NATIONAL FORUM ON

PARLIAMENTARY BEST PRACTICES 2012

Organized by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL)

&

South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR)

16 February 2012

Colombo

SRI LANKA

Contents page Agenda 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Welcome address 4 - Dr. Wijaya Jayatilaka, Executive Director, TISL 3.0 ‘Parliament Watch’ – A short introduction 5 - Shiranthi Jayatilaka, Executive Director, SAHR 4.0 PARLIAMENT WATCH: Recommendations for South Asian Regional 6 Legislative best practices, South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) - Buveendra Illangage, Regional Coordinator, SAHR 5.0 Relevance of ‘Parliament Watch’ 10 - Mr. Manik de Silva, former President of the Editors’ Guild & Editor-in- chief - Sunday Island 6.0 ‘Parliament Watch Sri Lanka’ – Findings & Recommendations 10 - Dilrukshi Handunnetti, Senior Manager, Transparency International Sri Lanka 7.0 Address by Hon. D E W Gunasekera 13 - Senior Minister of Human Resources & Chairman – Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) 8.0 Address by Hon. Rauf Hakeem 15 - Minister of Justice; Chairman – Public Accounts Committee (PAC) 9.0 Panel Discussions 16 PANEL I - Citizens’ role in enhancing public access to Parliament 16 PANEL II - MP’s role in making Parliament more responsive to Human 20 Rights (HR) PANEL III - The role of Civil Society & Media in promoting 23 transparency of Parliament 10.0 Vote of thanks 26

1

Agenda

PLENARY SESSION Welcome address - Dr. Wijaya Jayatilaka, Executive Director, TISL Audio-visual presentation ‘Parliament Watch’ – a short introduction - Shiranthi Jayatilaka, Executive Director, SAHR Parliament Best Practices in the Region - Buveendra Illangage, Regional Coordinator, SAHR Relevance of ‘Parliament Watch’ - Manik de Silva, Former President, Editors’ Guild ‘Parliament Watch Sri Lanka’ – Findings & Recommendations - Dilrukshi Handunnetti, Senior Manager, TISL Presentation of ‘Transparency in Parliament’ – SAHR publication Launch of ‘Our Parliament’ website Address : Hon. D E W Gunasekera, Minister of Human Resources & Chairman – Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) Address : Hon. Rauf Hakeem, Minister of Justice & Chairman – Public Accounts Committee (PAC) 10.30 – 10.45 a.m. Tea PANEL DISCUSSIONS Citizens’ role in enhancing public access to Parliament Moderator – Ms. Shanthi Sachithanandan Panelists - Hon. Hon. Mr. Elmore Perera MP’s role in making Parliament more responsive to Human Rights Moderator – Mr. Mirak Raheem Panelists – Hon. Dr. Mr. Charitha Ratwatte Mr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu The role of Civil Society & Media in promoting transparency of Parliament Moderator – Mr. Sanjana Hattotuwa Panelists – Mr. Sunil Jayasekera Hon. Rosy Senanayake Hon. Dr. Mr. Victor Ivan Vote of thanks Lunch

2

1.0 Introduction

Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) organized a National Forum on Parliamentary Best Practices on 16th February 2012 at the Galle Face Hotel, , Sri Lanka. The proceedings commenced with the traditional lighting of the oil lamp and singing of the National Anthem.

Delivering the welcome address Dr. Wijaya Jayatilaka, Executive Director, TISL recalled the history of the governance system in Sri Lanka. He said it is through review and analysis that we are able to identify areas for up-scaling for improvement or for change in the legislature within the ideals of democracy. This was followed by a presentation of some images of events undertaken by the two organizations. Ms. Shiranthi Jayatilaka, Executive Director, SAHR gave an introduction to the ‘Parliamentary Watch’ program initiated by SAHR. Mr. Buveendra Illangage, Regional Coordinator, SAHR then spoke of the efforts of SAHR to promote good governance in 6 South Asian countries and presented a study done in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka with major findings of the study and its recommendations in the publication ‘Transparency in Parliament’. Mr. Manik de Silva then expressed a few thoughts on the relevance of ‘Parliament Watch’. Ms. Dilrukshi Handunnetti, Senior Manager, TISL presented the results of a Baseline Study commenced in 2010 by TISL and spoke on the ‘Parliament Watch Sri Lanka’ – Findings & Recommendations.

Following the above presentations, the SAHR publication ‘Transparency in Parliament’ was presented to invited guests and ‘Our Parliament’ website was launched. Hon. D E W Gunasekera, Minister of Human Resources & Chairman – Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE), addressed the gathering thanking the organizers for conducting this public forum. He said the Sri Lanka parliament is a young democracy which had best practices that were on the verge of decline. Stating that the publication carried some good recommendations, he listed a few more issues that could have been looked into during the study. Hon. Rauf Hakeem, Minister of Justice & Chairman – Public Accounts Committee (PAC) then addressed the gathering and said that he was extremely pleased that this National Forum has come into being. Certain changes are deemed necessary and the responsibility of civil society and media for effecting this change was highlighted by him.

The plenary session was followed by Panel Discussions on three topics, namely, Citizens’ role in enhancing public access to Parliament, MP’s role in making Parliament more responsive to Human Rights and The role of Civil Society & Media in promoting transparency of Parliament. Selected panellists presented their views and answered questions forwarded by participants during these discussions held in plenary.

Ms. Sharmini Boyle was the compeer for the program and the proceedings of the Forum ended with the vote of thanks followed by lunch.

3

2.0 Welcome address - Dr. Wijaya Jayatilaka, Executive Director, TISL Mr. Jayatilaka, welcoming all present, recalled the changes that the Legislature in Sri Lanka has gone through. He stated that the Legislature in Sri Lanka has moved geographically from Gordon Gardens to Galle Face and then to Sri Jayawardenapura. He further said that the legislature has changed in name, stature and influence and recalled the history of the legislature beginning as a Legislative Council in 1833, ending with the Parliament in 1978 which has been entrusted with the noble task of law making in the best interests of the people, enacting laws to ensure equality, inclusion and justice as its core business. From 101 Members of Parliament (MPs) engaged in its business in 1947, today we have 225 honourable MPs. Since establishing a constitutional form of governance in the country, we have had 23 governments under 10 Heads of State. The Legislature had 21 speakers. People elect their representatives to Parliament from among whom a group forms the government to manage the affairs of the State. The Parliament legislates processes to ensure that people’s rights and needs are met. The 1978 Constitution defines the responsibilities of Parliament in Articles 4a, 75, 76 & 152. Moving on to a different Continent, Mr. Jayatilaka stated that the Inter-parliamentary Union undertaking two studies in Zambia and Tanzania in 2009 made several recommendations on how to improve the functioning of these Parliaments. This came out of an analysis of all aspects of how the legislators should function. Most countries have robust systems that examine the functioning of the legislature based on which improvements are made. This diagnosis is an inevitable requirement if people are to benefit consistently from this powerful and influential institution. It is within the ideals of democracy that the legislature is examined. It is through review and analysis that we are able to identify areas for up-scaling for improvement or for change. Transparency International Sri Lanka as a leader in anti-corruption research and advocacy work published the National Integrative Systems Assessment (NIA) in 2010. One sector has focused on the Parliament. The findings and recommendations are shared in a report which is available on-line in our website. The Parliament Watch project adds to this knowledge base. The Parliament Watch project launched in South Asia is a similar effort. Transparency International supported by South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) has reviewed the functioning of the Sri Lanka Parliament for 2011 and we are gathered here to learn about the findings, to appreciate what is positive, and to identify methods on how best to improve and strengthen the Parliament. No Parliament in the world is perfect. Perfection is an ideal we all strive for. Parliament including its elected representatives, the administration of the management of its business, the citizens and other stakeholders we hope, will reflect on the findings and identify methods of improvements and commit to change management in a meaningful way. On behalf of SAHR and Transparency International Sri Lanka Mr. Jayatilaka once again welcomed all, wishing for the successful completion of the program.

4

3.0 ‘Parliament Watch’ – a short introduction - Shiranthi Jayatilaka, Executive Director, SAHR

At the outset Ms. Jayatilaka said it was her pleasure to introduce the participants to the Parliament Watch Programme, initiated by South Asians for Human Rights, and to share a brief history of the programme as well as its objectives. She commenced with a brief introduction to the organisation SAHR. South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) is a democratic regional network with a large membership base from across South Asia, of individuals and institutions committed to address human rights issues at both national and regional levels. The objectives of SAHR are based on the Neemrana Declaration which was developed by a group of eminent personalities and human rights defenders from the South Asian region, including Mr. I K Gujral, the former Prime Minister of India, Dr. Kamal Hossain from Bangladesh, Dr. Devendra Raj Pandey from Nepal, Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy from Sri Lanka and Mrs. Asma Jahangir from Pakistan. The Neemrana Declaration strives to uphold human rights in a wide range of social and political settings including education, legislation, governance, race and gender discrimination and conflict. Under its membership, SAHR brings together prominent individuals who are experts in the fields of law, advocacy, as well as activists and human rights defenders from across the South Asian region. The origin of SAHR’s Parliament Watch Programme, lies in one of its programme areas titled “Right to Transparent Governance”. In 2007 SAHR organized a series of national consultations on “Right to Transparent Governance” where SAHR looked at transparency issues of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. At a Regional Conference in 2007 in Lahore, Pakistan this theme was discussed at a regional level followed by a workshop on Right to Transparent Governance in Dhaka, Bangladesh in April 2009. Following this, SAHR’s guidelines on parliamentary practices were published and the recommendations, titled “Transparency in Parliament”, became an integral part of SAHR’s Parliamentary Watch programme. The Parliament Watch research focuses on how existing laws, regulations deviate from proposed SAHR guidelines and the basic principles of good governance and accountability. The study also identifies and records the level of parliamentary commitment to introduce legislation pertaining to good governance and human rights and also their responsiveness to human rights concerns. The study has been successfully implemented in Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Finally Ms. Jayatilaka said this forum convened today was part of a series of national forums being organized in South Asian countries with the objective of dialoguing with key stakeholders on Parliamentary best practices. Stating that today’s discussions and deliberations would go a long way to furthering the Parliament Watch Programme, she expressed her gratitude to all the participants for their presence and their contributions.

5

4.0 PARLIAMENT WATCH: Recommendations for South Asian Regional Legislative best practices, South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) - Buveendra Illangage, Regional Coordinator, SAHR

PARLIAMENT WATCH – THE STUDY SAHR’s Right to Transparent Governance programme in 2007, resulted in a study on the legislatures of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The outcome of this program was a booklet titled “Transparency in Parliament” published in 2009. This booklet looked at five key areas under which recommendations were made on best practices with the aim of assisting the legislative bodies in South Asia to improve transparency and accessibility to the legislature by the people they represent. The five areas under which recommendations were made are: 1. Calendar of Sessions and Business of Parliament 2. Record of Business Conducted 3. Papers laid on the Table of Parliament 4. Declaration of Financial and Criminal Antecedents and Entitlements of MPs 5. Functioning of Parliamentary Committees Some of the recommendations for best practices made by SAHR, based on its studies in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, are as follows:

4.1 Recommendations on the Calendar of Sessions and Business of Parliament  That it be ensured that the calendar of sessions and sittings is published in the Official Gazette and circulated to all MPs;  That it be ensured that the calendar of sessions and sittings is displayed on the websites of the legislature for the reference of citizens and the media;  That it be ensured that the calendar of business for each session is finalised and the Parliamentary Secretariat make copies available to MPs at least 48 hours ahead of each session;  That the Secretariat starts a SMS/Instant Mail service to provide MPs with real time access to their calendar of business;  That the Secretariat uploads on its website the calendar of business in advance of every sitting so that people may have access through the Internet.

A few legislative best practices observed by SAHR Some of the countries under study (India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) have the calendar of sessions and business of their legislatures on their websites. The calendars are also made available to MPs. However, it has been suggested that alterations to the calendar of sessions should be better communicated to MPs and to the public. The ‘Majilis’ of Maldives even has its proceedings telecast live through most of Maldives. 6

4.2 Recommendations on the Record of Business Conducted  That the Secretariats of the South Asian Legislatures make publicly available and publish in their websites the following:  The attendance record of all MPs on the day after every sitting;  Daily and weekly bulletins regarding the business completed and pending in every session;  A searchable database of all questions raised by MPs and answers provided by the Ministers;  Texts of all questions, motions and resolutions rejected before admission in the House  The nature of vote cast by every MP whenever division of votes on any question is allowed;  The roll call of votes.  That access to Parliamentary proceedings in digital & hard copy formats be provided to people through Community Information Centres & popular libraries.

A few legislative best practices observed by SAHR In India, Maldives and Sri Lanka, a record of attendance is maintained. While these attendance records are part of the formal record of legislative proceedings in Sri Lanka, in Maldives they are uploaded on to the Majilis’ website. In India, Maldives and Sri Lanka, legislative proceedings in their original form are publicly available and are uploaded on the legislature’s websites. In India and Sri Lanka, oral and written questions are also uploaded on to the website and are accessible to the public. In Sri Lanka, Hanzard Reports are even available at public libraries. In Pakistan, however, only edited records of proceedings are uploaded online. In Sri Lanka, the video of proceedings of Parliament is streamed live on the Parliament’s website while in Maldives, the proceedings are telecast on television. In India, the proceedings of the Rajjya Sabha are telecast live as well.

4.3. Recommendations on Papers laid on the Table of Parliament That all Government Bills, Ordinances and subordinate legislation be published in the Official Gazette and on Government websites preferably a month in advance of the session of Parliament during which they are likely to be introduced for approval;  That all ministries ensure that their annual reports/year books are prepared and distributed to MPs for their reference prior to the House debates and Committee discussions on the demand for Grants;  That all annual reports be uploaded on the websites of the respective ministries and that all Secretariats provide links to the websites containing the Government budget and the annual reports/year books of the ministries and departments; 7

 That the Parliamentary Secretariat uploads on their websites the budget allocated for the respective Houses.

A few legislative best practices observed by SAHR  In Pakistan, it is mandatory to Gazette every Bill as early as possible as it is in Sri Lanka. In both countries, Bills are distributed to MPs in advance though there are reported instances of failing to do so.  In Maldives, copies of Bills can be obtained from the Secretariat of the Majilis.  In India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, Bills are made accessible to the public by being uploaded online on the websites of the legislatures.  In India and Pakistan, Ministry performance reports are uploaded online. In Sri Lanka most Ministries themselves upload their Annual Reports on their websites. It would be good and convenient if the Parliamentary website can have links to these, so that the media and the citizenry can access all these in one place.

4.4 Recommendations on Declaration of Financial and Criminal Antecedents and Entitlements of MPs  That all South Asian Legislatures adopt laws/rules requiring MPs to disclose every year their assets and liabilities and criminal antecedents as well as those of their spouses and dependents, if any;  That all laws/rules restricting access to declaration of assets & liabilities & criminal antecedents be amended to ensure accessibility to all MPs & citizens;  That the Secretariat uploads on the Parliamentary websites the following:  All declarations of assets and liabilities and criminal antecedents;  Detailed information about the allocation, sanction and spending of constituency development funds;  Scheme of remuneration, allowances & facilities to which MPs are entitled.

A few legislative best practices observed by SAHR In Maldives, MPs must give annual statements of properties/monies owned and of business interests and liabilities and details of all other employments and obligations. In Pakistan, it is mandatory for MPs, their spouses and dependants to submit annual statements of assets and liabilities to the Elections Commission. These are not part of the proceedings of the National Assembly, nor included in its records. However, failure to submit these statements can result in the suspension of an MP and any false submission can attract proceedings against an MP even for a criminal offence. In Sri Lanka, there is legal provision to declare assets and liabilities of MPs, their spouses and of their children. It is also mandatory to declare any criminal antecedents of MPs, and the public has access to details of salaries, allowances and other amenities provided 8

to an MP. However, having these details uploaded on the parliamentary website for access would be a better practice to adopt. There are legal provisions to declare assets and liabilities of MPs in India as well.

4.5. Recommendations on the Functioning of Parliamentary Committees  That the rules of Parliamentary committees be amended to allow citizens to attend the sittings except in extraordinary circumstances where public interest is better served by holding the sitting in camera. In all such instances reasons should be publicly announced for not allowing access to non-members;  Any non-member must be provided access to the submissions made before a committee, on request, unless such disclosure has the real potential of causing greater harm to the public interest as compared with the harm caused by maintaining secrecy.  The calendar of every committee be uploaded on Parliamentary website in advance;  That the Secretariats of all Houses ensure that all reports and findings of the committees are uploaded on the respective websites soon after they are tabled in the House.

A few legislative best practices observed by SAHR  In India, Maldives, Pakistan and in Sri Lanka, the names of legislative committee members are publicly available on the websites of the legislatures. In Maldives, the media and the public have access to proceedings of committee meetings and in Sri Lanka, the media has access to most committees. In addition to these 5 areas which SAHR has studied and made recommendations for best practices, four additional areas have been included in the current programme to suggest recommendations for best practices in the South Asian Region legislatures: 1. Integrity Mechanisms 2. Capacity and Resources 3. Institutional Independence 4. Role of the Legislature Based on its current study, SAHR looks forward to making recommendations for legislative best practices on these 4 additional areas as well in the future. SAHR is currently carrying out research and studying legislative best practices in the South Asian legislatures in Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, strongly believing that sharing this knowledge of South Asian best practices and experiences amongst the South Asian legislative community will enable the legislators to be better informed and encourage them to adapt and adopt these best practices across the Region.

9

5.0 Relevance of ‘Parliament Watch’ - Mr. Manik de Silva, former President of the Editors’ Guild & Editor-in-chief - Sunday Island Commenting on above, Mr. de Silva stated that sometimes the media tends to be more critical than the public and we wonder whether the Parliament itself is relevant today with massive majorities. The quality of parliamentarians at present cannot be compared with those we had in early post-independence period except a few e.g., those at this forum today. Questions raised in Parliament were taken seriously and governments did not avoid answers in the way that happens often today. Supplementary questions were always sharp and to the point. Ministers could not escape without answering. Newspapers gave far more detailed accounts of parliamentary proceedings. The Daily News had several pages of these proceedings, almost an abbreviated version of the Hanzard. Reporters tended to cull exchanges that were pointed and witty and gave them to the public. These have all disappeared now from the columns of newspapers. Now certain unbecoming happenings in Parliament are being telecast time and again.  It would be good if the proceedings of certain committees such as COPE or Public Accounts Committee and even the parliamentary consultative committees are open to the press to increase access to what emerges at those meetings.  Some discussions that take place at these committees are wilfully submerged by those who stand to lose by making them public.  Media has paid far too little attention to matters that have been elicited by studies and recommendations in the book by SAHR.  Hopefully with change, we would find something more beneficial emerging from focusing of spotlights on Parliamentary proceedings than it is happening today.

6.0 ‘Parliament Watch Sri Lanka’ – Findings & Recommendations - Dilrukshi Handunnetti, Senior Manager, Transparency International Sri Lanka An Accountable Legislature: Parliament Watch Sri Lanka Ms. Handunnetti presented the findings of a Baseline Study commenced in 2010 and was still being continued. The Program was conceived by South Asians for Human Rights and implemented by Transparency International Sri Lanka since April 2010. The presentation was a brief status review of Parliament based on the TISL research. SAHR’s publication Transparency in Parliament was used in developing an indicator questionnaire for studying 9 key areas.

6.1 The Concept Parliament Watch reports specifically record the functions of Parliament both in law and practice under nine key areas :

10

(i) Calendar of Sessions and Business of Parliament (ii) Records of Business Conducted (iii) Papers Tabled in Parliament (iv) Declaration of Financial and Criminal Antecedents and Entitlements of MPs (v) Functioning of Parliamentary Committees (vi) Integrity Mechanisms (vii). Capacity and Resources (viii). Institutional Independence (ix). Role of the Legislature

6.2 The Programme Design The programme Design consisted of Monthly reports- with a human rights focus. Half yearly reports- Focus fell on transparency and accountability in Parliament. SAHR and TISL strived to ensure the reports are objective, transparent, analytical and evidence-based. Parliament Watch is replicated in five other South Asian countries – India, Nepal, Maldives, Bangladesh & Pakistan.

6.3 Selected Findings (i) Calendar of Sessions and Business of Parliament  The rules governing Parliament require that the day’s agenda be made available to all Members of Parliament. In practice, there have been instances where such notice is not given specially if the business proposed is controversial and resistance by members is likely.  For all completed sessions of Parliament, a final and edited version of the Hanzard, the official record of Parliament, is uploaded on the official website. However, an unedited version is not available.

(ii) Records of Business Conducted  It is not possible for the public to request the attendance record of MPs.  There are instances when ministers simply refuse to respond or offer partial responses during the daily business question time. The Standing Orders do require the Government to offer complete answers during question time.

(iii) Papers tabled in Parliament  The general practice of distributing copies of bills among MPs in advance, to ensure they have the opportunity to prepare for debate, is often breached. Example: 18th Amendment

11

 A significant concern in Sri Lanka is the lack of practical space for public participation in the bill-making process. There is no proactive action to ensure a consultative process, either through the publication of media notices or through the generation of public debate.  In 2010, the Open Budget Index listed Sri Lanka among the top South Asian nations in budget transparency.

(iv) Declaration of Financial and Criminal Antecedents and Entitlements of MPs  Assets declarations submitted by elected officials are considered confidential in practice and not made openly accessible to the public.  Sri Lanka has no law requiring candidates to declare their criminal antecedents.  Less than 15 MPs declared their assets in 2010 as per election monitoring bodies.  India has very different practices as does Pakistan.

(v) Functioning of Parliamentary Committees  The criteria for election/selection of MPs to parliamentary committees are not documented; the nominations are made by the respective political parties and not based on agreed criteria.  There are countries with stipulated criteria.  The two most important committees, PAC & COPE are not accessible to media.

(vi) Integrity Mechanisms  There are no specific rules applicable on gifts and hospitality.  There are some restrictions however, applicable to legislators on post- employment, specially designed to avoid possible conflict of interest.  Several other parliaments had clear, functional mechanisms in place.

(vii) Capacity and Resources  The qualifications of Parliamentary staff and details of applications received and shortlisted are not made known. It is difficult to rule out political appointments.  The has one of the finest libraries in South Asia. Parliamentarians rarely accessed the library and unfortunately the public and the media have no access to this facility.

(viii) Institutional Independence  In Sri Lanka, there is no limitation on the number of times the House may be prorogued within a calendar year.

12

 In theory, the Legislature has control over its own agenda. In reality the agenda is determined by the ruling party as it enjoys a two thirds majority in the House.

(ix) Role of the Legislature  There have been no recorded instances in 2010-2011 where penal sanctions have been used against legislators and Parliamentary officials under the existing anti-corruption laws.  Sri Lanka has failed to meet its post-ratification obligations regarding the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

6.4 National Consultation The Objective of this National Consultation in the form of panel discussions at the Forum was to ‘Create a dialogue with a variety of stakeholders- legislators, civil society actors, media, engaged citizens and the disengaged’. The Panels will focus on three areas: 1. Citizen’s Role in Enhancing Public Access to Parliament 2. The Role of Parliamentarian in making Parliament more responsive to Human Rights 3. The Role of Civil Society & Media in promoting transparency of Parliament. This would be the first step to engage a variety of stakeholders and to call for collective action for an accountable and transparent Parliament.

Following the above presentation, the SAHR publication on ‘Transparency in Parliament’ was presented to invited guests and speakers. Next came the launching of ‘Our Parliament’ Website which could be accessed on ‘ourparliament.lk’. Components of the website were also shown to the Forum.

7.0 Address by Hon. D E W Gunasekera - Senior Minister of Human Resources & Chairman – Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE)

At the outset, Hon. Minister thanked the organizers for their initiative in inviting them to participate in the Forum. He said that Sri Lanka Parliament was a young but a vibrant democracy with best practices in the Parliament which are now on the verge of decline. The publication by SAHR, he said had some constructive recommendations some of which were implementable and others not. But it was a very good initiative and we can be happy that there is some segment of society making an effort to make the Parliament more vibrant and dynamic.

13

According to the Hon. Minister, there were a number of other issues that should have been looked into, for deliberations at the Forum, such as:  The post of the Speaker in Parliament. Earlier the practice was for the Speaker to resign from the political party once he is appointed and remain politically independent and all parties professed allegiance. Why is it that this could not be implemented today?  Raising the level of debate in Parliament. This had been suggested but never materialized. Why is it that some of these best practices have disappeared? The Hon. Minister recalled they learnt the basics of economics when they were in school at the floor of the House and mentioned some good debaters they had in Parliament. Fundamental reasons for the decline as per his personal convictions were:  Executive Presidency with the maladies that have originated from the day it was implemented. As a result, some of the recommendations are not implementable.  It had been suggested that the COPE chairman should be from the Opposition and there had been instances when this had been implemented.  The secretaries of ministries follow and implement ministers’ orders.  Public servants tend to be very discourteous sometimes at committees such as COPE. One can examine / cross examine but be courteous.  Ministers, except a few, are not present in Parliament almost daily for answering questions. Not even the Deputy Minister is present sometimes. The whole responsibility falls on the Chief Government Whip. Find out why this happens under all governments. The malady is a general phenomenon.  During the budget debate, it is someone else who speaks, not the one responsible. There are speeches completely unrelated to the budget. The Hanzard is full of debates unrelated to the budget itself. What can University students who attend sessions take home? Why is this? What are the contributory factors? – The neo-liberal Economic Policy which has upset the whole country, Consumerism, Executive Presidency, the 30-year old War, ethnic conflict, Black July all these affected society, its line of thinking, its conscience. There are deep seated causes that need to be analyzed. Making recommendations will not take us anywhere. Discussions, self criticism at the level of party leadership are needed for finding out what has happened to society and taking strong decisions. The level of journalism is degraded except for a few illustrious ones. Therefore, if you open to the media what is happening inside committees like COPE, it will create an anarchy in the country & make it ungovernable with so many media channels. Therefore,  Media responsibility and media freedom should be balanced and not create an anarchy which is good fodder for the extremists.

14

With these words the Minister thanked the organizers for having invited him for the Forum & providing the opportunity to speak to those present.

8.0 Address by Hon. Rauf Hakeem, Minister of Justice; Chairman – Public Accounts Committee (PAC) The Hon. Minister expressed his pleasure that this National Forum on Parliamentary Best Practices has come into being. The complaints heard about declining Parliamentary standards are not endemic to our country alone. It is connected to the evolution of our parliamentary democracy and connected to the changes in our constitutional structure. The Minister had told some high profile visitors recently who were concerned about accountability before the international community that whatever domestic mechanisms they wanted us to have in place, they should bear in mind that we possess a very vibrant civil society able to hold the government accountable. There is a very mature media culture. Whatever the shortcomings in the institutions of governance in this country, be it the parliament, the executive or the judiciary, we have a very vibrant media culture and a mature civil society able to hold these institutions of governance to account.  Accountability as far as the parliament is concerned and the role of parliamentarians is concerned, over time, has traversed a path of decline. This is an endemic problem that goes along with the socio-economic conditions that necessitated changes in our educational structure. In the past in Parliament we had products of a different educational culture. But things have changed.  We had the necessity to empower the periphery which resulted in certain endemic problems. We had to cope with it.  Just blaming the quality of debates in parliament would not do. There is a need to change the environment.  Changes in our Constitutions in the 70s, the 2 Republican Constitutions have changed the political culture. Our electoral system has undergone changes. It is not the MP who is solely responsible for his constituency. We do not refer to MPs as Hon. Member for Kalawana…etc., a terminology not used any more. The entire political culture has changed and along with it has come the decline in the quality of debate.  The Executive Presidency has come to stay & we have to look at ways & means of reforming the institutions.  Civil society and media have important roles and the responsibility to effect the changes needed. The Hon. Minister gave the example of the House of Commons in Britain steeped in tradition, where the gallery would be full if the Prime Minister was being questioned.  Our question time in Parliament has declined over the years.  The work of Committees has weakened over time. Committees need to be strengthened if parliament is to be strengthened.

15

What needs to be done?  The problem is in the system and the willingness of parliamentarians to take the work seriously. When the present President voluntarily attends Parliament, one can see immediately the interest in the Chamber which is well attended even by the Opposition. President engages in the Chamber as well as outside and these discussions are very effective.  The role of Speaker will have to undergo some changes in consultation with the Opposition. The Speaker has to be above politics.  The nature of the work of Ministers makes them to be less interested in Parliament.  Civil society and media need to play a role in making changes about the declining culture in our Parliamentary democracy. Finally the Minister expressed his gratitude for having invited him to the Forum & providing the opportunity to express a few ideas.

9.0 PANEL DISCUSSIONS PANEL I - Citizens’ role in enhancing public access to Parliament

Moderator – Ms. Shanthi Sachithanandan Panellists - Hon. Athuraliye Rathana Thero, MP on the national list of the UPFA Hon. Eran Wickramaratne, MP on the national list of the UNP Mr. Elmor Perera, a social activist, a senior lawyer, former Surveyor General of Sri Lanka The moderator Ms. Sachithanandan introduced the topic for the panel discussion and spoke of the responsibility of the public when people are elected and the consequences of their actions. The price one has to pay for democracy is to be vigilant at all times. There is a vast distance, a clear divide between the elected and the electors. She suggested considering 3 different areas, namely:  Is there a role for the citizen in enhancing public access to Parliament?  If there is a role, what are the barriers in enacting that role?  What are the most urgent areas for citizens’ action and what are the mechanisms for accomplishing it?

The moderator introduced the 3 panellists and invited Mr. Wickramaratne to speak on “Do citizens have a role in enhancing public access to Parliament?”. Mr. Wickramaratne stated that one cannot improve the system by speaking of best practices and not of best people. We are trying to improve the system by improving the

16

practices. He said the malady is much deeper - the executive presidency mentioned earlier in the discourse as the root of all evils & the 18th Amendment for which we have voted. Nothing will change until people take some responsibility.  Parliamentary functions include a legislative function, responsibility for Finance, holding the executive accountable & a responsibility to reflect public concerns.  This Parliament & the previous one did not have a Finance Minister. We are facing a huge economic crisis at the moment. There was no finance minister even during the budget debate except at the beginning & close of the debate.  The prevailing concept is that we are voters, not citizens. There is ‘public balloting, not public reasoning’.  Live telecast of proceedings is a good idea rather than getting the lobby correspondent to say what he thought of what was being said. Comments were made here about the quality of the media.  Access to understanding the media – Politicians need to understand the media even in the languages they are not familiar with.  Hanzards are inconvenient. People cannot understand them. It was mentioned earlier that Live telecast of proceedings may create an anarchy but this may be the cost of democracy. If we cannot resolve issues in Parliament they will get resolved in the streets. We should create access rather than fear the consequences of democracy - Right to information, question time, making these accessible to people. Parliament is being broadcast only when the President makes his speech on the budget.  How can you track best people? There is no debate in this country. The general debate is that everyone should have access to Parliament which is agreeable on principle.  How can we improve the level of parliamentary debate? We need people who have expertise at least in some of the subjects being discussed. How do you get these people into Parliament? There are lots of barriers to entry – the cost, the selection process. Therefore, we need to talk of getting the best people in.  It is said that politicians are paid well which is a myth. This system breeds dishonesty. The moderator requested Hon. Athuraliye Rathana Thero to express his views on “Are there barriers for citizens to access Parliament. If so, what are they?” The Ven. Thero expressed that the Parliament is not representative of the people. It is the Parliament that depicts the economy, the cultural & social values of people. The definition of Parliament is that it is a place where people speak as stated by Mao Tse Tung. The Thero said as per his experience, the committees were more powerful than the Parliament itself. There has been much talk about COPE & PAC. These committees have to be places anyone can participate and speak. Even though MPs are appointed to committees, any MP can participate in any committee. Yet what is spoken at these

17

committees are not of a high level. Media can participate in the Media committees but this does not happen. Participation in committees is at a low level. We should inform people to go and participate in these committees. Committee discussions are not open to the media. I think it should be open to the media like in India and get them to report these live. The education committee gets relevant people to participate in their committee. But we need to get intellectuals, educated people, and experts in specific fields to enter committees so that they can educate the MPs.  Send a written request to the Speaker & ask for access. There is no system for access to committees.  We need to speak on how we can effectivrly get people’s participation in the activities of different committees.  The daily Hanzards and discussions can be accessed in the improved Parliamentary website either on the same day or the next day. But what we hear is that this facility is not being used much.  If we use the available information technology, there is the possibility of obtaining a lot of information. Mr. Elmo Perera was then requested to speak on what are the areas that are in most urgent need for citizens’ access and what are the mechanisms needed to accomplish it.  As per the Article 3 of our Constitution, Sovereignty is in the people and it is inalienable. Article 4 says this sovereignty is exercised through the Legislature, the Executive & the Judiciary.  Presently there is very little difference between the Legislature and the Executive. The LLRC has come out with some very good suggestions but no effort has been made so far to put them into practice.  Parliamentary representatives were receptive to what we had to say & responded well and made recommendations on the 17th Amendment except those from the ruling party.  But the Constitutional Council has not been appointed after its term expired in spite of repeated requests. Various excuses have been given for this. The President was violating the Constitution by appointing members to the Constitutional Council.  The 18th Amendment came only to give an opportunity to the President to contest several times. Certain MPs said they voted for it even though they do not agree with it. It is our responsibility to see that those elected by us have the interests of people at heart. The moderator repeated what Mr. Wickramaratne said “We are voters, not citizens.” She questioned - How can we reverse this? Is it lack of awareness? Ignorance? How can citizens use the media in improving access to Parliament? A. It is important to ask the question whether parliamentarians represent the executive, or the citizens.

18

 Break the dependency of parliamentarians on the executive. As long as the parliamentarian is financially dependent on the executive, he will represent the executive and not the citizen.  Do citizens ask their MPs about non-declaration of assets? What action do we take about this? Mr. Elmo Perera stated it would work if the 3 arms of the government, the Legislature, Executive & the Judiciary worked separately. These are all merged into one today.  The 18th Amendment should never have been approved without a referendum.  There is hardly any independent legislation in the country.  This situation will not change unless the entire system where one person wields unrestricted power over all the arms of the government changes. There were a few questions & views from the floor. 1. Lack of accountability lies in the reaction to situations where people do things and get away. Sometimes officials who go before the PAC & COPE are treated very badly. The situation is such those who walk the streets today enter Parliament within a few days through devious means & they seem to know everything. Inculcate responsibility in people to make the elected understand that they are there temporarily & need to return to people some day. 2. Majority of people in this country do not know what is happening in Parliament. For example, the Order Book, the Order Paper are rarely available to the public.  Introduce a system where these documents are made available at every DS office, Post Office, Municipal, Urban Council, Pradeshiya Sabha. This might be the only way that the public are aware of what is happening in Parliament.  Make the above and the Parliament schedules available in all 3 languages. It is not everybody that can access websites. The Secretariat should take these up and make Parliament freely accessible to the public.  Newspapers write about legal cases being taken up daily for hearing. Why don’t they write about what takes place in parliament? 3. A clarification was requested about the statement on MPs’ salaries. It was explained that an MP incurs a lot of additional expenditure. Therefore, they try to find ways and means of obtaining this money and get closer to the executive. We need to break the dependency of the legislature on the executive. Q. Moderator: Should we go to smaller electoral areas as we had earlier, to reduce dependency on the executive? Should we reform the electoral system? Mr. Wickramaratne explained that what should be done is to hold people responsible for accountability. There are no laws on electoral expenditure. There could be public funding to make it equitable for all people. There is a clear issue with the present electoral system. We need to bring the costs down and hold people responsible for those costs. If people were to break the law and be corrupt, they should also be punished because one cannot give incentives to a corrupt system. 19

Hon. Athuraliye Rathana Thero : How can we get people’s participation?  One way was to get live telecast, but this will take time. We need to discuss this.  The first decision we need to take is that reports of all committees and consultative committees be made available to the media.  If we strengthen the consultative committee, a lot of changes can be effected.  The DS offices have no websites and there is no inter-relationship between the Pradeshiya Sabha and the DS. If a minister does something corrupt, the government official is held responsible. This is a very inefficient way of doing things. In our Parliament there are educated people. Get them interested. Therefore, the recommendation is:  To open our Parliament and the consultative committees for access to the public. It might effect a big change if we request the speaker for access to consultative committees.  How can we make the Parliament closer to people? People’s participation in the committee on education was very effective and there was very good participation from MPs too. It is good if we can give opportunity for people’s participation in selected debates and discussions. We should not open the committees to specially selected people only.  Privileges of MPs have led to a breakdown in the relationship between the parliament and people. MPs hiding behind these benefits, has led to people’s distancing themselves from parliament. We need to remove these barriers. MPs’ privileges are increasing the distance between elected and electors. With this comment, the discussion ended and the moderator thanked the panel members as well as those who participated in the discussion.

PANEL II - MP’s role in making Parliament more responsive to Human Rights (HR) Moderator – Mr. Mirak Raheem, Senior researcher, Centre for Policy Alternatives Panelists – Mr. Charitha Ratwatte, Public & private sector specialist Mr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director - Centre for Policy Alternatives Hon. Dr. Harsha de Silva, Member of Parliament

The moderator explained that the issue at hand was to look at the role of parliamentarians in responding to human rights. In democracies we look to Parliament as being a watch dog against the excesses of government including on issues of HR. He referred to the previous sessions on issues of the executive and mentioned other factors such as the war which have acted as constraints and severe challenges not only to the HR situation but also to the role of Parliament.

20

He then questioned Mr. Saravanamutttu on the role of Parliament in terms of ensuring and promoting Human Rights? Mr. Saravanamuttu answered that the issue of HR protection and its challenges have been acute in Sri Lanka for a number of years. The government has been accused both nationally and internationally of not doing sufficiently with regard to HR protection & of violating citizens’ HRs. The answer is in the fact that the government has a 2/3 majority.  The National HR Action Plan of Sri Lanka reached sessions in Geneva HR Council but has never been a subject of a debate here in Parliament.  HR violations continue but these issues are not taken up for discussion in Parliament.  LLRC report may be discussed in the HR Council in Geneva before it is discussed in the national legislature of this country. This shows the interest, the concern, the priority allocated to HR by our parliamentarians. Mr. Saravanamuttu gave some examples of HR violations and killings especially in demonstrations, and of abductions taking place in the country and these are not being challenged even by members of Parliament in whom there is servility & subservience.  The only way is to challenge them, confront them while they sit in the legislature & when it comes to an election voting them out. Moderator questioned: What are the constraints on parliamentarians in taking these issues forward? What impedes them from acting as watch dogs on HR? Mr. Ratwatte: Human, political, social and economic rights are cross cutting.  One way of getting MPs involved in these issues is to make it something which they will constantly address whenever their parliamentary duties require them to, when sitting in committees, in reports of committees. For example, the annual reports of the HR Commission, its effectiveness can be taken up in debate. Parliamentarians can debate about the effectiveness of institutions, how they work, how they recruit, how they deal with complaints.  There was a Ministry of HR & an advisory committee. Its votes, minutes, etc., should be debated and this would be an opportunity for MPs to take up these issues with the Ministry that is accountable.  As mentioned earlier, the National HR Action Plan was not taken up in Parliament. It cannot be justified that the supreme legislature in this country did not discuss it. This shows the present lack of interest in rights of people. When the consumer is given a series of economic shocks within two weeks, there should be a forum for discussing because it is a violation of economic rights. How can people adjust to this? Are the parliamentarians interested in safeguarding people’s rights?  What in-depth knowledge of HR do the elected people at different levels have?  HR is not considered as a vote winning issue. Do they possess the necessary infrastructure for raising HR issues? Therefore, there is a systemic default.

21

 Capacity building is necessary at various levels to take up these issues and be more responsive. There has to be an advisor to Parliament on HR. Mr. Saravanamuttu stated that as mentioned earlier, the Parliamentarians depend on the executive and raising issues on HR may not be in order. The HR Commission in Sri Lanka has been downgraded from the ‘A’ category to a ‘B’ category by the International Coordinating Commission of HR Commission on the grounds that it does not meet basic international standards in terms of a number of factors.  In 1994, HR was a much heard of slogan. If civil society and media take up the HR issue and assess it to ensure that it is maintained on the national agenda, the politicians will have to respond.  There are HR violations irrespective of and unconnected to the aftermath of the war. The media has a particular responsibility here. No questions have been raised in Parliament, about what has been revealed in the public domain about HR violations in Sri Lanka. This is partly because the media has not given sufficient importance to this issue. The mainstream media or the Parliament has not taken this up or questioned this. Get the parliamentarians to do what they are supposed to do. Mr. Ratwatte said that rights have a correlation with duties. If we don’t do our duties, we have no rights. Society has obligations and has to be held accountable. We have to remind the parliamentarians of their obligations. Dr. Harsha de Silva who joined in at this time was asked “What factors impede parliamentarians & political parties in Parliament using Parliament as a watchdog on government excesses against HR? What spaces are there for parliamentarians to raise HR issues? Dr. de Silva stated that it is not that these things are not highlighted in Parliament. There is a sentiment at restricting discussions on this issue. It is a self imposed censorship by parliamentarians. This is the same with the media. With respect to economic rights, when the bill to take over private assets was brought up, the violation of rights was highlighted in the debate. The explanation was that they were doing something good for the country and those who opposed it were considered traitors. People would not want to be called traitors because you lose your credibility even with respect to other things you may want to say.  The discussion in parliament on HR is low and inadequate. There is no consultative committee on HR.

Q. Can people petition the Public Petitions Committee to get parliamentarians to respond to economic HR issues? A. There is every possibility but it has to be done through a MP & after approval by the Speaker, the Petitions Committee can take it up.

22

Dr. Harsha de Silva said there was a request to take up the current issue of price hikes but there was no response. Mr. Ratwatte expressed that the Petitions Committee agenda is not revealed & it is not possible to put up issues. Mr. Nihal Seneviratne clarified one could ask for a debate in the business committee and if there is no response, ask the government what their stand is on the issue. Q. There are several advisors for various ministries. Do we have an advisor for HR & do we have the HR Ministry now? A. There is no HR ministry but the Minister of Plantations is charged with the responsibility of dealing with HR. There is also no HR committee in parliament. The moderator questioned “How do we proceed from here? The blame is on citizens for voting for these MPs. Civil society is irresponsible and not active enough. MPs are not interested. Where do we go from here? How do we broaden the space for HR both in parliament and outside? Views put forward by the panel members:  As long as the government is reluctant, these things have to be taken up internationally even if they are going to be politically labelled. Things are becoming economic issues and going beyond HR issues, e.g., land ownership.  Civil society has to be made aware of their duties and responsibilities and be made accountable. It takes time.  The Opposition also has a duty to make an issue.  Government speaks highly of sovereignty. Sovereignty entails responsibility on the government to protect its citizens. This country is being held up to international scrutiny precisely because we have been unable to ensure HR protection. The discussion ended with these remarks and the moderator thanked the panel members and those who contributed to the discussion.

PANEL III - The role of Civil Society & Media in promoting transparency of Parliament Moderator – Mr. Sanjana Hattotuwa, Panellists Mr. Sunil Jayasekera, Media freedom activist Hon. Rosy Senanayake, Member of Parliament for UNP Hon. Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena, Member of Parliament for UNP Mr. Victor Ivan, Editor Ravaya Newspaper The moderator expressed concern that all of the above discussion shows that the Parliament today is irresponsible. Media is not bringing things out sufficiently. Access to Parliament, output from parliament – are issues as per the report from TISL.

23

With respect to Open Parliament, the world seems to be shaped and shifted by a younger demography impatient with fora such as this and demand a direct accountability through means that they now have in their hands.  Has there been an analysis of the qualitative increase in the Executive accountability that the 18th Amendment was expected to bring about?  Media is not interested enough in holding the Executive or the Parliament accountable for an Amendment that was supposed to bring better transparency.  What is the culture that exists in mainstream media today and within that context how can we hold parliament accountable? Mr. Victor Ivan: Everywhere we see issues, even in the judiciary. We need to reflect and desire for what we need. No institution has shown this desire. Media has not shown interest in getting into consultative committees. Even if it is open, they may not go.  Freedom of access to information – Who is making use of it? For example, who is disclosing assets? We are not doing it. Not even the legislature is doing it.  Are there any groups of MPs who will get together and say “We enacted this law. We should not break this law?” Media, media owners, union leaders, all fall into this category.  There is no proper definition of accountability. At times the parliament becomes the judiciary and the judiciary becomes the parliament.  Financial responsibility is on the parliament. Law makers should be more conscious of it. Our whole country as a society has lost its respect. No single government department has earned the respect of society.  Our issue is how to come out of this issue.

Moderator : What can be done to help citizens to access information, to increase accountability? Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena answered that parliamentarians and politicians are learning they cannot exist without the media. It has become essential for the existence of a parliamentarian. There are instances where media has been irresponsible and violated their rights and misled the general public.  Right to information is an Act of the Indian government but that facility is not given to the Sri Lankan public. This Act when presented in Parliament was rejected by the present ruling government.  Live telecast of debates was requested but there is a delay in considering this.  Print & electronic media have very little space and time for highlighting parliamentary debates. Dr. Jayawardena stated that it was up to them to take up these issues and they were doing it. But the government had an artificial 2/3 majority and has the supreme power

24

to get any amendment passed. MPs can cross over for personal gain and the Opposition is becoming weaker and weaker. The moderator said that Sri Lanka and Pakistan did not have a Freedom of Information Act and one of the recommendations unequivocally clear in the LLRC report is that (a) that media freedom is integral, inextricably entwined with reconciliation in this country and has to be guaranteed & (b) that the right to information needs to be brought about. He asked Mr. Jayasekara in a scenario where there is no freedom of speech, how far can transparency in Parliament be spoken about? In a situation where there is much pressure as individuals and as institutions, how far can the media and an ordinary citizen question about what is being spoken? Mr. Jayasekara highlighted the difficulties and barriers faced by the media in obtaining information and that the right to information affects them too with respect to transparency. The Parliament is unwilling to live up to what they agreed with people.  The media can only report the debates in parliament. Even if they attend committees, they cannot intervene in what is discussed at various committees.  The law on Declaration of Assets is being broken by those who enacted the law. There is no access to these declarations either, even though the law permits it.  The media or citizens cannot discuss the Auditor General’s report because these are released after a long time. This is because those who are in power think they have the power to break laws. The situation is such the media is not free to do what they think is fit.  It is necessary to build an environment where the existing laws are implemented and where media can work freely. Moderator: It is not only the media but there is a world of voices blossoming in this country. There are different opinions on this and some of these may be dangerous but it is also necessary for expressing opinions openly. In the light of developments in the country and the issues raised at this forum, does the issue of intra-party democracy play a role and is the parliamentarians’ use of private media dictated by the private media’s own acceptance of some parliamentarians over others? How can citizens ask questions about issues that the mainstream media will not ask about? Mrs. Rosy Senanayake responded that if a channel has a public debate on a certain topic, the party decides whom to send. If a channel has a choice to pick who they wish to, why don’t they do it? There is the question of whether we really have media freedom in this country. India has daily debates on current issues in every channel while also covering parliamentary debates. She posed the question “As civil society, do we take our responsibility seriously?” She compared the budgetary allocations for defence and higher education. In the face of these issues, civil society has a role to play to hold both the government and the opposition accountable. The best example that can be given is, when the private pension scheme was proposed, public opposition made the government withdraw it and a youth lost his life. Therefore,

25

 We need to get together and take the responsibility for what is happening. It has to be motivated by the media and support the citizens.  There is need to increase women representation at local, provincial and national levels. When this was raised, the immediate response was “It’s not women. We need to talk about the minorities”. This shows that there isn’t a momentum brought in by the public asking the government or the opposition or the parliament to be accountable. Civil society has to take a stand and bring out a dialogue at a broader level.

A question was raised about the use of new media – To what extent can such new technology be used for political awareness? Mr. Victor Ivan responded saying that the possibility was great, but he saw a danger. Everyone needs to comply with the law. New technology has to be used for the good of society keeping in mind the right to intellectual property. Some media are corrupt and are happy if there are no laws. Therefore, freedom has to be used responsibly. The moderator commented that our country lacked media literacy and engaging with media as responsible citizens. There are people interested in media development. But we also need to take up media literacy and it is happening here. We cannot stop the flow of information. With these remarks the panel discussions ended and the moderator thanked all for their participation.

10.0 Vote of Thanks The proceedings of the Forum ended with a vote of thanks by way of an audio-visual presentation and the participants were invited for lunch.

****************

26