Why we should vote for President Rajapaksa
President Mahinda Rajapaksa had a
difficult time waging a diplomatic battle in the political front to keep
away foreign interventions attempting to foil the battle against the
terrorists. That was patriotism, and that was a President who kept his
word. As the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the President of
Sri Lanka, the victory over the thirty-year-old terrorism in Sri Lanka
is primarily his. Despite that if one wants to vote against the
President Mahinda Rajapaksa, which, one has a right to do, one should
then be clear in his mind, what are the reasons that justify such a
Sarath Fonseka calls for a change. But a change for the better cannot
come from Sarath Fonseka, who is not a real patriot. A patriot would not
come forward to lead a country as its President only to stop corruption
and to end the executive powers of the President. There should be the
greater objective of unifying the country under one flag and get the
different Communities in Sri Lanka to shed their Communal identities to
become one with the Sri Lankan Nation.
His latest acceptance of the TNA to support him in his election
campaign is not a move to unify Sri Lanka, but to divide the country by
setting up a Tamil Eelam in
President Mahinda Rajapaksa
the North-East. The TNA is working to obtain by cunning what
Prabhakaran could not obtain through terrorism.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa moves towards the more noble object of
unifying the country and make a United Sri Lankan Nation with the now
divided Communities. Having eliminated the disastrous terrorism, he said
that there are no minorities in Sri Lanka, but there are those who love
the country and those who do not.
If Sarath Fonseka is a real patriot he should have supported
President Mahinda Rajapaksa, giving up his personal ambition of becoming
the President on the ground that he was the Military Commander who led
the armies to defeat terrorism.
Sarath Fonseka is today an ambitious hatemonger. He is not suitable
to be the President of Sri Lanka, not only because he is a military man
with no political experience, but also because he has taken a vow of
allegiance as a citizen of America.
A President of a Sovereign State cannot have a divided allegiance.
Sarath Fonseka to continue his election campaign should in the first
instance show to his electors that he is a patriotic citizen of Sri
Lanka by renouncing his claim to USA citizenship.
He has not publicly stated that he has given up his ‘green card’ and
repudiated his claim to the citizenship of USA. As the President of Sri
Lanka he cannot have one step here and the other elsewhere. An ordinary
citizen may have the right to keep a double citizenship, but not one who
seeks to be the Citizen number one of a country. He is duty bound to
have an undivided allegiance to the country of his birth if he seeks to
be its President.
Perhaps the law of Sri Lanka is not clear on the point of requiring a
candidate seeking election as the President of Sri Lanka should only be
a citizen of Sri Lanka, without taking any oath of allegiance as a
citizen of another country.
If there is no such requirement in our legal system, it is a serious
lapse. However, the voters have the right to know where Sarath Fonseka’s
allegiance lies and refuse his vote to him if he is claiming citizenship
of another country.
We know that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant
Secretary of State for Asia Robert Blake had sympathized with the
terrorists in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is apparent that the US
Government is sympathetic towards the terrorists of Sri Lanka. The
President Barack Obama himself spoke out against a judicial decision
taken against an errant Sri Lankan journalist.
Therefore Sarath Fonseka a ‘green card’ holder who has perhaps taken
the oath of allegiance as a citizen of USA, will by consent of being a
citizen of America becomes a sympathiser of the terrorists of Sri Lanka,
he claims he defeated in battle. Could the Sri Lanka electors then
accept Sarath Fonseka as a suitable candidate to lead the Sri Lankan
Nation as its President?
Sarath Fonseka since his nomination had been making promises without
any concern for the future of the country. A salary increase of Rs
10,000 will cause immense economic difficulties to a country which has
so many development projects in hand, and many more to be undertaken.
His consent to accept the support of the TNA itself shows that what
he wants is not the welfare of the country and its people, but to get
elected as the President at any cost, because he has a grudge against
President Rajapaksa and his very able brothers who stood by the
President to enable him to fulfill his 2005 election promise of
eliminating terrorism and unifying the country.
One wonders whether Sarath Fonseka accepts every one who comes
forward to support him making impossible demands, merely to get elected
as the President, so that once elected he will form a military
government and make all those impossible promises he had made null and
That is the danger that all those who are enthusiastic with Sarath
Fonseka’s promised change, do not seem to understand. Sarath Fonseka is
after his own personal glory and cares less for the country and its
people. It may not be a surprise, if days after his election as the
President and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, he will
commandeer the Armed Forces to take over all Government establishments.
It is a possibility as these type of regime changes had already taken
place in Iran, Guatamala, Chile and many other countries very ably
arranged by the CIA.
Sarath Fonseka is a victim of a terrorist assassination attempt. He
vehemently opposed the removal of the High Security Zones, when he was
stationed as the Commander of Jaffna. He was number one on the
terrorist’s list of persons to be assassinated. He was leading an Army
of Sinhala Buddhist Soldiers against the terrorist he vowed to
eliminate. Seeing his soldiers die in great numbers, he claimed that Sri
Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese and the other Communities should not make
Such a man cannot change overnight and accept the demands of the TNA
to merge the North and East, release all suspected terrorists in
prisons, remove the Army Camps from Jaffna. There is surely some thing
in the back of his mind, and that does not auger well for the future of
Therefore the electors should be vigilant and use their vote wisely.
Even if one feels that they do not agree with President Rajapaksa, and
put him in the category of a ‘hopeless devil’, a known ‘hopeless devil’
is better than the unknown ‘ambitious devil’.
Mahinda Rajapaksa sought to be elected as the President of Sri Lanka
in 2005, to bring an end to terrorism, through dialogue. But having
failed in his attempt to meet Prabhakaran face to face, he began a
series of peace negotiations. Having failed in an attempt, he was forced
to resort to military operations when the terrorists closed the sluice
gates of Mavil Aru depriving water to thousands of farmers. And that
ended up with the defeat of the terrorists at Nandikadal in May 2009.
With that President Mahinda Rajapaksa fulfilled his first election
promise to his electors. People seem to have now forgotten the
difficulties the President had in gaining his victory over the
terrorists. The war against terrorism was not only a destruction of the
naval force of the terrorists, their meeting places and communication
centres, face to face fighting capturing their fortified towns, villages
and earth-bunds, but also to stall attempts by terrorist friendly
foreign governments to stop the military offences against terrorists.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa refused their call for ceasefire, despite
the fact that he knew that he was antagonizing the foreign governments,
but he had no alternative as he was determined to end terrorism, at
whatever cost, that being the promise he gave to his people. He may have
thought in his heart of heart that the European Governments proud of
their Christian civilization, the cradles of democracy would eventually
understand and finally applaud him for his determination to end
terrorism, a global disaster, a menace to human civilisation.
But unfortunately the end of terrorism in Sri Lanka made us see the
hypocrisy of the West. They have a love and hate relationship with
terrorism. They categorise terrorism, as their terrorism and other
peoples’ terrorism. They loved the terrorists in Sri Lanka and their
elimination has made the Western Governments vengeful towards the
Government of Sri Lanka. Phillip Alston of UN who is a great sympathizer
of the Sri Lanka terrorists is all out to inculpate Sri Lanka for war
crimes. And Robert Evans of EU threatens Sri Lanka with the withdrawal
David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign
Minister Bernard Kouchner came to Sri Lanka with the intention of saving
the terrorist leadership. They were well received by President Mahinda
Rajapaksa, but they were kindly requested not to interfere.
They later together with the US Secretary of State moved to adopt a
resolution in the UN Security Council to send UN Peace troops to
intervene in Sri Lanka. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa had the support
of China and Russia who stood firmly against such a move.
The President Mahinda Rajapaksa had a difficult time waging a
diplomatic battle in the political front to keep away foreign
interventions attempting to foil the battle against the terrorists.
That was patriotism, and that was a President who kept his word. As
the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the President of Sri
Lanka, the victory over the thirty-year-old terrorism in Sri Lanka is
primarily his. Despite that if one wants to vote against the President
Mahinda Rajapaksa, which, one has a right to do, one should then be
clear in his mind, what are the reasons that justify such a decision?
What are the reasons some people give to vote against President
Rajapaksa to bring about a change?
There are those who make allegations of corruptions against the
President and his brothers, but allegations by themselves do not prove
any thing. Those allegations have to be proved. So far nothing has been
done except make noises and innuendos.
Then there are those who blame the President for having his brothers
around him holding positions of importance.
But it was his brother Gotabhaya Rajapaksa a man with considerable
experience in war and negotiations, who brought the three Forces
together and provided them with arms and war material, and carried out
an exceptional job in the war against the terrorists, and continues even
today to disable the activities of the vast network of Sri Lanka
The President’s other brother Basil Rajapaksa was engaged in constant
contact with the Government of India to keep the Tamil Nadu State at bay
and stop any interventionists’ attempts by the Government of India. He
was also maintaining good relations with the political leaders in the
East and looking after the IDPs. The President’s elder brother was
looking after the development of the Ports in the Colombo, Galle,
Kankasenthurai and the new port in Hambantota.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa fortunately had his brothers who were
qualified and capable to carry out the different functions allocated to
them. He could trust that the work that they have been given would be
carried out well and with responsibility. Above all he could trust them.
So what is wrong in having employed his brothers. It is the people of
Sri Lanka who have benefitted from their employment.
The Opposition speaks of the Rajapaksa family, as if they were
nincompoops who lived freely at government expense. But it was the
Rajapaksa family that delivered us from terrorism. We should be thankful
The other allegation levelled at President Mahinda Rajapaksa is that
he had the largest Cabinet in the world. That was the fault of the JVP.
The JVP left the government when the President was beginning his task of
elimination of the terrorists. If the government crashed for want of a
majority the elimination of terrorism in Sri Lanka would have remained a
The President had to think fast and use his political acumen to keep
his government afloat. The only way to do this was to win the confidence
of politicians of the Opposition. They would not come unless they were
given some sort of incentives. He first signed a MoU with the UNP and
when it was not working he gave Cabinet posts to those who were willing
to remain with him to consolidate his government, so that he could
assure that the military solution to eliminate terrorism could be given
effect. If the President did not set up that strategy, the government
may have crashed and the military operation against the terrorists would
We can imagine the scenario if that had happened. So why blame the
President for the large Cabinet, which was a decision he was forced to
take when the JVP left him without an alternative solution of even
assuring their support while being in the Opposition.
Unfortunately he did not have brothers in the JVP. If he had they
would have remained with him.
Another allegation levelled against the President is why he has
people like Labour Minister Mervyn Silva, whose indiscipline some times
causes concern. But perhaps the President’s future plans to eliminate
the underworld elements may necessitate the services of a person like
Mervyn Silva. But though not quite disciplined Mervyn Silva is not a
dangerous person. Therefore, that is no reason to blame the President
for his more humane acceptance of the indiscipline of a devoted friend.
On the other hand, is it not a great human quality of the President not
to discard a friend because he is different?
Taking into consideration all what has been said, electing the
President Mahinda Rajapaksa for another term in office is to continue
the good work he had commenced, and allowing him to complete the changes
he had promised in the Mahinda Chintana. There are many promising
projects under way, and a change now will only hamper the development of
these projects, the beneficiaries of which are the people of Sri Lanka.
A change should not be made for the sake of a change. A change should
be to get some thing better, and that change for the better cannot be
expected from Sarath Fonseka making all sorts of delirious promises,
without any planned development projects.
The change for the better we can expect only from the President
Mahinda Rajapaksa, a man of the people, simple, forthright, humane, a
genuine son of the soil of whom we can be proud of.