The reason for all these philosophical ponderings owes its origins to many factors, not the least of which is a news item this Saturday in the daily papers which exposes a quaintly termed backstage battle between the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and the Presidential Secretariat as to who should carry an astounding bill of some Rs 2.8 million which is due by Rupavahini to Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) for the live satellite broadcast by President Chandrika Kumaratunga on national television during last year's general election.

The positions taken by the Rupavahni and the Presidential Secretariat in this regard are interesting. On the one hand, spokesman for President Chandrika Kumaratunga claim that the President addressed the people in the interest of the public and in pursuance of the right and obligation that she has as the head of state to communicate with the public. "Our position is that SLRT is a public corporation and all public corporations should follow the usual practice of footing the bills which are in the public interest." Presidential spokesperson Harim Peiris has said. The reference here to public interest is extraordinarily exciting but more on that aspect later. For the moment, suffice to say that, on the other hand, the position taken by Rupavahini (one might add unnecessarily under their new bosses), is that the live telecast via satellite was not so much in the national interest but was used for presidential propaganda and accordingly, it was the obligation of the Presidential Secretariat to pay the bill.

The primary question here concerns the use of public funds and the argument as to why such funds ought to be used for public and not partisan purposes, is relatively simple. Public funds are contributed to by taxes paid by the people of all political persuasions and not limited to one political party. Therefore, when such funds are used in whatever manner, whether it is for paying the salaries of public officials or for maintaining state media institutions, it necessarily follows that where such officials or such institutions are used for political propaganda, public accountability steps in and demands answers. Or so, the rationale goes. It all depends, of course, on many other factors as was found out to our cost in a number of public interest cases filed last year before the Supreme Court by academics, activists and journalists as well as by members of the opposition party now in government, where this same question figured fairly prominently.

These cases involved, in fact, the very question of the television interview over which the bill is now disputed together with recorded and analysed coverage by Rupavahini during a particular defined period just prior to the December general election which showed that this state media institution, in particular, had been used for propaganda coverage for the Peoples Alliance in a manner that was highly nauseating. It is pertinent to recall that while some of these cases (involving other media institutions as well as Rupavahini) were given leave to proceed but argument was fixed for after the general election and others were put off by a bench presided over by Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, with the observation that if the petitioner has a problem with watching Rupavahini, he should switch it off and turn to another channel.

And so, the questions remain; should a politician, President or Prime Minister notwithstanding, be allowed to indulge in a merry utilisation of public money to advance the interests of one political party alone? To what extent is the right to franchise (which has been progressively interpreted by the Court on other occasions to be inherent in the right to freedom of speech) as well as the right of every tax paying citizen to ensure that the public coffers are not arbitrarily used for the purposes of the party in government alone, violated by such actions? And if one takes this disputed interview of President Kumaratunga by itself (disregarding the pattern of blatant propaganda coverage by Rupavahini at that time), to what extent, indeed, can a Court intervene to decide whether a speech of the head of a country is propagandist in nature? And as conservatives would further press, is it proper that the Court should so intervene even if the contents clearly make it out to be not an address made by a head of state but a political speech?

These many nuanced questions aside, the direct linkage between public funds and tax money makes these issues even more relevant this week with the deferred implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT) Bill consequent to the Bill being questioned before the Supreme Court by a consumer rights body. The implementation of the Bill as it stands, is being challenged on the basis that the scheme of the Bill and the schedules provide for an inequitable taxation, causing enormous hardships for the ordinary citizen.

The Consumer Protection Society of Sri Lanka has particularly objected to the fact that several essential items (which had not been taxed earlier under the GST taxation regimes which VAT proposes to replace) are due to be taxed, albeit at the lower rate of VAT. These items include water, stationery and exercise books, fertiliser, sugar, jaggery, dried fish, diesel and LP gas, eggs, vegetable machinery and tractors, vegetable seeds and supply or import of pharmaceutical products and raw material for such products. In addition, the power given in the Bill to the Minister to determine two rates of taxation in the absence of any guidelines whatsover has been argued to be contrary to Article 12(1) of the Constitution. This is moreover, in the context of the Bill not specifying the tax rates, thus leading to fears that the rates may be changed arbitrarily from time to time. In other words, even though the upper tax rate is fixed at 20%, it could be increased to 50% if the Minister thinks it fit once the Bill becomes law. Of specific interest meanwhile is the fact that the Bill imposes a lower rate of VAT on magazines and journals, thus putting into focus an alleged violation of Article 14(1) (a) as well as Article 10.

The reason why the Government is seeking to impose a new taxation regime is, of course, no secret. It is the same reason why all recruitment to the public sector has been suspended and funding to universities, for example, has been reportedly reduced. The Government has no money in its public coffers. And the issue of public accountability vis-a-vis public funds may soon lose its relevance with there being precious little public funds to talk about. Vigilance with regard to the manner in which public funds had been utilised in the recent and not so recent past, had been confined to a few eccentrics. The generality of the Sri Lankan public limited its indignation to the vote and in writing letters to the newspapers. We will have to learn to reap what we have sowed in the times to come. And pay the rupees 2.8 million bill owing on last year's satellite coverage by President Kumaratunga for good measure.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster