Last week this column reported that some UNP parliamentarians were preparing to petition the party leader requesting that S. B. Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa be appointed to the UNP’s deputy leader and assistant leader slots. We also said that the appointment of a deputy leader and an assistant leader has been on the cards for some time and some MPs are frustrated at the lack of progress, and that they hoped to expedite matters by expressing the wishes of the UNP parliamentary group without waiting for a long drawn out procedure involving the calling of applications and the scrutiny thereof.

Well last week there was some progress to be seen in this matter as the UNP working committee which met on Thursday decided to scrap the plan to call for applications for the position of deputy leader and assistant leader. Another decision was that the final decision will rest with the working committee. Instead of petitioning the leader as we reported last week, two parliamentarians went even further, and had a formal resolution tabled in the working committee to the effect that Sajith Premadasa be appointed deputy leader. Ravi Samaraweera brought the resolution and it was seconded by Ranjith Madduma Bandara. The resolution, dated 1st December 2008 read as follows:

"Whereas it is anticipated as proposed to the convention that be created among others a post of deputy leader of the party and

Whereas the Hon Sajith Premadasa is qualified in terms of the agreed criteria for the position and

Whereas he has indicated his willingness to serve in the said position

We hereby propose that the Hon Sajith Premadasa MP, be appointed the deputy leader to the party."

Alick’s appeal

There is a groundswell of opinion among UNP parliamentarians against the delay in appointing a deputy leader and assistant leader, and they want the appointee to be someone who can make a substantial change to the way the party is perceived by the general public. The above resolution shows that instead of passively petitioning the leader, senior UNPers are taking matters into their own hands to ensure that the correct person is appointed. Even more significant than this resolution was the letter written by the UNP’s veteran politician of the Matale district, Alick Aluvihare to the party leader, also urging that Sajith Premadasa be appointed UNP deputy leader.

Aluvihare’s letter, dated 29th November and addressed to the UNP leader, is as follows.

"It has come to my notice through press reports that two individuals have applied for the position of deputy leader of the party."

"The UNP which faced a crushing defeat in 1970, reorganized under J. R. Jayewardene from 1973 onwards amidst many obstacles and open persecution, and by bringing together the farmers, workers and business community was able to win a historic victory by 1977. Furthermore, the UNP had a leadership team that could take the party from 1977 to 1994".

"With the defeat of 1994, you had to accept the leadership of a party, which had fallen on bad times. But you who never showed a greed for positions and never conspired to become leader and never went against the party, have attempted with infinite patience, to rebuild this party."

"In the midst of this, we cannot forget the fact that there were various impediments and challenges to your leadership. I trust you remember that I stood by you on all those occasions and gave you strength."

"With grit and determination, you brought together all forces and even though we lost some elections due to the conspiracies of your opponents, we cannot forget the fact that even in defeat the number of votes received by the party has increased."

"In the near future, we will have to face several decisive elections. As a party that has been mostly in the opposition since 1994, large numbers of people who vote for us are without succor. Hence there is a need to form a UNP government once again, in order to give encouragement to these people."

"Therefore, I suggest that Hambantota district parliamentarian Sajith Premadasa, who can be an immense source of strength to you, and to the party, and who has acceptance among the people, and who has a bright future ahead of him, is suited to the position of party deputy leader."

"I have 57 years of experience in politics, and I suggest his name in the firm belief that he will be a source of strength to you and will be of immense service to the party, and also that he will never forsake you."

"Since the working committee meets on the upper floor of the party headquarters, and since I am in no position to climb the stairs, I regret being unable to present my views verbally to the working committee."

"Therefore, I would be most grateful if you would accept my suggestion and bring this to the notice of the members of the working committee".

Sgd. Alick Aluvihare

Sajith or Karu?

The two aspirants to the position of deputy leader that Aluvihare refers to at the beginning of his latter, are Vajira Abeywardene and S.B.Dissanayake who both announced publicly that they will be running for the position of deputy leader. The fact that Aluvihare has seen fit to suggest a third name means that he does not see either Abeywardene or Dissanayake as suitable candidates. Abeywardene is a very successful regional politician, but he does not have national level appeal. And in Dissanayake’s case what would inhibit Aluvihare from acceding to his nomination would be that as an old party senior, he shares the fear that such seniors have of the party being taken over by newcomers who have come from outside. In Sajith’s case not only does he have a name associated with that of the UNP, he also has not been in any political party other than the UNP. So he would naturally be the choice of the old guard of the UNP.

While those within the UNP parliamentary group were thus trying to have Sajith Premadasa appointed as deputy leader, there was an additional complicating factor in that negotiations are now on for the return of some of the 17 defectors including Karu Jayasuriya, and if Jayasuriya is to come back to the UNP’s fold, one of the conditions will be that he is reinstated in the position of deputy leader. An open invitation was extended by the UNP leader yesterday at the party convention for Karu Jayasuriya and others to rejoin the party.

The three parliamentarians who have submitted resolutions to the working committee requesting that Premadasa be appointed to that post, cannot possibly be unaware that negotiations were on with Jayasuriya. From Wickremesinghe’s point of view, he may prefer to appoint Jayasuriya because that would put an end to all the jockeying for position that is going on in the party. The two other choices for the position of deputy leader Sajith Premadasa and S. B. Dissanayake both have the potential to become alternative centers of power within the party after the fashion of Gamini Atukorale in 2001.

But if Jayasuriya is brought back as deputy leader, he will no longer be in a position to become a rallying point for rebellions against the leadership. Jayasuriya led the biggest single defection in parliamentary history, but failed to get the UNP leader to budge one inch on party reforms, and if he goes back to the UNP, it will be not on his terms, but on Wickremesinghe’s terms. After a spectacular failure like this, no one will look to Jayasuriya for leadership to change the way things are done within the party – and that would be very much to Wickremesinghe’s advantage. Maithreepala Senanayake was the second in command of the SLFP. Then in 1982, he defected to the government and even appeared on the UNP stage in the campaign for the referendum of that year. Later he re-joined the SLFP, but he was never able to regain the position he had earlier. Of course there is the example of Gamini Dissanayake who left the UNP and later came back to become opposition leader and UNP presidential candidate.

Mangala’s plight

But the difference was that Gamini defected from the government to the opposition not the other way about. In the opposition, Gamini put up such a fight that he won the admiration not only of the UNP rank and file but of the general public as well. Gaministature and also that of Lalith Athulathmudali actually rose after they defected from the Premadasa government, to infuse new life into the opposition. People admire those who give up power and position to fight for what they think is right. But they do not react in the same way to those who leave the ranks of the opposition to hold government office. Imtiaz Bakeer-Markar made a wise decision in not accepting any government office, even though he was identified with the UNP(D) group. He was able to go back to the UNP and carry on as usual. But Edward Gunasekera, a decent and much liked UNP parliamentarian from the Gampaha district, joined the UNP(D) group and became a deputy minister in the Rajapakse government only to return to the UNP a few months later.

Despite the fact that he had held government office for only a very short time, Gunasekera was hooted and jeered at by his own constituents at the first UNP meeting he attended after returning to the party. Even if Jayasuriya returns to the UNP as deputy leader, he will be a lame duck deputy, and that may not be exactly what the UNP parliamentary group is looking for in a deputy leader at the moment. As Aluvihare’s letter noted, he was looking at the appointment of a deputy leader in terms of winning elections. In other words, the deputy leader that the UNP wants should be able to compensate for the lack of certain essentials in the UNP leader. Jayasuriya’s return will certainly give the UNP a boost in that they would be able to regain some of the prestige they lost as a result of the massive defection he led. But since Jayasuriya’s stature will not be what it was, it may be that UNP parliamentarians are looking for a new figure as deputy leader.

It’s always awkward for a former detractor to explain his behaviour to the party rank and file. If Jayasuriya goes back to the UNP, he will have to admit that Wickremesinghe is the leader most suited to lead the country. He will have to admit that the UNP has internal democracy and that Wickremesinghe is the most democratic leader in the country. The situation that he will be in, if he returns, can be gauged from Mangala Samaraweera’s plight. Last week, Samaraweera and UNP general secretary Tissa Attanayake were invitees at a meeting of the Bandaragama electoral organization. Addressing the crowd, Samaraweera said that it was he who had propagated the view that Ranil could never win and that the people had swallowed his propaganda wholesale, but that in actual fact, Ranil was a nationally and internationally accepted leader and he appealed to the people not to be taken in by the falsehood that he himself had propagated in earlier times!

SB in limbo again!

What then of S. B.Dissanayake, whose name was always mentioned along with that of Sajith Premadasa as one of the two individuals suited for the positions of deputy leader or assistant leader? Last week saw another twist to his never ending civic rights drama, with the commissioner of elections refusing to include his name in the register of electors on the grounds that he had lost his civic rights. The matter is now before the Supreme Court, and the positive thing is that this case will decide once and for all whether SB has his civic rights or not. At the EPC elections, SB was asked to take a back seat because he did not have his civic rights. Then the Elections Commissioner and the Secretary General of Parliament ruled that he had lost his parliamentary seat not because of the loss of civic rights but because he had absented himself from parliament for a period of three months without leave.

Then the Chief Justice also made comments in court to the effect that had the Court wanted to remove him from parliament following the contempt of court case, it would definitely have sent a copy of the judgment to the elections commissioner and the speaker. It was further stated that the court never intended to prevent him from contesting future elections. These comments revived hopes that SB’s civic rights were not suspended and he played an active role in the Sabaragamuwa PC elections. SB was also planning to contest the Central Provincial Council elections, and the UNP leader had accepted his offer to contest as the chief ministerial candidate. Now, with the election commissioner’s refusal to include him in the list of electors, his entire political future hangs in the balance again, and this uncertainty has removed him from the radar screens of those in the UNP looking for a suitable deputy leader and assistant leader. If however, the court rules in his favor, there’s going to be renewed calls for him to be appointed one of the two new posts. A few weeks ago, UNP chairman Rukman Senanayake, whose own name has been mentioned in relation to the deputy leader’s post, told The Island that SB and Sajith were undoubtedly the two most popular people in the party.

The UNP has appointed organizers for all electorates in the Batticaloa district, after a lapse of many years. Provincial Councillor A. Sashidaran, who has been the UNP’s contact man for many years when they had no presence in the east, has been appointed as the organizer for the Batticaloa electorate and the district leader for Batticaloa. Appointing Tamil electoral organizers and a Tamil district leader for Batticaloa is certainly the right thing to do. We pointed out on several occasions in this column that one of the main reasons for the UNP’s unexpected defeat at the EPC elections was because an SLMC Muslim had been appointed as the UNP’s district leader for Batticaloa and that was certain to rub the Tamils on the wrong side. However the question that these new Tamil electoral organizers will have to ask themselves is whether the same fate that befell UNP organizer Daya Gamage in the neighbouring district of Digamadulla, will befall them also, where Gamage, after dumping millions into UNP organizational work, was sidelined and an SLMC Muslim appointed over him. If that happened to Gamage who has a presence in the Digamadulla district, the chances of it happening to A.Sashidaran who is a Colombo based absentee-politician, is much greater.

Leadership qualities

When the JVP central committee met last week, Anura Kumara Dissnayake stated that the government had ‘sold’ (Long term lease actually) a piece of land to Prima at the rate of 100 Rupees per perch and that when this was raised in parliament minister Dinesh Gunawardene accepted that such a thing has indeed happened and that the privatizations effected are all of such a nature and that billions of the people’s money has been misappropriated. K. D. Lal Kantha said that these cannot be allowed to go unnoticed and that the people should be got out onto the streets against this kind of thing, and where possible, legal recourse should be sought to have these privatizations reversed. Parliamentarian Sunil Handunnetti said that not just the Prima land deal but all privatizations should come under scrutiny. Accordingly a committee under the leadership of Sunil Handunnetti was formed to scrutinize all privatization deals and to see whether those decisions could be reversed judicially. The other members of this committee are lawyers Sunil Watawala and Janaka Adikari and parliamentarian Ajith Kumara.

What this basically means is that the JVP will be brining Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe under scrutiny, because privatizations were carried out only during their rule. The Rajapaksa regime has not carried out any privatizations. The way the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe conducted himself, when faced with the revelations by the parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises, (COPE) of irregularities in the privatizations that took place during the UNP government of 2001-2004, was absolutely disgusting, to say the least. In a headlong bid to escape blame, he said repeatedly, that those privatization deals had been done by Cabinet and the Head of the Cabinet was President Chandrika Kumaratunga! In other words, Kumaratunga was responsible for the irregularities that took place during UNP rule. To take one example, the privatization of Lanka Marine Services was one of the matters gone into by COPE. Here it was discovered that a valuable piece of urban land, which had not been in the original agreement, had been surreptitiously included at the last moment and COPE blamed the then treasury secretary Charitha Ratwatte, PERC Chairman P. B. Jayasundara and the legal affairs director of PERC for the irregularity.

Instead of diving under the bed when faced with allegations of wrongdoing, it was S. B. Dissanayake, who explained in one of his newspaper columns about an year ago, that when Lanka Marine Services was on offer, there was no one to buy it. Then buyers had to be canvassed by giving them various incentives to come forward. The inclusion of the piece of urban land was the bait given to attract a buyer. It took SB, who was an uninvolved third party, to explain matters, while those involved dived under their beds for cover. It takes leadership qualities to square with the public, instead of trying to pass the buck.

JHU hedges on the hedging issue

When the JHU central committee met last week, one of the topics discussed was the granting of additional powers to the provincial councils. Ven Akmeemana Dayaratana said that this was something that should not happen at the present time. University lecturer, Anuruddha Pradeep said that there was a good example of why this should not be done, from neighbouring India. During the recent Mumbai attack, the Special Forces of the Indian Central Government were not able to get to the scene on time, because they had to obtain clearance from the Maharashtra state government first. In a situation where India was taking back powers granted to the States, people here were agitating for more powers to be devolved to the provinces. Ven Athureliye Rathana said that Pillaiyan was being spoiled by the other chief ministers by introducing germs into his mind.

Speaking at the central committee meeting, minister Champika Ranawaka said that the hedging deal was a national crime and that when such things happen, how is the country to survive? He stated that the arbitrary actions of officials and their secret deals was a curse to the country. Ven Ellawela Medhananda said that however much they pointed out these things, it was of no avail and that therefore the intervention of the judiciary was very welcome. He stated that simply removing such ministers and officials involved in such scams was not sufficient and that confiscation of property should follow otherwise they would not learn a lesson.