The passage with a two-thirds majority of the third Budget of the National Unity government presented by Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, – with 151 voting for and 58 against – certainly gives new strength to the Government, as it moves to face the coming Local Government polls, with the rivalry between the two coalition partners – the UNP and SLFP.
With the JVP voting against the Budget, even with only six members in the House, and the TNA’s 16 members voting with Government, does not show a major shift in the parliamentary strength of government, with the total opposition to the Budget being 51. The absence of government members at voting time was matched, knowingly or not, by the absence of Joint Opposition (JO) members, including former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
The Budget will now move to the Committee Stage that could see amendments on proposals which include opening up the Shipping Sector to wider foreign investment, and possibly the much debated aspect of the lower duty on beer, with higher duty on Special Arrack.
The Second Reading debate was that of a limited discussion of the wider economic policies of the Budget proposals, with more publicity drawn by the issue of beer and Special or Gal Arrack. The futurist aspects of the Budget, such as the goal to end carbon fuel cars by 2024, the Carbon Tax, moves to increase electric vehicles, changes to the three-wheel presence on roads, and moves towards a greener society, did not get the analytical debate these proposals deserved; which showed a wider lack of interest in the aspect of combating environmental pollution. In this context, it is questionable whether the concept of a Blue-Green or ‘Neela-Haritha’ Budget was in the substance of the proposals or it meant the colours of the two parties of the coalition.
The criticism of the lower duty on beer and the higher rate on Special Arrack is certainly of interest, especially when coming from the medical profession. But, there is also the danger that this debate extending from an attack on the sale and use of alcohol, to an extremist attack on the supply, sale and use of alcohol. This showed signs of moving similar to the debate of the old Temperance Movement, which was linked more with anti-colonialism and supported by those engaged in the sale of foreign liquor not sold in local taverns. It would be interesting to have a study on how much the kassippu or moonshine industry expanded and established itself in the areas that were declared dry and taverns were closed down in the Temperance Campaign.
Constitutional twist
While the debate on the Interim Report of the Steering Committee of the Constituent Assembly ended, there is a new twist to the discussion of a new constitution brought by former Justice and Buddha Sasana Minister, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, who is making a case that the Constituent Assembly process is illegal, and even challenging the Speaker’s decision to allow this debate.
Rajapakshe broke an extended silence in politics, after his departure from the portfolios of Justice and Buddha Sasana, and now gives the impression he is one with special knowledge of the legal process of constitution making, and playing up to the anti-constitutional reform process expressed by sections of the Sangha.
What is most shocking in this Rajapakshe exercise is that he has taken so long to learn of any faults in the Constituent Assembly process, having been one of the Members of Parliament, and Minister of the Cabinet, who initiated this entire process, while being the Minister of Justice and Buddha Sasana.
The best response to him came from the TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran, who said: “I’d like to point out that he is one of the original proposers of the resolution that was placed before Parliament on January 9, 2016, which proposed the setting up of this Constitutional Assembly,” and “He is actually one of the drafters of that resolution having proposed it to Parliament. He has also been a member of the Steering Committee, which met 73 times and he has attended more than 50 times and participated fully in that process. He has even drafted certain portions of the Interim Report that was tabled before the Constitutional Assembly recently,”
As Sumanthiran stated, it is good to know this opponent of the constitution reform process is a President’s Counsel, has two doctoral degrees, and was also the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
As Rajapakshe comes with this clearly gallery oriented attack on the move to draft a new constitution, he displays the reality that legal qualifications and academic doctorates, even in Buddhism, do not always provide the substance of quality in thinking and addressing issues of national importance, without the limitations of political expediency and crookedness.
This Rajapakshe episode is one more example of the decline of our political system and the need for changes to the manner in which persons are to be elected to parliament or to be members of the National List. It is certainly not education alone that should be sought in the selection of persons who will act with genuine interest of social progress in the legislature, which holds the sovereignty of the people. There is little chance that such persons of quality will be what are being looked for in candidates for the coming Local Government polls. But, organisations of civil society will certainly have to look at this aspect of candidates, when looking at the coming General Election, possibly in 2020. Wijeyadasa Rajepakshes must be the stuff certainly left out.
Fighting corruption
In a situation where the government has had to face considerable criticism for delay in fighting corruption, especially the fraud and corruption of the past Rajapaksa Regime, there are signs that this fight, a major pledge given to the people in the ‘yahapalana’ election campaigns in 2015, is moving towards more firm and speedy action.
An important aspect of fast tracking this fight came with the decision of the UNP Working Committee to appoint a progress evaluation committee to look into the investigations conducted by the Financial Crimes Investigation Division of the Police and other law enforcement agencies on corruption.
The Working Committee did express its concerns on the slow pace of investigations into corruption, and delays in achieving the objective of bringing persons involved to justice.
The Working Committee commends the budgetary proposal to establish three new anti-corruption High Courts as a significant move. Similarly welcome are the proposals to appoint three-judge Benches to all anti-corruption High Courts, allowing appeals from these courts direct to the Supreme Court, as well as increasing the staff of the Attorney General’s Department, with a special unit there to deal with corruption issues. The more practical aspects of this fight against corruption are the two cases now before the courts. One is the Almanac Case involving Basil Rajapaksa, former Economic Development Minister and another, before the Colombo High Court, charged with the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 29.4 million of funds belonging to the Divi Neguma Department for the alleged printing of five million almanacs with the image of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, to be used as election propaganda for the Presidential Election of January 2015.
The other is the case where the former Chief of Staff of President Rajapaksa, Gamini Senarath and two others, who have been committed to Remand Prison custody by the Fort Magistrate, on allegations of having misused Rs. 4 billion of public funds to build a hotel at Hambantota, without Cabinet approval for such expenditure. Senarath was the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and its subsidiary Litro Gas, which were allegedly involved in this use of funds through a subsidiary company, which included funds from the Employees’ Provident Fund, too.
Tattoo failure
From a different perspective, the Supreme Court did give an important judgment in awarding Rs. 800,000 damages to British national, Naomi Michele Coleman, who was wrongly charged in 2014 for having a tattoo of an image of the Buddha on her shoulder, as a matter that would have caused public unrest. The Supreme Court held that the Katunayake Police had violated the Fundamental Rights of the British tourist, arrested, detained and deported from Sri Lanka, for this alleged offence. The SC was of the view there was no acceptable evidence placed before the Court that there was the possibility of a public outcry (regarding the tattoo) though the police attempted to say so. It held that the issue of outraging the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs could not be maintained.
The British national was a practicing Buddhist, who had come to Sri Lanka earlier with the tattoo and had come here for Buddhist activity, which activities she had been engaged in India, Nepal, Thailand and Cambodia. The deportation order had been given by the Negombo Magistrate without the necessary jurisdiction to do so. 
Add new comment