[ad_1]
Parliamentary Select Committee examines Supreme Court ruling on Gender Equality Bill:
Protection of Buddhism and women’s rights must be ensured:
Bills not related to same-sex marriage:
President Ranil Wickremesinghe made a special statement to Parliament yesterday (18th) saying that the proposed tax on imputed rental income will exempt an individual’s first property. He stressed that the tax is targeted at high net earners, not ordinary earners, and assured that it will not affect those with normal incomes.
President Wickremesinghe raised a point of order under parliamentary standing orders and further called for the appointment of a parliamentary select committee to review the Supreme Court ruling on the Gender Equality Bill. He described the ruling as aberrational and noted that it challenged women’s rights and protection of Buddhism.
President Ranil Wickremesinghe further said: Honourable Speaker, you have read out the ruling on the Gender Equality Act. The Supreme Court ruling on the Gender Equality Act? That’s right.
You have finished reading. I just want to raise a point of order that this is a violation of the powers given to this House under Article 4 of the Constitution and we should appoint a special committee.
“First of all I want to say what is mentioned in the bill, what is the national policy on gender equality and women’s empowerment mentioned in the bill. It is difficult to find out at least. It is not mentioned in the bill, so it is not specific. There has been a national policy on women’s empowerment and gender equality since 2011. This is an obligation of the government under Sustainable Development Goal 5 and a series of women’s conventions and agreements that we have signed.
Not only that, in Kamalawathi and others v. Provincial Public Service Commission (SLR 1), national policy was held to be within the purview of the Cabinet and passed by the Supreme Court. This is Parliament. This is a political issue. The Supreme Court cannot make any ruling on it anyway. And then they come into our region in violation of the rules.
Secondly, on the issue of equality and equality for women, there has been a wealth of cases. There was the Ratnayaka Taranga case, the Lakmali v. Niroshan Abeykuhn case and the Inspector General of Police case. It recognised human dignity and well-being as a fundamental right. Then there was the ten-judge bench of Sarath Jayasinha and others. We believe that the mere text used in the Constitution is not enough to determine the values ​​embodied in the Constitution or its amendments.
Similarly, the Shirani Bandaranayake judgment in the case of Karunathilaka and Jayalath de Silva et al. stated that the fundamental principle of the concept of equality is the elimination of injustice and strictly prohibited the denial of equality and the discrimination resulting therefrom.
Finally, they also ignored the special decision of the Chief Justice on the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In this regard, we are talking about empowering women and ensuring equality for women. But according to SDG 5, even other minorities must have access to government services without discrimination. In any case, this is based on the equal duties given to us by fundamental rights.
“So all of these powers have been disregarded. In a sense, the court has set everything aside and said this makes room for this. So in a way, what they’ve done is made all of this disappear, as if this court has swallowed up all of these other decisions. So in a way, they’re engaging in judicial cannibalism, and then we’re asked to accept it, and the House can’t. How can you overturn the ruling of ten judges, how can you overturn the ruling of the chief justice? So this is one area. And then they say this will allow same-sex marriage and gender equality.
No, it has nothing to do with it. We cannot allow this. They are implementing the normal clauses that are made by the drafters of the law and the attorney general in every law, not by us. This law takes precedence over other laws, but that too has been interpreted. Ultimately it is up to the courts to decide. I think in the Chamara Sampath case, it was not our Minister of State but another person and Neil Iddawela who also mentioned these points. This is done through the theory of harmonious construction. The marriage law in this country cannot be changed by one clause,” the President said.
Not only that, they are saying that the entire Pirivena Education Act, basically the entire Act, will be repealed because of this. I don’t know on what basis they are doing this. We have Section 9 which protects Buddhism. I know this Act because I know one of the people who drafted it and the minister who implemented it. Section 9 defends this and accepts this. Do you think a small provision can change it? I don’t think the Supreme Court or the bench even knows what Pariyatti, Patipatti and Pativeda are.
I think they should go to the temple to find out what is going on. Or go to Pirivana first before coming to tell this house, we know what is going on there. We also have honorable members of the Sangha. So these rights, what he is saying is that all the rights of Buddhists can be taken away by a small group of people. What will happen? All the protections for Buddhism are taken away. The power of the Supreme Court must ultimately go back to the 1972 Constitution, all of us. Any inherent power must be justified by the Constituent Assembly and the 72 Constitution.
So the Supreme Court cannot rule on bills. They can only advise us on their merits. It’s basically a pre-legislative review. What we did as one of the participants in this chamber in the ’78 Constitution was to transfer the powers of the Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court to ensure that the independence of the court was further strengthened. That’s all we did.
But in ’72, when the first hearing came up, TS Fernando ruled that the two-week leave was not mandatory, the House ignored it and ruled it out. I think the former president and Vasudeva Nanayakkara were members of the House. Because these powers of the Supreme Court in all other matters are judicial, but this one is subordinate. Of course, it comes from Parliament. In a sense, the Supreme Court is transgender, unlike other courts. So this is the situation they are in. They come from both genders, both from us, from Article 4C, and from us, from Article 4A.
So this is indeed an irrational decision and this House should not follow it. I will recommend that a special committee be appointed to look into the matter. There is no need to summon the judges. I do not think we should do that. There is enough material to look into and they can make recommendations. Because the majority of the members should be appointed by the Women’s Caucus. After all, this is about women. But the reality is that it takes away the rights of the majority of this group, the women. It takes away the guarantee in the Constitution of another majority, the Buddhists. So we cannot accept it. And then this House must assert its rights.
Thirdly, we are dealing with fiscal issues. Since I may not be here then, I just want to tell the House that with regard to rental income, we are going to impose a wealth tax. And the threshold will be very high. So more than 90% of the people’s houses will be exempt from this tax. So don’t worry, your house is safe. But why are we taxing rental income? It’s based on ratings. And then we have a problem. The tax rate belongs to the provincial council. So if you go into the rating list, the court may say that the money belongs to the provincial council. So we want to get it here. So we have used a different formula called rental income. Your income tax belongs to the central government. It’s the same.
You normally use ratings. But to get around the constitutional issues, we did it this way. But it’s going to have a very high bar. I think the vast majority of people in this country shouldn’t even worry about their houses. That’s it. But we have to start with a wealth tax. I know the SJB is very, very worried about the billionaires that are with them being taxed. But anyway, here’s why.
The sovereignty of the people must be upheld and this sovereignty is vested in Parliament and the President. Currently, both institutions are here. The Judiciary derives its powers from Parliament, a principle established in the 1971 elections. In the case of Queen v Liyanag, these powers were declared to be vested in the Supreme Court. This led to major debate, with the United National Party claiming that a 2/3 vote could change this, while the Sri Lanka Freedom Party disagreed. However, by 1970, the necessary 2/3 majority was achieved and it was agreed that this power was derived from the Constitution drawn up by the Constituent Assembly and reflected the sovereignty of the people, and this has never changed.
In the 1978 Constitution, we introduced a referendum amendment to further safeguard popular sovereignty and strengthen judicial independence. The courts do not exceed their powers; the laws of this country are passed by Parliament and cannot be challenged. The role of the courts is only to provide advice on constitutional matters. We have established a constitutional court, similar to the systems in New Zealand and Finland, where a parliamentary select committee decides whether a law is constitutional.
Later in 1978, we decided that a separate court for this purpose was unnecessary and would only increase costs. Instead, we delegated authority to the Supreme Court on behalf of Parliament. It must be remembered that the Cabinet cannot overturn a court decision. Despite various opinions and objections, the Commission made a decision, which was then upheld by the Court. It is futile to blame the government after such a judicial affirmation.
I am not here to look back at the past or discuss previous controversies, such as the one involving Minister Rishad Bathiudeen. Let us put these behind us and focus on the current discussion, avoiding any form of extremism.
Posts Proposed tax on imputed rental income would exempt average earners First appeared in Daily News.
[ad_2]
Source link
