A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Sunday, July 23, 2017
People not Sangha must choose Constitution
Only in a theocracy is a constitution decided by the clergy
Dr Ambedkar drew endorsement from the people, not swamis, imams, temples or mosques
"We the People . . . May (an abstract) God, (not a partisan clergy), protect our people"
by Kumar David-July 22, 2017, 5:35 pm
It is satisfying when ideas come to fruition; case in point, the
Single-Issue Common-Candidate suggestion struck gold in January 2015.
Two months ago, I asked "Is this a Single Term Government?" and the
phrase is now popular even in the Sinhala media. In 2015 when Jeremy
Corbyn won leadership my prediction that support for Labour would surge
has been spot-on and my post UK election forecast "Jeremy Corbyn:
Britain’s next prime minister" is on track. The term duumvirate for the
power apex in Lanka has found a buyer (free loader sans acknowledgement)
and Dead-Left is selling well. Conversely, my plea for left unity has
not won converts; the paradox of left sectarianism is that things that
do not work in their theory, work in practice!
Anybody including a Nikaya is entitled to express and canvass views.
Along with likeminded citizens I have the right to dissent. A
three-quarter decent charter replacing JR’s iniquitous one will aid
prosperity, unity and democracy. The stand taken by the Sangha Sabha on
July 4 is lamentable and the fuller statement of Asgiriya a day or two
earlier is inexplicable as it alleges provisions that, in fact, will not
be in the constitution. The Island of July 4 under the prominent
caption ‘Asgiriya Chapter Totally Rejects New Constitution’ reports:
"The Asgiriya senior monks led by the Mahanayake declared that one of
the objectives of the proposed new constitution was to make way for
separatism and remove the foremost place given to Buddhism in the
existing Constitution".
This beats me. All public discussions and reports have stated that the
Chapter on Buddhism will not be touched. The Prime Minister declared
this in parliament and not one of the Subcommittee Reports mentions
anything of the sort. The Joint Opposition is deliberately spreading the
fib that the intention of the drafters and the government is to help
evil Tamils and the remnants (if any) of the LTTE to divide the country,
destroy Buddhism and install Federalism. Goebbelsian lies; what else do
Joint Opposition (JO), Mahinda Rajapaksa, his cohorts and corrupt SLFP
Cabinet Ministers aligned to the President, indulge in? Some hope to
split the government as the corruption noose tightens round their necks.
All SLFP Ministers agreed to the abolition of the Executive Presidency
and a referendum to enact a new constitution when they supported the 9
January 2016 resolution in parliament to set up a Constitutional
Assembly and to hold a referendum. It is regrettable that Asgiriya is
now deceived by Joint Opposition fiction.
Why on earth would a Sinhala-Buddhist Prime Minister and an
overwhelmingly Sinhala-Buddhist government want Federalism when the TNA
hasn’t asked for it and the majority of Tamils don’t want it? That may
be thanks to the Wigneswaran Chief Ministerial experience. What forces
are planning to undermine Buddhism, destroy the Sinhalese race and
promote separatism? In faked up JO mythology and decrepit Dead-Left
ideology it is global imperialism. Even Vasudeva and Vitarana know this
is an inane fairy tale; the public isn’t that dumb. It would be a pity
if the clergy, of any religion, buys this JO-Dead Left con. But the
Island report adds "The Mahanayke told visitors that an objective of the
new constitution was to destroy the existing Buddhist environment and
do away with the unitary status of the country to please foreign
powers". The only people who support a secular state are Marxists like
this writer and enlightened liberals. Unfortunately, our number is small
since cultural backwardness prevails in the country at large.
The report adds; "Most Ven. Gnanaratne thera warned that if the proposed
Constitution sought to reduce the powers of the President it would have
a negative impact on the unitary status of the state and pave way for
the division of the country". This again is contestable. Whether the
executive powers of a president are reduced or not has no effect on the
unitary status of a country. The United States is explicitly federal but
the executive powers of the President are enormous; they are only
limited by the division of power between the three branches (Executive,
Legislative and Judicial) and unaffected by US federalism. Federalism
and an executive presidency coexist stably. Unity is ensured by
prosperity, pluralism and democratic traditions (E pluribus unum) not by
adherence to the Christian faith (the US Constitution is explicitly and
aggressively secular) or a bogus status conferred on American English
(Spanish is de facto an official language in California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Florida and other States I don’t know about).
The Indian President is a toothless figurehead. The constitution does
not define States as federal though the Supreme Court has held that, de
facto, India is federal. But none of this, one way or the other, has had
any bearing on unity and sovereignty. Separatist tendencies in the
1960s in Tamil Nadu died out when India emerged as a strong unified
market and it became clear to even the dumbest Tamil that being an
Indian was a better than revanchist hogwash. The dismal failure of Hindu
India to offer a materially and culturally fair deal to Muslim Kashmir
will aggravate tension till this alienation ends. An efficacious market,
linguistic and cultural pluralism, and constitutional secularism unite a
nation. JR-type Bonapartist executive constitutions and Mahinda-type
dictatorial uses of executive powers do not.
No more procrastination: Table the draft Constitution
Prime Minister Ranil was at pains to explain at the BMICH a few weeks
ago that constitutions must not be rushed; there needs to be patient
consultation till the fullest achievable consensus is reached; a
substantial majority of the people and all communities must accept it.
He was supported by a visiting dignitary, a retired South African Deputy
Chief Justice. But surely, we are long past that stage, this has been
dragging on for two years; Lal Wijenayake led a monumentally large
public consultation process; six subject-wise Subcommittees reported
back months ago. The drafters are ready to submit a first version within
weeks of getting clearance. A Steering Committee interim version has
existed for months.
Procrastination allows the Joint Opposition, dissident SLFP Ministers
and trouble makers to sow dissension, split the government and undermine
the constitution. President Sirisena is adamant about one thing only,
being irresolute; he is unflinching about being impotent;his knees
jellify when the sangha snaps its fingers. No more time should be given
for the directionless to stagger this way and that. Table the draft now!
Let the Steering Committee, Constitutional Assembly and parliament do
some work instead of warming their bums. With public education and
vigorous campaign the Joint Opposition and its fellow travellers can be
defeated in the public arena and a referendum can be won.
True, a degree of uncertainty accompanies such forecasts because of
unforeseeable splits; but one must act, not be frozen into inaction.
There are a few legitimate issues still to sort out - should have been
ironed out long ago - but foot dragging will not bring consensus closer.
The following need to be resolved expeditiously:
a) Will there be s second chamber (Senate) and how will it be constituted?
b) What will be the partition of seats between first-past-the-post and
proportional? What will be the mechanism of proportional allocation?
c) How will the right of the centre to override devolved provincial powers during an emergency be worded?
d) The separation of powers between Governors and Chief Ministers is
surely worth revisiting. This is not a partisan but a technical exercise
to be resolved by discussion.
e) The creation of a Constitutional Court and the extension of the
judiciary to set up Courts of Appeal sitting in the provinces are
unlikely to attract controversy.
One big headache is President Maithripala Sirisena’s congenital
indecisiveness (personally he seems a decent man) but look at what he
has done! Prior to his election he swore before the nation to abolish
the executive presidency, but then, within days, he signed an agreement
with the JHU promising not to do anything that requires ratification at a
referendum – a stark, blatant, glaring contradiction. His advisors on
constitutional matters are as dim-witted as his henchmen on electricity
policy.