What kind of a nation is this?

EDITORIAL | COLOMBO

"Two alternatives remain for him after having made these remarks, either to withdraw the remarks publicly and to apologize to the public for making such remarks or to resign."
_______________________

[June 08, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian] The Sri Lanka Guardian expresses shock and sadness about the remarks made by the Secretary of Defence Gotabhaya Rajapaksha in an interview with the BBC which is now widely quoted. The words were to the effect that Sarath Fonseka, who is in military custody now, will be hung if he were to give evidence on affairs relating to the War. We have no particular sympathies or antipathies against Sarath Fonseka. We deal with the issue purely as matter of the rights of citizens.

No authority has the right to state that it will hang any citizen for whatever reason. Perhaps, Gotabhaya Rajapaksha, is the second most important officer of the state as the secretary of defence and brother of the President. In his official capacity he is responsible for the statements he publicly makes. His job does not involve any kind of judicial power. Nor does any judicial officer have the right to declare that he will hang anybody. The Remarks made by the defence secretary belong to the most offensive kind of remarks that could be made by any officer in the state.

Two alternatives remain for him after having made these remarks, either to withdraw the remarks publicly and to apologize to the public for making such remarks or to resign. The dignity of the Sri Lankan state is at stake. Does the Sri Lankan state have any dignity? Should such dignity be defended? Who is going to defend the dignity of the state? It would be the duty of the head of state to do so. However, in this the head of the state is also the brother of the defense secretary.

In a recent interview President Rajapaksha said that if anyone commits a crime he should be punished. His statement means that crime is crime even if it is done by somebody who is related to him. The same applies to the obligations the state officers have towards the state. If these obligations are violated such violations should be dealt with in the same manner for everybody.

Even JR Jayawardane, when there was public criticism of the behavior of Siril Mathive, the minister of his cabinet during the 1983 riot, asked him to resign from his position as a minister. The offence that Gotabhaya Rajapaksha has committed is far higher in that it is a statement made to the international media about hanging a person.

Beside the issue of the dignity of the sate the question also arises about the language that the state officers are allowed to use and the obligations of etiquette that the state officer should observer. By any standard they are remarks that responsible statesmen representing the nation state should not make. Once again the question arises as to who is supposed to keep guard on the proper usage of diplomacy and the state practices that state officers observe. In Sri Lanka there seems to be nobody who has responsibility for these matters.

What is further involved is not just the dignity and decorum of the state but also obligations of sate officers to ensure that high moral standards should always be observed in what they speak. Children of Sri Lanka would get to know the remarks make by the secretary of the ministry. Such calls for hanging people will be imitated by the children of Sri Lanka. From whom do the children learn the kind of deference that they should have towards citizens?

If statesmen make these kinds of statements, what kind of language prevails among the children? Of course the issues are not only about the children but also about other members of the civil service and the security services. Almost everywhere the use of foul language is been constantly heard at the police station, at the military and other places. If higher officers of the state are using the type of language that has been used by the defence secretary is it surprising that this type of culture of language, within the state and among the officers, towards each other, and by officers to the citizens, have de-generated to what we see now.

Sri Lanka boasts one year after the civil war. If there was any excuse for this kind of de-generation of habits by state officers during the civil war it is time that these things are stopped now. However, to stop these things there should be somebody who bares responsibility such matters. In Sri Lanka there seems to be nobody who wants to bare this responsibility. There is nobody to belt the cat.

It is shameful the way Sri Lankan media is tolerating these kinds of language and the habits from their politicians and statesmen. In many other countries with any kind of decencies there would be a huge cry for the resignation of any person who used this kind of language. However, our media has got so timid that they will keep silence even on such issues. The greatest poof of intimidation of the media is the way the media is behaving in these circumstances. The pretense that the media is not intimidated and there is no violence against the media is rebuffed by this kind of behaviour, which has become too tolerated among media men who are allowed to function today publicly. Silence on such matters by the media also generates silence among the people. People begin to tolerate indecencies and even vulgar language used by politicians as well as the officers representing the state.

Therefore, it is justified to ask: what is this nation? To boast about the sovereignty of the state is very much meaningless when the rulers can make such kinds of statements. In a sovereign nation people are sovereign. The Sri Lankan constitution states that sovereignty is based on the sovereignty of the people. What kind of sovereignty is it, when the statesmen can declare that another citizen will be hung if he does this or that? The claim of people's sovereignty is such circumstances will sound rather amusing under such circumstances. It is time for citizens themselves to ask what is this nation?

The opposition is also silent under these circumstances. It is a strange kind of opposition that can tolerate this kind of language by state officers in public. The sheer intimidation against the opposition itself on these matters may be the very reason why they suffered such huge electoral defeat.