Because the former government did this and that ............................

It, is so thrilling to hear the songs begin with above sentences every day, to read on every page,watch it on every GO channel, whenever, what ever the present government has to say to his country people, to outsiders.

Some addictions are  truly harmful it is true, see what has happened now, the SWORN government cannot really come out of the situation or stop using such words( essay topic) , now they have began to use it when they are representing the country for very important matters, as well.

i as a Sri Lankan , person who has the right to 'vote' like to say say, please try to come out of that  without become a 'joker' before the others

i am referring to what the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Present Government has said ( the whole package) before the Human Rights Council recently

What are you trying to prove, justify?????????? what decision, fact and of whom you are supporting?

Let me begin my note, asking following questions

Did you find any member who spoke about anything,  before the council members, saying or anything mentioning, indicating 'the names of the  countries they belong to'?

If so, what are those things?

What was the nature of the things they discussed or were they saying using their names of the countries they represent?

How many member countries you found in the Council, The Human Rights Council  or Commission?

If they talk of something about 'human rights' it is true that they can take examples,  from their respective countries when defining or clarifying something with regard to the subjects they discuss at the council or at the commission.

It is also not fraud that naturally they are representing their countries and in what they speak or act , you may find their country representations' ( Political, Social, Cultural, economical) , what ever political group they may belong to within the country?

sometimes you find such things because they are 'HUMAN. In that human category you find some things but as i mentioned earlier' restrictions and limitations should be there'  in order to protect the identities of the members

Sometimes you may find  in what they say, at least slightly, 'the zones that they represent' ,  continental colours or shapes, sizes though ethically you cannot find personal representations or private attitudes, private beliefs , faiths in what you ( top chairs) say, personal political desires, beliefs other than ' what the whole organization believe lawfully'

Also, according to my knowledge, what ever they do 'should not exceed or break the 'council's visions , missions, or rules, regulations  but that does not mean 'you can say anything or act the way you want , what ex chair holders said, ( top chairs of commission ), cannot release statements based on fraud evidences' fabricated facts'

It is so good to know who handles situations, who lead such sessions, who involved in investigations because some have, somewhere ( i believe) histories of personal profiles of some chair holders - ex


similarly in what ever they say or show should not appear  any other 'revenge' type something ' favoritism with regards to 'NATIONALITIES'

They should have a thorough understanding on the 'internal structures' of any community , country

Now i have a question to ask which is something that not directly related to the subject i essay

who leads the investigations of the properties of the politicians of the country?

Darrel Hair?

let me move on to my essay

Further.................


According to what i believe, any regulations or rules of any organizations, perhaps may have created considering the realities or the truths of certain things as well, let me assume

for example ' when WW1 , WW2 was functioning ' you knew that 'what the involved parties were using during the war?

i  guess they did not use any lollypops instead of guns, weapons, bombs

Now who were the good boys and who were the bad boys? that is something else to discuss here.


During the session of the commission , didn't you find them, the big chairs, representing the COUNCIL or the Commission, not their countries that they belong to? i don't know, was it the opposite?

Why?

That is what you called 'representation', there they were the representatives of the Council, commission in other words they are the decision makers that is also correct.

(Decision making power within set or regulations, as described by the position holds)  

What i am trying to say here is that ' the Foreign Minister of the Country naturally is a representative of the Government, ( he is a member of the Government after President Sirisena became elected as the President) and i find no ethical reasons to stress , before any outside allies, organizations 'who he is'? his position naturally justifies and clarifies it.

i find no ethical reasons or logic in saying ' what  former ' governments did, or boast about what the present government has done specially because the present government is till a fetus, not a mature boy. let the time flows within your government period and show what you do

it is true that you have nothing else to talk before others i.e. of what you did, because of above reason i mentioned   but you can mention the plans only if that is relevant to the topic discussed at the meeting.

do they need to re hear the budget of the present government?

No because it it was not about the budget of governments 


Am i right?

when you are specifically or always stress rights of a particular Nation careful you are not forgetting the rights of others specially because this country is a multi national, multi cultural society. 

you cannot ignore the importance of rights of all, but when you are creating or saying something specifically 'aimed at particular Race or a Nationality for examples , do you think you are really representing the, or a country? ( asking everyone)

i hate this words, majority , minority

when you speak of minorities or only about a majority what will happen to the other part , except the part or the group you talk about

During ' LTTE issue, in war Affected Areas you very well know that 'you found all nations lived in such areas'

you cannot specifically name a single nationality with regard to what you are discussing' 'rights of human'

Pay special attention to 'how , who suffered' because of the issue and how you can compensate such things 'today' Oh! without forgetting a single nation

Though , before the world , Sinhalese are a Minority i say you shouldn't specifically talk about us but about all of us.

The world, do you have statistics of the total population of the Sinhalese in whole world ?

percentages please, just to see whether we are a minority in your justifcations as well?

We do not want any other land from any other part of the world, what we have is purely enough all what we need is ' we want every nationality to live in this 65, 610 square kilo meters in unity,  and do not want it to break in to pieces though some expect that to happen

Including , we expect nothing but no politicians or parties do any hanky panky to in order to get votes from the people , saying they did this to you, we do this to you' , so we expect 'please careful when you are using your tongs, words



Similarly when who ever representing the country inside or outside to country, in their 'speeches' he should do justice to what is justifying by his position offered and the aim of what he spoke of without injecting any political preferences, or party political agendas in to that.

According to my knowledge, it is not very advance to use following sentences, ' word verifications such as 'that government' 'former government' , or because former government did this ............., because former government did that .............., because former government won the humanitarian War ................ ' We are facing the situations  that we are facing now otherwise i don't have to explain anything before your council , they shouldn't have done that, they should have kept it for us to achieve or until the sworn Government arrives ( did he mentioned anything similar? )

NO! what he should do is ' represent the POLICY of the country , Decision of the Country ,  not the POLICY or the Decision not of the government

just because you are a member of a particular government that does not verify, that doesn't say that you are representing the country unless you really prove it. You are given many chances to prove it before any other place outside to 'country'

When your intention is something else or if something else come out of your speech, people have the right to question you

Prove that the country can have faith on you, not trying to depart , divide any group from any group ( nationalities)

and please, we are fed up of  hearing 'the everyday song' because former government did this and that .................

can we hear a new melody for a change ? 



.