The question of being ‘bought over’

In these times, the age-old clichŽ, ‘Every man has his price’ has become indisputable. In the spacious days, gentlemen believed that only jockeys and bookies were susceptible to the power of the purse but now even superstars of the gentlemen’s’ game have been caught playing hookey with bookies. Socialists may lament the advent of unbridled capitalism and the market economy etc. but cynics will point out that even in Biblical times a disciple of Christ sold him out for Thirty Pieces of Silver.

If jockeys, bookies, cricketers and even judges - as stated recently by a high and mighty of the land - could be susceptible to the filthy lucre, why not our honourable MPs and honourable ministers? Thus, with charges of MPs who had crossed over to the Opposition being ‘bought up by mudalalies and bookies’ hanging thick in the air, it is a wonderful opportunity to smear mud on the ten who crossed over. The circumstances are such that the accuser need not prove the charge. He only got to make it because if the accused has not been bought over by the mudalalies or bookies, there is no way to prove his innocence. Rationalists often quote the example of the impossibility of disproving the claim that there is a tiger on your table. All that could be said is that the reasons for claiming a tiger to be there have not been proved or that the reasons adduced are bad.

Mr. Mangala Samaraweera who is making this charge of the cross-over MPs being bought over, experienced some difficulty last week on a talk show. He was asked whether his father Mr. Mahanama Semaraweera who crossed over from the SLFP to the Opposition in 1964 and brought down the government of Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike by one vote was also ‘bought over’. All Mr. Samaraweera could say was that he was a very young boy at that time and he could not comment whether his father was bought over or not but that his family was by no means affluent and that they had to ask the late President Premadasa for a government owned apartment.

Thus, it is apparent how easy it is to make charges of being ‘bought over’ and the impossibility of refuting them. But it also does not mean that some would not have been ‘bought over’.

Yesterday, we had the rare spectacle of Mr. Anura Bandaranaike being given the pride of place in the Daily News. In the lead story of the paper, Mr. Bandaranaike, referring to the latest political developments, says that the business tycoons, mudalalies and bookmakers had been behind recent moves and the voters had been left in the lurch. Mr. Bandaranaike is a much respected and responsible politician. If he has information regarding the activities of the businessmen and tycoons who brought about this situation, he should make them public. He too crossed over from the PA to the UNP and back again to the PA. There could be no question about his honesty and integrity but anyone could make charges about him being ‘bought over’ and all he could do would be to deny the charges to high heaven and challenge his accusers to prove it.

Since the 1964 cross-over, any cross-over, either singly or in groups has been tainted with the accusation of being ‘bought over’. It was only last year, before the general election, that the PA was threatening to effect a mass cross-over of UNPers to the PA. A few UNPers did cross over and once again rumours were aloft that huge amounts were passed under the table and the reason why the exodus from the UNP did not take place was that the promised amounts had not been forthcoming. Once again it was virtually impossible to verify or disprove these allegations.

There is a paradox about these allegations of being ‘bought over’. Some of the prominent persons involved are those who could well afford to ‘buy up’ rather than being 'bought up'. The answer given to this is that some persons are cursed with an insatiable ‘tanha’. Nothing is 'enough’ for them

While ‘mudalalies and their money’ is an easy form of abuse, in the cases of recent cross-overs, we should also attempt to look for other reasons as well. It is apparent that many honourable men decided to part company with their party only because of the shabby and arrogant way the leadership had treated them.

Your comments to the Editor