We are last but not least! Sri Lanka is the last country in South Asia to welcome the Right to Information (RTI) law, but within our region we only second to our giant neighbour India when it comes to the overall strength of the law.
At a time the Government has come under fire for reneged promises, moving the Right to Information (RTI) Bill in Parliament was an opportunity for the Government to reiterate its commitment to the reformist agenda it promised.
As the reformist Government crosses the one and half years’ mark, it still has more leagues to tread to reach the people’s expectations on good governance. There is little doubt that the RTI Bill came to Parliament at a time the Government was also desperately looking for trump cards.
When this was written on late Thursday, Parliament was yet to adopt the RTI law. If the Government could make the Bill sail through Parliament on Friday preserving its spirit, it would be a shining moment for the National Unity Government after the adoption of 19th Amendment to the Constitution. However, unlike the 19th Amendment which required the two thirds majority, the passage of RTI law would be less challenging for the Government as it only requires a simple majority.
RTI Bill
The historical Bill was moved for the second reading debate by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The Premier, observing that the RTI Bill was initially presented to the House by the UNP Government in 2003, noted had the succeeding Government that took office in 2004 enacted the bill, Sri Lanka could have become the first country in South Asia to endorse the RTI Act.
“From 2004-2015 this bill did not find its way to Parliament. The former Government deliberately obstructed its path as it wanted to cover up corruption. Now the situation has changed, and no Government can conceal information hereafter”, he said.
The absence of Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, a key personality who worked tirelessly and resolutely over the past years to bring in the RTI Bill, was felt deep throughout the debate. Jayasuriya was unable to attend the sittings this week as he was unwell, but many MPs who took part in the debate did not forget to acknowledge his contribution gratefully.
The debate was held for two full days yesterday and Thursday. The Government was to bring in several Amendments to the Bill at the third reading taking into account the Supreme Court determination and proposals of other political parties.
The criticism on the part of the Joint Opposition (JO) was that the Bill restricts access to information in many vital areas. As of the Bill, there are 12 areas in which access to information can be denied. Out of them, the JO’s criticism was mainly for the inclusion of overseas trade agreements and information on economic and financial policies into the list. Even though doubtful of their bona fides, it is a good sign that the JO members have finally understood the importance of transparency in financial and economic affairs. The tragedy is that they did not realize it when they were in power for almost a decade, but 18 months in the Opposition seem to have given them a valuable lesson.
However, as subject Minister Gayantha Karunathilake rightly pointed out, the Information Commission that will be established under the new legislation can choose to even provide information coming under these exempted areas if those were deemed to be in the public interest.
Feather in the Government’s cap
It is too early to predict the success or failure of the implementation of the RTI Act. It is already stated the implementation may take about another year. Within this period, the mind-sets of the public authorities should also be changed to adopt more transparent and methodical systems in their work. On the other hand, the general public must be motivated to seek information that matters for their lives.
Moving the RTI law is a real feather in the Government’s cap. More than that of the Government, it was an achievement of civil society and media activists who unwaveringly campaigned for RTI for almost two decades.
In entirely a different turn of events, the Auditor General’s report on the state borrowings included in the annual report of the Finance Ministry for the year 2015 stirred up a hornets’ nest in Parliament this week. The AG observed the Government had hugely exceeded borrowing limit approved by Parliament for last year. If illustrating with figures, the maximum borrowing limit as approved by Parliament had been Rs. 1,780 billion, while the Government had obtained Rs. 3,349 billion, Rs. 1,569 billion more as of the AG’s observations.
The annual report was tabled by Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, but he had not been aware of the AG’s report on state borrowings in it until Chief Opposition Whip and JVP Leader Anura Dissanayake brought it to the limelight. The minister clarifying the matter next day, emphasised the Government had not exceeded the approved borrowing limit. He had to take enormous pain to clear the air of uncertainty on the state debt. It was later transpired the reason for the contradictory figures was due to a different methodology used by the AG in auditing debt. However, both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister were not happy over the unexpected trouble caused by the AG and they roundly criticized the AG over the controversy.
Meanwhile, the arrest of Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Leader MP Udaya Gammanpila created ripples in Parliament this week as the Joint Opposition agitated demanding to allow him to come to Parliament. In fact, when MP Dinesh Gunawardena was raising the issue of Gammanpila, the latter was already in the House though he did not enter the Chamber. The Government side backbenches informed Prime Minister Wickremesinghe that Gammanpila was spotted outside the Chamber. The Premier promptly stood up and questioned the validity of the argument of MP Gunawardena and asked why Gammanpila was not coming in.
However, the Premier played an own goal when he asked Minister Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka to reply on his behalf to MP Gunawardena’s statement. This was not the first time the Premier used firebrand Fonseka to reply to JO’s allegations. It was not more than two months ago, that Parliament ended up in a fracas when the Premier invited Fonseka to talk on the VIP security as an extension to his reply on the security of former President Mahinda Rajapaska. It is hard to believe the Premier expected a different reaction from the JO this time.
JO’s protest
The JO members, about 30 in head count, who were present in the House at that moment, hurled abuse at Fonseka and shouted him down with all their might yet another time. Fonseka making a scathing attack on the JO reminded them how the former ruler harassed and jailed him for no fair reason. JO MP Ranjith de Zoysa behaving in a very aggressive and ill-mannered way repeatedly banged a large book on his desk causing loud noise. The Premier taking the scene rather lightly was seen enjoying it to the fullest. Later, he came up with a tongue-in-cheek comment that he asked Fonseka to speak as he was having a cough and unable to answer.
Interestingly, MP Chandrasiri Gajadeera, the only Communist Party candidate to be elected from the UPFA, did not throw his weight on the JO’s protest and was seen seated quietly. Gajadeera, who had previously thrown in his lot with the JO, was a notable absentee at the vote of no-faith motion against Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake too. The speculation ran rife recently that more crossovers are expected from the Opposition to the Government, and Gajadeera’s passivity may hint that he is one among them.
Moreover, Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake and JO member Mahindananda Aluthgamage tried their masculine power in Parliament lobby grabbing media highlight. The duo was not in good terms lately and their feud was all time high with Aluthgamage’s appointment to the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) in which Ramanayake is also an active member. Ramanayake was intrepid in making direct allegations against Aluthgamage on corruption, which the latter denied as unfounded.
Hence, when Aluthgamage met Ramanayake face to face near the VIP lift in Parliament lobby last Tuesday, he had many old scores to settle.
The scene that unfolded thereafter was too ugly and certainly unbecoming for the highest elected body in the country. In short, they hurled abuse at each other and resorted to exchange punch ups. Had not the intervention of a few other MPs near them, they could have ended up at the medical centre.
This incident occurred even before the dust settled on the previous brawl of MPs following which two MPs were suspended from Parliament for one week. After all, it seems exchanging blows is no more a strange thing in our “August Assembly” and it cannot be helped as such is the quality of “Honourable MPs” we elected to represent us. Even so, the draft Code of Conduct for MPs is still on the table.
Add new comment