What Happened to the Code of

Ethics for Parliamentarians?

It is true that a Code of Ethics alone cannot correct MPs or Ministers

misbehaviour. The Minsters obviously should have higher benchmarks.
There should be a proper implementation mechanism and other measures
and improvements. In almost all countries where there are codes of ethics
or codes of conduct there are inside and/or outside monitoring and
implementation mechanisms

by Laksiri Fernando
( January 19, 2016, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) The introduction of Code of Ethics
for Parliamentarians was an election promise given by the President at the
presidential elections in January 2015. This is not yet fulfilled. It is obvious that the
same ethics should apply also to the President. That is a lesson. Even if we understand
the circumstances under which that promise could not be fulfilled, it should not be

delayed any longer.

If a proper Code of Ethics was in place as promised, it would have been even possible
to prevent what the young Hirunika Premachandra MP indulged in by abducting a
person in broad day light through her security personnel. It is claimed that she was
doing so in order to settle a marriage dispute, but obviously at her whim and without
any legal authority.
The Failure
I have no intention of absolving her in any manner or minimizing what she did by
breaking the law, and breaking the rule of law. But this is just an example of how a
Code of Ethics could constrain, or attempt to constrain, the Members of Parliament in
their misdemeanours before they become criminals. Similar ethics or more of
discipline should prevail over MPs or politicians entourages or close cohorts. I dont
wish to use the term bootleggers.
Another example is again the young MP Chathura Senaratnes violent behaviour at a
police station threatening some persons even when they were under police custody. If
his father cannot constrain him, then at least there should be a Code of Ethics to put
him in good behaviour.
It is true that a Code of Ethics alone cannot correct MPs or Ministers misbehaviour.
The Minsters obviously should have higher benchmarks. There should be a proper
implementation mechanism and other measures and improvements. In almost all
countries where there are codes of ethics or codes of conduct there are inside and/or
outside monitoring and implementation mechanisms. In many countries, the required
standards are codified as Code of Conduct as the most of deviations are related to
conflict of interest and misuse of privileges or entitlements. However, in the case of
Sri Lanka, it is best that the standards are called Code of Ethics as the most of the

misdemeanours are related to more serous ethical offenses such as corruption, crime,
alleged drug dealings, violence and nepotism. As I write this, the newest issue appears
to be sexual harassment of women Members of Parliament by their senior most
colleagues in various ways.
There are many criticisms almost daily made by the Joint Opposition against the
Government. But they are almost silent on the issue of the Code of Ethics. If the Joint
Opposition is genuine in criticising the President or the Government for not fulfilling
their promises, this is something that they should urgently ask or demand for and even
they could contribute to its fulfilment! I am particularly directing this request to their
main spokesperson, Dinesh Gunawardena MP, because amongst that lot, perhaps he
has some credibility when it comes to at least some ethics, I believe.
The JVP is also at fault for the failure to bring a Code of Ethics. It was a promise
during the 100 days program and the JVP or its leader, Anura Kumara Dissanayake
was tasked with submitting a draft on the subject to the National Executive
Committee. But this draft never saw the light of the day. If they had drafted one, they
should have published it. The JVP is also quite silent about the subject now. For what
reason, it is not k3.
The following is what the Standing Order 77 (1) says:
Any member who has used objectionable words in debate which are improper or
unparliamentary or has stated in debate anything in contravention of Standing Order
No. 78 or Standing Order No. 84 (vi) or (viii) and has not explained or
retraced [sic] the same, or offered apologies for the use thereof to the satisfaction of
Parliament, or who has committed any breach of order not specified in these Orders
may be proceeded against in any way Parliament thinks fit, and nothing in these
Orders shall prevent Parliament from proceeding against any member for breaches of
order specified in these Orders in any other manner than the manner specified in these

Orders.
In a Parliament such as ours where common or total standards have deteriorated and
there is a confusion about what are objectionable words or what is improper or
unparliamentary, such a Standing Order like 77 (1) is not fully operational. The
Speakers have been so lenient throughout years to their misbehaving parliamentarians
or colleagues. Parliament as a whole does not take any action because almost all are
the same. In April last year a group of parliamentarians spent the night in the well of
the Parliament in protest, allegedly drinking and singing, but no action could be taken.
In August 2000, the behaviour of some parliamentarians were quite unparliamentary
when a draft bill for a new constitution was tabled, but no action was possible. It is in
this context that the same drama could be re-enacted again by a different group of
parliamentarians when the proposed New Constitution is proposed or even before.
Some of the key politicians seems to be considering politics as a game apart from a
venture for money making. They may be a minority but they rule the roost most of the
time, whether in the government or in the opposition.
Questionable Political Culture
This is not an ailment among the parliamentarians alone, but among the politicians
inside and outside in general. One example is what transpired at Sirasa
Satana program on 9 January (Saturday). From the beginning, the submissions by
the leader of the Democratic Party, Sarath Fonseka, appeared personal whatever the
truth behind his allegations against the Minister of Justice. Then the Minister,
Wijedasa Rajapaksa, intervened by telephone and insulted Fonseka by calling him a
mentally-retarded person in addition to accusing him for past corrupt practices. This
was not the first time the Minister had uttered such disparaging name-calling against
the Field Marshall.

The general public or the citizens faces a considerable difficulty in understanding who
the crooks are, because of the way the accusations are levelled against each other in
disparaging manner. The seriousness of the accusations also diminishes as a result,
and even formal investigations could become hampered because of the situation.
There was a similar spat recently between the Minister of Ports and Shipping, Arjuna
Ranatunga and the Deputy Speaker, Thilanga Sumathipala, also the Minister of Sports,
Dayasiri Jayasekara, willingly getting embroiled. All these conflicts seem to be largely
personal, exacerbated by the language they use, and the emotional way the debates or
arguments are conducted. In a developed democracy, these type of confrontations
hardly could be seen. There is a big question about the political culture that they
uphold because of the nature of confrontations that they get involved. I am here not
talking about Wimal Weerawansa or Udaya Gammanpila not to waste time.
This is in a way not dissimilar to the way the public debates are often conducted even
in the social media or within the civil society to a large extent. This makes it extremely
difficult to figure what is to be done or where to begin.
A Possible Breakthrough
However, there should be some breakthrough. The vicious cycle should be broken
somewhere. One entry point could be a Code of Ethics. An authority on the subject,
David Beetham, has stated in Parliament and Democracy in the Twenty-first Century:
A Guide to Good Practice, published in 2006:
Where the mechanism of recall is an example of vertical accountability, a much more
usual method for addressing potential misconduct on the part of parliamentarians is
through a code of conduct which is enforced horizontally, by a specific commission
acting on behalf of the public. (p. 9nown.
The Purpose

The purpose of any Code of Ethics is to outline ethical standards expected of anybody
in official capacity. There are various professions and institutions that have come up
with such ethical standards. Even in the business sector, these standards are common
now.
It was traditionally believed that Parliaments as the highest institutions of peoples
trust would maintain high ethical standards. Thus it was further assumed or taken for
granted that parliamentarians would serve the public interest rather than personal,
private or family ones. This was an old notion which has eroded almost all over the
world. If there were written standards in the past, those were related to the order and
conduct in debates or voting in Parliament. These are usually written down in
Standing Orders of Parliaments.
There is so much of discussion on Standing Orders in Sri Lanka these days by some
MPs or former Ministers even confusing Articles in the Constitution and Standing
Orders in Parliament. Even on the questions of speech and behaviour or order and
decorum in Parliament, our Standing Orders 72 to 77 are quite woolly. Although the
emphasis is given to the authority of the Speaker rather than on principles on most of
these matters, there are some Standing Orders i.e. 77 (1) which leaves the matters
almost in limbo. The Standing Orders in Parliament are not revised or revisited to my
knowledge since 1998).
I am not proposing the method of recall as it could be complicated and expensive to a
country like Sri Lanka. However, a Code of Ethics is sine qua non with a proper
monitoring and implementing mechanism. Beethams A Guide to Good Practice is an
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) publication and interested parliamentarians and
others can easily access the book completely free of charge, if they google under books.
There are several countries and several operational Codes of Conduct from which Sri

Lanka could draw lessons or inspiration. Canada is one, and Australia is another.
There are norms and standards developed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union as well as
the Commonwealth Association. However, the gravity of the matter in Sri Lanka is
much higher and extensive, spread out also to the Provincial Councils and Local
Government institutions. I have already proposed an overall Code of Ethics as a
Schedule in the New Constitution. This should be pursued and some of the elements
could be as follows. This is only a short draft as an example.
The Members of Parliament and Ministers,
Should faithfully uphold the Constitution, laws and regulations.
Should give utmost priority to public interest and refrain from all forms of nepotism,
corruption and misdeeds.
Should declare all assets and liabilities of oneself and family every year and refrain
from engaging in any financial dealings directly or indirectly against the laws and
regulations.
Should be accountable to their constituents and have a duty to educate citizens on
democracy, their rights and how they could participate in policy making processes.
Should treat all constituents equally without any distinction as to ethnicity, religion,
language, social status or class, gender, age, disability, political party or opinion or any
other distinction. Nevertheless, special consideration should be accorded to the poor
and the marginalized as affirmative action.
Should respect all human rights of all citizens.
Male members should particularly respect women Members of Parliament equally and
respectfully.
Should refrain from and denounce all forms of violence, threats and intimidation in
Parliament, outside, in the constituency and in politics in general. Should discipline
their staff, security and close supporters and be responsible for their actions
accordingly.
Refrain and denounce communalism, hate speech, instigation of any form of ethnic,
religious or any other conflict directly or indirectly.
Should attend Parliament regularly in full sessions and participate constructively in its

deliberations.
Posted by Thavam