1 November, 2020
State Minister of Regional Cooperation, Tharaka Balasuriya said although the former Yahapalana Government talked much about constitutional reforms during their four-and-a-half-year tenure they failed to put forward a draft of constitutional reforms. Even the proposals of the majority party, the UNP at that time were not put forward. In an interview with the Sunday Observer, the State Minister said he did not think the former Government had a true intention to introduce a new Constitution. The genuine desire of the SLPP Government is to come out with a draft for a new Constitution within six months. However, a sufficient time frame has to be given for the stakeholders to make their deliberations when drafting a new Constitution.
Q: What in your opinion is the outcome of the visit of the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo?A: It was a scheduled visit. Actually, it was supposed to take place earlier. The visit had to be postponed due to the Covid-19 situation in the country at that time. Before he came to Sri Lanka, he had also visited India.
During the cordial discussion between the two parties, we discussed bilateral relations, and regional importance. The two sides agreed to further strengthen the defence cooperation already established between Sri Lanka and the United States. In addition, a series of other important issues were discussed. I think it was a very successful meeting
.
Q: The Opposition says the Government should reveal the purpose of the visit of the US Secretary of State. What is your comment on this?
A: As I mentioned earlier, it was a scheduled visit. It was not something sudden or unexpected. At present, Asia is in the forefront so that the United States is trying to make an alliance through an accord of defence with India, Japan and Australia. We are mindful of all these developments taking place in the Indian Ocean periphery. We are for economic cooperation with all partners. Our position was appreciated by the US Secretary of State, particularly, the progress made in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Q: As reported by the media, the US Secretary of State delivered a loud anti-China message describing them as a ‘predatory’ power. Your views?
A: Actually, I don’t wish to comment on the statement made by the US Secretary of State. Our position is that we are maintaining a neutral stance in the country’s foreign policy. We hope whatever the issues faced can be sorted out through bilateral discussions and in accordance with international laws. We don’t wish to get involved in the geopolitics. We will maintain friendship with all countries to further our economic objectives.
Q: Some people question about the eight Opposition MPs voting for the 20th Amendment, does the Government have any intention to go for a National Government?A: Those issues would have to be decided by the party hierarchy. At present, we have not held any discussions on such matters. If there is a need to go for a national government in the future, we can get the other parties involved.
It has to be a genuine discussion and it should not be a national government such as the previous Yahapalana Government. I do not think a national government should be formed in such a manner. If a national government is formed, the views of all parties should be sought and it should fulfil the aspirations of the people.
Q: The Opposition lawmakers say some who made many sacrifices to bring the Government to power have distanced themselves due to the passing of the 20th Amendment. Is it so?
A: Various views and suggestions were made on the 20th Amendment and I think the Government has considered most of them. The Government had to introduce the 20th Amendment to get rid of the 19th Amendment as it had created numerous issues. However, some of the positive features in the 19th Amendment such as the two year term of the President and RTI have been retained in the 20th Amendment.
Subsequently, further changes were also made. What we really needed was to introduce the 20th Amendment. The objective of the 20th Amendment is to abolish two centres of power and create a proper mechanism for governance. However, a new Constitution will be introduced in the near future. A committee headed by Romesh de Silva PC has been appointed to draft a new Constitution. Any issues in the 20th Amendment will be addressed in the new Constitution. Politics is about compromise and all proposals put forward by everybody cannot be accommodated. Whatever the deficiencies in the 20th Amendment will be addressed when a new Constitution is introduced.
Q: Some constituent parties of the Government requested to change the clause on dual citizenship in the 20th Amendment but it remained unchanged. Could you explain?
A: To implement the 20th Amendment was a collective responsibility of the Government. Several concerns and opinions were expressed that dual citizenship should be lifted. I too feel the same.
Even the Minister of Justice has said that dual citizenship is to be removed when introducing a new Constitution. The main purpose of the 20th Amendment was to discard the 19th Amendment.
Q: Are you confident that the Government would be able to bring in a new Constitution within a year?
A: I don’t know whether we would be able to bring in a new Constitution within a year or not. A lot of deliberations have to be made when drafting a new Constitution. What we are planning is to come out with a draft of a new Constitutional within six months. All stakeholders can then make their deliberations about the new Constitution.
Sufficient time has to be given for deliberations when drafting a new Constitution. Although the former Yahapalana Government talked about constitutional reforms, during their four-and-a-half rule, they failed to introduce a draft of constitutional reforms. Even the proposals of the majority party at that time, the UNP was not ommodated. I don’t think they had a true intention to bring in a new Constitution. However, our genuine desire is to introduce a new constitutional draft within six months.
Q: How would you respond to the claim by the main Opposition SJB that except one MP, all others voted in favour of the 19th Amendment in Parliament so that it was not an amendment introduced by a single party?
A: Considering the political reality at that time, most of the MPs voted for the 19th Amendment on the assurance that the 20th Amendment will be brought forward. But it never materialized. At that time, there wasn’t much clarity about it in the political battleground. Only one MP voted against the 19th Amendment and three others abstained from voting including my father.
At that time, the SLFP leadership had been taken over by then President Maithripala Sirisena. A few months earlier, SLFP supporters worked to defeat Maithripala Sirisena. However, after he was elected to the presidency, the party was taken over by him and that was a very unusual situation. After the 19th Amendment was presented, there was a promise by the President that the 20th Amendment will be introduced. That was the reason the majority of the MPs voted for the 19th Amendment at that time.
Q: The Opposition said that the Government has failed to properly address the Covid-19 situation in the country. Your comments?
A: The Covid-19 situation was always a serious issue. We never underestimated the Covid-19 situation in the country. That is why we were able to ensure that there were no reported cases within the society.
Now it seems to have spread among the community to some extent. It is important that everybody should be held responsible and play their role to combat this disease. This is not something which the Government, the Health Ministry, the Security Forces or the Opposition can address alone.
Everybody has to understand that as a society we have a duty to prevent the spread of the virus. We are hopeful that some sort of vaccine would be introduced in the near future so that we would be able to manage the situation within a short period of time.