Tuesday 6 November 2018

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

06 November 2018

Self-Dismissal of the Sri Lankan President

If we stay within the authority of  our Truth, including mentally, we would invoke the Truth in others. Those who are physically driven – for example by majority power – would be strongly influenced by their physical environment. When Mr Sirisena was elected President of Sri Lanka, his physical environment included Madam Kumaratunga. When I first met Madam Kumaratunga in 2005 – the strongest thought in my mind was that of appreciation – that as a female she had made it to the top and stayed there. To my mind this becomes possible due to ‘reserve’ powers that accumulate through every sacrifice we make relative to others in the institution that we are part of. In this instance the institution is Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). It is due to this power that Hindus refer to mothers who get/take relatively less than others in the family – as Shakthi. Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa while he was part of SLFP drew relatively more benefits than Madam Kumaratunga when the lady was the President.

Once Mr Sirisena had custody of the position of President – he failed to attribute to Madam Kumaratunga and also to Mr Wickremesinghe forgoing the opportunity to contest in the Presidential elections and splitting the Sinhalese vote against Rajapaksa. Mr Sirisena abandoned the institutional and became the individual by ‘forgetting’ his parents / makers. The reasons to as per my seeking are in the genes:

[While still in school, as a teenager, Sirisena became interested in communism and joined the Communist Party becoming closely associated with party leader N. Shanmugathasan in party activities. In 1968, he took part in a communist party anti-government rally which was broken up by baton charging police.
At the age of 17, years he was chosen as the secretary of the SLFP Youth Organisation in Polonnaruwa by the SLFP Member of Parliament for Polonnaruwa, Leelaratna Wijesingha.]
Sri Lanka as per the Constitution is a Buddhist country. It can therefore be led through Buddhist values but is not by constitution cannot be Common to all religions. This breaches the principles of Communism – according to which – as per my understanding – all resources are owned in common – until one demonstrates merit based deservedness. The law – often taken from wider world – leads those with net positive investment in it – to the higher level of enjoyment. This is the difference between relationships by law and de facto relationships. Law comes before Truth in the former. The structured marriage takes us to the higher level locally and therefore to appreciate and include ourselves in the experiences of others outside our physical environment. SLFP’s problem in this regard is that they have become de facto government and hence are not able to participate in wider experiences outside their immediate physical experiences – made worse during Rajapaksa time through nepotism.
The difference between Tamil National Alliance as the leading opposition in Parliament and the Joint Opposition led by Mr Rajapaksa is exactly that. TNA is empowered by all of us who are strongly committed to global laws. The president had the duty to reject the Joint Opposition  declaration that would naturally dilute the investment that the Parliament as a whole was making in the lawful structures through which government delivered outcomes.
As per the latest news report:
[President Maithripala Sirisena said today that he offered the premiership to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya first and then to UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa before considering former President Mahinda Rajapaksa for the post of Prime Minister.
Addressing a public rally named ‘Rata Surakina Jana Mahimaya’, he said the UNP MPs who met him during the past few days asked him why Mr. Rajapaksa was appointed the Prime Minister contrary to the aspirations of UNPers as they were the ones who installed him as the president in 2015.
For the first time in four years, he appeared on the same stage with Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday at this rally in Battaramulla.]

The Executive Presidency is the top position in a hierarchical administrative  structure. Relative to the SLFP – the UNP is more hierarchical by structure and is far more law-abiding. The above response confirms that Mr Sirisena lacks investment in the hierarchical system in which the junior must never overtake to become the senior. The maximum limit is Equal status and the excess becomes a common facility that naturally empowers the person to work the system. Beyond a point – the excess becomes independent Energy that leads the person to reap compound benefits at the higher level. That is Soul power. By refusing to accept such offers – the Hon Speaker and the Hon Sajith Premadasa have confirmed their strong investment in institutional structures.

Yesterday, when we were discussing this issue within the family and I expressed further dismay at the lack of depth displayed by Dr Laksiri Fernando, through  his Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Evolving Disaster: Agreeing to Call for Election Might be the Best’ my husband reminded me that as per his understanding, Laksiri was one time advisor to Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa. That further explained his disagreement with Mr Wickremsinghe. But relating it at the surface level – meaning without academic depth nor experience as an Australian was most disappointing – especially because of my investment in Sri Lanka Guardian. Below is the relevant passage:

[An Example from Australia
The controversy is because of the unexpected and the dramatic nature that it had happened apart from its secretive or ‘conspiratorial’ nature. Such dramatic changes have not been uncommon in Westminster model democracies as well. Among many examples, the dismissal of the sitting Prime Minister, with even a majority in Parliament, was enacted in 1975 in Australia. For easy reference I am quoting from Wikipedia. However there are many books written on the subject.
On 11 November 1975, [Prime Minister Gough] Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek [Governor-General Sir John] Kerr’s approval of the election, Kerr instead dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed [Malcolm] Fraser in his place.”
That was also called a constitutional crisis. Jenny Hocking (‘The Dismissal Dossier,’ 2015) in her award winning biography of Gough Whitlam, reveals the astonishing secret story of the planning, the people and the collusion behind the removal of the sitting Prime Minister, Whitlam.
However, Whitlam did not resist, did not claim he is the Prime Minister or did not refuse to leave the official residence. Within a month, the election was held and Fraser returned with a massive majority. The Parliament was not prorogued but dissolved! Now our constitutional pundits claim that the President even cannot dissolve Parliament and it requires a two-thirds majority. People may have to very carefully look at this anarchist 19th Amendment and look for alternatives.]
In the Australian case – Mr Whitlam did in substance what Mr Wickremsinghe is doing – following the lawful process. In the Australian ‘dismissal’ the Governor had ‘reserve powers’ to dismiss the Prime Minister. Reserve powers are explained as follows in the same Wikipedia that Dr Laksiri Fernando claims to have taken the information from:

[As established by the Constitution of Australia, the Parliament of Australia is composed of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, together with the Queen. The monarch is represented through the Governor-General, who has executive powers granted in the Constitution, as well as rarely exercised reserve powers. The reserve powers are the legal authorities remaining in the Crown after most of its historic powers were transferred to Parliament or to officials. The Governor-General is ordinarily bound by convention to act only upon the advice of the government and the Prime Minister, but can act independently and against advice in exercising the reserve powers. The Governor-General is removable by the Queen on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. As Liberal Party leader Malcolm Fraser, who would play a large part in the crisis, put it, "The Queen has tenure, and she couldn't be sacked. But a Governor-General holds office at pleasure, and if he ceases to please then he can be removed by a Prime Minister."
As in most Westminster system parliaments, Australia's government is ordinarily formed by the party enjoying the confidence of the lower House of Parliament, the House of Representatives. However, Australia's Parliament also has a powerful upper house, the Senate, which must pass any legislation initiated by the House of Representatives if it is to become law. The composition of the Senate, in which each state has an equal number of senators regardless of that state's population, was originally designed to attract the Australian colonies into one Federation. The Constitution forbids the Senate to originate or amend a money bill, but places no limitation on the Senate's ability to defeat one. In 1970, Gough Whitlam, as Leader of the Opposition, had stated of a budget bill, "Let me make it clear at the outset that our opposition to this Budget is no mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means on all related measures in both Houses. If the motion is defeated, we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy this Budget and destroy the Government which has sponsored it."]
People remember Mr Whitlam’s ‘curse
The above Australian Dismissal happened by Senate blocking Supply. THAT is the confirmation of the President lacking confidence in the Prime Minister. But our Constitution has the following provision also:
“The Constitution forbids the Senate to originate or amend a money bill, but places no limitation on the Senate's ability to defeat one”
By originating the dismissal – Mr Sirisena has confirmed serious lack of commitment to the principles of Democracy and has acted as the Sole-Authority of the parliament – using it as a source of benefits – rather than the source through which rights are confirmed.

The Hon Gough Whitlam said this about the Australian parallel of Mr Sirisena:

["Well may we say 'God Save the Queen' – because nothing will save the Governor-General."]

No comments:

Post a Comment