Mawbima News

Appalling particulars of the manner in which former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his household members and his henchmen who had been Ministers of the former regime misused the Sri Lanka Air Force aircraft throughout the Presidential election campaigning period, have come to light.

SLAF helicopters and fixed-wing aircrafts have been exploited at the whims and fancies of the Rajapaksas and some of the Ministers of the former regime, which has resulted in a loss of millions of rupees which will now be settled by taxpayers’ cash.

*Rajapaksas&#8217 final flight &#8211 January 09th 2015- Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa boards a Sri Lanka Air Force Mi-17 helicopter for his flight to Tangalle. His sons Namal, Yoshitha and Rohitha went with him. Photo courtesy Susantha Liyanawatte

Weekly newspaper Sunday Instances reported the SLAF aircrafts have been misused by the Rajapaksa loved ones and some of the former Ministers as if it was a ‘local taxi service’.

Former President had used different varieties of helicopters and Chinese constructed Y-12 passenger transport aircraft on 71 flights for the duration of the period of December 1, 2014 – January 9, 2015. They had all been used to attend election rallies except for a couple of official engagements.

Even though his then rival, President Sirisena was not permitted to use the SLAF assets, others who are not entitled for this perk like his son MP Namal Rajapaksa, the then 1st lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa had freely produced use of this facility and obtained free of charge rides on SLAF helicopters.

Shiranthi Rajapaksa had employed SLAF aircrafts on seven trips for which payments have not been created to this day and 1 such trip involves travelling from Rathmalana to Maharagama and back, which is not a lot more than 5 km apart on December 12.

Meanwhile Namal Rajapaksa had utilized the flights on 25 occasions with out producing any type of payment up to this date and travelled to various locations such as Mattala, Tangalle, Rathnapura, Kandy, Anuradhapura, Manna, Palali and so on.

Meanwhile it has been revealed that Rajapaksa sibling, former Minister Basil Rajapaksa had utilised the SLAF aircrafts on seven flights as effectively as other Ministers like Wimal Weerawansa (seven flights), Susil Premjayantha (three flights), North Western province Chief Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera and an individual named S Manamendra who had travelled on a Bell 412 helicopter from Ratmalana to Colombo, Ginigathena and returned to Rathmalana.

&#8220The Sri Lanka Air Force is but to acquire payments for flights provided to members of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s household and former Ministers of his Government. The rates were charged from the point of departure of the aircraft/helicopter from the SLAF base in Ratmalana. Until yesterday the SLAF has not received any payments for these flights.&#8221 the Sunday Occasions said.

Right here are some of those who took the flights:

Namal Rajapaksa – MP

December 1, 2014 – SLAF Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Mattala and return to Ratmalana.
December three, 2014 – SLAF Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Koggala, Tangalle, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 7, 2014 – SLAF Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Tangalle, Wellawaya, Hambantota, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 9, 2014 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft – to fly from Ratmalana to Mattala, Bandaranaike International Airport and return to Ratmalana.
December 11, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Ratnapura, Kandy, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 12, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Hambantota, Wellawaya, Hambantota, Koggala, Bandaranaike International Airport and return to Ratmalana.
December 14, 2014 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft to fly from Ratmalana to Katunayake, Anuradhapura, Bandaranaike International Airport and return to Ratmalana.
December 15, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Ratnapura and return to Ratmalana.
December 16, 2014 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft to fly from Ratmalana, Mattala, and return to Ratmalana.
December 17, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Palavi, Mannar, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 21, 2014 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft from Ratmalana, Vavuniya and return to Ratmalana.
December 22, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Galgamuwa and return to Ratmalana.
December 24, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Tangalle, Koggala, Tangalle, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 25, 2014- Y12 Harbin transport aircraft from Ratmalana to Ampara.
December 26, 2014 – Y12 Harbin transport aircraft to fly from Ampara and return via Katunayake to Ratmalana.
December 27, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Deraniyagala and return to Ratmalana.
January 1, 2015 – Bell 412 to fly from Ratmalana to Koggala, Tangalle, Kurunegala and return to Ratmalana.
January 2, 2015 – Bell 212 helicopter to fly from Hingurakgoda to Kekirawa, Aralaganwila and return to Hingurakgoda.
January four, 2015 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft to fly from Ratmalana to Kankesanthurai (Jaffna), Mattala and return to Ratmalana.
January 5, 2015 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Wirawila, Makandura, Colombo, Kaduwela, Nattandiya and return to Ratmalana.
January six, 2015 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Medamulana, Koggala and return to Ratmalana.
January 6, 2015 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft to fly from Ratmalana to Mattala and Anuradhapura. Night Stop.
January 7 2015 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft to fly from Anuradhapura, Wellawaya and return to Ratmalana.

Basil Rajapaksa, former Minister of Economic Improvement

December 13, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Kurunegala, Kegalle and return to Ratmalana.
December 15, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Ratnapura, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 16, 2014 – Mi- 17 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Vavuniya, Jaffna and Palaly.
December 16, 2014 – Harbin transport aircraft Y 12 to fly from Ratmalana to Palaly and return to Ratmalana.
December 17, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter – to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Wennappuwa, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
December 18, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter – to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Matale, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
January 8 2015 – Bell 412 helicopter – to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Medamulana, Koggala, Medamulana, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.

Former initial lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa

December 7, 2014 – Mi-17 helicopter from Colombo to Matale, Pallekele, Kandy and return to Ratmalana.
December eight, 2014 – Mi-17 helicopter from Colombo to Kandy and return to Colombo.
December 10, 2014 – Mi-17 helicopter from Ratmalana to Maharagama and return to Ratmalana.
December 12, 2014 – Mi-17 helicopter from Tangalle to Colombo
January two, 2015 – Mi-17 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Naula and return to Ratmalana.
January three, 2015 – Mi-17 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Badulla, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
January four, 2015 – Mi-17 helicopter to fly from Colombo to Kurunegala and return to Colombo.

Wimal Weerawansa, former Minister of Housing and Building

December 20, 2014 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft to fly from Ratmalana, Ampara and return to Ampara.
December 21, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Moneragala, Wellawaya, Buttala and Koggala and return to Ratmalana.
December 21, 2014 – Harbin Y 12 from Ratmalana to fly to Koggala and return to Ratmalana.
January 1, 2015 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Kandy, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
January 2, 2015 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Kandy, Kantale, Sigiriya and return to Ratmalana.
January two 2015 – Harbin Y 12 transport aircraft from Ratmalana to Hingurakgoda and return to Ratmalana.
January 5 2015 – Mi 17 transport helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Wirawila, Matara, Ambalangoda, Matugama and return to Ratmalana.

Susil Premajayantha, former Minister of Atmosphere and Renewable Energy

December 30, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, China Bay, Kantale, Valachchenai and Hingurakgoda. Evening stop.
December 31, 2014 – Bell 412 helicopter to fly from Hingurakgoda to Ampara, Colombo and return to Ratmalana.
January 2, 2015 – Mi-17 helicopter to fly from Ratmalana to Colombo, Palaly, Jaffna, Vavuniya, Mannar and return to Colombo.

By S. I. Keethaponcalan –

The adjust of government in January 2015 in Sri Lanka turned the attention of the nation, at least partially, to constitutional reform. President Sirisena won the presidential election promising to make changes to the program of governance. With no wasting as well a lot time, the present government, initial released a draft proposal, then published the draft bill known as the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution, and finally announced amendments to the 19^th Amendment. The proposals entail numerous components. This write-up, even so, deals with the central aspect, i.e, powers of the president and the politics played about this concern.

First Proposal

The 1st proposal published by the government in February 2015 to reform the constitution entailed some radical rudiments as it proposed to transform the current executive presidential program into a parliamentary type of government. According to the original proposal the president was needed to act “always…on the tips of the Prime Minister” except of course “in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister.” The prime minister was also to be the head of the government.

This was in a way intriguing since President Sirisena did not guarantee to abolish the executive presidential program in his election manifesto. He only promised to take away what he named the “autocratic” powers of the president. Nevertheless, the abolitionists who provided impetus to Sirisena’s election campaign had been elated.

Nevertheless, some of the nationalist Sinhala groups that consisted of political parties and ideological factions were up in arms, especially the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). The group declared that it would not support the proposed adjustments. Why? These groups believed that a diluted political leadership is detrimental to the national security of the country. This notion possibly was based on two assumptions.

One, a robust political leadership (preferably the president) is a precondition to stop a feasible reemergence of the LTTE. The threat perception within this group still remains really strong. They believe that the LTTE will make a comeback with the assistance of the Tamil diaspora and friendly governments in the West. Two, a parliamentary type of government would potentially magnify the power and influence of Tamil parties, specially the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), forcing future governments to make unnecessary concessions. The possibility of an executive prime minister conceding to the Tamils on the far more critical question of devolution of power is not acceptable to these groups. Hence, the assault on the 1st proposal.

19^th Amendment

The resistance forced the UNP government to renegotiate the constitutional amendment with concerned parties and alter its original concepts of constitutional reform. Consequently, the government officially published the draft bill of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The 19^th Amendment might be observed as a victory for JHU and other nationalist Sinhala factions simply because the thought to transform the program into a parliamentary type of government was dropped. According to the proposed 19^th Amendment the president is not required to act on the advice of the prime minister.

The draft bill of the 19^th Amendment tried to attain two objectives. 1, it retained the executive presidency although curtailing some of the powers which abetted authoritarianism. For instance, according to the bill, the president shall be “the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” The bill meanwhile proposed to reintroduce the two term limit for the president and restrict the term in office to 5 years as an alternative of the original six years. Two, it proposed to elevate powers of the prime minister. According to this draft the prime minister, for example, will be the head of the cabinet of ministers, decide the number of ministers and have the powers to assign and change subjects of the ministers.

As a result, the proposed 19^th Amendment could be depicted as a compromised formula as it attempted to strike a balance in between agendas that seek to abolish and these that seek to retain the executive presidential method. As the stress mounted against the draft bill, the government not too long ago published what it known as the “Amendments proposed to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution Bill,” which stated that “There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.”

Regardless of these alterations, the JHU’s resistance continued, which indicated that the celebration was not in favor of constitutional reform at this point in time. It is crucial to note that the celebration, in spite of its meager electoral base, has exercised considerable energy and influence below the present method. Probably there is a nexus amongst the energy the celebration enjoys under the present method and the continuous resistance to any form of constitutional modify.

National Government

Meanwhile, in an fascinating turn of events, the Sri Lanka Freedom Celebration (SLFP), which hitherto performed tasks of the principal opposition party in parliament, accepted ministerial portfolios in the new government and became component of what is termed the national government. For the initial time in the history of Sri Lanka, the two significant parties, the SLFP and the United National Party (UNP) are in the government at the exact same time.

The SLFP’s entry into the government should have raised the likelihood of obtaining the amended version of the bill ratified in the national legislature. The UNP does not have the required two-thirds majority in parliament. With the SLFP assistance, a two-thirds majority could be achieved. Given that both are in the government, theoretically, it must be straightforward to adopt the amendments now.

The SLFP even so is not budging. Party leaders declared that the SLFP would not help the proposed amendment sans provisions to reform the electoral system and want the next general election carried out beneath the new program. The fact that even if the electoral system is reformed quickly, sufficient time needed to provide for implementation does not look to be resonating.

These demands imparted the impression that the present electoral program is detrimental to its probabilities of winning the next general election. It is true that J. R. Jayewardene, the architect of the present constitution, thought that the proportional representation program would bestow an added advantage to the UNP. But the SLFP has won sufficient elections under the present technique. The party can give the UNP a run for its funds if an election is carried out below the present method even nowadays. It is amusing to see the party selecting a but to be determined technique to the present a single.

Consequently, one can argue that concern about the electoral program can’t be the actual lead to of the SLFP resistance to the proposed bill. Some think that the SLFP is covertly operating for President Sirisena. The president understands that weakening the office of the executive president at this point in time could be unsafe. It could pave the way for former president Mahinda Rajapaksa to return to active politics and even enter parliament as the prime minister. Such a situation could be suicidal for Sirisena and his partners such as Democratic Party leader Sarath Fonseka and former president Chadrika Kumaratunga. Naturally, he can’t choose a strengthened office of the prime minister.

If he is not keen to reform the constitution as proposed, one of the very best approaches to delay or scuttle the method is to get the SLFP to make unrealistic demands. Following all, he is the leader of the SLFP. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has already accused the president of conspiring against the proposed constitutional adjust.

Supreme Court

Obviously, the bill was challenged in the Supreme Court. It was determined that some clauses of the bill had been inconsistent with the constitution. In order to be approved, they require the approval of the men and women in a referendum, in addition to a two-thirds majority in parliament. Importantly, the clauses that bestow powers on the prime minister need approval of the people. The government nevertheless, is not keen to go for a referendum right away. According to news reports coming from Colombo, these clauses will be dropped. This will eliminate any possibility of creating fundamental changes to the system. If approved, the proposals, in the present kind, will take away only a handful of powers of the president and the prime minister will stay a rubber stamp.

*Dr. S. I. Keethaponcalan is Chair of the Conflict Resolution Division, Salisbury University, Maryland.

By Lasanthi Daskon Attanayake –

Dr Ajith C S Perera, in his post ‘Access to Justice : Constitutional Protection for All’ succinctly encapsulate the wide variety of troubles faced by persons living with disabilities in Sri Lanka. His emphasis is ‘access’ of all forms, not just to the constructed atmosphere but to the whole social, political and legal fabric of the country. This is not the initial time Dr Perera wrote about access. He being the only Disability Rights Activist in Sri Lanka to method mainstream print media in writing critical pieces on the want for recognising the huge percentage of persons with disabilities in Sri Lanka continues to campaign difficult .

Much less than four days after we study Dr Perera’s post, a news item seems in a neighborhood newspaper on the discrimination faced by a student with a disability in one particular of the top Girls’ Schools in Colombo, which is followed by however one more article in Colombo Telegraph relating to the issues faced by a traveller with a disability.

It is sad that a youngster with a disability, be it in a major school or not, has to fight for her rights although the School Principal apparently stated that they can not make adjustments ‘just for 1 student’. What would that Principal expect that ‘one child’ to do, exactly where does she anticipate the child to go, if she is not accepted by her personal college? Do we know how many tiny girls and boys in this country are shut out of education in this way? Do we know that physical infrastructure, most of the time, is not the only situation they face? Do we know how significantly we are burdening the families of those youngsters and the society in turn, by not delivering them the chance to be productive members of society?

This is just one story, one aspect. Disability cuts across all dimensions of society, disability could influence any one of us at any offered time. Disability in its numerous types, come to us in our old age. But, we , as a society, look at disability as the abnormality or the impossibility. Our ‘normal’, ‘perfect’ human selves look at persons with disabilities and feel ‘sorry’ for them, wonder what sins they committed in their previous lives to reside with a disability in this life, and heave sighs of relief that we are fortunate not to have ‘sinned’.

&nbsp

*Dr. Ajith Perera &#8211 Campaigns for the Democratic Correct for Inclusion

We take these attitudes to our governing systems, into our policy generating and into our administration. And we ignore the concerns of persons with disabilities due to the fact, to us, in all our undisputed self-proclaimed perfectness, they are only an unfortunate ‘few’.

What we, as a country are reluctant to recognize is that persons with disabilities are the biggest minority group in the nation, and provided the opportunity to be participants in our socio-financial sphere, they would make their contribution to the nation as significantly as the so-named majority would.

Let us now explore a couple of of the prominent gaps.

Gaps in our Laws

Sri Lanka was among the first countries which signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on the quite day it was opened for signature. We enacted a law relating to disability as far back as 1996, a decade ahead of the CRPD came into getting. Possessing made such progress, we now choose to shy away from ratifying the convention and bringing in new progressive legislation in relation to disability. It is therefore worthy of locating out what trigger or causes have debilitated the aspirations of at least a million and a half (going by the government statistics) persons with disabilities living in the island.

Plainly speaking, the malady of disability rights in Sri Lanka has several tentacles the archaic disability rights legislation, the non-ratification of the CRPD and the reluctance to enact a new, progressive law.

The 1996 Act (Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. No. 28 of 1996), has only a fleeting mention of the ‘rights’ of the disabled and instead focuses heavily on the establishment of the National Council on Disability, its powers and functions. Professor Fiona Kumari Campbell writes that the Act, despite its pretence of being concerned with rights, severely lack in the provision of a codified statement of rights and a philosophical framework to help interpretation and generate the development of politics and law reform.

Considering that 2006, the Ministry of Social Solutions has been struggling with emerging and disappearing draft disability rights Bills. Mysterious circumstances have made a draft Bill disappear and a various version with no substantial improvements to the 1996 Act emerge. Another Bill was drafted in 2013 which again is mysteriously shelved away. Although wider, nationwide consultations had been suggested on the draft bill by particular advocates, the furthest audience it reached have been a couple of chosen consultants (which includes the author). Yet, the consultants themselves had been not informed whether their suggestions were taken into consideration or not, and as to why the drafting approach did not proceed beyond the point of receiving suggestions from them.

The ratification of the CRPD is an issue vehemently debated by particular disability rights advocates themselves. Some were of the robust opinion that the State can’t ratify the treaty unless and till the domestic law falling in line with the CRPD is enacted.

The core of the debate, according to the author’s understanding, is the vexed query of the Disability Services Authority. The Ministry of Social Solutions appears to be of the firm belief (as expressed by its officials) that the establishment of an Independent Authority will take disability out of the purview of the Ministry and that it would be detrimental to the yeoman services provided by the Ministry to the community of persons with disabilities in Sri Lanka. The members of the National Council on Disability have not voiced their opinion on this concern in the open, but it could be safely assumed that they are drastically divided among themselves on this concern.

Marginalisation within the Movement

It is sad that the majority of the outspoken members of the community of persons with disabilities are not broadly represented in the National Council and that the activities of the Council are not as transparent as it must ideally be.

It is also sad that the majority of activities of Disabled Peoples’ Organisations in Sri Lanka stay in the periphery and does not penetrate into mainstream advocacy. Even though the need for empowerment and service provision is of paramount importance, the require for progression of the movement to influence legal and political adjustments cannot be ignored. The globe has witnessed and is nonetheless witnessing the alterations that are brought about by way of mobilisation and activism. I have often heard Disability Rights Advocates say that aggressive lobbying is not the way to get factors done in Sri Lanka, and that we have to function hand in hand with the political and administrative authorities if we are to acquire good results. But somehow, this mild diplomacy does not appear to have brought a lot good adjustments in the disability sphere.

There is also a lack of solidarity and transparency within the Movement The movement wants to revamp itself, open its doors to young men and women with disabilities and supply them space to express their views. A democratic movement, open for criticism will bring in vigour and vitality. A strengthened movement will inevitably influence social progression and bring in political modify.

Ignorance

Our politicians still remain ignorant (at least) of the potential of the voter base of persons with disabilities and their households. If we go strictly by government statistics (2012) which state that eight.five% of the population reside with some form of a disability and assume that there are close upon a single and a half million persons with disabilities, and add one loved ones member per each individual with a disability, nevertheless the number would be at least 3 million persons. Surprisingly, our political leaders do not seem to accept this as a potential voter base.

Coupled with this disinterest and the extreme lack of access in the electoral procedure, persons with disabilities are kept away from political participation.

Other places

Our whole legal program, like the infrastructure, the courts, the judiciary and the practitioners, remain in the dark of the problems a particular person with a disability would face in accessing legal redress, as quoted at the beginning of this write-up, majority of our schools and universities are not ready to accept a child with a disability, our transport systems, our roads, our public places, regardless of current improvements, remain largely inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Moreover, the corporate sector is poorly informed of the prospective of inclusive firms. All in all, as a nation, as a society, we are totally oblivious to the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in our social and physical atmosphere.

How do we move forward?

The answers are numerous, but the primarily we require to understand that disability is not an isolated problem. It is cross-cutting, and omnipresent, it could affect any 1 of us at any offered time, temporarily or permanently. Persons with Disabilities are not ‘a few’ as many would like to think. they are ‘many’, living among us and with us. Disabilities are not ‘uncommon’ or ‘abnormal’, they are a portion of normality, a reality of life. Persons with Disabilities share the same dreams, aspirations, hopes and feelings as the non-disabled majority.

As a result, as a nation, as a society, it is essential for us to initial and foremost consider inclusion a necessity, not an choice.

*Lasanthi is an Lawyer-at-Law who is reading for her Masters in Human Rights at the University of Colombo. She is an independent consultant on disability and is a going to lecturer at the Department of Disability Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ragama. She is married to Senarath Attanayake, the first and the only elected politician who has lived with a disability his whole life and also the 1st person in a wheelchair to become an Lawyer-at-Law

By Laksiri Fernando –

“If 1 desires to modify the nature of a specific democracy, the electoral program is probably to be the most appropriate and successful instrument of undertaking so.” &#8211  Arend Lijphart

Any electoral reform that intends to substantially alter the proportional representation (PR) in Sri Lanka will go against people’ sovereignty. For that reason, any try to do so need to be opposed. This does not imply that the introduction of ‘first previous the post (FPP) constituencies,’ within the current or a new PR system is undemocratic. In reality these constituencies are necessary to improve the elector-elector links for much better democracy and representative accountability.

Among the so far discussed or disclosed proposals, the ‘best loser’ approach linked with the Dinesh Gunawardena (DG) recommendations on mixing (not linking) FPP and PR is the most undemocratic.

There are two primary nations which employ the ‘best loser’ (BL) strategy at present: Mauritius and Japan. It is possible that DG or his advisers picked the technique from Japan than Mauritius since the program in Mauritius has been far more controversial than in Japan and it is in the method of abandoning at present. Italy also employed the ‘best loser’ technique throughout 1993 and 2005 but abandoned it for whatever the reason.

Expertise in Mauritius

When Mauritius received independence in 1967, it adapted this method from the colonial practice of ‘communal representation.’ It was an appendage to the Westminster FPP program to let particular minorities to give representation on the basis of their assertion. For this objective all candidates have been compelled to ‘declare their ethnicity/religion’ which was fundamentally undemocratic. At the starting it worked nicely and even considered a needed ingredient in a multi-ethnic/religious society. It had nothing considerably to do with proportional representation.

Mauritius is divided into 21 multimember constituencies and elects 62 members by way of the FPP program. As described before, the constitution compels all contestants to declare his/her ethnicity and particular minorities (Muslims, Christians, Chinese or Creoles) qualify for the ‘best loser’ accommodation for 8 seats in a 70 member assembly. All may possibly be losers, but only the greatest are accommodated under the scheme. For that reason, as a approach this is similar to what is proposed in Sri Lanka.

There is or was some validity in the concept when it is/was applied in the case of representation of tiny ethnic/religious minorities. Similarly, if this is applied for representation of females, nevertheless there can be some validity.

Yet, the practice was challenged just before the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) as a violation of certain principles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and a determination was given in August 2012. That is one reason why Mauritius is now thinking about its abolition and devising a greater technique of representation which includes adopting a PR program.

Among the two primary contentions transpired for the duration of the HRC determination, the inadvisability of the stereotyped communal representation and the deviation from the principle of ‘one vote 1 value,’ the latter has a lot relevance in discarding the ‘best loser’ approach in any country.

Sekihairitsu (very best losers) in Japan

In contrast to in Mauritius, Japan makes use of the best loser technique as a portion of proportional representation. This was introduced in 1996. In a 480 member parliament, 300 members are elected via FPP method in single member constituencies and 180 in a PR tier. The PR tier is a list technique. This is also a mixed member technique, nonetheless allocation of seats in one particular tier does not dependent on the other. In other words, the constituency technique is not linked to an general PR program like in Germany or New Zealand.

As Leonard Schoppa has stated “in a mixed member technique, the devil is typically in the details,” whether in Japan, Germany, New Zealand, Sri Lanka or Russia. Russia is another country which has an unlinked mixed member system however with out a ‘best loser’ technique.

The two principal principles in the Japanese system are (1) the double candidacy (choufuku rikkouho), which is typical to a lot of mixed systems, and (2) the ‘best loser’ (sekihairitsu) provisions. The second provision signifies that the candidates in the PR list also be nominated in a single member district or vice versa. Japan usually ranks the candidates in the PR list collectively and not on a preferential order. Then the candidates who win their single member constituencies are deleted from the PR list. Thereafter, the remaining candidates are then ranked according to how close they came to winning their single member constituencies.

The ‘philosophical’ argument goes that possibly the candidate B lost to A by one vote! Consequently, the best loser notion is democratic. In Japan, the calculation employed is not the calculation proposed in Sri Lanka. Japanese ratio equals, in the above example, the votes received by A divided by the votes received by B.

The following nonetheless is the ‘devil’ according to Leonard Schoppa (The Evolution of Japan’s Party Method, 2011).

“The PR component of the new electoral system has provided a few seats to little parties, but the major parties have employed it to resolve nomination troubles in the single-member districts that are at the heart of the system.” (My emphasis).

Where the Devil in Sri Lanka?

We have nevertheless not seen the devil in Sri Lanka! Of course we have seen several devils in the political arena, but what I mean is behind the electoral reform proposals to introduce the ‘best loser’ method. The final report of the Gunawardena (PSC) Committee is not available for public scrutiny. This is even following the acceptance of ‘right to information’ in principle as a constitutional proper. The Interim PSC Report does not have a lot meat. It is only of six pages. What it says in total about the national electoral technique is the following.

“The majority view favours reforms to the present technique leading towards a Mixed Method of a mixture of First-previous-the-post and Proportional Representation Systems. Issues were raised in respect of a proposed adjust of the present program by minority parties and communities of interests who urged the committee to make sure equitable representation in the method that is finally proposed.”

“Your Committee is of the view that a mixed technique be adopted which involves components of Initial-past-the-post and Proportional Representation systems. The modalities and particulars of the technique to be adopted would be further deemed by the Committee at its future sittings and would be presented to Parliament in due course.”

“The Committee is in agreement that the present quantity of Members of Parliament need to not be elevated.”

Of course it calls for a mixed technique. It talks about a combination of FPP and PR. The Interim Report focuses on other issues like national identity cards, postal voting and even electronic voting which are not altogether unnecessary. It is attainable that there was a final report subsequently. Even so, I have heard even the Election Commissioner saying he has not noticed or it was not submitted to him.

There is significantly speak about the ‘best loser method’ or concept nevertheless. However, there can be numerous approaches of applying even the ‘best loser’ approach as we have seen above in the case of Mauritius and Japan.

In the President Maithripala Sirisena’s Election Manifesto he says the following.

&#8220I guarantee the abolition of the preferential method and will ensure that every single electorate will have a Member of Parliament of its personal.  The new electoral technique will be a mixture of the first-past-the post system and the proportional representation of defeated candidates&#8220

The 1st sentence is significantly far more important than the second. It guarantees the abolition of the preferential system and the introduction of electorates (constituencies) with its own Members of Parliament. It does not say about abolishing the PR method. It is apparent that the formulation is not effectively believed out in the hurry probably. Even though it says ‘the proportional representation of defeated candidates’ what is needed is the proportional representation of all deserving parties for good governance in the country.

Like the bizarre terminology of the ‘best loser,’ the advocacy of a ‘program of defeated candidates’ proportional representation’ (DCPR!) smacks democratic principles and excellent governance. It is unfortunate that this has creeped into Mr. Sirisena’s Manifesto. By altering the terminology to ‘runner up’ from ‘best loser’ would not make a distinction.

Greatest-Loser Mentality

Schoppa identified the intent to ‘solve nomination problems’ as the major motive behind the ‘best loser’ approach in Japan. What could be the motives in Sri Lanka? I hardly consider the concern in the Gunawardena report was for the minor or minority parties or democratic principles. It is essential to figure the period in which this ‘secret’ report has finally carved out – 2007.

The political class in Sri Lanka has, by and big, turn out to be a parasitic tribe. Appear at what they say about the Best Loser at the Presidential elections! The very best loser need to turn into the Prime Minister! This is the very same mentality in proposing the ‘best loser’ approach in the electoral program. Gunawardena is the primary man behind each moves.

I have noticed in current instances at least two essential political figures, one particular in the government and one in the dubious opposition, lamenting that they may possibly shed their assigned electorates beneath a FPP competitors. A single was also a crucial member of the Gunawardena Committee. So they can only get into parliament under the ‘best loser’ system.

This is not to say that there is something particularly incorrect in placing the exact same candidate in each tiers (FPP and PR), if the political party so wish and the individual so deserve. This might be needed particularly in the case of females candidates. Nonetheless, accommodating the ‘best losers’ or ‘defeated candidates’ need to not be the beginning point or the decisive issue in the PR tier.

There is also a essential distinction in between the constituency of the FPP winner and the PR winner. In the case of Sri Lanka, the first should be the constituency or the electorate and the second need to be the all round district. Duty and accountability need to be different. The losers must not be packed to the exact same ‘Kalawana’ seat. The proposed ‘best loser’ accommodation is arbitrary like the old ‘Kalawana’ double seating.

The ‘best loser’ (initial loser) strategy can be a trick to redistribute PR seats amongst the loser candidates of main parties in any country. What about the second or the second greatest losers? The technique will betray the objective of proportional representation altogether. As some of the members of the HRC pointed out in the Mauritius case, the ideal loser system violates a fundamental principle of universal franchise, ‘one vote a single value.’ What the proportional representation tries to obtain is not the equalisation of (obvious) unproportioned votes among winners and losers but to give due share of representation to proportionate votes that the parties and/or candidates receive from the men and women.

It is very best that the ‘best loser’ idea is entirely dropped in election vocabulary not only in Sri Lanka but everywhere altogether.