Point of View

Of public office and private matters

What disturbs me most is of course the statements that tend to elevate the private life of the Attorney General into the public arena, regarding the issue of adultery. In my reading I understand that the distinguished Editor of the Ravaya (which newspaper, I enjoy reading whenever the Murugan Bookstore in Toronto finds the time to save me a copy), finds it distasteful and morally repugnant to have an Attorney General committing adultery while in office. I do know that the Ravaya is an excellent watchdog in protecting human rights. One of the fundamental plinths of human rights is the denial of rights to the State or to the public, to spy into the bedrooms of a nation. The State and the public have no place in the bedrooms of the nation, for if that was not so, then the nation has lost every vestige of rights that are commonly held to be sacrosanct and therefore fundamental. 

If moral rectitude was a hallmark of public office, allow me to say through your columns that many distinguished judges of the Commonwealth of nations and many respected politicians of today and of yesteryear would not be there to be remembered. It was only last week that it was conclusively established through DNA, that Thomas Jefferson, the architect of freedom and emancipation of Slaves in the US had fathered at least one illegitimate child, the mother of the child being his slave Sally. The late Presidents Rousevelt and Mitterand would have been obliterated from the political scenes of the USA and of France. As this list grows the hollowness of a demand for moral rectitude as a qualification for holding public office becomes apparent. 

I was quite amused to read of a query raised during the meeting as to whether the Minister for the Media saw any parallel between the alleged adultery committed by the AG and the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. 

I may point out that it was not the adultery that was the hub of the impeachment charges but the allegation of The President lying under oath, which amounted to a criminal offence. There is a similar offence known to our law (Sri Lanka) and therefore this point should not have been lost on the distinguished Editor of the Ravaya. 

At page 10 in a column written by Rajpal Abeynayake, the distinguished columnist makes the point that Parliament reversed in 1996, a decision taken by a Presidential Commission and Parliament in 1980 to deny Prime Minister Bandaranaike of her civic rights. Citing that as a reversal of a "legally binding verdict", the columnist, cautioned the Attorney General that "nothing is over until its over." 

The fact of the matter is that the supremacy of Parliament allows; Parliament if it wished, to alter the sex of an applicant, or nullify a judgment of the highest court of the realm, as the UK Parliament did in the War Damage Act of 1965 (c.18). The latter negatived a multimillion Sterling Pound judgment affirmed by the House of Lords, in favour of the appellant and against the UK government, in Burmah Oil Co., vs Lord Advocate [1965] Appeal Cases 75. 

Lastly, I have difficulty in understanding why the Attorney General thought it necessary to face the press in these matters. 

His responsibility in constitutional theory would have been to answer to Parliament and to the Executive President. If there was no executive presidency as it is in India, the AG is answerable only to Parliament. 

By doing otherwise he opens himself to a charge of diminuting the high office he holds, to which his private life is clearly of no relevance. 

-Dr.Lakshman Marasinghe, Professor of Law and University Professor,University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, Visiting Professor of Law, University of Colombo and Attorney-at-Law. 

From the Green Corner

You don't know what you're doing or saying

by Viruddha Paakshikaya

Take last week, for example. There went Paakshikaya on the same old theme of attacking our leader's advisors. Of course, Paakshikaya is quick to realise that attacks cannot be made against our leader, so he does the next best thing - take on his advisors, specifically targetting one man. 

That man, now we all know, is Milinda Moragoda, our brilliant, Harvard educated economist who counts among his personal friends, the vice-President of the United States of America, and most probably the next President of the USA. 

Milinda Moragoda is an asset to any party and Paakshikaya seems to be smarting from the fact that he, who was once in the inner circles of the SLFP at the 1989 elections is now in our inner circles. 

Paakshikaya quotes from a column Milinda Moragoda had written to a Sinhala newspaper recently praising the PA's handling of the economy and then asks the question as to how come our party is attacking the Budget and the PA's handling of the economy - when Moragoda has praised Sri Lanka for entering the "Group of 15" newly developing nations. 

Now, I don't deny that Paakshikaya is entitled to make that observation. Yes, to a point it seems awkward for us to go into battle in Parliament and criticise the PA's handling of the economy when our leader's economist has somewhat praised the government's economic strategies. 

You see, Paakshikaya, let me tell you one thing. Our party is a democratic party unlike yours and each person can have his or her own personal views 

The views expressed by Milinda Moragoda in that column (which, I believe, is in the Sunday Lankadeepa) are his own personal views and certainly not of the party. Please don't think that Milinda Moragoda was making a statement as a UNP sopokesman. He only wrote as Milinda Moragoda, the individual, full stop. 

So, Paakshikaya, is he not entitled to his views? If he thinks the PA has handled the economy well, so be it. But that is not the party's view and certainly not the party leader's view, full stop! 

Now, all this is possible, Paakshikaya, because we are a democratic party. But what is the position in your own party, Paakshikaya? Mahinda Rajapakse thought the Workers' Charter should be implemented. When he said so openly, his portfolio was changed. Dharmasiri Senanayake talked of giving the press more freedom and he was promptly relieved of the media portfolio. Now, your Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar has said the military news censorship is counter-productive, I wonder whether he too would be granted a change of duties, Paakshikaya? 

And that, my dear Paakshikaya, is the difference between a democratic UNP and an autocratic PA. 

Then, apart from challenging our "right" to criticise the economy, Paakshikaya goes on to talk nonsense. He again quotes Milinda Moragoda who reportedly says we should be proud to have joined the "Group of 15 Developing Nations", that President Clinton wants the Group of Seven Industrialised Nations to meet the "G 15" and that all this is an indication of how well our economy is doing. 

In my frank opinion, Paakshikaya, only an idiot will say so. To be charitable a silly thing like that can be said only by a person who is not knowledgeable about international finance or how things work. 

So, Paakshikaya, do not think you can fool all the people all the time with such "logic". Joining the G 15 has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with the economic performance of Sri Lanka. 

Instead, it has everything to do with joining a club of sorts - by invitation. It originated with the Big Boys of the economically developing world getting together as a kind of rival to the "G 7" nations- the Big Boys of the economically developed world. If memory serves me right, it started with countries like Brazil in Latin America, Egypt, in Africa and India, in Asia getting together. 

Sri Lanka was invited to join the club by then Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral on the basis that Asia was not adequately represented in the Group, other Asian members being Indonesia (whose economy is in ruins) and Malaysia, which threatens to follow Indonesia's footsteps. 

Now, the obvious question that comes to mind is where are the other rapidly developing economies in Asia? In case, Paakshikaya, you do not know what they are, where are Singapore, South Korea and Thailand? 

Or, is Paakshikaya, the fervent patriot that he must be, saying that Sri Lanka's economy is more vibrant than those of these countries? 

Then, of course, there is Pakistan, which will never get into the "Group of 15" because of India's opposition. Again, my dear friend, that doesn't make Pakistan a less developed country than Sri Lanka does it? If one were to draw a parallel to Paakshikaya's argument, then, it is akin to saying that you are a champion cricketer because you get invited to Sanath Jayasuriya'a wedding! 

Furthermore, the tax payers of Sri Lanka, which now includes all of us, thanks to the GST, have to pay US $200,000 (about Rs. 12 million or about 60 cents for every man, woman and child in the country regardless of whether they are Paakshikayas or Viruddha Paakshikayas!) as a kind of entrance fee to join this club in addition to an annual membership fee. 

In my own opinion, I don't know what the hell we are doing in a club like this, especially when the Deputy Minister of Finance (who was dictated to by Transport Minister A.H.M. Fowzie on how not to include railway fare hikes in the Budget) is struggling to find every dime to balance his now imbalanced Budget. 

Now, Paakshikaya, the other countries in the "G 15" Group are Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, Venezuela and Zimbabwe (whom we love to hate now after they beat us at cricket!). 

From this ensemble you can see what a fabulous club this "G 15" is. This is only a prestige matter and Sri Lanka must concentrate on waging battles against the LTTE and against poverty and rampant malnutrition at home rather than fighting global battles on the world economy. In fact, Paakshikaya, this reminds me of how the masses of Sri Lanka ate from dustbins in the mid-seventies under your rule while Colombo was chairing the Non-aligned Summit. So, in a sense, this is not new to you, is it? 

So, Paakshikaya, please don't gloat over the "G 15" membership. Only a goat will say that joining the "G 15" is an indicator of the country's economic stability! 

Now, let's get down to the other important business of the day - the PA's imbalanced Budget. This is not a deficit Budget but an imbalanced Budget presented by an imbalanced government. 

Some, of course cruelly add that it was prepared by an imbalanced Minister and presented by an equally imbalanced Deputy Minister, but I do not wish to make such - nasty and personal statements, Paakshikaya. 

It is a record in Budget making that Rs. 300 million (from a hike in rail fares) in anticipated revenue is struck off because one minister complains. 

And, still more startling is the move to remove a proposal on expatriate workers' duty-free allowances, just 48 hours after it was presented! 

If your Deputy Minister G.L. Peiris tried to take the credit for not pushing through the rail fare hike proposal, your President, the de-jure Finance Minister, quickly rushed in and beat Deputy Minister Peiris in announcing the "removal" of the "removal of the duty-free allowance" proposal. 

To me, this just shows two things: First, the government's mindset has no hesitation in hitting the poorer sections of society - rail commuters and housemaids. Second, it demonstrates how ill- conceived and poorly planned this ad-hoc Budget has been. 

I mean, the week before the Budget is presented, Professor Peiris takes off to South Korea to attend some conference. A month before that the Minister of Finance is in South Africa, New York and London. Surely, Paakshikaya, is this the way this country is being run? By Ministers and Deputy Ministers who run from the country? 

Now, Paakshikaya, you tried to ridicule President D.B. Wijetunge. I guess he is having the last laugh in retirement at Udunuwara though it is certainly not a laughing matter for the rest of us. But just remember this, Paakshikaya: your leader will not be on the President's chair today if Mr. Wijetunge didn't ensure free and fair elections in November 1994. 

Then, Paakshikaya, your state media this week tried portraying your leader as a "caring" one. The only problem with this is now the Tamil parties whom you so unashamedly bent backwards to please - don't care for you anymore. 

When President D.B. Wijetunge referred to the relationship between the majority and the minority as that between the trunk of a tree and its branches you cleverly twisted it to say it was that between a tree and creepers clinging on to it. 

So, you portrayed President D.B. Wijetunge as a communalist to win the minority vote, and you succeeded. Now, in lucid English - spoken with the pauses, commas and fullstops in all the right places, unlike D.B. Wijetunge - your "caring" leader has referred to the Tamils as not being among the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka. 

And, now because of this historical "discovery" the TULF is not voting for your Budget. I guess until that statement is retracted and your leader goes on her knees and apologizes to the Tamils, the TULF will have to continue voting against the government. 

Then, Paakshikaya, what would you do with Thondaman and Chandrasekaran? I guess, they won't be complaining because they were not the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka anyway! And as far as the PLOTE, TELO, EPDP and the EPRLF are concerned, I guess they too will keep silent because they also need the government patronage (whatever the government is!) to survive. 

So, what it all boils down to is this: that this government does not know what it is doing - nor what it is saying. They are bungling from one incident to another, at the expense of the people, of course! 

They cannot win the war with the LTTE; they cannot present a proper Budget; they offend the sentiments of the minorities and the majority hates. 

And yet, Paakshikaya, your government celebrates four "caring" years in office while we, the people are hopelessly sharing the agony heaped on us by your leader!

Return to News/Comments Contents