“I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner…” And he that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject. – Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan
If you happened to be in the vicinity of Ault Hucknall, England earlier today and felt the Earth move slightly, there is no cause for alarm; it was just Hobbes shifting in his grave. I’ll leave it to the theorists to figure out in which direction.
The Sri Lankan Parliament passed the 18th Amendment to the country’s Constitution, essentially codifying absolute power in the Executive. What else do you call it when term limits are removed and the election commission’s appointment is moved to the executive branch? Right. It swings the balance just a nooooooodge in favor of the incumbent (not that the election commission seems to have much by way of teeth anyway).
In addition to facing no term limits, the President now gets to appoint (after considering the “observations” of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, and opposition leaders):
The Election Commission
The Public Service Commission
The National Police Commission
The Human Rights Commission
The Permanent Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption
The Finance Commission
The Delimitation Commission (draws electoral district boundaries)
The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court
The President and Judges of the Court of Appeal
The Members of the Judicial Serviec Commission, other than the Chairman
The Attorney-General
The Auditor-General
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman)
The Secretary-General of Parliament
Since the 17th Amendment in 2000, the appointment of all of the above had been the responsibility of the Constitutional Council, which was comprised of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, one person appointed by the President, five persons appointed by the President on the nomination of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and one person nominated upon agreement by the majority of other political parties in Parliament. The President could not appoint anyone to these posts without recommendation from the Council.
The 18th amendment does away with the Constitutional Council and moves all of these appointments into the President’s hands, providing that he consults some of the members of the Constitutional Council first.
In an interview with the New York Times, former UN ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka said, “It is a constitutionalization of the wartime presidency.” The problem, of course, is that Sri Lanka is no longer at war. Instead of replacing the perpetual State of Emergency with democracy, and implementing regional autonomy, Sri Lanka now finds itself on the constitutional dictatorship train, and it’s left the station.
For a much more comprehensive look at the 18th Amendment, what it means, and actions in response, please read Groundviews. You can start here.
—
This post was written in a hurry. Please point out any factual errors and I’ll correct them.
hes’ reputedly popular. i assume that devotees of the idol of democracy as the One True God will immediately bring that issue up. though i am curious if the president is going to be any more or less powerful than something like the french system, which is also characterized by a strong executive.
“He’s reputedly popular”
Not if you talk to the people in Sri Lanka. It’s pretty much common sentiment that he won his last election by rigging the votes – “It was a joke election” is what one colombo resident told me.The polls showed his competitor, the General who finally had beat the Tamil Tigers, was supposed to win the elections. But the counting of the ballots showed otherwise. International observers were not allowed in to the counting of the ballots the election cycle. My point is – it’s easy in a country where media and elections are wrapped around the president’s finger to give off the impression of “reputedly popular”.
I was an International Observer in the Sri Lankan parliamentary election this May, stationed in Colombo. I always meant to write about it for the Mutiny but never did. But basically, the end recommendation we had was NOT to have the Election Commissioner having even closer ties to the President. But as the island saying goes, “What to do?”
“Not if you talk to the people in Sri Lanka”
You must have spoken to a select few Sri Lankans.
“It’s pretty much common sentiment that he won his last election by rigging the votes “
It is?
“The polls showed his competitor, the General who finally had beat the Tamil Tigers, was supposed to win the elections.”
What polls are you talking about? Could you please provide more information. This is the first I’m hearing about this.
You should be careful of making sweeping claims with nothing to back them up.
My “sweeping claims” are based on my observations in Colombo – a big part of that was interviewing people on the streets the week before elections, as well as talking to party leaders and the Inspector General’s office. Please send me your e-mail address and you are welcome to read the policy report and power point presentation I developed for the Sri Lankan based organization PAFFREL and in conjunction with the Asian organization ANFREL. I was the only American that was international observing that election, the rest of the 16 observers were from other nations. Here’s the report that came out of that mission. http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://anfrel.org/country/Sri_Lanka/ANFREL_Statements/2010/ANFREL_EOM_SL_Recommendations_April_2010.pdf
If you have issues with my survey methods, which are based on international standards, and you will dismiss them as “sweeping claims” then I really don’t have anything else to say. Except, go to Groundviews and read a blog about Sri Lanka by the people for the people. http://www.groundviews.lk/
Thanks for your report… but they look like sweeping claims to me. You speak to a few English-speaking Colombo based Sri Lankans and decide they represent what the vast majority of Sri Lankans think? You are clearly clueless (no offence meant) about Sri Lankan affairs if you think Mahinda Rajapaksa is not popular among the majority of Sri Lankans.
And Groundviews is certainly NOT “a blog about Sri Lanka by the people for the people” — it is run by Sanjana Hattotuwa and is connected to the NGO the Centre For Policy Alternatives (anti-establishment). All you get is one-sided views from a small coterie of writers with links to Sanjana, with a clear editorial line decided by Sanjana Hattotuwa who deletes any comments that go against his editorial line. Ordinary folks do not get to post their articles there.
In case you haven’t realised there were many people advocating FOR the 18th amendment but do you see any of those being covered by Groundviews? Nope. If you think Groundviews represents what most Sri Lankans think you are sadly, sadly mistaken.
WE HAD A TRANSLATOR. Sinhalese and Tamil speaking!
Ridiculous.
that is irrelevant. you were in the economic engine of the country–dominated by merchants that, whether tamil or not, know another steering-rents-to-cronies pol when they see one. ‘Rigged elections’ is a ‘sweeping observation.’ I’m not a fan of the Rajapakse clan but sweep a bit more rural and down south and then tell us he’s not popular. Those families did not send their sons by the dozen (150,000 strong army—18M population!) to die and be mutilated for an unpopular guy.
and the characterizing Groundviews as ‘by the people and for the people’ is a bit rich–SL NGOs, like those all round the world, promise a window into the internet-less villager’s soul but deliver very little.
http://indi.ca/2010/05/the-liberal-circle-jerk/
France is famous for its Executive that DeGaulle built, but it’s going in the opposite direction – in 2008 there was a fairly comprehensive reform of the French Constitution which curtailed the powers of the President.
Folks, let’s get back on track here. Can anyone think of a historical or contemporary example of a national legislature just abdicating so much of its power and responsibility in just one act? I can’t, and that’s what reminded me of Hobbes.
It’s not so much the power of the executive in an abstract sense that people should be worried about. It’s the specific powers he has. These powers are codified within the very office he holds. Lee Kwan Yew was a damn near autocratic executive, but since his powers were partially informal, stemming from control over his party and the social deference afforded to him, the general norms of governance were still healthy. It’s healthy because as restrictive as such single-party situations can become, a sufficiently motivated and concerted grassroots opposition can supplant them through official channels and barring anyone doing anything crazy a peaceful and orderly transition of power can ensue. Here what they’re setting up is a hard, formalized norm of unchecked executive power. When something like that happens the only way the people in office are going to be removed is by coup or insurrection. Of course, the kinds of people who lead coups or insurrections tend to be the ruthless, ideological types who lust after power in the first place, so you get a vicious cycle of authoritarian governments that never get stuff done because they’re too busy retaining power to actually do anything useful with it. This is precisely the trap Latin American governments fell into since Peron and have only just not crawled out of (except for Venezuela, which decided to weather the storm and then crawl into the trap after everyone else had left it behind.)
I should add that I know Singapore is far from democratic. I’m just saying that Lee Kwan Yew is a good example of a crypto-authoritarian government that actually worked out okay. And I think this is partly because much of the man’s influence stood outside the official channels, and he was enough of a stickler for rules that he liked everything to be done all litigiously and formal like.
To be fair. I’ve talked to a bunch of Venezuelans who tell me Hugo Chavez sucks and they hate him. But that’s because the kinds of Venezuelans I come into contact with are the kinds of people who would. Venezuela is a very unequal country, so while the people who talk to me hate him, they are far outnumbered by the people who love him and don’t speak English.
Can dictators still rule in the 21st century? I still don’t understand the reasoning behind this blatant power grab.
And Taz, were Sri Lankans present to monitor US election, like the one in 2000, when the supreme court decided who should be the next US President? Americans are born to have authority over the rest of the world.
“Can dictators still rule in the 21st century?” Why do many people forget about Africa, so often? There are still fully functioning monarchies too btw.
” I still don’t understand the reasoning behind this blatant power grab.” The last two words of that sentence are the reason
“And Taz, were Sri Lankans present to monitor US election, like the one in 2000, when the supreme court decided who should be the next US President? Americans are born to have authority over the rest of the world.” 1. Is that what happened in 2000? 2. Monitor and observe are not synonyms 3. Hitler babies?
If we need LKY type of leadership to rule over a multi-ethnic Sri Lanka so that Sri Lanka can be another Singapore, I am all for it. Though self-proclaimed democratic nations can get away with occupations and war crimes (eg: USA, UK, Israel and our neighbor to the north), a quasi-democratic nation (though will be condemned by the international community) can eliminate the chaos produced by democracy. Perhaps Sri Lanka needs a strong man than a motor-mouth man.
Meh, one more Mickey Mouse type ‘democracy’ in South Asia…makes one see the virtues of Mayawati…
Why is it ridiculous when Colombo has always been a UNP (current opposition party) stronghold? It has been so for yonks.
You seem to have no idea about electorates or electoral politics in SL.
So where exactly are your “survey methods, which are based on international standards”? The report you linked to only has a set of recommendations, nothing more.
The fact that you try to pass off Groundviews as “a blog about Sri Lanka by the people for the people” is laughable.
I ‘fess don’t know much about Sri Lanka.
Democracy in South Asia can be very painful. As a side story a friend is visiting from Isb (I haven’t been there for 5 years).
Pakistan government hospital have a strict no abortion policy (not even in cases of rape and limited if the mother’s life is in danger). This is definitely the “will of the people” and the people are oppressive! Particularly the born-again lower and middle urban class.
Abortion obviously is rampant; lack of contraceptives so alot of these women abort their 3rd, 4th, 5th pregnancies. Maids, servants helpers what not and she was telling us that these women will have an abortion but then a little while later (I think it was something like half an hour later) will go back to work washing dishes and doing other household chores.
My point being this is Pak – Isb and if takes an autocrat to shake things up from time to time I’m not too stressed frankly.
Also another thing apparently polio drop is being rejected because the Maulvis have convinced the villagers that its laced with contraceptives and also Maulvi’s advice followed through on everything (hence lack of contraceptives).
From what I know about this guy (the Sri Lankan dude) he reminds me of General Ziaur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziaur_Rahman
Also agree on the points of NGOs; its the chattering classes hunting around for foreign funding alot of the time.
We always forget democracy is not an end in itself; it is actually about progressing, unifying and developing the nation. Democracy is an means to an end not an end to a means. I believe the people have a voice but that voice can and often is very wrong; as much as it is about enfranchising individuals it is also fragmenting consensus so that imposition is a thing of the past.
The more I read about South Asia the less I want to go back sometimes. It has been 5 years and counting and I grew up there!
I think there are some very patriot autocrats and destructive ones.
Its good to distinguish between the two before condemning the type. A Saddam Hussein is bad for the nation but this Rajaspaka fellow seems to be very good for Sri Lanka.
I hope the Sri Lankans don’t do the same mistake as the Pakistanis; they agitated for years to remove Musharraf and then bit by bit the country is just degenerating.
I’m not trying to debate the merits of any one leader but I feel the whole “Democracy” movement can be very hollow. Its actually about reaching national goals and finding out the best way to do so. Otherwise its just a power grab by the elites (quoting from the other thread) particularly the chattering classes who need to feel important.
What I greatly admire about the Indian chattering classes is that they take on Orthodoxy and conservatism with a vengeance and a relish; however the Pakistani equivalent are content to drink and debauch but will dare not actually shake the status quo (the Urdu speaking press is deeply entrenched and the English media is faux liberalism – good to quote on foreign blogs).
That’s why IMHO India is a flourishing democracy (despite its huge problems), probably South Asia’s only one, because the elite has the courage to shape and lead national opinion. Selling the idea of “Shining India” has given the country something to rally I don’t see an equivalent articulation for any of the neighbouring states; what are their national visions, what are they aspiring to, what’s their purpose?
How about hitting the Googles for an hour or so and coming back with either some questions or something to back this statement up besides the nebulous “seems?”
Folks, this will not turn into yet another thread about India and Pakistan unless you’re bringing intelligent discourse about the relationship between Sri Lanka and those two countries.
How about Venezuela under Chavez? He was democratically elected. Changed the constitution to remove presidential term limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Constitutional_referendum
Aha, good call. Any idea how strong the legislature and judiciary were in Venezuela before Chavez came to power?
Also, I hope to bring the word “Chavista” into everyday use.
Nothing to do with Indo-Pak. Rajaspaka has a very liberal economic policy, united the nation and I’m just quoting an example where a successful democracy movement literally ruined a hitherto stable country. Its a low inflationary environment (one of the few South Asian economies not to be affected by inflationary pressures) and interest rates have been kept low. Rajaspaka has been in power for 5 years and Sri Lankas growth is expected to double this year. It is all about the economy and this guy seems to be great for it.
His government is broadening the tax base, increased foreign reserves and the north seems to have integrated economically. Apparently Sri Lanka has doubled its per capita income in his time during power?
The second Sri Lanka dips into negative growth rate and is mismanaged, from an economic perspective, he needs to be booted. What more does a poor country need than an unfettered path to riches? I haven’t been to Sri Lanka or Colombo but it seems SL is going to do a mistake losing him. If it has to give up powers to become another Singapore that seems to be a good trade off?
What’s even more impressive is Rajaspaka’s political party is historically centre-left and it is oriented to the economy.
Mahinda Rajapaksa in his ‘Vision of the Future’ says ‘I also truly believe that our economy should be independent, resilient and disciplined, with a strong growth focus, operating as per international standards, whilst maintaining our local identity. Therefore, over the next six years, I will lay special emphasis on implementing our country’s National Economic Policy; which takes our collective aspirations into account.’
“Sri Lanka’s stock market, Asia’s best performer this year, has gained 6.5 percent since the cabinet approved the changes on Aug. 29. Analysts have attributed the recent gains to positive sentiment about Sri Lanka’s often combustible politics.”
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51365020100908
Well, it’s hardly surprising that capital wants to move to a country with increasingly authoritarian tendencies and the willingness to turn out its citizens from their own land.
So we’re supposed to ignore the suppression of dissent, displacement of people, and curtailment of movement while new capital is concentrated in few hands? What’s the use of looking at aggregate growth without looking at how it’s distributed regionally and socially?
Isn’t there a better model for development than Great for Few; Better than Crappy for the Rest?
Vivek you raise a good point but I really can’t think of a better way under the current system; happy to try though.
Aggregate economic growth tends to be a very good proxy for a nation’s development; focussing on that rather than sub-national interests may be the best way forward. Of course in a South Asian context decentralisation, federalisation and libertarianism are urgently needed and well over-due.
It is tragic that only now after a violent end to the civil war Sri Lanka is catching up over its overdue potential. Also Rajapaksa (got it right this time hopefully) is merely holding the lid on simmering tensions.
http://www.himalmag.com/Towards-a-Rajapakse-future_nw4195.html
“Rajapakse was Sri Lanka’s first ‘Sinhalese only’ president, since he won his first term almost exclusively with Sinhalese votes.”
“If it has to give up powers to become another Singapore that seems to be a good trade off?”
I still don’t like it. Reminds me too much of Indira Gandhi, MGR, and other one-man/one-woman leaders. Rajapaksha has so much goodwill that he doesn’t need to concentrate power. He’s doing it all the same, because one day the goodwill will evaporate, and then he will need these powers to remain in office.
Vivek, Venezuela was considered a bulwark of good governance in the wake of all the messiness of Latin American politics throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
That billionaire mayor of NYC changed the term limit while in office.
Sada, please increase your decibels. We need more Sri Lankans here.
In a perverse sort of way, perhaps this is what Asia needs more of. More strong leaders who are aware of their country’s problems but know that if left to full democracy and the vagaries of the bureacracy and overridingly corrupt politicians, nothing will ever get done right. India may be a partial example of this. Perhaps some discipline might not be a bad thing. Look at China for example.
Obviously there need to be limits (nobody wants martial law or a full dictatorship) but a little bit of discipline and order may not be such a bad thing. I’m just saying!
How does entrenching your personal power in the Presidency address corrupt politicians and inefficient bureaucracies?
There isn’t a causal link between a powerful executive and a well run government. You’re going to see more Zimbabwe than Singapore.
Caracas is now the most dangerous city in the world. Venezuela’s fall reminds me of the plight of Argentina, that’s socialism for ya’.
Tragedy to see Sri Lanka take this path. The ideal constiution would’ve been in Libertarian spirit, including a cap on gov’t intervention in the private sector.
Yes libertarianism is the way forward for South Asia and its myriad issues but its very very hard to implement in practise.
In my opinion South Asia is an over-politicised region where more government is always seen as the answer.
Rajapaska (I can now spell his name unaided huzzah) is definitely overplaying his hand and in half a decade or so; Chavez is a good example but I think Mushie may also be another analogy. Do-gooder patriotic dictator who keeps on seizing power until one day civil society (even his erstwhile supporters) are just going to tired and rise up. I just hope Sri Lanka’s sake that they manage the transition better and with far less disruption when that time comes (dictators acquire God-complexes after a while it seems).
Chavez & Mugabe main sins aren’t that they’re necessarily dictators but they’ve bankrupted and isolated their country. I mean Singapore is a dynasty led hybrid regime and the Asian tigers democratic records are all suspects. I’m not dissing democracy I enjoy it here in Britain but again I would revert to national priorities being more important than the national process. Priorities over process says I..
I hope we can get more Sri Lankan commentators to comment here, this is a significant development and it has been pretty much well received in the country.
Mahinda threw everything at the war and won it. He’s tremendously popular on the island, particularly in the non-Tamil rural areas, and I don’t think anyone expected the General to seriously challenge him in the last election. He’s virtually deified and he’s promised the people everything now that the war’s over.
The average Sri Lankan citizen isn’t stupid, they probably sense that MR and his coterie aren’t lily white but they’re riding the post-war euphoria right now. The people there are so optimistic right now, it’s sort of crazy. They’re willing to ignore the dark side because anything is better than a 30-year conflict. Mahinda’s exploiting his overwhelming popularity and consolidating his power now and there’s no credible opposition to point out the consequences.
Of course this will all turn a bit sour when the people realize Mahinda can’t deliver on everything he’s promised. The array of subsidies and showy infrastructure projects can’t go on forever. People will start noticing the cronyism at the top, the funds being siphoned away by his bros and advisors. The reason this amendment is so unsettling is that the people, if/when they want a change, may no longer be able to achieve it in an election.
Like someone above intimated, a challenger can’t hope to unseat a president with this much authority through the political process. this will inevitably lead to renewed violence.
Taz: I was the only American that was international observing that election, the rest of the 16 observers were from other nations. Here’s the report that came out of that mission. http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://anfrel.org/country/Sri_Lanka/ANFREL_Statements/2010/ANFREL_EOM_SL_Recommendations_April_2010.pdf
If you have issues with my survey methods, which are based on international standards, and you will dismiss them as “sweeping claims” then I really don’t have anything else to say. Except, go to Groundviews and read a blog about Sri Lanka by the people for the people. http://www.groundviews.lk/
I read the report (the pdf file). Maybe you didn’t mean this one—there is only one case of electoral violation recorded, despite the claim that 170 polling stations were watched. In Vavuniya. Everything is maybe, probably, or minor points that can be improved on, but should not count as a violation (lack of proper access to physically disabled people). There are no other facts in the report.
The recommendations put out are sweeping, but that bothers me. It is a stock list, with very little thought evident as to whether they are feasible in the Sri Lankan case. The report seems to be modified from another report dated Oct 12 2008, which makes it look doubly bad.
Secondly, the moment you say “international standards”, a red flag goes up. What on earth is an international standard when it comes to sampling opinion? What you need to convince me is that you sampled a representative portion of the population. What is your confidence level? If you stood around in Colombo, how are you sure you sampled the opinions of the whole country? It is like standing in SF and saying America supports gay marriage. If you talked with party leaders, did you obtain any statistics from them? What parties did you talk to, and were the people you talked to speaking for the party or for themselves? How do you trust the validity of any party data you may have got?
I am sorry, but I am really skeptical about your method and conclusions—and the way I see it, it isn’t ok for you to say “if you have problems with my international standard approaches, I have nothing to say”. You are making a claim that can potentially influence or even hurt people, the least you can do is to be able to argue for your methods. Sampling like this is, in my opinion, a way for social scientists to “give the dog a bad name and hang it”.
Maybe Rajapaksa is popular, in pretty much the same way Indira Gandhi was at the beginning. Or after in 1980, even after the emergency. Things may change later, but starting from the wrong premise is the surest way to be irrelevant.
Must be a slow week. C’MON MUTINEERS!
Several people have referred to whether the populace of Sri Lanka supported or opposed Rajapaksa. I’m curious as to what ‘the people’ means in a country that had/has deeply sectarian politics and just concluded a 25 year civil war through military victory, not political settlement.
In that context, I would find it hard to believe that Rajapaksa has much tolerance from the North and East and in the Tamil diaspora given how he prosecuted the war and what I have heard about what has happened since and more broadly the history of Sri Lanka. This is a guess on my part, though, and if someone informed has relevant information or can provide some links, I’d be interested to hear.
More to the point of the post, the question of ethnicity in Sri Lanka is the more interesting question for the future of Sri Lanka’s politics, not whether or not his election results were legitimate or not or the implications on separation of power between the president and parliament: Is it possible for a Sinhalese leader to emerge now who can make real peace and a political settlement to that effect or are we just going to see a reemergence of violence in a different form, providing continued ‘justification’ for these kinds of moves by Sri Lankan politicians, or a ‘final solution’? Maybe I’m biased in terms of my interests, but I think the question of whether Sri Lanka is one country or two (or perhaps more) has yet to be resolved.
I think the post is too focused on the implications in terms of political theory. In terms of power, what you quoted about the legal formalization of ‘wartime’ power is what’s happened – I think the train left the station a long time ago (maybe 1948! maybe before! maybe 1983. Maybe the 1970s)and just hadn’t indicated its destination as clearly. What the rest of us can do about it seems more important, but that’s not different from before I read the post. Unless I’m deeply misunderstanding the consequences of this, like i do with a lot of stuff like this 🙂
The array of subsidies and showy infrastructure projects can’t go on forever.
Well, it can go on for a long time, considering that China is paying for it! India’s ham-fisted intervention in Lanka, and then it’s ignoring the needs of the gov’t there, has left Lanka being stiche tightly into China’s “string of pearls” in the Indian Ocean.
Liberty is a very difficult concept to explain, South Asian politicans would rather spin exquisite sophistries for statism.
Tyranny of Control: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2024617864923164175#docid=-2798161794328252652
Perhaps as scary if noth scarier than SL
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Turkey-Referendum-AK-Party-Wins-Vote-To-Amend-Constitution-But-Fears-Islamist-Agenda-Encroaching/Article/201009215726131?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15726131_Turkey_Referendum:_AK_Party_Wins_Vote_To_Amend_Constitution_But_Fears_Islamist_Agenda_Encroaching
Fears Vote Moves Turkey Nearer Islamic State
Turkey’s ruling AK party has won a referendum to start work on a brand new constitution but opponents fear it could usher in a hidden Islamic agenda.
The “yes” vote is a victory for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan because it boosts the chances of his conservative Muslim AK Party winning a third term in power. The 26 approved changes to the referendum including making the military more accountable to the courts and allowing civil servants to strike. Many of the measures are uncontroversial but a move to give parliament a role in appointing judges has raised concerns that the judiciary will lose its independence. The issue of amending the constitution has become a battleground between the government and traditional power elites. The charter was crafted after a military coup in 1980 and Mr Erdogan whipped up public support to change it by reviving memories of the brutal repression that followed. Many in the armed forces are opposed to changing the constitution, saying Turkey’s secular principles are under threat.
nice post buddy , i like this very much