|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 18 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Letters | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Sports Obituaries
|
Please forward your letters to [email protected] in plain text format within the e-mail message, since as a policy we do not open any attachments.
There is no law in this country to control the election expenditure of candidates contesting elections. As a result these candidates get money from various sources for the election expenses. The smugglers, drug-traffickers, tax defaulters and crony capitalists give money for the candidates whom they can trust to get favours when they are elected to power. When these candidates come to power they are obliged to help those who gave money to contest the election. We have suffered enough as a result of this system. There is no sufficient funds in the Treasury as a result of granting Tax amnesties and Tax concessions. When funds are not coming to the Treasury, the Government is unable to give enough subsidies to the farmers and sufficient salary increases to the public servants and pensioners. Sufficient funds are not released to maintain the health services, education system, transport system etc. There is also the possibility that the candidates who spend large amount of money for the election by obtaining loans from the Banks and other sources when they come to power, they are tempted to give the Government works and supplies contracts to their relatives and friends without calling for tenders who will in return settle their loans. Sometimes they are tempted to sell or lease the limited national wealth of the country even to the foreigners to get commissions. This system is bad for the country and the people. Let's hope voters will be watchful about the candidates who spend lavishly for the forthcoming Parliamentary General Election and refrain from voting for such candidates. A. L. J. RANASOORIYA, A solitary purile Professor may emotionally "cry over spiltmilk" of dissolution of the Parliament, a couple of weeks ago, thus enunciating a fantastic theory that the Constitution is only a "Scrap of Paper" when ethical conduct is imperative in consulting the PM before such a dictatorial act is meted out to the detriment of wide masses. Needless to reiterate that the President is the only head of State within alienable prerogative powers, to summon - prorogue or dissolve the Parliament without an iota of political expediency to the PM under the present Constitution, which is only a "Scrap of Paper" but capable of doing anything and everything save a man a woman and vice versa. Supreme Court is there for any elucidation deemed necessary; any pundit or layman (Laymen are prudent enough than pundits in such issues) can easily gain access to this supreme body for final verdict, refraining of course, from drawing wool over the eyes of the multitude. It is lamentable that political animals could stoop to such complex mean and futile standards. Apart from the "Pomp and pageantry" of the most in-famous peace move, infiltrated in the country in signing an utterly ruinous secret and un-ethical MoU, the PM had no right - mandate or constitutional provision to do so, partly because he is not a Head of State, nor because he ever did seek parliamentary approval or even the least Cabinet knowledge prior to entering into such a national pact. Facts and figures galore where the terms, regulations and conditions of the M.o.U. were flagrantly violated many times and the LTTE surreptiously amassed great and far-reaching benefits to stand up sternly and strongly, when the unconcerned PM and his erstwhile colleagues were in sound slumber. Chaos and atrocity rampant in the country, nearly paved the way for anarchy during the past couple of years. The President was left with only one alternative - dissolution. Ethics is an integral part of her act of dissolution when the government high-handedly screamed out, that they are ready at anytime to face a general election. She did follow her agenda rightly in the interest of the country. There is no necessity for her to follow the agenda of any other party or intruder. Election results fair reasonable and lawful will justify the dissolution. The national crisis to-day is patently clear. Can anybody play the truant throughout, ransack and ruin the country, its national peace-harmony and economy, under a core system of camouflage, decoit or deception? Let us patiently await the polls verdict! Let the printed and electronic mass media not do somersaults and topple the applecart as acknowledged about the identical fate of PM by himself! Motive of the PM under delaying tactics, double standards and pro-LTTE operations is synonymous with his silence and indifference to any issue of the country. His inefficiency, incapacity and burning lust for power and supremacy, should not undermine genuine leadership. We should not be a feeble nation to weep and sigh, under the debris of a fallen society and thus vanish into thin air. SUSANTHA S. EDIRIMUNI, Ministerial immediate resignations From your paper of 12/2/04 it is noted that Minister Milinda Moragoda seeks to effectively resign from his post immediately. In the private sector even a casual worker doing a casual piece of work cannot leave that piece of work effectively immediately. Even that piece of work has a nature of use which demands that it be not abandoned immediately. But that is in the private sector. Here under the party which ruled the country until a few days ago, a Minister is free to propose that he be allowed to stop immediately the work he is held responsible to do. If this proposition can be allowed, it must mean that the work involved is such that it can be abandoned without ado anytime. But this is in the UNP. Perhaps if we privatise Parliament and Cabinet we might give more meaning to democratic responsibilities. DENROY, In his letter of 29.1.04, AGP has drawn attention to a glaring anomaly in the latest regulations on the above subject where a person not liable for income tax has to pay w/tax. A non-taxpayer is not liable for w/tax if the total does not exceed Rs. 300,000 a year provided that; i) such interest is his sole income or ii) it is 90 per cent of his total income which including tax free income - eg. government pension does not exceed Rs. 300,000. e.g. A person gets a total income of Rs. 330,000 including interest less than Rs. 108,000 and a tax free pension of Rs. 80,000 he will not be liable for w/tax or income tax or the tax-free pension is excluded for income tax. On the other hand a person who also gets Rs. 330,000 consisting of interest Rs. 230,000, other income Rs. 20,000 and government pension Rs. 80,000 will have to pay w/tax of Rs. 2,300 as the interest component is less than 90 per cent. Why should tax-free income be excluded from income tax but included in the equation for determining liability for w/tax? What does it matter if interest is less than 90 per cent so long as the total taxable income including interest does not exceed Rs. 300,000 which is the present income tax threshold? AGP, |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
