|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 22 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Politics |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
PM's address to the nation distorts facts - Rajapakse Mahinda Rajapakse, in a two-page response to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's televised address to the nation, has described the speech as a distortion of facts that deserves the attention of the intelligentsia of the country. He sates: The majority of facts contained in his address have often been discussed and no repetition is needed. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to focus our attention on several significant facts mentioned by him. Although the Prime Minister has repeated that his Government had attempted to work in cohabitation with the President the truth is otherwise. During the past two years, the UNF government ignored the significance of the President as the Head of State. She was avoided in the course of signing the MoU with the LTTE, and the more the President tried to work in unison with the government, the more they receded from her. The ruse so adopted to ignore the President in dealing with important issues has ultimately brought the entire country to the present disastrous situation. Despite acrimonious remarks and insults by some of the Cabinet Ministers, the President single-handedly stood fast willing to work in harmony, but the UNF government did not concede her wishes. There are well-known facts. But the Prime Minister's version is that the President did not want to reach a consensus. It is a brazen lie. However, we are glad to hear that the Prime Minister has apologised to the nation for blunders committed during the past two years. But he cannot absolve himself of those blunders merely by an excuse extended to the nation, because it was the general public who had to suffer on account of the mismanagement of his government. In fact, it would be a Herculean task for a succeeding government to redeem the country, through corrective measures. The Prime Minister who shrewdly turned a deaf ear to all allegations of bribery and corruption against the ministers brought up by the Opposition, today at this crucial hour apologises to the nation not for any other reason, but to get public sympathy. We do not expect the public to show any sympathy to a Prime Minister who had allowed his ministers to engage in unlawful business and corruption quite freely. The Prime Minister repeatedly speaks of economic development and an expansion in the share market. But there is not a single instance beneficial to the general public of the so-called economic development. What the country needs at this moment is not a policy which is benign only to his henchmen, but a programme to create a conducive social atmosphere for the common man to live a peaceful independent life. There is no such marvellous economic development such as he flaunts, as there is acute unemployment among graduates, poor national income, a low standard of living, closure of more factories as against opening of new factories, retrenchment of around 50,000 employees, absence of a guaranteed price for farmers' products and the removal of fertiliser subsidy which the public is quite aware of. Further, no large scale projects, dividends of which would accrue to the people were launched during the past two years. The Hambantota Port development project, supposed to be the biggest ever to be undertaken during the ensuing decade, was deliberately abandoned. The government failed in its efforts to provide a permanent stable solution to the power crisis in the country. Had the government been serious about its people, it had sufficient time to implement these projects. During the past two years the government declared open projects that were initially launched by the PA administration. The Prime Minister has charged that the President dissolved parliament without consulting the legislature. On the contrary, our Constitution exclusively provides for the President to dissolve the government. This prerogative is nothing new the President is vested with. The procedure to be followed by the President when the government is held by the majority party dominated by the Prime Minister is not laid down anywhere in the Constitution. That the former President D. B. Wijetunga dissolved parliament without consulting the then government is a lucid example to justify past instances when the President dissolved Parliament without the consent of the ruling party, the government. Further, even under the old Constitution where executive powers were enjoyed by the Prime Minister, the late W. Dahanayake as Prime Minister dissolved the then government on his own, without consulting any of his ministers. The argument that the Executive ought to consult the Legislature prior to dissolving Parliament is a mere shibboleth. Any statement to that effect cannot also be accepted. While the life of the community is driven into perilous straits with the surge of strikes , fasts unto death, picketing campaigns and labour unrest arising out of ill-conceived government action, the dissolution of Parliament provided the opportunity for the people to decide their future rather than tolerate a bribery-and-corruption-infested government is no doubt a more democratic move. Such an argument needs no exaggeration. Although it could be demonstrated that the Prime Minister's statement is pregnant with distortions and perversions, we need not go into such details, as the people are fully aware of them. Therefore, at this critical juncture when the country is facing a general election soon, we would like to urge that it would be preferable to desist from making such irresponsible statements in the hope of evoking public sympathy". |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
