|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 24 April 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Peep show acts in Speaker's election by Lucien Rajakarunanayake After a general election that most observers and monitors, both local and foreign, said was largely free of incidents and violations of election law, the first sitting of Parliament to elect a Speaker saw the reverse of what happened at the polls. It was so full of incidents, and so much bickering and heckling, with the larger presence of yellow robes making no difference whatever. Mr. Vi Ja Mu Lokubandara, as he likes to refer to himself in keeping with the Sinhala initials for his given names, was elected Speaker with a single vote majority. A senior member of Parliament one must expect him to be impartial in his decisions, as any Speaker should, and strictly uphold the rights of Parliament and its members at all times. Although he was elected after a contest, it is his sacred duty to uphold the supremacy and sovereignty of the people in his handling of affairs involving the elected representatives of the people. One cannot but wish the new Speaker well in the tough times he may have to face in the future and the decisions he may have to make. It would be necessary for him to get the best counsel on any contentious issues. It would also be a welcome step into the past, if Speaker Lokubandara gives up all his links with his political party during his term as Speaker, as was the practice, till it was changed by Mr. Stanley Tillekeratne, upon his elevation to the office of Speaker in 1970. As it is said in legal circles: "there have been bad judges, there will be bad judges, but there are no bad judges", it is best that the new Speaker demonstrates through his conduct of parliamentary affairs, that although there may have been bad Speakers in the past, and we may well have bad Speakers in the future, we do not have a bad Speaker at present. Contemptible conduct The telecasting and photographs of what took place during the second poll for Speaker, after the tie of 108 each in the first round, showed the public at large the contempt for the decencies of democratic election and disregard for the Standing Orders of Parliament by several experienced members of the UNF. Anyone who knows the rules governing voting at election of a Speaker knows that the vote should be secret. One can excuse a rookie MP who has no experience in Parliamentary tradition or has not read Erskine May for not knowing these details. A newspaper photograph shows the former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe showing his ballot to the UNF nominee Vi. Ja. Mu. Lokubandara. Coming from a Leader of the Opposition who had such scant respect for parliament that he sat through the burning of the Draft Constitution within Parliament in August by his own party members, this disregard for Standing Orders and tradition this is no surprise. What he and his other followers did by exposing their ballots, harks back in a way to J. R. Jayewardene getting unsigned letters of resignation from all his MPs after the contemptible referendum to extend the term of parliament. At the telecast of the voting in the second round it was also shown how two former ministers made a gross violation of the rule of secrecy. One was Mr. Thondaman, the politically opportunistic leader of the CWC, who in addition being happy about opposing a trade union leader of repute and a strong champion of the cause of plantation workers through his entire political career, showed he did not believe in the secrecy of the ballot, even within parliament. He was smiling with unconcealed glee when he held up his signed ballot to be seen by members of the UNF before he put it into the box. Mr. Thondaman, as a Minister of Government is known to have forced himself onto the seats of police inspectors at their stations. With such a background, one cannot expect him to be a very strong on the niceties of parliamentary practice. However, what was even more shocking was the contemptible manner in which the vastly more educated and experienced Prof. G. L. Peiris, too showed such obvious contempt for the secrecy of the ballot. He marked it and then held it up for all UNF MPs to see what he had done with a disgusting smirk of mischief on his face, before putting it into the ballot box. This is hardly the behaviour one expects from a professor of law who in addition to being a former Head of the Faculty of Law of the University of Colombo, was its Vice Chancellor, and hold positions of visiting of professor of law at many reputed universities abroad such as Oxford and Harvard. The influence of the Sangha Much was said all these days about how the presence of members of the Sangha in Parliament as group, dedicated to the establishing of a Dharma Rajya, and upholding the traditions of such a realm, would help improve the behaviour of members of Parliament, within the Chamber. Yet, in the first day they entered Parliament, there were no signs of their presence in any way having a beneficial effect on the behaviour of other members. What is more, the JHU demonstrated a lack of unity of purpose when it came to the election of the Speaker. In the first round two members stayed and voted, while the other members left the Chamber. That was when the result was a tie, with one spoilt vote. In the third round of voting, some of the monks who left earlier returned and cast their votes. The result was Mr. Lokubandara being chosen Speaker. The ballot being secret one does not know who they voted for. Yet, with the clear division one saw in Parliament on Thursday, there is good room for assumption that the first two monks who voted were in support of Mr. D. E. W. Gunasekera, while those who returned voted with the UNP. The division seen on the first day itself, and on a matter as important as the election of the Speaker of Parliament, shows a considerable lack of coherence in policy within the JHU, which could be to the detriment of the organization itself, in addition to letting down the confidence that the urban middle class Buddhists placed in them in voting them into Parliament, through the PR system. From what one can already see, the establishment of a Dharma Rajya could be a distant possibility, but the challenge of real politik is one that the members of the JHU should successfully face first. The constitution The composition of the present Parliament, whereby a political alliance that obtained a clear majority of over 700,000 of the popular vote over its main rival, could not get a majority of seats in Parliament, has amply demonstrated a major shortcoming of the present constitution. The situation regarding the election of the Speaker was further proof that this constitution needs urgent amendment, to make it genuinely reflect the will of the people, and prevent sectarian forces gaining representation in Parliament, far in excess of seat entitlement in keeping by the votes they obtained from the people. As stated last week, it is now all the more clear that while attending to matters affecting the lives of people, the highest priority should be given to measures to amend the present constitution in areas that need immediate change. These are firstly the necessary changes in the electoral system, without totally abandoning PR; necessary amendments to the Executive Presidency; and strengthening of the Independent Commissions on relating to the Police, Public Service, Elections and the administration of Justice. Steps should also be taken to give more teeth to the Permanent Commission of Bribery & Corruption, with funds for it being voted directly by Parliament and it not being dependent on any government departments for its investigators, prosecutors and other officers. G. L. Peiris who drafted the existing law on the Permanent Commission on Bribery and Corruption was ever willing to use the general attitude against retrospective legislation, which would have raked in the crooks of 17 years from 1977 to 1994, in order to obtain unanimous consent of Parliament for the law. No doubt the UNP supported it. However, the law is now in place and corruption after 1994 is not considered retrospective. Therefore, if the UPFA, despite the problems it has within Parliament, should focus on strengthening this law further and begin its immediate implementation. A genuine hunt for the crooks of so-called good management and efficient administration of the past two years will be a good beginning, and will give the people who voted for the UPFA and others too, the confidence that the UPFA is in fact fulfilling its promises. While reducing the price of urea is important, reducing and curbing corruption in the public and private sector are also matters of the utmost urgency. The code of conduct that the President has issued to Ministers and deputies with regard to vehicle allocation, the non-employment of relations as personal staff and other matters is indeed welcome. However, it is necessity to establish a mechanism to monitor whether they are followed or being observed in the breach. The tendency towards breach is greater. The biggest role in eliminating corruption and checking on public expenditure can best be played by Members of Parliament, who have come there with a pledge to rid this country of the cancer of fraud and corruption. They will find considerable support from the people in carrying out this major promise. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
