Connect with us

Features

MRS. BANDARANAIKE’S GOVERNMENT LOSES BY ONE VOTE

Published

on

(Excerpted from Memories of 33 year in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne, Retired Secretary General of Parliament)

In the Parliamentary Election held in July 1960, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first woman Prime Minister creating a world record. She began her parliamentary career with a seat in the Senate entering the House of Representatives later. It was only subsequently that women like Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Mrs. Golda Meir, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and Mrs. Benazir Bhutto headed their respective countries.

She headed a 15 Member Cabinet which included Mr. C.P. de Silva as Minister of Lands, Dr. N.M. Perera as Minister of Finance, Felix Dias Bandaranaike as Minister of Agriculture and T.B. Ilangartne as Minister of Trade, Mr. Maithripala Senanayake as Leader of the House and Minister of Rural and Industrial Development. It was indeed a formidable Government and a strong Cabinet.

But four years later things began to get shaky for the Government and Parliament was prorogued in 1964 and a new Session of Parliament began around November that year. After the new Session was opened by the Governor-General William Gopallawa, as was customary following Westminster tradition a motion was moved in the House thanking the Governor General for opening Parliament. This is what we refer to as the Throne Speech Debate.

This is usually a two-day debate. After the Leader of the House, moved the Motion to thank His Excellency, Dr. W Dahanayake (Galle) moved the following Amendment, “…but regret that the people have no confidence in the Government as it has miserably failed to solve the pressing problems of the people, such as unemployment, the high cost of living and housing. “

Before the debate began, Speaker Hugh Fernando summoned me to his chambers and told me of his inability to be present in the House that day and requested that an alternative arrangement be made to chair the proceedings. I vehemently argued with him saying that it was a very important day in the House as a crucial vote was to be taken that evening. I argued with him for over half an hour to be present, but he insisted saying that he had some very urgent private business.

I then realized that I would have to get another government Member to preside and the government, as a result, would lose one vote in its strength. Deputy Speaker D. A. Rajapakse (Mahinda Rajapaksa’s father) chaired the proceedings. By mid-evening a story started circulating in the lobbies of Parliament which took everybody by complete surprise.

It was indeed a well-kept secret till then, but soon it transpired that J. R. Jayewardene as the Leader of the Opposition had been studiously planning and spearheading a coup in Parliament with a view defeating the Government at the conclusion of the Throne Speech Debate vote fixed for that evening. Soon we began to know that many Members of the UNP who were abroad had had been summoned to be present that day. They included E.L Senanayake who had been in London; Paris Perera was away on holiday abroad and a few others. All of them suddenly showed up in the lobbies.

But the bigger surprise of all was when soon after evening tea break when the House resumed at 4.30 p.m., C P de Silva, Minister of Land, Irrigation and Power walked into the well of the House, bowed to the Speaker and instead of taking his assigned seat on the Government front benches, moved to the Opposition side and took his seat there. A few other Members of the Government showing their loyalty to him also walked over and sat in the Opposition benches. Among them were Indrasena de Zoysa and Edmund Wijesuriya. It was no longer a rumour. Soon we found as many as 17 Members of the government party had crossed over to the opposition.

By 7 p.m. that evening the Throne Speech debate had come to an end and a vote was due to be taken. Then following recognized Parliamentary procedure, we had to put the Amendment moved by Dr. W Dahanayake to the House first. The division bells were rung for three minutes. .

As the motion with the amendment read that the House had no confidence in the Government, all Government Members shouted ‘No’ and then the Opposition Members shouted ‘Aye.’ Then, though being tired and exhausted, we called out each name and marked “Aye” and “No” on the provided voting list. We finished counting and then gave the slip with the marked votes to the Presiding Officer. A total 74 had voted “Aye” and 73 had voted “No” with the Government losing by a single vote.

I recall Maithripala Senanayake and Baduideen Mohamed seated on the Government Front benches saying forcefully, “You have counted wrong. Recount the votes.” My heart missed more than a single beat as I realized that if we had made a mistake our jobs were in jeopardy. With our hearts beating vigorously, with added caution and care, we recounted the figures as we may have in the excitement marked a wrong “Aye” or “No” on the one sheet in adjoining columns. After the recount we forwarded it to the Presiding Officer who announced the division to the House and we informed the two Members who had objected that our figures were correct.

But I reassured Government Members that following correct parliamentary procedure, the amended motion would once again be put to the House and there would be another vote soon after. Thus, the Government had every opportunity of getting one or two Members to come into the Chamber and vote with them. So, yet again, the division bells were rung for three minutes and at the end, we once again repeated calling out the names of all the Members seated.

Since the amended motion signified that the Government had lost its confidence in the House, I advised all Government Members to say “No”. By 8.30 p.m. that night we had recounted the votes and it was the identical result- 74 “Ayes” and 73 “Noes”. The Government had been unable to get just one other Member to vote with them and finally the Government lost by a single vote.

I must add here that though the Government had lost by a single vote, it was only because two or three Members of the Government-side were abroad at that moment and the Government, completely unaware that Mr. J.R. Jayewardene was planning this coup, did not arrange for their return. Dr. N.M. Perera as Minister of Finance was in USA for a meeting with the World Bank and Mr. Bernard Soysa was also out of the country.

Mrs. Bandaranaike was made well aware of the constitutional position by her advisers that she could have very easily summoned Parliament to meet on a future date and asked for a Vote of Confidence which she and the Government could well have won. But the great lady that she was, having suffered a defeat in the House, two weeks’ later dissolved Parliament on December 17. Then the General Election was held in March 1965 and the UNP were voted to power with Dudley Senanayake being sworn in as Prime Minister on March 25.

His Cabinet of 16 which included J.R. Jayewardene as Minister of State, M.D. Banda as Minister of Agriculture, U. B. Wanninayake as Minister of Finance, C.P. de Silva as Minister of Lands was sworn. Five years later in March 1970, the sixth parliament was dissolved. In the general election held in June that year, Mrs. Bandaranaike re-took power and became prime minister but seven years later, in 1977 parliamentary election, her United Front Government was routed and the UNP led by J.R. Jayewardene won with a five-sixth majority.

With the change in government there was a change in the fortunes of Mrs. Bandaranaike who was subsequently deprived of her civic rights.

How Mrs. B lost her civic rights

Soon after the new Government headed by J.R. Jayewardene was sworn in after the UNP received a five-sixth majority in the House in 1977, J.R. Jayewardene who was Prime Minister moved a Motion in the House for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to draft and adopt a new Constitution for Sri Lanka, repealing the 1972 Constitution, which was in place till then.

I worked as an Assistant Secretary to the drafting Committee which was set up soon after the new Government started work. In drafting the Chapter on the Legislative Procedure and Powers, a new Section 81 was introduced titled “Expulsion of Members and Imposition of Civic Disability”.

During our deliberations it came to our notice that this was altogether a new Section which found no place in the Soulbury Constitution of 1948 nor in the Republican Constitution of 1972.

This new Section provided for a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry being set up consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court or District Court. They were empowered to recommend that any person should be made subject to civic disability by reason of any act done by such person. Clause 81 stated that if such person was found guilty with two-thirds of Parliament voting in favour, a civic disability on such person for a period not exceeding seven years, was going to be imposed and if such person is a Member of Parliament, for such person to be expelled.

It so happened that in August 1980, a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry was set up consisting of Hon. J.G.T. Weeraratne (Judge of the Supreme Court), Hon. S. Sharvananda (Judge of the Supreme Court) and Hon. K.C.E. de Alwis (Judge of the Appeal Court). The Commission Report was published as a Sessional Paper of 1980 and the Gazette in September 1980.

The Cabinet decided to accept the recommendations of the Commission which held that Mrs. Bandaranaike be subject to civic disability by reason of the acts done by her, which constitute abuse of power or misuse of power as set out in the Report published. After a lengthy debate, Item 2 of the Order Paper of October 16, 1980, was put to the vote and Parliament with the count being 139 Ayes: 18 Noes. Mrs. Bandaranaike declined to vote.

It was late in the night when the House adjourned. just after the vote was taken, Mrs. Bandaranaike left the Chamber and walked down the stairs of the old building to get into her car. I recall accompanying her down the stairs as the disappointed lady left the building. I felt it was part of an obligation that as she walked down the stairs alone that I accompany the ex-Prime Minister. The country’s and world’s very first lady Prime Minister was leaving the House under the most unusual circumstances. I wished her farewell. Many years later she returned to Parliament as Prime Minister.

The chapter on the imposition of civic disability on Mrs. Bandaranaike did not end there. On April 8, 1996, with her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga as the country’s new President and Mrs. Bandaranaike as Prime Minister, a Minister in her Government Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Pieris moved a Resolution outlining the circumstances which led to the Motion depriving Mrs. Bandaranaike of her Civic Rights in October 1980. He moved that : Parliament hereby resolves that the said Resolution of October 16, 1980, ought not to have been passed.

Prof Peiris winding up the Debate said a remarkable feature of this Debate had been that not a single voice was raised in opposition to the substance of the Resolution. All sections of the House that participated in the debate agreed that it is right and proper that the historic mistake, which was perpetrated on October 16 ,1980 should be rectified. When the Motion was put to the House a division was taken by name and 124 Members voted for it, none against. It should be recorded for posterity that there was just one person who declined to vote and that was none other than Mrs. Bandaranaike herself.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending