Wednesday 27 May 2015

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam – 27 May  2015

Dual Citizenship – the Risks

In current news we hear our Australian Prime Minister giving thoughts to cancelling the Australian Citizenship of those with Dual-Citizenship engaging in activities considered to be ‘terrorism’ as per the laws of Australia. I was happy to learn that the Hon Philip Ruddock would be leading discussions along these lines. I feel happy because Mr. Ruddock has ‘subjective powers’ with migrants from war-torn countries like Sri Lanka. When it comes to war – subjective powers are important for us to make just decisions. Immigration through Refugee activities needs subjective powers to ‘know’ confidentially  through common belief whether an applicant carries global powers.

An applicant carries global powers through investment in global culture or due to a humanitarian need. When there is genuine need – the person/group with such need, structures the solution for which the service provider becomes the medium. The nuclear power is from the needy applicant under the circumstances. But where one has invested in global culture – the need to give form to that investment is the driving force and this force is with the Service Provider. The above suggestion re cancellation of Dual Citizenship is from the need of the  Service Provider. It was surfaced due to Australians joining the Islamic State.  This is a risk / temptation for the Tamil Diaspora also – especially if the Jaffna Protests against the Common Court system spreads laterally to attract Eelam fighters living in Western countries.

Irrespective of whether or not the Government of our host nation brings in such policies, we have to be true to ourselves – so we do not cheat ourselves and those whom we choose to lead. In response to my articles on the Jaffna problem, one member of the Tamil Diaspora wrote for example:

I heard about Tamil culture, never heard about Jaffna Tamil culture and Batticola  Tamil culture’
My response to that was:

I grew up with Thesawalamai and it is still practiced actively in Jaffna – including in the Judicial system. Batticaloa Tamils have their own Customary Law known as Mukuwa Law. Are you of Sri Lankan origin?’

The Diaspora member wrote:

Now we are living in  2oth and 21 st century  . this tribe law written    back 500 years . Tamil culture   has histroy back 2000 years.

I responded:

To the extent we have those laws you refer to as ‘tribal’ in practice today – they are part of Tamil culture as it exists today.  The Dowry system is positive and its current form is Equal Opportunity Law. Similarly the work based caste laws which have their current form as Industrial relations.  The older the order – the deeper the wisdom that comes with it.  The Dutch gave form to customary laws in Sri Lanka – so as to promote this diversity. To that extent they were global and did not ‘invade’. If you are connected to those Tamils left behind in Sri Lanka – to deal with the effects of war – you would appreciate that they understand the dowry system more than any other form of marriage settlement. Why give up the old that they understand when it would merge naturally with the new?’

To my mind  a Sri Lankan Tamil Leader would have grown up with the Diversity of various Tamil groups in Sri Lanka. Jaffna Tamils are known to have invested in higher education more than any other group and therefore would tend to take the intellectual leadership pathway where they think they have an opportunity to do so. The intellectual pathway is through consolidation. Consolidation leads to recognizing One nuclear power – the Truth. When the Eastern LTTE leader broke away from the Northern Leadership – he lost the connection with this stronger consolidation power carried by Northern Tamils through their investments in intellectual pursuits. In terms of higher education – Research until Truth is discovered is that consolidation power. Teaching is the majority power. Our Vaddukoddai relative Mrs Rani Karthigesan Sinnathamby recently shared the following construction by her late husband under ‘morality’ discussions:

The question of right and wrong is such that -  what is right for someone may be wrong for others. So the question of taking a stand comes up. What is good for the majority of the people is taken as good and right and what is only good for the minority is taken as the opposite.

This to me is the structure of Parliament through majority vote. Where the assessment of majority is based on belief it would merge naturally with the top-down intellectual service provider. The voter thus expresses her/his needs through the voting system. A leader who identifies with that need would naturally share subjective powers with the needy. The sharing is largely ‘confidential’ under this system.

In Parliament – such a leader would naturally merge with an intellectually driven Service Provider traveling through the wider Administrative path serving the whole. To my mind, Consolidating the believer with the discoverer is the core purpose of Parliament. Eliminating the expressions and influence of non-believers is part of this Consolidation work. In Universities – eliminating plagiarism from teaching activities is part of the consolidation work. Otherwise a University would fragment itself and ultimately will be ‘told’ by the money-rich. 

Recently when sharing with my Singapore sister, some of my disappointments with a Sydney relative – my sister said that while we may ‘expect’ a certain level of return for services provided – the other side may consider that they have paid their dues.  I agreed and said that that is when we must cease to be relatives but restructure as Equal individuals free of each other’s pleasures and pains. Relatives have to be connected through the same set of laws restructured from time to time through the common Truth known. Where we know that this is not the case and we do not have direct power of influence – we need to distance them and pool them with ‘wider community’. Here the lie that the other person was part of the family is eliminated. I have done this with workplaces and removed myself from the relationships.

Likewise, where a migrant is driven more by the local culture as it prevails in the country of origin than the needs of Australia as a Service Provider of Global standards – we need to restructure and treat them as Equals living in a far-away place. They then become beneficiaries through our contributions through Common bodies such as the UN. In action they may be the opposition of our global partners and hence the conflict of interests which need to be eliminated towards good order.

One who maintains Australian citizenship with lesser commitment to Australia – is a negative force diluting our investment in Australian Nationhood. Once we realize independence through any culture – we respect others’ independence. Where the applicant continues to be driven by local cultural belief – as in Islamic State or Tamil Eelam in the case of Sri Lankan Tamils – they are likely to return due to this local pulling force. It is the duty of Service Provider to facilitate that ‘choice’ by removing the Australian status. A self-governing would remove her/himself  once s/he realizes that this is her/his Truth. Such a person is entitled to fight for protection of the pathway through which s/he became global. But such a person is not entitled to use Australian facilities while their mind is driven by the ‘other force’.

I believe that this provision needs to be built into the original application by war-refugees so that Australia is not used as a door mat. This is likely to reduce family separations – that  happen when parents leave behind in Australia – their young families – while they go to their countries of origin to fight.  Likewise when migrants leave behind their families while they take the boat to Australia. There are many such families without leadership in Sri Lanka’s North.

We need to work as closely as possible with Nature / Truth – to realize happiness and peace through global life. Those who want it both ways by separating - are invaders. Those who consolidate and merge are global – be they Service Providers or Receivers.

No comments:

Post a Comment