University academics: Statement on the Proposed 18th Amendment to the Constitution
Repost This ArticleWe, the undersigned academics attached to different universities in Sri Lanka, call upon the government to re-consider the proposed 18th Amendment to the Constitution for the reasons set out below.
Constitutional reforms, like elections, go to the heart of what it means to be a democracy in the modern-day world. Any changes that are introduced to a country’s constitution should be undertaken after due deliberation and consultation while having at its centre, the will of the People. In a pluralistic society such as Sri Lanka, ascertaining the will of the People can be a time-consuming and complex exercise. While the will of the People must be given due consideration, the essential features of a democracy, such as the rule of law, accountability of the government and transparency must be preserved and promoted through any constitutional reform.
By choosing to amend the constitution through an urgent bill the entire process of reform has been expedited, if not short-circuited, and no room has been left for any kind of public debate let alone public consultation. Under a Constitution that explicitly recognizes the “Sovereignty of the People” that process is not acceptable, especially when no convincing reasons have been given as to the need to expedite this process. Indeed, the most distressing aspect to this whole process is the lack of interest in government ranks on the need to raise awareness, let alone build consensus, among the general public on the need for such urgent reform.
The substance of the proposed reforms is also problematic. History provides many examples of the need to limit not only power, but also access to power. The limit to the number of terms that the head of the executive can hold has emerged as a best practice, through those bitter lessons. The introduction of the Parliamentary Council instead of the Constitutional Council is not satisfactory as it contains no clauses to promote accountability on the part of the President in whose hands come to be concentrated the power to make several key appointments that promote governance, accountability and due process of law.
This is the first attempt at constitutional reform in the post-war era of our country. We hope that it would therefore signal a break from the constitutional reform experiences of the past, where powerful executive Presidents “reformed” the constitution to serve their personal political agendas.
We therefore call upon the government to re-consider their decision to introduce constitutional reforms in such a hasty and ad-hoc manner and to open avenues for greater participation and consultation before setting in motion a process that is of utmost importance to the political culture of Sri Lanka.
- C. R. Abayasekara (University of Peradeniya)
- Suresh De Mel (University of Peradeniya)
- Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri (University of Colombo)
- Priyan Dias (University of Moratuwa)
- Asoka N. I. Ekanayaka (University of Peradeniya)
- Avanka Fernando (University of Colombo)
- Hans Gray (University of Moratuwa)
- Dileni Gunewardena (University of Peradeniya)
- Janaki Jayawardane (University of Colombo)
- S. I. Keethaponcalan (University of Colombo)
- Amarakeerthi Liyanage (University of Peradeniya)
- Dinesha Samararatne (University of Colombo)
- Vasanthi Thevanesam (University of Peradeniya)
- Ruvan Weerasinghe (University of Colombo)
- P. Wickramagamage (University of Peradeniya)
- Carmen Wickramagamage (University of Peradeniya)
Why are there so few signatories? Was the letter sent out to the entire academic community and nobody else would sign? I’d hate to think there are only eight academics in Sri Lanka willing to stick their necks out over such a crucial matter.
A revised list of signatories was just sent to Groundviews.
The revised list of signatories is not much more impressive than the first – a 100% increase, but still only 16 in total!
Groundviews, echoing Belle’s request, could you request the organisers of this letter to clarify whether this letter has been sent to all academics in SL?
Also, it would be good if the titles of signatories were included in addition to their university affiliation. I for one would be interested to see what proportion of the senior academic community (i.e. Profs) in Sri Lanka were willing to stand up and be counted at a time like this.
Another 24 hours and the 18th amendment will be passed
Can’t wait. These “academics” should be ashamed of themselves for trying to stand in the way of free and fair elections, where people get to vote for whom they wish.
Didn’t get a referendum on 18th amendment? Can’t contact your MPs? Leave a personal message for them at parliament – where your MPs are supposed to represent your interests. It’s still not too late to have express your wishes as a citizen: Call 011 2777100.
It clearly indicates the pathetic state of affairs in Sri Lanka. Can we come to a conclusion that the majority of the Sri Lankan academics don’t care about democracy.
@ Ravi Shankar – It only indicates that SL people don’t care about few losers who throw hissy fits over a desicion made by a government who were legally elected.
Good statement.
But WHERE are the senior academics in all this? Have they been asked and did’nt sign? Or were they unaware of it? Have they all gone deaf, dumb and blind or are they quaking in case they lose their comfortable positions where they get good payments for teaching mediocre stuff? Where are the people who ordinarily pontificate about good governance? I see none of these names here but largely unknowns who however should be congratulated for their guts in standing up to be counted.
What a sad situation. The Sureme Court has ruled that NO referendum is needed. No surprise there but now we need to forget about the Court even having even an iota of a judicial conscience….
If the majority of academics don’t like to sign this, isn’t it a part of democracy?
Check this out guys… awesome news!
Top S.Lanka court backs president’s third-term bid
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Mahinda Rajapakse to run for a third term in office, saying the constitution can be changed by a vote in parliament, officials said Tuesday.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jaNhmxz0nI72YcRofn49IFyhpGJw
This is really great news.
Indeed, Dark Lord, I believe it’s called “choice”. A highly valued commodity in a free country.
Why are some people quick to jump to claim unheard, unexpressed opinions onto their side? Quite arrogant or really desperate. One of the 2!
@ Dark Lord:
U said or asked:
If the majority of academics don’t like to sign this, isn’t it a part of democracy?
I feel “democracy” and “will of the people” are too often used in hugely oversimplistic ways by certain leaders. I suggest that the answer to your question is:
IF the majority of academics truly don’t like to sign this, and if it’s because they truly disagree with the statement, then yes it IS a part of democracy? However, no it is NOT part of democracy — quite the contrary — IF the reason(s) for their not signing is/are any of the following:
1) fear:
If they are afraid, due to various reasons in the general area of future problems such as white vans, false cooked up criminal charges, getting beaten up, and so on.
E.g., in stereotypical Communist Russia or 1984, plenty of people didn’t open their mouths, due to fear: but that apparent “right” to be silent, was NOT something that came due to democracy; the result was not “part of democracy”.
2) apathy, helplessness, or similar:
If they have the feeling (based on past experience) that their opinions cannot change the minds of the few individual who wield true power. (Such a feeling would be quite understandable, IF one lived in a so called democracy where, however, democracy had become so corrupt that even large scale opinions would not shake any stubborn greedy decisions of those wielding the true power.) In this case too, the silence that results, is certainly NOT due to democracy, NOT “part of democracy”.
3) Finally, although admittedly getting deep into abstract thinking:
If they THINK they “don’t want” to sign, and if that’s because they have come to a CONCLUSION that this statement is wrong, but IF such a conclusion is based on an adoption of very wrong facts and principles, then this is not what they REALLY want. They may THINK they want it, but, if we really look at the practical meaning of the word “want”, they don’t actually “want” it, even if that means that they don’t know what their “real” selves want.
E.g., if you avoid cigarettes because they’re harmful, but then I manage to convince you that cigarettes will increase your life expectancy, and you believe my lies, you might then THINK you WANT those cigarettes… but does it make any practical sense to say that you DO really “want” cigarettes? And that someone who then sells you cigarattes IS meeting your REAL needs, your REAL wants? I think not.
What’s in a word? What do we really mean by “want” or “like to”? The useful approach to understanding the concept of “wanting” something or “liking to” do something, should include not only the thing itself, but should also include all the rationale behind why one has reached that feeling of “wanting”/”liking” it.
So, if someone feels he/she doesn’t “want” to sign that statement, because he/she thinks it’s a bad statement, but if that thinking is actually affected by a long period of society’s brainwashing and distorted facts and adoption of wrong priorities and values, then, no that “wanting” to not sign, is NOT “part of democracy”.
(Possible examples of area where there might be such wrong facts and values: wrong understandings of what terrorism is, and hence what defeat of terrorism is, what the real reasons behind terrorism were and are, what a good leader is, what (and how) a truly good leader would do if he truly believed in some legal changes for the country, what ethnic identity SHOULDN’T be important for, what a true national identity IS, etc., to randomly name just a few.)
Democracy and “Will of the People” isn’t a matter of just “what the majority want” ; but additionally, I guess it’s closer to being accurate to say it’s what they want AFTER they have been exposed fully and fairly to all the relevant facts and principles and values. That is, exposed over a suitably long period of time, and continuously.
So true “padda”!
This is such a storm in a tea cup. Only a handful of people are protesting. The rest of the people have no problem with the 18th amendment.
Only a small number of academics appear to have protested. The president and defence secretary were awarded honorary degrees. That was ok.
But now is the time for right thinking citizens,especially academics, to protest against a pending dictatership in an urgent manner.
Maybe they are victims of the climate of fear that pervades the nation – thinking about the consequences after the 18th amendment, which enslaves public servants, becomes law.
@ Dark Lord and Observer: You’re quite right to say that people have the right to choose their opinions in a democracy. The question here is what the choice those academics who have not signed this document have made tells us about them (assuming it was sent to all of them for their signatures). Why would they refuse to sign a document criticising legislation that concentrates power, removes checks and balances while at the same time weakening the elections commission? Legislation rushed through so fast that most of the people don’t know anything about it, even though it is supposed to be helping them. The implications of those academics’ choice, and what is shows us about them, are important when judging the state of the nation.
While agreeing strongly with Observer that choice is a highly valued commodity in a free country, I think it is worth noting that choices to support the government (or to refuse to criticise it) seem to be far more acceptable in Sri Lanka than choices to oppose the government and criticise it. It is only when all the choices in that sphere of public life are meaningfully available that a country is free.
I do not believe that it is because of fear that senior academics do not protest. They do not do so out of self interest. Many of them criticise in the dark, in the drawing rooms or over a cup of coffee. But ask them to come out into the open and they fade away! This is not fear. It is self interest. They hold lucrative positions and the agitation for better salaries is a joke given the weak academic standards that are followed. Do any of these Faculties even have reputable publications coming out?
Of course, they have a choice to do what they want. Don’t we all? It is because we have choices and don’t exercise them in order to safeguard democracy, that this country will now be under the medamulana jackboot!! Let us wish each other all the best for that period!
I am one of the signatories, and commenting because of the queries as to why only a few academics have signed this. The answer is that we were not able to send it to all – we have written letters like this before too (e.g. about Vice Chancellors pledging support to the President before the Presidential elections) and our general policy is to send to those known to a few (or at least one) of us. Actually there are more I am sure would have signed, but time was of essence. We are not “professional protestors” and spend most of our time in academic pursuit and/or supporting the country’s development – you can “google” (or whatever) our names to check. We tend to write only when keeping silent is intolerable…
I think 4 of us are full professors of the 16 (there were queries about that too) – so 25% is not bad? Some of my fellow signatories are very young – I hold them in the highest regard. By the way, sometimes we academics refrain from putting our titles to convey that we are all “equals” in potential and also to indicate that what we say should be judged on its own merits and not on the basis of the writers’ titles.
Priyan, all of you are brave and patriotic people. You put your neck on the line when the ‘apalling silence of the good people’ becomes deafening. It is because of people like you that there is still hope for Sri Lanka
Priyan, thank you for the information. My questions were only asked for clarification and were not meant to be a criticism. It is admirable that you and your colleagues have stepped up to take a stand on this issue. I salute you all for doing this.
Well this is the problem with flawed democracy. We tend to think that there has to be numbers and majority for something to be correct and accepted.
There were only a few people like Bonhoffer who opposed Hitler in Germany. They had to pay a price for their resistance to his dictatorship.
It will be very similar in any other place at any point in history.
I really admire the academics statement and their bravery!
well done and may god be with you all!
Should it always be “for” or “not for”? Doesn’t anyone have the right to say “I don’t care”? Even for selfish reasons? I guess I have a right to be selfish, right?
If the majority thinks that way, the “for” and “not for” groups, both vocal minorities, try to imply that the silent majority is on their side.
I was in Colombo, but the effect of war was felt here, so I did care about selecting someone to finish it off, either way, in 2005.
SF was a very unstable, arrogant and unknown option to be the president, so I did care about the last presidential elections.
After that, I simply don’t care about politics. It’s the same s**t, different a**holes. At the parliamentary election, defeating Rajapaksa by voting against the government, nor giving the two thirds as the government requested were both not important to me.
Yes, I know those reasons in the books why I should care, that “first they came for so and so” and stuff. But don’t I have a right to simply ignore those and live my life?
@samuel I think there is a difference between “accepting” and “correct”. Electoral systems are about acceptance and not necessarily about correctness. So “numbers and majority” only brings “acceptance”, if at all.
If that is flawed democracy, what is the alternative? If you say that there are ground rules, who sets them? Is it something like “natural justice”? Isn’t it some kind of imposing which is not very different from dictatorship, in principle at least?
Sohan Fernando,
You missed the main reason – FREE WILL or CHOICE!
Like others they too have free will or choice. It is the choice of the majority of the academia (like the majority of Sri Lankans) not to obstruct the 18th Amendment.
@Priyan – Thank you for the comment. You and your colleagues should be saluted for coming out in this way. The thing is that the burden is not on you or your colleagues to ‘pass’ this statement around to others. In fact, these ‘others’ should be spontaneously discussing (like your group has done) about how they could make a positive contribution. They have not done so because they are not interested. It is as simple as that!These are the people who we (mistakenly) call academics in this country!
@TT
No I didn’t miss the main reason. (However I see now an extra misplaced question mark in my comment, might have made it ambiguous.)
Basically in reply to Dark Lord’s comment , I was implying that IF the reason was really a matter of free choice, then yes it IS part of democracy. I then went on to say that IF the reason was not (genuine) free choice but rather due to misinformation or other reasons, then it is NOT part of democracy.
“IF the majority of academics truly don’t like to sign this, and if it’s because they truly disagree with the statement, then yes it IS a part of democracy. [period, not question mark]
However, no it is NOT part of democracy — quite the contrary — IF the reason(s) for their not signing is/are any of the following: as in my previous extended comment.
And, @Dark Lord:
Dark Lord said, Should it always be “for” or “not for”? Doesn’t anyone have the right to say “I don’t care”? Even for selfish reasons? I guess I have a right to be selfish, right?
Yes I guess I’d agree with that to some extent: that could be another reason and yes to a certain extent anyone has a right to be selfish. I don’t know the answer, tentatively I’d say I guess taht in general it’s alright to have a “don’t care” attitude if that’s what the past and present state of affairs has brought us to.
But I’d also say, that everyone does also have a Responsibility to take action (which can include simply speaking up) about matters of serious negative consequence. So it’s not a clear cut case of having an absolutely all-encompassing right to be selfishly silent, not if we’re talking about ethical values (which is wider than just pure legalistic ‘rights’). Our responsibilities come BEFORE our rights, most of us conveniently ignore that, as people have wrongly done from ancient biblical times.
In any case, all these lines of reasoning are not relevant to this particular post, since several people HAVE explained why many of the academics could not be reached. And we shouldn’t forget to thank those several who exercised their responsibility and bravely HAVE signed.
It is pathetic that there are only 16 signatories shown in this letter. Any way, I would salute you all my brothers/sisters for your fight for a great cause. Though I am not surprised that only few people are among us, the real challange is to organize this as a mass protest.
Most Sri Lankans seem to okay it. The problem with the move against the 18th Amendment was that it initiated from the people who are associated with the anti-war campaign. Most Sri Lankans look at them with suspicion to say the least.
JVP is the only sizable political party that is out there canvassing against it but JVP has a colouful past too. Even the JVP is divided over it as some MPs don’t really fight it.
Very little we the expatriates can do as the sentiments in Sri Lanka are different.
Another letter from academics
http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2808/
Does it add so much weight when something comes from an “academic”? If yes, then the words of Prof G L Peiris also should be considered with high regard. One might argue that he has been extremely inconsistent with his policies, which I overwhelmingly agree. However, we can say that only because he is more popular than others and is usually on record.
Being passed out from a university, I know that many academics are not very different from others when it comes to politics. Does anyone know how many “academics” visit those famous “devalas” to get their problems solved?
I know some people in the list above, most are very principled, and don’t visit devalas to my knowledge, and I respect them a lot. However, that respect is for them as people, and not because of their academic affiliation.
My point is that just being an “academic” doesn’t add much value for the present subject matter. Having said that, my respect to those individuals as good citizens does add a lot of weight to their statement.
” The problem with the move against the 18th Amendment was that it initiated from the people who are associated with the anti-war campaign. Most Sri Lankans look at them with suspicion to say the least. ”
You hit the nail on the head there. Totally agree.
I wish this document was more widely circulated; as for me I only saw it now! I do agree with the contents without any reservations. But I wonder what Sri Lankan academics really think about all this? This ‘reform’ will be pushed through parliament. But that does not mean self-respecting academics have to be voiceless. If not, we all would be willing participants in this farce.
@Sonal, Thivya,
” The problem with the move against the 18th Amendment was that it initiated from the people who are associated with the anti-war campaign. Most Sri Lankans look at them with suspicion to say the least. ”
You hit the nail on the head there. Totally agree.
This demonstrates how decrepit Sri Lankan thinking ability has become. If you judge the message based on your opinion of the messenger rather than the content of the message itself, this is nothing more than prejudice. Is your support for this amendment based on anything more than a prejudice against those who question it? Or perhaps it is a unquestioning faith in those that support it? I would argue that prejudice or sycophancy is no basis for supporting such an important change to the way Sri Lanka will be governed.
Have those that support this amendment really made an effort to understand its implications? I don’t see any evidence of this. All I can hear is rhetoric about the greatness of the current president and that it is OK to allow him to contest the presidential election as many times as he wishes. Personally I would have no issue with Mahinda Rajapakshe contesting future elections, *if* at the same time took steps to de-politicise state agencies and ensured the independence of the elections commission.
So my question to you (and all supporters of removing term limits) is this – If the only thing Mahinda Rajapakshe wants is the opportunity to stand at future elections, why does the 18th amendment include the following?
(1) changes to the process of appointing an elections commission which gives the incumbent the power to decide who will ensure the fairness of elections?
(2) changes that remove the power of the elections commission to prevent the use of state property and resources by election candidates?
(3) changes that give the elections commission the power to control election related content of *all* media during and election?
Why are these changes necessary, if the sole intention is to give the people a further opportunity to vote for the president?
Look forward to hearing your responses!
Arosha,
I agree with Sohal.
It is not only the people at fault. These individuals are partly or mostly responsible for this predicament. These people have no character and people look for those things when you criticise someone else. If the person criticising another has no character, people see them as cunning. They have seen many politicians like this who cry over corruption and then end up as the most corrupt.
First of all civil society leaders should be exemplary and show some love for the country so that people will listen to them. Blaming the people is a sure sign of defeat.
The reality is that the 18 amendment will likely be passed in Parliament protest or not.
Protests by a minority is not going to change anything. The majority are just not interested anymore.
@TT
The criticism of the 18th amendment is not about criticising people – it is about criticising the ideas being presented in this amendment.
Can you answer the question I posed about the why it is necessary to modify the powers of the elections commission and the process of appointing the elections commissioner?
AB,
1, 2 & 3. So that the president will have wider powers. Not good in my view. However the fact is there are those who think differently. I appreciate that and I can live with that. In fact most Sri Lankans think otherwise. 161 out of 225 members elected by the people think it is good. 72%. Parliament’s sentiments show the sentiments in the electorate. At least to a great extent.
No point shooting the messenger.
Only 17 out of 225 were against it. 8%.
The other 20% avoided it altogether. This is the reality.
For – 72%
Against – 8%
Undecided – 20%
Politicians generally check the mood in the electorate before making such important decisions and 72% are confident of continuing in politics with the help of the voters. Only 8% are confident that their actions of going against it will be tolerated by the voters. 20% wanted voters to ignore this when judging them. Now it is law.
@ TT
re your reply to AB.
I think some of your facts are distorted, and you have some flawed or hasty logic in jumping to certain conclusions.
you said: 161 out of 225 members elected by the people think it is good. 72%. Parliament’s sentiments show the sentiments in the electorate. At least to a great extent.
At present, Parliament does NOT come close to showing electorate’s sentiments. Firstly, the many crossovers distort that picture. They do NOT represent their electorate, but probably misrepresent and do the opposite.
E.g., one of those I voted for (in the hope that he’ll be far better than many others in doing the right thing both for the country as a whole and also for the misnamed “Tamil problem”) changed sides: HE DARNED WELL DOES NOT REPRESENT ME ANY MORE, but I AM STILL HIS “ELECTORATE”. He does NOT “represent my sentiments”.
Secondly, as has been much debated and proven by sound arguments (including here on Groundviews, by many posters including Groundviews themselves, soon after the various elections), the country’s electorate did NOT get represented accurately by those elections due to various reasons. Example: intimidation being done, which prevented many voters from voting especially in some North and East areas, was a big issue; so was lack of transport for IDPs. Distortion of facts presented to the electorate, due to way out abuse of state resources, was another.
And there are plenty more reasons why Parliament’s composition is, especially in recent times, certainly a very inaccurate reflection of the real electorate’s real sentiments.
you also said: Only 17 out of 225 were against it. 8%.
That’s also inaccurate: the fact that another 20% “avoided” it, doesn’t necessarily mean that they were “undecided” as you imply. In fact, if we look closer at what those 20% have said before, it’s clear that they ARE against it, and as I understood the reason they didn’t vote was not because they were “undecided” as TT incorrectly concludes, but instead it’s because they were refusing to participate in a proceeding which they say should never have got to that stage (under such haste) to begin with (perhaps also due to standing orders 46, I’m not clear about that ); so anyhow, their avoidance of voting was not due to being undecided about it.
(Whether their reason/excuse to stay away was reasonable or not, legal or not, ethical or not, and whatever else one may argue, is all very valid but separate discussion; it doesn’t detract from what I’m saying about the “20% undecided”.)
So I think it’s wrong to take a known fact, the fact that that 20% WERE against it, and then conveniently distort that fact just because they didn’t vote.
As for the country, in plenty of cases, a country has had large scale “support” (seemingly) by its citizens for certain leaders and new laws, but then it has ended up with dictatorial regimes. And in retrospect, in most such cases, it can be concluded that “back then” when the people seemingly supported bad people and bad laws, it was probably not a true reflection of what they would have done IF they HAD been more well informed. In Sri Lanka too, most people are ill informed about the long term consequences; for example, hardly any of the proponents “man on the street” really understand the reasons why most executive systems have imposed a a term limit. So in this atmosphere of an ill informed (and somewhat brainwashed) electorate, we cannot necessarily conclude that general public opinion is really a reflection of what they (we) WOULD really want if the complete facts were not being withheld from them/us, to help understand the bigger picture. (We can’t absolutely conclude it is not, either.)
@SF
True I generalised and it is not 100% accurate. However, it still reflects the general sentiments in the electorate in broad terms.
Surely 161 to 17 (for and against) will not be 17 to 161 (for and against) in the electorate!
It reflects that most people in these electorates are in favour. A large number of those who opposed it were undecided to go against it (for various reasons).
Most MPs who crossed over are young politicians or politicians with a long future ahead. They are surely aware of what it means in the electorate. You lose some voters but gain others.
I disagree that Parliament’s composition is “certainly a very inaccurate reflection of the real electorate’s real sentiments”. PR system proportionately allocates seats and a very large number of people vote at elections. Those who didn’t vote at the April election were happy for those who voted to elect the leaders.
Another aspect to it is there is a portion of electorates’ sentiments that will forever remain unrepresented. That will be the case every time and as far as parliamentary politics is concerned, it does not matter to politicians. They can safely disregard them and get elected. In a democracy you have to do your bit to change the outcome. If you don’t, others will do.
This statement, first published on Groundviews, was quoted at length in the address by Tamil National Alliance Parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran on September 8th 2010 during Parliamentary debate on the 18th amendment to the Constitution. See http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/09/18th_constitutional_amendmenth.html
There is a reason why there are so few signatories. Most of these people are quite selective in their objections, hold political views and entertain preferred-outcomes that very few can identify with. They are not, in the main, people who have steered clear of party politics. So while there could be many who agree with the statement, very few would be interested in being seen to have sided with people whose politics is suspect. Again, I am not saying ‘all’, but ‘many’.
There is the reality of ‘a lot to lose’. It is not that these individuals don’t give a damn; many are already too compromised politically to be able to say ‘I am not party to this (or that)’. There’s no special courage here.
I concur with much of this statement. I will not stand with these individuals though. It would make my objections, minor though they may be in the overall rush, less effective.
Dear Malinda,
“Most of these people [...] hold political views and entertain preferred-outcomes [...] whose politics is suspect”
That’s a bit harsh on these guys, don’t you think? How does them holding political views and desiring a different outcome make their politics “suspect”? If anything, their politics seems very transparent to me, because I can read what they have written, here and in the past.
Yet, I agree with your wider point — statements with multiple signatures are inefficient because the bad guys (and even neutral observers) tend to reject them or judge them by the mud that they can find to throw against the “weakest” element of the list: “He would say that, wouldn’t he, what else can you expect from a chap who programs computers?” etc.
I think that it is rich that Malinda who is as politically compromised as anyone can get, thinks that he can preach about others. Whom do we have as commentators here? As one journalist friend of mine laughed with me some months back, we have people who are paid from Sri Lanka’s Information Department for engaging in propaganda for the government. Quite frankly I do not think that anyone in his or her right mind would want to have Malinda as a signatory on their list! Is not not high time that we called a spade, a spade after all this fox trotting??
I opted to go into medical research though I could have taught at one of our good faculties. I wish that I had continued to teach as if so, I would have signed that statement. I do not support Mahinda and I have only contempt for the UNP. I do respect these academics who have signed the statement.
There are many of us who are not as compromised as you, Malinda. Do not take all of us for fools, please
chrissie….don’t worry, i would not be on your list….i don’t really care much about people who don’t get their facts right. i hope your medical research is not this frivolous!!! sorry, i have to take you for a fool now.
travelling academic….it’s not about holding political views….but the nature of those views and how people might view these.
‘transparent’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘agreeable’.
i said ‘most’ not ‘all’.
“The timeline… reflects both the genesis of the heinous 18th Amendment and also the occasions mainstream press reported that the President attended / “visited” Parliament.
It was no easy task to compile this. Only a handful ordinary citizens would have the expertise to search for this information online, or elsewhere. There is no easy record retrieval of the President’s attendance in Parliament on its official website. But what is immediately obvious when the scattered media reports are taken as a whole is that the 18th Amendment has in no way at all contributed to a more accountable Executive. ”
Excerpt from ‘Months after the 18th Amendment: Is the Executive really more accountable to Parliament?’, http://groundviews.org/2011/06/11/months-after-the-18th-amendment-is-the-executive-really-more-accountable-to-parliament/