CJ’s Impeachment Issue and Jeganathan’s “Ethos of Ethics”
It looks like the CJ vs Government Issue i.e the
impeachment issue is going to be the main drama
that will dominate the political
theatre in the New Year. I was reading most of the news relating to the impeachment
issue of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake and one of the recent articles was
written by Dr Pradeep Jeganathan to Colombo Telegraph. It seems Colombo
Telegraph has most number of articles printed on this issue. Dr jeganathan
talks about the “Ethos of ethics” of this issue and gives some historical
perspective citing certain appointment of the prime minister of Sri Lanka in
1952 aided by the then colonial era chief justice.
A subtle as he is Dr Jeganathan touched the
impeachment issue as an ethics problem so as it seems. Rest assured loyal commenters from both sides
of pre-Prabhakaran old diaspora politics can be seen from the comments line. Dr
Rajasingham Narendran, I S Senguttuvan
that we saw in DBS Jeyaraj’s columns are commenting as usual and also I can see
one “king barnnet” supporting kings that no one wanted to support right now.
And yes of course “Sinhala-only” problem also brought out by some commentators as
usual. The “Sinhala only legislation” was perhaps a blunder to Colombo 7 Tamils
and Colombo 7 Sinhalese, but not for us the poor Sinhala lot. I am not talking
about racial politics here. This was about the jack boot of colonialism that suppressed
Sinhalese and Tamil masses. Sinhala only policy tried to remove that
suppression of Sinhalese from the jack
boot of colonialism by allowing Sinhalese to go into government education and
government jobs thereby removing the greater inequality and injustice caused by
the colonial British rulers. People like us would never have had a chance to
study in Royal (Where I had the privilege of meeting Student Jeganathan) and go
to higher studies, or our fathers never would have had government jobs that enable
them to support us to be where we are. Yes there were some disadvantages
occurred to Colombo 7 and Tamils and highly privileged burger classes which
later emigrated to Australia and other countries. We can see the same thing
happen in Mandela’s South Africa.
Although Tamils eye favourably towards South Africa and the Mandela policies
they never accepted the Bandaranayaka policy as removing Sinhalese from
colonial shackles. They took that as a threat to their privileged status and
started the separatist campaign. That campaign was later hijacked by the
socialist leftist Tamils and we were supportive of it as well. However later on
Sinhala chauvinists used the Sinhala only policy and other added measures (like
education policy) to suppress the minorities exactly as the British suppressed
them. The pooere sections of the
minorities suffered the most. Then the
new national socialist type movement of Prabhakaran took over the Tamil
struggle we all know where it has ended.
So who are supporting
the CJ? When the Tamil intellectuals and
leftists intellectuals connected the impeachment issues with national problem
then there is a problem for us. As far as people of Sri Lanka concerns they do
not bother about this impeachment issue as the opposition or the lawyers want
them to be. As anyone would have easily predicated Pro-LTTE Tamil diaspora also
supports CJ and the current opposition as they are forever against the
Government anyway. As far as I know Dr
Narendran always voiced against LTTE politics together with Jeyaraj and while Ilya
Seran Senguttvan was on the fence regarding the LTTE issue. Former General
Fonseka was supportive of CJ and asking her to join the politics. Perhaps he
was such a lonely figure now he wants at least CJ in his boat as former CJ
Sarah N Silva is increasingly taking pro-government stand. The issue of the
impeachment motion is a political one which was taken by the highest level of
the SL government. The issue of safeguarding
the independence of the judiciary as CJ underlined in her recent speech
was not a political issue but increasingly dragged to that end by the forces and
individuals mentioned above who are allegedly aligning to support the
independence of judiciary not to mention
the Asian human right commission et al..
It started with JVP
signing the petition with Dr Chandraguptha Theunevara and other intellectuals.
Soft spoken Dr Thenuvara was studying in Russia and I knew him then as a
leftist representing the old left. Independent of judiciary was simply
non-existent in old Soviet union where he and I studied. Anura Kumara
Dissanayake representing JVP was signing the petition too. JVP affliates it’s
foreign policy with China and JVP attends Chinese Communist party functions
too. In short they support Chinese model. Arguably China is not a country we
can take as an example of safeguarding the independence of judiciary. UNP led
by Ranil Wickrmasinghe is somewhat muted in response to Impeachment motion
although they seem to support CJ. They are reeling from not so friendly
judgments against them by the courts of the country and judging by the
opposition leader’s attitude he is on the fence. Then comes the Tamil diaspora
(pro LTTE or not) mentioned earlier, exiled journalists, exiled websites and
editors etc. The same lot supported former General Fonseka’s campaign for presidency
too. And lost.
Most sensible approach
we can see from Deepthi Kumara Gunarthane’s (DKG) vanguard (Peratugami) party
and Kumar Gunerathnam’s Frontline Socialist party. DKG of Vanguard party also connect
the CJ issue with the national problem and according to him if Sri Lanka can find a solution to the national problem these other problems may
solve itself. (Please refer to: www.3mana.com)
Frontline socialist
party’s Pubudu Jayagoda supported CJ while commenting on the impeachment issue,
but he and his party seems to shy away from any street action regarding the
issue.
For ordinary people in
Sri Lanka this impeachment issue is not an issue as much as issue of another
high rise building going up in Colombo with another higher rate Chinese loan.
They have lost their daily bread to Lamborghini imports and whether the fact
that current CJ would survive in her post or not, is not going to change their
attitude.
I would have preferred
if Dr Jeganathan looked at more recent history of Sri Lanka for ethics and
Ethos than colonial era. It is not for me to suggest but I can’t help pointing
out that Felix Dias Bandaranayake set the trend in motion in late 70s during the
dying days of Sirima Government. Independence of Judiciary eroded slowly in
Island of Sri Lanka taking heavy beatings from JRJ government , RP government
and CBK governments. Specially, during
the tenure of former CJ Sarath N Silva, we heard many stories of Judges and
lawyers engaged in many sort of activities behind the court rooms. So for
ordinary people in Sri Lanka there is nothing lost. To safeguard an
independence of Judiciary there should be one to safeguard. This is not mean to say that behaviour of the government
of SL is right or I am justifying it Far from it. But I am merely pointing out
the fact the lawyers can agitate against the impeachment motion and may even succeed
stopping it. But very same lawyers were the ones taking money from poor
clients, dragging court cases and harassing people of Sri lanka with their exorbitant
charges while getting rich. Not all the lawyers but majority are. CJ’s husband
was appointed to run the bank by this government and CJ herself was appointed
by this government. We all know these
facts and as we can see CJ (and her family) was part of the well –oiled
government machinery not so long ago. It is more like government vs government
issue rather than people vs the government. It seems to be unfair on CJ because those
representing the government in parliament select committee consist of corrupted
ministers according to media reports. So how can they judge the CJ did anyting
wrong when they have done even worse.
Sri Lanka does not have
a liberal capitalism characterised by people and businesses generally paying due
taxes, bureaucrats are less corrupted, people are generally law abiding, police
and judiciary are independent and governments do not interfere with judicial
process. So the solution to this problem
lies with changing the entire political system rather than changing the regime.
Providing a solution to national question or removing Sinhala as stage language
or lamenting Sinhala only policy and giving equal right to Tamil (It is already
a national language) would not solve the current problem with Judiciary and
Executive. Actually I can’t really see a problem. CJ is yet to show whether she
is really independent or nor. Even if she works hard to save the judiciary under
the current corrupt political system she would not survive anyway.
Ajith D
I don't understand why you think sinhala only was a good thing in 1956? Surely it should have been sinhala and Tamil? Second I think an ethos of ethics matters everywhere. From the school teacher to the grams niladhari. Maybe SC and CJ does not interest the 'masses'. But ethics defects every ones life.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Sinhala only is a good thing for Tamils. I accept what you say 100% that it should have been Sinhala and Tamil. But Bandaranayake was rained in by Sinahala chauvinistic elements by doing so. However most Sinhalese from villages and from middle classes benefited from it. I am sorry what happened to Tamils several times since 1958. I know it is not enough. However Tamil is a state language now with equal footing at least on the paper. We have to make it a reality and it's happening. My brother's and sister's children go to Tami language tuition even to pass the exam. - Regarding the ethics - yes ethics effects everyone. However in Sri Lankan context it seems to me that you are saying Sir Alan Rose even did it so CJ might have done something wrong so leave it and government may unethical bit so leave it. Unless I am mistaken on that.
ReplyDeleteOK on language. But no on ethics. I am.saying we have not been clean for some time. We need to take a bath and start.again.
ReplyDeleteTamils also benefited from teaching in the swabhasha, that is Tamil for them.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right “Felix Dias Bandaranayake set the trend in motion in late 70s during the dying days of Sirima Government.”
You also have a point in saying that the ordinary people generally feel that they are at the receiving end with regard to the judicial process. But then many ordinary people would have benefited in general by various rights cases that have been won from time to time. I suppose the idea of an independent judiciary cannot be taken in any absolute sense. The independence is relative here. As many commentators have pointed out, with all the wrong doings on the part of the CJ , if the executive has its way at least without a protest that will be heard in society, this may be the point at which we cross the rubicon, at least for quite some time. So, I suppose the point would be that with all the weaknesses in our judicial system, if it can be saved from being completely under the control of the executive then we may have some hope of balancing the power between the executive and the legislative.
You say, “So the solution to this problem lies with changing the entire political system rather than changing the regime.” I think you are right that changing the regime won’t help. But, how do you change the entire political system. What would come in its place?
HI Jeganathan, Sri Lankan society have a big problem with attitudes to different aspect of life. I don't think we have to worry about moral principals. The 4 main religions in Sri Lanka are letting down own people as well. Rot started with political system and bad governance.
ReplyDeleteKumudu, Yes I accept the point here. " if it can be saved from being completely under the control of the executive then we may have some hope of balancing the power between the executive and the legislative."
ReplyDeleteAbout the political system? I don't really have an answer to that yet. I used to live in Soviet Union and I son't think that is suitable either where judicial independence simply didn't exist. I am searching the answer from people like you, Jeganathan or any other alternative thinkers and writers. There are many but collective opinion about a suitable system of governance does not exist.