The Rajapaksa No Show and MPs’ responsibility
by Lalith Allahakkoon
( December 4, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa skipped an important Parliament session for the second time on Wednesday. Earlier he failed to be present when the House took up the Geneva resolution, jointly signed by the US and Sri Lanka, for debate. On that occasion he made adverse comments on the resolution at a temple as is his wont and came in for heavy flak by the Government for not making his views known in the House which after all is what matters.
This time Rajapaksa skipped the budget vote after initially making a profession, that too outside Parliament, that he understood little of its contents. In any event his appearance in Parliament during the entire Second Reading debate was sketchy and even on these occasions, did not make any contribution. This is perhaps the first time that a former Finance Minister had failed to make his analysis of a budget presented by his successor, in Parliament. Even the late M.D.H. Jayawardena a former Finance Minister made critical remarks on certain aspects of the maiden budget presented by Ronnie de Mel in 1977.
Be that as it may, one is constrained to question the whole purpose of Rajapaksa entering Parliament, after obtaining more that 400,000 preference votes, if he is not inclined to attend sittings and bring the problems and grievances of those who voted for him to the attention of the House. Because it is only Parliament which has the capacity to redress such grievances and not the audiences in temples. Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake read out the huge sums being paid to Rajapaksa as retirement benefits, both as MP and former President while Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayake drew the attention of the House to the absence of the former Finance Minister when a budget debate is on. What pray, is the former President’s game?
True, he contested the General election with the sole intention of becoming Prime Minister which has now assumed an elevated status following the passage of the 19th Amendment. His hopes dashed, has Rajapaksa now thrown in the towel, what with even his staunch backers now in the Yahapalanaya fold? Or is he biding his time for another fling at the Premiership four years hence, and is using Parliament as the ideal vehicle to attain this goal?
If that indeed is the case, Rajapaksa has let down his voters in Kurunegala dismally, since his continuous ‘No Show’ in the House amounts to a betrayal of the trust of the people who voted for him. When a voter casts his/her preference for a candidate it amounts to an unspoken contract where the latter is bound to serve his/her elector in the best way possible. Has Rajapaksa raised even a single Oral Question in the House pertaining to the grievance of a voter in Kurunegala or presented a Public Petition to right a wrong suffered by one of his constituents? It is not as if Rajapaksa was an inactive member of Parliament in the past. The public are aware of his well documented derring do deeds in the House. He was also known as one of the most vocal members of Parliament both while in Government and Opposition. Has the Presidency mellowed the man or is he biding his time, as already mentioned, for another comeback and is using Parliament as a mere springboard for this, rather than a forum to air the grievances of his constituents?
It is in this context that the speech made in Parliament on Wednesday by Deputy Minister Ajith P. Perera calling for the stripping of the Parliament membership of those “peoples representatives” playing truant, should receive the attention of the authorities. Perera wanted laws enacted to expel members who fail to turn up during Parliament sittings, making special reference to Rajapaksa. He said MPs could not serve the people by not participating in Parliamentary debates. He said such MPs guilty of dereliction of duty should be expelled from Parliament. He also made the point that if Rajapaksa did not attend debates and continued to do so the opportunity to enter Parliament should be given to the next candidate on the preference vote list. Rajapaksa he said had been allocated 15 minutes to speak but failed to turn up, as he did with the debate on the Geneva resolution.
Of course some may argue that no purpose is served by participating in Parliament debates which are more often than not are meandering affairs or slanging matches. Very often members are seen transported to the land of the noddy, scenes at the recent budget presentation being a case in point. Parliament in a nutshell, as has often been described, is a talk shop where hot air is let out but nothing happens. Equally it could be said that Parliament is the only forum where issues are thrashed out pertaining to the public and is the supreme body responsible for the enactment of the country’s laws. As such a great responsibility devolves on members to attend Parliament and participate in its debates. Nay, it is an obligation towards the public they represent.
