http://english.srilankamirror.com/2012/05/mervyn-silva-cleared-at-disciplinary-inquiry/

Why the majority of the nation including fellow parliamentarians let them make easily fool – remain unanswered.. ones who are out of the country would never get this.

can anybody of you please comment on this. … that is really worth to discuss. ALARMING ISSUE TOWARDS the majority folks of the country-. it seems, there are zero level of laws in action under the current rule. Why can a minister behaves as if he was born before the civilization begann – and why the executive president, senior ministers of the same party always protect the man.

While acknowledging and thanking the positive responses from the majority comments here, including Thass, Indrajith, Dr.Rumi, Andre, Gamarala, Ravana, etc; I wanted to share my thoughts on 3 distinct points raised by some others, which may contradict with the line of thoughts I have written.

Firstly, on the subject of General Fonseka being accused of ‘engaging in politics while being in the military’ and implying ‘he deserved’ to be ‘punished’; the simple omission of the fact that we saw selective application of the law with a highly-questionable military tribunal / court martial officials serving “justice” which was least transparent plus the way many other officers from both security apparatus and in administrative rankings openly doing politics on TV, radio, newspapers and also on-stage at times going scot-free can only be understood, I assume, with proper sanity rather than blind faith.

Secondly, I personally would prefer to agree with kadphises and Ravana’s point on the terminology General Fonseka is allegedly has used and attributed to him, however it is important I believe that he makes a clarification soon enough so even the slightest doubt on that particular subject can be erased off with a sizeable bloc within Tamils and Muslims who are cautious to look up to him as much as some others like myself. After all, it would also pressurize the current administration to more thoughtful before they wash their hands-off constitutional rights of citizens from minority communities, under the guise of assumed majoritarian backing.

Finally, with regard to the comment about myself being unapologetic about voting for Mr Rajapakse in 2005 and that alone not saying much about my choices and taking it in the context of ‘missing tsunami funds, etc’ (I assume this was about the infamous Helping Hambantota funds?); I don’t believe that I should feel ashamed or say I was careless as my decisions have always been on the policies of the candidates rather than party lines as I did state above. In this case, I found Mr Rajapakse’s track record in 2005, leading up to being Prime Minister and the charisma then; and I thought for myself “oh, this guy doesn’t seem to be the polished up statesman but would probably end up being someone like late President Premadasa in terms of his bottom-up approach”.

However, I respect the individual opinion of the comment by “concerned”. But, I still am unapologetic simply due to the fact that I did make a logical decision which as a voter I was satisfied to vote with rather than following someone blindly to cast my vote based on peer-pressure, party affiliations. But similarly, I did exercise my right to vote completely the other way round by voting for General Fonseka in 2010; again based primarily on the principles of the candidate and I do not or will not regret that either, regardless of the outcome.

All in all, I am feeling somewhat relieved that most of the feedback both written here and what some people have told me in person after reading this have been positive and optimistic about how General Fonseka may be a factor for most of us to be rallying around, in correcting and keeping the elected officials in-check for the sake of our country, which can’t afford to repeat the historic mistakes as we all are looking forward for that day when we can be prouder as Sri Lankans who respect pluralism, rule of law, democracy and personal liberties, rather than being afraid of repercussions for being a dissenting voice.

PS

Pakistan and Myanmar in the past were not considered democracies and are not good examples to be followed.

As I recall, Mr. Fonseka did not use the word “tourist”. Nevertheless, he should have had an adviser to help him shape his words better when exposing himself to an international journalist (was it some thing like “minorities have been accommodated?” It may be appropriate to revisit it even as a means of getting him to clarify further. I also recall him giving a clarification soon afterwards). Even then he should have realised that his words would be politically interpreted.
As the author implies I do not think the words conveyed what he meant but he has to accept responsibility for it and correct that impression.
The author of this article makes a wonderful contribution which restores my faith in Sri Lankans and their ability to see above sectarianism. I fear though that he is in a minority.

Fonseka is here to stay it seems (unless dark forces which are gathering Karuna Amman’s men carrying T-56 weapons to Colombo have their way) and will make a significant impact on the political landscape of the country. The war to win the territory of Lanka was easy. The war to win the hearts and minds of a nation should have begun 3 years ago. I think Fonseka, like many of us was aware of this and has an opportunity to engage in this much more subtle war once again.

Let us hope that he would assist and lead in the fight against the sectarian and racists forces of Lanka. This may be the last pitch to keep Lanka independent and secure for all its citizens.

Otherwise it would not be land worth visiting.

This is a point of contention. Please read

http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/08/_so_called_court_martial_of_sa.html

So called court martial of Sarath Fonseka is contrary to natural justice principles and Article 25 of ICCPR

By Ranil Wickremesinghe

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees to every citizen the right and the opportunity to be elected at periodic elections to ensure the free expression of the will of the electors (Article 25). Sri Lanka, as a party to this Convention has an obligation under Article 2 of the ICCPR to ensure that all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction are granted the rights recognized in the Convention

The Sri Lanka Constitution also affirms these rights under Article 3 (the right to franchise) and Article 14 (freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement etc). It is the Constitution of any country that grants authority to the legislature to enact a statute. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, much quoted during the recent Court Martial of Sarath Fonseka, a Constitution is a “Charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state … prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers… A Statute (eg. an Act of Parliament) is the written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it the law of the State.”

Then it is the Constitution which has granted authority to Parliament to enact a statute. Therefore, any Act of Parliament cannot legally deny any person the fundamental freedoms granted by the Constitution including the freedoms referred to in Article 25 of the ICCPR.

“For me, SF exudes statesmanship and comes across as measured, thoughtfull and intelligent in his interviews,”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIn1ckaQB0

“It takes courage to admit that war crimes did take place.”

What did he acknowledge to be his role in those war crimes?

Thass, whether there was a vendetta against SF or not, what is proved beyond reasonable doubt is that he was engaged in politics while he was in uniform. how on earth would he be able to announce that he will be contesting the elections within weeks of retiring?

Fonseka proved by his conduct that he was guilty of the charge he was convicted of.

Now if you want to challenge the morality of the law that prohibits military and police from being engaged in politics I have two things to tell you.

1. It is the law of the country and it had been the law for decades well before SF played politics. so the law was not brought in just to punish him.

2. there is a very good reason why in democratic nations the military is required to follow the orders of civilian officials and leaders (look at Pakistan, Myanmar)

As far as I am concerned SF deserved a much sever punishment for this wrongful act, through which he did irreparable damage to Sri Lanka’s Army.

A number of more intelligent comments than mine have appeared since I wrote at 11.48 a.m. None more so than that of “Kadphises”. I Googled that funny name, learnt much about the Kushan dynasty in India, and realised that here was a real student of History. I find myself in agreement with all that he says, but I would like to add that the General should be wary of the “other U.N.P” as well. Tiran Alles at least got the General out of jail and in a position to speak out. Ranil W.’s cavils resemble those of the King of Lilliput who objected to the manner in which Gulliver put out the fire in his palace.

Most of us are agreed that the rough-hewn soldier may lack the qualities required in a President, but Gamarala’s hint that Fonseka must now be a changed man is valid. Few of us know how to vote; as I write news is coming in of the disaster in Egypt where the vote of the secular liberal majority has been split so that the run-off will be between the two most divisive candidates. In our last Presidential elections we were given three preferences, so we could register dis-satisfaction with the leading candidates. Was I right to first vote for no-hopers whom I considered honest? So rarely do we know the answers, but my point is that few bothered to even study the system of voting.

Let us pray the Fonseka has the wisdom to realise that he has achieved all that a soldier can; he may be able to propel somebody more suitable in to the Presidency, and who knows but Posterity will acknowledge his role as fore-runner was the more crucial. The Rajapaksas may unwittingly have helped us citizens groaning under the yoke of their tyranny by NOT allowing the General to be a candidate. His value lies in being a symbol of the defiance of Dictatorship.