On many occasions during the past few months, the effectiveness and underlying motives of the Government’s approach to dealing with the ongoing economic crisis was questioned, and the conclusion that many of these discussions reached was that the Government is ready to do the best it can but that the priority will always be to retain its powers, current position in politics and its future prospects. The newest discussion on the genuineness of the Government’s efforts in dealing with the economic crisis stems from the recently appointed Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) tasked with probing the country’s economic bankruptcy.
It was not really the decision to appoint such a PSC that triggered public concerns, although that too was criticised based on the notion that all past Governments are responsible for the economic crisis to some degree. It was actually the composition of the PSC, which is led and dominated by the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) members, that triggered those concerns. The PSC included SLPP General Secretary, attorney Sagara Kariyawasam as the Chairman, and State Minister D.V. Chanaka, Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi, SLPPers Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Jayantha Ketagoda, Dr. Pradeep Undugoda, Sanjeeva Edirimanna, Nalaka Bandara Kottegoda and Ranjith Bandara, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MPs Eran Wickramaratne, Ashok Abeysinghe and Harshana Rajakaruna, National People’s Power MP Vijitha Herath and Tamil National Alliance MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, as members. The PSC’s composition is facing criticism even within the political sphere, which now has resulted in Herath resigning and the SJB members too reaching a collective decision to follow suit.
Put simply, the public has no faith in this PSC, and their disapproval is being conveyed both online and offline. The reason is the same one cited by members of the Opposition, which is, the role that the members of the former Government played in the creation of the economic crisis. In fact, when the setting up of this PSC was announced, the PSC being led and comprising predominantly of SLPP members was referred to by the public to a famous Sinhala proverb “Horage Ammagen Pena Ahanawa” which translates to “inquiring about the thief from his mother.”
Therefore, there is very little hope about the extent to which the public would support this PSC or accept its findings or recommendations as genuine. The truth is that the Government is well aware of the public opinion about it, and in such a context, the fact that the Government went ahead to appoint such a committee raises concerns about how genuine the Government’s motives are. Whether appointing a PSC is the right approach to finding out what factors bankrupted the country is also questionable, because in the past, PSCs have not demonstrated an adequate ability to influence tangible actions. The findings and recommendations of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI), perhaps, would have more weight.
The issue of the PSC’s composition is not just a matter of SLPP members leading and dominating it, although that appears to be the main concern that the Opposition is pointing out. It is more of a matter of how competent and impartial the members of the PSC are.
Firstly, even if this PSC consisted entirely of Opposition MPs, there would still be trust issues when MPs question MPs regardless of the parties that they represent. It is a well known fact, which has been proven from time to time, that political favours are not limited to members of one party and that such favours are being exchanged among members of almost all parties in the Parliament. In a context where shortsighted decisions, the waste of funds and corruption on the part of the political authority have topped the list of possible reasons for the economic crisis, whether the people can expect transparency and honesty from a politicians-led PSC is highly doubtful, and the Government having neglected any outside involvement is questionable.
Secondly, an economic crisis that brought an entire country to its knees is not a simple matter, and finding out who caused it with adequate proof to point fingers is an extremely complex task. Such a task must be handled by top independent experts from the relevant sectors, such as the economy, development programmes, and policies. We do not see such figures in the PSC. Even though it comprises figures such as Prof. Bandara who is an economist, his political involvement inevitably raises doubts about how impartial he can be as a member of this PSC. Whatever the body entrusted with finding out reasons for the country’s bankruptcy should have experts whose opinion can be trusted and tested, and needless to say, both Sri Lanka and the international community willing to aid Sri Lanka have plenty of such experts.
If the Government proceeds with the PSC in its current, questionable structure, its findings and recommendations will most likely be rejected by the public and the international community that is awaiting genuine recovery efforts in the country. Despite what official records might say about the PSC, the public has rejected it before it could even start its operations, and that is a message to the Government that it is not on the right path.