Parliament is the highest law-making body in the country consisting of the elected representatives of the people. It is the place where laws that impact the lives of very citizen of the country are made and hence the proper functioning of parliament is in the interest of all Sri Lankans. In recent years public confidence in parliament and their elected representatives has deteriorated due to some ugly incidents that have taken place within its precincts as well as due to the poor conduct of some MPs who have acted contrary to Standing Orders and brought the entire House to disrepute.

Since my retirement from Parliament in 1994, a question I get asked frequently is why parliamentary standards have dropped and why we don’t produce parliamentarians in the caliber of the ones we have seen in the past. This is a matter of great concern to me personally and to all Sri Lankans but I can only answer this based on my experience in the House, however not based on sociology or human behaviour, as I am not trained in these fields.

I leave that to some of by more able colleagues such as good friends like Professor Gananath Obeyesekera, Emeritus Professor of Princeton University, U.S.A., H.L. Seneviratne, my batchmate in Peradeniya, now a Professor of Sociology in the US or even so much better Hon. Sarath Amunugama, who has had the privilege of observing the House from within and outside, to answer this question fully.

However, ill-equipped as I am, I felt I should try, even inadequately to answer this. When I joined Parliament in the sixties, as a young man in my middle twenties, I was deeply impressed by the caliber of the Members and if I may be permitted, I would like to mention the names of some of them. I begin with Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the first woman Prime Minister of the world, Dudley Senanayake, Dr. N.M. Perera, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, Pieter Keuneman, Dr. S.A. Wickramasinghe, Phillip Gunawardena, Felix Dias Bandaranaike, Leslie Goonawardene, Bernard Soysa, T.B. Subasinghe, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, and M. Sivasithamparam and I could go on and on.

It so happened that almost all had the benefit of either a university education or earning professional qualifications and most from the UK, USA, Russia, and Europe. Whether it was their enlightened education abroad, family backgrounds or refined ethical standards they adopted during their studies abroad, their speeches in Parliament were erudite and polished.

To me, a callow youth then, it was indeed an inspiration to follow their speeches and conduct within the Chamber and outside. Their contributions were studied ones. always relevant to the subject and it was a pleasure and privilege to listen to. In those days, many of my friends asked me for a ticket to the galleries to listen to their speeches. By and large, their conduct was exemplary and their speeches were well prepared and dignified in delivery. Even if they interrupted a fellow Member, it was done in style and in a decorous and dignified manner.

No doubt they lost their tempers, but yet there was restraint. I vividly recall senior Members like Phillip Gunawardena. Once he entered the Chamber and took his seat, he only got up at interval time or at adjournment time. He brought all his ministerial files to his desk and perused them studiously without ever leaving the Chamber. I recall him losing his temper when another Member called him, “a Boralugoda mee haraka.” Angered by this intemperate remark, he, and his brother Robert, promptly rushed out of their seats into the Well of the House to confront the Member; but soon returned to their seats containing their anger.

It was indeed a great pleasure to listen to Dr. N.M. Perera and Pieter Keuneman. Both these Members had prepared their speeches so well that they almost read out from the slips of papers they had carefully prepared. I used to collect these to hand them over to the Hansard Department so that they correctly record their speeches.

Some anecdotes come to my mind that illustrates the standards the Members of the past maintained. One related to Minister, U.B. Wanninayake, then Minister of Finance and his son. His son had applied for a vacancy in a state bank. At the interview he was asked his name and then his father’s name. The interview board was overawed interviewing the finance minister’s son. The Chairman of the Bank, a few days later, had phoned the father and told him that his son appeared for an interview. Minister Wanninayake had expressed surprise as he did not know of it at all. The Chairman then asked him, “Sir, what shall we do?” His prompt response was, “If he is suitable, take him. If he is not, send him away.”

There was also an incident relating to I.M.R.A. Iriyagolla, Minister of Education, who had been asked by the Hon. Dudley Senanayake, then Prime Minister, about his daughter accepting from the Indian Embassy a scholarship routed through the Ministry of Education. Hon. Iriyagolla questioned his daughter and was told how she applied on her own and was chosen to receive an undergrad scholarship. Hon. Iriyagolla reported back to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s reply was, “Ask your daughter not to accept the scholarship. You are the Minister of Education and these scholarships though given by the Indian Embassy are routed through your Ministry.” That was the rectitude displayed by the Prime Minister of the day.

These anecdotes are to remind people that there were times when politicians conducted themselves in the most impeccable manner and put public interest above personal interests. This is not to say there are no politicians that continue to maintain high standards but they are fewer in number and unfortunately it is those who break the rules and behave in unruly manner who are often highlighted, rather than those who conduct themselves with dignity and decorum.

I like to add a note regarding the responsibilities and duties of the Speaker. I believe the Speaker is at least 70 per cent responsible for ensuring that the House is conducted in keeping with Standing Orders and that the rule the Speaker has the final word should be upheld firmly. If MPs disregard the Order from the Chair, they must be asked to refrain from such conduct and if not obeyed, asked to leave the Chamber and such behaviour brought to the notice of the relevant Whip. It is of utmost importance that the Speaker performs his duties independently and impartially. In doing so, he will easily earn the full confidence of all Members.

He cannot afford to fail even once. Having won the confidence of the House, he has every opportunity to be strict and vigilant regarding the conduct and behavior of the members. He should come down very heavily on all errant members. He is fully empowered to do this under the provisions of the Standing Orders. He is empowered to ask an errant member to leave the chamber for the rest of the day’s sitting. Newspapers will no doubt give sufficient publicity to this and the errant members will find it difficult to face their constituents. Hopefully, this will prevent the MPs from acting in an errant manner in future. Once the Speaker does so members will begin to respect him and he will win the confidence of the House.

A great deal of responsibility of the behavior of MPs within the House rests with the party leaders as well as the Leader of the House, Chief Government Whip, and the Chief Opposition Whip. I remember when Dudley Senanayake was the Prime Minister, if there were any unwarranted interruptions from members of his side, he would turn around and signal with his hand for them to sit down and they would do so. Today it seems there is little control over the behaviour of their MPs, by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition.

When new MPs are elected, they are given a one or two-day training conducted by the Secretary General about their role as parliamentarians. Copies of the Constitution, Standing Orders, and the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act are given to each new MP but now it seems that many MPs are unaware of the rules for speaking and conduct in the House. Speakers are often interrupted without adherence to rules regarding rising to a Point of Order and Members get up to speak without reference to the relevant Standing Order.

I also feel that party leaders too have an enormous responsibility cast on them when choosing candidates to give them nominations at election time. They should strictly consider the choice of nominee by giving integrity, impeccable honesty, and a sound educational background pride of place. All too often unsuitable people are chosen just because they are popular in the area or have substantial financial resources but have a very questionable backgrounds in terms of honesty and integrity.

Popularity in the district alone may not be sufficient if he has a dubious past. I may add that a reasonable standard of education would be essential if one hopes to become a MP. Hopefully, a sound education will help an MP to develop a sense of honesty and integrity and guide him to follow a code of proper conduct and make contributions to debate worthy of the high office he holds.

The role to be played by leaders of all political parties should not be underestimated. It is up to them to ensure continuous strict and vigilant control over their members and to take them to task when they fail. Party leaders could choose two or three members who show interest and possess a deep knowledge of subject to speak on which comes up for debate and make a real contribution rather than allow any member not quite conversant with the subject matter at hand, to speak, and waste the time of the House.

Since time available for Members may be limited, if such a choice is made it will certainly enhance the content of their speeches and quality of debate. This may seem to restrict the freedom of the members speaking, but if properly explained to them by their leaders, hopefully the desired objective can be achieved and a high standard of debate expected.

I believe there is a need for more training of MPs which should be a continuous process rather than one that only takes place when they are new to the Legislature. Refreshers courses will help them to understand their responsibilities as lawmakers and ensure that the law-making process is handled with due seriousness. There is no need to go to five-star resorts for these programs as the parliament complex is more than well equipped with facilities to conduct such sessions on non-sitting days.

Members should be encouraged to visit the library and request the research officers there to prepare a five-page report on the most recent developments of the subject matter they had chosen. Yet another observation I like to make is that under the present electoral system the area covered is too large an extent instead of the small constituencies we had in the past. Members today have to spend large sums of money in their District and as a result, Members may even go to the extent of getting into serious debt or become obliged to people who finance their campaigns thus giving away their independence leading to a lack of integrity.

Hopefully, we will soon see a fresh electoral system going back to smaller wards and constituencies, making them less dependent on borrowed finances and making Members more accessible to their constituents. My personal belief is that the constituency system is more desirable, though the first-past-the -post has inbuilt deficiencies. The close tie between the Member and his small constituency is essential. For example, the Colombo District returns 29 members and the area ranges from Peliyagoda in the North, Kalutara in the South and Avissawella in the East and voters cannot find the MP who represents their particular area.

(Excerpted from Memories of 33 year in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne)