News
The folly of our citizenry
View(s):Not so long ago, the middle classes of this country considered the masses living in the villages to be, broadly speaking, uneducated and naive. This belief was bolstered by the fact that they were easily gulled by politicians who repeatedly deceived them with promises that were never fulfilled; and the masses never seemed to learn not to be taken in.
This general belief was shattered by the Silent Revolution in January when a leadership that had systematically (and massively) robbed the country was unexpectedly overthrown by the ballot. There can be little doubt that the people voted in January against corruption. The President they voted in was pristinely pure. The Prime Minister he appointed, in accordance with his manifesto, was not tainted with corruption. This was the massive difference that brought about the change.
It is, therefore, irritating to find the public, and even the intelligentsia, showing immaturity in their impatience over the Government’s apparent tardiness in prosecution of the offenders of the previous regime. It should be obvious to the discerning people that the current Government is determined to stick to the spirit and the letter of the law; no Kangaroo Courts for them. They are obviously determined that their cases should be watertight and that there should be no acquittals.
The previous regime had equally obviously been supremely cunning in its perpetration of fraud and the extraction of kickbacks. It has gone to great lengths to cover its tracks and is very confident that there will be no evidence of wrongdoing. That there has been massive fraud is incontrovertible; because there is clear evidence that mega projects have cost much, very much, more than they should have.
Where have all those kickbacks, running into billions, gone? Why is the Treasury almost insolvent after the glorious economic performance of the last nine years (according to the last Governor of the Central Bank)? The present Government, with the huge task of investigation and prosecution, and its limited resources, is taking longer than those eager to see condign punishment being meted out, can stomach. All sorts of base reasons are being mooted for the failure to bring the miscreants to book.
Worse still, there is a strong tendency for the people (including the intelligentsia) to say that we should consider the suspects to be innocent because ‘a person is innocent until he is proved guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt’. That is a maxim that holds only in a court of law, in criminal matters. It does not apply when we have to make a judgement for ourselves whether we should hold a man guilty or not.
We constantly have to make such judgements about our acquaintances, domestic employees and relatives on everyday occurrences. Our judgement would determine our decisions with regard to actions and attitude towards the person concerned. We need to be decisive if we are to succeed in tackling the problems of everyday life. A great deal of thought and empathy is required if one is to be fair.
This is where intelligence comes in. In such instances, we need to use a different yardstick to postulate guilt. We need to weigh all the evidence before us and decide on the balance of probabilities. For instance, if it is known that an individual was so hard up that he could not meet the lease rental on a vehicle he had leased, then tied his wagon to a political star, and ended up owning hotels (without winning a series of lotteries) the probabilities are that he has been corrupt. We should not feel guilty about characterising such a man as a crook. Every public-spirited person should do so. But of course we should not bundle him into jail (except for the purposes of the investigation) until he is proved guilty in a court of law. To gather the evidence to prove this is what is taking time.
But the government would be well advised to keep the public informed of the progress being made on the investigations — provided, of course, that such information does not weaken its cases in any way. To delay exposure until just before the elections for maximum political impact may be an attractive tactic but it is fraught with danger. It could be a two-edged sword. The patience of the public can run out.
(The writer is former Chairman and Managing Director of Aitken Spence, Chairman to the Employers Federation of Ceylon, the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. He is a Deshamanya recipient.)