UNP – uphold Parliamentary traditions and practices!
Posted on June 2nd, 2015
Shenali D Waduge
The parliamentary traditions and practices have suddenly come under threat and questions need to be posed to the UNP as to whether it is embarking on a very detrimental path subjecting not only all norms of good governance but jeopardizing the stability of the country as well.
The Presidential election concluded on 8 January 2015. A new President was elected on 9 January 2015. Simultaneously a PM was appointed while the sitting Prime Minister had not been sacked or had resigned. Thereafter, strings of other errors and malpractices that question the UNP’s respect for democracy and good governance have come to light and these do not add well to the public opinion gathering momentum worried about the state of affairs in the country.
The 19th amendment was hurriedly brought and coincidentally matched regime change in countries where the same 100 day program and changes to the Constitution has been made. Sri Lanka’s case seemed an exact replica fashioned by the propaganda hype CHANGE.
What is now questioned is the Constitutional Council a very important provision which originally was left to the President to decide and which now rests under a group.
While we must add that the 19a that the President-installed PM pushed for is certainly not the document that eventually became passed in Parliament and we must thank the Opposition that kept on its toes demanding changes to stall a very dictatorial provisions violating the Constitution taking place. We can safely say that 19a is not what the President-installed PM wanted or planned for but has to now make do with. Ranil has been caught in his own trap!
The 19th amendment http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items12/English-19A-Final-15-May-2015.pdf
Nevertheless, while the Chair of the Constitutional Council is to be the Speaker there is a provision, mandatory to in 19a, chapter Vii A, article 41A (4) that in nominating the 5 persons referred to in sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph (1), the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition SHALL consult the leaders of political parties and independent groups represented in Parliament.
Its been 2 weeks since the 19a has been passed and with scores of lawyers inside Parliament including the President-installed PM and the Opposition Leader it is baffling that NO ONE NOTICED that SHALL clause entails for the party leaders to be consulted. Does the Government know exactly what was passed as 19a? Why have the party leaders been bypassed. This is a major violation of the standing orders and an insult to parliamentary ethics and traditions. Ignorance cannot be accepted as an excuse!
Moreover when the Speaker is the Chair of the Constitutional Council why was he absent?
We really must now wonder whether there are elements inside Parliament attempting to create a lawless state out of Sri Lanka and seriously wonder on what grounds such motives are being laid out.
It is for Sri Lankas Parliament to realize that in silently watching the country fail and fall into a crisis situation is not going to do any of them any good politically. The public will all look upon them as having betrayed the stability of the nation.
The current behaviour of the Government in the manner it is functioning seriously questions how far it is willing to go to cling to power at any cost and breaking all parliamentary decorum in the process.
Obviously even the Justice Minister with all his qualifications seems clueless and did not even know the age change of a contesting Presidential candidate much to the laughter of the House! Another area that has been violated is that the 19a bill was handled by the Justice Minister whereas Parliamentary requirement is for the Leader of the House to handle it. That was how the 1978 Constitutional Amendment was handled by Premadasa as Leader of the House. Why did the President-installed Prime Minister give the 19a to the Justice Minister to handle when there was a Leader of the House to handle it? These standard practices are now being violated by the new Government and does not look good on maintaining disciplined parliamentary practice and traditions.
What is important to realize is that while the MPs will change with a change of government the 3 independent members will remain for the entirety of the 3 years.
The public are watching these developments and malpractices. The UNP must now stop the reckless path it is taking and honour parliamentary traditions and practices and good governance which is not one-sided and meant only for the Opposition.
Shenali D Waduge
June 2nd, 2015 at 4:43 pm
Next PM will most likely be CBK because that is what PRESIDENT Maru Sira wants. And thereafter she will become the leader of the SLFP too.
It is funny to expect parliamentarians to BEHAVE. They call each other filth, shout at each other, etc. This is the NEW PARLIAMENTARY TRADITION.
We need a solution that BYPASSES elections and parliament.
After 19 amendment, IF the president dies, the Chair of the Constitutional Council will assume the post of president. The SPEAKER is the Chair of the Constitutional Council.
That is why UNP is preventing the speaker from participating in the Constitutional Council.
BTW what happened to the 20th amendment?
June 3rd, 2015 at 2:34 am
Thank you Shanali for raising this issue on 3 independent members to the Constitutional Council even before parliament raising it.. Today (03/06/2015) Parliament adjourned amidst CC stand-off.
The Speaker today decided to adjourn Parliament until next Tuesday (June 09), despite its failure to reach a final decision with regard to the appointing of three civil society representatives to the Constitutional Council.
Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa adjourned Parliament until June 09, Ada Derana reporter said.
It was reported that a final agreement with regard to the three CC members would be reached and that they would be appointed within today, at the special parliament session.
However, no final decision had been reached at the one-and-a-half hour long party leaders’ meeting held today with the participation of the Speaker.
Therefore it had been decided that the consent of the persons proposed by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader should be submitted in writing and that future decision would be taken based on the nature of those opinions.