.

The Tamil claim to the Eastern province

Hewage Jayasena
General Secretary,
Sinhala Araksaka Sanvidhanaya

One of the grounds on which the Tamils claim that the Eastern Province is a "Traditional Homeland" of the Tamils is to point to the 1921 census which shows a Tamil majority in that province, a majority which they say has been whittled down by the "planting" of Sinhalese in those areas through "state-aided colonisation". In reply to this claim Prof. G. H. Pieris has shown by a study of population figures in the various villages in 1921 that, though the Tamils were in a majority if the whole Province is considered as one unit, the actual distribution of the population showed that almost all Tamil settlements were confined to a costal strip barely extending even ten miles into the interior. Prof. Pieris concludes.

"Given the spatial patterns of ethnicity borne out by our maps, the demand by one ethnic group for exclusive proprietary rights over Provinces and Districts which encompass extensive tracts of territory which it has never occupied (and much of it in every sense, the traditional homeland of people belonging to other ethnic groups) appears in its true light as one which lacks a rational basis."

Apart from the fact that the whole of the Eastern province except for a coastal strip ceded to the Dutch by a Kandyan King, was a part of the Kandyan Kingdom, evidence on the ground showed that there were extensive Sinhala settlements throughout the Eastern province. This is testified to by a Tamil, S. O. Canagaratnam, Chief Mudliyar of the Eastern province in his "Monograph of the Batticaloa District" published, curiously enough in the very same year 1921, which the Tamil politicians take as the bench-mark to base their claims.

Chief Mudaliyar Canagaratnam states:—

"One of the saddest features of the District is the decay of the Sinhala population in the West and South. At one time there were flourishing and populous Sinhala villages here, as is evidenced by the ruins and remains dotted about this part of the country." (Hansard of 22.2.86,P.74)

It is hardly necessary to comment on the difference between the attitude of an enlightened Tamil leader like Chief Mudaliyar Canagaratnam who was saddened at the disappearance of the Sinhalese from the Batticaloa District and that of present day Tamil leaders who strain every nerve to see that not a single Sinhalese is settled in what is indeed his traditional homeland.

This question of the demographic pattern in the Eastern Province in 1921 and the so called Sinhala colonisation of "traditional Tamil homelands" that is made much use of by Tamil propagandists as comprising one of their grievances, was examined in some detail by the late Lalith Athulathmudali. Speaking on 23rd August 1990 as a Minister during the debate on the extension of the emergency he said:

"I have a census village by village ethnicity wise and religionwise for the Eastern province for the year 1921. What comes out of that? "In the Trincomalee District what is called Kattikulam Pattu and in the present Ampara District, which was then part of the Batticaloa District Wewagam Pattu, Bintenna Pattu and Panama Pattu and certain small areas, only Sinhalese were living...I am trying to get people to understand the argument about colonization".

Mr. Athulathmudali also referred to the Kandyan Marriage Act and said:—

"So the Kandyan Marriage Act was recognised by the British and in Part II, Sir, they recognise Bintenna Pattu, Wewagam Pattu and Panama Pattu in the Batticaloa District and Kattikulam Pattu in the Trincomalee District of the Eastern Province as being subject to Kandyan law". As regards colonisation, Mr. Athulathmudali refers to a study by Prof. Samarasinghe in the article "Ethno-Regionalism, As a Basis for Geographical Separation in Sri Lanka" and states:—

"This article demonstrates that 97 per cent of the Sinhala people brought in as colonists were put into areas in the four Pattus which were always Sinhalese."

This should put to rest once and for all the canard that the Sinhalese colonised the so called "Tamil traditional homeland".

We have so far dealt with the Tamil argument based on the 1921 census which, they say proves that the Eastern province is a "traditional Tamil homeland". To show the falsity of this argument we have to go to a period prior to 1921 and see how the Tamils came to occupy this land. This has been done by the Sinhala Commission which in Chapter 4 of its Report (Part I) examines the Tamil claims to the Eastern Province. The entire Chapter should be read in order to obtain a proper appreciation of this matter, but the following quotations refer specifically to the point at issue, namely how the Tamils came to occupy certain areas of the Eastern province, (Page 223, Para 2.9).

"British policy as well as administrative action throughout the nineteenth century was to colonise Trincomalee and Batticaloa Districts with immigrants from Jaffna Patnam and South India. The Administration report for 1867 of the A. G. A. Trincomalee District states that" I should like to form a large Jaffna colony and if liberal terms are offered, might succeed". In the report of 1868 he confessed that "the Government Agent of Jaffna was not successful in his attempt to send people to Gantalawa tank to colonise it. I have reason to believe that we may set up a coast settlement there, and I shall have hopes of seeing the cultivation extended under this splendid tank." In the parlance of the time "coast" meant the Coromandal coast of South India, the origin in colonial times of thousands of alleged Tamil traditional homelanders of Sinhaladeepa".

As regard the "Gantalawa tank" referred to, the Sinhala Commission states:—

"It was made by Sulu Agbo (i.e. Agbo the Younger) or Agrabodhi II, in the first part of the 7th century A. D. and was called Gantala Wewa, Kanthalai being a modern corruption of that name (Hugh Nevill A.G.A. Trincomalee and famous antiquaries) (para 2.10 p.224).

The Commission also states that the British government spent 76000 pounds on repairs to this tank and rendered 23000 acres of forest land irrigable for rice cultivation, 500 acres were leased to a newly formed enterprise called the Jaffna Batticaloa Agricultural Company. The plan to lease the entire 23000 acres to the enterprise was frustrated when the Company failed (p.224, para 2.11) There clearly were no "traditional Tamil homelanders" in this area at that time, i.e. the 1860s.

The Sinhala Commission so states:—

"What happened generally in the East has been recorded in the famous report on Forest Administration of Ceylon by F. D. A. Vincent which is published as Sessional Paper XIII of 1882.

The gradual spread of the Tamils down the coasts specially the eastern, and the fact that nowhere except in the northern province and Tamankaduwa, do they form more than coast settlements are both striking. Whereever the Tamil or the Mohammedan comes to settle the Sinhalese is driven back to the forest where he earns a precarious existence by chena cultivation and by hunting (p.224 para 2.13).

As pointed out earlier Prof. Pieris’s researches show that even as late as 1921 Tamil settlements were still confined to the coast.

Finally we would quote the Administration Report of the Trincomalee District for 1878, which shows very clearly how the "Sinhalese villagers of Kandyan descent" were dispossessed of their ancestral lands by Tamils:

"This part of the District is inhabited by Sinhalese villagers of Kandyan descent forming an outlying community which is, I fear rapidly dying out or becoming effaced. The district is most interesting being dotted over by numerous village tanks, some of which are restored and others abandoned. The villagers retain many of the primitive customs of the Kandyans, but they are rapidly becoming Tamilized, which is a great pity. They intermarry with Tamils, and many speak Tamil as well as Sinhalese. Even the government schoolmaster is Tamil, and only that language is taught in the only school, and unfortunately in some cases the Sinhalese villagers have been bought out by Tamils, who now own all the paddy lands in some villages." (p.225 para 2.15).

The Sinhala Commission concludes the Chapter on "Tamil claims to the Eastern Province" as follows:—

"We have shown that the Eastern province, far from being the trditional homeland of the Tamils as claimed by Tamil politicians, was a part of the Kandyan Kingdom. We have also shown how the Tamil population of the area increased as a result of British policy of settling Tamils from Jaffna. We have shown how the original Sinhalese inhabitants of those areas were gradually pushed out with their ancestral lands being bought up by Tamils. The lands so acquired included all the paddy lands in some villages. These are the lands that Tamil politicians now claim to be the "traditional homelands" of the Tamils. To do justice to the Sinhala people these lands must be reacquired and given to their original owners" (p 227 para 2.21).

The above account makes clear how the Tamils came to comprise the majority of the inhabitants of the Eastern province in 1921. It was not because the province was the "traditional homeland" of the Tamils but because they were planted there by the British from Jaffna and South India in the latter part of the 19th Century. Therefore if any community can complain of state-aided colonisation altering the demographic pattern of the Eastern province to its detriment it is the Sinhalese who were made into a minority in the area by state-aided colonisation by the British in the 19th Century.

Let us hope that these facts will put an end once for all to the repeated Tamil claim that the 1921 census is evidence that the Eastern province is the "traditional homeland" of the Tamils, to which the Sinhala people have no rights.

Let us also hope that the so called "grievance" of the Tamils that state-aided colonisation by governments after independence altered the demographic balance in the Province to the detriment of the Tamils will no longer be aired since as we have pointed out, it was state-aided colonisation by the British in the 19th Century that first altered the demographic balance in this Province to the detriment of the Sinhalese by settling Tamils from outside the Province.

23rd June marks the 75th Birth Anniversary of President Ranasinghe Premadasa
The Premadasa philosophy of development

by Dayan Jayatilleka
In what sense do Ranasinghe Premadasa’s ideas on development constitute an entire development philosophy, one that can be demarcated from others? Premadasa introduced a distinct set of development values, a different development ethic and an alternative development morality. I reiterate: an alternative morality of development.

For hard-nosed neo-liberals, poverty is a non problem, or one to be ignored or attenuated over time. For old time welfarist or ‘soft’ liberals, the poor are an object of pity and charity, who have to be treated with care, kindness, concern and ‘medication’. For the conservatives and Rightists, poverty is not the problem; the poor are.

For Premadasa, poverty ( not the poor) is a dangerous epidemic to be stamped out and an enemy to be attacked, defeated and eliminated. Poverty had to be pulled out from its roots. In this sense, Premadasa was radical and so is his development philosophy.

Though in his economic model and strategy Premadasa appears a pragmatist and a moderate, in his attitude he was an extremist. In this he differed from Western European Social Democracy. Premadasa could not be satisfied with containing poverty, with beating back the poverty tide. The policy posture had to be one of a permanent strategic offensive against poverty. In the struggle against poverty certainly, Premadasa had no place for gradualism.

In this war against poverty, the poor themselves were the army, while the State was the heavy artillery, the armour, the air force and navy, rolled into one. The State was a ‘force multiplier’. Premadasa’s attitude to the State was neither the economic anti-Statism of the liberals and conservatives, nor the ‘nanny State’ of the social democratic welfarists and certainly not the economic Leviathan of the old Socialists/Communists. This was a supple state, a mobile, manoeuverable State which retrenched from certain areas of the economy while re-entering, entering and even creating others. If the old Socialists were ‘immobilists’ whose State waged a ‘war of position’ in the economy, the Premadasaist State waged a ‘war of manoeuvre’. Its permanent garrisons in the economy were few but strategic, so that it would not be over stretched. But it had a tremendous reach and a mobile presence; a rapid deployment and interventionist capacity. His notion of the State in the economy was slimmer than that of the Far Eastern/Asian NIC States, which had Taiwan and Korea as their prototypes. These states were Cold War constructs, variants of State Monopoly Capitalism (the chaebols etc.) and were politically authoritarian (actually dictatorial). This type is neither feasible in the new global conjuncture - in which democracy and pluralism are motive forces - nor is it desirable.

Neo-liberals use the anti authoritarian argument to roll back the State in the economy. Their argument is that a large role for the State in the economy, automatically ensures an authoritarian, overbearing role for it in the polity. Theirs is a mirror image of the economic reductionism of vulgar Marxism. Vulgar socialism holds that a large role is necessary for the State in the economic sphere, so as to deliver social equity and high growth. The trade-off with individual freedoms is, they argue, necessary, inevitable and desirable. The inevitability of this trade-off is a thesis shared by liberals and vulgar socialists. Where they differ is in their respective normative judgements concerning the trade-off.

Premadasa broke this conceptual nexus and re-appropriated democracy from the neo-liberals, forging a notion of the State that was slim enough to guarantee democracy - and its material sustainability, by being in consonance with global market and IFI needs - but supple and strong enough to intervene and assist the poor in their protracted pilgrimage towards liberation. His State was ‘lean and mean’, but ‘mean’ on behalf of the people, especially the poor. Premadasa thereby re-conceptualised the role of the State. From East Asia’s ‘command capitalism’ and from socialism, he took the role of the subjective factor, of strategies and programmes; the need for conscious, purposive intervention of the State in the economy. In sum, the State as strategic vanguard. The main thing was not necessarily that the State would occupy the strategic heights of the economy, but that the role played by and the function of the State would be strategic. He delinked the notion of strategy from one of spatial location, from one of physical occupation i.e. from ownership and direct control.

He also differentiated himself from the Far Eastern model in that the strategic priority, the main objective and goal of development strategy and programmes was not primarily and pre-eminently one of growth and strength, but of eradicating poverty and making society more equitable. For the Far East, poverty alleviation was pre-emptive counter insurgency and a near-simultaneous product and simultaneous adjunct of development. For Premadasa, growth and development were the means; eliminating poverty was the end.

In his development philosophy, not only was poverty the chief enemy; contributing to exacerbate poverty wittingly or unwittingly was a crime, often tantamount to murder: "If as the result of the modern inventions of the scientist, the fertility of the soil dwindles, and herbs, fruits and vegetation in general are poisoned, wouldn’t the scientist amount to a murderer? If as a result of the technologist, people are thrown out of employment, wouldn’t that technologist be an enemy to the people, not a friend?" (At Gam Udawa ‘88 in Anamaduwa - 3.7.88). If the intelligentsia and professionals could not help in relieving hunger and poverty they were existentially redundant: "If the scientist and the technologist cannot provide relief to the poor, what need has humanity for such scientists and technologists? ... if the products of scientists and technologists are weapons of destruction and not products that help people live, what use is there of that science and technology to humanity?" (Ibid.) "If hunger cannot be eliminated through science, and if it cannot eliminate sickness and physical weakness, we have no need for that science. If technology cannot eliminate poverty, unemployment, want, we have no need for the technology. If the scientists and the technologists cannot provide relief to the poor, what need has humanity for such a scientist or technologist?" (13.2.89).

Even tolerating poverty was a crime (A Charter for Democracy - 1990). This then is not a moderate, evolutionary, watered down, centrist philosophy! It is harsh in its moral indictment, uncompromising in its imperatives. It is an alternative morality, sharp edged in its dictums which made no room for endless mediations between theory and practice, between knowledge and the elimination of hunger.

The state is to be closer to the people, but not in a sense that would make the citizens economically captive: "Participation is encouraged when people feel that government is humane, close and caring". (2.1.89). The people are to feel comfortable enough to move closer to the State because the State would be made more participatory; the State would be peoplised, citizenised. This is what the Mobile Presidential Services, the Divisional Secretariats, the Gam Udawas were about. The two-way process of ‘proximation’ would tackle the phenomenon of political alienation. Janasaviya and the other programmes would address the questions of social and economic alienation.

The end of alienation in its triple senses - political, social and economic - was a defining characteristic of the Premadasa problematique. For Premadasa the central problems were those of inequality, subordination/domination, poverty and alienation. Inequality was attacked in the global and local senses - inequality and its increase, in the world economy and in the ‘national’ socio economic formation. Subordination/domination was problematised in its twin dimensions, external and internal . This in turn was seen to correspond to the political and socio economic i.e. the question of independence, sovereignty, dignity vis-a-vis the dominant powers globally and regionally; and secondly, the question of caste-class domination within society. Power was central. The poor were dominated - socially, within the nation - while the poor countries were dominated within the world system and its regional sub system.

The poor were alienated in two senses. They were actively pushed away from the development process and society - the system had alienated them and continually did so. They themselves felt alienated from, distant from, the system and the State.

The socio economic alienation was the root of the political alienation (from the State), and when this exploded in rebellion or passive support for rebellion, the State’s purely repressive response only exacerbated the original alienation.

Of the terms and problems: ‘subordination’, ‘domination’, ‘inequality’, ‘poverty’ and ‘alienation’ - for Premadasa poverty was the key link. But the inter relationship was dialectical: the poor were subordinated and alienated because they were poor; they were poor because they were subordinated and alienated. The world’s poor were dominated because they were seen as unequal, as less than equal. They remain unequal, because they were dominated, held down. The structures were unequal because they had domination of the poor majority inscribed within them.

At the horizon of the Premadasa philosophy and project then, one can discern the silhouette of not only the unalienated producer, but of the unalienated producer-citizen.

Dudley - The Reluctant Prince

by Buddhike Kurukularatne
Dudley Shelton Senanayake was born on 19th June 1911. Dudley was indeed a ‘Leader’ — not a born one as his father was nor a leader who achieved leadership through dint of hard work, like his disciple Ranasinghe Premadasa did. Dudley had leadership thrust upon him.

In many ways, he was the ‘Reluctant Prince’ Upon his father’s demise he had to be almost dragged into the Prime Ministerial chair. When his critics accused him of becoming P.M. through the ‘back door’, he answered them by dissolving parliament and emerging as the youngest Prime Minister in the Commonwealth by romping home with a thumping Parliamentary Majority.

Again during the Hartal of 1953 his hand had to be forced into signing the gazette notifications declaring an Emergency and when nine persons died as a result of the Hartal Dudley resigned from the Premiership and went into self-imposed political exile.

He was a very shy and retiring type of person. My friend Rukman, Dudley’s favourite nephew narrated this story as to how his mother Robert’s wife Neela asked Dudley to wave and smile at the people when he drove for Golf, driving his Triumph Herald. ‘What if they don’t recognise me’! had been Dudley’s response.

I am reluctant to call Dudley a politician. Party politics has now become the last refuge of the scoundrel. Dudley was indeed a great statesman. He was magnanimous in victory and showed no ill-will towards his political opponents both inside the UNP and outside.

Mrs. Bandaranaike would never have been deprived of her civil rights if Dudley was living.

The ‘infamous’ Dudley—JR battle in the party clearly saw the Dudley group emerging victorious. At that time the party branches had to nominate the office bearers of the party. JRJ was the senior vice president and he was involved in a mighty controvercy when he publicly declared at the Matara Uyanwatta esplanade that the UNP should support the government (of Mrs B) and if it didn’t, he would take a step in the near future which will enable the people to avail themselves of his services.

Having just taken oaths as an advocate, I was then the UNPs youngest organiser (Ambalangoda). Though a mere Liliputian or a ‘Podien’ this Gulliver summoned me to ‘Woodlands’.

He then spoke almost in a whisper and said, ‘Buddhika, Mrs. B. is showing the carrot to ‘Dicky’. He has given notice of a motion that the UNP should support the Government. He even told me that if the motion was lost he would still join the government. What do you have to say to this?

I told him, ‘Sir, the day that you start supporting this government is the day that I will oppose you!’.

Dudley then said, ‘Buddhika you and I cannot decide this issue like this. Please get as many UNPers to attend the annual party convention and let our members decide.

If the majority says we must support the government, then I go. But if on the other hand the majority decides to oppose this government, then obviously those who say that they must support cannot remain in the party’.

Branded as a Dudley loyalist and a ‘Golaya’ of Niyathapala Dudley could well have told me, Buddhika, get only our people in. We will throw them out!

Instead it was the ‘other group’ that resorted to undemocratic moves. I still remember how I gate-crashed into a Pow-Wow, chaired by Cyril Mathew, JRJ’s trusted lieutenant and attended by notorious criminals in Kosgoda area at the Ambalangoda Rest House.

I had and still have a high regard and respect for my friend and schoolmate Nairda’s father, but my loyalty to the party and its leader towered above this personal relationship.

‘Hello Sir, What brought you to Ambalangoda?’ I asked Mathew. ‘I say, we have to prepare for the convention—No?’ he said ‘Six, in that event you should have met me; I am, the UNP organiser for Ambalangoda!’ But then, pointing to the Kosgoda thugs ‘why are they here?’ I quaried.

I then sat on a table opposite him and invitedly poured ‘Ginger beer’ (the only beer I drank even then) ordered by Mathew for himself and said ‘Sir, very sorry no conspiracies here!. I will not leave until you do and indirectly if not politely asked them to leave.

They eventually left but not after reporting me to Dr. M. H. Saddhasena, our affable president of the local branch and I had a time in avoiding ‘Dr’ for the next few weeks. Ultimately he cornered me at a funeral and severely reprimanded me. ‘Cyril Mathew was very hurt. He said that you did not respect even his age.

At the time another statesman, Gamini Jayasuriya along with another dear friend M.D.H. Jayawardene were the Joint Secretaries of the party.

I remember counting the branch recommendations with Gamini Jayasuriya who lived in the next lane to Siri Kotha by the sea, well into midnight and found that 90% of the branches, islandwide had dropped JRJ from the vice president’s post and instead proposed Mr. M. D. Banda, a trusted ‘Dudley man’, as the Senior Vice President. JRJ’s name was proposed only from the predominantly Catholic coastal belt from Chilaw to Beruwela thanks to the effort of Festus Perera.

We were pleased as punch with turn of things and Niyathapala got busy in organising a Security cordan along Galle Road end and the rail road end of the sprawling mansion and grounds that Siri Kotha was at 532, Galle Rd, Colombo 3 then.

Imagine my surprise then when on the eve of the conference when I received a telegram purporting to be from Niyathapala which merely said, presence not necessary conference postponed inform others.

I laughed it off thinking that it was yet another piece of machiaevillian tactics of which the ‘Old Fox’ was a maestro at, but then ‘Uncle A.H.’ former MP for Polonnaruwa and brother of C.P. de Silva, showed me a Joint Communique in the CDN by the 2 Joint Secretaries notifying the postponement of the Annual Party Convention.

The paper also carried a news item as to how Dudley and JRJ ‘patched up’ at Paris Perera M.P’s house and ‘sorted things out’ crying over each other’s shoulder.

I was furious. Furious because the leader took us for granted and thought they could move us from place to place in their political chess board.

I went across to the sub-post office situated across the road from Balapitiya courts and wrote a rash, brash and curt, impolite, boorish telegram to which merely said ‘Keep JR. I quit’. Rukman and Niyathapala still vividley remember Dudley’s response Dudley had held the telegram in his hand for sometime and had said ‘He is a nice chap’. (An error of judgement no doubt!) I can’t let this happen and called his Secretary Gunatilaka and had asked him to send me a telegram asking me to see him. The telegram did come, but I was such a rash young man then I did not go.

Not that I regret one bit what I had said in the telegram but how I had said it in retrospect I knew was wrong.

When I failed to turn up in response to the telegram this great man the great leader wrote to me, a mere 23 year old ‘padaththalaya’, ‘Buddhika, please understand I came to an understanding merely to prevent UNP people from killing UNP people. If we went ahead with the conference there would have been bloodshed!.

I will end this episode by referring to Gamini Jayasuriya who seeing Lokka in a pensive mood, holding any telegram in hand told me himself that he told the Lokka ‘Sir don’t take that mad fellow seriously’. (Well said Gamini!) But as fate would have it years later at the very precincts though in Rukman’s flat behind the walawwa, Gamini showing a letter said, ‘Buddhika, I called you a mad man, when you resigned in protest of JR. Here is my letter of resignation. I am going to Braemar to hand it over personally. Hearing this Rukman came rushing from his bath wrapped only in a towel and both Rukman and I grappled with Gamini, took the letter and made him understand that he should remain in the party to look after the interests of Dudley loyalists when the UNP returned under the Nijalingappa’s (that was what we called JRJ—Nijalingappa was a reactionary element in the Indian Congress!) Leadership. Gamini rose to our expectations and gracefully resigned his cabinet portfolio expressing his opposition to the Indo-Lanka accord.

Dudley knew who his friends were. To fight the enemy you must first know who your friends are. (Present day leaders better take note!)

In 1966 when just out of school, Dudley recommended me to follow a course of political leadership training at an American institute the center for Labour and Social Studies in Rome, Italy. Prof. Brian Buckley, Director of the Institute showed me a letter written by Dudley, then the Prime Minister which said that I was a future Parliamentary candidate for the UNP!

Dudley was indeed a very humane man. On 19th of June long long time ago he was speaking at a mammoth rally at Elpitiya opposite the bus stand. By virtue of the fact that the writer was the founder general secretary of the 1st ever UNP Students’ Organisation the National Democratic Student’s Union, I too a mere student ‘studying’(?) at Dharmasoka was offered a seat on the stage. Mr. R. W. Samaranayake, a kinsman of Dudley was the UNP organiser of Bentara—Elpitiya then. Also on the stage was Sri Chandraratne Manawasinghe, the eminent poet, philosopher, writer and speaker.

Dudley’s opening remarks were, ‘Today is a special day in my life. Today is my birth anniversary. By a strange coincidence there are 2 others on this stage whose birthday fell today on the 19th of June. They are Sri Chandraratne Mahawasinghe and our ‘Buddhika!’.

Wasn’t I pleased!. I quickly looked around to see if any of my class mates were around. I saw a few of them slowly lagging it as they never believed that those greetings I received on each 19th of June were from the ‘Great’ Dudley. My friends honestly believed that I had forged Dudley’s signature!

Dudley was a good racouteur who once told this story, in which Prof. E.O.E. Pereira, long time Dean of the Engineering Faculty at the Peradeniya University who also served as its Vice-Chancellor and he himself figued at a dinner at the Burgher Recreation Club (BRC) in Colombo.

It went back to their Cambridge days when Dudley and EOE had been out on their bikes after nightfall without the necessary lights. They got ‘’copped’’ with the Bobby holding on firmly to Dudley’s handlebars. EOE who was not similarly hampered made a bolt for it, pedalling away furiously into the night. But Dudley had the last laugh as the vice-chancellor to be later realised when he duly received summons to appear in court.

As Senanayake told the story: ‘’I told the policeman that I couldn’t possibly give him my friend’s name but mine was E.O.E. Pereira.’’ The professor was among the guests who burst into laughter at that after dinner speech.

To teach Pereira good manners, Dudley had given Pereira’s name to the cop!.

Bitten by the ‘Political Bug’ since the age of 14, I used to play truant from school, (no not the many schools that I had ‘passed’) Dharmasoka and go to Colombo by the ‘Ruhuna’ on certain sitting days in Parliament (by the sea then.) Collarius a Gallery Pass from a friendly MP I used to listen in awe to the Giants of the Day, Colvin, Pieter, N.M. and Bernard to name only a few. The language commonly used then was English rich in its innuendos, sarcasam and humour.

Dudley was P.M. then and was on his feet. A diminutive figure whom I recognised as the M.P. for Kotte-Stanley Tillakaratne my very good friend and colleague in later years was poping up from his seat like a Jack-in-the Box or ‘an Arpico Rubber Ball’ every now and then and was interrupting Dudley, ably assisted by another heckler in Roy Rajapakse from Mulgirigala.

Those were the days of the Dudley-JR split in the UNP and Stanley kept interrupting the prime minister who was on his feet with the question: ‘’What about the split?’’ Dudley took him on that one and stopping mid-sentence said,’’ as for splits, Sir, my honourable friend from Kotte is at an advantage over me. He sees them at eye-level!’’ The House dissolved in a mighty gust of laughter.

Last month I accompanied Central Provincial Councillor Wasantha Aluvihare to take his oaths before Stanley who is now the Governor of Central Province and over a cup of steaming hot tea, I reminded Stanley of this incident. Stanley good naturedly laughed a hearty laugh and said ‘Aiyo, those were the, good old days men. Those days have gone’.

We also could only say one word ‘Aiyo’.

L E G A L W A T C H
Coal plant and doctors’ strike reveal pitfalls of devolution

by Nayana
The effect of the Thirteenth Amendment - drafted in secrecy and passed in haste - has taken time to make itself felt.

By coincidence it was the North-Western Provincial Council that was the first to flex its legislative muscles in 1990 by passing a Provincial Environmental Act which contained provisions that were at variance with the National Environmental Act.

Today the same Council, under a new administration, is again making waves with its insistence on the right of the provincial government to appoint its own Director and Deputy Directors of Health Services .

Both these matters concern subjects that feature on the "Provincial List" as well as the "Concurrent List". Both matters have led to litigation in the Court of Appeal which is yet to be finally resolved.

The Wayamba Provincial Environmental Statute No. 12 of 1990 did not initially attract controversy, although the Central Environmental Authority relinquished its power of issuing environmental protection licences in respect of industries within that province. The Statute became a point of legal contention last year following the activation of the proposal to construct a coal-fired power plant at Norochcholai in the Puttalam District.

However in this case the Central and Provincial Governments are not in conflict. The case was filed by the non-governmental Environmental Foundation alleging, in substance, that the Ceylon Electricity Board which wants to build the power plant was using the Provincial Statute as a means to circumvent the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure to which it would be subject if the provisions of the National Environmental Act were applied.

Power plant

In terms of the Regulations framed under the National Environmental Act, the type of power plant in question is a ‘prescribed project" for which an EIA is required. Under the Provincial Statute, coal power plants were not listed as prescribed projects.

In a further complication, a part of the power plant will also fall within the coastal zone and will therefore be required to conform to the provisions of the Coast Conservation. Act which is operative island-wide. In addition some part of the overhead transmission lines will run over the Western Province where the National Environmental Act remains operative.

According to advice reportedly given by the Attorney-General’s Department to the Central Environmental Authority and conveyed by that Authority to the Environmental Foundation, the project proponent would be required to submit an EIA to the Coast Conservation Department in respect of that part of the plant that is to be located within the coastal zone and to the appropriate project approving agency in the Western Province in respect of the power lines running over that province, but would not be required to submit any EIA in respect of that part of the plant and transmission lines which was situated wholly within the North-Western Province and outside the coastal zone.

However the Environmental Foundation is challenging the constitutionality of the Wayamba Provincial Environmental Statute an the grounds that it is outside the law-making powers of the Provincial Council in terms of Article 154G of the Constitution.

In terms of item No. 37 of the Provincial List, the Provincial Council is permitted to pass statutes for ‘protection of the environment within the Province to the extent permitted by or under any law made by Parliament". The Environmental Foundation contends that in view of the existence of the NEA, the Provincial Government is precluded from enacting any statute for the same purpose which prescribes different standards.

The Foundation also contends that the "concurrent" status of environmental protection must be read in harmony with item No. 37 in the provincial list which denies to provinces the right to legislate outside the framework of an Act of Parliament. It also argues that this intepretation is necessary because environment cannot be confined within artificial boundaries.

On the other hand, the objections filed by the previous provincial administration contended that owing to the enactment of the Provincial Statute the operation of the National Environmental Act remains suspended in that Province by virtue of Article 154G(8) of the Constitution. This says that where, at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment, there was a law in force in respect of any matter on the provincial list and the Provincial Council thereafter passes a statute on the same matter which is described in its long title as being inconsistent with that law, then the statute receives precedence and the operation of the national law is suspended within that province.

However, in an interesting development the Provincial Council in 1998 issued a fresh set of regulations under the Provincial Environmental Statute listing coal power plants as "prescribed projects" requiring an EIA. In response to fears expressed by the petitioner that the approval for the different parts of the project would be segmented and contradictory, an ELA Scoping Committee was established comprising representatives of the Central and Provincial Environmental Authorities, the Coast Conservation Department and other authorities concerned with subjects such as marine pollution, fisheries and tourism, as well as officers of Ceylon Electricity Board.

The provincial administration changed while this case was pending and time has been given for the new Chief Minister and the Provincial Minister handling environment to file their objections. It will be interesting to see whether the seemingly conciliatory attitude displayed by the previous administration is continued. Meanwhile the Government at top levels seems to be having contradictory views about the Norochcholai power plant, but that is a matter outside the legal forum.

GMOA strike

The dispute that led to the doctors’ strike brings into focus the administrative powers of the provinces. The Government Medical Officers Association represents an all-island service whose members are transferable to all parts of the country and the GMOA has always been particular that what it sees as an equitable system of transfers should be uniformly supplied to all its members.

Under the Thirteenth Amendment, health as a provincial subject is said to include the following: the establishment and maintenance of public hospitals, maternity homes and dispensaries other than teaching hospitals and hospitals for special purposes; public health services and the provision of facilities excluding the procurement of drugs, and the awarding of scholarships for post-graduate education within Sri Lanka to personnel attached to provincial health institutions.

The education of doctors is part of university education which is a national subject. Health as a concurrent subject is said to include schools for training auxilliary medical personnel; the supervision of private medical facilities within a province; population control and family planning; and the constitution of provincial medical boards. In addition, by virtue of item no. 1 on the concurrent list, planning including the formulation and appraisal of plan implementation strategies in relation to all matters is a concurrent subject.

The doctors’ claim is for the maintenance of the current status quo of an all-island health administrative service. They oppose the idea of doctors being subject to the control of Provincial Councils and want such matters as transfers, promotions and disciplinary proceedings to remain under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. As a result they want the appointment of Provincial Directors and Deputy Directors of Health to be made by the PSC.

The doctors claim that a Cabinet decision was made in their favour as a consequence of which the Health Ministry advertised for these posts and interviews were to be held in collaboration with the Provincial authorities, with the final decision on appointments being taken by the PSC.

On the other hand, the new Chief Minister of the North-Western Provincial Council is relying on the Thirteenth Amendment provisions regarding provincial control over health services together with a circular said to have been issued by the Ministry of Public Administration confirming that the posts in question fell within the purview of the provinces. The Chief Minister has obtained an interim order from the Court of Appeal restraining the Public Service Commission and the Health Ministry from making these appointments.

The doctors had threatened an all-out strike if the Cabinet decision was not implemented. The Government on Thursday night acted under Emergency powers and declared the health service to be an essential service.

Whatever the outcome of the two cases discussed above, it is clear that they are the result of the failure of successive governments to study and, where necessary, streamline the pro visions of the Thirteenth Amendment. The UNP whose then Leader steam-rolled the Thirteenth Amendment over a shell-shocked country in 1987, seems to have felt that the less they said about it the better. The new regime elected in 1994, on the other hand, seems to have persisted with the view that its "package" is the only solution and nothing else is worth talking about.

Considering that members of all parties are happy enough to get elected to provincial councils, the public may feel that it is high time they put their heads together and made the system work smoothly, preferably in consultation with environmentalists, members of all island public services and all other groups who should have been, but were not, consulted when the Amendment was being drafted.

NATO forces enter Kosovo

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Slobodan Milosevic began to move Yogoslav troops of Kosovo after Belgrade’s military authorities signed an agreement with NATO commanders, for the withdraw all of about 40,000 Yugoslav soldiers, police and paramilitary police out of Kosovo within 11 days. Intensive diplomatic efforts by European Union President Martin Ahtisaari, Yeltsin’s special envoy Victor Chernomyrdin and US Assistant Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, with Slobodan Milosevic had resulted in the Yugoslav president deciding to cave in.

Under the agreement that ended NATO’s 11-week air-strikes on Yugoslavia, Kosovo was divided into five sectors to be controlled by U.S., British, French, German and Italian troops with the Russians demanding a zone of their own. A Kosovo Protection Force (KFOR) of about 50,000 NATO and allied troops, from some 30 countries, were ultimately to be deployed in Yugoslavia’s southern province of Kosovo where genocide and ethnic cleansing had caused NATO airstrikes beginning 24 March.

Security Council back in the picture

The United Nations was brought back into the picture on the insistence of Milosevic and Russia. The Security Council voted, 14 to 1, for the resolution ratifying the peace arrangement China, still smarting over the bombing of its embassy in Belgrade, abstained.

Before agreeing to withdraw its soldiers and police in favour of the international force, Yugoslavia insisted on an official go-ahead by the United Nations. The Yugoslav demand was supported by permanent security council members, China and Russia, who had been harshly critical of NATO’s bombing campaign.

In addition to authorising KFOR’s entry and operations in Kosovo, the Security Council resolution specified that the United Nations should control the anticipated large international civilian presence required to oversee the return of Kosovo refugees and reconstruction of the province’s shattered infrastructure.

The resolution called on Secretary General Kofi Annan to appoint a special representative in charge of civilian operations and ‘’co-ordinate closely with the international security presence’’ to ensure the harmonisation of the civilian and military efforts.

China objected to the resolution’s call for all parties, including the international force, to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as it seeks to investigate possible war crimes in Kosovo. Failing to win any changes to the resolution in support of its view, China agreed to abstain rather than cast its veto in exchange for language stating that the Security Council rather than NATO, had the ‘’primary responsibility’’ for maintaining peace and security in Kosovo.

Milosevic defiant in defeat

Slobodan Milosevic, an indicted war criminal, was defiant in defeat. He maintained that ‘’throughout the rallies in this past year in our country, one motto was often heard: We will not give up Kosovo. We never gave up Kosovo. Today, our territorial integrity and sovereignty is guaranteed by the G-8 nations and the U.N...

He continued: ‘’Open questions regarding the possible independence of Kosovo in the time before the (NATO) aggression, have been sealed with the Belgrade agreement. The territorial integrity of our country can never be questioned again. We survived and defended the country. By coming before the U.N., we have not only defended our country but have brought back the U.N. to the world stage. This is our contribution to prevent creation of a unipolar world, to prevent the acceptance of a world based on the diktat from one centre.’’

Clinton speaks of victory

On the other hand, president Clinton reporting to the American nation was also claiming victory: ‘’We have achieved a victory for a safer world, for our democratic values, and for a stronger America.’’ He vowed that the hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians expelled from Yugoslavia will go home. ‘’In Kosovo, we did the right thing, we did it the right way, and we will finish the job. Our pilots have returned to base. The air strikes have ben suspended. Aggression against an innocent people has been contained and is being turned back.’’ Clinton repeatedly asserted that the war was motivated principally by humanitarian considerations, an argument that resonated with the U.S. public.

Military thinkers have noted that Americans are increasingly reluctant to accept casualties in distant military conflicts. It is alleged that the American public will bail out on a war as soon as the first body bags start coming home. In Kosovo, this theory could not be tested; no Americans died in combat.

For 11 weeks, the Clinton administration and its supporters in Congress had been sharply criticised. Clinton was thought to have erred in seeking to defeat Milosevic without sending in ground troops. Many felt that air-strikes alone would never work. Even those who supported the president thought he would ultimately fail.

Some analysts believe that NATO aircraft were able to inflict serious damage on the Yugoslav army only after a ground offensive by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had forced Yugoslav units to concentrate in exposed positions.

Russian tanks race to Pristina

A diplomatic row between NATO and Russia was brewing President Boris Yeltsin endorsed the deployment of several hundred Russian troops in Pristina, only hours after Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov assured Madeleine Albright it was a mistake and that the troops had been ordered to leave. Evidently there was some confusion and a possible disagreement between Russian civilian and military authorities.

The first British units to arrive in Pristina, Kosovo’s capital, confronted the Russian soldiers already at the city’s airport. After a stand-off, they reached a tentative agreement to share control of the site. For NATO, it was a most embarrassing distraction. British and Russian field commanders took some time to reach agreement in principle to divide Pristina airport between Russian and NATO troops, with both sides having access to the single runway. Talks on a permanent solution continue.

Russians feel that the Clinton administration has disregarded Moscow’s objections to an expanding NATO and to prosecuting a war in Kosovo, while failing to foster a lasting basis for relations with Russia. Russian leaders were angered that NATO refused to give Russia a ‘’zone’’ of its own in Kosovo, while handing out areas to other members of the international military force.

Russia had insisted on having its own sector, preferably in the north of Kosovo where Serb religious shrines and much of the province’s Serb inhabitants were located. NATO commanders feared that a Russian sector would quickly lead to the de facto partition of Kosovo, reminiscent of the Cold War division of Germany.

There was also disagreement on the sticky issue of command and control of peacekeepers NATO insisted on a unified operational, Russia refused to put its troops under NATO command.

Bliss and bitterness in a devastated land

It is seldom, if at all, that the presence of two bitter and heavily armed foes are present together on the same territory at the same time. The situation in Kosovo continues to be volatile. As the NATO forces moved in, Yugoslav troops and Serbian police force continued their withdrawal to the north, along with thousands of Serb civilians, continuing to cause some devastation as they left. The bestiality and horror of the torture practised in Kosovo during the NATO bombing is gradually being revealed.

In the wake of the retreating Serb forces, there were some incidents. In Pritzren, for example, German troops, embarking on their first major military deployment on foreign soil since the end of World War II, clashed with Serb civilians and some Serb soldiers and were shot dead.

The ethnic Albanian Kosovars, beleaguered for 11 weeks came out of hiding from the hills and caves, searching for their wrecked homes and reuniting with friends and family. They cried with joy and cheered the NATO troops. Serbian Kosovars fled north in fear of reprisals although they were assured protection by the NATO forces.

The new order in the Balkans

The United States dominated the military action against Yugoslavia, but there is near-universal agreement that European nations will pay most of the cost of rebuilding Kosovo. Despite an initial reluctance to get involved, the violent break-up of Yugoslavia has lured the United States and its allies into the Balkans, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania have effectively become NATO protectorates. Slovenia, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria are hoping to qualify for NATO membership. Whether by accident or design, the Atlantic alliance now owns the Balkans.

NATO is said to be willing to support a new $30 billion initiative, endorsed by the Group of Eight major powers and the European Union, to finance long-term economic reconstruction in the Balkans.

The Kosovo Liberation Army

The KLA stands to cash in on NATO’s presence NATO is concerned about attempts by the KLA to take advantage of the Yugoslav withdrawal and seize strategic positions. The rebel force, largely scattered when the Belgrade government launched a scorched-earth offensive against them in late March — is re-emerging as a political force.

For the moment, the KLA is respecting its commitment not to fire on retreating Yugoslav army units. Occasional killings have probably been the results of random firefights. But the guerrillas have refused to lay down their arms until all Yugoslav security forces had left the province and a disarmament order had been received from KLA leader Hashim Thaqi. The KLA, with its declared objective of an independent Kosovo, could still pose a serious threat to stability in the Balkans.

A review of the Sinhala Commission’s proposal for a new constitution

by Dr. Piyasena Dissanayake
Secretary, National Joint Committee

The Sinhala Commission as well as all those who supported it were strongly opposed to both the Government’s devolution package as well as to G. L Peiris’ draft Constitution which proposed to convert Sri Lanka into a federal state. The reasons for this opposition were given in detail in the two Reports issued by the Commission, namely the Interim Report dealing with the devolution package and subsequent Report (Part I) dealing inter alia with the proposed Constitution. However one criticism that has been levelled at the Sinhala Commission is that its role has been destructive rather than constructive, that it has only indulged in destructive criticism of what its proponents say, is a genuine attempt to solve the problems facing this country with no proposals of its own for solving these problems. In the present document we have the Sinhala Commission’s answer to these criticisms.

Before we proceed to consider and evaluate the proposals put forward by the Sinhala Commission it is necessary to examine the political situation in the country today as this background is necessary in order to appreciate what the Sinhala Commission has attempted to achieve by its proposals. The political system that obtains today is one that was foisted on us by our colonial masters being a replica of the one that operates in Britain, the so-called "Westminster System". The main feature of this system that we wish to draw attention to is its confrontational character. The central legislature in composed of a governing party and one or more opposing parties. As indicative of the confrontational nature of this system, there is an officially recognised "Leader of the Opposition". The function of the opposition is to oppose all measures put forward by the government even if they feel in their heart of hearts that these measures are desirable in the interests of the nation. This confrontational character of the system is portrayed by the very seating arrangements in the chamber of Parliament where members of the government and opposition sit in serrie ranks facing each other like two armies arrayed for battle. And they certainly do engage in battle with each other, even though it be only with verbal bullets.

This is the system, complete with political parties, that has been foisted lock, stock and barrel on our country and our people. While this system may suit the British who evolved it in keeping with their culture and ethos over period of centuries starting from the time of King John and the Magna Carta, events ever since we gained independence have shown that it certainly does not suit this country with a different culture and a different ethos . Indeed if we look at our neighbouring countries it would appear that this system that was foisted on them too does not seem to be in their interests either for everywhere what we see is political parties forever at loggerheads with each other leading to political instability to the detriment of the nation. In this county it has become increasingly clear that this system which leads to confrontation between political parties both within Parliament as well as outside is fast leading to a breakdown in our society. The evils of the political party system which even results in murders and destruction of property have now become clear to the people so much so that there have been demands for the abolition of political parties. However, we do not think this possible since political parties have now taken root in this country and it will be impossible to abolish them. Besides, it may be argued that political parties are an integral part of a democratic system and that it will be impossible for a democracy to function without political parties, evidence for this being that all democratic countries have political parties. The question that arises then is whether while continuing to have political parties, we cannot so arrange affairs as to do away with, or at least minimise the evils that arise from the present system. For the evils that we are faced with arise not from the political parties themselves per se, but from their confrontation, which is the result of the system. And this is what the Sinhala Commission hes attempted to do in its proposals, namely, retain the political parties but introduce a system where they can function without confrontation.

The essence of the proposals is that while members will be elected to Parliament via political parties as at present (or on the basis of a modified system of elections that the Commission has suggested), there will be no confrontation between members within Parliament but they will all participate in the legislative process on the basis of cooperation and consensus under an Executive Committee System. The provision that the leader of the largest party in Parliament should be appointed Prime Minister while the leader of the second largest party should be appointed Deputy Prime Minister and the provision that the Prime Minister must act in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister on all important matters would ensure that there is full co-operation between the two largest parties in Parliament which, together represent about 80% of the people. For one of the other evils of the present system, apart from its confrontational character is that to all intents and purposes about 40% of the people are in effect disfranchise for, even though represented in Parliament, their representatives sitting in the opposition are precluded from playing any constructive role in the legislative role in the legislative process, their sole function being generally to oppose whatever is put forward by the Government. They are certainly not in a position to promote or safeguard the interests of those who sent them to Parliament. The Sinhala Commission’s proposals will ensure that this distortion of democracy will no longer take place.

There are several other advantages in the proposed system. In the first place, since every member of Parliament will be a member of an Executive Committee which will be fully responsible for the subjects assigned to it, every member of Parliament will be afforded an opportunity of taking an active and meaningful part in the affairs of the nation. The nation too will gain in that its affairs will be conducted on the basis of decisions embodying the collective wisdom of all its representatives in Parliament and arrived at in open discussion rather than under the present system which enables legislation to be prepared in secrecy within the four walls of the Cabinet room and suddenly sprung on Parliament and the people, with the people being given only one week’s time to make representations to the Supreme Court, no matter how drastically such legislation may affect them.

The other important feature of these proposals in that it will enable the minorities too to take a meaningful part in the conduct of the affairs of the nation of which they are equal citizens along with the majority. In this connection the Sinhala Commission has drawn attention to be following observation in Ms. Jane Russell’s book "Communal Politics in Sri Lanka 1931 - 47".

"It is noteworthy that the Ceylon Tamils, for example who had been the most vociferous critics of the Donoughmore Constitution when it had first been proposed were by 1934 its most adamant adherents. The Executive Committee system had proved by then an unsuitable vehicle for the growth of Sinhala and Tamil Communalism".

The Sinhala Commission has stated that, in forming the Cabinet of Ministers the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister should "ensure that all interests are adequately represented in the Cabinet". This would include minority interests. Apart from the Cabinet all members of Parliament representing the minorities will be members of an Executive Committee and this will ensure that their interests are addressed, as the Commission states "in a harmonious atmosphere without acrimony and confrontation".

One of the grievances of the Tamil politicians has been that they have very little influence in the making of government policy and this has been advanced as one argument for the devolution of power to an area where they are in a majority and hence in a position to look after their interests in those areas. If these proposals of the Sinhala Commission are implemented, they, as well as the other minorities, will be able to ensure that their interests receive due consideration not merely in those parts of the country where they are in a majority (as would be the case under the government’s devolution package) but throughout the island since they will be able to play an active part in the central legislature, which legislates for the whole country. We therefore think that it is an encouraging development for the country that at least one minority leader, Minister M. H. M. Ashroff, of the SLMC has welcomed these proposals and stated that they would be acceptable with some modification (Sunday Leader of 6.6.99).

Besides the recommendation for the introduction of an Executive Committee System, the Sinhala Commission has made other important recommendations. The Commission recommends the abolition of the Executive Presidency and its replacement by a President elected by Parliament. According to the Commission’s proposals, the President thus elected will not be confined to purely ceremonial duties but will take an active part in the process of governance by presiding over certain important special Commissions the setting up of which the Sinhala Commission has also recommended. There is also provision in the proposals for a Vice President who too will be elected by Parliament and to whom can be delegated such functions as may be determined by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister.

The Sinhala Commission also proposes this setting up of an independent Police Commission and independent Public Service Commission with a view to removing these two important limbs of the state from the baneful effects of political interference which has largely contributed to increase in crime in the country and deterioration in the efficiency of the public service. The Sinhala Commission has also recommended the setting up of an independent Elections Commission as well as the incorporation in the Constitution of a Code of Conduct for politicians and public servants with violation of the Code being made punishable by imprisonment.

The Sinhala Commission has also recommended the setting up of a National Planning Commission and the preparation of a National Plan. It is the lack of a national plan that has resulted in our having to bow down to the dictates of the World Bank and the I.M.F. If a National Plan had been available, any proposals made by the World Bank and I.M.F. could have been evaluated in the context of the National Plan and only those proposals accepted that were in keeping with the National Plan and hence in the national interest, unlike the present situation, where without any type of plan the Government is blindly groping in the dark not knowing in which direction it should go and therefore allowing itself to be led by the nose by the World Bank and the I.M.F. whose prescriptions have been shown, after the South-East Asian fiasco to aggravate problems rather than solve them.

Finally, the Commission has, in an Appendix made certain proposals for replacing the present proportional system of representation.

It should be mentioned in conclusion that all these proposals of the Sinhala Commission can be implemented without a referendum. All that would be necessary is a 2/3rd majority in Parliament.

The proposals are now before the people. It is for the people to decide whether they agree with them and, if they do, to urge their representatives in Parliament to implement them. We have no doubt that these proposals, if implemented, will go a long way towards getting rid of many of the ills that today beset us and, as the Sinhala Commission states help in "achieving the ideal of ‘one county’ and ‘one people’ by getting rid of divisiveness and thus enable us to face the challenges of the 21st century with confidence as a united people".

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |