The Hon. Ravindra Bandara

¶ 01 I asked the Question. I clearly said I would ask only one Supplementary Question because Standing Orders state “not more than two Supplementary Questions.” “Not more than two” means fewer than or equal to two; “not more than” includes one, which is the lesser number. That comes under Standing Order 33(1). Hon. Ravi Karunanayake’s name and mine are similar; that is another matter.

¶ 02 Next, under Standing Order 37(1), it is stated:

¶ 03 “Under these Standing Orders, whether leave should or should not be given to ask any Question shall be decided by the Speaker, and if, in his opinion, the right of questioning is being unreasonably exercised or is being used to obstruct the business of Parliament or exert undue influence by asking Questions designedly, or any Standing Order is infringed by such Question, the Speaker may disallow such Question. The reason for disallowing a Question shall be communicated in writing by the Secretary-General to the Member concerned.”

¶ 04 I am very disappointed about this incident. Hon. Mujibur Rahman and senior Members on both sides have spoken, but these Standing Orders have not been read properly.

¶ 05 Also, Standing Order 34(2) states:

¶ 06 “A Question shall not be made a pretext for a debate.”

¶ 07 Therefore, having clearly said I would ask one Supplementary Question, it is embarrassing that another Supplementary Question was asked on my behalf in this manner. It should not have happened.