What a pity
in a city
knowlege can be so shitty
it goes straight into the potty.

What a pity ! Srilankan mindset either rely on India or China .
——————————————————————————————–

What a pity, India has to rely on the US for nuclear technology and goes with the begging bowl to Australia for uranium. What a pity that Australia,Japan and south korea and taiwan rely on the US for their defence and security. What a pity that so many African countries are now relying on China for economic survival. What a pity that the Rajapakshes rely on India to save them from a Fonseka coup. In fact what a pity that everyone has to rely on someone else bigger than them in this unequal world.

“Mahinda will do something for the Tamils but that will not be due to the TNA, but due to India”

————————————————————————-

- What a pity ! Srilankan mindset either rely on India or China .

The article given above describes the various forms of election rigging that is possible and that has been put to practice in Nigeria. The ones called Satellite voting, Goal Keeper’s method and Technical rigging may have happened during the recently concluded Presidential elections, going by what we hear from various sources.

The only way to prevent it from happening again during the parliamentary elections is to ensure that the Elections Officers are not bought over, since without their participation no election rigging can ever take place.

1. The MR team ran two extensive research into the electorate this time. One was through an Indian company and one through a carefully selected local team headed by a minister. While the Indian research was way off and was recognised to be incorrect early on, (this research said MR would win by 63%) the local research was quite thorough and was scientifically accurate due to the methods used. (I will elaborate later if required)

2. The second research was very accurate and the MR team knew with certainity that they will loose nuwaraeliya, N&E districts except for Ampara which they thought they will win. (In Ampara the research was not correct due to incorrectness of the sample)

3. This discovery resulted with a certain level of outrage from some people in the MR campaign who were disheartened by the lack of support from N&E peolpe despite the visible improvements in their quality of life under this govt. Some even suggested at a meeting that this ‘extra attenion and funding’ govt is providing for N&E should be pulled out.

But MR personally expressed his view that the development in the N&E shuld continue as it is a mistake to not focus on these areas and it was also considered as beneficial for the image of the country.

Lower levels of the MR campaign looked at damage control in N&E and discouraging the voters from voting was seen as the best method. If this was actually put into practice or if people didnt vote due to their mistrust in both parties is somewhat unclear.

MR campaign had very early on recognised that large scale vote rigging was not possible this time. So there was no major attempt at it any way. Whatever, incidents happened were localised and was not a part of the masterplan.

The research which was actually done three times during the campaign also recognised an unusually high support to SF in the new voters. Also, research into the communication foundout that simply highlighting the positive aspects of MR was not enough. This resulted with two things:

a) highlighting negative aspects of the competitor. (Sometimes through mud slinging & a certain degree of subliminal communication such as documentaries about Hitler on TV)
b) highlighting the history of the UNP past such as 88/89 period to the new vote pool who knew very little or nothing about it.

For Nuwaraeliya the age old system of ‘convincing’ the estate supervisor / kankanams was used for damage control.

The point I am trying to make is that for two reasons, the claim made by SF campaign about overturning the victory through rigging is false.

1. MR campaign knew with a certain degree of certainity about their overall win. Hence it was not essential to launch a large scale rigging operation.

2. The logistical impracticality of the rigging operation was recognised early on.

Then could it be also that both are sheep in wolf’s clothing. The small dogs are the ones that are always barking their heads off due to their sense of insecurity, while the big and dangerous ones are calm and quiet.

Your quote”But it was widely expected that SF would win the election. ” unquote.

It was widely expected by the international community and the colombians, not by the rural masses. We all know that the rural masses are the preponderant majority and decide our elections. That might be one reason we have not become part of the developed world yet, that is the price to pay for universal franchise which is after all the fair way of doing things. This is heading for something like Thailand’s Thaksin who was popular in the rural areas but unpopular in Bangkok, which toppled him finally, because it is the urban crowd that pay most of the taxes and therefore have the financial clout. Just like in Thailand everything will depend on the military, whose side they are going to support.

Further your quote”If TNA had been neutral, with the same result, MR could now ask the TNA why did you not support me before (instead of being neutral) and now coming to me”unquote.

Isn’t that better than to be asked why are you coming to me now. Why don’t you go to SF? He will give you everything including the north east merger.

Being neutral is not a political obstacle. In fact businessman do that very often paying both parties. It is the people who are voting not the politicians, and respecting their views is the right thing to do. TNA could have explained to Mahinda that due to the war they were in a dilemma as the peoples mood was not conducive for them to support him. Mature politician that he is Mahinda would have understood. Mahinda will do something for the Tamils but that will not be due to the TNA, but due to India which has wisely had a good relationship with him.

Article 31 (3) (d) of the Constitution provides that -

“The person declared elected as President at an election held under this paragraph shall, if such person-
(i) IS THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE, hold office for a term of six years COMMENCING ON SUCH DATE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ELECTION IS HELD (being a date after such election) or in the succeeding year, as corresponds to the date on which his first term of office commenced, WHICHEVER DATE IS EARLIER ; or

(ii) IS NOT THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE , hold office for a term of six years COMMENCING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE RESULT OF SUCH ELECTION IS DECLARED.”

Article 31(d) has been drafted to favor the President in office to allow him to continue for some time under his previous term, even though rightfully such term comes to an end when an election is declared. Furthermore, when a President makes a Proclamation under Article 31 (3) (a) (i) indicating his intention to appeal to the people for their mandate for a second term without waiting for the initial term to expire, he willingly gives up the remaining term of office in the process. This seems to have been the basis of former CJ Sarath Silva’s judgment in the Omalpe Sobitha case.

However, the drafters of the Constitution have made clear the rights enjoyed by the incumbent President, however wrong it may be.

The other important point in this regard, is the time or exact date of taking office as President. This is given in Article 32 (1) as follows:
“The person elected or succeeding to the office of President shall assume office UPON TAKING AND SUBSCRIBING THE OATH or making and subscribing the affirmation, set out in the Fourth Schedule, in Sri Lanka before the Chief Justice or any other Judge of the Supreme Court.”

Therefore, in the case of an incumbent President, his new term will commence in the year the election is held, as from the date he takes the oath of office.

On the other hand, if the person so elected was not the incumbent President, his term would commence as from the date the election results are declared. (i.e. under the just concluded elections, with effect from January 27, 2010).

The next point is the VACATION OF OFFICE of President, which is given in Article 38 (1). A newly elected President is deemed to have vacated office if he “willfully fails to assume office, within 2 weeks from the date of commencement of his term of office” .

The above Article would therefore apply in two different ways for an incumbent President and for a person who was not the President in office. In the case of an incumbent President, who is elected for a second term, as long as he takes his oath of office during the year of election, the time limit contained in Art. 38(1) will not run. But in the case of a person so elected who was not the President in office, unless he takes his oath of office within 2 weeks from the date of commencement of his term, (i.e. date of declaration of results) he would be deemed to have vacated office. For example: if SF was declared the President, he would have had to take his oath on or before 10 February 2010.

Nalaka in his interpretation in # 147, had not taken into account the clever drafting of Art. 31 (3) (d) which gives the incumbent President an unfair advantage over his competitors. The former CJ in his judgment in Omalpe Sobita’s case had attempted to correct a wrong, which however had been disregarded in the present opinion of 7 SC judges, by sticking to the Constitutional provisions word to word.

We can only comment that it is a clear example of how the powers of a President can go against the franchise of the people, as the President under our Constitution can and seems to have even influenced the legislature (as seen above). It makes one think whether we really have a separation of powers under the Sri Lankan Constitution?