SRI LANKA: BUDDHIST MONKS MPS INTRODUCE BILL TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001895

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/22/2014
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KIRF CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: BUDDHIST MONKS MPS INTRODUCE BILL TO
MAKE BUDDHISM THE STATE RELIGION

REF: A. COLOMBO-SA/INS 11-22-04 UNCLASS FAX

B. COLOMBO 1805 AND PREVIOUS

Classified By: James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of Mission. 1.4(b,d)

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) The Jathika Hela Urumaya party of Buddhist monk MPs
presented a private member's bill in Parliament on November
19 to give Buddhism the status of state religion through
constitutional amendment. Any potential amendment faces
several legal hurdles, including a two-thirds majority in
Parliament and a simple majority in a national referendum.
Although this development is too recent to assess public
reaction, at least one Christian cleric predicted the
proposed bill would have little, if any, public support.
While there has been much debate about potential religious
anti-conversion legislation, there has been little public
discourse on the question of elevating Buddhism to a state
religion. At present, this potential amendment sounds more
like political grandstanding by the monk MPs -- whose party
faces internal problems of its own -- than a serious effort
to undermine the relative status of other religions. End
Summary.


2. (SBU) On November 19, the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU),
which has nine Buddhist monk MPs in the current Parliament,
presented a bill in Parliament to make Buddhism a state
religion through amendment to the constitution. Similar to
an earlier religious anti-conversion bill proposed by the
JHU, this is also a private member's bill and is not backed
by the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL). Although presented to
Parliament, the bill has not yet been placed on the
Parliament's agenda and has not been formally read before the
Members. As a potential constitutional amendment, the
proposal will take a slightly different track then that of
draft legislation: any amendment to the constitution
requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, plus approval
by simple majority in a national referendum.

-------------- --------------
Buddhism's current and potential future legal status
-------------- --------------


3. (SBU) The constitution currently grants Buddhism the
"foremost place" in society -- a special status that falls
critically short of that of a state religion. Under Article
9 of the Constitution, "it shall be the duty of the State to
protect and foster the Buddha Sasana ("Affairs"),while
assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10
and 14(1)(e)." In contrast, the JHU's draft amendment
provides for the following:
-- "Other forms of religion may be practiced in peace and
harmony with Buddha Sasana;"
-- All citizens are allowed "free exercise" of their worship;
-- Buddhists are bound to raise their children in the same
faith; and
-- Converting of a Buddhist to another religion or spreading
another religion among Buddhists is prohibited.
The full text of the proposed constitutional amendment has
been faxed to SA/INS (Ref A).


4. (C) In a November 22 conversation with poloff, Therese
Perera, Legal Draftsperson in the Attorney General's
Department, said that the potential amendment would likely go
through Parliament and the Supreme Court, similar to the
JHU's earlier religious anti-conversion legislation, before
reaching her office. While one constitutional lawyer told
poloff that, unlike a law-making bill, a potential amendment
would have fewer avenues for legal challenge, Ms. Perera did
not immediately confirm this. She instead stated that there
might be "limited grounds" for a legal challenge, but that
the Constitution certainly allows for challenges to
amendments. Any challenges would have to be "more direct and
forceful," she said. Saying that she had not yet seen the
JHU bill, Ms. Perera felt that, from what she had heard, it
would contravene Article 9 of the Constitution (see above).
In addition, the concept of Buddhism as a state religion was
not in line with the bill that the government is developing
on its own. (Note: In response to the JHU anti-conversion
bill presented to Parliament in June, the government began
developing its own bill addressing the issue. The exact
substance of the bill is closely held; poloff has heard that
it may not focus solely on banning "unethical" conversions,
but be a more wide-ranging protection of religions act. In
line with Ms. Perera's comments, we have not heard anything
that indicates the GSL would pursue institutionalizing
Buddhism as a state religion. End Note.)

--------------
Political relevance for JHU, not religious
--------------


5. (C) While the issue of alleged unethical conversion is
fervently debated in religious circles throughout Sri Lanka,
there is little public call for an amendment to make Buddhism
a state religion. The JHU may be proposing the amendment in
an attempt to demonstrate its political relevance, according
to Catholic priest Father Cyril Gamini Fernando. He said the
Catholic Church would oppose such an amendment and felt that
it had no religious or political future. In the wake of the
JHU's earlier proposed anti-conversion bill, the Church had
established a task force. Fr. Fernando said that task force,
which includes lawyers, would now review the potential
amendment and provide feedback. He added that the Church
would not publicly comment before evaluating the bill or
before its formal reading in Parliament. In his opinion,
there would be little support among the public for such an
amendment.

--------------
Comment
--------------


6. (C) So far, this potential amendment sounds more like
political grandstanding by the JHU than a serious religious
overture. Given Sri Lanka's long history of religious
tolerance and diversity, it is unlikely that this amendment
will receive any significant public support, let alone a
two-thirds parliamentary majority. While it is premature to
talk about what might happen if the bill becomes an amendment
to the Constitution, most interlocutors recognize that the
results would be divisive and debilitating. There is little
chance, either, that the President and other politicians
would capitalize on this potential amendment for political
mileage, especially when she is inviting the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam for talks. For the moment, it is
important to watch the public debate that will occur in the
wake of this bill becoming public. End Comment.
LUNSTEAD