Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

05 October  2019

JUDICIARY’S VERDICT – BAD IN ADMINISTRATION

This morning I learnt that the Judiciary of Sri Lanka has dismissed ‘the  petitions filed challenging the citizenship of former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, without taking it up for consideration’. The reasons have not been published by Adaderana – the news site where I read the above.  It will be interesting to read the reasons. Yesterday however, I learnt that Mr Chamal Rajapaksa – another brother of former President Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa had registered his name as a Presidential candidate. This led me to conclude that the Rajapaksa family was not confident that Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would be cleared by the Judiciary. That was the ‘Indicator’ of truth from within. It is understandable that the judiciary’s verdict would be different to the truth that comes with experience.

I found the Judiciary’s verdict to be Bad in Administration. The reasoning by the Counsel for the Petitioners is GOOD IN ADMINISTRATION. Daily mirror shares this with us through the report  headed ‘Plenary or repository executive powers of then president comes after appointing a Cabinet: Petitioner’s Counsel’

[Counsel Suren Fernando appearing for the petitioners today concluded the oral submissions by rebutting the respondent's arguments.

He said the core issue the petitioners were referring to was based on the fact that 'whether the then-president had executive powers vested in the Cabinet of ministers to authorise Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s citizenship certificate on November 21, 2005, by exercising his powers in a ministerial capacity between a time period where the Cabinet had been dissolved and had ceased to function.

He said Article 44, which existed in the Constitution in 2005 (this article was later removed by the 19th Amendment) had provided how such power should be exercised as opposed to what the respondents had made it be in their argument.

He said under Article 44(1) the President shall appoint the cabinet immediately after assuming duties as the president.

44(2), which is a sequel subsection to the article says that thereafter the president shall determine on assigning ministries, ministers and their subject areas.

After doing so the President could keep the ministries which have not been assigned to any ministers. 'It is the ministries that have not been allotted to a minister that could remain with him', the respondent's counsel said.

'Therefore, the president didn’t have any repository executive power in keeping those executive powers beforehand as the respondents said', Counsel Fernando said.]

‘What happened’ has not been disputed by the Respondents. Hence the question is whether Due Process of the law was followed or not. According to the judgment – one is entitled to use family influence to get a quick outcome favourable to one.

Here in Australia, Mr John Howard – who was then (2000)  Prime Minister – failed to ensure his independence from the matter of sacked workers in his brother Mr Stan Howard’s textile business – National Textiles. I myself was critical of Mr Howard in the local forums available to me. By opposing such actions – I contribute to my own prevention program. In other words I am more likely to include those  beyond my biological circles as part of my home-environment. That is what ‘ethics’ is about.  One who knows the other as part of her/himself – does not need Executive authority. Such a person’s authority to make common decisions comes from that Oneness. Hence the ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ test in criminal cases.

 If one is known as part of a group / family – due to biological connections and/or by law – and one does not feel that Oneness – one needs the laws of relativity – so we do not steal the other’s work. Executive powers are relative powers. Belief based powers are plenary powers. One needs to be careful in applying plenary powers in areas covered by laws of relativity. The reason is that if the other side actually has deeper feelings of ownership in the issue – than the one with authority of the law - such a person returns the ‘other’ side to the sender. We may not know  each other. But to the extent we draw benefits on the claim of commonness – we get bound by that other person’s belief.

That was how I believe that my true opposition – contributed to Mr Howard losing his seat . Wikipedia presents this as follows:

[In 2006, with the government now controlling both houses of parliament for the first time since the Fraser era, industrial relations changes were enacted. Named "WorkChoices" and championed by Howard, they were intended to fundamentally change the employer-employee relationship. Opposed by a broad trade union campaign and antipathy within the electorate, WorkChoices was subsequently seen as a major factor in the government's 2007 election loss.]

Due to my ‘ownership reserves’ as per my net positive contributions to workplace relationships by not challenging the ‘gap’ between the remuneration to me relative to the remuneration to a White Australian doing equal value work – I became deeper owner in workplace families – than those who drew relatively more than I. That is how People’s power is accumulated. In my case the other side included Mr John Howard as prime minister. It was on this basis that I sued Mr Howard who failed to respond to my complaints of Racial Discrimination at the workplace – the University of NSW.  Mr Howard did not know me and he did not need to know me. But – racial equality policy was his direct responsibility. In 2001 I sued Mr Howard. That was my parallel of Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976 which resulted in Equal status for Tamil Political Group in Sri Lankan  Parliament in 1977. Once we declare our truth – we claim that to be our law.

My loss at the workplace became my ownership in Australia – through workplace families. Likewise those others who sacrificed relatively more than Mr Howard. One who is discriminated against and yet continues to feel that the place is her / his home – takes relatively shorter time to develop absolute power of belief. All those who believe actually vote in the Nation of Natural justice. Thereafter it is the job of Truth to make it work through those at the coalface. To defeat Mr Howard – migrant workers needed to merge minds with non-migrant workers. Likewise, in Sri Lanka – minorities need to merge minds with majority who also have been hurt in a particular  issue. That’s when we have the higher experience.

It was indeed disappointing to note the lack of participation by Tamil politicians with knowledge of law – in the case of Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Not even Mr C V Wigneswaran – who was once a Judge of the Supreme Court – is known to have presented his interpretation as a citizen. This means – he is not able to work the minds of either side at that level in the issue of Public Administration.

Tamil National Alliance keeps ‘asking’ for Political ‘settlement’ instead of developing one – themselves. This leads to the conclusion that their commitment to Unitary state – can happen only on the basis that they are dependent on majority and therefore carry the high risk of assimilation. Militants on the other hand seek separate state so they would ‘tell’. Those who ‘show’ would ‘tell’ when they have more to show. One needs Experience to influence those who are at higher or lower levels  and those who are laterally far away from us.

If current Sri Lankans seek a global future for their children – they would need to oppose those who favoured their own family, their own community by religion, gender, age and sexuality. The Sri Lankan Judiciary failed this globalization test. This means also that if there had been war-crimes trials in Sri Lanka – the verdict would have been ‘dismissal’ of the allegations against government. If that is what majority Sri Lankans seek – then they will vote Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to be president. Minorities then would form true partnerships at global level.