Editorial

It was refreshing to hear President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Independence Day address to the nation acknowledge the freedom fighters who braved 450 years of colonial rule to usher in freedom in 1948. Equally, no one would fault the President for focusing on other key priorities in making Independence more meaningful, such as the economy, advanced human capital, economic progress, the rule of law, ecologically sustainable development and national unity.

A notable omission, however, albeit in line with the President’s consistent stance, was an acknowledgement of the Armed Forces in defeating separatist terrorism and preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

There could be several reasons for the President’s reticence in this regard—given the history of his party, his party cadres of yesteryear having on several occasions been on a violent organised collision course with the Forces, or on a separate battlefront, the President fearing pushback from his Northern vote base and the anti-Lanka diaspora, both it is said having ‘contributed’ to his electoral success in the North.

His electoral success in the North, nor his recent visits there, could have come about had it not been for the Armed Forces defeating the armed fascist rule of the LTTE.

The role of the Forces during the recent Cyclone Ditwah is also significant, particularly at the crisis time when almost all civilian operational and administrative safeguards are widely acknowledged to have broken down.

To limit the role of the ‘heroic Forces’ to cyclone relief work and blank out any reference to their role in defending the nation from terrorist elements was, however, unfortunate.

The second segment of the Presidential address had mega political undertones extolling the achievements, especially on the economic front, last year with yet another salvo on divisive communal politics. This was followed by a call for ‘national unity’, a theme his government is actively pursuing.

That worthy call must resonate in the North as well. Anti-state elements are stirring the communal cauldron once again, as was seen when the Jaffna University undergrads, funded by taxpayers from the whole country, protested on Independence Day. This was no different from the early days of the separatist insurgency 50 years ago.

Intelligence agencies ordered by the President to keep an eye on Buddhist pilgrims coming to the North with purported communal hatred might well be asked to keep the other eye on the resurgence of militancy among the youth in the area. They need to check who is fanning these communal embers, as a result of which ‘national unity’ can fly out through the window.

The rhetoric of national unity also wears thin when there is a growing perception that the Government’s drive against corruption is merely masked as fulfilling an ‘election pledge’. Increasingly, it is seen as a vendetta to neutralise the Opposition, singling out political opponents viewed as potential threats—paving the way for one-party rule, while covering up the misdemeanours of those from its own camp.

While adversarial politics is the order of the day in a healthy multi-party democracy (and this country will not accept one-party rule), the call for national unity within diversity must be realised not only among religious and ethnic communities but also provide space for democratic interaction among rival political opponents.

As the President himself rightly said on Independence Day, quoting an African proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.”

Make Auditor General’s reports meaningful

The President spoke on Independence Day of the need for economic freedom, and finally, an Auditor General has been appointed by a new-look Constitutional Council on the President’s fourth attempt at nominating one.

The new CC, in its wisdom, has decided on someone who was rejected earlier for good reason, bad reason or no reason, and so be it. The blame game for the delay has gone from one court (the CC) to the other (the Government). The Government at one point even suggested any new political party winning an election ought to have the right to appoint its own CC members without being saddled with those appointed during the previous regime.

The Auditor General’s post has long been sidelined in comparison to other exalted high-profile posts that need the CC’s stamp of approval, seldom accorded the gravitas it merits for its crucial work. Audited reports of state enterprises churned out regularly by its office had little impact on the efficient management of these institutions.  In the pre-1977 socialist government era, reports reached Parliament long after the board of directors, ministers and governments had changed. An MP then said it was a “waste of paper and waste of tongue” discussing them.

Thereafter, private audit firms were asked to assist the Auditor General and bring up to speed these financial reports. Even then, though the Constitution states, “Parliament shall have full control over public finance,” Parliament hardly went into these accounts until parliamentary committees like COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises), COPA (Committee on Public Accounts) and COPF (Committee on Public Finance) started looking into them—and yet, apart from the occasional media headlines these accounts attracted, there was little else to it.

There’s more to the office of the Auditor General than the recent waves it made in the delay in appointing its head. As important as that was, there’s a great deal more that needs to be done. In the private sector, audited accounts cannot be delayed, and the entire board of directors is answerable to shareholders. In the case of state ventures, the shareholders are the general public, but they have no voice in scrutinising these accounts, relying entirely on Parliament to speak on their behalf.

These reports must not be restricted to statistics alone and discrepancies in accounting but must refer to the ‘value for money’ (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) of state enterprises and make the relevant directors—and the minister—answerable. That oversight may be fanciful given the fact directors, then and now, are nominees of the ruling party and operational inefficiency is always ignored for party loyalty to the detriment of the national economy.

The focus on the Auditor General’s Office must not end with the appointment of a head being resolved. Parliament can, and must, make laws to give more relevance and meaning to the audited financial reports of the Auditor General so they are not a ‘waste of paper—ink and tongue’.