| Political Column | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Does it seem
they can agree to disagree? This week,
the Prime Minister, in a sprit of political consensus which we daresay
is related to the larger issues of securing peace through a national
consensus etc., convened a party leaders meeting to discuss some
key issues. It was decided here that the Bribery and Corruption
Commission be enlarged to hold five Members, and to make the quorum
four out of five members to enable the Commission to function even
in the event of death or absence of one of its members. It was also
decided that the Commissioners need not necessarily be from the
ranks of retired Supreme Court judges. Eligibility will henceforth
include others such as bankers, financial experts etc., and those
who have excelled in public endeavour. With Dinesh
Gunawardene being elected to the Chair of the Electoral Reforms
Committee and this being accepted by the Speaker, that particular
matter also seemed to be looked after ' by way of consensus.'' The
Prime Minister had reason to be happy, and further measures that
were taken were to appoint 19 members to the Oversight Committees,
and to draft a collective Code of Conduct for MPs enlisting the
help of civil society organisations - - primarily the Organisation
of Professional Associations. But however
cosy anyone wants the relationship between the two major political
entities/parties of the country to be, the fact is that realpolitik
always intrudes. Though everything is planned in a spirit of consensus
- --a new political culture and what have you -- the fact is that
old political realities die hard. Party leaders It was perhaps
with this spirit of consensus politics in mind that the Prime Minister
met the President at President's house on Thursday and discussed
matters related to the peace process and the interim Administration
and the matter of two documents -- one to the LTTE and one to the
President. The two-documents issue was almost being played out as
a fiasco by the time of the PM-Presidential summit last week. Ex-Minister
and Presidential right-hand-man Lakshman Kadirgamar was present
at this meeting between Prime Minister and President, mainly as
the Prime Minister is more comfortable with the calming presence
of Mr. Kadirgamar around. The Prime Minister's
position was that there was only one document -- which was handed
over to both the President and the Norwegian facilitator who took
the document to the Wanni for perusal by the LTTE. However, he maintained
that the facilitator had entered some of the matters arising from
the oral discussions with government frontliners into the document
that was finally delivered to the LTTE. The Prime Minister's
approach was an amicable one; he made it clear that the President's
suggestions on the Interim administration proposals, if any, can
be incorporated after suitable perusal. The President
had just the previous evening met with Editors and Deputies of national
newspapers in a cosy outdoor chat about affairs of state on the
lawn outside President's house. Barring a few waiters and her rather
cute but big made dog, only journalists and PA heavyweights including
opposition leader Mahinda Rajapakse, Mangala Samaraweera, Lakshman
Kadrigamar , Sarath Amunugama and the President's newly appointed
Secretary and her media personnel were privy to the discussion. She said here
-- under some intense scrutiny from the Sudaroli Editor for instance
-- that the LTTE is not interested in federalism, and that the Provincial
Interim Administration cannot be viable because there was literally
nothing at the end of it. Superfluous The position
of the government on the other hand, articulated by Professor Peiris,
is that talks will resume by September, because the LTTE is bound
to come back with its proposals. The government's position on the
fact that the President maintains that it is an ''interim towards
nothing'', however is that the broad contours of the issue have
been identified. The government's
position is that if a final solution has been reached, and if a
final document on a political solution is already available, then
the only thing that would be left to be done is to go ahead and
implement it. An Interim, if a final document is already there,
is superfluous, in the opinion of the government. But the need
for an Interim is that the broad contours of the political solution
such as federalism etc.., have been identified in the previous negotiations.
The Interim is necessary in the period that these contours take
proper shape and form, to constitute a final written-down solution.
That is the government's position. There is no
doubt about it. The President was pointedly and very clearly critical
of the government's Interim administration proposals. But also,
despite that, what was very clear was that she seemed to be making
this criticism in a constructive spirit - - for the simple reason
that she said she is for consensus politics. For example, when asked
by the Editors present whether she will dissolve parliament and
sack Ministers, as her brother Anura Bandaranaike keeps saying she
will, she said 'Anura Bandaranaike's opinions are entirely his own
and clearly do not represent either my views or those of the party.'' That pointed
statement, about her brother, was clearly in a spirit of consensus,
and was also incidentally perhaps a pleasant message to some of
the others present -- the leader of the Opposition being one. Another issue
that was resolved this week was the matter of the Cabinet minutes.
As Minister G. L. Peiris seemd to predict last week (refer last
week's political column this space) the relevant expert from the
amended Cabinet minuets, as amended by the Secretary states: on
receipt of the LTTE response to the proposal, a detailed proposal
will be worked out. At that point the proposal will be discussed
with the President and the Cabinet. President requested that even
the general framework should be discussed at the Cabinet. Minister
of Constitutional Affairs explained that this will not be useful
at this stage.'' That the Minister
''refused to discuss'' the Interim Admiration proposals was therefore,
according to amended Cabinet minutes, not the case. It was just
that he had considered it ''not useful'' to discuss these proposals
at this stage. Both semantically and practically, therefore, this week seemed to be one of consensus amidst diversity and disagreement.
The much discussed Memorandum of Understanding between the government
of Sri Lanka and Emirates on Sri Lankan Airlines was one of the
subjects that came up at the UNP working committee meeting held
earlier this week.
Mr Charitha Ratwatte was livid when news broke out last weekend
in the local press accusing him of signing the MoU on behalf of
the Government without the knowledge and sanction of his Minister
K.N. Choksy. In fact, on Monday he had stormed his Minister’s
room and asked him why he told the press that he was unaware of
the signing of the MoU.
When confronted with the fact that the Cabinet Economic Sub-committee
presided over by the Prime Minister himself had approved the MoU,
the Minister had merely stared at the ceiling.
The fact is that the signing of this agreement was approved at a
meeting of the Economic Policy committee of the Cabinet on Tuesday
the 6th of May in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Transport, Highways and Civil Aviation Tilak Marapana, among
others.
Minister Choksy was on a bad wicket. Could he have simply forgotten?
Should he have let his Secretary down with nary a checkback to ensure
what he was saying was true?
In fact the MoU had been placed before the Cabinet Committee on
Economic policy May 6th but it was not forwarded for approval by
the Cabinet, as is normally done in matters of importance, Minister
Marapana admitted this at the UNP Working Committee meeting.
On the same day that the Committee for Economic policy discussed
the Sri Lankan Airlines MoU, it also discussed the contract for
the Katunayake expressway, and the contract for the privatisation
of 6 state owned bus companies.
Both these matters went up for approval to the Cabinet but not the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Sri Lanka
and Emirates on SriLankan Airlines.
The document was signed by Emirates and the Secretary, Ministry
of Finance, and then submitted to the Attorney General for his opinion.
The Attorney General has observed in a written opinion that many
clauses are legally faulty, while others are against the interests
of Sri Lankan Airlines and the government.
At this week's meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Economic affairs,
Mr K. C. Kamalasabayson, Attorney General who was present stood
by his opinion while Minister Ravi Karunanayake drew attention to
some of the aspects of the MoU which were detrimental to SriLankan
Airlines.
So, though Charitha Ratwatte is correct when he says the Cabinet
Committee on Economic policy discussed and in fact approved the
MoU, that doesn't seem to complete the picture.
The whole Emirates MoU episode can in this light, be seen as the
larger manifestation of the crisis between the Ministers of Cabinet
and Ministry of Finance officials. Is the Ministry of Finance acquiring
a life of its own sans the Minister? Or is the Minister living in
a Government without keeping abreast of what’s happening in
the Cabinet committees? In the Sri Lankan Airlines matter, that
seems to be the clear undercurrent of frontline Government opinion. Ratwatte seems determined to hold his ground amidst all of this however, and party stalwarts pitied his role as being seen by some interested parties as an obstructionist to their grand designs of dismantling the State apparatus for them to milk it thereafter. |
||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
