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.
No comments:
Post a Comment