Is Sri Lanka going back to the 1970s asked one respondent during a Business Times email poll this week on the controversial assets bill that resulted in a near 100 % opposing the Government move to deny public scrutiny.
The credibility of the government in future actions was also questioned by respondents.
Asked: “Did the government do the right thing in rushing a bill to the Supreme Court to acquire underperforming or underutilized assets - instead of following the usual process?,” 98.4 % of the respondents said NO.
 On the second question, “Should the many chambers of commerce have been more assertive – during the meeting with the President on Saturday – and urged that the bill follow its normal course, giving the citizens the right to challenge it in the Supreme Court, rather than agree to the government’s reasons for presenting the bill in its current form?,” the response was another resounding 87.69 % YES vote with 9.23% undecided. Only 3.07% agreed that the chambers had done the right thing.
The poll with more than 250 respondents saw at least three former heads of chambers of commerce express their disappointment over the chambers’ passiveness over the bill in their initial meeting with the President. The chambers that met the President were the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka, National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka, National Chamber of Exporters, Chamber of Young Lankan Entrepreneurs, Joint Apparel Association Forum (JAAF) and the Free Trade Zone Manufacturers Association.
The last named chamber was however not associated in the second statement issued on Tuesday by the joint chambers and no reasons were given for this. The haste, the undue urgency, the negative impact on foreign investment and the arrogance of the government figured prominently in the comments the Business Times received, most of which were given on condition of anonymity.
“The bill sets a dangerous precedent, even though the government has given (verbal) assurances that similar bills will not be brought in the future. Why not? If there is nothing wrong with the principle behind the bill, then why will there be no repeats? Is the government confident there will be no more underperforming businesses after these 37 are resuscitated?” asked one respondent.
(Visit for more
comments from the poll). |
E-mail
