K.H.J Wijayadasa And Lloyd Fernando: Governance Is The Foundation Of Sustainable Prosperity

Colombo Telegraph, 27/11/2012, By W.A. Wijewardena –

Dr W.A. Wijewardena

Wijayadasa’s thesis

The veteran Civil Servant and Secretary to two former Presidents, K.H.J Wijayadasa has delivered a very strong message to contemporary Sri Lankans in his publication “Governance, Heritage and Sustainability” launched last week in Colombo before an audience of likeminded veterans belonging to his era. He has said that the “legitimacy of government is measured by degree of democratisation, accountability of official and political elements of government, transparency, respect of human rights as well as the ability to uphold the sanctity of the rule of law”. Explaining what he means by this, he has said that at political levels, the rulers should be held accountable to the people whom they rule by giving the people a chance to contest the political power. Today’s trend has been, he says, moving toward a less authoritarian mode of power exercised by politicians and supported by a participatory approach in which everyone at all levels has a say about the doings of the governments. This view of Wijayadasa is consistent with how democracy has been defined by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen in his 2009 book “The Idea of Justice”: Democracy is government by consultation.

Wijayadasa: Sri Lanka should strengthen its Supreme Court

In Chapter I of the book, presenting his observations of the American Presidential election of 1996, Wijayadasa has praised the checks and balances established in the American system of governance to limit the authoritarian powers of its Executive Presidency through an effective separation of powers among the three major branches of the state: The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Based on the virtues of the American system, he has recommended to Sri Lanka that the country’s Supreme Court should be armed with more powers to determine the constitutionality of both legislative and executive actions. In my view, Wijayadasa’s prescription is timely and opportune in view of the current embroilment between the Supreme Court and the other two branches of the state in Sri Lanka. It is the opinion of the constitutional experts that the Supreme Court exercises its powers on behalf of the people in whom the sovereignty has been vested just like the other two branches do the same on behalf of people.

Dandamis: Instill fear but don’t expect love and respect from others

But such a separation alone cannot guarantee the elimination of authoritarian rule in a society. The three branches should respect each other and should have cultivated a practice of morality of not using the powers vested in them for a different cause to instill fear in others. This was eloquently communicated to Alexander the Great by Dandamis, a Sage in the ancient Indian University of Taxila, when Alexander asked him the question: “How can one make oneself loved and respected by others?” The answer of Dandamis was swift and clear: “If you have enormous powers, but still you do not instill fear in others, then, you are loved and respected” So, good governance requires each of the branches of the state to use its powers responsibly and with due accountability without instilling fear in other branches. Wijayadasa has in his book provided a blueprint of how a government should accomplish this wish of a nation.

Rulers are simply servants and not masters

The moral principle of governance pronounced by Wijayadasa is that a ruler or rulers are simply servants of people and not their masters. Hence, a ruler has to act according to the wishes of the people and not the other way about. A ruler needs to be modest, humble and accommodating in order to perform this role as a servant. Indian rulers from time immemorial are expected to cultivate these qualities in them by following Dasa Raaja Dharma or ten royal qualities. Wijayadasa says that when a country has imbedded these principles in its governance structure, it will attain both political and economic stability and he has recommended Sri Lanka to seek after that goal. The country has to eliminate both political favouritism and political victimisation and create equal opportunities for all people to lead a comfortable life. And according to Wijayadasa, that is the key to sustainable prosperity of a nation.

Lloyd Fernando: Take a holistic view through Development Paradigm

Dr Lloyd Fernando of Sri Lanka’s National Planning fame reviewed the governance aspects of Wijayadasa’s book at the book launch. He in fact presented Wijayadasa’s model in a wider macroeconomic frame encompassing all the salient requirements which a society has to put in place if it wishes to attain what he says the holistic development goal of a nation.

Lloyd Fernando invited his audience to imagine a huge building with a foundation at the bottom, pillars built on the foundation and a roof that rests on those pillars. It is in fact a simplified version of the Development Paradigm developed by Lloyd Fernando earlier and used for teaching his students at the Postgraduate Institute of Management or PIM. He has explained the different roles which the parts of the imaginary building have to play in a society as follows.

Development is not just economic growth but a holistic one

The roof is what provides solace and comfort to people living in the building. In Lloyd Fernando’s model, it represents ‘holistic development’ which is much more than the attainment of a mere rapid economic growth. Of course, economic growth is necessary for people to enjoy a good life. But it is not sufficient to give them the required quality of life. That quality of life has different manifestations and one may infer them from what he has said as follows..

On the economic side, they should have a sufficient income to command a basket of quality goods and services. Economic growth provides quality goods and services, but it does not guarantee that everyone will have access to such goods and services. One has to bring in income distribution and anti-poverty measures to guarantee it.

On the social side, people should have opportunities to advance their status in the society which economists call ‘social mobility’. Access to quality education, ability to pursue a profession of one’s choice without being victimised or denied of same due to favours afforded to others and engagement in a business of choice freely are the basic prerequisites for a person to climb up the social ladder.

On the political side, people should have right to elect their rulers and, as Wijayadasa contends, right to contest the decisions of such rulers without fear of being subject to reprisal or persecution. When one adds ‘government by consultation’ to the mode of the prevailing democratic system, the political side of holistic development is accomplished.

On the spiritual side, people should have freedom to think and express what they think as right, fair and just and follow a spiritual path of their choice without being hindered by oppressive actions of governments. When all these four factors are combined together, they form the main beams of the roof representing holistic development.

Four essential pillars of growth

The four pillars, according to Lloyd Fernando, represent four areas of strategic policy in a country. They are the macroeconomic policy, production and output policy, infrastructure development policy and human resource development policy of a country. Then comes the foundation of the building about which both K.H.J Wijayadasa and Lloyd Fernando are in agreement: Good governance that is key for the strength, durability and sustainability of the building. If the foundation is weak, so are the pillars that represent the strategic policy areas and the final goal of those strategic policies, namely, the holistic development. If society is interested in having a sustainable holistic development, it should strengthen its governance structure at all costs.

Corrupt one policy and then harvest corruption in others

Lloyd Fernando says that the first pillar, the macroeconomic policy strategy, is a synchronisation of four other policies, namely, monetary policy being conducted by the central bank, fiscal policy being conducted by the Ministry of Finance, trade policy being conducted by the government and foreign exchange policy being conducted by the central bank and the Ministry of Finance in collaboration with each other. These four policies affect each other in a dynamic sense and therefore if one policy is corrupted for whatever the reason, it has a far-reaching bearing on the other policies leading to a similar corruption there. For instance, if the central banks prints money and finances the budget deficit, it helps the budget temporarily. But in the long run, the government loses its tax collection ability and traps the budgets in an ever shrinking tax base requiring the governments to print more money or borrow more or do both. It leads to a serious budgetary problem driving governments to the wall which modern economists have termed ‘the fiscal cliff’. Lloyd Fernando has said that USA, Italy, France and Spain are now approaching the cliff and about to fall off it to their own peril. So has Sri Lanka. His view on this has been validated by the recent reported window-dressing by the Ministry of Finance to keep the country’s budget numbers at the budgeted ratios by postponing the expenditure programmes and transferring a large segment of such expenditure programmes to state guarantees which do not involve immediate payments by the Treasury. As a consequence of excess printing of money by the central bank, there will be local inflation and if the local inflation is higher than the inflation rates of Sri Lanka’s competitors, Sri Lanka will lose competitiveness with respect to its exports. To correct it, depreciation of the exchange rate is needed. If the exchange rate is not allowed to depreciate, then, the local currency gets over-valued discouraging exports and encouraging imports. The result? A balance of payments crisis. Thus, Lloyd Fernando says that a coherent policy package is needed to keep this pillar strong, viable and sustainable.

Production enhancement should be in all areas

The second pillar involves the production base of a country. Wijayadasa has concentrated here on food and nutrition safety which involves speeding up agricultural production. Agriculture is necessary and important, but given Sri Lanka’s current development problems, both industry and services are needed. Lloyd Fernando has said that industry should move from the current simple technology to complex technology to beat the competition coming from cheap labour countries like Bangladesh and Myanmar, a stand consistently taken by this writer in his previous My Views. Though Lloyd Fernando does not talk about services, there is necessity for Sri Lanka to sophisticate its services sector using advanced information and communication technology to reduce inconvenience and keep pace with the current global developments.

Grandiose infrastructure projects: Plan before the plunge

Both Wijayadasa and Lloyd Fernando agree that Sri Lanka should have to upgrade its third pillar, namely, having modern infrastructure facilities. Lloyd has specifically said that Sri Lanka needs cheaper energy, better roads and railways, irrigation systems and many other efficient infrastructure facilities to lure both domestic and foreign investments to enhance the production base of the country. Yet, they warn that those facilities should be planned carefully. Wijayadasa has cautioned Sri Lanka against rushing into grandiose projects without proper study and preparation since it would be costly ‘financially, environmentally and politically’. In the view of this writer, such grandiose projects also lack proper business plans to make them commercially viable and, due to this reason, many such projects started in Sri Lanka have been a drain to the already shrinking revenue base of the government. Wijayadasa has specifically said that in the past Sri Lanka had made many mistakes with respect to such grandiose projects. His comments have been that many of these mistakes could have been avoided if proper technical and economic feasibility studies and environmental impact studies were done before taking the plunge. Surely both Wijayadasa and Lloyd Fernando have a good piece of advice from their long experience in the public service to Sri Lanka’s current and future policy makers.

Develop quality and relevant human capital

The fourth pillar underlies the importance of the quality human capital for Sri Lanka to emerge as a nation of worth in the global economy. The quality human capital is needed to sophisticate all the three pillars and the governance structure of the country. If the central bank and the Ministry of Finance are not staffed by people of knowledge, both the monetary policy and the fiscal policy will be corrupted leading to similar policy corruptions in trade policy and exchange rate policy. The costs of such policy corruptions are enormous and need be avoided. While Wijayadasa has emphasised on raising human capability by getting the latent creativity and energies released, Lloyd Fernando has spoken about the need for improving the education system to generate a quality and relevant stock of human knowledge to take Sri Lanka to the future. In both these respects, in my view, the level of Sri Lanka’s human capital development is much to be desired.

Governance is the key

Even if the pillars are strongly built, they cannot serve their purpose if the foundation which Lloyd Fernando has defined as the ‘governance structure of a country’ is weak. According to Wijayadasa, governance is simply the “manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development”. He further says that “good governance is epitomised by among other things predictable, open and enlightened policy making”. Lloyd Fernando has further developed this idea drawing on his Development Paradigm. He says that governance is an effective and efficient partnership of all stakeholders of a holistic development process: Government, business and people. People here are represented, according to Lloyd Fernando, by civil society organisations, such as, in particular, trade unions and NGOs. Hence, any animosity that is expressed on these civil society organisations will break down the beneficial partnership which has to be constructed among the development stakeholders and in turn will lead to sacrificing the holistic development goals of the society.

K.H.J Wijayadasa has given this strong message to Sri Lankans. Lloyd Fernando has illustrated it with a model of development economy which he has termed ‘the Development Paradigm’.

*Writer is a former Deputy Governor – Central Bank of Sri Lanka and teaches Development Economics at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura. This article first appeared in Daily FT  - W.A. Wijewardena can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com

Follow The SC Recommendation Urges Lawyers

By Colombo Telegraph , November 27, 2012 

“In a democracy, public expect all the institutions including the parliamentarians to respect the recommendations and orders of the highest Court of the country.  Unless the public, lawyers and judges come forward to the protect the judiciary, our future generations will be left with a lawless state.  We call upon the Parliament and the Executive to display maturity when dealing with the impeachment, and not to proceed with the impeachment until the Supreme Court exercise its constitutional duty in the relevant interpretation.” says Lawyers for Democracy.

Lal Wijenayaka

“There is no legitimate basis to expedite this inquiry ignoring the Supreme Court recommendation. The manner in which the inquiry is being conducted has converted the inquiry against the Chief Justice into a trial on the parliament itself.” issuing a statement its convener Lal Wijenayaka further says.

We below reproduce the statement in Full;

The Supreme Court (SC)  is now possessed with several cases where the Court is constitutionally bound to interpret the constitution and to determine the constitutionality of the Standing Order 78A, that deals with the impeachment procedure. The Supreme Court has made a recommendation that the Select Committee of Parliament (PSC) should not proceed with the impeachment inquiry until the SC examines the validity of the questionable  Standing Order on which the impeachment inquiry is being based.

We view the Recommendation given by the Supreme Court as a great opportunity for all parties to restore mutual respect and rule of law and to avert a constitutional crisis in the country.  We are dismayed that the PSC has, by majority, rejected the recommendation of the Supreme Court  and to proceed with the inquiry, with scant disregard to the constitutional traditions.

There is no legitimate basis to expedite this inquiry ignoring the Supreme Court recommendation. The manner in which the inquiry is being conducted has converted the inquiry against the Chief Justice into a trial on the parliament itself.

In the mean time the Chief Justice and the judiciary are subjected to all possible humiliation  to an unprecedented level. We note with regret the level of media attacks in State media and the circulation of mudslinging booklets/posters obviously, instigated by the Government, to discredit the Chief Justice and the judiciary.

In a democracy, public expect all the institutions including the parliamentarians to respect the recommendations and orders of the highest Court of the country.  Unless the public, lawyers and judges come forward to the protect the judiciary, our future generations will be left with a lawless state.  We call upon the Parliament and the Executive to display maturity when dealing with the impeachment, and not to proceed with the impeachment until the Supreme Court exercise its constitutional duty in the relevant interpretation.

Singed On behalf of Lawyers for Democracy

Lal Wijenayaka, Chandrapala Kumarage, E. Viwekanandan , K.S. Ratnavale, J.C. Weliamuna, Sudath Netthisinghe ,Sudarshana Gunawardana, Lakshan Dias , Sunil Jayaratne, Harin Gomas, S.G. Punchihewa

*Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) is a representative body of legal practitioners throughout the island. Conveners include Lal Wijenayaka, Chandrapala Kumarage, E. Viwekanandan , K.S. Ratnavale, J.C. Weliamuna, Sudath Netthisinghe ,Sudarshana Gunawardana, Lakshan Dias , Sunil Jayaratne, Harin Gomas, S.G. Punchihewa.

Related posts;

Full Text Of The Supreme Court Request To The Parliamentary Select Committee

Full Text: Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s Petition Against The Impeachment Of The CJ

Full Text: Chandra Jayaratne’s Petition Against The Impeachment Of The CJ

Appeal to the Executive and the Legislature to Guarantee Respect for the Judiciary and the Chief Justice and to Guarantee the Independence of the Judiciary

16 Nov, 2012 Concerned Academics Colombo, Constitutional Reform, Peace and Conflict,Politics and Governance

Image courtesy Colombo Telegraph

The statement below has been put together by some academics in Sri Lanka. It has been written to communicate a widely held concerns about threats to the independence of the judiciary in the country. The statement has been signed by over 60 academics from different universities in Sri Lanka. Statements such as these are attempts to shape public opinion on matters of national significance and urgency.

They also communicate to the government the views and opinions of concerned citizens. For reasons explained in the statement, the signatories call on the Executive and Legislative arms of the government to defend the independence of the judiciary and, among other things, to withdraw the motion to impeach the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.

###

The varied types of attacks on the judiciary in Sri Lanka have risen to alarming proportions over the last few weeks and suggest that the very institution of the judiciary is under serious threat in the country. We the undersigned are extremely disturbed by these developments and would like to request that both the Executive and Legislative arms of the state fulfil their duty and guarantee the security and independence of the judiciary. In making this request we would like to remind the government and the public that;

1. ALL public power is derived only from the People (Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution). As such, public power whether executive, legislative or judicial can only be exercised according to law and the democratic values of a society. Public power can only be exercised for the benefit of the People of Sri Lanka.
2. The ‘benefit of the People’ cannot be equated with a majority view, a majoritarian approach, the political interests of the political party(ies) in power or of a powerful few within a government. Contemporary society world over has accepted that the dignity and equality of all human beings is inherent, inalienable and that protecting that dignity is the primary responsibility of a state. Accordingly the ‘benefit of the People’ can only be understood as a framework for decision making which respects the inherent dignity and equality of ALL people in this nation.
3. Guaranteeing the independence and effective functioning of the judiciary in Sri Lanka is a prerequisite for protecting the dignity of all Sri Lankans. The judiciary are mandated under the Constitution to adjudicate on disputes that arise between private parties and between the state and individuals. It is only in a context where the judiciary can function independently and is also generally perceived as functioning independently that society could expect to live and act according to law.
4. Recent events such as the attack on the Mannar Courts, the assault on the Secretary to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), understood in the light of the unprecedented public statement issued by the JSC, at the very least, suggests that the judiciary in Sri Lanka is struggling to maintain its independence. Political analysts have gone as far as to suggest that the Executive is directly interfering with the function of the judiciary.
5. Against this background, the motion to impeach the Chief Justice that has been handed over to the Speaker of Parliament is highly suspect. At the face of it, it seems to be evident that the all powerful Executive arm of the government is taking advantage of its position to undermine the judicial arm of the state, through a subservient Legislature. This is a manifest abuse of public power and goes against all accepted democratic norms of government. While the politicians and the political party(ies) in power may seemingly emerge as victors in the short run in this matter, in the long run, neither those politicians, those political parties, the Opposition nor the People would stand to benefit. ALL Sri Lankans will suffer grave consequences due to this interference with the Judiciary.
6. While politicians and political parties in power are understood as being susceptible to act according to prevailing political interests, the judicial arm of a state is designed specifically to defend against all, the law and the spirit of the law. That includes the democratic values of a society and the rights of all persons. In a society where the other arms of the government interferes with that function of the judiciary and is aggressive towards the judiciary, the political sustainability of that society is under threat.
7. The motion to impeach the Chief Justice and the other attacks on the judiciary are but only symptoms of a more alarming, complex and long standing crisis of governance in Sri Lanka. With each new incident the crisis becomes more embedded and widespread. The broader political context in which these incidents have taken place suggest a complex inter-play of different factors characteristic of a society where political patronage, expediency and convenience are the reference points for exercise of public power rather than democratic principles of governance and the law.

Therefore, we appeal to our representatives, the Executive and the Legislature, to fulfil their political and legal obligations towards us, and to guarantee respect of the judiciary and to defend their independence. The motion to impeach the Chief Justice should be withdrawn, those responsible for the assault on the Secretary to the JSC should be brought to justice and those responsible for the attack on the Mannar Courts should also be brought to justice.

Signatories

1. Dr Ranil Abayasekera (University of Peradeniya)
2. Dr Harini Amarasuriya (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
3. Prof Samuel Anbahan Ariadurai (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
4. Dr KKIU Arunakumara (University of Ruhuna)
5. Prof Navaratna Bandara (University of Peradeniya)
6. Dr G Bandarage (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
7. Dr Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri (University of Colombo)
8. Prof Priyan Dias (University of Moratuwa)
9. Dr Lesly Ekanayake (University of Moratuwa)
10. Dr GWAR Fernando (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
11. Mr Rohan Fernando (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
12. Dr Theodore Fernando (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
13. Dr Hans Gray (University of Moratuwa)
14. Dr Ranil Guneratne (University of Colombo)
15. Dr Dileni Gunewardene (University of Peradeniya)
16. Dr Jinasena Hewage (University of Ruhuna)
17. Prof Rohini Hewamanne (University of Colombo)
18. Dr Rangika Halwatura (University of Moratuwa)
19. Prof OA Illeperuma (University of Peradeniya)
20. Dr Prabhath Jayasinghe (University of Colombo)
21. Dr Janaki Jayawardena (University of Colombo)
22. Dr Barana Jayawardana (University of Peradeniya)
23. Dr Romaine Jayawardena (University of Colombo)
24. Dr Ananda Jayawickrama (University of Peradeniya)
25. Mr Nandaka Maduranga Kalugampitiya (University of Peradeniya)
26. Dr Parakrama Karunaratne (University of Peradeniya)
27. Dr Danesh Karunanayake (University of Peradeniya)
28. Assc Prof SR Kodituwakku (University of Peradeniya)
29. Dr Chulantha Kulasekere (University of Moratuwa)
30. Ms Rushira Kulasingham (University of Colombo)
31. Prof Amal Kumarage (University of Moratuwa)
32. Dr Shamala Kumar (University of Peradeniya)
33. Dr Nilantha Liyanage (University of Ruhuna)
34. Dr Sanjeeva Maithripala (University of Peradeniya)
35. Mr Sudesh Mantillake (University of Peradeniya)
36. Dr Suresh de Mel (University of Peradeniya)
37. Dr Mahim Mendis (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
38. Dr Neavis Morais (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
39. Prof Harsha Munasinghe (University of Moratuwa)
40. Dr M M M Najim (University of Kelaniya)
41. Mr Nilhan Niles (University of Moratuwa)
42. Mr Chaminda Pathirana (University of Moratuwa)
43. Prof Milton Rajaratne (University of Peradeniya)
44. Dr Sanath Rajapakse (University of Peradeniya)
45. Mr Rohana Rathnayaka (The Open University of Colombo)
46. Dr Uditha Ratnayake (The Open University of Colombo)
47. Dr A C Ratnaweera (University of Peradeniya)
48. Ms Dinesha Samararatne (University of Colombo)
49. Ms Thanuja Sandanayake (University of Moratuwa)
50. Dr Vajira Namal Seneviratne (University of Colombo)
51. Prof Upul Sonnadara (University of Colombo)
52. Mr Ranil Sugathadasa (University of Moratuwa)
53. Dr Sivamohan Sumathy (University of Peradeniya)
54. Ms Imalka Tennakoon (University of Peradeniya)
55. Prof R O Thattil (University of Peradeniya)
56. Mr Chandraguptha Thenuwara (University of Visual & Performing Arts)
57. Prof Vasanthi Thevanesam (University of Peradeniya)
58. Prof K S Walgama (University of Peradeniya)
59. Dr Ruvan Weerasinghe (University of Colombo)
60. Prof Carmen Wickramagamage (University of Peradeniya)
61. Prof P Wickramagamage (University of Peradeniya)
62. Prof Suren Wijeykoon (University of Moratuwa)
63. Dr KMGG Jayasuriya (University of Peradeniya)
64. Mr APS Fernando (Rajarata University)

CPA Press Release on the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake

Press Release on the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Press Release on the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake 13 November 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) expresses grave concern over the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. A number of reports in the press reveal that several charges against her have now been placed before Parliament in the form of a Resolution presented to the Speaker. The context within which these proceedings have been instituted, the procedure established by Parliament for impeachment hearings in Standing Order 78A, and the content of a number of charges against the Chief Justice are deeply troubling. Context  The context and timing of the institution of impeachment proceedings strongly point to a deliberate effort by the government to extinguish any embers of resistance to the executive from the judiciary. In the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill and the Divineguma Bill Determinations, the Supreme Court held that the Bills in question required prior reference to all Provincial Councils before being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The Chief Justice presided over the nominated bench in both cases. These judgments halted the government’s attempt to weaken the meagre extent of devolution provided by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution by attempting to pass laws that were in respect of Provincial Council subjects. A brief narration describing the events following the communication of the Court’s decision in respect of the Divineguma Bill is telling. The Supreme Court’s Determination in respect of Supreme Court (Special Determination) 1 – 3/2012 challenging the Divineguma Bill was communicated to the Speaker on or about the 17th of September 2012. Thereafter, a statement issued by Mr. Manjula Tillekeratne, Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission – of which the Chief Justice is the Chairman – was published in the Sinhala press on the 19th of September[1]. This statement alleged that efforts were underway to destroy the independence of the judiciary, and made veiled references to what was later revealed by the President himself to be an effort by him to summon the members of the Commission to a meeting at Temple Trees. The statement was issued in the context of a sustained effort by some commentators on state television and radio to vilify the Chief Justice and the Court for ruling against the government in the Divineguma Determination. Subsequent to the JSC’s first statement, on or around the 28th of September 2012, Mr. Tillekeratne made a chilling revelation that he believed that “[a] situation has arisen where there is a danger to the security of all of us and our families beginning from the person holding the highest position in the judicial system.[2]” This fear materialised on the 7th of October, when in a brazen attack in broad daylight, Mr. Tillekeratne sustained serious injuries after being stabbed repeatedly by unidentified assailants while he was inside his parked car on Hotel Road, Mount Lavinia. CPA condemned this attack and drew attention to the intimidation of dissenters and the prevailing climate of impunity in a statement released on the 10th of October 2012. On the 16th of October, we drew attention to the appearance of posters in Sinhala the previous day vilifying CPA Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu as one seeking to divide the country, for his opposition to the Divineguma Bill. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and a number of influential members of the government have publicly called for the repeal of the Thirteenth Amendment. We are convinced therefore, that the institution of impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice is the regime’s latest - and most dangerous - effort to stifle dissent, destroy the independence of the judiciary and undermine any prospects for the implementation of the minimal guarantees of devolution in the Thirteenth Amendment. Procedure CPA is also concerned that the procedure laid down in Standing Order 78A of Parliament for impeachment proceedings are incompatible with the principles of natural justice. Under this procedure, the Speaker refers the allegations in the Resolution containing the allegations to a Select Committee of Parliamentarians, which is tasked with investigation and reporting to Parliament. The process of investigation and decision making in relation to charges of misbehaviour are clearly judicial, or quasi-judicial in nature. Thus, the accepted rules of natural justice should and must apply. However, there is no explicit bar on Members of Parliament who signed the ‘Notice of a Resolution’ functioning in the Select Committee, or voting in Parliament to present an address to the President for removal of the Chief Justice. Moreover, although removal of a Judge can be carried out only or “proved misbehaviour or incapacity,” by placing the investigation process in the hands of Members of Parliament themselves, the Standing Orders open a wide door for partisan decision making, which fundamentally undermines the rule against bias. In other jurisdictions, the right to natural justice in impeachment proceedings is preserved by ensuring the independence of those tasked with inquiring into the alleged charges. In India, for instance, the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 provides that the Speaker shall constitute a three member committee including a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting judge of one of the High Courts and a distinguished jurist to investigate allegations during an impeachment proceeding. We are deeply concerned therefore, that in the prevailing climate of threat to the independence of the judiciary and sweeping executive control over Parliament, the lack of due process rights renders the impeachment process little more than a modern inquisition. Charges CPA is also troubled by a number of charges contained in the Resolution now placed before Parliament. Some charges appear to fault the Chief Justice for the substance of judicial decisions penned by her. These charges have a chilling effect on members of the judiciary, and point to an effort to systematically dismantle any remaining independence within judicial ranks. We have observed that one of the charges reported in the press appears to refer to CPA. The charge as reported reads, “Whereas, the Supreme Court special rulings petition No. 02/2012 filed by the institution called Centre for Policy Alternatives to which the Media Publication Section ‘Groundview’ that had published an article of the Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake, while she was a lecturer of the Law Faculty of the University of Colombo prior to becoming a Supreme Court judge, has been heard and a ruling given.” We note in this respect that the case filed by CPA was in fact SC (SD) 3/2012, that CPA came into existence in June 1996, that our online publication Groundviews was only established in 2006 which was ten years after Dr. Bandaranayake took oaths as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and thatGroundviews has to date not received nor published a single contribution by Dr. Bandaranayake. While other charges are also of concern, we desist from publicising our comments at this stage. Conclusion In conclusion, we note the widespread expressions of consternation from all strata of society in response to the institution of impeachment proceedings. We are heartened by these expressions of concern over the trajectory of governance in Sri Lanka, and urge that all citizens continue to express outrage over the rapid dismantling of the institutions that sustained our struggling democracy. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the architecture of any democracy, and unless we unite to resist these latest attempts to extinguish it, the truncated freedoms and rights we still enjoy are in imminent jeopardy. [1] Lakbima article 19 September [2] http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/22281-jsc-secretary-says-danger-to-their-security-.html

Education for All: Global Report 2012

Posted on October 18, 2012 by Youthpolicy Team

The Education for All Global Monitoring Report is the prime instrument used to assess and track progress towards achieving the six education goals agreed in the Dakar Framework for Action 2000-2015. With three years until the agreed deadline, the situation is alarming; few countries are on track to meet the EFA goals. The 2012 Monitoring Report focuses on skill development for young people. But is the report more than yet another compelling international vision?

---

The Global Monitoring Report

“…You are what you do, not what you say… all these meetings, conferences and plans are asking for change, but where is the action? Whose fault is it that we won’t achieve the goals in 2015?”

This was the call to action and demand for accountability issued by Lubna Sadek, panel member from theyouth task force that produced a youth summary of the 2012 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, during her address to the opening session of UNESCO’s Plan with Youth Policy Forum.

The Forum, which is part of a wider programme that aims to strengthen the dialogue between young people, policy makers, practitioners and researchers in the formal and non-formal education and training sectors, has taken place in mid-October 2012 at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris.

UNESCO’s Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2012 (pdf, 10 MB)—the prime instrument used to assess and track progress towards achieving the six education goals agreed in the Dakar Framework for Action 2000-2015 (pdf, 1 MB)—was launched at the opening session.

The Dakar Framework for Action, agreed at the 2000 World Education Forum, specifies six goals:

1. Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.
2. 
Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to, and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality.
3. 
Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills programmes.
4. 
Achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults.
5. 
Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good quality.
6. 
Improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.

With three years until the agreed deadline, UNESCO’s assessment is alarming: Education and training systems in many countries are failing their mandate to provide a quality education for all young people.^[1]

Despite significant gains in some regions, few countries are on track to meet the EFA goals:

Improvements in early childcare and education have been too slow; the aspiration to achieve universal primary education will be missed by a large margin; insufficient attention has been given to the goal of foundation skills; adult literacy remains an elusive goal to which governments and donors are indifferent; gender disparities continue to take a variety of forms; and global inequality in learning outcomes remains stark.

As a consequence, 61 million children and young people are without access to school, 75 million young people are unemployed, and an estimated 200 million young people are denied the second chance opportunities they need to acquire skills for employment.

As Gordon Brown, UN Special Envoy for Global Educationstated,

“We’re at a crossroads, a check point… We’re stagnating… and the rising discontent of young people is a sign of unfair distribution of opportunities.”

That progress has stagnated is clear; where accountability for this lies, and whether the change of approach to policy formulation and methods of governance required to achieve the Dakar aspirations will occur, is however, more ambiguous.

Youth and skills: Putting education to work?

In recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to skills development, the 2012 Global Monitoring Report (pdf, 10 MB) focuses on goal three of the Dakar Framework for Action (pdf, 1 MB)—
ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills programmes—and produces a series of recommendations to prioritise skill development for employment.

Three types of skills are identified as priority areas for policy action—foundational, transferable and technical/vocational skills—and policies and programmes are highlighted that have been successful in meeting the skills needs of disadvantaged young people.

The report strongly suggests that its content should form the backbone of national policies and investment strategies, and that the following ten actions should be adapted to local circumstances and prioritised by governments, aid donors, education community and the private sector:

1. Provide second-chance education for those with no or low foundation skills
2. Tackle the barriers that limit access to lower secondary school
3. Make upper secondary education more accessible to the disadvantaged and improve its relevance to work
4. Give poor urban youth access to skills training for better jobs
5. Aim policies and programmes at youth in deprived rural areas
6. Link skills training with social protection for the poorest youth
7. Prioritise the training needs of disadvantaged young women
8. Harness the potential of technology to enhance opportunities for young people
9. Improve planning by strengthening data collection and coordination of skills programmes
10. Mobilise additional funding from diverse sources dedicated to the training needs of disadvantaged youth

Much like the goals of the Dakar agreement these recommendations are clear in their vision, laudable in their aspirations and appear to be supported by a sense of urgency. However, even with political will, current systems and modes of thinking have been unable to deliver satisfactory progress on the Dakar goals.

As noted in the report:

“Where there are skills development plans, many are fragmentary, poorly coordinated, and inadequately aligned with labour market demands and countries’ development priorities.” ^[2]

The emphasis placed on training for the current labour market marks a major limitation not only of the currently existing ‘fragmentary, poorly coordinated and inadequately aligned’ skills development plans, but more fundamentally of the paradigm underpinning these plans as well as the Global Monitoring Report itself. Young people need more than skills for the jobs of the future: they need something that society doesn’t provide, namely the cultural, social, political and economic conditions to curtail the consequences of unsustainable growth and unfair distribution of (access to) resources and chances.

Similarly, recommendations around education should be based on a comprehensive understanding of the purpose it should serve. Without a more universal understanding of the components of a good life we risk continuing the pursuit of a narrowly defined existence. As one keynote speaker from South Africa noted,

“Life is more than producing goods and services for the economy… We don’t want to produce human robots.”

The commitments and visions articulated in the 2012 Global Monitoring Report, which are so characteristic of the start of the millennium, fail to respond to the scepticism that has emerged around decision-makers’ capacity to deliver.

What is to stop these recommendations becoming unmet aspirations that are forgotten in time for next year’s priority theme?

---

[1] – Plan with Youth – Engaging Youth in Planning Education for Social Transformation – Policy Forum Concept Note 2012. Link (pdf). [↩]

[2] – Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2012: Youth and skills. Putting Education to work. Page 19. Link (pdf). [↩]

---

Written by Leila Younis and John Muir, who attended the launch of UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Report at the Policy Forum ‘Plan with Youth: Engaging youth in planning education for social transformation.’

Coalition of thinkers vow to fight marketisation of universities

• 
  
  Shiv Malik
• The Guardian, Thursday 8 November 2012 19.57 GMT

Purpose of university is being 'grossly distorted by the attempt to create a market in higher education', says one CDBU founder

The Council for the Defence of British Universities' backers include Dame AS Byatt. One member accuses university leaders of being 'remarkably supine' in the face of government reforms. Photograph: Marco Secchi/Corbis

Some of Britain's most high-profile public intellectuals have formed a coalition to defend universities against the erosion of academic freedom and the marketisation of higher education.

Lord Bragg, Alan Bennett, Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins are among 65 writers, broadcasters and thinkers who have jointly founded the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU), to be launched next week.

The group's manifesto, also backed by former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion, Booker prize-winner Dame AS Byatt, playwright Michael Frayn and astronomer royal Lord Rees, claims the basis of a degree is under threat.

Writing in the Times Higher Education supplement, historian and former British Academy president Sir Keith Thomas said "the very purpose of the university" was being "grossly distorted by the attempt to create a market in higher education".

Students, he wrote were "regarded as 'consumers' and encouraged to invest in the degree course they think most likely to enhance their earning prospects".

Academics, he added, were now viewed as "producers, whose research is expected to focus on topics of commercial value and whose output is measured against a single scale and graded like sacks of wheat".

The organisation is expected to campaign for the abolition of government funding bodies and propose a move to fully independent grant councils free from political interference.

Last year, dozens of academics resigned from one such funding body, the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), in a row over academic freedom when the "big society" was introduced as a research priority.

Thomas also took a swipe at "remarkably supine" university leaders who were only concerned about gaining "local advantage" from government reforms rather than opposing them. "Deep dissatisfaction pervades the university sector. Its primary cause is not the lack of adequate funding, for it is appreciated that higher education is expensive and times are hard. Rather, it arises from the feeling that an understandable concern to improve the nation's economic performance, coupled with an ideological faith in the virtues of the market, has meant that the central values of the university are being sidelined or forgotten."

He said the task of the council was "not just to challenge a series of short-term political expedients: it must also combat a whole philosophy", adding: "British universities are a precious feature of our national life and enjoy a high international reputation. They should not be imperilled by misconceived government policies, however well-intentioned."

Writing in the same publication, Rees said morale among staff was being damaged. "I am lucky to have spent many years in one in the University of Cambridge. But even there, morale is falling," said the cosmologist and former head of the Royal Society.

"Coffee-time conversations are less about ideas and more about grants, the research excellence framework, job security and suchlike. Prospects of sustaining excellence will plummet if such concerns prey unduly on the minds of even the best young academics."

Are we going to let the Judiciary to be crushed by a steam rolling legislature

Remembering democracy - Editorial

Daily Mirror, 02/11/2012,

The Sri Lankan citizenry wakes up to a day to find the country’s democracy feebly drawing its last few breaths; or perhaps, it was already dead, though the people were too busy basking in the threadbare glory of war victory to notice the demise.

It died on the day people stood in endless queues to wave Lion Flags in support of the draconian 18th Amendment; was it the day the Right to Information Bill was defeated in Parliament or when the crucial 17th Amendment was put on the back rack-- one could not be too sure.
The persistent public hanging of what is left of country’s democracy has become a way of life with the present government, whose power seems capable enough to perform what was initially thought impossible by the creator of the 1978 Constitution.

Adding another insult to the fatal injury, it is reported that the constituent parties of the ruling United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) had decided to bring an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. The government had collected 118 signatures from MPs for the motion that is to be handed over to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa shortly.

If a government resorts to impeach the head of the Judiciary whose appointment had been signed and approved by the head of the same regime, it says a lot about the mechanisms under which it operates. Especially at a time when the country is facing the jitters of the Universal Periodical Review in Geneva, a government with a few grey-heads would not think it is wise to raise a hand against the courts of law.  Perhaps it was the penance for not heeding to the arbitrary biddings of the government. Whatever the reasons  the regime cooks up to justify its course, an ordinary citizen cannot help but feel that by pressurizing the Judiciary the government is aiming to silence the independent voice of the people.  Throughout history, the judiciary has been the guardian of democracy and the fundamental rights of people. It was in fact the only solace an ordinary citizen had at the hands of injustice.

Though elected by a majority vote, the obduracy of the incumbent government can hardly be mistaken to exercising the power of people; nor should it be dubbed as safeguarding the sovereignty.  The ideal parliamentary democracy which ought to have been enriched with checks and balances has turned into a presidential democracy with nominal liberality. The checks are checkered and the balance is dismantled.

Eulogies will hardly suffice where unity needs to speak aloud. And as history bears witness, silence could be misinterpreted as approval.  As Acton said, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the present government is no exception to the rule. It may be the country’s highest administrative body. But the country is not the regime; at least not yet!

The impeachment Of The Chief Justice Is A Prelude To Greater Militarisation

Colombo Telegraph, 02/11/2012, By Asian Human Rights Commission -

After a series of attacks on the judiciary the Mahinda Rajapaksa government is now reported to be engaged in preparing papers for the impeachment of the Chief Justice (CJ). While the accusation against the CJ is not known the determination of the government to impeach her has been highly publicised. The state media have been mobilised to make a concerted attack on the judiciary.

Meanwhile there is also a bill being discussed which attempts to introduce several provisions which will limit the powers of the magistrates relating to arrest and detention and will increase the powers of the police.

The reasons for the hurried attempts to suppress the judiciary are not accidental. The project for the replacement of the democratic form of governance with a national security state where the military and the intelligence services will have enormous powers has been going on for some time. Impunity for almost all actions by the executive and the security forces against the freedoms of the individual has been assured now for many years. The allegations of serious abuses of human rights by way of enforced disappearances, other forms of extrajudicial killings, torture and kidnappings are never credibly investigated.

Now, according to reports there are moves to bring the military more directly into the policing system. It was reported that even the IGP may be replaced by a military officer as a police commissioner. Also the OICs and Divisional Police Chiefs will be replaced by Special Task Force officers. This will amount to a complete shift from the civilian policing which is an essential component of a democracy to military policing.

Such radical changes would naturally be resisted by an independent judiciary. Therefore there is an urgent need to put in place judges who will be willing to carry out whatever projects the government may propose. The impeachment of the CJ has therefore several purposes. One is to remove the present CJ and replace her with a friend of the executive and the second is to have a chilling effect on all other judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The message is simple: anyone who will abide by the mandate to protect the dignity and the freedom of the individual as against the dictates of the executive is clearly not wanted among the highest judiciary.

The government, beset with serious economic problems will continue to impose harsher conditions on the population. The government knows that such measures will necessarily bring about retaliation from the trade unions and other organisations representing the ordinary folk. Such protests on the part of the people will be ruthlessly crushed and recourse to justice will be denied.

The government wants to pass a strong message to the effect that justice is no longer welcome. The courts will be required to approve whatever the government wants and the protection of the individual freedoms will be regarded as a hostile action towards the government.

Disappearances of persons and the disappearance of the system of justice

Over a long period Sri Lanka has been engaged in the large scale practice of enforced disappearances of persons. In the process justice has always been denied to the victims and their families. The practice of enforced disappearances amounts to the denial of all rights. This practice which has gone on for several decades has had a seriously paralysing influence on the entire system of justice.

Now the stage has been set for the destruction of the independence of judicial institutions altogether. These institutions have a history going back to 1802 when the Sri Lanka’s first Supreme Court was instituted. It is this legacy that is now being seriously challenged.

In a recent published book by a senior lawyer, S.L. Gunasekara entitled Lore of the Law and other Memories, the author quotes a prediction by another well known lawyer, D.S. Wijesinghe, President’s Council, “We now have a new Parliament and with it democracy vanished. We are now about to get a new Superior Courts Complex and with that justice will vanish“. With this attempt to file an impeachment on the incumbent Chief Justice this prophecy may come to a complete realisation.

While there are usual noises from some quarters protesting the impeachment move, there still does not seem to be a full grasp of the threat that the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka is faced with by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka or the legal profession. The end of the independence of the judiciary also means the end of the legal profession as an independent profession. The lawyers lose significant when the possibility of the protection of the dignity and the freedom of the individual is no longer possible.

It is perhaps the last chance available for everyone including the judiciary itself and the legal profession to fight back from the ultimate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the possibility of the protection of the dignity and the freedom of the individual in Sri Lanka. Many years of cumulative neglect has led to the possibility of the executive being able to come to a position to make a final assault against any challenge by way of demand for justice. Unless the gravity of this threat is fully grasped Sri Lanka will soon become like some countries which no longer have independent institutions to protect individual liberties.

The people of the north and east are already under military grip. It may not take a long time before the people of the south are also brought under the same grip.