Comments on: Mistakenly Understanding The Meaning And Significance Of Unitary State

By: Vinasithamby

Vinasithamby — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:51:04 +0000

Mr.Rajasingam had comented correctly to Silva.
Silva is basically a communalist,so he is trying interpret law to favour his ideas and convictions.He himself admit that sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable.This is
what LTTE is telling that sovereignty opf Tamil people is
in the hands of the Tamil people and it is inalienable.Tamil people from 1948 voted for seperation or Federalism.If you act against the wish of Tamil people
you are alienating the sovereignty of the Tamil speaking peolpe.Soveriegnty is not only in the hands of the Sihalese
people but also in the hands of the Tamil people.This isa
basic mathematics and basic law in constitutions.Tamil people have the basic right of self determination,then why you are presenting all these arguments.As because you have framed a constituions against the will of the Tamil people,you are arguing that Tamil people should not against a constitution that work against the aspirations of the Tamil people.This constitution cannot be ammended by anyone other tha Pirabaharan.Please notethat “political
power grows out from the barrel of a gun”.Constitution of Sri Lanka can be amended by revolutins only and that is what happening in Sri Lanka to day.If you understand this
basic character of the civilizations you will keep your mouth shut and allow the poor Sinhalese people understand the basics rathe than complcating legal interpretations which are not sincere and fair to rule a country.

By: A. Theva Rajan, New Zealand

A. Theva Rajan, New Zealand — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:04:14 +0000

Mr. H.L. de Silva is a legal lumimnary. He argues human rights cases professionally for a living. But in practice, he opposes any rights to Tamils. He is one with insular outlook. I remember him telling an audience in Colombo some years back that devolution should never go beyond the powers of a Town Council. He is opposed to even Simhalese enjoying devolved powers in a democracy. He has been the team leader in almost all cases for the side that challenged the rights and / or equality of Tamils..Very recently he said Federalism is impractical in war torn Sri Lanka where Sinhalese and Tamils are mutually suspicious Very true indeed. But how can they live in peace in a Unitary State
with Sinhala hegemony? So, unconsciously he has hinted at separation as the only means for peace i Sri Lanka. His legal acumen fails to hide his inherent conviction that bares his Tamilophobia..

By: dias

dias — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:58:27 +0000

There are 2 good reasons not to use the term “unitary” to characterize any new arrangement:

1. It has become a dirty word in Sri Lanka
2. It is offensive to Tamils

There are 2 good reasons not to use the term “federal” to characterize any new arrangement:

1. It has become a dirty word in Sri Lanka
2. It is offensive to Sinhalese

Those who insist on using either of the words are simply being selfish with little consideration to the other side’s sensitivities. A person of the caliber H. L. de Silva should keep this in mind.

Our focus during these trying times should be to discover mutually congenial solutions and not ones that are one-sided. This requires us to look at issues from the other’s point of view. For way too long the Sinhalese as well as the Tamils have operated only from a self-serving place. If we are to ever have convergence, we have little choice but become flexible.

As for an alternate name, I propose that we not use any labels until time we decide what we want inside the bottle. And only upon agreeing on a solution, brand it with a term mutually acceptable.

By: Caeser

Caeser — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:47:24 +0000

Mr. Navaratnam,
So you mean to say only those who support Federalism or simply Tamil Homeland theory only are Young and others are too Old and out dated. I advise you leave this land first of all to Tamil Nadu to claim your homeland, not in SINHALE!

By: A.Rajasingam

A.Rajasingam — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:14:40 +0000

Before determining the significance of the Unitary State and in terms of reality, it is vital to compare the US constitution or the Canadian constitution. Of the latter two Canadian constitution seems to fit into our country to meet the aspirations of all communities without any discriminations whatsoever. Though Article 2 declares that: “The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State” it is reinforced by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c ) of Article 4 by stating that (1) supreme power is vested in the People of Sri Lanka (meaning all the People of Sri Lanka and not in a section thereof, however described), (2) that the sovereign power that is reposed in them is legally not subject to any external power seeking to override it which makes it independent and (3) that such sovereign power is not capable of being alienated, divested or transferred to any other body. This is the heart of the Constitution – the norm above all other norms. No one has suggested a deletion of this provision and its linkage with Article 4. What we want to know whether the supreme power is vested in all the people or in the majority Sinhala people. What happened to the supreme power of the minority Tamils. Further, the inalienable sovereignty in the people specified in Article 3 has become meaningless when a section of the people has revolted at present. Those paragraphs have become shaky when the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed though it was signed by the Heads of Two countries when, in fact, it was dictated by India at that time. Where is the element of effective control in the Vanni region to assert to assert the so-called sovereignty? Is it in the effective control of the Sri Lanka government. There is a de fact government going on whether recognized or not, and it has posed a threat to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. Had there been a federal constitution on the Canadian model there would have been an effective control over the entire Sri Lanka. Even the Tamils would oppose the division of the country had there been a federal form of government.

The failure to find a durable solution to the present problem revolving round the devolution of power in its true perspective so that the Tamils enjoy their rights with honour and dignity, led to the unwanted civil war which had cost 70,000 lives in addition to the abduction, extortion. A close examination of the Canadian constitution reveals how even the minority Quebecans are guaranteed their basic rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Canadian constitution. There is a division of heads of powers between the Federal Parliament and the Provincial Legislature and if there is any conflict the Supreme Court determines by the use of the doctrine of Paramountcy. Such a method shall be an adequate basis for the solution of the problems. In what way is Sri Lanka superior than Canada. Why can’t we follow the Canadian model and avoid shedding blood. I think those Articles 2, 3 and 4 should be replaced with one Article to the effect that “This is the constitution of United Sri Lanka” without using “Unitary” or “Federal”.

By: Navaratnam

Navaratnam — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:29:36 +0000

You are pretty old Mr. Silva, its high time you give up politics and happily live with your spouse and measure your blood pressure and transfer the country to young Sri Lankans in the age of BARACK OBAMA..

By: madurainews.com

madurainews.com — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:05:09 +0000

Sick of this Unitary Talk.

Treat Tamil as equal you are and let them live in their mother land with dignity and sovereignty.