"Hande athey thiyana-kota bedaganila" (when the spoon is in your hand dish yourself the gravy), has been the policy of all governments since Independence The politicians have given themselves pensions after serving five years though we of the public service need to reach 55 years to obtain a pension. They have given themselves Rs. 100,000 as house rent though some of them own homes of their own in Colomb; they have upped their salaries many times over and some have spent millions of our tax money seeing the world.

Hence it has been a refreshing relief for us to see the President and Prime Minister taking a token cut in their allowances. Ministers have been asked to cut back on their expenses; this is a most welcome beginning. We do hope to see these political leaders make bigger sacrifices in the future. We hope to see them change our electoral system to ensure that those who represent us are not only worthy of being our representatives but that the system itself will be changed to ensure that it is not inherently corrupt and one that makes it necessary to have to spend millions to get elected purportedly to ‘serve us!’

The principle of ‘Accountability’ should also be enshrined in the constitution or should have the sanctity of a Convention, but sadly we have not, in the 60 years of Independence, developed Conventions as in Britain or for that matter India.

The government through the consent of our representatives in Parliament (that’s the theory) imposes taxes on the people but there appears to be no means for our representatives to keep a check on expenditure leave alone have any control over expenditure. There is no Parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure. There is no effective management of the revenue and expenditure of the state. This has resulted in recent years, of our Ministers having a ball, one of them is reported to have spent 75 million rupees of our money on travel in one year! Goodness gracious how audacious is the expression that comes to mind.

To whom is this Minister or for that matter any Minister accountable? To no one I presume, for if they are indeed accountable they would not be able to indulge in such wasteful expenditure of public money¸ betraying public trust. There is no fiscal discipline. Following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the principle of Public Trust should they not be held accountable for their actions?

On the subject of Accountability, it is confirmed that this government, on the advice of an official and the son of political appointee High Commissioner, (the son was ‘operating’, in more sense than one, out of New York until the law went after him), retained a law firm in Washington to Lobby and counter LTTE propaganda in the US. The firm (Brownstein, Hyatt, Faber and Schreck) which knew nothing about our problem was retained for a staggering fee of 50,000 thousand US dollars per month, (the Lobbyist did nothing whatsoever than collect their fee) to counter the LTTE’s propaganda campaign against this country.

The well connected broker is reported to have bought himself a luxury apartment in Colombo recently. Now, should those who committed this ‘crime’ and wasted the country’s scarce funds with dishonest intention and without taking proper safeguards to ensure that the Lobbyist delivered, not be made accountable? Is this, though on a smaller scale, not the similar to the Mihin Air and the hedging fiasco? Should not a group of civic minded citizens, or a group of lawyers themselves, not go to the Supreme Court to safeguard our interests? It is indeed about time the Bar woke up and discharged their civic obligations instead of merely fattening themselves in every sense.

There must be societal responsibility and also personal responsibility.

Should not every public official be made accountable for their actions? It is only because the Executive is not prepared to take political responsibility and hold themselves responsible for their actions that we have been compelled to look to the Supreme Court to step in to safeguard the public interest.

The Supreme Court should set in motion ‘due process’ to charge those responsible for criminal negligence of duty. In this regard I hold the view that the Supreme Court should not have imposed fines in the former President and some others in the Water’s Edge case but should have ordered due process to commence, to charge them with a criminal offence. All those others similarly responsible for indulging in cavalier deals and irresponsible, wasteful expenditure should be made accountable and charged for criminal negligence and betrayal of public trust for failing to safeguard the national interests of our country.

Yes, most fortunately for this country, the Supreme Court has become the nation’s watch dog for the media is under threat and is quite naturally scared after recent incidents and Parliament appears to have, most unfortunately for us, become both toothless and a eunuch, not discharging its obligation to control irresponsible wasteful expenditure of the state.

The principle of ‘Accountability’ should also extend to the matter of appointments to state office. One of the principal reasons for the unfortunate state of affairs that has plagued this country in recent times is the appointment of wholly unsuitable cronies on the basis of friendship or a relationship to important officers of state. The President has recently referred to the concept of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution taking exception to Judicial interference in the Executive. He should be briefed on the checks and balances existing in both the French and the American Constitutions and the fact that in these countries there is also the process of Judicial Review.

In the US all appointments to high office need to be cleared by the relevant committee of the Senate at a public hearing; yes, a public hearing. We have introduced concepts in form but not in substance. Ours is a Democracy only in form but not in substance. We have the Parliament’s High Posts Committee which, as we all know, is an absolute joke, an apology for the Senate Committee of the US. It could not be that the President does not understands the value of the principle embodied in the 17th Amendment but he wishes to have political control particularly over the Police; This to my mind is the principal reason for his not having taken action so far to establish the Constitutional Council and have independent committees.