Columns

Articles in the Surcharge Tax Bill that pave the way for the imposition of a 25% levy on the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) and Employee Trust Fund (ETF) attracted controversy this week, with the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) demanding a parliamentary debate on the matter.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa raised issue on Wednesday (9) when Labour Minister Nimal Siripala De Silva was in attendance. The EPF is the largest fund in the country with Rs. 3 trillion in deposits and Rs. 250 billion in profits, the Opposition Leader said. He claimed the Government was trying to tap into the funds of ordinary people, including labour workers to find money for the Finance Minister’s Weda Lakshayak (100, 000 tasks) programme which he plans to give to his minions.

“I want the Labour Minister to explain to this House whether through the imposition of this 25% levy, the government is attempting to pickpocket Rs. 65 billion earned by the determination and sacrifices of our people. This is daylight robbery,” he claimed.

In reply, Minister De Silva said he had already made his opposition clear to any move to tax the EPF and ETF.

The Inland Revenue Department has given an interpretation that revenue earned through investments from the EPF and ETF come under the Inland Revenue Act and therefore the two funds are taxable, he added. “However, our ministry has said that this interpretation is wrong. This is not something that came out from the gazette. This has been going on for a while and we made our stance known to the Treasury and the Commissioner General of Inland Revenue months ago.”

The Government should bring an amendment to Parliament exempting income from the EPF and ETF from income tax to ensure there will be no dispute on the interpretation, former Prime Minister and United National Party (UNP) Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe opined.

The bill paves the way for double taxation of the EPF, which is illegal, claimed Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella. He said the SJB was requesting for a parliamentary debate on the bill.

The Inland Revenue Act that existed during the presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa is not the one in operation today, said Trade Minister Dr. Bandula Gunawardena. “The Yahapalana Government removed all tax exemptions and amended the Act. The gazette has been issued in line with provisions of that Act,” he claimed. The SJB was talking as if they know nothing about the Act which they themselves brought in, added Sports Minister Namal Rajapaksa.

The remarks angered Mr Premadasa. “This is a joke. They are talking like it was the previous Government that imposed this levy.” Deputy Speaker Ranjith Siyambalapitiya then stepped in to request both sides to schedule a separate debate on the issue at a later date.

The perennial issue of law’s delays was also discussed during the Second Reading of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, Judicature (Amendment) Bill and Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill.

Presenting the bills, Justice Minister Ali Sabry pointed out that a female defendant had been acquitted and released by courts recently after a 21-year trial on charges of possessing heroin. A victim of sexual abuse at the age of 13 had to wait 21 years for the trial to conclude. “We have all accepted that law’s delays is a matter requiring urgent solutions, but due to various reasons, we have been unable to resolve it.”

One solution the Government is exploring is to introduce pre-trial hearings into Criminal Law. This would make it possible to lay the groundwork to proceed with cases speedily, Minister Sabry said. Under the reforms, “recorder judges” will summon lawyers from both sides and go over details such as how many witnesses will be summoned, how many days they would need, what sort of documents the two sides intend to submit and what they can all agree on. Working out such details during pre-trial hearings will pave the way for cases to be heard without unnecessary delays, he said.

There were practical difficulties in relation to hearing cases on a daily basis, former Justice Minister and SJB MP Thalatha Athukorala said. “Even if you obtain legal assistance from the State, you must still pay Rs. 5000 a day. If a case was to be heard on 25 days continuously, the question arises as to how many can afford that. While we don’t object to the proposal, it would be better if you also introduce a system whereby the public can still obtain the services of a lawyer of their choice.”

Meanwhile, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Bill, which the Government had presented to Parliament on Thursday (10), only proposes a superficial amendment to the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), National People’s Power (NPP) MP Dr. Harini Amarasuriya said.

According to Dr Amarasuriya, there are currently 25 female suspects detained under the PTA simply for being a family member of a PTA detainee. Even when PTA detainees are released, they are subjected to severe restrictions. “Their freedom of mobility has been curtailed. Their freedom to leave the country is restricted. There are all kinds of conditions under which these people have been released even recently. The stigma of having been apprehended under the PTA even for the flimsiest of reasons continues to haunt these families and these individuals even after they have received bail or having been released from prison.”

As such, when one talks of reforming the PTA, it must be understood that the Act has been implemented in the most arbitrary of ways, the MP stressed.

The proposed amendment to the PTA is “not even eyewash,” Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran said, insisting that the Act must be repealed completely.

Reducing the period of detention from 18 months to 12 months, as proposed in the amendment, makes no difference whatever on the ground, he remarked. This is because Section 7 of the PTA states that when a detainee is produced before a magistrate, the magistrate “shall remand the person till the conclusion of the trial. It’s an indefinite detention.”

He said there were PTA detainees who have been in detention for more than 18 years, not 18 months. In certain emblematic cases, the government has released certain important personalities on bail, but this is only after resolutions in the United Nations Human Rights Council and other places named them as prisoners of conscience, Mr Sumanthiran pointed out. “But there are many others who have not had the fortune of being named as prisoners of conscience and have been in detention for 20 years, 25 years and even for over 30 years,” he said. There were currently between 300 to 400 persons detained under the PTA that no one talks about, he further noted.