Letters to the Editor
View(s):Remember the Constitution should be for the people, not for any political party
I would like to share some random thoughts on the 20th Amendment which is now being hotly debated.
Dual citizenship: Why should dual citizens be allowed to enter Parliament? If their primary motive is to serve the country, they must be able to make the sacrifice of giving up their dual citizenship to prove their sincerity. We always admire the good work done by dual citizens. However there is no guarantee that all who enter Parliament with dual citizenship will have the same dedication and commitment. Therefore, those wanting to enter Parliament should also make the same sacrifice like the present President.
Qualifying age to contest presidency: It is ridiculous to reduce the age to contest the presidency to 30. What is the life experience one has at that age? It is only then that people mature to think and act as adults. I feel scared to think what might be with a 30-year-old as the President with all the powers, perks and privileges. The age should be increased at least to 45 or 50 when a few gray hairs are to be seen – “thalasthani vayasa” as it is said in Sinhala. Before contesting the post of Presidency, ideally one should have at least 25 years of experience in his/her chosen field of career. Even though the incumbent President did not have any political experience, people elected him and he has already proved his sincerity of purpose.
Term of presidency: It is very unreasonable to limit the terms for presidency to two. Anyone should have the right to contest and get elected or defeated any number of times. If there is any restriction imposed then it should be for all and then the wording should be one has the right to contest the presidency only twice.
The right to dissolve Parliament after one year: We did not elect our representatives to Parliament to be under the thumb of the President and have to bend backwards to please him for fear of having to go home after one year. Why should the taxpayer spend a colossal sum of money to elect them if people have to run the risk of being back to square one after one year. There should be strict conditions under which the President will have the power to dissolve Parliament. If the President has the right to dissolve Parliament without any valid reason then why should we vote? It is better for the President to have his own council and sack them at his discretion and utilize the money saved for the development of the country .
Limit the Cabinet to 30: We should continue to follow this rule without appointing every Tom, Dick and Harry to the Cabinet just to reward them for favours done. Our country cannot afford to look after their needs and privileges. Or else have a jumbo Cabinet, provided all will have to work free of charge and not be a burden to the taxpayers.
We hope 20A will be amended and better terms and conditions will be included in the new Constitution. However until it is done safety measures should be taken to preserve democracy.
A new Constitution is welcome if some unbiased people will draft it, keeping in mind the welfare of the country and its future generations and not to suit any political party!
R. W. W. Via email
Why don’t we have District Development Councils instead of costly Provincial Councils?
The Provincial Councils that were forced upon Sri Lanka are a white elephant the country is burdened with. The citizens do not feel a need for these PCs. In some provinces their term has expired. People realise that it is a costly process to continue with them.
Newspapers report that Chief Ministers who have been allocated funds from the Treasury have returned the money, having done nothing with it. So one wonders what is the use of continuing with these PCs?
Surprisingly in the maiden speeches made by the newly elected Parliamentarians – they mentioned that their stepping stone to become an MP was to become a PC member. What an irony for MPs to say that a system that was thrust upon us by another country was what paved their path to becoming a Parliamentarian. We are still burdened with this cost that was thrust upon us in 1987.
District Development Councils would be the ideal solution.
These are confined to a smaller area, where the most immediate needs of the people could be identified and priority given to finding a solution. Also the accessibility to the person who oversees the area is greater, the member responsible for the allocated area could coordinate with the person to take the necessary action to solve any probem without delay. The District Secretaries and Secretariats could be the nucleus.
The members of these councils should be from every Grama Sevaka Division of the district, male or female. They should be hardworking, public spirited and down to earth, preferably with a good educational background. They should receive a reasonable salary and no perks. They should have an office to meet the public and a secretary to attend to their correspondence.
This will sort out a lot of problems. Even a school in these areas which lacks basic facilities like proper toilets could approach the member who represents the area without the burensome process of going through much tedious red tape that wastes considerable time.
So why don’t we have District Development Councils instead of costly Provincial Councils which our country does not need and which are a great financial burden to us.
Padma Perera Colombo 5.