Executive presidency needed to deal with terrorism? Balderdash says Eran

SJB MP Eran Wickremaratne told parliament lon Thursday that the argument that the executive presidency was needed to face any terrorist threats was untenable.Speaking in the debate on 22nd Constitutional amendment, Wickremaratne said: “Certain people argue that terrorism cannot be combated without an executive presidency. I do not know who put forward such a weak argument for the executive presidency. During the 1971 insurgency, there was no executive president and Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike crushed it using her prime misterial powers.

“The president has the powers as determined by the judiciary. He holds the ministry of defence. But we say that we don’t want to specifically mention that the president is not precluded from assigning any subject he wishes. The 22nd amendment clarifies what the presidential powers are. The deletion of this provision in no way alters the powers of the president.”

The MP urged that this argument should be viewed in the context of law and political theory. Under the Westminster system the prime minister can hold any office but a British PM holding defence, finance or some other ministry was unheard of. The head of the cabinet of ministers is a chief executive officer who has the right to appoint ministers, to change ministers to change subjects and assign subjects. But in Sri Lanka the CEO of the cabinet is the president of the country. Therefore the president of the country doesn’t have to assign to himself any subject but should assign them to others. It is like being the monitor in the class. The monitor makes sure the responsibilities tasked to different people are carried out and evaluate their performances.


, Local, ,

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post