Restricting abuse of ministerial resources for political advantage rather than executive work

I have sent the letter below to the Minister of Good Governance, along with the schedule beneath it. I realized how appalling the situation was when I was Secretary to a Ministry, and the personal staff ran riot (including ensuring the election of Mr Thevarapperuma).

 

Dear Mr Jayasuriya,

I had written to you before about simple measures that could be taken to promote Good Governance and I hope we might be able to meet soon to take things forward, There seems to be too little interest in this at present, and that might lead to the people losing faith in us.

 I gather the JVP has already drafted a Code of Conduct, and I am sorry this has not been shared with party leaders and with parliamentarians in general. But pending that, I will send you some ideas which I hope will be incorporated. My first suggestions are with regard to Personal Staff and perks given to Ministers, which are often not used for Ministry work. I realized how bad the situation was when the Secretary of the Ministry I held commended my staff. None of them is related to me, and they have all been working full time at the Ministry since I took up responsibilities.

Let me add that, if the changes I suggest below in the Schedule are made, I will not take advantage of the additional support for Parliamentarians. Otherwise it will be claimed that I would like to get back some of the advantages I have given up in resigning from the Ministry – though obviously I do not need them since I do not have a constituency.

The cost to the country will be about the same, and more Parliamentarians will have less incentive to obtain executive office for the sake of the perks and privileges.

Yours sincerely

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

 

 Schedule

One of the reasons for everyone wanting to be a Minister is the perks Ministers enjoy. These are often used for personal gain, but in addition they are used for political advantage. This also badly affects productive work. The general principle followed it seems, in forming a Cabinet, is not to select those who understand the subjects allocated to them, but rather to give portfolios for the purpose of ensuring electoral success – both to keep people happy so they will not change sides, and to give them resources to fight elections.

The Minister for Good Governance thought we have an unfortunate political culture and that it would be difficult to change, but we must start now. I would suggest therefore that we adopt a principle of distinguishing between the executive and the Parliamentary roles of politicians and limit them using Ministry resources for electoral or personal purposes. I believe there will be less need of excessive resources when we change the electoral system. But even then, what we should do is give ordinary Parliamentarians a bit more, while cutting down on the waste now.

These measures will also reduce the assumption that the main purpose of a Ministry is to be able to give jobs to people, with little regard for qualifications or ability.

I therefore suggest the following –

 

1. Members of the Executive shall not use their offices or the equipment and services they are given for electoral purposes
2. The personal staff of Ministers shall be limited to only such numbers as are essential for the fulfilment of their executive responsibilities. All such staff will be required to provide monthly reports on their productivity to the Secretary of the Ministry which pays their salaries.
3. However, given the personal and political needs of all Parliamentarians, their personal staff may be increased as follows –

2 coordinating secretaries instead of 1

1 research officer as now

1 private secretary as now

2 drivers instead of 1

1 office aide as now

This gives them a total of 7 instead of 5.

They should also be given a vehicle for their use. This should take the place of the permits which are now readily abused.

4. The personal staff of Ministers should be reduced as follows, and they must all be expected to report to work in the Ministry unless the Minister had given them leave, as informed to the Secretary

1 private secretary as now

1 coordinating secretary instead of 2

1 public relations secretary

No media secretary, the work should be done by the Ministry media personnel, who should be selected in accordance with clear criteria

2 drivers, without provision for a driver for a back up vehicle. If needed, such a driver should be taken from the Ministry pool.

1 office aide instead of 2, since the Ministry staff can be allocated if needed.

2 management assistants instead of 5. At least one of those should be functional in the Official Language which is not that of the Minister. Any further assistance may be provided by regular Ministry staff.

This gives them a total of 8 instead of 13.

5.  The Minister should have at most 2 vehicles. Personal staff should have at most 2 vehicles rather than the 5 that are now available.

6.  The qualifications of all personal staff paid by government Ministries should be made known to the public, along with the responsibilities entrusted to them.

Political Principles and their Practice in Sri Lanka 1 – The need for high quality thought and discussion

Some years back Cambridge University Press in Delhi published a slim volume I wrote entitled ‘Political Principles and their Practice in Sri Lanka’. I prepared this because I had been horrified at the lack of awareness even in students of political science of basic political principles. When we were revising syllabuses at Sabaragamuwa, I realized that the political science syllabus was moribund, with nothing that had been published in the seventies or later on the reading lists. The person in charge seemed to have no knowledge of John Rawls, or the seminal contribution of his ‘Theory of Justice‘ to political thought – and I began to understand then the comment of President Kumaratunga at our first Convocation, when she talked about Sri Lanka being the only country where the frogs in the well were digging themselves deeper and deeper into the ground.

This approach to life seemed to have become endemic at Peradeniya, with little added to learning or thought after the seventies. This has contributed to a very passive approach to the subject, with outdated theory being the focus of attention rather than the actual processes of government. Thus, when I addressed a meeting recently for the common opposition candidate in Kandy, I was startled to find a very formulaic approach to the question of the Executive Presidency, with no attention being paid to the very practical problems created by the particularly perverse form J R Jayewardene had introduced.

But this had started earlier, with the sycophantic celebration of the Jayewardene constitution presented in ‘The Gaullist Constitution of Sri Lanka’, written by a supposedly great scholar, A J Wilson. I am sure Wilson had his plus points, but he failed completely to analyse the crucial contradiction in Jayewardene’s approach, which was to impose a Presidential system on the Westminster Parliamentary model. Sadly no scholar in our universities, as far as I know, has analysed the implications of this for the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, which is the main reason for an Executive Presidency.

A few facts with regard to misrepresentation and political victimization

This whole controversy  is taking up a lot of time. The issues of principle, that need to be resolved are about Governance and ethical behavior, but that is in relation to the behavior of Cabinet Ministers. With regard to FUTA, what they did and said is not a problem, though I am sorry that their most recent claim is only about calling on the UGC Chair to resign. Whether they intended it or not, Kabir Hashim said he succumbed to pressure. I thought therefore of putting down, with evidence of what was going on behind my back, the sorry sequence of improper behavior and commitments.

1.  The FUTA notes of its meeting at Temple Trees on January 27th state -

• Prime Minister stated that all UGC Commission members including the Chair will be requested to resign. Request letters will come through the Secretary to the President.
• Minister Kabeer Hashim stated that he requests all Council members of universities to resign.

But the request for the UGC members to resign came from Minister Kabir Hashim who also asked the UGC chair to ask all Council members to resign. Minister Hashim stated that his request was as directed by the President, but the President said he had not been consulted..

Minister Hashim took this step without informing the State Minister to whom he had previously said that he entrusted all matters to do with university education. On 27th January itself he had addressed a letter to the President asking him to request the resignation of the UGC. It seems that he took his decision to himself ask the UGC to resign when he did not receive a response.

2.   FUTA sent a message asking academics to boycott the ceremony to honour the late Lakshman Kadirgamar, held at the Peradeniya University Senate on February 18th. The email read as follows –

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:21 PM, D D K S Karunanayake <***@***. com> wrote:

From: pmahi <***@***.lk>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM
Subject: Refrain from attending the ceremony on the 18 February 2015

Dear Member/ FPUTA,

This has reference to the invitation circulated by the Vice chancellor for handing over ceremony of a portrait of the late Hon. Lakshman Kadirgamar on the 18th of February, 2015 at the senate room.
The EXCO of the Federation of Peradeniya University Teachers Associations (FPUTA) considered the matter and decided to refrain from attending the said ceremony on following grounds.

1) FUTA with the blessings of FPUTA has been demanding removal of Prof. S. Kshanika Hirimburegama from the post of UGC Chairmen. Despite handing over her resignation at the request of the Cabinet Minister of Higher Education, Prof. Rajeewa Wijesinghe has allowed Prof. Hirimburegama to remain in the post while criticizing FUTA for demanding her resignation. Since FUTA has clearly indicated its reasons for demanding UGC chairperson’s resignation with evidence, we are in the opinion that Prof. Wijesinghe’s reaction to this matter is an act against the will of the majority of the academic community.

2) FPUTA is of the view that politicization of university activities should be minimized and therefore, actively engaged in the campaign against the same with FUTA. Therefore, FPUTA is in the opinion that inviting a politician to this function is unacceptable.

3) Inviting politicians to University functions has created unrest among students in the past. Therefore, FPUTA believes that inviting politicians without adequate consultation of the University community is unacceptable.

Joint secretaries / FPUTA
Dr. Danesh Karunanayake, Ph.D. (Purdue)
Head
Department of Philosophy and Psychology
University of Peradeniya
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka

3.   In this email it is clearly stated that ‘FUTA with the blessings of FPUTA has been demanding removal of Prof. S. Kshanika Hirimburegama from the post of UGC Chairmen. Despite handing over her resignation at the request of the Cabinet Minister of Higher Education, Prof. Rajeewa Wijesinghe has allowed Prof. Hirimburegama to remain in the post while criticizing FUTA for demanding her resignation.’

Far from ‘allowing’ the lady to remain in her post, I told her that the Act required her to continue to function until her resignation was accepted, viz
5. (2) A member of the Commission may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President, but shall continue in office until such time as his resignation has been accepted.

Subsequently FUTA omitted references to its ‘demand’ that the Chair be removed, and in a statement intended to ‘clarify certain misconceptions regarding the resignation’ kept reiterating that it had ‘requested the UGC Chair, Prof Kshanika Hirimburegama to resign…..Consequently, the academic community, has lost confidence in Prof Hirimburegama’s ability to provide leadership to the university system and therefore requested her resignation.’
In its statement FUTA notes that ‘If the government wishes to inquire into these allegations, we most certainly welcome such a move. It is not FUTA’s responsibility to make inquiries into such allegations, it is the responsibility of the government.’ That is true, but previously there was no mention of any inquiry when FUTA ‘demanded’ her removal.

4.   FUTA has claimed both that I criticized its ‘demanding her resignation’  and also that I misrepresented its ‘call for her resignation, as a form of political victimization’. I have never commented on FUTA’s call (or demand) for her resignation (or her removal) however they want to describe it. My resignation was because of the actions of the Cabinet Minister, which he claimed he took because of pressure from FUTA.

I do not lie, I do not change my position, I do not misrepresent what I have said or done, nor do I misrepresent what others say or do. I work on evidence, as everyone should, and in particular academics.

I would welcome any evidence from FUTA to substantiate its claim that I criticized them.

I would welcome clarification as to whether they demanded her removal or requested her to resign.

I would welcome clarification from the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Minister as to why different claims were made as to the reasons for requesting the resignation of the entire UGC, and in particular why it was claimed that this was on a directive of the President.

But I do not think any of these will be forthcoming.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1414777998817812&id=100008568757475

Amending Standing Orders as promised to strengthen Parliament

The Standing Order Committee finally met today, and we had what seemed a very productive session. I hope we are on our way now to fulfilling one of the first commitments in the manifesto, to amend Standing Orders so as to strengthen Parliament.

Needless to say there was nobody there from the UNP. Their total neglect of Standing Orders in the last few years was I think due more to ignorance rather than a lack of principle, which is why the Prime Minister should have nominated someone with a greater grasp of political concepts. But it was still John Amaratunga who was supposed to attend, and of course he did not come.

But we had Mr Sumanthiran, who had been the other moving spirit behind the swift way in which we worked in the first few months of this Parliament, before the Speaker stopped summoning the Committee. Dinesh Gunawardena also came, which I much appreciated, because he had done his best, which no one else in the Parliamentary Business Committee did, to get the Speaker to move on the Amendments I had proposed way back in 2013. Ajith Kumara was also there, and the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees, as also the Secretary General (who has a very good grasp of political principles), along with his Deputy.

We did not reach any decision on Consultative Committees, since it seems the Prime Minister has suggested we should have something called Sectoral Committees. I am delighted that he has at last thought about something he should have been thinking of for the last 37 years, but I suppose one should be glad that at last he has realized the importance of structures that enhance the power of Parliament. I have still to see his suggestions, which have been circulated to other Party Leaders, but will be content to hope for the best and return to this area later.

Meanwhile we have reached agreement on seven other areas as to which I had proposed reforms. Many intelligent suggestions were made on the rest, and we finally agreed on the following;

Alliance must get serious, work quickly and meet deadlines: Rajiva Wijesinha

The incident he faced as State Minister of Higher Education regarding the removal of the UGC Head and Faizer Mustapha’s resignation as State Minister of Aviation will not negatively impact the 100-day program but is a wakeup call for the whole alliance to realise that it needs to be more serious, says Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Daily FT, he also noted that the alliance gave a specific deadline to the people and there were very important pledges that it had done nothing about. “People are expecting us to fulfil these within the mentioned deadlines. We are here to respond to people and we must do so quickly,” he added.

However, Wijesinha emphasised that the pledge of abolishing the executive presidency shouldn’t be fulfilled since it was something that required a lot of consideration and it was important to ensure that what was put in its place would be acceptable to the people at large.

Following are excerpts:

Q: What is the conflict between you and Higher Education Minister Kabir Hashim?

A: Kabir took some action while I was away which I thought was totally inappropriate. I think Kabir should have consulted me. However, he has been very gracious about expressing the error involved. But the bottom line is that I know that this will go on.

If ‘A’ doesn’t give the right answer, they go to ‘B’. If one person is clearly in charge and then there is another person is also there, anyone who doesn’t get a good answer from ‘A’ will go to ‘B’. If technically ‘A’ is under ‘B,’ it is impossible for ‘A’ to actually carry out his work. I have told Kabir that this cannot go on like this. He too agreed and said that he would tell the Prime Minister to appoint me as a Cabinet minister. That would make a lot of sense and I hope that it will happen.

Q: Are you saying your action was not against the removal of the UGC Chairman but was purely based on error in protocol?

A: We are going to engage in what we call good governance. You must not do things that are contrary to every single principle of good governance. People ask me why I am defending the UGC Chairman. It is not a question of my defending her. It is a question of two fundamental principles of governance being breached.

The first is, very simply, Kabir should not have taken any decision affecting my work without telling me. The second fact is that, if they wanted to respond to allegations against the UGC Chairman, there should have been an investigation with due process. Rather interestingly Kabir told me there was lot of pressure from FUTA and that is why he went ahead with it. I told Kabir that he should not give into pressure. One of our biggest complaints against the UGC Chairman was that she had given into pressure. If we are going to do things simply because there is immense pressure from other parties, how are we any better than what we claim she was?

Q: But FUTA has been against the appointment of UGC Chairman and it was one of their conditions when supporting Maithripala Sirisena.

A: I know nothing about such a condition. Don’t forget that I translated the manifesto and there was nothing of that sort there. In any case, if you are going to remove anyone, you need to do it through due process.

Let me give you an example; they now claim that I know what the allegations are. But no one has given me any of the allegations except one professor who wrote a long email to me in which he basically mentioned all kinds of negative things about the UGC Head, such as she is the worst person in the system and a strong supporter of President Rajapaksa. I wrote back asking to send me those allegations systematically because I cannot carry out an investigations based on an email with someone’s own private grievances. He didn’t come back to me. How can anyone expect me to carry out any investigations without a proper complaint?

Richard de Zoysa

I was deeply saddened earlier this month to hear of the death of the marvelous Engish actress Geraldine McEwan. I had got to know her 30 years earlier, shortly after I joined the British Council, when she toured Sri Lanka with her one-woman Jane Austen show.

I had been determined to take the tour all over the country, but by then we were advised not to go to Jaffna. So we went instead to Batticaloa, where we found a most appreciative audience. Geraldine also had what was for her a first time experience, in that bats swooped in and out of the hall during the performance.

But she, and her Stage Manager Catherine Bailey, were infinitely adaptable, and said they had enjoyed the tour thoroughly. After the Batticaloa performance, we had a cyclone scare, and had to leave Passekudah, where we were staying, before dawn broke.

That should have been the high point of the tour, but what Geraldine and Catherine remembered most vividly, during our long friendship over the next three decades, was the previous night. After a performance at Peradeniya in collaboration with the university, Richard de Zoysa turned up at the Citadel, and we had a lively dinner which went on into the early hours.

Richard was a fantastic companion in any context, and he struck exactly the right note for Geraldine and Catherine who had a deep sense of social commitment. They would ask after him often in the years that followed, and were profoundly upset when he was murdered, 25 years ago. The fact that it was because of his passion for social justice added to the poignancy of his death, for them, as it should for all of us.

Good Governance – 1 : Employment Opportunities

I am worried that the commitment of this government to Good Governance is being forgotten in the midst of the various other concerns we have to deal with. But I believe that addressing this issue promptly and effectively will help us also to approach other problems more sensibly.

Since I began work, I have addressed a number of letters on the matter to Karu Jayasuriya since he has been appointed Minister for Good Governance. He is a politician for whom I have the highest regard, and I think he will do a great job, but I believe he should be made aware that this is an area about which the people are deeply worried.

He replied to one of my letters, registering the need to get rid of politicization of everything, to say that this was part of the culture and it would be difficult to make a change. But I pointed out that we must make a start. I think there needs to be greater discussion though of the manner in which the change should be made, and so I have begun this column in the hope that it will provoke debate and discussion.

I will post these articles on my Facebook but I hope others will do the same on theirs, with amendments and changes to popularize their ideas too. In addition I would encourage everyone to write direct to Mr Jayasuriya, so as to strengthen his hand to effect changes.

In particular he must start immediately to draft a Code of Conduct for those who are supposed to serve the public, and who receive public funds. This was promised in the manifesto, and it is a great pity that the public do not know what is being done about it.

I have told the UGC to draft a Code for academics and administrators in academia, and they gave me a first draft but I found it woefully inadequate. If I am still involved and can get the UGC to function again, I will suggest that the next draft be put on their website for discussion. They have already, as I requested, put on their website the criteria for appointment to Councils.

The Committee on Public Enterprises had instructed some time back that this be done, but there was a delay. On my first day in office I inquired what had happened, and was told there was a draft. That did not seem good enough to me, and I told them that, since they had had sufficient notice, I expected a final draft within a week. That was forthcoming, and the Eastern University Council was appointed accordingly. Those appointments seem to have been welcomed, though I also realized there still needs to be fine tuning. It would be useful if those interested checked on those guidelines and commented, so that we can have an even better set of requirements to put into the act when it is being prepared.

Rajiva Wijesinha responds to Daily Mirror article of 15 Feb 15

The Editor

Daily Mirror

Dear Champika

I am writing with regard to the article in your columns today about the situation in the Ministry of Higher Education. While your reporter has tried to describe the situation, there were some elements that were not quite accurate.

1. The Cabinet Minister of Higher Education had told me he asked the Chairman of the University Grants Commission to resign because of pressure from FUTA. The Prime Minister told me – as I mentioned to your reporter – that resignations had been requested from all officials in state institutions, and I could reappoint anyone if I wished. But that was not the way the Cabinet Minister had presented his orders to the UGC, having instead invoked the authority of His Excellency the President. This morning he reiterated that he had been under pressure from FUTA
2. I did not say I had been told the President had informed the Cabinet Minister of anything.  The Cabinet Minister told me the President had asked him to resolve the issue. He said that he would gazette Higher Education functions under me, but I pointed out that he had earlier told me he wanted me to run things since he would be busy with elections, and then had succumbed to pressures when approach by others. He then said he would request the Prime Minister to appoint me as Cabinet Minister, but it turned out that he had not spoken to the Prime Minister on Thursday evening as promised.
3. I did not try to contact the Prime Minister at all. It was the Prime Minister who called me on Saturday evening, after his adviser, Mr Deva-Adiththiya, requested me to wait until he had resolved the situation, since he felt strongly that my services were needed in this position. The Prime Minister had been out of communication for two days, which is perhaps why the Cabinet Minister had not got through to him, but he did call me even while still out of Colombo. The Cabinet Minister told me that the Prime Minister had indeed spoken to him on Saturday, and said he would resolve the situation, but he had no idea what happened after that.

Yours sincerely,

Rajiva Wijesinha

A Reform Agenda – Financial Abuse and Methods of Controlling it

I had intended to start this new series with expanded versions of the brief suggestions I had made during the election campaign. However, having been made a Minister, and found out the ridiculous privileges that Ministers are given, I thought I should start at the beginning and deal with the need for reforms at the very top.

The amount of waste on Ministers alone is appalling. Being a State Minister, with no Cabinet Minister, I had two predecessors, who between them had the use of 8 vehicles. They had 20+ staff in what is termed their private offices, one of these being the wife of the Minister. Five staff members of each private office were provided with vehicles and drivers. In addition the Minister had 8 substitute drivers.

All this nonsense springs from a circular issued by the Secretary to the President on May 14^th 2010. I have drawn the attention of Karu Jayasuriya to this, and suggested that he amend it swiftly. He is Minister of Good Governance in addition to Public Administration, and a brief discussion we had after the swearing in of the new Cabinet suggested he is serious.

I was not surprised that he asked for my support in this, because what is clear is the need for better systems, based on clear principles. But I have realized over the years that few other politicians understand about systems and principles. This may help them to be successful politicians, but it means that the consequences of their success are generally disappointing and sometimes disastrous.

So in the last few years I have been disappointed at how few politicians cared about strengthening the Committee system in Parliament. Many of them indeed did not bother to attend, except only to raise one or two parochial points. Hardly ever were principles discussed.

This is clear from the Minutes of Committee meetings, even though these are cursory. Fortunately, following my agitation about the matter, these Minutes are now publicly available, something I am sorry to say no Parliamentarian previously had demanded. Interestingly, one consequence of the Minutes being published is that more people attend Committee meetings. The records of the first couple of months showed that very few people attended.

Sri Lanka regime associates ‘linked to people-smuggling’

A FORMER presidential adviser to Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa government says it is plausible that some senior individuals close to the family-run regime were involved in the people-smuggling trade.

The admission comes two years after Australian intelligence officials told The Australian that a senior government figure close to then president Mahinda Raja­paksa was directly complicit in the 2012 surge of asylum boats to ­Australia.

Rajiva Wijesinha, the one-time reconciliation adviser to Mr Rajapaksa who last week was ­appointed Minister of State for Higher Education in the national unity government, told The Australian evidence of corruption among some close to the Rajapaksa clan was emerging following this month’s shock election result.

Professor Wijesinha singled out an individual from the southern port electorate of Hamban­tota, which received billions of dollars in Chinese infrastructure loans during Mr Rajapaksa’s 10 years in office, as one who was “making money hand over fist”.

The number of asylum boats leaving from Hambantota, the home town of the Rajapaksas, as opposed to the Tamil-dominated east and north coasts, has risen notably in recent years.

“Certainly accusations against individuals (of people-smuggling) as opposed to government sounded plausible,” he told The Australian of widespread rumours, adding that there was no evidence of “institutional involvement”.

“One of the reasons the Australian government was probably the least unhappy with us in the world was that the government did try to put a stop to (asylum boats).”

In July 2012, the former president’s eldest son, Namal Raja­paksa, addressed alle­gations of involvement in a human smuggling ring transporting asylum-seekers to Australia when he told Ceylon Today newspaper he had been falsely targeted by the Tamil diaspora seeking to bring his country into disrepute.

Five months later, The Aus­tralian reported that Australian intelligence agencies believed a “senior Sri Lankan government official” (not Namal) had been directly complicit in a surge in ­asylum-seeker boats the previous year and that it would be impossible for so many boats to leave the island without that individual’s ­direct involvement.

Sri Lankan asylum-seeker numbers surged to more than 6500 in 2012 from 211 the previous year, then dropped sharply following then foreign minister Bob Carr’s December 2012 visit to ­Colombo, which also marked the first wavering of Australian government support for an independent investigation into allegations of war crimes by both sides in the last months of the civil war.

Last year, Australia reversed its support for a UN-backed inquiry.

Sri Lankan opposition party, People’s Liberation Front last week lodged corruption complaints against the former president, his son Namal and brothers Basil and Gotabhaya, who held the economic development and defence portfolios respectively.

While the complaints largely address vastly inflated costs for national infrastructure projects, including a Chinese-built railway costing $US18 million a kilometre and allegedly 12 times the actual price, there is scope to investigate alleged involvement in people-smuggling.

How Australia’s bilateral relationship will fare under the new government is still to be tested.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/sri-lanka-regime-associates-linked-to-people-smuggling/story-fn9hm1gu-1227191427195?nk=4838f62a560315c4003ad33e1e6354c2