Mr. A. Ganeshan's expose in The Island of 25.6.08) of the skulduggery indulged in by an "outwardly religious-minded" lady "moving about in Colombo" regarding a recent election of office bearers by "a Friendship Society connected to a Far East country" must be welcomed by all those who value honesty. If what he says is correct and there is, to date, no rebuttal of his allegations by any interested party, the question arises: ‘What next?’

I believe it is incumbent on the society to now look into this matter further. Else the reputation of the Friendship society is bound to be affected. Such irregularities as allegedly committed must not be tolerated. The following questions arise.

1) Does the society's constitution permit withdrawal by a candidate's proposer of her nomination, prior to election? Or was there a lapse on the part of the election officials in permitting it.

2) If the rules do so permit, should not the rules be amended to prevent this type of withdrawal subject to any justifiable claim? Grounds must be exceptional exceptional and not dishonest.

3) Should not some follow-up action be taken as regards the lady and the member. As regards the latter it would be only if she was aware of the circumstances under which the society lady retracted her original role of proposer and became a candidate against her own nominee. Can one believe that these things can happen? What do the rules provide?

Should not the rules be amended suitably to provide for censure, even disqualifications from contesting for posts in future for a given period? All that after a proper inquiry, opportunity for explanation, natural justice etc.

The lady in question in her letter "humbly" canvassing for votes against her original nominee boldly asserts she decided to contest "after careful thought and due consideration about the Society's future". That she had given 'careful thought' about contesting is clear (with her own proposer's help?) in that her canvassing letter seemed to have been ready for issue forthwith to members no sooner she withdrew from the role as proposer at the eleventh hour and assumed her new role as candidate against her own nominee, in an attempt to destroy his chances of contesting.

Her letter went out to members on time, we know. As for her concern for the Society's future the conduct does not show such concern. She has dirtied its name, and must be considered a member totally unfit to head the Society if members are concerned about the Society's future. A cunning, pre-planned operation by the lady with perhaps her proposer's help to cripple her own nominee misfired. He won to her chagrin