Curiouser and curiouser!
09 May 2017
The government has made a volte-face anent the latest cut in former
President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s security. It usually does not buckle
under pressure where action against its political rivals is concerned.
What really happened?
On May 03, 42 police personnel
attached to Rajapaksa’s security contingent were removed all of a
sudden. The Joint Opposition (JO) cried foul, claiming that it was the
government’s reaction to Rajapaksa’s successful May Day rally. Minister
of Law and Order Sagala Ratnayake sought to rubbish that claim; he
told the Parliament that Rajapaksa’s security had been reduced following
a proper threat assessment and the latter could manage with 187
guards.
The second cut in Rajapaksa’s security came four
days later on Sunday. The government ordered that 50 more police
personnel be removed from Rajapaksa’s security detail. The JO let out a
howl of protest. After a couple of hours the government changed its
mind. One is intrigued. If Rajapaksa’s security is actually reduced in
keeping with threat assessments as the government claims, then it
logically follows that a fresh threat assessment must have been done on
Sunday evening within four days of the first one which led to the May
03 security cut. The question is whether another threat assessment was
carried out on Sunday prior to the government’s surprising about-turn.
Is it that threats to political leaders are now assessed on an hourly
basis? Curiouser and curiouser!
It is being argued in some
quarters that the provision of extraordinary security to those out of
power amounts to an utter waste of public funds and a severe strain on
police though they have become marked targets due to the pivotal role
they played in defeating terrorism. If so, the defeated candidates who
were taken out of the dustbin of politics after the last general
election and appointed to the Cabinet in the most undemocratic manner
must not be provided with any security at all. But, they, in spite of
being rejected by the people, enjoy the same perks and privileges as
their elected counterparts besides drawing attractive salaries for
sinecures as ministers. They move about with armed escorts. Shouldn’t
they be stripped of at least their security?
One of our
readers argues, in a letter published on the opposite page today, that
we should be concerned about the security of ordinary people and not
that of politicians. True, the law-abiding citizens, especially women
and children, are the most vulnerable section of the society vis-à-vis
the rising crime rate. The country has come to such a pass over the last
three decades or so that it is awash with illegal firearms in the
hands of trigger-happy criminal elements. Police do precious little to
neutralise criminals, who are having a field day. People are not safe
even at home. Their safety must be ensured first of all. However, the
fact remains that political stability is a prerequisite for public
safety, which becomes the first casualty of anarchical upheavals, as we
have argued in a previous comment.
One may recall the
unprecedented chaos the Lalith Athulathmudali assassination plunged the
country into in April, 1993. But for the tectonic shifts in national
politics, triggered by the Premadasa assassination which happened a few
days later, anarchy would have been ‘loosed’ upon the country. The
credit for preventing a popular uprising should go posthumously to
President D. B. Wijetunga, who like a river bar pilot steered the ship
of state to safety, by restoring democratic governance and respecting
political dissent.
It is hoped that the yahapalana
government won’t carry out another ‘threat assessment’ tonight and
order drastic cuts in security provided to its rivals in the
Opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment