Wide awake!

The Human Rights Commission is now wide awake, it seems. The call by the Commission for disciplinary action against police officers involved in the violent dispersal of students protesting in Ward Place, Colombo, on October 29, and the Commission's outright conclusion that the police had indeed violated the constitutional rights of these demonstrators, is yet another hint of the refreshing possibilities under a genuine 'yahapaalanaya' (good governance).

It is only a 'hint' because, in the ten months since the change of regime in January, the public has begun to be jaded with all the public pronouncements about 'good governance', as there is little yet to be seen in terms of direct prosecution of agencies, officials and politicians long accused of human rights violations and plunder of public resources.

Last week these columns welcomed the court sentence passed on a former senior police officer over the extra-judicial killing of a businessman. That case was welcomed as another yet rare example of 'good governance' fulfilled.

The HRC's ruling on the police's brutal crackdown on the Higher National Diploma in Accountancy students at Ward Place is another such fulfillment. Most noteworthy of the HRC's ruling is the relative speed with which the Commission has acted and arrived at a ruling that is both explicitly condemnatory as well as action-oriented. While the Shyam murder case literally took years to come to some fruition - the appeal process is still under way - the Ward Place incident, albeit a far less severe crime, took the HRC just over a month to make a ruling.

This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the HRC during the previous regime during which State sector officials and agencies were seen as among the biggest perpetrators of human rights violations. During the previous regime the hapless HRC was used by politicians more as a tool to either delay justice or to gloss over the violations. While the HRC has previously made some critical noises about some incidents of rights violations during public protests, the violent dispersal by police of the Higher National Diploma in Accountancy (HNDA) students has seen the Commission carry out a detailed and precise investigation in an exhilaratingly quick time.

The Commission report indicates the care and detail given by the HRC in its investigations. And the Commission has fixed monetary compensation for the victims and called for disciplinary action against the perpetrators. Most importantly, the HRC has given detailed recommendations about the weaknesses in the Police's procedures for such security contingencies and suggested empowering the officers of the law to better facilitate the citizens' rights while ensuring public order. Indeed, not only has the Commission been quick to act on the HNDA student protest incident, but it has been equally quick to publicise its report. This ensures that the victims, the perpetrators as well as the general citizenry are kept informed of the rapid action for public accountability. Everyone is thereby alerted that this watchdog body, at least, is wide awake to monitor good governance.

Gone, hopefully, are the days in which either the investigations and inquiries have (conveniently) dragged on without end or, their findings have been hidden from the public eye and not acted upon.

By this swift response, the Commission seems to be clearly signalling to the world - especially, to all those who had made it a habit of ignoring human rights - that it is now a public watchdog that will act promptly to protect human rights. While the HRC is now ensuring that the Human Rights aspect of good governance is under strict supervision, it is up to the other arms of the government to broaden, equally stringently, their supervision and compliance with all the other aspects of good governance: from rational planning and transparent administration, to the detection and prosecution of corruption, to the combating of nepotism and cronyism.

Duty-free car permits

While the public sector doctors were the most prominent in their protest to win back their so-called 'right' to duty-free car import permits, the bulk of the professional and public sector officialdom also seem to be in cahoots with this very dubious endeavour.

Why is it 'dubious'? We are sure that the millions of ordinary citizens of this country would be easily able to explain the problem to all those elites who now demand this 'right'. The ordinary citizens of this country see no reason whatsoever as to why the professionals, most of whom obtained their initial professional qualifications courtesy of the free public sector education system, should then be beneficiaries of exclusive privileges merely because they are following a profession. Neither do the citizens see any reason why their elected legislative representatives should also claim such a benefit as duty-free car import permits for simply carrying out their duties for which they have been elected. Citizens may argue that if the doctors can get duty free privileges, then school teachers, other health sector and other crucial service sector officers - PHIs for instance - should also get such privileges. And what about railway engine drivers? The list would be endless.

Of course, the original culprits are the elected politicians who originally, decades ago, awarded themselves with this 'right'. What was initially a privilege, has now got so entrenched in the mindset of the beneficiaries, that it is now being fought over as a 'right'.

When will the mass of the county's direct and indirect taxpayers ever see the wholesome delivery of goods and services - such as the health service - as well as the wholesome protection of constitutional rights that is their due simply by their payment of taxes?