federalidea.com

Science and Technology Minister and All Party Representative Committee (APRC) Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana is at the center of controversy. The controversy is over the outcome of the APRC discussions. Having deliberated for nearly one and half years, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has compelled the APRC to discuss the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, introduced some 20 years ago and which he (the President) himself, had vehemently rejected. The APRC Chairman whose credibility is at stake over this issue, claims if not for the question regarding the 13th Amendment, the outcome of the APRC would have been much more acceptable and attractive. He hinted that the question of 13th Amendment was thrust upon the APRC. He says he would have preferred if this question of the 13th Amendment implementation had not come up till a final decision was taken by the APRC.

[Prof. Tissa Vitharana]

In an attempt to absolve himself of criticism from his rivals, he says he was forced to follow the directions of President Rajapaksa. “If the whole exercise was something which I was doing as a member of my party the LSSP, or together with a few other like minded political parties, then I could have acted differently. Under the circumstances I hope the people of Sri Lanka as well as those abroad who are interested in the future of our country, will understand the circumstances which have led me to follow the course that the APRC has now taken,” he told The Nation in an interview.

By Wilson Gnanadass

Following are excerpts:

Q: The APRC has become yet another controversial issue in the country. Last week you handed over a set of proposals to the President, and yet said it was not the final document. Where is the final document and when will that be handed over to the President to act upon?

A: Yes, the final report of the APRC has not yet been concluded. And last Monday (28) we resumed our discussion as scheduled and called for an agenda for future meetings, in the course of which we hope to finalise our final document. What was submitted to the President was a set of proposals that could be implemented in the short term, through the existing Constitution, without any need for amending it. It is our hope that the President and the government will take speedy action to implement the 13th Amendment.

Q: Have all the sessions in your view been conducted democratically?

A: Yes. The APRC has been meeting on 64 occasions. Sometimes we had gone on for more than six to seven hours, in a generally friendly atmosphere with complete freedom for all the representatives of political parties to frankly express their views, and when necessary to consult their leadership before agreeing on a final position. I cannot think of a more democratic process than this.

Q: Are you satisfied with the contribution by all the parties, or do you still think some parties have not made a positive contribution? If so who are they?

A: To a great extent all the parties involved have made a positive contribution. The UNP and the JVP also expressed their opinions freely in the same way the other 14 parties expressed their views. However, I regret very much that the UNP and the JVP withdrew from the APRC discussion. But it is my hope that once consensus is reached among the parties presently in the APRC, these two parties, the UNP and JVP will agree to rejoin the process.

Q: The JVP has described the APRC as ‘illegal’ and that it lacked representation from all the political parties, and has further called for the abrogation of the APRC. What is your view on this?

A: I completely disagree with the JVP view point that the APRC is illegal. It was the President who invited all the parties that are represented in Parliament and who came to the All Party Conference (which include the party leaders), to send their representatives to the APRC, and participate in formulating a set of proposals as a solution to the ethnic question that is entirely ‘homegrown’, to quote the President. I consider it not only desirable but the duty of every serious political party that is interested in the future of our country, to actively and willingly participate in this democratic and indigenous exercise. The JVP decision to withdraw from this national effort is unfortunate. In no way were they forced out of the process. It was their own decision. Their attempt now, to try to put a stop to a genuine effort to work out a solution to the national question that is acceptable to all the political parties that are in the process, is akin to being traitors to the Sri Lankan nation. It is no coincidence that they are joining the LTTE in desiring an end to the APRC process. They have no moral or legal right to call for an abrogation of the APRC.

Q: We find that finally there were two sets of documents put forward to the President. One prepared by the APRC, and the other a document also prepared by the APRC, but on the insistence of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Why did this happen?

A: All I can say is that the process of working out what should be a basis for a new Constitution that would provide a lasting solution to the national question has been, and continues to be, the objective of the APRC. During our discussions, Mr. Douglas Devananda as the leader of the EPDP, submitted a document which called for the immediate full implementation of the 13th Amendment, and the establishment of interim councils in the north and the east pending the holding of elections there. The APRC while expressing the desirability of what was proposed, however declined to raise this matter as a proposal from the APRC. Thereafter at a meeting at which APRC members together with party leaders were present, a document on similar lines was presented at a meeting chaired by the President for discussion by the APRC.

The President indicated that in view of the fact that further time is required for the APRC to finalise its main document, there should be a set of proposals for immediate implementation. He indicated that without the support of the UNP it would not be possible to get the required two thirds support in Parliament to amend the present Constitution and that the course of action that the APRC is engaged in would take a long time to be implemented, and that too only on the, ‘unlikely event of receiving support from the UNP’. Therefore the President urged the APRC to come out with a set of proposals which would take into consideration the substance of the document that was emerging from within the APRC and identify those areas that could be implemented through the 13th Amendment to the existing Constitution.

It was this document that was handed over to the President on the 23rd of January this year.

Q: It is also widely believed that you have been forced to include the President’s last minute proposal to implement the 13th Amendment fully. Is it correct?

A: I think the country should appreciate what I have said about in regard to the recent development with regard to the APRC proposals. The fact that 13 out of the 14 parties that are in the APRC process (other than the Western People’s Front) signed the document would indicate that this was a considered voluntary decision of the representatives of these political parties. The fact that the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress which is in the opposition and not a member of the government would also indicate that this is the correct position.

Q: Is it correct that your report of some 13 pages was finally reduced to just two pages by the President after the report was submitted to him?

A: This is also not correct. Certainly in the course of the discussion that took place among the members of the APRC there was strong opposition by certain parties represented there, to large sections of the 13 page document I had submitted to the APRC for discussion. If there had been no opposition to what I had submitted, then it would have been possible for the members of the APRC to have accepted my original document fully and signed it, and thereafter submitted it to the President. It was because of the opposition by certain parties from within the APRC, that it became necessary, in the hope of resolving this impasse, for the President himself to summon a meeting at which not only the APRC members, but also their party leaders were present to forge a final consensus on this matter. When it became obvious that agreement could not be reached on what I considered to be the most important area, that is the identification of the reasons for the failure to implement the 13th Amendment as it should have been, the listing of suitable action that needed to be taken to overcome this situation, had to be dropped almost in its entirety to achieve a final consensus. Therefore it will be evident to all, that the President intervened mainly to overcome an impasse within the APRC and in the interest of achieving a consensus.

Q: Your credibility is at stake after the President forced you to implement something that was never discussed at the APRC under your chairmanship. What is your comment?

A: I would have preferred very much if this question of the 13th Amendment implementation had not come up till we finalised our main report. But considering the fact that this was an unforeseen development, and the fact that the Executive President of the country, the person who set up both the APC and the APRC, requested that the APRC immediately addressed what he felt was a pressing need, I as the chairman, together with the rest of the APRC, had little option but to accede to his request. If the whole exercise was something which I was doing as a member of my party the LSSP, or together with a few other like minded political parties, then I could have acted differently. But under the circumstances I hope the people of Sri Lanka as well as those abroad who are interested in the future of our country will understand the circumstances which have led me to follow the course that the APRC has now taken.

Q: After sitting 63 times the APRC has produced before the country only a two page document and also with suggestions to implement the 13th Amendment that was introduced about 20 years ago. Don’t you think that this whole exercise has been a wasteful one?

A: It was not a two page document but went into eight pages. But was certainly very much shorter than what I hoped to be accepted by the APRC. I must emphasise here that what was presented to the President was something as a short term response to his request and was not and is not by any means our final document. The document that would be the basis for a new constitution, and which would also provide the basis for a lasting solution to the national question, is at the final stages of discussion within the APRC.

The APRC met as scheduled on the 28th of January and I have given a brief report of that meeting to all, even to the media, which will make clear that we have not given up our endeavour and we shall try to conclude to the best of our ability, the deliberations that have been going on for the last one and half years, and present to the country and the people, a consensus document that would in our expectation be the basis for a solution to the national question. Once our consensus document is ready, it is my intention to officially invite the UNP to return to the APRC process, give their own inputs, and help to broaden the consensus, so that two main political parties, the SLFP and UNP, that have formed governments in our country, will be a party to that consensus.

Q: Were you at any time forced by the President to insert the 13th Amendment into the APRC report and then to call it the APRC recommendation?

A: No. The request by the President was to come out with some short term solution which would be implemented immediately by the government, which would address some of the grievances of the Tamil people. And the fact that this has now been handed over to the President for necessary action by the government, does not in any way prevent us from going ahead and completing our main set of proposals for a new Constitution.

Q: How do you interpret President Rajapaksa’s suggestion to delay the whole process?

A: The President had laid certain dead line in January for handing over to him the final set of proposals that the APRC had been developing over the last one and half hears. But later he indicated to us that the 13th Amendment was sufficient for him to act in the interest of winning over the Tamil speaking people, and also to convince the international community of his commitment to a political solution to the people, and therefore we could take our time over the main set of proposals which he would be ready to receive.

Q: It is also learnt that the President had requested you to keep out land and police powers (to the provinces) out of the APRC recommendations, much to your astonishment. It this true?

A: As I mentioned earlier, the question of leaving out sections of my set of proposals regarding the 13th Amendment to the Constitution arose from within the APRC, and what was left out was left out in the interest of retaining the consensus which I feel is the key to the whole APRC process. If what I had originally put in there, had been retained without objection by APRC members, the document would have been much more complete and effective. But it is not I or the members of the APRC who have the ability to implement those proposals. It is the President and the government. So that even if we had come out with the original document as I have envisaged, the President and the government could have either implemented it completely or partially, or not at all. I don’t think it is fair to blame me for a situation which is beyond my control. [courtesy:nation.lk]