thanks for writing your very interesting and honest piece!

“When the masses ask questions the leaders are in the spot light and will be held accountable ”

“I praise the devil’s advocates as it is their courage and persistence that will help make this world more compassionate. ”

I agree with both these statements wholeheartedly.

There is nothing wrong in asking questions and this really only helps strengthen the resolve of good policies, and promote transparency within leadership.

“You must understand is that, questioners in USA, Canada, UK, deep down have the best interest of their country in mind. Muck rakers, in Sri Lanka have the sole purpose of spoiling who ever is in power.”

I also agree with this statement that was made by Warun in the comments section. I think it is counter-productive for an opposition or alternative political party to blindly criticise a government, without being committed to doing something different or better if they themselves were in power.

Herein lies the subtle difference between asking a question using “constructive criticism”, and asking a question using “destructive criticism”.

Just because some people, or groups, who ask questions have destructive intentions doesn’t mean that “all” people who ask questions have these intentions.

If such a generalisation is made it ruins the environment of asking questions with the intention of improving society – and this will be a huge loss to society.

I think the judgements we make about people or groups intentions is all related to the “language” used. If we communicate in non violent way, using compassion, and always try and acknowledge the counter-argument to whatever point we make, we may create a more trusting and productive environment for us all to live in.

Let’s prove Sri Lanka to be the forward thinking, creative “right brain” utilising country it can be, by being more accepting of devils advocacy for any idea presented.

But let’s also do it in a compassionate and non-violent way, with the motivation of improving our society at heart.

Thanks again for writing about this worthwhile topic Lalith.

I forgot to add in my posting last evening: Thank you for an excellent piece of writing. Yes, Sri Lanka can do with more Devil’s Advcates!

Atheist,

I agree with what you have stated in your seond posting.

As I mentioned in my post, I knew Voltaire was a writer. The first thing you think of when you here the name Voltaire is Candide. Isn’t it? He, being a non-conformist, attacked the church and the narrow view of optimism that was popular in the 18th century. He uses irony and humour to dismiss absolute Truth. I think this is the reason Voltaire’s writing is still very much relevant today.

I am just wondering whether we can justify taking lives as a way of fixing this. LG

Churchill as I recalled said ” we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the [graves] etc etc”. He personally approved the mass bombings of Civilian sites, hospitals, schools, entire cities in Germany during WW2. And he didn’t do it to save the Jews, he did it to save the British empire falling into German and Japanese hands.

There is nothing wrong with playing the devil’s advocate. There are many who does this, in many different ways. It’s the way in which you play this advocate, the way ask your questions which; a. gives you the results b. indicates your genuineness of concern.

The naivity of certain people who think that a third world country, economy, (highly depenedent) and facing a war, should practice a 1st world freedom of expression policy of peace time comparable to most progressive states like canada , is astounding. Note that even the most developed, socially liberal, progressive states like Great Britain, USA, France, Germany do not stand by such liberty in times of war, when the state itself is threatened.

One thing that You must understand is that, questioners in USA, Canada, UK, deep down have the best interest of their country in mind. Muck rakers, in Sri Lanka have the sole purpose of spoiling who ever is in power. The other thing is that, these journalists have so called ‘journalistic standards’, ‘journalistic ethics’.

Under the American system ‘social responsibility of media’, the government has the right to step in if the media is not being responsible. Responsibility and ethics in this sense means, a newspaper being a newspaper, and not an opinion paper. News and Opinion being distinguisged. Editorials being fair and balanced. giving opportuity for those being criticised to give their side of the story. The other side of the story being given a equal airing. while State media in this country does not practice this, independent media must take it upon themselves to ensure that if they expect freedom and respect, they must have standards and be ethical in their conduct.

My question may seem absurd to you and the GV readers; anyway, I would like to ask you, if the mentioned Voltaire is the same one who wrote Candide. As far as I have read, I know that Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet) was an author/philosopher who criticized, and wrote satires about Catholicism, the government and the nobility. He was a non-conformist who saw custom as enslaving the human imagination.

I am a little bit bewildered by your statement: “We respect the courage and honesty of Voltaire and other leaders of the time for they laid the foundation for an enlightened century”. How do you attribute “leader” to Voltaire?

Also the quotation: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it” – are you sure it was Voltaire who made this statement?

Please don’t get offended by my asking these questions; I belong to a completely different generation. I am sure there must be new research on Voltaire that your generation is being exposed to.