Issuing a belligerent statement, President Maithripala Sirisena refused to accept the letter sent by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya this afternoon explaining today’s proceedings in Parliament.
Sirisena, in his statement, said the Parliamentary tradition does not make it necessary to prove the parliamentary majority for the selected Prime Minister although it is up to the President to appoint a member of the house as the Prime Minister, who, in the President’s opinion, holds the majority support in Parliament.
In his letter, Sirisena said he was the sole ‘appointing authority’ of the Prime Minister.
He also added that the Speaker had failed to adhere to Standing Orders and other Parliamentary procedures when it comes to No Confidence Motion against purported Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his government.
“The list of signatures attached with the motion has not been certified by Parliament,” Sirisena said whilst adding that the date of the motion had also been changed later, in an unacceptable matter.
Real Revolutionist / November 15, 2018
President is perfectly right in being reluctant to appoint RW as the PM because he has lost credibility on several counts even though his party men are adamant to consider this weak person with no reason, the leader.
1. Appointing AM to CB top position when there’s a request from the president not to do so.
2. Involving in bond scam & refusal to accept AM as a thief & failure to bring him back/support arresting
3. Difference in opinion in maintaining political & economic matters though the mandate given to them were to work together without dominating each other; RW should understand that the head of the state is the president though 19th amendment probably has reduced some of his powers.
4.Repeating statement that MS became the president because of UNP support.
RW & the UNP must understand that RW became the PM & the UNP formed the government because of presidents support as well. They’re inter-dependents though his vote contribution is a faction, it worked as the deciding factor.
5. Having he speaker in his grip; to be partial towards UNP & the ruling party.
To soften present impasse UNP should accept MR is the PM & dismiss him after some time & propose another UNP MP’s name for PM ship.
Proposing another name for the speaker will be a very constructive for restoration of normalcy in the country.
So the ball is in your court UNP MPs..
/
Sinhala_Man / November 15, 2018
This is too complicated to give a simple riposte, Real Revolutionist.\
.
Yes, at the end of this process we don’t want to see Ranil, My3 and Mahinda R. around – but not necessarily in that order. all these guys are to blame. But not the Speaker. What has he done that is really wrong?
.
Sirisena was wrong to pooh pooh the need to investigate (mind we are talking only of “investigating”) excesses at the end of the War. es, after that Ranil must answer for trusting his pal, Arjuna Mahendran.
/
old codger / November 16, 2018
Real Rev,
If you know so much about the “bond scam”, please prove your allegations with figures. How much was the loss? I have challeged various “experts “, but I don’t think you are going to be the first to respond. All the info is in the public domain. .There was inappropriate meddling in the process. Ravi K should be in jail, not Aloysius.
There WAS NO BOND SCAM. The “scam” was invented by Sirasa and its panel of “experts”
/
Robert Fernando / November 15, 2018
The appointment to the CB top position is done by the President; not by the PM. If the President had felt it unsatisfactory to appoint AM, then he should have had the guts to decline appointing him.
Until a person is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law, every one is deemed innocent. The Presidential Commission of Inquiry which conducted the ‘bond-scam’ inquiry is not a competent court; nor does it find Ranil guilty of anything! If the Commission has found the appointment unsatisfactory, the President should be held responsible for it!!
While both MS & RW have to recognize the help rendered by each to the other become what they became, it is MS who dismissed RW, not the other way round.
The Speaker is not partial to the UNP; he is partial to the majority members of the House; he made it very clear that these decisions are not his; but that of the House.
Your reading and rendering of the events lack objectivity and impartiality
/
K.Pillai / November 15, 2018
Sirisena’s response to the Speaker is not belligerent. Is he being goaded by someone?
/
gamini / November 15, 2018
President Maithripala in his letter to the Speaker that bears a different signature, which does not resemble the signature of Mathripala, misconstrues that there is a precedent where RW was made as the Prime Minister who only commanded 41 seats, a minority in the Parliament. This is a total lie. Ranil was made the Prime Minister of the SLFP Maithri faction barring MR’s faction and the UNP . Therefore automatically DM Jayaratne ceased to be the Prime Minister. Thus Ranil commanded the 41 UNP plus the SLFP Maithri faction plus the other parties of the coalition, that had the majority seats in the Parliament. So Maithri should be made to understand that in a Democracy the PM is the person who commands the majority vote in the Parliament and not visa versa.
/
Robert Fernando / November 15, 2018
The appointment to the CB top position is done by the President; not by the PM. If the President had felt it unsatisfactory to appoint AM, then he should have had the guts to decline appointing him.
Until a person is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law, every one is deemed innocent. The Presidential Commission of Inquiry which conducted the ‘bond-scam’ inquiry is not a competent court; nor does it find Ranil guilty of anything! If the Commission has found the appointment unsatisfactory, the President should be held responsible for it!!
While both MS & RW have to recognize the help rendered by each to the other become what they became, it is MS who dismissed RW, not the other way round.
The Speaker is not partial to the UNP; he is partial to the majority members of the House; he made it very clear that these decisions are not his; but that of the House.
Your reading and rendering of the events lack objectivity and impartiality
/