Interview

Govt. inefficiency a set back for tsunami rehabilitation

G.L. Peiris - government actions suspicious

UNP Parliamentarian and former Constitutional Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris is of the view that the denial of the right of a citizen to elect a president after the end of the term of the incumbent president, is only a negation of basic democratic value at the apex of the government structure. He says every person who voted at the presidential election in December 1999 believed that whomever they were voting for, they were seeking to elect a president for six years. "If the voters were asked on the day they voted whether they were voting for a president to stay in power only for the stipulated period, you would undoubtedly have received the unhesitating reply that the period for which the president was being elected was six years and not seven or eight. This was the universal expectation. The people cannot be deprived of electing their head of state and head of government every six years," he told The Sunday Leader in an interview.

Following are excerpts:

By Wilson Gnanadass 

Q: How would you assess the government's handling of the post tsunami reconstruction efforts?

A: It is very disappointing. Wherever you go along the coastline you will hear bitter complaints about the inactivity of the government. The coordination has been poor while the delivery in the camps has been inadequate. There has been no attention paid to the needs of the displaced persons living with their friends and relatives temporarily. There has been the admission from a no lesser person than the commissioner general of essential services that only 30 percent of the relief has got across to the recipients. 

The question then arises how the rest managed at all. The answer is, this was possible only because of the commitment and dedication of non-governmental organisations and religious leaders and the other opposition political parties which used all resources in the pradeshiya sabhas and local authorities to clear up the debris and attend to the urgent needs of the displaced persons. What is regrettable however is that these are the very people who are sought to be deliberately excluded by the government. Whatever the President may say, in reality our party members complain that they are not drawn into decision making processes by government politicians and officials.

Another very significant drawback is that no attention is paid to restoring the means of livelihood of the people who have been displaced. These are not people who are dependent on the charity of others but they live their lives with dignity without being a burden on the society. There is an urgent need to restore small businesses, but no properly coordinated programme has been embarked upon by the government for this purpose. In several areas in the Galle, Matara and Hambantota Districts not to mention my own electorate of Moratuwa I have personally seen the degree of anger and resentment on the part of people who learn from the media that there is a torrential downpour of dollars but very little is reaching them.

Q: The UNP is also participating in the All Party Committee meeting summoned by President Kumaratunga. Have you not highlighted these deficiencies at these meetings?

A: We have done so consistently. Take for example the 100-metre rule. From the very outset UNP  Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya clearly articulated the position that there cannot be a rigid rule applied throughout the country and that there must be fullest consultation with the communities affected and that local circumstances and requirements must be taken into account fully.

A policy that is feasible in Ambalangoda may be totally impractical in Weligama or in Point Pedro. In some areas it is physically impossible to enforce the 100 metre prohibition. In other areas alternatives are simply not available. In any case, the fishing communities do not wish to be physically separated from the ocean because their whole culture and livelihood is built around the sea. There has also been strong opposition to temples, churches and mosques being removed from these areas. It is especially tragic that even where resources are available to begin reconstruction, this work cannot begin because of inflexible government policies.

This is the case even in Moratuwa where NGOs are prepared to construct as many as 200 houses but the work cannot get underway because of impediments created by government policies. Mr. Jayasuriya and Ravindra Samaraweera also pointed out that tsunami funds should not be utilised for large scale infrastructure projects such as thermal power plants, highways or harbours because these are projects for which funds should be obtained from other sources.

Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has consistently emphasised that tsunami funds were put at our disposal by government and by the public in other countries to mitigate the anguish and suffering of the people affected by this disaster. Consequently the bulk of this money must be directly paid to these people to enable them to rebuild their homes, purchase new fishing boats and to revive other small-scale enterprises. We have said that it is wrong and insensitive to place this money in bank accounts without making it available to the people.

These views expressed by us have largely gone unheeded. Also the government has not implemented the detailed proposals that the Leader of the Opposition made to the President in respect of a phased out plan to deal with the situation. It is a pity that the Centre for National Operations was dismantled. There was a need for a strong central mechanism. It is quite evident that the line ministries cannot effectively deal with a crisis of this magnitude.

Q: It is estimated that 60 % of the US$ 1.5 billon needs assessment of the donor agencies will be for the north east. Would you say it is important therefore for the government to reach an agreement with the LTTE?

A: This is absolutely necessary. Indeed it is a precondition for donor funding to be available for disbursement in this part of the country. The government has been dragging its feet. Internal differences between the President and the JVP have prevented a viable structure from taking shape. These differences have existed for several months without any serious attempt being made by the President to resolve them.

Q: Overall,  there be a mechanism to monitor the disbursement of funds even in the south to avoid corruption?

A: This is absolutely necessary. There have already been reports of hugely inflated sums being paid for land that is acquired for purposes connected with tsunami relief. Some of the information furnished by government officials has been proved to be false. Punitive action has been taken in many instances, against corrupt officials. This is a tragedy, which has cost the lives of more than 40,000 of our citizens. The unprecedented inflow of resources to alleviate human suffering will not serve even a fraction of its purpose if large sums are siphoned off as a result of corruption.

We are suspicious of suggestions related to large township projects. Because of the abundant opportunity that these projects provide for corruption, there must be total transparency and accountability and this can be guaranteed only by a supervisory role exercised directly by parliament. There should be a parliamentary committee consisting of representatives of all political parties. This committee must be responsible for overall superintendence and control.

Q: Do you agree with President Kumaratunga's strategy of centralising the reconstruction efforts under her with a few hand picked confidantes?

A: That is precisely what has gone wrong. The complexity and the range of the tasks is such that for the achievement of success in any significant measure, the widest possible participation is required. Persons of ability and experience must necessarily be drawn in. What has happened is precisely the opposite.

Q: What would the UNP have done differently to the President in the handling of the reconstruction efforts?

A: Let us discuss the situation we had to face during the last floods. The mechanism that was set up by the UNF government worked with reasonable effectiveness. We had also prepared legislation in the form of a disaster management bill, which was in fact approved by the UNF cabinet but could not be presented to parliament because of its premature dissolution. It was Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's wish that Minister Sarathchandra Rajakaruna should be entrusted with vital functions in this regard but there was strong resistance on the part of President Kumaratunga who took the view that these functions formed part of the presidential prerogative.

Q: The government has introduced emergency regulations with far reaching provisions affecting civil liberties and rights under the cover of the tsunami. Would you agree, and if so what would you say are the most dangerous elements in these regulations?

A: In the speech I made in parliament on Friday, February 11, opening the debate on behalf of the opposition, I mentioned that the UNP is prepared to give the government every assistance and cooperation to acquire for itself powers that are needed to deal with situations related to the tsunami calamity. The fundamental problem however is that many of the powers which the government is seeking to gain has nothing whatsoever to do with the tsunami.

These powers lead to the establishment of a dictatorship. For example there are provisions, which prohibit the distribution of handbills and posters. All police officers irrespective of their rank are given wide reaching powers to enter private premises to search and question persons including those in custody, to take them from place to place and even to seize confidential books and documents in the custody of banks.

Incredibly, these powers can also be exercised in terms of the emergency regulations by any person at all who is selected for this purpose by the President. These regulations permit the government to use the army, navy and air force to requisition vehicles, to take over private property, to evict persons and to perform a varity of acts, which are destructive of democratic freedoms. Where the President makes an order for the performance of the personal service even without proof that the order has been received by the person to whom it is addressed, the most serious consequences follow. If there is no compliance within 24 hours the person concerned is guilty of an offence and may be put in prison. He loses his employment even if this is contrary to the terms and conditions which are contained in the contract of an employment or in the general law.

There is a vindictive provision, which enables   eviction from government quarters, which is even defined as including a room. This eviction takes place within 72 hours so that there is no opportunity available to find alternative accommodation. Not only does the person concerned lose his employment but also he is rendered destitute because of a bizarre provision that all his property, movable and immovable is forfeited to the republic. This means that the meagre savings of an employee lying in a savings account will be taken over by the state.

What has all this to do with the tsunami? This is the heavy hand of a police state. It is quite evident from the horrendous sweep of these provisions that what the government is really attempting to do is to suppress ruthlessly all forms of legitimate dissent. Trade union rights are trampled upon cynically. These safeguards which have been incorporated into legislation for several decades in the interest of workmen whose vulnerability and weakness have been recognised by the law, have all been extinguished with one stroke of the pen. All salutary protection recognised by the evident ordinance have been reduced to zero. Confessions made to police officers or while the person confessing is in police custody become admissible contrary to principles contained in the general law.

The remarkable irony is that in a situation where empathy and compassion should be the hallmark of government policy in dealing with a humanitarian tragedy, the government has chosen to make use of the tsunami situation to assume for itself dictatorial powers which are totally inconsistent with even the minimum rights and freedoms in a democratic society. It is crucially important that the public and trade unions in particular should be aware of the implications of this Draconian piece of legislation.

Q: If you say the provisions are that dangerous why did the UNP not vote against them rather than merely abstaining?

A: There was good reason for adopting this course of action. These regulations contain a certain residue of powers, which were necessary to ensure the maintenance of essential services and supply. We did not want to stand in the way of the government acquiring authority for these purposes. But we pointed out that the regulations should not go far beyond the requirement of the situation. We said that we would give the government time to rectify the grave anomalies, which we identified. We insisted that the government should remove these deficiencies and cut down the scope of the regulations if they are to be presented to parliament again next month. We said that in the meantime we would inform the public about the repercussions of these regulations and create a strong body of public opinion in defence of basic civil liberty. If the government fails to modify the regulations, in accordance with our suggestions, we made it clear that the UNP will vote against the regulations on the next occasion.

Q: Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera has declared that the presidential election is due only in 2006. Do you disagree and if so why?

A: I would disagree entirely. Without going into the intricacies of the law I would rely on a couple of basic considerations. Every person who voted at the presidential election in December 1999 believed that whomever they were voting for, they were seeking to elect a president for six years. If you stopped anybody who was entering the polling booth and asked this question you would undoubtedly have received the unhesitating reply that the period for which the president was being elected was six years and not seven or eight. This was the universal expectation.

The executive presidency is an immensely powerful institution. It becomes compatible with democratic norms only subject to the mandatory requirement that the executive president should come before the people for election every six years. The people cannot be deprived of electing their head of state and head of government every six years. The denial of this right is a negation of basic democratic values at the apex of the government structure.

President Jayewardene, who like President Kumaratnga held the second election prematurely did not seek to extend his term undemocratically in the way President Kumaratunga is attempting to accomplish this objective. Moreover, in an interview the President gave a few months ago to V.S. Sambandan of The Hindu, she admitted that the time of her reelection was in 1999 and it was her intention to hold the next election in six years time. She was not able to give any satisfactory explanation why she changed her mind much later. The story about the second swearing-in we are convinced is only fictitious.

It is worthy of note that Mr. Kadirgamar when he was asked whether he attended this function said he vaguely remembered such a ceremony taking place. We do not regard any of this as credible because nobody in the country at that time was aware that the Head of State of this country was taking her oath. It is quite preposterous to suggest that such an oath can be taken in stealth or secrecy, unknown to the public.

Q: What do you intend doing about the assertions by Minister Samaraweera?

A: We will take this issue before the people. We will point out to them that while the postponement of elections is accepted on one occasion, it cannot be resisted subsequently. The lifeblood of democracy is the holding of elections at the proper time. If the public choose to sleep over their rights with regard to so vital a matter as this, the disappearance of democracy becomes inevitable. Besides we will ask the people to reflect on the condition of the economy, the chaos within government, the lack of proper policy direction in any sector of national life, the dismal record of broken promises and the breakdown of governance even in its most basic forms and we will ask the people whether they really want one more year of this. We do not have much doubt about the response.