The US and Canadian researchers took two new approaches to trying to prevent the loss of memory and cognitive decline that can come with old age.
One team, from the University of California, Berkeley, showed MRI scans which indicated that mental decline may be caused by molecules leaking into the brain.
Blood vessels in the brain are different from those in other parts of the body. They protect the organ by allowing only nutrients, oxygen and some drugs to flow through into the brain, but block larger, potentially damaging molecules. This is known as the blood-brain barrier.
The scans revealed that this barrier becomes increasingly leaky as we get older. For example, 30-40% of people in their 40s have some disruption to their blood-brain barrier, compared with 60% of 60-year-olds.
The scans also showed that the brain was inflamed in the leaky areas.
The coloured areas show brain inflammation
Prof Daniela Kaufer, who leads the Berkeley group, said that young mice altered to have leaky blood-brain barriers showed many signs of aging. She discovered a chemical that stops the damage to the barrier from causing inflammation to the brain.
Prof Kaufer told BBC News that not only did the chemical stop the genetically altered young mice from showing signs of aging, it reversed the signs of aging in older mice.
"When you think of brain aging you think about the degeneration of cells and losing what we have," she said.
"What these results show is that you are not losing anything. The cells are still there and they just needed to be 'unmasked' by reducing the inflammation."
Brain's weak link
In another study, Canadian researchers also said they could reverse cognitive decline in mice using an alternative approach.
They targeted a brain cell known to be a "weak link" in many brain disorders. The so-called somatostatin-positive neurons, which are involved in coding information, are the first to fail. The signals from these cells are too weak to be received by surrounding neurons, which would relay the information to other parts of the brain.
Prof Etienne Sibille, from the University of Toronto, identified a chemical that essentially amplifies the signal. He presented results that showed that older mice who could not find their way around mazes were able to do this after they were given the chemical, just as well as younger mice not given the drug.
Prof Sibille said he was hoping to begin clinical trials on human patients in two years' time.
"If people have a cognitive deficit we would potentially be able to bring them back to higher functioning."
The big caveat is that the vast majority of treatments that show promise in mice don't work on humans. But both scientists believe that this time it might be different.
Prof Sibille said he was heartened by the fact that the chemical repaired damaged neurons when it was given to mice. And Prof Kaufer said she believed that such work really could lead to a brain rejuvenation pill.
"People get jaded when they hear that things work on mice and then it is tried on humans," she said. "But I think there is something different and exciting about this story in that it explains a new biology.
"It looks at brain function in a different way. It is about mechanisms that have been neglected and not thought about before."
The director of Sri Lanka’s archaeology department has denied in court that the department granted permission for a Buddhist shrine to be built in Mullaitivu, despite a Buddhist monk previously submitting documents purporting to show approval from the department.
The trial regarding the construction of a Buddha statue encroaching on the Neeraviyadi Pillaiyar Temple in Semmalai continued at the Mullaitivu magistrates court on Tuesday, when P B Mandawala, the Director General of the Archaeology Department had been summoned.
Mandawala said in court that the disputed area had been declared as archeological premises by the department but that it had no jurisdiction to grant permission to build a Buddhist shrine in the particular area, and that he could only give a recommendation if needed.
He said that permission should be obtained from local authorities to build a shrine there. However information previously made public by the local authority Karaithuraipatru (Maritimepattu) divisional council confirmed that the council had not granted permission for a shrine nor even received any application for its construction.
Lawyers representing the Tamil temple said the Director General’s statement contradicted documentation submitted as evidence to the court previously, and said that the illegal shrine had been built with the support of the Archaeology Department as part of the project of furthering Sinhala Buddhist nationalism.
The judge adjourned the case until February 26 and extended an injunction forbidding construction at the Buddhist shrine. However he said that prayers could take place at both temples.
he following is a reply penned by eminent Lawyer President’s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne to the article titled ‘The ‘Honorable’ Speaker and the Spirit of Democracy’and penned by Malinda Seneviratne which appeared in the Daily Mirror of February 7, 2019.Clause 46 (1) of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution Bill presented to the previous Parliament provided that the total number of Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 30 and the total number of non-Cabinet and Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 40. Clause 46 (3) of the Bill was a provision that would apply to the next, that is the current, Parliament only: “If at the conclusion of the General Election held immediately after the coming into force of this Article, the recognised political party or the independent group obtaining the highest and the recognised political party or the independent group obtaining the second highest number of seats in Parliament agrees to form a Government of national unity, then, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the number of Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers and the number of Ministers outside of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Deputy Ministers, may be increased up to forty-five and fifty-five, respectively, if Parliament agrees to such increase, within two weeks of the first sitting of such Parliament.”
"There was a robust debate on the clause as a reader of Hansard will observe"
"The amendments were not passed when most MPs were half-asleep"
If Clause 46 (3) became law without amendment, the resulting position would be that the total number of Ministers shall not exceed 30 and the total number of non-Cabinet and Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 40. An exception could be made during the next, that is the current, Parliament only but again only if the two largest parties formed a Government of national unity. The increase in the numbers respectively to 45 and 55 had to be done within two weeks of the first sitting of the current Parliament.
On 28 April 2015, during the Committee Stage, the Opposition which initially objected to any increase in numbers later agreed to such a provision but demanded that the provision be made applicable to all future Parliaments and that a definition of a “Government of national unity” be included. The Government agreed to this. Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe proposed that a “Government of national unity” be defined as a Government formed by the parties which win the highest number and the second highest number of seats in Parliament. Mr. Dinesh Gunawardena objected to a Government of national unity being restricted to one formed with the second largest party. He demanded that a National Government should be one formed by the largest party with other parties and not necessarily with the second largest party (see Hansard of 28 April 2015, columns 919 to 940).
"If Clause 46 (3) became law without amendment, the resulting position would be that the total number of Ministers shall not exceed 30 and the total number of non-Cabinet and Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 40"
The following definition of a National Government was accordingly agreed to: “…. National Government means, a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups.” Thus, the amendments were not passed when most MPs were half-asleep as Malinda Seneviratne contends in the Daily Mirror of 07 February 2019. On the other hand, there was a robust debate on the clause as a reader of Hansard will observe.
If clause 46 (3) had not been amended at the request of the Opposition, an increase would be possible only during the current Parliament. In the current Parliament too, a Government of national unity would only be a Government formed by both the United National Party and the United People’s Freedom Party participating. With the exit of the UPFA last year, the number of Cabinet Ministers would have been restricted to 30 and the total number of non-Cabinet and Deputy Ministers restricted to 40.
In January 2015, 6.2 million Sri Lankans voted for a new Sri Lanka, giving a mandate for far reaching reforms, even as a rainbow coalition of disparate opposition parties and civil society organizations backed a common candidate for the presidency and Maithripala Sirisena, who had defected from the Rajapaksa administration shortly before and launched a blistering criticism of his erstwhile boss, defeated a deeply entrenched and populist president who sought to leverage his war ending legacy into an unprecedented 18th amendment enabled third term.
The signature achievement of the Sirisena Administration during its second 100 or so days in office, was the 19th amendment to Sri Lanka’s constitution, which essentially reversed the 18th Amendment and reduced the sole discretionary executive powers of the presidency, established independent commissions and strengthened the role of the Constitutional Council in key state appointments. This has, in fact, led to a renewed Sri Lanka, where senior police officers are institutionally independent of politicians now in their professional work and careers, the judiciary has recovered from the low point of the sacking of Chief Justice Shiranie Bandaranaike, a collective decision making on senior state appointments through the Constitutional Council and the establishment of key independent Commissions including the National Human Rights Commission has occurred. This was and is important progress and crucial state reform for Sri Lanka. President Sirisena throughout 2015, 2016 and 2017 praised the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and he was right. That legacy must be protected and nurtured.
In recent times, clearly President Sirisena has done a political volte farce, a complete turnaround from having campaigned against the policies of the Rajapaksa administration to now seeking to hitch his own political fortunes and future to a Rajapaksa return. This of necessity makes him advocate against his own legacy of reforms and change, as he seeks to champion or be associated with a different political agenda and culture going forward. That is the President’s political right, though the wisdom of the move may be doubtful. But the merits of the 2015 reforms, mandated by a majority of Sri Lankan requires a defense, as the politics of the impending year end presidential elections, overshadows the public policy debate.
The Collective of the Constitutional Council
The Constitutional Council embodies that essential principle of key state appointments being independently vetted and approved by a collective leadership. Now in Sri Lanka, these are the appointments to the higher judiciary and the members of the independent commissions, which are by design meant to be independent of the executive arm of government. They are regulatory and oversight in nature, be it the Human Rights Commission, the Police Commission or the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, to name a few.
Sri Lanka needs to make a transition from being a nation governed by populist strongmen (or women) to being governed by institutions, policies and laws and a government that is accountable and a governance that is transparent to the sovereign people of Sri Lanka. Through mechanisms and processes that move beyond periodic elections. It is in furtherance of this objective, that collective decision making on appointments to key judicial and regulatory bodies is being made by the Constitutional Council. The United States, for instance, in which the SLPP front runner for the presidency is a citizen, requires most key state appointments to be confirmed by the US Senate. The adage, “I etat c’est moi” or “I am the state” of King Louis XIV, surely ended with the period of absolute monarchies.
This analysis does not seek to engage inappropriately in the merits or demerits of specific and particular appointments high level appointments. Merely to make the point that it surely boggles the mind and is inconceivable that a collective of ten members of the Constitutional Council, comprising ex officio the Speaker, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, their nominees and three eminent non-partisan persons, can make a bigger mistake and be allegedly partisan, than a single individual, as would be the case of the executive president. As recent events have indicated, the presidency of Sri Lanka, is hardly removed from the partisan democratic contestation for political power and the criticism of the Constitutional Council is coming from one direction only, that of the political allies of the Rajapaksas. This must also be viewed in the context of the remarkable events of November and December 2018, when the actions of the President and the short lived SLPP / UPFA Government were found to be ultra vires the constitution and relevant laws. It no doubt escapes the extreme Sinhala nationalist members of the JO, that attacking the appointment of Sri Lanka’s superior judiciary is surely counter-productive to insisting and arguing with the international community, for the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s judicial system.
In Defence of the National Human Rights Commission
Sri Lanka has had a long-term problem with the protection and safeguarding of human rights. At one time we were quite high on the list of countries where extra judicial executions took place. Generally, Sri Lankan society was willing to acquiesce in making human rights subservient to the security interests of our long running civil war, believing as Cicero argued in the Roman Senate, that “in the fight of good against evil, the laws are silent”. But post war, we must change. It is a credit to the reforms of post 2015, that the human rights and democratic freedoms in Sri Lanka were strengthened and the attempt to rule in peacetime as in wartime was defeated at the polls.
We cannot, as President Sirisena himself pledged, allow the white van culture, the killing of editors, journalists and ruggerites on the streets of our cities to reoccur again with impunity. The work of independent commissions is a must. A society’s strength is not measured by the extent of its defence of the powerful but in its defense of the weak. As Human Rights Commission Chairman Dr. Deepika Udugama, so eloquently stated in her dignified but sterling defence of the Commission’s excellent work “an independent commission protects the rights of all groups of citizens in the country, this includes even groups of people who have been marginalized and rejected from society, since the fundamental mark of a democratic and civilized society is guaranteeing humanity”.
The governance reforms of the 19th Amendment have demonstrated a resilience and a robustness that strengthened Sri Lankan democracy. It must be defended by the 6.2 million who voted for that change in 2015, even if its champions and architects change course.
-The Island
Residents of a Mullaitivu village have accused the Sri Lankan army of exploiting the area’s clean water sources and contaminating the water that civilians use.
14 February 2019
People from around Kanukkeni-Thanneerootru in the Karaithuraipatru (Maritimepattu) division said that the army extracts hundreds of thousands of litres of fresh water every day from a guarded tube well in the area and has been doing so for the past ten years to supply several military camps in the Mullaitivu district.
Locals say that as a result of the extraction and methods the ground water and other residential wells in the area have become contaminated.
The well is guarded by troops in a guardhouse which has been constructed encroaching neighbouring lands, and locals have said that the troops toilet facilities also pollute the area due to overflowing waste, an uncovered septic tank and failure to remove sewage.
Residents have also complained to local authorities that they are subjected to constant noise, pollution and traffic due to the machines used to extract the water as well as the accompanying military vehicles.
A confrontation occurred when Karaithuraipattru divisional council members and journalists went to investigate on Sunday and were blocked by army officers. Intelligence personnel were also present.
A Sri Lankan police officer also confronted the representatives and journalists, saying they had no right to question how the army used public water or complain about military vehicles causing disruption on the roads. The officer left after taking photographs of the journalists.
In this article, aekiya rajyaya/orumiththa nadu means a State which is undivided and indivisible, and in which the power to amend the Constitution, or to repeal and replace the Constitution, shall remain with the Legislature and the People of Sri Lanka as provided in this Constitution – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
Friday, 15 February 2019
There is a report given by the expert panel appointed by the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly in the form of a draft constitution. Based on this, the Steering Committee will have to prepare a draft constitution, if they wish, to be discussed at the Constitutional Assembly. The description of the State is different in this document compared to the existing constitution and it is being debated at the public forums now.
In our Constitution Article 1 and 2 are as follows.
“Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a Free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic and shall be known as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.” “The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State.”
In the proposed report of the expert panel under the guidance of the Steering Committee the State is described as follows:
“Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a free, sovereign and independent Republic which is an aekiya rajyaya/orumiththa nadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution.”
In this article, aekiya rajyaya/orumiththa nadu means a State which is undivided and indivisible, and in which the power to amend the Constitution, or to repeal and replace the Constitution, shall remain with the Legislature and the People of Sri Lanka as provided in this Constitution.
The word “unitary” is removed and in the place of it two Sinhala and Tamil wards were inserted.
In the second paragraph the terms aekiya rajyaya, the Sinhala term, and orumiththa nadu, the Tamil term, were described and it was expressly stated that the State is undivided and indivisible. The word indivisible is not used in the existing Constitution to describe the State. In the French Constitution it was stated that the State was indivisible. It was also expressly stated that it is “aekiya” or “oru” since only Legislature and the people of Sri Lanka can amend the constitution or introduce a new one.
Oxford Dictionary defined the word unitary as follows:
“Relating to a system of government or organisation in which the powers of the constituent parts are vested in a central body – ‘a unitary rather than a federal state’”.
It defined the word federal as follows:“Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs – ‘a federal Europe’”.
In ‘Constitutional Law’ written by Patrick Monahan, Byron Shaw and Padraic Ryan, Unitary State is defined as follows:
“A state in which undivided sovereignty is conferred on the national (central) government, as distinguished from a federal or confederal system.”
M.A. Sumanthiran MP, a member of the steering committee, mentioned at a television debate that although the State is ‘aekiya’ the governance structure is having federal features so that the word unitary cannot be used to identify the Republic of Sri Lanka. The present governance structure based on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution is also having federal features.
Jayampathi Wickramarathne, a member of the steering committee, said at a meeting held at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Center to discuss about the proposed report of the expert panel of the new constitution that provincial councils were not given authority to change the constitution and that power was given to the Center. After the approval of the Legislature it should be approved by the people of whole Sri Lanka and it is not necessary to consult the Provincial Councils in this respect.
Speaking in Sinhala he said, therefore, that the State is ‘aekiya’. He further said that in order to change the constitution, in the USA approval should be given by the provinces and in India approval should be given by the provinces to change certain articles only. Therefore USA is a federal state and India is a partial federal state.
In the constitutions of USA, India, France and South Africa it was not stated whether the constitutions were unitary or federal. If a constitution is unitary the Center should be able to take back the power, it has given to the provinces. That is the meaning of the word unitary defined by the Oxford Dictionary. According to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution it is not possible to take back certain powers vested in the provinces by the Central Government. Therefore even existing the Constitution is not unitary to its core.
According to the proposed report, the Legislature cannot enact laws for the subjects allocated to the provinces and if doing so it should be done with the concurrence of all the provinces. Otherwise a two-third majority should be obtained for the proposal either in the Parliament or in the Second chamber and thereafter it should be approved by the people at a referendum.
The Central Legislature by its own cannot take back the powers given to the provinces. Therefore the governance structure does not have unitary features. In order to take back the powers given to the provinces the Legislature should approve it with two-third majority and thereafter it should be ratified by the people as a whole. Therefore the State does not have federal features. The sovereignty of the people is not divided in this case. State is one unit – aekiya. In Tamil oru means one. In case if the central Legislature cannot enact laws at all without the approval of the provincial councils, then the sovereignty is divided.
Also according to the report if there is an amendment to the Constitution or to repeal and reintroduce a new constitution, Parliament and the Second Chamber should approve it with two-third majority and if the Constitutional Court opines it should be approved by the people at a referendum. Therefore sovereignty is not divided.
This means the State is not divided and not divisible. Governance structure is divided to a certain extent. Governance structure is within the State. Therefore divided governance structure is becoming undivided within the unit of the State under the condition of referendum.
The Fifth Article of the Constitution of the USA reads as follows: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”
According to Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, amendments to certain articles of the constitution should be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. Therefore sovereignty of USA is divided and the sovereignty of India is divided to a certain extent.
Therefore in the proposed frame of the Constitution, it is not possible to use the word unitary to identify State since the word unitary deals with the governance structure as well although in constitutional law it coincides with undivided sovereignty. Sinhala word aekiya and Tamil word orumiththa nadu do not have the connotations the English word unitary is having. Hence it is correct to use those Sinhala and Tamil words rather than using the English word.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant and holds a MBA offered by PIM of University of
The Daily Mirror newspaper of 12th February carried an interview with Gotabaya Rajapaksanestled in the front section. The interview would have been better placed in the TV section. The infantile explanation was straight out of Aesop’s Fables.
Gotabaya says that Lasantha murder, Keith torture and assault and the Prageeth Ekneligodadisappearance were done by two people. Who? He does not say. Is this the humbug that we want as a President of this country? He knows who murdered Lasantha Wickrematunge. He knows who abducted, tortured and released Keith Noyahr after Karu Jayasuriya called his brother Mahinda who was the then President. He knows who made Prageeth Ekneligoda go missing.
“I won’t tell. Make me President and I will tell all”.
It’s the same story from Gotabaya. “If I am made the candidate to run for President, I will give up my American citizenship. If not I am American. Freedom is not enough without discipline”….blah blah.
Let us assume that the Yahapalanaya government has failed.Even dismiss the democratic freedoms emanating from the Independent Commissions. Does that necessitate a return to the old vomit?Pretence at being a patriot is not lost amongst the intelligent section of the Sri Lankan populace. Gotabaya and Mahinda banks on the rest of the population to bring them back in to power.Sprinkled amongst them are the racist elements.
The international standard for a new paved road costs around Rs 7.5 million per km. The roads Rajapaksha’s built cost Rs 27 million a km. Does Gotabaya know that? This American states that the infamous MiG purchases were between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of Ukraine as recent as last week. He says this despite the Ukrainian Government denying that they NEVER sold any aircraft to the Sri Lankan government. That was a statement made to the Sri Lankan investigators inquiring in to the purchase of MiG aircraft.Of course MiG aircraft were brought to Sri Lanka via a third party who made a killing and we know who that was. Gotabaya has now the very same lawyer who appeared for Lasantha in the same case defending him after the murder of the newspaper editor. Money talks.
Rajapaksa family has the gall to say that murder is rampant in Sri Lanka since the Yahapalanists took over. Have they forgotten the killing of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra? Lasantha Wickrematunge? Nimalarajan? Nineteen journalists from the North? Abduction and torture of Keith Noyahr? Assault on Upali Tennakoon?
Prageeth Ekneligoda gone missing, probably murdered too? Not forgetting the rampant drug trade flourishing aided and abetted by their regime ?
The glitz and glamour connected with the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime was but a cloak which covered the dirtiest,corrupt and an immoral period in our history. Money, however dirty was respected and became a fashion to be emulated. Even cricket was not spared. The International Cricket Council confirms Sri Lanka is the most corrupt cricketing nation. Such degradation of a nation encouraged and nurtured by Rajapaksa’s will take decades to correct.
Whatever the policy differences they have, the two high ups in the ruling hierarchy, President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe were unanimous in their public pronouncements that there is no possibility to submit a draft constitution to the current Parliament of which the term will expire in August 2020. President Sirisena, allaying the fears that the unitary status and the place given to Buddhism in the constitution were in danger, clarified that no proposal has been submitted so far to the Cabinet or the Parliament on a new constitutional draft.
Premier Wickremesinghe went further and said earlier this week that there is absolutely no chance to present a proposal for a new constitution to the current Parliament as neither the ruling party nor the opposition has the required majority to get such a bill passed by a two-thirds majority. At the same time, both assured that the new Constitution would not change the unitary nature of the country.
After the UPFA withdrawal from Yahapalana government and installation of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister in October 2018, the United National Party (UNP) obtained the support of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to make a comeback with a show of majority in Parliament. Since then Mr. Wickremesinghe was accused with the allegation that his government is drafting a new Constitution to appease the main Tamil political party.
New Constitution
In reply to these charges, he said that the UNP would not agree to discard the unitary state of Sri Lanka. He pointed out what was tabled in Parliament was a report of experts on drafting a new Constitution and not a constitutional draft. Claiming that the new Constitution is still a long way ahead, the Prime Minister said, “We have no new constitution or even a draft. What was contained in the report were ideas from all parties. Without two-thirds support in the constitutional assembly, we cannot draft a new Constitution.”
What was submitted to Parliament was a report submitted to the Steering Committee in August 2018 by two experts of the Panel, Prof. Camena Guneratne, Professor of Legal Studies, Open University, and Prof. Kapila Perera, Vice Chancellor of the University of Moratuwa. The discussion paper was submitted with the aim of producing a document that could be a working paper for the Steering Committee.
One of the main issues which failed to find a consensus was the characterization of the unitary state and the differences of the meanings in the Sinhala term ‘aekeeya’ and the Tamil word ‘orumiththandu.’
The majority opinion is that there is no reason to have different words to define the term unitary, which is ‘aekeeya’ in Sinhala. However, the Tamil word ‘orumithtaandu’ has a different meaning. TNA MP Abraham Sumanthiran, who assisted the drafting of the steering committee paper,
acknowledged that there was a difference in meaning. However, he tried to defend the inclusion of the new Tamil word by adding the word ‘indivisible’ to ensure that Sri Lanka is a ‘united’ country. Most constitutional analysts are of the opinion that the proposed change is aimed at establishing a federal state without using the word federal which is unacceptable to the majority.
Now it is interesting to see how the announcement of Mr. Wickremesinghe affect the understanding between the UNP and TNA. Already a section of the TNA is opposed to the decision taken by Sampanthan-Sumanthiran duo to support the UNP government from outside. Now that TNA dissidents could even demand a shift in the position viz-a-viz UNP government.
There was a considerable delay in submission of the Steering Committee’s report on the new constitution. The First Interim Report of the Steering Committee was presented to the Constitutional Assembly by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in the capacity of Chairman of the Steering Committee in November 2016. The Report is a compilation of the six sub-committee reports on Fundamental Rights, the Judiciary, Law and Order, Public Service, Public Finance and Centre-Periphery Relations.
MP Dinesh Gunawardena said their group had submitted a 14-point plan and they had not been considered by the Steering Committee. He asserted that they would not agree on diluting the unitary nature of the state or diluting the position given to the majority religion of Buddhism.
Nimal Siripala de Silva, a member of the Steering Committee stated in early stages of discussions that there was no necessity to a new constitution and that amendments to the existing Constitution were sufficient.
Six sub-committees
Prior to Premier Wickremesinghe’s admission that a new constitution could not be tabled now, the Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella said in Parliament that the government’s objective is to bring forth the new Constitution, followed by a referendum with the support of the SLFP. He said this while replying to a question raised by MP Wimal Weerawansa. Kiriella said the government is optimistic about the new Constitution. “The government is very clear on two main points. One, we will bring forth a new constitution. Then we will go for a referendum,” he said.
The six sub-committees were mandated to develop constitutional principles for consideration of the Steering Committee in respect of the designated subject areas. Each Sub-Committee consists of 11 members, including the Chairman.
In whatever the form it comes, majority of Sri Lankans strongly feel that the Constitution should ensure that Sri Lanka shall be one, independent, free, sovereign Republic and the State shall safeguard independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Republic and shall promote and preserve peace and harmony among various people of the country while promoting a Sri Lankan identity.
This is not the first time the constitution drafting process was deadlocked. We saw the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakham Agreement of 1957 and Senanayake-Chelvanayakham Agreement of 1966 ran into trouble, by opposition from the UNP and the SLFP respectively. J R Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa and later Mahinda Rajapaksa made attempts to find consensus through All Party Conferences that were abandoned midway.
The best opportunity for success was the draft constitutional bill presented during the tenure of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, where ended in ashes when the UNP opposition set fire to the bill inside the August House.
The current Parliament failed to present a constitutional bill in the early stages of the unity government. The process was streamlined at a lethargic slow pace and before it saw the light of the day, the yahapalana government collapsed.
This is another proof that Sri Lanka needs statesmen and not mere leaders who play to the gallery and not capable of taking risks in the larger interest of the future of the nation. The constitutional hoodoo continues.
It is not only the ‘aekeeya/orumiththandu’confusion and the ‘draft provisions’ for a new constitutionthat are questionable, but also the procedure and the process that were followed in drafting them. Under the present circumstances, there is no possibility of a single major party inaugurating a new constitution even if with minority party support. A new constitutionrequires a two thirds majority in Parliament at least as the first hurdle.
There was no apparent leadership for a new constitution and no purposeful effort to build bipartisan consensus among parties or the people. If the present draft is proposed to the Parliament, it would be like the proposal to have another ‘national government’ with one MP from the SLMC participating with the UNF!
For the 1947 constitution, there were two names behind, Lord Soulburyand Ivor Jennings. For the 1972constitution, Colvin R. de Silva clearly was the brain or the hand behind although he later excused himself from its ‘unitary’ characterization. The disastrous 1978 constitution undisputedly was the creation of J. R. Jayewardene.
Can that be said about the proposed draft or the ‘aekeeya/orumiththandu’ formulation? It is just an Expert Report of originally ten members, four of them clearly dissenting or expressing their own views. The ten has become reduced to six. This is apart from various political parties in the Constitutional Assembly or in the Steering Committee dissenting or disagreeing on very many matters, except on few subjects like ‘fundamental rights, freedom, language rights and directive principles of state policy.’
Failure of consensus building
Dissention or different views cannot be completely eliminated in a constitution making processes. However, those should be reduced to the minimum or to clearly identifiable matters. That should be the merit or the objective of a constitution making process. Otherwise, when a draft comes to Parliament there can be confusion or chaos.
Even with a clearly written draft in August 2000, and apparent consensus between the SLFP, and the UNP, when it was proposed in Parliament, the opposition UNP created enormous chaos. It would be extremely difficult for the UNP to get rid of this negative legacy however much they have the support from the ‘international community’ or (for some valid reasons) from the minority political parties. One reason for this unfortunate situation was the delay in formulating the draft and proposing it in Parliament at the very end of the parliamentary and presidential tenures in 2000. The same goes for the present situation.
There has been some kind of stubbornness or rather ‘pig-headedness’ on the part of at least some of the new constitution makers, whether they were political leaders or the so-called constitutional experts. However much they talk or preach to others about plurality, diversity and tolerance, they were not ready to take other people’s views at least in terms of a dialogue.
Without going into details let me quote from a letter submitted to the Chair of the Steering Committee dated 8 August 2018 by two experts of the Panel, Prof. CamenaGuneratne, Professor of Legal Studies, Open University, and Prof. Kapila Perera, Vice Chancellor of the University of Moratuwa.
“At the last Steering Committee meeting held on 18th July 2018, two documents were produced by the Experts. The Second (Mapping) Document submitted in the form of separate booklets with a mapping of the reforms was submitted as it was felt that this is what required as per indications given by the Steering Committee at that meeting held on 24th May 2018. The discussion paper which is to be produced today [8 August 2018] is being submitted further to the directives given to the Panel to produce one document that could be a working paper for the Steering Committee.”
What does this mean? There had been a sudden ‘leap forward’ from May 2018 to July 2018, virtually annihilating the Mapping Document, and ‘some experts’ being asked to produce one document, an apparently a ‘draft constitution,’ now produced as ‘A Report Prepared by the Panel of Experts’ in the Constitutional Assembly website. (https://english.constitutionalassembly.lk/).
What has happened to the Mapping Document?
It is intriguing to note that the Mapping Document is suppressed. It is difficult to talk about the merits or faults of this document/s without knowing the contents. However for the citizens and those who research on constitutional matters this document seems to be crucially important particularly in the context of different views apparently appeared among the Panel of Experts. This suppression cannot be appreciated as ‘transparency’ in ‘good governance.’ This is also not fair for the experts who have produced this document although their letter that I have quoted above appears in Schedule II.
It seems that the Mapping Document has given a good overview of views expressed by political parties in the Steering Committee or in their written submissions. Although these are said to be incorporated as Schedule I to the said Report, it is difficult to judge whether those representations are accurate, complete and fair.
Let me quote the very last paragraph of Schedule I. It pertains to ‘State Land.’ Under EPDP, it just says, “EPDP • State Land -Dispute Resolution (Item 15) – total number in the arbitration panel is confusing.” Is this a fair, comprehensive or a clear description of the EPDP view?
There are two other important mattersthat the two experts have revealed in respect of the so-called ‘Report of the Expert Panel,’ aka the ‘draft constitution.’
“Firstly, in regard to the format of the discussion paper, it has been decided by a majority of the Panel that the format of the first document endorsed by six Panel members, which was submitted to the Steering Committee meeting of 18th July 2018 should be retained in drafting this discussion paper of the Panel of Experts.”
They have said to the whole world quite loudly that this document is not from all, but from six persons and the format was decided by those six or someone else. More important is what they have said about the contents as follows in two final paragraphs.
“We further note that this discussion paper and the Mapping Document are compatible/consistent to some extent as both are based on the provisions of the 1978 Constitution. However, there are also differences, mainly provisions in this discussion paper which do not appear in the Mapping document.”
“We wish to acknowledge the work of our colleagues on the Panel of Experts in preparing this discussion paper….However, we disclaim all responsibility for any specific formulations of provisions which are found in this discussion paper but which are not found in the Mapping Document of the other experts that was submitted at the Steering Committee meeting of 18th July 2018.” (My emphasis).
In the first sentences they have extremely been polite to others. However, they differ and disassociate strongly on the matters of ‘specific formulations of provisions.’
What are these formulations?
Apart from CamenaGuneratne and Kapila Perera, there are two others, Prof. Austin Pulle and Ms ChamindrySaparamaduwho have expressed dissent or different views as incorporated also in Schedule II. Most significant is the complete disassociation of the two academics, Guneratne and Perera, from what they have called the ‘specific formulations of provisions’ which have apparently come into the draft ‘which are not found in the Mapping Document.’
It is difficult to speculate on the exact formulations or provisions that they disagree with and ‘disclaim all responsibility.’However, when one goes through the Report or the draft, there are abundance of them which could be considered questionable, controversial or out of line with the requirements of consensual constitution making. Let me take one formulation from the very Preamble and another more hilarious formulation from the proposed Article 1.
How do the ‘experts’ propose to inaugurate the new constitution? This is what the Preamble says:
“NOW THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA celebrating our rich ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversity, in the exercise of our sovereignty, hereby give ourselves, and the future generations of Sri Lankans, this CONSTITUTION.” (My emphasis).
What is wrong with this formulation? This is conceptually wrong for the situation in Sri Lanka. It is not at least ‘unity in diversity’ which is ‘celebrated’ in this declaration, but just diversity. Of course the first paragraph of the Preamble gives more agreeable formulation, but negated by the second or the last paragraph quoted above.
Why do they bring ‘ethnic, religious and cultural matters’ into the forefront, although called ‘rich’? Those who oppose a new constitution on majoritarian lines, rejecting any kind of plurality or diversity in the country will rejoice on these kind of formulations for the opposite reasons. They will brand the ‘new constitution’ as a clear effort in dividing the country on ethnic, religious and cultural lines. There is clearly a ‘divisive thinking’ behind such formulations even in my opinion.
Aekiya/Orumiththandu Confusion
The confusion about the characterization of the state and the constitution is not an isolated matter as ‘aekiya/orumiththandu,’ but follows from the erroneous constitution making process that we have been talking about. The following is what the draft Article 1 says in full.
“Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a free, sovereign and independent Republic which is an aekiyarajyaya / orumiththanadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution. In this Article aekiyarajyaya / orumiththanadu means a State which is undivided and indivisible, and in which the power to amend the Constitution, or to repeal and replace the Constitution, shall remain with the Legislature and the People of Sri Lanka as provided in this Constitution.”
The article has conveniently dropped the ‘socialist’ characterization of the republic. It has also dropped the unitary characterization although its Sinhala and Tamil equivalents (aekiyarajyaya/orumiththanadu) are introduced instead to create an apparent confusion. I am not competent to talk about the Tamil term,but any political science student in Sinhala medium should know that ‘AekiyaRajyaya’is used in political science and law to mean ‘unitary state.’ That is also the case in the present constitution,while unitary term is retained in the English version.
Therefore why these Sinhala and Tamil terms are used in the English version/draft is not explained, other than some arguing ‘let us look beyond the words.’ These are not just words, but technical terms with definitions in constitution making. I am not a person who would simply oppose federalism, but my concern is about its practicality or rationality at present. When ‘AekiyaRajyaya / OrumiththaNnadu’are used without using ‘unitary state’ and defined as ‘consisting of the institutions of the Centre and the Provinces’ that give rise to suspicion as an effort of smuggling ‘federalism’ through the backdoor. My main criticism is for this devious manner of constitution making without being straight forward, frank and open.
14 February 2019
he following is a reply penned by eminent Lawyer President’s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne to the article titled ‘The ‘Honorable’ Speaker and the Spirit of Democracy’and penned by Malinda Seneviratne which appeared in the Daily Mirror of February 7, 2019.Clause 46 (1) of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution Bill presented to the previous Parliament provided that the total number of Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 30 and the total number of non-Cabinet and Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 40.
