PRINTING AND PUBLISHING OF ELECTION LITLIZATURE The Hon. A. Ratnayake, Minister of Home Affairs, moved in the House o f Representatives on 26th March 1953, the Second Reading of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) (Amendment) Bill dealing with the printing and publishing of election literature which Bill he had presented to the House the previous day. The Second Reading was passed on 27th March by a majority of 23-[Ayes, 34; Noes, 11; Declined to Vote, 1]. The Bill was thereupon referred to a Committee of the Whole House which reported, with Amendmenis, on 31st March, and on the Third Reading being moved, -Mr. C. Suntharalingam, Member for Vayurtiya, moved that "The Bill bg read the Third time upon this day six months ". This ari4endment was defeated by a majority of 24-[Ayes, 10; Noes, 34]. The Third Reading was thereafter passed without a Division.

Speech made, as Mei: ber for Attanagalla, in the course of the Second Reading Debate : 26th Afarch 1953 It is not possible for me to remain silent when this Bill is to be discussed. There are certain ihings that I find it necessary to say regarciing this Bill. Now this Bill proposes to amend a certain Sub-Section of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-in-Council with reference to the offence of printing and publishing leaflets, posters, and so on, without the names and addresses of the printer and publisher. I want to say that the law as it stands is most unfair, iniquitous, I might almost say monstraus, because it goes beyond any similar law in any other country. That is the fact of the matter; I think everyone will agree on that ; there will be nobody who will disagree to the Section, as it stands, being entirely left out. Not only does it go beyond any similar provision in any other country, but it is difficult to understand how this Section came to be worded in this way, particularly as this law was taken from the English law. [An Hon. Member: Your Committee's Report.] No. We did not report that this should be made a corrupt practice in this way. We made no such report in the State Council. It was when this was rather hurriedly drafted, passed and sent out here that-I do not know at what stage-it was included. Certainly there was no recommendation by any Committee of the last State Council or of the then Board of Ministers made exactly in this way.- [Int err it pt ion. ]-There was no such recommendation made-I stand to correction-nor was there any intention to do that ; to make it an offence was the intention but not in the way it appears here. What are the ingredients here in the law as it stands ? Printing or distributing election pamphlets not bearing the name and address of the printer or publisher, whatever the circumstances, is made a corrupt practice. As was pointed out, in the English law, it is an illegal practice and therefore available for certain bona fide defences. I might also point this out. When I was a Minister in the last Parliament, on more than one occasion, I drew attention to the need for amending the Elections Order-in-Council not merely in this regard but in a number of other matters. But apparently the matter slipped out of mind-or whatever it was- and no action was taken. Now the proposal is to amend this Section. In fact, although I should like this to have been made an illegal practice, you are retaining it as a corrupt practice, but with the only further ingredient that if the person charged can prove inadvertence, then that shall be taken into account. It is interesting to note that certain other offences under the other Sub-Sections of this very Section that is being amended refer to intention. Why of all these matters the ingredient of intention is omitted here is a thing that is impossible to understand. In this Bill I should have preferred the amendment to have been in line with the English law ; it is not in line with the English law now. You are merely retaining it here as a corrupt practice and at the same time including this further ingredient of " bona fide " which is an ingredient that should exist in every corrupt practice. As a matter of fact, under the category of corrupt practices in England, I believe there are only four categories of offences-treating, bribery, personation and intimidation. If I mistake not, those are all the categories that are included as corrupt 03 practices though we have many more included as corrupt practices under our law. Now the amending of that Section in itself is a long overdue matter. There are one or two points that emerge from this amending Bill. First of all it will be recollected that, when a discussion took place in this House at its inception regarding certain irregularities, the assurance was given on that occasion by the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs that, in due course, a Select Committee would be appointed to go into all necessary amendments of election law and to make recommendations to the House. I trust that he will be able today to give an assurance that as early as reasonably possible that step will be taken so that, without having these piecemeal amendments in this way, the entire question of various other amendments to our election law that are considered necessary can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I would like some assurance from my Hon. Friend on that point. The other point that arises out of this Bill is the retrospective effect of it. On that aspect what the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs just stated was that it did receive anxious consideration by the Government and that the Government felt-there may be a by-election tomorrow, next week or a month hence-that all should benefit, that all persons affected by the existing law should derive the benefit, if there is any benefit, from the provisions of this amending Bill. If that is so, why do you restrict the retrospective effect of it to lst January 1952? For instance, after the last General Election-I mean the one before the last General Election-I know of at least one case which was decided on this very ground. I refer to the Kandy election petition-the case of Mr. T. B. Ilangaratne. In that particular petition that was the most important charge. It is my information that it was the only charge. Why do you then restrict it to only lst January 1952 when the intention, as the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs very specifically statea in his remarks a few minutes ago, is to permit everybody to benefit from it-if there is any benefit to be derived from it? There may be other charges against some people-I do not know. Then, why make that restriction here ? 04

In other words. there will no, be many such cases. It is not as though you are reopening many years later a matter that affects a large number of people. The cnly persons likely to be affected are very few, as far as I am aware. Goino on the past General Election there will be only one. That, therefore, in my view is undesirable. On the question of retrospectivity generally, it is certainly most undesirable to make, laws work retrospectively. We have certain analogous instances in our life both in Parliament and in the State Council. There was the vase of Sir D. B. Jayatilaka. There was the case in a sense of my good Friend the lion. Member for Kayts (hIr. A. L. Thambiayah). That case is retrospective in this regard, namely, that when his case was heard and disposed of there was no power to appeal to. Under the then existing law it was finally disposed of. But because of the provision of the power of appeal he was able to take advantage of that power and make a successful appeal. In that way it had a restrospective effect. Quite recently we have had Bills with retrospectivp effect introduced by the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs and the Hon. Minister of Local Government regarding the disqualification for election to Parliament of those disqualified for election to local bodies and vice versa with the one proviso alone that if they happen to be occupying some seat at the moment, they can continue for the term and thereafter the disqualification worked. In that way those Bills are retrospective. However, I should like to say this. It is really my sincere belief that it is undesirable that these provisions should be retrospective, but if you are remedying some patent injustice-it is only my personal view that I am expressingconsiderations of equity and fairness overshadow the consideration that it is undesirable td make some provision retrospective. I might say in passing that I think it only fair--and I do not wish to refer to pending matters- but in fairness to myself I would merely say that in so far as I am concerned in any pending matter, this amendment is a matter of unconcern to me personally. I make that statement because certain people may feel that I was personally to derive some advantage or benefit from this amendment and therefore 1 am supporting something which otherwise I would not support. I can quite sincerely support the general principle of it. I vN)uld repeat two points. I think all the defects of the election law should be looked into early by a Selcct Committee. On the que:vtion of retrospectivity, I would be rather sorry t'.:at the degree of retrospectivity excludes one or two i•.idividuals when really the intention is to give the benefit to all. I might only add this. If even indirectly I was not personally concerned in this matter, I would support this Bill. As I am, or it may be thought that I am concerned, all 1 can do honourably is to refrain from voting on thi:, Bill. SELECT COMMITTEE O\ ELhCTI01 LAW AND PRACTICE The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. 11 7. R. D. Bandaranaike) raised in the House of Represen'atit•es, on the Adjournment Motion, on 6th May 1954 ilw question of election laws, in these terms :

"I like to have some information with regard to election law in connection with which an undertaking was given to this House some time ago consequent on a Motion which was introduced by me. I should like to know whether a Commitilee or a Select Committee of this House or of both Houses-perhaps it may not be necessary to have a Joint Committee as this is hardly a matter which concerns the Senate-is going to be appointed to go into the question of what amendments are necessary to our election laws."

Again on 7th June 1954 he raised the question on the Adjournment Notion as follows: " 1 wish to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir John Kotelawala) that a promise was made at the beginning of this Parliament to appoint a suitable select committee to consider necessary amendments to election law and procedure. It was promised that this would be done after the Report of the Elections Commissioner was available. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Report oJ the Elections Commissioner on the last elections has since been in the hands of this Government for many months. This is a most important matter. At that time when we asked for a Committee of Inquiry into alleged irregularities, a de finite undertaking was given to 07

the effect that in due course when this Report was available a Select Committee would be appointed to report to this House. Nothing has yet been done" On Motion o f Hon. J. R. Jayewardene, Minister o f Agriculture and Food and Leader of the House, the House of Representatives resolved on 9th August 1954: " That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the working of the Provisions of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-in-Council and in the light of the experience gained at the last two General Elections make recommendations in respect of changes considered necessary and desirable in the existing law and practice ; that the Committee be nominated by Mr. Speaker ; that the Committee have power to send for papers, persons, documents and records ; that the Committee. have power to report from time to time and may sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House ". On 17th August 1954 Mr. Speaker (Sir Albert Peries, K.B.E.) announced the nomination of the following Members to serve on the Select Committee to consider the working of the Provisions of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-in-Council: The Hon. J. R. Jayewardene (Chairman) The Hon. A. Ratnayake The Hon. Dr. C. W. W. Kannangara The Hon. Dr. M. C. M. Kaleel The Hon. S. Natesan

Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike Dr. N. M. Perera Mr. P. G. B. Keuneman Mr. C. Suntharalingam. With the end o f that Session, the appointment of thi,s Select Committee lapsed. In the new Session, on 23rd June 1955, the House resolved on the Motion of the Hon. J. R. Jayewardene, in the same terms as before, with the added provision: " and that the proceedings of the Committee appointed in the last Session to consider the working of the Provisions of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-inCouncil stand referred to the Committee ". Mr. Speaker renominated the same Members on 6th July 1955, and, on 6th December 1955, he announced the nomination of Mr. W. Dahanayake to the Select Committee in place of Mr. C. Suntharalingam who had vacated his seat in the House. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to the House on 10th Janua-y 1956 by its Chairman, Hon. J. R. Jayewardene, and on 12th January he moved the Adjournment of the House to enable the Report to be discussed.

Speech made, as Member for Attanagalla and Leader of the Opposition, in the course of the Debate: 12th January 1956 The Report that is being considered by the House under the Motion for Adjournment is an extremely important one. The House will remember that after the last General Election there was widespread feeling that a number of serious irregularities took place in connection with that election. Soon after the new Parliament met, I introduced a motion dealing with the last General Election and asking for a Commission of Inquiry. That was not agreed to. We were told that in due course a Select ComrnitLee would be appointed to inquire into and report on election law and practice. Some of the allegations in connection with the last General Election may have been based on mere suspicion, but they certainly deserve an inquiry, but that inquiry did not materialize. There were some incidents which could not be explained. In my own election, two important ballot boxes were taken by the Presiding Officer to Torrington Square, to the office of the Minister of Home Affairs; instead of to the Kachcheri. 09

Everybody knew that counting was to take place at the Kachcheri. Up to date I have not received an explanation as to how this " mistake " came to be made-assuming that it was a mistake. . This was obviously a matter that called for an explanation. No counting had ever taken place in the office of the Minister of Home Affairs. Even children know that the counting takes place at the Kachcheri. The incident was discovered because I had a car following every single ballot box. Can you wonder that suspicions were aroused and broadcast at that time ? Those suspicions received some measure of support from happenings of the nature I have indicated. In a large number of polling stations the Presiding Officers, as well as certain other officers, acted with partiality, to say the least. This manifested itself in various ways. There were various other charges made, and is it to be wondered that the people's confidence was badly shaken in that one single safeguard of democracy-the impartial conduct of elections ? Once that confidence is shaken you strike a blow at the very heart of the democratic system. That did happen in the last General Election. Unfortunately, no Commission of Inquiry was appointed, and long after the General Election this Select Committee was appointed. In an editorial in today's "Daily News", headed "For a Clean Election ", some nice sentiments are expressed. I hope that this group of papers will follow up these pompous statements of principle, without just leaving them as they are, merely as dust in the eyes of the public, to show that this group of papers also stands for clean and impartial elections. This is what the editorial states : " The Government's responsibility in holding elections is to see that they are conducted peacefully, honestly and impartially. A parliamentary general election is one of the most" important expressions o f the democratic system, and the manner in which it is rr4n is, therefore, a crucial test of the vitality of democracy in a country. It is necessary not only that a general election should be managed with complete impartiality, but also that the public should be convinced of the fact. For otherwise the electorate will not have that universal confidence in the verdict o f the polls which is essential for good government." That is a correct expression of opinion on the subject, and it is to be hoped that these very people who express these views will act up to them. We lciow what happened when the test really came. The whole democratic system rests upon the impartial conduct of elections and on the confidence of the people that the elections are in fact impartially conducted. Once you undermine that confidence, the democratic system itself is very close to complete collapse. The people will lose fai.h in the claim that elections are being conducted with impartiality. The people will begin to suspect that the elections' are being rigged in a hundred different ways, direct and indirect, to defeat the real wishes of the people. These suspicions and fears were rampant at the last General Election. The promise was given in this House that a Select Committee would, in due course, be appointed. The last General Election was held in 1952, but the Select Committee was appointed only in June 1955. As I pointed out, I very early asked for a Commission in the course of a Debate on the last General Election and we were promised that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into the matter as soon as the Report of the Commissioner of_ Elections was available. Now, time went on. Even the Report of the Commissioner of Elections was out. As a matter of fact there was reference to this Report in the daily papers though the Report had not reached our hands. Many months thereafter was a Committee actually appointed. I remember on one occasion, shortly before its appointment, I happened to meet the Prime Minister at some function and I asked him, "What about this Select Committee on Election Law ? " " Well ", he said, " What about it? ". He did not seem to have thought about it at all, " Have you not had the Report of the Commissioner of Elections?" I asked. The Report was available; I mean at least it was in the hands of the Government. Thereupon he took to heart presumably the request and soon after that this motion of the Hon. Leader of the House was framed and brought before this House on 23rd June 19b5-three years after the General Election !-with hardly the time for that close inquiry that was required in a matter of this sort, for a Report to be brought before this House, considered not only by this House but also by the public, and recommendations accepted and implemented. The result is that we find the present situation, namely, that the Committee-certainly during the short time that was available to it-did its very best although there are a number of matters which it was not possible to consider at all. This Report is placed before the House this week and the Government proposes, in view of the impending General Election, to introduce and rush through a Bill or Bills-the terms of which we do not know at the present moment-next week. Nor have we any indication which of these recommendations of this Committee even the Gove: nment is proposing to implement. I was hoping that my Hon. Friend in opening this Debate would have indicated, as presumably he must be knowing by this time, which of these recommendations, such as they are, it is proposed to implement. Even for that we have to depend on rumours and reports in the newspapers. According to the newspapers, apparently one of the main measures of Government that they are anxious to rush through is an alteration of the nature of a certain election ' offence, to be effective retrospectively, which I am sure it does not require a person to be particularly unkind to imagine, is done solely to benefit one single individual, a U. N. P. man who hopes to contest. a seat at the next General Election. Indeed it is so taken by the newspapers themselves which have, through their cartoonists, given expression to that feeling which generally exists amongst the nublic. Now it is a pity that in the course of this debate nothing has been mentioned. I was rather hoping, when my Hon. Friend opened this debate, that he would indicate to us generally the recommendations that need legislation, the recommendations that the Government are accepting and which are the recommendations, and the reasons why, the Government do not choose to accept. We have had no such indication at all. So hon. Members will see how scrappily, how reluctantly-I might almost say, how unsatisfactorily-this subject has been dealt with. It is very unfortunate, in the first place, that it took so long to appoint this Select Committee. I believe my good Friend the Minister of Home Affairs was ill during some part of that period. That was no reason as there was an Acting Minister during the absence, owing to illness, of the permanent Minister of Home Affairs, who could easily have dealt with the matter. The motion was introduced by the Hurt. Leader of the House, and the Minister of Home Affairs or the person acting for him co-vd have carried on as a Member of the Select Committee, pending the recovery and return to this House of my Hon. Fc iend opposite. I am not attaching any personal blame to the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs in any personal sense. But the circumstances were very unsatisfactrn y and one can be excused for coming to the conclusion that the Government did not want a Committee to be appointed in sufficient time and in such circumstances as would enable it to prepare and present a full Report on the subject which the public, as well a~; hon. Members of this House, could have the opportunity of discussing and taking necessary steps to implement. The public do not know ay•thing about this Repm t at the present moment except what the newspapers choose to give them, and what the newspapers have given has, unfortunately, been a one-sided version. They refer to various little recommendations. Not a single dai'.y newspaper that I have seen so far has drawn attention to the important points embodied in the minutes of this Report on which there were dissents, so that the oublic would Know ;,hat there were important points on which there was division of opinion and the arguments, may be one way or the other, that were urged on those points. The impression has been created in the public mind that a Report has been presented and that it is quite a nice little Report, as the " Ceylon Daily News" says. I should like to quote what the " Ceylon Daily News " says about it. [Pause]-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I had a copy of the news- paper in question but it has disappeared. I do no( know whether you can be helpful to me in recovering it. What I wanted to do was to quote some more juicy bits from it to emphasize the argument that I am adducing, ba; pending the recovery of the missing document I shall proceed. That paper stated that this Report will improve matters ; but while mouthing platitudes regarding the importance of democracy, of impartial elections, and so on, it has whitewashed this Report and made excuses for the points on which the majority of the Select Committee did not see eye to eye with the minority, without giving reasous one way or the other. It merely says this will improve matters and expresses the hupe that in future things will further improve, thereby creating an utterly false impression in the mind of the public that this Report- which is in fact the Report of the Committee by a majority vote of one; a Report representing Government Members-has satisfactorily put right defects in our election law and practice, and fostering an entirely false confidence-as I will point out shortly-in the minds of the people that the defects that created so much suspicion in their minds earlier have now been rectified and everything is all right. That, I feel, is not a correct presentation of the position. The investigation falls into three chief parts. First of all, there are important fundamental points ; there is this general division cutting across the other division of changes that need legislation and changes that should be effected administratively ; the short-term point of view, with an early election in mind, and the long-term changes. Those divisions cut across the other main divisions I am now goin~ to enumerate. Across those divisions there are certain matters of, might I say, a fundamental nature. There are not very many, but there are some fundamental matters. Now, what are these fundamental questions ? First and foremost is the question of the Elections Commissioner and the Elections Department. We found that in England, although formally the department is under the Minister for Home Affairs, in actual practice the elections are conducted by local authorities ; the local bodies in England are responsible for the conduct of Parliamentary elections, the General E12ction. In the case of by-elections it is Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, who is responsible. In India. we find the position is that Elections Commissioners are appointed directly by the President of the Indian Republic. They are not under any Ministry whatsoever and they function independently of the Government in the sense that they are not under any particular Minister or Ministers. We also discovered a rather interesting provision in the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-inCouncil, Article 88, regarding the Elections Commissioner. It is so very important that I propose to read some portions of it. This is what it says : "88 (1) For the purpose of this Order, there shall be a Commissioner of Parliamentary Elections who shall be appointed by the Governor. In making an appointment under this section after the establishment o f a Public Service Commission . . . the Governor shall act on the recommendation o f that Commission. (2) The Commissioner of Parliamentary Elections shall " while mentioning various things " (b) have the power to issue to returning officers, registering officers, presiding officers and other election officers such directions as he may deem necessary to ensure effective execution of the provisions of this Order . . . ." Therefore, the provision made in our law is to provide a position for the Elections Commissioner very similar to that of the Auditor-General for whom provision is made in the Constitution Order-in-Council. Obviously, it is not intended that the Elections Department and the Elections Commissioner should function under a Minister, under a Permanent Secretary. Obviously it was not the intention that they should so function, and I contend that, in fact, the placing of that department under a Minister is illegal under the law. As the House knows, the Prime Minister allocates various functions and departments to his various Ministers which are then gazetted. In the execution of that function, the Prime Minister has gone contrary to our law, contrary to the provisions of Article 88 of the Elections Order-in- Council, in placing that department, the Flections Department, and the Elections Commissioner under a Minister, because, obviously by doing so, you have precluded the Elections Commissioner from exercising the powers vested in him directly and specifically under Article 88 (2) of the Elections Order-in-Council. He is an officer under the Permanent Secretary. Under the general orders of a Minister, under the direct order of a Permanent Secretary to a Ministry, he cannot carry out the powers vested in him by this section, namely of acting in his discretion. He can do so if he is directly appointed by the Governor-General, as the Auditor-General is, with that degree of independence that is clearly needed in an officer of that sort. I say that if this matter is taken to the courts of law, either here or to the Privy Council, I have very little doubt it will be held that the position of the Elections Commissioner created by himself and his department being placed under a Minister conflicts with Article 88 of the Elections Order-inCouncil. When that position emerged, even the ranks of 15

Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer, and even the Government Members of the Select Committee could scarcely refrain from making the recommendation which appears at the end of this Report of the Committee on Parliamentary Elections, which says: " Your Committee consider that in Ceylon legislation should be introduced to equate the position of the Commissioner o f Parliamentary Elections to that o f the AuditorGeneral ". That is the wording of the Report as accepted by them. Of course, we want the Commissioner to be placed on an independent footing. I am not so sure that special legislation for that purpose is needed because it exists at present. All that is needed is to delete from the Gazette notification containing the departments of the Minister of Home Affairs, the Department of the Elections Commissioner. That is all that is needed. He will then be responsible direct to the Governor- General. I do not wish to go into the question whether, in fact, that will be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire; but the principle is correct. The Governor-General is not supposed to be one who participates in party politics, and, on that assumption, certainly, the Elections Commissioner should be under a person supposed to be above party politics and impartial. Legislation for the purpose, therefore, is not necessary. There is nothing stated here, even in their own Report, that it cannot be done prior to the next General Election. Indeed, it was our view and the Committee fully approved of this suggestion. I am specially grateful to my hon. Friends -the Gavernment Members df the Select Committee for acceding to that and accepting the spirit of Article 88 of our Parliamentary Elections Order-in-Council. There was no feeling that it could not be done before the next General Election. You will notice in this Report that where certain things are accepted in principle, it is stated that it is not feasible to act on them before the next General Election. There is no such proviso to the paragraph dealing with the Elections Commissioner. I do not know whether this important provision is going to be introduced in the legislation that it is proposed to introduce next week, but if the newspapers are correct in their reports on this subject, the Government has decided to defer this question till after the next General Election They want to defer it for no other reason but that they say such a step should take place only after the next General Election. This is what the " Daily News ", no doubt under certain inspiration, says on this subject. They say that it is good that the status of the Commissioner of Elections should be changed and such a change will strengthen public confidence in the impartiality of the elections machinery. They also say that the only question that may remain to be decided is whether the administrative adjustments needed for such a change can be completed before the next General Election. Quite! In what way it cannot be completed we do not know. Indeed, we considered this question at some length in the Select Committee as to whether this could be done, and we found that there was no insuperable difficulty in the way of this step being taken and the intention was that it should be taken. Now it is said that there may be difficulties in the way and therefore it will be deferred till after the next General Election, and, how long after that, if my Hon. Friend (Rt. Hon. Sir John Kotalawala) still continues to preside on that side of the House, it is going to be, is a matter of some considerable doubt. This is a key matter. I am not making allegations that my Hon. Friend opposite, the Minister of Home Affairs, whose spiritualization has been progressively advancing with the nearing approach of the 2,500th year of the Sambuddha Jayanti, will indulge in any deliberate chicanery. No. But just see for yourself, Mr. Speaker, the position. The Minister is a very interested party obviously in the General Election-he as well as his party. The entire machinery of the election is controlled by this Elections Department. So that, it is not beyond conception that, when my Hon. Friend -is engaged in maitri bliavana or taking ata sil, some other people on behalf of Government may get at some more wicked people of our Elections Commissioner's Department to do certain things that will not bear scrutiny from the point of view of fairness, justice and impartiality. It is wrong to place any Minister, however fair he may be in fact, in that embarrassing position. There are so many things that I need not detail to the House ; all of us are fairly familiar with the election machinery. There are so many ways in which an Elections Department could load the dice, could tip the scale on this side or the other-there are hundreds of such ways. 17

So that, this important key provision, which, as a matter of fact, my good Friend, the Appointed Member, mentioned earlier in an aside was the only valuable recommendation of this Report-I may say, the most valuable recommendation of this Report-is now going to be shelved ; if indeed these reports are correct-I do not know that > if they are not, I shall be only too happy to be contradicted. That is a point regarding the position of the Elections Department which is one of the key fundamental changes that should have been made and which, as a matter of fact, should be there under our existing law.

There are certa~*n other important fundamental questions. One is the use of vehicles in elections. Now, we all know the position regarding the use of vehicles. What is the object ? The object is to have impartial elections. Is that not so ? We all know how the transport question plays an important part in elections. The candidate who has enough money to command, or the party which is able to command the greater portion of transport, is at an advantage which nullifies to a great extent, not wholly, the impartiality of the ballot. One candidate may have two to three hundred cars, buses and even lorries plying about. The other candidate may have very much less. What happens ? A great attempt is made to get hold of voters by hook or by crook and herd them into the cars of this candidate or that. The candidate with the larger number of vehicles scores in that tug-of-war. The greatest degree of canvassing goes on whilst those unfortunate voters are in the car ; they are forcibly taken in the tar to the polling booth of the candidate whose car that is ; from there they are just shepherded to the polling station to record their votes. That kind of thing happens to a not inconsiderable extent. Surely that is a point which will be generally admitted.

Now, in England there is one restriction regarding the use of cars, namely, a car per so many voters. I believe it is one car for every one thousand voters in rural areas, 2,500 in urban areas. That is not all : the candidate or his election agent is compelled to give a list of cars with their numbers to the Returning Officer prior to the electioncars that are intended to be used for the conveyance of voters in that election. In India also there is a restriction. No hiring vehicle can be used for the conveyance of voters-a restriction which is surprising in a country like India with its vaat mass of voters spread all over the electorates, unlike in England where good roads and other forms of public transport are available. I have not yet heard that this restriction has militated against the conduct of elections in India. In this country we know that, although there are certain theoretical restrictions against the use of hiring vehicles and so on, those restrictions are seldom enforceable. That, I think, is a fact which most candidates would generally agree with. In those circumstances, one of the other fundamental changes of value that has to be made is a suitable restriction on the use of vehicles, either according to the Indian practice or the British practice, or a modification even of one or the other, in this country. As a matter of fact, at an early stage the Committee was very favourable to it; but when the final draft Report was put to the Committee, the position changed. Now, what is the difficulty about it ? The difficulty is that people have got used to come in cars and, therefore, the practice should continue. But at what point of time are you going to stop it ? If you admit it is undesirable, at what point of time are you going to introduce a restriction ? That is another very essential restriction and one which is not impracticable. It may be that the number of voters who come to vote will be less if you introduce a restriction. But does it matter ? Even now voters who can vote or not vote as they choose, sometimes do not come in certain areas. Sometimes they come ; sometimes those who are not voters come! That does not matter: if a voter does not take sufficient interest in his public duty of voting, it applies to both sides. Surely it does not apply to one candidate alone. But it is very essential, that elections should be made more representative of the true views of the voters, without the direct and indirect pressure which the unrestricted use of vehicles that ta':es place now brings to bear upon them. There is another important question allied with this, namely, elections on one day. This is not a new matter. This is a matter that has been contemplated earlier. The importance of it also cannot be exaggerated. A good deal of offences, such as impersonation, rowdyism, intimidation, and so on, that occur now will be considerably reduced if you were to have elections on one day. It will also prevent juggling with elections on various days to suit certain purposes, such as, fixing elections of some candidates on this day, some candidates on that day, some on another, based on considerations whether doing so will benefit a certain particular section. The question of the practicability of it was gone into. I should like to say this, that on the first occasion when the Inspector-General of Police gave evidence before this Committee, he strongly, as will be borne out by other Members who were Members of that Select Committee, pressed for it himself. He himself urged these very reasons I am urging in order to stress the importance of making this change. Subsequently, various difficulties were thought up, such as, the Elections Commissioner saying, " I must have so many police officers at each polling station ", and the Inspector-General of Police saying, " Well, if you really must have these police officers, I must say, I have not got that personnel available at the moment ". Then there were further difficulties as to the staffing of polling stations with Presiding Officers, Clerks, and so on. The fact of the matter is that, I think, many of us who went into those matters in detail are not in the least satisfied or convinced that if there was any real desire to hold elections on one day, that the arrangements would have caused any serious difficulty. The declaration of election day as a public holiday and a school holiday, the utilization for the staffing of polling stations of all the various Government servants who would thus be available together with suitable officers of local authorities and also schools, would not have created any particular difficulty regarding the staff that would be required for the polling stations. As for the police, the Inspector-General agreed that he would want less police if elections were held on one day at all polling stations than would otherwise be the case, because he was quite definite in his own mind that there would be far less incidents. To supplement the police force he could have used special police. After all, we have had experience of elections. When have we found the services of the police specially required at a polling station ? It may be here or there occasionally ; otherwise, except that they are there on duty, there was 20 no particular need, due to some rowdyism or some incident, or sort of illegal or irregular practice by people, where the police had to be callec: in. Therefore, to supplement the police we even did not object to the personnel of the Navy and the Army, on whose activities there has not been any particular call by wars, and so on, affecting our country, being sworn in as special constables for the occasion. There was no real difficulty. It was only once admitted that that was a necessary thing. The Government admitted the value of it and the need for it. Even the United National Party in the memorandum that they sent up accepted it. But if hon. Members would look at the evidence given here they will notice that there will be no future time at which this Government will be able to implement it. It is not merely a difficulty for this General Election but, according to the staff that they later on insisted that they must have, they will not be able to do it even in the next 50 years, leave aside the next General Election. Even in the case of the last General Election it was decided that the election should be held on three days. It became four owing to the intervention of an Islamic festival ; otherwise, even on the last occasion it wou?d have been three days. Surely, we could assume even for the sake of argument that we cannot have elections on one day at the next General Election, but we could possibly have reduced those three days to two days. Certainly, we say that there is no real difficulty in having elections on one day and that is-what should be done. But if the Government felt some qualms about it, surely then they could have roduced the three days, at least to two days. It would have been an improvement on this position. That is another fundamental matter which, we feel, without adequate reason has been turned down by the majority of this Select Committee. If my Friends were really keen on having impartial elections to which the " Daily News " refers, not only intrinsically impartial but admitted to be so and accepted as such by the bulk of the people, then those are some of the important fundamental steps that should have been taken and, in fact, could have been taken. But, I am afraid none of those will materialize. I only mentioned these three amongst the more important points concerned, but there are other important points. Let not the House imagine that amongst the section of important fundamental matters there are only these three matters. I picked out these three because they were perhaps more important than the others. When we get down to details, whether it is administrative or legislative, the next section we come to is the actual conduct of elections, such as printing of the ballot papers, the preparation and issue of voters' lists, then the steps to be taken on nomination day, the steps to be taken regarding the actual election, the arrangements at the polling stations, and so on. With regard to those, there are certain recommendations of the Select Committee which' are useful. Though not of any particular importance, still if given effect to properly, these recommendations dealing with flags, loudspeakers, fixing polling districts and polling stations, polling agents, polling date and polling hours, disorderly conduct near polling stations, and so on-all these recommendations are useful.

Now one matter I should like to deal with, one detail of some importance, is the question of the language or languages in which the voters' lists are to be printed. This is contained in paragraph 2 of the Report which I would request hon. Members to read in conjunction with the minutes printed at the end of the Report on page 15. At the present moment the law is that these lists should be printed in the. English language and the guestion arose as to what is to be done in the future. Hon. Members will observe that in dealing with this question, fortunately or unfortunately, the wider issue of the language policy of this country-what is going to be or what is likely to be the language policy of this country-was also discussed. It was difficult to divorce the one from the other.

What the report says is this : "Section 11 of the Order-in-Council requires that electoral registers be maintained in English. In Your Committee's opinion, they should be maintained in the national languages as well ". That is how the Report finally appears. If you refer to page 15, you will see the draft Report which, after discussions in the Committee, was prepared for the final decision of the Committee. This is how it read: " Section 11 of the Order-in-Council requires that electoral registers be maintained in English ". The same words " In Your Committee's opinion, they should be maintained in the national languages ". How did this change come about ? The final recommendation appearing in the Report in paragraph 2 is that they should be maintained " in the national languages as well ". In the draft Report dealing with this subject, which was considered and voted upon at the final meeting of this Select Committee, it is said that they should be maintained "in the national languages" but in the final Report it is said that they should be maintained " in the national languages as well ". If you turn to page 16 you will see that this amendment was moved by the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Dr. M. C. M. Kaleel) ; it is an amendment of a fundamental nature. In other words, the Government Members, who voted and thereby got a majority of one for the amend- ment of the Hon. Minister of Labour, contemplate these registers continuing indefinitely to be printed in English ; the legal requirement that the registers of voters must be in English is to be continued with only the proviso that copies of the English lists may be printed in the national languages as well ; that 'is, in addition to English. This is a very serious commitment. Is the printing of registers in English for purposes of convenience to be taken as a pointer to the views of at least five Ministers of the Government that English is to continue as the official language of the country ? Several amendments were moved in dealing with this question of the language in which registers are to be printed. You will find them all on page 16. I moved an amendment, in accordance with the views we hold on this issue, that for the next General Election that is expected in a month or two, all these reQisters throughout the country should be transliterated into Sinhalese and for the Northern and Eastern Provinces, for the sake of convenience, into Tamil and that thereafter all the registers be printed in 23

Sinhalese for the whole country with transliterations, for the purpose of convenience, into Tamil in the Northern and Eas.ern Provinces. But the views of my hon. Friends opposite appear to be neither for Sinhalese nor for Tamil but really enshrining the position of English as it appears in the existing law which was framed many years ago with only copies in Sinhalese and Tamil according to various proportions they have set down. This seems to me to be a position that connotes nothing more than the continuance of English with a mongrel form of regionalism com- bined with it in policy. I pause here because this is a matter of vital importance. That is why I said that the general policy involved in this question was the language of the registers. That was the decision of the Government on the language or languages in which these registers of voters are to be printed. With regard to the other minor points, there were some useful recommendations not of any particular importance at all but recommendations, though of a minor nature, which may be helpful. The third section that had to he considered by this Committee was that dealing with election offences and the cnnduct of inquiries into alleged election offences. As my Hon. Friend said, owing to the shortness of time it was not possible to deal with a number of important matters concerning that aspect of this investigation. A few alone appear here. Certain corrupt practices are de:rr:uted to the position of illegal practices: You will find that cm pare 21 of the Report. You will notice amongst them the offence of making a false declaration as to election expenses. According to the Indian law, it is a minor corrupt practice. It was suggested that that as well as certain others regarding leaflets and pamphlets should be made illegal practices. If they desire to give effect to that I would very earnestly inform the Government that there is hardly, any justification for retrospective legislation especially in the circumstances when by a strange coincidence the only person benefited hy it would be one single individual. Legislate for the future by all manner of means but it does not seem to me to be correct to make such legislation retrospective especially in the actual circumstances of the case. That is all I wish to say about that. You will notice in the minutes that there was an amendment moved by me regarding Government servants. It was not accepted by a majority of the Committee. The purpose of the amendment I moved was this : to prevent the utilization of Government servants almost as election agents by those in authority. In no way was it intended to restrict the rights of citizenship that Government servants have in dealing with election matters. But see the position that has arisen now. However it is worded, while not infringing the freedom of public servants to exercise their political rights within understood democratic practice, what is happening today? What is happening today is this. I am sorry to say it, but I say it with full knowledge. This country is still one, particularly in our rural areas, wl:c.ru certain types of Government servants wield a great deal w: influence over the people of those areas. Under our Public Service Regulations, regulations govetning the administration, public servants, beyond recording their votes and so on, are prohibited from participating in political party work or election work. What I mean by election work is not rendering services as Presiding Officers and so on but actually participating in election campaigns--a very salutary provision which follows the English practice. The people in whose hands 'it rests to give effect to that is obviously the Government. But what is it that is happening ? We know that certain Government servants, who by the effect of the positions they hold, exercise influence over the people, are made use of ,for canvassing, for electioneering and ,for bringing pressure to bear on voters to vote on one side or the other. They are told : " Go ahead and do this ; we will see that you are all right. We will see that you do not suffer for it." I am told-I am sorry my Rt. Hon. Friend (Rt. Hon. Sir John Kotalawela') is not here-that at his recent visit to Kurunegala he had a conference of prospective U. N. P. candidates for election at the residence of the Government Agent-[Interruption]. However that may be, I stand corrected. We know that at Alutnwvara the same thing happened when supporters of the U. N. P. me} the Prime Minister in conference. And whore did thc_v meet ? At the residence of the Government Agent at Badulla. It may be that he goes there to the Residency or the Maligawa, as it is cilled in Kandy, or to sortoe other residence somewhere or another, or even to the King's Pavilion in Kandy-I know what happened during the last election in Kandy ; when it was used for political purposes-it may well be that the Prime Minister feels that it is the only place suitable for him to go and stay and have his lunch or have a talk with somebody.or something like that and these people are asked to come there. But is it right ? These things get about all over the place. They are not kept secret. Even the people who are invited, the mudalalis and so on who attend, come back and say: )',!~ )~J

" I went to Queen's House or the King's Pavilion and had tea and cakes and all that". It is not in keeping with that very impartiality that everybody is so pompously talking to us about even from the Benches opposite. That is why some of us felt that some provision was desirable in the law to make that kind of action an election offence beyond the provisions of the Public Service Regulations without in any way infringing citizenship rights or trade union rights as such of public servants. I think the House will agree that, whatever the reasons, this Report does not carry us very far. This Report does not deal with the important points; even some important points that have been accepted here, I doubt if they will embody in the legislation they are going to introduce next week while certain other matters have for very clear-cut or obvious reasons been just deferred and put off. It is, indeed, important, and the " Daily News " correctly says, that not only should the elections be conducted impartialiy but also that the people should feel they are so. If that confidence in the people is not created then the people lose faith in the one democratic remedy available to them, the impartiality arid fairness of the ballot. The loss of that faith may produce a state of affairs which democracy alone can prevent. After all, we are older in the practice of modern democracy than most Asian countries. We have had elected representatives in this country, in our Legislatures and in our local bodies for many years. We have had manhood and womanhood suffrage for the last 25 years, since 1931. We have had an advantage over a good many of the Asian countries that have recently with us advanced to a position of political freedom. If we are not in a position today to make democracy and the democratic machinery a reality, it would indeed be a very sad reflection an all of us. That is why, Mr. Speaker, at the very end of these proceedings I moved this amendment. You will find it on page 22. I proposed to leave out all the words from " That ". That is, all the words of the motion for the acceptance of this Report and insert, " in view of the fact tnat this Report fails to embody some of the changes vitally needed for putting our election law and practice on a satisfactory footing, the Report as a whole cannot be agreed to". Those who voted for my amendment were, myself, the hon. First Member for Colombo Central (Mr. P. G. B. Keuneman) and the hon. Member for Ruwanwella (Dr. N. M. Perera)three Members. Those who voted against my amendment were four Members representing the Government-the Hon. Minister of Local Government (Hon. Dr. C. W. W. Kannangara), the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Dr. M. C. M. Kaleel), the Hon. Minister of Posts and Broadcasting (Hon. S. Natesan), and the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs (Hon. A. Ratnayake). So actually this Report comes to you as a result of a majority vote of one. I apologize to the House if I have taken unduly long in dealing with this subject, but it was necessary to do so because there was no clear understanding of the problem as a whole either amongst the public or perhaps even amongst a large number of the Members of this House who would not have had an opportunity of reading this Report. That is the background against which this subject is being discussed on the Adjournment Itlotion. I would appeal to hon. Members to make their contributions as widely as possible in these discussions because they concern all of us on both sides of the House, so that even in connection with the leaislation that my Hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Hon. J. R. Jayewardene) will be introducing early next week, at least certain amendments may be made in the interests of all of us to whatever party we may belong, in the interest ultimately of the democratic system as a whole.