Budget 2012 - failed Opposition exposed:

President revives good tradition in debate

The winding up of the Budget Debate last Wednesday showed a welcome departure from a recent practice. For many years the annual budget was presented by the Deputy Minister of Finance and the final responses too came from the same person. President Mahinda Rajapaksa began to change this when he came to parliament to present the annual budget on previous occasions, yet the winding up was done by another minister who deputized for the Finance Minister.

This year there was a welcome return to old traditions when President Rajapaksa again presented the Budget in his capacity as Minister of Finance, and later came to parliament on the final day of the Committee Stage and made the winding up statement on the Budget Debate. In addition to this significant move that showed his respect for Parliament, the response itself was a well thought out and rounded statement that covered the matters raised by the Opposition and other critics and analysts of Budget 2012 and went on to make a strong to case for the Government’s policies as contained in the Budget, which was eventually passed by an overwhelming majority.

In doing so President Rajapaksa, who through the 18th Amendment provided for the President’s increased presence and participation in the business of parliament, also showed that had not lost the touch of parliamentary debate, the give and take and thrust of debate that he was used to as a member of parliament for many years, both in the opposition and government, as well as a minister, Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister.

He did have some important observations to make of the UNP, the largest party in the Opposition that has the Leader of the Opposition, too. The President was strongly critical of the UNP’s lackadaisical approach to the Budget and the debate on it, giving inner party politics more importance than the national budget, which lays down the broad economic and fiscal policies of the government for the coming year, as well as the trends of government policy for the years ahead. He correctly charged the UNP of abandoning its duty to study and criticize the Budget where it found such criticism necessary for improvement of government policy for the welfare of the people. Instead there had be occasions when it could not even have sufficient numbers of MPs from the party present in the House to carry on the debate, and make a proper analysis of the allocations under the various ministries. His charge was that in doing so the UNP had in fact failed the people.

It was the President’s view that that through its role on the Budget proposals the Opposition had shown that is in fact a Failed Opposition. He said the Opposition should in all humility ask themselves whether their role was that of bickering and squabbling over leadership or one of preparing for the next general election by developing an alternative policy for the welfare of the people, take to the people such policies that the Opposition believes would be of greater benefit to them and the country, and obtain public support for such alternate policies.

President Rajapaksa, who is also the leader of the SLFP and the UPFA told the UNP, that has apparently ended its leadership crisis, that it should now show a greater interest in its role as an opposition party in a democracy, and take a larger interest in formulating alternate policies for governance where that may be necessary, and be a good critic of government policy in the best interests of good governance and national and public welfare.

He showed his readiness to participate in such national debate on issues of policy, which is the role of a national leader in a democracy.

An important point made by the President in his summing up was that while it is necessary for the government to maintain the trust of majority in Parliament to pass the annual budget and keep government policy flowing smoothly, it was also necessary to have similar trust among the people in its policies.

The response to the Budget 2012 had clearly shown that the public was supportive of its provisions, and further demonstrated that the role of the Opposition was that if the Budget was not favourable to the people, to be genuinely critical of it to ensure its defeat in parliament and not to obstruct its presentation. The role of the Opposition since the Budget was presented clearly showed that it had no alternative to offer, and while preferring to be preoccupied with internal party conflicts, that they could not shake the trust the people had placed in the government and its budgetary policies.

He refuted the charge made that Budget 2012 was one that was based on neo-liberalism. Such thinking only came from those who were still having fond memories of the policy of “Regaining Sri Lanka” that had been clearly rejected by the people, he said.

In contrast to the massive propaganda and publicity that the former government received for some of its limited and ineffective policies in “Regaining Sri Lanka” such as the restoration of a thousand tanks, when only a few small tanks had in fact been restored, this government had, with little publicity, initiated and carried 32 major and minor irrigation projects in almost every district such as Veheragala, Deduru Oya, Iranamaduva, Yodha Veva, Veli Oya, and Moragahakanda. “It is my belief that if one truly serves the country and people, such work will be positively accepted by the people, even if they do not have any large government publicity,” the President said.

He recalled that those who now criticize this Budget as being neo-liberal had in fact been responsible for the harshest neo-liberal, policies in their budgets from 2002 to 2004.

The moves introduced to reduce the budget deficit at that time included reducing the public service by up to 300,000, removing the pension rights of public servants, privatizing the Insurance Corporation, Sevanagala and Pelawatte Sugar Projects, closing down the CWE, and making all arrangements to privatize various business units of the Petroleum Corporation, and to privatize the People’s Bank, the Railway, Transport Board, the Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department. These are real neo-liberal policies that had the approval of Washington, too, he said.

In marked contrast this Budget had given a wide range of benefits extending from the most economically weak sections of society going up to those engaged in self-employment and the small and medium business sectors, as well as encouraging infrastructure development, assisting the expansion of the rubber industry, giving increased support to the agricultural sector, offering good incentive for investment in important sectors such as tourism and housing, strengthening the financial services sector and also addressing the issue of graduate unemployment by increasing the intake of graduates to the public service. There was also considerable focus on the needs for reconstruction and resettlement in the conflict ravaged areas of the North and East, with encouragement of new livelihood opportunities.

Far from being neo-liberal, this was a budget that truly addressed the needs of the country with polices and provisions extending to all sections of the economy and beneficial results to every strata of society. This was the reason that this budget had won the approval of the people, and led to such a muted response from the Opposition, which apart from its own internal party differences had no serious grounds on which it could challenge these proposals, the President and Minister of Finance said.