Expropriation Bill - Unmasks the Private Sector?

Thursday, 10 November 2011 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By Amrit Muttukumaru

Although the ‘Revival of Under Performing and Under Utilized Assets’ Bill has dire implications to the well-being of the country in general and the private sector in particular, our valiant captains of industry and commerce as reflected in the leadership of the main business chambers are reportedly comfortable with this Bill except for “serious concern” over some of the entities included!

The Mirror Business of 7 November 2011 captures this aptly with its damning headline – “Gutless Chambers”!

Could not the stance of the corporate sector be attributable to fault lines in their own governance and dependence on the State for hand-outs and patronage?

Could not the silence of the OPA be attributed to the reality that egregious corruption is virtually impossible without professional complicity? Even in regard to the Expropriation Bill has there not been a significant professional input?

Ironically, the JVP which the private sector loves to hate (not always without reason) appears to provide the strongest resistance to this Bill, which it styles as a “rogue’ bill” (The Island, 7 November 2011).

Its spokesman goes on to state – “We mustered and rallied people against the controversial private sector pensions bill and defeated it and this time around we will do everything possible to defeat the take-over Bill.”

Others who have come out strongly against the Bill are surprisingly sections of the Buddhist clergy one of whom has even filed a FR Petition against the Bill. The Christian clergy which until recently stood up in some instances in the public interest have now gone silent on this and other issues of governance.

It is the tragedy of this country that those who should be in the forefront of espousing the public interest - mainly the corporate sector, the professionals and the religious clergy have by and large maintained a deafening silence in the face of the most heinous onslaught on the rule of law and abuse of power under successive administrations. Those concerned in the UNP who are now vociferous are blatantly selective and partisan in their approach to current excesses.

They do not want to touch even with a 'barge pole' the terrible instances of corruption even under the most recent UNP government against which there are even Supreme Court judgments and strictures from Parliament's COPE.

It would appear that the leadership of civil society for the most part have lost their moral authority to demand 'good governance' due to fault lines in their own accountability!