Hon. Chithral Fernando, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Madam Deputy Chairperson of Committees, at times we cannot even obtain a single bank slip from Bank of Ceylon to make a payment. Frankly, a lawyer has to run to two banks to find the slips. They do not allow us to take the slips home. This has become a serious inconvenience to lawyers. Our Hon. Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala knows this too. We need photocopies, we need to re-submit for registration, and on some days they do not even issue the form.

¶ 02 In India these procedures are very easy. Minister Jayesh Shah has written an excellent letter which I have in my hand. It explains very clearly the method of paying digital stamp duty. Madam Deputy Chairperson of Committees, what we need to do is upload the legal instrument to the internet. Across India, one company handles this. The system automatically calculates the amount and prints with a QR code. We can pay online in seconds. No more affixing stamps one by one. If there is a genuine desire to modernize, bringing such new methods would be very good. As I do not have time to speak further, I table this document. I urge all of you to read it.

¶ 03 What I stress is that we should go for the kind of modernization I described, rather than merely saying “It was Rs. 10, now it is Rs. 20; only Rs. 10 was added.” What I am saying is that because of this, those fees are bound to increase by a large amount.

¶ 04 Our Deputy Minister, Hon. Sunil Watagala—my senior counsel—made certain remarks yesterday. Hon. Deputy Minister, you threw an open challenge to the Opposition. I also saw that you came in when Hon. Nizam Kariapper was not present and questioned his status as a President’s Counsel. You also challenged the Opposition while referring to a “rules compendium” and called it the “SB compendium.” I think that was a mistake.

¶ 05 It is the Rules Compendium.

¶ 06 No, that is not a rules compendium; it is the Local Authorities Guidelines Compendium.

¶ 07 No.

¶ 08 Hon. Deputy Minister, please look—this is the document, isn’t it?

¶ 09 @d.

¶ 10 This is not a “Rules Compendium,” it is a “Guidelines Compendium.” If you at least accept this is No. 58, I would be thankful. The problem is that you do not accept even that. You challenged us to point to where it provides for an open vote. You issued an open challenge to the Opposition.

¶ 11 @d.

¶ 12 After that, Hon. Nizam Kariapper read the relevant clause of the Act. But you said he did not refer to the compendium. Hon. Deputy Minister, did you look at the table given under 7.2.14?

¶ 13 Madam Deputy Chairperson of Committees, I have two more minutes?

¶ 14 Please look at page 15.

¶ 15 Sit down and look; no need to stand for that.

¶ 16 I will read: “If there is a division in the council regarding the method of inquiry, conduct an open vote among the members and proceed according to the majority agreement on the method of taking the vote.” Can’t you see the word “open” here?

¶ 17 Before you question Hon. Nizam Kariapper’s President’s Counsel status, please open your eyes and come. Speaking here without doing so is of no use. Madam Deputy Chairperson of Committees, there is clearly a problem here. The question concerns the method for the first vote and the method for any subsequent vote. This Guidelines Compendium was prepared after taking everyone to Trincomalee for a two-day workshop, feeding them, and spending money. If something prepared like that can be done away with in one day by some DOD letter, then we understand the aim. It clearly says “open.” I raised this because you challenged it. There are many other places where “open” appears, but it can be applied, for example, in the election of a Mayor; therefore I will not go into those. It is also clear that each member’s name should be called out when deciding. What you are trying to interpret is to keep each member’s name secret. This is not something you or I can resolve; it must go to court. The court will interpret the true meaning. I only said this in response to your challenge. The table clearly sets out what needs attention. It states the vote should be open. Therefore, I say that anything will be said here to achieve your intended aim.

¶ 18 We heard a Hon. Member say, “Allow us to establish power in the councils we won.” Hon. Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe, what is the meaning of “won”? Is it 50 percent? Is it more?

¶ 19 Time is up.

¶ 20 Please give me one more minute, Madam Deputy Chairperson of Committees.

¶ 21 If you say you have won, then we have no issue. In some councils you have 52 or 55 percent—fine; as Hon. Rohana Bandara said, we will not object. If you have above 50 percent, then under this voting method there is no issue. You knowingly went for this vote keeping two-thirds, keeping 159, keeping the Presidency, because you knew you had issues with the method. If needed, after a while you could have changed the voting method and gone for elections—then these problems would not have arisen. But you rushed to hold the vote to grab power, and now, after tightening your belts, you say, “We won; let us form the council.” When SLPP members in Galle form control and then throw people into the laundry and come out clean—do they come back like that? When we, the Opposition groups, get together to establish control, do not call us thieves, robbers, or conspirators. Saying you have won—what does that even mean? Night after night, you go hunting for councillors. Then you say you work with “members,” not with parties. Once they step out of the party, do they shed their skin? Do they fall from the sky? Do they shed and come?

¶ 22 Please conclude. Time is up.

¶ 23 If we are to work together, then we can all work together—this right is not yours alone. With that reminder, I fall silent. Thank you very much.