From the golden era of parliament debates to hooliganism

During the second half of the 1960s when I started my journalistic career with the now defunct Independent Newspapers Limited, I was sent to cover parliamentary proceedings. Soon I realised that here was a place where one could learn a lot. Those were the days when parliamentarians in general were educated, cultured and well- mannered. They respected religious, cultural and social values.

They came well prepared for debates. Among those who contributed a great deal to the political discourse, to name a few, were Dr N. M. Perera, Colvin R. de Silva, Bernard Zoysa and Pieter Keuneman from the left; Dudley Senanayake, J .R.Jayawardene, Ronnie De Mel, Felix R Dias Bandaranaike, George Rajapaksa, M Sivasithamparam and A Amirthalingam from other mainstream parties.

They were respected for their intellectual calibre and integrity. Many people bought Hansard that carried their speeches to preserve them for future reference. It was then sold at 30 cents a copy.

They were not only familiar with domestic issues but also well versed on international developments. For example, in August 1968, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and installed its stooge in power, the invasion was discussed in our parliament.

The then Industries Minister and Mahajana Eksath Peramuna leader Philip Gunawardena explained the reason behind the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He gave a clear picture of the political scene in countries under Soviet control. It was an intellectual tonic for those who wanted to know about the socialist world.

However, unfortunately, half a century later, today, one could say that most parliamentarians know little or nothing about some of the burning international issues, including the Israeli-Palestinians problem or the wars the United States, Britain, France, Israel and Russia wage in the Middle East, destroying the Muslim countries under the guise of fighting a deceptive war on terrorism.

Commenting on the high standard of discussions, Abdullah Murad, the then Arab League Ambassador in New Delhi, also accredited to Sri Lanka, after witnessing a Sri Lankan parliamentary session told me that “these discussions are free, enlightening and are of high standard. You don’t see this anywhere in the Middle East as most countries there are dictatorships.”

After listening to the speech of the late Finance Minister Dr N.M. Perera, the Iraq embassy's then commercial attaché Jawdat Al Khidairy said, “Dr Perera should be the finance minister for the whole third world.”

These parliamentarians were also known for their simplicity, honesty, integrity and respect for talent without any racial prejudice. For example I remember when the then Finance Minister U.B.Wanninayaka was approached to help a person who had applied for a job in a government department, his response was, “I can speak, but the problem is if a more qualified person had applied for this job, we will deprive him of this job”

Once I went to Indo Ceylon Café, a vegetarian restaurant in Kollupitiya, for breakfast. I was shocked to see one time Prime Minister W. Dahanayake having his breakfast served on the traditional banana leaf. After he finished eating, he got up and walked up to the garbage bin to throw the banana leaf and then washed his and mouth at the common pipe.

Thus the parliamentariana of yesteryear had shown us the path which the politicians in the subsequent years have discarded.

The standards of parliamentary discussions began to decline under President J. R . Jayewardene, the architect of the 1978 constitution which made him a democratically elected dictator. Free expression of government MPs was curtailed, with the President possessing their undated resignation letters.

This sorry state of affairs continued under subsequent governments.

With the end of the 30- year ethnic war, most people expected former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to learn from the consequences of racist politics, which brought death and destruction, and use the golden opportunity to put the sinking country in order.

Therefore, everyone thought that Rajapaksa will remove the bitterness and bring the divided and devastated communities together. They expected him to restore democratic values, pave the way for political stability, economic development, take the country towards a better future for all and earn a name in history.

However, he miserably failed and headed a government that drew heaps of allegations of crime and corruption. Racism flourished during his two terms as president. Government institutions including the judiciary became corrupt. Tamil grievances were ignored while violence was unleashed against the Muslim community. Racist ele- ments drove terror into the minds of the Muslim community which culminated in the burning and looting of Muslim owned houses. There was no law and order. A local council member was accused of gang raping a tourist and killing her boyfriend. In short there was mayhem everywhere.

It was in such an atmosphere that parliament was dissolved

They were not only familiar with domestic issues but also well versed on international developments. For example, in August 1968, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and installed its stooge in power, the invasion was discussed in our parliament

and new elections were called.

SLFP Minister Maithripala Sirisena left the Rajapaksa government and led the opposition in the election campaign together with Ranil Wickremesinghe and his United National Party. Stage after stage at all political meetings both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe promised the country that they would bring all corrupt politicians, criminals and those who looted the country’s wealth to justice.

People trusted and voted them to power with great hopes of a peaceful country free of crime and corruption. However, Sirisena formed a government that included some ministers against whom there were corruption allegations.

Three years on, the Sirisena-- Wickremesinghe Government has failed to fulfil its pledgwes to the nation. Instead its memebers are facing corruption allegations now.

Those accused of corruption, crime, plundering the country and other allegations remain free. People are disillusioned and fear that the government’s failure may pave the way for the return of the dark era.

It was against the backdrop of such a political environment that government and opposition members in parliament on January 6 accused each other of being corrupt. The overall conduct of the parliamentarians was disgraceful and shameful.

The country is facing an acute political and economic crisis.

During the time of independence in 1948 the country had all the required fundamentals to emerge as a progressive and prosperous nation. The then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once said that he would make Singapore a Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka today is one of the most mismanaged countries in the world. Both the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, which have ruled the nation alternately, are responsible for this pathetic situation. It looks like an endless Greek tragedy for the island where people continue to suffer while politicians flourish.

This is because the majority Sinhala community failed to produce a visionary leader who could think for the whole country, instead of indulging in racist politics to remain in or capture power.