Columns

By Chandani Kirinde- Lobby Correspondent
Thus far, members of the Joint Opposition (JO) group have managed to grab more than their fair share of attention, mainly due to their boisterous behaviour within Parliament, than for their role in enriching the legislative business. However, this week they got bogged down in a situation they themselves created by attempting to sabotage Government attempts to enact an important piece of legislation.

This miscalculation by the JO helped the Government to rush through the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Bill, with amendments, in less than an hour, from what was to have been nearly 13 hours of debate and discussion on a Bill that enables the creation of a seven-member permanent Commission to assist families of missing persons.

JO members who came to the Chamber on Thursday wearing black arm bands and satakayas, to show their disapproval of the Bill, initially, raised objection on the grounds they needed more time to debate it. The Government agreed to a full day’s debate on Thursday and half-a-day on Friday, but the JO was not agreeable to this arrangement and chose disruption over debate, walking to the Well of the House, shouting slogans and likely hoping Speaker Karu Jayasuirya would buckle under pressure and adjourn the House.

But it was obvious this time around, the Government was not going to allow the JO to usurp proceedings like they have done many times in the past year and hence, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera got on his feet and introduced the Bill to the House, amidst the din created by the protesting lawmakers. Much of his speech was inaudible to those inside the Chamber, but surrounded by Government MPs, he made it through his speech. He was followed by TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran and JVP MP Bimal Ratnayaka, both of whom extended their support to the Bill.

The Speaker urged JO MPs to return to their seats, if they wanted to take part in the debate, but his repeated requests were of no avail and thereafter, Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella moved that the question be put to the House, that the Bill be passed.
Hence, amidst chaotic scenes, the Bill was read the second time, amendments were moved and the Bill put to the House for the third reading and approved. Calls by UPFA MP Wimal Weerawansa, that a vote be taken with a division by name went ignored and soon after the vote, the House was adjourned.

Men and women in black: JO member Wimal Weerawansa and others (above and below)

The course of events on Thursday shows that JO MPs were not serious about debating the Bill in the first place. If they were, the MPs had plenty to tell the country exactly why they are opposed to the Bill, and could have put pressure on the Government to move necessary amendments to it. By acting irrationally and behaving in Parliament as they did at Lipton’s Circus, they denied both themselves, as well as the public of the country, an opportunity to learn more about a new piece of legislation, around which controversy has been charted largely thanks to the views expressed on it by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He fired the first salvo against it, soon after it was tabled in the House in mid-July, by issuing a statement saying, “Every member who votes for it (OMP Bill) will be held responsible by the people for betraying the country and the armed forces.”

It is possible, the JO group wanted the debate on the Bill delayed till mid-August, as it was initially scheduled to be taken up then. So that, the former President, who is away in South Korea, would have returned to the country by then. If that was the case, there was room to discuss the matter in a civil manner and get it postponed. However, by underestimating the Government’s ability to push through legislation, the JO got bogged down in a situation they created for themselves.

Soon after the House adjourned, both Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and JO MPs held back-to-back press conferences to explain each other’s stance. Mr. Samaraweera said the JO’s behaviour has shown the whole country, who the real traitors are, and condemned the thuggery and political opportunism of the group.

JO Leader MP Dinesh Gunawardena said the Bill was passed ignoring due process and said, a future JO-led government would ensure that the OMP law is repealed. In the absence of a real opposition in this Parliament, the JO does have a significant role to play in exposing the Government when it blunders. but opposing Parliamentary business for the sake of opposing will not serve any purpose.

The Government, for its part, took advantage of a situation created by the JO, to push through the OMP Bill but, it is not a good precedent to set because, in the absence of review of enacted legislation, all discussion and debate on a Bill has to be done in a comprehensive manner, prior to its approval by Parliament.

There is little doubt there are many misconceptions in society, particularly in the South, about the OMP Bill, with the widely held view being it is meant to meet the demands of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the western allies of the Government, and would apply only to those who are missing in the north and east. The Government, for its part, has not done enough to educate the masses, that the mandate of the OMP which covers missing persons, notwithstanding any time period in which such person disappeared, and applies to the entirety of the country, and would give redress to families of those disappeared in connection with political unrest or civil disturbances in areas outside the north and east.

Minister Samaraweera explained to the House that the findings of the OMP will not give rise to any criminal or civil liability, as alleged repeatedly by JO members, and acknowledged that more than 5,000 security forces personnel are among person documented as missing.

For now, the Government can pat itself on the back that it has taken the first step to fulfilling the commitments undertaken under the UNHRC resolution adopted in September last year. However, while fulfilling international obligations, the Government has to do more to fill the trust deficit that exists between it and large segments of society, particularly on the issue of how it goes about handling war crimes, HR violations related issues.