"Ranil was successful in collecting funds for 113 ... that is why parliament was dissolved" -- Wimal Weeravansha

"Ranil was successful in collecting funds for 113 ... that is why parliament was dissolved" -- Wimal Weeravansha

After parliament was dissolved, minister Wimal Weeravansha explaining reasons for it at a media briefing held at Prime Minister's office yesterday (10) has mentioned thus: "The United National Party, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna  and several non-governmental organisations in the past few days took a great deal of effort in giving the impression of showing a complicated situation which was not existent in the democracy of Sri Lanka. The former Prime Minister invited Western countries to to mediate in a damaging manner to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. In the same way, Temple Trees became a place where a group armed with clubs taking refuge as never before in history. Patali

Champika began to speak about blood shed.

By doing all this what they tried was to make this country a 'rose garden' of blood shed. But there was no co-operation from public for their protests. If he was dismissed in an illegal manner, if he was a responsible leader, what Mr. Ranil Wickremasingha should have done was seek refuge of the judiciary. But instead of choosing the civilised path open to him, he chose a path of conflict.

Remaining continuously at Temple Trees, the manner in which he comported himself by releasing Deepavali greetings is very degrading. There of course were Prime Ministers in this country who lost their portfolio before elections. But none of them made Temple Trees their prominent camp in this way and kept on asking for an international mediation. Because of this attitude of Mr. Ranil Wickremasingha, Western nations by making use of it then took steps in making the issue of this country their own problem.

When steps were taken to make Temple Trees a dominant camp and carry on duties from there, the President had various actions that he could implement. It was the chief suspects who conspired to assassinate him who were taking refuge within Temple Trees. But President took action in the most civilised manner. However, a continuation of this clash is not beneficial to the country. Making 113 for a government in power is not a big proposition. Not we ... what Anura Dissanayaka said sometime back was 'why can't 113 be collected if a bigger some of money be given to the government if saving money upto mountains and stay on that side'. In the same way Anura Dissanayaka said, "those who are in this parliament are those who are being sold at the market". 113 being collected from from a crowd of parliamentary members ... it is not a difficult task to make a government. But that will not be civilised.

Just as much as that of the former Prime Minister's course of action, the Speaker's partial mode of action contributed towards building up a clash like this. The Speaker went against the constitution and acted on advice of diplomatic institutions. Without accepting the Prime Minister, an announcement was released saying that the 'present situation' was welcome. He showed a blind eye to the governing constitution and standing orders. It is the Speaker's duty to provide necessary provisions in the instance when a Prime Minister is appointed according to powers invested in the President by the governing constitution. Mr. Karu Jayasuriya acted totally contrary to it in a partial manner.

Under these circumstances in order to solve this problem, President dissolved parliament by following the most suitable democratic method and installed a government whereby the masses of this country could reject a crowd of parliamentary members who could be sold this way and that way laving aside building a government of that type. When dissolving that way, who got the opportunity of settling that clash? It is the voting public of one and a half crores of masses who are equipped with authoritative powers. United States of America has mentioned through a Twitter message that 'by dissolving parliament, this clash is further aggravated'. What I understand is, how can democracy be harmed by going into a general election by respecting authority of the masses?"