Who stole the anti-corruption drive?

What is clear is that both political parties are interested in talking about corruptions committed by other party and not really arresting them.

Parliamentary debates against corruption are totally futile.

(But) they serve in creating public awareness and public opinion against corruption, though not immediately

2018-02

A whole week was spent or wasted for a debate on the Parliamentary debate over the reports of Presidential Commissions on the controversial Central Bank bond tractions between 2015 and 2016 and serious frauds committed during the previous regime.

The two reports, though accidentally as President Maithripala Sirisena claimed were handed over to him by the members of the two Commissions almost at the same time (within a week).

This coincidence provided the country with a good opportunity to gauge the commitment of the two main political parties that have run the economy since Independence in eradicating corruption

What is clear is that both parties are interested in talking about corruption perpetrated by other party and not really arresting them.

When the Bond Commission report was handed over to the President on December 30 the Opposition parties, especially the Joint Opposition loyal to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa showed an unusual haste to debate it in the Parliament and they agitated for it even without it being made available to them.

When the UNP allowed a debate also with the knowledge that there cannot be a debate without the report being studied by the members, pandemonium reigned in the House with members engaging in an ugly fisticuff.

When the President stopped that investigation on the ground that internecine rivalry at the highest levels of the Police was causing serious problems, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had appointed two days later an official committee to probe delays at the FCID and the Attorney General’s Department. Nothing was heard about that after that.

The whole episode vividly manifested how irresponsible were the two main parties towards the people of this country, who elected them and pay for their salaries and wasteful perks.

The UNP could have protested to have a debate without a copy of the report being made available to the members before the meeting, and the Joint Opposition too, had they wanted an agitation, could have demanded a copy of the report immediately, without demanding to convene the House.

Both sides wanted to play to the gallery wasting about Rs. 4 million, a day’s cost of Parliament meetings.

Then the second report, the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into serious acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power (PRECIFAC) which investigated the corruption charges against the leaders of the former regime also sent to the Parliament along with the bond commission report by the President.

The Joint Opposition then seemed to have lost its interest to have a Parliamentary debate on corruption. Both parties agreed to debate both reports on February 20, ten days after the local government elections.

President Sirisena, who has been dropping bombshells these days, on a daily basis, embarrassing both the Joint Opposition and his partner in governance, the UNP charged that neither of those parties were prepared to hold the debate before the elections and claimed that an unholy alliance of elite robbers (Chaura Prabhu Sandanaya) both in the Government and the Opposition had managed to delay the debate.

He challenged them to hold it before the upcoming Local Government Elections.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe accepting this challenge had unilaterally decided to hold it on February 8 and requested the Speaker of the Parliament to convene the House on that date.

As the Chairman of the Elections Commission Mahinda Deshapriya expressed his reservations on holding a Parliamentary debate might have a bearing on certain political parties during the 48-hour “silence period” before the elections, party leaders again decided to hold it on February 6. 
Interestingly, the President, who threw the challenge to have a debate before the elections, now says a hasty debate would be a gimmick or a stunt.

In fact, the question as to whether it is before the elections or after it that the debate should be held is immaterial as the impact of it on the general voter is minimal. Sri Lankan voters are not moved by the national issue to change their allegiance to their political parties unless there is a long drawn campaign on those issues.

It is interesting and in a way pathetic, to note that the two leaders at the highest level of the Government, even three years after they had taken over the reins of the country, were clueless about the delays in the investigations into the major corruption cases

The only exception in the recent past was the war victory of the armed forces over the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) during the tenure of President Mahinda Rajapaksa where he swept the electorate at the two post war national elections in 2010.

We rarely find a UNP supporter, especially a member of the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) who is concerned about his contribution to the fund that is said to have been used by the bond scammers.

Rather, UNP supporters, even the so-called educated ones and those who voiced against the high profile corruption committed during the Rajapaksa regime are interested in denying the bond scam or defending the culprits.

They are hurt by the revelation of the scam and not by the very fraud involving some of their leaders. Therefore UNP voters are highly unlikely to change their mind to vote for another party due to any new revelation during the Parliamentary debate.

This applies to the supporters of the Joint Opposition or the members of the SLFP or any other political party as well. 5.8 million voters had voted for Mahinda Rajapaksa at the last Presidential Election and 4.7 million of them voted to make him Prime Minister at the subsequent Parliamentary Elections in 2015, despite the seemingly credible revelations that millions, if not billions of rupees of monies belonging to them had been plundered through the alleged scams in the MiG Deal, hedging deal, Greek Bond Deal and many other such controversial transactions.

They, even the members of the EPF were unmoved by the killing of Roshen Chanaka, the Katunayake Free Trade Zone employee during a demonstration against a controversial plan by the Rajapaksa Government to bring in a pension scheme in place of the EPF.

However, it does not mean that Parliamentary debates against corruption are totally futile. They would serve in creating public awareness and public opinion against corruption, though not immediately but in the long run.

For instance, despite the large majority of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) having endorsed all the highhanded acts and acts of corruption by former regime, a sizable number of them had been impacted by a long drawn campaign by the then Opposition, to vote against Mahinda Rajapaksa, which resulted in a regime change in 2015.

It was the public opinion that also led to the appointment of the bond commission by President Maithripala Sirisena and to the UNP finally accepting that there had been a scam and its Deputy Leader Ravi Karunanayake might have some hand in the controversial transaction.
Hence, Public opinions has to be created not only against corruption, but also against the present regime that does not seem to take tangible action to bring to book those plundered millions and billions of monies belonging to the people during the last regime as well as the present regime.

President Sirisena has been accusing his partner in governance, the UNP, since 2016 for stalling or delaying action against corruption. This week too, he stated that all the important Ministries that were entrusted with arresting corruption were under the UNP Ministers. At the same time, UNP also is or pretends to be, at a loss as to why the machinery against corruption is not moving.

According to the Sunday Times, Minister Sagala Ratnayake, towards the end of the last year had ordered an investigation conducted by the Police Special Investigation Unit (SIU) into the Financial Crimes Division to determine whether there was any inaction on its part that delayed taking action over high profile cases.

When the President stopped that investigation on the ground that internecine rivalry at the highest levels of the Police was causing serious problems, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had appointed two days later an official committee to probe delays at the FCID and the Attorney General’s Department. Nothing was heard about that after that.

It is interesting and in a way pathetic, to note that the two leaders at the highest level of the Government, even three years after they had taken over the reins of the country, were clueless about the delays in the investigations into the major corruption cases.

Corruption seems to have crept into the very core of the anti-corruption drive. Finally, it is the public who is going to be hoodwinked.