Govt wallowing in someone else’s mud

BY CHARMINDA RODRIGO-2016-09-25

Convener of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) Prof. Sarath Wijesooriya said, "Though we did not disclose the developments to the media, we maintained a constant dialogue with the relevant decision makers on the government reforms".
Excerpts:

?: NMSJ broke its silence last week during the meeting you had with President Maithripala Sirisena along with other 45 civil movements that spearheaded the change of government in 2015. What forced you to make this move?

A: We didn't remain silent during the recent past. We have voiced our concerns with the relevant authorities. Though we did not disclose the developments to the media, we maintained a constant dialogue with the decision makers on government reforms. We have advised them on some salient issues. Even though the government had paid attention to what we had to say, the outcome of our propositions is not up to our satisfaction. That is not what we had anticipated. Therefore as civil representatives we were completely disappointed over the reaction of the government. This is exactly why we requested the President for an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail. We met him last week and had a fruitful discussion.

?:Last week you submitted a collective memorandum to the President enclosing five salient points for his perusal. What were they?

A: First, we asked for a prompt Cabinet shuffle. This is the aspiration of all those who backed the President during the Presidential Election. While conducting investigations into the misappropriations of the past regime, the President should pay attention to a corruption-free Cabinet of ministers. The media had highlighted the misconduct of the ministers on numerous occasions which are contrary to the principles of good governance. We have brought the arbitrary actions to the attention of the government. However, so far no action has been taken to remedy the situation. We have not mentioned any names in the memorandum. We hope the President and the Prime Minister have a very clear understanding of the ministers subject to public criticism.

Secondly, we emphasized the necessity for independence of the judiciary. A three-judge Bench was appointed to hear the Bharatha's case and the proceedings were over in a short time. The accused Duminda Silva along with several others were sentenced to death after the judges analysed the facts presented before them.

The case involved well-known politicians during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. Therefore we asked the government to expedite the court procedure. Some people feared that there would be a long delay when the case came up for hearing. There was also a suspicion that the case would be delayed until a new government would come to power. When people seek justice it is the prime responsibility of the government to expedite cases.

Thirdly, we urged the President to immediately stop the ministers from interfering with investigations. The President should ensure the independence of government institutions without political interference.
Fourthly, we requested the President to go forward in implementing the Audit Bill. Those who oppose it are the same public officials who are guilty of misappropriation of State funds. They are forcing the ministers to protect them. The government should not be frightened of the threats posed by such officials. There are enough honest officials to take the country forward.
Finally we urged the President to introduce political reforms without delay. The government has to bring in political reforms.

?: The Joint Opposition (JO) alleges that investigations against malpractices are biased? What do you think about such allegations?

A: We have urged the authorities to investigate into all allegations irrespective of the regime, political affiliation or the position of the individual. Crimes should not go unpunished. Authorities should prioritize the inquiries. However, there is an unrest among members of the JO when investigations begin. It is natural, because they have never expected this transformation. Even any act of misappropriation that takes place under the present government should not go unnoticed. They should be investigated and the culprits punished. We believe that nobody has a licence to misuse their power.

?: As independent observers we see that there is a hidden agenda when conducting investigations and making arrests. There seems to be a connection with the political developments of the JO. Do you agree?

A: Honestly, even we feel that investigations conducted against some people seem to be delayed for some unknown reasons. This means that investigators are not independent. If the authorities have complete independence, they should be able to proceed with the cases they handle. We do not know why they have to get the advice of the President's office or the Prime Minister's office.

A senior minister has said that no action would be taken against any SLFP minister for alleged malpractices. This is not the true essence of good governance. Action must be taken against anybody irrespective of their position or party affiliations.
JO member Wimal Weerawansa is alleged to have used two passports and misused State property. However, the government has not taken any action to investigate into them.

?: Another member of the same political party has been remanded for misusing State property. In fact his brother too had to face a similar situation. Do you not see that there is a mismatch in what you say?

A: What we emphasize is the fact that we should not delay the legal process. The government came to power promising that justice will be meted out to any offender irrespective of their social standing. However, no action has been taken against the former President's wife, Shiranthi Rajapaksa who was allegedly involved in acts of misappropriation, such as the "Siriliya account". The investigations have been concluded, but no further action has been taken. Who or what is preventing the authorities from taking further action? We do not want any excuses from the government on these matters. We need action and not excuses.

?: Going beyond the investigations into corruption, a strong allegation has been levelled against the government pertaining to war heroes. Is the government really betraying them?

A: There were many abductions, assaults and threats reported during the war. However, members of the Security forces did not take part in such activities. It has been found that certain officials were involved in them. Such actions were resorted to silence the opposition. Now the same people, who had misused the security forces to attain their political ends, are shedding crocodile tears when the authorities probe into certain incidents. How can you call a person who has killed an innocent individual a war hero? This is absurd.

?: The government is proposing a new Constitution. This is aimed at fostering ethnic harmony in Sri Lanka. What do you think the structure of the Constitution should be?

A: Why do we need a new Constitution? We need a Constitution to make sure that there will be no bloodshedding in the country. Powers should be devolved in the proposed Constitution. It should ensure the Rule of Law and the independence of the judiciary. Also the electoral system should be changed accordingly. Those are the main drawbacks leading the entire political culture to chaos. We need a Constitution which safeguards the rights of the people. We may not be able to satisfy everybody, but we need to draft a Constitution that could satisfy the majority.

?: Critics of the JO say that the proposed Constitution encompasses federal elements. They fear that it would pave the way to a separate State. What do you have to say about this?

A: When the war was over, the so-called constitutional law specialists should have asked the President to go for a constitutional reform. But they did not do so. The same people who have allowed Mahinda Rajapaksa to amend the Constitution so that he could remain in power are making such comments. The new Constitution is still a draft. I can only pity the critics.

?: Two leaders (President and Prime Minister) who had an unconditional agreement at the beginning. Now they seem to be deviating from the main pledge, and both SLFP and UNP want to form their own government. Do you see this as a deviation from the mandate?

A: You may be referring to the speeches delivered at the party anniversaries. I see it in a different way. The Prime Minister said the United National Party (UNP) has done so much for the country and at the sametime he regretted any fault. This is a brave statement. This shows the humble nature of the leader. We have no objection to the involvement in their own parties. However, we urge them to sit at one table when it comes to resolving the issues of the people. Mind you, our pact is for this government not forever.

?: What do you think about the decision to impose the Value Added Tax (VAT) on certain goods and services which is widely discussed in many forums?

A: This has come out as a measure to enhance the revenue of the government. That was due to the insane decision taken during the 100-day programme. Indeed the people were anticipating a relief from the sky-rocketed cost of living. The prices of essential commodities and fuel were brought down to relieve the people. No one talks of that anymore.

However, VAT has become a hot topic due to the political overtones it carries. The government should have taken a calculated risk when slashing down the prices, keeping in mind that revenue is really essential for its survival. They had not foreseen this factor. They knew that the previous government had left a heap of debt behind them. Finally, the present government is wallowing in someone else's mud.