One to one with Hon MP Lakshman Kirella

Mahinda has taken the path of Robert Mugabe – Kiriella

"I am personally opposed to fielding anyone from outside. Our rank and file are insisting that it should be a UNP candidate."

"The Leadership Council is now defunct. After the Uva elections we have not met even once to make any important decisions."

With a presidential election in the offing, The Island staffer C.A. Chandraprema speaks to UNP parliamentarian Lakshman Kiriella about the UNP’s choice of a presidential candidate and the policies the party will seek a mandate for.

Q: Should the UNP leader contest the presidential election under the green colour and the elephant symbol or should the party agree to field an outsider as the common candidate?

A: I am personally opposed to fielding anyone from outside. Our rank and file are insisting that it should be a UNP candidate. Last time we gave in to Sarath Fonseka and it didn’t do any good for the party. Despite all the government pressure at the Uva elections and the giving of Rs. 2500 virtually to every household in Moneragala, we got 40% of the vote in that province. The opposition parties working with us have also accepted the view that it should be a UNP candidate.

Q: If the UNP wins, should the victorious UNP president abolish the executive presidential system?

A: If the UNP gets a sufficient majority, in parliament, I would definitely prefer abolition. Under the executive presidential system the person wielding executive power is not in parliament. He would be outside, surrounded by a few advisors. But if he sits in parliament and listens to the opposition MPs speaking, you become more aware of the real situation in the country. I feel that the parliamentary system is the best form of government.

Q: But do you think the ordinary man on the street, or even the rank and file of the UNP are really interested in the abolition of the executive presidency?

A: The slogan of abolishing the executive presidency is an issue to unify the opposition. But it’s not an issue in the rural areas. I concede that. The real issue is the cost of living and lack of employment.

Q: While calling for the abolishing of the executive presidency, you also seek to reintroduce the independent commissions under the 17th Amendment. Isn’t that a dangerous combination? Once you abolish the executive presidency, the power of the presidency will be gone. Then by introducing the independent commissions under the 17th Amendment, you take power away from the cabinet and parliamentary government as well and give it to unelected persons who are not answerable to parliament. The UNP parliamentary government of 2001-2004 was the principle victim of the 17th Amendment. When the UNP came into power in 2001, the Public Services Commission had been set up. When the new government tried to provide redress for party members who had been victimised under the Chandrika Kumaratunga regime, all those files were seized by the PSC saying that the ministries did not have the power to look into such things. Then the PSC sent letters to all those who had been victimised saying that as far as they could see, no victimisation had taken place! That was one of the principle reasons for the UNP to fall in 2004.

A: The UNP did not expect Chandrika to dissolve parliament in 2004. We hardly had any time to address that issue because priority was given to the economy. But I agree with you we should have had a political programme running parallel to the economic programme. When I was minister of plantation industries, I appointed a committee headed by a retired public servant who looked into about 200 cases of political victimisation in the plantation ministry. I instructed the corporation chairmen to address these issues and it was taken care of.

Q: That would have been possible in Public Corporations, but in the public service proper like the education ministry and the public administration ministry the PSC did not allow any cases of political victimisation to be taken up.

A: I think the ministers in charge should have been more ruthless and they should have exercised all their powers. For example, when I was in the plantations ministry, my ministry secretary got a letter saying that he should not to recruit any new employees. I showed my secretary a section in the legislation applicable to the institutions under us which said that when the minister gives a directive, the secretary has to implement it and I told him that a letter from the Treasury Secretary cannot override this statutory authority. So during the two years I was a minister, I gave about 1000 jobs. I had 15 corporations under me and there was no interference from Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Q: When an ordinary citizen is without redress from any quarter, he will address a petition to the Public Petitions Committee of parliament. But these independent commissions were not answerable even to the Public Petitions Committee. Would you be in favour of making these commissions answerable to parliament where bodies like the Public Petitions Committee can question them and even reverse their decisions?

A: That is worth considering. We are open to new ideas. For example if the Constitutional Council rejects a nominee the person concerned has to have at least one opportunity to have that decision reviewed.

Q: If we turn to the internal situation in the UNP, can we say that the appointment of Sajith Premadasa as the deputy leader of the party has brought about a kind of equilibrium that the party did not have earlier?

A: Definitely. Sajith Premadasa has tremendous support in rural areas like the district I represent. His father President Premadasa looked after people who were forgotten marginalised. So people feel that given an opportunity Sajith will follow in his father’s footsteps.

Q: Before this equilibrium was reached, we saw the UNP experimenting with all kinds of alternative leadership structures. There was something called an Advisory Council earlier. Then there was the Leadership Council. What role does the Leadership Council have now?

A: Before Sajith became the deputy leader of the party, I think the leadership council played a very important role. It took the pressure off Ranil, appointing organisers, and even financing the party to a large extent. Now that Sajith has been appointed deputy leader and Tissa Attanayake has resigned the Leadership Council is now defunct. After the Uva elections we have not met even once to take any important decisions.

Q: Some people have reservations about certain policy stances taken by the UNP. You have gone on record saying that the government should cooperate with the inquiry being conducted by the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights of the UN. Isn’t it politically unwise to hold a position like that? The OHCHR inquiry does not provide any advantage to the UNP. On the contrary, it gives the UPFA an opportunity to claim victimisation and discrimination at the hands of the imperialist capitalist powers and gives them a powerful rallying cry. Sajith Premadasa has steadfastly opposed any kind of international inquiry against Sri Lanka and that partly accounts for his personal popularity.

A: My position on the OHCHR inquiry was taken as a lawyer. In the government’s correspondence with the Darusman committee they had pledged to prosecute members of the armed forces under the Army, Navy and Air force Acts. The problem faced by the government is that they have not fulfilled the pledges given to the international community. In 2009, the government pledged to the UNHRC that the 13th Amendment would be implemented. But it has not been implemented. If the government makes a genuine attempt to devolve power, all these other problems can be sorted out. The government thinks the international community is all out to hound us. That is not so. They are using allegations of human rights violations as a lever to get devolution.

Q: Devolution has got stuck at the point of devolving police and land powers. If you devolve police powers all powers go to the provinces other than in 11 named instances. The 11 offences reserved for the centre are relatively rare like international crimes, crimes against judges and parliamentarians, crimes with regard to currency etcetera. Furthermore, the provincial DIG can be appointed only with the concurrence of the chief minister...

A: Mahinda Rajapaksa said he was going to go beyond the 13th Amendment. He said that to get around India. So these are promises given by him, not by us.

Q: There is a serious problem even with regard to land powers as well. In India, the central government can acquire any piece of state land in a state for a purpose reserved for the central government without so much as a by your leave to the state government. But you can’t do that in Sri Lanka according to the 13th amendment. In Sri Lanka the central government also cannot initiate any land alienation...

A: If leaders made promises, they have to be honoured. Why did Mahinda promise 13 Plus?

Q: The UNP wants to abolish the executive presidency and introduce a parliamentary form of government. Then the independent commissions are to be set up and powers taken away from the cabinet. Finally power is to be taken away from the centre by devolving police and land powers to the provinces. At every step it will be a case of diluting state power and once all three steps are implemented, there will be no government worth speaking of.

A: If power had been devolved at the time of independence, by now people would have got used to the system. We have to start somewhere. If we miss the bus again, we have to realise that the international community is waiting for an opportunity to divide us. The government must be intelligent enough not to give them that opportunity. Today the government has no credibility. We are not getting foreign direct investment because there is no rule of law. When the Elections Commissioner prohibited the distribution of drought relief in Moneragala two people went to courts and obtained a ruling ordering the distribution to be allowed, but without ever summoning the Elections Commissioner to court! During the first budget debate after the war, I said Mahinda now can choose between the path of King Asoka or the path of Robert Mugabe. He has taken the path of Robert Mugabe!