Perhaps due to the news that appeared to the effect that a majority of the members of the legislature including cabinet ministers and MPs all violate the rule that they themselves had enacted -that parliamentarians must declare their assets-the President has ordered all cabinet ministers and deputy ministers to hand over their declarations of assets for the past five years with immediate effect. This action of creating a situation where the law is enforced, though belatedly and due to a prompting by a newspaper, deserves praise.
However, the implementation of this rule will not be complete merely with the obtaining of declarations of assets and liabilities of ministers and deputy ministers only. There must also be the possibility for members of the public to obtain them without difficulty. In a context in which the PA had promised in its election manifesto that it would take action to publicise declaration of assets and liabilities of its ministers, if at least declarations now being collected, are made available to the mass media, the people will be able to know who has declared the truth and who has not. They will also get to know who has been impoverished due to politics and who has enriched himself/herself.
Recently published critical article about presents received by heads of state. Perhaps it was in response to that a newspaper carried a news item that the President donated presents received by her to the state treasury.
There is a tradition in all countries for heads of state to give presents to visiting heads of state and take presents to head of states. However, expenditure for these presents are not borne out of private funds of heads of state but out of public funds. Therefore the tradition in all countries is that presents received by heads of state are handed over to the state treasury.
But in our country the practice was different. The expenditure on presents made to heads of other states was of course borne out of state funds, but presents received were appropriated by the recipients without handing them over to the treasury.
Once questioned an official of the Audit Department regarding this matter. I asked him whether there was an auditing of presents made and received by heads of state. He just looked at me as if dumbfounded and made no reply. He admitted that according to the law of the land presents received by the heads of state in his official capacity must go to the treasury. But he admitted that tradition had not been followed from the time of the UNP government to date. He also had to finally admit that some of the presents were not even entered in a formal register. It is necessary to say that this is a sad state of affairs. The amount of public funds spent on presents to heads of state may amount to Rs. one or two million. If presents received are not sent to the general treasury but are appropriated by the recipients, it is certainly unsatisfactory.
It was after that public criticism about presents received by heads of state that the presidential secretariat issued a statement that the President had donated to the treasury valuable articles received by her, along with a list of these articles giving also their values. However that statement does not make it clear whether the President had handed over all the articles received by her in her official capacity. It is also wrong to have presented them as a donation. If a list is published of the presents made by our heads of state to foreign heads of state on an official basis and the expenditure involved of the presents received by them on an official basis during the past 15 years, that will enable the people to get an idea about the integrity displayed by these heads of state.
Acceptance of presents from entrepreneurs by heads of state is also against the tradition. If a head of state has that freedom to accept them, he or she will inevitably pay greater attention in terms of the powers vested in the head of state to those who made more valuable presents.
Our country also has a bad tradition of maintaining a special fund which the head of state can control. According to the financial law prevailing in the country, the only place where state funds can be found is the general treasury. But the President has given himself (or herself) the right to maintain a special fund called the President’s Fund. When in opposition the SLFP criticised it severely, but after coming back to power, the SLFP instead of abolishing such an autocratic system, appears to be maintaining it with great relish. The President’s Fund outwardly appears to be maintained for charitable grants. Grants are made from it to some patients. Although such activity gives some justification to the President’s Fund.
Due to a question raised by a representative of the opposition in Parliament, the government had to table a list of names of persons who had received grants from the President’s Fund. Surprisingly the list was tabled without giving details or the amounts granted to various people.
All institutions not falling within the category of charities, as well as all the citizens come under the income tax law. But the Department of Inland Revenue does not look into party funds under any circumstances. I have heard of an instance in which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had to make an inquiry from President J. R. Jayewardene about a petition that the commission had received about a large amount of money in the president’s personal account. The president’s reply had been that the monies in his personal accounts were not his own monies but those of the party. But the commissioner did not question the president as to how party funds were in his personal account rather than in a party account due to the fact that the president was the first citizen of the country.
Although the ownership of party funds should be with the parties, it is the party leader who owns these funds. There is no tradition of reporting to the party leader or to the party about the election funds received by the parties. I have heard of instances when party leaders had loaned billions of rupees on interest received by them. The party leader can even personally use any amount of the funds. Newspapers reported that at the time of president Premadasa’s assassination, there was about Rs. 360 million available at Sucharitha. The Department of Inland Revenue did not inquire as to how and from whom such an amount was received probably because Mr. Premadasa was the first citizen. But how can a law that does not operate in regard to leading citizens and is only applicable to ordinary citizens be reasonable?