Columns

So the Elections Commissioner has given the candidates at the August 17 parliamentary polls a couple of more days to submit their assets declarations. It is not due to any special magnanimity on the part of the Commissioner. Apparently it is on an appeal made by political parties that wanted a few more days as the July 31 deadline fell on a Poya day which would be followed by a weekend.

It was, of course, well known that the law required candidates to submit their declarations in order to be officially recognised as legitimate candidates. So why this last minute scramble to put their worth-financial not moral-on paper.

Prospective candidate should have got down to the task earlier without waiting for a Poya day when Buddhists are expected to show tolerance and compassion, if they do not do so at all other times. But it was surely not Buddhist tolerance that prompted the Commissioner. It was perhaps the hope that more declarations would reach him and provide him with greater edification and enjoyment.

There is nothing wrong in that. Some people are said to count sheep to fall asleep. Having mostly black sheep around, the Commissioner likewise could count asses or goats of which there are plenty judging by some campaign speeches lacking in sense and logical argument.

Would it not be more convenient if not a public duty for Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya to display all these declarations on the commission website so that they could be easily accessed by the public?. Pic by Amila Gamage

Come election time he can read assets declarations. If guffaws are heard from his bed room one need not wonder why. Legend has it that the famous Greek mathematician jumped out of his bath tub one day and ran through the streets of Syracuse naked having discovered some abstruse principle.

I doubt that Mahinda Deshapriya would have to rush out of his shower and parade down the street having suddenly recalled statements made in some assets declaration. What with the constant water cuts he would be lucky to get under a shower.
The crucial question is not whether some prospective candidates failing to submit timely declarations end up without identity cards as the commissioner has threatened. I am not quite sure what that entails. Does it mean that he would not be recognised as an MP even if he wins? Or would he still have time to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities post-election?

That to me is far less important than what happens to these declarations. There are more than 6000 candidates. If these declarations are to serve any real purpose they must be freely available to the public who would be able to peruse them more closely than would otherwise be done by one or more officials, if done at all.

Do officials actually make a study of them and if so how would they know that what has been stated is true or not. Yes, it is an offence to knowingly or deliberately state an untruth in such a declaration. But how could any person in authority in the place where these declarations are deposited know the truth or otherwise of what is stated, particularly if the declaration being looked at is that of a person not personally known?

The declarations made by MPs are deposited, I believe, with the Speaker and the declarations of ministers with the President. Seriously has anybody looked at them, even as a matter of curiosity? Or do they just lie there gathering dust just like the annual declarations of public officials and end up in the incinerator?

So besides being a legal necessity for public officials to make annual declarations do they serve any useful purpose except to the manufacturers of paper?

Take the case of politicians. It is known that some of them have assets abroad especially immoveable property. It may be the UK, the US, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, Canada or elsewhere politicians are believed to own residences or other assets.
How is the public to know whether these assets have actually been declared and if so their value has been correctly stated? It is true that for a fee a member of the public or an organisation can ask for a particular declaration to be made available. But it becomes somewhat of a cumbersome task.

Would it not be more convenient if not a public duty for the Elections Commissioner to display all these declarations on the commission website so that they could be easily accessed by the public?

Beside the ownership of assets outside the country there is another matter. It is known several politicians are educating their children abroad. Some even have two or three children living and studying outside the country.

Unless they have inherited wealth or have made their money through legitimate means it is extremely with tuition fees in many countries being hiked especially for foreign students. In the UK, for instance, foreign students have to pay more as tuition fees than local or European Union students.

A foreign student would have to pay as much as £12,000 for a course that does not involve laboratory and clinical degree which could cost nearly £35,000. If one were to add living costs it certainly would be excessive for most Sri Lankans.
Surely it is legitimate for the public to ask how it has been possible for some politicians to afford to have children study abroad if they do not have additional income legitimately acquired.

This applies to public officials as well. The public turns its collective gaze on politicians and forgets public officials who are equally answerable especially if they are in positions of power and influence.

Our Bribery Act of 1954 was amended in 1958 to include what came to be known as the “illicit enrichment” clause. This was a provision that Hong Kong borrowed from us when it was setting up its Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Under that it was an offence if a person has acquired property, and such property being money, which cannot be part of his own income or receipts; or property being property other than money that cannot be properly acquired with any part of his known income. The burden of proof lay with the individual concerned.

Something on these lines has been incorporated in the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).
If corruption is to be reduced, if not eliminated, it requires we have institutions such as Hong Kong’s ICAC and more vigorous pursuit of the objectives of UNCAC and the Stolen Assets Recovery Unit (STAR), an initiative of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Bank set up to fight corruption by recovering stolen assets.

At the same time it is essential that the new parliament adopts a Code of Conduct for MPs setting out clearly their duties, obligations and principles of conduct which should be entrusted to an independent Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman who rigorously implements it as in the UK.

For far too long, MPs have been considered by much of society to be a public liability for while MPs enjoyed the perks of office, some of them have also been seen to be a liability that the country should not be asked to bear.
If as some demand they want the number of MPs to be increased then it is all the more reason why such a code to be strictly observed, should be a priority of the new parliament.
Are we expecting too much?