4 Responses to “ඒකාබද්ධ විපක්ෂය ප්‍රමුඛ පොදුජන එක්ෂත් පෙරමුණේ මැයි රැලිය කියවා තේරුම් ගනිමු.”

1. Vaisrawana Says:
   May 7th, 2017 at 9:00 pm

   Ven Murutthettuwe Ananda Thera also made a proposal similar to the writer’s (that is, the setting up of a private security contingent for MR, when his army security was replaced with police earlier). There’s no doubt thousands of young patriots will volunteer to serve in such an outfit. Pandithage, you are writing with feeling. I fully appreciate your deeply felt concern for the personal safety of the only leader who can save the country from disaster at this critical time.

   By the way, it would be good if you could explain the ideas in the last two paragraphs (which are crucial) more explicitly. Please don’t take this as a negative comment on your very useful contribution.

2. Christie Says:
   May 8th, 2017 at 5:19 am

   ඉන්දියානු බවයක් නැති අපි ඔක්කොම ඉන්දියානු අඩිරදයේ යටත් වැසියෝ.

   ඉන්දියාවත් ඉන්දියානු පරපෝසිතයනුත් අපිව පාලනය කරනවා.

   මෙය වටහාගන්න.

   එකතුවන්න.

   ඉන්දියානු අදිරදයටත් ඉන්දියානු පරපෝසිතයන්ටත් එරෙහිව නැගීසිටින්න.

3. Ananda-USA Says:
   May 8th, 2017 at 1:55 pm

   Constitutional proposals contrary to promises given by Prez, PM-NJC

   Island.lk
   May 7, 2017, 10:44 pm

   By Shamindra Ferdinando

   The National Joint Committee (NJC) has alleged that recently unveiled constitutional proposals are at variance with repeated assurances given by both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe regarding matters of crucial national importance, including the status of Buddhism.

   The NJC alleges that controversial proposals are contained in an interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly tasked with the constitution making process.

   Constitutional affairs expert Manohara de Silva, PC, said that in the wake of strong public criticism of the Report on Public Representations on Constitutional Reform (Lal Wijenayake Committee) and reports of Six Sub Committees, the government had reassured that foremost place would be given to Buddhism.

   Addressing the media at the National Library and Documentation Services Board, attorney-at-law de Silva flayed the yahapalana government for seeking to deprive Buddhism of its foremost place, do away with unitary status of the Constitution and transform Sri Lanka to nine federal governments.

   The lawyer pointed out that in accordance with the repeated promises given by yahapalana leaders, the Steering Committee should not have interfered with Article 9 meant to ensure Buddhism the foremost place while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e). Instead, the Steering Committee had made six recommendations in respect of Buddhism/Religion in addition to the existing Article 9.

   NJC heavyweight Gevindu Cumaratunga said that the government had accused those opposed to the ongoing constitutional making process of propagating lies. The government repeatedly alleged attempts were being made to sabotage post-war reconciliation process, Cumaratunga said. There couldn’t be any justification for proposing four recommendations in place of Article 1 and Article 2 that dealt with unitary status of Sri Lanka, Cumaratunga said.

   Alleging that the government was bending backwards to appease those wanting to divide Sri Lanka on ethnic lines and transform the country into nine federal areas, Cumaratunga said that proposals were meant to empower Provincial Council to such an extent they would enjoy unprecedented powers at the expense of the central government.

   Cumaratunga said that the Joint Opposition had quite rightly rejected the entire interim report toto.

   Commenting on proposed provision in respect of merger of two or three neighbouring Provinces, Cumaratunga said that the government objective was to restrict referendum in case of a merger of the Provinces concerned. The move was meant to facilitate the merger of the Eastern Province with the North, Cumaratunga said, pointing out that the government wanted to do away with the country’s ability to exercise franchise as one electorate.

   Cumaratunga explained the circumstances under which Provincial Councils could take control over land at the expense of the government. The civil society activist alleged that the central government would be at the mercy of provincial government if a particular administration declined land required for security purpose.

   Recommendations pertaining to introducing amendments to the proposed Constitution in case adopted by parliament were meant to thwart any such move, Cumaratunga said. According to him, an amendment couldn’t be moved unless it received a two-thirds majority in the proposed Second Chamber comprising five members representing each Provincial Government and also obtained two-thirds majority in Provincial Governments.

   PC de Silva and Cumaratunga dealt with recommendations in respect of devolution of powers and how the process could endanger the unitary status much to the disappointment of the vast majority of people. They asserted that the elimination of the Concurrent List, limiting Reserve List, Provincial Government given the authority to implementing laws in respect of subjects coming under the purview of the Central Government, subject of national Policy to be removed from the Reserve List, sharp dilution of powers currently exercised by Governor vis a vis Chief Minister to pave the way for the former to take decisions in consultation with the latter.

   Cumaratunga pointed out that recommendations had been made to deprive the Governor the authority to intervene in the Provincial Statutes. The activist said that the Steering Committee had gone to the extent of recommending an unprecedented Constitutional Court to decide on constitutionality of Provincial Statutes.

   Cumaratunga urged political parties to examine the threat posed by setting up judicial mechanism outside the existing system. “We are heading for chaos, unprecedented turmoil,” Cumaratunga warned, faulting successive governments for not abolishing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution forced on JRJ government by India three decades ago.

   The NJC pointed out that the 13th Amendment had considerably eroded supremacy and sovereignty of parliament thereby undermined significantly the unitary status. PC de Silva said: “Article 154 G (3) requires a majority of 2/3 of the members of parliament to repeal or amend laws passed by a Provincial Council whereas it only needs a simple majority to repeal or amend own laws.”

   PC de Silva said that the Parliament needed a two-thirds majority to only amend the Constitution and not amend ordinary laws.

   The NJC said that a wider discussion involving all stakeholders was required and a cohesive effort made to educate the people of the despicable project. Cumaratunga said that giving in to separatist demands was as worse as losing the war.

4. Ananda-USA Says:
   May 8th, 2017 at 2:02 pm

   Constitutional Reforms debate likely end June

   DailyNews.lk
   Monday, May 8, 2017 – 01:00

   Disna Mudalige

   A debate on Constitutional reforms by the Constitutional Assembly is likely to take place towards the end of June.

   The interim report of the Steering Committee headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will be placed before the Assembly next month, a member of the Steering Committee told the Daily News yesterday.

   A copy of the same would be handed over to President Maithripala Sirisena. The interim report, which deals with the vital aspects of Constitutional reforms including the electoral reforms, devolution of power and nature of the State, spells out the contours of the Constitutional Bill. A member of the Steering Committee said a draft interim report prepared by the Constitutional Assembly Secretariat was circulated among the Committee members last week.

   “The draft report is given in all three languages. All members of the Steering Committee have been asked to make their comments, if any, on the report in writing on or before May 23,” he said.

   The Steering Committee is to sit consecutively from May 23-26 to consider the responses of the members and finalize the report. “Through compromise and negotiation, we will try to reach a consensus during these meetings. Where there is no consensus, the members will be allowed to mention their own positions in the report. Likewise, the dissenting views will also be accommodated,” he explained.

   However, it is learnt that this is the third draft interim report presented to the Steering Committee. The Committee members were unable to reach an agreement on the two previous drafts. The latest draft has taken into account all the deliberations up to last Tuesday’s meeting, the Steering Committee sources said.

   Sources said the President has regularly been kept informed of all developments at the Steering Committee.

   When contacted Joint Opposition Parliamentary Group Leader Dinesh Gunawardena, one of the two members who represent the JO in the Steering Committee spoke in very negative terms on the Constitutional drafting process stating it seriously lacks transparency.

   “The JO flatly rejected the two previously submitted draft interim reports. We have been making our contribution actively at the Steering Committee. However, the government wants to do everything in secrecy keeping the others in the dark. We do not have secrets when it comes to matters that affect the country and national security,” he commented.

   The reports of six sub-committees on ‘Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, Finance, Public Service, Law and Order, Centre-Periphery’ were presented to the Constitutional Assembly by the Prime Minister on November 19. A three-day debate on Constitutional reforms initially scheduled for January 9 was postponed indefinitely as there was no consensus among the political parties.

   The Steering Committee has so far conducted over 50 meetings and according to the sources, a broad agreement over vital aspects such as electoral reforms and devolution of power have been reached after lengthy discussions.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site. All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 7th, 2017. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.