In view of the statements made by two members of the JHU, Environment Minister, Champika Ranawaka and the JHU representative at the APRC, Mr. Udaya Gammanpila, I wish to put the record straight so that there can be no misconceptions. As one who is influenced by the Buddhas' message of compassion, I shall not waste words on replying to the personal abuse and wild charges directed at me. But I would like to emphasize that the best way to defeat the LTTE is to isolate them by winning the Tamil people to the side of the Government through the APRC proposals.
The APRC has met on 40 occasions and the ultimate objective is to come up with a set of proposals that would be the basis for settling the national question and also be a basis for a future constitution. When the representatives of the 14 political parties first met I was asked by common consent to function as its Chairman. In this capacity I have endeavoured to ensure that the APRC meets regularly and to direct the discussions so as to produce the desired set of proposals. It is on record that when I prepared and presented a set of proposals reflecting the previous discussions, and some of the ideas from the group of experts, there was agreement in the APRC that this would be the basis for our continued discussions.
After the various political parties submitted their proposals and amendments to this document the core issues that needed to be discussed and agreed upon were identified. These core issues were the basis for the second round of discussions. After extensive discussions a common position was reached on a number of these core issues. There were three core issues that could not be resolved and I wrote to the Secretaries of the SLFP, JHU and MEP, suggesting compromise solutions and requesting that I be given an opportunity to discuss these with them.
It is unfortunate that the Secretary of the JHU did not respond to my letter. In addition I must mention that the JHU representative Mr. Gammanpila kept away from the six meetings of the APRC before the last one.
The SLFP and MEP responded to my letter and the President summoned a meeting of the Peoples' Alliance leaders, which included the MEP leader Mr. Dinesh Gunawardena, together with the leaders of the SLFP to discuss the matter. Following this meeting he summoned a meeting of the leaders of the Government where a clear decision was taken to retain the "Province" as the unit of devolution, while strengthening the district as an administrative unit within it. Views were exchanged on various core issues and there was also agreement on the return to the Westminister model of executive Parliamentary Government. This was made known to the public, as well as the members of the subsequent APRC meeting who accepted these decisions. It is unfortunate that no one from the JHU was present at these meetings.
As the President was keen that we conclude our discussions early, during the following week if possible, I produced an amended version of the document, containing all the subject areas that were agreed on, and separately highlighting all those areas that required to be discussed further. This was submitted for discussion at the APRC meeting held on Monday the 13th of August, at which Mr. Gammanpila made are appearance (after not attending the previous six meetings.) He stated the JHU stand once again on various issues which we had discussed and disposed of earlier. Rather than reopening those subjects that had been discussed at length, it was agreed that where one or a few parties deferred from the position accepted by the majority, this could be indicated in the consensus document. Mr. Gammanpila appeared to be satisfied by this arrangement.
Core issues like the retaining of the word "Unitary" in defining the nature of the state are still subjects for further discussion and will be taken up at the next meeting of the APRC. On this question the views expressed by the SLFP will no doubt influence the final decision to be arrived at by the APRC.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Gammanpila, in association with Minister Champika Ranawaka, have taken the modified discussion document of proposals submitted by me as being the final APRC position and made it the subject of public criticism by them. It will be clear to everybody that the matters are still under discussion and it is only when adequate consensus has been reached on all issues that it would become the final APRC document.
I would appeal to Mr. Gammanpila to participate at the future meetings of the APRC, where he is free to express his opinions and have them recorded, without disrupting the process of maximum consensus formation.
Prof. Tissa Vitarana
Chairman of the APRC
The APRC has met on 40 occasions and the ultimate objective is to come up with a set of proposals that would be the basis for settling the national question and also be a basis for a future constitution. When the representatives of the 14 political parties first met I was asked by common consent to function as its Chairman. In this capacity I have endeavoured to ensure that the APRC meets regularly and to direct the discussions so as to produce the desired set of proposals. It is on record that when I prepared and presented a set of proposals reflecting the previous discussions, and some of the ideas from the group of experts, there was agreement in the APRC that this would be the basis for our continued discussions.
After the various political parties submitted their proposals and amendments to this document the core issues that needed to be discussed and agreed upon were identified. These core issues were the basis for the second round of discussions. After extensive discussions a common position was reached on a number of these core issues. There were three core issues that could not be resolved and I wrote to the Secretaries of the SLFP, JHU and MEP, suggesting compromise solutions and requesting that I be given an opportunity to discuss these with them.
It is unfortunate that the Secretary of the JHU did not respond to my letter. In addition I must mention that the JHU representative Mr. Gammanpila kept away from the six meetings of the APRC before the last one.
The SLFP and MEP responded to my letter and the President summoned a meeting of the Peoples' Alliance leaders, which included the MEP leader Mr. Dinesh Gunawardena, together with the leaders of the SLFP to discuss the matter. Following this meeting he summoned a meeting of the leaders of the Government where a clear decision was taken to retain the "Province" as the unit of devolution, while strengthening the district as an administrative unit within it. Views were exchanged on various core issues and there was also agreement on the return to the Westminister model of executive Parliamentary Government. This was made known to the public, as well as the members of the subsequent APRC meeting who accepted these decisions. It is unfortunate that no one from the JHU was present at these meetings.
As the President was keen that we conclude our discussions early, during the following week if possible, I produced an amended version of the document, containing all the subject areas that were agreed on, and separately highlighting all those areas that required to be discussed further. This was submitted for discussion at the APRC meeting held on Monday the 13th of August, at which Mr. Gammanpila made are appearance (after not attending the previous six meetings.) He stated the JHU stand once again on various issues which we had discussed and disposed of earlier. Rather than reopening those subjects that had been discussed at length, it was agreed that where one or a few parties deferred from the position accepted by the majority, this could be indicated in the consensus document. Mr. Gammanpila appeared to be satisfied by this arrangement.
Core issues like the retaining of the word "Unitary" in defining the nature of the state are still subjects for further discussion and will be taken up at the next meeting of the APRC. On this question the views expressed by the SLFP will no doubt influence the final decision to be arrived at by the APRC.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Gammanpila, in association with Minister Champika Ranawaka, have taken the modified discussion document of proposals submitted by me as being the final APRC position and made it the subject of public criticism by them. It will be clear to everybody that the matters are still under discussion and it is only when adequate consensus has been reached on all issues that it would become the final APRC document.
I would appeal to Mr. Gammanpila to participate at the future meetings of the APRC, where he is free to express his opinions and have them recorded, without disrupting the process of maximum consensus formation.
Prof. Tissa Vitarana
Chairman of the APRC
Nuk ka komente:
Posto një koment