| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
( April 11, 2013, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) This morning, I received some evidence of the mind of the Sri Lankan High Commissioner for Australia - Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe. This morning’s news carried an article under the heading ‘Sri Lanka 'welcomes' asylum boat returns’. The Sri Lankan High Commissioner is reported to have stated ‘'Any Sri Lankan asylum boat being brought by the Australian navy to our waters we will welcome, and we'll take over them at appropriate locations’.
As a self governing Australian citizen, I ask the question – why should Australian Navy share its credit with the Sri Lankan Navy that was at one time headed by the current Sri Lankan High Commissioner and part of the war machinery? As a country that enjoys the status as independent Democratic Country – Australia has the right to send back those boats through Due Processes and the responsibility to send Sri Lankan Government an invoice for the expenses incurred by Australians due to failures by the Sri Lankan Navy in protecting its borders from such exits (Sri Lanka is known to use the exit visa system) at least to the extent it protects its borders from entrances through that path – for example – Kalla Thonis (Illegal Boat Arrivals) from India. Kachchai Theevu in Sri Lankan/Indian waters is the parallel of Christmas Island in Australian territory. Sri Lankan authorities who are not able to find a solution to Kachchai Theevu would not have the wisdom to resolve Christmas Island Asylum problem. Kachchai Theevu is a local problem for Sri Lankan Navy. Christmas Island is part of an International problem. One who has ongoing problems in the area controlled by her/him – would not have a homegrown solution for that problem with another face. One who feels ownership in the area would already know the solution. Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka were often called Kalla Thonis. Now this is used against all Tamils in Sri Lanka by the Sinhalese debating at the primary level – through their likes and dislikes – rather than through rights and wrongs.
When we make judgments we do so at three levels – at benefits level, at investment level and at ownership level. The last one is the Universal one. In the above instance one needs to ask in relation to the judgment made by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner – as to which level he is coming from? A High Commissioner needs to express at ownership level. Hence their diplomatic immunity. The Sri Lankan High Commissioner’s remarks are at ‘doing current work level’ which is at the primary benefit level and not at the investment level through his position of High Commissioner. Any expression based on his Navy position needs to be channeled through the Navy / Government of Sri Lanka. As High Commissioner, the response needs to be as per UN policies. The above statements do not reflect the connection to those policies – but rather an attempt to please the Australian Opposition who seem to have a match with the current Sri Lankan Government.
Bigpond news confirms this by stating: ‘Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe was commenting on Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott's, pledge to reinstate the Howard-era policy of towing back asylum seeker vessels’
The report states also: ‘Admiral Samarasinghe said he expected the 66 suspected asylum seekers, who arrived on a fishing vessel at the busy West Australian port of Geraldton, to be sent back to Sri Lanka.
He denied there were widespread cases of human rights abuse in Sri Lanka and insisted people were leaving the country by boat for economic reasons.
'They need not come to Australia if they fear for their life,' he said. 'There is much closer destinations if they have to (leave).’
Where would the Sinhalese like himself go if they feared for their lives in Sri Lanka? Even if one Sinhalese has been granted asylum by Australia, one has the responsibility to conclude that the boats would carry Sinhalese also, until known otherwise at the same time as the wider public. Could they go to India where Buddhist monks are not welcomed by the People? If the High Commissioner’s statements are taken to reflect reality – then all Sinhalese asylum seekers/ refugees living in Australia need to be taken as economic migrants. The High Commissioner not being a Tamil would not know intuitively why Tamils are coming by boats. The High Commissioner being a Sinhalese would know intuitively why Sinhalese are coming by boats to Australia. That is why Lord Buddha said – to return to sender. Any observation about Tamils needs to be through the calculated path and when being done in relation to global issues – the outcomes need to be verifiable objectively.
Where one is not able rely on the investment made by oneself in wider / higher values and the expressions made by that person lead to attacks / punishments by Government and its supporters – then they are all genuine victims eligible to apply for refuge in a country that has apparently higher status in the global community for such reliability. In this instance Australia’s status is higher than India’s in the UN and hence its responsibility is greater to list them as refugees even if they were rejected by India. India’s acceptance is beyond calculated solutions based on common global principles. India’s acceptance is based on Tamil Nadu’s feelings with Tamils as one culture. Like with Diplomatic Immunity, one cannot mark rights and wrongs and allocate grades/ranks in such instances.
As for economic reasons – Australia accepting refugees also has economic consequences. Unless Australia feels one with one side or the other as if they were a part of itself – it has the responsibility to ‘calculate’ as per the UN’s Policies and allocate rights and wrongs. Every assessing person would have the natural authority as Australian, to use discretionary powers beyond the calculated level. In a self governing nation this area where discretionary powers are used is large. It is subjective but when used after one has successfully completed the common administrative part of decision making it represents the whole and would fit the whole – in this instance a solution that fits the whole of Australia. When disintegrated to the primary level – this would be acceptable to majority investors/voters. This would therefore produce positive outcomes that confirm long terms solutions for that area. Subjective powers used before this highest Administrative level is reached – would amount to majority vote power being used top down – and would naturally take value away from the country’s investment in Common Path of allocating rights and wrongs through common laws, policies and rules. Most Sri Lankan diplomats tend to express opinions within this primary level majority vote area and therefore provide feedback that would lead to more war through inappropriate use of majority power. Their positions come with that intrinsic quality not only because of the Sri Lankan Government – but they themselves would not have gotten to the higher positions without investment in such control mechanisms.
One who is attached to the benefits received / receivable for her/his work would tend to control when s/he is in position above her/his level. One who earns the benefits would enjoy self confidence and one who sacrifices immediate benefits would invest in the people first and then in the common values of the institution which represent the institution itself. It is at the latter stage that one has the right to use discretionary powers.
Australia has earned high status at UN level due to its adherence to global policies. During Howard era we had 9/11 anxieties followed by Bali tragedy. To the extent Mr. Howard denied due global processes to these asylum seekers but took up Diplomatic position in America and other countries – he made himself a natural victim of those who believed that they were messengers of God to return the karma they had suffered as migrants and due to foreigners invading their natural privacy in their own lands such as Indonesia. The personal karma of a person using discretionary powers – would affect the whole country where we the People elected such a person to power. According to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner – President Rajapakse is Mr. Howard’s parallel in relation to this karma.
Due to Mr. Howard’s negative energy in relation to Equal Opportunity values – I ended up suing him. I was sent to prison in the process but I was able to register the Truth I knew through due legal process. This is yet to happen to me in Sri Lanka. Hence I could agree with the Sri Lankan High Commissioner that at my level – there was no apparent human rights abuse in Sri Lanka. But then, there never was in my case even at the height of war when I worked within the camps. By the same token there is no Racial Discrimination problem in Australia for the Australian Tamil Community. To me there is. Using the primary level assessment of majority – one would conclude that Australian Tamil Community have not experienced racial discrimination in Australia. But I say there is racial discrimination in Australia at the highest levels of management and hence my pain and loss. As Gandhi said – the Truth is the Truth even if stated by minority of One.
One way to overcome this subconscious discrimination is to follow someone feels global and/or use the money path to make the problem common. Hence the suggestion to send the Sri Lankan Government an invoice.
I returned to Sri Lanka – taking only my personal wealth – that represents the Sri Lankan investment in me. This is largely my superannuation and the earnings I made as an expatriate worker in Papua New Guinea. In addition to the money that I take back – I am also sharing my experiences and am helping others also pay their dues to their communities that they believe invested in their development. Recently a white Australian colleague of mine asked me whether I collected money here in Australia for my work in Sri Lanka? I said no – that I have so far received only $2,000 from outsiders within the Australian Tamil community. There has been some similar donations from Singapore but the rest have been from within my family – most being out of my own superannuation – which is my capital needed for this retirement service. Even the above $2,000 was out of the proceeds from a concert by Indian film stars. Hence the origin is from India and not in Australia. I need to feel these to maintain my sense of independence. Each of our actions have economic components and a community where even one person has developed natural powers to protect – that community has earned the higher level assessment and not economic level assessment.
Recently my children asked me in relation to our plans to distribute a considerable part of our home (if and when we sold it in our lifetime) to the children - whether we were not providing for our own old age – at around $60k p.a. I said ‘no’ – that I was able to manage with the little I had or I would accept remuneration in Sri Lanka for the work I do to maintain the social status I need to show towards motivating others. I had to ensure that the bulk of my Australian earnings stayed within Australia – through our children who show majority Australian culture and less Sri Lankan culture. It would be wrong for me to benefit Sri Lanka with that money just as it would have been wrong of me to benefit Australia from my Sri Lankan investment unless it was earned through global level positions. I said however that my children could send us small amounts as Royalties for the democratic structures through which they are able to live a healthy life in Australia.
Even one such Australian returning to Sri Lanka is a healthy return for Sri Lanka. We are the true diplomats of Independence. Our mere presence would enrich the area we are a part of. In this regard Sri Lanka needs me more than Australia. I needed Australia but Australia was not there for me. So I became Australian at the level where I could work the system naturally. Beyond that I stopped relying on my Administrative investments and therefore rights and wrongs as per Australian culture.
Having returned to Sri Lanka – I find that we are aliens there – even in Tamil areas in Northern Sri Lanka. Most Administrators use the subjective power at the primary level and thus the system stagnates prematurely at low level of administration. To me, when that affects me, it is an abuse of human right – just as sending me to prison for peaceful assembly was in Australia. Hence to me one is not better than the other. My above mentioned University friend asked me as to why I wanted to go back to Sri Lanka ? I said because there I am able to work the system through common faith much more than I could here in Australia. This may change but at the moment they both need me for different looking reasons stemming from the one issue, at at different levels. All those who claim to be investors in Sri Lanka but do not go to Sri Lanka are confirming either that Sri Lanka is not safe or that Australia is more attractive. Those using common principles would find that Sri Lanka is an opportunity through which to realize global values. Genuine owners do not need any attraction either way. To them both are natural homes. If there is room for one Australian to function naturally in Sri Lanka – there needs to be room for Sri Lankans to come to Australia for natural reasons – whatever their economic value may be. Diminished Income earning opportunities is also part of the war. Dumping aid without ensuring adequate support systems has led to the recipients including the Government of Sri Lanka – showing higher status than others – but without having earned that money.
In conclusion, if a person is not able to maintain her/his traditional social status despite working as hard as her/his ancestors and this is due to the war - such a person is a genuine asylum seeker. Returning such applicants without going through Due Processes would lead to another war towards which Australia’s contribution would be exponential if even one of those returnees was a genuine applicant.
 This morning, I received some evidence of the mind of...){kind=link}