In
Praise Of Sumanthiran
It is natural for members of the
Parliamentary Opposition to oppose whatever the ruling party proposes. Voting in
Parliament is therefore predictable, whether it is for an Act of Parliament,
Annual Budget or anything else. There was a time of dissenting voices voting
against party position but that was effectively quashed by a Supreme Court
determination regarding the fate of Members who considered crossing over. What
we have got used to seeing is all members of the Opposition using allocated time
to object, with the main opposition being the most vocal and other making
cursory dissenting noises.
Malinda Seneviratne
It is natural for members of the
Parliamentary Opposition to oppose whatever the ruling party proposes. Voting in
Parliament is therefore predictable, whether it is for an Act of Parliament,
Annual Budget or anything else. There was a time of dissenting voices voting
against party position but that was effectively quashed by a Supreme Court
determination regarding the fate of Members who considered crossing over. What
we have got used to seeing is all members of the Opposition using allocated time
to object, with the main opposition being the most vocal and other making
cursory dissenting noises.
Seldom
do were here impassioned, well-argued presentations by members of parties with
lesser representative power on major issues, the exception beingSarath
Muttetuwegama who was a veritable one-man opposition (and an
effective one at that) in the eighties. This is particularly true of
identity-based parties. They tend to speak up only when constituency demands
they do and do so vociferously. At least in post-1977 Sri Lanka.
It
is in this context that TNA MP, M.A.
Sumanthiran’s intervention in the debate on the impeachment of the
(now ex) Chief Justice should be assessed. The TNA as well as other avatars of
parties consciously focused on Tamil issues have rarely taken on national issues
that were ‘ethnicity-free’ as seriously as Mr. Sumanthiran did in this instance.
One can agree or disagree with him, take issue with his assumptions and
interpretations, but there is no question that he was representating a point of
view that cut across identity divide. His efforts are all the more praiseworthy
because they have no impact whatsoever on the party’s electoral fortunes.
There
are of course many issues which feed into communal segregation and mutual
suspicion. Among the reasons why non Tamils view Tamil politicians with
suspicion even when the latter talk of a ‘United Sri Lanka’ (‘United’ of course
being a problematic term in the unitary-federal debate since neither formation
forbids it and therefore warranting the query ‘sleight of hand?’) is the fact
that they have never taken up ‘common issues’ with any degree of passion or
sobriety. When Mr. Sumanthiran spoke, however, he was speaking for Sinhalese,
Muslims, Burghers and Malays as well as Tamils, for Buddhists as well as
Christians and Hindus. Not all, because not everyone would agree with him,
obviously, but still he stepped out, one can argue, from a communal and
communalist (some would say) shell.
There
is a huge difference between a Tamil politician from a major party speaking on a
national issue and one from a Tamil party doing the same. If Sinhalese were
reluctant to listen to the TNA except to know what their views are about
Sinhala-Tamil relations, Tamil grievances and aspirations, and so on, these
kinds of interventions would make them listen without thinking ‘enemy’.
The
Sinhalese must, for their part, appreciate that the TNA, being a ‘Tamil party,’
is obliged to articulate the problems of the Tamil people and moreover to put
aside past apprehensions to treat such representations seriously because ethnic
identity notwithstanding Tamils are fellow-citizens. However, whether or not
anyone else is listening it is still incumbent on all Parliamentarians to be
cognizant of all grievances and their Parliamentary responsibility to be the
voice of all citizens. The President, for example, is not the Head of State of
those who voted for him, but every single Sri Lankan, including those whose
first choice he was not.
Three
years after the end of the three decade armed conflict everyone agrees it is
time to move on. The President has called for the forging of a national
identity, a Sri Lanka where Sri Lankanness overrides all other identities. Mr.
Sumanthiran’s effort, even his detractors must recognize, is an articulation of
that same sentiment. He has shown that the TNA, if not in name then in action,
can become a ‘national’ political entity. A concretization would be to re-think
party position on the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee to hammer out a
lasting solution to grievances of a communal kind. Indeed, they could turn that
exercise into one which designs a new constitution, more inclusive, more
democratic and better safeguards against abuse, not to mention one where the
principle of power separation is less vague and less open to multiple (and wild)
interpretation.
*Malinda
Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com .
Vasu, A Man Of Your Caliber Needs Not Fear The Thunder
Barbara Seneviratne
Minister of National Language and
Social Integration, leader of the Democratic Left Front, Vasudeva
Nanayakkara who is an Attorney at Law himself who had dedicated his
life since 1970 to active left wing revolutionary politics delivered a speech at
the debate on the 11th January 2013 which gave the impression that he is
suffering from fatty degeneration of conscience.
I
am sorry that I have to say this, I just cannot imagine that you of all at this
stage of one’s life taking into consideration the long years you had dedicated
to the left movement and the trade union movement with stalwarts like Dr.N.M.
Perera, Dr Colvin R. de Silva, Leslie Goonawardena, Dr.S.A. Wickramasinghe,
Pieter Keuneman, M.G. Mendis and Robert Gunawardena for merely to survive few
more years of a luscious life could betray the general masses.
You
were looked upon as one who does not indulge in politicking or compromising his
principles and earned a nick name as “Firebrand”. All because you were a
fearless champion of the rights of the minorities and had been beaten, jailed
and forced underground due to your political activism. But with what you have
done the proud good old nick name you were once known bestowed with for standing
up for the down trodden masses will never be known.
I
can remember you once attempted to run-away with the Mace which was the symbol
of Parliamentary Authority during the UNP regime in 1989 when the House was
debating an amendment moved by the government to the Agrarian Research
Ordinance. All because then UNP government wanted to hurry its passage through
parliament unfairly.
In November 1976, you also played a similar drama in the old Parliament by bringing a floral wreath after the killing Weerasuriya a student leader of the Peradeniya University.
In November 1976, you also played a similar drama in the old Parliament by bringing a floral wreath after the killing Weerasuriya a student leader of the Peradeniya University.
Where
are your conscience and convictions you stood for? Or did you ever have any at
all?
What you have done since of late is to make it easy to the likes of Mervyn Silva to be the future rulers and to bring this country to a state of moral decay.
What you have done since of late is to make it easy to the likes of Mervyn Silva to be the future rulers and to bring this country to a state of moral decay.
In
fact I felt sorry that a staunched politician, a militant could fall a prey to
words such as “You go down alone or go down with me ” could decide that betrayal
is far better than upholding ones principles. Please remember that you have
already gone down deep below and your resurrection as a true son of this soil is
far fetched.
We
all are aware that the impeachment of the CJ was
brought about by politicians who pursue money, positions, black money and
corruption. This country has given immense intelligence and skills but no sense
of public duty, discipline or dedication. We lack sense of fairness.
The
impeachment has robbed our Constitutional rights. One should not forget that the
Constitution is not to enable politicians to play their unending game of power
but to hold the country and her people together.
My
sincere wish is that you will have the courage to rectify this damage. A man of
your caliber needs not fear the thunder.
