11 September 2020
King Maker Became the King?
[Although Cabinet approval has been given to the bill titled ‘20th Amendment to the Constitution’. there is dissension among some government members on some of the provisions such as the restriction on the size of the Cabinet, the scrapping of the National Audit Commission and that of removing the ban on dual citizens becoming parliamentarians.] Kelum Bandara’s report published by the Daily Mirror on 09 September
I felt that the Energy of my contribution headed ‘How About Indian-Lankan Dual Citizen in Lankan Parliament?’ – published on 06 September had found its way to the Parliament. All it takes is at least one genuine member/group seeking to preserve the sovereignty of Sri Lanka to be true to her/himself. The Universal Franchise does the rest. That is why it is called Universal. That is why Parliamentarians have freedom of expression in Parliament.
Then this morning I read Dr Dayan Jayatilleke’s declaration:
‘President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with little to no experience in politics and less than a year on the job, obviously sees no need to seek the advice of or even act in consultation with Mahinda Rajapaksa, arguably the most experienced politician in Asia—but only to consult him if he, President Gotabaya, is in the mood’
I wrote and published as follows under the heading ‘Not Machiavellianism; Chanakyanism says Mahavamsa’:
[To my mind, the 19th Amendment facilitates the citizen to stabilize her/his relationship with the government and its administrators over longer term than does the 20th Amendment. This would tempt the citizen to ‘think’ of becoming President / King even while being ignorant of the challenges faced by the President / King. It is the future version of ‘living off the past’. This risk prevails in the President who is more like a citizen than an experienced king – as was the case with Mr Maithripala Sirisena. Whether the current President is also so ignorant – is yet to be known. In the current government, one who has the experience is Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa. ]
Some would say it is ‘telepathy’. Some others would say it is coincidence. There is little room to say that I copied Dr Jayatilleke who is the holy cow with the bell/status. Objectively speaking Dr Jayatilleke was relating between President Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Rajapaksa. Mine was on the basis of Citizen wanting to be king – as in the sword of Damocles legend used by Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne. This was strengthened by the demonstration of good faith by Mr Maravanpulavu K. Sachithananthan who shared with me his press release thanking the PM in relation to proposed ban on cow-slaughter.
Subjectively speaking - Dr Jayatilleke has been known to have been on the side of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa. I spoke from the opposition position. As I wrote this I received a video clip from fellow Australian Tamil Mr Kandiah Suntharamoorthy . It was about Poet Kalidasar to whom goddess Saraswathie in the form of a village damsel is reported to have asked:
[Who is the most foolish person on earth?]
The poet asked the damsel to enlighten him and here is the response:
[the king who lacks the skills and strength to rule and the minister who sings the praise of that king are the most foolish of all]
The timing did not surprise me. To me it was Blessing from heaven – not only for me but also for true seekers looking to preserve Sri Lanka’s Sovereignty.
In common terms for the same level of work one who receives benefits contributes less to Ownership Energy which confirms the sovereignty of that form, than does one who does not take any benefits. That is how Truth balances the powers by Energising those who endured discrimination rather than take revenge.
A couple of regular communicators from the Tamil Diaspora also directed me to Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s presentation on the 20th amendment – at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wevGG02HebE&feature=youtu.be
Dr Jayampathy confirms as follows about the PM’s position:
[Mr. R. Premadasa, before he became President of course, likened the PM under the 1978 Constitution to a ‘peon’. Today, the PM, who is the MP who commands a majority in Parliament, has much more power, thanks to 19A. If 20A is passed, the PM will again be relegated to the status of a peon. The President can remove the PM at will. Ministers and Deputy Ministers will not be appointed on the recommendation of the PM. The President may consult the PM but is not obliged to. Ministers and Deputy Ministers may be removed without reference to the PM. It is the President who decides the subjects and functions of Ministers and changes them; the PM has no role whatsoever. ]
As per my knowledge, the 19th Amendment is currently valid and was valid in November 2019. Why did the then Prime Minister, Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe step down from that position without any of the due processes indicated above? They may be valid when Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne is PM. They were not upheld by Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe. Did he not believe in the 19th Amendment?
Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne states about Presidential immunity:
[The original 1978 Constitution made an exception to this right by giving the President total immunity from suit. 19A made the President’s official acts subject to the fundamental rights jurisdiction and thus removed the anomaly, thereby strengthening fundamental rights and thus the sovereignty of the People. It was that change that made it possible for citizens to successfully challenge the unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament by President Sirisena….
Article 17 being a provision in the chapter on fundamental rights, the right to complain to the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right. The original 1978 Constitution made an exception to this right by giving the President total immunity from suit. 19A made the President’s official acts subject to the fundamental rights jurisdiction and thus removed the anomaly, thereby strengthening fundamental rights and thus the sovereignty of the People. It was that change that made it possible for citizens to successfully challenge the unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament by President Sirisena]
As per my knowledge of the current constitution action can be brought against the Attorney-General by a citizen who believes that her/his fundamental rights have been denied or breached by the President. In terms of rights, every citizen ranks equal to any other including the President. The only way a President could be immune is therefore if the President is only a governor and not an Executive. As per the system of Democracy, an executive president can be sued on the basis of articles in chapter III which includes religious rights. If the President’s Armed Forces therefore enter Hindu temples with their shoes on – the President is liable to be sued if he is the Defence Minister. It is only when the President is wholly governing – that the president is entitled to immunity. Suing the Attorney General is in breach of the sovereignty of that position and hence the nation. That is like suing god.
This difference is explained in my culture through Guru position as opposed to Teacher position. Guru does not attribute credits and debits because Guru shares her/himself with the disciple. Likewise a governor. Hence the saying that when the guru does something that would seem wrong to the disciple – it is not a wrong and the disciple has no right to express such assessment and judgment. Guru is the end of relativity. Then we merge with divinity. Hence Mother, Father, Guru & God – as our mentors. An Executive / Administrator is like a teacher who has the duty to mark one right or wrong. There is no immunity from prosecution of an Executive leader as the teacher has no immunity from review of her/his work.
Mr Sirisena was Minister of Defence as well as Minister of Mahaweli Development and Environment even after the 19th Amendment. That is another example of absence of belief in the 19th Amendment by its makers. Yet, Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne keeps referring to it as if it was one that upheld the Sovereignty of Sri Lanka.Sri Lanka is all Sri Lankans past and present. Without the human factor it is just a country and its sovereignty is that of the world taken as a whole. The previous government failed because members of the government who made laws did not believe in those laws. This may happen with the 20th Amendment also. Two thirds in parliament need to believe in the new fundamental rights provisions for this amendment to be self-sustaining. If not we will have more rebellion including within the Parliament.
Post a Comment