Favourite whipping boy of our times

I read with interest the response of D.C. Nanayakkara to my article under the above caption. Nanayakkara infers that I was politically motivated to write this piece to the ‘premier business newspaper,’ which I wholeheartedly concur, and read by many executives and professionals, thereby implying that I need not try to educate them on professional conduct, acceptable business expenses and financial markets. I couldn’t agree more. However, the purpose of my article was to draw the attention of the readers to some aspects of the recent reports that have not caught their attention. 

If I was politically motivated, which I will not try to deny, aren’t others harping on the subject driven by the same ulterior motive, meaning political? I also do not wish to deny the fact that I picked up the definition of internal audit from Wikipedia through a Google search. This is in the public domain and is not covered by any copy right considerations and therefore anyone is free to quote the said commonly used definition. If as claimed by Nanayakkara it is unethical, I regret this.

I still maintain that the sneaking of the quoted Internal Audit Report out of the Central Bank and passing on to politicians or the media with the purpose of accusing Mahendran of wrongdoing before any internal investigation is concluded and the former Governor given a proper opportunity to answer the charges does not come within the purview of ‘whistle-blowing’ as commonly understood. May I quote from Wikipedia the following? 

“A whistleblower (also whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organisation that is either private or public.”

Even if Mahendran had allegedly engaged in financial misconduct, there is a proper way to investigate and determine the fact rather than trying him in the media and find him guilty of the said offences. He is no more in the Central Bank and cannot influence the Central Bank management to shelve it under the carpet. If anyone in the Central Bank is trying to cover up his alleged misconduct, then the so-called whistle-blowing is justified. Otherwise, I feel the Central Bank employees are still under the purview of the oath of secrecy and sneaking out the Internal Audit Report is wrong.

With regard to the bond issue, I need not comment further because the COPE has gone through it, the Attorney General has studied it and now the Presidential Commission is investigating it in detail. I admit that I am not aware of the facts Nanayakkara might be privy to but it would be in greater public interest if he explained the ‘simple mechanism’ used by the parties involved as he says, to some readers, who may be ‘blind’ to certain aspects like myself. I cannot help but invite the attention of Nanayakkara to read my article again where I have emphasised the fact that the truth will be seen after the Presidential Commission concludes its findings. I have not tried to whitewash Mahendran or Perpetual Treasuries and harped on the wisdom to await conclusive determinations on the entire bond issue of 27 February 2015.

Finally, I quote this from Nanayakkara’s letter, “…finding loopholes in the wordings of the COPE report. Please do not try to cover some people involved with losing billions of rupees of wealth belonging to the people of this country.”

It is flippant on the part of Nanayakkara to even suggest that there could be loopholes in the wording of the COPE report as this will allow any alleged miscreants to go scot-free. COPE is a part of the Sri Lanka Parliament, the premier legislative authority, and no one can condone any ‘loopholes’ in any of its written documents like the report in question which is the focus of attention of the entire country. I leave it to the readers to arrive at their own conclusions.

Janitha Devapriya