension.
  • Then JVP MP Hon. Anura Kumara Dissanayake moved a no confidence motion against the Government. This was then seconded by JVP MP Hon. Vijitha Herath.
  • It was further proposed that the no-confidence motion should be taken up on the day itself (14th November 2018).
  • After the Speaker of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya permitted the vote of no confidence to be debated, Parliament erupted in to chaos prompting the Speaker to take an oral vote (as provided for by Standing Order No. 47)
  • Accordingly, after a majority of MPs voted in favour of the no confidence motion it was announced by the Speaker that the no confidence motion was passed with a majority.
  • Lakshman Kiriella then proposed for the Parliament to be adjourned (as stated in Standing Order No 15) until 10.00 a.m. on November 15th with the approval of the Parliament.

 

  1. What is the effect of what happened in Parliament today?

Since a no confidence motion was carried out successfully, the Cabinet of Ministers headed by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa can now be considered to be dissolved under Article 48(2) of the Constitution.

The Speaker announced that he will forward the no confidence motion, Parliament’s decision on the motion as well a copy of the letter signed by 122 MPs to the effect that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers appointed by the President recently are unconstitutional, to the President to “take appropriate action according to the Constitution”.

The President is able therefore appoint a Prime Minister and Cabinet of Ministers under Article 48(2) of the Constitution who is in his opinion most likely to command the confidence of Parliament under Article 42(4).

The President, however, has responded to the Speaker on November 14 itself stating that the Speaker has ignored the Constitution, the Standing Orders and Parliamentary conventions with his actions on the day. The President cites that there is no Parliamentary convention requiring a Prime Minister or a Government to show a majority. He also rejects the letter signed by 122 MPs due to it not being appropriately certified by Parliament.

 

Download this as a PDF here.