The Political Column

20th February 1999

Tea and sympathy, the drama goes on

By our Political Correspondent

The President's presence in Parliament was in accordance with Article 32 (3) of the Constitution, which states: "The President shall by virtue of her office have the right at any time to attend, address and send messages to parliament. In the exercise of such rights, the President shall be entitled to all privileges, immunities and powers other than the right to vote of a member of Parliament and shall not be liable for any breach of privileges of Parliament or of its members."

Explaining why she attended Parliament, the President said it was a step towards the democratization of the Executive Presidency and eventually its abolition.

The President's move was welcomed by opposition UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who invited her to be present throughout the budget debate. Though President Kumaratunga's decision to present the budget in Parliament stunned many of her opponents, it was in keeping with a promise she made late last year. Many of her critics did not take the promise seriously, probably thinking that it was similar to her pledges she made during the 1994 campaign. The UNP was taken unawares of her move, but its MPs did not heckle the President as the SLFPers did in 1993 when President Premadasa attended a ceremonial opening of Parliament amidst a move by dissident UNPers and the then opposition to impeach him.

The UNP now wonders whether there was a political tactic behind the President's presence in Parliament. Some UNPers say that the President was ostensibly conveying a message that since she could attend Parliament, the abolition of the Executive Presidency should not be an issue. The UNP issued a statement, asking the President to explain why she attended Parliament and whether she was still committed to abolish the Presidency. During her budget speech, the President said she had reason to be happy since the UNP had now decided to support the new Constitution.

The President, while delivering the long budget proposals, looked tired.

Outspoken UNP Parliamentarian A.H.M. Azwer, making a friendly overture to the President, interrupted her and suggested: "Madam, shall we have a break for tea now." Mr. Azwer probably would have felt that the exercise was too strenuous for the President. He observed that the President was looking at the Leader of the House and the Speaker, probably gesturing to them to move for an adjournment for the tea break. When Mr. Azwer felt the two had failed to get the message, he rose to interrupt for the tea break. The President, as expected, promptly agreed.

When his colleagues heard about Mr. Azwer's rescue move, they teased him, saying that it made his Valentine's Day.

Many UNPers joined the President in the traditional budget day tea party. A notable absentee was Mr. Wickremesinghe who along with a few UNP members had a meeting on the third floor of the Parliamentary complex. UNP's veteran finance minister Ronnie de Mel, however, joined the tea party, where UNP Parliamentarians U.L.M. Farook, R.A.D. Sirisena and Vincent Perera handed over letters to the President, asking that they be given their decentralised budget funds. These MPs were reacting to the President's remarks in her budget speech that MPs would be given their decentralised budget funds immediately.

The President smiled with the three UNP MPs as she received the letters and remarked that she was glad to meet them though she had heard of them.

Mr. de Mel, too, exchanged pleasantries with the President while having tea at the same table. Mr. de Mel welcomed the President's presence in Parliament and asked her to abolish the Executive Presidency. He told the President that it would augur well for her if she came to Parliament and participated in the proceedings.

The President told him she would like to come to Parliament, but her security officers had advised against the move. It indicated that the President had taken a risk in coming to Parliament in spite of her security officers' advice to the contrary.

At the tea party though the President was served security-checked special food brought from Temple Trees, she wanted to taste other food as well and did so while her worried security officers looked on.

The President mingled with everyone during the tea break. She told SLMC member M. M. Zuhair that she acted on the advice given by Minister Ashraff, in coming to Parliament. "It was he who gave me this idea, and I thought that this was the most fitting occasion," the President told Mr. Zuhair who congratulated the President on her surprise gesture in presenting the budget and taking a seat at ministerial level without occupying the Speaker's seat.

As surprised as the UNPers were some Cabinet members and PA MPs. They were taken aback when they saw the President walking into the well of the chamber with the box containing budget proposals. When the Cabinet met before the budget she did not give any indication that she was planning to present the budget herself.

UNP rebel and Minister Sarath Amunugama came to Parliament only after an UNP MP phoned him to tell that the President had arrived to deliver the budget speech.

The President entered the House accompanied by Minister G. L. Peiris who, otherwise, would have presented the Budget as Deputy Finance Minister.

On the budget day morning, the President asked Prof. Peiris to join her in a chopper ride to Parliament. But she reportedly did not tell him what she was planning to do later in the day.

Apart from this shock, the budget contained no major surprises. It was a more of a 'status quo' budget. While some businessmen welcomed it saying it has streamlined financial administration and introduced financial discipline, others expressed dissatisfaction for ignoring certain vital areas. Some said the budget neither offered major concessions to the people nor added significant burdens on the people who have been severely burdened with the effects of price hikes in fuel and gas.

While the President was setting the stage for a budget day surprise on Monday, the UNP was facing a chaotic situation at a Parliamentary group meeting. What was significant in the meeting was that all five UNP rebel MPs were present for the first time at a group meeting after they crossed over to the government side prior to the Presidential elections. The meeting began with Mr. Wickremesinghe outlining the party's stand on various issues. He said the people had been burdened by the price increases of diesel, kerosene and gas and suggested that the party should thus oppose a budget, which offered little relief to the people.

At this stage, Premaratne Gunasekera rose to make an objection. Referring to the presence of Dr. Amunugama and Nanda Mathew, two rebel MPs who were rewarded with Cabinet portfolios by the government, Mr. Gunasekera asked what they were doing at a UNP group meeting.

This opened the floodgates and many MPs joined Mr. Gunasekera in taking the rebel MPs to task. Lakshman Seneviratne, himself a dissident who joined the Athulathmudali-Dissanayake, group against President Premadasa, unleashed a virulent attack on Dr. Amunugama. He held Dr. Amunugama responsible for ruining the political career of former opposition leader and UNP stalwart Gamini Dissanayake and claimed that he had evidence to prove this.

Amidst a big uproar, the UNP MPs discussed the presence of Presidential Security Division members in Parliament and their alleged security excesses when MPs were checked. They wanted a motion be tabled in Parliament, condemning the PSD action.

Dr. Amunugama, seated close to the party leader, then rose to speak. Dr. Amunugama said they were there since the Supreme Court had restored their membership in the UNP and at the invitation of the party Whip. He said that even former President J. R. Jayewardene was heckled by his own party men when he had a dispute with Dudley Senanayake. At this point, Tyronne Fernando intervened to tell Dr. Amunugama to stick to the point, the point being whether he would support the UNP decision to oppose the budget and to table a motion to condemn the presence of the PSD men in Parliament. Dr. Amunugama said he would not support the UNP's view on the PSD.

While Dr. Amunugama was disinclined to support the UNP's motion on the PSD, two other rebel MPs - Susil Moonesinghe and Chula Bandara - agreed with the party whip, indicating a crack in the rebel ranks. The other two rebel MPs, Wijeyapala Mendis and Nanda Mathew, remained non-committal.

As for the budget, both Dr. Amunugama and Nanda Mathew said they disagreed with the party's view.

Subsequent to Monday's verbal attacks on the UNP rebels, Mr. Mathew wrote a letter to the UNP leader, condemning what happened at the group meeting. The letter said:

"The UNP Parliamentary group meeting was unprecedented in the expression of threatened violence and raw abuse hurled towards me and other colleagues of mine. To our dismay, it was blatantly clear that you were passively aiding this behaviour by your strict silence. I earnestly request you to have a UNP Parliamentary group meeting at the Parliamentary complex in the future and not at Siri Kotha as we fear for our safety." In the same tone, he has written to the party leader asking him to allow a conscience vote on the budget.

At the UNP group meeting, Mr. Wickremesinghe looked baffled at times while trying to control the unruly situation. He is said to have remarked that he had never participated in a group meeting that was so unruly.

"I have presided over government group meetings. I have presided over the opposition group meetings and I have been at the cross-roads, but I have never participated in a group meeting of this nature."

The UNP's working committee met for the second time for this month to decide on a course of action against the five rebel MPs. The working committee initially decided to refer the matter to party lawyers and thereafter to initiate an inquiry against them. They also decided to ask both Dr. Amunugama and Nanda Mathew to give up their portfolios if they wanted to remain in the UNP. According to the UNP seniors, the working committee had resolved to inquire into the activities of the rebels during the Presidential campaign and afterwards. The inquiry will go into the manner in which the rebels openly campaigned against the UNP Presidential candidate and supported the PA candidate. They will also look into the decision of the rebels to vote against the party Whip.

At the outset of the working committee meeting, many members insisted that the rebels should be charge-sheeted and a fresh inquiry be held. Senior party men such as Dharmadasa Banda, Gamini Lokuge, Manod Wijayaratne and former health minister Renuka Herath were insisting that party discipline should be maintained at any cost.

The working committee wanted to know whether the party could initiate a fresh inquiry against the rebels. Mr. Wickremesinghe asked the party's chief legal consultant, K. N. Choksy, whether they could do that.

Mr. Choksy said the party was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. He emphatically stated that they should respect the judgment. Mr. Choksy said: "We have examined the judgment as to whether it is fair to proceed against the people concerned. We have also examined the judgment to find out whether we have gone wrong in the process. In my view, the judgment has not given sufficient consideration to the fact that a member of Parliament is subordinate to his party and that he does not enjoy the same freedom that a member of Parliament in UK enjoys. This is because we have the PR system and in this set-up a member of Parliament is secondary to the party.

"At a general election the country fixes the composition of Parliament for six years. That is because a member cannot cross over and if a member dies the next member in the list succeeds him."

Mr. Choksy said this aspect had not been adequately considered in the judgment. Quoting the party constitution, he said when the party fielded a candidate, the members should extend their support to him. If a member supported an opponent, he was in effect renouncing his membership. "Therefore, the member concerned cannot claim the right to be heard by the party. It is like a member of a temperance society who advocates the consumption of liquor being expelled without an inquiry. Mr. Choksy also cited the earlier case of UNP rebels Gamini Dissanayake, Lalith Athulathmudali and nine others who were expelled by the party. In this case the court held with the UNP.

Mr. Choksy said that in the Gamini Dissanayake case, the court held that there was an urgency in the party's action against the members and, therefore, the party was entitled to dismiss the members without a hearing. In that case, the reason for expulsion was that they had signed an impeachment motion to remove the President who was the party leader at that time.

"Under the constitution the passage of an impeachment motion through Parliament takes a minimum of three months. In the present case, when the members were expelled the election campaign was on and the polling was due to be held in six weeks. Therefore, the ground for urgency was very much more," he said.

Based on this argument, he said the party would be entitled to hold a fresh inquiry if it so desired.

Thereafter, the working committee decided that the rebels should be asked why they did not follow the directive and if necessary to hold an inquiry on the earlier charges and the new charges.

A joint meeting of the working committee and the Parliamentary group was fixed for February 23 to further discuss this matter.

In the meantime, the UNP rebels - Dr. Amunugama, Mr. Mendis, Mr. Mathew, Mr. Moonesinghe, Chula Bandara, Stanley Kalpage, Asoka Seneviratne and several others - met the President on Wednesday.

The President promised to look after their interest and accommodate them at the next Parliamentary elections. She also promised that any UNPer who would be crossing over to the government side would receive the same treatment.

In the meantime, the much talked about mini Cabinet shuffle did not take place, However, it is likely the two UNP rebel ministers would get specific portfolios instead of their present special assignment portfolio which could mean anything.

The rebels were said to be a happy lot after their meeting with the President. Their next step would be to go into the provinces and to campaign against the UNP leadership, one rebel member told this column.

More than anything, both the government and the UNP are now concerned about the constitutional reforms that are likely to be presented in Parliament before the end of this year. Norwegian Foreign Minister Knut Vollebaek who arrived in Sri Lanka for a one-day visit met important government figures and the opposition leader. Mr. Vollebaek and the President had a four-hour meeting during which they discussed Norway's role as a facilitator in striking a peace deal with the LTTE.

But the government's worry appears to be whether the UNP would agree to the devolution proposals with amendments. Among the controversial amendments are the articles dealing with the transitional provisions. Sources said these transitional provisions sought to maintain the Executive Presidency till the President's second term ends.

Will the UNP agree to this provision is the main question that torments the government's constitutional experts. Many ministers are of the view that the UNP would put forward the immediate abolition of the Executive Presidency as a condition for their support.

The other disputed area is the nature of the state – whether it is a federal set-up or a union of regions as the draft was not clear on this. The third controversial issue is the land alienation and the unit of devolution.

Even if the government could arrive at a working arrangement with the UNP on these matters with amendments, the question constitutional experts ask is whether LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran would agree to a South-Eastern Council within the merged North-East. The government also expects opposition from Sinhala hardliners to the merger of the North and East.

Situation Report

Editorial/ Opinion Contents