Gajalakshmi Paramasivam – 24 February 2015
Australian PM is being Democratic
There is much criticism from Indonesia about the Australian PM’s reference to Tsunami Dollars. To me our Prime Minister’s statement did not seem wrong at all. I did likewise through my legal actions including against former Prime Minister John Howard, asking for my investment in One Australia to be returned. Legal actions through Equal Opportunity Laws and principles facilitated such a claim. Later I filed action against relatives who were sponsored by myself and who claimed in Sri Lankan Court that I was NOT equal member of the family and therefore I was greedy after their inheritance. I therefore filed action in Australian Courts – claiming compensation for sponsoring them as relatives. The matter was dismissed by the Courts but I was ‘free’ of the lies that I was family. As a wise person said ‘Before the Truth can set you free you need to recognize which lie is holding you hostage’
Who is family? At the primary level family are those who are connected to us through birth. At the secondary level family are those who are connected to us through marriage. Once one has a child – that marriage is taken as having been accepted by the Lord at the primary level also. At the tertiary level – all those who are connected to us through Truth – are our family. Evidence of that would be recognized by both parties. This Sunday for example, Jeevan from Thunaivi-Vaddukoddai and of Toddy Tapper caste said to me that whenever they spoke to me including through Skype - they felt energized to provide service. This was possible only because we were both free of caste prejudices and were driven by our direct interactions. Had I been ‘attached’ to the caste system which has become dysfunctional for the young generation Tamils – the above tertiary level sharing would not have happened. Those who provide Public Service develop this true sharing.
Indonesia is not connected to Australia by culture of majority. The connection to a degree, is more like a marriage connection through the UN and bilateral agreements. For most parts – it is ‘free’. On that basis Indonesia, like my relatives-in-law above was a beneficiary of Australia and not a provider in such ‘free’ interactions. Tsunami Aid confirmed this. If not for the loss of human lives – Australians are not likely to have approved of that aid. Yet, the Indonesian President failed to hear as a special case – the feelings of Australians communicated through our Prime Minister, in relation to the death sentence of Bali 9 leaders.
When one is related through marriage – the relationship is covered by wider common laws and not just one side customary values. When one is connected through Service – the relationship and interactions are covered by Universal Laws. If the beneficiary fails to give recognition to such values – then the provider has the duty to claim return of the benefits given – in the form of money and status.
The level at which we give does not always match the level at which it is received. Since Indonesian Government did not feel our Prime Minister’s pain in terms of ‘life’ as his pain we conclude that Australia and Indonesia are not of One family. Given that both young men on whose behalf our Prime Minister used his position status are new migrants and are of Asian origin - we conclude that Australia is far more democratic and inclusive than Indonesia.
The laws applicable to Australians in the custody of Indonesia need to be higher common laws and not local laws applicable to Indonesians. Where Indonesians are not able to work out a way to demonstrate respect Australia as a higher relation – they become outsiders and owe the money to the Australian Public. Every dollar given in Aid must be returned with interest.
This is quite common in nations that are embracing Democratic Resource Management systems. There are ‘internal-billings’ to preserve the relationship – especially where the beneficiary fails to appreciate the higher common value. As per Sydney Morning Herald report:
‘Rian, one of the event organisers, said he would deliver the coins to the Australian embassy.
He said if every person in Indonesia, which has a population of 250 million, donated one coin the country could pay back the "small amount of money donated by Australia".
We are a nation that refuses to be colonized, a nation that would like to tell other nations not to try to destroy this republic.’
If indeed the speaker – Mr. Rian felt sovereign he would urge Indonesians he is able to influence – to return the money and confirm his independence of Australia. Otherwise his claim of sovereignty is false and politically biased in effect. Independent production of objectively measurable outcomes by civilians is needed to confirm their height of subjective influence. To be valid at national level – at least 125 million and one Indonesians would need to provide coins. Otherwise such statements confirm abuse of power – which eventually would increase law and order problems in Indonesia itself. When the leadership position is idle – it is hijacked by mischief makers.