Sri Lankans in search of politicians of minimal integrity may find it hard to locate the breed. There are varying degrees of integrity, and it is true some persons seeking public office are more honest and trustworthy than others. But we could have a look at which politicians pass the test for being acceptable by long suffering Sri Lankans.
There are politicians of all breeds. Some seek to shine by way of contrast. They say they have no ulterior motives in politics. But do they cut the mustard when Sri Lankans assess them on a ten to one scale for integrity and suitability for public life, for instance?
Where were the Parliamentarians who said no to duty free cars, for instance, when Parliament reportedly gave assent for duty free cars for lawmakers whenever vehicle imports begin once more? As far as this writer knows there were none. No legislator said no to this perk, which begs the question, did they take that stand in solidarity with other MPs?
There have been no public statements made, certainly as far as this writer is aware, against duty free cars being provided to MPs either in the past or potentially in the future. Under these circumstances how could any single political party represented in the current Sri Lankan Parliament claim moral superiority over any other?
About duty free cars, there could of course be a legitimate claim made for such vehicles by Parliamentarians, if “legitimate” is looked at from a strictly clinical standpoint. Various public servants of certain standing are entitled to such cars, or to be more accurate to the car permits that entitle them to a duty-waiver on their imported vehicles.
Does that mean that in principle Parliamentarians should give the nod to continuing the practice with regard to these same public servants, whenever vehicle imports resume? Should they also justify a permit each for themselves just because certain public servants are entitled to one, on the reasoning that they should be privy to a similar privilege that elite public servants enjoy?
EXEMPLARY
There are certain politicians who apparently do not avail themselves of the salary they are paid as MPs. However, a livable salary for Parliamentarians is a prerequisite for public service. Those who forfeit their salaries cannot claim sainthood and claim they are better than others because they are forfeiting a living wage. Nobody has been heard to say that the salaries of Parliamentarians are excessive, and this includes those who are said to be regularly forfeiting their salaries.
There has not been any Parliamentarian making any concerted effort to make sure that the duty free facility is withdrawn from MPs. Some would rather prefer to make a symbolic gesture and not claim their salaries. But the car permits are a different kettle of fish altogether. It is a known fact that a great many MPs sell their car permits for a tidy sum. This is no secret. There is evidence that some of the most vociferous MPs making the loudest noise about corruption did that as well.
This shows that essentially there is an unspoken accord between MPs when it comes to perks. Of course Parliamentarians are paid a living wage in any country, and there is no great anomaly there. Therefore, not claiming a wage and letting the funds accrue to the Government by default is not merely a symbolic gesture, it is also probably somewhat irrational. If any Parliamentarian does not want the money, they could claim the paycheck and publicly donate it to charity.
However, not making any noise about perks Parliamentarians are entitled to, is a character trait of all MPs essentially across the board. Is the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) ahead somehow, therefore, in the integrity stakes – or is some other party, or some other independent Parliamentarian exemplary in this regard? Hardly.
It is why no party got a free pass when the Aragalaya era slogan did the rounds. What was it? All 225 should be ousted, as you would probably remember. Now, that sentiment by itself may be a bit much. All 225 are not crooks and there may be some MPs with a modicum of sincerity who have genuine public service as motivation for being in Parliament, at least in part, let it be said.
But yet, the slogan is not meant to be taken literally. The gist of it is that there are no exemplary politicians among our legislators, and this includes those who have placed themselves on a pedestal in the forthcoming General Election stakes.
No public servants seeking office or already in elected office of course could be expected to be saints, especially in a modern context. But the problem is when it appears to people that almost none of them could acquit themselves admirably on the score of being genuinely committed to selfless service. There was such a breed though. The late Parliamentarian Meryl Fernando of Moratuwa commuted by bus to Parliament.
Many MPs such as, if the writer remembers right, T.B. Illangaratne, did not own cars and had to be brought to hospital by neighbours when they were ailing. None of this is to say that MPs of today are doing something wrong by owning a car – an ordinary car – not a duty free one.
Not owning a car may have been a sign of commitment in the context of the 70s when the Illangaratnes and Meryl Fernandos ilk were MPs. It is not something, however, that advertises integrity in today’s context. But something that does indicate integrity is the ability to forego luxuries such as duty free cars worth millions.
Ruckus
When it is clear that duty free permits to MPs have been sold by some MPs in the past, it would be expected that at least some MPs would have created a ruckus against the unabashed granting of duty free car permits to MPs.
But no such thing happened. People, therefore, get to paint all acquiescing MPs with the same brush. Lee Kwan Yew, Singapore’s founder Premier said that lawmakers should be very well paid because “if you pay peanuts you would get monkeys”. But our political culture does not guarantee that very high pay would attract absolute non-monkeys, if things could be put across in such inelegant terms.
Even so, MPs could have said they want better salaries and argued for the same if their perks were not enormous. But some of these perks are themselves bonuses added to salaries and other benefits. A car permit that could be sold for a handsome sum has been one of those gilt-edged bonuses.
This article is not a rant against duty free car permits. It is true most MPs rationalise that if all other fellow lawmakers are entitled to such a permit they should be too. They take the car permit to be a fair trade off for doing an allegedly honorary job that brings them so much disrepute, because politicians have generally not been well regarded in recent times due to association with corruption, as it goes without saying.
The problem is not so much that MPs have availed themselves of the use of car permits and are eager to do so when restrictions on vehicle imports are lifted in the future. The problem is that MPs across the board have accepted this facility on principle. So one MP is, therefore, not better than the other, or one group of MPs better than others, particularly because no MP has been vocally articulate against vehicle permits, irrespective of whether the economy is in meltdown or not.
‘They are all the same’ is reluctantly a slogan the touted integrity-brigade that’s setting themselves up latterly as holier than thou, should own. It is a label that’s being stuck to them by the public. Are they to say that yes, they are also the same in some respects, but are relatively better in others?
That is not a very persuasive argument. They may have not been tainted with the corruption label as badly as most, at least partly because they have never been in power.
Besides that, if they are merely a little bit better than the others, given that they have been for instance car permit fans also, it is not much of a certificate for people to be over the moon about them.
Somewhat better than the others is no persuasive reason for voters to be hell-bent on electing certain people. Maybe they too can be considered by the voting public and whetted and considered as worthy of a vote, only if they are really better than the others in all aspects, including integrity and other factors such as experience, and the potential to perform when in office.
