Friday, December 26, 2014
The voting public of Sri Lanka whatever their political colour or preference of candidate must firmly say no to any move or agreement attempting to destabalize the country, divide its territory or create an atmosphere of chaos. No election campaign or coalition understanding should be allowed to bargain with the national security of the country in particular promise to reduce or remove strategically placed military bases and military personnel as election promises. National security is not a bargaining tool. Political debate in the West never use national security as bargaining tools for their election campaigns. As a priority voters need to first identify and eliminate political parties attempting to weaken national security as part of their agenda for providing political support. However, bad a local leader is, he cannot be as bad as those attempting to rule Sri Lanka through proxies and puppets. It is the patriotic duty of the masses to overrule any attempt to gamble with the national security of Sri Lanka.
The choice of Common Candidate
Whatever the coalition claims, the choice of the common candidate remains secret. No one has so far come out to say why they proposed the name of Maithripala Sirisena as candidate. These details remain very much secret from the public. Moreover, if we are to believe Colombo’s anti-MR chants and the English social media and conclude that Mahinda Rajapakse is unsuited to lead, UNP could have easily contested as a single party and fielded a UNP candidate to win the elections. Why was there any need to hire someone for a 100 day role?
If Ranil was not the choice it is so because of his own failures, and it is on that ground that he is rejected by the voters. Thus, the selection of Maithripala as Presidential candidate is based on the reality that Ranil Wickremasinghe can only command urban votes where non-Buddhists dominate. It is to fill the void and to either break or take the Buddhist votes that Maithripala has been brought into the picture. If this argument is to be believed coupled with the slogan of pluralism that Wickremasinghe preaches and promotes, Maithripala should be considered no hero of the Buddhists for he would by complicity help push the Buddhists further into oblivion and gradually remove their power.
While Mahinda Rajapakse is judged on accusations of corruptions by a select few surrounding him, the Coalition is being judged from multiple fronts all of which lead to the fear that the country would fall into neo-colonial hands or be earmarked for division. If Maithripala is a proxy of Ranil and Ranil is a proxy of Western Christian nations this reality is more than possible and the manner that Ranil led the UNF in 2002 is prime example of what to expect. Link this to the manner CBK led throughout her 12 year rule and what is in store for Sri Lanka rings alarm bells. The allegation of Ranil being a Western proxy is proven by Ranil Wickremasinghe’s membership in the IDU – International Democratic Union – made up of Christian political parties. It is alleged that the UNF Government formed in 2001 comprised 60% Christians and visas were granted to Evangelists to spread their faith while Buddhists were given step-motherly treatment. http://www.lankaweb.com/news/
The current revelation of a pact signed secretly with the TNA giving assurance to remove military bases, reduce military personnel in the North as well as remove non-Tamil settlements deserves the attention of the voters. There is also the assurance to carry out a war crimes inquiry which as an election manifesto does not convey much faith in our forces. Ideally what should be said is that our forces did not commit any war crimes and those that accuse so must produce the evidence first, and the reality is that for 5 years apart from accusations and editing film clippings nothing to substantiate war crimes as being produced as evidence.
The exposure of the secret pact comes in the wake of numerous other pacts signed without the contents being disclosed to the public. We have had the Indo-Lanka Accord signed in 1987 under emergency with Ministers having to hand over signed resignation letters. Then came the 2001 Cease Fire Agreement that placed LTTE and a sovereign government as equals and legally demarcated territory as ‘LTTE-controlled’. The period saw LTTE putting up its own courts, own police, own civil administration and openly amass weapons through Sri Lanka’s customs! The next set of secret pacts came in the form of the ISGA and PTOMs – these agreements were signed by Ranil and Chandrika Kumaratunga now the shadow-leaders behind the common candidate. Should the voters not have a right to question what their actual plans are? Are these concerns not more important than simply wanting change? What assurance can they give when the corruptions under UNF and CBK rule are nothing they can debate in public? The public is well aware that ALL POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT. However, what is more important is the stability of the country. As citizens and stakeholders of the nation do we not have a duty and right to wonder if the country is likely to fall to peril because of the same people that betrayed the nation not too long ago? To reverse the damage they did thousands of soldiers had to lay down their lives.
The first to betray the nation was Don Juan Dharmapala ready to function as a puppet of the Portuguese – incidentally Ranil wanted to celebrated the arrival of the Portuguese forgetting the thousands of natives the Portuguese brutally murdered and converted. In fact the common candidate as General Secretary of the SLFP refered to Ranil as a traitor coming from the lineage of the Dharmapala clan though now the common candidate promises to hand over to Ranil the leadership mantle after 100 days. The betrayal of the nation began on 2nd March 1815 with the signing of the Udarata Givisuma and ever since numerous other pacts necessitate the nation to remain on the alert against traitors.
The Colombo coterie eternally complaining may like to respond to what their contribution was to ending terrorism when they join the UN bandwagon not wanting the people to remember the war victory. They do not want the people to recall the war victory simply because they played no role in it.
Terrorism has to remain on our minds primarily because the deals being struck is with the same political party that was created by the LTTE, the same party that is linked with the Diaspora organizations that the GOSL has banned, the same party that even the EU Elections Monitor Cushanan claimed was the mouthpiece of the LTTE and the nation seriously questions why the GOSL does not take legal action against this party without allowing it to do the damage it is doing using its political privileges?
The memoirs of Nevil Jayaweera (handpicked to be the GA Jaffna in 1963) are referred to recollect and show honor to Mr. N Q Dias (father of Mr. Gomin Dayasri) for his visionary plan to set up military bases in the North taking stock of the possibilities of Tamil Nadu illegal immigrants pouring into Sri Lanka. Again, for petty political motives the reduction of these military bases by JR Jayawardena drastically undermined the national security of the country when Tamil militants began their terror. What Mr. N Q Dias envisaged for which he drew counter measures was proven when in November 2003 the LTTE declared that 35% of its cadres were from Tamil Nadu!http://www.island.lk/2003/11/
Mr. N.Q. Dias, CCS (civil servant) then Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defense & External Affairs under Sirimavo Government knew exactly the importance of placing the country’s armed forces at strategic points well ahead of any calamity which the present Defense Secretary Mr. Gotabaya Rajapakse realizes too – what right do politicians have to bargain with the national security of the country? Thus, the GOSL is questioned on why it should give in to demands to reduce and curtail security presence instead of remaining firm on the threat to national security. The GOSL is next questioned on when it will take legal action against all those that have directly and indirectly contributed to LTTE terrorism over the years. For victims to be given any justice people who were linked with LTTE terror needs to be identified and placed before the courts.
The announcement of a secret pact with the TNA to remove or reduce military bases is connected to India’s claim that LTTE continues to fight for an Eelam that includes Greater Tamil Nadu, though it does question why India insists on the implementation of the 13thamendment and full devolution unless India too plans to compete for a separate North that the West would like to use as a base for itself in Asia. It also raises the question why India celebrated the 1000thanniversary of the ancient Tamil King Rajendra Chola (1014ce -Rajendra Chola I was the first Indian king to take his armies overseas and make conquests of these territories). India must realize the message it sends out in being proud of ancient Kings that invaded neighboring nations and questions the relevance to the current context of things.
These angles may be headaches for a lot of voters in Sri Lanka in particular those in Colombo, but their future depends on a secure Sri Lanka. There is nothing more important than the national security of the country. Everything falls into place only when the country is secure and stable. People can enjoy comforts only when the country is safe. The other issues all are secondary and this is why the voters must view how far and who can keep the country stable and the stability comes in ensuring that there are no deals struck with parties that are out to divide the country, dilute the sovereign powers of the country and create chaos thereafter. The examples of Libya, Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan may differ because they are Muslim, located in Middle East/Africa /Eastern Europe but the same players that broke up and have created chaos in these nations are now looking East towards Asia and this is why national security should become the key election pledge by the candidate. Assuring national security by forging secret pacts with players that are working towards dividing the nation has to be firmly rejected in the same manner that people should reject leaders who have secretly signed pacts without divulging its contents to the people and not even to their party members on previous occasions.
No one should be allowed to ridicule attempts to secure the nation’s borders and secure the country. No political party should be allowed to bargain and compromise the national security for petty political gain. Agreeing to dilute the National Security of Sri Lanka cannot be allowed to become as a political propaganda tool. The price of peace remains eternal vigilance and vigilance does not happen without preparation and processes.
In the end every voter has selfish reasons that determines who he/she casts the vote for. That decision must be based on who can provide peace and stability in Sri Lanka while not undermining the national security of the country. No person or organization can hope to live in peace or prosper if there is no peace in the country. Let us be reminded that all those that profited during the 30 years of war were those that were party to the terror and the rest of the country is only now picking up the pieces and it is just 5 years since the end of 30 years of LTTE terrorism.
by Shenali Waduge
Posted by media at 3:03 AM
Monday, December 22, 2014
Given what we know of the Opposition’s declared strategy and policy at this stage, I am unconvinced that we should vote Mahinda Rajapaksa out. Change is necessary; even imperative. But what kind of change, where, when and to whom? There is a case for peaceful democratic regime change, but what has the current Rajapaksa regime to do with the decades older Executive Presidential system, which is a form of state?
The current choice in Sri Lanka – and the answer to those crucial questions – is excruciatingly simple. On 10 December, International Human Rights Day, Sirisena addressed a civil society coalition and assured it (and the nationwide television audience) that he “was seeking to occupy the chair of the presidency not for the purpose of remaining in it but precisely for the purpose of abolishing its power and going home.”
Now this was during the same television newscasts that showed the true nature of the place and the persons he was pledging to transfer the power of the Presidential chair to, namely the parliamentarians who before our very eyes, and at that very time, were engaging in a game of musical chairs! So, if we are to trust Sirisena’s pledge, we can expect the disempowerment of the Presidential chair (and its occupant, to wit, Sirisena), which is anchored in the democratic consent of the majority of our citizenry (50.1% of the vote), and the empowerment of an institution susceptible to musical chairs.
Who is to say that in a post-Mahinda period, a hung parliament barely topped by a self-enfeebled presidency with residual executive powers will not be susceptible to decisive manipulation by a concerted infusion of cash from the secessionist network of the Tamil Diaspora? Who is to say that such a maneuver by the Diaspora Tamil Eelamists will be unable to engineer a government of its choice which will pledge the withdrawal of troops from the North?
In the new configuration as designed by the Opposition’s strategists, domestic and external, the residual presidency of Sirisena will not and structurally cannot be the decisively preeminent power center. It will be the PM and the Cabinet. The dominant political poles of attraction are more than likely to be Ranil Wickremesinghe and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.
One doesn’t have to be Hobbesian (though it helps) to concur that the primary duty of the state towards its citizenry is not good governance so much as the more basic existential one of the protection of life and limb from a violent, determined, ruthlessly marauding enemy. Chandrika and (more so) Ranil miserably failed that most crucial test while Mahinda Rajapaksa passed it with flying colors.
He protected this country and its people, liberating us from Prabhakaran’s reign of terror. Therefore as a student of politics, I cannot recommend an outcome that sends Mahinda Rajapaksa packing while restoring Ranil and Chandrika to prominent positions of power and influence – equal to, if not surpassing that of Sirisena. After all, Mangala Samaraweera did solemnly declare that it is Wickremesinghe who will be “the first among equals.”
It is true that Gen. Sarath Fonseka was perhaps the main driver of the victory insofar as the ground war was innovatively designed and determinedly driven by him. It is no less true that this administration treated him disgracefully.
However, an outstanding troika, Generals Fonseka, Janaka Perera and Gamini Hettiaarachchi were in Chandrika’s army for her two Presidential terms and she failed to win the war – because she didn’t believe it could be won; that Prabhakaran could be militarily defeated. Or, due to utter ideological and philosophical confusion, she didn’t consider it as desirable.
Mahinda Rajapaksa won the war for us because he had political will and clarity – and he had a brother, Gotabaya, who could manage the war effort with zealous dedication and knowledge. Together, Mahinda and Gotabaya were able to mitigate the bitter inter-service (Fonseka-Karannagoda) and intra-service rivalries.
In the loop in the early 1990s, I watched helplessly as the Waidyaratne-Kobbekaduwa split paralysed the war effort during President Premadasa’s term, while he refused my entreaties to step in and consistently spearhead the National Security Council, asserting that that “we should leave it to the professionals – the Tamils must be able to see that the Presidency was not directly involved in the war.”
What was the crucial moment of the war? It was a replay of that moment in 1987, when the Sri Lankan armed forces were about to prevail over Prabhakaran in Operation Liberation but President Jayewardene received a deterring warning from High Commissioner J.N. Dixit. In 2009, President Rajapaksa had two fairly similar moments about which I heard, not only from him, but far more credibly and at first hand, from the Norwegian Ambassador Torre Hattrem and the French Foreign Minister of that time, Bernard Kouchner.
It is Mahinda Rajapaksa who sought India’s backing and overruled the US evacuation attempt which had been facilitated by the Norwegians. More crucially, it is he who curtly told an arrogant, blustering David Miliband that “Sri Lanka is no longer a British colony” when pressure was put on him for a ‘humanitarian pause’ in the fighting and a resumption of negotiations, a few weeks before our soldiers achieved final victory. (Kouchner’s story, related to me and my wife at a lunch in Paris, came as no surprise since I was part of the discussion in early 2007 when President Rajapaksa told US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher “I am sorry Mr. Boucher, but what can I do if my terrorists are not Islamic?”).
Champika Ranawaka, who claims credit for the drive to finish the war, was not even a peripheral figure in those decisive discussions with the global powers. Gen. Sarath Fonseka was not present in the room. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was in the loop but not on center stage. The decision not to blink and to take the war to a finish whatever the consequences was a political and existential one, and it was made by President Rajapaksa.
In the final analysis, it wasn’t Gota’s war; it was Mahinda’s, and he must not be made to pay a price at our very hands for his resolve in our defense and his defiance of the West. The Tamil Diaspora wants revenge for the defeat of their Tigers and the death of Prabhakaran. The West wants to make an example of Mahinda for far higher stakes: he opted for China and Russia over the West. The two compulsions converge (most overtly in Geneva).
Consider this carefully: are we ready to risk the possibility that Rajapaksa could be a 21st century Rajasinha (the last king of Kandy), carted off by the West to be made an example of i.e. legally lynched, for his defiance in our defense? Do we want that on our collective conscience? Is that how we want future generations to view us? I rather doubt that history will absolve us.
The Joint Opposition’s current program combines the prospects of radical politico-constitutional change and no less radical economic change, given that Ranil Wickremesinghe is an ideologically conservative, neoliberal privatiser and freezer of public expenditure (as proven during his mercifully brief tenure as PM).
Punishing a proven leader
If the contrasting fates of Gorbachev/Yeltsin’s Russia and Deng Hsiao Peng’s China demonstrate anything, it is that political and economic reform must not proceed simultaneously, if one is not to risk meltdown. The scenario of a self-diminished Sirisena Presidency, a shift of power to a volatile Parliament, an economically neoliberal Wickremesinghe Prime Ministership, a ‘CBK as Sonia Gandhi’ factor, an assertive Northern Provincial Council, cosmopolitan civil society-human rights NGO-Western pressures on “cooperation and compliance” with the UN probe on international law and accountability issues, and radical privatisation, fill me with foreboding because the centrifugal factors outnumber and outweigh the centripetal ones.
Are we ready for a Western dominated, semi-colonial Sri Lanka of the sort we lived in during the Ranil–Chandrika-Solheim years; that disgraceful decade of diminished and retrenched national sovereignty? Are we ready for the inevitable blowback, polarisation and radicalisation?
In its narrow judgment in favor of the 13th Amendment in 1987, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court ruled that this structural reform, which made for provincial autonomy, remained within the framework of the unitary state because of the executive presidency and its powers over the council as vested in the Governor. Without the magnet or ‘maypole’ as it were, of the elected executive presidency, the centripetal potential of the provincial councils would be greater than their centrifugal potential. This is yet another, doubtlessly unwitting, danger posed by the joint Opposition’s stated project.
A presidential election is not about constitutional change. It is about picking a leader for the country, the state – or more fundamentally, the collective, the community, the tribe (if you prefer an anthropological existentialism).
I am reluctant to dispense with the services of the leader who passed the crucial test of ‘domestic R2P’ – the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ his people and country from the armed enemy. I hesitate to ditch a strong leader and proven success in the most important matter, and replace him with an unproven if courageous, decent man who will cede much of his power to two proven failures.
(Dayan Jayatilleka was Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva from 2007-09, and until recently, Ambassador to France. He is the author of ‘Long War, Cold Peace: Conflict and Crisis in Sri Lanka,’ Vijitha Yapa Publishers, 2013.)
Posted by media at 12:29 AM
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Sri Lanka’s Presidential Elections: Thoughts for the Floating Voters/New Voters on the Common Candidate
The floating voters and the new voters are 2 important segments in the arithmatic that would decide who would emerge as President in January 2015. The floating voters are people who may have at one time voted for different parties and now disgusted with voting and contemplating whether to vote or not. The new voters obviously excited about exercising their first time voting right may also be puzzled to determine who to vote for – the incumbent President or a contender in an alliance that will be President for 100 days and thereafter hand power over to another. The floating voter and new voters are important because they can realistically view the campaign slogans from a point of view that would question which candidate is most suited to lead the nation and provide peace and stability to Sri Lanka both at local and international level, which is what all voters need to think about before they place their vote.
What is important about the challenge to the incumbent in the form of a new alliance is that it is promising CHANGE – but this change being promised is by a same set of politicians who have been in politics, enjoyed perks and privileges of office, crossed over several times and have had to tag on to larger political parties for survival at different periods under different leaders. On the face of it there is no CHANGE as the people coming forward with the change mantra are the same politicians wanting to hold on to power under a new set of rules and conditions.
You want change – But what is the Change you are getting?
- The same people are appearing with a different theme
- The same people are singing a different song
- The same people are promising a difference – but their terms in office was nothing the country could be proud of
- Can the same people be trusted when they had broken our trust some more than once?
- Do you trust Chandrika? Do you trust Ranil? Do you trust Mangala? Do you trust Wickramabahu? Do you trust Sambanthan? Do you trust Champaka R? Do you trust Rajitha? Can you trust Maithri? – Can they be trusted to entrust the country with 20m people to safeguard?
- If the same faces that held power and wish to continue power are lining up to promise change, do you seriously think they can bring about change. More importantly is the change they are promising, the change that YOU want to see?
- Is the risk worth taking in wanting to vote for CHANGE but knowingly voting for people who have been proven failures in office?
- More importantly these failures are currently taking a back-office role because they cannot come out before the people to contest on their own however, floating voters and new voters need to realize that a future Maithri Government will place all of them in Ministerial roles and these are the very people who were failures in office.The ambiguity – Maithripalanayak for 100 days and what thereafter?
- The 1st important thing that floating voters/new voters must note is that the Opposition lobby was one created not amongst them or by them but by another secret group because the main Opposition party’s Leader the present Opposition Leader cannot win elections. He will neither step down as Leader of the Party nor change the party’s Constitution though he wishes to change the country’s Constitution for which he went to get trained in the US.
- The 2nd important point is that no person or party or parties can form an alliance and contest without drawing the UNP given its traditional vote base.
- The 3rd important point is the assurance that in exchange for the UNP votes contributing alongside the votes of others forming the new alliance, the deal is for the UNP leader to be handed power thus the 100 day story. Why is it then that the election manifesto, campaign slogan all speak of a ‘Maithri’ – Compassionate ‘palanayak’ only under Maithri …. Shouldn’t the campaign be a joint Maithri-Ranil palanayake? Is it not for this reason together with certain slip ups by non-UNP supporters in the Maithri wing tilted more towards CBK that they are beginning to wonder whether Ranil or the UNP will have a future or role if Maithri were to emerge President and Maithri would prefer tutelage under CBK instead.
- If Maithripala Sirisena cannot win without the UNP votes, why should the UNP voters vote a non-UNP when they easily have people to prop up as a contestant instead of Ranil. If everyone was surprised at the meek-looking former General Secretary of the SLFP emerging as a Presidential Candidate what is the harm in fielding a UNP candidate as there are enough of charismatic and strong personalities within the party to select from? Why have none of the other UNP leaders being considered to be groomed as Presidential candidate? Is it because Ranil would lose his place in the Party as a result so he prefers hiring an outsider?Do you trust the Opposition Camp?
- Can you entrust the country’s stability to the same faces that have been proven failures in leadership roles?
- Can we be assured that the peace and stability that currently prevails will continue under their leadership?
- Can we envisage decision making when all of them can’t agree on anything except wanting to somehow come into power.
What will bickering amongst these element result in when it comes to crucial international matters where forthright, stern and nation-centric decisions require to be taken?
- When some in the camp are for division of the country, some want devolution, some want separatism, some want foreign powers to control the country, some will siphon of everything for profit and some are willing to go along with anything because all they want to do is enjoy perks and privileges – what is this scenario likely to lead to for the country?An important factor for floating voters/new voters to take note of – no Conspiracy theories
- The Presidential Election is about voting for a leader that can bring stability and peace to Sri Lanka and handle the international lobby against the country. The crucial point is that the nations that are punishing Sri Lanka for ending the war using their influence in the UN/UNHRC are the very nations that are behind the Common Candidate.
- What is the likely danger if such people are ready to give everything and anything on the deal that they would be kept in power – these are no laughing or exaggerated scenarios for the very nations backing the common candidate have been successful at dividing Yugoslavia to pieces, creating an independent Kosovo and then leaving the people in chaos, arming insurgents in nations that they want stakes in so that the people are kept embroiled in eternal conflict while they escape with the loot (Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and now Libya prime examples) These are certainly no conspiracy stories. These nations have been destroyed by the very nations that are today responsible for selecting a candidate calculating the arithmatic on how votes are likely to sway on paper unless people are informed enough to realize the dangers.
- Much as most voters may hate informing themselves of what is happening around the world and to countries around the world in particular smaller developing nations that are strategically placed beneficial for global geopolitics, it is time they should especially the Colombo and other urban voters. It is the realization of the gameplans and plots taking place around the world at a political level that a country needs a strong leader and a strong government minus small parties with small vote bases but with the ability to hold a coalition to ransome by their demands.Is the country safe in the hands of people who have lead the country before and failed?If we have not forgotten we need to now recall that
- More than half of total soldiers deaths occurred during the reign of Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga, most battle failures took place under her reign.
- She was together with Ranil Wickremasinghe ever ready to sign the PTOMs and ISGA whereby legalizing eelam in all but name allowing LTTE to negotiate directly with foreign nations, trade directly with foreign nations, transfer funds directly etc.
- Ranil Wickremasinghe the supposed visionary of the UNP signed a ceasefire agreement with the LTTE without even showing the UNP leadership the contents of that agreement – only later the country came to know that the agreement legally allocated sovereign territory as LTTE areas and the Colombo backers of the CFA were not bothered about what allocation of territory to the LTTE would mean to the country because they were over the moon that the military checkpoints had been removed which was more of a hassle for them. We cannot afford to function with such short-sightedness for the damage is irreversible.Do you believe the slogan ‘we will end corruption’?Please remember that the people now claiming to have come together to end corruption have themselves proven records of mass scale corruption during their tenure in power even those that have crossed over. They too have families – siblings and children very much waiting in the fray to take over. The CHANGE will only be changing the Cover of Corruption only. We must all be realistic to the fact that corruption is embedded in today’s society – even ‘donations’ for school admissions are corruption, even giving Rs.100 to the office peon to place one’s file above the rest is an act of corruption, even bribing the policemen for traffic violations is corruption. Both giver and taker are thus guilty.The golden rule on integrityAnyone claiming to be virtuous and uncorrupt can do so ONLY IF they go against coruption when it is taking place and come out against it by claiming to want to have no part in it. No one can claim to be uncorrupt if they have been enjoying privileges themselves and then having been selected as Opposition Candidate point fingers forgetting that four fingers point back at them in return. Let us all note that all those now pointing fingers were very much part of the corruption that they are accusing of – if they themselves were people of integrity they should have come out before elections were announced and before they had been selected to be fielded to form the Opposition.If we know that
- Corruption wont end
- We don’t know who the actual leader is – Maithripala is coming as the Presidential Candidate of the New Democratic Front, he next says he’s going to abolish the Presidency (totally ignoring that he has no mandate to do so), he says he’s going to appoint Ranil (unclear how that can happen too), then CBK who is politically now a nobody is assured of a role, the other supporters have all ruined the ministeries that they had been holding whatever party they had been in – is this a rosy picture post-2015 for the people? There are more questions than answers!
- How can CHANGE happen with the same people in a new camp especially when they have a history of crossing back and forth for OPPORTUNITISM and nothing else. Should we not ask whether this is also not an OPPORTUNISTIC decision and thus the camp have no common agenda to serve the people except serve themselvesThese are just a handful of questions for the Floating Voters and New Voters to think about before they cast their vote. It is also good for them to do a good background check on all those in the Common Alliance and they question how far they can be trusted to lead a nation and ensure Sri Lanka remains peaceful and stable as it has been since 2009 devoid the threat of terrorism and separatism. Two factors that Sri Lanka does not want is Terrorism or Separatism/Division under any name.Shenali D Waduge
Posted by media at 11:41 PM