Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
06
July 2019
Did
we actually vote for or against Death Penalty?
In democracy the voter is ultimately responsible for
the actions of the Government. When Mr Sirisena was elected President in 2015,
we claimed that Tamils were the marginal group that made this possible. Hence
Tamils have now the responsibility to blame themselves for the Capital
Punishment by the current President.
Al Jazeera reports as follows in relation to the
declarations by Mr Sumanthiran who represents Tamils in National Parliament:
[MA
Sumanthiran, a Sri Lankan legislator and a lawyer representing a condemned
prisoner, said death by hanging was a "cruel and degrading
punishment".
"It
is the fundamental right of any individual not to be subjected to cruel and
degrading treatment," said Sumanthiran. "It is on that basis we want
courts to hold that execution of capital punishment is a violation of the
Constitution."]
What measures has Mr Sumanthiran taken to discipline
his electorate in regards to the development habits that would ultimately
become punishable in this manner? Is it not his responsibility to discipline
such voters – so they would not become punishable?
Yesterday for example, I complained to the local government
member for Thunaivi – Mr Arumugam Nadesu – about a group of youth who bend the
fence wires and come into the temple grounds to chat. I suggested that their family
welfare handouts be stopped because the tax-payer who provides such funding is
being disrespected. Mr Nadesu may not have the knowledge to implement this but
he knows that the complaint is valid and he has enough influence in that
village to quietly discipline them. That is the value of democratic
representation.
The essence of this has been bought out by Mr M S M
Ayub through his article ‘Who is
genuinely against capital punishment?’ – published by Daily Mirror
Mr Ayub presents his thinking as follows:
[There are
political party leaders and leaders of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
among those agitated by the announcement. Are all these voices against the
implementation of the death sentence honest?
In
a close scrutiny of the history of most of these political parties and NGOs one
would get a negative answer to this question. They might have always expressed
their opposition against the re-implementation of the capital punishment that
was carried out last in 1976 in the country. But almost all of them, at some
point of time in the history, have carried out or justified extra-judicial
killings of their opponents or those who held views opposed to theirs.]
In essence, only those who worked to actively oppose
such outcomes and/or those who as part of the group disciplined
them internally through everyday life – have the power to defeat such punishment
by the authorities – be it the Executive or the Judiciary.
Mr Ayub highlights as follows:
[The country for the first time in the history saw dead bodies floating
in rivers and burning on what were later called the “tyre pyres” during the
first insurrection of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in 1971. It was said
that over 20,000 suspected insurgents, most of whom were believed to be
innocent youth had been killed in this manner during that
insurgency.
These bodies on tyre pyres and in rivers were not of those killed in fighting or crossfire between the armed forces and the insurgents, rather they had been killed after being captured.
Never a member of any of the then ruling parties - Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL) had regretted those killings. They were not only extra-judicial killings but also committed as a method of capital punishment for the victims’ alleged involvement in the insurgency or sometimes for the mere moral support for it.
President J.R. Jayewardene set December 31, 1979 as a deadline for the then Security Forces Commander, Jaffna, T.I.Weeratunga to eliminate the Tamil rebels, especially the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Brigadier Weeratunga failed to fulfill his assignment, but the people of Jaffna saw for the first time mutilated human bodies floating in the Jaffna lagoon during his assignment. ]
These bodies on tyre pyres and in rivers were not of those killed in fighting or crossfire between the armed forces and the insurgents, rather they had been killed after being captured.
Never a member of any of the then ruling parties - Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL) had regretted those killings. They were not only extra-judicial killings but also committed as a method of capital punishment for the victims’ alleged involvement in the insurgency or sometimes for the mere moral support for it.
President J.R. Jayewardene set December 31, 1979 as a deadline for the then Security Forces Commander, Jaffna, T.I.Weeratunga to eliminate the Tamil rebels, especially the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Brigadier Weeratunga failed to fulfill his assignment, but the people of Jaffna saw for the first time mutilated human bodies floating in the Jaffna lagoon during his assignment. ]
As per my experience, where the law and custodians of its power fail, the truth prevails. Tamils who failed to question the LTTE’s own killings lost their right to question the capital punishment meted out to them. Only those who internally disciplined them for such killings or mentally separated themselves from the ‘wins’ shown by the LTTE have the authority to question the government’s parallel at national level. Even now, there is very little public recognition for my work amongst the Tamil Diaspora due to this ‘internal discipline’ and from time to time punishment through express opposition to militants’ outcomes that have become public. From time to time, someone does privately express deep appreciation for my work – as happened this time also in Jaffna.
Most of the time, I believe in the support I get
from those whose work I genuinely value and uphold through my own work. I may
not know any of them personally but when I uphold the laws that we inherited
from them – I become their medium for current manifestations. This in effect
overrides the time based separations of power. The parallel of that in democracy
is the merger of my work with those who demonstrate similar depth in the issue –
as Mr Ayub has demonstrated through his above mentioned article. Being recognized purely through current
members is democratic politics. This overrides the place based separation of
power. In both there is a component of Natural powers even if we do not
recognize them.
The Judiciary that uses with due respect - laws
developed by others before in that nation – is naturally supported by those
ancestral powers. Judiciary that uses with due respect - laws developed by those living in other
nations are naturally supported by global
powers.
As per current reports – the current Opposition
Leadership in National Parliament has expressed opposition to the death
penalty. But is that based on their own past? I identify with the following
conclusion in this regard:
[The
allegations of extra-judicial killings and disappearances of civilians against
the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime landed the country in an UNHRC mess. The famous
white vans was a phenomenon that belonged to the Rajapaksa regime. The
Presidential commission (Maxwell Paranagama Commission) appointed by President
Rajapaksa to investigate into the allegations of “disappearances” had
received more than 19,000 complaints. Except for a few cases, the term
“disappearance” seems to stand for killing after abduction.
There is no doubt that almost all these extra-judicial killings were a method of capital punishment carried out for expressing views or acting against the incumbent government, despite a relatively small number of death sentences delivered by courts being under a moratorium, falsely signifying the sympathy and respect of the leaders of the government for human lives. ]
There is no doubt that almost all these extra-judicial killings were a method of capital punishment carried out for expressing views or acting against the incumbent government, despite a relatively small number of death sentences delivered by courts being under a moratorium, falsely signifying the sympathy and respect of the leaders of the government for human lives. ]
I raise the question also in relation to Tamils who
remain/ed silent about LTTE’s extra-judicial killings. If we are part of a
community and we remain silent including mentally when the leaders act unjustly – then in the Court of Natural
Justice, we lose our right to vote. When we are deterred from expressing our
feelings due to fear of physical injury and/or death – we need to more strongly
mentally oppose such wrongs to protect our right to vote in the Court of
Natural Justice.
Our true votes are as per our conscience. If we are
not able to express our vote due to fear of losing status – then we lose the
right to criticize other community leaders. Right or wrong – the community that
we claim to be part of is credited or debited with our rights and wrongs.
If an act that is claimed to be wrong by
others was unavoidable by us – then we need to refrain from finding fault with
others for the same wrong.
I do not know the details of the following report
but I identify with the common value – of ‘an eye for an eye’ syndrome
practiced by militants and those with little knowledge of law. This is
highlighted by Mr Ayub as follows:
[There is no gainsaying about the
brutality of the southern or northern rebels either. The pinnacle of the JVP
/DJV cruelty might be the butchering of the entire family including elderly
women and children of the then DIG Southern Range Premadasa Udugampola in 1988.
Two years before, in 1986, the LTTE had excelled all other armed groups in the
country by cold-bloodedly murdering more than 400 members of the Tamil Eelam
Liberation Organisation (TELO) including its leader Sri Sabarathnam, not in
clashes but for not falling in line with them. More than 600 policemen who had
surrendered to the LTTE in June 1990 were eliminated allegedly under the orders
of the then Eastern commander of the outfit, Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias
Karuna]
The question
is – if South was under JVP rule and North under LTTE rule – would their genuine
vote be to oppose the Death Penalty by a
democratic government or would it be to endorse it?
Mr
Rajapaksa’s would have been to endorse it and likewise his junior in that
regime – Mr Sirisena’s. Likewise – if LTTE leader were alive today – his true vote
would have been to endorse it and likewise his current junior that Mr
Wigneswaran has become. Anyone who ‘takes’ the benefit produced by someone else
becomes their beneficiary / junior.
The
death penalty is deserved by majority Sri Lankans who are heirs of those who
remained quiet even in their private quarters – when such death sentences were
being carried out by the custodians of power. This includes journalists who
failed to express support to Lasantha who was also given the death sentence. We
do not see many Sri Lankans protesting against that in Sri Lanka today.
So one
is entitled to conclude that majority Sri Lankans accept death penalty by their
home-group and therefore by the government that represents such home-groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment