by Saman Indrajith
There’s a pithy Sinhala saying about teachers, students and urination: Gura hitagena hujja karana kota golayo duva duva hujja karanava (If the teacher urinates while standing, then the students would urinate while running). Soon after the President firing verbal salvos against the FCID, CID and the CIABOC we see his SLFP ministers in the government queuing up to give voice cuts criticizing those institutions, but in a nastier way.
This was also seen after the President criticized the proposals on the VAT. All SLFP ministers in the Yahapalana government found fault with the VAT quite forgetting their collective responsibility as Cabinet Ministers. It was the same case with regard to the Treasury Bond scandal and former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran. After the President said Mahendran should resign from the post, his cohorts in the government immediately offered amplification of their master’s voice.
The mee-haraka and ela-haraka (a buffalo and a cow) when yoked make an odd couple and this oddness inherent in the Yahapalana regime is pretty obvious. Splits and disagreements within the ranks were to be expected. Local Government and Provincial Council Minister Faiszer Musthapha being forced to eat humble pie by his UNP colleagues in Parliament is just one example.
When Musthapha said that MPs should not be allowed to raise every question they would like to ask, MPs from both the Government and the Opposition raised objections. A heated debate ensued after Musthapha refused to respond to a query by an MP in Parliament the previous Tuesday regarding a bank account of the Chief Minister of the Uva Provincial Council Chamara Sampath Dasanayake.
The question was raised by Chaminda Wijesiri (UNP Bandarawela), who asked whether the Minister was aware that an account of the Uva Provincial Council had been taken over for personal use by its Chief Minister and asked the minister to state to the House of the extent to which this act complied with the existing financial regulations and provincial council regulations. The MP also asked the Minister to inform the House of the steps that would be taken in relation to illegal and improper transactions, if any.
The Minister said that the question was slanderous and intended to defame the Uva CM and therefore that he would not respond.
His standpoint was heavily criticized by the government and opposition party leaders who counter-argued to point out that every MP has a right to raise questions in Parliament and observed that although the relevant Ministers need not respond right away, they cannot remain silent. The minister may not answer the question as per the Standing Orders but he could not interpret and fix labels on questions, they argued.
This was not just another exchange in Parliament. It is one of the most important issues raised in the recent parliament history and perforce demands our attention. Musthapha is a cabinet minister. Yet, it was his own colleagues who took issue with his stubborn attitude. It was Public Enterprise Development Minister Kabir Hashim who took the lead. The baton of the relay of attacking Musthapha then went to the hands of another cabinet minister — Ranjith Maddumabandara. Thereafter other opposition party leaders had a field day in cutting down their colleague Musthapha to size and Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, visibly moved by the arguments that ensued in the chamber, gave each of them ample time to do so.
There have been countless occasions when pandemonium has erupted in Parliament over the most trivial of issues. As a result we often hear the general public and opinion makers lamenting the fall of standards. It is in this context that a Code of Ethics for MPs was mooted. The Code has almost been finalized and is now at the Legal Draftsman’s Department. As one of the most senior politicians in the current parliament, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe ably assisted by Speaker Jayasuriya and Deputy Speaker Thilanga Sumathipala, is engaged in an exercise to cure Parliament of such ills and make it more democratic.
The attitude displayed by Minister Musthapha on Tuesday goes against the grain of this process . Finally as the argument ensured it was revealed that it was Musthapha’s legal firm that gave consultancy to the Uva Chief Minister. Naturally, it will be concluded that Musthapha was merely defending a client in Parliament, as he does in court and this is exactly what NFF leader Wimal Weerawansa did.
JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayaka also criticized the Minister, pointing out that it was the second time he has refused to answer the question.
Although visibly angry Musthapha was forced to admit hat he had provided legal counsel to the Chief Minister concerned.
MP Weerawansa said: “It is like horage ammagen pena ahanawa wagey (asking the thief’s mother where her son is). It is your legal firm that gave counsel to the Uva Chief Minister to help him get away with the fraud he committed.”
The outcome will no doubt go a long way in protecting the democratic rights of MPs to raise questions in parliament. Hashim and Maddumabandara may very well be accused of violating the principle of cabinet solidarity, but then again, they could argue that they were defending democracy rather than thwarting Musthapha.
It would be a stretch to predict any split of government or cabinet over this incident. Yet we should not forget that the Sarajevo incident became a landmark in history only after it has been identified as the spark of World War I and the Mavil Aru incident as the downfall of LTTE. Incidents when they occur appear to be of little importance but it’s their potential coupled by the political aspirations of those who call the shots that often ascribes value to them.
Soon after Musthapha’s loss (of face), the SLFP MPs in government ranks told the media that they are yet to decide whether they would vote with the government on the budget. In all likelihood, they would vote for the budget, but would do so after securing concessions. They have clearly demanded that their proposals be incorporated into the budget as the condition for support.
Apart from the Musthapha affair, the only other incident that caught the attention of the public and the press gallery was the matter of the ministers’ helitour, which actually was due to the fault of ministry officials. It was not the first time that ministry officials had bungled in providing information to Parliament. There had in fact been three occasions in the week immediately preceding this.
The first was when Matara District UNP MP Buddhika Pathirana raised a point of order complaining that some officials were deliberately delaying answering questions. These officials have got the backing of the independent commissions to do so and have become a kind of a junta, the MP complained to the Speaker who promised to look into the issue.
On the same day, Minister Kabir Hashim found that an information sheet sent to him by his ministry to be read out as an answer to a question contained wrong information. Hashim told Parliament that a special investigation would be conducted against his ministry officials for giving false information to Parliament with regard to the number of loss making public institutions. The Auditor General has mentioned in his report for the year 2014 that there are 72 loss making public sector organizations, but the officials of the Ministry of Public Enterprises have informed parliament that there are only 14 such institutions.
Minister Hashim was lucky but State Defence Minister Ruwan Wijewardene was not. The latter had been asked by Joint Opposition MP Udaya Gammanpila to state to the House separately the politicians, government officials and other individuals who used helicopters or aircraft of Sri Lanka Air Force for official or private visits during the period Jan 10, 2015 to April 30, 2016. The Ministry sent a response to Minister Wijewardene, who apparently had no time to read it out and was ordered by Speaker to table it following an argument between Gammanpila and Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka.
Wijewardene did not know that his officials had erred at the time he tabled it. The answer sheet which became a public document with its tabling contained an incomplete list of names of ministers, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, foreign delegates who visited the country during the aforesaid period and some heads of state too as those who had cheated the SLAF. When the minister saw media reports following day he knew something was wrong and tried to raise a privilege issue which was put on hold by the Speaker who later summoned media and informed them that they did nothing wrong as he checked with Hansard Department and went through the document tabled against media reports.
Courtesy:Sunday Island