Guest Column

Big and mighty get away, small ones have to pay

By: Victor Ivan

Perhaps due to the news that appeared to the efect that a majority of the members of the legislature including cabinet ministers and MPs all violate the rule that they themselves had enacted -that parliamentarians must declare their assets-the President has ordered all cabinet ministers and deputy ministers to hand over their declarations of assets for the past five years with immediate effect. This action of creating a situation where the law is enforced, though belatedly and due to a prompting by a newspaper, deserves praise.

However, the implementation of this rule will not be complete merely with the obtaining of declarations of assets and liabilities of ministers and deputy ministers only. There must also be the possibility for members of the public to obtain them without difficulty. In a context in which the PA had promised in its election manifesto that it would take action to publicise declaration of assets and liabilities of its ministers, if at least declarations now being collected, are made available to the mass media, the people will be able to know who has declared the truth and who has not. They will also get to know who has been impoverished due to politics and who has enriched himself/herself.

Recently I published a critical article about presents received by heads of state. Perhaps it was in response to that a newspaper carried a news item that the President donated presents received by her to the state treasury.

There is a tradition in all countries for heads of state to give presents to visiting heads of state and take presents to head of states. However, expenditure for these presents are not borne out of private funds of heads of state but out of public funds. Therefore the tradition in all countries is that presents received by heads of state are handed over to the state treasury.

But in our country the practice was different. The expenditure on presents made to heads of other states was of course borne out of state funds, but presents received were appropriated by the receipients without handing them over to the treasury.

Once I questioned an official of the Audit Department regarding this matter. I asked him whether there was an auditing of presents made and received by heads of state. He just looked at me as if dumbfounded and made no reply. He admitted that according to the law of the land presents received by the heads of state in his official capacity must go to the treasury. But he admitted that tradition had not been followed from the time of the UNP government to date. He also had to finally admit that some of the presents were not even entered in a formal register. It is necessary to say that this is a sad state of affairs. The amount of public funds spent on presents to heads of state may amount to Rs. one or two million. If presents received are not sent to the general treasury but are appropriated by the recipients, it is certainly unsatisfactory.

It was after that public criticism about presents received by heads of state that the presidential secretariat issued a statement that the President had donated to the treasury valuable articles received by her, along with a list of these articles giving also their values. However that statement does not make it clear whether the President had handed over all the articles received by her in her official capacity. It is also wrong to have presented them as a donation. If a list is published of the presents made by our heads of state to foreign heads of state on an official basis and the expenditure involved of the presents received by them on an official basis during the past 15 years, that will enable the people to get an idea about the integrity displayed by these heads of state .

Acceptance of presents from entrepreneurs by heads of state is also against the tradition. If a head of state has that freedom to accept them, he or she will inevitably pay greater attention in terms of the powers vested in the head of state to those who made more valuable presents.

Our country also has a bad tradition of maintaining a special fund which the head of state can control. According to the financial law prevailing in the country, the only place where state funds can be found is the general treasury. But the President has given himself (or herself) the right to maintain a special fund called the President's Fund. When in opposition the SLFP criticised it severely, but after coming back to power, the SLFP instead of abolishing such an autocratic system, appears to be maintaining it with great relish. The President's Fund outwardly appears to be maintained for charitable grants. Grants are made from it to some patients. Although such activity gives some justification to the President's Fund.

Due to a question raised by a representative of the opposition in Parliament, the government had to table a list of names of persons who had received grants from the President's Fund. Surprisingly the list was tabled without giving details or the amounts granted to various people.

All institutions not falling within the category of charities, as well as all the citizens come under the income tax law. But the Department of Inland Revenue does not look into party funds under any circumstances. I have heard of an instance in which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had to make an inquiry from president J. R. Jayewardene about a petition that the commission had received about a large amount of money in the president's personal account. The president's reply had been that the monies in his personal accounts were not his own monies but those of the party. But the commissioner did not question the president as to how party funds were in his personal account rather than in a party account due to the fact that the president was the first citizen of the country.

Although the ownership of party funds should be with the parties, it is the party leader who owns these funds. There is no tradition of reporting to the party leader or to the party about the election funds received by the parties. I have heard of instances when party leaders had loaned billions of rupees on interest received by them. The party leader can even personally use any amount of the funds. Newspapers reported that at the time of president Premadasa's assassination, there was about Rs. 360 million available at Sucharitha. The Department of Inland Revenue did not inquire as to how and from whom such an amount was received probably because Mr. Premadasa was the first citizen. But how can a law that does not operate in regard to leading citizens and is only applicable to ordinary citizens be reasonable?

From the Green Corner

Here a plot, there a plot, where's the truth?

By : Virudda Paakshikaya

As I write these comments, I must admit that I am a sad man. It is not often that I do so but in this instance it is because of the death of the editor of the 'Satana', Rohana Kumara.

Now, Paakshikaya I'm sure you will say, 'there goes the UNP, trying to make political capital from a killing of which the government knows nothing about'. But, unfortunately there is more to it than that, my friend.

I, for one, did not know this editor any more than I know you, Paakshikaya. Even though being a staunch supporter and member of the Grand Old Party for many decades, I have not had the opportunity to meet this gentleman nor have I really read his newspaper. I do remember however of reading a newspaper- a sheet of paper, rather- called 'Thrishule' which I'm told was also edited by this versatile personality.

Now, Paakshikaya, you would then ask me why I'm so sad at the killing of someone whom I did not even know and I think we must all address that question.

We all remember the killing of Richard De Zoysa, Paakshikaya. He was also a journalist and dramatist and was a talented man. He wrote of things that embarrassed the then UNP government. But, however he never campaigned on behalf of the UNP. And then one day he was found dead.

The furore that erupted is now history. Those of you in the PA took maximum political advantage of that death- there is no way you can deny that. In death, Richard De Zoysa became larger than he ever was in life. And people- some of whom occupy ministerial chairs today- who never knew Richard de Zoysa behaved as if he was their closest friend. Those in the PA then knew that every nail in Richard De Zoysa's coffin would also be a nail in the UNP's coffin.

Your stalwarts saw nothing wrong in that, Paakshikaya. Even then, we did not call Richard de Zoysa a 'disposable sacrifice'. We did not try to denigrate him in death by saying he was not a journalist.

After all, Paakshikaya, Richard de Zoysa had friends in the UNP too. When he was abducted from home, minister Lalith Athulathmudali made inquiries and did his best to trace his whereabouts.

Rohana Kumara had no such luxuries. He may have had friends in the UNP but he also had friends in the PA which is why he even campaigned for the PA at one time. His 'Thrishule' was probably the most virulent of all anti-UNP publications at that time.

Now, Paakshikaya, why am I recalling all these details here? It is because I want our readers to realize that the wheel has turned full circle. What the UNP suffered as a result of Richard de Zoysa's killing is now being felt by the PA government with Rohana Kumara's death, though I must hasten to add that the kind of journalism practiced by the two gentlemen were poles apart: Richard used subtle sarcasm; I'm told Rohana used savage slander.

But even then, Paakshikaya I think we must examine your government's response to this killing. Your Media Minister- another young man of unforeseen talent- calls it a 'disposable sacrifice' and sees a conspiracy in it. Your theory is that the UNP had him killed just so it could lay the blame on the PA!

Now, Paakshikaya your media minister must be a rather paranoid man. He must be a man who thrives on these conspiracy theories. He must be studying these theories over breakfast, lunch and dinner. He must be seeing a green under every bed!

Why? Because he sees a UNP conspiracy under every disaster that happens during the PA's term of office. I'll give you a few examples.

When the UNP's protest on July 15 was disrupted and photographers were assaulted by the Presidential Security Division what did he say? He said it must have been a UNP conspiracy. The 'Daily News' screamed in its headline that "UNP goons" assaulted the journalists.

But what does he say now? He says the Presidential Security was doing its duty and had it not been done it would have amounted to neglecting their responsibilities. So, now it's official: the assigned duty of the Presidential Security Division is not to protect the President but to harass the media!

Then, there was your literally batty minister, Batty Weerakoon stealing our leader's e- mail. When he was caught red-handed with an explanation that had computer experts laughing, what did your media minister say? He said the e-mail revealed a UNP 'conspiracy' to import hi-tech espionage instruments to sabotage the government!

There is more, Paakshikaya. When the Channel Nine scandal erupted what was the reaction. Again, the flagship of the media minister, the 'Daily News' propounded a conspiracy theory: it even carried a picture of a reputed city hotel in its front pages saying a conspiracy was hatched there to "topple the government" using the Channel Nine tape.

But of course, when the tape is handed over to the police for investigation, the police politely refuse it and the controversy is still unsolved- and probably will never be solved under your government!

So, tell me Paakshikaya, can we take your conspiracy theories seriously? More importantly, will the people of this country take your media minister's advice and treat it as a UNP conspiracy? I don't think so, my friend.

You must realize, Paakshikaya, these conspiracy theories can work both ways: the UNP too can put forward its own conspiracy theories: it can say that the Akkaraipattu incidents were a PA conspiracy to create a rift between the UNP and the Muslim Congress; it can say that trying to get Vasudeva Nanayakkara as a common candidate for the Presidential election is a PA conspiracy to divide the anti-government vote; it can even say that appointing Sarath Silva as Chief Justice is a conspiracy because a top person once said that a certain Senior Judge in the Supreme Court 'only gave verdicts favouring the UNP!'

There is however, one thing your government could do. You could conduct a speedy and efficient investigation into the matter and find the culprits. You can use all the resources at your disposal and do that. But to do that there is one pre-condition: the government's hands must be clean! There is absolutely no purpose in the media minister appearing on television and telling us that 22 people have been interrogated with regard to the crime- that will only add to the impression that you are trying to cover up something!

Now, Paakshikaya, I will tell you why I'm sad. I'm sad because whenever some deplorable incident happens in this country- like the killing of Rohana Kumara, for instance- we are not interested in finding the truth. We only care about the political repercussions of that event. The government is only interested in taking political advantage out of it- or if it is embarrassing, to reduce the harm it can cause. The truth, meanwhile takes a back seat.

I will confess that when we in the UNP were in power too, it was done. But the people of this country are very much alive to it and that is one of the reasons why we were thrown out of office. And you in the PA, Paakshikaya are doing the same thing now. And that is why you too will be thrown out of office at the next elections next year- and that will not be a conspiracy either!

More News/Comments

Return to News/Comment Contents