The Government Dental Surgeons’ Association has denied reports that it opposes the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, saying it has never taken a position on the matter at all.
The association’s secretary, Dr. Aruna Abeywardena, said no discussion of the amendment had been held at either its Executive Committee or its Central Committee, and that the association had issued no official statement expressing a view, Ada Derana reported on Monday.
What the association says happened
Officials of the association attended a trade union awareness meeting at the invitation of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. The GDSA says attendance at that meeting did not amount to endorsing the BASL’s position on the amendment.
It added that legal and judicial questions such as constitutional amendments fall outside the scope of the association as a professional body.
Correcting our earlier report
LankaNewz reported on 30 August that the Government Medical Officers’ Association and the Government Dental Surgeons’ Association had decided to jointly oppose the amendment. That report was based on Ada Derana’s account of the decision, which was the only report of it published by a verified newsroom at the time.
The GDSA’s denial contradicts the dental surgeons’ half of that account. Our earlier article has been updated to record the denial. The denial does not extend to the GMOA, which has not disputed the report of its own decision.
Ada Derana published both the original claim and Monday’s denial. Its report of the denial does not refer to its own earlier story, and it did not say which outlets it holds responsible for the reports the association is rejecting.
Why the distinction matters
Professional bodies lining up behind the BASL has been one of the visible currents in the fortnight since the amendment was gazetted. The Railway Station Masters’ Association declared its support for the BASL position on 28 August, and the reported GMOA and GDSA decision was read as the movement widening into the health professions.
The GDSA’s account suggests a narrower reality, at least in its case: that attending a BASL briefing is not the same as joining its campaign. The distinction is one other associations invited to the same meetings may also want to draw.
The nearly 30 petitions filed in the Supreme Court before Monday’s deadline were filed by named petitioners, and neither the GMOA nor the GDSA is among those reported so far.
What has not been reported
Ada Derana did not say when the BASL meeting was held, which other associations attended it, or whether the BASL disputes the GDSA’s characterisation of it. It did not report whether the association intends to discuss the amendment at a future committee meeting, and it did not name the media outlets whose reports the association is denying.
