21 February 2019

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

STATEMENT BY MRS GAJALAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM – 6^TH RESPONDENT

In the matter regarding - Administration of the Intestate Estate of

Mr. Subramaniam Yoganathan of Vaddukoddai

Civil Appellate High Court Case – APPEAL/74/2016; LA 33/2015

D.C.Mallakam Case No. T/55/2011

Preamble

(i)                 On 07 September 2018, The Second Appellant-6^th Respondent, Mrs Gajalakshmi Paramasivam,  personally visited the Mallakam Court Registrar who confirmed that he and the lawyer of the other heirs were collecting monies and that he intended to pay the creditors. The Second Appellant confirmed that this was ADMINISTRATION which was categorically ruled out in the case of Sri Lankan wealth

(ii)               On 09 September 2018 – the Second Appellant wrote to the Mallakam Court Registrar which in essence gave the following message:

[As urged by me on Friday, I ask that you go through the Petition carefully to confirm the ‘fact’ that the Petitioners sought NO Administration but only Certificates of Heirship. We objected and claimed that Administration was needed and we claimed that we would Administer. As you rightly kept highlighting we were apparently ‘dismissed’ by both courts. But in substance we confirmed the need for Administration for about 95% of the intestate estate. I confirm my belief that without our objection – the Court would have paid monies claimed as deductions – shown as due to themselves and their silent partners. Please note that the Petitioners did not state that we – the 5^th and 6^th Respondents should not be granted probate/administrative authority. They categorically claimed that the law did NOT require Administration because the assets in Sri Lanka were less than Rs 4,000,000. They were using your dependence on them to pretend that the Court did not need the  Authority of the Law to Administer the Estate. Effectively, you have taken our entitlement by demoting us and then taking over our position without the authority of the law. ]

Current Process

On 18 February 2019

1.      The 5^th & 6^th Respondents (Mr & Mrs Paramasivam) together with the lawyer for the Petitioners – Mr SD Yogendra, attended the Registrar’s Office of Mallakam District Court

2.      The NSB pass book that was allegedly to collect the monies in relation to the Estate showed no record of any transactions.  Mr. Yogendra ‘waited’ in the Registrar’s office for the passbook to be updated and since we were, through our Attorney at Law  joint-signatories to the motion to execute the Court order as interpreted by the Registrar of Mallakam District Court, we (Mr & Mrs Paramasivam) also waited with Mr Yogendra – while the Registrar was taking over from the lady Registrar on ground floor - who as per my understanding, was going on maternity leave.

3.      The Registrar during his conversation with  Mr Yogendra stated that he needed approval from the regular judge to release the monies. That judge was on leave and the judge who made the ruling on 18 February was acting.

4.      After some time, Mr Yogendra got up and declared that he was leaving. The Registrar kept asking Mr Yogendra repeatedly  to take a seat but Mr Yogendra continued to stand.  After Mr Yogendra left, the Registrar asked  Mr & Mrs Paramasivam to leave the room and wait outside, to learn about his Administrative decision  in relation to the monies collected. 

5.      Mrs Paramasivam said words to the effect ‘We are offended by the fact that you kept asking Mr Yogendra to take a seat but are chasing us out of the room once Mr Yogendra left’ . The Registrar stated words to the effect that it would be inappropriate for us to observe the inner workings of his office. While waiting Mr & Mrs Paramasivam heard  the Registrar asking the Bank Officer – over the phone to bring short-eats in compensation for being late in responding to his call. That kind of chit-chat was going on while we the members of the Public were waiting for completion of an Administrative process that ought to have been completed soon after 19 March 2018 when the Civil Appellate High Court – Jaffna delivered its judgment .

6.      The Registrar asked us who we were and Mr Paramasivam said that he was the brother of the Deceased and I said that I was the 6^th Respondent in the matter concerned.

7.      Mrs Paramasivam asked the Registrar whether he could call and inform them of the outcome of the Administrative process. The Registrar said it was not up to him to call but that we could call and find out.

8.      Mr & Mrs Paramasivam left the office and the courts

9.      Mrs Paramasivam rang at 1521 hrs and 1605 hrs respectively and was informed that the Registrar had gone out. Mrs Paramasivam left a message. The Registrar called Mrs Paramasivam and informed her that the  judge had ruled for his decision to be declared in open court on 20 February 2019.

On 20 February 2019

10.  Mr & Mrs Paramasivam presented themselves at the Registrar’s office around 0900 hrs. They were informed that  the Registrar had not returned from Vavuniya where  his family was, but was expected soon.  Mrs Paramasivam explained that the Registrar had called her and informed her that the ruling would be in open court – and asked whether it was necessary for our lawyer to be present. The officer said he did not know – but that we could find out details from the record room.

11.  At the record room we were informed that the matter was listed for that day but that the Registrar’s report had not been filed

12.  Mrs Paramasivam asked the officer who seemed the  most senior officer present and seemed to take charge – as to whether a lawyer was needed – the officer said it was not up to him to advise us on that.

13.  Mr & Mrs Paramasivam noticed the presence of the Registrar around 0915 hrs and walked into the outer registry and asked the Registrar whether he had given his report. The Registrar said  that it was not our business and for Mr & Mrs Paramasivam to wait in the open court .

14.  Mr & Mrs Paramasivam instructed  their attorney to be present in court

15.  Many matters – mostly criminal – were called and we waited. At one point, Mrs Paramasivam felt the need to go and check with our Attorney who being aged was slow in moving and he said for her to go back to open court and that he would follow.

16.  Within minutes of  Mrs Paramasivam’s arrival back in court – matter T55/2011 was called. Both – Mr & Mrs Paramasivam registered their presence. The  Officer Assisting the judge asked us who our Attorney was and Mrs Paramasivam stated that it was Mr Anthony George and confirmed that he was on his way. The Officer stated that civil matters could not be taken up without an attorney at law.

17.  Mr & Mrs Paramasivam informed Mr Anthony George about this and  Mr Anthony George stated that the file would be listed as ‘pending’. After waiting in the courtroom for some time - Mr Anthony George went to the Record room to find out why the matter was not called again. Mrs Paramasivam accompanied him. He was informed by another lady attorney at the record room that his matter was placed as ‘pending’. But the record officers informed Mr Anthony George that the file had come back and that he needed to move another motion.

18.  The  Officer Assisting the judge thus far, was replaced by another officer who seemed to be the one who stated in the record-room that the officer said it was not up to him to advise us on whether or not we needed a lawyer to represent us in Court. The first officer clearly articulated the rule whereas the record-room officer stated that it was not his business.

19.  Mr Anthony George asked to read the report by the Registrar. The officer picked up the file and walked into the registry. Mr Anthony George and Mrs Paramasivam followed. After discussing with another officer in the Registry – the record-room officer asked us to wait. Mr Anthony George asked them to ask the Registrar on ground floor but was asked by the officers to wait for the main Registrar to come back. We were informed that  the Registrar had gone  on  ‘writ service’ and would be back in about an hour. Mr Anthony George asked Mrs Paramasivam whether she could ‘wait’. Mrs Paramasivam declined – stating she had other urgent matters to attend to. Mrs Paramasivam asked Mr Anthony George to inform her over the phone. Mr Anthony George informed the clients that the Registrar had not returned and promised to pursue it today.

SUMMARY OF DISORDERS OBSERVED

a)      The Officer in the Record room needed to know that we needed a lawyer in civil matters taken up before the judge. If this is fundamental requirement of the Court,  every Administrative Court Officer needed to have knowledge of this and consider it her/his duty to inform the Public who make inquiries in this regard.

b)      The report required to be submitted by the Registrar was NOT in the file that  came back from the Courtroom to the Record room. Mr Anthony George, the attorney representing Mr & Mrs Paramasivam confirmed this morning at about that he was yet to sight that report. It is therefore in breach of process to require the litigants to move another motion in regards to the matter, which was already heard and decided on – as mentioned in paragraph 2 above. The one who initiated the last process was the Registrar and it is his duty to move the matter again for whatever approval he needs in executing the court order.

c)      JURISDICTION

(i)                 Mr & Mrs Paramasivam question the validity of Mallakam Court’s authority to  collect monies and Administer  this ‘settlement’ . The basis of their logic lies in the fact that the Civil Appellate Court decided on 28 September 2016, that the decision delivered by the Mallakam District Court on 26 February 2015 was interlocutory. (page 10 of the judgment):

‘In these circumstances on  the  basis of the Chettiyar Vs Chettiyar (Supra) case cited above, the order from which Leave to Appeal is sought is in effect an interlocutory order. Accordingly the Preliminary objection raised by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents-Petitioners and 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Respondents-Respondents is overruled.’

(ii)               From then onwards, the hearing was by the Civil Appellate High Court which did hear arguments in relation to the following:

·         Whether or not Administration was mandatory (paragraph  4 on page 11 and paragraph 7 on page 12 of the Judgment)

·         The share that each heir was entitled to as per Thesawalamai Law (second last paragraph   on page 18 of the Judgment)

(iii)             The Appellants therefore concluded that both issues were heard by and final decision was delivered by the Civil Appellate High Court of Jaffna.

(iv)             The third last paragraph of the final judgment on  last paragraph of the Judgment concludes  as follows:

‘Having examined the evidence I am inclined to agree with the findings of the Learned Trial Judge and I conclude that issues had been correctly answered. Therefore, I affirm the judgment of the learned District Judge, Mallakam, dated 26.02.2015’

(v)               The last paragraph of the final judgment on  last paragraph of the Judgment directs  as follows:

‘Registrar is directed to forward the Original record along with this judgment to District Court, Mallakam.’

To my mind, once the Appellate Court ruled that the decision delivered by the Mallakam District Court was interlocutory as presented in  c (i) above,  the Mallakam District Court did not have the Jurisdiction to continue with the matter as if the decision was final judgment.   If we had appealed the decision as final – then the Civil Appellate Court would have had the jurisdiction to revert the matter and its settlement to Mallakam District Court. We successfully applied for leave to appeal on the basis that the decision was interlocutory. The Civil Appellate Court continued to hear the rest of the case and delivered judgment on 14 March 2018. That judgment was delivered by Civil Appellate Court which completed the primary trial and therefore did not have the authority to dismiss the Appeal and revert the matter to Mallakam District Court.

The reasoning and the wording of the judgment of the Mallakam District Court and that of the Civil Appellate Court are totally different.  In addition the words ‘Having examined the evidence’  confirm that the Civil Appellate Court did hear the case on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of ‘error of facts’. As per my knowledge an appeal is valid on the basis of ‘error of law’ and / or ‘error of facts’.  Evidence confirms ‘facts’ and not the other way around. The reason for this is the common belief that does not require proof and therefore evidence. A court that  heard and examined evidence is considered to have gone through primary hearing. That court ‘owns’ the decision delivered – as per the mind of the judge before whom objective and subjective evidence is presented. The strength of the subjective evidence depends on the common belief   between the judge and the lawyer presenting the argument as well as the witnesses.

His honour Judge Elancheleyan for example mentions in second last paragraph on page 18 as follows:

‘The evidence of the 02^nd and 04^th Respondents-Respondents and that of the 06^th Respondent were closely examined by the Learned District Judge, on the issue whether the 02^nd and 04^th Respondents were given dowry and came to a conclusion, that  issue was not proved by the 05^th and 06^th Respondents-Petitioners. The 06^th Respondent –Petitioner gave evidence in Court and said that her husband had only told her about the dowry, given to the 02^nd and 04^th Respondent-Respondents, which the Judge classified as hearsay and rejected the evidence and held the Estate should devolve equally to the four siblings of the deceased.....’

If  his honour Judge Elancheleyan had heard the evidence – he may have received it at a different level of common belief – which is the foundation formed intuitively through common belief.  The validity of that common belief  in this instance would include cultural norms on which Thesawalamai is based. His honour Judge Elancheleyan accepted the interpretation of the District Court Judge’s common base with me – thereby denying me the higher level commonness that I was entitled to from a higher level judge and practitioner of the laws concerned.

In addition, as raised by our Counsel  Mr Kanagasingham,  in District court hearing, the communication was between husband and wife and therefore was belief based.  We were entitled to be taken as being bound by common belief until proven otherwise.  Hence it is unjust to dismiss our evidence as hearsay,  which dismissal   has the effect of considering our marriage relationship as being not valid in a court of law.  The transcript of the proceedings would confirm that this was the case at Mallakam District court. But in the civil appellate court his honour Judge Elancheleyan did dismiss the statement  by the petitioners that this was second marriage to me – by asking the question ‘it’s lawful marriage ; isn’t it?’  Once his honour so accepted – his honor had the duty to dismiss the definition that my subjective evidence was ‘hearsay’. No belief based evidence  can be defined as ‘hearsay’. Belief is the basis of  acceptable ‘ subject evidence’ and hence unless there was independent objective evidence to prove that our marriage was not valid before the law – the court did not have the jurisdiction to qualify as hearsay – the information shared between husband and wife.

Effectively therefore the wording ‘The Appeal is dismissed’ has no value in law – i.e. bad in law. Since we did not go ahead with the appeal the to the Supreme Court – we are entitled to the decision by the Civil Appellate Court and execution of the lawful part of the decision by  the Civil Appellate Court

The handling of this matter by the Mallakam District Court is beyond its jurisdiction. It is hoped that steps are taken so  that this kind of negative experience ceases from now on, in our Motherland.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

The Registrar

Mallakam District Court

Mallakam

Sri Lanka

21 February  2019

Dear Registrar,

Administration of the Intestate Estate of

Mr. Subramaniam Yoganathan of Vaddukoddai

Civil Appellate High Court Case – APPEAL/74/2016; LA 33/2015

D.C.Mallakam Case No. T/55/2011

I refer to your Administration of the above matter .

I confirm that at the request of  Mr  SD Yogendra, the  attorney at law representing  my siblings, I agreed to present a joint motion at Mallakam District Court to withdraw my share of the  Sri Lankan wealth of my brother Mr Subramaniam Yoganathan. But the way my wife and I  were treated by you and your staff  has been very disrespectful and as a Senior Citizen of Sri Lanka, I strongly object to your lack of commitment to duty as a Public Administrator.

I attach a list of the disorders that my wife and I observed and experienced, on 18 February when we attended  your office along with Mr Yogendra and on 20 February, when my wife and I attended Courts as per your information that  the Judge had listed the matter to be heard on 20 February 2019, in open court.

In addition, my wife advises me that  it is in breach of Due Process for this matter to be considered by the Mallakam District Court  and I attach her statement in this regard.    

Yours sincerely

Subramaniam Paramasivam

CC: Hon Justice Nalin Perera – Chairman

Judicial Services Commission,

P.O. Box 573, Hulftsdorp – Colombo 12– Sri Lanka

The Secretary, Judicial Service Commission Secretariat; P.O.Box 573, Hulftsdrop,

Colombo 12.Sri Lanka;

The Registrar

Civil Appellate High Court of Jaffna

Front Street ; Jaffna

Mr Subramaniam Tharmalingam& Mrs AnandaletchumyTharmalingam  , c/o Mr D Yogendra, Attorney at law

Mr Yohananda Sabanathan &Mrs Saraswathy Sabanathan; 37, Old Field Road; Seven Hills; NSW 2147; Australia

Mr Sellathurai Mahadevan & Mrs Sakthidevy Mahadevan; Kallady Lane; Vaddukoddai South West; Northern ProvinceSri Lanka

Mr. Visvalingam Manivannan – Attorney at Law, Jaffna

Mr SD S D Yogendra - Attorney at Law,

M/S Mather & Ramanathan

Attorneys at Law and Notaries Public

136, Hultsdorf St

Colombo 12

The Hon Dr Suren Raghavan

Governor – Northern Province – Sri Lanka

The Hon C V Wigneswaran – Immediate past  Chief Minister – Northern Province – Sri Lanka

The SecretaryBarAssociation of Sri Lanka No.153, MihinduMawatha,

Colombo 12, Sri Lanka

The Hon Justice Elancheleyan, C/o Judicial Services Commission Sri Lanka

Mr J Gajanithibalan – District Court – Mallakam -  C/o Judicial Services Commission Sri Lanka

Duty Judge – 18 February 2019 - – Mallakam District Court - Mallakam

Others concerned.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

14 February 2019

Tamils Blessed with Positive Administrative Energy

Along with members of the Public I also waited to meet the new Governor of Northern Province of Sri Lanka. Until yesterday, my interactions with Dr Raghavan were limited to email messages from me and a couple of acknowledgements from Dr Raghavan. The last was to inform me that he was happy to engage with a member of the Diaspora about northern issues.

As usual in Sri Lankan public service and more particularly Northern Sri Lankan Public Service, the arrangements were top-down telling. When asked about the reason as to why I sought to meet the Governor – I ended up writing my complaint – that the officers did not distinguish between potential Service Providers and potential Beneficiaries. We were all grouped as one. While waiting for the arrival of the Governor I kept reminding myself that the treatment in Northern Courts was worse. When I was served food(sundal/gram)  and drinks while waiting – I declined. The lady serving was courteous and  addressed me as ‘madam’. I reciprocated the respect. This helped me calm down. One of the junior members of staff - a slim tall guy – made up for the lack of courtesy demonstrated by the more senior officer. I wished him well. I believe that my positive Energy in Public Administration is thus shared with such officers who become the media of our energy rather than using us as the media for their energy.

I did not know what to expect of the Governor. I reminded myself of the ‘waits’ at Jaffna Kachcheri, Valigamam West Pradeshiya Sabai – where I was initially sent from pillar to post even to ‘provide’ service and thus share my energy. The reminder helped me not to expect better from the new Governor of my hometown – Jaffna. As he stepped out of the vehicle, Dr Raghavan apologized for the delay – not once but twice. I knew then that he had positive energy in including the public as part of himself. I felt more at ease. While waiting I discussed issues with those waiting and cleared their doubts in some areas. With one group that was there for employment  related problem at the Local Government level, I urged them to trust the new Governor. I said not to tell him in detail – but to submit  the essence and then to listen to what he had to say. I said that he was a believer in spiritual powers and therefore – it would be easy for the potential beneficiary to connect to the divinity in Dr Raghavan. The young guy seemed to settle down. I identified with the divinity – because when I wanted to give up and leave and opened my handbag to take out the phone to call the taxi – the picture of my god in my handbag was the first sight I had. I felt that I was being asked by the divinity in me - to wait. When I was speaking to the above guy, I had already been facilitated to be next on line to meet the governor. Hence I felt that it was divine influence.

When I did meet the Governor he was quick to comprehend that I was a potential service provider and asked me as to what my areas of expertise were. I said Accounting and Public Administration. When Dr Raghavan outlined the need in health related area – I felt that it was my own true investment speaking through his mind. THAT was the confirmation of one-mindedness in Public Administration that Jaffna needs badly – especially at a time when the political power in North is very weak. Most importantly – the Governor thanked me.

This morning I read the message headed ‘Congrats to MrsCharles - DG Customs’ from an Australian  Tamil community leader, which included the following observation:

[When I was growing up in Colombo in my teenage years, there were many instances where the Northerners occupying key positions were highly praised as they did an honest job!!

Unfortunately things are so corrupt nowadays!!!

Until top politicians in parliament are punished for their corrupt, greed – there is no hope!!!!]

This was overridden by Mr Leo Fernando – the author of the above mentioned article,  as follows:

[…..One further point I wish to state here is that in my career in the public service and in the public corporate sector, I have found that our colleagues from the North always did an honest job and were "worthy of their hire". They were an example to the others.

 LEO FERNANDO]

I was happy to identify with the above through my own experience with Dr Raghavan – who as per my observation was not saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – but providing reasons in Admin language understood by the Public in North.  I thanked our ancestral powers in Administration for answering my prayers.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

03 February 2019

Coexistence or Unitary State?

Sri Lankans are now debating between the existing Unitary structure and Federal structure as a better alternative through which to Administer and Govern.  Administration is the pathway to common governance. When we administer as per our conscience – we become self-governing. Such administration may be in harmony with laws of the nation / area or they may not be. Where they are not – those laws are counterproductive to enjoyment of peace on the inside, confirmed by  harmony on the outside.

In his Ceylon Today article headed ‘Arjuna on the lifeline of coexistence’ Manekshaw states:

 [So, on 27 January travelling all the way from Colombo Fort to Jaffna by the new DMU Uttara Devi train, Transport Minister Arjuna Ranatunga followed the path of legendary Sri Lankans of the bygone era reviving the `lifeline of coexistence’ at a time Sri Lanka celebrates the 71st year of gaining independence from the British.]

One is therefore entitled to conclude that Manekshaw sees Tamils coexisting with Sinhalese. Manekshaw does not see integration. A Unitary state confirms integration at the top and assimilation at grassroots. Manekshaw states also:

 [Arjuna’s train journey also led to remember one of the foremost freedom fighters Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan who even initiated the plan to build the Railway line to the Northern Province when the Island Nation was under the British Empire.]

In other words, Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan also sowed the seeds of militancy led by the LTTE. LTTE represented the de facto army of Tamils who sought not to assimilate with Sinhalese for the same reasons why the SLFP and the UNP made up largely of primary level thinkers not wanting to assimilate – but would prefer to coexist. The recent problem in National Parliament is the parallel of  ethnicity based civil riots. Coexistence needs clear lines of separation. That is what Tamils are truly seeking and are entitled to – to the extent majority have been self-governing in their respective areas of authority – starting with family relationships.

It is rumoured that TNA is promoting Unitary state. This means they dishonour the armed militants who reacted to the unruly Sinhalese driven by desire to rule by suppression. In 1977, the SLFP lost even second place in elections . To my mind, this was because by damaging the roots of the One/Unitary  mind in the  Constitution – through Buddhism foremost article – they lost their own right to self-governance. To override the constitutional error – they have to perform much more through discretionary powers with consolidated mind. Even if one Tamil believed in the Constitution through its secular provisions – the outcomes would be in her/his favour. The 1977 elections confirmed this Truth that there was at least one self-governing Sri Lankan Tamil.

As per Dharma – the government that failed to discipline civilians who attacked on the basis of ethnicity – disconnected itself from the common law and was entitled only to the authority understood and used by majority power that surfaced that manifestation. In simple language – the government limited itself to the voter’s law. A voter cannot empower a government more than her/his own entitlement to self-govern. A politician who looks to  the law for authority  has to have her/himself invested in the law by conduct and / or top-down learning and commitment to such learning. The level at which we developed that self-governance is the level at which such law would manifest itself. The recent experience in National Parliament of Sri Lanka have confirmed that majority in Parliament lack such higher authority but are limited to customary authority. The self-governing amongst them would manifest at the lower level than the intellectually driven governor.

Tamils to whom Tamil militants are the highest level leaders would accept total separation. But the problem with this is that intellectually driven Tamils who do raise their thinking above the level of the local customs – would also be disconnected and alienated by such groups. Hence LTTE killed politicians – the worst and saddest for me being the killing of Dr Neelan Thiruchelvam. Each time that was allowed to happen, the community whose duty it was to prevent such disaster loses its right to self-governance. Self governance is confirmed only when our actions do not hurt the self-governance of another. When they do hurt – we have interfered with that person’s sovereignty and the natural punishment is loss of our own privacy to practice sovereignty.

The ordinary Sinhalese does not understand the constitution and its provisions. They ‘saw’ the return attacks by Tamil militants and they feared them or were cautioned. Punishing the militants therefore will remove this caution and there would be ‘free’ interpretation of articles such as ‘Buddhism foremost’ to take authority to attack. The emotionally driven person would not stop until the emotion is exhausted. But the problem is that if the emotion is based on hearsay / looks and not on truth - it would damage the support of the intellectuals and the self-governing individual in minority clothes. Then the Sri Lanka that Sinhalese relates to is less powerful than it was when it was connected to higher minds of other ethnicities and the integrating Sinhalese intellectuals.

Whether we like it or not – our Truth is always there to influence us when we are ‘free’. If such truth is negative in value – we need positives to balance it. This applies to both sides – especially to those who blame the other rather than themselves when they are unhappy. One who takes responsibility for the total owns the total and therefore is the true leader. One who reacts confirms dependence on the other to become active.

TNA’s duty is to demand that the Prevention of Terrorism Act be repealed so that a criminal act does not become terrorism just because it was committed by a member of minority. TNA has the duty also to demand that all prisoners of war be released before it consents to Unitary state. Sinhalese are not likely to accept it – but the way to true self-governance is to stick to our own Truth. Then every such victim will know that TNA is also participating in their pain. The ordinary Sinhalese needs to ‘see’ that all religions are Equal in status – and that the militants who died in protecting self-governance as per their own truth and conscience – are heroes to their communities. Otherwise Unitary structure  will lead to more war – and more quickly now than before. Then the UN forces may come in and achieve that which they could not diplomatically.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

02 February 2019

Tamils Need Self Governance

Some hear about self-governance; some others think about self-governance and only a few realise self-governance. These few are the heritage of future generations.

Which of these does Mr Sumanthiran belong to? In his Ceylon Today article ‘Truth Slides Out’ -  Shivanthi Ranasinghe reports:

[According to Sumanthiran, Tamils have not been able to agree to the current Constitution that was brought in by a UNP Government, in 1978. Even the previous Constitution brought in by an SLFP Government, in 1972, had not been acceptable to Tamils because their proposals were not included. As the Constitution is the social agreement of all as to how to live in one country, it is important for the Tamils to feel that they are also partners of the process.]

Mr Sumanthiran represents the Tamil minority community Opposition in National Parliament. In democracy, the duty of such Opposition is to present the outcomes produced by minorities – all minorities. Let us take for example ‘Buddhism Foremost’ article in the Constitution. Has Mr Sumanthiran educated Tamils about how such an article naturally divides Sri Lankans into two. The following in Shivanthi Ranasinghe’s report indicates otherwise:

[At a recent interview with the BBC Sinhala Service FB Live, TNA Spokesman M.A. Sumanthiran, fielding questions from Facebook followers, explained the reasons for the need of a new Constitution. He categorically assured that their proposals will further strengthen the President to keep the country indivisible.]

Does the above mean that the president has agreed to repeal article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution? As per article 9 – all non-Buddhists are juniors to Buddhists. What did the president do when the position of Leader of the Opposition was handed over to Mr Rajapaksa by a fellow Buddhist? Buddhism foremost clause makes Sri Lanka a Buddhist state using Buddhist Administration. In Parliament, one’s belief is the foundation on which issues are discussed without fear of being wrong. If Buddhist leaders need such an article – then they lack Buddhist belief. Hence an external law.

The common Sri Lankan is driven more by religious and cultural faith than by secular laws. The word ‘foremost’ makes the parties concerned relative and not  Independent Equals. Today I received an email about ‘Rise Up Sri Lanka in Kandy - 02 Feb 2018’ which included the following message:

[Few things we Rise Up for ...

1. We demand actions on those who behaved violently in parliament and damaged public property.

2. We demand MPs who switched sides ( and others) should declare assets and prove that they didn’t go at the going rate of Rs. 500million talked about by even the President.

3. We demand that public interest investigation and litigations in to large scale corruptions both pre and post 2015 including the infamous Bond Scam should be expedited and taken forward without political interference.

4. We demand that the long over due provincial council elections are held in line with the constitution.

5. We demand that the practice of appointing one’s brothers, astrologers, etc to be heads of public institutions and other forms of nepotism should come to an end.

We continue to Rise Up as an independent group not affiliated to any political party demanding for a new political culture and better standards of public accountability !!!

The Rise Up gathering in Kandy is the 4th gathering we are organizing following similar gatherings in Colombo, Negombo, Batticaloa over the last few months.  

Our gatherings are for the people raise their voice and we do not invite any politicians. Instead invite citizens to talk at an open mic and share it via our live feed and social media. 

We hope you actively voice your self. 

Let’s not wait till the next crisis to act. 

Rise Up with us in Kandy and share your voice at our gathering tomorrow.

Kindly help spread the word within your networks as well. 

Rise Up Sri Lanka !!!]

The organizer is presented as follows by URI – United Religions Initiative:

[Mr. Abeyewickreme is practitioner of Theravada Buddhist teaching from Sri Lanka and has been engaged with URI since 2010. ]

URI presents itself as follows:

[URI is a global grassroots interfaith network that cultivates peace and justice by engaging people to bridge religious and cultural differences and work together for the good of their communities and the world.]

Based on Buddhism foremost article in the Constitution, would the following be right or wrong if in the following -  the person appointed is a strong practitioner of Buddhism and therefore confirms belief in Buddhism?

[5. We demand that the practice of appointing one’s brothers, astrologers, etc to be heads of public institutions and other forms of nepotism should come to an end.]

Belief makes it easy for us to work a relationship – including within an institution. The Sri Lankan Parliament is made up of majority Buddhists. By making Buddhism part of the law, a subject who demonstrates high level of performance in Buddhist form of any theory – automatically is entitled to a Sri Lankan Public position until proven otherwise through merit based measures.

Democracy is lateral and authority as per the system of democracy is outcome based. If all voters be it in Parliament or in general elections by citizens, based their vote within the boundaries of their belief – the outcomes would be harmonious and governance would be natural. It need not be intellectually high. Administration is vertical and an administrative outcome to be more valid than a vote based outcome – needs to be taller in value than the lateral line of democracy made vertical.

If we take religion as a base of belief – and say 9 Buddhist monks voted ‘yes’ to the Opposition Leaders’ position going to Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, an intellectual derivation using  secular measure needs to be taller than nine equal parts stacked one on top of the other – to entitle Mr Sampanthan to be the Opposition Leader. The closest to absolute value is intellectual merit based value.

Belief based politics is most reliable. But to not hurt / damage someone of a different belief – there needs to be separation of powers. In Parliament – belief is based on electorates. In Judiciary, belief is based on the laws already in existence. If the two forms are indiscriminately mixed – the results would be most unreliable. Hence the Doctrine of Separation of Powers between the Executive and the Judiciary in a truly democratic country.

Any group that is sovereign would function naturally with its own powers. That is like dancing to one’s own music from within. Often man passes off mere hearsay thought as belief.  Hence we have merit based assessment using One measure to maintain harmony.

In the above demand to end nepotism – is the claimant including the appointment of Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa as Defence Secretary during the war period? That is the strongest example that demonstrates the destructive force of nepotism. This applies to Tamil militants also – to the extent they appointed their own. But the positive side to it is that they did not have to fear internal conflict as much they would have to if there were outsiders in that core group. Yet the protestors are leaving this out – giving one the impression that their kith and kin were not killed indiscriminately as much as Tamils were.

Whether an appointment amounts to nepotism or good governance depends on the level of belief. Belief based appointment would meet the requirements of any reliable human law.

If we start from zero base, and use only religion as entitlement to claim sovereignty, (i.e. – no secular political parties) – then each religious community is entitled to the same separation of powers as the Judiciary does in the ‘Common’ system. Then the group that practices the higher level laws is the one that is entitled to ‘judge’ whether the others’ outcomes are right or wrong.  This higher group does not have the authority to enforce implementation but it has the authority to declare.

Tamil politicians did make such a declaration in 1976 through Vaddukoddai Resolution and in 1977 – they became leading Opposition in National Parliament. A believer in the path of Truth manifesting Itself – would appreciate that this happened due to mere hearsay being used as belief by the non-Tamils in  Parliament and that Tamils took on the challenge and intellectually produced taller outcomes than Sinhalese who were pampered by easy money and status. Due to lack of natural resources, Tamils had to dig deeper to grow taller. Truth confirmed this growth.

We had to do this in the testamentary case relating to our brother – a resident of Vaddukoddai. My husband said that the succession shares needed to be decided on the basis of Theswalamai Law but the other three siblings stated that they sought Equal share – using common law basis. All three of them had already received wealth from their father and as per Thesawalamai unmarried bother’s wealth is shared by brothers. The courts stated that Theswalamai was used but the judgment was to award Equal share. But  Truth helped us raise the matter according to which the UK part of the wealth – was to be covered by UK law – which required Administration. We submitted our claims as creditors – which eventually works out to confirm our claim through Theswalamai.

The parallel of the above is Tamils being supported by the UN, led by America,  in the war-crimes issue.

The President and the Leader of the Opposition being of the same political party is another form of ‘Buddhism foremost’ provision. If Parliament is made up of religion based groupings only – Buddhists would form government and Hindus as the next largest group would be entitled to lead the Opposition. But if a Buddhist is included in Hindu group – the whole group loses its sovereign power. That would be like Mr Rajapaksa’s son and bride going through 3 forms of  religious wedding ceremonies – Poruwa, Hindu and Catholic.

Every Sovereign group is entitled to its own space due to its diversity. Buddhism foremost provision in the Constitution denies this diversity to other groups. Buddhists who are easy-going are likely to practice nepotism due to reading ‘foremost’ as ‘better’. Those who are subjectively driven but lack the intellectual height to use common basis – are likely to use their position authority to override intellectual merit. This is the very reason why anti discrimination laws are practiced by those who have invested deeply in multiculturalism and democracy. Buddhism foremost in the constitution is anti-democratic and every Sri Lankan who uses the principle of Equality to vote – has the duty to reject it.  When this happens Tamil-Only will naturally be limited to rural Tamil areas to protect their diversity – including from urban Tamils.  

Every self-governing person would add exponential value to the person elected by her/him and therefore to the party that the elected person belongs to by belief. Whether such person/group  is in Government or Opposition – is immaterial for the purposes of  ownership. They will always lead. That was confirmed by many religious leaders – including Jesus - the son of a carpenter who is/was worshipped by kings and queens.