Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

19 October   2016

My Home is my Queensland

The Harvard Medical School news began as follows:

[Dear Gaja,

Memory loss is one of the most common fears people have about growing older. Fortunately, there are many steps you can take right now to boost your brainpower and protect your mind and memory from fading.]

One of my steps  to protect my memory is to get rid of rubbish and focus more and more through my Truth on issues that are common. Towards this, given that the Common Interest of majority in my email list is Sri Lanka, I connected to the current Sri Lankan issue – the President’s mind – whether it is working laterally as required by the system of Democracy  or vertically as is the way of religious order? This is also an important aspect in curing violence – especially mental violence.

In the Colombo Telegraph article headed ‘Has President Sirisena Caused A Constitutional Crisis?’, author Niranjan Rambukwella states:

[The Director-General of the Bribery Commission, Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, resigned yesterday. Her resignation was a response to President Sirisena’s comments accusing the Commission of politically motivated investigations.]

As per Daily Mirror article headed ‘MR says surprised over President's FCID remark’:

[Former President and Kurunegala district MP Mahinda Rajapaksa said he was surprised to note that President Maithripala Sirisena was unaware of the action of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID).

Addressing a religious ceremony at a temple in Lunugamvehera on Sunday, he said the Executive President should be strong enough to run the country properly. “But during the past two years the government focused only on taking revenge,” he said.

He said the government took revenge not only from him and his family members but also from Buddhist monks.

“They took Buddhist monks to the FCID. Questioning them on how did they build their temples and who funded them. Then they searched for the funded list and questioned on them how much they funded for the constructions. More than 20,000 people had been summoned to the FCID for questioning. There are 48 Buddhist monks were who sentenced to prison,” Mr. Rajapaksa said.

He alleged these moves could be a part of a conspiracy carrying out against a religion. “Some people in the government are not ready to accept what the white men accepted. They accepted that Buddhism should be given prominence from the constitution,” he said.

He said the judiciary or the responsible officials should think thoroughly before taking action.]

The fact is that the Dutch who are part of the ‘White men’ group – codified Customary Law of Thesawalamai. I do not know the source of the above claim that the White Men accepted that Buddhism should be given prominence through the Constitution. If they did – then one must conclude that the White men who so concluded were not fit to Administer Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Given that ‘White men’ through Channel 4 documentary also exposed war crimes – of Buddhist army – they seem to have compensated for any such imbalance caused by them. As per my knowledge, the Dutch considered the land that we now call, Queensland to be their territory before the British claimed it as part of New South Wales.  

Recently, the current President of Sri Lanka also, is reported to have followed the mind of the British Prime Minister:

[He noted that Prime Minister Theresa May had told her senior commanders to stop British soldiers from falling victim to “abuse and legal system” by lawyers representing Iraqis who allege they were victims of war crimes during the occupation of their country.]

Which of the British Leaders’ minds do the Presidential Sri Lankans follow? Which ones do they have to follow.  For example in the case of the Director-General of the Bribery Commission, we have an example through ‘THE BRIBERY COMMISSIONER V RANASINGHE; PC 5 MAY 1964’ – which case predates the  Republican Constitution:

[S.29 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 gave the Ceylon Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the island.

 S.29(4) gave it the power to ‘amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order’; but provided that no Bill for amendment or repeal should be presented for the Royal Assent unless it was endorsed with a certificate of the Speaker, which was to be conclusive for all purposes that the Bill had been passed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the House of Representatives.

The appellant was convicted of a bribery offence before a tribunal created by a provision of the Bribery Amendment Act 1958, which conflicted with a provision of the Constitution. The 1958 Act was not endorsed with the requisite Speaker’s certificate and was not shown to have been passed by a two-thirds majority. 

Held: The orders made against the appellant were null and void. The persons composing the tribunal had been appointed under an invalid statute. 

Lord Pearce said: ‘When a sovereign Parliament has purported to enact a bill and it has received the Royal Assent, is it a valid Act in the course of whose passing there was a procedural defect, or is it an invalid Act which Parliament had no power to pass in that manner?’

The passages he quoted from McCawley’s case: ‘showed clearly that the Board in McCawley’s case took the view, which commends itself to the Board in the present case, that a legislature has no power to ignore the conditions of law-making that are imposed by the instrument which itself regulates its power to make law. This restriction exists independently of the question whether the legislature is sovereign, as is the legislature of Ceylon, or whether the Constitution is ‘uncontrolled,’ as the board held the Constitution of Queensland to be.

Such a Constitution can, indeed, be altered or amended by the legislature, if the regulating instrument so provides and if the terms of those provisions are complied with; and the alteration or amendment may include the change or abolition of these very provisions.

But the proposition which is not acceptable is that a legislature, once established, has some inherent power derived from the mere fact of its establishment to make a valid law by the resolution of a bare majority which its own constituent instrument has said shall not be a valid law unless made by a different type of majority or by a different legislative process.’ and ‘No question of sovereignty arises.

A parliament does not cease to be sovereign whenever its component members fail to produce among them a requisite majority, e.g., when in the case of ordinary legislation the voting is evenly divided or when in the case of legislation to amend the Constitution there is only a bare majority if the Constitution requires something more.

The minority are entitled under the Constitution of Ceylon to have no amendment of it which is not passed by a two-thirds majority. The limitation thus imposed on some lesser majority of members does not limit the sovereign power of Parliament itself which can always, whenever it chooses, pass the amendment with the requisite majority.’
Lord Pearce rejected the proposition that: ‘a legislature, once established, has some inherent power, derived from the mere fact of its establishment, to make a valid law by the resolution of a bare majority which its own constituent instrument has said shall not be a valid law unless made by a different type of majority or by a different legislative process.’ 
Statutes: Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 ]

The way I read the above, at the center of the McCawley case is Constitutional issue between Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia. Queensland in this instance seems the parallel of Northern Province of Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Constitutional specialists could learn from the McCawley case to prevent Constitutional crises in Sri Lanka – as indicated by Mr. Niranjan Rambukwella. Strangely the Lankan matters relate to Bribery Commission. To me  due to my workplace experience in Australia, the employee’s Workplace  entitlement  as Lowest Common  Denominator is of deeper interest. Mr. Thomas McCawley playing  a key role in this is presented  as follows:

[One of the principal legislative initiatives of the Ryan Government was the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) (‘Industrial Arbitration Act’).

In conjunction with Edward Theodore as Secretary for Public Works, McCawley, as Crown Solicitor, played a key role in drafting the Act in its original form.

While the Act was presented as a measure designed to secure ‘industrial peace’, it was clearly intended to lay the foundations for an arbitration system that would strengthen the role of industrial unions and promote the interests of the working class.

At the centre of the Act was the new Queensland Arbitration Court. Section 6(1) established the Court and s 6(2)–(3) empowered the Governor-in-Council, by commission, to appoint judges of the Court, one of whom was to be designated President. Under s 6(5), the Court was deemed to be a ‘branch’ of the Supreme Court and every judge of the Queensland Arbitration Court was deemed to have the ‘status’ of a Supreme Court judge. Section 6(6) provided that the President and judges of the Court were to be appointed for a term of seven years, and were eligible for reappointment. Problematically, however, s 6(6) of the Act also provided that judges of the Queensland Arbitration Court could be appointed to the Supreme Court, bypassing the specific provisions for the appointment of Supreme Court judges contained within the Constitution Act, which required that they be granted life tenure during good behaviour and which set the maximum number of judges at five. McCawley was appointed to the Supreme Court under Industrial Arbitration Act s 6(6), and it was this provision that would be the subject of the constitutional challenge in McCawley’s Case, on the ground of its inconsistency with the Constitution Act.]  - POLITICS, LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION IN MCCAWLEY’S CASE

NICHOLAS ARONEY

The Director-General of the Sri Lankan Bribery Commission, Ms  Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, resigning from her position is also a workplace issue. If treated politically it is likely to be through political heads – some of which are strongly driven by personal interests. These cannot be related to by those outside the political circles. Hence we need Common Laws through which all of us can relate.

The following by Mr. McCawley reminds me of my own situation with the Hon John Howard and his Government whom I sued on the basis of my assessment of  the applicability of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 at the workplace:

[As to my own little matter, the Court reserved its decision … I have no doubt that the decision will be adverse — the atmosphere of hostility, political, professional, and personal, certainly favours such a result.
— Thomas William McCawley to Henry Bournes Higgins J, 2 February 1918]

Now when I think of it – I could not have done otherwise. My contribution to Australian Workplace transformations had peaked and the need was greater in the area of Racial Discrimination karma – beyond the work place, at National level.

They say that there is a god within all of us. As per my experience, there is also a god within each Sovereign block of land. The law that facilitates the demarcations of the physical boundaries of such a block – is the law of Dharma/Righteousness. This may or may not be upheld by the Executive Government and/or the Judiciary. But the owners of such Land will have the special communication with that Land and the Land itself will support them. When such Sovereign individuals lead issues particular to that Land – Natural Forces support them towards Peace and Harmony of the whole that that land is part of.

To my mind it is no coincidence that the President of Sri Lanka who invoked ‘Buddhism foremost’ at the UN – became a victim of his own lack of investment in the Secular laws by which the Bribery Commission and other Authorities investigating into civil wrongs have been finding fault with the previous regime which included the current President. The President’s emotional attachment to his son, which is public knowledge – would have kindled fears within himself about the Secular Powers of Bribery Commission which could subject him also to similar treatment. When he claimed Buddhism foremost – he was losing also the special powers of the President under the Democratic system which requires clear Separation of Powers between sections that are distinctly diverse in Belief / Faith, in comparison with  the Central Custodians of Power. This Separation is necessary for each group to realize Sovereignty through its own belief.

Since  it is difficult to maintain this separation at workplaces – we have in place, the Anti Racial Discrimination Laws in most Western Nations. Those affected need to feel strong enough pain to have the courage to genuinely sue their supervisors at the workplace. Others would derive only surface value – such as majority rule from such laws. In the Absence of such laws, Physical Separation is needed by the Central Powers so they do not become victims of their own karma. Those with deep common belief would invoke the natural powers of leadership of the whole.

The civilians killed and / or injured in the Sri Lankan war – have become natural owners of the blocks of land that they thought was their home. The Sri Lankan Army has been proven to be seriously lacking in respect for law and order – unless killing and raping prisoners is considered to be part of  Due Process – in which case they disqualify themselves from becoming part of a global Army – at least in principle. The more this Buddhism foremost is chanted by the Government – the further away the real Buddha will move from such a Government. Otherwise Buddha would have protected the old regime – which included the current President. By joining the President’s chant of ‘Buddhism foremost’ Prime Minister the Hon Ranil Wicremesinghe is also distancing himself from the system of Democracy and therefore is losing the real powers of other Democratic nations. All those who identify with this weakness and do the needful to connect to the real internal cause – would strengthen their own Sovereignty. We can’t all be Presidents and Prime Ministers. But we can all be Queens and Kings of ourselves. Thus my home where I am queen is my Queensland.