In the English I know, democracy means people electing their representatives to govern them. Such an exercise was just finished in SL; people voted for a president, and there was a rather high voter turn out that was even commended by the Unites States, elections were largely peaceful, and Mahinda Rajapakse was re-elected with a clear majority that would rule out any winning due to malpractices and vote rigging. That is, at least for a realistic observer who hopes that ideally there should not be any malpractices, but not suffering from amnesiato think that this isn’t the only election conducted in Sri Lanka with more than zero malpractices. This writer accepts that there have been malpractices, but this isn’t the first time that there were any in Sri Lanka. Taboo Subjects’ this lament makes one wonder if there really are people who are born yesterday.
When it comes to democracy, people prioritize what kind of candidates they would vote for. These priorities include the very core of democratic practice of each candidate, as well as other policies that matter when a country is governed. For instance when i consider the candidates, i consider the economic policy, political credibility, perceived honesty, talent to execute plans, etc etc and pick the candidate that I think is best for the job. I considered Rajapakse defeating the terrorist LTTE (and I am as not politically naive as Taboo Subjects author to attribute 50% 50% credit to president and Army chief:
යුද්ධය නතර කිරීම වෙනුවෙන් කළගුණ සැලකූයේ නම් එයද 50-50 ලෙස අපේක්ෂකයන් දෙදෙනා අතර බෙදී යා යුතුව තිබුණේය.
පහළොස් වන සියවසේදී යාපා පටුන ජයගත් චරිතය හැටියට තවමත් අප බොහෝදෙනකුගේ මනසෙහි රැඳී ඇත්තේ යුද්ධයට මිලිටරි නායකත්වය සැපයූ සපුමල් කුමාරයාගේ නමය.
This is a biased example and shows how desperate Taboo Subjects is to justify his point using SOMETHING, however flimsy. If he is correct, then there shouldn’t be anyone who thinks Bush gets credit/responsibility for the Iraq war and everyone must think the commander of the American forces gets the blame/credit. The scenario with Sapumal Kumaraya was very different from the scenario of a contemporary internationalized war.
Making political decisions and managing external factors while maintaining the country’s stability and supplying the army with political backing and hardware was a much more daunting task, and THAT IS THE KIND OF THINGS ONE EXPECTS FROM A PRESIDENT: not going to war personally.) And I considered his economy/development track record, I considered all these for opposition, I considered how much flimsy and opportunist the NDF agenda was.
Now I did this for both Rajapakse and Fonseka, and I chose Rajapakse as the best. I have explained elsewhere why.It seems that a great many people thought along the same or similar lines when voted MR; WE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE WITH A 1.8 MILLION MAJORITY. Even if half of this is taken out for malpractice, this is still a considerable win.
Now some people including Taboo Subjects seem unable to accept the defeat like men, and resort to simplistic insults that attribute their own strawmen reasoning on why people voted Rajapakse.
Not being able to accept the fact that Mahinda was a much popular president and he could sweep the polls despite an opportunistic alliance of KNOWN power hungey politicians with a KNOWN power hungry General and few terrorist supporters, he tries to claim that Rajapakse won because people like the Kings!!!
රාජපක්ෂ යනු මෙරට රාජ්යත්වය නියෝජනය කරන නායකයාය. ජනසම්මතවාදී ඔටුනු නොපළන් රජතුමන්ය. සරත් ෆොන්සේකා යනු ඒ අර්ථයෙන් නිකම්ම නිකම් පද්දෙක් (commoner) පමණය. සවිඥානකව හෝ අවිඥානකව මෙරට බහුතර සිංහල ඡන්ද දායකයා ක්රියා කොට ඇත්තේ රාජ්යත්වයට පක්ෂපාතීභාවය දක්වන තම ජානගත හැසිරීමට නොපිටින් යමිනි.
One could understand the frustration of a loser. Despite claims of voting Wickramabahu Karunaratne to save his political virginity, the flimsy arguments that Taboo Subjects came out with showed that he is nothing different from a TYPICAL hypocrit UNPer liberal “academic” who would go to any lengths to support Fonseka just because that’s the only way to defeat Rajapakse that they hated for totally irrelevant reasons, but could not defeat. The majority people of the country saw the traitorous, filthy, opportunistic, greedy, destructive alliance NDF for what it was and people voted them out. Now Taboo Subjects is frustrated. And he is resorting to cheap insults.
මහ රජාණන්ට ආවතේව කරමින්, එතුමන්ගේ ඉඳුල් කමින් ජීවත්වීම ඔවුන්ට දෙපයින් තනිව නැඟී සිටීමට වඩා පහසුය; තෘප්තිකරය.
Taboo doesn’t consider his pathetic reasoning to justify the opportunistic alliance as “සෙන්පතියෙකුට (Fonseka) ආවතේව කරමින්, එතුමන්ගේ ඉඳුල් කමින් ජීවත්වීම” or “හාමු කෙනෙකුට (Ranil) ආවතේව කරමින්, එතුමන්ගේ ඉඳුල් කමින් ජීවත්වීම” or worse, “මන්ත්රී හාමුදුරු කෙනෙකුට (Mangala etc) ආවතේව කරමින්, එතුමන්ගේ ඉඳුල් කමින් ජීවත්වීම”. There are enough cases of Sri Lankan people doing this, and the social class that both Fonseka/Mangala and Ranil comes from historically (and much more recently compared to kings) have not been much different from the lords of such a culture. But Taboo doesn’t consider these motifs as applying to himself. HE is supporting the dirty alliance, unlike us who support Rajapakse, purely for intellectual reasons!!!
මේ රටේ තවදුරටත් තෘප්තිකරව හෝ නැතිව සිස්ටම් එකේ කොටසක් ලෙස ජීවත් වීමට නම් සිංහල, දෙමළ, මුස්ලිම් වේවා, දුප්පත් පොහොසත් වේවා සියළුදෙනාම විසින් පිළිගත යුතු එක් කාරණාවක් වේ. ඒ අප සියළු දෙනාම කැමැත්තෙන් හෝ අකැමැත්තෙන් බටහිරින් මෙහි ගෙන එනු ලැබූ ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදය ඇතුළු සියළු හර පද්ධතීන් (value systems) අළුයම ලූ කෙළ පිඬක් සේ ප්රතික්ෂේප කොට දොළොස්වන සියවසෙහි, ජැක්සන් ඇන්තනි කතා කරන ආකාරයේ ‘දේශීය’ වැඩවසම් ගෝත්රික හර පද්ධතීන් කරා යළි ගමන් කළ යුතු බවය.
There is no concern here about so-called value systems. The people of this country know that neither Fonseka, nor UNP, nor JVP, nor Mangala are saints when checked against these value systems. So they compare everyone against each other, consider other factors as well, and select the guy which they think is the better crook to win.
Taboo Subjects finds it fine to support an alliance that supported the terrorist LTTE. He finds it fine to support an alliance that supported the terrorist JVP that killed people for voting, and burned down millions worth of state resources –people’s money– just because they didn’t like the government. Taboo Subjects finds it fine to support an alliance with perhaps the Sri Lankas worst media minister Samaraweera. Taboo subjects finds it fine to vote a party lead by country’s worst opposition leader, known to ally with thugs. Taboo Subjects thinks a guy who is charged for RAPE, who changed military rules just to give himself a medal that he wasn’t worthy of otherwise, is suitable for country’s presidency. Taboo Subjects “value system” checks don’t get triggered by these. And they trigger only when a people vote a president who rid the country of a 30-year old terrorist problem, all while managing many factors and developing economy.
So when people vote a president in for reasons that are not to taboo subjects liking, that’s because democracy is defeated! His “ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදී මතවාදය” does not extend to respect democratic principals he himself preaches about without resorting to cheap insults and labeling others that do not agree with him as feudal rather than democratic.
මේ ජැක්සන්ගේ අපේක්ෂකයා දිනා තම අපේක්ෂකයා පැරදුනේය යන අරුතින් නොවේ. ජැක්සන්ගේ රාජ්යත්ව මතවාදය දිනා තම ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදී මතවාදය පැරදුනේය යන අර්ථයෙනි.
One could only feel sorry for you, Taboo Subjects.
I think the Taboo’s article is having something. Both the article and the reply are biased.
Both are having validity in two different frames. One is conceptual & the other is factual.
There is no point of building “conceptual frames” to explain what could easily be expressed with simple facts. If student A has been scoring better than student B in school exams, and happens to score equally better in a government exam, there’s no point of building a new concept that the government exam results were due to the fact that government examiners were relatives of student A.
Although the Colombo elite and media believed that SF could bring a change, he was aligned with unpopular JVP and UNP and he himself has shown his flaws during the course of action. While the pseudo intellectuals (as always) bought the artificial images, commons saw Fonseka for what he is. They knew to whom should the credit of war go, if it HAD to be given to one. Even the “intellectuals” knew but pretended that they are unaware; even those who were critical of glamorizing the army were now secretly hoping that public would be stupid this once just so that their clique could win the war. It didn’t work. Now there is no point bringing in new concepts.
Mahinda Rajapakse was voted because he was seen a **better president**, not a king.
I will probably write a separate article on this.
I do not know that it is how reasonable to compare the behavior of more than 10 million voters with a government examination which is having clearly defined marking scheme.
I do not believe that just a factual approach is enough to explain such a complex behavior. We need a combination of factual, conceptual and many other approaches. (At least to go closer)
I do not refuse your facts but I thought your fats are not much enough to reason it out. Let see your separate article.
Building concepts just to insult the opposition is uncalled for. Otherwise, one could build a “concept” that the 40% who voted Fonseka did so because they wanted a military rule. Of course Taboo would parrot Fonseka’s manifesto claiming that it was all these nice things but not the military rule that attracted people. In that case, MR’s manifesto didn’t say anything about a feudal government either; it had equally nice things some of which were believably delivered.
As much as Rajapakse showed tendency to be a king, Fonseka had shown his tendency to become a dictator, as shown from how he handled criticism even in public media, and how he allegedly treated even subordinates even during the campaign. But taboo’s liberal mind won’t even think of admitting it, because hypocrisy is such a big thing.
here it is.
http://subtlesl.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/%e0%b6%b4%e0%b7%8a%e2%80%8d%e0%b6%bb%e0%b6%ad%e0%b7%92%e0%b6%9a%e0%b7%8a%e0%b7%82%e0%b7%9a%e0%b6%b4%e0%b7%80%e0%b7%8f%e0%b6%af%e0%b7%93-%e0%b6%b8%e0%b6%ad%e0%b7%80%e0%b7%8f%e0%b6%af/
Taboo is building another “concept” this time, to explain why Sri Lankans cheerfully celebrate the end of the LTTE terrorism and why they did not cheerfully celebrate the end of the JVP insurrections in 1971 and 1989.
The JVP insurrections are in no way comparable to the LTTE’s terrorism. It is lunacy even to make an attempt to do so. The LTTE was ranked the world’s most powerful terrorist group and has carried out highest number of suicide bomb attacks. Its annual income was said to be USD 300 million. It was the only terrorist group that has had an ‘Air Force’ and has carried out air attacks. It was also the only terrorist group that killed heads of states of two countries. Most importanly, the LTTE was supported not only by the Tamil diaspora, but also by the western powers. There was tremendous pressure from the West on Sri Lanka to stop the offensive against the LTTE.
In comparison, Sri Lanka was given a free ticket by the west to do whatever required to crush the JVP insurrection both in 1971 and 1989. There were no calls for ‘war crimes’ investigations when Rohana Wijewera died mysteriously while in government’s custody. The Weaponry of the JVP rebels confined to shot guns, T-56s and hand grenades, which was in stark contrast to that of the LTTE. The JVP was not lucky to have its cadres trained overseas. The JVP neither massacred every man, woman and child in a village overnight nor blasted five hundred civilians in a crowded city in daylight. The JVP’s terrorism was nowhere as lethal as was the LTTE’s.
Most importantly, the “Tribal Sinhalese” place the supreme importance on the territorial integrity of the country. The LTTE was a threat to the territorial integrity of the country. The JVP was not. If there is a single reason for the present revival of national pride, it is the acknowledgement that we have conclusively defeated the world’s most powerful terrorist group (who were backed by the West) that was a threat to our territorial integrity.
According to Taboo’s concept, the reason for the present cheerful revival of the national pride among “tribal Sinhalese” is not the above reason. It is that Mahinda sports a mustache and eats Kiribath with Katta Sambal!
And then, some people call this ‘concept building’.
lol.
reminds me, the so-called prabuddhaya wasn’t very different from the tribals when it comes to fair play. I have a post here showing how taboo himself practiced what he preach against JVP:
http://subtlesl.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/sarath-fonseka-arrested/
machan.. stormcrow, uba Rajapakshage puka lewa kawa nam meeta hodai.. blogging atharala.. ubata eka meeta wadiya sirawata karanna puluwan kiyala mata sure…
so try to do that.. Best for your future..
Taboo is giving a very potent argument on tribal . neo-feudal mentality of so-called Sinhala Buddhist majority. stormcrow on the other hand can only see through colored glasses.
Taboo also vehemently criticized SF, another tribal leader.
Taboo is only against feudal, backward menality of Sinhala Buddhists of this country
I have addressed the issues on a factual basis. Your answer to that is “taboo is so-and-so and stormcrow is so-and-so”. Why not answer the points i have raised or explain what the “colored glasses” are?
Perhaps what you mean by “colored glasses” is, like all other pseudo intellectuals, any point of view opposed to yours.