Columns
Govt. sidesteps queries on public finances used for President’s trips abroad
View(s):By Chandani Kirinde, Our Lobby Correspondent
The fact that Parliament has been relegated to a mere rubber stamp is not exactly news, but going by the growing disregard Government shows to issues concerning the use of public finances, by sidestepping questions relating to how Sri Lanka’s taxpayers money is being spent, one wonders how exactly the Legislature can be expected to exercise its Constitutionally enshrined powers of control over public finances.
“Parliament shall have full control over public finance,“ says the Constitution, but this week in Parliament, Government refused to disclose to the House, details of the number of foreign trips made by the President, and the amount spent on such tours, even though the money for these have been voted for by Parliament.
The reason given by Chief Government Whip Minister Dinesh Gunawardena for not disclosing the facts was rather whimsical. He said the questions raised concern the conduct of the President, and the President’s conduct cannot be brought up in the House, except by way of a substantive motion.
How exactly a question regarding foreign tours undertaken by the President affects the conduct of the Executive the Minister did not say.As Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe pointed out, the money for the President‘s Office has been voted from the annual Budget approved by Parliament, and hence, the House and the people have a right to know how this money is being spent. “There is no reference to the conduct of the President in this question, there is no criticism. So how can this affect the conduct of the President,” he asked.
This particular question was directed by UNP MP Tissa Attanayake to the Minister of External Affairs (MEA) during question time on Tuesday. Mr Attanayaka sought answers to the following questions. “Will he (the MEA ) inform this House of the number of foreign tours the President has participated in from the year 2005 up to now, the names of the countries to which those tours were made; the amount spent on each of those tours, the number of persons who joined the President in each of those tours, the deliberations held and agreements signed in each of those tours; the benefits enjoyed, are being enjoyed or expected to be enjoyed by the country, through each of those tours, discussions and agreements?
AS JVP MP Anura Dissanayaka pointed out, the same question had come up twice earlier and on both occasions Government had sought more time to answer them, but did not say the questions were inappropriate. Minister Gunawardena who answered on behalf of the MEA, however, stuck to his guns and said the question affects the conduct of the President, and the House cannot subject the President to discussion, without adopting proper procedure.
Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa who had the last word on the matter, said, he saw nothing wrong in disclosing such facts to the House. “I don’t see anything wrong in giving details regarding foreign tours. The question can be raised again on another day,” he said. That subject aside, Government has not been forthcoming with the full details of a massive sea reclamation project it hopes to undertake in Colombo shortly. Questions about the Colombo Port City project were first raised in the House by Mr Wickremesinghe in early February, a reply to which was provided by the Leader of the House Nimal Siripala de Silva. However, more questions were raised about the project by the Opposition Leader on Wednesday, particularly the construction of a Formula 1 track in the proposed city. He also questioned possible violations of tender procedures in awarding the rights to construct this project.
The Opposition Leader said he would raise the matter again as a privilege issue, as the House had been misled by the Government, by failing to disclose full details of the project in its earlier reply. Meanwhile, Government also introduced another controversial casino related regulation to the House the same day under the Strategic Projects Act, this time taking off “gaming facilities” that were included in the earlier gazette, and substituting it with the “associated facilities.”
Several Opposition MPs objected to the presentation of the regulation, saying that it was a veiled attempt to legalise casino operations in the country.
However, the Leader of the House said there was no room for debate when a regulation is presented to the House, but the matter could be discussed on a later date, before Parliament approval is granted.