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/

‘transparent’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘agreeable’.

i said ‘most’ not ‘all’. 🙂

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

“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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.