The main manner of communication in Parliament is through speeches delivered in the House on Government business and the responses of the Opposition before a vote is taken to ratify those proposals or to disallow them. This is considered to be a democratic procedure since the House must approve – by majority vote – any expenditure of funds which are collected from the people. The principle of “No taxation without representation” was established in the face of a British sovereign’s right to levy taxes. The approval of appropriations is the right of Parliament as seen in the title of the annual budget which is” The Appropriations Bill”.

As rookie MPs we were very keen to participate in debates in the House. Usually it is the party leader who decides on his speakers list which is sent to the Speaker at the beginning of the days business so that the work of the House can be conducted in an orderly manner. With Gamini as leader and with my previous experience as a public servant and UN official, I could ask for a speaking slot with confidence while other new comers tended to bide their time.

Thus I was listed as a speaker in the very first debate of the CBK regime which was on the new anti-bribery and corruption law. Many seniors were reluctant to intervene in this debate as they had many things to hide. Indeed the gossip in Parliament was that the new law would permit the arrest of Gamini on a corruption charge and thereby disqualify him from contesting the forthcoming Presidential contest with CBK.

Gamini himself was nervous about these manoeuvres and wanted the new law defeated in the House. But Ranil and I wanted it to be brought to the House where we would support it. To counter this move Gamini had brought lawyer Desmond Fernando QC to pick holes in the draft legislation. But with corruption as a major issue we did not heed his lawyerly arguments and the UNP group decided to vote in favour of the bill in Parliament. In my maiden speech I supported the Bill and is now so recorded in Hansard. Since Parliamentary speeches were published in the daily newspapers I spoke in Sinhala so that my constituents could follow the contribution of their newly elected representative.

This did not endear me to some of my UNP colleagues who preferred to speak in English. The Government side and the Opposition tend to “pair” speakers so that the arguments of my paired MP, or Minister in this case, can be rebutted in my contribution and vice versa. Though not especially so designated this was in effect a semblance of a dialogue between a Minister and his opposite number in the “shadow cabinet”. In the shambles of Parliamentary practice today this useful arrangement has been, I believe, abandoned.

In my days as a UNP MP my opposite number was Dharmasiri Senanayake who was my friend from Peradeniya University days. We got on so well that I would begin my replies by complimenting Dharmasiri on his speech. This got noticed and he told me politely to stop it because his own MPs were getting jealous about our friendship. Another helpful Parliamentarian was Ratnasiri Wickremanayake who was the Leader of the House shortly to become Prime Minister. He was a bold Minister who would not hesitate to change his mind if a counter argument could be offered even by a member of the Opposition.

I remember that as Minister of Public Administration, he brought a bill to retire all Grama Sevakas at the age of 55. This was because the SLFP believed that the majority of GSs were UNPers. While opposing this bill in the House I said that this bill was discriminatory and unfair. In any case as Minister of Public Administration Ratnasiri had the right of not extending the service of any public officer after 55. Extensions were given only at his discretion.

So why discriminate against one identified service like the GS when he already had the powers to ensure any public servants retirement at 55? He immediately saw the logic of my argument and withdrew his bill on the floor of the House. He was that sort of decisive Minister. At the condolence meeting in Parliament after Ratnasiri’s death, I was able to narrate this incident which is now enshrined in Hansard.

Hansard

No descriptions of Parliamentary affairs would be complete without a reference to Hansard. It is a document of record not only of speeches made in the House but also of all other Parliamentary business conducted in the well of the House (the Chamber). The fate of bills and amendments presented to the House are recorded in detail. These records are accepted by the legal arm of the state as true records of the proceedings regarding legislation and related actions. Responsible MPs peruse drafts which contain their speeches and ensure that the final publication of Hansard (called the corrected version) truly records what they said.

In Northern Ireland with MP’s Kodituwakku and Nalanda Ellawela

There are many instances where MPs rush to the top floor, where the Hansard office is located, to make sure that they are reported accurately. This was a practice I followed faithfully so that the printed version of speeches were without infelicities and inaccuracies. The Hansard staff were all very helpful and would show us the drafts provided by their reporters who took down notes in relays in short hand so that they did not miss any interventions.

Condolences

A particularly poignant event in Parliament occurs on Fridays when time is set apart for condolences on the demise of MPs and ex-MPs. These speeches are noted for publication in Hansard and are usually treasured by the relatives of the deceased. From the very inception I took this opportunity to eulogise many of our late colleagues. I spoke about Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Anura Bandaranaike, Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, Dharmasiri Senanayake, Gamini Jayasuriya, Vivienne Goonewardane, Indika Gunawardena, D.M. Jayaratne and many others.

Role model

My role model as a Parliamentarian was Dr. NM Perera. He took his duties in Parliament very seriously. In his days Parliament met in the evenings and its sittings would go well into the night. NM, after a strenuous game of tennis at the Nondescripts Cricket Club [he disliked ethnicity based clubs like the SSC, Tamil Union and Moors] he would return to his home in Cotta Road, bathe, change into a well pressed white suit and a red tie and self drive his Peugeot 204 to Parliament. He would then patiently spend time there till it was time to leave for a social occasion.

He loved good clothes and ballroom dancing. He was such a good dancer that ladies would scramble to get a dance with him. NM was a handsome man and was the cynosure of the eyes of society women.

At the same time he was a conscientious and hard worker. His speeches were well prepared and full of statistical information. The Government ranks listened to him with rapt attention. He spoke to a Parliament which had just over a hundred MPs so that he was given time to develop his arguments. He was devoid of malice and could be seen later in the Parliament canteen sharing a smoke with Dudley, JR or CP de Silva.

His loud laughter with his head thrown back, could be heard along the corridors of the House. Even his later enemies like Philip praised NM for his hard work. Once in Parliament Philip said that “the only hard worker here is the MP for Ruwanwella”. Before my speeches on economic issues I would invariably read NM’s speeches to find out how he sequenced his presentations. Though the leader of a Marxist party he was more open in his thinking and was very much a Keynesian. In his budget making he was influenced by Nicholas Kaldor of Cambridge University who belonged to the Keynesian group of economists. Kaldor visited Sri Lanka and advised on setting up a new taxation system which was weighted against capitalists. These radical measures were resented by the growing middle class which then abandoned Mrs. B and her government.

In Gomba facing Mount Fuji (Phpto by Rukman Senanayake)

After the LSSP leaders were released from prison in 1945 the party split and NM and Philip were expelled for following a more liberal democratic line showing their growing disenchantment with Trotskyite dogma. They came together shortly after only to quarrel and split again. Philip soon set up his own party [VLSSP] while NM realigned himself with the old LSSP.

Seminars and study tours

A major feature of CBK’s new administration was a renewed effort to solve the ethnic issue which was tearing the country apart. Attempts made by previous Presidents JRJ, Premadasa and Wijetunga had all failed. The Sri Lankan economy which had a spectacular success in the early JRJ years, was grinding to a halt due to the war. The international community which saw the migration of many Tamil refugees to their countries were pressurizing the Sri Lankan Government to settle this conflict through negotiation and the devolution of power.

The initial reaction of the Tamil community was one of trust in CBK. She reciprocated by sending a delegation of her advisors to talk to the LTTE. The Tamil population of the North used this pause to show their appreciation of the new government of CBK. CBK bangles and CBK sarees became popular among northern Tamil ladies.

But the talks failed and war was resumed causing consternation among the international community, in particular the UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway and Japan. Their well funded NGOs began to focus on Sri Lanka which had received much global media attention. All this led to a concentrated attempt to co-opt [officially called educate] Members of Parliament, particularly of the opposition, whose assent was necessary to present a united front in the negotiations. Among those NGOs were the Friedrich Naumann Foundation [FRG] International Alert [Norway] The Berghof Foundation [FRG] World View Foundation [Norway] Japanese International Foundation [Japan] Foundation for Federalism [Switzerland] and many others not so well known.

Sri Lankan representatives of these Foundations – Sagarika Delgoda, Kumar Rupasinghe and Tyrell Ferdinands, as well as foreign representatives living in Colombo were in close touch with us as were the western embassies located here. They all paid special attention to us in the opposition and were particularly considerate about our physical safety perhaps due to the carnage of the JRJ and Premadasa years. I remember the British High Commissioner volunteering to accompany me to the airport when I had to leave for a seminar abroad. Whether on the government side or the Opposition there were about 30 of us who were wooed incessantly by the above mentioned NGOs and the Western embassies.

International Alert

The most active of these NGOs was International Alert which was represented in Norway by Kumar Rupasinghe who had played a significant political role during Mrs. B’s tenure as her son-in-law and a radical influence on her party till Anura Bandaranaike returned from his studies in the UK and blew him out of the water. Later he married a Norwegian girl and settled down in Oslo and became an advisor to IA on Sri Lankan peace initiatives. Very recently Norwegian official reports about its involvement in the local peace process disclosed that a substantial amount of Norwegian government funds were set apart for the NGOs to create an atmosphere conducive to a peaceful resolution of the ethnic conflict.

This was a time when Norway had emerged on the global stage as a peacemaker after its intervention in the Isreal-Palestine conflict and in internal conflict resolution in Sierra Leone. Sri Lanka could be another feather in its cap and the Norwegian authorities liberally spent its newly found wealth from North sea oil to put its stamp on the pursuit of peace on the global stage.

Freidrich Neumann Foundation

Another organisation which supported our peace process was the Freidrich Neumann Stiftung, which was an arm of the Free Democratic Party of western Germany. The FDP was the leading liberal party in the country which competed with the SDP [Socialists] and the Conservatives [CDU]. Though smaller than the other two parties they were often sought after as coalition partners by both larger parties. Once they coalesced with the CDU. Later they joined the SDP under Schmidt to form a coalition government. On both occasions the leader of the FNS – the energetic Herr Genscher, was appointed the Minister of Foreign Affairs and was virtually the Deputy Chancellor of the country.

Hence they were not short of money or influence both in Germany and abroad. They were not afraid to fly the flag of liberalism as they had an enviable record of resistance during the Hitlerite period.

The FNS had a special interest in Sri Lanka as under the JRJ and Premadasa regimes we were recognized in the “Free World” as a democratic country which had “rolled back socialism”. In addition Sri Lanka had been developed as a long haul tourist destination by Aitken Spence Travels and the largest travel agency in western Germany – TUI. Condor Air, an affiliate of Lufthansa, flew charters regularly into Colombo and Sri Lanka which was well featured in European travel catalogues, became a preferred destination for many German tourists.

Unlike AI however FNS preferred to hold their meetings in Cologne and after reunification, in the capital – Berlin. I was happy to travel to Germany which was now being transformed. The GDR economy was faltering and especially the youth were unsympathetic to Communism. With the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev and his “Perestroika” and “Glastnost” its days were numbered. Before long GDR leader Erich Honecker’s regime collapsed and the Berlin Wall, which best symbolized the division of Germany, was pulled down. The FNS was delighted by this outcome and organized many meetings in Berlin which had become a united city.

Cash rich FNS had acquired an impressive office in Berlin Mitte and visitors from Asia and Africa came there in large numbers to be lectured to on the virtues of liberalism. Back in Sri Lanka FNS supported the Marga Institute, Sarvodaya and political parties of the right. A leader of the FNS who had special ties to Sri Lanka was Count Von Lambsdorf who later became the Foreign Minister of Germany. He was a regular visitor to Colombo. My friend Bertolt Witte whom I knew from my Paris days as described in Volume Two of my autobiography, became the President of FNS.

The FNS office in Colombo under Sagarika Delgoda was sympathetic to the UNP and I was invited to participate in many of its activities. One of its regular activities was its support of the annual Dudley Senanayake lecture. On the invitation of the FNS and the Senanayake family, I delivered one such lecture entitled “Dudley Senanayake and media freedom” which received wide coverage in the newspapers of the time.

Bergdorf Foundation

The Bergdorf Foundation of Berlin was another NGO that supported the peace process. They were in Sri Lanka at the invitation of GL Peiris, probably on the instructions of CBK. Her government had launched several initiatives like the “Sudu Nelum” movement under Mangala Samaraweera and was open to international assistance particularly to encourage the opposition to respond positively to the President’s call for a joint effort to settle the ethnic issue. In fact more than the opposition it were leaders within her own Cabinet like Ratnasiri Wickremanayake and Mahinda Rajapaksa who were skeptical of her peace efforts.

The head of BF in Colombo was Norbert Ropers, a skilled diplomat who had mediated in the transformation of Eastern Europe. He established good rapport with MPs of different political parties as well as a few Tamil University teachers who were sympathetic to the LTTE. Since these teachers were originally of the left it was not difficult for us to establish friendly relations and push them to go for a negotiated settlement. But the “hardliners”of the LTTE belittled them as those with no standing in their affairs.

Our friends told us privately that Prabhakaran was opposed to a negotiated settlement. I visited Berlin several times on the invitation of the BF and once delivered a lecture on the Sri Lanka ethnic conflict in their well appointed premises in Dahlem which was the elite residential district of Berlin. Since I had earned a good reputation among the NGOs and even locally as a spokesman on this issue, the UNP leadership which wanted all communications with the outside world decided on by the leader and his coterie, were decidedly unhappy but there was nothing they could do to stop it. It was another factor in the misunderstandings which were to eventually come to the surface with the party leadership which I will describe later.

Others

In addition to these well known, and well funded, agencies there were many other institutions which were also interested in hosting all party discussions. The Japanese Foreign Ministry [Gaimusho] which had much success in reconciliation talks in Cambodia and Laos promoted Ambassador Akashi to mediate in our case as well. Akashi was a former Deputy Secretary General of the UN who advanced the Japanese approach to problem solving in conflict ridden countries. This was the famous “Akashi Doctrine” of promising enhanced Japanese economic assistance if the belligerent parties came together.

It seemed to work in Cambodia and Japan was keen to repay JRJ’s famous intervention at the peace conference in San Francisco, by brokering a peace settlement here. This was a time when Japan was prosperous and wanted to make an impression in the global scene. Akashi and I had many discussions both in my home in Colombo and his house in a salubrious quarter of Tokyo. The Gaimusho then invited a multiparty group of MPs to visit Japan. We were housed in Gomba the famous holiday resort overlooking Mount Fuji.

Every morning we would come out of our rooms to get a splendid view of Mount Fuji enveloped by snow white clouds. The delegation had the privilege of meeting Prime Minister Fukuda who was a long time friend of our country. Our delegation which included Rukman Senanayake, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Hakeem, Douglas Devananda, Devaraj and me were briefed about the plans of the Japanese government to underwrite development assistance which was later unfolded at the “Aid Sri Lanka” summit to be held in Tokyo with the participation of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. But this was aborted at the last minute by the LTTE. Ranil’s skill in stage managing this meeting and his rapport with Japan may have alarmed Prabakaran who later preferred Mahinda Rajapaksa to him in the 2005 Presidential election. It was an election Ranil could have won easily but for Mahinda’s large scale capture of LTTE goodwill and their decision to boycott the presidential election, which took the northern votes out of contention.

There were many such meetings in Switzerland, UK and Norway which came later in time and will be described later in this book. It became clear that though I was a rookie MP I had a busy schedule of meetings both in the country and abroad. That was a delightful adventure but I was always conscious that a desperate battle was being waged in my country and every attempt should be made to facilitate an understanding between our several communities. It required all our skills to counter the propaganda campaigns of the LTTE which were increasing in their intensity. Let me now describe some of those memorable meetings.

(Excerpted from vol. 3 of the Sarath Amunugama autbiography)