Final report of All Party Representative Committee (APRC)
Released exclusively on Groundviews, this is a composite document compiled by Yogarajan and Kariapper and made public by them (read the full background to this document in their introduction).
Please note that as Nizam Kariapper pointed out to Groundviews, there is a mistake in the first page of this version of the report – the reference to June 2010 should read as June 2009.
2 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
“UNP MP R. Yogarajan and SLMC Deputy Secretary General Nizam Kariapper, recently compiled a report on proposals made by the All Party Representatives Committee (APRC), in hope that the President would use it to form the basis of a new constitution. Kariapper, told the Sunday Leader that he believes a similar report, compiled by the Chairman of the APRC, was handed over to President Rajapaksa last year, but is not aware of any acknowledgement of this report by the President.
“We believe that the president has the final report compiled by the Chairman,” says Kariapper.”
APRC Report Unacknowledged, Sunday Leader, http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2010/07/27/aprc-report-unacknowledged/
APRC ‘Report’ by Nalin de Silva:
” A document purported to be the APRC report has been tabled in the Parliament by Mr. Yogarajan, who represented the CWC at the APRC. He has since then changed parties and is now apparently a member of the UNP. The other person involved with the so called report is Mr. Kariapper who represented the SLMC at the APRC. It is reported that copies of the so-called report would be sent to some embassies.
I represented the MEP at the APRC and I must categorically sate the neither I nor the MEP was a signatory to the so-called report. Mr. Yogarajan has been kind enough to send a copy of the “report” and I must also add that I find that it has not been signed by any of the representatives of the parties, though their names appear on it. The presence of the names might give the impression to the general public, I am not bothered about the impression of the foreign diplomats as they have no role to play in a purely internal matter, that the “report” gives the recommendations of the APRC as such but I must say that it is not the case as far as at least the MEP is concerned. The western embassies most probably will try to make use of the “report” to instigate the so-called diaspora (note the Biblical implications of the term which has connotations derived from that as far as the western world is concerned) but the government of Sri Lanka has already outplayed them even with Ban ki-Moon playing for them as a professional, meaning on a contract basis and not free of charge as amateurs used to play in the good old days. In any event, we have to support the government unconditionally if the western powers together with the likes of Messrs Yogarajan and Kariapper try to impose their will on this country.”
See http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/08/aprc-report.html