|
 Colombo’s roads – does anybody care?
The purpose of this letter is to bring to the
notice of the authorities the appalling state of the road surfaces in Colombo
and its suburbs, where it is easy to count on one’s fingers the number of good
roads that provide a smooth ride for vehicles and their occupants.
Furthermore, the situation has gone from bad to worse due to the increased heavy
vehicle loads which cause the roads to sink, dislodge manhole covers, etc.,
making it a misery for other vehicle users.
At present, there are so many authorities such as the CMC, RDA, and Provincial
RDA heavily loaded with engineers who are supposed to maintain the road
surfaces. Furthermore, Sri Lanka is trying to attract foreign investments in an
expeditious manner. However, the present state of our city and suburban roads
will be a deterrent to such efforts.
Therefore, it is high time that an overall and coordinated approach is made to
restore these roads immediately.
Themiya Lokubandara Hurulle
Colombo 7
****
COPE, Wijedasa Rajapakse and the Parliament
 The first report from the Committee on Public
Enterprises (COPE) to the second session of the sixth Parliament has become a
subject of importance to many in the society. As a document critical of public
institutions presented by a member of the government, it can be considered a
pioneering step in the political history of this country. It deserves further
scrutiny and public focus as a matter of national importance. The chairman and
the members of the committee justly owe a meritorious reward for being bold and
outspoken amidst all types of political pressure against exposures of this
nature.
The report provided a great and unique opportunity for the parliamentarians to
enter into a very healthy, productive, constructive and intellectual debate
useful to the country in the context of improving the standards of our public
enterprises. It was more pertinent when there are varied opinions about the
sizing, performance and the usefulness of the public sector and the
controversies related to the policy on privatisation of public enterprises.
With due respect to an eminent legal personality in the calibre of Wijedasa
Rajapakse who served as the COPE Chairman, in order to elaborate the legal
importance of the issue, I wish to quote a suggestion by the Law Lords that,
“Assets of a bank about to be privatised belonged not to individual depositors
but to the state.”
The importance of this dictum is not its mere reference to the ownership but the
fact that the state referred to is a broader concept than the government! The
assets belong to the state in a more general sense that they are ultimately at
the disposition of Parliament (Ross v. Lord Advocate {1986}1 WLR 1077 HL).
It is very interesting to note that out of the 26 public institutions subject to
scrutiny under the report, seven are leading state sector giants which are
vulnerable as potential privatisation targets! Whether Parliament viewed this in
such perspective is doubtful since no one focused on the aspect during the
debate.
It is a well known that poor performance, loss making and poor administration
are often quoted preludes to privatisation. All these ingredients are inherently
associated in the enterprises included in this report and in particular those
earmarked for restructuring and privatisation.
Let us have a look at the powers and functions of COPE.
In terms of Standing Order 126, COPE has to examine the accounts and performance
of public enterprises and to report to Parliament on these. What is envisaged
under the Standing Order cannot certainly be another audit function such as an
examination of what has been done and whether things are done according to
regulations. Performance is an area which has a very wide scope extending far
beyond the accounts.
Operations without any deficiencies and irregularities in them will not itself
bring a public enterprise within the boundaries of acceptable performance. Such
an execution has to be assessed in a number of ways in a more practical sense.
For example, if an enterprise merely performs limited activities falling short
of the objectives and the purpose of its establishment, then, such a performance
cannot be categorised as satisfactory or acceptable despite its operations
within the regulatory framework.
On the other hand, the public satisfaction of the services rendered is another
important – in fact the most important – aspect to be assessed in the case of a
public enterprise. We are not aware whether COPE turned its search light in
these directions. Can an examination limited to only the findings and
observations by the auditor general and the director general of public
enterprises serve the purpose to streamline the corporate sector and to keep the
House informed of the correct position? Should it not be extended to cover a
wider scope?
The role of the public cannot be disregarded in such an exercise. After all,
Parliament is answerable to the people. If the general public is not getting a
satisfactory service from a particular enterprise, what is its use? Corruption
and bribery has reached heights unparalleled in history. It is the general
public at the receiving end of this sorry state of affairs.
Regulatory and operational framework of some of the institutions are so
manifestly designed to facilitate corrupt practices and subject the public to
harassment under the cover of which the bribe takers manoeuvre. In the case of
certain enterprises, the transparency of regulations and their application in a
uniform manner are more often questionable. Some enterprises have not publicised
the rules and regulations under which they enforce their regulatory functions.
Approval and authorisation procedures are not available for public scrutiny even
for the sake of information. If Parliament is to know and be appraised of the
true situation, these matters have to be addressed in the public interest.
Accordingly, the concept of examination has to be revised to cover these
aspects.
The next important issue is, of what use is this report to Parliament? Is
Parliament considering it with any finality to be reached or action to be taken
against the wrong doers? There have been instances of repeated adverse remarks
and observations about wrong practices and violation of regulations, etc., by
public enterprises. Nothing has happened to those responsible. Some concrete
corrective steps and deterrent impositions are necessary at an identified level
if meaningful results are to be achieved. A mere report to the President appears
to be another evasive bypass!
None of the debaters in Parliament focused on these matters. No doubt it points
at the degraded standard of performance there. Wijedasa Rajapakse however,
acting within limited scope, did his best in opening a big opportunity for those
parliamentarians with a national interest to capitalise on, but in vain. Some of
the MPs were more concerned with defining the periods under which the pointed
deficiencies took place. Parochial passing the buck and mud slinging
unfortunately has taken prominence over national priorities! It is a pity we do
not have more Wijedasa Rajapakses in Parliament to support and strongly push
forward a valuable concept directed towards correction of faults and raising the
standards of public enterprises in this country.
As members of the public we are interested to know the responsibility of the
line secretaries and ministers in charge of these enterprises for the omissions
and commissions. Some ministers simply table and forward the auditor general’s
report to Parliament. They should at least be held responsible for not taking
action against the perpetrators.
We are aware that scrutiny by a Parliamentary select committee is an ex post
facto affair. In addition, scrutiny by a Parliamentary committee faces the
difficulty of obtaining implementation of any proposals directed against a
government and furthermore governments have been able to rely on their majority
in opposing the extension of the committee’s powers.
COPE examinations are, of course, retrospective and its force lies in creating a
form of learning from experience so as to improve future decision making.
However, one of the recurring themes with regard to such reports has been that
lessons have not been learned from previous reports. Besides, the financial
concerns such as profit formulae emphasis should be made on the failure of
learning from the past experiences. With regard to audit comments and
observations on which COPE mainly bases its search process, it has to be borne
in mind that the audit office will not have access to books and records of
outside parties such as contractors but only to information in departmental
files. This lack of access can conceal misdeeds and corrupt practices and in
such instances COPE will not be tackling the issue correctly. These are certain
other areas that COPE will have to take into consideration in its examinations
on doubtful and questionable transactions. The scope and functions of COPE have
to be enlarged under these circumstances.
T. Rusiripala
****
Songs that should be censored
 The Censor Board has banned the controversial
film by Asoka Handagam – Aksharaya, but it is disheartening to note that the
songs composed by Dugganarala – ‘Sara Sadisi’ and ‘Sokari yunta epa’ are being
broadcast over the Radio without any objections. These two songs are based on
Ganja consuming women. In the Song ‘Sokari yunta epa’ he openly encourages the
consumption of Ganja. I feel that these songs are much more dangerous to the
children of this country than the film Aksharaya. If Dugganarala’s goal is cheap
popularity, he could easily try something else, rather than making innocent
youth the bait! Both these songs are very popular among present-day young crowd.
There is no doubt that Duka is a talented artiste, but he should concentrate his
talent on giving something decent to society, instead of writing vulgar songs.
He should be punished by the Narcotic Bureau of Sri Lanka for popularising the
consumption of ‘Ganja’.
P.P. Ellepola Pupuressa
****
|
