While the Government’s intentions for introducing new legislation to take over a select number of institutions it deems as underperforming or having underutilised assets is highly questionable, what is equally questionable is how serious are the UNP and the JHU in their opposition to the Bill.
The UNP and its leader Ranil Wickremesinghe went public with their opposition to the Bill, after it was made known that Government had forwarded the draft Bill for determination by the Supreme Court, but surprisingly, Mr. Wickremesinghe, who is also the Leader of the Opposition, left the country on the eve of the all-important debate on the Bill.
In his absence, he appointed Chief Opposition Whip John Amaratunga to deputise for him, which also caused rumblings among UNP members, on a day when they should have been focused on the debate at hand, and gave Government members the opportunity to exploit the divisions within the UNP, to distract from the issue at hand.
As for the JHU, a coalition partner of the ruling UPFA, which went public on Tuesday, stating its discontent with the contents of the Bill, both its MPs were absent in the House when the Bill was taken up for debate.
One of the JHU members, Minister Champika Ranawaka was away in Male with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, attending the SAARC summit, while its other member, Aturaliye Ratana Thera did not attend sittings. Hence, it was another case of a balancing act for the JHU, saying one thing to appease public concerns, while avoiding direct confrontation with the Government, to safeguard its place within the coalition, a practice not entirely new to the JHU, given the manner in which it went about, when a similar controversial piece of legislation, the Gaming (Special Provisions) Bill, was passed in the House.
Opposition parties did make a valiant effort before the debate on the Bill began on Wednesday, to delay it being taken up on that day, by raising several objections, on the grounds that discussing the Bill was in contravention of the ‘sub judice ’ rule, which prohibits cases pending before a court of law being discussed in the House, as several Fundamental Rights cases had been filed in the Supreme Court in this connection, as well as that the due process had not been followed when introducing the law to Parliament .
After nearly one-and-half-hours of arguments and counter arguments, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa adjourned the House for half-an-hour, saying he would decide whether the debate could go ahead or not. Why Opposition hopes were momentarily raised that, there was room its passage in the House could be delayed, the Speaker returned to inform members that the debate could go ahead.
The Speaker, in his ruling, said that the Bill had been deemed as an Urgent Bill by the Cabinet of Ministers, and sent for determination to the Supreme Court, following which it was presented to the House, and hence the proper process had been followed. On the sub judice matter, the Speaker ironically, used a ruling made by one-time UNP Speaker M.H. Mohamed in 1980, in which he had upheld the freed right of Parliament to take up any matter for discussion, and not be hindered by a ‘sub judice’ rule.
 |
 |
| Sevanagala factory workers and a group of Buddhist monks going to courts over the Bill on Wednesday. Pix by Saman Kariyawasam |
There were only two Government members who spoke on the Bill, with Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa being the main speaker. In a speech lasting more than one-and-half-hours, Minister Rajapaksa defended the Government’s decision to take over the 37 institutions listed in the schedule to the Bill, saying they had violated their contracts with the Government, as well the Board of Investment (BOI).
However, his attempt to defend the decision to bring it as an “Urgent Bill”, which deprived interested parties from going before Courts to challenge its legality, was anything but convincing. Minister Rajapaksa hinted that the reason it was done in such a hush-hush manner was because, had the news of this Bill been made public, those who were listed for takeover would have attempted to remove goods etc. However, if this was their real concern, the police could have been called into protect such properties.
Sevenagala Sugar Company, owned by UNP stalwart Daya Gamage, was the focus of much attention, with Minister Rajapaksa and the other Government speaker Minister Jagath Pushpakumara alleging that, instead of producing sugar, the proprietor was producing alcohol. “When we lease out a shop to sell fish, they must sell fish. If they sell meat instead, we have the right to take over that property,” Minister Rajapaksa said in relation to Sevenagala. If, in fact, alcohol was being produced instead of sugar, it has to be asked why the Excise Department did not raid the place earlier.
UNP MP Dayasiri Jayasekera of course, had a different take on the matter, alleging that the real reason the government is taking over Sevenagala Sugar was to allow some of its henchmen to run an alcohol manufacturing plant, and said the bill is politically motivated.
Sevenagala aside, Mr. Jayasekera warned of the dangers of introducing such laws, which would scare off both local and foreign investors, while DNA MP Anura Dissanayaka called it a ‘thuggish’ piece of legislation.
The Bill was passed with 122 members voting for and 46 against.
|
E-mail