Administrative bungling costs lives

The government’s wise decision, at this stage, to withdraw the proposed legislation apparently has silenced some of those who were gloating over the introduction of the measure. But the garrulous sections of the ruling party continue to pour forth their venom on opposition parties that organized protest campaigns.

by Milinda Rajasekera

(June 07, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The imbroglio over the proposed pension scheme for the private sector that resulted in a tragic incident at Katunayake, among other things, demonstrated the depths of degradation that the country’s political culture has descended to. The sequence of events leading to the death of an innocent young man showed the inept and injudicious manner in which a matter of national importance had been handled by the authorities and the inappropriate and unwise reaction to the government’s action to introduce the pension scheme, displayed by the opposition parties.

What is ironical is that this ugly situation developed over a measure, namely the establishment of a pension scheme for the private sector employees, which all parties agree has to be accomplished. From the time the proposed legislation for this purpose was introduced, there was opposition to it mainly from opposition political parties. The JVP, which had numerous other complaints also against the government, was in the forefront of the protest campaigns.

The government claimed that it was implementing the proposal in the 2011 budget to set up three pension schemes for private sector employees, for the expatriate workers and for the self-employed, thus fulfilling a long-awaited social security need. Despite the obvious beneficial nature of this measure, objections were raised, not without reason. There was strong doubt about the government’s motive in introducing this legislation at this stage. There had been no proper discussion about it with trade unions and opposition parties and the general public was not made properly aware of the provisions of the scheme. Some of the objections raised by trade unions, mainly those affiliated to the JVP and the UNP, were that only 60% of the employees’ contributions would be paid for the employees who couldn’t contribute for 10 years; if the employee dies before 10 years no security is provided for his family; the age limit 60 years, which is considered too high for private sector employees and the absence of provision indicating the amount of the pension that will be paid after retirement of an employee. Above all, these unions suspected that it was a move to utilize the present EPF and ETF funds for extraneous purposes.

Although some unions affiliated to the government parties also expressed their misgivings about certain provisions of the draft legislation, their criticisms were subdued and after they had discussions with the authorities, they were satisfied with explanations and they fell in line with the government position. They thus became vociferous supporters of the new scheme.

The way various political parties, politicians, trade unions and their leaders expressed their views was strange indeed. Their conduct in this situation showed the lopsided and irrational manner in which they approach national issues. The government ministers, ruling party politicians, relevant state officials and ruling party zealots had no doubt at all about the excellence of the legislation. When the controversy reached the climax, the acrimony and hostility between government and opposition parties assumed turbulent proportions with both sides making charges and counter-charges against each other and exchanging all kinds of threats among them.

Contemptibly, veteran and so-called progressive trade unionists who were in the forefront of all campaigns and struggles against the slightest incursion into the domain of workers’ rights, without adopting a united stand on the proposed pension scheme, became protagonists for both sides making very interesting statements and participating in all kinds of protests and demonstrations and also displaying how adept they are at somersaulting.

Some of them occupying high places demonstrated how plums of office could transform redoubtable trade union leaders who stormed the streets to protect worker rights into tamed government spokesmen. One could imagine how vociferous Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara would have been if he remained to be the formidable defender and protector of worker rights. Today, he is solidly behind the proposed legislation. Equally vociferous fighter for employee rights, Minister Wimal Weerawansa had no qualms about castigating JVP leaders with whom he fought many a battle for employee rights.

The government’s wise decision, at this stage, to withdraw the proposed legislation apparently has silenced some of those who were gloating over the introduction of the measure. But the garrulous sections of the ruling party continue to pour forth their venom on opposition parties that organized protest campaigns. The challenges and threats they issue constitute a serious challenge to the most important democratic right to freedom of expression. The media showed how an uncouth southern politician threatened to take the law into his hands in case any opposition party dared to conduct any protest campaign in the south. The party leaders who vow to protect and preserve democratic rights should take action against such members who ruin their party reputation.

It was unfortunate that the government waited until the Katunayake tragic events occurred to realize the shortcomings that sullied the implementation of a pious intention. The government should now practice what it preaches about getting all political parties and sections of people involved in formulating policies and implementing them.