19 November, 2017

New Constitution: What We Expect From The Two Main Parties

By M.A. Sumanthiran

M.A. Sumanthiran PC

I also have with me the 2000 August Draft Constitution Bill that was brought to this House by the People’s Alliance Government of that day of which the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa was a Cabinet Minister; a Bill which was certified by the Cabinet of Ministers as a Bill that is intended to be passed by this Parliament by a two-thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum. He was a Cabinet Minister who approved of this Bill and what does that Bill say? These proposals before us today says, we are one country. Therefore, we can call ourselves, “ඒකීය රජය”, meaning of  which will say, “ஒரு நாடு” or “ஒருமித்த நாடு” – “one country.”  This does not even say that. This says, “Sri Lanka is a Union of Regions”. All the Cabinet Ministers at that time supported this, in this House. The UNP supported that principle. The UNP burned a copy of this Bill in this House because there was a transitional provision with regard to the Executive Presidency, not because of power sharing, not because of change of status of the country.

There was a wide consensus not only in August, 2000. Thereafter, when the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa became the President of this country, he formed the APRC. He told the APRC that there must be maximum possible devolution in his speech when he addressed the inaugural session of the APRC. Where is the APRC Report? The APRC Report says, “Do not have a Concurrent List.” It says not to have a Concurrent List and that powers must be clearly divided.  That is  the Report that came out of a process that the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa as President instituted. But what do our proposals say? We say, we have no objection to a short Concurrent List. Now, why do you say that the country is going to be divided by this?

The full transcript of the speech made by M.A. Sumanthiran in Parliament yesterday (30.10.2017/10.53-11.33) on the Interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly:

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity given to me to say a few words in this historic occasion. I say “historic” because this is indeed the first time that a party representing the Tamil people of this country is agreeing with some proposals, although incomplete and still only at the stage of proposals. Yet, even with that it is agreeing with those-

ගරු ඩුලිප් විජේසේකර මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு துலிப் விஜேசேகர)

(The Hon. Duleep Wijesekera )

Sir, I rise to a point of Order.

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

What is your point of Order?

ගරු ඩුලිප් විජේසේකර මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு துலிப் விஜேசேகர)

(The Hon. Duleep Wijesekera )

ගරු සභාපතිතුමනි, අද මේ මොහොත වන විට ත්‍රෛනිකායික මහා සංඝරත්නය -මහානායක හාමුදුරුවරු-, පූජකතුමන්ලා ඇතුළු සියලුම දෙනා විරුද්ධ වෙලා තිබෙන, සම්මත කිරීමට බලාපොරොත්තු වන නව ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවට මගේ විරෝධතාවත් පළ කරමින් මම ආණ්ඩු පක්ෂයෙන් ඉවත් වී විපක්ෂයේ අසුන් ගන්නවා.

ගරු මන්ත්‍රීවරු

(மாண்புமிகு உறுப்பினர்கள்)

(Hon. Members)

ජයවේවා! ජයවේවා!

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

That is not a point of Order, Sir. I must continue. The Hon. Deputy Minister can speak later. [Interruption.]

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

ගරු අගමැතිතුමා. – [බාධා කිරීම්]

ගරු රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ මහතා (අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා සහ ජාතික ප්‍රතිපත්ති හා ආර්ථික කටයුතු අමාත්‍යතුමා)

(மாண்புமிகு ரணில் விக்கிரமசிங்க – பிரதம அமைச்சரும் தேசிய கொள்கைகள் மற்றும் பொருளாதார அலுவல்கள் அமைச்சரும்)

(The Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe – Prime Minister, Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs)

ගරු සභාපතිතුමනි, අද දින මේ සභාව පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුළ පවත්වනු ලබන කාරක සභාවක්. සාමාන්‍යයෙන් එක් පක්ෂයකින් තවත් පක්ෂයකට මාරු වෙනවා නම්, සෙංකෝලය තිබෙන අවස්ථාවක තමයි අදාළ ප්‍රකාශය කරන්න ඕනෑ. ඒක දන්නේ නැත්නම් වෙන දෙයක් කරලා වැඩක් නැහැ නේ. සෙංකෝලය නැති තැන ප්‍රකාශයක් කළාම, එහි තිබෙන වටිනාකම මොකක්ද? ප්‍රතිපත්ති ප්‍රකාශයක් ඉදිරිපත් කරලා මේ පැත්තේ ඉඳලා එහා පැත්තට යනවා නම්, ඒ වාගේම එහා පැත්තේ ඉඳලා මේ පැත්තට එනවා නම් සෙංකෝලය සභාව තුළ තැන්පත් කර කථානායකතුමා මූලාසනයේ ඉන්න ඕනෑ. ඒක දන්නේ නැත්නම් තව මොනවා කරන්නද? [බාධා කිරීම්]

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

Hon. Sumanthiran, you may continue with your speech.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

Thank you, Sir. Prior to that brief interruption, I was saying that this is the first time, even though it is only at a proposal stage, a party that is largely representative of the Tamil people of this country is agreeing with. I am saying because in the position paper that we have given, which is part of the Interim Report that has been placed before this Assembly for Debate for these three days, marked 1C, we have stated our positions very clearly and I want to elaborate on some of those now. But I want to draw the attention of the Assembly to the last point that we have made, point number 9. We say, I quote:

“In the interest of reaching an acceptable consensus, the TNA will be willing to consider agreement with the main principles articulated in the interim report if the same are acceptable to the two main parties.”

We have said “two main parties” for the reason that as the Hon. Leader of the House correctly pointed out that any resolution to the national question so far was not possible because one or the other main party opposed it.

Today, we have a historic opportunity. Not only are we saying that in the interest of reaching a consensus, we will be willing to consider the main points in the main report, but the two main parties are also together having formed a National Government primarily for the purpose of giving to this country a new Constitution.

Sir, on this question of a new Constitution, there are many views that are being expressed in the country. At the Presidential Election that was conducted in 2015 January, the common opposition candidate made his position very clear that he will abolish the Executive Presidency. That was the first promise that he gave this country on the day that he announced himself as the common opposition candidate. He gave three promises. This was the first one. He also said that the electoral system will undergo a radical change. Now if these are to take place, those must have the approval of the people at a referendum and some of those changes were sought to be brought in through the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court in its determination ruled that certain proposed amendments needed the approval of the people at a referendum.

On the day the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in this House with only one Member voting against it, it was repeatedly assured by the then Minister of Justice who led the discussion during the Committee Stage and the Hon. Prime Minister that the Nineteenth Amendment was only a stopgap, it was only an interim arrangement and a new Constitution would be made when the new Parliament is constituted. This appears in the Hansard of that day several times in the speeches made by Hon. (Dr.) Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, the then Minister of Justice and the Hon. Prime Minister. This was a promise given by His Excellency President Maithripala Sirisena and the UNP at the election.

But it is not only that, on the 08th of January, 2015, the UPFA candidate, Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, also said that he would enact a new Constitution for the country. His election manifesto states this and I quote from his election manifesto. It states, I quote:

“A Wide Political Reform – A New Political Culture

We have been battered for 36 years by the 1978 Constitution which was thrust upon our people and country, without an appropriate debate or discussion. We must also collectively acknowledge that our Constitution is now further distorted due to the various amendments over the years, some of which are not consistent with others. Therefore, instead of amending the Constitution further with piece-meal changes, I will take action to formulate a new Constitution that reflects the peoples’ ideas, aspirations and wishes, within a period of one year.”

Then there are some bullet points where he says what he would do. I quote:

“· The entire Parliament will be formed as a Constitutional Council consisting of peoples’ representatives belonging to all political parties, which will identify the peoples’ expectations and aspirations in order to formulate a new Constitution.”

That is exactly what you have done, Sir. The entire Parliament has been converted into a Constitutional Assembly. I quote further:

“· I will appoint a Citizens’ Advisory Council consisting of representatives of political parties who are not members of the Parliament, representatives of the youth parliament, Constitutional experts, intellectuals and professionals, in order to seek citizens’ views and recommendations for the new Constitution.”

Thirdly it states, I quote:

“· I will first submit the Draft Constitution which will consist of the proposals of these groups, for the Parliament’s approval in accordance with the Constitution. Thereafter, I will present the Draft Constitution to a referendum seeking the approval of the people.”

I want to table*, in the House, that page of the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election manifesto in January, 2015.

*  පුස්තකාලයේ තබා ඇත.

*  நூல் நிலையத்தில் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

*  Placed in the Library.

Therefore, the mandate of the people of this country is overwhelming. Ninety seven per cent of those who voted on the 15th of January, 2015 have voted for a new Constitution to be formulated by converting this House into a Constitutional Assembly and enact a new Constitution for this country. He said, “සභාව,” it states, “Council” in the English translation of his manifesto, which is the same thing. Never before has there been such a massive mandate. Now a few individuals who stand on the streets are trying to deny the 97 per cent of the people of this country their right to enact a new Constitution. Where in the world you have a mandate of 97 per cent of their people telling their representatives to enact a new Constitution for the country?

That is a mandate upon which a new Resolution to form a Constitutional Assembly was placed in this Parliament on the 09th of January, 2016. That was debated. That was debated on four separate occasions: on the 09th of January, 2016, two dates in February and finally on the 09th of March, 2016.  On the 09th of March, 2016 that Resolution was adopted in this House unanimously – without a vote. Until then, there was a good professor of law, who has now become a president of a new political party, who was holding press conferences saying, “If you start a process to draft a new Constitution, that would be illegal.” But, after the 09th of March, 2016, he has not said a word about that, because persons who are aligned with his new political party are also Members of this House who did not murmur, did not raise one voice and did not ask for a Division when that Resolution was adopted. That Resolution was adopted in terms of Articles 74 and 75 of the current Constitution and that was what Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Presidential candidate also said; in line with the present Constitution, that he would draft a new Constitution Bill and present it to this House.

The Resolution that we adopted unanimously lays down the procedure very clearly as to what will happen. It talks about a Steering Committee consisting of 21 Members; it talks about a Committee of Experts; it talks about six Subcommittees; it talks about an Interim Report that we presented to this Assembly and then, it talks about a Final Report together with a Draft Constitution Bill. A Draft Constitution Bill has a particular meaning in our Constitution. A Draft Constitution Bill is one that seeks to repeal the current Constitution and replace it with that Draft Bill. That is what it means.

Article 74 (1) of the Constitution states, I quote:

“ …. Parliament may by resolution …. provide for –

(ii) ……… matter for which provision is required or authorized to be so made by the Constitution.”

Then, Article 75 (b) states, I quote:

“repealing the Constitution as a whole unless such law also enacts a new Constitution to replace it.”

That is, Parliament shall not make any law repealing the Constitution as a whole, such law also enacts a new Constitution.

So, the procedure to adopt a new Constitution, repeal the current Constitution and replace it with the new Constitution, is provided for in Article 75 and Article 74 (1) (ii) that authorizes Parliament by Resolution to adopt the procedure for it. And, that is a procedure that is laid down in the Resolution that formed this Constitutional Assembly on the 9th of March which was adopted unanimously. So, all of these public utterances saying that there is no mandate of the people to draft a new Constitution, that this Constitutional Assembly is illegal, none of which stands the test of what has been written and what has been resolved by this House and therefore –

ගරු මහින්ද යාපා අබේවර්ධන මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு  மஹிந்த யாப்பா அபேவர்தன)

(The Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena)

Sir, I rise to a point of Order.

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

Let the Hon. Sumanthiran continue. You can raise it in your speech.  Anyway, what is your point of Order? 

ගරු මහින්ද යාපා අබේවර්ධන මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு  மஹிந்த யாப்பா அபேவர்தன)

(The Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena)

My Friend, Hon. Sumanthiran is misrepresenting the facts.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

Sir, that is not a point of Order.

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

Let the Hon. Sumanthiran speak. Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, you can raise it in your speech. Hon. Sumanthiran, please continue with your speech. – [Interruption.]

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

That is not a point of Order. That is what I say. If the Hon. Member wants to say otherwise, he can say that. I have tabled that document in the House. 

So, all the Hon. Members of this House had the opportunity to call for a Division to object to that Resolution but none of them did so. All the steps in that Resolution were being followed to the letter. The Steering Committee was appointed unanimously by the Constitutional Assembly. Every expert was named was approved unanimously by this Assembly.

The Members and Chairmen of every Subcommittee were approved unanimously by this Assembly. No one dissented; not a single Member dissented. And all different political parties have been accommodated in the Steering Committee. That, and the level of participation are borne out by the Steering Committee Minutes. Since I am a Member of the Steering Committee, I have the Minutes here with me. If we take the level of participation, the Hon. Leader of the House was pleased to thank a certain Member in the Opposition ranks and these Minutes will show how much he and the other Member from his side have been involved in the deliberations of the Steering Committee. Almost, I would say, 20 per cent or more of the entire contents of the Minutes are about their participation.

Once, there was a complaint made that some Members’ views had not been accepted by a certain Subcommittee. A letter was sent to the Steering Committee. So, on the 26th of October, those two Members, who were Members of the Subcommittee on Law and Order, were invited by the Steering Committee. The Minutes of that meeting state that they said the Chairman of the Subcommittee was very fair, but they had certain views, that they could not agree with some of the views in the Report of that Subcommittee. And the decision was, I quote from the Minutes of the 33rd Steering Committee Meeting, “Hon. Prime Minister requested the Hon. Namal Rajapaksa and the Hon. Shehan Semasinghe to submit their views in writing to the Steering Committee within a week as the Subcommittees are now defunct.” So, they were given yet another opportunity saying, “All right, if you do have other views, submit those in writing.” They agreed, but nothing came to the Steering Committee from those two Members. These are the Minutes. They were present before the Steering Committee, but they did not send in their views. -[Interruption.]

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

Hon. Chairman, I just want to make a correction.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

Correct it when you speak.  There was a proposal –

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

You all suggested that footnotes be put in. Those were not considered. -[Interruption.]

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

Hon. Member, correct it in your speech. Hon.Sumanthiran, you may continue.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

So, they were given an opportunity to submit their views in writing within one week. They had not done it. The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella, who disturbs me now, signed and gave his own proposal to the Steering Committee, which, after some time, another Member of the Steering Committee, the Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, said he was withdrawing. It has all been minuted.

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

On behalf of me, he withdrew that.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

I know.

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

So, what is wrong with it?

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

So, you gave your proposal. I am talking about the –

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

There is nothing wrong with it.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

No, that is all right. I am only talking about the involvement or the level of participation of Members in this whole procedure. So, I am saying it now in the public because giving a different view to the public that some people have nothing to do with this is false and all of this has been considered.

Now, Sir, coming to the position that our party has taken, I want to say a few words before I conclude. We have very clearly stated that Sri Lanka shall be a secular State and I say this with responsibility: any Constitution that seeks to treat all of its citizens as its equals must be a secular Constitution. I am not a Buddhist and I cannot be told that I am second class in this country. A Constitution that gives a particular religion the foremost place cannot be a Constitution that treats all of its citizens as equals. Now, it is up to this House to decide whether you want a Constitution that does not treat all of its citizens equally. Even having said that that should be the ideal, we have gone on to say, but, if the Buddhist people wish that a certain status be given to Buddhism, we will not stand in the way.

But, it is an indefensible position for the Buddhists to take. We, who are non-Buddhists, are saying, we do not mind it being given a foremost place. But, how will a Buddhist say, our religion must have the foremost place; others can have other places? How can any Buddhist who defend equality ever stand up and say that? But yet, if you want it, we have said, we are willing to grant it.

We have very clearly said that Sri Lanka must be a federation – a Federal State. I want to say a few things about this idea of a Federal State. There is a wrong conception or a wrong view that has been spread in this country that the call for federalism comes from the Tamil people because they want to separate from this country. Nothing can be furthest from the truth. The federal idea was introduced to this country by the founder of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1926. There were six letters that he wrote to “The Ceylon Morning Leader” on federalism.

ගරු දිනේෂ් ගුණවර්ධන මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு  தினேஷ் குணவர்தன)

(The Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena)

There was no SLFP at that time.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

No, not at that time. But, it was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who formed the SLFP in the 1950s who wrote five letters in 1926 to “The Ceylon Morning Leader” saying, a federal –

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

That was as an individual.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

I know. All right, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, as an individual, in his senses wrote this proposal of a federal Government for Ceylon in six letters. – [Interruption.]

ගරු සභාපතිතුමා

(மாண்புமிகு தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)

(The Hon. Chairman)

All Members will get an opportunity to express their opinion. So, please let the Hon. Member express his views.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

In that, he categorically states that Ceylon must be a Federal State. I am tabling* all of those six letters that S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike wrote to the newspaper in 1926.

_______________________________________

*  පුස්තකාලයේ තබා ඇත.

*  நூல் நிலையத்தில் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

*  Placed in the Library.

_______________________________________

ගරු කෙහෙළිය රඹුක්වැල්ල  මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு கெஹெலிய ரம்புக்வெல்ல)

(The Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella)

“Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike”.

ගරු එම්.ඒ. සුමන්තිරන් මහතා

(மாண்புமிகு எம்.ஏ. சுமந்திரன்)

(The Hon. M.A. Sumanthiran)

Yes, Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike.

Not only that, the Left of this country in 1944 held the same view. Even before that, the Communist Party made a resolution that the country must be federal. The Pieter Keuneman – A. Vaidialingam Report of the Communist Party of 1944 very clearly articulates that Ceylon must be a federal country. Sir, I am tabling* the Pieter Keuneman – A. Vaidialingam Report of the Communist Party also.

_______________________________________

*  පුස්තකාලයේ තබා ඇත.

*  நூல் நிலையத்தில் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

*  Placed in the Library.

_____________________________________________

I am saying all of this to show that the call for federalism came from Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, Mr. Pieter Keuneman, Mr. A. Vaidialingam and more importantly, from the Kandyan Chiefs in the 1930s before the Donoughmore Commission and later in the 1940s, before the Soulbury Commission. They articulated three units with the North and East as one unit. 

So, those who oppose federalism and those who oppose the North and East Province as one unit must remember that that proposal came from the Kandyans first, not once, but twice before two imperial commissions. So, you all must disabuse your minds of the view that this is somehow a Tamil project, a first step to separation. No, Sir, we have very clearly stated that the country must remain one. We have said that very clearly. We are participating in this process in the most responsible way possible and we ourselves have said that the country must remain one. Our view is that if the country is to remain one, different peoples in this country must have a share of the governance of this country. It cannot be a system of government in which simple majoritarian rule prevails.

This country consists of different peoples and it is in order to remain as one that we are seeking maximum possible devolution of power; maximum possible power sharing arrangement so that all the peoples in this country have a share in that. Otherwise, sovereignty, which is said to rest in the people, will become meaningless; sovereignty will be exercised only by one majority, one people of this country, if  it is a simple majoritarian rule. 

So, one must understand, the country must understand, the reason why we are asking for sharing of power. The reason  why we are asking for sharing of power is so that we can be proud of this one country of which we are citizens. We do not want to be second-class citizens. Nobody in the world wants to be second-class citizens in any part of the world. If we are to be proud of this country, we must have equal stake in this country. We must be able to say we are proud to be Sri Lankans. I must be  able to say I have equal access to government power and I am treated as an equal in this country. Until we are treated as equals, not by mere words, but actual access to government power being given to our people, we will never be in a position to say we are proud of this country; we will never be in a position to say we are Sri Lankans.

Many in our community have left this country today and they are not proud to call themselves “Sri Lankans”. They call themselves “Canadian-Tamils”, they call themselves “Australian-Tamils”, because they have been driven out by violence from this country. They have been denied the due share that they must have in the government of this country. That must change. The reason why the Tamil National Alliance participates to this level  in this Constitution-making process is to change that, to erase that bitter past so that we can, together with you, say our language is equal – that was corrected in 1987  but must be implemented in full – our religions are equal, no foremost  place to anybody,  everybody is foremost in this country; we must be able to say we have due share in the governance structures of this country.

Now, these are proposals, none of these proposals that are being placed here have gone beyond anything that the seven Chief Ministers and their Opposition Leaders other than the North East Provincial Council made before the Steering Committee. All of the Chief Ministers in the seven other provinces, other than the North East, want sharing of power. They came before the Steering Committee. All of those are matters of record. They want law and order, they want land powers, they want the powers of the Governor reduced. I am saying this because one must remember that in 1987 when the Thirteenth Amendment was being passed, several Opposition MPs, then the SLFP, gathered at Pettah, outside the bus stand and performed a hartal. They said the country is going to be divided by this Thirteenth Amendment. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa was there personally leading the protest saying if this Amendment is passed, the country will be divided.  He is the one, as the Leader of the House stated, who repeatedly said when he came into power, “I will implement the Thirteenth Amendment  in full  and go beyond  it and make power sharing meaningful.” 

Today when the provincial council elections are postponed, it is he and Members associated with him who are protesting and saying, “Do not postpone the provincial council elections.” The man who said, “Country will divide if you create provincial councils”,  is screaming his head off today saying, “Do not postpone provincial council elections. That is the violation of our sovereignty”. Professor GL Peiris’ petition to the Supreme Court on which the Determination on the Twentieth Amendment was made, was made on the basis that a postponement of the provincial council election affects the sovereignty of the people and they do not want it postponed. So, the creation of provincial councils has not resulted in the country being divided. The country has not been divided. 

I also have with me the 2000 August Draft Constitution Bill that was brought to this House by the People’s Alliance Government of that day of which the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa was a Cabinet Minister; a Bill which was certified by the Cabinet of Ministers as a Bill that is intended to be passed by this Parliament by a two-thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum. He was a Cabinet Minister who approved of this Bill and what does that Bill say? These proposals before us today says, we are one country. Therefore, we can call ourselves, “ඒකීය රජය”, meaning of  which will say, “ஒரு நாடு” or “ஒருமித்த நாடு” – “one country.”  This does not even say that. This says, “Sri Lanka is a Union of Regions”. All the Cabinet Ministers at that time supported this, in this House. The UNP supported that principle. The UNP burned a copy of this Bill in this House because there was a transitional provision with regard to the Executive Presidency, not because of power sharing, not because of change of status of the country.

There was a wide consensus not only in August, 2000. Thereafter, when the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa became the President of this country, he formed the APRC. He told the APRC that there must be maximum possible devolution in his speech when he addressed the inaugural session of the APRC. Where is the APRC Report? The APRC Report says, “Do not have a Concurrent List.” It says not to have a Concurrent List and that powers must be clearly divided.  That is  the Report that came out of a process that the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa as President instituted. But what do our proposals say? We say, we have no objection to a short Concurrent List. Now, why do you say that the country is going to be divided by this?

When you were in power you approved of a Draft Bill that went far beyond, far beyond what is contemplated by this Interim Report. Is it not to mislead the people of this country, and stall, and prevent a final resolution to the national question that has plagued this country ever since Independence? Do we not want a reasonable resolution of this? If you ask the question what is the biggest problem this country has faced, obviously it is the national question. This country has not faced a war for three decades on account of anything else, not on account of any other issue, it is only in regard to these issues that actually parts of the country were ruled by others also for parts of time. So, we are now in a process. As responsible representatives of our people, we are Tamil Members of Parliament from the North and East – except two, all others belong to the Tamil National Alliance – we have an overwhelming mandate from our people to resolve this question within a united, undivided country and we have gone one step further and said, indivisible country even in the future. So, when we are participating like that, our people have misgivings of this Interim Report. Our people are saying, “We told you it must be a Federal State”. Our people are saying, “There must be one unit of devolution”. Our people are saying, “It must be a Secular State, is it not a reasonable thing? You are compromising beyond the mandate that we have given you”. They are right. We do not want to compromise beyond the mandate given to us, but we want to see that through negotiation a reasonable position is reached. Even at this point in time, it looks as so. From our people’s point of view it looks as so we are going beyond the mandate given to us. We are striving hard to achieve a consensus which we will put before our people, which, if we are satisfied, is a reasonable solution that addresses all the basic aspirations of our people. Then, we will go before our people; we will commend it to our people to accept it and our people will accept it if it addresses those issues.

We had two full-day meetings yesterday. Our representatives had lots of misgivings about various matters in this Report. We will address them as we go along. But, our primary objective would be to come to a consensus in this country, so that there will be a Constitution of this country which all the people of this country accept as their own. Is that too much to ask? Can anything be said to be too heavy a burden to carry if we are to achieve that? All of us must put our shoulder to the wheel if we can achieve that objective. I am not saying that it is an easy objective to achieve, but we have come half way. We have come to a point where there is an Interim Report on which – although we disagree on lots of matters – we have clearly come out and said, if the main points are agreed to by the two main parties, we will consider agreement with that for the sake of  consensus and for the future generations of our country. 

I invite all the Hon. Members of this Assembly – I am not saying this patronizingly, I am pleading with every Member of this Assembly to please, view this matter in that way. Do not put the lives of future generations of this country at peril. Think of what this country will be if we can achieve this. Of course, it must be achieved in a way that recognizes the dignity, equality of all the peoples of this country. Otherwise we will not agree. But, there is an opportunity to come to an agreement such as that and this Assembly’s deliberations today, tomorrow and the day after must be for that constructive purpose to go into the contents, place different propositions, listen to every shade of view and then, tell the Steering Committee, that you have heard all of this. Bring all this to fruition so that this country can march forward as one entity in which various, different people who speak a different language, who profess a different religion, who live in different parts of this country can all say, “We are Sri Lankans.” because our rights, our dignity, our equality have been assured in this document and this is our document. 

Thank you very much.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 5
    5

    From two main Parties, Sumanthiran? Who do you think they are, the owners of the country?

    Those two Parties are yesterday’s main Parties. Their members are no longer with those Parties. Tell them to hold a general election, so that you can see by yourself, how people will make them minor parties. Because of their Constitution drama, people totally lost even the little confidence they had in them.
    .
    SLFP and UNP can’t take decisions on the New Constitution. The decision should be taken by people as an independent nation.
    .
    Instead, you can say “What we expect from Sirisena and Ranil.” Then it is a different story. Then it is a private agreement. May be they will agree to give you their personal properties. They have no right to give you anything else.

    • 8
      1

      “The decision should be taken by people”

      FOOL,
      it will be put to the people at a referendum.

      • 1
        0

        Lanken politics is like a book with a beautiful outer cover.

        with a beautiful title, but the contents in it, are beyond all ethics and morals.

        This is what I feel when thinking about all the election pledges each of the politicians made before coming to power.
        They promised to send MR and thugs to jails, but nothing is done sofar.

        They promised to map all the high profile frauds, nothing is done sofar

        They pormised to bring harder laws, but nothing worked sofar. Even murderers of Thadjudeen is even allowed to travel through globe just because he is former babaric president son

        Nothing is done to round up anything sofar, THIS GOVT is spineless.

        At least a new consittution would be brought is questionable since ballige puthas of JO work abusing the nation with all loads of extremists mantras.

        I am so fed up of lanken politics. I keep away from passing my posts all these weeks.

    • 2
      0

      As an independent nation ?

      Your illegal husband Wimal Buruwanse would nto allow nation to be indenpendent.

      His blantant lies dropped down from his cesspit have influenced the masses specially that have been eating grass as their ample food.

  • 1
    0

    Champa says that a decision has to be taken by the People as an Independent Nation.

    Fine; In case you may not be aware this will also be placed before the People at a Referendum!

  • 4
    0

    GIVE US SINHALE

    If that is Sri Lanka minus NorthEast Province SO BE IT.

    GIVE SINHALE TO SINHALESE NOW.
    SAVE SINHALE , SINHALA FROM SRI LANKANS/CEYLONESE…….(Creation of IMPERIALISTS)

    JAYA WEWA SINHALE…….

    • 1
      3

      Whole Sri lanka is Sinhale. JAckal Opposition, UNP or SLFP will not decide the way they want. It will be different this time. Ranil is dancing like the crab in the boiling pot.

  • 3
    3

    President’s announcement to hold three separate conferences allowing open dialogue and exchange of views about the new Constitution should take as a victory for Sinhalese. I remember Wimal suggesting a similar All-Party Discussion when he met the President.
    .
    This opportunity should be UTILIZED TO THE FULLEST TO CONVINCE AND PROVE the President how to solve the “Tamil problem” he so passionately talks about, within the existing Constitution and the Administrative Structure.
    .
    If not for the relentless protests by Maha Sangha, Wimal+NFF and masses, the Government would’ve skipped this important step or shouldn’t have given prominence.
    .
    Sinhalese cannot agree to any proposals formulated by NGO people, a PLOTE member, Separatists/Federalists and USA. How could the President expect Sinhalese to agree to them?
    .
    As pointed out repeatedly, the voice of the majority Sinhalese is not represented in the Parliament. SLFP-M-faction or the UNP doesn’t reflect people’s voice. JO is only one man’s voice, which is Basil’s, who controls JO through MR.
    .
    Although Wimal’s Party has only 5 seats, his voice represents the majority outside. For example, independent masses’ voice is not represented by anybody. That’s why we have to threat, curse or sometimes use foul language with the newest addition bombing/shooting remarks, in order to force the government to listen to our voice, outside the Parliament. Wimal gets only limited time slots. UNP says he should have voiced his opinion in the Parliament. How could he? He gets only rare 4-7-9 minutes and even then a good part of his time is wasted by small-minded UNP jackals with constant disturbances.
    .
    I made a request to the President here, to reconsider UPFA’s decision. Wimal’s NFF should be recognized as an Individual Party in Parliament as was in 2010-2015 so that as a Party Leader, he will get adequate time slots.

    • 2
      1

      Champa the very stupid ignorant ill informed ………………… oldest profession.

      “Wimal’s NFF should be recognized as an Individual Party in Parliament as was in 2010-2015 so that as a Party Leader, he will get adequate time slots.”

      Excerpt:

      Wimal Weerawansa’s NFF withdraws from UPFA, will function as independent group in parliament

      Fri, Feb 24, 2017, 10:37 am SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

      The Prime Minister thanked the NFF leader and his party for the decision to leave the UPFA alliance since it means that Mr. Weerawansa cannot continue working under former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.
      …..
      If the National Freedom Front did not contest the last election and also no longer a part of the Freedom Alliance, then the members of the Wimal Weerawansa’s party will have to be identified as Independent members of the House, Deputy Minister Ajith P. Perera said. As such the NFF parliamentarians will enjoy privileges of an Independent MP.

      • 0
        0

        Keyboard Vedda
        .
        I never used the word “independent”. The word I used was “individual”. Take the a dictionary and check the difference of their meanings.
        .
        Even Wimal didn’t say he wanted to be independent. What he said was to recognize his Party as an individual party. PM and Ajith both are mutton-heads who couldn’t understand the meaning of a simple word.
        .
        From 2010-2015, Wimal’s Party was recognized as an individual party while being a Constituent Party of the UPFA. He was accorded with all the rights and privileges entitled for a Party Leader, along with separate time slots for his Party.
        .
        The same way Wimal and his NFF contested from UPFA in 2015. Currently, NFF is a Constituent Party of the UPFA. UPFA’s General Secretary, Amaraweera turned down Wimal’s request, to be recognized as an individual party based on 2010-2015 Precedent, as the determination.
        .
        The Speaker, who is a puppet of the PM, said as Amaraweera disagreed, he cannot accede to Wimal’s request, even though there is a Precedent, which is wrong, as Amaraweera has no right to influence Speaker’s independent decisions.
        .
        A Precedent is an important source of law for Parliamentary Procedures which is used as an authoritative rule for present and future similar cases. Before any Ruling, the Speaker should examine the Precedents. In Wimal’s case, there is a clear Precedent which has to be followed as Parliamentary Law.
        .
        This is the most undemocratic and despotic Parliament Sri Lanka ever had.
        .
        The President and the Prime Minister talk big about democracy, basic rights, justice, fairness and this and that, but they shamefully deny what is rightfully entitled for Wimal Weerawansa and his Party in the Parliament.

    • 3
      0

      Champoooooooooo, you talk high about Wimal.

      Who is wimal ? He has no proper school education, no whatso ever knowledge based on world politics. Nor has he got better knowledge about local politics. Just because his sinhala rhetoric made him popular among the grass eating folks, he had the chance to enter the parliament. Knowing all these, you to promote him is a curseful act Champawathie.

      He has no brains to get the least of the problem that the nation faces. Why you focus on him only. We can undertand your affinity to him as one of your good customers, but please dont make efforts to send a wrong message to the masses.

      You have been doing a wrong thing all the time.

      This country has been made a slaughter house by Wimal et al all these years. He should be made warnings and made clear the harm HIS cesspit has made to this nation. Nor other politicians ever made that harm as is the case with the most abusive unedcuated person.

      It s your duty to save this nation from the idiot sooner than later.

      • 3
        0

        This is very right.

        This particular Wimal proved him to be an idiot not once several dozens of times.

        Nevertheless people to hang on with his rhetorics proves further how naive the average have been.

        So long the kind of men are part of active politcs in the country, we can say, Budusaranayi to srilankens.

  • 2
    1

    I’m a Tamil Hindu. But I generally think that Sinhalese and Buddhism should be given some sort of cultural support, since the two are pretty much unsupported in the sphere of South Asia.

    I would prefer for the constitution to focus on human rights; rights for sexual minorities (including third gender) and women, protections from police brutality, freedom for journalists, etc… and hopefully a multilingual island.

    I would also like some mention of support against racism AND colorism. I find it odd that Sinhalese care about symbolic cultural issues but not about actual racial issues and racism – is there anywhere more colorist than South Asia? (maybe Mid East?)

  • 1
    0

    Now do not merely look at the parts, look at it as a whole!

    Whole is more than the parts

    Let synergy do the rest

  • 1
    0

    How many times we had conferees?-round table?squire table? endless conferences

    from the time of JR each and every president summoned conferences and produced volumous reports.

    Why not we go through the reports and act?

    .The time for talks is over, now is the time for action!
    .
    If we postpone the momentum is lost and the tendency is to slowly drop it!

  • 3
    2

    Mr.Sumanthiran speaks something in parliament, tells something else to the people in the North and a different thing to the politicians in the South. As far as the new Constitution, it would be an old wine in a new bottle. The Tamil people knew it all along with the past experience. Therefore they will not vote for the New constitution in a referendum. They will vote for a federal form of governance within one country.
    Catalans, although they had power sharing government of their own they wanted to separate from Madrid. We cannot draw parallel to Spain, what the Tamils want is power sharing and not a division of the Country.

  • 4
    1

    Sumanthiram says that SWRD himself proposed Federalism, but what SWRD meant by Federalism and what the Tamils mean by Federalism are two entirely different things.

    • 1
      0

      Can you please name the difference? The Kandyan Sinhalese too agitated for a federal set up

    • 2
      1

      Taraki

      ” but what SWRD meant by Federalism and what the Tamils mean by Federalism are two entirely different things”

      Alright, tell us how the two are different? First define what you mean by Federalism, what SWRD Banda the public racist meant by Federalism, and what Sumanthiran mean by Federalism.

      If you haven’t got a clue don’t bother.

    • 0
      1

      Since you are implying that there is a difference between what SWRD meant by Federalism and what Tamils understand by it,
      kindly explain the differences or for that matter a reasonable person would understand it to mean.

      • 0
        0

        It is very simple. For the non-Up Country Tamils it is the first taste of separate power. I t will lead to demands for more power and to the break-up of the country.

        • 1
          0

          Taraki

          “I t will lead to demands for more power and to the break-up of the country.”

          More power to the people is democracy.
          Have you applied and got permission from Hindians to break up the country? The Hindians stopped Tamils breaking up the country in 1987. They continued to do so until today.

          If Hindia chose to divide the country would you be able to prevent it, given that Hindians had already divided Pakistan against all odds, and prevented the division of Kalistan being a separate country?

          Its difficult for a little paranoid islander to logically think through any strategically important geo-political issues.

          Hopefully we will see you in two months time.

  • 1
    0

    Sumanthiran is making excuses for the cynical misconduct of the UNP in Year 2000.
    If the objection was to one aspect of the Draft Constitution Bill, that could have been debated and rejected, as the SLFP-led alliance did not have an absolute majority at the time.
    *
    Being the good lawyer he is, he can even find a more convincing explanation for JRJ’s notorious Kandy March of 1957.

    • 2
      3

      SJ

      “as the SLFP-led alliance did not have an absolute majority at the time.”

      What majority, if the Weeping Widow’s party decided to disrupt a process, it could find 1001 ways to do it. When push comes to shove the SLFP could always rely on Grant Duke of Assgiria.

      “Being the good lawyer he is, he can even find a more convincing explanation for JRJ’s notorious Kandy March of 1957.”

      Being an admirer of the Weeping Widow you could also find an convincing argument for S B Banda disrupting the March. Or is it the upper caste elite in the North conspire to disrupt the march?

  • 2
    1

    Abraham is a serious Politician among the Vellalas…………
    He said his whole Party agreed with Dr Ranil’s new Constitution……
    And Abraham says it is a First in Srilankan Parliament……….
    While Abraham was delivering this all important speech , Dr Ranil was joking about a Senkolaya…………..HeHeHeHeeeeee………
    And his mate Gamaralage Sirisena says there is nothing there …………
    And Sira says He can take some , he can drop some and even add some………. …..
    And Sira is going to call not one, but Three Committees of his own, to draft a new Constitution….
    Namely the Mahasanga, Maha Prelates of all Religions ….. And the third , all Wise People who have PhDs and still love their Nation……………….
    Did Abraham got the agreement of his TNA which has the Vellalas, ex Tigers and Diaspora all in One , for some thing which is Nothing?………
    Confusing?…….. My word it is………

    • 2
      1

      KASmaalam K A Sumanasekera

      “HeHeHeHeeeeee………”

      Why do you let Namal Baby tickle your tummy? Let him play with his Child Minder G L Pieris or why don’t you buy him a puppy.

    • 0
      1

      MY3 wants to screw up all three groups. That is what he is doing. TRYUMP had the influence of so many different churches. but, he di dnot bend to every church. Instead he blamed POPe. He was that open. MY3 and Ranil are backbones less comedians. They are not leaders, just rying to be. right now, they are planning the biggest escape of the grand robbery in Sri lanka. They may quit politics after the defeat. So, they waon’t be in jail.

    • 2
      0

      K A Sumanasekera,

      Vellahla-Wattai, Kollu-Piddi, Pampala-Piddi, Kottan-Chennai, Mattak-Kuli, Motharai, Wath-Talai, Dei-Walai, Kochchi-kadai, Kirulap-Pannai, Paman-Kadai, Nuka-Kodai are all Tamil speaking areas in Kolumpu. These are Tamil names.

      • 0
        0

        KT,

        That is what Abraham led mob is trying to achieve……..

        • 2
          0

          Hela

          “That is what Abraham led mob is trying to achieve……..”

          If this is mob attack then what is 1958, 1961, 1971, 1977, 1983, 1987-1990?

          You have a very good sense of proportion, a Sinhala/Buddhist Fascist weighing scale.

          • 1
            0

            Veddo,

            Abraham’s mob killed multiples of all those years put together………The killing between 1987-1990 were carried out by your elephantine masters of the green and red (rathu ali patau) variety including that of “batalanda” fame……….It is remarkable that all those killers are now banded together for the single purpose of dismantling Sri Lanka state…………No words to describe your sense of proportion, lying and distortion.

            • 0
              0

              Hela,
              My Elders tell me the Yahapalana green Elephantes beat the Crap out of these new Red Elephant babies ancestors…….. Sorry predecessors……
              And it was done under their mate, Dr Ranil’s watch in “Batalanda”………
              Do you know anything about it ……….
              Or should I ask my mate Native Vedda…….

              • 0
                0

                KASmaalam K A Sumanasekera

                “My Elders tell me the Yahapalana green Elephantes beat the Crap out of these new Red Elephant babies ancestors…….. Sorry predecessors……”

                My Elders tell me your supposed elders are suffering from selective dementia, hence they have conveniently forgotten how the nil pāṭa pakṣayak killed innocent people in 1971 and from 1995 to 2015.

                The Weeping Widow and other Reds started mass killing it continued until 2015.

                Hela is another card carrying Sinhala/Buddhist Fascist. He lives in a parallel Fascist universe like you.

                Why didn’t Dr Mahinda charge Dr Ranil’s for “Batalanda”…?
                How many times did Dr Mahinda’s marry?

              • 0
                0

                KAS,

                Vedda suffers from amnesia most of the time…………..

            • 0
              0

              Hela

              Have you forgotten the nil pāṭa pakṣayak weeping widow’s killing in 1971? And don’t forget Dr Mahinda and Dr Gota’s contribution massacres of civilians from 2005 to 2015. Is it nil pāṭa pakṣayak or Kurakkan colour party that massacred innocent civilians between 2005 and 2015?

              ” It is remarkable that all those killers are now banded together for the single purpose of dismantling Sri Lanka state”

              True it is the Sinhala/Buddhist fascist like you are working very hard to destroy the country. Why don’t you back off.

  • 3
    2

    Its time to give the tamils a fare share i mean a separate state. Nothing wrong as Catalonia east timor etc

    • 0
      2

      Nadarajah Ravi
      .
      Nothing wrong having a separate state like Catalonia hey?
      .
      Let’s take Catalonia as an example.
      .
      Spain is 8 times bigger than Sri Lanka.
      Sri Lanka is approximately 65,610 sq km.
      Spain is 505,370 sq km.
      .
      Size of Catalonia itself is 32,114 sq km.
      Entire Sri Lanka is only 65,610 sq km.
      .
      This shows the absurdity of your suggestion.
      .
      The most important factor is; unlike the Northern Province of Sri Lanka which had always been a part of Sri Lanka, Catalonia was originally not a part of Spain. It became a part of United Spanish Kingdom in the 15th Century following a royal matrimony.

      .

      • 3
        1

        Champa

        “unlike the Northern Province of Sri Lanka which had always been a part of Sri Lanka”

        Northern Province was NEVER a part of Sri Lanka until 1833 when the British united it to Sri Lanka for their easy administration. If size matters then Kosovo and many other countries would not have become separate states in the recent past. Tamil North & East has much more eligibility than Catalonia to become a separate state.

        • 0
          0

          Prasad,

          Don’t talk BS. Except for a limited period in the long history of Sri Lanka, Northern Province has ALWAYS been part of Lanka or Heladiva or Sinhale as it was known then. The king of Sinhale was the protector of the North and all chieftains reported to the king of Sinhale.

          For example in 1450, Parakramabahu VI had, with his conquest of the Jaffna kingdom in northern Sri Lanka, unified all of Sri Lanka. First he captured the Vanni and made its leaders loyal to him. Prince Sapumal was the commander of the Kotte army at the time. So we don’t need to go back further in time to king Dutugemunu (161 BC-137 BC) or Prakramabahu I (1123 – 1186) or Gajabahu (114 – 136) to illustrate how the country was a unified entity (including North, East, South & West) most of our history. Gajabahu is also the only early Sri Lankan king (along with Elara) to be extensively mentioned in the Chera Cilappatikaram (also spelled Silapathikaram). The Silapathikaram mentions Gajabahu’s presence at the consecration of a temple to Kannagi (identified as Pattini in this case) by the Chera king Senguvuttan. Returning from India he brought back not only the begging bowl of the Buddha but Pattini’s sacred anklet, and constructed a temple to the goddess ‘at a place called Vattapalli near Mullaitivu’.

  • 1
    1

    Champee
    No matter how long it takes or how much life or bloodshed we loose our ultimate goal is a separate state. We will get it under a UPFA administration to teach the racists a bloody lesson.

    • 1
      0

      Ravi,

      It is not UPFA……say yahapalanaya. But please don’t have too much hope. You want bloodshed. You might get your wish in an unexpected way. So would like to advise to be careful. That vedda may not be able to help with his machete.

      • 1
        0

        Hela

        ” You want bloodshed. You might get your wish in an unexpected way.”

        Of course, and you will run to Hindia, mummy mummy Dravidians are beating me up, bullying me, ……………….. and send Prasad Kariyawasam to invoke Aryan origin/relationship and plead “the Sinhalese are descendants of Odias and Bengalis and therefore deserve Indian support” ………………….

        Don’t forget VP the psychopath was the only one to fight an invading alien force in the past 500 years and packed them back to whence they came while you, and your armed forces were hiding behind his bum or the women folks or behind both.

        Now VP is no longer alive, try and hide inside Sampandan’s amude in case if IPKF mark II arrives in the next few years.

        • 0
          0

          He….he……..Veddo, it seems you have already forgotten what happened to VP The Great. Who got VP to RIP? Your mighty Hindia?

          Certainly you may not remember what your buddies from Norway, UK, France & US told natives of this little island……..that we would never be able to militarily defeat the almighty VP, your Sun God. Rest is history (which we know you are desperate to erase).

  • 2
    0

    “How can any Buddhist who defend equality ever stand up and say that? But yet, if you want it, we have said, we are willing to grant it”.

    Is Sumanthiran the God to grant us the mere mortals things that he wishes?

    Or is he the king (may be the king maker)?

    • 1
      2

      Hela
      _
      “Is Sumanthiran the God to grant us the mere mortals things that he wishes?
      Or is he the king (may be the king maker)?”

      I am not sure about Sumanthiran, however I know you have the state resources to steal, rob, grab, appropriate, distribute …… whatever you wish to have and …..burn down, destroy ….. whatever you don’t like.

      You’ve been very active since 1915.
      Have you started preparation for the next round of your state sponsored riots, that you have been working tirelessly since 2009?

      • 1
        1

        Veddo,

        Answering to your question…..just met your mate Ranil hamu and Madame CBK to plan the next state sponsored riots……Rathu ali patau tell me that we should start by burning down all the temples………Will you join? It would be fun…………

  • 2
    0

    What Hon.Sumanthiran says it correct. By making Buddhism foremost constitutionally it loses it’s purity by treating people as unequal.
    Buddhist philosophy is scientifically distilled ‘TRUTH’ as my good friend Susnaga Weeraperuma would say. It does not differentiate and is secular. ‘TRUTH’ needs for constitutional support.
    Why give Buddhism a foremost place constitutionally and sully it when the realty is that it has a preponderance of loyal adherents in the country? Who will dare deny that fact?

    • 1
      0

      Uthungan

      “Why give Buddhism a foremost place constitutionally and sully it when the realty is that it has a preponderance of loyal adherents in the country?”

      Its a good place for the crooks, thieves, rapists, drug smugglers, murderers …… to hide .
      All what they have to do is invoke the Buddhasasana article and obtain automatic impunity for all their crimes already committed and future ones. This help the crooks to disproportionately allocate state and private resources.

      Think about the people who are going to administer the ACT, imagine crooks running the Buddhasasana ministry, extra large stream of income for the politicians as well as the functionaries, example Sil Redda corruption.

      It is the responsibility of adherents to foster and protect their belief, faith, religion, …………….. not the crooks.

    • 0
      0

      Correction
      ‘TRUTH’ needs no constitutional support.

  • 0
    0

    Another GG class, Lankawe PC lawyer, Sumanthiran the Sivaji is in Veerapandiya Kattabomman speech. It was really long time since I did see Sivaji, my favorite, I enjoyed this movie. But the President, the New King is appointing three new Commissions to review is this Presidential Council’s Sales of Tamils” for “Buddhism only Constitution” is complete and whole. 1) Ayatollahs Commission, 2).Sinhala Intellectuals or CT Class PhDs or the equivalents of Muslim-Sinhala Parliamentarians’ education level, the 8th grade erudite commission, 3) Panchayat Commission.

    Even the Presidential Council’s other partner TNA Mavai is questioning the intention of the president in appointing the new Commissions.
    What an unusual amount of anomalies are appearing out of the Yasmin Sooka Syndrome.

    _Posted somewhere else.

  • 0
    0

    [Edited out] Comments should not exceed 300 words. Please read our Comments Policy for further details.

    • 0
      1

      Hela

      You do not need to type more than 300 words to confirm you are a Sinhala/Buddhist fascist.

      • 1
        0

        Veddo,

        Barking of a dog doesn’t affect us…………….

  • 0
    0

    The Sri Lankan predicament, loosely referred as the Tamil issue, is in fact an issue between two powerful Sinhala groups to wrest power and enhance personal wealth. The groups do not have a border and buying and selling is called defection. Presently the main activity is nit-pick concerning translation of one single word.
    What Sumanthiran is saying is “Stop this home vs home game with the Tamil-football”.

  • 0
    0

    Dear Hon. Sumanthiran,

    There is a genuine case for solving the ‘North-East’ issue. However, your argument for a new constitution is not substantiated. Please see the link for the presidential election manifesto:
    http://www.asianmirror.lk/news/item/5782-full-text-of-maithripala-sirisena-s-election-manifesto

  • 1
    0

    Who is fooling whom?

    It is being said that the constitution making process is a local born process with the participation of local population and with their consent.

    Veddan and others in this blog try to force us to believe it. But is that the real situation?

    The basic principles and facts mentioned in the Interim Report of the Steering Committee (IRSC) were previously discussed and agreed at two workshops held in Singapore. The first was held from August 31 to September 1, 2013 followed by the second between the 3 and 5 of April, 2015. Those events were organized by a South Africa -based INGO called ‘In Transformation Initiative’ (ITI) with the help of the Government of Switzerland.

    According to the ITI, members of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) including M.A. Sumanthiran MP, members of the Global Tamil Forum, V.T. Thamilmaaran, a senior lecturer in the Department of Public and International Law of the Faculty of Law at the University of Colombo, Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Mangala Samaraweera MP, a member from Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and an observer from the Government of Australia were among the participants at the Singapore meetings.

    It is clear what is being presented as the interim report is the so called “Singapore Principles” agreed between financiers of mono ethnic, fascist, separatist war machine LTTE architects of majarapalana coup on Jan 8, 2015

  • 1
    0

    The basic principles and facts mentioned in the IRSC were previously discussed and agreed at two workshops held in Singapore organized by a South Africa -based INGO called ‘In Transformation Initiative’ (ITI) with the help of the Government of Switzerland.

    According to the ITI website, it promotes the principles of the South African peace-making model to support, advise, and assist democratic transition and conflict resolution in Africa and around the world.

    Further it says it has partnership with “Burgh-of Foundation” an INGO with a questionable history in Sri Lanka.

    ITI has four Directors: Roelf Meyer, Mohammed Bhabha, Ivor Jenkins and Ebrahim Ismail Ibrahim. Roelf Meyer was a one-time Minister of Defence of the F.W. de Klerk apartheid Government in South Africa.

    According to the ITI, Meyer is a consultant on peace processes in Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Burundi, Kosovo and Bolivia. Paradoxically he is also on the Board of Directors of ‘Armscor Corporation of South Africa’, which supplies all the needs of South Africa’s Department of Defence.

    How can we expect a constitution to serve interests of Sri Lanka and it’s people if it is prepared on the advise and principles agreed with apartheid arms dealers and LTTE financiers?

    Which fool believe it? Who is fooling whom?

  • 1
    0

    A 10-point document was prepared following the 2013 meeting in Singapore attended by LTTE financiers backed by South African apartheid arms dealers and some SL pariah politicians, and it was named as ‘Singapore principles’. It was further discussed and improved at the April 2015 meeting. The final agreement has 11 points. A comparison between the so-called Singapore principals and the Interim Report of the Steering Committee (IRSC) shows remarkable and obvious symmetry.

    Although several parties claim that the New Constitution-making process is genuine and rooted in Sri Lankan soil this comparison clearly shows a different scenario.

    • 0
      0

      Hela

      “following the 2013 meeting in Singapore attended by LTTE financiers backed by South African apartheid arms dealers and some SL pariah politicians, and it was named as ‘Singapore principles’.”

      LTTE financiers, did you mean SL pariah politicians, Tiran Alles, Basil, Ranasinghe Premadasa’s bag men, ………………………..?

  • 0
    0

    TNA remains uninvestigated for links to LTTE. Ignoring this means that every Tamil that fell victim to the LTTE are ignored. Lets not forget that regularly there are ammunitions and arms emerging from different places in the North. The arrest of a TNA youth leader Sivakaran is just one reason why police & land powers should never be devolved.

  • 0
    0

    With 36 of the 37 subjects already devolved we should be taking out the performance sheets of all the provinces to see whether they have actually served any purpose. If not, is there any requirement to continue it. Let’s not forget that 13a and the PC system was introduced as a solution to the supposed ‘ethnic conflict’ with 36 subjects devolved, are those advocating the full implementation of the 13a telling us that the ‘ethnic conflict’ is not solved because land & police powers have not been given? That is really something to laugh about if so.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.