End big joys of former presidents

Sri Lanka is an enigma in that while its economy sits precariously among the worst in the developing world, its politicians who are primarily responsible for this sad predicament continue to enjoy unconscionable benefits that aren’t available even to the leaders of affluent countries.

One of the many such entitlement packages very much in the news these days is the one provided by the taxpayer to every retired President of the country. Needless to say, this is one of the many legacies of JRJ that were thrust upon the unassuming people of Sri Lanka, without any justification, decency, or even a discussion. The time is opportune now to revisit and seriously question the entire manner in which this entitlement package for ex-Presidents is being interpreted and dished out.

Of course, one cannot complain about an executive President, once retired, being looked after by the people to ensure that he or she wouldn’t become a pauper. It won’t reflect well on a decent and a civilised society if such a fate befalls an ex-President, even if that person had messed up the country’s affairs just like the majority of Presidents of Sri Lanka have done so far. However, the key or operating word applicable here should be “retired”. If an ex-President continues to dabble in party politics in whatever way, then that person shouldn’t be considered as retired at all.  Why should the people of the country pay for costly special privileges to someone who in turn uses these to unduly enhance their narrow political rewards?

If one looked at the conduct of former Presidents of Sri Lanka, one could possibly single out only two of them who genuinely retired following their respective terms, namely, JRJ and DB Wijethunga. Leaving President Premadasa out as someone who didn’t have a chance to retire, all others have been kind of fake retirees, who continued to engage in active politics either directly or indirectly, while unashamedly misusing in the process their privileges and entitlements paid for by the poor citizenry. For instance, what’s the justification for the tax-payer to provide a palatial mansion in Colombo, a fleet of luxury vehicles and hundreds of security and other staff to a person to actively engage in politics either inside or outside of the Parliament?

It is high time that the civil society, including the legal fraternity, took this issue up as a serious anomaly that should be exposed to the public for what it is with a view to demanding prompt reforms. It would be totally naïve to expect the current crop of politicians to take that initiative on their own.

The approach can be twofold. Firstly, it is worthwhile exploring any legal avenues to challenge the current dishonest interpretation of who a retired President really is, in relation to the original intentions of the relevant legislation. Secondly, we need to insist that the entitlement package for ex-Presidents should be set at the minimum, and certainly not at the extravagant maximum, end of the scale, in a way that reflects the true living standards of the citizens of the country. For example, there is no need for a retired President to be endowed with a house if his or her family happens to possess any house either in Sri Lanka or abroad. Even when such a need arises, the house offered by the taxpayer should be in line with the needs of a retired public servant. Anything more has to be at their own expense.

Let’s see an end to this sham once and for all!

UPULl P

Auckland