|
Oftentimes, when nations and peoples go through immense trauma, the extent of the systemic damage that takes place during that time is trivialised or denied. In certain instances, this is through inadequate realisation of the full extent of the horrors that have occurred. A classic example was during World War 11, when America's - if not the world's greatest aviator, Charles Lindburgh engaged in strong lobbying to prevent the United States from entering the war. At that time, Lindburgh was apparently not aware of the enormous and organised extent to which people of Semitic race had been exterminated in Hitler's concentration camps and hence, we find him advocating astonishingly that "Under any circumstances, I believed that a victory by Germany's European peoples would be preferable to one by Russia's semi- Asiatic peoples…" (Lindburgh, Autobiography of Values, 1977). To him, Germany's Hitler was preferable to Russia's Stalin, in other words, the choice was not between dictatorship and democracy but rather between two dictators and his choice was made public, wholly controversially, of course.
In that instance, we find therefore a formidable personality, perhaps the most celebrated man in American history, who was variously not only a pioneering aviator but also scientist, soldier, conservationist and adept philosopher, making one of the most terrible blunders of all time. His example is singularly instrumental - and is quoted by this column - for the reason that each country, in their own particular times of crisis, have had their unknowing Lindburghs, who, despite great personal charm and qualities of leadership, have made huge miscalculations in their assessments of happening evils. In other cases, of course, the lack of dissent is through a deliberate dissociation for private or political gain if not private or political loyalties. In either case however, the damage is the same and loses nothing in its intensity. What is particularly sad however is that Sri Lanka continues to have her Lindburghs - in that inevitably pejorative sense - even at this moment in time, despite hopes of national renewal and revival.
We see even now, a most deafening silence manifested by civil society and its leaders, on vital public interest issues such as the appointment of the Constitutional Council - delayed now for over three months. We have the curious instance of the names of the nine nominated members in the hands of President Chandrika Kumaratunga but their appointment remains elusive as does the appointment of the single nominee of the President herself. This is despite the 17th Amendment decreeing that the President shall, upon receipt of a written communication of the nominations, forthwith, make the respective appointments. Despite this, the public waits and waits interminably for the appointments, accompanied as has already been said, by the inexplicable silence of those who have both a burden and a duty not to be silent on these matters.
This silence has its inevitable impact on political leaders, not only in times of crisis but in times of rebuilding and rejuvenation as well. This week, we had three Bills presented to Parliament by Constitutional Minister G.L. Peiris who introduced them as legislation passed to fill in gaps in the 17th Amendment. The Bills, termed respectively the Competent Authority (Powers and Functions), Removal of Officers (Procedure) and Administrative Appeals Tribunal, were passed unanimously by the House subsequently. While the motive of the Government in introducing these Bills may have been good and proper, one is compelled to ask the question as to how much of the content of these Bills were known to the public before presentation in Parliament? How much effort has the Government taken to make sure that the stakeholders in these pieces of legislation were the people and not politicians of whatever hue or colour?
We had a practice, hardened into an unsavoury convention over the past twenty years when, the ability of an ordinary citizen to get at a Bill presented in Parliament was almost insuperable and when one was indeed compelled to resort to the most devious practices in smuggling these Bills out in order that they may be studied for possible flaws during the pitiably short time limit allowed for the people to make representations. We appear to have this practice being continued in the new Government. A notable exception in recent times has been a public advertisement published in the newspapers recently by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that the revised Consumer Protection Authority Bill is now before the public and inviting representations. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs is to be congratulated for breaking with unhealthy tradition but it remains singular in so doing. On the other hand, can we expect anything any better when our civil society leaders, as a whole and with very few exceptions, seem to be anything but concerned about issues of public accountability which is a term only examined in glossy project proposals to various funders? These are questions that are very relevant in these times of flux.
The Bills before the hours this week are all vital in their own way. The two discussed below are particularly important in the present day context. The Competent Authority (Powers and Functions) Bill specifies the extent of authority that a Competent Authority appointed by the Elections Commission (Elections Commissioner) may exercise during a period of elections in respect of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) and the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC). The 17th Amendment stipulates that such Competent Authority may be appointed by the Elections Commission where such state media body contravenes any guidelines issued by the Commission with regard to fair and balanced reporting. Proceeding from this, the Bill provides, among other functions and powers, that such individual appointed as the Competent Authority, shall carry on the services of such state body while maintaining high standards in programming in the public interest and in the conduct of a free and fair election, shall exercise supervision and control over such programmmes and shall advise the Minister in respect of such matters.
Extensive powers of establishing, installing and operating broadcasting apparatuses, acquiring property, rights or privileges that the Competent Authority considers necessary for the exercising and discharging of its powers and functions are also conferred by the law. It appears somewhat worrying however that neither this week's law approved by Parliament nor the 17th Amendment, lays down any provisions for the removal of a Competent Authority by the Election Commission on specified grounds. We would seem to have therefore, inadequate checks and balances with regard to the office of the Competent Authority appointed under these laws.
Again, a relevant question here is as to why the 17th Amendment and necessarily therefore this week's enabling law omitted The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited and Independent Television Network Limited from the tight control imposed on state media bodies in disseminating unbalanced news. The question of state funds being used applies across the board to all these state media institutions at present and one is at a loss to understand the exemptions.
Meanwhile, the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Bill singles out the Attorney General (AG) and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) from among a list of individuals specified in the schedule to Article 41C of the 17th Amendment, which includes also the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the Secretary General of Parliament, and lays down specific procedure for their removal.
Particular grounds are laid down for their removal including not only the familiar grounds of insolvency, ill health or physical or mental infirmity, conviction for moral turpitude, treason or bribery, misconduct or corruption but also gross abuse of powers of his office, gross neglect of duty and gross partiality in office. The public officer concerned could be removed by the President on any one of the latter grounds only consequent to address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of MPs for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The resolution for the presentation of such an address should have been signed by not less than one third of the total number of MPs.
In the case of the AG, such committee consists of the Chief Justice and two others who have either been past holders of the office of the Attorney General or who have reached eminence in the field of law. The IGP meanwhile will be before a committee chaired by a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice and consisting of the Chairman of the Police Commission and a person who has reached eminence in the field of law, management or public administration.
Appointments to both committees are by the Speaker with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Upon the findings of the Committee being placed before Parliament, the resolution for the removal shall be forthwith removed from office by the President upon a majority of the MPs voting in favour. Thus, we have the gist of two of the three Bills approved by the House this week.
In this regard, one hopes at least, in future enabling legislation brought particularly under the 17th Amendment, that policy makers would take care to lay them before the public with due time for deliberations. This is of the highest importance at present, more so as civil society activism in this country appears to be increasingly more problematic as time goes bye.
|
