Any one can get into power in S'pore as long as he is in Lee's camp. You have to be a Lee's man to be well off there. Much like in SL where yes men of MR are prefered. That is how dynasties work.
And much of its executive power lies in the hands of a Prie minister. Lee runs the show in SG with his family. His familial rule and how he oppress his oponents is legendary. Remeber Jeyaratnam?
Lee is dynastuical and oppressive as much as MR is, only difference is MR is stupid.
Also Lee practice the policy where ethnic minorities would not be able to form a majority in any part if SG. If SL was to practice SG ways, we would have a sinhala majority in Jaffna and even Trinco.
Lee is a smart racist. thats all.
And abt changing religion,
there is no clause in the constitution of SL making it a must for a Lankan to be buddhist in order to be the head of state. Got it? That is propaganda spread by Tamil racists. If u are a Lankan, patriot and think above racial lines u can be the head of state of SL. Remember Kadiragamar? He would have become the Premier had not LTTE killed him.
Or wait Foreign minister of SL was a Tamil? but SL doesnt give chances ne.
And also Bandarnaike's changed religion much earlier they took to politics. They are opportunistic ppl. He didnt convert (we dont knw he really convert) just to become premier. Even MR's wife is a Catholic. I remember her being not allowed to enter a temple in india cos she is catholic.
And MR wordship Hindu gods and a frequent visitor of Thirupathi. Everyone in SL knows he is a staunch Hindu. but no one cares.
I remember first time Sonia Ghandhi elected to parliament ppl protested cos of her religion and she finally gave way to MM
we too read newspapers Dadaji.
The idea u have abt SL society is very much screwed. Buddhists and Catholics are very much family. I have Catholics in my family. Many of the SL army were Catholic. Religion doesnt really play a role, it is the power and PR skills like in any third world country...
And it was the President who was a muslim in india, he was NOT elected. that says a thing! it is for PR, what matters is premeir....And we knw what happened when Sonia Ghandhi first got elecetd
It is universal that anyone who is connected gets a better chance at the hustings and political appointments.
In Singapore, the Prime Minister is elected not by the citizens but rather by the members of the ruling political party. The ruling party has a greater number of Chinese.
Why be selective and mention only Jeyeratnam? Workers Paerty Chairman Wong Hong Toy too was indicted for falsifying the Worker Party accounts. Of course, acquittal came later.
And anyway, political vendetta is nothing new in Asian politics.
Sri Lanka is not practising so brazenly, as per your understanding of Singapore's political matrix, the political style you ascribe to Singapore. But it is doing things in a more sinister way to ensure that the Tamils do not get equal opportunities. Sri Lanka is addressing the root so that no Tamil grows of stature. I am sure you are aware of the discriminatory ways how equal opportunities are denied to Tamils.
You may not ask Heinz Gud, but then I cannot reproduce all the issues for every Sri Lankan posters the same, as and when the surface on the scene!
Now, can it be told as to why a man called Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike, born a Christian but converted to Buddhism when he joined politics?
Could it be because overflowing religiosity of the country has always influenced the shape of politics and governance of Sri Lanka?
This is demonstrated by how any presidential candidate with significant chances of winning the election conducts his/her campaign.
Receiving the 'blessings' of Maha Sanga and other religious prelates is a must. They also spend a lot of time participating in the religious ceremonies of various faiths and then those sessions are given a wide publicity in media. Even after winning, constant appeasement of prelates of every religion with clear favoritism to Buddhists is the norm. Much of the broadcast time in government run media is spent on showing the president offering flowers, participating in pririth chanting ceremonies, Bodhi Puja etc. This has been the case ever since presidential system was introduced to Sri Lanka in 1979. Pledge to protect Buddhism from unnamed enemies is a usual election promise. Lip service to other religions is also made in the sides. All this appears pretty normal to Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka who have not seen anything different for the last many years.
By Kadirgamar, you mean Lakshman Kadirgamar, the Tamil Christian politician?
May I remind you that following the victory of the United People's Freedom Alliance in the 2 April 2004 Sri Lankan legislative elections, he was mentioned as a possible candidate for Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, but on 6 April President Kumaratunga appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa to the post.
And you blame Lee of Singapore for being racial!
You find Sri Lanka having a Tamil Christian Foreign Minister some great example of Sri Lankan giving equal opportunities? You must be joking!
While to decry Singapore as racist. Here is what the Singapore Govt has achieved on equal opportunities:
Presidents of Singapore
The late Chengara Veetil Devan Nair (1923–2005) – Singapore's third President (1981–1985) and former head of the National Trades Union Congress, the umbrella body for trades unions in Singapore. Widely seen as the founder of the modern trades union movement in Singapore. During Singapore's brief membership of Malaysia, Nair was the only People's Action Party (PAP) member to win a national seat in the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. He was from a Malayali Hindu background and married to a South Indian Singaporean Hindu.
Mr Sellapan Ramanathan (1924– ) – Singapore's sixth President from 1999 to 2011. He was formerly a senior civil servant, serving as Permanent Secretary at the Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs Ministries. He was also Director of the Security and Intelligence Division, The Straits Times newspaper, Singapore Press Holdings and Singapore Mint. From 1990 to 1996, he was Ambassador to the United States, and subsequently an Ambassador-at-Large. He is an Indian Tamil Hindu married to a Bengali Singaporean Hindu.
Cabinet ministers
The late Sinnathamby Rajaratnam (1915–2006) – Singapore's first Foreign Minister, Culture Minister and Senior Minister, as well as a former Labour Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Widely regarded as one of the core members of the "old guard", or the founding fathers of Modern Singapore, he cofounded the People's Action Party as well as ASEAN. In the wake of the 1964 Race Riots in Singapore, he wrote the Singapore National Pledge, which enshrines the ideals of the nation. He was from a Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu background and was married to a Hungarian woman. Both were secular agnostics.
Mr Suppiah Dhanabalan (1937- ) - Current Chairman of DBS Bank and Temasek Holdings. former Minister of Trade and Industry, National Development, Foreign Affairs, Culture and Community Development in the 1980s and 1990s. He was publicly mentioned by Singapore's first Prime Minister as one of the four men he considered as his successor, but he decided against Dhanabalan as he felt Singapore was 'not ready' for a non-Chinese Prime Minister. He is an Indian Tamil Baptist married to a Chinese Singaporean Baptist.
Prof Shunmugam Jayakumar (1939- ) - Co-ordinating Minister for National Security. Former Minister of Law, Labour, Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs. Member of the ASEAN Eminent Persons Group, tasked with drafting an ASEAN Charter. Previously Dean of the Law School at the National University of Singapore and Ambassador to the UN (1971–1974). He is an Indian Tamil Hindu married to an Indian Tamil Hindu.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam - Currently Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Shanmugaratnam was Singapore's first Indian Minister for Education and later Minister for Finance. He is a Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu married to a Japanese Singaporean.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (1961- ) - Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports. He was the former CEO of Singapore General Hospital. He is a Chindian, or son of a Telugu Singaporean father and Chinese Singaporean mother. His wife is Chinese Singaporean and they are Christians.
Mr K Shanmugam - Minister of Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Shanmugam was a four-term backbench member of parliament was a lawyer in private practice. He had been one of the youngest persons to have been appointed a Senior Counsel in Singapore, as was widely seen as one of the nation's top litigators. He is an Indian Tamil Hindu Singaporean.
Mr S Iswaran (1962- ) - Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Trade and Industry. He was formerly a Colombo Plan scholar and the CEO of Singapore Indian Development Association, the Indian community self-help group as well as Managing Director of Temasek Holdings. He was born in Madras and is a naturalised Indian Tamil Hindu Singaporean.
So, there!
India is known to have many luminaries of the minorities in important political and administrative posts.
The PM is an example!
I remember first time Sonia Ghandhi elected to parliament ppl protested cos of her religion and she finally gave way to MM we too read newspapers Dadaji.
It has nothing to with religion!
Those who say that Sonia Gandhi can be Prime Minister are obviously unaware of, or are unwilling to acknowledge, the vulnerability of certain 'citizens' like her under the Citizenship Act. India cannot possibly be comfortable with a Prime Minister whose citizenship is conditional, whose citizenship can be challenged and even withdrawn under certain circumstances. More, a citizen whose status becomes dependent on the vagaries of Italy's citizenship and naturalisation laws!
Sonia Gandhi has been a serious contender for prime ministership since 1999. Should she ever realise her dreams, it could have grave repercussions for our republic and our political system. In my view, Sonia is ineligible for any high office for the simple reason that her citizenship is conditional and subject to cancellation if she were to violate the stipulations laid down in the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Further, unlike natural-born Indians (citizens by birth) who are citizens of the first class, Sonia occupies a much lower rung in the hierarchy of citizens that exists under this law. The main points of difference are as follows:
Under this law, a person who is born in India and either of whose parents is a citizen of India, is a citizen of India by birth. A person born outside India and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth, is a citizen of India by descent.
Citizens by birth become citizens of India with the first breath of life and retain it, if they so desire, till their last breath. They do not 'apply' for citizenship. Nor do they have to file an affidavit swearing allegiance to the Constitution of India or take an oath in this regard before an Oath Commissioner. Their allegiance to the Indian Constitution is taken for granted. Finally, no force on earth can deprive them of their Indian citizenship. Even if a citizen by birth is found guilty of treason, he cannot be deprived of his citizenship.
He can be jailed for life or hanged but his citizenship cannot be tinkered with. That is why citizens by birth are citizens of the first class. Since citizenship is a fundamental qualification for holding public office in any country, citizens by birth are eminently suited for high constitutional offices.
Foreigners who marry citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in India can apply for Indian citizenship under Section 5 of this Act. If granted citizenship, and this is subject to 'conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed', they are known as citizens by registration.
Other foreigners who make India their home and seek Indian citizenship become naturalized citizens if their applications are accepted. Under Section 6 of the Act, where an application is made in a prescribed manner by such a foreigner, the Central Government can grant the certificate of naturalisation, if it is satisfied that the applicant is qualified as per the provisions outlined in the Third Schedule to the Act. The Third Schedule lays down several qualifications for naturalisation of a foreigner like Sonia Gandhi and under this Act, it is on the incumbent Central Government to ensure the following..
a. that the applicant is not a subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented by law or practice of that country from becoming subjects or citizens of that country by naturalisation;
b. that if he is a citizen of any country, he has renounced the citizenship of that country in accordance with the law therein in force in that behalf and has notified such renunciation to the Central Government;
c.that he is of good character
d. that he has adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
Finally,
the clincher. The Citizenship Act outlines the circumstances in which both citizens by registration and citizens by naturalisation can be deprived of their citizenship.
Section 10 of the Act says citizenship can be withdrawn if the government is satisfied that:
a. the registration or certificate of naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact ; or
b. the citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India as by law established; or
c. the citizen has, during any war in which India may be engaged unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in, or associated with, any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or
d. the citizen has, within five years after registration or naturalisation, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years; or
e. the citizen has been ordinarily resident out of India for a continuous period of seven years.
More at:
Issue of Foreign Origin | Sonia Under Scrutiny - By A.Surya Prakash
