When the parliament was dissolved for the general election in 1977, the then-opposition leader J.R. Jayawardena brought a proposal to Speaker Stanley Tillakaratne.
‘You compete independently. We will not field a candidate from the U.N.P.
This is JR’s proposal to Speaker Stanley Thilakaratne who was appointed by Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government. JR made this proposal because Stanley performed his duties reasonably as a speaker appointed by a government with a two-thirds majority. But JR asked Stanley to compete independently. Rejected JR’s request Stanley competed in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
It is an old tradition that when a Speaker contests the next general election, a candidate from the opposition does not contest the Speaker’s seat. This tradition started with Sir Albert Peiris. After Molamure, the first speaker of independent Sri Lanka, died of a stroke while still was holding the speaker’s position, Sir Albert Peiris became the speaker. In 1952, the then-opposition leader S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s opposition, Ceylon Samasamaja Party, the Communist Party did not field a candidate against Sir Albert Peirce. The condition for that was that he should contest independently. Sir Albert Peirce ran as an independent, not contesting from U.N.P.
This tradition was created by considering the speaker as an honourable person. That tradition was formed to allow him to be re-elected to Parliament as a sign of respect because he or she does not do politics while holding the position of speaker. The opposition at that time kept the tradition of not presenting a candidate against the speaker because the speaker became non-partisan after assuming the position of speaker.
After 1977, this tradition was not fully preserved, but the Speakers preserved the tradition within their limits. After the 1977 general election, the main opposition party lost its leadership. The party got 8 MPs. U.N.P. government had five-sixth power. But the speakers appointed by that government were Ananda Tissa de Alwis, Bakir Marker, E.L. Senanayake protected the rights of those 8 MPs.
A five-sixth government was not allowed to shut the mouths of those 8 people. M.H. Mohomed, who was the speaker during Premadasa’s government, also accepted the impeachment signed by the opposition against President Premadasa. Anura Bandaranaike, who became Speaker in 2000, did not succumb to the pressure from the judiciary and Chandrika’s government to stop the impeachment debate against the then Chief Justice Sarath N.Silva.
When Karu Jayasuriya, who was appointed Speaker in 2015, when unconstitutionally Prime Minister Ranil was sacked, who had the parliamentary majority, he not only corrected that practice in Parliament but also accepted Mahinda Rajapaksa, the arch-enemy of the party who represented, as the leader of the opposition. K.B. Ratnayake, Joseph Michael Perera, and V.J.M. Lokubandara never worked to blame the opposition. The same goes for Chamal Rajapaksa who was appointed Speaker by the Rajapaksa family.
When Maithripala Sirisena became president in the 2015 presidential election, he did not go to purge the hatred that defeated the Rajapaksa family. He bowed to the mandate of the people and led the parliament with balance.
The opposition is bringing a motion of no confidence against the current Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, alleging how the Speaker acted regarding the Online Bill. The government brought the Online Act to suppress free speech. Speaker Hugh Fernando and Speaker Stanley Tillakaratne are two speakers who bravely came forward to protect the free media in Sri Lanka.
In 1964, Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government introduced the Press Board Act to control the press. The then opposition member of Parliament J.R launched an opposition to it and JR’s biography explains vividly how the speaker appointed by Mrs Bandaranayake supported JR’s battle to withdraw that bill.
JR. Jayawardena’s biography states:
The Speaker informed Michael Siriwardene that Mr Naina Marikkar and Mr Rajapaksa had presented a statement introducing the bill and setting the second reading date of February 2, 1965. When the speaker inquired whether the bill could be read, Siriwardena responded that it could be read ‘tomorrow’, committing the first procedural error.
Let’s take a look at JR’s own words to find out what happened next.
When Mr. Siriwardena said ‘tomorrow’, I interrupted.
When did you say the second reading? ‘Tomorrow’ said Siriwardena again. I knew they had made a mistake.’
When a bill is presented to the House of Representatives by a minister and the speaker asks when the second reading is, it is common for the minister to reply ‘tomorrow’. Because in the case of the House of Representatives, there is no time gap between the first reading and the second reading, so the second reading can be done at once. But that is not the procedure when the Senate refers a bill to the House of Representatives.
JR spotted Siriwardena’s breach of the standing order. He immediately stood up and raised the violation of the standing orders, and the ‘presentation of the bill’ made by the two opposition MPs was as valid as it was by the standing orders. Although the ruling party realized that its chief organizer had made a mistake, the government continued to try to uphold its argument that the correct procedure had been followed. Although it is a unique case that the bill was presented by two members of the opposition, it is by the rules of the House of Representatives. The speaker adjourned the debate amid the uproar and announced that he would announce his decision at 4 pm.
When the speaker announced his decision that the ‘presentation of the bill’ by the two members of the opposition was procedurally correct, the government presented a proposal that his decision was wrong. Recalling this incident after a few months, the speaker said:
Dudley Senanayake raised a legal issue in this regard. In the long debate that followed, Finance Minister Dr. N.M. Perera threatened me. It was a threat that a no-confidence motion would be presented against me if my decision was against the government. The House gave me ample time to reach my decision. I had to consider all the points of order relating to these proposals. From the time the House adjourned at 6.30 that evening until the announcement of the decision at 4 the next evening, I experienced the worst torture I have ever experienced in my life. SLFP ministers, Michael Siriwardena and D.S. Gunasekara barged into the speaker’s room and made vivid suggestions. But in honour of the opposition, it should be mentioned here that none of the members of the opposition tried to influence my decision in any way.’
The Speaker accepted the point of order raised by Dudley Senanayake. He further judged that the speaker’s decision cannot be questioned.’
During Bandaranaike’s Samagi Peramuna government in 1970-77, when the bill to take over Lakehouse was introduced, the speaker appointed by the Samagi Peramuna government, Stanley Thilakaratne, ruled that the way the bill was presented was flawed. Of this, Finance Minister N.M. Perera was furious.
‘We are bringing a motion of no confidence against you…’
NM threatened to intimidate Stanley Tillakaratne. Seeing this threat, opposition leader J.R. Standing up from the seat, and asked the Prime Minister Mrs. Bandaranaike:
‘Is it the government’s opinion to bring a motion of no confidence against the Speaker?’
Prime Minister Mrs. Bandaranaike got up and said ‘no’. She later accepted the speaker’s decision and ordered to correct the mistake.
During Dudley Senanayake’s funeral, when U.N.P. Party members shouted ‘hooted’ at Prime Minister Mrs Bandaranaike, Stanley Thilakaratne warned those who shouted ‘hooting’ and told them not to do such indecent acts.
He accepted her as the leader of his party. He knew that he is in the Speaker’s chair because of her. He gave her utmost respect. But corrected she and her government in the decrees affecting the country.
Today the country needs such a speaker.
There is a story about the role of the speaker that will be quoted when speaking in a parliament somewhere in the world. It is the conflict between the British King Charles the First and the House of Representatives. Speaker Lenthol stood up against all the arbitrary actions of the king who acted unconstitutionally.
‘I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak…’
This is the speaker’s historic statement. He discarded the king and protected the House of Representatives in the conflict between the King and the House of Representatives.
Sri Lanka needs a speaker who has ‘no eyes to see and no tongue to speak’.