Proposed Constitution somewhat

Similar to APRC Proposals - Says

Sumanthiran

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP for the Jaffna District

M.A. Sumanthiran, in an interview with the Daily Mirror,
shares his views on the Constitution making and the way
forward. He says his party remains optimistic about a
positive outcome.
Excerpts:

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Q How optimistic are you of the Constitution making
process?
Well, this is a ones in life opportunity. It is, in fact, once in the life
of a country opportunity. This problem has been with us ever
since Independence. Every time, when the party in office makes
any effort to resolve it, the party in the Opposition opposed. It
happened in 1957, 1965 and went on like that. After many
consequences, particularly large scale violence, there was a

process from 1994 to 2000 to build a Constitution. But, in August

2000, when a bill was brought to Parliament, the main Opposition
opposed. The party came to power within two years of that and
took some efforts by signing a Cease Fire Agreement (CFA). Then
again, it was moved out of power by the other party.

This is the first time ever in the history of this country that the
two main parties have come together. The leader of the Sri Lanka
Freedom Party (SLFP) is the President, whereas the leader of the
United National Party (UNP) is the Prime Minister. They have
formed a national government for the very purpose of resolving
this issue by bringing a new Constitution acceptable to all the
peoples of the country. We supported this effort from the time a
common candidate emerged in November, 2014. Though we sit in
the Opposition, we and the JVP have been supportive of the
National Governments effort to draft a new Constitution that has
the agreement of all the people. We have made significant
progress which made me optimistic. One year ago, a resolution
was adopted. Then, the Steering Committee was formed. It has
met 45 times. Six subcommittees were appointed. They have
given their reports. All of the decision made so far in the
Constitutional Assembly and the steering committee, have been
unanimous decisions. That gave us hope that it was possible to
reach the largest consensus in this work of drafting a new
constitution.
Q The SLFP is categorical that it is for a unitary form of
governance, and not ready for any compromise on the
foremost place accorded to Buddhism. How do you expect
power devolution in that context?

The SLFP, or anyone for that matter, can take a position. The UNP
election manifesto also speaks of a unitary state.
That is why we have this process in which we talk together and
try to find a solution. Otherwise, different parties have different
positions. We are trying to find a common position. With regard to
the SLFP position, most of the SLFP Ministers are those who
opposed the election of President Maithripala Sirisena. All the
senior Ministers- Nimal Siripala de Silva, John Seneviratne, S.B.
Dissanayake, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Susil Premajayanthaopposed this idea at the very beginning itself. They were defeated
along with Mahinda Rajapaksa. They cannot dictate terms as to
what this government should do. They joined President Sirisena
after he was
elected President.
It only means they accepted the peoples verdict and the
mandate given to the President. They cannot put forward their
defeated ideology. Then, they should sit in the Opposition. That is
a significant mandate given to President Sirisena to abolish the
Executive Presidency. In fact, when he announced his candidature,
it was the first pledge he gave to the country. He repeatedly said
he would not contest again. Now, that was the promise he gave to
the people. People have elected him on that promise. It is not for
those who opposed him to come and ask not to abolish the
Executive Presidency, and to contest again. It does not fall within
their purview now to say that.
Three levels of power sharing proposed
Only special place, not foremost place for Buddhism
President elected to abolish executive presidency.
SLFP Ministers who opposed President at that time
should not now dictate terms to him

Q What is the extent of the amount of power you expect

to be devolved in the whole process?
We have discussed this at length in the Steering Committee. What
we found was that we did not need to start from scratch because,
in the past, there have been many, many processes. There has
been substantial consensus on the last of them. That is the APRC
process instituted by Mahinda Rajapaksa as the then President.
Before that, it was the 2000 bill of former President Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.
That had a large consensus around it. The UNP was the only party
that opposed it. It opposed because of the transitional provision,
not for the content. Mahinda Rajapaksa was a Cabinet Minister
then. It was with the Cabinet approval that the bill was brought to
Parliament. He did not object to it. All of these Ministers whom I
mentioned now were all in the Cabinet at that time, when they
brought forward a bill without the word unitary. It did not have the
word unitary. So, what we are now trying to do is to look at all
these different processes starting from the Mangala Moonasinghe
Select Committee, and come up with a document that
incorporates all of these. It does not go beyond any of these.
There is no room for anyone to object to any provisions. Any of
the provision to be contained in the new draft is the provision
they have agreed to in the past.
Q How do you specify the extent of powers to be
devolved?
We have the draft bill of former President Kumaratunga, to which
all of these people agreed. We are not even going that far. It
might be somewhat similar to the APRC report proposals. It
recommended the abolition of the concurrent list. There is nothing
anyone has ever objected to. The premise is one undivided,
indivisible country. It cannot be divided even in the future. That is
the matter that all are agreeing. That is a matter we, ourselves,
suggested. Now, within that framework, we are trying to see how

governance can be taken down to the lowest level. One difference

between the other proposals and what we are looking at is that
there will be power-sharing at three levels- the central
government, provincial levels and local government levels.
We have a separate list for local governments as well. What can
be done at the local government level should not be taken to the
provincial level. There are many things that cannot be done even
at the provincial level- national security, foreign affairs and lots of
other things. It is a model where people have access to
governance in their locality. They do not have to come to Colombo
for everything, not even to their provincial capitals.
Q When you talk about participation of people in
governance, there is a school of thought that it can be
done by decentralization of power under the centre rather
than devolution. What is your view?
There are two levels. What is being given to the local
governments is decentralization. The local government bodies do
not have law making power. They can only make by-laws. But, to
the provinces, it will be devolution of power. The reason is that
this is as much as a solution to the national question as it is about
taking governance close to people. It is also about people whose
number is fewer in the country, who have access to governmental
power at least in the areas where they are a majority. For that, it
has to be power sharing.
Q How do you link guaranteeing Fundamental Rights of
people with power devolution?
Fundamental Rights can be guaranteed in the Constitution. Even
now it is there. The Subcommittee on Fundamental Rights has
now extended those rights. That is not the issue. If there is only a
central decision making body, the minorities can never make the
decisions.
As for power sharing with the centre, foreign relations should be
vested with the centre. You cannot have nine different foreign

relations. It should be one country. The principal of subsidiary will

dictate what can be done at the lower level and at the higher
level. There should be one standard, for instance, health. It is
devolved now. But, there should be uniform standard, for
example, issuing licences to doctors.
"It only means they accepted the peoples verdict and the
mandate given to the President. They cannot put forward
their defeated ideology. Then, they should sit in the
Opposition. That is a significant mandate given to
President Sirisena to abolish the Executive Presidency. In
fact, when he announced his candidature, it was the first
pledge he gave to the country..."
Q What about defence power?
Defence will be entirely in the centre.
Q What about public finance?
It has to be in the centre. But, there will be certain measures of
fiscal independence. Even now certain taxes can be levied by the
Provincial Councils. So, not only levying taxes but also receiving
grants, negotiating loans for which the centre must grant
approval. But, in order to develop their regions, they must have
funds. If you talk about financial power, they will be mostly
retained in the centre, but, with enough space for the provinces to
manage those finances.
Q Sri Lanka is a country long affected by separatist
ideology. In this manner, if more and more independence
is accorded to the provinces, there is fear whether it will
lead to the partition of the country at one point. How do
you respond?

Actually, it will be the opposite that will be achieved. The whole

separatist movement was there because there was no power
sharing. It is a clamour for political power that brought about the
separatist movement.
In the 1972 Constitution-making process, if some of the views of
the Tamil parties were accommodated, this would not have
happened. When they were excluded from national life, they
wanted to be left alone. They said, We will go our own way. In
1987, that was redressed somewhat. Tamil was made an official
language. The Provincial Councils were created. That was how the
13th Amendment came into being. But, it is not a meaningful
structure for devolution of power. There are reasons for that. That
was why, even Mahinda Rajapaksa, during his Presidency, and
continuously gave assurances that he would fully implement the
13th Amendment. He said he would even go beyond to make
devolution meaningful. When he said that, he was admitting that
the 13th Amendment was not meaningful.
Q Though you talk about one country, we hear a lot of
voices that speak of separatist trends in the north. What
is your position on then?
They come because a lot of our people are cynical and sceptical
about this process. They constantly criticize us. They say we are
being foolish. Tamil people have been taken for rides continually.
The governments which signed pacts tore them up. We have been
cheated constantly. There is scepticism. Personally, I feel they are
justified in their positions because successive governments have
cheated the Tamil people. The only way to address that
scepticism is to prove them wrong.

"They come because a lot of our people are cynical and

skeptical about this process. They constantly criticize us.
They say we are being foolish. Tamil people have been

taken for rides continuoually. The governments which

signed pacts tore them up. We have been cheated
constantly. There is skepticism. Personally, I feel they are
justified in their positions because successive
governments have cheated the Tamil people. The only way
to address that skepticism is to prove them wrong."

Q How strong is the separatist ideology in the north?

That is not strong at all. There is no separatist ideology at all. It is
a sense of despair that nothing is achievable.
Q There is debate over the current foremost status
accorded to Buddhism as the majority religion. What is
your view on it?
We are trying to create a modern Constitution that assures
equality to all the people. I do not think anyone in this country will
dispute that all the people must be equal. You cannot, on the one
hand say everyone is equal, and then say Buddhists have
foremost place. That is the contradiction. That must be
understood by the Buddhists also. At the same time, we recognize
that history of Buddhism and the history of this country have a
very close relationship.
There is in fact a special place for Buddhism in this country. We
are not grudging that fact. We are willing to accommodate that.
Special place to Buddhism is something we will readily agree to.
But when you say it is foremost, it says better than the others.
That thinking is not consonant with the idea of equality.
" Mahinda Rajapaksa was a Cabinet Minister then. It was
with the Cabinet approval that the bill was brought to
Parliament"

Q But, even under the present Constitution, Buddhism is

given the foremost place. But, Buddhists are not given
foremost place. They are considered equal with others.
How do you respond?
I grant that. That is why I say a special place to Buddhism must
be given. The State must treat all religions equally. Because of the
special place, there is duty to be cast upon the State to protect
and foster Buddha Sasana. We do not mind it. That can be given
so long as whatever place given to Buddhism does not affect the
equal rights of other religions.
Q When you equalise rights, does it mean the right to
propagation of religions?
It includes everything. Whatever the Buddhists can do, others
must also be able to do. That is equality to people having faiths or
without faiths even. On religious ground, there should not be any
discrimination.
Q In your view, what are the rights denied to minorities
because there is no power devolution?
That is the right to decision making. The Constitution Assembly of
1972 is a good example of it. When there is a permanent majority
and there are permanent minorities, decisions will always favour
the majority because they are large in number. It is to balance
that inequality, at least in areas where they are the majority, that
some power is given. Power means decision making power.
"We are trying to create a modern Constitution that
assures equality to all the people. I do not think anyone in
this country will dispute that all the people must be equal.
You cannot, on the one hand say everyone is equal, and
then say Buddhists have foremost place. That is the

contradiction. That must be understood by the Buddhists

also. At the same time, we recognize that history of
Buddhism and the history of this country have a very
close relationship"
Posted by Thavam