Comments on: A response to Kusal Perera on political honesty and questioning Sarath Fonseka

By: Migara

Migara — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:29:58 +0000

@ Justice and Idealist

Your definition of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is different from mine. SL has equal rights for every culture. Hence in front of the law and the constitution all the cultures are similar. But what I mean by true multiculturalism is what you find in Switzerland. All the cultures in Switzerland has helped in developing its identity . But in SL, it’s the Sinhalese-Buddhist identity that shaped culture of SL. The Tamil chauvinists are the main people who are unable to understand it.

By: Justice

Justice — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:12:53 +0000

This comment is for Migara,XYZ and the likes!
pluralism is not simply relativism, but makes room for real and different religious commitments. Some people are wary of the language of pluralism, insisting that it effectively waters down one’s own religious beliefs by acknowledging that others believe differently. Some mistakenly think that a pluralist perspective assumes that there is no real difference among various religious traditions and their values.
On the contrary, the encounter of a pluralist society is the encounter of real commitments and real differences.
Pluralism does not require relinquishing the distinctiveness of one’s own tradition of faith to reach the “lowest common denominator.” In the public square of a pluralist society, commitments are not left at the door.
Rather, pluralism invites people of every faith or of none to be themselves, with all their particularities, and yet to be engaged in creating a civil society, through the critical and self-critical encounter with one another.
Pluralism is a process of creating a society by acknowledging, rather than hiding, our deepest differences.
The vigorous encounter of a pluralistic society is not premised on achieving agreement on matters of conscience and faith, but achieving a vigorous context of discussion and relationship.
E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one,” envisions one people, a common sense of a civic “we,” but not one religion, one faith, one conscience. Unum does not mean uniformity. Perhaps the most valuable thing people of many faiths have in common is their commitment to a society based on the give and take of the civil dialogue at a common table.

By: Idealist?

Idealist? — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:41:15 +0000

Sri Lanka is NOT multi-ethnic and multi-cultural??? Oh really??? That is news to me @ Migara and xyz! You guys even have Portuguese words in everyday spoken Sinhala and Hindu gods in Buddhist temples!!!

Why look at the USA? Look closer to home at India, where the current Prime Minister is a Sikh and the previous President was Muslim (and even in India things are FAR from perfect!).

By: Xyz

Xyz — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:37:27 +0000

Migara’s point of view is correct. if ever Ganashan wanna be a president in this country he should understand the culture that made identity of this island

By: Realist

Realist — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:58:15 +0000

I must congratulate Mano for being true to his voters and raising the issue. Sarath Fonseka is no democrat nor is his credentials on HR issues acceptable. So Mano is right to raise the issues and obtain his confirmation at least on behalf of his voters. He is to be admired not deprecated.
The question we democrats who believe in freedom and HR is the same as that faced by Churchill during the Second World War- should the Allies join up with Stalin a fascist murderer or not. For the sake of defeating the greater evil we now have who has violated media freedom and the Rule of Law. I myself raised this issue with some UNPers in the hierarchy. This decision is one of those imponderables for me since I don’t know Sarath Fonseka’s background and values. Perhaps Ranil and the JVP know the greater evil better than us.

By: Realist

Realist — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:48:45 +0000

I appreciate the stand taken by Mano. I myself asked a Deputy UNP leader why pick on an unknown quantity whose democratic if not human rights credentials are questionable. Sarath Fonseka is a Sinhala nationalist. who,openly said the minorities have to depend on the majority for their rights. This is not an acceptable position. The question now is whether it would be better to ally with .

By: Migara

Migara — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:17:06 +0000

Let us start from me. I very confidently believe that I have THE eligibilities to perform as the president of this country. I can vouch I would be a better president than many who live with such presidential dreams. But alas, I am not a Sinhala Buddhist. There ends my dream.

Mr, Ganesgan, you don’t have the BIGGEST eligibility to be a leader of the country. That is the acceptance of the mainstream culture of the country. Even Barak Obama has to fight out of his skins to show that he is not a Muslim. You may be not knowing (or suffering from selective amnesia) that Tamil Kings did rule SL in the whole of 18th century and early 19th century. They accepted the mainstream culture of Sinhala Buddhists. What you people want is to label this country as multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, which is not. The country has only one main stream culture, and both of us know what it is. No ruler has been succesful in any country if they did not accept the mainstream culture of that country

By: SomewhatDisgusted

SomewhatDisgusted — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:41:24 +0000

I have little respect for most politicians. They live in a different world and have a mindset I can barely identify with. All of them fancy themselves as having “THE eligibilities to perform as the president of this country”. Sadly, the intellectual cream/the first rate minds of our society do not seem to have these same “eligibilities”.

The eligibility in question is in the hands of trade unionists, third rate lawyers and army commanders, for whom I can summon little or no respect for as suitable leaders for this country. Maybe I’m wrong in hoping for a leader of a country to also be one of its most outstanding intellectuals, but clearly, that’s too great an expectation. Not that I possess the kind of colonized mind which equates having a piece of paper from Oxford to being an intellectual and spits on the local intellectual cream for not possessing the same “sophistication” in aping British mannerisms. But is it really too much to wish for genuine first rate minds displaying some erudition, integrity, capability and understanding of both local and global forces, to present themselves as candidates? Clearly, in MR, we have a leader with capability and an understanding of local/global forces, but no erudition or integrity. And before anyone says that intellectuals don’t have a chance to come to power, let’s be clear that we’ve had plenty of pseudo-intellectual Brown Sahibs in power, but they’ve failed to properly manage local/global forces, and we all know where that’s led us to.

How about the likes of Justice Weeramantri aspiring for presidency, or even Dayan J., who’ve displayed both capability, vision and integrity, over the current set of “aspirants”? Why don’t they give things a go, just for the heck of it, when every other idiot seems to fancy applying for the job? Must we only have these bumbling Brown Sahibs like RW, totally disconnected from the hopes and dreams of the common people of this country, or the nepotistic and self-serving ones, like MR who know how to pander to the masses (frankly, given the current choices, my vote is still with him), or nationalistic freaks like SF or better yet, our latest “qualified” aspirant without a snowball’s chance in hell, Mano Ganesan, to lead us? (sure, looking at the others, Mano Ganesan too, why not?)

Well, that ends my rant and ends me harping on the obvious. Back to reality and back to how best to move forward under this unpleasant reality. And to that end, I have to agree with Mano Ganesan’s following statement:

“But they are complaining on everything on earth. But for decades they failed to change even a single street let alone the country.”

At least he’s shrewed enough to realize that he needs to work “within” the system. Certainly the hallmark of a “good” politician.

By: Sinhala_Voice

Sinhala_Voice — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:16:43 +0000

Sarath Foneska as good as he is in term of his so called anti-corruption stance is NOT going to be a strong president.

WHY ? He is a common candidate from parties that hold diagrammatically OPPOSITE points of view on everything. Eg: JVP, Tamil Parties and UNP.

So A WEAK PRESIDENT RUN BY A MYSTERIOUS HAND. Either Chandrika or Ranil.

Point to remember these people had their chance BUT could NOT defeat terrorist separatist Tamil Militia for a separate state. If it was NOT for Mahinda, Sarath Fonseka and Gotatabhya ALL in one sentence then LTTE will be still alive and well.

Sarath, Mahinda and Gotabhaya MUST realise that it is their TEAM WORK that defeated LTTE not ANY individual.

I hope it is NOT once again TOO late for Sri Lanka.

What we need is STRONG Sinhala-Buddhist unity to fix what is WRONG with the systems that we have in place for the betterment of EVERYONE and every political hues.

Otherwise we are in trouble

By: Jusitice

Jusitice — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:56:34 +0000

Well said Mano.
Engagement in politics is as important as policies them self.It’s time for all politicians and would be politicians to think beyond nationalist rancor in the interest of the country.When I look at Mano’s view with this mind set I see no problem in his approach.
Let’s hope the General reciprocates in a favorable way not just with word but with actions too.That will be the moment that we all can look back in history and call it the defining moment in the history of SL.I am day dreaming?.Then again dreams do come true.