By Upatissa Pethiyagoda –

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

During the recent Presidential and Parliamentary polls, a major promise by the National Peoples’ Power Party (NPP) was the eradication of corruption and waste.

The matter that currently captures most public interest, concerns travel expenses incurred by the then President, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe. He was initially placed in remand custody, which subsequently changed to bail on medical grounds, pending further Court proceedings. Opponents of the NPP allege this to be political victimization, while supporters hail it as the fulfillment of the anti-corruption electoral promise of the NPP.

The current issue is one regarding the ex-President’s participation in a ceremony at Wolverhampton University (UK), to mark the conferment of an Honorary Professorship award on his spouse, Prof. Maithree Wickremesinghe. This has aroused controversy on whether his sojourn In the UK, can properly be considered as part of his entitlement, on return from official visits to the US and Cuba. It might seem queer, that four days of rest in the UK, after a trans-Atlantic flight, was justifiable.

Then arises the question of whether the entourage of some ten persons, who were considered necessary companions for the official part of the trip, could also be entitled to a four-day recuperation in London, midway on their return flight home. All in all, the hotel and Car hire bills, have cost the Sri Lankan State many un-affordable millions. This may serve as a fair example of ‘impunity’. It shows huge insensitivity in splurging massive amounts of public money. A public, who have been repeatedly exhorted to “tighten their belts,” already well beyond the last “bucklehole”.

The claim is that the UK part of this trip was considered private, and therefore at no cost to the State. Likewise, the costs incurred by Mrs W’S travel to the Wolverhampton event, was also said to have been privately financed. In the case of Presidential travel, it has to be conceded that the boundary between “official and private” acts, is often blurred.

Here the question of the cover provided by invoking the immunity of an incumbent President, in all matters, (including personal actions), may be technically correct, but morally and ethically repugnant.

Where a person enjoys immunity by virtue of his position, this carries a reciprocal obligation to exercise an abundance of exemplary behavior. In effect, Immunity is best exercised, when the need to invoke it, is never allowed to arise.

Incidentally, it has been noticed, that during the concluding weeks of his incumbency, President RW seems to have been in a frenzy, to engage in as much travel as possible, regardless of purpose or value – a kind of “Voyaging climacteric”.