Cracks in Yahapalanaya

Nine months into the reign of the Yahapalanaya Government and the kinks are beginning to show more clearly. Following the controversy of the President’s son Daham attending the UN General Assembly, it has recently been revealed that a budget of Rs. 180 million has been requested to conduct ‘repairs’ on the presidential house. Reports indicate that a further Rs. 70.6 m has been allocated to purchase a BMW limousine and 12 motorcycles of the same make.

To their credit, the Presidential Media Commission took the time to respond to such allegations. This novelty of pseudo-transparency seems a breath of fresh air compared to the recent era’s stench of corruption and economic mismanagement. Yet ultimately the PMC’s response reads like a distraction with very little context and figures thrown in at the expense of clarity.

The PMC claims that the 180 m budget is required to renovate and merge two old houses so as to make them ‘suitable’ for use by the President. However, this still does not provide the public with a clear breakdown of why an exorbitant amount of 180 m is needed for such a task. Further, it does little to clarify why a man with a wife and three children needs the spatial equivalent of two houses to carry out his duties as President.

The PMC goes on to say that Sirisena has refused to move in to the President’s House in Fort due to the astronomical monthly upkeep of Rs. 15 m – supposedly for bills and maintenance. If such figures are true, they need to be further interrogated rather than taken at face value. Even if it were possible for simple bills and maintenance to amount to such figures, surely there could be ways to cut back on consumption, services and amenities?

The electorate has been presented with a lose-lose situation, either an expenditure of Rs. 180 m in public money to join two houses or a monthly rent of Rs. 15 million to maintain one – as if the comforts of the ruling elite cannot be compromised. We need to ask ourselves what level of opulence is deemed ‘suitable’ for a president to live in and more importantly, who ultimately makes that decision and whether there is any semblance of a democratic process behind that.

Maithripala Sirisena campaigned on a platform of transparency. With a humble and amiable demeanour – especially compared to that of his bombastically belligerent predecessor – he won the hearts and minds of many in the Lankan electorate. Yet historically few of our leaders have proven to be immune to the allure of power. Recent events indicate a worrying change of tide as Sirisena taps into public funds for renovating his home and his children pop up at high profile socio-political arenas.

It would be disingenuous to say that the current regime is even close to the levels of corruption and nepotism seen during the previous regime. Yet such irregularities begin in small ways and build up over time, escaping the notice of the general public until after the damage has been done. Sri Lanka has dealt with decades of corruption and already we are seeing the faults in our ‘Yahapalanaya’. To prevent a rehash of history we must remain vigilant and take it upon ourselves to hold governments responsible.