NO
CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST SRI LANKAN PRESIDENT
The Morning report headed ‘Speaker
refuses to accept President NCM immediately’ informs us as follows:
[Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena
yesterday (5) refused to enter the no-confidence motion (NCM) against President
Gotabaya Rajapaksa into the Order Book of the Parliament immediately, stating
that he needs to first consult the Attorney General about its legality, while
the NCM against the Government will be placed in the Order Book of the
Parliament today (6).
“At the party leaders’ meeting, the Speaker agreed to place the NCM
against the Government in the Order Book. But he insisted on consulting the
Attorney General about the NCM against the President,” Ilankai Tamil Arasu
Kachchi (ITAK) MP and Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Spokesperson M.A.
Sumanthiran PC told The Morning yesterday (5).
“We repeatedly pointed out that Article 42 of the Constitution makes the
President responsible to Parliament and that Standing Order 83 (1) states that
a substantive motion is needed to discuss the conduct of the President.
However, they seem intent on delaying the NCM against the President.” ]
Article 42 of the Constitution states:
[42. The President
shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and
discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any
written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security.]
To initiate the No Confidence Motion
(NCM) against the President the person submitting the motion needs to believe
in the Constitution as well as have access to evidence that the provision of
this article has been breached by a particular action/actions of the President. A motion without this amounts
to ‘frivolous motion’
The stated Standing Order of the Parliament
provides as follows:
[83. (1) The personal conduct of the President, or
the Acting President, Members of Parliament, Judges or other persons engaged in
the administration of justice shall not be raised except upon a substantive
motion; and in any proceedings, question to a Minister, or remarks in a
debate on a motion dealing with any other subject reference to the conduct of
any such person shall be out of order. ]
Given that the NCM against the government
has been accepted – the speaker has the responsibility to ensure that the
timing of the two motions under the same subject matter, are independent of
each other. This would reduce the risk of finding fault with the President for
mistakes made by the Prime Minister and v.v.
Mr Sumanthiran has the duty to mentally
go through the provisions of the said Standing Order before questioning the
delay in the speaker accepting the NCM against the President.
It is this kind of haste that led to
armed rebellion by Tamil youth. Talking about Tamil youth, in a recent discussion in relation to the Tamil
youth executed by the Singapore authorities, I said that as per my belief - the LTTE also traded
in drugs. The discussion brought out the following response from a fellow member:
[About Narco-Smuggling and
the lucrative trade of the most Notorious Rebel Outfit and the fleet of Ship
owned by the Group , KP is still a living testimony in SL who was extradiated
by SL sleuths in Entabbe style during the tenure of present Presdient as
Defence Secretary and exonerated will explain? It’s a mystery that the
expatriate in Phonix with a rebel label is blssfully unaware of it]
My response to this was:
[As per my intuition, Uganda money transfer last
year through Sri Lankan Airlines is connected to LTTE money. By mentioning
Entebbe you have confirmed that you also have intuition in this – even though you
may not be conscious of this. ]
Another member responded as follows:
[LTTE ships are said to be sailing with Ugandan
flag. The jewelry from the tigers too said to be with the grand family. In fact
drug running is a known thing these days for various forms of money making and
arms purchase. But whether LTTE did that is mere speculation like what Gaja
said through some divine intuition and reliable hearsay.]
The motion against the President would fall under the
same category as my NCM against the LTTE. But as per my experience, when we honestly
share with each other, without expecting personal rewards, we contribute to the
issue through truth which spreads Itself.
The Parliament facilitates ‘free speech’ towards this sharing
of belief aimed at Common governance. But
those driven by ‘outcome’ lose the opportunity to develop this intuitive power which
naturally connects us to Universal power of truth.
Hence the motion on behalf of the Public needs to be
supported by actual ‘fact’ in breach of the said article. It cannot be mere policy
to oppose. When we use the law for lesser purposes than wholesome governance –
the whole gets demoted to lower level of culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment