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.

we love sri lanka to be a country like singarpore

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.

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 !