      |
|||
 |
|
||
Take back Benz car, Asgiriya prelate tells
President The Mahanayake Thera of the Asgiriya Chapter, Ven. Palipana Sri Chandananda has requested President Chandrika Kumaratunga to take back the luxury Mercedes Benz car which was gifted to him by the government about two months ago. ‘I cannot afford to use a luxury vehicle of this nature. Maintenance costs are high and so are the taxes involved. The luxury vehicle tax to be paid this year alone amounts to Rs. 120,000 inclusive of some arrears flowing from last year,the Mahanayake Thera has said in a letter sent to the President. The letter further says; ‘Officials who called over wanted me to pay the taxes due on this luxury vehicle. How can I afford to pay such an amount? Subsequently, officials of the Presidential Secretariat were informed about this situation. They were reminded about the settlement of the taxes due, but it was of no avail.Insurance cover for this vehicle had been obtained, but not the revenue licence for the current year. Moreover, even the registration certificate of the car has not been received.’ The prelate says that the revenue licence cannot be obtained without producing the registration certificate. Even if the tax on the car is to be paid for the current year, a similar tax has to be paid next year as well. This is unaffordable, he has pointed out. ‘Since this car was gifted to me I have made only two trips from the Vihare; one to the Sri Dalada Maligawa and the other to Mahiyangana. The mileage done so far is under 400 kilometers’, the Mahanayake added. Two 220 luxury Mercedes Benz cars were gifted by the President to the Asgiriya and Malwatte Mahanayake Theras in early April this year. Each car is reported to be worth around Rs. 3 million. Army chief to inquire into
pompous colonel's threat Army Commander Lt. Gen. Rohan Daluwatte yesterday ordered an inquiry into allegations that a Lt. Colonel threatened a group of journalists who were taken by the Operational Headquarters to cover the commissioning parade of the Diyatalawa Military Academy last Friday. Disciplinary action will be initiated after the completion of the inquiry, Lt. Gen. Daluwatte said. He regretted the incident. The Army Commander told 'The Island' that he will ensure that such incidents of this nature do not recur in the future. The government yesterday announced that with the concurrence of the Governments of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and Pakistan, the Tenth SAARC Summit Conference will be held in Colombo on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998. No more duty free cigarettes, liquor Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, Ethnic Affairs and National Integration and Deputy Minister of Finance Prof. G. L. Peiris yesterday announced a major shift in the government’s policy towards alcoholic liquor and tobacco. He said government will no more allow duty free cigarettes or liquor and would not allow BOI status to firms investing in liquor or tobacco related industries. He said advertising of cigarettes and liquor will be banned and promotion of sports and cultural events by manufacturers of liquor and tobacco products will be discouraged. This is inline with far reaching recommendations made by a Presidential Task Force on Alcohol and Tobacco, which has also taken into consideration measures in operation both in developing and developed countries to curb the promotion of the use of alcoholic liquor and cigarettes, he said. He said legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the PTF is almost complete and they will be introduced to Parliament within the next six weeks. (WN) Bribery Commission removal - Select Committee appointed Speaker K. B. Ratnayake yesterday announced that he had appointed a Select Committee of Parliament comprising the following members with Mr. Dharmasiri Senanayake as Chairman, Messrs. M. H. M. Ashraff, C. V. Gooneratne, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, J. A. E. Ameratunga, R. J. G. de Mel, Tyronne Fernando and R. Sampanthan, to investigate and report to Parliament on the allegations referred to in the Resolution placed on the order paper of June 23, 1998 for the presentation of an address to the President requesting the removal of T. A. de S. Wijesundere Esq, from the office of the Chairman of the Commission to Investigate into the allegations of Bribery or Corruption and Rudra Rajasingham Esq, from the membership of the said Commission. The Speaker said that this Select Committee was being appointed in terms of the standing order No. 78A (2) of Parliament. Bribery Commission removal - Select Committee appointed Speaker K. B. Ratnayake yesterday announced that he had appointed a Select Committee of Parliament comprising the following members with Mr. Dharmasiri Senanayake as Chairman, Messrs. M. H. M. Ashraff, C. V. Gooneratne, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, J. A. E. Ameratunga, R. J. G. de Mel, Tyronne Fernando and R. Sampanthan, to investigate and report to Parliament on the allegations referred to in the Resolution placed on the order paper of June 23, 1998 for the presentation of an address to the President requesting the removal of T. A. de S. Wijesundere Esq, from the office of the Chairman of the Commission to Investigate into the allegations of Bribery or Corruption and Rudra Rajasingham Esq, from the membership of the said Commission. The Speaker said that this Select Committee was being appointed in terms of the standing order No. 78A (2) of Parliament. In Parliament Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, Ethnic Affairs and National Integration and Deputy Minister of Finance Prof. G. L. Peiris told Parliament yesterday that the purchase of 100 percent shares of the Plantation Investment Management Company (PIMC) by James Finlay and Company Ltd., was within law and the transaction has not violated any rule or law. Replying to matters raised by Kalutara district UNP MP Mahinda Samarasinghe in an adjournment motion said the Controller of Exchange has no role to play under the law in this transaction though Messrs Finlay Ltd., out of an abundance of caution had consulted the Controller of Exchange. He said that the Exchange Controller on receipt of a communication from Messrs Finlay Ltd., consulted, rightly, the Attorney General by letter dated 23.4.98. A senior State Counsel acting on behalf of the Attorney General informed the Controller of Exchange that Section 30(5) of the Exchange Control Ordinance did not apply to Messrs Finlay Ltd., as the firm is a corporate body and the sections referred to an individual person, and hence the Exchange Controller had no role to play in the transaction. The Minister said that Leader of the House and Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs and Plantation Industries, Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, replying Mr. Samarasinghe on behalf of Prof. Peiris during the latter’s absence from the country on a previous day told the House in a statement that the approval of the Exchange Controller would be obtained for the transaction. "However on examination it was found that such approval was not legally necessary. The Exchange Controller had taken advice from the proper source, the minister said. He said that the limit of 49 percent imposed by laws, on foreign buyers of shares of Sri Lankan ventures did not apply to James Finlays because it is a quoted company incorporated in Sri Lanka. Such laws cannot be applied to quoted companies due to their very nature of the composition. The ownership of shares of such companies changed daily and the laws applied to unquoted companies cannot be enforced on companies where the shareholdings change constantly. A consistent and logical practice has been followed in this case, he added. Prof. Peiris said Finlays have also given an undertaking to the government that it would not sell any of the shares of the PIMC which it purchased without the written approval of the Secretary to the Treasury. The minister quashed allegations of misleading the House, made against Minister Wickramanayake, by A. H. M. Azwer, who seconded the adjournment motion of Mr. Samarasinghe. Mahinda Samarasinghe in his adjournment motion queried the Finlay-PIMC transaction saying that the transaction has taken place without obtaining the approval of the Exchange Controller in contravention of the decision of the cabinet. He said that James Finlay Company Ltd., though incorporated in Sri Lanka is controlled by its principals in Glasgow and therefore practically a foreign controlled firm. Rules applicable to purchase of shares by foreign companies lay down a maximum limit of 49 percent. How did then this company bought 100 percent of the shares of the PIMC, he asked. He said that the decision to sell the 100 percent shares to Finlays has not been taken by Board of Directors, of PIMC but the individual firms holding shares of PIMC. The firms are the National Insurance Corporation, the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, the ETF and the Merchant Bank. He was not against foreign investors but his objection is to the violation of the rules. He said that the PERC has followed a different course of action when they sold other regional plantations to foreign companies. He said the Kotagala Plantation deal ended up with heavy fines being imposed to all parties responsible to the deal including Mary Yong and A. Aiyadurai of Malaysia. The two Malaysian investors brought in 6 million US dollars and the Finlays will not bring any new money, he added. Had prospective foreign bidders known that they could purchase 100 percent of the shares of the regional plantation companies, more investors with more money would have come, he said. Malpractices probe During cross examination of recalled witness, W. K. B. Weragama, General Manager, Railways, counsel for the party noticed, pointed out that although the witness said he was consistently opposed to the five-year extension period, his actions at that time did not appear to oppose the extension. This was said before the Special Presidential Commission probing alleged malpractices in certain public bodies. The Commission comprises Justice P. R. P. Perera (Chairman), Justice H. S. Yapa and Justice F. N. D. Jayasuriya. Former GMR, P. W. A. K. Silva is the party noticed in the inquiry. Mr. Silva who served as GMR from 1991-1994 was accused of misuse of power during his term of office. He has been required to show cause as to why he should not be found guilty of misuse of power for certain acts in respect to transactions related to the establishment and functioning of a concrete sleeper manufacturing plant by John Holland International Ltd. of Australia. Ranjit Abeysuriya P. C. with Ms. Priyadarshani Dias instructed by N. Sambandan, appeared for the party noticed. Saleem Marsoof, P.C. with Ajith Wickramaratne assisted the commission. S. K. P. Bambarande is the secretary to the commission. Commission resumed proceedings at the Superior Courts last Wednesday (22). Witness was questioned on the letter dated July 8, 1992 sent by John Holland inquiring the situation on the end of the first extension (Feb. 21 Aug. 21). The main part of the letter suggested that John Holland be permitted to run the factory for five years beyond the stipulated period. Ranjit Abeysuriya: Did you give serious consideration as to whether the proposal by John Holland was acceptable or not? -- Yes. On the basis of the fact that the Railway was unable to train the staff and the materials were not there. Q: At the end of the six-month extension in August ’92, was it your honest view that in three or four months time the Railway could be in a position to take over the factory? -- Yes, with the co-operation of the GMR. Q: Did you convey that to anyone in authority, like the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance? -- No. Q: On the contrary, weren’t you willing to go along with the John Holland proposal? -- I deny that. Q: When did you first get the intimation that John Holland was prepared to run the factory beyond the contracted two years? -- I don’t remember. Q: You remember John Holland on September 4, by the document P52, suggests that they be granted a six-month extension? -- Yes Q: Was that the first time that you were aware that John Holland intended to run the sleeper factory after two years? -- I think so. But I don’t remember, because I was not in charge of the project. Q: Have you any recollection that at any point before September ’91, when your views were sought by the GMR, that John Holland intended to continue after the stipulated two years? -- Yes. In August ’91, the GMR appointed a committee to report on whether a additional plant is necessary and also report on the possibility of a joint venture. The document dated August 2, ’91 marked as P191 is read out. The document appoints a committee to report as to whether an additional concrete sleeper factory is required. The document also stated that if an additional plant is necessary, the committee should draft the conditions necessary to call for a proposal on the basis of a joint venture or the public sector. The committee chaired by L.P.H. Wijeratne comprised of Samaranayake, Pathirage and Weragama. The committee was asked to submit a report within a week. Q: Does P191 in any way deal with the question of a joint venture with John Holland specifically ?- It does not say John Holland. But the fax sent by John Holland also mentions a joint venture. Q: Is it not true that well before any question of a joint venture was brought up and before the formal request was made for an extension, John Holland alerted you specifically to the possibility of continuing to work after the manufacture of 120,000 sleepers? -- I don’t remember. Witness was shown document P67, dated July 26, 1990. The document addressed to the witness states that John Holland is "interested in discussing the future beyond 120,000 sleepers." Witness said that although he was not sure that he received the document, since it has been produced in court, it is likely that he did receive it. Q: They started production in February ’90 and five months later in July, they were already thinking of what was to happen after February ’92. This letter was sent only to you and no copies were sent to anyone else, is that correct?- I don’t know and it was always my position that the railway would take over after two years. Justice Jayasuriya: The letter represents the state of mind of John Holland? -- Yes Chairman: From the inception were you opposed to John Holland continuing? -- Yes Q: You admit the letter was addressed to you? -Yes Q: The letter was written on behalf of John Holland?- Yes, it was on a John Holland formal letterhead Q: Although the contract was for two years, by this letter John Holland indicated to you their interest in continuing beyond the specified two years? --Yes Chairman: They have written to you of their future plans. As far as you were concerned, were you influenced by the letter? -- No. Chairman: Your consistent position has been for the railway to take over the factory after two years?- Yes At this point Counsel for the party noticed said although at present the witness says that he was opposed to the five-year extension, his (Weragama’s) actions at the time the extension was proposed were "totally inconsistent" with what he says . Q: There were two occasions for you to object any extension, even a day beyond the contract period. Is that correct? Chairman: He has already answered this question before. He gave his explanation. Q: Did you reply to that letter saying that you were not interested? -- No. Witness explained that the letter had to be read completely. He said the main theme of the letter was the problems John Holland would encounter as a result of doubling the production and the extension was only a result of this doubling of production. The letter states that by doubling the production, the time required for production would be halved. It was put forward by the witness, that in the context of the letter, the question was what would happen when the production of 120,000 concrete sleepers is completed before the contracted two years and that in the letter John Holland inquired as to whether or not to continue manufacture beyond the 120,000 sleepers. Commission is proceeding. ‘Jayasikuru’ troops who continued to advance further northwards on Monday destroyed two terrorist bunkers causing heavy casualties among the terrorists, operational headquaters reported yesterday. Troops cleared a terrorist mine field and recovered 48 anti personnel mines. Terrorists fired mortars and small arms at troops manning defences southeast of Mankulam around 9.30 p.m. Troops retaliated with mortars and artillery neutralising the terrorist mortars. Troops continue to dominate areas ahead of defences. On the same day by the evening troops commenced consolidating in the newly captured areas. A search and clear operation was in progress. Also on Monday around 12.15 p.m. at Kilinochchi troops sniped and killed one terrorist. Priyani Soysa case judgement
reserved The judgement on the appeal filed by Professor Priyani Soysa, is to be delivered in the Court of Appeal today. Professor Soysa appealed against a District Court order made in 1993, in which she was found professionally negligent in treating a 4-year-old girl, in April to June 1992. Deputy Solicitor General, Rienzie Arsecularatne, the father of the deceased girl, had filed a complaint of professional negligence, against Professor Soysa in the District Court of Colombo. The District Court declared the defendant Professor Soysa professionally negligent and granted compensation to the complainant. Professor Soysa appealed against this DC determination. The appeal was inquired into by the Court of Appeal and the judgement was reserved. President's Counsel, Romesh de Silva, was Senior Counsel for Mr. Arsekularatne throughout the proceedings. A woman LTTE cadre taken into custody by a special team of the police about a week back has commenced a fast unto death since Monday night demanding that she be produced before courts. This woman cadre identified as Shashikala is presently in a police lock up not revealed due to security reasons. A resident of Batticaloa, Shashikala was alleged ho have supplied vital information regarding security activities in Colombo city to Tiger leaders in Wanni. She was also said to have revealed vital information to the police. Mid-Week Politics A third 'Impeachment Group' was identified by the UNP leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe last Friday. The first group emerged during the days of late President Ranasinghe Premadasa. Mr. Wickremesinghe identified the second group when there was a tussle between him and the late Mr. Gamini Dissanayake for the post of the Leader of the Opposition during the last days of President Dingiri Banda Wijetunga. Mr. Dissanayake won that battle by a slender margin. The third group came into light when Mr. Wijeyapala Mendis was suspended from the party last Friday by the Working Committee. Some in the UNP claim that the third group had within its four members of the second group that went against Mr. Wickremesinghe over the Opposition leader's encounter with Mr. Dissanayake. Sources said that though ten members abstained from voting with the decision to suspend Mr. Mendis, one of them would not be labelled as a member of the 'Impeachment Group' and he is Mr. Anura Bandaranaike. Mr. Bandaranaike, they said, had upheld his policy against Commission of Inquiry from the day his mother was tried by such a Commission by the J. R. Jayewardene government when Mr. Bandaranaike was a SLFP Member of Parliament. The notable absentee at last Friday's UNP working committee meeting to decide on the fate of Mr. Mendis was a senior former Minister Mr. P. Dayaratne. His absence at that crucial meeting is being seriously viewed by Mr. Wickremesinghe. Mr. Dayaratne is the shadow Defence Minister in the UNP opposition cabinet. UNP sources say that it would have been better for Mr. Dayaratne to have been present and abstained from voting like the eight other rather than keeping away to mark himself absent from the crucial meeting. They said that Mr. Bandaranaike honourably made his position known and abstained. Mr. Bandaranaike is a personal friend of Mr. Mendis and the latter stepped down as Chief Organiser for Gampaha District to pave the way for Mr. Bandaranaike to take over. UNP sources pointed out that though Mr. Mendis opted to step down for his friend, it was the party leader Mr. Ranil WIckremasinghe who appointed Mr. Bandaranaike for that position. According to UNP sources among the four senior members who abstained one was the reported architect of the impeachment motion against late President Premadasa. They claim the conduct of this senior member led to the split of the UNP at that time. Another member, a newcomer to Parliament, who abstained along with the four senior members who are also MPs, had been the first man to urge the leadership to sack Mr. Mendis five months ago when the Commission which inquired into the allegations against Mr. Mendis found him guilty. 'This time he did an about turn for reasons unknown to us,' quipped a senior UNPer who voted to suspend Mr. Mendis from the party. Sources said the abstention of a well known 'Legal Eagle' in the Working Committee was quite obvious as he was the chief legal advisor to Mr. Mendis. They said it was a known fact that this member was very close to former President D. B. Wijetunga. Senior UNPers had objected when this member was to be absorbed into the Working Committee. Mr. Wickremasinghe is reported to have brought him into the Working Committee despite the pressure mounted by the seniors in the party. 'This is a good lesson for our leader when he makes wrong decisions', said another party stalwart. Among those who abstained that day was a former diplomat. The UNP is wondering as to why he decided to do so. However, this former diplomat is reported to have held the position that the UNP had no ground to suspend or expel Mr. Mendis from the party just because a Commission of Inquiry had found him guilty. He had believed that such findings by a Commission should be proved before a court of law for the party to suspend or expel him according to the party policies. The other two, one from the gem city and the other from Uva are also being investigated by the PA government, claimed the UNP. According to reports the government had allocated five hours for Mr. Wijeyapala Mendis today during the adjourned debate. Sources close to Mr. Mendis disclosed that Mr. Mendis would use four of these hours to defend himself and use the balance hour to take on the UNP for which he claimed was an unreasonable decision to expel him. Mr. Mendis's close associates said that Mr. Mendis could come out with many things today which would ridicule the UNP. The UNP which got wind of Mr. Mendis's move has listed some fiery speakers to take on both Mr. Mendis and the government. These speakers have been asked to lash out on corruption by certain government ministers using documentary proof during the continued live telecast debate. Mr. Mendis, a UNPer for five decades is a strongman in the party in Gampaha District. Meanwhile, Mr. Mendis's rival in Katana, Parliamentary Affairs Jeyaraj Fernandopulle was reported saying that the photographs of Mr. Mendis and the four senior MPs who abstained in favour of Mr. Mendis was enough for the PA to win the next Parliamentary elections. The Minister has said that he would make use of the five photographs to tell the people how corrupt was the UNP was. A senior UNPer said that it was high time that Mr. Wickremesinghe gave thought to clean the party of corrupt men if the party was to face and win the next elections. 'Otherwise it would be impossible for our leader to go ahead with his policy-New Deal and a New Vision', he added. Today being a rest day for the cricketers of the Triangular Independence Cup with no interesting programmes on the Rupavahini, the live debate on Mr. Mendis from morning will surely give entertainment to the public with a 'Home and Home' battle within the UNP and the PA taking on the entire UNP. |
|||
 |
|||