|
||||
Pramuka
and Central Bank role It was the Court that asked the Central Bank to look at options other than liquidation on a plea by depositors. Liquidation is a tedious process and no matter what the Central Bank says this could take years and may never be resolved just like HPT and other cases. Even before proposals to revive Pramuka were considered, the Central Bank and its governor A.S. Jayawardene had made up their mind that liquidation was the only way out. The governor and officials told this newspaper that there was no hope of reviving Pramuka - even as Janashakthi Insurance was preparing a proposal! The clear signal from the CB to depositors and the media was that this bank couldn't be revived … until the regulator was ordered by the Supreme Court to take a second look. It was very difficult to get a comment from Central Bank officials particularly the Director of Bank Supervision on the Pramuka issue -- 90 times out of 100 we were told officials were busy or at meetings! But these officials complained they had not been contacted or their side of the story was missing whenever Pramuka stories appeared. The fight by all depositors - barring the big ones - to save the institution is commendable and it's for the first time such a campaign was launched. Pramuka depositors, we are sure, will not forget the likes of Ranjan Arambawela - who initially led the depositors to go to the Supreme Court -, Palitha Gamage and respected business professional K. Viknarajah - who fought for the rights of the unfortunate, many of whom were pensioners, widows and middle-class residents who put their life-savings into the bank in the hope of a decent return. Several depositors - with nowhere to turn, have been sending letters to the newspapers discussing their plight. We publish some excerpts of one of the letters by Mr O. Withanachchi of Mattegoda. He
said: In December 2003 Asia Capital Ltd. forwarded a proposal to restructure PSDB to CBSL. The negative approach of the CBSL was made obvious when it turned down the ACL request for a commercial licence. The shock to the depositors came when the CBSL announced the winding up the business of the PSDB. The sweet talk of the CBSL is that the winding up was done in the interest of the depositors. If the CBSL is genuine in their statement can the CBSL give an assurance that their mode of resettlement is very much advantageous than that offered by ACL? When the PSDB was first suspended (in October 25, 2002), the present Prime Minister, Minister of Trade and Commerce and Deputy Minister of Finance were critical of the then (UNP) government. The sad part is that they have not uttered a word when the liquidation is done by their government. Please remember -- 69% of the depositors who gave the consent to the ACL proposal together with their kith and kin will curse the government for not offering any assistance to ACL to restructure the PSDB and if any depositor is to commit suicide that the government is answerable." The writer says that the PM and others who were on the side of the depositors when in opposition are now silent when the liquidation has taken place under this government. Doesn't this sound familiar? Forget Pramuka Bank for the moment. Isn't this how politicians typically react - in and out of power? Remember Ravi Karunanayake's vociferous condemnation of the AirLanka-Emirates deal during the PA government and near silence when the UNP won power? For that matter where are the likes of Karunanayake and Co. who took up the Pramuka issue last year on behalf of depositors, today when depositors need them most? The silence of ministers in the ruling party and opposition politicians show their indifference towards this issue of public interest. |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
