6 August, 2020

Blog

A Country Without A Parliament Is No Democracy: Sumanthiran Argues As Hearings Begin On FRs

Eight fundamental rights petitions concerning the date of the parliamentary elections and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s adamant refusal to reconvene the dissolved Parliament were taken up for hearing before a five judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday (18).

Sumanthiran

The hearings, which were held in the Supreme Court’s ceremonial court 501 in order to maintain social distancing during the corona virus pandemic.

The highly charged cases could have massive implications on politics and governance, legal observers said, as the Supreme Court steps in to arbitrate a thorny constitutional tension between President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the old Parliament in which his party does not hold a majority.

Appearing for the Attorney General was Additional Solicitor General Indika Demuni De Silva. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s own lawyer Romesh De Silva PC appeared on behalf of the Secretary to the President P.B. Jayasundera.

President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran began arguments for the petitioners representing Journalist and civil activist Victor Ivan and Charitha Gunaratne.

Sumanthiran PC prefaced his submissions by setting out the history of Parliament and explaining that Parliament is a continuing institution that does not cease to exist because it has been dissolved. “During dissolution, Parliament only goes into sleep mode” the senior lawyer told the Supreme Court. He added that it can be reawakened through Article 70 (7) of the constitution which empowers the President to reconvene a dissolved Parliament during a national emergency.

Setting out the basis on which the majority of petitions have been filed challenging the President, Sumanthiran PC submitted to court that the President’s power to dissolve parliament prematurely – that is before its 5 year term was over – and call early elections had specific restrictions attached to it as stipulated in Article 70 (5) of the Constitution.

Article 70 (5) of the constitution is clear that after Parliament is dissolved early by the President, a new Parliament must convene NO LATER THAN three months after the date of dissolution. In the present context, the three month constitutional deadline for Parliament to meet is June 2.

The petitioners’ case clarifies that the June 20 election date set by the Elections Commission alone exceeds the period of time that the country can be governed without a Parliament as set out by the constitution. Counsel for Gunaratne and Ivan pointed out that the President had gone ahead and called an early election despite the fact that the COVID-19 was already a full blown crisis, and only days after the dissolution in March, the World Health Organisation had declared a pandemic.

“The Elections Commission has done its own thing, fixing elections on June 20th being totally blind to the constitution,” Sumanthrian argued. “Isn’t this a joke being played on the sovereign people by the Elections Commission and the Executive President?,” he queried.

Counsel for the petitioners Ivan and Gunaratne explained that the presidential proclamation dissolving parliament was ab initio void because the proclamation set out an April 25th date for the election and May 14th as a date for the new Parliament to sit.

“April 25th has come and gone. May 14th has come and gone and there is no new Parliament now. Therefore the proclamation is now erroneous on the face of record, thus it is void” Sumanthiran PC explained at length.

Explaining how crucial parliament is to a constitutional democracy, Sumanthiran illustrated that the three organs of the state – the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary – were like three legs of a tripod. “If one falls, the whole thing collapses.”

“A country without a Parliament is not a democracy,” Sumanthiran asserted.

The President, Sumanthiran explained had several keys to end the deadlock created by the delayed elections but he had failed to use it. Therefore the final key to end the deadlock lay with the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the President’s Counsel said.

He appealed to the Supreme Court to safeguard the institution of Parliament which is now under lock and key and under army guard.

Sumanthiran went on to state that the June 20th election could in any event not be held now as several legal stipulations could not be met by that date.

The Parliamentary Elections Act requires at least five weeks of campaigning to be allowed for before a polling date.

Recalling the Supreme Court judgment in the 2018 dissolution cases, Sumanthiran said that the President does not have untrammeled plenary power. He recalled that a 7 judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that the president’s powers were subject to and curtailed by the constitution.

Listing the challenges in conducting elections under the present pandemic situation, the counsel for Ivan and Gunaratne explained that sufficient laws would have to be enacted to conduct elections under the present pandemic conditions. Only Parliament could pass those laws, he explained, adding that other branches of Government could not be allowed to usurp the sole power of Parliament to legislate.

Supreme Court has always jealously guarded Parliament’s power to legislate, he added.

“What has to be done by legislature must be done by legislature not the executive like the curfew being declared by the Presidential media division’s press release,” Sumanthiran charged.

Preliminary objections were raised by Counsel for Dr Jayasundara and the AG appearing for the President and as AG. Both Romesh De Silva PC and ASG De Silva pointed to the fact that the petitions did not meet the time bar required to file fundamental rights applications. ASG De Silva also said that the petition filed by Gunaratne had failed to cite the President as a respondent even though the petition dealt with the functions of the President. Further submissions on the preliminary objections would be made at a subsequent point in the hearings.

On Tuesday (19), other lawyers for the petitioners are due to make submissions.

Attorney at Law Viran Corea will represent Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives while attorney at law Suren Fernando will appear for the Sajith Premadasa led Samagi Jana Balawegaya and petitioners Champika Ranawaka and Kumara Welgama.

President’s Counsel Geoffrey Alagaratnam will appear for petitioners Shreen Saroor and Illangovan while President’s Counsel Ikram Mohammed will represent the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress.

Submissions by the respondents will follow. Hearings resume at Court Room 501 of the Supreme Court at 10AM on Tuesday, May 19th, 2020. (By Chinthika de Silva)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 67
    8

    Great ! Thanks Mr Sumanthiran. We are proud of you as real SRILANKENS !.

    If the President SWORN IN to protect constitution- he has no right to violate it the way he and his men have been upto today.

    People are kept in dark about the manner they continue with STATE funds these days. Had they reconnvened the parliament or that disaster management act would have placed in action, the opposition could do lot more for the benefit of the masses. Even if 6.9 mio of voters were misled and let their votes be grabed, there are 22 mio of people in this country and he is elected to be the leaders of all.

    Gotler has proved to be an another MAHINDA Rajapakshes…. he has betrayed those 6.9 mio of voters as of today.

    • 2
      3

      According to the constitution when a parliament is dissolved, elections should be conducted and a new parliament should be installed within three months. Therefore as the old parliament was dissolved on 3rd of March, there need not be a parliament in place till 3rd of June. It is constitutionally permitted for President and care taker government to look after the work of parliament during this period. So far this has not been violated, and violation will take place only if there is no parliament in place on 3rd of June. During this period the country without a parliament is perfectly democratic. This has happened before in all elections. Thus bringing this up now saying country without a parliament is no democracy is playing to the gallery. If elections cannot be held to have a new parliament in place by 3rd of June, and Gota summons the old parliament on 3rd of June, then he has acted correctly to uphold democracy. If he does not summon the old parliament on 3rd of June due to inability to hold elections, then he is subverting democracy. You have to wait till 3rd of June and then take action if a parliament preferably a new one or if that is not possible the old one is not in place.

  • 19
    6

    Tamils yet again to the rescue

    • 7
      31

      Rajash,
      ‘Para’ Demalu (Tamils) never came forward to rescue this country. They come forward only if it is beneficial to them.
      ‘Yahapalana’ Government kept on postponing Provincial Council and Local Government elections but TNA or Sumanthiram did not make any noise because they did not want to see UNP losing in those elections. Democracy that they put under the carpet at that time has been pulled out to see whether they can use that card to reconvene the dissolved Parliament to create problems to President Gotabhaya Rajapakse.

      “Tamils yet again to the rescue”

    • 3
      1

      Rescue of whom. There are several Tamils who have to be rescued from injustice caused by the state, such as armed forces refusing to vacate their lands, held for long without being brought to trial and being prevented from enjoying their rights. There is no attempt to bring those up in courts. Empty boasts like we were assured by Mahinda that Tamil political prisoners will be released is all what is heard. Now government politicians have denied that there is any attempt to release Tamil prisoners. Like Rajapakses betraying 6.9 million Sinhala voters, Sumanthiran has betrayed 2.5 million Tamil voters. Cheap publicity stunt for self promotion will not help suffering Tamils.

  • 2
    17

    It is incredible that the Legislature has anticipated events like Covid-19 and had incorporated a Clause to reawake “through Article 70 (7) of the constitution which empowers the President to reconvene a dissolved Parliament during a national emergency.’ One would fail to understand that as to its implementation failure. Clearly the Court will have its say. It’s great that this matter is before the learned Judges.

    “… while President’s Counsel Ikram Mohammed will represent the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress.” Surprised that an ethnic entity is also before the Court on a purely legal issue that affect every individuals in a democracy. Trust the counsel is representing an induvidual.

  • 30
    5

    Sumanthiran,
    Great start. Let us watch the development.

  • 16
    1

    As reported above, is it correct for Mr. Sumanthiran to submit that it was “Premature” for President to dissolve the Parliament? Why he did not address the provisions for such action by the President in terms of the “19Th Amendment”. I think the President used the earliest “Opportunity” given to him under the “19th Amendment” to dissolve the Parliament without allowing it to function till September. Again as per the provisions (which are mandatory) of the Constitution, the President declared the date for the elections and the date to meet the “New Parliament”. All those dates ‘Declared” (election and new Parliament to meet) have long past, without any “Corrective Action” being taken by the President. Those “Corrective actions” are stipulated in the Constitution. That is where and how the President has “Defaulted” and more appropriately “VIOLATED” to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, for which he (The President) is “Responsible” and “Accountable”. Even though the President’s attention to that “Default” and “Violation” of the “possible” contravention of the provisions of the Constitution, and what most “Appropriate” action to be taken was “REMINDED” by the EC, the President completely “IGNORED” and passed the burden on to EC. That FACT has to be brought to light to “Implicate ” the President of his “Negligence” and “Failure” to uphold the Constitution for which he has “PLAGED” under “OATH” to do while being in that position.

  • 30
    4

    I don’t understand why the Sinhalayo need so many political parties.
    The common objective of all these Sinahalyo political parties is anti Tamil.
    But they have to show to the world that Sri Lanka is a democratic country…
    Ranil get drunk at Namal’s wedding
    Srisena get drunk at drop of the coin and on cashew
    Rajapakses keep feeding them the most expensive whisky
    Saffron monks hide you know where
    Sajit is learning
    Douglas and Anjagan….will drink urine of Rajapakses

    • 4
      22

      Rajash,
      “I don’t understand why the Sinhalayo need so many political parties.”

      Sinhalayo also ask the same question regarding Demalu (Tamils) and Muslims.

      “The common objective of all these Sinahalyo political parties is anti Tamil.”

      Sinhalayo do not have any racist political parties using the word ‘Sinhala’ but Demalu have racist and separatist political parties using the terms ‘Tamil’, ‘Elam’ and Muslims with the word ‘Muslim’ reflecting the religion. Political parties reflecting ethnicity and religion in the name should be banned.

    • 4
      0

      These one-liners are hardly funny and and do not contribute to a healthy discussion.
      Abusive personal remarks rarely come from healthy minds.

  • 3
    7

    “Preliminary objections were raised by Counsel for Dr Jayasundara and the AG appearing for the President and as AG. Both Romesh De Silva PC and ASG De Silva pointed to the fact that the petitions did not meet the time bar required to file fundamental rights applications. ASG De Silva also said that the petition filed by Gunaratne had failed to cite the President as a respondent even though the petition dealt with the functions of the President”

    This is going to be a strange case.

    Like most of the republic democracies, Lankawe too has the three usual branches of the government, President, Parliament and the SC. Constitution is reserving certain functions to parliament only. President has no say on that. But the president is given authority, under certain condition, if the parliament is not performing, to dissolve the parliament; call for election to enable the sovereign people to produce a new list of MPs. That is one of the president’s privileges. Further, after November election, government party willing resigned from government saying they want the president to appoint the prime minister like the way he wants and appoints ministers the way he wants and run the government more acceptably for the people. The arrangement ruling party came out with cannot work for president as his party is minority so his government going to be minority. He had a need to dissolve the old parliament because it did not function in his opinion. So he dissolved the parliament. President had duly dismissed the parliament as per the prescription in the constitution S 7(5) (19A). There was no contest from opposition (the earlier ruling party), at that time on the procedures president followed when he dissolved parliament.

  • 6
    2

    Election commission faced a technical difficulty to conduct the election on April 25th as president had set up, so postponed it to June 20th. This is leaving parliament reconvening within three months as impossible. Parliament came into life as soon as the article 4 came into force, as per Sumanthiran PC. The president cannot effectively modify the ever existing operations of the parliament, though he can appoint a prime minister. So the constitution mentioning about setting up of the reconvening day becomes a constitutional obligation over the president. Sumanthiran further argues that it is a special condition, though it applies even if the parliament had met its organic term limit. Though constitution is saying president to make sure the parliament can be met in three months while he is dissolving it, the constitution is not listing president overseeing that the parliament is capable of meeting as per any regulation as one of his job. I don’t know if president is relived as soon as he set up the date properly. Here the Election Commission changed the date on its own and forced the reconvening dead line date go missed (June 2nd). So the petitioners are charging president at SC failed to fulfill his obligation on reconvening date, asking the court to declare the dissolution is ab initio void.

  • 3
    2

    That is, EC’s action is causing President’s dissolution is ab initio void only because President didn’t oversee 1). Parliament is able to meet as per set up the date; 2). He failed to oversee that EC was not changing the date. It is not clear if president is obligated to any one of the two.
    One the other side President has an option, not binding, for his own beneficial. S 70(7) is saying if president is recognizing a danger illuming and if it is in his opinion can be eliminated by reconvening the old parliament, he may do so. The petitioners are asking SC to, now, as the election is not conducted within the time limit of dead line to reconvene the parliament, crystalize the 70(7) and enforce it over the president as a punishment.
    It appears the petitioners are asking two unfair things from SC: 1). Withdraw the authority of the president to dissolve the nonfunctioning parliament for the fault of election commission. Even that have to be applied by SC on reversal, on a properly declared dissolution for a later date mistake committed by EC, i.e. Ab initio void. 2). Force the president to use an option when the petitioners are wishing to be used. President had found the parliament was not functioning. This has to be enforced against his will though the petitioners yet to show a fault on president to crystalize this option.
    We have to wait and see how the justices will move forward.
    “The President, Sumanthiran explained had several keys to end the deadlock created by the delayed elections but he had failed to use it. Therefore the final key to end the deadlock lay with the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the President’s Counsel said. “

  • 20
    1

    I am entirely going by the report written here. Firstly, the counsel and former parliamentarian has fielded his arguments well and that must be commended. As a counsel he needs to pick the items from a mass of ideas to field the argument and to that extent the need for the existence of parliament for democracy to prevail must be mentioned. But the reality is that that for Democracy to flourish not only there must be a parliament but the even the executive and the judiciary too must function well and in balance with certain core values. In all developed countries this is seen. Although this is completely outside this subject it must be mentioned that if the people are required to choose between a set of kleptocrats then the country must dwindle to a failed state.

    • 16
      2

      Good Sense

      Thanks for your observation.

      ” ……………….. it must be mentioned that if the people are required to choose between a set of kleptocrats then the country must dwindle to a failed state”

      The country first started the process of failing as its main objective in the mid 1950s following the ideological union of S W R D Pandaranayagam Rajapaksa. Since then it’s been simply a competition among parties and individuals to race to the bottom.

      People believed and still believe competitive racism is a virtue, killing is national duty, granting automatic impunity for crimes committed against people is taken for granted.

      • 3
        9

        Mr. Native Vadda,
        .
        I am replying one of your earlier comments which I couldn’t find now. (Sorry I don’t have time).
        .
        There you tried to imply that “fact that Hitler, Mussolini, …. were elected in democratic elections in the first place. In 2002 Saddam Hussein was elected ‘“ so and so……….
        .
        I thought you are better informed than this……….
        .
        Both Hitler and Mussolini were not elected heads of states.
        .
        Hitler’s Nazis lost both July and November 1932 elections.
        They won only 33 percent of the vote.
        Knowing they couldn’t gain majority in a democratic election Hitler agreed to form a coalition with conservatives.
        The president of Germany, Paul Von Hindenburg, appointed Hitler as a chancellor of Germany in a government dominated by conservatives on January 30, 1933.
        .
        NOT IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION BUT BY APPONINMENT.
        .
        When Hindenburg died in 1934 Hitler assumed the presidency which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler.
        .
        Rest is History.

        • 2
          6

          In the same tone……
          .
          In 1919 Mussolini’s “Fasci Italiani di Combattimento” stood in a general election but lost.
          Mussolini was arrested for collecting arms to overthrow the government but was released next day.
          In 1921 election “Fascists” won but Mussolini was just a deputy in the Parliament.
          In the end of 1922, Mussolini threatened to take control of the government through violent force if it was not handed over.
          The sitting government was slow to act and “Fascists” seized control of some local governments.
          Refusing to pass martial law, King Victor Emmanuel III allowed thousands of armed Fascists to enter Rome.
          He dissolved the government and asked Mussolini to form a new one.
          That’s how Mussolini became Prime Minister.
          ..
          NOT IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION BUT BY APPOINTMENT.
          .
          On July 25, 1943, Mussolini was voted out of power by his own Grand Council, arrested and sent to the island of La Maddalena.
          Hitler ordered German forces into Italy,
          Transported Mussolini to German-occupied northern Italy,
          And was installed as leader creating the Italian Social Republic.

          • 2
            6

            Sadham Husain came to power in a election?……… You kidding me.?
            .
            By going through this………
            You will find that RW is more like above characters.
            .
            A person…
            Who couldn’t come to power on his own…..
            A person….
            Who couldn’t face elections alone…..
            Tried to manipulate minorities to come and stay in power…
            Tried to manipulate constitution to stay in power…
            Tried to manipulate election system to come and stay in power…
            There are lots of similarities….

      • 1
        0

        Native Vedda:
        I am not aware of the mid 1950 union that you speak of, except that a group of politicians headed by Mr. SWRD Bandaranaike subscribed to the view that an English Official Language marginalised the majority Sinhala and Introduced the Act popularly known as “Sinhala Only Act”. Little did they realize that to write a letter in acceptable Sinhala in public service took 30 years and in the process angered the non-Sinhala citizens of the country. This is what happens when due diligence is not carried out before spelling out a policy and lead the country to havoc. In the hindsight had for that 30 years steps were taken to make the public service tri-lingual none of this unpleasantness would have taken place, as mooted by some those days. It must be mentioned that it was in 1956, that the Thalgodapitiya Commission was established to find out corrupt politicians and the implementation was in the era 1965 to 1970 where the miscreants were stripped of their civic rights for seven years. The offences involving acceptance of gratifications which were nowhere near the multi millions of today and that should necessarily lead to a failed state.

        • 0
          0

          Good Sense
          We forget that SWRDB’s electoral success had more than the language issue to it. People had no voice in affairs of government unless they knew English. That could have been addressed more wisely even with Sinhala declared as the official language. When he sought to rectify the error it was too late. The UNP started to play the communal card. In 1960 July, the UNP, led by Dudley S adopted a strongly racist line. What followed was a series of tragic errors.
          *
          SWRDB capitalized on the grievances of the ordinary masses. He took full advantage of the momentum of the Hartal organized by the Left, but which the Left failed to build on.
          *
          Driving the British out of their military bases, nationalizing the Port, enabling trade unions to be formed where management obstructed their formation, and the Paddy Lands Act are among things that gave him a false left identity, although he was not anti-left the way the UNP was. His “Middle Path” was sham. But he made the country non-aligned.
          These were resented by the UNP, which could not do much about it until after 1977.

  • 18
    3

    Sumnathiran’s analogy of Tripod is excellent. Now the tripod is standing on one leg and may collapse at any time. That is why it sought military assistance. Parliament that represents the people are supreme in a democratic country. It can not be influenced by the family dynasty, Region, or ethic issues. One man only can not derive the power from the people. It is 224 MPS who have been elected to run the people. Hence one man cannot destroy the entire p[arlaiment. If he does then he becomes a dictator. Compare the powers of the Indian President with that of Sri Lankan President. SC judgment depends on whether democracy in Sri Lanka is safeguarded or not. If no safeguarded it becomes like a government in Ufnada during Idi Amon. time Do Sri Lankn want that style of government after knowing what happened to Uganda and Zimbabwe

    • 1
      1

      There is no tripod analogy in the current situation. At present democracy has not been violated. Dissolution of parliament on March 3rd was correct and going without a parliament for three months from that time is in order. Democracy will be violated only if a new parliament is not in place by June 3rd. If elections are held on May 28th and new parliament is installed on June 3rd, then you cannot find fault with. Problem has arisen due to president acting on the wrong advice of his lawyers. It is clear in the constitution that the onus of fixing a date for election lies on the president. When this is so why did President refer the matter back when Elections Commission asked him to do it. President should have taken the initiative and fixed the election on May 28th in time to have a new parliament on June 3rd. President is now in a mess because of this foolish action for allowing Election Commission to fix a date. Having a parliament in place cannot prevent president behaving like a dictator. You can buy some members with money and cow down others by intimidation like what Mahinda did, to do what they want including changing constitution arbitrarily.

    • 0
      0

      “Compare the powers of the Indian President with that of Sri Lankan President.”
      You mean comparing a nominal head of state with certain discretionary powers and an executive presidency (as JRJ put it, with power to anything but change man into woman and vice versa)?
      *
      What is the problem in Zimbabwe?
      Zimbabwe’s troubles have been mainly from external meddlers who wanted the Whites to be compensated fully for the land that they stole and forfeited under Mugabe.

  • 2
    3

    This would be a good legal battle. I believe that SC will assess what would be the impacts/damages to democracy and country not having a parliament for additional period like 3 months. They would consider the role of Constitution Council in lieu of parliament as this council appoints the Election Commission and the Finance Council which advise president on respective areas. Would that be enough to uphold democratic system in Sri Lanka given the crisis was global and beyond the President’s and EC’s control. According to the constitution, people are supreme. Can the petitioners prove beyond any doubt general public expectations are for reconvening parliament? This would be the key to SC to determine this. What would happen if public sign a legal petition in a secured digital platform with national ID as a unique identification, that they want or do not want the parliament reconvene before an election is held? Would SC see as an evidence of public opinion? So, let SC decides on facts and circumstances rather than just on theory because the constitution and the government is for people. Ultimately the people’s wish must be fulfilled.

  • 11
    3

    Lord Buddha,
    Sinhalyo’s don’t trust you anymore. They trust Mahinda and Gota to protect this beautiful island and you by killing you. Justice is now on the brink of death! Not only justice but the whole nation is going to be filled with corruption, murder, rape, poverty, violence etc. This is the day in which thousands of Tamil and Sinhala old, youths and children buried under the soil and the rivers filled with blood.

    • 0
      1

      Ajith,
      Looks like you have become a soothsayer.
      If you made this prediction somewhere in late 1980s, it would have been an excellent prediction. All the things that you have predicted happened when LTTE terrorist barbarians were playing hell in this country. During that time thousands of Tamil and Sinhala old, youths and children were buried under the soil and the rivers got filled with blood. Now the chances of your prediction coming true is very remote because Rajapakshes and the Sri Lankan Armed Forces pulled out teeth and claws of TIGERS.

      “This is the day in which thousands of Tamil and Sinhala old, youths and children buried under the soil and the rivers filled with blood.”

  • 15
    2

    It is a great effort by Mr Sumanthiran to have exposed the actual situation to the people which most of us are not able to understand the point of Constitution. As we can see that Rajapakse clan and their minions are trying to portray that there nothing radically wrong etc. Since the intricacies of the legal points are exposed government should take correct steps to put the house in order before more and more luminaries file action.

    • 2
      0

      Paramanathan –
      But the danger in doing so in Courts is critical now a days – what
      happened to Lawyer Hizbullah ? Even the International Authorities
      have no say when the Presidents Legal Team is at work!

  • 18
    12

    The lickspittles (Gon Leelage malli, Malliuran, Native Vedda, Kavium etal) are jumping up and down, excited as usual, about this half-brained Sumanthiran’s legal presentation!
    Lets have a look.
    /
    He has said, “…Parliament is a continuing institution that does not cease to exist because it has been dissolved. ” This must be the definition of a ‘contradiction in terms’. How can something dissolved exist? Sleep mode is a new half-brained legal concept as any that has ever been tried.
    /
    Then he apparently said that “the President’s power to dissolve parliament prematurely – that is before its 5 year term was over – and call early elections had specific restrictions attached to it as stipulated in Article 70 (5) of the Constitution.” The three month period specified is not specific to early dissolution as this fraud has tried to paint!
    /
    “April 25th has come and gone. May 14th has come and gone and there is no new Parliament now.” Doesn’t this buffoon know there was something called the COVID pandemic that caused the delay?
    How can democracy be undermined just because the election is ‘postponed’ by a monthor two? Why did the Yamapalana outfit he ruled through never held any elections after ’16. Because they would lose them.

    • 3
      0

      Helios,

      Go to Medamulana and swimm in their asuchi pits. How can we be idiots ? You the shameless buggers would never see it right. See patta pal hora Baesil to be given the lead in distribution of that 5k to the poor – is not like a fox became the guard of the Kukulkotuwa ? Sooner than later BPs would get caught and face the unexpected. Wait and see.
      :

  • 1
    0

    REFLECTION

    It’s a good time to reflect on a question of Democracy. It’s the only moderate policy for good governance. We are expecting the President and the 224 parliamentarians act democratically. Yea, that’s why we have elected them democratically. But if they have to act democratically they should have a place to practice it. The only place to practice is FAMILY or SCHOOL. They all are the products of families and schools.
    How many families are democratic? Who are in control? Who make the decision on what basis? This maybe the right time to practice democracy on families and school.
    Do children have a say in deciding their career and life partners.
    Do students have the choice to decide on the subjects based on their interest and abilities.
    Do parents and students have a say in the selection of subject teachers and school administrators.
    If democracy is not practiced on a daily basis who is interested is democracy?
    How many families and schools could say boldly that they practice democracy to the benefit of the stakeholders. Then we have a moral right to expect that from the parliament which consists of people like us.

  • 7
    2

    A Country Without A Parliament Is No Democracy

    Parliament is a continuing institution that does not cease, but updating all situation before action, Check and challenge the work of the Government, By the people for the people from the people, the people’s Constitution, the people’s Government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.