US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO1244

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001244 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, DRL, DRL/IRF 
NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
PLEASE PASS TOPEC 
 
E.O. 12958:    DECL:  07-27-14 
TAGS: PHUM, PREL, KIRF, CE, Political Parties, Religious Freedom 
SUBJECT:  Monk MP's anti-conversion bill begins trek in 
Parliament; Buddhist Affairs Minister's bill in draft 
 
Refs:  (A) Colombo 1070, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. 
Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  A JHU MP presented a private member's 
bill on anti-conversion to Parliament on July 21.  This 
began a many-month process of debate and legal editing 
before a potential vote on the draft legislation by 
Parliament.  Several groups have already submitted 
Supreme Court petitions challenging the JHU's bill.  The 
Buddhist Affairs Minister's own anti-conversion bill is 
still in the midst of being drafted and may also take 
several months before it could receive GSL-wide 
approval.  It would be presented to Parliament if the 
Cabinet agrees on the draft bill.  Both bills have a 
long way to go before any eventual vote in Parliament, 
treks likely made lengthier by the public and legal 
debates which seem to continuously increase in volume. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
JHU anti-conversion bill in Parliament 
-------------------------------------- 
 
2.  (C) Ven. Omalpe Sobitha Thero, a Buddhist monk MP 
from the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) party, presented a 
draft "anti-conversion" bill to Parliament on July 21. 
The bill had been officially gazetted (published) at the 
end of May 2004 -- see Reftels.  In a July 26 meeting 
with poloff, the GSL's Legal Draftsperson Teresa Perera 
explained the lengthy process that a private member's 
bill must undergo before it potentially becomes law. 
The formal July 21 presentation to Parliament was the 
first step.  Thereafter, the bill is taken up by a 
ministry -- the Buddhist Affairs Ministry in this case - 
- which then must report on it to Parliament.  The bill 
and the ministerial report are then forwarded to the 
Legal Draftsperson's office, which evaluates the 
constitutionality of the bill, edits it, and suggests 
any appropriate amendments.  The revised draft bill goes 
through the Attorney General's office before being 
presented to Parliament for the second reading and 
debate.  During the second reading, the Parliament 
should come to consensus on the details of the bill and 
any suggested changes or amendments.  At the third 
parliamentary reading of the bill, all changes should 
have been incorporated and Parliament votes on the bill. 
If it passes, it then becomes an Act of Parliament. 
 
3.  (C) Ms. Perera explained that while the whole 
process can take as little as one month, given the 
widely recognized public debate on this subject, it is 
likely that it could take three to six months before 
reaching Parliament for a vote.  Even then, other 
interlocutors have said that there are alternative 
methods, including parliamentary procedural ones, to 
keep the bill from getting to the floor for a vote. 
 
Legal opposition to JHU bill begins 
----------------------------------- 
 
4.  (C) Within seven days of the presentation of a 
private member's bill in Parliament, the Constitution 
allows opponents to file any legal challenges to the 
proposed legislation.  As of late July 26, several 
groups had filed petitions against the draft JHU bill in 
the Supreme Court with a few more petitions expected by 
the July 27 deadline.  The National Christian 
Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka filed a petition, as 
did their General Secretary who filed as a private 
citizen.  Among others, the Civil Rights Movement, the 
National Christian Council, and the Center for Policy 
Alternatives also have filed challenges to the bill. 
There are additional individual petitions as well.  The 
Roman Catholic Church has not filed a petition, but it 
is expected that either the church or noted figures 
within the church will present such a petition by July 
27.  According to Ms. Perera, her office will await the 
Supreme Court rulings on these petitions before 
finalizing the draft bill and sending it to the Attorney 
General for approval. 
 
Ministerial anti-conversion bill in draft stage 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
5. (C) While the JHU bill was submitted to Parliament as 
a private member's bill, the GSL is separately pursuing 
its own official anti-conversion legislation.  Ms. 
Perera provided an update on the status of this bill, 
which came to her office after Buddhist Sasana (Affairs) 
Minister Ratnasiri Wickremenayake presented it to the 
Cabinet on June 16.  Elaborating, Ms. Perera said the 
bill is being drafted by her office in conjunction with 
the Buddhist Affairs Ministry.  It would also go through 
the Attorney General's office for approval before 
returning to the Cabinet.  Asked if the bill being 
drafted was based on Wickremenayake's version, Ms. 
Perera called that a "secret," stating it was 
inappropriate for her office to comment on the content 
of any bill being drafted. 
 
6.  (C) As with any government bill, Ms. Perera 
explained that once the Cabinet is satisfied with the 
draft legislation, it is then gazetted and presented to 
Parliament.  The final step of a government bill -- 
parliamentary presentation -- is the opposite of a 
private member's bill, in which the reading in 
Parliament comes first.  Ms. Perera thought that the 
government's anti-conversion bill could take two to 
three months before reaching Parliament -- assuming it 
receives Cabinet approval. 
 
7.  (C) Within the government, support for the bill is 
divided.  Wickremenayake is a proponent of the bill and 
was recently quoted as saying such legislation was not 
confined to (protecting) Buddhists and would "enhance 
the freedom of worship of one's religion."  Jeyaraj 
Fernandopulle, Minister of Trade, Commerce, and Consumer 
Affairs, has been equally vocal about his opposition to 
the bill.  While Christian Affairs Minister Milroy 
Fernando expressed concern over the JHU anti-conversion 
bill, he has not made public his views on the 
ministerial bill. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
8.  (C) Both bills have a long way to go before any 
eventual vote in Parliament.  It seems each bill's trek 
has been lengthened by the public and legal debates 
which continuously increase in volume.  Christian and 
other groups have already opposed the JHU bill and are 
likely to do the same with the ministerial bill when the 
opportunity arises -- if it receives Cabinet approval 
and is gazetted.  There is no indication how the Supreme 
Court might rule on the recently submitted objections to 
the JHU bill.  In the last two years, however, the 
Supreme Court has ruled against Christian groups in 
several cases, upholding Buddhism's "foremost place" in 
the Constitution.  Even if the bills survive legal 
challenges, it is not clear if either will make it to 
the floor of Parliament for a vote.  Even if one or both 
does, passage is not guaranteed, for several reasons. 
The government does not have a majority, and would need 
opposition votes.  Moreover, the government itself is 
divided, and some GSL MPs might vote against.  The 
position of the main opposition United National Party is 
not yet clear. 
 
9.  (C) COMMENT Cont:  President Kumaratunga has 
personally told the Ambassador that she opposes such a 
bill.  Nonetheless, she is desperate to obtain a 
majority in Parliament.  If the price of JHU support for 
her government -- which would give her that majority -- 
was her support for an anti-conversion bill, she might 
be tempted.  END COMMENT. 
 
LUNSTEAD