PART: ONE
06th
December, 2018
POLITICS IN DEBATE
OPTIONAL
ARGUMENTS:
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly, arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamaidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978. The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi” of the President. This power of Supreme Court should not be indifference or ignored. In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly, arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamaidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978. The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi” of the President. This power of Supreme Court should not be indifference or ignored. In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY A CONSTITUTION, WITH/IN
SOVERREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. IT IS VERY
DIFERENT FROM THE NON-CONSTITUTIONAL STATES CONTROLLED AND GOVERNED BY
SOVEREINGTY OF HEREDITARY KINGS. IT IS
ALSO DIFERENT FROM UNCONDITIONAL POWERS OF THE KING/QUEEN IN UK, BECAUSE UK
PARLIAMENT HAS NOT YET CHANGED THE POWERS OF THE HEREDITARY KING/QUEEN IN
UK. KING/QUEEN IN UK ALWAYS ACT ON THE
ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER. THE QUEEN HAS SOME PREROGATIVE POWERS, BUT RARELY
ATTEND TO USE SUCH POWERS on the ground of personal relations. IN OCCATIONS TO
PROROGUE, SUMMON OR TO DISOLVE PARLIAMENTI QUEEN CONSULT HOUSES OR THE PRIME
MINISTER.. IF AMOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
IS APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT, THE PRIME MINISTER SHOULD RESIGN OR ADVICE QUEEN
TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT. IF PRIME MINISTER ADVISED QUEEN TO DISOLVE PARLIAMENT,
QUENN HAS POWER TO DO NOT DISOLVE PARLIAMENT AND ASK PRIME MINISTER TO RESIGN,
THEN TO ASK OPPOSITION LEADER TO ESTABLISH GOVERNMENT. IN SRI LANKA WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN WHICH ELECTED PRESIDENT ACT AS THE HEAD OF THE
STATE AND HEAD OF EXECUTIVE. HE HAS NO
HEREDITARY POWERS, BUT DECLARED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUION ARE ONLY POWERS FOR
HANDLING THE AUTHORITY IN ADMINISTRATION.
SOME OF SUCH POWERS ARE CUSTOMERILY PREROGATIVE, CONDITIONAL,
PARTICIPATORY AND TO BE EXERCISED UNDER THE CONDUCTORY GUIDANCE GIVEN IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
SRI LANKA PARLIAMENT HAS
POWERS TO ASCEND OR REDUCE OWERS IN AUTHORITY FOR ADMINISTRATION HANDLLING BY
THE PRESIDENT. CONSTITUTION HAS NOT
GIVEN DIVINE AUTHORITY POWER TO SRI LANKA PRESIDENT AS SEVERAL TIMES PARLIAMENT
HAS APPROVED AMMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE SPIRIT OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS. CONDITIONAL OR CONDUCTORY OR ADVISORY RULES
WHICH WERE inserted and APPROVED IN THE
CONSTITUTION BY THE PARLIAMENT FOR EXERCING THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS
BY THE PRESIDENT ARE MORE IMPORTANT AND MORE POWERFUL. IT SAYS JUDGES IN AFRICA pretending to ATTEMPT
TO ASCEND MORE POWERS TO THEIR PRESIDENTS, AND PLACE THE PRESIDENT IN a VENUE
OF ROYAL SOVEREIGN, BECAUSE OF THEIR PERSONAL BENEFITS. IN SRI LANKA WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS OR WE HAVE
NOT PRACTICED THIS. ONE DAY WHEN I WAS
EXPLAINING THIS REALITY TO MY FRIEND, HE LOOKED AT ME IN VAIN AND VEIN WAY, AND
LAUGHED. I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY DID HE SO
LAUGHED? MAY BE DUE TO WE ARE A NATION
AT VERY LOW LEVEL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STREAGNTH, WHRE IN SUCH SOCIAL CONTEXT WE
EVENTUALLY SURRENDER TO HUMAN ERRORS IN OUR
DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
IT IS WELL SEEN THAT ARTICLE
33 (2) HAS INDICATED SOME POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, WHICH ARE SEEMED TO ME
ADDITIONALOR REDUNDANT POWERS, WHICH INCLUDES, OPENING OF PARLIAMENT, EXPRESS
OF STATE POLICY, PROROGUE, SOMMON AND DISOLVE PARLIAMENT, GRANTING REWARD OF
HONOUR FOR EMINENT LAWYERS, GRANTING PARDON TO PRISONERS, WHICH SEEMED TO BE
CUSTOMARY AND RITUALISTIC FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES RATHER THAN POWERS.
POWERS OF PRESIDENT TO APPOINT
HEADS OF DEFENCE FORCES LIKE ARMY, NAVY AND AIRFORCE ARE NOT LISTED AS POWERS
IN THE ARTICLE 33 (2), QUESTION IS WHY.?.
THIS IS DUE TO THE FORMATS WE USED IN FORMULATING A CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE
USED FORMATS OF SOULBERY CONSTITUTION AND 1972 CONSTITUTION DEPICTING THEIR
CHAPTER OUTLINES AND SECTIONS FORMATS. WHEN WE WRITE A SCIENTIFIC BOOK WE USE
FORMATS INCLUDING CHAPTER OUTLINES, SUBSECTIONS AND SUBJECTS FALL UNDER SUCH
FORMATS.
I WILL MAKE A SIMPLE PUZZEL
FOR YOU TO DEAL WITH. IN OUR SRI LANKA
CONSTITUTION, IN CHAPTER ONE, IN ARTICLE 3, IT CLEARLY DECLARED THAT “PEOPLE’S
EXECUTIVE POWER IN THE PEOPLE’S SOVEREIGNTY SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT
ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE(THIS IS VERY STRONG DECLARATION); IT IS DECLARED IN THE ARTICLE 4, THAT THE
PEOPLE’S LEGISLATIVE POWER SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE PARLIAMENT CONSISTED OF
ELECTED PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES, AND THAT LEGISLATIVE POWER CANNOT BE
AILENATED. Article 5, declares that the people’s
judicial power shall be exercised by courts through Parliament. These declarations are more powerful, and
according to J.L. Peiris the President can exercise ALL EXECUTIVE POWERS WHICH
WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION EXISTED BEFORE THE 19TH AMENDMENT ATTENDING
powers his own neglecting newly established Constitutional council and other
commissions which are established to reduce Presidential powers. I RAISE THIS QUESTION FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARGUE THAT THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE REDUCED. I BELIEVE THESE
PEOPLE ARE FUSSY CRACK BRAINED OR WORKING FOR OWN PERSONAL BENEFITS. My question
is, is this true???.
The President of Sri Lanka has no arbitrary,
stubbornly and “marapuvaluvamidi” power to dissolve the Parliament and to
remove the Prime Minister with a letter issued under his hand. The President of Sri Lanka always think he
has arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers, and the question is “Who are the
persons in law or judicial field encourage the President to think so”?. I think The President is not caught by crack
brained, but someone is misleading him for errors.
I STRONGLY SAY THAT 19TH AMENDMENT IS SOLID AND
VERY CLEAR AND CLEAN, AND HAS PROVIDED RULES WHICH ARE TO BE FOLLOWED AND
ACEPTED IN THE MATTER OF DISOLVING THE PARLIAMENT. WE WASTING TIME CONDUCTING IRRELEVANT
DEBATES, FOR A MATTER WHICH EVEN A LOW LEVEL GOVERNMENT OFFICER HAS WELL
DECIDED. MY COUNTRY MAY SUSTAIN AGAIN.
Dr. D. Tennakoon 06th,
December, 2018
PART: TWO
06th,
December, 2018
SOVEREIGN,
POWER AND POWER IN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS
Power, Legislative, Executive and Judicial is on debate. Sovereign power, kings in the past reigned
states handling himself all powers which we deal with today, by himself, with
his high consent, as they were divine rewards. Breaching convention and customary
rules some kings attempted to be BRUTAL dictator which is called dictatorship, which
conditions arisen may be due to crack brained madness, or fond of women and
alcohol. In the history, people had killed such idiots. Mr. Willy, I explained this because you need
to verify some issues. As I explained
you yesterday, I say again power is not power in nowadays. It is very different from the ages of Socrates
or Aristotle. Under democracy power is
with the people, Heads of the Executive exercise such powers behalf of the
people, as such head executives with inherited royal power acts and performs,
such as in UK. But, many idiots in
Africa and remote states who act as Heads of Executives turn to root to hell
pretending they have sovereign powers. There is big difference between: 1.
Sovereign Ruler, and 2. Democratic Ruler. Our man also secretly rooting to get rebirth
his soul in a royal plant, as he is enthusiastic so much to be a proud king. Our executive has no power to prorogue
Parliament for long period though he personally attempt to do that., But he can
end up a session, and summon Parliament.
Parliaments has sessions, and Universities have sessions, may be six
months or one year, they announce the sessional closing date and the date of
next commencement. Parliament sessions have specific time frame of/for
assembling. It is not a power, it is a
function or duty. I blame to supreme
courts in developing poor nations, for their contribution in interpretation of
law for favour of idiot dictators to confirm their dictatorship.
For Sovereign Rulers,
people have no right or power to amend or change the such ruler’s power. But, the power or
obligations/responsibilities of a democratic ruler can be amended/changed/alternated
by people through their Legislature. Our
idiot does not know this because social hereditary. Mr. Willy, I will come to your question
now. Yes our President has power to
dissolve the Parliament, because he is the Chief of Executive. It was mentioned in Article 33(2), Article
62(2), and Article 70. It does not give
power for one Idiot to dissolve Parliaments one month after every general
election. I know Our court with experts
will realize this. Mr. Willy, go and read
SEE
FOLLOWING KEY SENTENSES: You can get much insight reading the 197 Constitution,
but our lawyers reluctant to get comparable evidences.
Constitution
of Sri Lanka of 1972. Given powers to
that President by this 1972 Constitution
ARTICLE: 21.
The President has the following powers and functions:-
[a] he declares
war and peace;
[b] he summons,
prorogues and dissolves the National State assembly;
[please compare
this power with the power of President sited in the Constitution No.33 in the
19th amendment about the power of President to dissolve the
parliament. This is only a formal power but it can be guided by another
provision in the Constitution giving rules how to exercise this power.
Therefore this power mentioned in Constitution No.33 in the 19th
amendment become nominal statement.]
You have to
follow the powers of President given in subsections [c], [d],[e], [f],[g], and
[h] of section 21 of Constitution 1972.
LATE Mr. William Gopallawa knew that he cannot
dissolve parliament on his personal interest, because the Constitution had
given legal advisory provisions when he may exercise his power to dissolve
PARLIAMENT. This is the nature of Constitutions. Our President Maithreepala Sirisena looked at
the Article 33(2) of the 19th Amendment, and urged to dissolve the
Parliament. Mr. Willy, clearly and
carefully see Article 33(2), as it says that the President has following powers
in addition/redundant to specifically allocated powers powers, duties and
functions by the Constitution or by other written law. By the Article 33(2) given power is
“amathara balayak”, or a redundary power.
In Principal, a Parliament is to be dissolved by the Head of the State,
but that power is not to be used on the occations of conflicts with the Prime
Minister or with the Parliament.
Majority of the MPs in our Parliament those who challenge to President represent more
than 7.5 million of the voters in this country. The President represents only 6.2million
voters, mainly the voters of UNP and TNA, and other minor parties.
The President should surrender to
the ARTICLE 70 (1) of the 19th amendment, and He can use his
so-called power given in Article 33(2) to dissolve Parliament and punish to Mr.
Ranil Wickramasinghe, ONLY after the end of four and half years since the General
Election of August, 1915. He should
surrender to constitutional law provisions given in Article 70(1) of the 19th
amendment.
Mr. Willy, I listened to the speech
given by Attorney General in the court, as he is a Government officer, his
attempt to justify some issues which are considered by millions of voters as
breaching of Constitution and principles of Democracy.
President maithipala id attempting
to convince people that there is a some inconsistence in the 19th
amendment, he will help to correct all these defects. I advice to politicians please be careful not
to tangle with the irrational black political stratergic tracks. I am sure, that President’s powers have been reduced
clearly and cleanly by the 19th amendment. We should not give any encourage to justify
all evils that has been done by President, making dark path for the nation to
hell.
Sri Lanka Parliament has power to
amend our constitution to change one man role.
According to our Constitution, if we amend particularly mentioned few Articles,
we need get approved it by Referendum.
Without going for referendum, we can reduce some powers of the
President. I understand, in 2015 some
judges and lawyers were in different opinion standing on against amending
Presidential power. No; all anti
arguments are fake: our Parliament has sole legislative power to create
participatory mechanism for exercising of Presidential powers, reducing such
powers to go hand in hand with the Parliament.. The President attempts to mislead people
showing Constitutional defects. That is
his uncertain standard. In January 2020, he will face to a number of cases
against to him, I am sure there is greater possibility to be indicted. There is no Constitutional defects in the 19th
amendment, it has been passed by the Parliament strongly and correctly. Please don’t make fake arguments and deceive and mislead people.?
Dr. D. Tennakoon 06th, December, 2018
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly,
arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978.
The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi”
of the President. This power of Supreme
Court should not be indifference or ignored.
In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to
exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with
the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
The President of Sri Lanka has no arbitrary,
stubbornly and “marapuvaluvamidi” power to dissolve the Parliament and to
remove the Prime Minister with a letter issued under his hand. The President of Sri Lanka always think he
has arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers, and the question is “Who are the
persons in law or judicial field encourage the President to think so”?. I think The President is not caught by crack
brained, but someone is misleading him for errors.
06th December, 2018
POLITICS IN DEBATE
OPTIONAL ARGUMENTS:
The
Constitutions can be secured with a system of perfect struggle between PPS vs
MERM. MERM is formed with Misconduct of
the Executives, and the Rivals in the Parliament. PPS is formed with the
Parliament, People and People’s Organizations and the Supreme Court. In detail, Misconducts are formed by the Head
of the Executive, the Cabinet of Ministers, and Ministers, and by the State
Officials.
The President of Sri Lanka has no stubbornly,
arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers granted in our Constitution of 1978.
The Supreme Court has authority to control such actions of “marapuvaluvamidi”
of the President. This power of Supreme
Court should not be indifference or ignored.
In 1965, Indian Supreme Court gave a rule to Indian President to
exercise powers on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers, in accordance with
the Convention, as practiced until 1965.
The President of Sri Lanka has no arbitrary,
stubbornly and “marapuvaluvamidi” power to dissolve the Parliament and to
remove the Prime Minister with a letter issued under his hand. The President of Sri Lanka always think he
has arbitrary and “marapuvaluvamidi” powers, and the question is “Who are the
persons in law or judicial field encourage the President to think so”?. I think The President is not caught by crack
brained, but someone is misleading him for errors.
The following common sentence exists in Sri
Lanka Constitutions like, Saulebury Constitution, Constitution of 1972, and
1978 Constitution:
“President/Governor General shall have power to
Prorogue, Summon, and Dissolve the Parliament”.
What does it mean: it means that the President
is the only person to issue announcement/proclamation to public that the
Parliament is dissolves. It is not power
to dissolve by arbitrary actions. In 19th
amendment Article 70 has cleanly expressed/enacted when should the President
can issue announcement of dissolving the Parliament. What is the meaning of
this?. The Parliament is the Prime mechanism and prime establishement which was
consisted of MPs appointed by the people of Sri Lanka. When it came to need to dissolve the
Parliament, in accordance with the law provisions given in the Constitution, it
should be done only by the President making proclamation like in other
Constitutional Governments in the World.
It does not give mad or aggressive, or low mental order Presidents to
dissolve parliaments every year after General Elections Concluded, to harass
the smooth functioning of the Governments, or until President’s Political Party
or Groups of political parties functioning under his guidance getting majority
of MPs elected to the Parliament. Why
our some law experts going marketing for President cannot understand this. Please do not expresee fake law arguments and
push this country to hell. I hate these
lawyers.
See following common sentence which has been
incerted in Soulbery Constitution, Constitution of 1972, and 1978 Constitution
in Sri Lanka:
“The President/Governor General shall appoint
as the Prime Minister one from MPs in the
Parliament who has optimal confidence of the Parliament, according to
the opinion of the President/The Governor General. After a General Election is Concluded, if not
any party has a majority MPs elected,
the President call on leaders of the main parties to Study the situation. Under the 1978 Constitution, since always
majority of the MPs were elected from the President’s party, appointment of the
Prime Minister was not a question. But
in 1993, there was a question. Any
party did not get majority of the MPs in the General Election of 1993. Then President Dingiri Banda Wijetunga had
discussions with party leaders to deal with problem. Chandrika Bandaranaka could convince the
President that she had support of the leader of the Muslim Congress, Mr.
Ashrof. Then question was ended. People
have puzzle why Maithreepal Sirisena does not follow the same procedure as D.B.
Wijetunga President had followed. Why maithree, according to meadia evidence
attempted to give bribary for MPs to get support to show majority in the
Parliament for establishing SLFP/Eksath Nidahas Sandanaya coalition Government.
Under the provisions given in the 19th
amendment in the Constitution of 1978, The President of Sri Lanka has no poer
to remove the Prime Minister issuing a letter under his hand. But he removed the Prime Minis on 26th
October 2018. The President knew he has
no power to remove the Prime Minister, but he did. Further, he and his follower politicians ask
Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe or UNP to file a case about the decision taken by the
President to remove Prime Minister. I
and many people see some hidden secret under this expression of the
President and his follower
politicians. We do not know whether they are going to sole
problem with money.
Our people including law authorities think
under colonial mentality, that the President/Governor General have had
authority to dissolve Parliaments arbitrary, stubbornly or marapuvaluvamaidi
power. Once in 2004, Chandrika Bandaranayaka dissolved Parliament
undemocratically to expel the UNP Government.
This was a criminal of using powers against to opposition political
parties. When majority of MPs are
elected from President’s party the President do not need to seek stratergic
ways to dissolve the parliament.
The Parliament is not a subordinate
establishment to the President. According
to the articles: 3, 4, 5 in the Chapter One in the Constitution the parliament
is the most supreme Institution in the Government. Many Presidents of the Constitutional
Governments in the Thrid World thik they are superior to the Parliaments, because
they are thirdworld’s Presidents. People
in those countries believe that this bad-ward situation exists, because of
their Supreme Courts are indifferent. When majority of MPs are elected from
other parties, the stubbornly Presidents attempt to collect MPs from other
parties to establish joint Government.
When he could not do this the President become violent, mad, fraudulent,
frustrated,stubbornly and unhealthy.
Someone need to massage, treat to head or to give kola-kanda as
medicine. If I have permission, I will
explain this situation to our Supreme Court.
Dr. Dharmadasa Tennakoon
6th, December 2018
