Six Govt. allies undecided
President's third term: JBY Ruwan Laknath Jayakody
September 10, 2014
With the constitutional legality of a third term, for President Mahinda Rajapaksa, subject to debate, government constituent parties, with the exception of the National Freedom Front (NFF) remained undecided on whether...
...they should back the President if an amendment is moved in Parliament to enable him to contest. When questioned by Ceylon Today, as to whether they would back the President going for a third term, if the Supreme Court ruled in favour after necessary amendments to the 18th Amendment, the Democratic Left Party (DLP), Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and the Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL) from the left and the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC), all remained undecided, with the NFF standing in support of the President.
The NFF, which supported the 18th Amendment stated that although the Constitution was sound on the matter, it was ultimately the people, the masses that retained the sole right regardless of the Constitution to decide how many times an individual could be voted into power as a ruler.
Leader of the LSSP, Senior Minister for Scientific Affairs, Prof. Tissa Vitharana noted the LSSP had not discussed the matter. General Secretary of the CPSL, Senior Minister for Human Resources, D.E.W. Gunasekera said the CPSL does not take decisions on tactical matters regarding the Constitution and Minister of National Languages and Social Integration and Leader of the DLF, Vasudeva Nanayakkara emphasized that all implications would have to be considered with time.
"It is still too early to comment," National Organizer of the JHU, Nishantha Sri Warnasinghe said.
The SLMC is presently engaged in drafting a party document with amendments to the Constitution and General Secretary of the SLMC, Hasan Ali remarked that until that process was over an official stand could not be taken with regard to the matter.
"There are many factors to examine. The repeal of Article 31 (2) can have a retrospective effect. The only base of those opposing is Clause Six of the Interpretation Ordinance. They say that the existing law cannot be removed by the new law registration.
Did the President suffer a disability before the repeal, before the 18th Amendment and does he continue to suffer – this is the question? The Supreme Court and legal authorities have to decide whether Article 31 (2) overrides the Interpretation Ordinance," General Secretary of the ACMC, Y.L.S. Hameed observed.
"If there are issues pertaining to the legality, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret and present the case, which we believe they will do," Media Spokesman of the NFF, Mohammed Muzammil added.
With the constitutional legality of a third term, for President Mahinda Rajapaksa, subject to debate, government constituent parties, with the exception of the National Freedom Front (NFF) remained undecided on whether...
...they should back the President if an amendment is moved in Parliament to enable him to contest. When questioned by Ceylon Today, as to whether they would back the President going for a third term, if the Supreme Court ruled in favour after necessary amendments to the 18th Amendment, the Democratic Left Party (DLP), Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and the Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL) from the left and the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC), all remained undecided, with the NFF standing in support of the President.
The NFF, which supported the 18th Amendment stated that although the Constitution was sound on the matter, it was ultimately the people, the masses that retained the sole right regardless of the Constitution to decide how many times an individual could be voted into power as a ruler.
Leader of the LSSP, Senior Minister for Scientific Affairs, Prof. Tissa Vitharana noted the LSSP had not discussed the matter. General Secretary of the CPSL, Senior Minister for Human Resources, D.E.W. Gunasekera said the CPSL does not take decisions on tactical matters regarding the Constitution and Minister of National Languages and Social Integration and Leader of the DLF, Vasudeva Nanayakkara emphasized that all implications would have to be considered with time.
"It is still too early to comment," National Organizer of the JHU, Nishantha Sri Warnasinghe said.
The SLMC is presently engaged in drafting a party document with amendments to the Constitution and General Secretary of the SLMC, Hasan Ali remarked that until that process was over an official stand could not be taken with regard to the matter.
"There are many factors to examine. The repeal of Article 31 (2) can have a retrospective effect. The only base of those opposing is Clause Six of the Interpretation Ordinance. They say that the existing law cannot be removed by the new law registration.
Did the President suffer a disability before the repeal, before the 18th Amendment and does he continue to suffer – this is the question? The Supreme Court and legal authorities have to decide whether Article 31 (2) overrides the Interpretation Ordinance," General Secretary of the ACMC, Y.L.S. Hameed observed.
"If there are issues pertaining to the legality, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret and present the case, which we believe they will do," Media Spokesman of the NFF, Mohammed Muzammil added.
JHU Is Not The Solution…It Is Part Of The Problem
Champika
“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” ~Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Jathika Hela Urumaya seems to have awakened from their deep slumber. All of a sudden they seem to perceive only the negatives of the incumbent regime of which they are still an integral part. For eleven long years, they have been inside a regime that has been wasting the country’ treasures like drunkard sailors. At election after election they, the JHU, paraded on the United People’s Freedom Front platform; they asked the people to cast their votes for the continuation of the same old policies and principles, hiding behind a facade of patriotism and Sinhalese-Buddhist supremacy. In March this year, the leader of the JHU, the self-acclaimed custodian of the Sinhala-Buddhist values, wrote a piece on the national Tamil question. When one examines his arguments, one invariably comes to some unavoidable observations. With the one-sided arguments brought forward for the supremacy of Sinhalese-Buddhists based on the ‘Mahawansa’, the product of Maha Vihara Bikkhus who wrote about the Sinhalese Kings whom they considered as their favorites and a chronicle that G C Mendis, the reputed Sri Lankan historian, dismissed as an inauthentic history of Sri Lanka in the context of classical history writings, the JHU leader cements his case for Sinhala-dominated national identity, fanning racial and ethnic flames further, making any reconciliation between the two communities impossible.
Now they have issued a ‘manifesto’. It is nothing but a collection of failed agendas of the past and a severely cynical and hypocritical declaration of ideas and if dissected scrupulously as it should be, might still hoodwink the masses who are usually susceptible to election sloganeering. There are no fresh ideas; there is no apology for the last eleven years’ silence although they might argue that lodging a protest here and an objection there are somewhat an expression of dissatisfaction with the powers that be. That won’t do. The serious political paper which they tabled as part of a ‘sweeping transformation with a constitutional amendment’, reads more like a chapter from a boring book put away in library racks, gathering dust for want of a reader
Read More.
