Committee on Constitution – Dinosaurs of a bygone age!

As usual Sri Lanka is lost in translation! There is no one (with the possible exception of the PM) who really understands anything of what should be, they only know what is, and from that perspective determines what should be.

As for the PM he has a problem in clearly enunciating to the uninitiated, what he really means, so that they are able to understand. They go away misunderstanding what it is he has asked for! TOO FRIGHTENED TO SAY "SIR, I don't understand" for fear of being ridiculed by a man who does not suffer fools gladly, as his perspective is on a different plane!

That is WRONG. If we are about to introduce a new Constitution, which many in the know (citing the US Constitution with hundreds of amendments) say we only need amendments, and those who cite the UK, (where apart from the Magna-Carta, there is no WRITTEN Constitution, and only precedent in law as interpreted by the House of Lords that bind rulings in Law.) say why can’t precedent and interpretation take over instead!

For one thing our Constitution is seriously flawed. As it is NOT clear in many aspects, and further is not sufficiently Secular in form to protect all its Citizens from being subject to infringement of their rights. As for precedent, we know with the likes of Sarath de Silva what lousy judgments we have had which he himself admits later to have been wrong, with hindsight!

So to cut a long story short, the people who have been appointed are only the usual suspects, who think they are competent, but who are in fact incompetent to the core. Why is that? They have been part of an education system, that has taught respect, precedent, and by rote over creativity, relevance and need of the hour. IT is the latter that we need in a new Constitution and none of the above have what it takes to interpret by public discourse how to actually come up with a Constitution, like nothing so far even dreamed of, that will ensure Sri Lanka is the top dog in the world in 2065.

All the jokers who are in this panel (or committee) of 24 would be dead by then, and so they have NO interest in what the Country will be like then. That said, they are bound to be acting in enlightened self interest trying to get one up on their colleagues that they are more clever than the others, and therefore unable to see the wood from the trees. In short traitors to the cause.

So who do I recommend? In short I simply recommend a nationwide test of those born after January 1^st 1990, and select the best and brightest to define first what kind of country they would like to retire in 2065 (yes retirement age then will be at least 75), and hey presto we can work backwards in designing a Constitution relevant for the 50 year growth plan to achieve this objective.  In 2065 we can go for another Constitution relevant to that era.

START AFRESH PLEASE