“Parliamentary Secretary General should be totally independent”

Former Parliamentary Secretary General Nihal Seneviratne joined Parliament as Assistant Clerk of the House in 1961. He rose to the hallowed office of Secretary General of Parliament and served in that capacity until his retirement in 1994.

In the course of his 34 years in Parliament, Seneviratne saw three Constitutions at work in the country and witnessed many monumental events in that august assembly which shaped Sri Lanka’s political landscape.

He was also responsible for overseeing the shifting of Parliament from Galle Face to Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte and ensuring that all records would be transported without any mishap – a task for which he enlisted the assistance of the military.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Bottom Line, Seneviratne spoke about the duties and responsibilities of the Parliamentary Secretary General and the importance of maintaining decorum and dignity in the House and pointed out how a secretary general should conduct himself. A secretary general should be “totally, totally independent, completely apolitical and not have even a whisper of any political affiliations,” he asserted.

He also spoke about the challenges he faced as Parliamentary Secretary General but emphasised that the job was a fulfilling experience which did not come under political pressure. Speaking about the Parliamentary system, he opined that for a small country like Sri Lanka, about 150 MPs would be “quite sufficient.”

“If there is going to be a lot of devolution, as is now being planned, a Parliament of 225 may be too expensive and too cumbersome. Especially since the government is planning to devolve power to the provinces, we don’t need a Parliament of 225 sometimes. Of course, this is always open to a difference of opinion and debate,” he affirmed.

Q: What are the duties and responsibilities of the Parliamentary Secretary General?

A: First of all it is to provide all the secretarial services to the Members of Parliament and to the Speaker and work as the backroom boys for the whole organisation.

As you know, at the moment we have over 800 employees in Parliament. It is quite a burdensome task to manage so many. It ranges from the secretarial staff, divided into the bills section, the table office, about five committee offices, the library, etc. Then of course we also have, in addition, since we moved to Sri Jayewardenepura, housekeeping.

When I moved originally from Galle Face to Parliament, I realised that we were going into such a big, new building that we needed about 100 to keep that place clean. There is the big housekeeping staff; then there’s the restaurant and the kitchen. It has almost the biggest kitchen in Sri Lanka. I remember President J.R. Jayewardene telling me that. We have all that and then we have the garden, which is about three or four acres.

With all that plus the library, the research facilities, the computer facilities, which are now being developed, it is quite an extensive thing to manage. Regrettably, all these come under the secretary general, whereas in some countries and in the House of Commons, where I worked, they have outsourced a lot of this. Both the present secretary general and I were once thinking of outsourcing these duties but it has actually not got done. As a result, it is quite a big staff to manage.

Q: In your opinion, how should a Parliamentary Secretary General conduct himself?

A: Above all, I think he should be totally, totally independent, completely apolitical and not have even a whisper of any political affiliations. And I must say, ever since independence, all the secretaries general, starting from Ralph Deraniyagala, under whom I worked originally, have maintained that sense of independence.

We are not servants of a government, we are servants of Parliament. Our staff is very special in the sense that the secretary general is appointed by the President himself, now on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council, and cannot be removed like any other secretary. It can only be done by a vote of the House. This helps to preserve the secretary general’s independence and integrity.

We are not like the average public servant, in whose case the minister could say, ‘I don’t like your face, please go home.’ It can only be done by a substantive vote of the House, after a motion is presented and put on the Order Paper. Thankfully, this has never happened to any secretary general over the last 60 years.

Q: You continuously served Parliament for 34 years. What were the key lessons you received during your period as a public servant?

A: I think I worked with a fair degree of independence, with no commitment to any political party. We judged all the issues that came before Parliament, for which we had to advise the Speaker on the material before us. There are points of order and then there are rulings that have to be given by the Speaker and some are very controversial.

Naturally, in a Parliament like ours, when an issue arises, the government takes one view and the opposition takes another. So we have had to study each subject dispassionately and objectively and give our advice to the Speaker, who will make a ruling.

A memorable incident that I had a hand in was the historic ruling that was given by Speaker Anura Bandaranaike, which was hailed by all countries of the Commonwealth, where he protected the sanctity and supremacy of Parliament against the Supreme Court, which sought to interfere with something happening in Parliament.

Q: What were the challenges you faced as Parliamentary Secretary General?

A: It was always a case of members and how to deal with them in a courteous manner but yet maintain firmness. As I told you, we never took sides. So when any issue arose, we had to decide on it objectively. These are some of the challenges that were before us.

For example, if a member had to be sent out of the House, the member would not like it but if he had behaved in such a manner, we would have to tell him. Be it a government, opposition, backbench or frontbench member, it wouldn’t have mattered. You tell the Speaker, ‘Sir, under these conditions, he has violated Standing Orders and I think we would have to send him out.’

Then we have select committees that are appointed to probe into the conduct of members. There was one famous case I remember, when the then opposition accused Sirima Bandaranaike of accepting a car, thinking that the gift of a car to her would prevent her from nationalising insurance. But then it turned out that it was a false charge and she was completely cleared. There were controversial issues regarding members and their conduct when questions had to be decided.

Q: How would you describe the job – does it come under severe political pressure or is it a fulfilling experience?

A: I would say it is a fulfilling experience. I must say, over my 35 years, they respected as I am sure they respected previous secretaries general and those after me.

I can remember one incident when we gave a ruling which went against the then opposition and Dr. Colvin R. De Silva came up and asked me, “Seneviratne, on what grounds did you make this ruling? We don’t agree with it.’ But when I explained to him, he said, ‘Well, I understand what your thinking is.’

They don’t try to come and take liberties with us. I suppose in some way they might try to come and talk, but there was no political interference.

Q: What are your views on the Parliamentary system? What are the main challenges it is facing and what are the improvements that need to be made?

A: Today what I feel is, under this Proportional Representational System, where there are 225 members elected from different areas, sending 225 members to Parliament without each of them representing a constituency, which we had around independence, has detracted from their performance.

With this system, no member is responsible because he represents a whole area. For example, in Colombo District, we have 23 MPs. Those days, my MP in Colombo South was Bernard Soysa, who lived close to my house and I knew him. As a result, the PR system has come under a lot of criticism.

I think, select committees over the last few years, especially the one sitting right now with Dinesh Gunawardena as chairman, are recommending something closer to the German system, which is a mixed system of proportional representation plus the First Past the Post System.

My personal feeling is that, if there is going to be a lot of devolution, as is now being planned, a Parliament of 225 may be too expensive and too cumbersome. I would think for a small country like Sri Lanka, with a population of 20 million, about 150 members would be quite sufficient. Especially since the government is planning to devolve power to the provinces, we don’t need a Parliament of 225 sometimes. Of course, this is always open to a difference of opinion and debate.

Q: Decorum, dignity and respect of Parliamentary privilege seem to be a thing of the past. What steps should be taken to ensure that discipline prevails in the House?

A: In my view, a lot of responsibility to maintain decorum and dignity lies with the Speaker and the leaders of the political parties in the House. If the Speaker is firm and maintains strict discipline in the House and sends out any MP who misbehaves or does not behave in a proper fashion, it will be a great thing. Parliamentary Standing Orders today allow that. However, not very many Speakers have used those powers.

Then if the Leader of the House, the Chief Government Whip, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition help to maintain dignity and respect for Parliament, I believe the present trend can be arrested.

Q: Over the years, you witnessed important decisions being taken on behalf of the people on a daily basis. Could you tell us your most memorable experience?

A: The most controversial was the proposed impeachment of President Ranasinghe Premadasa. That was in my time. Then I think also when the 1972 Constitution was being introduced and we converted ourselves into a constituent assembly, which sat in my old school Royal College at Navarangahala, where we sat in the morning as Parliament and in the afternoon at Navarangahala, where we formulated the proposals for the new Constitution, which replaced the Soulbury Constitution. That was one of them.

Then there were the various motions of no confidence. Another thing I will not forget easily is the defeat of the government of Sirima Bandaranaike. It fell by just one vote on an Amendment to the Throne Speech moved by W. Dahanaike. Bandaranaike very correctly advised dissolution of Parliament even though she had every right to call for a vote of confidence because the actual fact on that occasion was that three of her MPs were abroad.

Q: Parliament shifted during your tenure. Could you describe that experience?

A: That was a great experience. President Jayewardene summoned me and told me that I was fully responsible for the shift from Galle Face to Sri Jayewardenepura. Now we had no idea about how massive and sprawling Sri Jayewardenepura was compared to the small building we had in Galle Face. That was one of the reasons why the Jayewardene government decided at that time that the old Parliament building, which was built for the days of the Legislative Council, was too small.

I think the building, constructed in the British times, was meant to house only about 30 to 40 legislative councillors and state councillors. But then it grew. When I joined Parliament it was 101, then it became 151, and then again it became 225. The shifting was a major exercise and I was responsible for taking all the records, furniture, books, files, and committee proceedings from the old building.

For me it was like an Army exercise and I had to ask the Army for help, to take all this under tight security because if anything had gone missing at that time, my head would have rolled. I had to take a lot of care about shifting everything.

The new building was so huge. I didn’t realise that the building alone had some 100 toilets and about thousands of corridors of power. All that had to be maintained. The housekeeping had to learn how to cope because the old Parliament was a small building. In the Galle Face building, it was a small kitchen, which catered to about 100 people. Now it caters to 225, and on any sitting day, almost 1,000 meals are served to visitors, staff, Police and press people. That was quite a challenge, but I must say we managed it well.