Columns

A new testament of the faith to be hopefully observed by those deified mortals who dwell in the pantheon of the people’s sovereignty was handed out to them two days before the dawn of the New Year to be perused during the holiday break, suggestions made and to be returned to the Speaker’s office within two weeks marked ‘duly read’.

Flashback: Even midnight feasts in parliament were used by our MPs as a means of protest

Now the holiday break is over, the two weeks are up tomorrow and any day this week the MPs will be expected by the Speaker to hand in their copies with their considered opinions scribbled alongside.

In the wake of the Panama Papers scandal that broke out this month and exposed the duplicitous dealings of the rich and powerful worldwide, the need for a Code of Conduct for Lanka’s own Parliamentarians have become even more vital.

But its planned introduction now is not because the Panama Papers’ revelation prompted it. It is also, perish the thought, not because the behaviour of local parliamentarians has plummeted to such a low that a manual of etiquette was thought necessary. Oh, no. These last few years Lanka’s esteemed Parliamentarians have effortlessly retained and basked in that self same esteem accorded to the legislators of old by the public, purely because they, unbidden by any gratuitous counsel, unguided by any set of codified ‘nanny’ rules of conduct and undirected by any Erskine May signposts to traditional parliamentary behaviour, have managed to be models of decorum and mannequins of moral rectitude. Both in conduct and in speech they have acquitted themselves with honour; and behaved in the House of Parliament – the inner sanctum where the people’s sovereignty is enshrined – as if they were saints in a temple of religion or angels in a celestial abode.An

d to their eternal credit and undying honour, this same immaculate conduct displayed in public life is not confined to the four walls of the Diyawanna Oya edifice and is not an affectation, a mere pretence either, put on for public show. Nay, it even extends to every facet of their unblemished private lives.

Consider how, even in their spare private time when the high duties of office as the people’s representatives do not engage them, they can often be seen trudging from temple to temple with lotus trays upon their heads or trekking from kovil to kovil with coconuts in their hands and prayers in their hearts. Such is the degree of affinity they have with religion that some have even established their political offices on temple grounds and hold regular prayer meetings attended by other parliamentary devotees thereat, solely because they can be closer to the religious life and find refuge in the soothing shade of the Bo tree.

Oh, how fortunate Lanka is to have been blessed again in the new Parliament with such a cadre as the present lot who dutifully have taken to following in the same honourable footsteps of those honourable men and honourable women who honourably occupied their seats in the last days of the previous Parliament as the honourable representatives of Lanka’s peasantry.

Perhaps this is the dominant reason why the drafters of the code of conduct have produced a document that falls far short of that demanded by civil rights movements and concerned citizens for so long. Perhaps, awe struck by these parliamentarians’ flawless behaviour, their moral righteousness and totally blameless conduct record, the drafters felt embarrassed to trespass on hallowed ground and set up a mechanism with meaningful consequences in case of dereliction. Perhaps they considered the entire exercise much ado about nothing designed to realise an objective which, in their conditioned mind’s eyes, had already been achieved unprodded by the very selfless natures of Parliament’s noble members?

Or perhaps the redoubtable barrier raised by the nagging question — how on earth can one legislate against the legislators and pass muster — inhibited them from pursuing a more realistic and strident line as demanded by the civil rights groups. If the code was not saccharine wrapped and treacle coated would the legislators even consider it? So to satisfy the public want of having an enforceable set of rules to regulate MPs conduct on the one hand and satisfy the MPs composures on the other, can you really blame the drafters – impaled as they would have been on the horns of a dilemma – if they could only manage to cough up a sort of ‘feel good’ code which, though it would have to be shoved down the throat of the public would, nevertheless, receive the blessings of the all important MPs.

No doubt it will be gladly embraced by all those privileged to habituate the hallowed portals of parliament since it demands nothing more from them than the parroted rendering of the five precepts which they often do at temple or singing the psalms and vowing to abide by the Ten Commandments as they do from their pews at church on Sundays. But whether the good book will prevent Parliament from turning into Pandemonium, as it has oft been the case in recent times, remains to be seen. For, the code is all bark and no bite.

The MPs might as well have been given a copy of the Dhammapada or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Bible or the Quran as the case maybe and told to observe what is contained therein with a polite request to follow an as-you-please policy.
All these good tomes of religions contain sublime tenets but how many merely recite it and shirk from its practice. But no matter. If the proposed code of conduct for MPs is anything to go by, it will transform Parliament and place it on par with the rest of the country – a blessed land where pirith is blared from temples, where bells peal from churches, where poojas are held in kovils and azans surge from mosque minarets.

A four-times blessed land full of moral goodness because all four religions are faithfully found here, will now find it made more wholesome and five times blessed with a Parliament where each and every member is consecrated and made more holy with a copy of the good book with the onus placed on each one of them to observe every stanza or sloka or chapter or verse as they think fit.

Faith in the hope that the impish boys and girls. if any, will mend their wayward ways and be brought to book by the code must spring eternal in the drafters’ breast; in the ‘hope’ zone of those who have come up with such a load of codswallop to delude us all into thinking that the much demanded code of conduct, is finally with us, tabled before every sitting MP. The problem is that MPs are expected to behave like angels in heaven without a hell awaiting those who fall from public grace.
For starters consider the pedestrian thoughts of those who drafted this puerile document and handed it over to the speaker as a fit and worthy code for mass distribution.

Under the section MPs Duties, the code states that the MPs have a duty to defend the constitution. But isn’t this a duty which they have already sworn to uphold when they became MPs and took the oath of allegiance as contained in the sixth amendment? Why the reminder? They are also reminded that they ‘have a duty to uphold the law’. Don’t we all? Perhaps this may have been included to jolt Rajapaksa regime favourites, the hangovers who, having often acted as if they were above the law, may still suffer the notion that they can continue to do the same carte blanche, as happened recently when a woman politician’s goons abducted a man and brought him to her feet to be given a lesson in sex and morality.

There is also a general duty to act in the nation’s interest and not to be motivated by self-interest, possibly in the way Mahinda Rajapaksa and his rebel hangers insist that they are only acting in the nation’s interest and not in their own when they clamour for the return of Rajapaksa to power and even go to the extent of dashing coconuts to invoke the gods wrath with curses to bring down the government, elected to power by the people not even eight months ago.

Under the section Principles of the Code it is stated that the MPs must act ‘selflessly’. They must also act objectively at all times when it comes to public affairs. They must also be accountable for their decisions and actions to the public possibly in the way the Minister of Power was accountable when there was a nationwide power failure not once, not twice but thrice during a period of six months under his watch. They must also observe the code and provide leadership by example but if any member actually observes it to the letter how many will follow him up the moral expressway is doubtful, especially when almost all seem to be going in the opposite direction.

And, oh! Almost forgot, the members must also be honest and are expected to declare their private interest relating to their public duties. In other words if one of their friend’s building is to be leased at an exorbitant rent to accommodate a department or a ministry section coming under their purview, then they are expected, as per article 5.3.3. of the code, to ‘fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members Financial Interests.”

Furthermore, in the event a declaration is made, a ‘member shall not vote in a division on a question about a matter in which he or she has a particular direct pecuniary interest.’ But the members are free to vote on any public policy matter. A public policy matter has been defined, as per 5.2.3., as being government policy not identifying particular person individually and immediately. Thus this would not place the member in any difficulty since Bills of Parliament rarely, if ever, identify a person individually. This will leave the member free to cast his valuable vote without being bound by any pecuniary interest he may have in the outcome due to his pecuniary relationship with an individual or organisation which may benefit as a result of the Bill becoming an Act.

The members are also expected to ‘disclose sufficient information regarding their business and financial relationships,’ including those of close family members. While the definition of ‘sufficient’ has been left to the member‘s discretion to determine wearing the shoes of the judicious ‘reasonable man’, reference to close family members’ financial relationships presumes that a member’s spouse or children or sons and daughters in law will tell the member the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about every aspect of their financial dealings.

Even as it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be held accountable for the clandestine life of a cheating wife or a philandering husband, so is it untenable to call a member to account for the actions of a spouse who furtively has ‘a bit on the side’ in the realm of financial affairs. Though it will not amount to a ground for divorce, it may well prove a convincing defence to a charge of non disclosure of the spouse’s business relations and financial interests. After all, one cuckolded must receive sympathy, not condemnation.

It is surprising, however that, while a whole section is devoted to a member having to declare his interests, the code maintains a thunderous silence when it comes to demanding disclosure of his assets. If it is held that this has already been covered by the electoral law which requires a parliamentary candidate to declare his asset to the election commissioner, then why are criminal offences amply covered by the Penal Code, namely, assault, harassment and intimidation mentioned in this MPs code in article 5.7 under the sub head ‘Behaviour’, as acts that should not be done by a member. Going by the behaviour of certain MPs in the recent past under the previous regime, is it that the draftsmen of the code decreed it wise to remind those present that, under the Yahapalana era, parliamentarians are not above the law even if they happened to belong to the ruling parties?

So much for the bark. Where’s the bite?
To enforce this moral code an MP or a member of the public must lodge a complaint and if the Speaker approves, he may (not shall) grant ‘an appropriate time’ for the MP to raise it. No rush. If the complainant is a member of the public he or she will have to lodge it through an MP. This will involve head hunting first for a suitable and willing MP to act as the vehicle. Living as many MPs do in glass houses in line perhaps with the new government’s transparent policy, finding one willing to cast the first stone against a fellow MP will be a formidable barrier for any lay person to overcome.

But for those members of the public who dare to make any allegation against the unimpeachable conduct of any honourable member of the House, an ominous message, similar to that displayed on the gates of certain residences — Beware of dogs, enter at own risk — is contained in the code. If, in the opinion of the Committee of Privileges and Ethics, the complaint has been made frivolously, vexatiously or in bad faith, then God save the complainant for then the accuser becomes the accused.

The Committee may take it up as a breach of members’ parliamentary privilege and, if considered to be so, then the intrinsic power of the House to impose summary punishment can be invoked under the Parliament Powers and Privileges Act; or it can be punished by the Supreme Court, depending under what category the breach is held to fall. It should give one pause before venturing out in the high noon sun to duel with the Goliaths. Far wiser to hold your fire than shoot with a dud slug and miss and get cannon balled in return.

Already many have voiced their concerns over the proposed code of conduct. If it is merely to have a code of conduct for parliamentarians for cosmetic purposes this present draft will do nicely and give the impression that henceforth we will have 225 paragons of virtue present in Parliament. But the danger is that if this piece of waffle, passing off as a credible code exactly what the public ordered, is accepted and established the clamour for a more meaningful code to adequately regulate the conduct of MPs will surely cease. We will then be saddled with a meaningless code even as we have been with a controversial constitution for nearly forty years.

In the circumstance, is it too much to ask the MPs to consider and accept a more stringent code of conduct? Isn’t it an insult to public intelligence, an affront to the public’s right to demand higher standards from their representatives to be now told to meekly settle for a code of a lesser God and be fobbed off with a set of voluntary rules that will be more honoured in the breach than in the observance?

Selflessness, placing the nation’s interest above one’s own and even being polite to parliamentary staff as listed in the draft code are creditable qualities no doubt. But when corruption has tarred parliamentary seats and many have risen indelibly stained, what is required is not a forlorn prayer to the heavens that high flown moral principles will be faithfully observed by MPs voluntarily.

What is needed is a down to earth, no-nonsense code which spells out the standard of conduct expected of members when it comes to discharging their public duties and exercising their powers. A binding duty to act in manner becoming of their status as members of Parliament, a solemn oath to maintain the dignity of the House and to avoid placing themselves in positions where their integrity can be compromised. And to bring home to them the gravity of their responsibility in the event of dereliction, the stinging whip wielded by an impartial hand.

When the trust and confidence the public have reposed in them are found shattered they must know the heavy price of a people’s disillusionment.

If the present draft code is the best Yahapalanaya can produce in its promised quest to establish the vital checks and balances of a modern functioning democracy, the people may well ask whether it’s time to seek a different faith to unearth the Grail.