Connect with us

Features

Wide-ranging plans to sharpen SL’s dpl thrust politically & economically: – Colombage

Published

on

by Sujeeva Nivunhella

Foreign Secretary Admiral Prof. Jayanath Colombage says that Sri Lanka will not agree to the special mechanism imposed by the UN Human Rights Commission yet will implement solutions as far as practically possible.

In a zoom interview with the Sunday Island Admiral Colombage said President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has given him clear instructions not to give extensions to diplomats beyond three years. He also said our missions abroad will focus more on economic diplomacy from this year.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: Are we still following the Non-Aligned line?

A: Yes, of course. We never came out of that. We are a non-aligned country, but due to geopolitical power play taking place in the Indian Ocean, we will have to maintain neutrality. We are not taking sides with any country to compete with another.

Q: But could one say that we are more inclines to China?

A: We engage in a large number of investment and business projects with China. At the same time, we do business with India, America, Japan, Korea, Australia and other European countries. All those investment projects compromise neither our security nor sovereignty. Right now, we need much more investment and currently, it is China that invests heavily. Some countries might think that China would exploit us, but it is up to us not to allow any country to exploit us strategically especially on a war-footing.

Q: Do you think that China’s is helping us to simply draw us into a debt trap?

A: I cannot comment on what the strategic objectives of another country are. However, we have lost about 10 billion US dollars due to the decline of the tourism industry for the last two years as an outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic. Right now, our main priority is to attract investments. Therefore, we must get help from any party willing to invest in our country.

Q: Do you think that due to our strategic location, America and India also want to keep a foothold here?

A: Yes, the whole world knows that Sri Lanka is located at a strategically important point on the Indian Ocean. The busiest maritime trade route across the Indian Ocean is only 12 nautical miles away from us. Owing to this, Sri Lanka is important to all the major and aspiring major powers in the Indian Ocean. I believe we need to use this attraction to our advantage and gain investments from as many countries as possible.

Q: Recently, you have closed down Embassies in Nigeria and Cyprus and the Consulate in Frankfurt. We know that there are large numbers of Sri Lankan workers in Cyprus and it was reported that they are facing difficulties due to the closure of the Embassy?

A: It was in 2013 when we did the last appraisal of our embassies. By 2021, we have got 67 overseas missions. It is not easy for a small country like us to maintain as many as 67 Missions, especially in view of the current economic situation in Sri Lanka. Other than the three Missions you mentioned we have also closed our Mission in Afghanistan due to some security concerns. Regarding the Embassy in Cyprus, there are over 6,000 Sri Lankans working in Cyprus and we get a substantial income from them. We are soon going to open an Honorary Consul General Office and our people will have access to the same service they used to.

Q: When we talk about our Foreign Service, it is quite unfortunate that the general public’s opinion tends to be that these diplomats only travel abroad to get their children foreign education or just to enjoy a trip overseas. What are your thoughts on this?

A: It is not a fair judgment. There may be one or two people in that category. However, all others are working very hard. I am very proud of their work. During the height of the pandemic, our officers in the foreign Missions worked tirelessly to secure COVID vaccines for Sri Lanka and to send stranded Lankans back home. Also, they managed to collect aid for us from the diaspora communities and wealthy people living in affluent countries and more importantly representing Sri Lanka at various multilateral fora safeguarding Sri Lanka’s national interests.

To stop malpractices, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has given me clear instructions not to allow extensions to any diplomatic officer beyond three years. I found that some officers were out of the country for over nine/10 years having taken cross-postings.

The President believes that if an officer does not return and work in Sri Lanka, he or she would not be able to get a clear picture of the country’s situation.

Accordingly, I have implemented the instructions with an efficacy rate of 99 percent so far. Some high-ranking diplomatic officers, especially those working in western countries are requesting extensions, but I regret my inability to allow that. There was a misconception that Missions in western countries are the best. In our view, countries close to our country are the most important. We will have a proper rotation pattern.

Q: Even after 73 years of independence, we are still a developing country.

Economy wise we are in a very bad state. How can our foreign missions help improve the country’s situation?

A: We are not a nation that accepts defeat easily. We managed to survive during and after 30-years of war and overcame the Tsunami disaster by uniting as one country. We have had a beating on our economy because of COVID 19. We were hard hit by the lack of remittances from our overseas workers and the adverse effects on the tourism sector.

We are very good with international political diplomacy, but from this year, we will pay more attention to economic diplomacy. For example, sometimes, I am rather intrigued as to whether the High Commissioners and Ambassadors working in Sri Lanka are businessmen. They always talk about an investment or a business. So, we instructed our diplomats to secure more investments to Sri Lanka and also to expand our export basket. We cannot only rely on tea, rubber and coconut anymore.

Q: After Brexit, Britain is fast signing Free Trade Agreements with non-EU countries. Is this not the best time for us to sign an FTA with Britain?

A: It is Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris’ view that we should sign Free Trade Agreements (FTA). We do not even have an FTA with China. After signing the FTA with Singapore, some parties were fearful of whether other countries would take our jobs, whether they will dump their waste on us and so on. We cannot keep taking loans from China, India and Bangladesh forever. My belief is that in the future we must have FTAs with other countries and build a strong business consortium.

Q: In a recent interview with the Sunday Island, MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam stated that overseas Tamils have money and they could help develop Sri Lanka in five years. We can see that the Tamil diaspora have a substantial amount of wealth. Are you not prepared to have a dialogue with them?

Definitely, we certainly want to engage with all Sri Lanka diaspora groups. Even the President is planning to have an audience with Sri Lankan expatriate groups and invite them to come and invest in Sri Lanka. Lord Ahmad who visited Sri Lanka recently also discussed the importance of getting the Sri Lanka diaspora engaged and we requested him to mediate.

It is important that we unite and should not divide ourselves into Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher diasporas separately. It should be one Sri Lankan diaspora. I expect our Missions abroad to bring them together and currently, our High Commissioner in Ottawa is doing that.

There is a misconception that if a Tamil expatriate returns to Sri Lanka he would face problems. There is no such danger. Even a member of TGTE came to Sri Lanka recently and he had the freedom to go anywhere in the country and go back. It is the duty of the Sri Lankan diaspora communities to invest in Sri Lanka and help the country.

Q: My Tamil friends say that they have no means to communicate with the government. Are you happy to meet with the Tamil people living in the UK?

A: Definitely. If you can organize it, we are happy to meet with them anywhere or I would like to welcome them to Sri Lanka for a discussion.

Q: Lord Ahmad visited Sri Lanka recently to sign a MOU with regard to health service workers. What I have noticed this time was that he did not blame Sri Lanka on human rights conduct.

A: Our Foreign Minister and the Foreign Service worked hard to show the world the amount of work carried out by us to facilitate the reconciliation process. I am proud to say that we are winning the battle. We do not give empty promises anymore and we show the world what we have done so far to address the problem. We don’t want only to talk about missing persons anymore. We intend to identify them and compensate. If we find any person that could not reclaim his or her land we want to sort it out expeditiously.

I am happy to announce that the amendments for the Prevention of

Terrorism Act are being made now. The Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defense and the Chamber of the Attorney General are working closely together to find solutions. The President is planninsg to have discussions with the TNA soon. We should meet in Sri Lanka and sort out whatever remaining problems we have.

Right now, we are arguing our cases in Geneva or in New York. I am happy to quote Lord Ahmad’s remarks to the effect that they only expect ‘pragmatic and practical solutions to the ongoing problems. We implement solutions as far as practically possible. We do not want any foreign power to set up any special mechanism and argue the case. We will not agree to the special mechanism imposed by the Human Rights Commission.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Thomians triumph in Sydney 

Published

on

Nothing is happening for us, at this end, other than queues, queues, and more queues! There’s very little to shout about were the sports and entertainment scenes are concerned. However, Down Under, the going seems good.

Sri Lankans, especially in Melbourne, Australia, have quite a lot of happenings to check out, and they all seem to be having a jolly good time!

Trevine Rodrigo,

who puts pen to paper to keep Sri Lankans informed of the events in Melbourne, was in Sydney, to taken in the scene at the Sri Lanka Schools Sevens Touch Rugby competition. And, this is Trevine’s report:

The weather Gods and S.Thomas aligned, in Sydney, to provide the unexpected at the Sri Lanka Schools Sevens Touch Rugby competition, graced by an appreciative crowd.

Inclement weather was forecast for the day, and a well drilled Dharmaraja College was expected to go back-to-back at this now emerging competition in Sydney’s Sri Lanka expatriate sporting calendar.

But the unforeseen was delivered, with sunny conditions throughout, and the Thomians provided the upset of the competition when they stunned the favourites, Dharmaraja, in the final, to grab the Peninsula Motor Group Trophy.

Still in its infancy, the Sevens Touch Competition, drawn on the lines of Rugby League rules, found new flair and more enthusiasm among its growing number of fans, through the injection of players from around Australia, opposed to the initial tournament which was restricted to mainly Sydneysiders.

A carnival like atmosphere prevailed throughout the day’s competition.

Ten teams pitted themselves in a round robin system, in two groups, and the top four sides then progressed to the semi-finals, on a knock out basis, to find the winner.

A food stall gave fans the opportunity to keep themselves fed and hydrated while the teams provided the thrills of a highly competitive and skilled tournament.

The rugby dished out was fiercely contested, with teams such as Trinity, Royal and St. Peter’s very much in the fray but failing to qualify after narrow losses on a day of unpredictability.

Issipathana and Wesley were the other semi-finalists with the Pathanians grabbing third place in the play-off before the final.

The final was a tense encounter between last year’s finalists Dharmaraja College and S.Thomas. Form suggested that the Rajans were on track for successive wins in as many attempts.  But the Thomians had other ideas.

The fluent Rajans, with deft handling skills and evasive running, looked the goods, but found the Thomian defence impregnable.  Things were tied until the final minutes when the Thomians sealed the result with an intercept try and hung on to claim the unthinkable.

It was perhaps the price for complacency on the Rajans part that cost them the game and a lesson that it is never over until the final whistle.

Peninsula Motor Group, headed by successful businessman Dilip Kumar, was the main sponsor of the event, providing playing gear to all the teams, and prize money to the winners and runners-up.

The plan for the future is to make this event more attractive and better structured, according to the organisers, headed by Deeptha Perera, whose vision was behind the success of this episode.

In a bid to increase interest, an over 40’s tournament, preceded the main event, and it was as interesting as the younger version.

Ceylon Touch Rugby, a mixed team from Melbourne, won the over 40 competition, beating Royal College in the final.

Continue Reading

Features

Marked stress on Asia in US foreign policy

Published

on

US President Joe Biden disembarks Air Force One as he arrives at the Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea May 20, 2022

US President Joe Biden’s recent tour of some Asian powers is indicative of a renewed and enhanced interest the US is beginning to take in the Indo-Pacific region. In this his first Asian tour the President chose to visit Japan and South Korea besides helming a Quad meeting in Tokyo and there is good reason for the choice of these venues and engagements.

The first phase of these bridge-strengthening efforts by the US began in late August last year when US Vice President Kamala Harris visited South-east Asia in the wake of the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Besides being driven by strong economic compulsions, the US intention was also to ensure that too much of a power vacuum did not open up in the region, following its pull-out from Afghanistan, since China’s perceived expansionist designs are a prime foreign policy concern of the US.

However, the US President’s recent wide-ranging tour of East Asia seems to have been also prompted by some currently intensifying trends and tensions in the wider stage of international politics though the seeming power vacuum just referred to has a significant bearing on it. The immediate purpose of the US President’s tour seems to have been to bolster his country’s backing for Japan and South Korea, two of the US’ closest allies in East Asia. This is necessitated by the ‘China threat’, which, if neglected, could render the US allies vulnerable to China’s military attacks on the one hand and blunt US power and influence in the region on the other.

While Taiwan’s airspace has reportedly been frequently violated by China, sections in Japan have reasons to be wary of perceived Chinese expansionist moves in Japan’s adjacent seas. Moreover, many of China’s neighbours have been having territorial disputes with China, which have tended to intensify the perception over the decades that in the Asian theatre in particular China is a number one ‘bogey’. For historical reasons, South Korea too has been finding the increasing rise of China as a major world power considerably discomforting.

Accordingly, the US considers it opportune to reassure South-east Asia in general and its allies in the region in particular of its continuous military, economic and political support. Though these are among the more immediate reasons for Biden’s tour of the region, there are also the convulsions triggered in international politics by the Russian invasion of Ukraine to consider.

Whereas sections of international opinion have been complacent in the belief that military invasions of one country by another are things of the distant past, the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year proved them shockingly wrong. We have the proof here that not all authoritarian rulers are prepared to adhere to the international rule book and for some of China’s neighbours the possibility is great of their being attacked or invaded by China over the numerous rankling problems that have separated them from their economic super power neighbour over the decades. After all, China is yet to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is increasingly proving an ‘all weather friend’ of Russia. Right now, they are the strongest of allies.

The ‘China threat’ then is prime among the reasons for the US President’s visit to East Asia, though economic considerations play a substantive role in these fence-strengthening initiatives as well. While South-east Asia is the ‘economic power house’ of the world, and the US would need to be doubly mindful of this fact, it would need to reassure its allies in the region of its military and defense assistance at a time of need. This too is of paramount importance.

President Biden did just that while in Tokyo a couple of days back. For instance, he said that the US is ‘fully committed to Japan’s defense’. Biden went on to say that the ‘US is willing to use force to defend Taiwan.’ The latter comment was prompted by the perceived increasing Chinese violations of Taiwan’s air space. After all, considering that Russia has invaded Ukraine with impunity, there is apparently nothing that could prevent China from invading Taiwan and annexing it. Such are the possible repercussions of the Russian invasion.

Meanwhile, North Korea is reportedly carrying on with its development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. On this issue too, South Korea would need to have US assurances that the latter would come to its defense in case of a North Korean military strike. The US President’s visit to South Korea was aimed at reassuring the latter of the former’s support.

However, as mentioned, economic considerations too figured prominently in the US President’s South-east Asian tour. While being cognizant of the region’s security sensitivities, bolstering economic cooperation with the latter too was a foremost priority for the Biden administration. For example, the US is in the process of formalizing what has come to be referred to as the Indo-Pacific Trade Treaty. The US has reportedly already inducted Japan and South Korea as founding members of the Treaty while, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are mentioned as prospective members to the treaty.

The perceived threat posed to Western interests in South-east Asia by China needs to be factored in while trying to unravel the reasons for this region-wide endeavour in economic cooperation. It needs to be considered a Western response to China’s Belt and Road initiative which is seen as having a wide appeal for the global South in particular.

While the Russian invasion of Ukraine is having a divisive political and economic impact on the world, international politics will increasingly revolve around the US-China stand-off on a multiplicity of fronts in time to come. Both sides are likely to try out both soft and hard power to an exceptional degree to exercise foremost influence and power in the world. As is already happening, this would trigger increasing international tensions.

There was a distinct and sharp note of firmness in the voice of the US President when he pledged defense and military support for his allies in Asia this week. Considering the very high stakes for the US in a prospering South-east Asia, the US’ competitors would be naive to dismiss his pronouncements as placatory rhetoric meant for believing allies.

Continue Reading

Features

A Majoritarian Constitution

Published

on

1972 Constitution in Retrospect – II

By (Dr) Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel

In this the second part of a three-part article on the 50th anniversary of Sri Lanka becoming a republic, the writer submits that the 1972 Constitution paved the way for constitutionalising majoritarianism in multi-cultural Sri Lanka.

The unitary state

Although Tamil parties expressed their support for the Constituent Assembly process, they were to be disappointed by the substance of the new constitution.

Basic Resolution No. 2 proposed by the Government called for Sri Lanka to be a unitary state. The Federal Party (FP) proposed an amendment that ‘unitary’ be replaced by ‘federal’.

In a memorandum and the model constitution that it submitted to the Steering Committee of the Assembly, the FP proposed that the country be a federal republic consisting of five states made up as follows: (i) Southern and Western provinces, (ii) North Central and North Western provinces (iii) Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces (iv) Northern Province and the districts of Trincomalee and Batticaloa and (v) Ampara district. The city of Colombo and its suburbs were to be administered by the centre. A list of subjects and functions reserved for the centre, with all others going to the states, was included. Interestingly, law and order and Police were to be reserved subjects.

However, Assembly proceedings show that the Tamils were clearly for a compromise. Dharmalingam, who was a main speaker of the FP under Basic Resolution No. 2, stated that the existing constitution had failed as it was not designed for a multi-ethnic country. He pointed out that in ethnically heterogeneous countries where unitary constitutions had been in operation, concessions to the federal principle have been made to meet the demands and aspirations of the minorities. Where there has been a refusal to concede the federal principle, there have been movements for separation. The FP distanced itself from secessionists such as C. Sunderalingam and V. Navaratnam, referring to them by name, and stated that it was not asking for a division of the country but for a division of power.

Dharmalingam made it clear that the FP’s draft was only a basis for discussion. Stating that the party was only asking that the federal principle be accepted, he suggested that as an interim measure, the SLFP, LSSP and CP should implement what they had promised in the election manifesto, namely that they would abolish Kachcheris and replace them with elected bodies. He stated: “If this Government thinks that it does not have a mandate to establish a federal Constitution, it can at least implement the policies of its leader, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, by decentralising the administration, not in the manner it is being done now, but genuine decentralisation, by removing the Kachcheris and in their place establishing elected bodies to administer those regions.”

Sarath Muttetuwegama of the Communist Party, the first political party in the country to propose federalism, in 1944, followed Dharmalingam and stated that ‘federal’ had become a dirty word not because of the federal system of government but because of what the FP had advocated. He was clearly referring to the FP’s association with the UNP and the conservative policies it had followed, such as voting against nationalisations, the takeover of private schools and the Paddy Lands Bill. Seemingly oblivious to the offer that Dharmalingam had made, he asked why the FP had not used the phrase ‘regional autonomy.’ Speakers from the UF who followed Muttetuwegama made it clear that the UF was in no mood to consider the FP’s offer to settle for much less.

Consequently, Basic Resolution No.2 was passed, and the FP’s amendment was defeated in the Steering and Subjects Committee on 27 March 1971.

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, who was the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, under the UF Government, and played an important role in the constitutional reform process, has said that the first draft prepared under the direction of the Minister of Constitutional Affairs did not contain any reference to a ‘unitary state’. However, Minister Felix Dias Bandaranaike proposed in the Ministerial Sub-Committee that the country be declared a ‘unitary state’. The Minister of Constitutional Affairs did not consider this to be necessary and argued that while the proposed constitution would have a unitary structure, unitary constitutions could vary a great deal in form. Nevertheless, the proposed phrase found its way to the final draft. ‘In course of time, this impetuous, ill-considered, wholly unnecessary embellishment has reached the proportions of a battle cry of individuals and groups who seek to achieve a homogenous Sinhalese state on this island’ Dr Jayawickrama observed. ‘Reflections on the Making and Content of the 1972 Constitution: An Insider’s Perspective’ in Asanga Welikala (ed), The Sri Lankan Republic at 40: Reflections on Constitutional History, Theory and Practice vol 1 (Centre for Policy Alternatives 2012) 43.

It is significant that the FP continued to participate in the Constituent Assembly even after its amendment was rejected. Records show that its leader, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, regularly attended the meetings of the Steering and Subjects Committee.

With the advantage of hindsight, it could be said that acceptance of the FP’s proposed compromise for a division of power would have proved to be a far-reaching confidence-building measure on which more could perhaps have been built later. Moreover, such an acceptance would have ensured the continued participation of the FP in the Constituent Assembly. Even had the FP, as the UNP eventually did, voted against the adoption of the new constitution, their participation in the entire constitution-making process would have resulted in greater acceptance of the 1972 Constitution by the Tamil people.

Although they discontinued participation at a later stage, Federal Party MPs nevertheless took oaths under the new Constitution. Tamil parties soon united under the banner of the Tamil United Front (TUF), which later became the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). At the famous Vaddukoddai conference of 1976, the TULF embraced separatism and adopted a resolution calling for a separate state called ‘Tamil Eelam’ in the Northern and Eastern provinces. At the 1977 elections, the TULF contested on a separatist platform and swept the Tamil areas.

The place of Buddhism

According to Dr Jayawickrama, Dr. de Silva’s original proposal called for the guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience and religion to every citizen. However, the Prime Minister requested that this proposal be added with a provision for the protection of institutions and traditional places of worship of Buddhists.

Basic Resolution No. 3 approved by the Constituent Assembly was for Buddhism to be given its ‘rightful place’: ‘In the Republic of Sri Lanka, Buddhism, the religion of the majority of the people, shall be given its rightful place, and accordingly, it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Basic Resolution 5 (iv).’

Basic Resolution 5 (iv) referred to read: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have and adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

But by the time the final draft was approved, the proposal had undergone a further change. Article 6 of the 1972 Constitution is as follows: ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism while assuring to all religions the rights granted by section 18 (1) (d).’ Section 18 (1) (d), in the chapter on fundamental rights, assures to all citizens the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

To the question of whether constitutionally guaranteeing special status to Buddhism not available to other religions of the land might adversely affect the non-Buddhists, Dr de Silva retrospectively responded in the following manner: “The section in respect of Buddhism is subject to section 18 (1) (d) and I wish to say, I believe in a secular state. But you know when Constitutions are made by Constituent Assemblies they are not made by the Minister of Constitutional Affairs. I myself would have preferred (section 18(1) (d)). But there is nothing…And I repeat, NOTHING, in section 6 which in any manner infringes upon the rights of any religion in this country. (Safeguards for the Minorities in the 1972 Constitution (Young Socialist 1987) 10.)

Dr Jayawickrama has been more critical. ‘If Buddhism had survived in the hearts and minds of the people through nearly five centuries of foreign occupation, a constitutional edict was hardly necessary to protect it now’, he opined. (‘Colvin and Constitution-Making – A Postscript’ Sunday Island, 15 July 2007).

Language provisions

Basic Resolution No.11 stated that all laws shall be enacted in Sinhala and that there shall be a Tamil translation of every law so enacted.

Basic Resolution No.12 read as follows: “(1) The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala as provided by the Official Language Act No. 32 of 1956. (2) The use of the Tamil Language shall be in accordance with the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No. 28 of 1958.”

Efforts by the FP to get the Government to improve upon Basic Resolutions Nos. 11 and 12 failed. On 28 June 1971, both resolutions were passed, amendments proposed by the FP having been defeated. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam informed the Constituent Assembly that they had met with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, and while the meetings had been cordial, the Government had refused to make any alteration to the Basic Resolutions. He stated that the FP would therefore not attend future meetings. “We have come to the painful conclusion that as our language rights are not satisfactorily provided in the proposed Constitution, no useful purpose will be served in our continuing in the deliberations of this Assembly. By taking this step, we mean no offence to anybody. We only want to safeguard the dignity of our people.” There was not even a dramatic walk out. ‘We do not wish to stage a demonstration by walking out’, he added.

That Dr Colvin R. de Silva, who prophetically stated in 1955, ‘one language, two countries; two languages, one country’, should go so far as to upgrade the then-existing language provisions to constitutional status has baffled many political observers. In fact, according to Dr Jayawickrama, the Prime Minister had stated that it would be unwise to re-open the language debate and that the better course would be to let the ordinary laws on the subject operate in the form in which they were. By this time, the Privy Council had reversed the decision of the Supreme Court in A.G. v Kodeswaranthat a public servant could not sue the Crown for breach of contract of employment and sent the case back for a determination on other issues, including the main issue as to whether the Official Language Act violated section 29 (2), as the District Court had held. Dr. de Silva did not wish the Supreme Court to re-visit the issue. ‘If the courts do declare this law invalid and unconstitutional, heavens alive, the chief work done from 1956 onwards will be undone. You will have to restore the egg from the omelette into which it was beaten and cooked.’ He had, however, resisted a proposal made by Minister Felix R. Dias Bandaranaike that Sinhala be declared the ‘one’ official language of Sri Lanka.

Continue Reading

Trending