Manik De Silva, the Editor of the Sunday edition of ‘The Island,’ would occasionally chide me. He was always kind and most times he accepted part of the blame. He called me into his office one day and told me that Prof G. L. Peiris had called to point out an error in an article I had written the previous week.
This happened in either 2002 or 2003. At the time, Prof Peiris had fallen out with the then President, Chandrika Kumaratunga and joined the United National Party. A coalition led by that party won the parliamentary election in 2001. He was the Minister of Constitutional Affairs in the Cabinet led by the then Prime Minister, Ranil Wickresinghe.
I remember writing extensively about the 17th Amendment to the Constitution during this period. It was passed in 2001, during the brief parivasa (probationary) arrangement between President Kumaratunga and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna not long after the People’s Alliance led by her party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party had lost its parliamentary majority following the defection of several MPs, including Peiris.
There were two issues that I wrote about. First, the non-implementation of the 17th amendment. There were provisions for setting up independent commissions, but the appointments were simply not made. Secondly, I wrote about the flaws of the 17th Amendment. While applauding the 17th as a necessary and progressive intervention, my contention was that it could be improved. My arguments were in part informed by a perusal of similar legislation in other countries and the provisions therein.
In the article in question, I had taken issue with Prof Peiris, ‘as the architect of the 17th Amendment’ for not noting the errors and correcting them.
‘G L didn’t draft the 17th Amendment Malinda; the JVP did,’ Manik pointed out. He added, ‘I should have noticed this.’ He was correct. I therefore began the weekly comment for the following Sunday with an unreserved apology to G. L. Peiris, begging forgiveness for any pain of mind my error may have caused.
I was younger then and perhaps too harsh on occasion, so I added something to the following effect: ‘However, Prof Peiris voted for the 17th Amendment and therefore he is as culpable as those who drafted it.’ The amendment was unanimously passed in Parliament, note.
My thoughts went back to that exchange when I read about the Speaker of Canada’s House of Commons, Anthony Rota tendering his resignation. Roth expressed regret for inviting to Parliament Yaroslav Hunka, a 98 year old Ukrainian man who fought for a Nazi unit and for praising him. He stated that he had not known about Hunka’s Nazi ties.
Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, said on Monday (September 25) that it was ‘extremely upsetting that this happened.’ It is reported that members of Trudeau;s cabinet had joined cross-party calls for Rota’s resignation. Foreign Affairs Minister, Melanie July, stating that the mistake was completely unacceptable, insisted that the Speaker should listen to members of the house and step down.’
Well, he has.
Roth’s comments in welcoming Hunka are interesting. Referring to his current status as a Canadian citizen, he said that Hunka was both a Canadian and Ukrainian hero. He stated the heroics as follows: ‘[he] fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today.’
Well, Roth clearly has a skewed understanding of World War II history and the respective roles of the Nazis and the Soviets. Be that as it may, he has acknowledged the error, apologised and stepped down.
What of those who gave both Roth and Hunka a standing ovation, though? I don’t know if Prime Minister Trudeau was present at the time and if so whether or not he stoop and applauded with the rest of the house. The footage clearly shows that no one remained seated while Hunka was being cheered.
Roth has paid for his ignorance. Others, at worst as ignorant as Roth, have got a free pass. How so? And why? Don’t any of them have a conscience? Has any of them reflected on the endorsement made by way of applause?
No one has said ‘sorry, I didn’t know.’ No one has said ‘I regret I stood up and applauded.’
Yaroslav Hunka may have lived an exemplary life after moving to Canada, I don’t know. That is not what was being celebrated here, though. Roth erred, regretted and resigned. Others have not.
There’s something terribly wrong here, I feel. G. L. Peiris, to his credit, did not try to absolve himself from the negligence he showed when the 17th Amendment was tabled, debated and voted on. He’s played a part in subsequent amendments that scuttled the independent commissions, restored them, made them irrelevant and brought them back. Fundamental flaws remain though.
I just wonder where Prime Minister Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Holy were when Roth recognised and praised Hunka. I just wonder what they did at that moment.
The complicit are also accountable. At some level. I think Manik would agree.
[email protected].
www.malindawords.blogspot.com.
