Dissanayake said that the rot started with the introduction of the 1978 Constitution of the Second Republic of Sri Lanka. Since then there had been a general deterioration of standards, he said emphasising that the vast majority of those elected to Parliament after 1978 could not be compared with their predecessors. “There aren’t gentlemen in politics today,” he said.

He blamed the major political parties for carrying out mud slinging campaigns against each other. Responding to media queries, he acknowledged that the country could not expect major political parties to behave at the forthcoming parliamentary polls.

Commenting on a recent statement attributed to Rehabilitation Minister Risath Bathuthudeen that the election staff had purposely left out some votes marked in favour of the President, Dissanayake said that he had the politician removed from a certain place while the voting was on. He declined to elaborate.

He said that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which envisaged the appointment of Constitutional Council and Independent Commissions could not be the panacea to the country’s ills. He said as a Buddhist he felt that the 17th Amendment as well as the 1978 Constitution of the Second Republic of Sri Lanka had not been introduced with good intentions. Anything that had been done with dishonourable intention would not succeed. He said that the country was experiencing never ending trouble due to politically motivated decisions.

He rapped political parties for adopting the 17th Amendment without a thorough study. He said that it was rushed through parliament with 215 of 225 MPs approving it, though glaring shortcomings exist in that piece of legislation.

He said that the government could not advice him regarding the dates for election. He said that he had not gone behind anyone asking for dates.

The Commissioner said that he could not initiate a re-count, though he would do it on a directive given by the Supreme Court.

Commenting on a complaint lodged by defeated presidential candidate General (retd) Sarath Fonseka earlier in the day with the Elections Secretariat, Dissanayake said that he would investigate the incident and take action against anyone responsible for any irregularity. Fonseka, accompanied by UNP deputy leader Karu Jayasuriya, Colombo District leader Ravi Karunanayake and Ratnapura District MP Thalatha Atukorale met Dissanayake. They told Dissanayake that 64 ballot papers had been detected in Ratnapura following the election.

Dissanayake told the media that this (Ratnapura detection) could be included in their election petition. He requested the media not to misinterpret his statements to suit their agendas. He dared the Opposition to prove his assertion that the election was free and fair as being wrong.

He said that anyone with grievances in relation to the recently concluded poll should go before the Supreme Court without appealing to the international community. He said that there was no point in calling press conferences to issue statements unless the Opposition initiated legal action.

Yesterday’s press briefing attracted representatives from the British High Commission and the German embassy in the wake of the Opposition’s appeal to the international community to intervene in Sri Lanka.

He said that there was no need to annul polling at any of the polling booths due to violence. He revealed that some of those who claimed that they were not allowed to enter counting centres were later found to have even signed the register. In keeping with an understanding among the Elections Commissioner, the IGP and political parties, agents of political parties were allowed to accompany ballot boxes from polling booths to counting centres.

Read full Article: Dayananda Dissanayake slams politicos, 1978 Constitution
Says 17th Amendment no panacea for country’s ills
link: http://www.island.lk/2010/02/04/news5.html

So if there is NO LAW use commonSENSE.

If you have NO COMMONSENSE you have NO RIGHT TO GOVERN

Too long wait for new term. Elections should have called in October 2010. We are mixing up everything as usaual. Not very methodical way of doing things. Firsts finish what you started and then call for election then start the new term soon after announcement of election results.

MR also takes chance to stay in power. Constitution has given room for politians to abuse the system. We all though he has finished his work in four years, now it changed to five years. we voted for six years from 26jan 2010 not 7 years.

Step by step method. we are in soup. Why MR called for early elections?
I havent read constitution, but its common sense of people.

I was in contact with Mr H.L de Silva P.C. on the day of the judgement and later that afternoon he emailed me his submission to court, and we compared notes. Although, the 3 Amendment has convoluted terminology, a clear mathematical tabulation shows that Chandrika had time till 2006. There is no ambiguity. This was detailed out by Prof Laksiri Fernando too in a parallel article to the newspapers. A top Colombo Prof of Maths agreed with my stepwise tabulation and added ‘the 2005 judgement was political decision and a way out of the political impasse’. Mr H.L de Silva confirmed to me that night ‘we may not seek a full bench review of the judgement’ probabaly as the cards were weighted heavily against her all round.

The 2005 judgement made no attempt to work out the maths (which clearly gives Chandrika another year) but gave the judgement based on the preamble – ‘supremacy of the mandate’ to be effective on the declation of the results – essentially on the principle that one cannot take a ‘rain cheque’ to be used later. Further, the critical date as per the Constitutiuon is the date of declaration of the result and no other.

However, due to the 2005 judgement, the second term will not be connected to the first term anymore if the incumbent wins – the terms stand apart. If the 2005 judgement was not there, then the first and second terms are very much connected, the day of declation of the results in the first term as the the pivotal date.

Leanie Meanie too has brought up another clear conflict that will occur in the case the incumbent loses but would still be able to saty on till a term of 6 yrs is up, although he is rejected by the voter. I also fully agree that highly paid legislators have been sleeping at the wheel since 2005 and not followed up on the judgement to make necessary changes.

You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

The President who was elected for a six year term for purely strategic political reasons went for a Presidential Election for a another six year term.

So by calling an election an election he as foregone his mandate to rule for six years. Otherwise if he loses then then winner will not be able to take office until the time runs out for the incumbent.

Therefore, when elected he gets elected for another 6 year term from the date of the election that is 26th January 2010 and ends on 25th January 2016. That is ALL.

So effectively out of possible 12 years president has ruled for 10/12. He got that because for strategic reason he went in for early elections.

As I understand, the Constitution is quite clear on the situation that we’re considering. Situation is that of an imbecile president holding an election and then … (whoops, my vocabulary can be poor some times: is the correct word incumbent or imbecile?)… So anyways: when the incumbent president is not the winner (either because he didn’t contest or because he contested and lost), then when does the new elected president start his or her term?

That’s the situation we are in now, as I see it…..
and its answer is quite simple: he starts his new term immediately after the election!

Now of course if for some reason we were talking about the hypothetical case of that incumbent (or what ever) president winning, or of him being selected not but nevertheless getting himself appointed, then your post above is relevant. And in that case you’d want to realize that some cheeky presidents might try to do something like what this article suggests: twisting the Constitution to aim at starting the new term in November 2011, not 2010. Take a look at the last section of this http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/news/2327.html “then the oaths should be taken in November not of the same year but of the preceding year. In this case it should be 2011 November which gives him a total of eight years”.

It is illogical but that’s exactly what our population is vulnerable to being suckered into, as recent events also showed.