|
|
JVP attacks fuel price hike
Full News Article
Bonggo
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8300
Member Profile
|
 17 Jan 2008 06:25:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
It is difficult to say, but if JRJ conducted the 1983 general elections under the new representative system JVP could have got one or two seats, and that would have prevented them taking arms for the second time
This was my original contention. The JVP would not have got any seat in 1983 if the cut of point was 12% but after the Referendum he reduced it to 5%. JR was able to do so because he had more than the required 2/3 majority.
Now instead of the Referendum if they had the General Elections, UNP would not have had 2/3 majority and JR would not have been able to change the Constitution, which means the 12% cut-off point would have remained and JVP would not have returned any Member to Parliament at that time.
JVP took up arms primarily because they were banned after the dreaded 1983 riots and thereafter the signing of Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987, when they intensified attacks. |
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3565
Member Profile
|
 17 Jan 2008 06:33:46 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Bonggo,
Interesting points.
Anyway, I do not think we should jump to credit JRJ because he never had JVP in mind when he did all these days. As we say in economics, it was a positive externality as far as JVP is concerned.
.
|
Bonggo
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8300
Member Profile
|
17 Jan 2008 09:49:30 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
Agreed.
JR never had the intention of supporting JVP or any other opposing party. Referendum was a bad thing in the first place.
The Constitution is good although many things need to be changed to suit modern needs such as the provisions that give power to the President, electoral reforms etc. It could be done with the approval of 2/3 of MPs, if they agree.
In a sense it is good that under this system no party is able to get 2/3 majority which means no leader can change the Constitution according to his/her whims and fancies. 2/3 approval means it needs the consent of the Opposition as well, so change if there is any will be for the benefit of all.
If not for this Constitution, CBK would have still been in power, no wonder she hated it so much. |
p007
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 765
Member Profile
|
 17 Jan 2008 09:54:46 GMT Report for Abuse
|
To Whom it may concern
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
Act No 015 of 1988
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
BE it enacted by the Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka as follows: -
17th December , 1988
Short title.
1. This Act may be cited as the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Amendment of Article 99 of the Constitution.
4. Article D9 of the Constitution is hereby amended as follows: -
(1) by the substitution, in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (6) of that Article, for the words less than one eighth of the total votes', of the words ' less than one twentieth of the total votes '
www.lawnet.lk/process.php?st=1988Y0V0C0A15S&hword=''a&path=6 |
nada
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3076
Member Profile
|
 17 Jan 2008 09:59:51 GMT Report for Abuse
|
[Your hesitation to take my challenge is quite understandable..
You are right and I can't advice or suggest to a brain frozen person who lives in a different era! The challenge for me is not to take your challenge.
And when some one avoids some unwanted confrontation then it is taken as weakness, the typical sinhala mind set and again one of the root causes for the birth of Phrabaharan.
For every obvious things you ask proof and that is your standard strategy to getting away from the main issue.
There is a saying in tamil: To see a wound in the hand one does not need the glasses!
Mucha will you prove that there was repeated violence against Tamils on a systematic basis often organised by the GOSL and supported by the armed forces as a reply to their democratic protests?
Can you prove that Tamils are happily living among Sinhalese in the south with all their glory and totally free from fear or favour?
Can you disprove that vast majority of the Tamils support the LTTE?
Can you prove that Mahavamsa is the true document of Sinhala history?
Can you prove that Sinhala Governments have been always fair by the Tamils and other minorities?
You deserve a very good 'Pujaacha Pujaniyaanam'
for your misdeeds. |
Bonggo
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8300
Member Profile
|
17 Jan 2008 10:25:41 GMT Report for Abuse
|
P007,
Thanks for that reference machang.
The date is 17.12.1988, which means it was done under JR. The paperwork and all that would have been done much before that!
Premadasa was appointed as President in January 1989. I do not recall any change to the Constitution under him. There were two under the CBK (16 & 17) that enabled the Government to establish the Constitution Council and five other commissions including the Police Commission. This idea was mooted by Ranil which had the agreement of all parties, thus they were able to pass it. |
Bonggo
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8300
Member Profile
|
17 Jan 2008 10:44:04 GMT Report for Abuse
|
P007,
I checked the valuable reference you provided. The 16th Amendment was made under JR too on the same date - 17.12.1998.
Under CBK there was only one, the 17th Amendment which I have already described.
So, you would observe that in a period of ten years from 1978 to 1988 there were 16 Amendments (due to the majority that JR enjoyed), whereas for the past 19 years there has been only 1 !
If you mean the Amendment to the 1978 Constitution which reduced the cut off to 5%, the credit must go to Premadasa and, also, Ashroff who really asked for it
Now as you may observe, Premadasa did not make any change. I can assure you it was JR !
Edited By - Bonggo - 17 Jan 2008 10:46:43 GMT |
raigamakolla
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1341
Member Profile
|
 17 Jan 2008 10:56:28 GMT Report for Abuse
|
whereas for the past 19 years there has been only 1 !
Why would SLFP want to change the consitituion in the first place. They are simply enjoying it.
One good feature of the JRJ consitution is the propotionate representation. In India, for example, small parties cannot get a member into the parliament under the first past the post system. So is it in Pakistan. JVP is in Parliament, thanks to JRJ.
If you have read the changes proposed by Ranil recently, they are far reaching and make the constitution most modern and demoractic in entire SA. We should all rally round for those changes to be implemented and get a good government which is more accountable and transperant. |
p007
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 765
Member Profile
|
17 Jan 2008 11:19:40 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Bonggo
Now as you may observe, Premadasa did not make any change. I can assure you it was JR !
The point is that though JR was President at the time the 15th Amendment was made, it was just 2 days before the 1988 Presidential Elections on 19.12.88. Surely JR has no interest in any Constitutional Amendments just 2 days before the election.
But Premadasa HAD a personal interest because that Amendment would have ensured Ashroff's support which meant at least 200,000 votes for him.
Although Premadasa was not yet the President, he was the architect of the 15th Amendment which reduced the cut off to 5%. Ashroff of course was the man who called for it.
As I said credit for the 15th Amendment must go to Premadasa who engineered it with Ashroff sharing the honours for it was his demand that made it possible.
|
sarathk
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 120
Member Profile
|
17 Jan 2008 11:58:36 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| You Crazy jvp Idiots You supported the buget,Last Month, Why crying Now |
|
Search All News and Discussions