by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
You say ‘It is sad that Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam cannot see beyond her personal case.’
Don’t feel sad Basil. Cheer up! Look back at your own response to me about the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, in which you say “It is about the protection of individual rights as the core of the idea of independence of Judiciary. In Australia, where you live this concept is well integrated to the system of the state. We have rejected this notion, by way of 1978 constitution”
In my yesterday’s article, I was lamenting over damage to those very individual rights. In my case they were hard earned through my sweat and sacrifice over years of study and work. Individual rights to me are very personal. Given that I relate to them through national and international laws – they are also my national and global rights.
Money, People (Status and Personal Injury) and Ownership (Rights) are the purposes for which we seek the help of the legal system. You chose the Independence of Judiciary to explain the rejection through 1978 constitution. A commoner like myself cannot translate that into Cash or People (Status or Personal Injury). Like talks of Heaven / Mohksha, it is ‘pure’ ownership talk. To my mind, I was showing how that translates at the level of the commoner. Perhaps, I need to take you with me on one of these real life experiences of interference in the sovereignty of the individual!
You say “What happened to her has happened to thousand others, Tamils, Sinhalese , Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, all alike. It is not a Tamil problem only.”
It might have ‘happened’ that way at the visible level. But how each one of us receives it, relates and feels it is dependent on our own investment in the following systems:
1. As per Dharma. This system, commonly called karma is driven by Truth which works silently and when we act as per our individual / personal Truth, the value of our work Combines and Consolidates to show up Common Values to fit all – beyond Time & Space distances. I used this path to express my Truth as I felt and knew it, not worrying about whether I would win or lose. If I did not feel the responsibility to do this, I would not have personally given the evidence – given that it cost me dollars.
2. As per the legal system – where this system is weak (as you have claimed) the outcomes delivered would not uphold everyone’s investment. Until majority outcomes are unsatisfactory to the individual – that system is ‘right’ for that individual at that time. As per your statements – they are not for you and those whom you represent naturally and/or expressly.
3. As per Common Culture. These include our marriage laws and vows – which are different between Buddhists and Hindus. These usually are the structures through which we develop and strengthen common faith. As per this, a Buddhist would intuitively connect to a fellow Buddhist faster than s/he would to a Hindu or Christian. Likewise language. A judge whose knowledge of English is weaker than her/his knowledge of Sinhalese, would identify with the expressions of the Sinhalese quickly. Once we hear – we form pictures in our minds. Unless therefore we keep our minds blank/still until the last piece of evidence is heard (which is very difficult for the average judge, leave alone a weak one) the net picture would be more favorable to a Sinhalese than to an English speaking Tamil. Likewise, a Tamil heard by a Tamil judge would be favored naturally above an English speaking Sinhalese – all else being Equal/Still. As per my feelings that would have happened if LTTE had taken over power.
4. On bilateral basis between two individuals.
The rights of an individual – be it the person in the position of President of Sri Lanka, or the Pariah (toilet cleaner) in Australia are as per the individual’s identity with Truth – the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. This Truth is usually expressed through an affidavit. The Sri Lankan courts as well as the Australian courts failed to give my affidavits due respect and accept them as valid until proven otherwise – either through belief of the other person with greater investment in the issue or through common measures.
The legal system, at the individual level, upholds rights through a combination of the other three in the person judging. Legal processes as per rules help ‘show’ these rights. Most judges do not remove their cultural and personal thinking before wearing their gowns and wigs. Hence if the professional faith they feel is not as strong as the combination of Cultural and friendship faith – they are likely to deliver unjust judgments.
In your article regarding the AG’s bias – you were talking about the cultural faith between politicians vs lawyers – politics vs judiciary. To my mind, the Attorney General, like the Government Agent of Jaffna is sitting on the fence and is likely to jump on the side of the stronger faith and rightly so if most lawyers and politicians are working primarily for money and position status.
You say about me crying over my stolen land ‘This kind of narrow approach is of no use to any one.’ Mr. Fernando, as Gandhi said – the approach is of value – even if it is for a minority of One – myself. Truth is Universal and therefore the Individual in Truth is Universal.
The value of an individual is based on the number of individuals included in that individual through Truth, Faith that that individual feels in others, Standards that are commonly practiced through which individuals are connected even though they may not be physically aware of each other. The point I was making yesterday was that the Judge of your courts (it is your courts until my investment in Sri Lankan law is upheld in courts) upheld the word of a Keera (Spinach) seller who had the opportunity to enter into a lease agreement with the legal owner in 1968 – (Owner Mr. A T Benedict was Director of Studies in 1968, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka) – but chose to behave like a thug. Combine many such thugs and you have colonization – a ‘guna’ / quality that Sinhalese are being accused of by LTTE supporters.
I compare that to a relative of mine – a farmer who was offered the opportunity to cultivate the land of the family of former Attorney General Mr. Shiva Pasupathi, but refused on the basis of family faith. Through that family faith, my cousin must have also respected the laws of the land to which the Pasupathi family has contributed much.
If my evidence is ‘narrow’ to you, your theory would seem imaginary to the commoner. That is your karma. If you had identified with the Truth of my contribution to legal system at the global level – you would have started with that small dot of an example and carefully traced its connection to your theory of Separation of Powers. If you truly believe in the Doctrine of Separation of Powers – you would know that it is needed where natural common faith through a culture is stronger than the common faith in a profession/trade etc – through which we earn money and status. It is expected that lawyers would have more faith in fellow lawyers and judges than in politicians. Hence if the AG is seen to be on the side of politicians he has acted in breach of this doctrine. It dilutes the independence not only of the judiciary but also of the executive. Racism would die if not for submission by minorities. The best way known is to overcome through active money-paying work – and hence the Business Unit approach I have been discussing.
You state ‘Such writings are understandable from some one who has justly aggrieved. However, inability to see a common problem and a claim “it happens only to us”, only shows that author is out of touch with reality or do not want to see the reality.’
Please show evidence that I said ‘it happens only to us’. As per my feelings it happened to me because I was a minority in an inefficient urban court. That could happen to a Sinhalese in Tamil court where Tamils feel that they are independent and also are not committed to professional standards and/or are not bound to the Sinhalese through higher professional faith. What I was indicating was that you find your own answer until there is Devolution of Judicial Powers on the basis of ethnicity. When there is Devolution, we will resolve on the basis of cultural faith first and then bring only the rest to the common secular system – the legal and administrative systems at national levels.
Take for instance the family land we have in Thunaivi-Sangarathai-Vattukkottai area. That land was bought by our grandmother in the name of my father in 1940. When we lived in Jaffna (town) we regularly visited that land and my father and brother performed the rituals. When they left Jaffna after the beginning of the war (my brother was attacked by his batch-mates in Engineering Faculty, Peradeniya) we arranged for caretakers to look after that temple. I myself visited the temple in 2003 – after more than 20 years of absence. The local folks – Toddy Tappers who regularly prayed at the temple approached me in 2006 ‘asking’ me whether we would donate land for Public Facilities. On individual basis – some of them are likely to have acted like Mr. Piyadas – the Keera Kottuwa man who stole my Colombo 5 land. But their faith in Kali must have intuitively communicated to them that we were deeper owners and this was upheld by NECORD and its local NGO headed by the sister of a Tamil Judge. It still remains a private land as per the legal status. When we submit to unlawful takeovers – we lose our investment in the legal system and this often happens at the individual level on the basis of money value of the land.
Mr. Fernando, I went to prison here in Australia when I sought to speak to the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. At first sight – it would seem like a David and Goliath match. But if you go deeply into it – you would learn that it also started with the issue of Devolution of Powers from Central Administration to the Faculties. I was chosen by the Dean of Medicine who was trained in America, towards developing democratic financial management systems. But despite this, just like your government elected by majority – old academics in partnership with older administrators, refused to devolve power. I restructured the accounting system to suit a Business approach – so Operational Units would be self-resourced. I was highly commended for this by Faculty Management. But then I was travelling faster than the Director of Finance who is your AG’s parallel at the University. I was expressly appreciated by two Chancellors – Sir Anthony Mason and Dr. John Yu who took over from Sir Mason. As you may know, Sir Mason is a law expert. Dr. Yu, a migrant, is an Honored Australian.
I waited in a public area of the University and asked through due process available, to see the Vice Chancellor. I was refused to see the Vice Chancellor and was asked to leave. I refused to leave and waited peacefully. The Police were called. They took me in a paddy-wagon and charged me with Trespass under Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW). As per my interpretation of the legislation, there were no grounds unless I was not legally Australian. The Police listed me as Sri Lankan despite my strong objections that I was Australian – seeking to be protected and punished by fellow Australians. This took place four times. On the fourth occasion, when they refused to change my nationality to Australian I asked to speak to the Sri Lankan Consul General. He did speak to me – but refused to come to be with me at the Police station – saying that I was Australian. If a Tamil Consul General had done that in today’s climate – s/he would be demoted at the community level. I expect that to happen also with the Sinhalese community if a Sinhalese (commonly referred to as Sri Lankan by majority race) were in my shoes.
I believe that the Police, at the beginning did not mean to consciously hurt me when they listed me as Sri Lankan. But in their memory – which was not trained by the rules of citizenship laws – I was listed as Indian and Sri Lankan. The natural answer as per the legal formula in my memory was ‘Australian’. The fact that they refused to change it or even ask for documentary evidence of it – confirms racism. Those of their cultural faith may call it ‘ego’ – but if the other side believes s/he is Australian and is denied that – then that is racism to me. The reason would change as per each person’s genuine belief – because we are seeing from different angles. We are all correct if we speak through our angle and ours alone. To my mind, you failed to do this in judging that I was acting out of personal interest alone.
I fought my case in the criminal courts and the charges were dismissed. But the police kept arresting me despite this. To me, most of them are driven by who gives them the instructions. Those instructions would give them mental pictures of what they should do to keep their jobs and positions in society. Unless they are more committed to the legal system than the subjective powers within their Police force, they would not be driven by the law of the land but their own cultural laws and expectations. Hence racism. Likewise, the Sri Lankan army with those who are seen to be of lesser status. Ethnic minority status contributes to this.
Likewise the academics of the University of NSW, who desired Devolution of Power but failed to have the courage to take it up to the level of the Vice Chancellor and beyond – lest they lost their benefits. Truth empowered me. I love Truth more than cash and position benefits.
You say ‘The claim that Sinhalese have favours from the justice system and only Tamils are unjustly treated is just non-sense. The system is unjust to all’
The above claim was NOT made by me. You are saying that I said it, the same way the Australian Police kept listing me as Sri Lankan and Indian Black for legal purposes. As per your professional practices, the moment you know that I am conscious of being a Tamil, you need to not judge me subjectively, except through common professional investments. You need to show objective evidence that I said those exact words. White Australians also said that what happened to me would have happened to them also. That is like saying that the Sri Lankan Rupee was the same as the Australian Dollar. There is a saying in Tamil that the pain of the boy who cries that there is lack of salt in his rice-soup(kanji) is the same as the boy who cries that there isn’t enough sugar in his milk. Until we make it a level playing field ( relate to a base currency ) common to both or independent of both - we cannot measure/judge justly.
In your case as well as the Australian Police – the picture in your mind was the evidence that supports your statement/judgment. They saw and they formed the picture. You saw I was Tamil and seem to have concluded as per your reading of statements by Tamils involved in this issue. You failed to respect that very sovereignty of the individual / myself by stating here within quotation marks the exact words stated by me. Instead you state as if I wrote ‘Sinhalese have favours from the justice system and only Tamils are unjustly treated’ You say ‘ The system is unjust to all’ .
Objective outcomes have universal value. Each person/group would interpret it as per their investment in the issue. That comes from the ‘angle’ through which the objective outcome is seen. When the Police saw me they saw me as Indian. Based just on sight – and not legal records – their mind picture said that I was Indian. I was thus denied due legal process.
When they heard from me that I was born in Sri Lanka – they listed me as Sri Lankan. A leading lawyer here in Sydney to whom I was sent on pro bono basis by the criminal courts – said that there was nothing wrong with that. No – nothing wrong where Sri Lankans are considered to be equal to Australians. Certainly wrong when I was legally listed in the citizenship registries as Australian. Unless they are committed to Equal Opportunity in general and/or are strictly following the letter of the law – they would naturally make such mistakes. Likewise, yourself. Likewise the AG.,
When you respect the sovereignty of a person, you would not speak for them. You would wait until they speak freely and/or within the rules of the forum. If it is a democratic forum we ought to have Equal Opportunity to access common facilities. Then you would say words to the effect ‘ In your shoes I would conclude that it was a general / secular / common problem’ . When you speak for me – it confirms to me that you have taken up higher position than I – just like the Australian Police did. Hence my interpretation of what happened as per my Truth was ‘dismissed’ by you / the Aussie Police and instead, you concluded for me as if your authority was higher than mine – as if you had greater access to the legal system and that I could not produce 50% of the right picture – so you were concluding for me as if I was your dependent. To have higher authority in those courts – you need rules of interpretation. If you don’t – each one is ‘free’ to interpret as per their Truth and that is the only valid conclusion accepted in the Courts of Natural Justice. If we are both Truthful – we will connect somewhere sometime.
If indeed you do know of such a rule that supports your conclusion, I would appreciate it if you would share it with us – the commoners.
Basil, majority voting power gives you a status in your mind, higher than the status of minority. When the latter go into a forum where they have invested more than you, this lower status is naturally buried. But unless you recognize this, you are likely to not bury your own picture except where you remove the majority race picture before you come into the new forum. Where you and I have equally weak investment in the new forum – that majority picture would still deliver just results. For example, if I had committed to the legal system at the same level as Mr. Piyadasa and no more – then the judgment would have been ‘right’ provided the land was in predominantly Sinhalese area inhabited by the likes of Piyadasa when I ‘took possession’ of it from Mr. Benedict on cultural basis – disregarding legal and administrative processes. The same applies to Sinhalese seeking to settle down in Tamil rural areas – not with Government support (provoking cries of colonization) – but as individuals – as I did in Keera Kottu area. I did because I did not fear majority force because I invested faithfully through the lawful process and paid my dues. Likewise I did not fear the Australian Police and their attachment to majority thinking. By then I was true Australian. I had always considered myself to be a true Sri Lankan.
Racism usually happens naturally where we do not consciously and expressly ‘calculate’. Pictures of habit fill our surface memories and they could be burnt only through deep knowledge or balanced through alternate memories equal to or greater than those memories. Hence the need for strict adherence to common systems and due processes.
If this is not possible in our life time, we need to surface that Truth on which the next generation would operate. If the legal systems in Sri Lanka have deteriorated to the extent of upholding the word of a person who has not even passed high school, above the word of a Chartered Accountant supported by the word of professionals in land administration - then it is indeed a very weak system driven by personal thinking and individual cultures. Personal thinking has value in friendship and cultural thinking has value in areas not covered by the law. If just legal results are to be delivered they must never enter the judicial system in a country that has been labeled as a racist country – as is the case with Australia and / or where there has been great loss due to ethnic divide – as is the case with Sri Lanka.
Where there is devolution at the cultural level, we sort matters out at that level and produce for outside consumption – only the net outcome. It is similar to the conclusion you made as per your thinking – except that you presented it as my thinking – a serious invasion of my space in breach of my sovereign rights. How we make the final product is our business and ours alone. If we do not produce the completed value of our work, we are likely to show the unfinished product and this leaves room for others to ‘takeover’ our work. To my mind, you did that on the basis that I was a Tamil and attributed the ‘guna’ / quality of Tamils who merely make statements from their side. Then you responded to that Tamil and not to me – the real Tamil. Likewise, the AG. We get the behavior we reward.
Hence Sri Lankan government got the LTTE, instead of the likes of me as their opposition.
The same way the war was seen by the Government as being against Terrorism – Tamils saw it as being against suppression of earned rights – especially through merit based measures. Both were right where the actions were not covered by common definition of Terrorism or Freedom fight or even Racism.
In terms of racism I was right in calling what happened racism because I invested in racial equality and overrode easy submission to custodians of power, through my commitment to profession. To the extent there were no common measures / laws to give a name to what happened – the Police would have been right to call it something else – which then did not give them the right to arrest me. Theirs would have been merely social thinking. They called my actions ‘trespass’ which was defined by the law, except that they did not demonstrate even basic understanding of that particular ownership clause of that legislation. They did not give any other belief based reason as to why they arrested me. Hence my belief is the deciding belief. A judgment upholding that belief would have been the only just judgment under the circumstances.
In the case of my analysis of the Judge’s judgment in the land case, if you know of a legally definable reason common to all Sri Lankans, you have the duty to state that in relation to the Judge’s conclusion. Otherwise, which seems to be the case, it is your duty to express as per your belief. If that belief is that the Judge was inefficient in legal systems – then racism would naturally happen to every person of another race in that court to the extent that person’s merit based conduct and relevant objective evidence is ignored/set aside. It’s habitual racism which is different to conscious racism.
Each time you take up a position higher than another – outside a merit base – you are discriminating. You did that with me in concluding for me – by using part of the 50% allocated to me in this matter. I believe it is due to habit – partially legal certificates taken at face value and partially due to you being used to the comfort of majority rule. If you state another belief in good faith I would accept that.
Basil, when we feel connected by faith – we are connected by Truth / God. No human measure is greater than Divinity. Hence to preserve that Divine Power, we need to Devolve Power wherever the faith through secular systems is lower than the cultural faith, already in existence. Otherwise we would become a scattered country using individual thinking between two or few. Hence the serious breakdown in law and order all over the country – including in North.
 Thank you for your response “Division helps an unjust system surv...){kind=link}
Post a Comment