I belong to Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka belongs to me - Opposition Leader R.
Sampanthan:
by a Staff Writer
After finding one’s way up four flights of the dusty and poorly lit
outside staircase to Rajavarothiam Sampanthan’s flat in the MP’s housing
scheme at Keppetipola Mawatha, Colombo, on Friday evening, one cannot
but feel for the 82-year-old lawyer-cum-political leader. But, despite
the usual health challenges of age, physically frail, the somewhat
portly, cherubic patriarch of Tamil politics is not. And this veteran
politician remains as mentally astute as he always has been over his
decades-long leadership of his community as, relaxing in verti and
bush-shirt in his tiny sitting room, he laughs away concerns about his
housing inadequacies, and replies probing questions about his outlook as
‘Leader of the Opposition’ in Parliament.
Excerpts
Q: All these years you have been known as the pre-eminent
leader of the Tamils of Sri Lanka, having outlived all those militant
leaderships, including the LTTE. As Leader of the Opposition, you will
be actually monitoring the work of the Government over the next five
years on behalf of not just the Tamils but on behalf of ALL the citizens
of the country irrespective of ethnicity, religion or class. Do you see
it like that? Will there be any clash of interests between your direct
electoral mandate as a Tamil parliamentarian and your required
constitutional role as Opposition Leader?
A: I belong to Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka also belongs to me. I
have become leader of the opposition as a Sri Lankan Parliamentarian
representating all the citizens of this country. There are many vital
issues in this country that need to be resolved. I will continue to work
for a reasonable, workable and durable solution to the Tamil question.
This will be also of significance for the whole polity and all of its
people. On all issues, I will work closely with all the parties in the
Opposition. We will oppose the Government whenever it needs to be
opposed, and we will support the Government on all progressive moves and
legislature to meet the urgent national needs.
Q: Although you say you will work with all Opposition parties,
there could be issues where the positions of different parties in the
Opposition will be too divergent to allow for consensus – especially on
the Tamil Question and the issue of power-sharing and autonomy
arrangements. Some Opposition parties may oppose Government initiatives
in this regard whereas the TNA may wish to support. How could you then
function as Opposition Leader?
A: We will always try to build a consensus on issues. But
certain issues may never see a real consensus and we should not be
delayed by that. We will endeavour to explain and clarify issues and our
positions on them as much as possible. In some cases we may have to go
along with the greatest collective agreement on a particular issue even
if some groups do not agree and choose to remain on the margins. We want
to ensure the maximum possible agreement on power-sharing and
devolution. If certain forces choose to be difficult, then it is
inevitable that the more moderate forces will come together and move
forward.
Q: As head of the TNA, in recent weeks you have said that the
TNA, even while remaining in the Opposition, is prepared to support a
UNP-led coalition government to stay in power. Does not such a position
confuse the public about your legitimacy as the main parliamentary
‘opposition’?
A. We supported President Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency to
ensure an end to a very corrupt and dictatorial regime, and we are still
committed to sustaining the good governance movement that has been
initiated through Mr. Sirisena’s victory. The parliamentary elections of
August have heralded a further transformation of governance.
Q: In the most recent elections at national level, there has
been a more enthusiastic participation by the mass of Tamil voters as
can be seen in the voter participation rates in the North and the East.
Does this mean that, after decades of sympathy, if not active support
for, separatism, the Tamils are now on a different track that excludes
secession? Will this be a useful platform for negotiations on
power-sharing?
A: It is not very accurate to say that there was active mass
support for secession. In fact as far back as in the 1970 general
election, the Federal Party (ITAK), in its manifesto, called on Tamils
to oppose separatism and to defeat candidates espousing secession. In
that election, every candidate who espoused separatism was defeated. It
was the enactment of the 1972 Constitution which did not accommodate the
reasonable Tamil proposals, that resulted in the Vaddukoddai Resolution
of 1976 demanding restoration of Tamil sovereignty.
If the tragedy of the 1983 riots encouraged more sympathy for
separatism, the 1987 Indo-Lanka Agreement was a turning point with Tamil
sentiment moving away from separatist leanings and an acceptance of
devolution within an undivided Sri Lanka. Even in 1977, when the TULF
was elected on a separatist platform, the then TULF leader (Appapillai)
Amirthalingam, did not cling to separatism. He later moderated his
position. Today all communities have realised that violence can get them
nowhere, that violence can make things more difficult. The Tamil people
today vote overwhelmingly for a platform that advocates a settlement
based on an unified Sri Lanka.
Q: But can you say that “all communities” have given up on
violence? Isn’t it possible to argue that, since the armed forces
defeated the LTTE militarily in 2009 (which certainly brought a modicum
of stability), there could be many Sri Lankans – especially the
Sinhalese – who will feel that violence can and has worked?
A: The military operations against the LTTE, which was a
violent movement, cannot be equated with violence against the Tamils. I
refer to the violence against innocent Tamil civilians. Today, the
lesson has been learnt that it is not the way to deal with the Tamil
question. The LTTE’s violence was the consequence of the serial failure
to resolve the Tamil querstion in engagement with the Tamil moderate
leaderships. For example, the non-implementation of the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam
Pact, the failure of our proposals for the 1972 Constitution, etc.
Q: At a time when the LTTE was claiming to be the ‘sole
representative of the Tamil people’, the TNA was seen to be in coalition
with them. Was this a result of coercion? After all the Tigers
assassinated many Tamil civilian political leaders.
A: The TNA’s engagement with the LTTE was similar to the
engagement by successive Sri Lankan governments with the Tigers in
efforts to bring about an end to the war. Not only Sri Lanka
governments, but foreign governments, international bodies and many NGOs
engaged with the LTTE in such peace endeavours. So it was our
responsibility to make every effort to engage with them in whatever way
possible. It was not easy but we had to try, whatever others may say.
Q: The TNA has chosen to coordinate with the JVP in the
Opposition. But in 1987, the JVP was firmly opposed to the provincial
devolution mechanism although it later did participate in Provincial
Councils. Is it easier to work with them today?
A: There are many groups that took up hardline positions in
the past but have realised the complexities and have become far more
flexible today.
Q: When you talk of a comprehensive settlement of the ethnic
problem, do you have in mind any particular track or format to initiate
moves – such as an all-party conference?
A: It is too early to make any indications immediately. Let us
see how things develop in the coming months. There are many people and
groups all with various useful ideas. There is much to be done.
Q: The UN Human Rights Council meeting comes up this month.
There is a constant refrain among some groups about ‘war crimes’. How
central is this ‘war crimes’ issue to the resolution of the Tamil
question. Isn’t the issue of war crimes only one of interpretation of
the wide range of human rights violations that occurred during the war?
Will this be an obstacle to negotiations?
A: Our objective as the TNA is for a comprehensive settlement
of the Tamil question and we will not be distracted just by subsidiary
issues. For a comprehensive settlement we first need to establish the
truth about what has happened and rectify these issues. Justice must
brought to all violations of rights and it should be based on the truth.
Those who are found to be responsible, must be made accountable.
Q: Will you attempt to revive the useful parliamentary
practice of a Shadow Cabinet? Any idea of appointing shadow ministers to
monitor government action?
A: That is a useful practice, but we have to see how the
current Opposition coordinates before we can hope to have that kind of
sophisticated system of Opposition parliamentary politics.
Q: As Leader of the Opposition, what are your immediate and
most urgent priorities at national level?
A: Our priorities in Parliament are the achievement of good
governance, the restoration of law and order, an end to corruption, an
end to economic waste arising from corruption and poor governance, a
redressing of human rights violations and compensation for victims of
violence. We want to put the whole system right again.
Q: But what about your electoral mandate to resolve the Tamil
question?
A./ The Tamil question is one of the burning issues of the
failure of governance and will necessarily be part of the restoration of
good governance. That is only one issue at national level.
Q: Northern Province Chief Minister Wigneswaran is a TNA
member but seems to be out of synch with the TNA at national level ….
A: Mr. Wigneswaran is a provincial leader with his own outlook
on regional affairs. This is a matter of internal party coordination of
policy. We are working on that. This is not a political issue. |