Visualising Sarath Fonseka’s key campaign issues and manifesto
Groundviews was the first website in Sri Lanka to visualise key statements by a Presidential candidate in the public domain. Visualising key speeches and submissions of Sarath Fonseka was republished in traditional print media and circulated widely over email because we seem to have hit a chord with many voters looking for an easy way to get to the core of what the two leading candidates were saying.
Key issues as noted on Sarath Fonseka’s website
We now use the same technology to visualise the content featured in the issues tab / section of Sarath Fonseka’s official presidential campaign website.
A larger version of this visualisation can be viewed online here. To avoid allegations of the partial or selective use of content, we also provide a raw text dump of content taken from his website used to create this visualisation.
The visualisation clearly brings out Sarath Fonseka’s emphasis on ensuring things. Coupled with the high frequency of the words improve, create, quality, nation and development, Fonseka’s vision as expressed in his website seems to call upon voters to look towards and together build a better future, underpinned by Fonseka’s own avowed commitment to this task. Unsurprisingly given his background, Fonseka places a high priority on ‘national security‘, defining it to include human security and economic security. The high incidence of the word healthcare comes from an entire section of his manifesto devoted to the issue.
As we pointed out in our previous visualisation, this is an interesting way to see what is NOT mentioned as well. For example, there is not a single mention of human rights, and just one mention of democracy (“safeguard the Constitution and the peoples’ democracy by ensuring political security”).
Issues as noted on Sarath Fonseka’s manifesto
Sarath Fonseka Manifesto
This is the raw text taken from Sarath Fonseka’s manifesto (English version), which at the time of writing is yet to be featured on his website but is available here. A larger version of this visualisation can be viewed online here.
Much like the content on his website, the key word here is ensure. There is a significant emphasis on Sri Lanka and a far greater emphasis on corruption in comparison to the website. Further, unlike the content on the website, the manifesto has much more references to the Rajapakse family. Note however that the high incidence of families is the result of frequent references on how measures will be taken to uplift the lives of ordinary families. Fonseka’s predominant first-person expression when articulating his vision – through words such as take, action – is evident in the manifesto (Wordle strips out I and will, but both are used a lot in the manifesto). Unlike the section devoted to it on the website, there is no emphasis here on security. There is almost equal emphasis on the website and the manifesto on people, though citizens features more prominently on his website.
What do you make of these key words?
As noted in our first post, we will continue to visualise through Wordle key speeches and policy documents of the two leading Presidential candidates over the course of the campaign.
Next up, Mahinda Chintanaya 2010.
15 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
The tone of this writing is admirable, and its techniques sophisticated.
It looks impartial.
However, when we consider that both the candidates have the same background and similar views, I wonder whether giving even more publicity to these two guys who are way ahead of the pack is not unfair by the other candidates.
True, some of those destined to be “also rans” are either bogus candidates or “jokers”, but some of them are serious and committed. Don’t you think you should, apart from this sort of free publicity for the two leading contenders, EDUCATE the public on the SYSTEM of voting?
I’m told that up to now there have never been more than 1% of voters listing 3 candidates in order of Preference. Isn’t that a sad comment on the lack of awareness on the part of voters?
Dear Daya, please see http://cmev.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/presidential-elections-2010-your-vote-is-your-constitutional-right-use-it/ and help spread the word.
But these aren’t really Fonseka’s words and thoughts are they? It’s really just what his campaign writers put up under his name. Sarath is not that fluent in English really, but whatever is put out in his name uses flawless English and is certainly not in character with the general.
And are the words in Mahinda Chintanaya the President’s alone? The point here is not to content sole authorship, but to provide a different way of looking at what the candidate endorses on his website and as his manifesto.
I am yet to understand what Sarath Fonseka is offering the public of Sri Lanka. I get the impression that he is taking the gullible public for a ride. His main reason for running for the presidency is simply to get back at the president for not giving him operational powers when he was serving as the Chief of Defense Staff. He himself mentioned, at his first press briefing where he announced his intention of running for president, that had he been given his share of powers as CDS, he wouldn’t be running this race in the first place. So the argument is if he had been satisfied with his job responsibilities then to hell with the country and the nepotism and corruption that he is so vehemently trying to clean up. Furthermore, his claim that he should be given major credit over the victory is ludicrous to say the least. If we were to visualize for a moment that the war had been lost, the question would be whose neck would be on the chopping block? The General’s or the President’s? who stands to lose more had the war been lost? The unanimous answer is that of the President’s. Gen Sarath Fonseka comes across as an egotistical, disloyal, untrustworthy and a power hungry individual who will stop at nothing in order to get his revenge. I cannot comprehend how Gen Sarath Fonseka could stand on the same platform with those who ridiculed him as an Army Commander and the war effort from the very outset. Where are his values? How he handled the entire “Sunday Leader” episode is a case in point to his indecisiveness. To me, this man is nothing more than a regular politician who is lacking in moral values. Those voting for Fonseka hoping for change will sadly be disappointed for the umpteenth time. Didn’t we vote for Candrika hoping for change as well? In my opinion, Fonseka will do nothing better than any of the previous presidents have. The only reason everyone are so excited about this “prophet of hope” is that he is the only one in the country who can even challenge the president and not because of his ability to run a country. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” policy is what we see today among all the parties. I just hope my fellow Sri Lankans would think first before singing hosanna’s for Fonseka for he displays all the signs of someone who would be worse than the current administration. Power corrupts… there is no guarantee that Fonseka would be any better than any of the five previous Executive Presidents of Sri Lanka.
You cannot judge by just visualizing words how good a candidate is! If you get the candidates themselves to write them they definitely will do a horrible job. So they employ creative writers. Do not get misled by this and think one candidate is better than the other.
In this election I think one has to select the most reliable candidate as both leading candidates are not the best. MR’s government is corrupt. No question about it. So was UNP government of Ranil who is backing SF and most probably will end up being the PM when executive Presidency is powered off. SF will simply be an onlooker from then on. What power will he have to dictate terms to Ranil? None!. We will end up with the same old lot and same old policies of ruining the country.
One sees SF as a rigid army commander. Politically naive, in-cohesive and out spoken and can say harmful things without much thinking. Has no party of his own to support and plan, has to depend on the UNP and a myriad of other splinter group of different policies from far left to nationalist and far right. What will his status be after the exec presidency removed which he has promised. The only way he can implement these are by not keeping that promise, get some old military buddies as ministers,( Burma ? ), stick to power as all previous president who came to power promising the same. My humble opinion is that’s what will happen and we will be at square one.
On the plus side MR has embarked on a rapid development program though with massive corruption in implementing it. We need to develop and pretty fast. Malaysian PM Mahathir and Indonesia’s Suharto was good examples of corrupt leaders who developed the country. Will MR be like him. We will see if he is re-elected.
What are SF’s positive points. good soldier! That’s about it.
The choice is difficult! Sri Lanka is taking a gamble !
What would really matter to prospective voters is not what SF is putting forward as promises.We all know that these promises in a Sri Lanka political context amounts to nothing but bluff and deceit of the public if there are any still left who would believe these stories.What is really important are the Pacts made by SF with the UNP, JVP,the Terrorism oriented LTTE representatives TNA and a whole host of other groups whose aims and expectations are so divergent and contradictory that it is imperative that we be told what he has promised these people in return for their support.If the voters aren’t told this it would be dangerous to even contemplate voting for SF as we may be voting to bring about such a dangerous situation that would plunge our country back into a worse crisis than the one created by LTTE.It has been widely reported that SF was considered as a man suspected capable of mounting a coupe on the elected government of the country.This is a dangerous situation particularly in the light of Ranil Wickremasinghe’s open behaviour to destabilise the final stages of the victory battle at the behest of foreign forces.If SF is not prepared to make a full and frank disclosure of the deals he has made with the various groups desperate to either grab power or take revenge from the majority community, voting for Sf would be tantamount to commiting suicide .
I fear for Sri lanka’s future if Sarath Fonseka takes power. Fonseka has shown no liberal or democratic characteristics. Infact, all evidence points to the opposite. He comes from an army background – a military group that tolerates no dissent and is set up in a strict hierarchy. If he assumes leadership he will have perennial enemies in the navy and the airforce as he has steadfastly refused to credit them for any role in the militery victory. This would be a dangerous situation.
The media would be under threat, in fact it is Fonseka who has been suspected of organising attacks on journalists during his tenure as army commander. it is quite clear that he ahs a revengeful nature and will take action against any journalist who has criticised him in the past, and during the election campaign as well. Having the JVP at the helm would also be detrimental for Sri Lanka at large.
our country has been ruled by many individuals , why not give a chance to an ex military person , sri lanka needs a change to wipe out corrupt and tuggerisum , people needs peace and freedom of talking , writting , go anywhere as they want at day or night,
we love sri lanka to be a country like singarpore
anis adahan, my sentiments are the same. I wish for Sri Lanka to be another Singapore, nay, a Japan. However, we must wake up to reality. Firstly, Singapore developed because of an outstanding leader in Lee Kuan Yew. The man who had a law degree at Cambridge went on to take a crash course in Economics during the course of six months at Harvard, while serving as prime minister, where he learned directly from experts about managing a country’s economy (read “From Third World to First : The Singapore Story: 1965-2000″ by Lee Kuan Yew for more details). Forgive me, but I must say that Gen. Sarath Fonseka is no Lee Kuan Yew.
He may be a “change” but our country has some very bad experiences of this so called “change”. It may only prove to be a temporary relief until one day we wake up being fooled for the millionth time.
Only english literate persons can “read inbetween the lines” of the election manifestos of the candidates – as analysed above – and make an informed judgement.The ordinary folk are swayed by the usual election propaganda in the media, on the roadside,and in the various meetings addressed by the candidates. Not all eligible voters are enabled to cast their votes.This is a big factor in this election.The other is the thuggery & intimidation of voters and supporters of the two candidates, and the vicious mudslinging especially of the challenger by corrupt internet media – some from outside sri lanka. The allegations are such as to be beyond probability.
PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA MUST FIRST THINK WHETHER THEY CAN TRUST THE INCUMBANT PRESIDENT MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE. IT IS TRUE HE WAS ADAMANT TO CRUSH THE LTTE AND HE ACHIEVED HIS GOAL. BUT AFTER CRUSHING THE LTTE PRESIDENT MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE USED THE POPULARITY HE GAINED TO BUILD HIS FAMILY AND NOT TO IMPROIVE THE LIVINGSTANDARDS OF THE CITIZENS IN GENERAL.
EVEN NOW PRESIDENT MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE IS OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO SERVE HIS FAMILY AND HIS IMMEDIATE CIRCLE OF FRIENDS ,RELATIONS AND THE THUGS WHO ARE SUPPORTING HIM TO ACHIEVE HIS AMBITIONS.
WE CAN SEE PRESIDENT RAJAPAKSE STARTING BIG VENTURES ONLY TO HAND THEM OVER TO HURRIEDLY SELECTED CONTRACTORS TO COLLECT THE COMMISSIONS BUT ALL THE VENTURES STARTED ARE LEFT HALF DONE IN A SUBSTANDARD MANNER. THE ROADS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED GETS WASHED OFF WITH THE FIRST FEW SHOWERS AND THE BRIDGES AND CULVERTS COLLPASE DUE TO FAULTY CONSTRUCTION. NONE OF THE HIGHWAYS THAT WERE STARTED WERE COMPLETED.
AS IN THE CASE OF EDUCATION THERE IS NO PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE UNIVERSITIES TO TAKE IN THE VAST NUMBER OF STUDENTS PASSING OUT OF SCHOOLS AND THERE ARE NO PROPOSALS TO EVEN OPEN UP SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL INSTITUTES TO TRAIN YOUTHS UNABLE TO GET ITO UNIVERSITIES TO FOLLOW USEFUL TECHNICAL COURSES SO THAT THEY CAN GET JOBS EVEN IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
ALL SUGGESTIONS MADE IN CREATING EMPLOYMENT BY DEVELOPING PORTS AND AIRPORTS ARE VAUGE AND ACCORDING TO THE FIGURES GIVEN ONLY ABOUT 50,000 ARE TO GET EMPLOYMENT BY SUCH VENTURES.
THERE IS NOTHING SAID IN THE MAHINDA CHINTANAYA ABOUT SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE AND EXPORT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION SUGGESTED TO OVERCOME THE SHORTAGE OF RICE THAT OCCURS AT THE END OF EVERY YEAR ALThOUGH A HEAVY BURDEN IS BOURNE BY THE STATE TO SUBSIDISE THE COST OF MANURE PROVIDED.THE STATE CANNOT CONTROL THE PROPER MARKETING OF RICE PRODUCED AND THE POOR SUFFER EVERY YEAR BUYING RICE AT EXOBITANT PRICES.
NO MENTION IS MADE IN THE MAHINDA CHINTANAYA REGARDING THE STATE PATRONAGE GIVEN TO SOME MINISTERS TO PRACTISE THUGGERY AND INTIMIDATION AND MURDER OF OPPONENTS AND DISSAPEARENCE OF BUSINESSMEN AND OTHER PEOPLE.
I ONLY HOPE THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA WILL NOT FALL A PRAY TO THE VILES OF PRESIDENT MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE AGAIN AND FALL INTO AN ETERNAL TRAP BUT VOTE HIM OUT ON 26TH JANUARY,2010 AND WIN PEACE THROUGH GENAL SARATH FONSEKA ON THE 26TH JANUARY,2010.
Well said Concerned citizen. Can a man who does not keep the oath he took to uphold the Constitution be trusted. Voters must be fools to trust MR and beleive anything he says. He is a master at lying and deceiving. This is his strong point. He deceived the LTTe and showed by the way he conducted the war that a 2500 civilization means nothing. Which civilized country will shoot people who come to surrender. He claims the credit for the victory. Will he take up the blame for the war crimes committed by the troops. We will see in the future.
He is following the lying deceitful practices advocated by machiavelli. But such practices do not help to preserve power forever. The question at issue is human rights, freedom of speech, fundamental rights etc which MR has trampled upon.. Anybody who thinks MR is credible must be a knave himself. There are enough instances where he has looked the other way when rights are trampled upon by goons suspected to be STF goons at the beck and call of the powers that be. The truth will be out. soon. Anybody with a conscience cannot vote for MR. He talks of good governance but continues to violate all the elements of it. He will follow the path of Sinawatra. He is trying to fool all the people all the time. But this is not possible even with a public that is stupid.
Shaad,
You said:
“I wish for Sri Lanka to be another Singapore, nay, a Japan. However, we must wake up to reality. Firstly, Singapore developed because of an outstanding leader in Lee Kuan Yew. The man who had a law degree at Cambridge went on to take a crash course in Economics during the course of six months at Harvard, while serving as prime minister, where he learned directly from experts about managing a country’s economy”
This is an oversimplification of the Singapore story, and an apology for SL’s post-independence performance. Yes, LKY must be credited with putting the focus on economic development. But more importantly, that focus was used to steer people away from racial divisiveness. LKY and his group rode on the ticket of multiculturalism, of equal rights for all races. That is what Singapore stands for, why it was ejected out of Malaysia, which stood for preferences for Malays.
Yes, let’s awaken to reality. It is surely hard to believe that Singapore can surface such a brilliant leader, given its small population, and that it has continued to produce brilliant leaders through the decades, but that a country with more than 20 times its population cannot produce even more such brilliant leaders. The question is whether, if there were such a brilliant person, would the people of SL vote for him? Or would they be more interested in voting for crooks who play the racial chauvinism card?
At some point, the people of Sri Lanka must take responsibility for what has happened in their country since independence. Fonseka is running because the opposition knows how important race domination is to the Sinhalese masses and Fonseka is known to be a Sinhalese chauvinist. That’s why Ranil W is not acceptable to SL voters, even though as president, he had effected significant economic transformation for the country. Sri Lankans would have laughed at a Lee Kuan Yew. Nobody who stands on the ticket of racial equality and equal opportunity could win an election in Sri Lanka.
On the other hand, Singaporeans would never vote for an army man (because, what on earth does an army man know about economics). Nor would they have voted for someone like Rajapaksa, who had stories of financial corruption floating around him prior to his election, and who stood against the devolution of power to an indigenous minority group. They would not vote for a man who had sold his soul to all the rogue countries of the world.
So, really, Singapore’s success is not so simple as its having found a brilliant leader. Singaporeans KNOW how to recognize a brilliant leader, and to differentiate him from shysters, war-mongers and general trouble-makers. We keep getting such leaders because the people want them. In the end, it’s about values. We value peace, the chance to live well and attain self-fulfilment, good education facilities. Racial domination doesn’t turn us on as an ideal.
Here’s a much more meaningful way of analysing words and ideas presented in a large body of literature;
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/page/Phrase_Net.html