18 th Amendment will create stability, uphold democracy - Minister Wimal Weerawansa

By Uditha KUMARASINGHE

Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities Minister Wimal Weerawansa says the introduction of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution has paved the way to create stability and uphold democracy in the country. The Minister in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Observer said if this Amendment leads to even dictatorship, a single Opposition MP would not have crossed over to the Government or voted in favour of this Amendment. It is only those who want to turn this country to chaos who oppose this Amendment.

Q: Do you see the introduction of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution as a timely requirement?

A: The country which has seen peace now needs long-term stability. This is a timely need. If long-term stability is restored within the country, we can take the country to strong economic development. During the last two elections, the people gave an unprecedented mandate to create stability in the country. The people re-elected President Mahinda Rajapaksa with an overwhelming majority of over 1.8 million votes which was very close to the two thirds in Parliament at the last General Election. What did the people request giving this unprecedented mandate to the President and the Government? They said they have given the necessary mandate to the Government and it is up to the Government to create stability in the country.

The Government through the introduction of the 18th Amendment has created stability within the country. The clause in the Constitution which determines the incumbent President cannot re-contest more than two terms has been removed. This Amendment has also changed the distorted structure of some independent commissions. In order to involve the President in Parliamentary democracy, the Amendment has also made it compulsory for him to attend Parliament sessions every three months. These moves were taken to restore stability and uphold democracy in the country.

Q: The Opposition made a strong protest against the 18th Amendment in and outside Parliament. How do you view this?

A: Only those who want to make the country unstable are opposed to the Amendment. They are the local and foreign forces who are completely opposed to creating stability and restoring peace in this country.

They believe if the LTTE existed, it would have been good and they want to have more conflicts and crisis situations within the country. But the people who genuinely want to see stability and make our country a key country in the South Asian region extend their fullest support to this Amendment.

Q: The Opposition in Parliament attempted to point out that there is no legal validity on this draft Bill on the 18th Amendment to the Constitution as it had not been submitted to the Provincial Councils for approval. Is there validity in this point?

A: This same argument had been raised in the Supreme Court as well. One of the judges had also asked this question from the Attorney General. The AG had responded. But the Supreme Court determination has said that the arguments put forward by the AG was correct and there is no necessity to submit the Bill to the PCs.

Q: The Opposition alleges this Amendment is only an attempt made to extend the term limits of the President. Your comments?

A: A JVP MP who spoke in Parliament also asked why this Amendment was brought in haste. It was not brought to extend the term limit of the President. It has only removed the two term restriction imposed by the Constitution for the incumbent President to contest a Presidential Election. It is entirely up to the people to decide whether they should elect the incumbent President or not.

How can one say this is a bad move. If we also attempted to extend the tenure of Parliament with two thirds majority without conducting an election, it would have been an undemocratic move.

This Amendment is not such a move. It has removed the clause on the two term limit and lets the incumbent President go back to the people for re-election. If the incumbent President is not suitable, the people can defeat him at the election. Therefore this would not be a threat to democracy.

It has safeguarded the right of an incumbent President to be re-elected a third time according to the will of the people. The UNP is aware that when President Rajapaksa recontests the third time, if Ranil Wickremesinghe or another candidate is put forward, he would be defeated.

The UNP thinks, if President Rajapaksa does not contest a third time, a crisis will be created within the SLFP to elect the next Leader and they can win owing to this leadership crisis created within the SLFP. The foreign forces who oppose our forward march also maintain this same view. Nobody in the Government can demand that he should be the next Presidential candidate. The instability created in the middle of the second term of a President has been removed by this Amendment.

Q: What do you think of the decision taken by Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP to boycott the debate on the 18th Amendment?

A: This looks like an indirect support extended by Ranil Wickremesinghe to this Amendment. He can’t oppose this Amendment according to his conscience. But as the Opposition Leader, he must oppose it. He decided it was difficult to oppose it in Parliament. He decided to go on the streets with some of his supporters and to express opposition.

Q: The JVP says this Amendment would lead the country towards a dictatorship and this is the death of democracy. How do you view this claim?

A: If a President wants to take the country towards a dictatorship, the 18th Amendment is not needed. During the period of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1971, she took decisions to curb the JVP. The Executive Presidency was not in existence then and the powers had been vested to the Prime Minister. Those days, these same people described the Prime Minister as a dictator.

How did President J.R. Jayewardene go for a dictatorship with two thirds? Did he introduce an 18th Amendment to do so? The Executive Presidency does not need an 18th Amendment to go for a dictatorship. If the President wants to go for a dictatorship, why did he agree to come to Parliament every three months and respond to questions raised by Parliamentarians.

This is a most welcome move taken to democratise the dictatorial structure of the 1978 Constitution. Those who can’t understand this make such statements. The JVP can’t say this is a Constitution which has led to divide the country or encouraged separatism. But they can’t be silent.

Q: Why did the National Freedom Front (NFF) decide to extend support to this Amendment?

A: There are several reasons. It was a proposal made by the NFF that the President should attend parliament sessions once in every three months. This Amendment has also taken measures to overcome the distorted structure created in some commissions. Some of these independent commissions have hampered the country’s administrative process. They took years to take even some minor decisions. At present the State sector has been expanded with 1.2 million employees.

These commissions are not in a position to properly manage all the areas in the State sector. Even though the Elections Commission was in the Constitution, it has not been implemented. But the 18th Amendment has opened avenues to implement it.

The Amendment has removed all non-practical features of the 17th Amendment and made it practical. So we extended our support to it. We would also extend our support to any Constitutional Amendment introduced in the future to strengthen the democratic process.

Q: How do you view the passing of the 18th Amendment in Parliament by a majority of 143 votes?

A: Even some UNP MPs and a TNA MP also voted in favour of this Amendment. If this Amendment leads to a dictatorship or is against the will of the masses, not a single Opposition MP would have voted in favour of it. They see this Amendment as a correct and timely move. There are more UNP MPs in the Opposition who maintain similar view.

But they have not been able to take decisions they should be courage to make a decision. Those who had courage in the UNP and the TNA took that decision by extending their support to the Amendment.

Q: What led the Opposition MPs to extend their support to the 18th Amendment.

A: They can see that this country would be stabilised further due to this Constitutional Amendment. If somebody expected a crisis in the government within the next three or four years, that hope has also been completely shattered owing to this Amendment. That is why DNA MP Sarath Fonseka in his speech in Parliament stressed the importance of hatching a conspiracy or revolution to topple this Government.

I think this statement is enough to re-arrest him. Even after making such a statement. Fonseka has been able to survive without any problem as democracy has been restored in this country.

Persons like Fonseka make such statements because they know very well no instability will be created within the next five or six years. They know whoever contests President Rajapaksa would win.

A group of Opposition MPs who have realised this situation are joining the Government. Another group of Opposition MPs like Sarath Fonseka who can’t join the Government are in the Opposition with hatred towards the Government and the President.

Q: The Government has been able to achieve the highest majority obtained by a Government under the 1978 Constitution. What enabled the Government to achieve this unprecedented majority?

A: As the President pledged in his first term, he could successfully defeat terrorism and bring lasting peace to the country. Terrorism was the biggest challenge faced by the nation. This move was highly endorsed by the country’s people who elected nearly 150 Government MPs to Parliament. This mandate given by the people have been further strengthened. The result is given by the people when a leader does the right things for the country by taking bold decisions.

Q: The UNP and the JVP have said that they would enlist mass support against this Constitutional Amendment. Will this move have an impact.

A: This is an absurd comment made by them. How can they do that? Sometimes they can’t bring even 2,000 or 3,000 people to Colombo. Today the UNP or the JVP don’t have people.

Q: The Opposition claims the 18th Amendment was brought by the Government in haste without seeking views from the Opposition parties or the public. Is there any truth in these allegation?

A: Then what did the Opposition Leader discuss with the President? He discussed this Constitutional Amendment. How many times did the UNP discuss this matter with the Government? If there was no public dialogue on this Amendment, why did the JVP conduct countrywide seminars? There was a big dialogue on this Amendment. It was not submitted to the Cabinet without discussing. There was an extensive dialogue in the Government and also with the Opposition Leader. The JVP was also invited for these discussions. But they did not come. In addition, discussions were also held with the leftist parties in the Government as well. That dialogue also went to the country through the media. After that extensive dialogue, the Government introduced this 18th Amendment.

We would like to ask from those who make such claims, were the Ceasefire Agreement, 1987 Indo-Lanka Agreement and the Post Tsunami Operational Management Structure (PTOMS) signed after conducting such public debate? But the Government had an extensive dialogue on this issue.

Q: How do you view the support extended by the people to the 18th Amendment by coming to the streets?

A: The Government is moving forward by strengthening the people’s power. The Government is going on a journey with the joint participation of the people. The people are fully committed to extend their support to this Government.