The Hon. Chaminda Wijesiri

¶ 01 Sir, I rise to a point of order.

¶ 02 Hon. Speaker, you need to make a small change to what you just presented to the House. Please give me the microphone.

¶ 03 What you say requires clarification. We do not agree that what you say is correct simply because it is said by the Speaker. There is law; please allow an opportunity to explain it and reach agreement.

¶ 04 Hon. Speaker, there is an important issue the whole House must understand. On questions for oral answers, more than two supplementary questions cannot be asked. But you cited Standing Order 32(1) to say that a first supplementary question may be asked to clarify the main answer. By whom? For example, we may decide that one supplementary will be asked by one Member and the second by another. But who is entitled to seek clarification as per your ruling? There is a serious rules issue here. Please clarify whether the clarification belongs to the first supplementary questioner, the second, or only the original questioner. If your ruling does not specify this, we need clarity from you as the Chair.

¶ 05 Another matter: yesterday Hon. Archchuna was asked to leave the Chamber. Under Standing Order 77, a motion of the House is required to suspend a Member. While we do not endorse his conduct, a motion should have been passed. Without such a motion, using the power of the Chair to expel a Member sets a precedent that could be used against us in the future. Members are elected by the people; please adhere to Standing Orders.