Reminising debating skills and wit of parliamentarians of yore

bY Edward GUNAWARDENA

During the past two to three decades there has been a distinct decline in the standards of behaviour of parliamentarians during proceedings of the House. Seldom did debates reach the heights of excellence that prevailed in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Obscene and insulting words came to be traded across the floor. There were fisticuffs too. School children who came in organised groups from rural schools were on several occasions exposed to unruly behaviour. They certainly carried away poor impressions of their legislators. The country certainly longs for higher standards.

Intellectual speeches

The newly elected Parliament with so many young and academically and professionally qualified members on both sides of the divide has certainly kindled hopes of the re-emergence of an august assembly where the language will be parliamentary, the debates interesting and lively and the behaviour of members exemplary. Above all it is hoped that camaraderie will prevail among all members. There can be no animosity in professional politics.

As an official I have been a regular visitor to both Houses, the old Parliament in the Fort and the present one. The homeliness of the old premises, its compact interior, its location and most importantly the peace that prevailed at the time certainly fostered better interaction and friendship among the members. Often have I seen and even joined members of the Government as well as the opposition at places such as the Dominion Hotel, White Horse Inn or The Free China Hotel. The late Bernard Soyza easily one of the best parliamentarians the country has seen was a voracious reader. It was indeed a common sight to see him ensconced in a throne-like cane chair in the lobby of the Taprobane Hotel reading a book or magazine. This was in the early seventies when I too visited the Taprobane Book Shop during the lunch interval. I was then the Personal Assistant to the IGP.

Restrictions on parliamentary time due primarily to the war that existed certainly affected the quality of debate. With minimum time doled out to MP's for their speeches it is not possible to make well researched contributions. Time restrictions have put MPs in straight jackets and reduced them to the level of debaters in O'Level classes. The new parliament will have to get out of this mentality, amend the standing orders if necessary and make parliament functional for 24 hours of the day. It is only then that there will be resurgence of intellectual speeches, of thrust and parry and repartee, of wit and even filibuster.

Debating skills and wit

Good public speaking and debating ability is seldom achieved without conscious effort. In most countries the legislature consisting of the representatives of the people is the apex chamber for discussion, debate, deliberation and decision-making. Invariably the men and women who stand out in these august bodies are people who had shown early promise as debaters at school or university level. In the United Kingdom for centuries leading lights of the Oxford Union have shone as parliamentarians in later life. In Sri Lankan politics SWRD Bandaranaike, Lalith Athulathmudali and Lakshman Kadirgamar had earlier made their mark in the Oxford Union. Dudley Senanayake and Pieter Keuneman had shown debating promise at Cambridge, NM at the London School of Economics, and Philip Gunawardena at Wisconsin. Felix Dias Bandaranaike honed his argumentative capabilities in the Law Faculty of Peradeniya and the Ceylon Law College.

It is good for young parliamentarians to know that most men and women who made their mark in politics were endowed not only with debating skills but wit. In Britain wit came naturally to politicians mainly because English literature is so rich in wit and humour. Perhaps there is no British parliamentarian even today who has not read Johnson, Chesterton, Bellock, Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain.

Accomplished parliamentarians do not lose their temper when embarrassing questions are asked, heckled or interrupted. They smile and retort politely.

Benjamin Disraeli was at one time the Prime Minister of England and the Leader of Opposition was Gladstone. Once when Disraeli was speaking, an opposition member with the intention of annoying him had asked, "Mr. Prime Minister can you explain the difference between calamity and catastrophy? Disraeli had been using the two words several times. The Prime Minister was speaking on a subject of national importance. He did not show anger or annoyance. In a calm and collected manner he said, "Mr. Speaker, if my friend Gladstone was walking by the Thames and if he fell into the water it would be a calamity.

If someone jumped into the waters and saved him from drowning it would be a catastrophe." There was laughter in the House and the man who asked the question quietly walked out of the Chamber.

Lasting impression

The wit of Winston Churchill as a politician and parliamentarian remains unsurpassed. He silenced those who interrupted or heckled him with devastating wit.

He once said, "The characteristic of a great man is his power to leave a lasting impression on people he meets." Churchill lived up to this.

His life was not only long but it was full and varied - full of friends and of enemies, full of action and creativity of argument and ruthlessness." He was one of the greatest orators the world has seen. It was the inspiring power of his speeches that kept morale and led the allies to victory. In our thrust for victory against the LTTE we certainly saw shades of Churchill in the inspiring speeches of our own President.

On politics some of the observations of Churchill are worth recalling. He once said, "The world today is ruled by harassed politicians absorbed in getting to office, or turning out the other man. So that not much room is left for debating great issues on their merits." Asked what qualities a politician required Churchill had replied, "The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it did not happen." He was also candid enough to say, "It would be a great reform in politics if wisdom could be made to spread as easily and as rapidly as folly."

One of Churchill's most famous speeches is that of June 1940. "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills..."

It is said that as he paused in the great uproar that greeted these words Churchill muttered to a colleague next to him, "And we'll fight them with the butt ends, of broken beer bottles because that's all we've got!"

To Churchill wit came naturally. At the Yalta meeting for the formation of the UNO, while in the hotel with Stalin and Roosevelt, one morning Roosevelt had gone in his wheel-chair and kicked open the unlocked door of Churchill's room. Churchill was surprised.

He literally was caught with his pants down. When he saw his friend he smiled broadly and said. "Come in. The Prime Minister of England has nothing to hide from the President of the United States." It was in Parliament that he was in his element. When a member once wanted to speak on, Churchill quite nonchalantly had observed, "I can well understand.

He needs the practice badly." A young MP once asked him how he could have put more fire into the speech he had just made. Churchill's answer had been, "what you should have done is to put the speech into the fire."

Excellent speakers

Strangely, it was women MP's who dared to interrupt him in parliament. Once a woman MP had blurted out, "Prime Minister, you are drunk." Churchill who was after a couple of whiskies had smiled and calmly retorted, "Lady, I am drunk. You are ugly... and I will be sober in the morning." On another day a woman MP provoked by Churchill had angrily pronounced, "Prime Minister, if I were your wife I'll put poison into your coffee." Churchill's retort had been, "Oh dear, if you were my wife, I'd take it." It will certainly be worthwhile for parliamentarians young and old to read the prolific writings of Winston Churchill and also what has been written about him, especially his devastating and often wicked wit.

During the days of the 'Old parliament' Sri Lanka too had some excellent speakers and debaters. These were men that we could justly be proud of. Some of the names that readily come to mind are S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, N. M. Perera, Colvin R. de Silva, Pieter Keunemann, Dudley Senanayake, G. G. Ponnambalam, V. N. Navaratnam, Sivasittamparam and Felix Dias Bandaranaike.

They were men who could hold their audiences to rapt attention. Few dared to interrupt them when they were on the floor. If and when it happened we saw the best in them. Lost tempers and unparliamentary language, never. In the fifties, SWRD who had crossed over to the opposition was criticizing a particular Ministry when a member interrupted to say, "the Hon. Minister is sleeping", without batting an eyelid Bandaranaike quipped, "let lying dogs sleep." In 1966 as an Asst. Supdt. of Police I headed the VIP Security Division. There were only two people considered VIPs, the Prime Minister and the Governor General. Invariably I accompanied the Prime Minister, Dudley Senanayake to Parliament. Usually I followed proceedings from the officials box or the Speaker's Gallery.

One day there was a heated debate. I believe it had something to do with the Dudley - Chelvanayagam pact. When the Prime Minister was speaking the atmosphere in the House was tense. But quite unexpectedly he was interrupted. The interruption came from none other than Maithripala Senanayake.

The Prime Minister was not ruffled. He sent the House to laughter when with a guffaw he said, "The Hon. Member for Medawachchiya is Sinhala by day and Tamil by night." That was the time when Maithripala Senanayake was courting Ranji Handy. Later in the day Dudley and Maithripala were seen having tea at the members canteen seated at the same table. They were both large hearted gentlemen that bestrode Sri Lankas political scene for several decades.

The effect

Some may argue that there was such repartee in debate in the House by the Galle Face Green because the proceedings were mainly in English. This is certainly not so. Without descending to obscenity the Sinhala language can be used to devastating effect. Most of the quips that I have cited above could have been put across even more effectively by accomplished Sinhala speakers.

Dr. Colvin R. de Silva was an excellent speaker in English as well as Sinhala. Sometime in the seventies he was making a speech in Sinhala when an incorrigible heckler interrupted him.

The latter was Molligoda the MP for Nivithigala. He was my friend and contemporary at Peradeniya in the fifties. A light hearted fellow, we called him "Molli." He turned to the Speaker, smiling all the time and in measured tones said: "Garu Kathanayaka Thumani!, Eka molliyak thiyana sathata kiyana nama api okkoma dannawa. Namuth, molli godak thiyana sathekuta kiyanne mokaada kiyala mamanam danne ne"! Molli was more guarded thereafter.