A case for smaller Parliament

Thursday 10th August, 2023

A double hat-trick is any bowler’s dream, but only a handful of cricketers have been able to achieve it. On Tuesday, dissident SLPP MP Wimal Weerawansa, known for his political googlies, scored a double hat-trick of sorts in Parliament. He brought parliamentary proceedings to a halt four times by pointing out that there was no quorum, much to the consternation of the government MPs.

The quorum in the 225-member Parliament is 20 MPs including the presiding one. If a sitting is inquorate and an MP brings that fact to the notice of the Chair, then the quorum bell has to be rung. If 20 MPs or more are not present in the House at the expiration of five minutes, Parliament is adjourned. The question is what 206 or more MPs were doing on Tuesday while Parliament was in session?

When MP Weerawansa raised the issue of the absence of a quorum, the government MPs present in the House flayed him for doing so. What those worthies should do is not to pounce on the members who inform the Chair that a quorum is not present; instead, they, especially their leaders, ought to hang their heads in shame, and mend their ways.

Regrettably, parliamentary sittings happen to be inquorate even during crucial debates, and there are times when not even the ministers billed to open them are present in the House. The MPs representing the government and the Opposition have claimed that they had been unaware that the country was becoming bankrupt; they have lambasted the Finance Ministry and Central Bank officials for having kept them in the dark. There is no need for anyone to apprise them of what was happening to the economy; they have to watch over the economy and call for remedial action if it heads for trouble. That is what they are maintained with public funds for. After all, they think they are economic mavens, if their parliamentary speeches are any indication.

When the Central Bank Bill was put to the vote in Parliament, last month, there were 66 ayes and 24 nays. Where were the other MPs? Soon afterwards, some committee-stage amendments were made to the Bill, and the third reading of it was passed without a division. Even some of the bitterest critics of the Bill were absent. Later, a dissident SLPP MP was heard saying that the Opposition had missed an opportunity to defeat the Bill. He is apparently unaware that defeating a Bill is not a walk in the park, for Parliament is geared to safeguard the interests of the party or alliance in power. That is why the ruling party goes all out to have one of its MPs elected Speaker.

What is the use of spending public money to maintain so many MPs, who do not care to carry out their legislative duties properly and make a serious effort to restore public faith in Parliament? They ought to remember that during last year’s popular uprising many protesters were wearing Guy Fawkes masks and demanding that all 225 MPs go home; some of them even tried to march on Parliament. President Ranil Wickremesinghe issued clear orders that the hordes be kept at bay; he deserves praise for having prevented the country from being plunged into anarchy. But anti-politics is manifestly on the rise, and all politicians, especially the MPs, should not lose sight of this fact.

The MPs who skip parliamentary sessions and neglect their legislative duties and functions are only making a strong case for a smaller Parliament, albeit unwittingly. The nine Provincial Councils have more than 450 members, and the local government councillors number well over 8,000. Therefore, the question is whether we need as many as 225 MPs, many of whom do not even attend Parliament regularly.