Would you like any hypocrisy with that?

by George Galloway

Where to start? For nearly 40 weeks hundreds of thousands of French people have been on the streets in anti-government demonstrations against President Emmanuel Macron’s rule.

Some have lost eyes and hands in the police response. The public has begun to view the smell of tear gas as a normal part of a weekend in Paris. France is 29 miles from the coast of England. Siri just told me that “Hong Kong is about 5,992 miles from London as the crow flies.”

So complete has been the British media blackout on the Yellow Vests that many believe, wrongly, that there is some British government order banning on any mention of “les événements en France.” The truth is that there is no need for one.

Like a homing pigeon in reverse the entire UK media has flown like a bat out of hell away from France all the way to Hong Kong (as they had earlier flown to Caracas until the big protests turned into the wrong kind of protests).

There is nothing, except the shoe-sizes, of the demonstrators in Hong Kong that I don’t know thanks to the veritable blizzard of in-depth analysis of the protestors there and their each and every demand. Protesters in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain can be executed, but we will never be told their names.

And the hypocrisy of the media is just for starters.

If a group of British protesters broke into the British Parliament and hung, for argument’s sake, a Russian flag over the Speaker’s chair it is “highly likely” that a commando force would quickly and violently overwhelm and arrest them accompanied by volleys of accusations about Russian interference.

If a crowd of British protestors occupied Heathrow Airport in such numbers and so disruptively that British Airways had to stop flights in and out of the airport, causing massive financial loss, dislocation, and personal inconvenience, I promise you that their protest would have been cleared out by the above mentioned commandos on the very first day of their protests.

If protesters in London were hoisting Chinese flags and singing the Chinese national anthem then, well, I’m sure you get my point.

The struggle between the government of China and its citizens is no more the business of the British than it is of the Slovakians. It’s true that Hong Kong was a British colony for 150 years but the least said about the shame and disgrace of how that came to be, the better, I promise you.

Suffice to say that to acquire territory by force, followed by unequal treaty at gunboat-point to punish the actual owners of the land for resisting the British opium trade, is, even by British Imperial standards, extraordinary. So shameful is it you’d think the British would want to draw a veil over it. But not so.

The British tell us that Hong Kong want democracy but nobody ever says that across a century and a half of British rule in Hong Kong the people there were allowed no democracy of any kind.

They tell us about the justice system without ever mentioning that even today the ‘draconian’ courts of Hong Kong are still stuffed by white English judges.

They tell us about NGOs and “civil society” without telling us whose pounds and dollars the “NGOs” are stuffed with.

In fact, these foreign-funded and guided organisations are carefully stabled Trojan Horses chomping their British and American supplied hay until the time came for them to be told to gallop, and gallop they now are.

This is all Hong Kong phooey! No other country in the world would have shown such forbearance in the face of foreign-sponsored rioting destruction and sabotage of the national economy as China has. If in the days to come China’s patience runs out, it will not be before time so far as the great majority of Chinese citizens, including Hong Kong citizens, are concerned.

China signed up to the one country, two systems in the territory. It did not agree to two countries, two systems. Not one inch of Hong Kong belongs to anyone but China. The days when foreign countries could impose their will on China are long gone.

George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.

Jammu and Kashmir would be turned into a Union Territory with a legislature whereas the Ladakh division would be made a separate Union Territory without legislature. 

by Ali Sukhanver writing from Islamabad

Situation is getting seriously dangerous and gravely complicated in the South Asian Region after India’s stubborn action of changing the status of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh. Recently Pakistan’s foreign Minister went to China on a diplomatic mission where he was warmly welcomed by the Chinese authorities. It is in the news that he ‘visited China in a bid to seek allies for a UN resolution against New Delhi for revoking Kashmir's autonomy’. During the meeting Mr. Wang expressed grave concern about the situation in Kashmir, the cause of two wars between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. He assured Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi that Beijing would continue to support Pakistan to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests. In short this was a very fruitful visit but certainly not a ‘good omen’ for India, so to counter the situation Indian foreign Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, flew to Beijing himself just after the visit of Pakistan’s Foreign Minister.

During the talks with China's top diplomat, Wang Yi, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said that "the two nations should ensure that it was important that differences between us, if any, should not become disputes". China did not welcome this statement and its foreign ministry had to release a statement just to clarify China’s position. The statement said, “China has taken a ‘principled’ stand on ‘unilateral’ actions by India, and has urged New Delhi to play a constructive role in regional peace and stability”. Obviously the Chinese response did not prove pleasing to the Indian hi-ups and they issued a warning to China to stay out of the dispute over Kashmir’s status. India's Ministry of External Affairs, said that ‘decisions on Kashmir were an internal matter concerning the territory of India as their country does not comment on the internal affairs of other countries and similarly expects other countries to do likewise.’

Whatever happening there in Kashmir is nothing unexpected and nothing strange after President Trump’s offer to mediate on Kashmir issue. All actions were taken by the Modi government simply show the climax of mental panic Mr. Modi and his loved ones are passing through at the moment. According to the Indian media, the government of India has decided to change the administrative status of Jammu and Kashmir and that of Ladakh. Jammu and Kashmir would be turned into a Union Territory with a legislature whereas the Ladakh division would be made a separate Union Territory without legislature. The Indian plan of changing the administrative status of Ladakh has annoyed China a lot. It has raised serious objections on the formation of Ladakh as Union Territory by India, saying it undermined its territorial sovereignty. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying has recently said that China has always opposed India's inclusion of the Chinese territory in the western sector of the China-India boundary into its administrative jurisdiction. Hua said in a statement that India has continued to undermine China's territorial sovereignty by unilaterally changing its domestic law," She further said that such practice was "unacceptable and will not come into force." She also said, "We urge India to exercise prudence in words and deeds concerning the boundary question, strictly abide by relevant agreements concluded between the two sides and avoid taking any move that may further complicate the boundary question."

The word prudence has different shades of meanings including wisdom, judgment, judiciousness, sagacity and so many others. Looking at the present situation of the Indian Occupied Kashmir, one can easily feel that ‘prudence’ could never be expected from the Modi government particularly in the matters relevant to Kashmir. At present the state Kashmir is literally burning. The Guardian has recently published an analysis on the worsening situation in Kashmir which says, “By subverting the constitution, ignoring India’s Simla obligation to ensure that the ‘principles and purposes’ of the UN charter govern relations with Pakistan, and removing Kashmiris’ right to self-governance, Modi has placed himself squarely in the wrong. To argue, as he does, that Kashmir is solely an internal matter is to ignore the realities of 70-plus years of strife.” 

Fortunately, in a recent meeting on Kashmir issue the UN Security Council has also rejected this argument of Mr. Modi. It has suggested to the both countries, Pakistan and India to settle the matter bilaterally as Kashmir is a matter belonging to the both countries on equal grounds. Another important thing is that the matter was brought to the Supreme Court of India too by some Indian human-rights protectors; the honourable Supreme Court has yet not decided the matter but it is being hoped that some judicious decision may come out if the courts in India are not under Modi-pressure. Illegal actions could never be legalized even by providing constitutional supports.

Indian population is so high now at around 130 crore, that even if the population of the country would halve down due to population control measures, still there would be adequate population strength in the country to sustain the economy and society.

by N.S.Venkataraman

It is good that Indian Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi has, at last, called for population control in India during his 73 rd Independence Day address at Delhi.

During his first term of office for five years, Mr. Modi spoke on several much needed reforms and implemented a number of progressive ideas. But, he never spoke about the urgent need for population control. Several well meaning people wondered as to why Mr. Modi was silent on this issue and was not giving importance to check the population growth. A few suggestions and letters sent to Mr. Modi by well meaning persons ,including the writer of this article , to introduce population control measures was not acknowledged. At least, some people wondered as to whether Mr. Modi refrained from this subject fearing loss of vote bank.

People in India

In any case, better late than never, Mr. Modi has now taken up this issue. One only hope that he would take up follow up measures with determination and efficiency that he is known for , to implement the idea.

Already, some political parties have raised objection for Mr. Modi’s call, raising suspicion about his motive. Mr. Modi should ignore such criticism and opposition with the contempt that they deserve.

When India attained independence , 73 years ago, Indian population was less than 35 crore. Now , it has reached around 130 crore multiplying several times. While after independence, India has made several spectacular progress in industrial and agricultural front and the economy has grown, all such advantages have been undone by the unchecked population growth, which can be justifiably termed as population explosion.

There is another way of looking at the Indian population growth and the percentage of people living below poverty line in India. USA is more than two times the size of India and it’s population is only around one third of Indian population. Probably, if India were to have the same population as that of USA, perhaps, India could have been a super power by now.

The population growth has happened in India due to the improved medical science enabling people to live longer. Further, in some states like UP and Bihar , the fertility rate is still at unacceptably high level and with a particular religious group laying stress on rapidly increasing the population strength of the religion to have dominant presence in the country.

One of the criticisms by the economists is that the growth in population in India has come down in the recent past , with the fertility rate at “alarmingly low” level in some states. Such critics argue that the ageing population mean that working hands would come down in the future , causing problems for the country. This is a ridiculous argument.

Indian population is so high now at around 130 crore, that even if the population of the country would halve down due to population control measures, still there would be adequate population strength in the country to sustain the economy and society.

Rajaji, the first Governor General of independent India ,a person who was well acknowledged as an intellectual who could think ahead of his time, said that effective control of population in a democratic society is difficult, unless the level of education among the masses would significantly increase. Further, he said that the people would realise the problems that they have to face due to high density of population and the cost of bringing up the children and would realize that big family would not be in their interest and would voluntarily reduce their family size. Now, there are indications that this is happening to some extent but not to adequate level. Rajaji was against coercive methods to control population growth, saying that it would be impractical.

As a measure of population control, Mr. Modi should immediately bring a law banning polygamy. It is very common in India even today, particularly in one religion, for men to have three or even four wives and each wife giving birth to two or three children. Effective implementation of law banning polygamy can have a significant and positive impact on population growth before long.

It is also seen that some of the ministers, members of parliament and legislative assemblies have more than one wife today. Why not a law be enacted that persons contesting the election for parliament and legislative assemblies should not have more than one wife.

While Mr. Modi has taken the first step to warn the nation about the impending population explosion , he has around five years left to bring a meaningful change in population expansion , by taking various innovative and appropriate steps. Certainly, concerned people are watching Mr. Modi’s next move to check the population growth with high expectations and considerable interest.

Limits to what we can do as we develop a stronger military relationship with Sri Lanka if the army chief is a known human rights violator

A senior US State Department official warned on Tuesday that Sri Lanka’s appointment of a war veteran accused of serious human rights violations as head of its army could affect US military cooperation and investment in the island nation.

On Monday, Sri Lanka named Shavendra Silva, 55, as the country’s new army chief despite UN accusations that he was involved in human rights abuses during the country’s 26-year-long civil war. The Washington official, speaking to reporters on background, said the appointment would have lasting implications for reconciliation following the brutal conflict, which ended in 2009.

“It is a highly charged political environment in which some political factions feel there is much to be gained by playing the nationalist card. It is unfortunate that this card is being played through the promotion of a general about whom vivid and well documented human rights violations are on the record. We are deeply troubled,”the official said.

Silva is credited with successfully leading an army division against dissident Tamil Tigers in the final phases of the war. Thousands of civilians were killed in the last phases of the armed conflict, including in areas declared by the government to be ‘no fire zones’ that came under sustained army shelling, including hospitals. But Silva, who joined the army in 1984 and was its chief of staff from January, has denied the accusations.

The US official said there would be “limits to what we can do as we develop a stronger military relationship with Sri Lanka if the army chief is a known human rights violator.”

The official also warned of a possible impact to foreign investment. “There are limits to what foreign investors are willing to take as far as risk if they see a situation that is leading to greater polarization,” the official added.

The official suggested Silva’s new role could also affect a $480 million grant through the US Millennium Challenge Corporation, aimed at modernizing Sri Lanka’s urban transport system and infrastructure. The agreement is awaiting approval by Sri Lanka’s cabinet.

Asked whether Silva’s promotion could affect the MCC investment, under which a country is assessed on its commitment to democracy, the official said: “It will be one of the factors that will be looked at.”

It is a highly charged political environment in which some political factions feel there is much to be gained by playing the nationalist card.

Agencies

Sri Lanka cannot remain in constitutional ambiguity. The UNF government was reluctant to go before the people for a Referendum to change the presidential system. 

by Laksiri Fernando

In politics there are no absolute truths, rights or wrongs. All relative. Politics is about choices and alternatives. It is also the art of the possible. The best policy for the people is to work through the given alternatives and keep vigilant about deviations from accepted norms, principles, and treasured values. The major hurdle for Sri Lanka at present is the forthcoming presidential election (hopefully) to be held in November or early December. Jumping into further anarchy, or out of anarchy is the key challenge?

What next? 

Sri Lanka has evolved into a reasonable democratic system where people have the opportunity to elect their representatives to various bodies of governance - local, provincial and national, although the present and the past regimes have been postponing or distorting many of them. The local council system goes back to the ancient times (as Gam Sabha) while many other present day democratic norms are assimilated (sometimes distortedly) through other (Western) democratic systems. Even the provincial council system has some semblance of ancient Rata Sabhas although those were not elected bodies. These are mentioned here because the traditions and roots are important to the people, although some sections of the elite might try to discard them blatantly.

Importance of Island-wide Presidential Election

Under the present system, people also have the opportunity, as a broad based republic, to elect their Head of Stateas President, organized as a single electorate. This is important. This can be considered important not only for democracy but also to unite the people as much as possible as ‘one country’ and ‘one civic nation,’irrespective of ethnicity or religion, although the powers and functions of the President are of some controversy today. Even in Australia those who advocate for future Australian republic consider the advantages of an elected president. Uniting the country or the nation through presidential leadership might not happen in the immediately future, but the trends might evolve in that direction, whoever the next President. Sri Lanka cannot survive or thrive otherwise.

Westminster system is what the country inherited as colonial heritage at independence. There are people who consider that system to be sacrosanct and suitable to Sri Lanka in toto. This system existed almost purely until 1972, but the First Republican Constitution then made some adjustments to make it a more popular democracy based on some socialist views. Unfortunately, it survived only for six years. When the presidential system was introduced in 1978, it was opposed as it entailed not populist but authoritarian characteristics. The LSSP,its leader N. M. Pereraand other Left parties were in the forefront of that opposition. But the present LSSP or the Communist Party does not appear to oppose a popular/socialist presidential system based on the people and democracy. What NM strongly opposed was the JR constitution and UNP manipulations.

Since 1994, almost all parties and leaders promised to abolish the presidential system but didn’t do so for one or the other reason. Power in the presidency that leaders cherished was one reason. The spread of presidential systems in the international scene was another. Views of the parties and leaders also changed due to some other experiences. After the devolution of power, presidential position was considered a necessity. In countering terrorism, the merits of the presidential system also became highly appreciated. People more or less got used to the system and appreciated it based also on the traditional ‘kingship mentality.’

Betrayal of 2015 Political Change

However after the 18thAmendment, there was a new impetus to abolish the presidential system. People also wanted to change the Rajapaksa regime which was a positive sign. People have and should have every right to change governments and to expect progress as they want. Political change in 2015 was a major result of this trend although it is not at all achieved. Instead of abolishing the presidential system,for example, what we have is a pathetic duality or ‘diarchy’ which in fact has created an anarchy. In constitutional terms, this is the end result of the 19th Amendment.

However, the situation is not purely constitutional, but political. Political determination for democratic reforms was weak from the beginning of the Wickremesinghe regime. Some economic imperatives predominated politics, influenced by foreign ideologies like neo-liberalism. Instead of eradicating corruption, new forms of corruption emerged from the very beginning. Personal, ideological and social/class cleavages emerged between the President and the Prime Minister. The government appeared very foreign to the people and even to the UNP grassroots members. This why there is an internal rebellion today within the ruling UNP. Foreign agendas predominated and the national security was neglected.

Constitutions may be interpreted legally, but cannot be understood without politics. Constitution makers, particularly in countries like Sri Lanka, create ambiguous provisions due to incompetence, by purpose or because of compromises on divergent interests. In the future, ‘artificial intelligence’ might better be used for coherent constitution making. Most of the constitutional amendments to the present Constitution are motivated by personal and narrow political agendas. The 19th Amendment is no different, and considering what people expected, it is apparently one of its worst kinds. It has created an anarchy, first manifested in the constitutional crisis of October 2018,and then eventually leading to the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks this year. This is an anarchy that some of the foreign forces apparently want in Sri Lanka.

A Mistaken Analysis

In a recent article titled ‘The Presidential Election – Sleeping Walking Into Anarchy’ (Colombo Telegraph, 17 August 2019), Dr Nihal Jayawickramahas argued that the 19th Amendment has reduced the President into purely a Ceremonial Office and thereforeask why squander billions of rupees in an island-wide election to choose the next President? At this last moment he is proposing a constitutional amendment to thwart the presidential election and elect a new President from the existing Parliament or an Electoral College!Of course there are many elite groups who are against island-wide or even local elections although they may talk about democracy. I wonder whether any of these people, including Jayawickrama, raised any objection when billions of rupees were robbed through bond scams under the Wickremesinghe regime.

Jayawickramaof course has been careful to admit that the current President entertains executive powers, but claims that those interim powers would end after President Sirisena. This is not at all the case. A President entertains political and moral power as he/she is elected by the people. People and other people’s representatives (MPs) should be vigilant however not to allow President’s to exceed them. This was the mistake before 2015. If there are other inhibitions on those powers they are determined by the lack of majority support in Parliament under a given condition, in addition to what is written.

The Constitution still contains powers what can still be called executive powers, but reduced in many areas under the 19th Amendment, both beneficial and harmful. One of the fundamental articles of the Constitution, Article 4 (b) clearly says,

“The Sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner :– …. (b) the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People…”

The above is not changed by the 19th Amendment. This is about the sovereignty of the people which cannot and should not be changed without a Referendum. Article 4 is linked to and flows from Article 3 of the Constitution. ‘Who cares for the sovereignty of the people’ or a Referendum might be one of the elitist arguments. Obviously, some people have different notions quite foreign to the country, to the people and to the Constitution.

Sri Lanka cannot remain in constitutional ambiguity. The UNF government was reluctant to go before the people for a Referendum to change the presidential system. This is what has created an anarchy, and the change of which might come through the next presidential election. Jayawickrama has ridiculed both Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and Sajith Premadasa in his article, without mentioning their names, for coming forward as presidential candidates. Both candidates appear to have similar determination in contrast to Ranil Wickremasinghe or Karu Jayasuriya. In ending the present anarchy however, one of them should not only win the presidency but should manage to win a majority in Parliament.

If, and only if, Sajith Premadasa is selected as the candidate of the UNP and of the broader UNF coalition, Sri Lanka might evolve in a direction where the two major political forces (also others) could forge relative consensus on important issues in contrast to what appears as extremely divisive, manipulative, narrow and extensively foreign-aligned present regime of Wickremesinghe which has completely betrayed the aspirations of the 2015 change. If they fail, the JVP and the Left parties with the assistance of the people’s democratic forces should be ready to take the battle further. The immediate task however is to overcome the present anarchy in a democratic fashion and also changing the economic policy direction.

Zakir Naik is free to preach about Islam, but should not speak about Malaysia’s racial politics, Malaysian PM has said.

Controversial Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik apologised on Tuesday for making racially sensitive remarks in Malaysia, a day after he was questioned by police for hours over the comments. Naik was a frequent visitor to Sri Lanka and redelivered series of lectures before Easter Sunday Bombings by alleged Islamic State sympathizers. He was sponsored by ruling party Muslim Ministers and other interested parties.

Zakir Naik

Mr. Naik, who faces charges of money laundering and hate speech in India, has come under fire for comments that pitted Malaysia’s ethnic and religious minorities against the predominantly Muslim Malay majority.

Malaysian police grilled Mr. Naik for 10 hours on Monday about a speech earlier this month in which he said Hindus in Malaysia had “100 times more rights” than the Muslim minority in India, and that Malaysian Chinese were guests of the country.

Race and religion are sensitive issues in Malaysia, where Muslims make up about 60% of its 32 million people. The rest are mostly ethnic Chinese and Indians, most of whom are Hindus.

Mr. Naik, who has lived in Malaysia for about three years, apologised for his remarks but insisted that he was not a racist. He said his detractors had taken his comments out of context and added “strange fabrications to them”.

“It was never my intention to upset any individual or community,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.

“It is against the basic tenets of Islam, and I would like to convey my heartfelt apologies for this misunderstanding,” Mr. Naik said.

Mr. Naik has permanent residency in Malaysia. Several ministers called for his expulsion after his controversial remarks and at least seven states have barred him from speaking in public.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Sunday Mr. Naik was free to preach about Islam but should not speak about Malaysia’s racial politics, state media reported.