Hardly used referendum comes to the fore

 

 

By Gamini Abeywardane

 

As the debate over a new constitution for the country progresses through the Constitutional Council and its Steering Committee the idea of having a referendum on a new Constitution has been much favoured by the stakeholders. At the initial stages some argued that a mere two thirds majority in the parliament was sufficient for the promulgation of a new constitution while others insisted that a referendum was a must.

Strange enough this time over it’s none other than the Leader of the Opposition and TNA leader R Samapanthan who has strongly backed the idea of an islandwide referendum. He said the sovereignty is vested with the people and hence it was essential to get the people’s support. He elaborated his position by saying “There can be a new Constitution for the country only if it is approved by the people of the country.”

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe also endorsed this saying that the leader of the TNA accepted that the support of the majority community was essential to enact a new Constitution.  Across the board there had been general agreement among parties represented in parliament that a referendum was necessary.

The provision for referenda which was introduced for the first time in our country by the 1978 Constitution is believed to be an enhancement on democracy that existed up to that time. In a representative democracy elected members legislate on behalf of the people. However when it comes to a matter of utmost national importance a referendum enables the people to get involved directly and approve or disapprove it.

However ironically this provision was used by its architect President J R Jayewardene in 1982 to extend the life of the parliament by another term without holding a general election because he wanted to preserve the two thirds majority he enjoyed at the time. An idea for a referendum never came up thereafter.

Thirty four years later it has surfaced again and the difference this time is that for the first time it is going to be used for its original intended purpose – to decide a matter of great importance to the country because there cannot be anything more important than a Constitution, more so when it is intended to resolve some vital long standing national issues.

Sampanthan is right in favouring the idea of a referendum because even if everything is agreed upon in parliament some parties are likely to challenge the constitutional bill in the Supreme Court on the basis that it is not possible to amend or replace some of the sections of the current constitution without a referendum. A court ruling in favour of such a petition would be a definite disadvantage for the proponents of such a Constitution.

The country has already tested two homemade constitutions but none of them has succeeded in resolving the vexed national issue. Both these documents were drafted to suit the needs of the governments at the time, hurriedly passed in parliament and therefore lacked adequate public discussion or general approbation of the people.

Already a committee appointed by the parliament has prepared a report based on views of the public after having a series of public representations in various parts of the country. In addition six parliamentary committees appointed to look into various aspects of a future constitution also have submitted their reports and all this have already taken a considerable length of time.

This is going to be independent Sri Lanka’s third Constitution and now it is time for the country to agree on a permanent document.  Sufficient public discussion and extensive involvement of all political parties in Parliament are a sine qua non if we are to come up with the right document. 

 A referendum will be the best way to ensure such debate and discussion while any piece of legislation directly approved by the people in that manner will have the legitimacy that is needed to solidify some sense of permanency for such a document in the minds of the people.

 

 

Read More

Stephen Hawking says we've got about 1,000 years to find a new place to live

We're all doomed. Unless we can figure out how to get the heck off this planet. Don't believe it? Then ask noted theoretical scientist and astronomer Stephen Hawking.

He says humanity won't survive another 1,000 years on Earth because of, you know, the usual suspects -- climate change, nukes, robots.
Hawking, speaking earlier this week at Oxford University Union, says our best chance for survival as a species is to leave the only home we've ever known and establish colonies on other planets.

"Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years," Hawking said in the speech, according to the Christian Science Monitor. "By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race."

And the pace of space exploration seems to be ramping up. NASA is busy searching for "goldilocks" -- exoplanets that might be able sustain human life. Meanwhile, Space X CEO Elon Musk has already laid out his plans to colonize Mars within the next century.

Despite all of his gloom and doom, Hawking did end with some positive notes, according to British newspaper The Independent.

"Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, wonder about what makes the universe exist," he said. "Be curious. However difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don't just give up."

Courtesy - CNN

 

Read More

Threat of bus strikes and monsters on road

The ultimate motive behind the threatened strike may be to get an enhancement on the current bus fares on the ground that buses are burning more fuel because of the traffic jams. But in reality it will not be the solution as it will be unfair to compel people pay more for an unsatisfactory service.

By Gamini Abeywardane 

The private bus owners had earlier warned the government that if arrangements were not made to ease traffic congest ion in Colombo and suburbs they would resort to some strike action. Now after the recent budget proposal to increase traffic fines to a minimum of Rs.2500 they have renewed their strike threat in a different way citing traffic fines as the main grouse.

They claim that owing to the traffic congestion buses move only at a speed of about four kilometers per hour causing them heavy losses. They also say that the lane rules which are currently in force have made things even more difficult for them and it is difficult to avoid breaking traffic rules because of the density of vehicles on the road.

That seems to be the bus owner’s side of the story. From the people’s point of view, especially when you look at the way buses are plying on the roads today what is apparent is, if not for the lane rule no other road user will be safe. Buses both private and public along with three wheelers and motor bike are the worst offenders on the road and removal of lane rules will be tantamount to issuing them a license to kill people on the road.

On the other hand bus drivers themselves are partly responsible for traffic congestions because of the unruly manner they drive.  All smaller vehicles are generally at their mercy because of the way they zigzag on the road. The larger issue of traffic congestion, of course has to be addressed differently and we doubt whether government has any quick fix for the problem.
The main reason for today’s traffic congestion in Colombo roads is the excessive number of vehicles entering the city. Most people prefer to use their own vehicles when coming to work because of the lack of a comfortable public transport system.  Our failure to develop such a system has encouraged everyone to use a private vehicle be it a car, van or motor cycle to come to the city.

It is a well-known fact that in countries where good public transport networks have been developed people are reluctant to use their own vehicles for daily travelling.  They prefer to use public transport without having to go through the hassle of driving. Most people even read newspapers while in transport.  As a result there are lessor vehicles on the road.

As such it is clear that the government has no magical way of reducing traffic on the roads. It has only a long term solution and a part of the solution is to upgrade the public transport system. This will need more comfortable and better quality buses on the road plying according to a time table together with better trained and disciplined personnel manning these buses.

But the question is whether all this can be achieved with the current system of individually owned buses which form the backbone of our public transport system. Thus a major part of the problem is the very people who are now threatening to strike. The ultimate motive behind the threatened strike may be to get an enhancement on the current bus fares on the ground that buses are burning more fuel because of the traffic jams. But in reality it will not be the solution as it will be unfair to compel people pay more for an unsatisfactory service.

 

Read More