Wednesday 16 September 2020


Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

16 September  2020



Victors make Half Laws

There are laws of Accounting that I did not study even to pass exams. But by practicing with faith the fundamental laws as needed in my jobs, I have developed  intuitive connection with any law that I may need in my work. It is the experience of Christian saying ‘Seek and you shall find’.  The intuitive connection was developed largely through respect for elders in my profession – which after sometime includes me as my own elder – when I know that I know more than the official elder. This results in mental restructure of the institution that I am part of.

 The mind that transcends the physical makes natural mergers. Seniors and Juniors by knowledge are positions in a structure that would lead to this merger. The Constitution of a nation is the beginning and the end of the laws applicable to that family/ institution/ community/ country. The visible effects usually do not confirm the law.

Those citizens who practice with faith, the laws needed in their environmental structures would naturally access the true laws of the nation when they need them. Often these are not written but are intuitively known by the true believer in the leader who had the higher experience.

It is therefore important that one does not convert benefits as laws. Benefits are only half the rule of law. The base becomes complete only when Costs that went into the Benefits are placed at Equal level.

In a Democratic Parliament the proposer is only half the law. The Opposition needs to do enough work to maintain the balance of Equality at primary level. Merely showing numbers is to live off the past. A minority Opposition needs to do more intellectual work to balance the government’s proposals including by finding seniors in wider society. This was the reason why the clergy was often included in the Monarch’s assembly. Members of Civil society  who do not take any benefits for their work are natural elders.

In Sri Lanka where there is a proposal before the new Parliament there is such a need. The Island report – ‘SJB whips up frenzy over flaws in draft 20A’ presents the following picture:

[Addressing the media at the Opposition Leader’s Office in Colombo, MP Attanayake said that the campaign would be launched officially at 4 pm today at the New Town Hall.

He said that the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution by the government had become a fatherless baby. “The Justice Minister says that though he submitted the draft to the Cabinet he does not know who prepared it.”]

It actually has a surrogate mother. The seed of the  baby is  usually through pleasure, which is the parallel of benefit in terms of goods and services structure. Thereafter it is the mother  who experiences the pain of development of the baby. This pain is capped by labour pain. Hence mother becomes the first custodian of the baby. To have equal rights, the father needs to respect the mother to the extent he did not commonly share in this pain. Family structures begin with this relationship. They end in the same relationship when the child has her/his own baby or heir as an independent. Likewise, the voter groomed by the government.

So who developed the 20th  Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution? This question was raised by recent ‘Face the Nation’ panel of journalists on behalf of their audience. To my mind, to the extent such exchanges are based on truth – they lead to development the Natural Laws of Sri Lanka which are often more powerful than the written laws. Those who seem to represent the current government did not know. Let us therefore begin with the most apparent leader – the President.

One of the proposals is to repeal the provision in the 19th Amendment which added the following to  Article 91 (1) (d):

[No person shall be qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament or to sit and vote in Parliament if he is

(xiii) a citizen of Sri Lanka who is also a citizen of any other country;]

Dual citizenship was an issue with the current President. If he is writing this Amendment – then effectively he could be taken to be  writing his own experience as law, without the 19th Amendment to the constitution which was written by those Parliamentarians who by law were Sri Lankan citizens only. At that time, by law Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa was a dual citizen.

Did Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa renounce American citizenship towards higher benefits in Sri Lanka? If no why would he try now to restore that Dual Citizen status – especially with the very possibility of him being accepted by the Americans again if he applied while carrying the position of President.  If rejected due to war-crimes allegations, that would be an insult to Sri Lanka. If accepted one needs to question the validity of his Presidential status vis-à-vis that of his official status in the USA as a junior to the American President where he is never likely to be president. That demotes Sri Lanka to junior status relative to America.

As per Adaderana report ‘UN Core Group disappointed in Sri Lanka’s stance on resolution 30/1’:

[The United Nations Core Group on Sri Lanka expressed their disappointment over Sri Lankan government’s stand to no longer support resolution 30/1 at the United Nations Human Rights Council 45, today (15).

The United Kingdom’s International Ambassador for Human Rights, Rita French, delivered this statement on behalf of Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Montenegro and the UK, the Core Group on Sri Lanka.

The Core Group notes that Sri Lanka has suggested for a new domestic process to continue its commitment to fostering reconciliation, justice and peaceful coexistence among Sri Lanka’s communities.]

The connection between alleged war crimes and the said UN Resolution was made by the President’s brother and Prime Minister – Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as follows in February this year:

[Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on Wednesday said that his government will withdraw from co-sponsoring a UN Human Rights Council resolution on accountability for war crimes.

His statement came days after the U.S. imposed travel restrictions on Army chief Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva and his immediate family members over alleged gross violations of human rights during the final phase of the island nation’s Civil War in 2009.

“Our government has decided to withdraw from the process of co sponsorship in relation to resolution 30/1,” Mr. Rajapaksa said in a statement.

The resolution 30/1 on promotion on reconciliation in Sri Lanka was co-sponsored in 2015 by the then Lankan government.] The Hindu article headed ‘Sri Lanka to withdraw from co-sponsoring UN Human Rights Council resolution on war crimes’


Hence the two brothers have confirmed that they are following different pathways of thoughts in relation to Dual Citizenship. By conduct Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa who is Sri Lankan only, has demonstrated allegiance to Sri Lankan nation only. He did not oppose the above mentioned ban in the 19th Amendment.

If the ban is repealed through the 20th Amendment then that makes the above by the PM, invalid. Morally speaking this then automatically dismisses any Opposition to Foreign Judges hearing war-crimes allegations. This could in turn stop the war-victory celebrations by the current government.

The victims who did not take revenge are the mothers of who develop new laws. They are overwhelmingly minorities at the moment. Accordingly the Election Commission’s mandate has to be scrutinized in regard to why they reported on Division basis in the 2020 Parliamentary elections? That law surfaced through the spirit of Tamil victim -  the Hon Raviraj of Chavakachcheri who is not represented in Parliamentary leadership.

This President took his oaths at Ruwanweliseya to confirm Sinhala Buddhist nationality. If he could manage dual community memberships he would not have done that. How can he then be expected to manage dual citizenship in Parliament when laws are being made? If America and China declared war – as citizen of America would he think against China ? Then we would be in deep trouble. Dual citizenship thoughts in Parliamentarians confirm falsity in their Sinhala Nationalism expressions. In turn those who are Sinhala Nationals will naturally oppose Dual citizens in Parliament and v.v. This would confirm brewing opposition between the two leading brothers – as happened in the immediate past government of Sirisena-Wickremasighe coalition.

No comments:

Post a Comment