When J. R. Jayawardene became the executive president in 1978, he had a separate minister to handle the portfolio of finance. But when R. Premadasa became the executive president in 1989, it was alleged that due to his excessive desire for additional power, he allocated the portfolio of finance also to himself. But unfortunately, his wisdom could not realise the fact that corresponding responsibility was also increased along with the concentration of power. He had R. Paskaralingam as his secretary to the ministry, who wielded wide powers surpassing the powers vested with the secretary, knowing very well that his boss is the head of state. There were rumours to the effect at that time that even some senior cabinet ministers were scared of treasury boss, Paskaralingam. In this regard it is pertinent to mention when P. B. Jayasundara, the previous secretary to the treasury was fined Rs. 500,000 by the Supreme Court, the willingness expressed by one of the so called ministers of the present government to pay the fine remains suspicious. This is a matter to be looked into by the president, if he is really interested in nipping corruption in the bud. There were lots of allegations directed towards president Premadasa with regard to the suspicious handling of affairs in the finance ministry and privatizations of government owned business undertakings.

All these allegations did not find time to materialise as the president was assassinated by a suicide bomber in 1993.

All successive presidents, with the exception of D. B. Wijetunga, followed suit in allocating the ministry of finance to themselves. This is a very bad practice, whoever who does it. The executive presidency itself is a concentration of power and on the top of it having any other ministry, specially finance, in my opinion, would definitely lead to corruption. CBKs involvements in a large number of unethical dealings during her period is a clear case of this situation.

Although it is the prerogative of the president to arrogate to himself whatever portfolio he wishes, it remains eminently practicable that the ministry of finance should be in the hands of a person solely responsible and answerable to parliament. In the name of good governance, this principal should be adhered to. The finance ministry itself is a full time job of vital importance to the country. Therefore, it should be in the hands of a capable, knowledgeable minister, who could devote his entire time and be answerable to parliament. Perhaps, if 1 can suggest, given the current events at the Supreme Court Mr. Vasudewa Nanayakkara might be a suitable person for the finance portfolio. His sincerity, integrity and knowledge in diverse subjects will be of immense service to the country.

C. A. A. Gunaratne,
Thimbirigaskatuwa.