Archives

by I. P. C. Mendis

The steps taken by the President commencing with the take-over of the three Ministries of Defence, Interior and Media through to dissolution of Parliament, appointment of two Opposition members to the caretaker Cabinet, and the removal of Deputies and Non-Cabinet Ministers, have come in for a lot of 'flak' from the UNF government and other vested interests, imputing some sort of 'idiosyncracy' or autocratic nature in her conduct. The chief government spokesman, Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris has particularly been 'understandably' vociferous in his condemnation - "drawing out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument" (Pope)

The take-over of the three portfolios was clearly linked, inter alia, to the weakening security situation, the continuing threats to deprive the President of her powers, as well as the prevention by the government of the transfer of the Development Lotteries Board under the President through certain UNF politicians who surrounded the Government Press, intimidating its staff with the help of goon squads, while the arm of the law through deliberate inaction on the part of the Interior Ministry proved too short to enforce the law. That manifested a serious intention of government, through extra constitutional measures, to reduce the Executive President to a position much less than a ceremonial one - a hapless figurehead of no import to be deposed in time! She would have had no way of getting a gazette notification published even for prorogation, dissolution or to give effect to any Executive decision which she was constitutionally required to take. So much for the democracy about which the chief government spokesman and others seem to mouth ever so often. The precipitate action much talked about has certainly to find its historical place at this point in time. It was in the fitness of things that the Media Ministry under which the Govt. Press functioned had also to be taken over under the President and as a necessary corollary, the Police and the Interior Ministry which were charged, inter alia, with the duty of maintaining law and order, of fighting crime, of safeguarding public property and ensuring there was no obstruction to public officers in the discharge of their duties, (the commission of which is a penal offence).

That all these measures for good governance had proved to be a thorough failure in their enforcement taking the country to near anarchy, is common knowledge. The Govt Press, a vital arm for governance, had particularly to be insulated against such obstruction in order to ensure that it runs smoothly without caving into unlawful interference to frustrate the provisions of the constitution itself. The President, if she had any sense of Constitutional responsibility and duty to safeguard the sovereignty of the nation in the context of the complete subservience to the LTTE in the name of peace and the breakdown of law and order and good governance elsewhere, had to take cognizance of the ominous signals emanating from the government in many spheres of activity. She had no alternative but to do what she did. The government has to take full responsibility and blame for pushing her into the decision. The situation the country has had to face after two years of abject surrender to the LTTE at every turn with the morale of the Armed services at an all-time low - Athurugiriya et al- and the underworld replacing the Rule of Law, need not be laboured upon.

Opposition Cabinet Members

Although President CBK heads the Cabinet constitutionally, she is leader of the Opposition PA. Since November 2003, she is in charge of the three Ministries. She has the power to appoint Ministers. In a caretaker Cabinet, divesting some of her functions to two members of the former Opposition would not make a difference considering that she herself was de facto part of the Opposition permitted by the bizarre provisions of the JRJ Constitution. Ex Prime Minister W. Dahanayake appointed complete outsiders in R. E. Jayatilleke and Sir Razeek Fareed to his caretaker Cabinet under the Soulbury constitution. Under that constitution, only Ministers functioned as caretakers. The 1978 constitution provided for the continuity of Deputies and Non-Cabinet rank Ministers not for any love for continuity of development projects over which Prof. Peiris laments but for the avowed purpose of utilizing State machinery and funds for election purposes.

The Constitution does not specify the numbers and starting from President Premadasa who distributed such rewards to keep himself intact after the impeachment, followed by President CBK and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who by reason of their slender majorities and dictated to by minority parties, had to sustain unaffordable numbers in Deputies, Project Ministers, Ministers Assisting and so on. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the whole lot on the government side having such nomenclatures even using the ruse the UNF Government resorted to by maintaining them on their Parliamentary Allowance levels but giving all other perks and possibly more. If on dissolution, Article 48 (I) of the Constitution has to be honoured, it becomes a mockery of the spirit and intentions of the Constitution and the President whatever precedent there had been, had done well to invoke other powers to bring sense to the system. This can well be a precedent for future Presidents to follow if in the meantime, the Constitution is not amended.

W. Dhanayake	Dr. N. M. Perera

It is indeed a salutary measure which would contribute to minimizing abuse, corruption and intimidation through the use of State machinery and funds during election time. It will be a great saving on recurrent expenditure on staff and other costs as well during the interim period. There is no reason for the World Bank or other donor agency to worry about as Minister Peiris suggests, as these subjects will be handled by one Minister or another.

Prof. Peiris is highly worried about the 'wasteful' expenditure of Rs. 850 million on a general election - a concern he had not demonstrated in the huge amnesty amounting to around Rs. 47 billion given to tax-dodgers, racketeers and cronies, the huge bonanza proposed to be given to a defaulter by the People's Bank, the colossal wastage in other spheres and the sale of public assets for a song, not to speak of diversion of huge funds meant for projects for personal gain.

Former

The statement issued by the former Speaker justifying his continued use of his personal staff and vehicles on the basis of "entitlement" is to say the least, a pathetic, hollow and specious argument. One would have expected the person who held this exalted office to be intellectually honest and to set the standards. The Speaker has gone out of office on dissolution of Parliament (Article 64 (2). His entourage and his perquisites as Speaker cannot continue. The Secretary-General of Parliament is in the circumstances not entitled to approve relevant payments. The former Speaker's continuance as a member of the Constitutional Council is not capable of being interpreted to mean that he can continue to enjoy the staff and perquisites of office he enjoyed in the position of Speaker. He continues to chair the Constitutional Council for the sake of continuity of the proceedings of the Constitutional Council till the new Speaker takes over - Article 41A (5).

He cannot maintain that his staff and equipment given to him as Speaker in respect of, and only in respect of that office can continue by virtue of his residual responsibility as Chairman of the CC. While any expenditure disbursed by the Secretary-General of Parliament on such account would be irregular, it will also be irregular for the Constitutional Council to meet such expenditure from the relevant Head of Expenditure (Head 119?) which is quite independent of the Head of Expenditure allocated to the SG of Parliament. His obligations to the Constitutional Council have to be financed through the Head of Expenditure of that Council and that Council has no financial provision for the staff and perks he enjoyed as Speaker.

In terms of Article 41A (6) (b) of the Constitution, the same applies to the Leader of the Opposition as well. Speaking of "entitlement", Dr. N. M. Perera as Finance Minister although entitled to first class travel always flew economy class and also did not opt for luxury hotels while abroad. His international standing did not warrant outward show of opulence to impress others at the expense of public funds. Nor was he either prepared to do anything to belittle or to compromise any position he held. So were many others of the old Parliamentary brigade on either side of the political divide who had to virtually fend for themselves and nurse their electorates as best as they could with their own funds, sans officials and private luxury vehicles, duty free purchases, retinues, various forms of subsidies etc. etc.

"O tempora! O mores!"

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager