Comments on: The 18th Amendment: Constitutional Reform as the Consolidation of Power

By: hoysmuk

hoysmuk — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:48:58 +0000

We must voice our concerns publicly.A protest seems a recipe for personal disaster, but protest we must. The group might be small, our voices might end up quite quaint against the raucousness of heavy authoritarianism, but at least let it be on record that not all Sri Lankans were dull headed and dim witted.

By: Heshan

Heshan — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:28:09 +0000

I cannot find the post here anymore, but I warned several months ago on this forum that Mahinda will meddle with the Constitution. In addition to my other prediction – that Namal will eventually become President. No doubt many other readers also reached a similar conclusion, independently.

On another note, we cannot blame MR alone for pursuing such reforms – after all, he is a politician, and politicians will do anything to stay in power. The central problem is the lack of a checks-and-balances type system to keep the Executive in check. The problem is further compounded by the Executive Presidency clause. For example, consider the following stipulations:

The Constitution also confers upon an elected President the power to:

* Grant pardon, grant any respite, substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment and remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed.

Under the immunities granted to the President, no legal proceedings may be initiated or continued with regard to official or private matters against the President while in office.

http://www.priu.gov.lk/execpres/Indexep.html

It is my understanding that it is impossible to bring any sort of impeachment motion against the President. In other words, the only two ways to “get rid” of a President amount to : (1) assassination, and (2) elections. (1) is not much of an issue for MR; (2) however, presents certain *obvious* difficulties. However, there are numerous factors which work in his favor: a weakened Opposition, a rather docile media, a military run by his brother, and a subservient Supreme Court. I would say the first and the last one are especially important. In theory, the Supreme Court should be able to overrule the Executive Head of State. After all, the Supreme Court is in a better position to interpret the law (in fact, that is its sole occupation). On the other hand, Parliament makes the laws , within the boundaries set by the Constitution. Now, anyone should be able to see the danger: if the Supreme Court cannot enforce its own interpretation of the law, then Parliament (effectively the Government) is both making and interpreting the law. The fact that the Opposition is essentially in a state of paralysis does not help things along. In the long run, the *law* will become yet another plaything for the ruling family. In principle, the situation is very much reminiscent of a dictatorship.

By: Realist

Realist — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:28:12 +0000

“The Tamil parties are silent. Gone are the days, it seems, when the stalwarts of the Tamil Congress and Federal Party brought their considerable intellect and energies to denounce the erosion of the democratic rights of all of the peoples of this country. Are they not part of this country and part of the Sri Lankan polity, which is in peril?”

Answer: NO

Sinhala civil society and pseudo-liberals backed this bugger to defeat ‘terrorism’ & now you must pay for it by living with him for decades…!

by the way, sri lanka has never been a ‘liberal democracy’ – it is a tyranny of the majority…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:31:31 +0000

Thank you Dr Saravanamuttu for putting forward your views on this issue of national importance courageously. As a person who voted for the TNA in the last Parliamentary elections, I candidly say if the TNA votes in favor of the amendments or abstains from voting, I will consider it “a breach of electoral trust.”