Hajara50,
I am very sorry that I could not respond to this any earlier, my internet connection was lost, and could not regain it at all.
Coming back to what I asked you, though you say a country is run by its consitution, can we believe that?
A resounding YES for a country like Sri Lanka, the bug stops with its constitution. Even the parliamentary statutes would be confirmed to the constitution, and no provisions can exceed the boundaries of it. I am not a Lawyer, and will stand corrected.
For instance even GB does not have a consitution but goes by precedents. Constitutions are only good to enact law and we know law is an a**.
Though I am not in the UK at this very moment, but am UK based, and privy to how the system works. Yes, there is no written constitution in the UK, but governed by Case Law, Common Law, Statute Law, Cannon Law, and Directives from the European Parliament. For instance, one, as a citizen of GB, having exhausted all legal avenues, can take one s case to the Law Lords, and then to the European Courts. This opportunity is also extended to those who took up residents legally in the UK, and not necessarily need to citizens of the land. So, there are more than adequate safeguards for all: privileged, under-privileged and poor and the rest. On top of this, legal aid to support the have-nots. Please do not compare chalk with cheese!
I know every consitution anywhere in the world would always say they treat people equally whatever their caste, creed, religion etc. But does this happen anywhere?
Yes, a country s constitution should say that, but the one in Sri Lanka has elevated the language Sinhala and the religion Buddhism at a supreme position thus projecting the Sinhala Buddhists as superior to the rest. This is the charge.
I for one who belongs to a minority community can only seek redress through the constitutional safeguards, and this is why it is paramount to have the right balance. This was why, many constitutional experts headed by the Late Salisbury in agreements with the stakeholders at that time came up with the 1948 constitution.
If as you say that a constitution is immaterial, why then the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists orchestrated the changes?
Why was the section 29 that purported to safeguard the minorities removed despite vehement protests from the minorities?
Going by what you say, the Sinhalese are the majority anyway, and why was the need to manifestly demonstrate that they are so?
In India the muslims are a minority, In Malaysia the tamils & the chinese are a minority, even in Australia the aborigines are a minority. But are they treated as equals to the majority?
You have raised some interesting comparisons! India is successful as a nation despite a constant battle with Pakistan because constitutionally all are equal. It also has a good structure of governance with adequate autonomy to its states. It also has provisions to include minorities by ways of positive discriminations. India is a poignant reminder to Sri Lanka that it has failed in the quest of nation building miserably.
In the case of Malaysia, if they do not change quickly, there will be troubles ahead. Moreover, Malaysia is not a direct comparison to the Sri Lankan issue, as the Sri Lankan Tamils has a historical claims to Sri Lanka and we share its heritage with the Sinhalese, whether the Sinhalese like it or not!
I do not want to comment about Australia and its Aborigines, as the current regime is trying to make mends to the past, but they have a long way to go.
Are the undergoing the persecutions as did the tamil people in SL? Bit of a conundram, isn't it?
It is not a conundrum in Sri Lanka, the fact is that, the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists along with some politicians both Sinhala and Tamil recklessly destroyed the nation, and the destruction is still in motion with no end in sight.
|
Search All News and Discussions
21 Jul 2008 02:53:03 GMT 
22 Jul 2008 14:52:25 GMT 