Treasury Secy. shouldn’t be publicly insulted: Rajiva writes to President

Thursday, 29 May 2014 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

In a letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Liberal Party Leader MP Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha has urged that Secretary to the Treasury Dr. P.B. Jayasundera not be insulted, stating “I hope that suitable action will be taken to make it clear that the Secretary to the Treasury should not be publicly insulted when following Government directives and that such conduct is not acceptable in a Member of the Cabinet.” Following is the full text of the letter:

Your Excellency, Last year, when I did not vote for the impeachment of the Chief Justice, instructions had been given, before I even returned home, to reduce my security. I did not see this as a problem, since I have long argued that we now deploy far too much security, which makes a mockery of your great achievement in getting rid of terrorism from Sri Lanka in 2009. Two officers, as I now have, are quite enough for Members of Parliament, with perhaps one more for Constituency members. And certainly Ministers too could do with far less security, given the numbers and the expense involved. I was happy therefore to contribute even in a small way to reducing Government expenditure, and I realised that such a token reprimand made sense given the general requirement to support Government in votes. However it is generally accepted in all Parliamentary democracies, that votes of conscience are acceptable, and certainly so when there is no threat of instability for government. The case is very different in the case of a no confidence motion against government, and it is unthinkable that Cabinet members should refrain from voting. I hope therefore that I will not be the only person to suffer for having failed to vote, given also the great difference between that occasion and this. On a related point, two years ago you called me to say I should not criticise public servants who are not able to respond. That was with regard to the falsehood told you by Kshenuka Seneviratne, calculated to rouse suspicions about the Indian Parliamentary delegation as well as the Leader of the House. I noted that it would have been reprehensible to remain silent, and you told me then that I should write to the Ministry. I did so, but have not as yet had a response. I was told by the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs at that time that he had sought advice from the Presidential Secretariat, given the seriousness of the matter, but had received no response. I should note that your Secretary was aware of the incident, and confirmed that you had indeed been misled about the delegation, but that he had sought reassurance from the Ministers of Economic Development and of External Affairs, who had confirmed that there was no truth whatsoever in the story you had been told. Given the tremendous sympathy displayed towards Sri Lanka by the Head of the Indian delegation, Sushma Swaraj, and the important role she is likely to play in the new Indian Government, it is worth reflecting on the enormous damage that would have been done to Sri Lanka had you cancelled your meeting with that delegation as was your inclination after your mind had been poisoned. Recently I was sent by Kumar Rupesinghe the text of an interview given by the Minister of Housing and Construction, in which he is deeply critical of the Secretary to the Treasury. This is the more reprehensible since, as Rupesinghe pointed out, the Secretary must be acting in accordance with policies decided on by government and by you as Minister of Finance. This is a very different situation from that of Seneviratne who acted on her own in spreading malicious gossip. I hope therefore that suitable action will be taken to make it clear that the Secretary to the Treasury should not be publicly insulted when following Government directives and that such conduct is not acceptable in a Member of the Cabinet. In all fairness however to the ideas expressed by the Minister of Housing and Construction, I believe he too has now understood the need for reforms, so that we might fulfil the tremendous potential the country had at the time of the last election. But it would be a pity if reforms sent us backward, whereas the commitments to pluralism and wider consultation that were made at the time would help us to move forward and overcome the various threats we face. We should also be aware of the increasing feeling against current structures, and should therefore – given your immense popularity as compared with that of your Cabinet colleagues – work towards a presidency that can function effectively with full accountability to a Parliament that is strengthened to fulfil its basic responsibilities. Yours sincerely, Rajiva Wijesinha cc. Dinesh Gunawardena, Chief Government Whip Lalith Weeratunge, Secretary to the President