Actor Sarath Kumar joined in AIADMK
My-Tamil.Com: Tamilnadu Forum:
Actor Sarath Kumar joined in AIADMK
By shanawaz on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 02:47 pm: Edit Post
initially actor sarath kumar got name and fame only in dmk party he made lot of campaign during elections and supported dmk and radhika use to call mr karunanidhi as APPA BUT TODAY SCENARIO HAS CHANGED COMPLETELY
only admk party will be benefited by votes which can be drawn from sarath kumars fans and rasigar mandrams
ultimately sarath kumar decision will not bring any difference in the mind of people
By KMSUNDARAM on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 02:49 pm: Edit Post
Actor Sarath Kumar is a veteran actor. We do not know the story behind his jumping from DMK to ADMK. A lot of things happen in politics all over the world. People are the best judges in a democratic system. Today's election results shows that people have given theeir verdict. Now what is the position of those who did the jumping stunt. Steady and consistent personalities can be good leaders and not those who constantly change their mind for one thing or another. Mr Karunanithi is a veteran leader who can not be easily played out. His Tamil knowledge is unquestionable and there is no one in Tamilnadu equal to him at the moment. Annadurai won the hearts of Tamil people by his oratorical skill. I heard his speech once and noticed the spellbound crowd listening to him. Unfortunately Mr Karunanithi is too old to do anything for the people and he should inculcate in his successors the virtues of Kadamai, Kanniyam and Kattupadu which are tharahamantram of Annadurai's DMK. Democracy means the governmet elected is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In Malaysia we get live telecast of the election results by SUN TV.
By Amien on Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - 09:21 pm: Edit Post
Commentator:Hi,I have some questions regirdang your defence of the Lokpal Bill. I fully agree that corruption is the bane of our national life and that we need to find ways to check it. I also agree with the widespread sentiment these days that we need to make the political class accountable.However, what I wish to question is the solution on offer. How can the Lokpal's office, when it is created, escape becoming corrupt itself? It is a problem in many countries that institutions set up to prevent corruption become corrupt themselves. If the Lokpal shall keep watch on politicians, who shall keep watch on the Lokpal? What shall ensure that the Lokpal does not receive favours from politicians and look the other way when they commit thievery or worse? The advantage with elected representatives is that they are answerable to parliament. Who will the institution of the Lokpal be answerable to? Will it be above parliament? Will not that go against the constitutional principle of separation of powers our state having three branches of power with functions and limits clearly worked out? Won't the institution of a Lokpal fudge that essential system of checks and balances? Also, about civil society representatives. You say: Be thankful and grateful you live in a free democratic country, where you are allowed to even criticize the very people who are trying to protect your tax Rupees from thieving politicians and companies!!! Admitted, our free democracy is a great blessing. But you seem to suggest that we must express our gratitude for the right to criticise precisely by not exercising that right. It is not as if I need my committment to democracy questioned in fact, it is only because sceptics like me care for our democracy that we feel it necessary to raise what seem to us valid concerns. I have no reason to doubt the personal integrity of the particular individuals involved such as Mr Kejriwal, for instance. If anything, I have only the greatest respect for them. But it is not individuals I'm questioning, it is the larger principle. Civil society reps achieving enough popular support to compel the government may be a great thing in this case, but knowing our country, how can we be sure that in the future, well-connected indivduals, working on hidden political agendas, won't set themselves up as civil society representatives and influence legislation? Will not this case set an unhealthy precedent?I'd be glad to know what you think.