Daily News Editorial

A step against corruption

28 December 2016

Office-bearers of political parties who fail to hand over their assets and liabilities declarations are to be reported to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption, Election Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya has said. According to the Declarations of Assets and Liabilities Law, it is the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption which has the power to initiate action against any violators of the law.

This is a commendable move, considering that out of 64 political parties in the country, around two thirds of office-bearers have not submitted their assets and liabilities declarations for the previous year. Some Parliamentarians are reportedly among the party office-bearers who have not submitted their assets and liabilities declarations.

Accordingly, the Elections Commission is to report the office-bearers of all political parties who have not furnished their assets and liabilities declarations, subject to verification whether some have submitted their asset declarations to Parliament. However, the Commission is yet to hear from Parliament about any officials handing over their declarations. According to the regulations, MPs are supposed to submit their asset declarations to the Speaker. The ministers should submit theirs to the President. The officials of political parties are supposed to provide their declarations to the Elections Commissioner. However, if the secretary to a certain political party is an MP as well, that person may submit his or her declarations to the Speaker.

Civil society organisations including the People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) have praised the Election Commissioner’s move to report officials who have abstained from submitting documents of assets declarations to the Bribery Commission. As the PAFFREL clearly points out, “the purpose of submitting such a declaration is to identify and inspect, if these public representatives have abused official powers to accumulate personal wealth financially or otherwise”. No one can find fault with this reasoning, because the core aim to stamp out corruption. All public representatives are required to submit their annual assets declarations by March 31.

The only reason that we can surmise for not wanting to submit the assets and declarations is that certain MPs and party officials are apparently unable to legally account for their wealth. There are plenty of instances of politicians who did not even have a push bicycle travelling about in luxury limousines after a few years in office. There is only one word that can explain this phenomenon – corruption. These persons have certainly accumulated wealth through unethical, if not entirely illegal, methods.

Take the controversial Duty Free car permit, for example. There are no laws that expressly prohibit an MP from selling his or her duty free permit or the luxury vehicle itself and earning millions of rupees, but it is a question of ethics especially in the context of the common man having to pay exorbitant duties and taxes even for an average car. Thus it is not illegal to sell one’s duty free car or permit, but it does not look all that good from the point of view of the public.

Another factor that has received little attention is spending on elections campaigns. In many other countries, candidates are supposed to reveal their funding sources and there is also a donation and/or spending ceiling. One of the major faults of the current Proportional Representation (PR) system is that candidates have to campaign throughout an entire district to canvass votes as opposed to the former First Past the Post system where one only had to concentrate on a particular electorate. This means that candidates have to spend a vast amount of money for propaganda activities and some candidates have been known to spend over Rs.100 million.

This creates a vicious circle where candidates are compelled to seek funds from various donors and if and when they are elected to Parliament (or other political office), they are indebted to the donors. These donors and funding sources naturally get first preference for tenders and contracts. The nexus between big business and politics is well known in any case. Thus there should be clear laws and guidelines on how much candidates can spend and how much each donor can provide to a particular candidate. Hopefully, the proposed new electoral system, apparently containing a mixture of the best features from both PR and First Past the Post systems, will address this issue for good.

If stern action against corrupt elements in politics and other sectors is delayed, it might send a wrong signal to the society that one can get away with corruption. There has been some discontent in society over the very slow rate of progress of investigations into acts of corruption during the previous regime. While we understand the authorities’ concern that there should be 100 proof and evidence, these probes should be expedited and the wrongdoers punished to send a strong signal that corruption cannot and will not be tolerated now and in the future. The Yahapalanaya Government must not renege on that premise - and promise.