MR ditches his own Shadow Cabinet

The shadow cabinet, announced by the UPFA dissident group in Parliament turned into a farce in less than 24 hours with its ‘Prime Minister’ Mahinda Rajapaksa resigning from his portfolio, causing embarrassment to the group which calls itself the ‘Joint Opposition’ and supports the former President.

An annoyed and disappointed Rajapaksa, informed the ‘Joint Opposition’ group, on Friday, that the so-called ‘shadow cabinet’ had distorted his ideas. The former President, speaking to his allies, said he instructed the JO group members to appoint specific MPs to monitor the work of each ministry of the government. He had said he was disappointed after seeing the 50-member shadow cabinet announced by the pro-Rajapaksa group.

In fact, the ‘Joint Opposition’, often critical of the West, attempted to emulate many western political parties by appointing a ‘shadow cabinet’, giving an idea to the voters as to how the top posts will function under a new administration.

In the Westminster Parliamentary system, the Shadow Cabinet is a group of politicians from the political party with the second highest number of MPs in the House, as an alternative to the Cabinet. In the UK, the shadow cabinet is usually made up of politicians who would take up roles like roles like Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary if their party was to win a general election and get into Government. It is one way of keeping a government on its toes and pushing its members to work.

However, according to the shadow Cabinet announced by the Joint Opposition, three members of the Rajapaksa family received ministerial portfolios. In addition to the Prime Minister’s post, former President Rajapaksa was also named as the Minister of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs. Interestingly, his son, Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa, who still hasn’t held at least a deputy ministerial portfolio, was named as the ‘shadow’ Foreign Minister of the country – a position held by the likes of Lakshman Kadirgarmar.

COPE Chairman Sunil Handuneththi

Making the Rajapaksa presence stronger in the shadow cabinet, former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa was named as the Minister of Transport and Aviation.

It suggested that the Joint Opposition group, despite their back-to-back election defeats, had failed to come out of the family-centric mentality, adopted by the Rajapaksas, for the past 10 years.

Apart from this, there were several other interesting appointments as well. Bandula Gunawardena, who openly claimed that a family could live a month with a measly Rs. 2500, was nominated as the shadow Minister of Finance. Two MPs with a dubious track record when it comes to bribery and corruption allegations – namely Mahindananda Aluthgamage and Rohitha Abeygunawardena – were named as shadow ministers for petroleum and power and energy sectors. The two ministries, needless to say, are the biggest generators of income for the government.

On the other hand, there were ‘Shadow’ ministers for ministries with a very limited scope. For instance, Thenuka Vidanagamage was named as the shadow minister for new villages in the hill country and infrastructure. Udaya Gammanpila, who is currently facing a court case in connection with forged documents, was offered a position as the shadow Minister of Law and Order.

Raising serious doubts about the transparency of the allocation of ministries, Basil Rajapaksa, a key figure in the joint opposition, was not given any position in the pro-Rajapaksa group’s shadow cabinet. It gave rise to the idea that the ‘Joint Opposition’ was trying to hoodwink the public when it comes to the Basil Rajapaksa factor.

This showed that the allocation of ministries among ‘shadow ministers’ had been done in an illogical and ad-hoc manner. It also came amidst rumours that several pro-Rajapaksa MPs were planning to switch allegiance and cross over to the ‘national unity government’, accepting ministerial and deputy ministerial portfolios. Some in the political circles assumed that the formation of the ‘shadow cabinet’ was one way of retaining the support of pro-Rajapaksa group MPs who were looking at other options.

As this was announced, it drew a lot of negative criticism from social media users. Many said the Joint Opposition had shot itself in the foot with the announcement of the shadow cabinet. Probably, the negative response it elicited from the public compelled the former President to distance himself from the ‘shadow cabinet’, appointed by his own supporters. In support of the former President, MP Lohan Ratwatte too stepped down from the shadow Cabinet, saying he was not consulted before ‘appointing’ him to the shadow Cabinet.

The shadow cabinet concept was not an entirely alien concept to the Sri Lankan political sphere. When former Prime Minister S.W.R.D Bandaranaike ascended to power in 1956, the LSSP, the largest political party in the opposition at the time, formed a shadow cabinet with its 14 MPs. The objective of the LSSP shadow cabinet was to watch the work of MEP ministers.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa greets supporters. Pic: ANCL Media Library

Members of the LSSP shadow cabinet were as follows,

Dr. N.M. Perera – Minister of Finance

Dr. Hector Fernando – Minister of Health

Dr.Colvin R de Silva – Minister of Derence and External Affairs

Bernard Soysa – Minister of Labour, Housing and Social Services

Robert Gunewardane – Minister of Agriculture and Food

Leslie Goonewardene – Minister of Industries and Fisheries

Anil Munasinghe – Minister of Commerce and Trade

Y.G. Jayasinghe – Minister of Local Government

J.C.T. Kotelawela – Minister of Justice

C de F. Goonewardane – Minister of Home Affairs

M. P. Jothipala – Minister of Lands and Land development

Edmund Samarakkody – Minister of Transport and Works

Posts and Telecommunications – Vivienne Goonewardene

However, looking at those who were tasked to monitor the works of ministries, it is crystal clear that the Joint Opposition has failed to comprehend the whole concept of forming a shadow cabinet. That was one reason why it did not produce desired results for the Joint Opposition.

While the Joint Opposition group was embroiled in the shadow cabinet saga, former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga met the re-organisation committee of the SLFP at Heritance Hotel, Ahungalle.

SLFP General Secretary Duminda Dissanayake, Athauda Seneviratne, Nandimithra Ekanayake, Mahinda Amaraweera, Shan Vijayalal de Silva and several other seniors of the party attended the discussion.

Many who attended the meeting raised concerns over the pro-Rajapaksa group’s initiative to form a new party, causing a division in the SLFP. The discussion took place in the wake of a series of meetings held by former Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa in the Badulla district, to mobilise support for their new political campaign.

Everyone who attended the meeting, including former President Kumaratunga, stressed that stern action had to be taken to instill discipline among party members.

They also agreed that the party had to embark on a comprehensive reforms programme, to strengthen its position at the grassroots level, before the next Parliamentary election.

The former President, addressing party seniors, said she would discuss the matter with the President and make necessary decisions to expedite the reforms programme.

They also arrived at an understanding to present a comprehensive report to the President, highlighting key measures that need to be adopted to strengthen the party at the grassroots level.

COPE

The Auditor General’s report presented to the COPE committee in Parliamentary caused ripples among political circles last week, with United National Party raising concerns over the accuracy of its findings.

While stating that it did not inquiry into the ‘criminal aspect’ of the matter, the 196 page report said the former Central Bank Governor had failed to work with “professional due care.”

The Auditor General, in his report, also said that an estimated loss of Rs 889,358,050 and Rs 784,898,755 could have been avoided during the bond issues on February 27, 2015 and March 29, 2016, respectively. However, he did not hold the Central Bank Governor personally accountable for the situation.

Before presenting the ‘brief version’ of the report to the committee, the Auditor General submitted the full inquiry report to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. According to informed sources, the full report had 1,252 pages and contained sensitive information concerning the bond controversy. COPE committee Chairman Sunil Handunnetti held a discussion with Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, last week, to seek access to the Auditor General’s comprehensive report on the Treasury bonds issue.

Meanwhile, the difference of opinions on the Auditor General’s report on the Central Bank Treasury Bonds issuance led to a heated argument at the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) meeting, on Tuesday, at the Parliamentary Complex.

The COPE met at 2.30 pm at a Committee Room to discuss the AG’s report that was handed over last Wednesday. A stormy meeting ensued as UNP MPs representing the COPE argued in favour of former Central Bank Governor ArjunaMahendran while other members debated against him. It was quite evident that the UNP MPs were not satisfied with the findings of the AG’s report.

In another interesting turn of events, a UNP member representing the COPE committee, M. Velukumar decided to step down from the committee following this heated session.

The party, at that point, decided to appoint Deputy Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe as a member of the committee. Senasinghe is an outspoken MP who has already expressed his views on Treasury bonds allegations. Many political analysts believed that appointing Senasinghe to COPE would make the UNP’s voice louder in the committee. In the wake of this report, the COPE committee summoned the new Central Bank Governor, Monetary Board members and some senior officials of the Finance Ministry to ask about the Treasury Bonds issue.

At the meeting, the officials gave statements on the circumstances leading to the Treasury bonds issue, in February, last year. However, former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran was not called before the committee.

Giving a new twist to the same controversy, Leader of the House Minister Lakshman Kiriella said, on Thursday, that the Auditor General’s report on the Central Bank Treasury bond issuance is flawed because he had not sought expert opinion from financial specialists and economists before compiling it.

Speaking to our sister paper, the Daily News, on Thursday, Kiriella said the UNP members representing the COPE had asked for expert opinion because the Auditor General in his report had stated that he had not sought expert opinion.

Quoting the report, the minister said the Auditor General had mentioned that there was no adequate time for him to get the help of financial and economic experts on the subject matter. “He says there was not enough time. Nobody asked him to submit the report in a hurry. He should have taken time and get expert opinion. This report is only the AG’s opinion. He is neither an economist nor a financial specialist,” he said.

Highly placed UNP sources told the Sunday Observer that, as a result of this problem, the UNP MPs representing the COPE committee might seek the assistance of a panel of experts, before arriving at a conclusion on the Auditor General’s report. This had been raised at a meeting held by the UNP MPs representing the COPE committee, last Monday.

“We are no financial experts. The Auditor General too does not have expert knowledge on this matter. The Auditor General’s report, on the other hand, says they did not have time to get the support of financial and banking experts. Therefore, the UNP MPs representing the COPE committee will present this report to a panel of financial experts and get their opinion on the matter, “ a senior UNP Parliamentarian, who spoke to the Sunday Observer on Friday, said.

“Our future course of action on the matter will be based on their opinion,” he revealed. However, the non-UNP MPs representing the COPE committee have a different view on the issue. They said they were in a position to accept the Auditor General’s report and there was no impediment to proceed with the inquiry. This, quite obviously, sets them on a collision course with the UNP members in the same committee.

JVP MP Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, a member of COPE, told the Sunday Observer that they had confidence in the Auditor General’s report.

“This is not the first inquiry carried out by the COPE committee. For instance, when we conducted an inquiry on SriLankan Airlines, we relied on the Auditor General’s report. We knew that the Auditor General was not a pilot, but we had faith in his recommendations. The same applies to this inquiry. The Auditor General is the most independent government servant. If one party says they can’t accept Auditor General’s report, I don’t know how they can function in Parliamentary committees in the future,” Jayatissa said.

“In Parliamentary committees MPs don’t act as representatives of their own political parties. They are expected to function as independent MPs. It is wrong to politicize the functioning of committee. We fear that the UNP is heading in that direction. We are aware that the UNP members are trying to push their ‘party agenda’ in the committee. It is not a positive sign,” the JVP Parliamentarian said.

However, it is crystal clear, at this point, that there is a clear division in the COPE committee over the Auditor General’s report on the Treasury bonds issue. While non-UNP members of the COPE committee are attempting to expedite the investigation and present the interim report as early as possible, the UNP wants to buy more time, saying they need to dig deeper into the matter.

There are many signs to believe that the COPE committee’s report on the Treasury bonds issue may turn into a political volcano in the coming months.