The Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) has decided to complain to Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana, and also to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, regarding the criticism levelled by Minister of Labour and Foreign Employment Manusha Nanayakkara, against the COPE and the Auditor General. At a special COPE meeting held on 5 January, Nanayakkara’s “challenging and severe criticism” had been discussed. 

According to a press release issued in this regard, it was revealed that the Auditor General had informed the COPE in a letter about the severe criticism levelled by Nanayakkara, to which the COPE had pointed out that although Nanayakkara had made similar remarks as an MP and a Cabinet Minister, the COPE had not exceeded its powers and had not supported any initiatives to do so. Furthermore, it had been pointed out that statements made in a manner that violate the trust in the public sector, public representatives, and the general public in the implementation of the tasks and duties assigned to the Auditor General by the Constitution and other written laws are highly harmful to the expectations of Parliamentary financial control.

While there is and should be room for criticism, criticism entails a great deal of responsibility, and that responsibility should be taken seriously by those who make critical remarks and those who counter such remarks, especially when it comes to MPs.

Criticisms should be based on facts and rational arguments, and should also be constructive. When criticism lacks those two qualities, it could not only undervalue any facts that the critical remarks may include but could also prevent the responsible parties from doing the needful to look into those facts. That is why not only critics, but also space for criticism, should be available in a country. Also, it is important to ensure that this freedom is used carefully.

However, criticism alone never leads to positive changes. Be it to debunk baseless criticisms or to take necessary action to address issues pointed out through criticism, steps need to be taken to look into such criticism. The responsible authorities should take into account the facts in criticisms, if any, and use those to address inadequacies in what has been criticised. 

Even in this case, the relevant authorities and the Government should not ignore Nanayakkara’s critical remarks, or any form of criticism for that matter, merely because of the political aspects it may involve. In fact, ignoring even constructive criticisms on the pretext that they are a part of political agendas or mudslinging campaigns is not uncommon in Sri Lanka’s political sphere, and they are often seen as challenges against the authorities or the Government. That is one of the reasons as to why so many issues have been left unaddressed.

The bottom line is that Nanayakkara’s critical remarks may or may not have something that deserves attention. Instead of prioritising political or other such aspects in such remarks, all parties concerned about what Nanayakkara said should take responsible and logical steps. That is what could help to either oppose Nanayakkara’s remarks, if they are baseless or are damaging, or to deal with any real concerns those remarks may have pointed out.

We should not forget that the country is at a juncture where constructive criticism could play an extremely crucial role.