Editorial

Hardly has the dust settled on the Government having been forced to go back to the drawing boards on its planned education reforms; it has now agreed to do the same on the proposed Protection of Occupation Bill it hoped to introduce.

It is always good when a government heeds public opinion and does not bulldoze its way through with bad reforms or bad laws, but it is equally disconcerting when it exposes itself as rushing through reforms or legislation that are ill-conceived—half-baked or overcooked.

In both these cases, it is still not clear if they were political decisions that paved the way for these reforms and the proposed law or just the government’s reluctance to garner professional and political support through a process of in-depth consultations prior to its implementation.

The public was not wrong to fear the education reforms had a political bent to them given the growing perception that the reforms are in sync with what appeared to be the Government’s agenda to wire the youth into the technological age with the liberal cultural norms of the western world (now being questioned in certain quarters of those societies) on issues such as gender and diversity affecting the cultural identity and values prevalent in this country.

In the case of the proposed law on housing, it is tantamount to a reversal of the 2023 Recovery of Possession of Premises Given on Lease Act that gave the legal owner of a property the right to repossess his property from an illegal occupier who was taking advantage of any deficiency in the property laws of the land.

Ownership of property is a political and ideological issue between the Socialists and Conservatives. When the 1972 Republican Constitution was being enacted, ownership of property was missing from the fundamental rights of the citizen. The right-of-centre opposition then introduced an amendment to include the fundamental right to property ownership, but the left-of-centre United Left Front rejected it and introduced the Land Reform Law as Act No. 1 of the new Republican Constitution.

In 1978, however, the J. R. Jayewardene government also omitted to introduce this provision into the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic as a fundamental right of the citizen, though the provision of the right to property exists in most international civil and political rights covenants. The Marxists, however, see the property-owning class as feudalists and part and parcel of a capitalist system. These positions are outdated now. Even so-called Communist countries nowadays recognise private property as being “inviolable”.

The Communist Party Housing Minister Pieter Keuneman of the 1970-77 ULF Government introduced a Rent Act to have rent control. That mindset was typical—to help the poor homeless masses against the bourgeois house-owning class. It helped a section of the populace, but there were also Pettah merchants coming in a Benz car to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 50 to the owner of the property.

After 1977, that mindset of the leaders and their political outlook changed. The new Housing Minister R. Premadasa began massive housing schemes, especially in Colombo and Greater Colombo, for those who couldn’t afford private housing.  Tens of thousands of families benefited.

The proposed law to protect occupants of premises from landlords also has political connotations. It may be welcomed by tenants but sent shivers down the spines of house owners and the increasing number of condominium property developers where there already exist multiple owners in one apartment block.

The end result of such legislation, however, would not be something that will benefit future tenants but would have a detrimental impact on long-term and short-term tenancy agreements, the very antithesis of any good intentions the Government entertained to provide legal safeguards to prevent arbitrary evictions.

Immediately, there was an adverse reaction from house owners, and the pushback would affect not only non-house owners living in rented premises on renewable tenancy agreements but also several public servants in transferable services seeking accommodation in stations outside their residential areas. Young people, especially newly married couples, already face difficulties in finding affordable accommodation in rented houses.

On the flip side, there can be unreasonable landlords who cut off the water supply and power to a tenant’s unit simply to force them out of the premises without any consideration for the wellbeing of a family at the receiving end.

The Supreme Court was informed this week that the Government has withdrawn the Bill on the basis that it would gather fresh ideas and proposals and engage in a comprehensive review by an expert committee and that an amended version would be presented to Parliament. One would naturally ask the question if this was not expected to be done prior to the introduction of any bill to Parliament. The provenance of this bill is as unclear as the reason for the Government’s decision for its withdrawal.

The General Secretary of the ruling party is on record when addressing party cadres in November last year extolling the virtues of the party’s revolutionary past and continues to hold Marx and Fidel Castro as examples to follow. The Agriculture Minister, also from the Old Guard of the current Government, recently at a lecture, ‘Reading Lenin’, said that the JVP-NPP having won power to govern has still to win state power, the difference between temporary power and permanent power. This, compounded with this week’s Cabinet decision that heads will roll from government/state institutions in a planned purge of high-ranking officials, makes political analysts ponder if the current hybrid dual-track policy of the Government is a case of signalling left and turning right, or vice versa.

Very little of the Government’s decision-making process is out in the open. Transparency of intra-party discussions is non-existent. Party honchos, especially those from the newly formed NPP, seem to play a subordinate role to the Old Guard comprising the JVP. Secrecy is paramount in the party, and orders have been given from party headquarters to stick to the party line—whatever and whenever it is articulated.  Members are not entitled to individual opinions.

Since the Jayewardene-Premadasa era, there has been a visible slackening in public housing programmes. Successive governments unfortunately left it to the private sector to invest in housing, which is presently on a hectic upward trajectory. These are primarily for the financially more fortunate—and the diaspora.

The Government must focus on mega public housing projects providing adequate accommodation for family units, not ‘pigeon holes’, instead of engaging in easy-come initiatives for the lower income groups by traversing to a policy of a failed bygone era, ignoring the ‘ground situation’ and market conditions.