|
Somasunderam Nadesan Q.C.
I am an Independent Senator
Mr. Nadesan's First Speech in the Senate on 27 November 1947
Address of Thanks, Session 1947-48, Volume 1 of Hansard
I am one of the Independent Senators occupying the Opposition
Benches. I thought that it is but right that I should intervene in
this debate at this state of the discussion, particularly in view of
the remark made by the Sinhala Maha Sabba Senator (Mr Kotelawala)
about the curious circumstances that on these Benches were seated a
Tamil Congress Senator, Leftist Senators and an Indian Congress
Senator - but he did not refer to another, an Independent.
As he put it, among those of us who are on the Opposition
Benches there are five Senators who belong to five different
political parties with different ideologies and different
programmes. As far as I am concerned, I belong to no party, though I
must confess that at a very early stage I happened to be in the
Tamil Congress with a view to seeing whether I could not change the
Tamil Congress to my way of thinking. At that stage all of us
thought that it was right that people who have different views
with regard to matters should, if they subscribed to the principal
objects of an organisation, be members of that organisation and put
forward their different views from inside.
Today I am sitting in this Chamber as an Independent Senator,
and I propose to make reference to the various speeches that have
been made against as well as in support of the Speech of His
Excellency the Governor.
I might mention that if we six of us here with different
ideologies and different programmes happen to occupy the Opposition
Benches, it is certainly not because we agree among ourselves with
regard to very many matters, but because we are opposed to the
policy and programme of the U.N.P. administration.
In other words, it is not necessity that has made us strange
bed-fellows but it is the fact of the misfortune of the United
National Party administration that has brought us, strange
bed-fellows, together.
I said that, we differed on a number of matters, and I should at
the very outset refer to one remark in support of the amendment made
by the Hon. Senator who sits on my right. He said that Ceylon was
the most backward among Eastern countries so far as social
legislation was concerned. That is not a proposition to which I can
possibly subscribe, because a perusal of our Statute Books will show
that, so far as social legislation in Ceylon is concerned, it is of
very great pleasure to me to be able to say that the Hon. Senator
who sits on my left (Mr Peri Sundaram) was mainly responsible for
the major portion of the entire social legislation of the country,
though I must say that even subsequent to his time social
legislation has certainly found priority with whatever government
was in power.
The Speech of His Excellency the Governor is to my mind an
epoch-making unique speech, that it is a speech which announced
in significant terms that Ceylon will enjoy in full measure all
the rights, privileges and freedom enjoyed by any Dominion; and
that Ceylon will take its place as a free, independent and
self-governing member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The Speech goes on to say that in the sphere of external
affairs, on the attainment of Dominion Status, Ceylon will enter
upon new relations with other countries and other States.
It is an epoch-making statement, because if it is indeed true
that we have achieved independence and freedom, it will be the first
instance in the history of mankind that a great Power having in its
grip a small, helpless Power, would have voluntarily relinquished
and renounced its control over it. Never before in history of the
world have we witnessed such a phenomenon. Yet we are told that
Britain is voluntarily renouncing her hold on Ceylon and granting us
complete independence. If this is true, it is indeed a matter for
rejoicing.
There are certain occasions in the life of all nations when
questions arise which are above all consideration of parties,
castes, creeds, religion and communities. One of these questions is
the question of the struggle for national emancipation. In such a
struggle there is no place for petty party policies and programmes.
There comes a time when as a result of the fight for national
emancipation freedom is achieved. This is the time when all the
inhabitants, men, women and children, must join together in a
rejoicing to celebrate that independence and freedom.
There may come a time when this hardly-won freedom may have to be
defended against external aggression. That is another time when all
parties and communities, all creeds and races, must rise as one man
to defend that freedom. Therefore, it would be a matter for very
great satisfaction indeed if on this occasion all parties in this
country, inspite of their own party programmes and their own
ideas with regard to how things should be done, could rise as one
man to celebrate that independence and freedom. It is right that
this should be done.
If we have achieved independence, it will be time enough for us
to express our gratitude to the people who have in the past
contributed to this independence and to congratulate those who have
been immediately responsible for the attainment of this
independence. But we should be satisfied that we have really won
independence, because this renouncement by the British Government of
its hold on Ceylon, is unparalleled in the history of the world.
This will be really the first time that any country in the world has
won its freedom, not by struggle and strife and going through fire,
but by petitioning and praying and by peaceful negotiation.
We all know the story of Prince Siddhartha and how he renounced
a kingdom in the pursuit of spiritual truth. Nobody has suggested,
not even the Minister of Information in his propaganda, that the
British Government through lofty contact with a Buddhist Prime
Minister, has also started in search of spiritual truth. (An Hon.
Senator: "Edward VIII?) Yes, he did renounce a kingdom but that was
in pursuit of something else (An Hon. Senator: "But he renounced").
However what I wish to emphasise is this: we cannot find fault
with anybody, if we really look into
these Agreements and these Acts of Parliament carefully with a
view to finding out whether we are witnessing one of the greatest
phenomena - a miracle - in world history, or whether there is some
snag somewhere in it; and we, as Senators, as persons who owe a
certain duty to our country, cannot possibly allow this matter to be
considered by others for us. We will ourselves have to be satisfied
with regard to the matter. It is rather a difficult matter to be
analysing enactments and Bills with a view to discovering what is
behind them.
If indeed we have won independence, there should be complete
unanimity in this country, and we should all, with one voice,
acclaim that independence. When India was granted independence men
and women from all parts of India gathered together in their
thousands, and without one dissentient voice, celebrated that event.
That is what we in Ceylon should feel at a time when we can stand
with our heads erect before any other nation in the world.
There is a simple way, without going into legal enactments, in
which that matter can be solved. There are three tests by which we
can find out whether we have won complete independence. The first is
to ascertain whether we have the right to secede. This is the test
which the Prime Minister of South Africa set in a debate early in
1930 in the South African Parliament. He said that the touchstone of
Dominion independence was whether a country had the right to secede;
and he went on to say that test is absolutely essential from the
point of view of the international status of a Dominion.
The second is to ascertain whether we have been granted Dominion
Status? That is status which is well-known to the Constitutional
lawyer. That is the status which has been established at a series of
international conferences.
The third question that arises is, whether the
Defence and
External Affairs Agreements can be terminated by Ceylon
unilaterally at will?
If these three conditions are satisfied, and answered in the
affirmative, then truly we have achieved independence and it will be
time enough for us to celebrate that independence.
On these maters we have an answer which our Government has given
us, both in Sessional Paper XXII where the observations of the Prime
Minister appear, and in the information vouchsafed by the Minister
of Information to the Press. The answer of our Government is that
this Act confers upon us Dominion Status; that it gives us the right
to secede; and that we can terminate the Defence and External
Affairs Agreements at will.
But unfortunately there have been, in the past, some
difficulties with regard to the interpretation which our Government
has put on documents prepared in England and sent down here. Hon.
Senators may be aware of the fact that in the year 1943 a
declaration was made by His Majesty's Government with regard to the
formulation of a Constitution for Ceylon by the then Board of
Ministers; how our Ministers formulated and set a draft Constitution
to Whitehall and how Whitehall thereafter appointed a Commission to
visit Ceylon and inquire into the matter; whereas, our Government
though that the matter would be concluded by looking into the
Constitution itself in England. As a result of that disagreement,
our Ministers stated that there was a breach of undertaking by the
British Government. The Ministers therefore withdrew their draft
Constitution as is stated in Sessional Paper XIV of 1944. This is
what is stated -
"The Ministers have withdrawn, not because they have any
hesitation in recommending it to the State Council, but because in
their opinion His Majesty's Government has failed to carry out the
undertaking given in the Declaration of 1943".
That was the opinion of our Ministers. But the opinion of the
Government in England was that they had carried out their
undertaking.
From this it is obvious that in regard to matters of
undertakings and carrying them out, there can be a difference
between the view held by our Ministers and the view held by the
Imperial Government. It may be that there is some misunderstanding
somewhere with regard to the interpretation of the Act and Defence
Agreement.
It is significant that in so far as the British Government is
concerned, no authoritative spokesman has on any single occasion
said that this Act confers upon Ceylon Dominion Status. They have
taken care to say that this marks the attainment of Dominion stature
and self governing status, but they have scrupulously avoided the
use of the words "Dominion Status", which is a term well known to
Constitutional Law and which signifies well-known principles and
conventions. Nor is this all. Neither have they stated at any time
that these Defence and External Affairs Agreements can be abrogated
by Ceylon at Will.
Therefore the Opposition parties cannot be blamed if they think
that Ceylon has not achieved its goal, and if they are rather
cautious in expressing their enthusiasm. The persons who have been
so successful in negotiating by peaceful methods the freedom of our
country may be classed, in view of the nature of the negotiation,
among the most fortunate negotiators in the history of the world. It
cannot be a difficult task for such able people make a declaration
in unequivocal and categorical terms (1) that it has conferred upon
Ceylon Dominion Status, not stature; (2) that Ceylon under this Act
has the right to secede; and (3) that the Defence and External
Affairs Agreements can be terminated at any time.
This cannot be a difficult task. It cannot be half so difficult
as the arduous negotiations that have resulted in this fruit of
freedom being given to us; and will it not be a great day for Ceylon
when we all can rise together as one man acclaim the freedom of this
land? All this can rise together as one man and acclaim the freedom
on this land? All this can be achieved by a simple declaration from
His Majesty's Government that these rights and privileges have been
conceded, so that we may be certain that the grievous mistake of
1943 will not be repeated and that I desire to suggest that this is
a very simple method whereby all doubts on this matter can be set at
rest. Then will it be time for all of us to join in expressing our
gratitude, our deep indebtedness to Mr Senanayake, the Prime
Minister, and those associated with him for bringing to fruition a
movement that was started in Ceylon years ago, and in which a large
number of people including the Hon. Senator (Mr Peri Sundaram) have
had the honour to participate.
But if this is not done, then on the day that the Independence
motion is moved, inevitably the Opposition will have to try to
understand the position as far as they can for themselves. We cannot
be blamed if we are rather exercised in mind with regard to what the
reasons may be that have induced the British Government who were
willing to part with freedom to us to reticent with regard to the
words in which the grant of freedom should be couched. It is rather
unnatural for somebody who does a good deed, not to like to talk
about it and tell other people the true position. If we ask for
clarification, a clarification would be immediately forthcoming.
However, I do not propose to say anything more with regard to
this aspect of the matter except that we shall wait patiently until
there is a clarification of the position in unequivocal terms by the
British Government. After that we will be the first to join the
Government in celebrating the freedom granted to us. If the British
Government has some mysterious reason for refusing to make a
Declaration in those terms, then I venture to say that there cannot
be the slightest objection to their wording it in a different way,
in the way they worded the Declaration at the time of the Treaty
with Ireland. According to that Treaty, the British Government gave
Ireland the same Constitutional status as the Dominions of Canada,
of Australia, of New Zealand, of South Africa. Those are the words
of the Irish Treaty which have been subsequently incorporated in an
Act of Parliament.
The words "Dominion Status" do occur in His Excellency's Speech.
But of course it is not His Excellency's Speech; it is the
Ministers' speech and it embodies the Ministers' views, not His
Excellency's views. His Excellency expressed his own views the day
previous. Everybody seems to fond of the new words, new to
Constitutional Law, that have been coined - "Dominion stature". It
is usual to refer even to a 19 year old boy and say that he has
reached the stature of a major, but of course he is not a major. I
wonder whether that is the distinction - that we have reached the
stature of a Dominion but we are not a Dominion.
However if His Excellency says in his Speech that we "will enjoy
in full measure all the rights, privileges and freedom of any other
Dominion", and will take our place "as a free and independent
self-governing member of the British Commonwealth of Nations", my
submission is that there should be no difficulty on the part of the
British Government in categorically stating that so far as Ceylon is
concerned, it enjoys the same Constitutional status as is enjoyed by
the self-governing Dominion of Canada, the self-governing Dominion
of New Zealand of the Commonwealth of Australia. If we obtain some
statement like that from the British Government, then I say will it
be time indeed for us to stand erect and say, "We have attained our
freedom".
I trust that the Hon. Leader of the Senate will exert himself in
obtaining such a pronouncement made so that the question of the
independence of Ceylon need not be a matter of controversy between
Party and Party and between sections of the community but will be a
matter about which there will not be the slightest doubt so that one
and all could get together and say "At last we have won freedom for
our country". Until then, I do not propose to deal further with the
matter. We will wait anxiously till the substantive motion on
Independence is brought up in the Senate, anxiously await the result
of my submission, and see how the Government spokesman and the
Cabinet will react to this statement, and what it is that they are
going to produce before us.
So far as independence and freedom are concerned, we all realise
that freedom and that independence must be utilised in a manner
worthy of free people. Even though it may be that we have not
achieved that full measure of independence that is connoted by the
word "freedom" yet if we are really a democratic people we should
share whatever freedom we have with everybody else in our midst.
Plantation
Tamils
That brings me to the second question with which I propose to
deal and which is apparently a very important question that is
exercising the mind of the present Government; that is, the Indian
problem and the question of Indo-Ceylon relations. With regard to
India and Ceylon, there are a large number of problems, which have
to be solved, and according to our Government, one of the problems
that have to solve is the question of the status and rights of the
Indians residents in this country.
My own view is that, it is a problem that must be settled
directly with the Indian residents here and not with the Indian
Government, for the simple reason that these are workers who have
been brought over to Ceylon on certain conditions, and 40% or 50% of
them or more have spent their entire life in Ceylon. Some of them
were born here. Ceylon has been their home; and what is known as the
Indian problem does not exist so far as the Indian labourer is
concerned.
In the debate on the motion introduced in the Legislative
Council for the acceptance of the Donoughmore proposals, Mr Molamure
proposed that a literacy test should be applied in respect of
Indians resident in Ceylon, as otherwise with unrestricted
immigration, it may be possible for Indians to come from India and
we may be politically dominated. That was the reason and it is a
valid reason. It was the reason for their agitation for the
restriction of the India franchise at that time. Due to the fact
that the Ceylon Government had no power to prohibit unrestricted
immigration from India, it was considered advisable and necessary
that the Indian franchise should be restricted in some way lest
Ceylon should be dominated by Indians. That is how certain
restrictions came to be imposed in respect of the franchise.
Today the problem is different. We have the power to stop all
further immigration into this country. What is more, from the year
1939, India has stopped all emigration to this country. but the
Indian labourer working on estates is absolutely necessary for the
proper functioning of our estates and for the economy of the
country. Therefore, it is but right that we should provide for that
labour, and grant rights of citizenship to that labour.
It is one of two things: if we are a free people, we have no
business to employ foreign labour; we must send it away; we must
work ourselves; we should not be exploiters of other people's
labour, we who talk of exploitation ourselves. If on the other hand,
we desire that justice should be done to those who help us to have a
certain standard of life in this country, who contribute by their
toil largely to the material prosperity of this country - if we feel
that some sort of justice should be done, we should give full
citizenship rights to all Indian labourers who are willing to
renounce their citizenship of India and are willing to become
citizens of Ceylon. Any other method of tackling the problem of
Indian labour will certainly not be the way in which a free country
should face such a situation.
Today it cannot be said that, with the limited Indian population
who can at the most send 7 or 8 Members into a House of
Representative of 101, there is any danger of those 7 or 8 Members
dominating the political life of the country. That is not an
argument that can lie in the mouth of the Government. In these
circumstances the only thing that should be done is to assimilate
the entire Indian labour population in this country, because that
will help to strengthen the economy of the Ceylonese nation, and not
keep them as a separate and distinct group of people who have no
rights at all in this country.
In this connection, I may say that I was rather taken aback at
the remarks made by the Hon. Indian Senator who was born in Ceylon
who said that they should express their gratitude to the Prime
Minister. I trust that this expression of gratitude is personal and
not an expression on behalf of the Indian labourers in this country,
because it is really painful to see the manner in which the Premier
who, according to this Indian Senator who was born in Ceylon, is a
far-sighted statesman, has tackled this problem of Indian labour.
With regard to the franchise rights of the Indian labour, the
consistent endeavour of the present Prime Minister, despite the fact
that the presence of these Indian labourers is of the greatest use
to us, and far from their being a hindrance to us they are helping
us to earn whatever surplus revenue could possibly be earned,
has always been to reduce the number of voters who can possibly come
from among them.
Even if the entirety of the 700,000 of them exercise the vote
they can at the most send 8 Members out of 101 to the House of
Representatives. That is an aspect of the matter that has always
struck me as rather curious - that today anybody who calls himself a
statesman should take upon himself to say that we will get these
persons to do all this work but so far as franchise rights are
concerned, despite the fact that we will not be dominated, we will
not give them any thing even though they are willing to declare
themselves citizens of Ceylon.
I should have thought that any Indian labourer who at the end of
a period of 5 years residence in Ceylon is willing to renounce his
Indian nationality and adopt Ceylonese nationality, should have no
difficulty in acquiring citizenship rights. Then the whole problem
of Indian labour in Ceylon will be satisfactorily solves for all
time.
In this connection, there was a conference in Delhi with Sir
Girja Shankar Bajpai in the year 1940 which proved abortive, and
subsequently there was an Agreement in 1941 in Ceylon at which Sir
Girja Shankar Bapji who at that time represented the Imperial
Government came over to Ceylon and, on account of the fact that war
clouds were lowering in the East, considered that it was proper that
he should enter into an Agreement agreeing to all that Mr Senanayake
wanted. That agreement was subsequently repudiated by India.
Ever since then the Premier's bible has been the Bajpai
Agreement which was really an informal Agreement that was not meant
to be binding on either the Indian or the Ceylon Governments. A
resolution was brought before the Ceylon National Congress in
December 1941, asking that the Bajpai Agreement be approved, and
this is what Mr Senanayake said on that occasion:
"This agreement will reduce the number of Indians on the
electoral list to a negligible quantity . Who were the Indians, he
asked, who would go before a Court of law, stand cross-examination
by counsel and satisfy the Judge that they had a permanent domicile
in this country? He then cited legal decisions of the Supreme Court
which showed what severe tests the Courts desired of those who
claimed a domicile of choice or of permanent interest in the
country. He added that under this Agreement not only would the
number of Indians already on the electoral list be reduced by 70% or
80% but that he was inclined to think that there might be no
registration at all".
That appeared in the Ceylon Daily News of January 1, 1942 and
the truth of that statement as it appeared in the Press, has not yet
been denied.
Mr Senanayake, the statesman that he is, seriously considers
that an agreement by which the entirety of the Indian of the Indian
labour population in this country would be deprived of their
franchise and thereafter be made to work as labourers on estates,
for all times, as slaves in a free country is fair. That is his
conception of statesmanship.
This is not the way in which the problem of Indian labour can
solved or ought to be solved. It is interesting to contrast that
statement with the subsequent attitude of Mr Senanayake. That a
mental change had overtaken Mr Senanayake was evidenced by two
documents. That a mental change had overtaken Mr Senanayake was
evidenced by two documents. One of those documents is the Report of
the Soulbury Commissioners. In paragraph 240 at page 63 of their
Report, the Soulbury Commissioners say:
"In view of the ban on emigration imposed by the Government of
India in 1939, few of the Indian unskilled workers now in Ceylon
have been resident in the Island for less than five years. A large
number have been born there and, under the new Constitution, if our
recommendation is accepted, it will be within the power of the
Government of Ceylon to regulate further admissions; consequently,
the Government of Ceylon will have the ability as we feel sure it
already has the desire to assimilate the Indian community and to
make it part and parcel of a single nation"
Now, the Government of Ceylon of that day is referred to by the
Soulbury Commissioners. The one spokesman of the Government of
Ceylon who was in continuous touch with the Soulbury Commissioners
and who would have, in all probability, given them the impression
embodied in their Report was Mr Senanayake. What was the impression
he gave to the Soulbury Commissioners? It was that the Government of
Ceylon had the ability and the desire to assimilate the Indian
community and make it part and parcel of the Ceylonese nation.
That was the position Mr Senanayake took up before the Soulbury
Commissioners. He said that he wanted to assimilate the Indian
community and make it part and parcel of a single Ceylonese nation.
At the time the White Paper containing the Soulbury proposals was
debated, Mr Senanayake being overjoyed by the fact that he had
obtained from the Commissioners everything he wanted, expressed
himself in these terms:
"As far as India is concerned our affection for her is known to
all Indians"
In due course, on account of this affection for India, an
agreement will be entered into Britain for bases here-
"The pity of it is some people doubt it and believe that we have
some snobbish ideas that Indians are not wanted here. We have no
such ideas. We respect the Indians, we love the Indians, we admire
them. There is hardly any difference with regard to the view of my
Friend, Diwan Bahadur I.X. Pereira and myself when we think of it,
My friend says: 'We want full citizenship'. I tell them: 'If you
live here, we will embrace you!". (Now after the Indian Independence
Act, he is merely Mr I.X. Pereira).
But how is the Indian labourer to live in Ceylon? I think the
only way he can do that is by having a little piece of land in
Ceylon to live on. He requires help in that direction and that help
ought to be readily forthcoming when there is that desire on the
part of a great statesman to embrace the entire Indian population in
this country and make it part and parcel of the Ceylonese nation.
But yet when the Indian labourer applies for land, he is told that
no land could be given to him. And when he is not given land, surely
he will have no place to live in? And then as he has no place to
live in, he is told that he will not be given citizenship rights in
this country, that he will not be given the franchise. This is how
that vicious circle works. This is hardly the way in which a
statesman should go about tackling a problem of this nature. Freedom
will have no meaning to the entirety of the Ceylonese people if we
are going to have in this country some 600,000 to 700,000 persons to
be exploited.
In contrast to this attitude of Mr Senanayake, particularly as
indicated in his observation on the Bajpai Agreement, we may look at
another document containing a statement made by the Donoughmore
Commissioners with regard to Indian labour in this country. This is
what they say:
"Among the Indian immigrant labourers, whose position we examine
later, a literacy test ......"
That is what advocated in the last Council because at that time
there was no control of immigration and that gave rise to the fear
that there would be complete domination by Indian labour. But that
is not the position today. The Donoughmore Commissioners continue to
say:
"a literacy test would produce a mere handful of electors as, by
reason of their lowly birth and lack of opportunity, they are very
largely illiterate. We would hesitate before recommending the
imposition of any qualification which would deny to these humble
people the political status of their more fortunate fellows and the
opportunity of escaping from conditions some of which are
incongruous in any country with established democratic
institutions".
But how fares the Indian labourer in this new era, taking for
granted that the freedom we are given is real and true? Under the
new dispensation, how is the Indian labourer going to escape from
those conditions which are incongruous in any country with
established democratic institutions? He cannot shake himself of the
shackles unless he is given the vote, unless he is made a citizen of
this country, provided, of course, he is willing to renounce his
Indian nationality and become a Ceylonese. It is vital for
strengthening and maintaining the stability of Ceylon that we should
not have in our midst any labour which owes allegiance to another
country.
I would like to remind Hon. Senators how, not very long ago,
large number of people from various parts of Europe who migrated to
America were treated in that country. Though those immigrants were
not granted American citizenship, everyone of their children was
given American citizenship because the Americans knew that a foreign
element in their midst would not be productive of good results.
Apart from the justice of giving the Indian labourer his due, should
be made to assimilate the entire Indian population, which is willing
to be assimilated and become part and parcel of a united Ceylonese
nation.
Whilst on the subject of freedom, it is perhaps right to refer
to the freedom that is sought by another class of persons amongst
us, namely, the Public Servants. Reference has already been made to
that matter by the Hon. Senator who spoke last, who was himself till
quite recently an ornament of the Public Service of this country. He
is one who is fully conversant with the traditions of the Public
Service under Colonial administration. Naturally, he is opposed to
Public Servants under Colonial administration. Naturally, he is
opposed to Public Servants participating in political matters or
being susceptible to political influence. But it is high time that
this question is looked at from another point of view.
We are democratic institution. We have a Standing Order which
prohibits us from referring to Hon. Senators by name. That
prohibition is causing us a considerable amount of inconvenience. We
follow May's Parliamentary Procedure in conducting our deliberations
here. We who are living in a tropical climate go to England even in
the matter of costumes. Even when a persistent demand is made for
the amendment or abrogation of the Public Security Ordinance, we are
told that we must first find out how things are done in England in
that regard.
The Public Servants have taken the cue from the Government and
they say that the Public Servants in England enjoy certain rights
and that those rights and privileges should be given to them also.
But hen the Government sits back and says "no". There does not
appear to be any logic in this approach to the question. No one
pretends that the people of Ceylon are as fit to exercise and
control responsible institutions, democratic institutions, as the
people of England are. But that fact has not prevented England from
giving us democratic institutions, a Parliament and an assembly of
this nature. But we who have been granted these institutions,
despite the fact that we have not come up to the standard of the
English people or the English politician, when it comes to the
matter of granting to our Public Servants rights similar to those
enjoyed by the Public Servants in England, we want them to wait in
patience till they reach the standard of English Public Servants.
That is the sort of logic which impels the Government to refuse
Public Servants the right to affiliate themselves with other trade
unions and the right to hold political matters.
Let us look at this matter as it affects us locally, without
concerning ourselves very much with what has happened in England and
elsewhere. During the last strike, His Excellency the Governor, as
well as Mr Senanayake, in their public pronouncements stated that
there was no use in Public Servants resorting to a strike in support
of their demand for trade union rights and other cognate matters.
They said that they could exercise their franchise in a certain way
and elect representatives who would obtain for them those rights. I
asked of a Public Servant as to whom they should elect to fight for
their trade union rights, if Public Servants must not discuss
politics, must not take any corporate action, how are they to
efficiently carry out those benign instructions given by His
Excellency the Mr Governor and Mr Senanayake? The only manner in
which Public Servants can send into Parliament representatives who
will be in a position to advocate their cause is by arriving at some
common agreement as to who should represent them. That can only be
done if they are given the right to meet and discuss political
mattress and thereafter come to a decision. If every Government
Servant is expected to keep his mouth shut or only talk to one or
two others and thereafter exercise his vote, then each one of them
will think differently and vote differently.
Exchange of views on matters of common interest is necessary.
Today the Secretary of State for the Colonies simply does not exist,
so far as the Public Servants of this country are concerned.
Parliament is paramount and it is right that our Public Servants
should be given the right to determine who should represent their
interests in Parliament. For that purpose, the right of free
discussions, opportunity to exchange views and, if need be, the
right to create a political fund must be granted to them.
Apart from the question of a political fund, the right to
affiliate with other trade unions is a very important matter. There
is no reason why a union of Public Servants should not affiliate
with other unions.
If they are prevented from forming themselves publicly into
associations, it is always possible that when you do not permit them
to express their opinions publicly and openly, they will be driven
underground, with the result that Public Servants thereby may engage
themselves in activities which may not be conducive to the interests
of the State.
The very fact that the Public Service Regulations existed and
that Public Servants were prevented from discussing political
matters did not prevent the strike that took place a few months ago.
Therefore, on grounds of expediency, apart from anything else, there
is no reason why the Public Servants here should not be granted the
same rights and privileges as Public Servants in England. After all,
the State has behind it sanctions which it can effectively enforce
in the event of Public Servants going wrong.
There is another aspect of the matter. If they have a political
fund, what with these various political Parties clamouring for funds
to serve their own needs, they may make such advances to the Public
Servants that the Public Servants would themselves decide to wind up
the fund. It may be that they overrated these rights because these
have been denied to them. That may be the reason why they are
struggling to secure these rights. But as we know, if something that
is very much desired to some is not grated, the psychological effect
and the tendency would for surreptitious attempts to be made to
enjoy those rights.
In this connection, I am reminded of what happened with regard
to a trade dispute in which I happened to appear. One of the demands
made by a fireman in one of the mills in Colombo was that he should
be supplied with shoes and gloves. Apparently somebody had given him
the idea, rightly or wrongly, that firemen should be provided with
shoes and gloves and that firemen in other parts of the world were
provided with shoes and gloves. When the matter came before the
tribunal, the tribunal agreed that it was a good suggestion, and
with much difficulty, I was able to persuade the employer to grant
the employees their demand for shoes. I explained that gloves were
not available at the time, and that demand was not pressed.
Accordingly this fireman was given a pair of shoes, and on the
next day when he wore the pair of shoes whilst on duty, he slipped
and very nearly fell into the fire; and thereafter he discarded the
pair of shoes. That was the last we heard of this demand for shoes
for firemen.
Similarly, there is, a desire to have these rights and to
exercise these rights and, if these rights are granted, to imagine
that Public Servants will abuse these rights is, not in accordance
with what we know of how human beings act and react. After all, it
must not be forgotten that the stability of Government is one of the
matters in which the Public Servants themselves are vitally
interested and concerned. There is no need for one to imagine that
if they are allowed free expression of their views and are not
debarred from taking part in controversial debates in their own
associations and organisations, and if they have political funds,
that it will in any way interfere with the due performance of their
duties.
Today we are governed by a Cabinet composed entirely of members
of the United National Party. I am sure that, in matters of
administration, they will not favour those sections of the
population who helped them and even went out of their way to assist
them during their election. I am sure that they will consider it
their bounden duty to discharge their duties fairly by all sections
of the people, irrespective of the Party to which they belong, and
there is nothing to warrant the assumption that any Public Servant
merely because he is given the right to elect or select whom he
should have as a Member of Parliament to represent his interests, or
is given the right to discuss political matters, would abuse that
privilege.
In this connection, I might mention an incident that took place
about two years ago in Bombay, when a great Socialist leader
addressed a gathering of stenographers. He preached to them about
Rightists and Leftists and then one of the stenographers got up and
said: "We are neither Leftists nor Rightists; we are typists"!. That
will indicate to you that so far as the performance of their
functions is concerned, they are not worried about political
considerations. They are not worried by questions of Rightists or
Leftists; they are merely typists, and if they are called upon to do
a job of typing, they will do it efficiently. There is no difference
between a Rightist's typing and a Leftist's typing; they will both
do the work efficiently.
Therefore, I hope that, the Public Servants will be given their
full rights and privileges, and trust that the Government, without
being obsessed by a sort of psychology of fear, will generously
grant to the Public Servants their demands; and I have not the
slightest doubt that the Parliament Servants themselves will respond
to such a gesture as they ought to respond.
There is one aspect of the matter which I intended to deal with
in detail and that is the nationalisation of the bus services. For
want of time however, I do not propose to deal with the matter at
length except to say that I wholeheartedly support the amendment to
nationalise bus services.
After all, if something is not proposed by the Government there
must be an amendment referring to such omission, as that is the
conventional method by which we show one's lack of confidence in the
Government. That is a procedure that we have adopted from England.
The Government enumerates some things, and however, desirable those
things may be, the only manner in which we can propose a vote of no
confidence is to move an amendment relating to some other matters.
If the Government has omitted to put forward certain proposals, then
those of the Opposition are put to the necessity of making proposals
for the purpose of showing that they have no confidence in the
administration. This circuitous method of expressing no-confidence
in the administration is a method which has come down to us from
England, and we have to follow that procedure here, however
unsatisfactory or unsuitable it may be.
No doubt there are various proposals put forward in His
Excellency, the Governor's Speech. A number of those proposals are
worded in very general terms. I suppose some of them could as well
have come from a Government which calls itself a Government of
efficient socialism or purely a socialist Government. But the crux
of the matter is this: It is not on what we say that we are going to
do that we are judged but on what we actually do. Likewise, we can
only judge whether we can have confidence in a Government by
examining what has so far been done by that Government. This would
give us an indication as to whether it is an administration in which
we can have confidence.
Hon. Senators will remember that under the Donoughmore
dispensation the entire administration of this country was carried
on by 7 Ministers and 3 Officers of State - altogether by 10
Ministers. There was a Committee System of Government, and the
Ministers themselves had, apart from the question of laying down
policy, very many other matters to deal with concerning even the
administration of the Departments under their Ministries. That
resulted in a large amount of work. The Soulbury Commissioners
recommended that under the Cabinet System of Government the
Ministers should be divorced entirely from questions pertaining to
the administration of departments, and that Permanent Secretaries
should be appointed for the purpose of discharging that part of the
work; and that so far as the Ministers were concerned, they should
confine themselves purely and simply to questions of policy. Under
those circumstances, one would have thought that in a small country
like Ceylon the entire administration could easily be run with 7
Ministers at the most without the assistance of any Parliamentary
Secretaries.
I have taken the trouble to compare the Ministries that have
been formed here with the Ministries formed in comparable countries
elsewhere in the British Empire, and I have not the slightest
hesitation in saying that we are having more than double the number
of Ministers who are required for the purpose of efficiently
discharging their duties. What is more, we have 13 Ministers, and
one Minister without a portfolio - I suppose for the purpose of
thinking out problems and making vital contributions. The Hon.
Senator behind me suggests that what really and truly happened was
that after yielding to the demands of various persons, they arrived
at 13 Ministries. Then it was discovered that 13 was an unlucky
number, and therefore they thought it was but proper to have an
additional Minister.
This is not the way in which a private person, who is in charge
of his own affairs and who has to spend for them himself, would
carry on business. For instance, if this occurred in a capitalist
enterprise or a business house, whose representatives we have in
this Chamber, it would have to close its offices and declare itself
insolvent. But of course this is a public matter; and therefore it
does not matter at all. If there are demands made, demands put
forward, they think that it si but right and proper that those
demands should be granted in the interests of the stability of the
Government. In other words, the sort of stability created by the
United National Party administration in this country is not a
stability based on any principle; it is a stability based on
self-interest.
Those are the people who say "Have confidence in us. We have at
the very first opportunity got into positions. We have been
entrusted with the sacred trust of appointing Ministers. Instead of
seven Ministers who did the job formerly, we appointed 14 Ministers;
we appointed 10 Parliamentary Secretaries; and we hope to give still
more jobs to a number of people". However those hopes may be
realised, there have been appointed 10 Parliamentary Secretaries.
Not only that, 13 separate Permanent Secretaries have also been
appointed; and under those 13 Permanent Secretaries we have, of
course Assistant Secretaries and Private Secretaries and one should
not forget that all-important person in any office, the peon. That
is the way in which the United National Party has commenced the
administration of this country. And apparently, according to them,
if 3 people are appointed to do the work that seven people can do,
that is what is called efficient socialism.
These exponents of efficient socialism apparently want to preach
to other people in their propaganda - as was done only the other day
by the Minister of Transport, who is the Propaganda Chief of the
United National Party - that the workers in this country, if they
are given eight hours' work must work for eight hours, and not for
two. May I ask whether the Minister in this country should, if they
are given eight hours' work do work for eight hours or see to it
that they have eight hours' work?
In this connection I would give an illustration to show the type
of administration that is foisted on this country, the type of
administration that is now seeking our confidence. I should like to
quote that instance of the Post Office. We have appointed a Minister
for Posts and Telecommunication. This Department was earlier one of
the departments which was an adjunct of the Ministry of
Communications and Works. Now, on account of the necessity of
stabilising the Government at public expense, and not on any
principle, it has been thought necessary to create a Ministry to
look after the policy of the Postal and Telegraph Department in this
country. Of course everyone is asking why that has been done. The
duties of the Postmaster-General in England are in a number of
matters totally different from the duties of the Postmaster-General
here. For one thing, the revenue in England from postal services is
nearly �10,000,000. London is the centre of an Empire with
complicated matters of various kinds, apart from matters such as
national savings, insurances, old age pensions and questions
regarding the efficient registration of voters. All those matters
are attended to by the Postmaster General in England. In respect of
a Department which was, till the other day run by a Postmaster
General under the supervision of a Minister, we have now a
Postmaster General, over him a Permanent Secretary and over the
Permanent Secretary a Minister. And this Minister, apparently, also
requires some assistance. He cannot discharge the duties all by
himself. He has been given a Parliamentary Secretary to lighten his
burden.
These people, who play like this with public funds, come here
and say they are going to carry out some wonderful schemes and ask
us to have confidence in all that they say. What is now happening is
this. After all, the Ministers are human beings. When they do not
find enough work to do, they interfere with the legitimate functions
of the Heads of Departments.
Mr Senanayake has missed a golden opportunity at the very start
of the new era of setting proper conventions for the Government of
this country. It is indeed a great tragedy that a person of such
undoubted prestige in the country should not have asserted himself
and said, "This is how I propose to run my Government. If the
Government is unstable, let us have a dissolution and go to the
country once again to form a stable Government. I am not going to
barter away principles for the purpose of stabilising the
administration by creating a number of Ministries just for the
purpose of making self-interest the predominant cohesive force of
the United National Party.
The Sinhala Maha Sabha Senator who spoke asked, "What is in
common between the Tamil Congress Senators and the Leftist
Senators?" on this side of the Chamber. He put it as hatred. But the
fact is that it is a real Opposition to the United National Party
administration. I ask, what is there today in common among the
various Ministers, inclusive of Independent Ministers composing the
United National Party Administration? Is it love of principles? It
is self-interest. That is the common factor which is responsible for
this administration.
Mr Senanayake, the Prime Minister, is undoubtedly a great
patriot. There may be doubts, on certain views that he holds; there
may be doubts even with regard to the formulation of some of his
financial policies. But none can for a moment deny his sincerity or
his patriotism, or that he has tried to serve the country according
to his views. And it is indeed tragic that at the time of the
inauguration of the first Parliament he did not take everything into
his own hands and set up a proper convention for all time by
insisting on appointing the minimum number of Ministers necessary
for running efficiently the Government of this country.
As it is, this evil convention that has been created may be
pursued for years, much to the dissatisfaction of the entire
population and to the detriment of efficient administration. It is
from these things that we judge these matters, and it is indeed a
pity that the person occupying the position of the Prime Minister
has somehow been influenced to take certain decisions in respect of
the formation of his Cabinet which are really not in the lasting
interest of the country.
That is why I doubt the bona fides of this Government when it
says that it is prepared to carry out the policies and programmes
set out in the Speech. The moment that we look upon our position as
Cabinet Minister, as a position where we can try and agitate for
some advantage to ourselves - that day will seal the doom of honest
administration in any country. This is not the place for that; this
is the place for public service. It is indeed a pity that proper
conventions have not been established.
If we are unable to support the proposal, and if we have to
support the amendment, it is because we do not have confidence in
the present administration that has been formed for the purpose of
carrying on the Government of this Country.
|
