Good governance?

Wednesday, 25 March 2015 00:37 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Before the elections, we were told that the number of ministers would be reduced to 20. Everybody was happy since the counting got confused as the number of ministers bloated in the Rajapaksa Government. After coming to power, without any heed, the number was increased to 30. Now, it is 40. Where will it end after the Parliamentary elections? Who approved such a number of ministers? Certainly, not the general public. Who pays for their upkeep? Isn’t it clear that the taxpayer should be asked about expanding these numbers? The table shows the number of cabinet ministers in a sample of countries spreading across the continents. The sources of this information are the government website of each country. As you can clearly see, Sri Lanka ranks number 1. Second, a minister’s post has been given to someone who was jailed for abusing the judiciary, as well as, abusing a former president of this country in the choicest of words recently. Does the public endorse such a person? I am certain the answer is ‘no’. Is it good governance to appoint such a person as minister?

Country	No. of cabinet ministers	Country	No. of cabinet ministers
USA	15	Pakistan	25
UK	22	Bangladesh	30
Canada	30	Malaysia	34
Germany	16	South Korea	19
Australia	17	Ghana	18
Norway	15	Kenya	18
Argentina	17	Nigeria	15
India	27	Sri Lanka	40

Another issue in which good governance was thrown to the dogs is the case against the Central Bank Governor regarding insider trading. Without batting an eyelid, the Prime Minister appointed a committee to go in to this. They were three lawyers, all party members of the UNP, without background in financial sector crimes. It did not end there. The Prime Minister made a statement in Parliament while the committee had just started work, backing the appointments and saying that they had 20-30 years of legal experience each. Experience in what? Experience in financial sector crimes? In insider trading? Not only that, the Prime Minister almost exonerated the Governor of the charges in that speech and pointed out to the earlier regime being involved in financial sector crimes. How can the committee now give a different interpretation from that given by the Prime Minister, even if they wanted to? As for crime by the earlier regime, that is why they were sent home. There is no need to remind us of these, and implicitly mean that, if they could do it, it should be tolerated now. This committee appointed by the Prime Minister was a way to shield the Governor. If there is a suspicion that a crime has taken place there is a due process. A complaint must be made with the Police and then there will be a Police investigation. Since this is a massive amount of money that is involved and it is a complex case, naturally, it should be the CID which should investigate. Prime Minister’s committees, Parliament Select Committees and the like have no place in this particular case. It is the Police and only the Police that should investigate, as in any other crime. Where is good governance? Finally, I refer to the Koththamalli budget. Prices were reduced of eight types of condiments. Was this a request of the public? Certainly not. Condiments are used in small quantities, and their demand is price-insensitive. Just because you reduce the price of koththamalli, people are not going to go on a binge of drinking koththamalli. Since only small quantities are consumed, the price reduction on these items did not add up to any significant budgetary saving to the average household. Good governance requires not only the ability to be sensible but also the ability to be sensitive. In choosing the eight condiments, neither sensibility nor sensitivity to the public’s preferences has been met. There are many other examples, but they are not brought out here for space considerations. But, it seems natural to conclude that we are having bad governance. Citizen K