Compensation for politicians properties destroyed during riots

We have seen reports on discussions of the above subject in the Parliament. Most of us can understand the need to compensate the deserving owners of such properties. However, we do not see why the innocent taxpayers’ money is to be used for this purpose. There seems to be no attempt to recover at least a part of the funds needed, from the actual perpetrators of the serious crime and those indirectly responsible. This is clearly a case of a group of politicians using their privileged positions as members of Parliament, about whom the people of this country have now lost faith anyway, to obtain compensation through a greatly accelerated process; something clearly unacceptable to all right-thinking people of this troubled country.

We know how long an ordinary person, placed in the same unfortunate situation would have to wait, even to obtain a trifle as compensation. The large number of ordinary people affected by the collapse of the Meethotamulla garbage mountain is a case in point. Have they all been compensated even after a number of years, given that those responsible have been clearly identified?

We note that politicians have always succeeded in cleverly turning any misfortune faced by them, to their ultimate advantage. Recall for example, the Land Reform exercise, when some land owners, including politicians and those who had political leverage, made use of the opportunity to exchange some of their unproductive /barren land which they surrendered earlier, for valuable and productive blocks of land. We have to make sure that such shameful manipulation does not happen in this instance.

Given this background, the Government will be well advised to follow a fully transparent process in making the awards, leaving no room for further public complaints. Such warning is necessary, because it appears as if the beneficiaries themselves are getting ready to serve themselves, as in the well-known example of a person who holds the ladle serving himself.

Keeping in mind the above observations, we would like to propose that any payment of compensation, using public funds for the affected properties, should be preceded by a proper study involving, among other things:

1. Check the true owner and the occupier of the property at the time of the attack

2. Ask for a true valuation of the property and the loss incurred. Valuation made by the Government Valuer (compulsory)

3. Check whether the property was included in the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities by a member of Parliament as required by law.

4. Check whether the property in question was covered by insurance. If there had been an insurance cover, the government may pay only the difference between the true estimated loss and the insured value (if any)

In addition to taking such precautions, we think that the government should also examine the possibility of paying compensation in the form of a loan, on concessionary terms, rather than an outright grant. A grant is exactly like an arrangement under which the benefits of a full insurance scheme that has no premium payment requirement by the beneficiaries. Therefore, such a scheme will be unfair by those who acted in a responsible manner by actually obtaining insurance cover for their properties. The loan option will have the additional advantage of placing all affected property owners on an equal footing.

SAK