Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

09 December 2018

Rajapaksa Family – the Royal Family of Sri Lanka?

[President’s Counsel K. Kanag Iswaran yesterday countering the arguments of the respondents and the intervenient petitioners underlined the fact that the immunity conferred on the Executive President was only on his person and not on his acts or actions.]- Daily Mirror article of 08-12-2018, headed-‘Immunity not to President's actions: Kanag Iswaran PC’

I felt uplifted because I  had written  as follows on 06 December in two articles:

(1) Is the Sri Lankan President Above the Law? - Yes

there are certain instances where President’s actions are not covered by immunity and some of these are covered by Article 126:

Article 35

(1)  [While any person holds office as President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity: Provided further that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the exercise of the powers of the President under Article 33(2)(g).]

Article 126, as per my interpretation is about fundamental rights.

(2) The Attorney General is the Proper Person

The essence of the above to my mind is that while the President is being held accountable to Parliament as part of the Parliament, s/he is being protected as being above the law. In other words, the position is purely Governing position with that Article 35(1) exemption.

there are certain instances where President’s actions are not covered by immunity and some of these are covered by Article 126:

Article 35

(3)  [While any person holds office as President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, either in his official or private capacity: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be read and construed as restricting the right of any person to make an application under Article 126 against the Attorney-General, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the President, in his official capacity: Provided further that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the exercise of the powers of the President under Article 33(2)(g).]

The above experience brought to mind another experience at the University of NSW. I said to an Academic-Administrator that he was talking exactly like the Administrator whom he found to be unfit for his position. He then completed my expression by saying ‘It felt as if I was speaking X’s mind?’ I said ‘yes’. My admiration was of course for the Academic who articulated my thoughts. I should not have been because the Academic was one of the first to confirm that I had read him correctly – by stating that I had good insight. Later other academics also made that observation. Likewise two in my immediate family. I value all of them.

These subjective powers work us from the inside. Often we do not consciously recognise and we may not even know the other person. When we know that other person we tend to follow the hierarchical subjective pathway. Once we know we need to pay our respects or expect them to do pay us their respects – so the relationship is Sovereign. If we instead, translate that as benefits – including status benefits – we weaken the connection. Disciplining the junior (known or otherwise) who translates the energy into matter – as money and status benefits – maintains the Sovereignty of the relationship.

I thanked Mother Kali in Sangarathai-Thunaivi – because we – Mr Kanag Iswaran and I -  do not relate directly to each other. To me it was our common feeling for that place that provided the ‘insight’ into an issue at common level.

My reward came from within the Tamil Diaspora seeking my services in relation to a global presentation of the Tamil issue. THAT to me is confirmation of my practice of Democracy. I shared my insight in common and someone whom I do not know personally and therefore do not share status with  - sought my services in a global issue. I felt honoured.

To the extent our sharing is confidential, it has the subjective power to work the relationship as two or more bodies; one mind.  In contrast I find such ‘internal energy’ lacking in SLFP – Political party – common to Mr Sirisena, Mr Rajapaksa and Madam Kumaratunga. This was communicated to me through the following message from the current General Secretary of the SLFP :

‘Responding to former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s allegation that she had not been invited for the SLFP Convention, despite being a patron, Party  General Secretary Professor Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa said Kumaratunga had not been invited to the 4 December Party Convention, because she had not attended any of the SLFP activities lately.’

Given that Professor Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa did not develop that position from zero base, he inherited the net value of virtues and sins of his predecessors in that position. This includes Mr Sirisena. When one does not actively contribute to the position’s structure and through such to the whole that the position is part of  – but merely uses it to derive benefits – one often becomes the messenger of the ghosts or spirits / sins and virtues , of that position. In this instance Professor Piyadasa has demonstrated to be the medium of the ghosts in that position.

Madam Kumaratunga’s  presidency was confirmed to be of positive value to Sri Lanka as a whole – especially considering that the lady is natural member of minorities in terms of gender based leadership. SLFP for both Mr Sirisena and Mr Rajapaksa was the parental family that give birth to them in politics. As a patron, Madam Kumaratunga inherits the governing leadership of that position. One who fails to respect such a governor – but uses relative reasons/justification,  confirms serious lack of investment in governance which naturally connects us to other governors.

This is also the reason why Mr Sirisena and Mr Rajapaksa failed – as every child who ‘uses’ parents and their status for current benefits fails as a family. Only a true heir has the capability of producing other true heirs and maintain the structure through succession.

In a testamentary case Appeal heard in Jaffna Civil Appellate High Court the judges reasoned  as follows:

Paragraph 10  on Page  13 of the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court under the heading Facts of the case states:

[10) It is submitted, on behalf of the 02^nd Respondent-Respondent that even though, the value of movables in Sri Lanka is about less than a Million the Law does not clearly permit the monies lying in Barclays Bank to be subjected to jurisdiction and administration by the Sri Lankan Court. It is for the Probate Court of U.K.  to administer same. It is untenable to combine, the monies lying in U.K. and in Sri Lanka, to make it appear, the value of Assets (movable are more than Rupees Four Million Rs. 4,000,000/-) and to claim for Letters of Administration which is contrary to Law

11) This had been fully analysed by the Late Supreme Court Judge Hon Dr. Mark Fernando in his judgment Ratnasingham Vs Tikiri Banda Disanaike and Others – report in 1998 1 SLR]

As is clear from the above, the Sri Lankan Judiciary does separate Succession from Current Administration. Succession is as per Governance / Ownership rules. Administration is as per merit based performance in current environment. By failing to demonstrate respect for the Patron / Governor – the SLFP as it is ‘shown’ confirms lack of Governance power. That was also confirmed by Mr Rajapaksa who has taken over the branches of the SLFP without its roots.

This has been highlighted as follows by veteran journalist DBS Jeyaraj, as if the Rajapaksa family is the royal family in Sri Lanka:

[SLPP BECAME AN ESTABLISHED POLITICAL ENTITY
In such a situation, many political observers felt that the writing was on the wall politically for the Ruhunu Rajapaksas. But that did not happen. Despite the adverse setbacks, the political stock of Ruhunu Rajapaksas continued to remain on par with ‘Medamulana Mahinda’ continuing to retain his position as the single-most popular political leader in the seven provinces outside the North and the East. Moreover, the newly-formed Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP) which revolves around Mahinda Rajapaksa got the better of both the UNP and SLFP and emerged as the leading victor at the local authorities’ elections. The SLPP with its symbol of lotus bud became an established political entity known popularly as “Pohottuwa.” In such a situation the Mahinda-led opposition seemed confident that the days of the Sirisena -Wickremesinghe government were numbered and that the political resurgence and return to power of the Ruhunu Rajapaksas was inevitable. ] Daily mirror article ‘Mahinda’s Hurried Backdoor Power Grab and the Gotabhaya Factor’

As per the above North and East are the ‘free’ areas – open to Democracy after the war.  The rest of Sri Lanka is strongly attached to current benefits on the basis of which the Rajapaksas ‘show’ and ‘tell’. This has been confirmed by Mr Sirisena as reported by Colombo Page article headed ‘Sri Lanka President admits Mahinda Rajapaksa bribing MPs to show majority’

Globalization confirms successful democracy,   as heritage confirms successful autocracy. These two leaders confirm neither.