මංගලගේ ආරක්ෂාව හා දේශපාලන භූමිකාව
Mangala Samaraweera says he is an LTTE target, that his guard is inadequate and that the government will answer for anything that happens to him. Ivan agrees he should be properly protected and then declines to join the procession: he recalls what was done to Ravaya through the labour department when Samaraweera held office, and says a man who wants to start again should begin with self-criticism.
ජනමාධ්ය බිය ගැන්වීම
Threats to journalists used to come from the government; now they come from the government and from gangs. Ivan follows the Rupavahini affair from the attack on a programme producer to the armed group that told another employee’s mother he would be killed, and sets it beside the JVP’s habit of calling violence against ordinary people a campaign against a foreign army.
මැතිවරණ නීති උල්ලංඝනය
The campaign is calmer than before, but the state media’s behaviour has not changed and the Elections Commissioner has not dealt with it. Sections follow on ‘the 2005 conspiracy’, Mangala Samaraweera’s democracy, including Ports Authority money spent on his mother’s official residence, Soma Thera and the doctor branded a traitor for finding his death natural, and an assassination plot.
Towards A Solution
In this article, Victor Ivan analyzes the constitutional deadlock resulting from President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s takeover of three cabinet ministries, arguing that the crisis stems from structural flaws in a system where executive power and parliamentary control belong to opposing parties. Ivan critiques Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for attempting to sideline the Executive President and leveraging the peace process primarily to fuel his own 2005 presidential ambitions. The author notes the irony in the President now calling for independent commissions and state media oversight—reforms the Prime Minister failed to enact earlier—while demanding an equal seat at the table in peace negotiations. Ultimately, Ivan asserts that the only way to avert national catastrophe is to establish a bipartisan power-sharing agreement that includes the President in decision-making on peace.
ලුෂන් හා මරණ තර්ජන
If Fisheries Minister Mahinda Wijesekera threatened journalist Lucien Rajakarunanayake with death over something written about him, the editorial says, it must be condemned and investigated. It also recalls that as Lake House chairman under the PA, Rajakarunanayake justified the presidential guard’s assault on journalists and deflected blame for the murder of Satana editor Rohana Kumara, and says he too acted as a suppressor of the media.
17 වැනි සංශෝධනය නොසලකා ක්රියා කිරීම
Ivan argues that state officials and institutions must stay neutral in elections, which the 17th Amendment was meant to guarantee. He lists the caretaker government’s pay rises, regularisation of casual staff and teacher promotions, the IGP’s refusal to reverse post-dissolution police transfers and the partisan conduct of state media, and says that such wilful breaches by a President who controls both the police and state media would alone justify impeachment and expose officials to prosecution.
ව්යවස්ථාව උල්ලංඝණය කරන සියලු දෙනා නීතිය ඉදිරියට ගෙනා යුතු ය
The editorial accuses the caretaker government of obstructing the 17th Amendment’s election provisions through mass recruitment, police transfers and promotions for teachers who would serve as polling officers. It notes that the Inspector General of Police has refused the Elections Commissioner’s order to cancel transfers and that state media ignore his directions, and demands that all who violate the Constitution be punished.
බලතල නැතැයි කීමේ හැකියාවක් දැන් මැතිවරණ කොමසාරිස්ට නැත
The editorial notes that, pending an Elections Commission, the 17th Amendment gives its powers to the Elections Commissioner, including control of police on election duty and the power to take over partisan state bodies. It calls on him to stop misuse of state resources and state media, to collect the asset declarations of candidates that have never been obtained, and to ensure a free and fair election.
17 වැනි ව්යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය හා ශ්රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය
Ivan argues that constitutional amendments should not be rushed or sent to court before the public sees the draft, citing N.M. Perera and faulting Batty Weerakoon and Jayampathy Wickramaratne. He contrasts the seven- and nine-judge benches that reviewed earlier amendments with Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva’s small benches that left out Mark Fernando, A.R.B. Amerasinghe and Ranjith Dheeraratne, and objects to his ruling that ITN, Lakhanda and Lake House, as companies, fall outside the Elections Commission’s powers.
තරමක් අංගවිකලයි ඒත් නරකම නෑ
Ivan welcomes the 17th Amendment but lists its flaws: no public debate, no published draft, brief review by a three-judge bench, and passage without a final draft before Parliament. He faults the UNP’s weak first draft and lack of vigilance, credits the JVP for securing the reform but says it accepted a presidential nominee on the Constitutional Council and backed Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s plan to drop Mark Fernando and A.R.B. Amerasinghe from the Judicial Service Commission. The government, he says, kept the council, the Chief Justice and state media within its reach.