Sunday 11 March 2018

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

11 March 2018

Mistresses in Parliament


We don’t need to go to the UN nor have any Commissions of Inquiry. When we look at ourselves through our own true structures, we would know which order we belong in.


Political Affiliations are naturally orderly when we have structures that have evolved on the basis of our own Truth. There is a natural grouping that happens due to such structures. However elementary such a structure may be the Truth on which it is based has Absolute Power. That is the law of Nature. In Sri Lanka, we use the religious pathway towards realizing this Absolute Power.  The money-rich countries seek this through common secular systems. Without this structure an institution is merely an Association of Individuals. The whole will be equal to the sum of the individuals at this mere Association level. The value of the whole becomes greater than the sum of its individual parts only when there are forces that are not visible.


Some of these forces could be known through scientific calculations. Others could be identified with only through deep belief.  I believe that this is Absolute Energy.

Mr Harsha Gunasena – in his Daily FT article ‘Duality of the general public and the Parliamentarians’, presents the following about the psychology of Sri Lankan Parliament as experienced by TNA’s (Tamil National Alliance) Leadership heir the Hon M A Sumanthiran, as follows:


[Member of Parliament M.A. Sumanthiran was a panellist at the Panel Discussion on ‘Mindfulness in Policy Making, Governance and Diplomacy’ on day two (25 February) of the Global Mindfulness Summit 2018 held at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute.
He added colour to the panel discussion and said he would reveal a secret. It was announced sometime ago that for a period of one hour of every day, there would be a live streaming of the sessions of Parliament. This was a precursor to the current unrestricted live streaming of the parliamentary sessions.
The audience expected that the MP would say that all the MPs behaved nicely during the said period and they would have started the normal behaviour after that. To our astonishment he said what happened was completely the opposite. MPs behaved very badly and accused each other during that period of one hour and their behaviour was calm after that. He said they were playing to the gallery and if the gallery thinks that listening is better than fighting, they will listen.


As a member of the Tamil Community I presented, on 09 March  the following picture of  Tamils during the time Muslims were in need of the support by other minorities – especially Tamils who by their very position in National Parliament through TNA confirm the presence of the Latent power that makes Sri Lankan Parliament’s worth to be greater than the sum of its individuals:

My article was headed ‘GTF & TNA Contradiction’ with the message that they were talking about missing persons when minority problems were surfacing in Sri Lanka.


Today, I noted the results through the Island of March 10, the report headed:

[Global Tamil Forum calls for stern action against those responsible for perpetrating anti-Muslim violence in Sri Lanka]
As per my true structure, the above condemnation was brought out by the deeper a community that was not merely an Association of Individuals but an Institution  capable of upholding reliable order. Every person who contributes to an issue through her/his Truth – contributes to that extent, Institutional Value, to the environment that that person is a part of.
In the above picture of Fight, Flight and Freeze theory of Psychology – TNA is shown as being in frozen mode in terms of Tamil Tigers.
As per the above article ‘Mindfulness in Policy Making, Governance and Diplomacy’ Parliamentarians behave differently under two different scenarios. I learnt about Fight, Flight or Freeze theory from my granddaughter’s textbook in Psychology. I already had deep wisdom in Psychology needed by my environment, through my deep lessons in life. Likewise, I leant the terminology ‘mindfulness’ from my friend Accounting Pushpa Muthumala – a Buddhist - when my friend used it to describe how she received what I was saying. This is that third dimension that we all carry as per our own Truth.
Here in the Sydney suburb of Coogee, I connect to the pain of Indigenous Australians who were displaced to facilitate leisure facilities for the British. Deep within me – I made the connection between this karma and the Bali bombing in 2002 in which about 25% of the Australian victims were from Coogee. Real pain remains forever and could be offset at that time at that place only through a believer with positive energy.

TNA’s Freeze came to my mind,  due to my experience with the University of Jaffna – the Institution of Higher Education in Mr Sumanthiran’s electorate. How the political victory of Mr Sumanthiran  was claimed was presented as follows by Daily News on 20 September 2017 under the heading ‘ Mavai Senathirajah’s landmark decision’ (Appendix) Intellectual discussions were reported to have been held in this Institution of Higher Education which is expected to represent the claim of Tamils as an intellectually driven community. Interestingly to me, the difference between the terms ‘Federal’ and ‘Confederation’ is the difference between Association and Institution.  When Political parties are not bound by a common value the Parliament is a Confederation of Political Parties. Then the areas in which such Political Parties have majority power would qualify for secession under the laws of Nature – a reason why many young families mentally move away from their parents.

The recent Local Government elections have confirmed that the  Political Parties in Jaffna are showing tendency towards Confederation. This is highlighted as follows in the Daily News article:

[But many intellectuals are becoming disenchanted with the TNA, Thananchayan said, believing they were “too compromised.”
“The TNA is not very strong in demands and wishes to work with the government,” he said.
Instead, young people and intellectuals are looking for a new path to self-determination, separate from the violence of the LTTE, but also different than the political calculus of the TNA.
This has led to some supporting the Tamil National People’s Front, a breakaway from the TNA launched in 2010.]


As per this Daily News article, Professor K. Guruparan, head of the Department of Law at the University of Jaffna, seems to be one of those seeking Confederation.  Likewise at the political level TNPF headed by Mr Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, the grandson of the Hon G G Ponnambalam who wanted 50%  representation of minority dominated electorates  in National Parliament.


Let us check whether the University of Jaffna is a Federal  structure or confederation structure – i.e. an Association of its different faculties. In his letter of Dismissal of an Academic, dated 08 March 2018, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Jaffna, where Professor Guruparan is reported to be the head of Law, wrote:


[The Council having noted the contents of the formal inquiry report, acting in terms of the provisions in the sections 12:4 & 12:5 of chapter XII of the Establishment code of the Universities Grants Commission and the Higher Education  Institutions and the powers vested to the Council of the University under the section 45(2)(XII) of the Universities Act, decided that you be dismissed from the post of Senior Lecturer Grade 1 in Music with effect from 14.10.2015 on which you were served notice of interdiction on the grounds that the above charges against you are proved  in the formal inquiry.]

The letter opens with reference to Charge Sheet dated 01.07.2017. On the face of the above document itself, one is entitled to  conclude that the interdiction took place on 14.10.2015  before charge sheet was issued on 01.07.2017.

To one Bound by the Establishments Code of the University Grants Commission and the Higher Educational Institutes and by the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 , consciously or subconsciously, the University of Jaffna would be an Institution with firm position structures. To one who is not so bound, but uses its power, the University of Jaffna is an Association of Individuals. To the current Vice Chancellor who wrote the above letter of dismissal, the University is an Association. The following confirm that the Vice Chancellor was not so bound by the law:

(1)Chapter XII of the said Establishments Code states in paragraph 1:1 (b) :

1:1 The disciplinary authorities of the University Grants Commission and of Higher Educational Institutions  are:

(b) The Council of a University in respect of the staff of the University- provided that,  except in the case of Officers and Teachers disciplinary powers may be delegated to the Vice Chancellor.

Section 45(2)(xii) of the Act

(2) Section 45(2)(xii) of the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 provides as follows:
(a)            Section 45:
45. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Council shall exercise the powers and perform and discharge the duties and functions conferred or imposed on, or assigned to, the University.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred upon it by subsection (1), the Council shall exercise, perform and discharge the following powers, duties and functions:-
(xii) to appoint persons to, and to suspend, dismiss or otherwise punish persons in the employment of, the University:
Provided that, except in the case of Officers and teachers, these powers may be delegated to the Vice-Chancellor;
The Vice Chancellor in the University of Jaffna of  Mr Sumanthiran’s electorate, by expressly referring to Section  45(2)(xii) in the case of  an Academic has confirmed acting in breach of the law and abused the name of law to deliver his own judgment or the judgment of those whom he is fearful of to dismiss an Associate. If the Council had taken on the authority, the applicable section is Section 45 (1) of the Act.
In the above matter, I highlighted the provisions of Section  45(2)(xii) , on the basis of which the Fundamental Rights Petition filed in the Supreme Court was duly amended. I believe, I noted it due to my absorption of the Unlawful Discrimination pain at the University of NSW. Hence I believe I carry that latent Energy to help the needy – which in this instance is the University of Jaffna where militancy has seriously diluted Institutional powers. Associates in a ‘free environment’ become subdued in an Institutional environment. Hence the duality in Sri Lankan Parliament. Likewise at the University of Jaffna including by law experts the Hon M A Sumanthiran and Professor Guruparan whose 2012 report in the above matter was never published, despite the person being investigated, asking for it.
The question posed at the end of the article is :
[But people such as Guruparan and Thananchayan wonder: “Can they trust the results of a process where they believe they’ve sacrificed so much, where they must go to the Supreme Court just to affirm their right to self-determination?]

The victims of abuse of Administrative power by the Administrators of the University of Jaffna – many of whom have been dismissed on the claim of sexual harassment charges by junior staff and students, without any evidence even in academic areas where records would be available but were suppressed, would also ask the above question in terms of their lost positions and opportunities to earn income.
Mr Harsha Gunasena highlights Gandhi’s contribution to unity as follows:
[Mahatma Gandhi conducted his last hunger strike demanding the rights of the Muslims ]
The best a person can do is to forego her/his own earned pleasures. When such is done in good faith – by one to whom the whole and s/he are one – Natural Forces come to her/his support. That was how TNA become Equal Opposition in Sri Lankan parliament, including through members of the LTTE who believed that they were fighting for self-determination.  That power will support any true believer seeking the militant pathway but did/does so without damaging any other who is also so seeking. They would share their powers with the Muslims, consciously or subconsciously.
Mr Harsha Gunasena  refers to the De Facto Opposition as follows: Those sub-committees were headed by Mahinda Samarasinghe, Rauff Hakeem, Sagala Ratnayaka, Bandula Gunawardana, Susil Premajayantha and Dharmalingam Sithadthen respectively. They have different political affiliations and all the parties represented in the parliament were represented in those committees, including the Joint Opposition. The reports of these sub-committees were published and were available on the web but there was insufficient public debate on those reports.

The Mistress and the Wife cannot be indiscriminately recognized at the same level at the same time, unless the mistress is driven by Truth and Truth alone. When the Joint Opposition is recognized in National Parliament, the Parliament demotes itself to Mistress status. The Official wife in National Parliament is the TNA. The other group is an Association of those driven by de facto mentality – as LTTE was. Sri Lankan Government needs such groups to the extent it is lacking in structural powers of institution. Duality is part of their makeup – as is alternating between pleasure and pain. 


Mavai Senathirajah’s landmark decision

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - 01:00

Jaffna University
During the month of August, amidst a summer dominated by high-level political resignations and firings, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka ruled on a major case.
A Three-Judge Bench, including Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, found that Tamil political parties who were advocating for an increased sharing of power under a new Federal model, were not breaking the law.
“These parties did not support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka,” Chief Justice Dep noted in his decision.
A finding in the opposite direction would have been crippling for parties such Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchchi, or ITAK: arguing for secession is a crime in Sri Lanka under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
At the time, many in civil society, especially Tamil political parties, celebrated Chandrasoma v. Mavai Senathirajaha’s a “landmark” decision.
But a month later, some were beginning to question as to how significant the decision actually was.
A long - fought battle
Recently, in an airy top-floor lecture hall at the University of Jaffna one afternoon, M. A. Sumanthiran defended his hard fought decision in front of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court
Sumanthiran, who is a Member of Parliament for the Jaffna District and a leading Counsel on the case, said the Supreme Court’s decision was a “direction changer” for politics in this country.
The court “had no necessity to go this distance in this particular case,” he said. “But they have.”
Sumanthiran traced the long battle leading to the judges’ unanimous opinion. The petition was originally filed against the ITAK, a constituent party of the Tamil National Alliance, by Hikkadu Koralalage Don Chandrasoma, a resident of Kelaniya, in 2014.
He alleged that the ITAK was a political party whose ‘aims’ and ‘objects’ were the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka. If so, under Article 157A of the Constitution, the party’s members could be stripped of their office as well as their property which was not necessary for the sustenance of such a person and his family.
The petitioner focused on a section of the party’s constitution to build up his case. Its English translation reads: “The objective of this party is to establish political, economic and cultural liberation among the Tamil speaking people by way of forming an autonomous Tamil Government and autonomous Muslim Government as part of the united federal Sri Lanka in accordance with the principles of self - determination.”
But Lawyers for Chandrasoma said the party’s constitution had been amended in 2008 to replace the word ‘federal’ with confederation,’ which means an alliance between separate and sovereign states, rather than allied states under a central government.
Sumanthiran and his legal team however, countered that point, arguing that the petitioner had misunderstood the Tamil word in question. In 2008, the Party did change the Constitution’s wording, he said, to replace the Sanskritized “samashdi” with the pure Tamil “inaippadchi.”
The Official Languages Commission agreed with position.
In response, the petitioner acknowledged that the word did not meant confederation, but argued that the act of advocating for self-determination in itself involved attaining an independent state.
But once again, the court sided with ITAK. “It is clear that the right to self-determination has had an internal dimension, in that, it could be exercised within the country to the benefit of a ‘people,’ inside the country,” the Chief Justice wrote.
The judges dismissed Chandrasoma’s petition on August 4th.
Sumanthiran stressed that this was a major achievement.
“So the significance of the judgement is that it says it is not illegal, it is not unlawful and it is not unconstitutional to claim to have a system of government based on a federal form, based on the principle of right to self-determination and shared sovereignty,” Sumanthiran said.
He said these findings provide Tamil parties important legitimacy and leverage at the bargaining table of the new Constitution-making process.

But Professor K. Guruparan, head of the Department of Law at the University of Jaffna, was more critical in his assessment of the decision.
“The fact that a political party in Sri Lanka has to go through the Supreme Court and convince Court that they are not advocating for secession, is in itself an attack on free speech,” he said.
Guruparan added that he believed the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution which criminalizes advocating for secession, should be done away with.
He agreed with Sumanthiran that the Court’s ruling “goes against the grain” of previous government decisions.
But pointed to specific parts of the opinion he found troublesome.
Although the decision legitimized the political parties’ ability to advocate for a federal form of power-sharing, it does not explicitly say if arguing for a confederation model is the same as arguing for secession.
In fact, the Court had taken great pains to make sure the ITAK was promoting a “federal” form of government, rather than a “confederation.”
Guruparan said that presently, it was not clear if parties that argue for a confederation model, where sovereign states give a specified set of functions to a central authority, such as the European Union, would now stand in violation of the Constitution.
The language of the decision, he said, gives a “problematic, rigid interpretation of what a unitary state means.”
“We need to be careful,” he added.
Shifting the political landscape
After the forum, Sinnarasa Thananchayan, a Law student of the University of Jaffna, said the two men’s positions represented a fundamental change happening in Tamil politics.
Sumanthiran’s position was rooted in the landscape of a party politician, where the currency is measurable political wins and losses. “I’ve consistently argued these concepts in front of the courts,” he had said earlier. “This is a direction change.”
But many intellectuals are becoming disenchanted with the TNA, Thananchayan said, believing they were “too compromised.”
“The TNA is not very strong in demands and wishes to work with the government,” he said.
Instead, young people and intellectuals are looking for a new path to self-determination, separate from the violence of the LTTE, but also different than the political calculus of the TNA.
This has led to some supporting the Tamil National People’s Front, a breakaway from the TNA launched in 2010.
Thananchayan said the TNPF argues more forcefully for recognition of the Tamil identity, a strong federal system of government and accountability for war crimes.
The decision in Chandrasoma v. Mavai Senathirajah may give the Tamil parties a stronger position in the new constitution-making process.
But people such as Guruparan and Thananchayan wonder: “Can they trust the results of a process where they believe they’ve sacrificed so much, where they must go to the Supreme Court just to affirm their right to self-determination?
If they get a new Constitution, would it actually represent their interests?


No comments:

Post a Comment