| Sri Lanka News Updates with Discussions |
Sri Lankan News & Discussions |
|
Report this post by 'Gaja' for abuse
When you submit an abuse report, the modetrator will take an immediate look at this post and his/her previous posts to
see if there are any posting guideline violations are done by 'Gaja'.
|
|
Annexure 1
[Annexure 1 The Hon Robert McClelland, MP Federal Attorney General Parliament House Canberra 24 December 2008 Dear Mr. McClelland, Dr. Mohamed Haneef v Australian Federal Police Gaja Laskshmi Paramasivam v University of NSW I refer to the reports about compensation claims by Dr. Mohamed Haneef. Dr. Haneef, an Indian national, is receiving more attention from you than I an Australian labeled a mentally ill criminal by the University of NSW. I continue to pay the University for the legal costs incurred by them because they wanted to win to cover up and not participate in reality. It is reported that the inquiry into Dr. Haneef s case has already cost us $4 million. Dr. Haneef is already employed. I am not. I am continuing to raise my job application work to policy level to benefit all Australians. Once we have practiced the existing laws through Due Process and find that the prevailing system is not able to uphold the True value of our work, we must begin structuring our own path for others to follow. This is how, in family life, my children are able to work comfortably, inter-racial marriages where others seem to struggle which often results in depression due to failed expectations. I left for my family a reliable structure of values before progressing to the next stage of my life i.e. public life. As a migrant I am leaving behind a firm and reliable structure developed naturally with facts as its walls and Truth as its soul. Everyone who follows in that path will realize fulfillment. Mr. McClelland, if your government pays compensation to Dr. Haneef, then you are stating that foreigners are more important to you than Australians. I know through my own experiences recently with the Australian Federal Police (about which I have written to you also) that they are not very efficient. To the extent we Australians accept that and raise our pain and/or loss to policy investment you need to show that policy. When this is done before you compensate foreigners, you are showing that Australians are more important to you than foreigners. If Tamils of Northern Sri Lanka who were punished unjustly by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), receive compensation from the Indian Government, then Indians have the moral authority to claim parallel compensation from other nations. If they fail to follow this protocol of Natural Justice, the compensation paid to Dr. Haneef beyond the level at which Australians are compensated, is likely go towards harm to Indian politicians as happened to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. That Assassination was compensation taken by a victim. Lawyers assisting Dr. Haneef are the parallel of the Tamil Tigers who assisted the Rajiv Gandhi assassin. That assassination was wrong and so is this claim. I was arrested by NSW Police in the path of developing the structure of my workplace reality (including my own practiced values) here in Australia. That was my contribution to preventing violent retaliations by victims aided by outsiders. The Vice Chancellors of the UNSW acted like the AFP and hence the arrests and the punishments that followed. I now know that this is their natural way which remained covered by fancy theories and position status through which reality was suppressed with me being the lone voice that continues to keep it alive. To the extent I include myself as part of UNSW, they are protected by the real value of that lone voice. When I give up some of that power would go to those who are likely to take an eye for an eye as Rajiv Gandhi s assassin did. You are likely to then go into panic mode and call them terrorists and your agents would translate in their own way and arrest those who seem suspicious. The poorer one looks the harsher the punishment. This was established when the NSW Police treated me with greater dignity during the last arrest when I was wearing a western suit compared to the first three times when I was wearing sari. They are not trained to override these natural memories using which they empower themselves. Dr. Haneef got his status elevated by drawing on his Indian investments. When I called the Sri Lankan consulate I was informed that it would not be appropriate because I was an Australian. In terms of terrorism, the difference between the treatment received by David Hicks and by Dr. Haneef after Dr. Haneef is escalated to the level of investment David Hicks made in armed groups - is our race discrimination factor. All this happened Mr. McClelland. When we actually practice laws and principles we invoke the hidden weaknesses suppressed by those with custody over benefits. The path we walk today is the structure for tomorrow s policy for those who have faith in us. UNSW management system was very weak when I first joined the UNSW. My work/walk since then has contributed to development of a path / structure of real values through which majority would obtain reliable returns for their investments . Some would use that path whilst others would continue in the old one of unpracticed laws and theories which lead to abuse of power. The rest like gypsies would be led by free opinions. You are running the risk of being in the last group in Dr. Haneef s case. Employment is an important path through which status is earned / allocated. Annexures A & B reflect the path I am leaving behind while I progress to the next stage of my life. Your colleague the Hon Julia Gillard who is responsible for developing through her own walk the reliable structure in employment, is yet to respond. If we practiced all those employment policies that we show others we would already be a working paradise. Merry Christmas Yours sincerely, Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam CC: All Concerned. Annexure A Thank you Ms Morris for your detailed response. I have responded in the body of your email. ----- Original Message ----- From: Joanne Morris To: gajalakshmi_param@bigpond.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:09 PM Subject: Business Resource Manager Position - Department of Commerce Dear Ms Paramasivan, Thank you very much for your inquiry regarding the position above and for your interest in the selection process. As you know, the NSW public sector abides by a rigorous process in selecting candidates for positions and this position was no exception. No that is an assumption and if you had asked me I would have stated that the NSW Public Sector has not progressed much since 1990 when I first entered the Public Sector as a clerk 3/4. The fact that I was quickly promoted to Financial Controller position and then consultant - confirms the weakness that existed. If I had gotten in as a temporary person, it is highly likely that the person/s who benefits from the services of this position, would have structured the Selection Criteria to suit me. If you do not know that this happens in Operations, then you are out of touch with operations. That is good management. I do know that the NSW Public Sector recruiting process in theory is one of the best I have come across. I myself have sat in panels recruiting staff including for a position similar to the above. As indicated, I structured the original Financial Controller`s position and provided services that are covered by this position. In practice, it is my experience that the NSW Public Service is failing miserably to recruit the right candidate. Otherwise I would entered Public Service at grade 7/8 and not at grade 3/4. I would also have been eagerly recruited by Department of Commerce before I committed myself elsewhere. There were 16 applications for the role in total. There were 8 selection criteria as listed in the job advertisement. Each candidate was scored against each criteria from 1 - 5 meaning each candidate received a score out of a possible 40. How do they relate to the Job Description? Take for example the first one - 1) Proven ability to undertake and/or coordinate sensitive projects supported with understanding of project management practices. The closest source in the job description that I could find was in the goals of the department Demonstrated commitment to support delivery of Maxim value for government agencies in delivering services to clients, customers and the community Ability to build strong client relationships Ms Morris to my mind, showing this connection indicates my ability to work in the consciousness of the whole department, which is essential in all senior position. Otherwise there was no need to include that in the information package. 2) Extensive experience in providing high-level professional support services to senior staff. To my mind this could be tested as follows: (a) Objectively - by producing documentary evidence of reports and other communications with senior staff (b) Subjectively - through references from the senior staff served by the applicant. Whatever academic qualifications we may have had, what matters is how we use our knowledge to serve the needs of the position - expressed in this instance as support to senior staff. The persons served by this position are not likely to be like those in other organisations. Each one is unique. Hence in terms of subjective measures, the best measure is evidence/indicators of ongoing assessment in positions similar to the above in similar environments. I doubt that you would have received better than the ones produced by me - given by those who occupied those senior positions. The only better claim I can think of is similar references from current occupants of those positions. 3) Proven budgetary skills with ability to monitor and coordinate routine accounts as well as analyse strategic finance and corporate planning reports. Again, I structured from a cash accounting system, the budgetary systems at Advertising and Information Service. This was very difficult considering the `attachment` of senior accountants at Central Administration to Cash Accounting and Historic Budgeting that goes with Cash Accounting. I ran parallel sets of accounts using Lotus 123 and later Excel. I have given you the feedback from the senior staff responsible to show outcomes on behalf of the Budget Units. They are all operational managers. If I did not receive full marks on this one - I would say that your recruitment is fundamentally flawed. You would have been better off getting someone through an agency to do the work to `show` others and not for ownership. On ownership basis you could not have found someone better than the creator. In Public Service, ownership test must come before other tests to show glamour. 4) High-level oral and written communications and interpersonal skills including the ability to undertake routine to complex research and present material. Communication style could be verified through objective measures. One who communicates him/herself is the best communicator. The subjects in the recruiting panel therefore have responsibility to reveal the grading they gave me under this criterion, together with their own credentials to do so. How could the panel have assessed oral communication skills without even talking to me? The way I talk to one would be different to the way I talk to another on the same substance. This one should not be assessed individually but through majority vote. 5)Experience in research to support the preparation of accurate briefs, reports and correspondence whilst maintaining a current knowledge of government and Commerce key issues and strategies. Again, given that you have not stated an objectively measurable structure, apart from the research component, this is effectively satisfied through majority vote and not on objectively measurable merit basis. 6)Superior administrative and organisational skills and an ability to prioritise workloads and meet tight deadlines in a high volume environment. 7)Well-developed problem solving skills and ability to exercise judgment, initiative, confidentiality and discretion. Again, these cannot be tested through objectively measurable evidence. This is satisfied through majority vote. 8) Experience in supervision and management of accounts payable and business support staff. As per the evidence submitted - I ought to have been awarded 5 for this one. In this case, three candidates scored 35 or higher with a significant gap between the third and fourth ranked candidates. Given the gap in the field, the panel chose to interview the three most highly ranked candidates. In relation to your application, your ranking fell in the bottom third of candidates. As I indicated to you over the phone, the field was particularly strong. As indicated by me to you - academic qualifications at a higher level than is required would work against service delivery through this particular position. Academic qualifications of Management Accountants need to be basic. Otherwise they would tend to produce theory to suppress reality. With Business Managers it needs to be even more basic. At Business level one needs to limit one`s production close to 50% and facilitate the other to produce the other 50%. High academic knowledge often influences to produce all of it. In terms of giving you feedback about how best to apply for positions like this in the future, I would strongly recommend refining your application so that it doesn`t run to 48 pages, but more directly addresses the selection criteria. The main application was only 13 pages long. When I remove the references by others on specifics as per selection criteria - the application is only 6 pages long. Those references were from my previous supervisors who were confirming to you that I was competent in those areas. In other words they were voting for me and if you identified with them - especially the likes of Ms Colleen Moore who founded the operations of those two Budget Units, you would have voted for me for the subjective claims. The Annexures were to confirm from zero base - for yourselves - my claim especially in research and communication. It is obvious that you had rigid subjective templates through which you marked against these criteria. Try to avoid philosophising about the criteria and try to address, in more practical terms, how your experience relates to the selection criteria, perhaps giving one example per criteria. Many of the Criteria and Job Responsibilities indicate working close to policy/philosophy. What you are saying is that you have recruited someone with rigid style that is right in your eyes. This means that unless most of your customers are like you this person would fail as a Business Manager. In Resource Management one needs to be more conscious of reality in one`s own control. Being philisophical helps make up the difference between one`s earned benefits and received benefits. We call this ownership which obviously is a negative point with you. I would strongly advise against including quotes from letters or email exchanges in an application. It raises concerns about discretion and appropriate repetition of internal exchanges. Again these are natural outcomes of my work that were produced publicly. Take for example, the communication with the Auditor General. That is a clear evidence of my strengths in Operations/Business as well as my commitment to fundamentals in Audit. This would make up for any downgrading of my Sri Lankan academic qualifications. Most of my communications are Public and they confirm my commitment to transparency. By giving me negative marks - you are confirming that you are not committed to transparency. Where we are not bound by common faith - we need to be transparent - so that others would make their own assessments - each one as per their investment in the substance and the degree of their seeking. This is the role of the media. I have confirmed my outstanding skills in democratic communication and you are seeking autocratic communication. Hence the use of words such as `discretion` and `internal exchanges`. The substance is public and therefore the process needs to be transparent. With private substance - even I `forget` the details as soon as the purpose of a communication has been served to help the needy and/or just to share the experience. This is why I indulge more than the average person, in philosophy. Always ensure you address the selection criteria that appear in the advertisement. You have, in a few instances, altered the selection criteria or addressed a selection criteria that did not appear in the advertisement for the position. I have already addressed this above. The changes indicate to a degree the real needs of the position and that comes from real experience. It was obvious to me that the person/s crafting the criteria did not have wisdom in the needs of the position in particular and the needs of Public Service in general. You would also be aware that reference checks are performed as part of the process of recruitment if you are successful at interview, or sometimes if you are successful at reaching interview. It is therefore less necessary to include every reference in the body of your application. It clouds the central proposition you are attempting to convey. First of all my current referees may not be able to verify through their own direct experience the details of my claim under those particular criteria. In fact I am not in touch with most of them. Atleast one is no longer physically in this world. By including their assessments I am bringing their strengths into that job, through me. It motivates me and comforts me when others are less generous. I have valued many of their valuations of me in my ongoing work. Unless the panel was made up of Business Managers with similar expertise - this reference is required to mark on the basis of subjectively measurable criteria. Overall, I think you need to concentrate on more succinct and meaningful communication in your job applications in order to convey both your communication skills and to portray your experience in its best light. Are you then saying that all those who have stated through their direct experience with me that I am an effective and caring communicator who does not wait until asked but seeks and finds the needy - are wrong? Ms Morris - subjective communication is through our feelings and I conclude that you do not feel much in common with me and therefore I did not stand a chance of winning that job. Gaja, it seems clear to me that you have a lot of experience, but I`m strongly of the view you would benefit from seeking advice from a professional careers advisor who can help you refine both your approach to applications and your CV. You mean you are recommending that I change and become like the ones who win easily? Then I would not have the real experience would I ? It`s catch 22 Ms Morris. Mr. Neil Morris - the Director of Human Resources at the University of NSW also said similar - like you he also wanted to help me. But then I would not be Gaja - would I? As far as I am concerned you made a terrible mistake and it is wrong to cover that up by sending me to do something that would influence me to pretend like others do. Unless you have gone through the hardship that I have as a migrant professional who has to accept lower pay and hide higher qualifications - your suggestions are for those who rely on reliable structures. They do not suit real professionals nor in this instance businesses. A good Resource Manager would need to downsize the style of Operations without compromising on policy. I have done exactly that through this application. Again, many thanks for taking the time to apply and I hope this advice is useful to you in finding a job that best suits your talents and experience. I thank you for the essence of your communication - that you wish me well as an outsider. Keep your hand on your heart and ask yourself Ms Morris whether the message above is from your heart. If yes, your communication skills are higher than mine. If no, your communication skills are lower than mine. All the best for your future. My future is a projection of my present and my past. You have already failed me on these two . So how can I take this to be genuine? Gaja PS - I am copying this to others so the pain felt by other applicants is likely to be less and more importantly - those responsible for employment policy would include reality in their workings. Kind regards, Joanne Morris ----- Original Message ----- From: `Joanne Morris` -Joanne.Morris@commerce.nsw.gov.au- To: -gajalakshmi_param@bigpond.com- Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 11:08 PM Subject: Re: Business Resource Manager Position - Department ofCommerce - Dear Ms Paramasivan, - - My apologies to you if you found my response unsatisfactory. - - My intention was to be a honest and constructive as I can be under the - circumstances. - - Clearly this has not met your expectations for which I apologise. - - I know the recruitment process can be very difficult and, if you do not - find my suggestions useful, I understand. How you approach a position, - is of course, entirely up do you. - - I genuinely wish you well with your future applications. - - Kind regards, Joanne Morris Thank you Ms Morris. I do appreciate very much that you were being honest. More importantly, you responded where others chose to remain silent and the UNSW even called the Police to arrest me if I insisted on taking the issue to policy level. This from someone who asked me to suggest changes to the UNSW Recruitment Policy Guide. I am deeply moved by your extension of apologies. You do not need to apologise personally, because personally I appreciate you very much. The recruiting panel did err - but then they are no better than most others. These are limitations in our system which we all have to accept and absorb to feel ownership through which we connect automatically to each other. Once we achieve that connection - these losses/costs become owership investments/opportunities. Some of us have only this back-door opportunity to invest in policy. I would now be able to help those who have faith in me not experience this kind of pain. I did encounter the parallels of these when I started moving accounting systems away from cash to accrual. I am also one who believes in valuing those who created the opportunity. I believe it is a part of my Eastern culture. Where the criterion cannot be tested through Objective measures, this is the quickest avenue - be it for recruitment or for actual work itself. It would not be difficult for me to pass the `recruitment test` with flying colours. Just yesterday, a University student rang to thank me for helping him get 78% in Management Accounting - from a `fail` last semester. Getting those marks would not be difficult for me. But then that would say that leaving Advertising & Information Services was a mistake - that I ought to have remained and continued to earn the money and enjoy the status. If that were the case - I deny myself the value of my own investment in policy. In summary - only those criteria that could be tested through Objective measures and would stand up to public scrutiny, ought to be included as Essential Selection Criteria. The rest is about our reality and need to be through subjective election. It`s like in government - the Minister being the intellectual parallel to be tested scientifically. The rest of government decisions are required to be on behalf of the People who have faith in the Members of Parliament. Your recruitment panel ideally needs to be a model of this government structure. Even the UNSW failed to appreciate this despite the Chancellor communicating his feelings to the Administration. The Council and therefore the Owners of the UNSW were disrespected and punished through me. There is perfect logic to belief based ownership vote. We just need to keep it away from calculations until we have the formulas. When we do, we would find the same answer in a longer way like touching the nose by going around the head. Belief projects the perfect answer. We just deny the opportunity to believe, by wishful thinking. Thank you deeply again and May God Bless you. Don`t worry about me. I will keep going as much as I can. Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam ----- Original Message ----- From: Minister Firth`s Office To: gajalakshmi_param@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:40 PM Subject: Your correspondence Dear Ms Paramasivan The Hon Verity Firth MP has asked me to thank you for your recent e-mail concerning the Business Resource Manager position. As the matter you raise falls mainly under the portfolio responsibilities of the Hon Carmel Tebbutt, Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, and Minister for Commerce, Minister Firth has asked me to refer your correspondence to the Deputy Premier for further consideration and a direct reply. You may be sure that your concerns will receive close consideration. Yours sincerely Daniel Doran Assistant Private Secretary Office of the Hon Verity Firth MP Minister for Education and Training Minister for Women Annexure B From: Gaja param [mailto:gajalakshmi_param@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:14 AM To: MCDONOUGH,Louise Subject: Re: Director - Workplace Relations Policy Group - Your Ref: RB2520 Dear Louise, As I have not heard from you, I am concluding that I have not been successful in this position also. I seek to share the attached communication with you, towards better policy Regards Gaja ----- Original Message ----- From: MCDONOUGH,Louise To: Gaja param Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:32 AM Subject: RE: Director - Workplace Relations Policy Group - Your Ref: RB2520 Dear Gaja Thank you for your email. The selection panel met last week to assess all applications received for the advertised position and I am currently informing those applicants who were not selected for interview. We received a strong field of applicants for the position and unfortunately on this occasion other candidates had more direct experience and stronger claims than you against section criterion 1 (providing high quality, evidence based policy advice to Government) and criteria 4 (demonstrated people management and leadership skills). Accordingly, I regret to inform you that, on this occasion, you have not been selected for interview. If you wish to discuss this decision, please contact me on (02) 6240 2733 or louise.mcdonough@deewr.gov.au. Yours sincerely Louise McDonough Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations From: Gaja param [mailto:gajalakshmi_param@bigpond.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:54 AM To: MCDONOUGH,Louise Cc: Maxine.McKew.MP@aph.gov.au dp.office@watkins.minister.nsw.gov.au karentoohey@humanrights.gov.au Martin, Steve_M jbfsit Nicolas Hayes Murphy, Lisa thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au office@smos.nsw.gov.au Minister Firth`s Office office@perry.minister.nsw.gov.au office@judge.minister.nsw.gov.au LOP@parliament.nsw.gov.au info@barackobama.com consularcolombo@state.gov f.hilmer@unsw.edu.au c.kirby@unsw.edu.au n.morris@unsw.edu.au p.kringas@unsw.edu.au b.milthorpe@unsw.edu.au r.layton@unsw.edu.au Monica_Neville@agd.nsw.gov.au j.niland@unsw.edu.au bruce_dowton@hms.harvard.edu j.ingleson@unsw.edu.au m.wainwright@unsw.edu.au wf.chua@unsw.edu.au f.moshirian@unsw.edu.au e.lumbers@unsw.edu.au j.dwyer@unsw.edu.au g.rees@unsw.edu.au d.boothey@unsw.edu.au j.leeper@unsw.edu.au p.harris@unsw.edu.au d.wakefield@unsw.edu.au d.tracey@unsw.edu.au m.perry@unsw.edu.au p.baume@unsw.edu.au g.parker@unsw.edu.au a.rotem@unsw.edu.au d.decarle@unsw.edu.au p.waite@unsw.edu.au k.ashwell@unsw.edu.au g.halliday@unsw.edu.au e.tancred@unsw.edu.au b.freeman@unsw.edu.au d.vu@unsw.edu.au p.carrive@unsw.edu.au m.hill@unsw.edu.au p.pandey@unsw.edu.au b.hall@unsw.edu.au r.day@unsw.edu.au W.Wartho@med.unsw.edu.au Gaja param l.field@unsw.edu.au coo@unsw.edu.au r.henry@unsw.edu.au j.bott@unsw.edu.au j.cooper@unsw.edu.au jennie.lang@unsw.edu.au a.cameron@unsw.edu.au p.murphy@unsw.edu.au d.wiley@unsw.edu.au peter.smith@unsw.edu.au j.baird@adfa.edu.au harding@unsw.edu.au edwardho@unsw.edu.au david@campbell.minister.nsw.gov.au Stephen.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au gwen harrigan info@TamilNobelLaureate.com scoop@theage.com.au Railey, Christopher J. scoop@smh.com.au adusecretariat@ohchr.org GetUp hmi@hms.harvard.edu Tom_Aretz@hms.harvard.edu Rohana Dissanayake Subject: Re: Director - Workplace Relations Policy Group - Your Ref: RB2520 Dear Louise, Thank you for your response. I must have felt that I have been rejected and hence my email to you. I got this realisation when I was travelling to Our Lady`s Church at Mulgoa. This confirms to me that I feel strong ownership in this position. Louise, you state `We received a strong field of applicants for the position and unfortunately on this occasion other candidates had more direct experience and stronger claims than you against section criterion 1 (providing high quality, evidence based policy advice to Government)` Is this policy contributiuon by others at international level - given that it`s an ILO related position? Also - did you assess this criterion through Objective Measures? It is my belief through my direct experience that to the extent our previous faith based system failed to produce reliable outcomes, we need to develop systems to produce Objectively measurable outcomes - which would stand up to any scientific scrutiny. These must be published for all to see and identify with. The level at which we are able to produce these Objectively Measurable outcomes indicates our intellectual / scientific development. In addressing these Criteria - the applicant merely presents the work (as done through my attachments) and leaves the evidence to speak for itself. There ought to be no subjective claim made by the applicant under Objective Criteria. It`s a zero base assessment - as in zero base budgeting. The rest is measured through owners of the position - i.e. all those who have contributed to the make up of that position and are responsible to maintain that position. This assessment is done through majority vote. Owners must vote through feelings. Towards this all `voters` must focus at the same time on the one applicant`s claim. That`s how far an external system can take a voter. The rest is upto the voter and we have the responsibility to accept it without checking rights and wrongs - as done through Objective Criteria. The ownership contribution is based on the core values of the institution - in this instance the ILO. It is based on our faith in the original creator/s of the position. The strongest vote is by the creator. I would like to know whether you had an ILO representative from outside Australia, especially from the East on the panel? Alternatively did you have enough ethnic representation on the panel? Ideally, for each category that qualifies for unlawful discrimination, you need to have equal representation on the panel - for example one man for each woman etc. If you are not able to find equal numbers from the people who support and maintain the position, it`s important to bring the Public in - as we do when we elect government. That would be truly democratic and all genuine applicants would accept the decision of the panel more easily than when you try to `show` through Selection Criteria, that which was determined through intuition. Where one person did the grading at any point in time - that ought to be Objectively verifiable. We, the Public are owed that from the Government - especially its Employment arm. Part of the ownership claim is made by the applicant through identity with the current needs of the position and therefore the organisation. One who becomes that position is the deepest owner. Louise, it`s Christmas time and I would like to use the message of Christ in presenting my contribution to improving Australia`s recruitment policy. As per Christianity - the religon representing majority Australians `Ask, and it shall be given you seek, and you shall find knock, and it shall be opened unto you`. As a practicing Hindu I see this through the parallel - body, mind and soul of any issue. The boy can be tested through Objective/Scientific tests. The soul is realised through personal ownership. The mind is the flow that connects the two. I presented the Objective evidence as a person who has already done that work in a most needy area of our times - Sri Lanka`s war zones. As per Time Magazine, Sri Lanka`s war is deadlier than Afghanistan`s. My work values are seen by those folks as Australia`s work values. I am one of the rare opportunities that they get to invest in global employment values. To the extent I have shared my feeling that I was the best suited for the position - I have successfully communicated my ownership value/soul. The rest is mind work. Until you produce material that would stand up to Objective scrutiny that would override my conclusion that I was best suited but that my mind was missing from the selection panel I am entitled to believe that the Government owes me. To the extent I absorb that pain without any compensating benefit in money or status - I am a higher Australian than the Government - meaning I am the Public that elects the government. That is how minority of even one becomes equal to majority majority force. When done through Intellectual merit basis - we call it Truth. When done through absorption of pain and loss we call it Love. In a democratic workplace more than 50% of the recruitment would be by those below that position. Thank you again Gaja ----- Original Message ----- From: MCDONOUGH,Louise To: Gaja param Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: RE: Director - Workplace Relations Policy Group - Your Ref: RB2520 Dear Gaja I am sorry that you are disappointed with the panel`s decision. I will not be engaging in further correspondence on this matter. Yours sincerely, Louise McDonough ----- Original Message ----- From: Gaja param To: MCDONOUGH,Louise Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Director - Workplace Relations Policy Group - Your Ref: RB2520 Ok Louise. I propose to then just share this with the Minister and leave it to the Minister to do the needful Gaja] |
(C) 2000-2008 www.lankanewspapers.com - Sri Lankan News & Discussions - Contact Us - RSS Feed - News Archives - src - FAQ |
Search All News and Discussions