Wednesday Dec 11, 2024
Wednesday Dec 11, 2024
Wednesday, 27 September 2017 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
“My question to all people’s representatives in the legislature and key public officials is this. Was the legislation referred to by the former Minister brought to Parliament? Was it passed? If not what statutory measures exist – through either the existing codes or specific statutes – which will act as a deterrent to the type of actions and resultant risks to the country? In lighter vein, the money wasted on this project could have funded millions of bags of free fertiliser and millions upon millions of glasses of free milk! However on a serious note, if that money was ploughed into rural roads, buses, access to safe drinking water, electricity, rural schools and hospitals – almost 30 years ago – which was even before we “opened the economy” or knew what “privatisation” meant – even to bash the bad ones around, we could have bridged income as well as digital divides and reduced the regional disparities about which there is so much natural concern today. Then the pledges of today’s political parties, about fertiliser or milk would have been relatively redundant.” – Ranel Wijesinha, November 2005.
We invest considerable time and money and rightfully so, to sustain the environment we live in, and the enterprises we work with. However, I submit, that we should be investing far greater time and mind, to address the challenges to what I will phrase ‘Enhancing and sustaining good governance’.
Ours is a challenge of formidable proportions. A challenge to individuals and institutions - whether in corporate governance or in State-Owned Enterprise governance, in the governance of self as public officials, professionals, nominees in supervisory or regulatory bodies in banking, securities, insurance, health, education, utilities, accounting and auditing standards, product and service, quality and safety standards, or as individuals engaged in enterprise or philanthropy, in advisory bodies, religious or social societies or charities and much more.
The challenge I refer to is now taking centre-stage and will gain further momentum. The people of our land today, are empowered to discuss and debate any matter, in any fora, at any time, at any place, in any medium. I therefore chose to share my reminiscences about a cautionary thought I articulated almost 12 years ago, in a 2005 publication in the print media.
It was based on a real life example of 40 years ago, just as the country began its journey as an open or market economy. The value of that thought and the time I invested then, in researching and writing it, will I hope, be appreciated at least now.
I have a purpose in investing time to search my e-archives and to request the print media to republish the article. While reflecting upon the repeated news in the print and electronic media, about those who have been found wanting, and while being only human to empathise with their families, my purpose is to highlight the need for us all, to be conscious of our responsibilities, in whatever roles we play.
Our responsibilities also include enhancing the awareness of those who we work with, and doing so proactively. We need to help build a better nation, not overnight, but incrementally and progressively. We cannot be irresponsible in contributing to the breakup of a nation’s fabric, by design or by default. I remain positive, that each small contribution, by like-minded people, will collectively help. If the social media used to showcase all what is undesirable, is also used positively, as a medium to showcase examples of the good we do, or can do, this task will have greater life and meaning.
The above should be placed on the national agenda and there clearly is a role for the eminently capable Minister of Finance and Media Mangala Samaraweera to consider conceptualising content for media and communications on what I will term ‘The role of public officials and government nominees in enhancing and sustaining good governance’. This is a specific project for an overall media unit. Key public officials and Government nominees, who are performing their roles well, can be interviewed, showcased and invited to share thoughts with others.
I do not think we need to consult Saatchi and Saatchi of London, BCG of Berlin, McKinsey of New York or the now defamed Bell Pottinger. There are local agencies, and also representatives of global agencies, with indigenous, home-grown, creative talent and capability. That talent should be leveraged. I hope this thought will be considered and implemented. I believe it is necessary that I reflect briefly on the following, which will provide any reader with a basis for my readily apparent but justifiable, anxiousness.
I will reminisce but not in detail, about my suggestions for a proactive Media Unit, going back to the 1994 general elections. I had a healthy debate with Dr. Wickrema Weerasooriya when I was requested to see him with content I had developed. I will not also elaborate on the repeat of the suggestion for a robust media unit, at the workshops I conducted in 1996, as an independent honorary consultant at the invitation of Ranil Wickremesinghe and Karu Jayasuriya, at Sirikotha and the JSS auditorium. All this was gratis time.
Almost 10 years later in 2006, I proposed, the ‘Restructuring and repositioning of a robust media unit’ in a series of interactive workshops I conducted, again as an independent, and once again, on a gratis basis. On this occasion, it was to develop the Panditharatne Commission Report with a team of handpicked people.
As I invest time once again, to search and locate my 2005 article, I do so because I believe that this example of
four decades ago, yet has learning outcomes and thoughts and indeed, possible next steps, for all of us – whether we are law makers, the people’s representatives, public officials, professionals in public institutions, in private practice, or in private enterprise. The article of 30 November 2005, is reproduced in full, below:
Political will, courage and commitment to close a hole in the nation’s balance sheet
The following are extracts of the address made in Parliament, on the Urea Fertiliser Project, by the then Minister of Finance and Planning Ronnie De Mel, on 21 December 1977.
“I decided to intervene at this stage of the committee discussion on the Votes of the Ministry of Industries and Scientific Affairs, to draw the attention of this House and through this House of the country to a matter with far reaching financial and economic consequences, not only to this Ministry but to the entire country and also to the generations still unborn and on which we have to take immediate action. I refer to the Urea Fertiliser Project.”… “I am not bringing this to the notice of the House merely in a spirit of criticism of the last Government, but as I want this to be a lesson for the future, a lesson and a warning to our chairmen and directors of corporations not to repeat this mistake, a lesson for the General Managers of our Corporations not to make this mistake again”...
“We propose to introduce legislation very soon to make chairmen and directors of corporations personally liable for their actions in those corporations. Their property will be sequestered if they do this type of thing. I do not think most of the present chairmen and directors would like to continue if they know what they are in for. They will make it a point to study their projects a little more carefully when they know that they will be personally held liable and that they will be charged and surcharged for any losses or lapses on their part.”
“Every worthwhile financial and technical consultant advised them not to go ahead with this project. Several countries, to which the Government applied for aid, including Iraq, advised them not to touch this project even with a barge pole because it will never be feasible in this country. But the last Government went ahead with this, notwithstanding all the advice given by the technical and financial consultants who would have given them advice. The World Bank told them not to go ahead with this project. Several aid group countries, whom they appealed to, refused to give them aid because the project could never be made a worthwhile project in this country. But they went ahead regardless of all this advice.”
The following summary extracted from the detailed address to Parliament of then Minister Ronnie De Mel in December 1977, with direct quotations made by him on specific aspects of the fertiliser project, will provide further clarity on why this State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) had to be closed down:
What I like in particular, is Minister De Mel’s message to public servants: “I am calling upon all chairmen of corporations, all directors, all general managers to note this: Please do not think you can get away with this type of nonsense in the future because we are going to make you personally responsible. We will sequester your property and your assets if you do this type of thing in the future. That is all I have to say, sir.”
My question to all people’s representatives in the legislature and key public officials is this. Was the legislation referred to by the former Minister, brought to Parliament? Was it passed? If not what statutory measures exist – through either the existing codes or specific statutes – which will act as a deterrent to the type of actions and resultant risks to the country, examples of which we just discussed? In lighter vein, the money wasted on this project could have funded millions of bags of free fertiliser and millions upon millions of glasses of free milk!
However on a serious note, if that money was ploughed into rural roads, buses, access to safe drinking water, electricity, rural schools and hospitals almost 30 years ago, which was even before we “opened the economy” or knew what “privatisation” meant – even to bash the bad ones around, we could have bridged income as well as digital divides and reduced the regional disparities about which there is so much natural concern today. Then the pledges of today’s political parties, about fertiliser or milk would have been relatively redundant.
I thought it useful to share the above with readers, given that the CPD seminar on the ‘Open Economy & Privatisation – Myths, Realities, Risks and Safeguards’ (scheduled for 3 November 2005 at 5:30 p.m., at the Auditorium of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri-Lanka, with over 150 registrants), was abruptly cancelled. That was a great pity since several aspects of this case would also have been discussed from a multi-stakeholder perspective.
Just as the State Timber Corporation of Sri Lanka, a Harvard case study of many years ago used in Asian Business Schools until the mid-nineties, this and several other Sri Lankan cases, are good “learning” tools, for European business schools to which I have been invited to contribute Sri Lankan cases some years ago or to Harvard Business School, Asian, Latin American, or any business school anywhere.
My preference, however, would be to see how politicians of all political parties in my own country, Sri Lanka, professionals who advise politicians, consultants who advise big, medium or small private sector enterprises, can enhance their awareness through writings or presentations such as these.
We can then build a more aware political, business, chamber and corporate leadership as well as a strong public sector working in harmony with a vibrant private sector. Then, we might just be able to transform our dreams to deeds and rhetoric of all quarters, to tangible reality, for the benefit of society.
However, what is uncertain today is whether our people will be deprived of that learning experience through selective intervention of the State as we witnessed on 2 November 2005, a Black Wednesday for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka.
