Sunday Times 2
Sil-redi saga: Transparency International said it all then
There are many crocodile tears being shed for Lalith Weeratunga (LW), one time secretary to President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR), who was recently convicted and sentenced to jail by high court for misusing public funds. Many are they who claim innocence on his part stating that he did not steal money for himself and that he was not a politician. Even the judge who convicted him has said that did not steal money for himself and that he is not a politician. Comments in this regard appear later in this column.
Former Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga and former TRC Director General Anusha Palpita being taken to prison
Hot on the trail of the infamous distribution of sil-redi, shirts and t-shirts, Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) in its Programme for Protection of Public Resources (PPPR) raised the issues and reported it to all authorities concerned and to the media. I reproduce excerpts from the TISL publication soon after the Presidential Election 2015: “Electoral Integrity – A Review of the Abuse of State Resource and Selected Integrity Issues During 2015 Presidential Election in Sri Lanka”
1. Distribution of sil redi, shirts and t-shirts
The distribution of sil redi (material worn by Buddhists when observing sil) to mark full moon poya day which fell on December 4, 2014 marked yet another leap in the misuse of public resources in electioneering in Sri Lanka. It was revealed by PPPR that the UPFA candidate had ordered sil redi or five metre long white material from three private companies to be distributed via Buddhist temples to Buddhist devotees on full moon poya day. Each material was due to cost between Rs.125 to Rs.160 per metre with the entire order amounting to approximately Rs.1,000 million. Credible sources have revealed that three companies, Clip Tex Garments, Vanguard and Praba Tex, undertook this order. The payments were coordinated by Ven. Vatinapaha Somananda Thera through the Presidential Secretariat.
The PPPR have more information regarding the orders placed if required.
The distribution of sil redi was made more problematic due to the propaganda material that was inserted into the sil redi package. This included a booklet in some cases and a note about the UPFA candidate in others. The PPPR found the manipulation of religion and religious beliefs for election propaganda purposes abhorrent and issued respectful requests to the Buddhist clergy to refrain from distributing such propaganda material to provide the public an environment free of repressive and influential forces so that they could make an informed decision on the day of the election. (refer annexure 2). The PPPR salutes all the religious leaders who took this message in a positive spirit and responded to our request. Certain Buddhist temples refused the sil redi altogether while others inquired as to why such materials were distributed during an election period.
Upon further investigation by the PPPR it was revealed that sil redi was not the only garment distributed by the UPFA presidential candidate. A t-shirt and a shirt were produced to be distributed among UPFA supporters. An order for 550,000 t-shirts was given to Clip Tex Garments with a unit price of Rs.160. The cost of the entire order amounted to Rs.90 million. The t-shirts were to be given to the Nil Balakaya headed by Namal Rajapaksa, MP and son of the UPFA candidate, to be distributed among UPFA supporters.
Another order was made for 500,000 shirts at a cost of Rs.130 million. It is still not clear which department or ministry issued the order but reliable sources have informed the PPPR that a cash payment was directly issued from Temple Trees for the shirts.
Furthermore, this same Presidential Secretary had been cautioned for abuse of state resources during the 2010 presidential election. I reproduce excerpts from the TISL publication, “Electoral integrity – A Review of State Resources and Selected Integrity Issues during 2010 Elections in Sri Lanka.
3. Abuse of the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRCSL) at the presidential election
Upon the instructions of the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL), a short text message was transmitted to all subscribers of mobile connections by the President wishing them for the New Year 2010. The mobile service providers stated that they had provided this service based on a directive from the TRCSL (the TRCSL is headed by the Secretary to the President).
According to Section 5(f) of the Telecommunication Act No 25 of 1991, such a directive may be issued by the TRCSL on a request by the Government of Sri Lanka in the interest of national security, public order and defence of Sri Lanka. The TRCSL directive was prima facie illegal and offered an unfair electoral advantage to a particular candidate. The PPPR wrote to the chairman, director general of the TRCSL and all the relevant mobile service providers requesting them to give reasons for such conduct (annexture 7). However, none of these officials have responded to the queries put forward by the PPPR to date.”
Annexure 7 (excerpts)
5.1.2010
Mr. Lalith Weeeratunga
The Chairperson,
Telecom Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka,
Dear Sir
A private Telecommunication provider has admitted that the SMS was sent in accordance with a direction given by the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka. As per section 5 (f) of the Telecommunication Act of No. 25 of 1991, Chairperson of TRCSL could send such a message to the citizens of Sri Lanka only in the interest of national security, public order and the defence of the country. Thus the directive of TRCSL is clearly outside the scope of the law. Further this is a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, (equality and equal protection of the law), which is broadly interpreted to include all arbitrary actions.
As the direction is given with the intent of giving a person a wrongful or unlawful advantage, your direction falls within the interpretation of “corruption” within the meaning of section 70 of the Bribery Act and comes within the purview of the Bribery Commission of
Sri Lanka.
Article 104B (2) of the 17th Amendment speaks of the duty of the Election Commission to secure enforcement of all laws relating to the holding of elections and of the authorities of state charged with the enforcement of such laws. Thus all the authorities of the state shall not misuse power to bestow a wrongful advantage to a particular candidate of the election.
In view of Article 12(1) of the Constitution and well recognized decisions of the Supreme Court that elections be free and fair, your office has a constitutional duty to ensure that authorities of the state do not act in such a manner as to extend undue advantage to a particular candidate at the election which has an adverse effect on electoral integrity.
It is our sincere hope that as a responsible public officer in Sri Lanka you would support and stand for democratic values upheld by the Constitution of Sri Lanka. We further hope that you would take further steps to prevent repetition of similar unlawful activities
Thank You
For Transparency International Sri Lanka
JC Weliamuna
Executive Director “
In the light of the above documentary evidence, the contention that LW did not take the money for himself and that he was not a politician, does not hold water. The political power he wielded in his high position and the political power he expected, if only MR had won the presidential election in 2015 where the sky was the limit with the attendant personal benefits, rebuffs the claims that he did not take money and that he was not a politician. He had political power, served on a platter without the hassle of contesting elections.
If I may recall the exemplary action of a ministry secretary, it is as follows: D.B.I.P. Siriwardena (DBIPS) was secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration in Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s government and the minister in charge of public administration was Felix Dias Bandaranaike (FDB). Minister FDB gave an order to DBIPS which DBIPS considered unlawful. DBIPS reduced the order to writing and explained in writing the unlawfulness of the order and the steps the minister should take if he was to persist with the order. Young FDB sent for DBIPS and in an attempt to bully him into submission, told him that they could not work together if that was his attitude. DBIPS told FDB that he had realised this already and that he had sent in his resignation.
In later years when Mrs. Bandaranaike was prime minister again, realising DBIPS’s worth, it was him she picked to advise her and to handle very important assignments. Politicians are ‘politicians’ – in the sense they “act in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement.” (Oxford English Dictionary) The majority of Sri Lankan politicians are pigheaded swindlers of public resources who give unlawful orders to public servants for personal gain. That is why qualified people are appointed as secretaries to ministries to serve as chief accounting officers and bestowed with the sacred trust to protect public resources.
(The writer is a retired SSP of Police, human rights activist and was a director of Transparency International Sri Lanka.)