Implications of a referendum 

Arising from the objections filed in the Supreme Court over the draft of 20A, the need for an island-wide Referendum has evidently sprung into the limelight.

On one hand the government is adamant in its endeavour to steamroll its passage, perhaps with certain amendments in Parliament, through the two-thirds majority it enjoys; while the opposition, hell bent on thwarting its efforts, has sought SC interpretation seeking a Referendum. That is for the SC to determine.

Should not there have been a middle path to this constitutional crisis? It is not a matter of which side is right or wrong, but the implications, the consequences which will affect the people and the country as a whole, is what has to be seriously considered.

In the event of a Referendum being necessitated, who will foot the bill? Certainly not through the individual assets of the collective 225 members of parliament, who are pitting each other for supremacy. The innocent taxpayer, including all citizens, rich or poor (since each and every consumable item carries a tax component) will have to shoulder the burden. On the flip side, the country is reeling under its heavy debt burden, and its economic situation is in no way conducive to embark on a money wasting exercise, at which the country will ultimately be the loser. 

What happens if such an exercise turns out to be ‘a damp squib’? Haste indeed makes waste!

WILLIAM OPP