By M.A. Sumanthiran –
M.A. Sumanthiran MP
Mr. Deputy Speaker, are you able to control the proceedings?
Thank you sir. Before I commence my speech I need to deal with two preliminaries, both relating to certain customs. The first one is that I must make a disclosure to this House of my involvement in my professional capacity in many matters relating to the matter under discussion and that is the proper thing to do. Even in this purported Report the first witness has referred to my name as seen in the proceedings of myself having appeared in the Ceylinco Shriram case. I have appeared for Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, the Hon. Minister, as his counsel in the case in which Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation was privatized and the privatization was reversed consequent to which the Hon. Chief Justice’s husband was appointed as Chairman of that institution. That’s the first disclosure. Secondly, also a matter of custom, I have come to know that in yesteryears when lawyers came to this House as Members of this House they changed their attire. They did not come with a black tie and a black coat. Hon. Dr. Colvin R. De Silva was the prime example of that. He always came into the chamber in a grey or beige or white suit. I have so far striven to uphold that tradition and today I am breaking with that tradition deliberately and I address you in a black coat and black tie because this is a black day.
[Interruption]…if the House continues like this that only demonstrates…now somebody whose office has been raided and arms discovered is trying to interrupt me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was quietly listening to Hon. Minister of External Affairs
[interruption]…not the Deputy Minister for External Affairs, I won’t refer to you…
I’m referring to the Hon. Minister for External Affairs who referred to the Supreme Court ruling. He sought to expound it and surmised it for a long time and he was permitted to do so by the Chair. Yourself was present in the House. Therefore all that he has said and got put on record cannot be allowed to stand. Even though I am much junior to him in the field of law yet I have practised as an Attorney-at-law for twenty one years which he has not been able to do even for a single day. Today I seek to draw from that professional experience in order to lay before this House the true position.
[interruption]…Now the Member who is shouting is giving a demonstration of what he did at the Select Committee – how he abused the Chief Justice. This is what he did there. That also. Your Honourable External Affairs Minister is the one who claimed credit for that appointment. I am not saying it, the Honourable Minister of Fisheries said so in the Parliamentary Select Committee proceedings that it was Prof. Pieris who got her appointed and therefore you objected to him as well. It is there in these proceedings. [interruption]…Mr. Deputy Speaker, I’m asking you most humbly, and I’ll ask you just for one time now to please maintain the decorum of this House. I will not ask you again.
In this Constitution…
[Hon. Deputy Speaker intercepts] Is the Hon. Deputy Speaker saying I am not presenting my speech? I am presenting my speech, but there is disturbance and you as the Chair have the responsibility to maintain discipline in this House. You as the Chair have the responsibility to maintain discipline…that is why I said I will say it once and I will say it no more.
The Hon. Prof. G.L. Pieris looked at the judgment, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court. The Hon. Leader of the House also as he opened the debate referred to that. He attacked the interpretation of the Supreme Court based on one word in Article 107(3). The word ‘or’. Both of them spoke at length about Court having entered the arena of legislation making, because according to both of them, Court has somehow misread; Court has not looked at the word ‘or’. The Court has not done any such thing. If one cares to look at the determination of the Supreme Court…
[interruption]…this is what I’m saying, sit and listen. You also haven’t practiced in any Court…the Supreme Court has very carefully dealt with that issue. [interruption]…No, the Supreme Court did not take one and a half hours, it took much more time. If you don’t know, don’t show your ignorance. It took several days.
Now, the Supreme Court says, the reason why the word ‘or’ is there and not ‘and’ is that with regard to procedural matters in the Select Committee, Parliament has a choice. Parliament can either do it by Standing Orders or it can incorporate it in the Act of Parliament that it can enact. I see Hon. Susil Premajayantha, a man who knows the law, agreeing with me. Thank you. Now, you have to use the word ‘or’. You can’t say ‘and’. You can’t say ‘provide it in the Act and provide it in the Standing Order’. No, you can’t do that. But there are certain matters with regard to standard of proof, burden of proof, mode of proof, that cannot be provided for by Standing Order. There is reason for that. Article 4(c) says that.
[interruption]…Hon. Minister, you did well when you retained me as your Counsel. Now you’re faltering. In many matters you retained me as your Counsel. I must remind you of an incident you will remember. On one occasion when I stood up for you in the Supreme Court, then Chief Justice Sarath Silva asked me, and you know that…’You’re appearing for this Petitioner too many times’. I said ‘So long as he has confidence in me as Counsel, he will continue to retain me.’ And I appeared and I obtained judgment for you.
Article 4(c) says ‘the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law.’ Created and established by law. Only by law. Not written law. Article 170 gives a definition of what a law is and what a written law is. A Standing Order is not law. Any person who can read and understand has to concede to that. Now, that is the reason why in the interpretation of the Supreme Court they have very carefully dealt with that word ‘or’ and I don’t know whether it’s ignorance or convenience, Hon. Ministers, including learned Professor of law are seeking to mislead the country by saying Supreme Court has not read the word ‘or’.
Now, as I said the Chair permitted the Hon. Professor to make his surmise on this judgment. Before I get to that, the Constitution, which is the Supreme law, and all of us agree with that, there is no dissent on that. It says so, that it shall be the Supreme Law. It gives to the three different organs of government, three separate areas of competence. If anyone is violating the Constitution, it is those who transgress into the area that has been given to the other institution. Accusations are being made that the judiciary has gone into the province of legislation making. I have just explained that the judiciary has done no such thing. They have only interpreted the law. The Hon. Professor will know, he cited English authorities, there are several judgments, not only from here but even in India, in England, in every civilized jurisdiction, where the Courts, in interpreting, sometimes supply a word, supply a comma, or a dot or a full stop, and that is common. But in this case, our Supreme Court hasn’t done even that. They have very clearly explained why that word ‘or’ is there and they have gone on to say that it’s a presumption that Parliament will not use words without a reason. And the reason why Parliament used the word ‘law; the reason why Parliament used the word ‘or’; the reason why Parliament used the phrase ‘Standing Orders’ is very clearly laid down in the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Even if the Supreme Court is wrong, even if the interpretation of the Supreme Court is wrong, that is the interpretation that must stand and so our Speaker said that on the 9th of October. Your Speaker in a ruling given on the 9th of October 2012 very clearly said it is the interpretation of the Supreme Court that must stand. On that occasion also he did not agree, and he asked the Supreme Court to revisit that interpretation and that is the correct course of action.
[interruption]…even if you don’t agree, there is no warrant for the Parliament not to agree. Article 125 of the Constitution…one of the three organs of government, you say is a democratic institution, you go and say that this a democratic country, you go and say that there is an independent judiciary, and today, Hon. Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara in this House is saying that ‘ we have told the judiciary to go to hell’. We won’t allow you to do that. We won’t allow you to do that. That is a sure way of sending this country down the slope and that is what you are doing. We will not allow you to do that. This country is a country that has democratic institutions. There must be Rule of Law. If there is to be Rule of Law there must be an independent judiciary. We can’t allow you to send the judiciary to hell. Who are you? I am a citizen of this country. I am entitled to say that this country must have every democratic institution. Who are you to say ‘Send the judiciary to hell?’ You are the conspirator against the country’s interests. If you say ‘Send the judiciary to hell’ you are the one conspiring against this country; against this government. That must be what you must be trying to do. Because you announce to the country that you will vote against this. Two days ago you got scared that your Ministry will be taken away from you and therefore you have changed your stance. This is exactly what you did for the Eighteenth amendment also. You said you don’t agree with it in principle, but you will nevertheless vote. Some principled man this is. I feel ashamed that I have ever appeared for you. I’ll tell you one more thing. You were one of my boyhood heroes. You were one of my boyhood heroes of this country. You can ask my family. Each time you came to my chambers, I was proud. I told my children, ‘This is a man I respect. I count it an honour to appear for this man.’ I told my children that. Today I have to take those words back. Because of your shameful conduct. Because of your shameful conduct. All for just a ministry post. For just a ministry post you have turned the tables on all the hallowed principles which you were saying you abided by for all these years. Why did you do this in the last few years of your life? Why did you do this in the last few years of your life?
Article 125 is very clear. Parliament itself when enacting this Constitution was conscious that there might be people like this here. It could have said it’s the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or it could have said it’s the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. No, they said it’s the sole AND exclusive jurisdiction, just in case like some people here, they miss that word, they said it twice over. But, there are people here who miss both words. They miss both words. What more can it mean when the Constitution says ‘it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction’? Does this Parliament have jurisdiction?
There you are. The one man who answered. I will deal with you in a moment. You sit down. This is not like taking a tooth out of somebody’s mouth. This is law. There are legal principles involved in this. This involves law.
Now, if the Constitution says that it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, what more can there be? And if after Supreme Court has done just that…I’m thankful to Hon. Professor, he tabled it in this House. Thank you so much. There are instructions given at the gate not to let those judgments come in, but you have tabled it. I must thank you most profusely for your act today. That judgment has been tabled and it is on record. You also must be a conspirator then. Against the government; against what the Speaker has ordered; against what the Deputy Speaker has been saying to the media. Nevertheless, that has now been tabled. Parliament must take notice of it. Is this Parliament to say, ‘We can read the Constitution. Article 125 says it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, but we don’t agree with that. Because we don’t agree with that, we don’t accept that.’
[interruption]…not what we want, but the way the Supreme Court interpreted it…the Speaker said in his ruling, ‘It is the interpretation of the Supreme Court that must stand’…
This is the reason why we are participating in this debate without prejudice to our stand that there is no report before this House. There is no report.
[interruption]…I charged fees and I was paid by Janaka Ratnayake for appearing in that case. For every case that I appear I am entitled to charge as a professional and receive it. If you don’t know that, I don’t blame you if you don’t know that. But there are other lawyers there ask them and learn from them. I am entitled to my fees for the work that I do. Only for Hon. Minister there I did not charge any fees because that was in the public interest.
Since I have a short time to conclude, I want to read from this purported report. The Rule of Natural Justice that all institutions must apply when they have a hearing….
[interruption]…ah the new President’s Counsel. What do you want to know? He’s a true President’s Counsel….that’s not a point of Order. Sit down…
I want to read, sir, before I conclude from this Report. From the Report that was submitted, volume II, page 1482: Mr. Romesh De Silva is addressing the Chairman:
– ‘Mr. Chairman, there must be some decorum in this. I do not like to be shouted at by members of the Select Committee. We have come here to do a job of work. We are making submissions and we must be treated with some kind of decorum. Otherwise, this does not become any kind of process that we can possibly accept. We cannot accept this process. If we have to be shouted at; if we are not being allowed to make submissions. When I’m making submissions to you Mr. Chairman, I’m being interrupted’
Then Mr. Sampanthan, who was a member of the Select Committee has this to say and I want to read it to this House:
– ‘Mr. Chairman if I might intervene. I think that you, as the Chairman of this Select Committee has to safeguard the dignity and decorum of Parliament. Because we are functioning as a Select Committee on behalf of Parliament. The Hon. Chief Justice of the country is before us and we are conducting an investigation in regard to certain matters. These are Counsel appearing on her behalf. I think we should conduct ourselves with a sense of decorum and dignity so as to ensure that the prestige of Parliament is preserved. It will be unfortunate if we cannot do that. Let us not forget that the whole world is watching what is going on here, not only the people in this country. The whole world is watching what is going on here and if this is the way that we are going to conduct our proceedings it will be a very very bad reflection on the institution of Parliament and on these proceedings itself.
Now, when Mr. Romesh De Silva and Mr. Sampanthan said this, none of the other members said ‘What are you talking about? Who pointed fingers? Who is shouting? We didn’t do that. Why are you saying this?’ Nothing of that sort. Nothing of that sort. They’ve agreed that there was shouting. They’ve agreed that there was abuse of the Chief Justice in that chamber there. It is not audi alterem partem to invite a person and to abuse that person. There was abuse in that Select Committee proceedings and your own proceedings bear that out. How can you say, having abused the Chief Justice of this country and chased her out, how can you say that you adhered to principles of natural justice, of audi alterem partem. Your own proceedings betray you. Aren’t you ashamed? The Chairman is here. Aren’t you ashamed? You were addressed and you were asked that question. Several times you are telling them ‘You address me. You address me.’ What does that mean? ‘Don’t listen to the comments of these others, you address me’. You have conceded in print here that there was abuse going on in that place and you come here and you present this report with these proceedings. You did not utter one word. You did not challenge. When they complained you did not say ‘No such thing is happening here’. It is not recorded. That is clear proof as to what you did to a lady; to a Chief Justice of this country; what more will you not do? If that is the kind of justice that you mete out to even the Chief Justice of this country, what chance do others have? What chance do we have? You have been complaining that we are not coming to another Parliamentary Select Committee. If the Chief Justice cannot get justice in this Parliamentary Select Committee with what faith do you invite us to come to the other Parliamentary Select Committee? If this is the justice that you can do to your own appointee; to the Chief Justice of this country, what will you not do to us? Why do you invite us to the Parliamentary Select Committee? If you abuse and chase even the Chief Justice, how do you treat us? The Hon. Minister wanted to talk about the Tamils. After illegally taking 109 young Tamil women, saying they are being recruited to the army without any process, abusing them in those camps and keeping them, this is no surprise.
[interruption]…if anything is to be deleted from the Hansard on the basis that it is untrue, first you must delete this entire report because this entire report is a false report. This report is a ‘no report’ because the Court of Appeal has quashed it.
I want to add that. In proceedings no. CA 411/2013 the Court of Appeal has quashed this already. It was the undertaking of the Sri Lankan Government to the UN Human Rights Council in 2003…in the UN Human Rights Council sessions in 2003 at the UPR Sri Lanka gave an undertaking. After having given an undertaking to the UN Human Rights Council that judicial review is available after the impeachment process of a judge under Article 107(3), this House, I say with utmost necessity, adhered to that because otherwise, again, like you have already put the country at peril, you are putting this country at peril once more because all the undertakings you are giving to the UN Human Rights Council you are willing to wily-nily move away from. That will put this country at peril, and it is our responsible reminder to you, don’t put our country at peril; don’t violate the Constitution; don’t put the country at peril. If you do that, it will be regarded as a failed state. You are the ones who are doing that, not anybody else. If you give undertakings and you violate them; if you do not listen to the Supreme Court Order; if you violate the Constitution; you are making this country a failed state.
Thank you very much.
*SUMANTHIRAN’S PARLIAMENT SPEECH ON 10TH JANUARY 2013
Fagin / January 11, 2013
Excellent speech
/
Kapila / January 11, 2013
Ranil Wickramasinghe the clownish opposition despot and liar who spread the myth that the parliament is supreme and supported Rajapassa on the impeachment, who fancies himself and expert on parliamentary procedure cannot hold a candle to Mr. Sumanthiran!
/
bonaparte / January 11, 2013
Ranil the turncoat got his new merc from President, and after that he has become a yes man to President and ready to write off any of his misdeeds. Of course Ranil is the one who presided over the death of thousands of JVP youth, so he is a man with no conscience. A low life-sub human!
/
Iqbal / January 11, 2013
It is better to deal with the present crisis that was politically instigated by the ruling MPs and their leader Mahinda Rajapakse as the president. Character assassination of Ranil Wickremasinghe who master minded the demise of LTTE by bribing Karuna must be credited before praising the president. The problem of the president is that he cannot stand any dissent and the chief Justice has attempted just that. The CJ must survive to see that it is the compromise among the organs of the government and not the diktat of an individual or his family ensures democracy.
The impeachment process is flawed. The law must be respected.
/
Shawn / January 11, 2013
Mr. Sumanthiran,
This illegal impeachment debate is a clear cut case for a boycott. DNA(JVP) & CP just did that. That would have been more effective. Eloquent speech and showing your constitutional knowledge in parliament is not the need of the our. MARA group is going to use UNP & TNA participation in the illegal debate to their advantage. They always follow democratic principals in a wrong way. Did MARA group threaten you (TNA) and UNP to take away all the perks that you enjoy as MPs if you boycott the impeachment debate?
/
Patta Pal / January 13, 2013
Grow up, there are two ways to disagree, not participate or participate and oppose and say why. Sumanthiran chose the latter as did the UNP. It is clear that 50 years from in Hansard we will read the reasons why the whole impeachment debate was a joke and a travesty of justice. If there were NO opposition speakers no one will know or remember why!!
Think about it for a moment. Just don’t think of yourself one has to think of the Country and the future of this country.
/
JULAAMPITYE AMARAYA / January 12, 2013
I GIVE MY GRATE RESPECT FOR THIS LEARNED, STRAIGHT FORWARD
HONORABLE MP MR Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran.
WHO IS THROWING ALL THOSE JEALOUS IDIOTS AND THUGS IN TO DIAYAVANNAOYA.
MAY TRIPLE GEM HELP YOU TO FIGHT FOR THIS CONSPIRATORS RULING GOVERNMENT.
/
AMT / January 13, 2013
You have practised as an Attorney-at-law for twenty one years – a Royal Salute to you, Sir
/
AMT / January 13, 2013
Attorney-at-law for twenty one years – a Royal Salute to you, Sir
/
Lover of Justice / January 11, 2013
After Colvin and NM, the first time I have read an erudite speech delivered in Parliament. Those who have interrupted him, including Vasudeva as it surmises, would have done so through pure jealousy.
This is the bane of Sri Lanka, Refusing to learn from others.
/
Ronny / January 11, 2013
You are a true Lover of Justice. Yes, we need highly educated and knowledgeable MPs of this calibre in the Parliament and definitely not thugs, criminals, rapists, extortionists, looters, drug dealers, etc who form almost all the ruling GOSL MPs. From the President to the lowest i.e. Mervyn Silva almost all belong to any one or more categories.
/
Raja / January 11, 2013
you selected dthugs and they were your Heros when they mudered 100,000 inncient Tamils
/
Pa / January 11, 2013
Mr sumaththaran you are a true srilankan and Iam proud.
/
anaperera / January 11, 2013
Thank you very much CT for making this available. This is an outstanding speech, touching on the very crucial aspect of SC determination.
I’m not sure ( as mentioned in the text of the speech itself) if some parts will be expunged to erase the evidence in the Hansard for future international inquiry, how the SC determination was violated and it was recorded in this speech.
It would be useful to compare this speech with that of the leader of opposition.
Anyway, at least this gives hope that there are people who understand the ordinary people’s aspirations and have the ability to withstand tyranny, as we enter a new phase of lawlessness continuing over the years. Question is : is there enough people like this man left in our society who can/will join the ordinary people when they stand up to this tyranny of both the regime and the opposition and to reform our institutions and processes?
/
concerned / January 11, 2013
‘This is not like taking a tooth out of
somebody’s mouth. This is law!’
but on a more serious note, an excellent speech and it is definitely the kind of speech you would want to hear being uttered in parliament !!!
/
JULAAMPITYE AMARAYA / January 14, 2013
IS THAT JUNGLE LAW YOU ARE REFERRING?????????????????????.
/
ja / January 11, 2013
Suma, we are proud of your excellent speech. Hope those inside that building have the guts to be open to your speech and
/
avihinsava / January 11, 2013
Suma, we are proud of your excellent speech. Hope those inside that building by the diyawanna oya have got some sense and would do the right thing without any bias. If they fail to do that the people will throw them out from their positions. May our country be saved from being a failed state.
/
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran / January 11, 2013
Excellent speech. It was wasted on a bunch of unprincipled morons. We have to however be thankful that there yet such men in our parliament. This Sumanthiran at his very best. He was not talking as a Tamil, but as a Sri Lankan ppatriot. What he will tell his children, has to be told to all our children and grand children- that we have a parliament overwhelmingly dominated by the rabble- both those claim to be educated and those we know are uneducated and this has to change.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
/
Kiri Gamarala / January 11, 2013
All lawyers in the PSC representing the government side should have tendered their resignations soon after Suma’s speech.
/
U,N,Fair / January 11, 2013
It is a black day…. it is a sad day. This day will go in the annals of history as The day on which the greatest betrayal was done. Where is the truth? Truth has been trampled by the parliament under standing orders from above. The day would dawn soon or later where twenty million people in this country, when they realise that justice and fair play had been taken away from the society, will be shouting ” give us a fair trial”
When that day comes it is up to us to give a fair trial not only to the chief justice but to all.
Hon Sumanthiran thank you your effort and courage. You are not alone in the struggle.
/
K.A Sumanasekera / January 11, 2013
Mr Sumanathiran has done a pretty good job as CJs defence counsel to restate what the Appeal Judges said.
Wonder how much did Cj pay for hs services?.
Or did any of the new friends of the CJ picked the tab?
Or is it pro bono like what he said he has done for his ex idol?.
/
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran / January 11, 2013
K.A. Samanasekera,
Cynicism at times such as at present is not right. What is unfolding is quite serious, which ever side you are on.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
/
Wuliangguobinjiu / January 12, 2013
Dr:”which ever side you are on”
He is a former government servant used to backhanders so you cannot expect value judgements from the imbecile prick KASekera.
He gets a cheap thrill from the number of rebukes he gets.
/
Native Vedda / January 12, 2013
Wuliangguobinjiu:
“He gets a cheap thrill from the number of rebukes he gets”.
You mean he is a masochists.
PS
Masochism:
The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.
/
Coconut Donkey / January 11, 2013
How are any of your questions relevant to the truth and substance of what’s stated and what’s happening? How are you able to wear your pants in the morning without erring…
/
concerned / January 11, 2013
I feel sorry for you !!! you simply can’t comprehend the quality and beauty of this speech! irrespective of political affiliation I think we should be happy the our parliament still has eloquent educated speakers like this.
and please don’t drag in ‘international conspiracy’ and ‘LTTE sympathizer’ theories. just appreciate what he had said and as a SRI LANKAN be proud of it !!!
/
Native Vedda / January 11, 2013
K.A Sumanasekera
Good questions.
“Wonder how much did Cj pay for hs services?.”
Would you want him to share his pay with you?
How much Kappang are you demanding from him to keep your mouth shut?
He is one of few people who not only has balls but balls with brain.
This does not give him the right to occupy my ancestral land.
/
peace / January 11, 2013
Sumane,
No, no, no, I beg to differ. You got it wrong. Sumanthiran and co. had been paying the CJ for opening and giving them an opportunity for them to serve her.
Anyway, I am glad that the end is in sight. Devilish acts of their she-stooge and plots by NGOs, INGOs their sponsors not to mention Sumanthiran like back coats have gone awry at long last.
Leela
/
Raja / January 11, 2013
How much opening and serving opportunity Shiranthi gave ypu
/
Wuliangguobinjiu / January 12, 2013
Leelo go pee on your peace quick. ;)
The floor beneath your water’s edge hole might just open up.
The nation won’t be divided but it will go wholesale.
/
Silva / January 11, 2013
K.A. Samanasekera,
You sound like a MeeHaraka. How many buckets full of Punnakku do you consume for a day???
/
patriot / January 11, 2013
https://soundcloud.com/tweetstrove/ma-sumanthiran-speech-011013 – listen to the speech and the barbarous interruptions
/
Coconut Donkey / January 11, 2013
Thank you sir for doing your duty even though you know its a futile effort at this juncture. However it is imperative that your speech is on record. Perhaps in the aftermath of a ‘Sri Lankan Spring’ a cleaner ‘House’ could refer to it. Until such time, the truth uttered is akin to Pearls before Swine; in every sense.
For the sake of justice and the protection of democratic principles and by extension the future of this country and her people, i urge one and all rise up! We must persevere!! As have those before us, We must overcome, we shall overcome!!!
/
Sam Samarasinghe / January 11, 2013
Excellent speech, You are brilliant and outspoken. You exposed Vasudeva. Millions of thanks. First,Vasudeva betrayed working class and all the comrades that supported him from 1965 and now he has betrayed all citizens to save his portfolio.Shame ! Shame !! Shame!!!
/
Mohmar / January 11, 2013
What a courageous speech. The Parliament could have never heard such a one before. Sumanthiran is a unique example to the new Sri Lanka generation who would want to live with justice and freedom. If one has to call himself a patriot Sumanthiran lives upto it. Well done, continue regardless of obstacles young man.
/
PresiDunce Bean / January 11, 2013
The sad part is that the ordinary kiribath eating, cracker lighting and jayaway waa shouting majority does not get to read Mr.Sumanthiran’s speech. What happens in parliament and the country in general is given a different interpretation and twist by boot lickers like Hudson Samarasinghe on SLBC each day and by other government sycophants on Rupavahini and ITN. Nothing is going to change in this country as long as the vast majority are kept in the dark.
/
Andy Abraham / January 11, 2013
Hon. Sumanthiran,
Your speech displaying clarity of thought and logical interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions is a clear lesson to those who claim to profess law and those who bend their backs to please the ruling family; all those whom you have castigated do deserve such condemnation as they are all opportunists who will sell their soul and country to cling on to power! Keep up your good work!! Andy
/
Chandra / January 11, 2013
Great. Sumanthiran should be congratulated for playing a one-man-band, doing the job of the entire opposition. He did a superb job in speeches he made when the 18th Amendment was debated and an equally great job now.
However, there are two facts that will demonstrate the immaturity of our politics:
(a) however logical his arguments are, and despite the fact that they are coming from his heart, speaking as a Sri Lankan, he can easily be dismissed in the minds of a good majority of our countrymen simply as “that Tamil man”, as Minister Weerawansa dismissed the Appeal Court Judge on television recently;
(b) Sumanthiran is in parliament as an appointed member — because he has skills that the TNA needs, but if he contests an election in Jaffna, is the electorate there mature enough to vote him into Parliament?
/
dammi / January 11, 2013
well said my dear senior sir, hats off for you.
/
manel fonseka / January 11, 2013
Thank you, CT, for bringing this marvellous, educated, literate, fighting speech to us. Thank “who/whatever” is/isnt “up there” that our parliament isn’t totally bereft of this level of intelligence and debate and principle. We are waiting to see if anyone one else on tho govt benches will leave the herd in the wake of DEW. Any more “no no’s” instead of “moo moos”?
Do we not have the right to know who the signatories to the impeachment motion were? Does anyone have their names?
BTW years ago after a general election Lake House Newspapers published a handbook which included photos and “cvs” of the new parliament. Why was that useful practice stopped. I wish someone would start it again.
/
Safa / January 11, 2013
An excellent speech. We can note the number of interuptions from Vermin, Modawanse and now Vesi has joined the clique. Vesi wants to send the judiciary to hell.
/
Chandra / January 11, 2013
K A Sumanasekera cannot stand men and women with education, integrity and humanity. He is a dumb beetle How much MR pays you for putting in your stupid remarks.
/
Native Vedda / January 12, 2013
Chandra
“K A Sumanasekera cannot stand men and women with education, integrity and humanity.”
Can he stand his own self?
/
Jayantha / January 11, 2013
President Mahinda Rajapakse Four Brothers and Company Unlimited, in Sri Lanka achieved the final goal with celebrating their dictatorship with fire crackers, and serving kiribath and banana while chasing Chief Justice from Judiciary.
today confirmed that they are the absolute owners of Sri Lanka.
By taking in charge of 100% of the country’s budget, it’s economy,Foreign trade, it’s day to day life, it’s administration, International Affairs and Defence and security and police, taking over all the Ministries under their wings and creating a club of family looters and goons Rajapakse and unlimited Company, today proved to the world that they can do anything in Sri Lanka ………whenever…..whereever…….to whomever…..and ………whichever …..way they want.
Itn’t this called ABSOLUTE DICTATORSHIP………
THE ONE POEPLE TRUSTED TO SERVE PEOPLE NOW TURNED THAT TRUST AGAINST THEM.
EVER SINCE OUR FATHERS FOUGHT FOR OUR INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITISH WHO DID ENORMOUS DEVELOPMENT AND GAVE EVERYTHING FREE TO US……THIS IS WHAT OUR OWN SINHALA POLITICIANS DID EVER SINCE INDEPENDENCE………
SHAME TO SAY A SRI LANKAN.
/
dingiri / January 11, 2013
For Sumanthiram it must be like banging his head against a brick wall. How can one argue intelligently with a house full of illiterate morons? To them, a debate is where one drowns out one’s oponent with hoots and cat calls.
/
Mohmar / January 11, 2013
Still he did it.
/
Real Patriot / January 11, 2013
A rightfully damning speech against the majority in Parliament who just voted to impeach the CJ. None of those who voted would want this speech to be in the hansard because history will judge them someday.
Vasudewa, you have become the absolute pits! Like Mr Sumanthiran, I admired you more than most other politicians before the 18th Amendment somersault you did – and now this, this takes you to the deepest part of the lowest pit in politics in this country. At least DEW and Prof Vitharana saved themselves from joining you down there at the last minute it appears. And what can we say of Ranil? What a pathetic excuse for a leader of the opposition. Why didn’t you just walk out of the whole kangaroo court so that the vote was 155 – 0, so that history would have recorded for posterity the absurdity that was called a parliamentary debate on the impeachment of the CJ.
All those MPs who shouted down Mr Sumanthiran will someday be ashamed for their part in this fiasco – but it is too late for you now. You have chosen to simply please the President and sold out your integrity, and hopefully your political future – didn’t you realize that there were some 40+ of your colleagues who didn’t sign the impeachment motion in the first place?
History will no doubt record this day as the gloomiest in the life of this fledgling democracy – we have some hope that it is not a death blow, thanks to the likes of MP Sumanthiran.
/
Anton / January 11, 2013
Patriot – Thank you for giving the audio link to listen to Sumanthirams speech in parliment.
what a wonderful and courages speech. This will go in parliment memorylane as one of the best specches ever given by a member of parliment.Sumanthiram, hats off to you for exposing real picture of Vasu who has betrayed his own followers.
/
shaazah / January 11, 2013
we salute Mr.Sumanthiran for his very good speech in the interest of justice
/
Senguttuvan / January 11, 2013
Reading Sumanthiran’s characteristic exceptionally good contribution here, my mind went to the role Oliver Cromwell played during his time when he defended the people in Parliament – this has not gone into immortality. Even before Sumanthiran was nominated by the TNA as National List MP I wrote he will be good material to Parliament. I am glad I was not wrong.
Messrs. Romesh de Silva and Sampanthan established to the country and the world, in their own contributions to the PSC, the Chairman Minister Yapa, a nondescript lawyer, is a misfit to the high position he was chosen to. Their complaint he is unable or did not show concern to restrain the shocking behaviour of “learned members” Weerawansa, Dilan Perera and Raajitha Senaratne went ignored. These Ministers will be long remembered with arrant contempt they deserve. By all accounts the PSC was a Kangaroo Court.
Forget Mrs SB was the CJ fallen out of their favour of The Family but the fact she is a lady and mother should have made them offer her due respect. In the very nature of their being, their history and their possible upbringing they could not be expected upon to behave with decency and culture. They are nothing but street rabble-rousers elevated to levels they do not fit in.
Is it any wonder TNA is reluctant to attend the other PSC which the President asks many governments to help get them in. Sumanthiran gives here sufficient reasons why this will be nothing but an exercise in futility.
Chuck Hagel from the Opposition is nominated as Secretary of Defence to Obama’s Democratic Party government. Will we ever see a day a member of the opposition will be nominated to such a high position.
And if that happens to be a Tamil, perish the thought. The fact is Sumanthiran carries all the credentials to be made the Minister of Justice – if not much higher. Even if the Rajapakses allow that to regain some of their fallen image, the priests and the JHU will not. That is the fate of the Miracle of Asia.
Senguttuvan
/
Wuliangguobinjiu / January 12, 2013
Can’t you see what he has told his boyhood hero?
When folk get old they belch and fart clinging onto position.
Are you a Tamil man hater to send him to the sacrificial-alter like what happened to Lakshman?
You never give ideas to terrorist.
Justice Shirani’s former husband the original Tilakawardene commercial lawyer speaks better than him and she is more intelligent than ex hubby. There are many fish in the sea.
/
Senguttuvan / January 11, 2013
Correction – Please read as “now” gone into immortality. Tku.
Senguttuvan
/
Janaka Fernando / January 11, 2013
Speech by Sumanthiran MP in the Parliament of Sri Lanka on January 10th, 2013 ~ Debate on the Impeachment of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake ~
http://soundcloud.com/tweetstrove/ma-sumanthiran-speech-011013
This is one of the greatest speeches delivered in Sri Lankan parliament. Sumanthiran at his best, Hats off to you sir.
Shame on you Vasudeva.
/
Shawn / January 11, 2013
Mr. Sumanthiran,
This illegal impeachment debate is a clear cut case for a boycott. DNA(JVP) & CP just did that. That would have been more effective. Eloquent speeches and showing your constitutional knowledge in parliament is not the need of the hour. MARA group is going to use UNP & TNA participation in the illegal debate to their advantage. They always follow democratic principals in a wrong way. Did MARA group threaten you (TNA) and UNP to take away all the perks that you enjoy as MPs if you boycott the impeachment debate? Tell us one good reason to participate in the illegal debate. Either you have a baggage (file) that could be exposed by MARA group or you loose all the perks including withdrawal of your security guards and free foreign trips paid by Sri Lankan tax payers.
/
Piranha / January 11, 2013
Bad idea mate.
In a parliamentary democracy allowing the government to get away with anything and everything without any opposition is utter stupidity. Mr Sumanthiran exposed the vacuous and illegal arguments of the regime in their determination to sack the JC to the whole world by his excellent speech. It is a shame that the JVP walked out rather than confronting the regime. Why were they elected to parliament? To walk out?
/
Jayantha / January 12, 2013
Shawn,
If you know parliament debates procedure…..that all these are going to get included in Hansard and that’s going to stay for ever.
There is no way anybody could disprove the valuable points that Mr. Sumanthiran brought out. Infact it was the best logical points that Govt.MP’s unable to answer. That’s why they were shouting like asses.
Therefore MARA is going to have a tuff time to remove CJ under these points. Even in future UN or EU could bring a Lawsuit against SL Parliament or MARA under these valuable points.
Let’s see how MARA plan to face these questions.
What JVP did was ….they brought all their points on 10th…and they are been already registered in Hansard. So they skipped 11th.
I have never seen a set of Moda Gon Harak Stupid idiots like Sri Lanka Govt. Parliament as when our children read the Hansard they could laugh enough on Govt. CJ Imp. Points and actions.
/