The non-debate and two questions from Sajith and AKD

View from the gallery
by Saman Indrajith

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa faced two significant setbacks last week, the repercussions of which are expected to unfold in the coming days. The most notable was the backlash on social media following his failure to attend the highly anticipated debate with JVP/NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake. After weeks of boasting and challenges, the debate was scheduled for Thursday at the ITN studio. While the JVP leader arrived promptly, Premadasa was conspicuously absent.

This triggered a wave of negative feedback and disappointment, not only among SJB members but also among many who had eagerly awaited the debate for weeks. The ramifications of this absence and the resulting damage will become clear in the days ahead.

Then there was a matter of two questions that came up on Tuesday on the ongoing strike by university non-academic staff. This had been raised by both Premadasa and NPP/JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake. As question time ended that day, the speaker announced that Premadasa had been given time to make a special statement under Standing Order 27(ii) regarding this matter.

Noting that Dissanayake too had submitted a similar question, the speaker suggested to take up both together to save time. After Premadasa read out his question, Dissanayake demanded an explanation from the speaker regarding how the same question he had submitted to the Opposition Leader’s Office, to be raised in parliament under Standing Order 27(ii), was presented by the Opposition Leader before him.

The speaker clarified, saying the two questions had been submitted to the Secretary General’s office by the Opposition Leader’s office. One was handed over at 11:40 am to be raised by Premadasa, and the other by Dissanayake a 12.10 pm. Dissanayake criticized the occurrence as childish and immature. It was similar to behavior commonly seen in schools where children may steal others’ belongings such as balls, bats, or books.

Dissanayake then inquired whether he could submit questions directly to the Secretary General of Parliament instead of going through the Opposition Leader’s Office. The speaker said the MP could indeed do so if he wished.

The JVP leader explained, “We typically send questions through the Opposition Leader’s Office. However, if you grant me permission, I would prefer to send it directly to the Secretary General. I believe that would be more efficient. What occurred today resembles a childish game.”

After the incident in the chamber, some MPs and staff were seen trying to find out what had happened. It was discovered that Dissanayake had sent his question to the Opposition Leader’s office at 11:30 am on Monday. The established tradition dictates that any party leader in the Opposition ranks, entitled to make a statement under Standing Order 27 (ii), must submit it through the Opposition Leader’s office. Only staff of the Opposition Leader’s Office were aware of the events that took place between 11:30 and 12:10 there on that morning. They submitted a question on the same issue under Premadasa’s name to the Secretary General’s office at 11:40. Thirty minutes later, they submitted Dissanayake’s question.

When the chair finds two similar questions, only one is usually allowed to save time in the House. However, Speaker Abeywardena decided to allow Dissanayake too to raise his question as well. He didn’t elaborate but said that the issue would be resolved once Education Minister Susil Premajayantha responded.

The lobbies were agog with staff and MPs discussing about what happened. Some debated the ethical implications while others speculated that Premadasa may have wanted to champion the cause of university non-academic staff, assuming that the second question would not be allowed. Aware of the practice that prohibits two questions on the same topic and the deadline for question submission being 12 noon, Premadasa’s aides submitted Dissanayake’s question at 12:10, ten minutes past the deadline, some alleged. If the Speaker had disallowed the second question for this reason, this matter may not have been uncovered.

Thereafter, many foresaw that Premadasa would avoid facing Dissanayake in the televised debate scheduled for Thursday. Some SJB MPs were disheartened by their leader’s decision to skip the debate. Some contended that Premadasa had never participated in a televised debate throughout his political career.

During the sitting week, the government seemed to be in a hurry to pass several wide-ranging pieces of legislation against strong opposition resistance. The Electricity Amendment Bill was carried despite former president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s appeal that privatizations should await the forthcoming elections. The next three bills in line are the Economic Transformation Bill, Public Financial Management Bill, and Public Debt Management Bill all of which had been challenged before the Supreme Court. The court held that several provisions of the Electricity Amendment Bill violated the constitution and these were amended before the Bill was passed.