This is a simple masterpiece.
Push the problem as far as you can, until you believe it has disappeared.
Then in the eyes of the Pusher, the problem has disappeared.

THEY ARE ASKING US TO SHOW THE PROBLEMS.
THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND THE TRAITORS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE CREATING IMAGINARY PROBLEMS.

This has been the technique since 1948.
The rulers of this Country have continuously bluffed this muted Nation.
Pacts, Agreements, and Commissions have been initiated, not one with any sincerity of purpose.
CITIZENS HAVE BEEN LEFT HIGH AND DRY WITH HOPE, ALL WITH EMPTY PROMISES.

Thanks for your service.

Hope you don’t forget that LLRC website didn’t have the submissions made in Tamil – it had English submissions – with conspicuous transcrpting mistakes – and some Sinhala submissions translated into English.
Therefore even the ”informed” section of our citizenry who could go up to the website wouldn’t probably know about the contents of the submissions. This website reported that many English and Sinhala media reported the submissions by Sinhalese selectively.

Therefore there is a lot of work for NGOO.

Geethika

Thanks for the explanation. It is good to go into the field and explain things to people. Politicians too go to the field before elections and convince people by various means. Public perception can be moulded by using the mass media and other means so it is a rather volatile factor.

Public perception can also be coloured by culture, race and religous beliefs. It is not neccesary that such perceptions are morally correct. Right and Wrong can mean differently to different people. People can be aroused to perform criminal acts.

I think such systems may work in developed countries where there is free media, right to information and rule of law. Here there are Government controls, denial of human rights and justice. Rule of law is selective.

So the task undertaken by you is commendable but may not be effective unless carried out on a wide scale. Perhaps it will have an impact at micro level in a village or community and help bring about better understanding and reconcilliation amongst people. But it may not have a major impact and change govt policy unless done on a large scale including all the stakeholders.

Geethika

Thanks for the explanation. It is good to go into the field and explain things to people. Politicians too go to the field before elections and convince people by various means. Public perception can be moulded by using the mass media and other means so it is a rather volatile factor.

Public perception can also be coloured by culture, race and religous beliefs. It is not neccesary that such perceptions are morally correct. Right and Wrong can mean differently to different people. People can be aroused to perform criminal acts.

I think such systems may work in developed countries where there is free media, right to information and rule of law. Here there are Government controls, denial of human rights and justice. Rule of law is selective.

So the task undertaken by you is commendable but may not be effective unless carried out on a wide scale. Perhaps it will have an impact at micro level in a village or community and help bring about better understanding and reconcilliation amongst people. But it may not have a major impact and change govt policy unless done on a large scale including all the stakeholders.

Citizen,
I would like to explain the theoretical background for this article. Everything in the world is meaningful. There is nothing out of discourse. There cannot be only one discourse for one thing. There is a play among these discourses and what we try in politics is to make one discourse meaningful over the others.
When we talk about “democracy”, there are many discourses as to what “democracy” is. Therefore to make it meaningful we need to know how these discourses work at regional and village levels etc. According to Gramschi every person is an intellectual. What we need is to recognize the discourses and construct them as worth. I believe in Substantive democracy. We can only achieve substantive democracy by creating a discourse. If you are not familiar with this you may not understand the importance of going to the field and considering their understanding of these things. The view that politicians know everything and that they have to do everything for the public is based on the idea of representative democracy. But how we can be assure the representative of the people always represent what public want? Therefore I think public perception is important.

Rita,
You’re absolutely right when you say: ”he doesn’t wish to implement the recommendations of LLRC – he doesn’t feel that he should be fair to the ethnic minorities”:

‘’The launch of the National Policy Framework for Social Integration that took place at the President’s House in Temple Trees follows the report of the Lessons Learn and Reconciliation Commission which was validated by the UN Human Rights Council in March and the National Human Rights Action Plan to be submitted at its forthcoming meeting in November. …. The national anthem was sung in Sinhala only’’ – Vasudeva And Putting Social Integration Policy Into Action, Jehan Perera (Chairman, NPCSL), 23 July 2012, http://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/vasudeva-and-putting-social-integration-policy-into-action/

When he stops the national anthem from being sung in Tamil when he launched the National Policy Framework for Social Integration he insults all the Sri Lankans.

”President Mahinda Rajapaksa is to lead a campaign organized by the government to muster the support of the people against the Resolution passed at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva” – MR To Lead Campaign To Get People’s Support, 1 April 2012, http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/04/01/mr-to-lead-campaign-to-get-peoples-support/

In the elctions he got overwhelming majority from the people. So he can get on with the full implementation of LLRC if he thinks it is right.

But we can say from his inaction that he doesn’t wish to implement the recommendations of LLRC – he doesn’t feel that he should be fair to the ethnic minorities.

If there is a will within the govt esp the president he could/would have implemented the LLRC report.

The unique feature of the LLRC was it was actually released, many are the commissions that have been appointed whose reports are gathering dust not to be seen by the public ! The LLRC was released not because the government wanted to but because the international community was watching and waiting !

If the 18th amendment can be rushed through in double quick time, then why the delay in implementing this?
The non implementation of the easiest and something that costs zero cents –the return of the national anthem in Tamil has not been done is a sign of things to come !

Instead the extremist are being placated and the ball is thrown to the parliment and people to decide. People will say various things but leaders are there to lead. They must decide what is best for all communities. LLRC reccomendations are the minimum requirement to ensure reconcilliation amongst the communities. Asking second and third opinions is not the way to go.

Having opinion polls to decide what people want will always be one sided as the Majority does not feel there is any problem. It is the people in the war torn areas who are suffering. It is better to ask the displaced people in the North and North East what they want and do something for them.

Perhaps this articles needs to detail exhaustively and analyse the opinions of various segments if this is a representative sample of the people in Trinco as well as other areas. It is not clear what the result is and what was achieved.