06 July 2017
Unitary State, Buddhist Supremacy & Biased Sampling
[Constitutional amendments are hotly debated in the country and it appears to be centred on aspects which could potentially impact negatively on the unitary status of the country and the supremacy of Buddhism. The consequences of implementing the 13th Amendment are also ambiguous and questionable] - The Chief Secretary of the Asgiriya Chapter Ven. Medagama Dhammananda Thera through Ceylon Today
The way we interpret the law would vary as per our own mind structure. This mind structure is strong when based on our Truth. When based on knowledge from external sources, we need to consciously develop this mind structure – and hence the system of education.
This mind structure when developed on the basis of Experience would lead to harmony with our Natural environment. Where this mind structure is as per External knowledge – interpretation would vary as per external influence and our reception of such external influence. Hence Separation is needed so we do not misjudge. The inner structure regulates the ‘Causal Forces’ from within. External Knowledge based structures are ‘Effects Based’ with a big component of unknown causes.
As per the above confession, Buddhist Leaders consider Sri Lanka to be a Buddhist State which is strongly threatened by Provincial Councils under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Given that the Buddhist clergy are not experts in Secular laws, it is highly likely that they would fear the parallel of Buddhism foremost being made part of Provincial government – i.e. Hinduism, Christianity or Islam foremost at that provincial level. We fear our own weaknesses manifesting through others.
The above confession confirms ‘attachment’ to high status through Buddhism and needs to be addressed by the Government through Article 9 of the Constitution. At National level, it is ‘effects’ based and within the Buddhist community it is ‘cause’ based, in the knowledge that majority Buddhists do not consciously practice the secular law.
Chettiar v Chettiar , a case law often used in Leave to Appeal decisions in Sri Lanka’s civil proceedings, highlights the complexity of this problem. Two approaches are taken in constructing the problem and both are considered to be equally valid:
“The question must depend on what would be the result of the decision of the Divisional Court, assuming it to be given in favour of either of the parties. If their decision, whichever way it is given, will, if it stands, finally dispose of the matter in dispute, I think that for the purposes of these rules it is final. On the other hand, if their decision, if given in one way, will finally dispose of the matter in dispute, but, if given in the other, will allow the action to go on, then I think it is not final, but interlocutory. ” Lord Esher, M.R.cited by Hon Justice SaleemMarsoof, P.C., J. In
StorerDuraisamy Yogendra &BalasubramaniamThavabalan Vs. VelupillaiTharmaratnam’
(b) In S. RajendranChettiar& Others Vs S. Narayanan ChettiarS.C.Appeal No. 101A / 2009, escalated from the District Court case No. 428/T in the District Court of Colombo in relation to the Trustees of the Hindu Temple known as “Sri Kathirvelayuthan Swami Kovil”, Dr.Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J includes in her Honor’s reasoning the following:
[After an examination of the aforementioned decisions, Sharvananda, J., (as he then was) had held that for an ‘order’ to have the effect of a final judgment and to qualify to be a ‘judgment’ under section 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code,
“1. it must be an order finally disposing of the rights of the parties;
2. the order cannot be treated to be a final order if the suit or action is still left a live suit or action for the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties in the ordinary way;
3. the finality of the order must be determined in relation to the suit;
4. the mere fact that a cardinal point in the suit has been decided or even a vital and important issue determined in the case, is not enough to make an order, a final one.”]
On that basis – the question that needs to be asked is:
Is the 13th Amendment a final Order to the Ethnic problem or is it interlocutory ?
The cardinal point in the suit/problem that was decided was Devolution of Power to Provincial Councils through which the Common Problems caused due to Excessive Power at the Central level were addressed. That shows the way forward for Common Militancy to be addressed at the local level. But the basic issue of Ethnic Equality remains only partially addressed. The language inequality has been addressed through the 13th Amendment but not so the religious inequality.
At National level, Buddhism foremost law may help maintain greater harmony within majority race, than would Secular laws. In other words ‘. the order(13th Amendment) cannot be treated to be a final order if the suit or action is still left a live suit or action for the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties in the ordinary way
The problem needs to be constructed on the basis of effects – due to lack of facility to Equal participation at Causal level - by various groups that have their own internal laws through religion. Inclusion of Buddhism foremost in the Constitution is one such Effect.
A Constitution that includes Buddhism foremost does not represent the whole population as if it is applicable to each citizen of Sri Lanka. In the language of statistics – this process is known as ‘biased sampling’:
[In statistics, sampling bias is a bias in which a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others. It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected. ] Wikipedia
A Democratic Elected Member of Parliament does not have the mandate to make laws that advantage a particular group. Article 9 cannot apply Equally to every citizen of Sri Lanka and hence is unlawful in its constitution. It has no place in a Unitary Constitution. Any Constitution that includes ‘foremost’ status to a particular aspect – is particular to that group only. Within that Natural Forces are facilitated through Random sampling. Hence scientifically speaking, a logical mind would conclude that the Constitution of Sri Lanka is not binding on Non-Buddhists.
The wonder of it is that the effects confirmed the core Energy to be enforcement which blocks the path of democracy and self-governance – except for Buddhists.