Opinion

Which 21st Amendment? What can bring sanity to the system?

Published

3 years ago

2022/06/10

by Dr Laksiri Fernando

Is there any rationale behind attempting to amend the Constitution during a severe economic crisis in the country? Different people give different answers to the question. Those who brought the 20th Amendment, which has strengthened the powers of the President directly and indirectly attempt to scuttle any amendment. The ex-Minister of Finance, Basil Rajapaksa, is supposed to be leading this faction within the majority party in Parliament, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). Can anyone have any doubt where the President, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, stand on this issue? He obviously cannot be like Maithripala Sirisena when the 19th Amendment was brought in.

Then there are people who believe that the presently promoted 21st Amendment is not enough. It aims to cut some wings of the President, but not all. Eran Wickremaratne has expressed this view to the Sunday Island (5 June 2022). This is the same view expressed by Ranjith Maddumabandara as the Secretary of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), under whose name there is a written proposal before Parliament. Advocacy is for a systemic change and abolition of the presidential system altogether. One strong argument from this faction of people is that ‘President’s arbitrary powers were at the heart of the present economic crisis which cannot be ignored by anyone. Apart from the SJB, the other parties like the JVP and TNA seem to hold the same view.

The Bar Association is another protagonist. They say, ‘the new amendment will let President Gotabaya Rajapaksa keep most of his powers, including power to hold Ministries, assign subjects to himself, appoint whom he wants as Secretaries, dissolve Parliament early and unlimited powers to pardon anyone.’

Although not expressed in written form or through interviews, this is the same sentiments expressed by the general opinion of the protest movement at Galle Face, Aragalaya (Struggle). They instinctively believe that there is not much point in having a revised role for the President, while Gotabaya Rajapaksa is at the helm of that position. The slogan ‘Go Gota Go’ signify this sentiment.

Two Drafts

In the web page devoted to ‘constitutional amendment proposals’ in the Parliament website, there are two drafts provided, strangely the first as the 21st Amendment and the second as the 22nd Amendment, although both aiming for the same purpose. They should have been easily named as ‘21st drat Amendment 1’ and ‘21st draft Amendment 2.’

The first draft is in the name of Samagi Jana Balawegaya and the second is in the name of an Independent Group of MPs, although it is well known as what the present Minister of Justice, Wijayadasa Rajapaksha, has proposed.i

Both drafts declare “In the event of any inconsistency between the Sinhala and Tamil texts of this Act, the Sinhala text shall prevail,” but no Sinhala texts of the proposals are provided. Although Sinhala is the mother tongue of many (including mine), for the purposes of legislation and legal enactments, English should have been the language of operation. Most of the legal and constitutional principles and terms are in (or borrowed from) English, and it is with difficulties that they are translated into Sinhala or Tamil.

It is said that a new draft was discussed at the Cabinet meeting on the 6th of May, however, nothing is approved. The decision is to distribute the draft among the political leaders in Parliament and with their viable proposals a new draft to be approved by the Cabinet within two weeks. Only new addition appears to be the prohibition of dual citizens to come to Parliament and hold office.

A Comparison

While Rajapaksha proposal is limited to reestablishing independent commissions, the SJB proposal is far reaching with the objective of converting the present presidential system into a parliamentary democracy. Undoubtedly this requires a referendum in addition to two thirds majority in Parliament. Beginning with amending Article 4 there are several other articles and paragraphs proposed to be amended to achieve this objective.

Article 30 is proposed to amend, as it says, “the deletion of the words “the People” in paragraph (2) of Article 30, and the substitution therefore of the words “Parliament, in the manner provided in paragraph (3) of this Article.” Accordingly, paragraph 3 of the article is the mechanism through which a President is elected by Parliament according to this proposal. It clearly says,

“A citizen qualified under Article 88 and not disqualified under Articles 89 or 92 shall be elected [as President] by a simple majority of the Members of Parliament, within four weeks of its first sitting, by secret ballot, in accordance with such procedure as Parliament may by law provide.”

One advantage of Rajapaksha proposal is that it might be approved by a two thirds majority of Parliament, like the 19th Amendment or the 20th Amendment without a referendum. It focuses on amending the Chapter VIIA (Constitutional Council) and Chapter XIXA (National Procurement Commission) of the Constitution. The name of ‘Constitutional Council’ in both drafts is a misnomer which has nothing directly to do with the constitution, but appointments to high positions and various other commissions assign with the same function. It could be better named as ‘Higher Appointments Council.’

In the case of SJB proposal there are several other chapters proposed to be amended or inserted with the intention of overall systemic change. In addition to the Constitutional Council and the National Procurement Commission, a revision to the Chapter VIII on the ‘Executive: The Cabinet of Ministers,’ ‘A Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption’ (proposed Chapter XIX-A), ‘National Security Council’ (proposed chapter XIX-C) and a ‘Council of State’ (proposed chapter XIX-C) are proposed.

What is Valid?

There is no valid evidence to argue that when a country is in an economic crisis, no political or constitutional reforms should be undertaken. On the contrary, many experiences in Latin America show that political and constitutional reforms go hand in hand with economic reforms. Political factors sometimes can be the obvious root causes of economic problems. Most of the democratic countries consider ‘good governance’ as a necessary precondition for aid and assistance.

In the case Sri Lanka, the powers, functions, and practices of the Executive President can be considered at the heart of the present crisis. Who ordered the chemical fertilizer ban in Sri Lanka? Of course, the whole crisis cannot be blamed on one person. There is a better understanding today that high level bureaucrats in the Treasury, Central Bank, Customs and Ministries are responsible for the crisis. But who has appointed them based on political/personal loyalty without considering professional and other qualifications? It is the President.

Wijayadasa Rajapaksha has expressed a ‘fear’ that abolition of the Executive Presidency hastily will plunge the country into anarchy’ (The Island, 8 June 2022). Of course, there should not be a haste. This is a matter discussed for a long period. In 2000, under Chadrika Kumaratunga, there was a proposal for a new constitution with the abolition of the presidential system. If the presidential system is justified because of the provincial council system, as Rajapaksha argues, people in this country today faces the negative consequences, the President not holding elections for these Provincial Councils if he is the chief.

Rajapaksha proposed amendment does not change the role of the President in appointments although independent commissions are established. The following is one example.

“41C. (1) No person shall be appointed by the President to any of the Offices specified in the Schedule to this Article, unless such appointment has been approved by the Council upon a recommendation made to the Council by the President.”

It may appear restrictive of presidential powers as it starts with the phrase ‘no person shall be appointed by the President.’ Only condition is that the approval of the Council, but again ‘on the recommendation made to the Council by the President.’

Of course, the electoral system is also at fault along with the presidential system to the present predicament in the country. Electoral system also should be changed. Many of the defects are at the representation level, MPs becoming separated from the voters, and with the orientation towards corruption. These are some reasons for an electoral change.

There can be some hesitation on the part of the people, tired because of the economic difficulties, to go for a referendum. However, it will soon change if they realize the opportunity to change the system, or to send Gotabaya home. This is my conclusion.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

LG polls, what a waste of money!

Published

2 days ago

2025/03/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

If the people of this country were asked whether they want elections to the local government, majority of them would say no! How many years have elapsed since the local councils became defunct? And did not the country function without these councils that were labelled as ‘white elephants’?

If the present government’s wish is to do the will of the people, they should reconsider having local government elections. This way the government will not only save a considerable amount of money on holding elections, but also save even a greater amount by not having to maintain these local councils, which have become a bane on the country’s economy.

One would hope that the country will be able to get rid of these local councils and revert back to the days of having competent Government Agents and a team of dedicated government officials been tasked with the responsibility of attending to the needs of the people in those areas.

M. Joseph A. Nihal Perera

Opinion

What not to do

Published

3 days ago

2025/03/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Trump and Zelensky arguing in the White House

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

It is immaterial whether you like him or not but one thing is crystal clear; Donald Trump has shown, very clearly, who is the boss. Surely, presidents of two countries are equal; perhaps, that is the impression Volodymyr Zelensky had when he went to the White House to meet Trump but the hard reality, otherwise, would have dawned on him with his inglorious exit! True, the behaviour of President Trump and VP Vance were hardly praiseworthy but Zelensky did what exactly he should not do. Afterall, he was on a begging mission and beggars cannot be choosers! He behaved like professional beggars in Colombo who throw money back when you give a small amount!!

Despite the risk of belonging to the minority, perhaps of non-Americans, I must say that I quite like Trump and admire him as a straight-talking politician. He keeps to his words; however atrocious they sound! Unfortunately, most critics overlook the fact that what Trump is doing is exactly what he pledged during his election campaign and that the American voters elected him decisively. When he lost to Biden, all political commentators wrote him off, more so because of his refusal to admit defeat and non-condemnation of his supporters who rioted. When he announced his intention to contest, it only evoked pundits’ laughter as they concluded that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Undaunted, Trump got the party to rally round him and won a non-consecutive second term; a feat achieved only once before, by Grover Cleveland around the end of the nineteenth century. His victory, against all predictions, was more decisive as he got more collegiate votes and, even though it does not matter, won the popular vote too which he did not get when he got elected the first term. Even his bitterest critics should accept this fact.

Zelensky was elected the president of Ukraine after the elected pro-Soviet president was deposed by a ‘peoples revolution’ engineered by the EU with the support of USA. After this, the EU attempted to bring Ukraine to NATO, disregarding the Munich agreement which precipitated the Russian invasion. He should have realised that, if not for the air-defence system which Trump authorised for Ukraine during his first term, Russian invasion would have been complete. It may well be that he was not aware as when this happened Zelensky may still have been the comedian acting the part of the president! Very likely, Trump was referring to this when he accused Zelensky of being ungrateful.

Zelensky also should have remembered that he disregarded requests from Trump, after his defeat by Biden, to implicate Biden’s son in some shady deals in Ukraine and that one of the last acts of Biden was to pardon his son and grant immunity to cover the alleged period. Perhaps, actions of the European leaders who embrace him every time they see him, as a long-lost brother, and invitations to address their parliaments has induced an element of the superiority complex in Zelensky that he behaved so combative.

Trump wanted to be the mediator to stop the war and spoke to Putin first. Instead of waiting for Trump to speak to him, egged on by EU leaders Zelensky started criticising Trump for not involving him in the talks. His remark “He should be on our side” demonstrated clearly that Zelensky had not understood the role of a mediator. His lack of political experience was the major reason for the fiasco in the White House and the subsequent actions of Trump clearly showed Zelensky where he stands! PM Starmer and President Macron seem to have given some sensible advice and he seems to be eating humble pie. In the process Trump has ensured that the European nations pay for their defence than piggy-backing on the US, which I am sure would please the American voter. By the way, though Macron talks big about defence France spends less than 2% of GDP. Trump seems vindicated. Of course, Trump could be blamed for being undiplomatic but he can afford to be as he has the upper hand!

Ranil on Al Jazeera

Zelensky has shown what not to do: instead of being diplomatic being aggressive when you need favours! Meanwhile, Ranil has shown what not to do when it comes to TV interviews. God only knows who advised him, and why, for him to go ‘Head to Head’ with Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera. Perhaps, he wanted to broadcast to the world that he was the saviour of Sri Lanka! The experienced politician he is, one would have expected Ranil to realise that he would be questioned about his role in making Sri Lanka bankrupt as well, in addition to raising other issues.

The interview itself was far from head to head; more likely heads to head! It turned out to be an inquisition by Tiger supporters and the only person who spoke sense being Niraj Deva, who demonstrated his maturity by being involved in British and EU politics. The worst was the compere who seems keen to listen his own voice, reminding me of a Sinhala interviewer on a YouTube channel whose interviews I have stopped watching!

Ranil claims, after the interview was broadcast, that it had been heavily edited reduced from a two-hour recording. Surely, despite whatever reason he agreed to, he should have laid ground rules. He could have insisted on unedited broadcast or his approval before broadcast, if it was edited. It was very naïve of Ranil to have walked in to a trap for no gain. Though his performance was not as bad as widely reported, he should have been more composed at the beginning as he turned out to be later. Overall, he gave another opportunity for the Tiger rump and its supporters to bash Sri Lanka, unfortunately.

Medhi Hasan should watch some of David Frost interviews, especially the one with Richard Nixon, and learn how to elicit crucial information in a gentle exploratory manner than shouting with repeated interruptions. He does not seem to think it is necessary to give time for the interviewee to respond to his questions. I will never watch Al-Jazeera’s “Head to Head” again!

Ranil’s best was his parting shot; when asked by Hasan whether he would contest the next presidential election, he said “No, I will retire and watch Al-Jazeera and hope to see you better mannered”!

Opinion

Ajahn Brahm to visit SL in May 2025

Published

4 days ago

2025/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Ajahn Brahm Society of Sri Lanka (ABSSL) is pleased to announce that Ajahn Brahm will be visiting Sri Lanka for a short stay in May this year. Many, both Buddhists and non-Buddhists, know him and have listened to his addresses made on earlier visits, including his 2023 public talk at the BMICH, which was attended by over 4,000 people.

Ajahn Brahmavamso, popularly known as Ajahn Brahm, is the Head Abbot of Bodhinyana Monastery in Serpentine, Perth. He was a pupil of the famous Thai forest monk Ajahn Chah, considered the best Theravada meditation teacher in the last century. By his own choice, Ajahn Brahmavamso shortened his name and was extra pleased that the initials represent the major religions of the world. He is renowned world-wide as an outstanding meditation bhikkhu, teacher and instructor, guiding thousands of practitioners.

As in previous visits, Ajahn Brahm’s schedule will be packed with addresses, meetings with senior professionals, business leaders, and researchers. This year, a special session has been included for teenagers and young adults.

The agenda planned for him includes:

Public address at the BMICH to all irrespective of religion and age; then to a younger audience.

· Exclusive Leadership Forum for senior professionals and business leaders.

· Forum with academics engaged in research at the Centre for Meditation Research, University of Colombo.

· A week-long meditation retreat for the Ven Sangha and experienced lay meditators.

Public Addresses

The public addresses will be on Sunday, May 18, 2025, from 7:00 am to 11:00 am, at the BMICH Main Hall and Sirimavo Halls; Ajahn Brahm moving from one hall to another so the entire audience sees him. Each hall will be well equipped with audio and video presentation. The first address: The Art of Meaningful Living, is designed for all, age notwithstanding, offering wisdom and practical insights for a fulfilling life. The second: Coping with Life Transitions and Emotional Challenges, is a special session tailored for teens and young adults, addressing key challenges faced by them in today’s fast-paced, competitive world. Both talks will be in English, with concise translation to Sinhala by Ven Damita Thera.

Exclusive Forums

On Saturday, May 17, 2025, two exclusive forums will be held at the BMICH Committee Room, Jasmine Hall. The first such session will be with eighty invited Sri Lankan academics and scientists engaged in research on meditation at the Centre for Meditation Research of the University of Colombo. This will be followed in the evening by an interactive session for a hundred invited senior professionals and business leaders, featuring a talk on leadership followed by a Q&A session.

Meditation Retreat

The most significant item on Ajahn Brahm’s programme will be a week-long meditation retreat at the Barberyn Waves Ayurveda Resort in Weligama. Focus is intended to be on the fifty members of the Ven Sangha. A limited number of experienced lay meditators will also have the opportunity to participate.

Participation & Registration

Those interested in attending the public talks at the BMICH are kindly advised to register at to secure free passes. For further information, please contact the Ajahn Brahm Society of Sri Lanka at .