The President and his political coalition are requesting that we give them a two third majority but we have yet to be informed as to the specifics of what they intend to do. In any case there is no need to give any single party or group a two third majority if what is intended to be done is such that most political parties represented in the House cannot avoid supporting the issue.

We recall the Common Agenda which that gentleman politician Mr. Karu Jayasuriya, a man of integrity who is not only respected but liked by the people of this country, championed along with Ministers Moragoda and Prof. GL Peiris some years ago, when they were in the UNP; Mr. Jayasuriya could be depended upon to muster support for any legislation which is in the national interest. We only know that there has been a demand from certain circles that we do away with the presidential form of government and get back to the Westminster model which we had from 1948 to 1978.

To my mind the Executive Presidential form lends stability to the country; our only problem with it was the lack of accountability and the immunity clauses that had been built into the 1978 Constitution so I do hope that our next Parliament will not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The general instability that was evident during the period that we had cabinet government with coalitions was not evident after 1978.

Our constitutional experts could, in the light of over 30 year experience, refine the presidential system and introduce the necessary checks and balances; we most definitely need to retain the quazi presidential form we presently have, where power is shared with the Legislature. The Tissa Vitarana report should also be considered. We should also demand that there should be legislation which introduces intra-party democracy so that no political leader of any political party could cling to the leadership through any form of manipulation.

When amending the Constitution the Parliament should seriously consider the issue of holding both the presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day with a caretaker government in place which would ensure that no serious election malpractice would take place. In Germany the Parliament cannot be dissolved until its term is over; if the sitting government is defeated on a money bill in Parliament a new coalition would be formed. The President should not be allowed under the Constitution to cut short his term if he intends to contest again.

The government should give us the people a solemn signed undertaking that they would, even if they are unable to have a two third majority on their own, they would seek to muster such a majority to amend the Electoral Law and would implement the Dinesh Gunawardena Report, which allows for both the First Past the Post system and the Proportional Representation system with one preference vote as is the system followed in almost all of Europe.

We certainly need an absolute assurance that the electoral system would be reformed. Has not the President himself made a statement that the preference vote system would be revised? We also need to see limits imposed of election expenditure as in the past with a legal requirement to declare the source of funds. This is extremely important. We need to clean up this electoral system which today would not permit any qualified legislator to enter Parliament because of the cost involved. The existing system is tailored to suit the racketeers of all shades to enable them to enter Parliament invariably to rob this country.

We the people also need to have an assurance that the government would give us the ‘Right to Information’, as is found in almost all democracies including India. This initiative of Minister Moragoda is indeed a valuable weapon to curb corruption which is fast eating into our body politic like a cancer. It promotes accountability and instills fear in the corrupt. It can open a huge space for the people to participate in the democratic process giving them power to inspect or scrutinize government projects. Officials will also not be able to be a law unto themselves. The law should also make for the appointment of a Public Information Officer to be responsible for answering the queries of the public.

Of equal importance to us is an independent Bribery Commission quite unlike the apology for one which we have today. Any deliberate ‘indiscretion’ on the part of any official of the Bribery Commission should result in a sentence of a minimum ten years hard labour without the option of being paroled; which brings us to another power of the President which need to be curbed; the President should not have the power to pardon anyone convicted of a murder without the concurrence of a full bench of the Supreme Court.

Just as much as we need an absolutely independent Bribery Commission we need to de-politicize our national institutions. There should be no excuse accepted for not following the principle contained in the 17th Amendment. I consider it a fundamental right of the people to demand that the government concede that the people have a right to have independent public institutions; government’s authoritarian control of public institution is a violation of the spirit and letter of democracy. No President should have the power to violate this right of the people.

Article 42 of the Constitution states the President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of the powers, duties and functions under the Constitution but we have never seen this in practice. We MUST have the mode spelt out and the all important concept of accountability established. There must be limitations on the power of the Executive to make important constitutional appointments; this is why the Constitutional Council MUST be reestablished.

The manner in which it is established must most definitely be changed for the people do not have confidence in the manner in which the Constitutional Council is presently constituted; further the President should not have the power to ignore the recommendation of the CC as did happen when Justice Dheeraratne was not appointed to the Elections Commission by President Kumaratunge.

Yet another important matter which must be addressed is the re-establishment by Parliament of the Public Accounts Committee. We need in this regard to recall the name of that truly great parliamentarian of yesteryear, Bernard Soysa, who did an unparalleled public service as head of the Committee for many years in Parliament.

We need also to dump the power of the Cabinet to make appointment to the Public Service, a power which that Constitution of 1971 bestowed on the Cabinet; this one clause transformed the once independent public service into a service of menials of corrupt politicians dressed in brief authority. We MUST once again have an independent professional public service in the interest of the country.

Minister Moragoda has in recent weeks been also calling for the resurrection of Equal Opportunities Bill and the Administration of Justice Act. There is no question at all that we need to bring to a close this unfortunate chapter in our history which has spoilt the image of our country in the world, that we are a country which discriminates against minorities. This impression MUST be changed not by words but by deeds.

We need without further delay to settle the so-called ethnic problem which has been the root cause of all our problems. This is an absolute imperative. The Equal Opportunities Bill if enacted and implemented would go a long way towards solving the problem. The Preamble of the EOB read as follows: "An Act to make unlawful discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, gender, or religious or political opinion, language caste, age or disability in employment, education, access to public places, and means of transportation and in the provision of accommodation, goods and services; to provide for the formulation of equal opportunity programmes by employers; to provide for the establishment of an Equal Opportunity Commission and an Equal Opportunity Tribunal; and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

This Bill is an absolute must for there is a belief that our Tamil brethren have been discriminated against, for instance in State employment in particular. The number of Tamil citizens recruited to the Public Service in recent years is an embarrassment. The Tamils may have had disproportionate numbers in the Public Service in colonial times as a part of the British divide and rule policy, but they should not be victimized today. We need to enthrone meritocracy; surely would it not be an insult to the whole Sinhala race if it is thought that they cannot compete with any anyone in this world on equal terms. To have equal opportunity is a fundamental right of every citizen and must be statutorily granted.

It is indeed a pity that this Bill was not enacted and implemented at the time it was first introduced, for it would have helped to counter the charge of discrimination at least to an extent. I say "to an extent" because such laws must be implemented and there must be evidence on the ground of the fact that the law is being implemented in good faith. Though Tamil is an official language, recognized as such in the constitution itself, I do not see its full implementation on the ground and this is a fact.

The third initiative of Minister Moragoda is the call for the resurrection of the Administration of Justice Law, No. 44 of 1973 whose preamble reads as follows: "A Law to provide for the establishment and constitution of a new system of courts for the administration of justice within the Republic of Sri Lanka, to define the jurisdiction of the courts, to regulate the procedure in and before such courts, including special procedure in respect of testamentary matters, to repeal certain written laws and to make provision for all other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto."

This piece of legislation was enacted when the late Felix Dias Bandaranaike was Minister of Justice. He firmly believed in the words of that legal cliché that "Justice delayed is justice denied", meaning that if redress is not available within a reasonable period of time for the injured party then it is the same as not receiving redress at all. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal process because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope of justice.

It is no secret that our courts take years to resolve issues that come before them. Quite often litigants die before a case is finalized. The courts today are said to be over-burdened with cases but another important factor is that the process or procedures are out-dated. That law sought to expedite the process in the interest of justice and equally importantly was in the interest of the litigants, but it was said that some influential lawyers were against the law as it affected their earning capacities and these leading members of the Bar at the time with close connections to power had the Act repealed.

Today there is a discernible lack of confidence in our entire legal system; it is absolutely vital that a sense of confidence in our courts be restored, that due process prevails and above all that we have the rule of law because the destruction of confidence is doing incalculable harm to our country. The saddest part of it all is that people have come to believe that corruption in various forms has taken over our legal system. They are beginning to believe that the law cannot protect them. The rule of law is intended to protect individuals, to guarantee their fundamental rights. Yet, if the rule of law is to be respected it must be enforced as it should be, without fear or favour. Justice delayed is justice denied.

All victims have a legitimate right to an effective judicial remedy, and the equal protection of the law. These rights are universal - they are not subject to political considerations. The belief that accountability and the rule of law can be brushed aside with impunity in the name of politics is really the cause of our problem. History has taught us time and time again, that sustainable peace can only be built on human rights, on justice, and the rule of law.