Monday 9 October 2017

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

09 October  2017

So called Hindus Taking Over Sri Lanka?

[When the whole world says federalism is a constitutional method to keep disparate units together as one composite-whole, the priests continue to say that federalism is separation. I think they fear that recognition of the individuality of the North and East would one day allow the North and East to separate. There is no basis for that fear. If that were so each unit in a federal country would have separated. But that has not happened. French speaking Quebec preferred to stay with English speaking Canada.]Mr. CV Wigneswaran in the Ceylon Today Report ‘Devanampiya Tissa was a Tamil king –Wigneswaran
It was after visiting Canada that our Australian (NSW) Auditor General stated on National TV that he recommended Key Performance Indicators in the audits of Public Enterprises – the particular focus being on NSW Railways. I objected and asked the Auditor General to pay his dues to the Profession. The communication that happened is recorded as follows in my book Naan Australian:
[ Mr. Sendt wrote on 20 November 2003 in response to my Public demand for him to pay his Dues as an Accountant:
Ms Param, I fully understand that auditors are not to participate in the management of the entities they audit. That is basic. What I said in my report is that external financial reports only give a partial view of the performance of many public entities. Such entities are not established to earn a profit or a return on assets, but to provide services to the public. So to give a true and fair view of how well they are providing services, they also produce non-financial performance indicators. If financial reports are required to be audited – to give the public confidence in their accuracy – then so too should the performance indicators. I fail to see how you can state that this is participating in the management of the entity.
Bob Sendt
NSW Auditor General
My response to the above indicates the deep wisdom I have in Audit and Compliance, largely based on my Sri Lankan training:
Thank you Mr. Sendt for  the prompt response. Most progressive organizations produce both – Financial and Non-Financial Performance Indicators. They  are both for MANAGEMENT purposes and reflect their THINKING and WORK_IN_PROGRESS. If you use Performance Indicators – then you are thinking with them. This is like the Executive Government participating in the Judicial process. Your Non-Financial Reports are the Legal records that these organizations are required to maintain – such as the Recruitment and Employee Assessment records. Where there is a big gap between Law and Practice – it requires YOUR staff to do the additional work. Taking the Performance Indicators distracts you away from this work. It is in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of  Powers. These organizations must be allowed to confidentially do the cooking and it’s up to your staff to do the spy work from the finished product to the LAW and not to their dreams and goals. You are seeking the short path because your staff are not trained to find out from the client staff what is going on. Staff often ‘hide’ information from you because you are third party. So they should. That way your staff would improve their skills. Using client-staff’s work-in-progress deters your staff from thinking through their own specialty = AUDIT on the basis of existing LAW. Then we would become a uniform society instead of a diverse society challenging each other – you within the existing law and the operational staff towards tomorrow’s laws. Challenging leads to creativity – as you can see from me. Gandhi also said that the night he was thrown out of the first class compartment of the South African RAILWAYS was his most creative experience.
You need to get the client organization to publish their non-financial reports that are mandatorily maintained. Public service organizations primarily make goodwill. This can also be positive or negative – profits or losses. They are collected together and are balanced with the total costs through Common Funds. It will be useful for you to develop a standard dollar value for these legal requirements so the People can SEE and know the Truth. Your role is not to help them make a profit but to report whether they are and how much. How about doing one on UNSW? Or State Rail?
Thank you again for responding. It has helped deeply.
Gaja ( effectively in custody)]

A language does not entitle one to separate space. Sovereignty as a smaller group does. Buddhism foremost in the Constitution is the parallel of Mr. Wigneswaran being a senior parent than his children who are now parents. By law they are Equal. But through experience all parents in that group have memory that Mr. Wigneswaran is Senior parent -  due to his experience. Until this is proven to be not so by Mr. Wigneswaran by his conduct – that hidden value is needed to represent the family through the most senior person within a group where there are seniors leading other families. Within the boundaries of the family Truth must be given form towards internal order. The law of Thesawalamai for example, confirms separation of powers between sons and daughters in such a way that sons takeover Governance after daughters are dowried and they leave the parental home. Provinces that have left the Central Government  likewise, are separate entities to Central Government and do not have direct access to the Central Government resources and opportunities. The Central Government in a Federal structure is the first amongst equals and is the parallel of ‘Buddhism foremost’ protection from wider world.
Mr. Wigneswaran states as follows in this regard:
[ Giving foremost place to Buddhism does not have anything to do with the Buddha nor his teachings. It has something to do with the organized Buddhist religion which means the Priesthood would expect a special place for themselves and the right to interfere with the Government and its administration. That is what they do now bringing disrepute to the religion founded on the teachings of the Great Buddha. If the Constitution says the basic tenets of Buddhism viz. Metta, Karuna, Upekkha and Muditha should govern the actions and activities of all citizens, I do not think anyone would mind it. But it would be better to include also the charitable disposition of Christians, Brotherhood of Muslims and selfless love of Hindus into the equation. But giving foremost place to Buddhism in the Constitution would lead to the Sinhalese Buddhists building unwanted places of Buddhist worship in the North and East and surreptitiously converting our people. The Buddhist leaders who object to conversion by Christians and Muslims must not do themselves the very thing they object to of others.]
An American of Sri Lankan origin wrote yesterday about Rev  S.J. Emannuel’s call ‘Tamil Diaspora Must Seriously Contribute To Rebuild The Country’:
[Agree. The father is on the right track about "development", instead of wasting time like many others talking gibberish about "reconciliation and unity".
 As Kennedy famously said, a high tide lifts all boats!
 But the father's sound and practical message can equally apply to the Sinhala and Muslim Diaspora, too.]
 The above is then contradicted as follows:
[How is Fr. Emmanuel allowed to wear the collar while dabbling in politics?  Congressman Jesuit Fr. Drinan of Massachusetts was forced to step down in 1980 by the Vatican after serving a sixth term. He obeyed Pope John Paul's order to step down and get out of politics!  Pope John Paul also went after "liberation theology" priests when on a papal visit to Latin America. The Pope was instrumental in bringing down Communism with Lech Walesa  of the Gdansk shipyard and Solidarity of his native Poland.]
The essence of the above message is that one who is seeking Sovereignty through one group must not consciously seek Sovereignty through another different looking group. As per my own example – the Auditor led by final outcomes produced by a client should not consciously use the pathway through which those outcomes were produced under supervision of the Management of the client. That was how I understood the Doctrine of Separation of powers when it was first presented to me by Ms Rocky Clifford of the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.

If Sri Lanka did not have the secular system of Governance – and it was separated from India – it would be naturally entitled to Buddhist leadership due to majority practicing Buddhism. This however, would not hold true if:

(i)             Non-Buddhists were more deeply committed to their own belief – including in Nature / Truth / Love  – and their investment in such belief is of greater value than that of the investment in Buddhism by Buddhists. Since the same measure cannot be used – the measure is the proximity to the goal – i.e. God/Sovereignty; and/or
(ii)           Buddhists have deviated from their  stated goal of attaining Nirvana as Lord Buddha did but have attached themselves more and more to the very status that Lord Buddha renounced. Then  they dilute / weaken the merit of those who have genuinely invested in Lord Buddha’s pathway of renunciation of ruling power allocated by others. These ‘others’ include not only non-Buddhists who contributed to the Ruling group but even those Buddhists who  have invested in an alternate system of Administration.

Buddhism foremost in the 1972 Constitution is an example of (ii) above. Buddhism foremost in the 1978 Constitution is an example of (i) above.

The older the source of our pathway – for example Lord Buddha in Buddhism – the greater the inherited value. Lord Buddha renounced inherited Royalty. Current Buddhists would find it easier to renounce inherited values in Buddhism than their own investments in any alternate system – including through the secular system. Hence the problems with Politicians who seek to ‘show’ their investments in Buddhism through such provisions. What they do not seem to know is the power of Truth that is beyond all our controls. We can control relativity but need to submit to Absolute power to work the system through Absolute power – as part of that Absolute power. Truth is taken to be Absolute whereas ‘fact’ is relative. The more we show relativity  the further away we move from the Absolute power. The more we ‘say’ ‘I love you’ the further away we move from Oneness Love.
Mr. Wigneswaran says ‘selfless love of Hindus’  in the above suggestion. Making it Hindu particularises it. One has to renounce that ‘particular possession’ to experience the Absolute. To the extent ‘Buddhism foremost’ was made relative – with the purpose of leadership status in mind by the maker, its very existence in the Constitution would become a lie when a Non-Buddhist who expresses her/his belief is punished by the maker of the Constitution and/or the heirs of the maker/s of the Constitution. One who is Equal to the leader at the same time / period needs to have travelled along a different pathway to the leader, for both to be taken as credible. When the whole divides it would fall laterally in opposite directions or vertically – one on top of the other. The former is Equal Opposition and the latter is Buddhism foremost which means one has to travel the Buddhist pathway to become leader of Sri Lanka. Others have to be included  by the leader or submit themselves to the leadership – as submissions are made to legal minded judges in a Court of law.
When Mr. Wigneswaran stated ‘Giving foremost place to Buddhism does not have anything to do with the Buddha nor his teachings. It has something to do with the organized Buddhist religion which means the Priesthood would expect a special place for themselves and the right to interfere with the Government and its administration’ , he confirmed his ‘invasive’ tendencies and therefore disrespect for the law. Within the boundaries of the existing constitution, minorities have the right to move away and function independently. Minorities have the right to take lawful action against anyone including Buddhists who interfere with those rights. Mr. Wigneswaran demonstrates that he is Hindu. Hence he did not have the right to speak on behalf of others who are NOT Hindus, any more than Buddhists have to interfere with Hindu practices. Every Buddhist who comes to Hindu area – have to submit to the Hindu leader at that place at that time. That is when Buddhism foremost is first amongst equals. Majority Buddhists in Sri Lanka would abide by this natural law.
When we non-Buddhists on the other hand also use religion to take welfare benefits including in the form of weapons from India – we lose the right to claim Equal status as another religions group in THAT area. To judge a leader over whom we have no authority of the law, we have to wait until objectively measurable outcomes are produced by that leader. Once we express our identity with their thinking, we are claiming higher status within One system. Mr. Wigneswaran acted in breach of this protocol and has behaved like a lawyer delivering judgment against opposition. Judges who are bullied by powerful lawyers tend to bully when they think they are in ‘free’ environments.

No comments:

Post a Comment