Political talk on asses, donkeys and foibles of the two-legged

When over-rated politicians of dubious character resurrect the dead to defend their indefensible actions, one can understand why some “Aragalaya” protesters demanded that the ostentatious building at Diyawanna Oya be closed until the country could find a far more worthy lot of free-loaders.

A couple of weeks or so ago Urban Development and Housing Minister and Chief Government Whip Prasanna Ranatunga had dragged the name of Trotskyist politician, the late Dr Colvin R. de Silva, a highlyrespected lawyer, orator and historian, in support of one of his childish acts against political opponents, making it increasingly clear that Sri Lanka politics is fast reaching its nadir, if it has not already done so.

At a media conference held at the parliament grounds- which today is a High Security Zone under the Official Secrets’ Act of 1955- former foreign minister Prof GL Peiris accused the government of denying its critics the right of speaking in parliament by not allocating them speaking time.

He was referring to the recent debate on strategies to increase national income where 13 members of a dissident SLPP group were not given an opportunity to speak.

Any slightly educated person on parliamentary democracy and the rudiments of parliamentary procedure knows that members of parliament have a right to address the House and the purpose of being a representative of the people is to speak on matters of concern to the people.

So when not a single member of this dissident group was given the opportunity of performing one of the most essentials tasks of a member of parliament that justifies their presence in the House, it smacks of revenge and in the most childish fashion. One can expect such conduct in junior or secondary school by backward students accustomed to thuggery, but not from those who claim to be educated and civilised.

This 13-member group led by former minister GL Peiris and Dulles Alahapperuma, have quite rightly drawn the attention of international bodies such as the InterParliamentary Union saying the government’s action is “clearly a violation of the privileges of members of parliament, protected by law, as well as a denial of the public’s right to make an impact on the proceedings of parliament through the intervention of their elected representatives.”

Sometime after GL Peiris broke the news of this parliamentary hijacking of MPs rights, the government’s chief whip Ranatunga intervened in parliament to deny it. One English-language newspaper reported it under the headline “Minister refers to SLPP rebels as three-headed asses” and cited the minister as saying “Marxist/ Trotskyist leader Dr Colvin R. de Silva referred to those who become independent MPs as three-headed asses.” It is time that somebody told Ranatunga that a little learning is a dangerous thing as Pope said (and Minister Ranatunga that is not the one that presides in the Vatican) but to that later if space permits.

To begin with Dr de Silva’s exact words were “three-headed donkey.” Moreover he said it in entirely different circumstances and that was way back in 1947 when there were moves to have the Left parties form a coalition and even invite progressive leaders such as SWRD Bandaranaike to join them.

It was at this point that Dr de Silva rejected the idea of such a coalition describing it as “a three-headed donkey” as it involved three Left parties.

Thereafter Chief Whip Ranatunga goes on to say that they are following Westminster traditions. “There is no tradition for allocating time for the independent side. We are following the Westminster tradition which does not have such an allocation. Then we will have to go against the tradition and place some chairs in between the government and the opposition and give time for those who identify themselves as independent MPs. That would be the end of Westminster tradition and the new tradition could be named as the tradition of three-headed asses.”

Way back in our college days and later at university when studying political science the guru on Westminster parliamentary procedure was Erskine May. And if Ranatunga has heard of Erskine May and even turned a few pages of his monumental work before taking on the job of Chief Whip he might have learnt something of Westminster traditions.

The fact that he hasn’t, is quite clear. But right now we don’t have the time nor the space to try to educate Ranatunga. But just for his edification let me say that I was talking to the House of Commons yesterday and I was informed that there are 11 independent MPs that act as a group besides some others, and they do participate in Commons proceedings, are given opportunities to speak by The Speaker who is the ultimate authority who decides who should speak, and do speak.

Ranatunga’s references to Westminster traditions might impress some of his even less knowledgeable party colleagues, but alas he comes a cropper when he steps onto ground that even angels fear to set foot.

Could someone advise him to at least step into the British Council library or delve into the parliamentary library (which the local Speaker has been complaining is hardly used), and glance through some basic books on Westminster parliamentary procedure so as to avoid opening the mouth and putting both feet in it.

Briefly might one say that The Speaker has the authority to decide which members will speak. The Speaker might be guided by lists created by the various political parties. But independent members may speak at the Speaker’s discretion. Members seek recognition to speak by rising in their places. So it is The Speaker who determines which members may speak.

If Westminster tradition is being followed and the Chief Whip venerates the tradition, our own Speaker must be faulted for not allowing any of the 13 members to speak as they have a right to and not be dictated to by the Whips.

That is not all. Ranatunga forgets that those he has discarded as ‘independents’ are still members of the SLPP. At the time of this debate GL Peiris was still the chairman of the SLPP, Dulles Alahapperuma was treasurer and others were members. No action had been taken to dismiss them from the party nor had relevant officials been informed of their sacking as far I know.

So on what grounds is Ranatunga even suggesting they would have to be found seats between the government and opposition benches- a silly idea even if it was meant to be a joke?

His attempt to ridicule the 13 members as “three-headed asses” appears to be more an attempt to dismiss them as fools as he thought Dr de Silva was trying to do. If that interpretation is correct there are more educationally and professionally qualified MPs among them than that who bunch of SLPP members in the House.

In fact, certainly more educated than Ranatunga. Just to be certain I checked the educational and professional qualifications of MPs listed in the Parliament website. In the 13 members there are at least eight with doctorates or professional qualifications in medicine and the law.

How does Ranatunga fare against that lot? Apart from GCE “O” level and GCE“A” level he is listed having passed, he is also stated to have a Diploma Certificate in Leadership and Management from the Orara University in Australia.

As much as I searched through the list of Australian universities, I could not find such a university unless I missed it somehow. There is an Orara High School which is listed as “a major, comprehensive secondary school in the city of Coffs Harbour”. No Orara University I’m afraid. Wonder what happened to it!

Before trying to insult or ridicule more qualified MPs purely because they think independently and refuse to be party stooges acting like signal posts in parliament as some people are wont to do, perhaps Minister Ranatunga should seriously adhere to Westminster traditions by resigning from his cabinet portfolio. Westminster would hardly accommodate in the cabinet or in the House a person convicted of extortion and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment though he was extremely lucky to have the sentence suspended. The fact he is appointed to the cabinet and survives in it and in parliament speaks much for the ethics of Sri Lanka’s politics with the highest moral standards oozing from every pore.