I refer to the excellent article entitled ‘APRC and the Bioregional Vision’ by C Wijeyawickrema, LL.B., Ph.D. (CW), in your issue of 25th February, 2009, and also to a booklet entitled ‘The curse of party politics’ a 13 page, octavo size, publication [undated] by U B Wijekoon (UBW), a former UNP Cabinet Minister. which I received, a couple of weeks back,

Both CW and UBW, mention the merits of Grama Rajya/Gamsabha system which can be adapted to suit our political needs For CW it is the way to empower people, which is different from ‘devolution’. He has shown in a map how SL can be demarcated into seven bioregional divisions, and quotes a definition of such a division as ‘an area that shares similar topography, plant and animal life and culture’.

Excellently documented, his presentation also draws attention to a contribution on a suggested division of the country on the basis of the river system presented by Professor Madduma Bandara in 1987, and also published in The Island. I recall to memory reading that article, and it had crossed my mind many a time, why the APRC had not even referred to that type of solution to our current problems.

I also see from a quotation by CW, attributed to the Chairman of the APRC which says ‘we are trying to avoid having territories carved out on the basis of race or religion or any factors like that ..’ In that statement, ‘language’: is perhaps included in factors like that’ but is not specifically mentioned. Is that omission due to the inability of politicians to squarely face a problem with the larger interest of the country at heart, without seeking immediate and temporary political gains?

In the present context it is the segregation of communities by language, from school to administration of the country that is affecting this land. and as was seen above, it is that element ‘language’ the APRC Chairman had, apparently, so judiciously avoided to mention as one of the the criteria that would not be considered in a contemplated future settlement plan.

A new demarcation, ignoring differences in ethnicity and language would perhaps not find immediate acceptance by all the people. But over the years when its advantages are seen, people will appreciate a decision taken for the best advantage of the country, and not for the immediate benefit of this or that politician or party.

UBW has also asked didn’t Jayewardene at the Kelaniya convention or SWRD Bandaranaike in 1956 see the chaos they were creating when they advocated and then began implementing, respectively, that most unfortunate decision to segregate the people into language apartheid areas. I remember, Jennings, in his farewell address delivered at the Arts Theatre in Peradeniya saying, that University Entrance students will be answering questions, I forget the year he mentioned, on the failure of the decision to switch over to the swabashas. He was castigated by all media at that time, but now, I believe millions of rupees are spent on finding out how to teach English to our students, not to mention the staff manning our administration.

Certainly, swabasha is necessary to preserve our identity as a nation and its culture and civilization of more than 2500 years. But, now, with various communities living in this land, and the rapidly developing knowledge, especially in the sciences and technology, a knowledge of English, and good English, is a sine qua non for progress.

The Island of 15th March 2009 carried a news item to say that Educational Offices on an ethnic basis had been created in the East, which, of course, was denied by the Ministry of Education. We are not aware what the truth is.

Whatever that may be the canker of ethnic and language segregation in the machinery of administration must be stopped. Large parts of this cancerous growth had been surgically separated by the armed forces. It will be disastrous if new players, well experienced in the game of separatism, are allowed to once again spread the cancer, with or without government support. Originally too, it was the non-action of the government that led to its beginning and spread, and now after spending billions of rupees to contain it, it will be absolutely foolish and traitorous to look aside, if any such activity is taking place.

On a different aspect, UBW has also dealt with many unsavory practices of governments. For instance, he asks why the ministers have to deliver appointment letters to the appointees, when it had been so efficiently and unobtrusively done by the postal delivery peon. The answer is obvious. The bane of this country, namely, politicization of the public service begins there. What a shame.

Speaking on party politics, UBW points out, that party politics evolved in England over the centuries to suit their ways of life. It is an indigenous system to them, but to us it is totally foreign, and as he points out it has ruined every aspect of our lives from the cradle to the grave, from village to city and beyond.

In 1911 when we elected the first Educated Ceylonese to the Legislative Council, there were no party politics: the voting of course had gone mostly on a caste basis, but that is a different question. Then, up to 1931 too, there were no party candidates. From 1931 to 1947, there were candidates from the Congress, Labour and Liberal parties, and Independent candidates. The full fury of party politics came from 1947, and today it is almost disintegrating our land. The beneficiaries of such chaos are the interested parties and countries and agencies in other parts of the world.

However much the people may see the defects of the party system, and would like to empower the citizens in a meaningful manner, politicians in power or those waiting for power will hardly agree to see their power diminished. It is human nature. But in governing a country the pre-eminent consideration should be, not self, but the country. But how many will agree?

Whatever that may be it is welcome that in the recent past there have been many intelligent persons who have thrown ideas and suggestions as to ways and means of getting out of the political trap we are in. It is necessary to face problems squarely and not to hide from them. In a democratic country, whatever that term may mean, established practices cannot be cast away at will. There has to be public discussion, support and acceptance by the people, of new forms if there are any.

On the same platform, but on a slightly different subject, K Godage, Former Ambassador, in responding to a statement(s) –which I have not seen- by persons called ‘Eminent Citizens’ had said in The Island of 13th March, 2009, that we should elect people who are competent to perform legislative functions. UBW had said that we have no choice but to vote for candidates chosen by the parties,

There should be no doubt at all, that we should have competent persons in parliament. But that is not sufficient, they must also be honorable. After all they are supposed to be ‘Honorable Members’ On this point let me recall that Dr A C Visvalingam, President CIMOGG, had asked through The Island, many times, from the Speaker of the House, as to how many members in Parliament had declared their assets. That query by him had not received any reply. Going by the Speaker’s silence, if we conclude that there are Members who hadn’t complied with such requirements, should they be called ‘honorable’? Should they remain in Parliament?

As I see it, one device to have competent and honorable persons seeking elections to legislative bodies, is to make it a legal requirement that their bio-data including assets be publicly displayed at the Election Secretariat or /and in such other relevant public places for a stipulated number of days, for people to see, and if necessary, to obtain certified copies of them for future requirements.

The information given should also state whether they have had to appear in court to face civil or criminal charges against them, and if so what the judgments had been. They should also declare that if any declaration by them is found to be false at a later date, or that vital information had not been disclosed, they will stand to lose the seat, if had been elected, or even otherwise, will be subject to penalties imposed by a court of law for false declarations or suppression of information.

I suppose such a step will certainly pave the way to have competent and honorable candidates seeking elections. From an administrative point of view it will also reduce the astronomical number of candidates now seeking election, and thus reduce the work-load of the elections department. More importantly, it will facilitate the voters in making an intelligent decision as to the candidate he or she would like to vote. After all we are supposed to be having a very intelligent voting population.

If political parties are interested in clean, honorable and transparent politics, they can adopt such measures at the time of calling people to be considered for nomination as party candidates. If the conditions are honorable and stringent, the bio-data can be published to the advantage of the parties. The question is how many parties will entertain such honorable procedures?