President’s International Media Point Man Speechless On Nepotism Charge
September 16, 2015
Harindra B. Dassanayake, President Maithripala Sirisena’s spokesperson with respect to international media refused to respond to questions put to him regarding the President’s daughter Chathurika Srisena arrogating her father’s powers as well as the charge that this was a case of nepotism and abuse of authority.
Colombo Telegraph wrote to Dassanayake on the 8th of September seeking clarification on the President’s daughter getting state officials to accompany her on a supposedly fact-finding mission. She clearly statedthat she had deliberately brought officials so that the problems of the people could be attended to.
Since there was no response from Dassanayake, a reminder was sent on the 10th of September to which he replied as follows: “was away from office. Will get back to you tomorrow. delay regretted.”
As there was no communication, Colombo Telegraph once again wrote to Dassanayake yesterday. The following was his response;
“Of course you need an answer. However, in my official capacity, I represent the President and therefore, I am not in a position to give you the answer you need.
Best Regards
Harindra”
This is an issue that directly concerns President Maithripala Sirisena and therefore Colombo Telegraph is at a loss to understand how Dassanayake, even as he admits that he represents the President, believes that for this very reason he is ‘not in a position to answer’. Read More
For The Love Of Humanity
Thisuri Wanniarachchi
The purpose of this article is not to lay out my political beliefs, to brag about my liberal values or to simply appear above the fray. In an age in which we constantly contradict our democratic beliefs and our personal sentiments, this was written purely for the love of humanity, which we sometimes disregard, in our search for justice.
Whenever a hate crime (murder, rape etc) that gets considerable media attention surfaces, it has been a trend in our society to lash out with demands to restore the death penalty. Although I have trouble understanding the logic in anyone who supports the death penalty, since it produces no positive outcome, I do understand the causes behind such an extreme demand. It is a demand heavily induced by anger; a justified anger. The anger, however is a temporary emotion. Similarly the death penalty, is a temporary solution to the larger problem that A Grade crimes represent. It is only impractical that we let our temporary emotions be reflected in the law of the state. Instead we must look for sustainable solutions to the causes of the crimes.
Law, to me, is a scale of liberty. Yes, punishment must match the crime, but the variables used to equalize the weights on both sides of the scale have to be variables that we can define. How can we define death if we have not yet experienced it ourselves? What gives us the liberty to assign a punishment of which the boundaries, or depth we cannot define? Read More
