Tuesday, 11 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

11 December 2018

Show of Superiority complex

I heard a Sinhalese say it at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, Sydney. I read it again today in the Financial Times article  Sri Lanka’s number one problem’

[During the ethnic unrest in 1983 and the height of separatist war in 2009, some would have emigrated in search of safety. But by and large most people emigrate in search of better jobs, better income, better luxuries of life, better healthcare, better education for children, better caring during retirement, etc. Hardly anyone left the country in search of a better political system. ]

I believe that we see ourselves through others when at least one is honest with her/himself. If the author of the above article is Tamil then – s/he does not care about Tamils. That is ok – so long as s/he does not use our pain as her/his opportunity. If the above author is non-Tamil – then s/he is seriously guilty of racial discrimination for taking superior status to declare on our behalf. The above author is certainly not Sri Lankan.

Financial and status outcomes confirm our core values. Unless our costs – the total of - money, time and sense of commitment are returned at least to break even – we have the duty as human beings to (1) take our position at levels higher  than those allocated to us by the custodians of power and equal to them and do so non-violently; (2) identify with our deeper ownership than the custodians of power and influence manifestations through the power of belief and prayer (3) and/or move away from that place – taking only the Truth of our experience with us.

As part of the five basic elements, Earth carries ownership energy. It is for this reason that practitioners of Yoga tend to sit at the same place during meditation. Likewise time and hence anniversaries. During 1983 riots and 2009 war, the homes of thousands of Tamils were damaged by hooligans – who seriously disrespected the law of the nation and the laws of humanity. Every civilian who genuinely suffered but did not retaliate – left a curse there for the attackers and ownership blessings for themselves and their heirs. Whatever they found in the new nations belong to those nations and cannot be directly related to the pain and loss suffered    in the land called Sri Lanka. Each nation needs to be self-balancing. I emigrated in 1982 but I did suffer in 1977 when I was pregnant with my third child. Colombo is still home to me because I did not retaliate even in thought. I felt sorry for myself but gradually got over it. Now I feel sad. That is our resilience, which core value we bring with us to our new nations.

Here in Australia also I suffered due to my loyalty to my Sri Lankan education. But I did not take revenge. I shared my pain and loss through my book ‘Naan’ Australian and did so after I could not stand the discrimination and therefore insult to my origin any more.  Despite all that, we as a family, do enjoy relatively parallel status here in Australia – as we did in Sri Lanka. The gap is filled by us through (1) above - take our position at levels higher  than those allocated to us by the custodians of power and equal to them and do so non-violently.

That is called ‘user pays’ facility in Public Service. The status is equalized with the Service Provider who cannot tell us. For structural purposes – we keep it at Equal level and no more. I do that all the time with those who ‘tell’ me to take them off my email list. If they do not know how to use the ‘block sender’ facility – they are indeed my very young juniors in email facility. So, I Practice Gandhi’s non-violent non-cooperation. If I use the email facility for personal or commercial benefits - then I have the duty to unsubscribe them. If I did not follow these laws of Dharma – then the internet would not respond to me when I need information.

The author and her/his community has much to learn about Democracy, leave alone Human Rights.



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

11 December 2018

Ranil & Tamils – the Truth was revealed by the Lord

In 1996, Rena – a Revenue collection officer at NSW Health Service said at that staff meeting ‘the best man for the job is a woman’. That was the first time I heard it and I was happy to hear that – not only because of the staff’s positive review of my performance as their manager, but also because of the ‘inclusiveness’ I felt. I felt it again when I read the following report:
[A public interest case was filed by a woman activist identified as Thakshila Jayawardene who argued that ‘irrational’ behavior of the president was due to severe stress of adjusting to an urban life style, depression caused by the recent arrest of his chief of staff while taking a bribe and genetics.
Attorney Sisira Kumara Siriwardena said he hoped the Court of Appeal will take up the case, although many in the legal fraternity casts doubts if it will be entertained as the president enjoyed immunity.
We are asking that he be subjected to an examination by a board of doctors at the Angoda mental hospital to establish if he is of sound mind, Siriwardena told reporters outside the court. ]
Such action has been provided for in the Constitution but to facilitate members of Parliament:
Article 38
‘(2) (a) Any Member of Parliament may, by a writing addressed to the Speaker, give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity……….’

Given that no member of Parliament has invoked  this article, one must conclude that they also suffer from such disorder.
But one who genuinely believes this to be the case vis-à-vis her/his own conduct in parallel structure in her/his environment – has the right to express it through the highest structure that s/he relates to mentally and / or contributed to through direct participation. Such a person is supported by other believers and/or by Natural forces. When I first raised this issue – I felt supported by Lord Muruga’s Soorasamharam power. I wrote as follows on the same subject matter on 14 November as follows:

[As per adaderana.lk  report - ‘GAJA’ very likely to move closer to Sri Lanka. This indicates to me that the next form of Sooran is Intellectual ego – as personified by Elephant / Gaja. Intellectual achievements of the past need to be ‘forgotten’ and made formless ‘heritage’. Mr Sirisena has confirmed that Mr Rajapaksa was still his ‘boss’ and demonstrated bipolar behaviour .] Gajalakshmi Paramasivam – article of 14 November, headed ‘Soorasamharam Happened All Lankan leaders – take note’ - http://austms.blogspot.com/2018/11/gajalakshmi-paramasivam-14november-2018.html

Similarly, yesterday I asked through the Comments section of the article headed ‘The Implications & Consequences Of The Verdict, Whatever It Is’  by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka -
[Dr Dayan
Did you predict the outcome of 2015 Presidential elections? The proof is in eating the pudding – i.e. experiencing it – not in imagining as per your wishes. Your ideas do not reach the independent voter anyway. Most of them do not know much about Colombo politics – leave alone London politics. Truth please not speculation. You would not speculate if you truly cared.
]

I was still a bit disturbed by such talkfest by an intellectual with idle resources. Then something urged me to look up my own work acknowledged by others and I came across the following published by Lankanesweb at  https://lankanewsweb.net/featured/33942-pain-of-sri-lanka%E2%80%99s-globalization



Pain of Sri Lanka’s Globalization

During the early hours of the morning I had this dream in which Mr.Ranil Wickremesinghe was comfortably socializing in our social circle. In physical terms this is not likely to happen. But in real terms this has already happened.
This was confirmed this morning when I read the Daily Mirror Editorial ‘Keeping ends warm with India’……………………..
The editorial highlights the current leadership situation as follows:
[This is a country which is harping on solving its ‘national question’; how to find a viable solution to the grievances of the minority Tamils. But despite this question being spoken about in the open, there is a question that seems to be addressed behind closed doors. That question is; how to unite the president and the prime minister?
The relationship between Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesignhe was deteriorating over the past several months and reached boiling point just a few days ago.]
The two leaders represent the National Question. Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe represents in real terms – pluralistic groups within Sri Lanka. This includes Sinhalese also. Mr Maithripala Sirisena represents monistic groups within Sri Lanka and this includes Tamils also. Without real and natural connections between Sinhalese and Tamils within the former group – the Tamil National Alliance would not have become the leading Opposition in National Parliament. Likewise the war against the Government by Tamil militants would not have happened without commonness with Sinhalese militants. Every Christian who believes, makes this connection naturally. Likewise every Sinhalese who believes in Hindu philosophy. Belief happens at Energy level. Hence the natural connection. To my mind this is the meaning of ‘man proposes and god disposes’/ "the gods bring many matters to surprising ends"……..

The above article was published by me on 20 October 2018 ; the President made his first big move on 26 October. As a consequence – Mr Wickremesinghe is now socializing with Tamil National Alliance – as if they are UNP’s other half.

Some Tamils, like Dr Dayan in the case of his ideology, are dreaming of Separation and hence are expressing opposition from time to time to the partnership between TNA and UNP. Many of them are genuine – but the environment has changed at ground level. Going into the war reality is valuable in the case of those who did have the war experience; but only the Truth needs to be brought into the post-war period. If we draw benefits from the current environment for the wrongs by others, we lose the Energy to work the system through Truth.

To my mind, those who lived off the Terrorism victory – despite the allegations of war-crimes becoming public globally, invoked this internal chaos between themselves. SLFP and UNP both  partnered LTTE at different times. To that extent LTTE were their local forces or they are Terrorists. We may successfully fool voters by showing other people’s weaknesses but to the extent we benefited from such weaknesses – the weaknesses jump from them to us. That is the way of Truth.  

Ms Thakshila Jayawardene’s  petition needs to be as per Article 126 – on the basis of Fundamental Rights being damaged. The Respondent is the Attorney General and ought also be members of the Parliament for their negligence to invoke Article  38.

I sued Mr John Howard as Prime Minister for his negligence to practice Racial Discrimination Act 1975.  I represented myself and escalated the Appeal to High Court (the highest level in Australia).  I recorded this as follows in my book Naan Australian – Chapter 20 :

[After being attacked by the Central Office staff, I was sharing the experience with Loraine Brooks – who was then the Administrative Officer of the School of Anatomy which also had hired me on contract – when a lady walked in and said that she was looking for space and could not find any (due to the storm).  The lady said she would take the matter to the very top! This lady kept saying it many again and again and I felt that she was talking to me – urging me to take matter  to the very top. Back then, I thought it was the CEO of the country. But now I feel that the lady was asking me to take it beyond that to the real Higher Powers who recognize Truth above all else. The legal processes helped me submit to Divine Powers as per my belief – after following Due Process through the Human Justice system. ]

I did sue Mr Howard but the results came through Elections – when Mr Howard lost his seat  which some leaders attributed to be due to migrant power. I know mine was part of that Energy. Likewise Ms Jayawardene’s Energy would be shared with true voters to demote Mr Sirisena. Until the voter without high portfolio feels the pain we have to live with the reality that  majority voters are like Mr Sirisena.

Monday, 10 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

10 December 2018

France and Sri Lanka – Déjà vu?
My understanding of Déjà vu  is that we feel that we have had the current  experience before. That is time based Déjà vu. There is also place based Déjà vu. For example, this morning I said to my husband that his relative whom we sponsored to Australia failed to accept the discipline that we insisted on. That discipline was actually far less painful than the sacrifices we made and the discipline we were put through by our parents and elders. Yet, the young relative rejected it for greater freedom. He actually was offered a place to study in University in Sri Lanka – as per his performance in the University Entrance exams. When that happened – I urged him to go back. He opted to stay on in Australia. He performed well at TAFE (Technical and Further Education) and graduated with distinction. On that basis I said this morning that ‘the Australian TAFE qualification for this guy, was the parallel of the Sri Lankan degree’.  
Then when I read the following in Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Paris is Burning’, it felt like déjà vu :
French high school graduates are often better educated than American university graduates.’
Hindu Philosophers have said that Truth was Universal in value. I interpret this as - when you go to the roots where Truth is – you still the variable due to time or distance. Usually time is stilled in déjà vu experiences. Here space divide  was zero in  a global mind. Hence to me that also was déjà vu experience
The other expression is about the coup:
[With the departure of the UK from the EU and the end of Angela Merkel’s long tenure in Germany, it appeared that Macron would become Europe’s leader. Now, there is even talk of a coup in Paris. Mon dieu!]
If the current political situation continues in Sri Lanka, and expenses cannot be met to maintain  public facilities – there would be a revolt. Whoever is at the top then would be seen as the reason. It would therefore better for the President or his appointed Prime Minister to be seen as the reason rather than democratically elected Prime Minister. This happened to me at the University of NSW where at the public level, the American trained Vice Chancellor was seen to be the reason for the revolt by migrants at the Liverpool Clinical School.
To achieve this manifestation, the UNP which is the most democratic of all political parties in Sri Lanka – needs to maintain its Opposition position through peaceful demonstration if the SLPP-SLFP coalition is to be seen as the reason by the voters – especially the voters who brought them to power. The current structure should stay as is and  NOT dissolved. Dissolution could become the escape route for the autocrats who use democracy only to come to power. Truth must be allowed to happen. When the people are in pain they would identify with others who are also in pain. Then they would merge to deliver the right outcome through  elections as stipulated by the rules of the current structure. Preventing premature elections is essential towards this natural lesson. That is confirmation of self-governance and therefore the voter’s sovereignty placed in the elected representative.
Looking at what has happened – non-violently at the physical level – one is entitled to conclude that the natural period of democratic governance in Sri Lanka, using the current structure,  is not five years but three years. That confirms weak governance power and strong administrative power at the top.
When we copy others to show a constitution that looks smart, we start slipping up when we are unsupervised – especially by the origin. Plagiarism is wrong because it amounts to stealing someone else’s work.  When left unaddressed,  it becomes a curse. The system of Truth maintains the Sovereignty of the Earth and therefore Human kind. It has to be Sovereign as per time base as well as no-time - space base. Whoever becomes Sovereign as individual and/or as part of a group is supported by this Eternal power. Hence Déjà vu experiences from time to time to the mentally healthy – to be assured from within.
Sri Lanka is part of the Commonwealth and carries the British heritage through such. Whoever drew up the Constitution using English law also,  needed to pass their work through the minds of the British in Ceylon and/or  their true heirs. When this is done they would naturally have those elders in themselves. Mere knowledge without such blessings – contains strong doze  of plagiarism. The President of Sri Lanka has demonstrated lack of respect for our British ancestors by referring to such attribution as invoking ‘foreign’ support. Leaders of Countries that were never under British rule have such right. But not so countries like Sri Lanka where English law is part of the roots of our National Governance. Calling them foreigners is to throw the baby with the bathwater. By neglecting to pay their respects – the leaders separated themselves - as Tamil militants wanted to and their supporters continue to want to.  
Effectively therefore they became the kings. France is not part of the Commonwealth. Hence it depends largely on the heir-nations that  it gave birth to, for Royalties to maintain its autocratic systems – including the Presidential system. Our deep investments in autocracy become invisible energy when we are committed to democracy. It does not go away but supports us when the other side is truly our junior. Relatively speaking – Sri Lanka has very little of that energy because there is no structure through which such ancestral powers are shared by Sri Lankan leaders who are often disrespectful of even Buddhist tenets and therefore Lord Buddha.  
As per my direct experience as an individual – I believe that when ancestral / senior mind that elevated us is  absent – we are limited to our own. The individual in the senior position may not be deserving of that respect but until we believe that to be the case – we need to continue to do our part keeping the position as our mentor/parent. Once we identify with the Truth – and ideally this needs to be at the highest level of our own development – we need to separate ourselves from the person ideally by taking equal and opposite position. This is my recommendation to the UNP and its Associates in this current crisis. In the next Amendment to the Constitution,  the PM and the President need to be of Equal position – with the President being less visible if he has equal executive powers as the PM.

Sunday, 9 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

09 December 2018

Rajapaksa Family – the Royal Family of Sri Lanka?

[President’s Counsel K. Kanag Iswaran yesterday countering the arguments of the respondents and the intervenient petitioners underlined the fact that the immunity conferred on the Executive President was only on his person and not on his acts or actions.]- Daily Mirror article of 08-12-2018, headed-‘Immunity not to President's actions: Kanag Iswaran PC’

I felt uplifted because I  had written  as follows on 06 December in two articles:

(1) Is the Sri Lankan President Above the Law? - Yes
there are certain instances where President’s actions are not covered by immunity and some of these are covered by Article 126:

Article 35
(1)  [While any person holds office as President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity: Provided further that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the exercise of the powers of the President under Article 33(2)(g).]
Article 126, as per my interpretation is about fundamental rights.

(2) The Attorney General is the Proper Person

The essence of the above to my mind is that while the President is being held accountable to Parliament as part of the Parliament, s/he is being protected as being above the law. In other words, the position is purely Governing position with that Article 35(1) exemption.
there are certain instances where President’s actions are not covered by immunity and some of these are covered by Article 126:

Article 35
(3)  [While any person holds office as President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity: Provided further that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the exercise of the powers of the President under Article 33(2)(g).]

The above experience brought to mind another experience at the University of NSW. I said to an Academic-Administrator that he was talking exactly like the Administrator whom he found to be unfit for his position. He then completed my expression by saying ‘It felt as if I was speaking X’s mind?’ I said ‘yes’. My admiration was of course for the Academic who articulated my thoughts. I should not have been because the Academic was one of the first to confirm that I had read him correctly – by stating that I had good insight. Later other academics also made that observation. Likewise two in my immediate family. I value all of them.
These subjective powers work us from the inside. Often we do not consciously recognise and we may not even know the other person. When we know that other person we tend to follow the hierarchical subjective pathway. Once we know we need to pay our respects or expect them to do pay us their respects – so the relationship is Sovereign. If we instead, translate that as benefits – including status benefits – we weaken the connection. Disciplining the junior (known or otherwise) who translates the energy into matter – as money and status benefits – maintains the Sovereignty of the relationship.
I thanked Mother Kali in Sangarathai-Thunaivi – because we – Mr Kanag Iswaran and I -  do not relate directly to each other. To me it was our common feeling for that place that provided the ‘insight’ into an issue at common level.

My reward came from within the Tamil Diaspora seeking my services in relation to a global presentation of the Tamil issue. THAT to me is confirmation of my practice of Democracy. I shared my insight in common and someone whom I do not know personally and therefore do not share status with  - sought my services in a global issue. I felt honoured.

To the extent our sharing is confidential, it has the subjective power to work the relationship as two or more bodies; one mind.  In contrast I find such ‘internal energy’ lacking in SLFP – Political party – common to Mr Sirisena, Mr Rajapaksa and Madam Kumaratunga. This was communicated to me through the following message from the current General Secretary of the SLFP :

Responding to former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s allegation that she had not been invited for the SLFP Convention, despite being a patron, Party  General Secretary Professor Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa said Kumaratunga had not been invited to the 4 December Party Convention, because she had not attended any of the SLFP activities lately.’
Given that Professor Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa did not develop that position from zero base, he inherited the net value of virtues and sins of his predecessors in that position. This includes Mr Sirisena. When one does not actively contribute to the position’s structure and through such to the whole that the position is part of  – but merely uses it to derive benefits – one often becomes the messenger of the ghosts or spirits / sins and virtues , of that position. In this instance Professor Piyadasa has demonstrated to be the medium of the ghosts in that position.
Madam Kumaratunga’s  presidency was confirmed to be of positive value to Sri Lanka as a whole – especially considering that the lady is natural member of minorities in terms of gender based leadership. SLFP for both Mr Sirisena and Mr Rajapaksa was the parental family that give birth to them in politics. As a patron, Madam Kumaratunga inherits the governing leadership of that position. One who fails to respect such a governor – but uses relative reasons/justification,  confirms serious lack of investment in governance which naturally connects us to other governors.
This is also the reason why Mr Sirisena and Mr Rajapaksa failed – as every child who ‘uses’ parents and their status for current benefits fails as a family. Only a true heir has the capability of producing other true heirs and maintain the structure through succession.
In a testamentary case Appeal heard in Jaffna Civil Appellate High Court the judges reasoned  as follows:
Paragraph 10  on Page  13 of the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court under the heading Facts of the case states:
[10) It is submitted, on behalf of the 02nd Respondent-Respondent that even though, the value of movables in Sri Lanka is about less than a Million the Law does not clearly permit the monies lying in Barclays Bank to be subjected to jurisdiction and administration by the Sri Lankan Court. It is for the Probate Court of U.K.  to administer same. It is untenable to combine, the monies lying in U.K. and in Sri Lanka, to make it appear, the value of Assets (movable are more than Rupees Four Million Rs. 4,000,000/-) and to claim for Letters of Administration which is contrary to Law
11) This had been fully analysed by the Late Supreme Court Judge Hon Dr. Mark Fernando in his judgment Ratnasingham Vs Tikiri Banda Disanaike and Others – report in 1998 1 SLR]
As is clear from the above, the Sri Lankan Judiciary does separate Succession from Current Administration. Succession is as per Governance / Ownership rules. Administration is as per merit based performance in current environment. By failing to demonstrate respect for the Patron / Governor – the SLFP as it is ‘shown’ confirms lack of Governance power. That was also confirmed by Mr Rajapaksa who has taken over the branches of the SLFP without its roots.
This has been highlighted as follows by veteran journalist DBS Jeyaraj, as if the Rajapaksa family is the royal family in Sri Lanka:
[SLPP BECAME AN ESTABLISHED POLITICAL ENTITY
In such a situation, many political observers felt that the writing was on the wall politically for the Ruhunu Rajapaksas. But that did not happen. Despite the adverse setbacks, the political stock of Ruhunu Rajapaksas continued to remain on par with ‘Medamulana Mahinda’ continuing to retain his position as the single-most popular political leader in the seven provinces outside the North and the East. Moreover, the newly-formed Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP) which revolves around Mahinda Rajapaksa got the better of both the UNP and SLFP and emerged as the leading victor at the local authorities’ elections. The SLPP with its symbol of lotus bud became an established political entity known popularly as “Pohottuwa.” In such a situation the Mahinda-led opposition seemed confident that the days of the Sirisena -Wickremesinghe government were numbered and that the political resurgence and return to power of the Ruhunu Rajapaksas was inevitable
. ] Daily mirror article ‘
Mahinda’s Hurried Backdoor Power Grab and the Gotabhaya Factor’
As per the above North and East are the ‘free’ areas – open to Democracy after the war.  The rest of Sri Lanka is strongly attached to current benefits on the basis of which the Rajapaksas ‘show’ and ‘tell’. This has been confirmed by Mr Sirisena as reported by Colombo Page article headed ‘Sri Lanka President admits Mahinda Rajapaksa bribing MPs to show majority
Globalization confirms successful democracy,   as heritage confirms successful autocracy. These two leaders confirm neither.

Saturday, 8 December 2018


Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
08 December 2018

The Hon Babasaheb Ambedkar was Foreigner to Sri Lanka

[A senior counsel challenging a contested dissolution of parliament by President Maithripala Sirisena quoted jurist B R Ambedkar who was a key architect of the Indian constitution who warned that there will be attempts to misuse it in the future.] – Economy Next article headed ‘Constitution is not bad, man is vile, Sri Lanka counsel quotes Ambedkar’

Sub judice principles are valid to protect the minds of judges being influenced by forces external to a court environment. They must however be carefully weighed against Freedom of Speech which is a fundamental right  in a democratic system. Opposition lawyer Mr Yogendra reported me to the Mallakam District Court’s  Judge Mr Kajanithipalan on that basis, when I shared my court experience through emails. But he himself had presented to block the inclusion of my husband’s affidavit in the proceedings and the judge also duly ‘dismissed’ my husband’s  affidavit.  To my mind, that had the same effect as a lawyer influencing a judge through media – which necessitated the sub judice rulings.

When the judge hears from the lawyer, details of what happened and why it happened – outside the evidence before the court – including through affidavits by direct participants – the judge’s mind is taken to have been influenced where the judge does not expressly rule it out. Such unlawful infections happen when the Courts are not committed to high level discipline in Administration. This is the case in Mallakam Courts and to a lesser degree in Jaffna High Court. These are areas covered by TNA which does not have Administrative jurisdiction but does have political responsibility. One such leader asked me recently – whether he made such decision – and I responded that it happened in the area of his responsibility and therefore in the absence of any public discussion on that subject matter  by him it was taken as lack of concern.

To my mind, referring to the Hon Ambedkar was inadmissible as he was not Sri Lankan. It was also waste of Court Resources for the Counsel to refer to it unless Mr Sampanthan whom President’s Counsel Kanag Iswaran represented,  had included it in his Affidavit evidence. It would be inappropriate for a lawyer to include political leadership in a Judicial hearing. Effectively it is in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers between Judiciary and the Parliament. Mr Sampanthan could have shown the  connection between his complaint and the values he followed including through Regional and Global governors.

The structure through which Dr Ambedkar groomed and presented himself was different to that of Gandhi. Dr Ambedkar was born in junior caste and Mr Gandhi in senior caste. Mr Gandhi renounced his higher status to become part of the untouchables – to know how they felt. In terms of that structure – Mr Kanag Iswaran’s elder would have been Gandhi. But then Mr Kanag Iswaran does not live as part of the toddy-tapper community in his home area of Sangarathai.  To believe in Dr Ambedkar the appropriate structure would be to become senior – from a lower status community that one is born into – for example – a law abiding militant who successfully rose to the position of minister of law and order.

I did follow in the footsteps of Gandhi with the toddy-tapper community – but had to draw the line when they started taking ‘equal or higher position’ in areas they thought they were the sole owners. When that happens  - I distance myself after facilitating them to recognize their own ‘losses’ . This requires further sacrifices on my part but when I do so in their interest – my returns happen from elsewhere. They get to keep the fruits of my work – not as individuals but as a village/community. Commonness when brought down to the objectively measurable level divides Equally. A junior needs to surrender fully to be entitled to equal share that is greater in value than the surrendered share. A senior needs to surrender to the common pool more than her/his equal share – but in return s/he is senior in status in the common area. Where the common is democratic the status is limited to equal status until known otherwise on current merit. When greater status is not taken – the difference becomes Energy that works the whole. This is what Gandhi had with the untouchables. Dr Ambedkar on the other hand developed the lawful pathway through which untouchables could release themselves from servitude. The two pathways are like Hinduism led by Lord Krishna and Buddhism led by Lord Buddha.

Lawful structures facilitate participation by all those to whom those laws are common. Duties flow due to such structures. In this instance there is also the question of immunity that overrides duty. It is as per one’s conscience. Irrespective of whether Mr Sirisena acted as per his conscience or not – the Court has the DUTY to respect the use of Discretionary powers by a Governor. In many instances Judges are allowed such discretionary powers. In this Fundamental Rights Petition, the other side is not the President due to Presidential Immunity. That confirms that Truth is the reigning Monarch at that level.

Recently when one of my clients said to me that he had asked a close relative who was claiming higher status - whether she did what she did willingly of her own free will-  I said to my client that that was a wrong question to be asked of someone who was claiming current benefits out of past work in another structure. The way to manage that on the basis of Truth is
1.     to activate the old structure mentally and
2.     then ask the question  ‘Did you do your duty?’ \

If yes, then the redemption must flow from that structure taken as a whole. To the extent my client did his part as per that structure – he does not owe the relative any more.
If the answer is No – then the complainant is responsible for any current disappointment.
This is also the way with Mr Sirisena as well as the Petitioners. The benefits accumulated prior to constitutional change should not be claimed in post constitutional change structure. In their minds, the President ought to be respected for his governing status confirmed by Presidential Immunity as spelt out in Article 35 of the Constitution.

The rest of the case is with themselves – as the architects of the current structure.

Where voters at family level treat each other as individuals – without passing their expressions and actions through common structures – the nation needs leaders committed to Truth more than the law. Any good law would merge with that Truth. This is the reason why we have great difficulty in making multicultural laws to regulate our community relationships. It starts with families.

Where politicians fail to connect to the highest common voter they start relying on the law. To the extent Mr Sirisena’s children enjoy status through education – he has the duty to follow the law – so his highest common voter would use intellectual pathway to discriminate right from wrong. If he failed it is the duty of the Supreme Court to bring out that Truth in a language that would be understood by Mr Sirisena’s local electorate. The rest of the lesson will be learnt naturally from voter to voter and electorate to electorate.

Whether the decision to dissolve parliament is lawful or not is in this instance adversarial between law and belief. The judgment is also lawfully structured advice to the Parliament and could not be an order.




Friday, 7 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

07 December 2018

Australian Paal and Sri Lankan Kanchi

It is not uncommon for us to express opinions on manifestations by other cultures. That which is manifested by one Nation should first be observed by another and then raised on the basis of belief in the issue by the observed, to the level common to both.

To my mind the Sri Lankan Constitutional crisis was strongly influenced by failure to  pool common investments by junior side surrendering to the senior side. In most religions,  fasting helps surrender to the higher self. This is different to producing the outcomes and then enforcing the finished product on the other.  The depths of our investments in law would determine the validity of our interpretations. One who has status needs to be mindful of not overriding the interpretation of another who is senior by status in that issue.

Dr Laksiri Fernando, for example presented the following through  his Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Evolving Disaster: Agreeing to Call for Election Might be the Best’

[The controversy is because of the unexpected and the dramatic nature that it had happened apart from its secretive or ‘conspiratorial’ nature. Such dramatic changes have not been uncommon in Westminster model democracies as well. Among many examples, the dismissal of the sitting Prime Minister, with even a majority in Parliament, was enacted in 1975 in Australia.]

Professor Suri Ratnapala who is also Australian of Sri Lankan origin states as follows :
[The purpose of this note is to clear up another confusion. Hon Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, among others, have cited as a precedent the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament by the Governor-General in 1975. This involves serious misunderstandings of the facts concerning the dismissal and the relevant provisions of the Australian Constitution.] Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Constitutional Paradox in Sri Lanka’
My interpretation, to my mind, was closer to that of Professor Suri Ratnapala but is more valid (as per my mind) because it comes naturally as a lay common person.
Those with titles usually are handicapped by their ego which prevents them from seeing the ‘other’ side at equal level. The Daily mirror reported as follows about Professor Ratnapala’s involvement in the improvements to the Sri Lankan constitution:
[Emeritus Professor of the University of Queensland, Australia and former Senior State Counsel, Professor Suri Ratnapala is among this panel of intellectuals, who have been giving technical advice to the Steering Committee as well as the other Sub-Committees. – Article headed – ‘The Constitution’s tricky issues: Prof. Suri Ratnapala’ – date 01-11-2016
The question that comes to my mind is whether Professor Ratnapala ensured that the President understood the Articles relevant to his position in the language that would facilitate returns to all investors in that position? The example that comes to mind is the song Paadariyen Padippariyen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXEkwwqh9Q0 ) in the Tamil film ‘Sindu Bairavi’ by great K Balachandar.

Law experts like Professor Ratnapala are the parallels of the musicians singing Telegu songs (mari mari nine) to Tamil audience who do not actually participate in the experience. The parallel of the Tamil audience are the voters of Sri Lanka – including the politicians who have not invested formally in the study of law. The young lady from the audience who is naturally interested in music and appreciates music is able to sing in Tamil to the same audience using simple language that they understand. The reason is the depth of belief without in music without status ego. Hence the singer is part of the audience also. That is democracy.

Mr Sirisena could not sing the Sinhalese version of the Constitution because he lacked depth of belief in law, including in Kandyan Law.

Even the Attorney General revealed lack of  depth by stating that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to ‘entertain petitions questioning the conduct of the President’, despite Article 35 providing as follows:

 Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President’
An ordinary citizen does not need to understand the law. But those who have status through proficiency in law – need to understand the laws relevant to their positions.
Professor Ratnapala explains in his analysis:

[According to s 64 of the Australian Constitution, the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, serve at the pleasure of the Governor-General. The President of Sri Lanka has no such power. He or she must choose as PM a member likely to command the confidence of the House who can then be dismissed only by Parliament.]

The actual wording of Article 42 (4) is:
[The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. ]
To my mind, ‘in the President’s opinion’ is the parallel of ‘at the pleasure of the Governor-General’. If Professor Ratnapala’s presentation is valid – Article 42(4) would state as follows:
[ The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, has demonstrated the confidence of Parliament through  majority vote. ]
THAT is the parallel of singing in Tamil to a Tamil audience.  Professor Ratnapala ought to have become Sri Lankan in mind when contributing to Sri Lankan law. Likewise, Professor Laksiri Fernando ought to have become Common Australian in mind  to interpret the Australian Dismissal – as if he himself was dismissed and experienced the pain of the Hon Whitlam’s common voter. Belief makes us Common. Without belief we need to reveal our reasoning – on the basis of common theory / law, to prevent plagiarism.

If the Presidency is non-executive – then the President needs immunity.

The current president has confirmed the need for separation of powers between cultures which in effect is also the claim of minorities who have been unjustly discriminated against. Those who compare various manifestations in other nations – forget that Sri Lankans have to practice ‘Buddhism Foremost’ as per Article 9 of the Constitution. Which is the parallel of that in the Australian Constitution? Each part must be passed through to its respective fundamentals on which the whole has been developed. Section 64 of the Australian Constitution should not be related directly to Article 42 (4) of the Sri Lankan Constitution. The saying in Tamil is that the pain of one who complains that the rice soup/kanchi  is lacking in salt is the same as the pain of one who  complains that his milk is lacking in sugar. It is taken as the same because soup and milk respectively are staple diets for diverse  cultures. Australia is milk and Sri Lanka is Kanchi. 
When discussing Sri Lankan constitution we need to be as humble as the Kanchi drinking Sri Lankan.  



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

07 December 2018

Why was there No Confidence Motion against Joint Opposition?

Many think that there is value in the ‘Power of One’. But few actually believe that to be the case. Likewise, minorities are allocated status by law as Equals but not many actually believe that they are equals. The Sri Lankan Parliament formed in 2015 also did not demonstrate that it believed in the Equal power of the Tamil Community. Had it so believed, it would have challenged the position taken by the Joint Opposition group to be in breach of the fundamentals of a democratic structure and would have moved to pass No Confidence Motion against Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa back then. This did not happen probably due to fear of losing votes. That disorder has now infected the whole Parliament.
The law often protects us from getting infected by such disorders. As per today’s communication from a Tamil Diaspora group The ‘Butterflies for Democracy’ group have demonstrated their  need for such recognition for the gay community.

As highlighted in the Daily Mirror article ‘Minority Parties are key players in the equation many Tamil leaders are recognizing the power of this value through the constitutional crisis that Sri Lankan parliament is going through. That happens only when minorities believe more deeply than majority in their Sovereignty. Those who ‘show’ more than their belief – dilute the power of their belief. Some expressions – such as those by Vanni Parliamentarian Ms Shanthi Sriskandarajah who is reported to have stated that  ‘National parties must now kneel down before Tamil parties’ are confirming such dilution. One who is Sovereign does not need to demote another and would not demote another for self-glorification. One is entitled to show the connection between cause and effect – as per one’s own experience based interpretation. That would keep our brains healthy. To the common Sri Lankan, the current crisis is about the battle between one’s physical senses (votes) and intellect (law).

The Truth manifests Itself through us when our physical senses as well as intellect are stilled. They are present but not active. To me that is what Meditation is all about.

Even one member of minority who is a messenger of Truth has the power to take equal position as the topmost leader – in this instance the President. The power of that person would be greater than that of the President, but Truth would not manifest Itself at a level above the highest position in that structure. That is how pure Truth is. A child who has invested more in the family than the parent has the right to be Equal but not of higher status than the parent.

In this constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka, both Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe as well as Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa demonstrated good order in relation to the President.

But not so Mr Sirisena in relation to Madam Kumaratunga who as stated as follows:

[Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga has claimed that she had not been invited for the special convention of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which was held at the Sugathadasa Indoor Stadium last Tuesday, December 4.]
If not for Madam Kumaratunga, it is highly unlikely that Mr Sirisena would have become president. By alienating the lady, Mr Sirisena has  demonstrated LTTE tendencies. One driven by outcomes would demonstrate disconnection with tradition and elders. One driven by belief would naturally connect at the roots. There are wins or losses to such a person. Just ownership and the power to work the whole.

The current crisis has confirmed that minorities including the Gay Community believe in their sovereignty more than majority. Those who have experienced more difficulties than the other often have the deeper experience and become owners before majority. The real power is with them.