By Sarah Hannan
The much-disputed Clause 17 of the 20th Amendment (20A) on dual citizenship was put to vote separately, during which Opposition parliamentarian S.M.M. Muszhaaraff, who voted against the second and third readings of the new constitutional amendment, voted in favour of the clause.
The Sunday Morning spoke to Muszhaaraff of the All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC), which is a constituent partner of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), on his decision to vote in favour of Clause 17 which enabled dual citizenship holders to hold public office and enter Parliament.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
[caption id="attachment_102379" align="alignleft" width="300"]
Attorney-at-law S.M.M. Muszhaaraff[/caption]
You voted against the 20A after the second and third readings, but voted in favour of Clause 17 on dual citizens. What made you do that?
Our party had arrived at an understanding that we will vote against the 20A, which is why I casted my vote against it. However, Clause 17 in relation to a dual citizenship holder being permitted to be elected to Parliament was taken up as a separate matter, for which I individually voted in favour.
My honest opinion is that this will pave the way for Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament, and at this juncture, we need a person like him who always takes decisions not based on ethnicity or race, but rather who thinks about the country as a whole.
During his political career, he assisted us to launch so many development programmes due to which people – regardless of race, ethnicity, or political party – benefited in the post-war years.
Did your party not reach an official decision to vote against the 20A?
As you know, our Party Leader Rishad Bathiudeen was taken into custody during a crucial time, yet when he was allowed to attend Parliament on Thursday (22), we were able to have a final round of discussions and decided on how we would exercise our vote. It was agreed that we would all vote against the 20A.
The SJB, of which the ACMC is a coalition partner, officially decided to oppose the 20A. Did the ACMC not subscribe to this stand?
The common agreement was to vote against the 20A, but when the time came to cast the individual votes, we witnessed that some had gone against the common agreement, which was quite unfortunate.
Your Party Leader voted against the 20A including Clause 17. Did you inform the party leadership of your decision to support Clause 17?
We agreed that we would oppose the 20A; like I said earlier, Clause 17 was a completely different matter, which is why I decided to vote in favour of it. However, there were some who supported the Government with the passing of the 20A in its entirety, and there were members from the Government who opposed Clause 17.
Just because I sit with the Opposition does not mean I have to oppose every move the Government makes.
Will there be any disciplinary action against the party members who voted in favour of the 20A?
The alliance party Samagi Jana Balawegaya has commented as such. Should it come to that, and if our Party Leader decides to take disciplinary action against those who voted in favour of the 20A as a whole, we will discuss it at that point.
At the moment, no such discussion has been taken for the ACMC or the SJB.
The ACMC and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) had spoken against the Government on many occasions over its Sinhala nationalist hard-line stance. Why do you think there was a change of heart among the Muslim MPs in Parliament over the 20A?
We are yet to find out what made them vote in favour of the 20A. But political differences and opinions aside, I believe that whether we are on the Government side or in the Opposition side, we have a responsibility towards the citizens of this country to work towards a common goal in developing and taking the country to a prosperous position.
Given the current economic turmoil caused by the Covid-19 pandemic both locally and globally, we have to join hands with the Government to find solutions to ensure the wellbeing of the citizens of Sri Lanka.
The financial stability of not only Sri Lanka but even the entire world is handicapped with the limitations that are imposed by the global health emergency. We cannot be dwelling in the past and festering age-old wounds that were caused by events that mushroomed racial and ethnic disputes and unrest.
We need a clear vision to go ahead and change the future outlook of Sri Lanka as a united force.
How will the ACMC and SJB continue with its political alliance in the future?
There are certain differences of opinion among the parties that joined forces to form the SJB. However, I am not the best person to answer that question at the moment. God willing, our Leader will be freed from his allegations in the weeks to come and he himself will be able to give you the answer to that question.
As for now, we are very much part of the SJB and we will honour the alliance that we made and the party that elected us to Parliament to serve the people of Sri Lanka.
Attorney-at-law S.M.M. Muszhaaraff[/caption]
You voted against the 20A after the second and third readings, but voted in favour of Clause 17 on dual citizens. What made you do that?
Our party had arrived at an understanding that we will vote against the 20A, which is why I casted my vote against it. However, Clause 17 in relation to a dual citizenship holder being permitted to be elected to Parliament was taken up as a separate matter, for which I individually voted in favour.
My honest opinion is that this will pave the way for Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament, and at this juncture, we need a person like him who always takes decisions not based on ethnicity or race, but rather who thinks about the country as a whole.
During his political career, he assisted us to launch so many development programmes due to which people – regardless of race, ethnicity, or political party – benefited in the post-war years.
Did your party not reach an official decision to vote against the 20A?
As you know, our Party Leader Rishad Bathiudeen was taken into custody during a crucial time, yet when he was allowed to attend Parliament on Thursday (22), we were able to have a final round of discussions and decided on how we would exercise our vote. It was agreed that we would all vote against the 20A.
The SJB, of which the ACMC is a coalition partner, officially decided to oppose the 20A. Did the ACMC not subscribe to this stand?
The common agreement was to vote against the 20A, but when the time came to cast the individual votes, we witnessed that some had gone against the common agreement, which was quite unfortunate.
Your Party Leader voted against the 20A including Clause 17. Did you inform the party leadership of your decision to support Clause 17?
We agreed that we would oppose the 20A; like I said earlier, Clause 17 was a completely different matter, which is why I decided to vote in favour of it. However, there were some who supported the Government with the passing of the 20A in its entirety, and there were members from the Government who opposed Clause 17.
Just because I sit with the Opposition does not mean I have to oppose every move the Government makes.
Will there be any disciplinary action against the party members who voted in favour of the 20A?
The alliance party Samagi Jana Balawegaya has commented as such. Should it come to that, and if our Party Leader decides to take disciplinary action against those who voted in favour of the 20A as a whole, we will discuss it at that point.
At the moment, no such discussion has been taken for the ACMC or the SJB.
The ACMC and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) had spoken against the Government on many occasions over its Sinhala nationalist hard-line stance. Why do you think there was a change of heart among the Muslim MPs in Parliament over the 20A?
We are yet to find out what made them vote in favour of the 20A. But political differences and opinions aside, I believe that whether we are on the Government side or in the Opposition side, we have a responsibility towards the citizens of this country to work towards a common goal in developing and taking the country to a prosperous position.
Given the current economic turmoil caused by the Covid-19 pandemic both locally and globally, we have to join hands with the Government to find solutions to ensure the wellbeing of the citizens of Sri Lanka.
The financial stability of not only Sri Lanka but even the entire world is handicapped with the limitations that are imposed by the global health emergency. We cannot be dwelling in the past and festering age-old wounds that were caused by events that mushroomed racial and ethnic disputes and unrest.
We need a clear vision to go ahead and change the future outlook of Sri Lanka as a united force.
How will the ACMC and SJB continue with its political alliance in the future?
There are certain differences of opinion among the parties that joined forces to form the SJB. However, I am not the best person to answer that question at the moment. God willing, our Leader will be freed from his allegations in the weeks to come and he himself will be able to give you the answer to that question.
As for now, we are very much part of the SJB and we will honour the alliance that we made and the party that elected us to Parliament to serve the people of Sri Lanka.