Two key debates in Parliament – little interest by lawmakers
The quorum bell was rung twice calling MPs to the Chamber during the debate on the NYT report alleging USD 7.6 million had been paid to the Rajapaksa election campaign in 2015 :
Two crucial parliamentary debates on hot topics for both the Government and the pro-Rajapaksa opposition were taken up in the House this week, but were ultimately poorly attended on both sides of the benches.
The debate on the Government’s proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore saw little participation, while the debate on the New York Times allegation about a Chinese company handing over USD 7.6 million to the Mahinda Rajapaksa election campaign in 2014/2015 featured barely any Government and Joint Opposition frontliners taking the floor.
This was remarked upon since it was the Government MPs who demanded a debate on the New York Times article that caused such a furore in the country.
In fact, none of the Rajapaksa family members represented in Parliament – the former President, his brother Chamal Rajapaksa nor his son, Namal Rajapaksa attended Thursday’s crucial debate, when the JVP in particular revealed damning facts about payments to the Rajapaksa campaign and the former president’s close associates in the run up to the January 2015 presidential poll.
The JVP and Government lawmakers who joined the NYT report adjournment debate accused former President Rajapaksa of deliberately avoiding the crucial discussion in the House regarding funding to his campaign.
The former President was on tour to Singapore last week. If the claims were baseless, the Rajapaksa family should have been in parliament to prove their innocence, the lawmakers who joined the debate said. The JO frontliners also posed a challenge to the Government ranks if the New York Times report is true to suspend all the projects carried out by the China Harbour Engineering (CHEC) in Sri Lanka until the investigations into the alleged transaction were complete.
It was quite evident since the commencement of the debate that the JO members attempted to hamper the debate twice by raising the issue of a lack of quorum in the House.
Although the Party Leaders had agreed to conduct a full day debate until 7.30 pm on Thursday (July 19) to provide the opportunity to a large number of Government and Opposition law makers to air their views on the controversial issue, presiding MP Hesha Withanage had to abruptly adjourn the debate an hour before the scheduled time due to lack of quorum in the House.
When UNP MP Wijepala Hettiarachchi commenced his speech, JO MP Indika Anuruddha drew the attention of the Chair that there is no quorum in the House to continue the debate. Although the quorum bell was continuously rung for five minutes, it failed to muster the minimum number of 20 MPs in the House and only nine MPs remained in the Chamber. Several JO MPs who were present in the Chamber were seen deliberately leaving the Chamber when the quorum bell went off. Yet another notable feature was that no SLFP Minister in the Government took part in the debate.
Moving the Adjournment Motion UNP MP Thusara Indunil Amarasena told the House when a serious allegation of this nature is leveled against former President, he has a right to participate in the debate and respond to those claims.
Raising various Points of Order, the JO members were seen continuously interrupting the MP’s speech. JO Parliamentary Group Leader Dinesh Gunawardena drew the attention of the House that the MP should read the relevant section of the New York Times report as otherwise there would be no motion. However, MP Gunawardena who was present in the House earlier chose to be absent despite his name being included in the list of JO speakers.
The Government lawmakers were of the view that the JO members deliberately attempted to sabotage the debate. MP Amarasena told the vociferous JO members that there is no use of shouting in the well of the House.
He said if the New York Times report is false, former President Rajapaksa can take legal action against it. He alleged that without doing so, they are threatening two Sri Lankan journalists who had also contributed to that article.
JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said whatever politics are upheld by the New York Times newspaper, it has exposed several key factors. “We hope that former President would come to Parliament and respond to this serious allegation.
But when this important debate is taking place, former President, his son MP Namal Rajapaksa and brother MP Chamal Rajapaksa are not in the Chamber. However, we could see how the pro-Rajapaksa camp tried to sabotage the debate. Dissanayake said through this US$ 7.6 million transaction, our economy and independence have been betrayed,” Dissanayake said. He queried on as to how patriots can defend this transaction.
JO frontliner MP Wimal Weerawansa who joined the debate pointed out that the US Government has provided US$ 585 million for the 2015 regime change in Sri Lanka. “The ‘red elephants’ who also contributed to that regime change, today speak about the country’s sovereignty. We would like to ask from the Government whether they would also investigate about the Australian media report about a commission allegedly obtained by the incumbent President when he was a Minister,” the NFF leader claimed.
Participating the debate, Minister of Highways and Road Development Kabir Hashim charged that former President Rajapaksa had not only accepted a bribe from CHEC but also violated the country’s sovereignty by getting into a framework agreement with the Chinese Company.
He said the former Rajapaksa Government had agreed to sell 50 hectares to CHEC at the rate of just one dollar a hectare. Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake told the House that a 167-year-old newspaper like New York Times doesn’t want to publish any fabricated or false news item.
JO MP Susil Premajayantha pointed out that controversial New York Times news report has paved the way to create a serious diplomatic issue.
MP Premajayantha said no senior Minister in the Government participated in the debate. He said even Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in his statement made in Parliament on July 4 indirectly denied the New York Times statement.
Revealing yet another act of corruption of the former Rajapaksa regime, JVP MP Bimal Ratnayake told the Parliament that the former Government had paid in excess of Rs.45 million to entertain British legislator Ian Paisley’s family and demanded a fresh probe into the scandal that had rocked British Parliament.
He said the issue is who gave MP Paisley this money and under whose authority it was done?
The JO frontliners who made a big hue and cry in Parliament urged the Government to scrap the Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA) and draft a new one in its place, taking the interests of Sri Lankans into consideration. JO members during their speeches attempted to portray that the FTA had not been given Cabinet approval.
Responding to the queries raised by JO members, Development Strategies and International Trade Minister Malik Samarawickrama told Parliament that allegations levelled against the SLSFTA were myths and baseless.
The Minister said the Opposition was playing narrow political games by levelling baseless allegations against the SLSFTA.
In reply to the JO’s allegation that there were no extensive discussions carried out by the Government before drafting the agreement, Minister Samarawickrama said that there had been about 20 consultation sessions over the last 18 months with a wide range of stakeholders.
A heated argument ensued between Speaker Karu Jayasuriya and MP Wimal Weerawansa in parliament on Thursday, when the latter charged that the former was deliberately slow in taking action against MP Wijayakala Maheswaran’s controversial statement about the LTTE.
Raising a point of order, Weerawansa demanded to know the progress with regard to the inquiry on the issue of Maheswaran’s statement.
The Speaker said that he knew where MP Weerawansa was heading to with that quotation. MP Weerawansa said, “You are a wonderful speaker. You know what we are about to say even before we speak.”
Speaker Jayasuriya said that the MP should not address the Chair in that manner and pointed out that the MP had used un-parliamentary language.