The Hon. Amila Prasad

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, today we have the Bill to repeal the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986. When discussing this, I heard many low-level statements from the Government side that President J.R. Jayewardene brought that law to gain benefits for himself and his wife. In truth, in 1986, given the context then, some reasonable privileges for a President were being established. Those who always attacked the Constitution brought by J.R. are today grooming their own President; with two-thirds in Parliament, President Anura Kumara can abolish the Executive Presidency. If that is abolished, there is nothing more to remove piecemeal; no facilities, nothing. Bring a new Constitution. Instead of that, you periodically insult those who framed this Constitution and even a President who donated all his personal assets to the State, to score political points and please your voters. You say during your term you will crack down on drugs with maximum weight. But globally there are examples where even former Presidents have been killed by drug mafias. The issue is not who holds the office — Anura Kumara, me, a Rajapaksa, or Maithripala Sirisena — but that the office must be accorded necessary security and respect, even after retirement, because a President governed the country.

¶ 02 On “security,” what happened under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Government when Janaka Perera’s security was withdrawn? The LTTE assassinated that retired military officer. Therefore, former Presidents’ security and that of their families and dignity must be protected so long as the office exists. If you abolish it, no problem. But this time the people’s mandate you received is to remove these extra entitlements, and I have no quarrel with abolishing them. However, personally, I believe President Anura Kumara Dissanayake will realise the gravity of this after retirement, and perhaps you will revisit these matters later.

¶ 03 Even after your party leadership changes, we saw how you treated Rohana Wijeweera’s family, and after Sunilvansa Amarasinghe stepped down as leader, how you treated him. So we will see what happens to Anura Kumara later; by then Bimal Ratnayake or someone else will be leader. While in office there will be enough people ready to give facilities — we heard recently about “beautiful women” and all that; but the task is not to enjoy facilities; it is to deliver what you promised, then we can close this chapter.

¶ 04 Why should a former President get such facilities? Presidents are appointed under the Constitution. The three Presidents you appointed are the ones you say abused these facilities most; the responsibility is with you. In 1994, 2005, and 2015, those who helped your appointments now criticise. If you take the full package, you must take full responsibility. Yet I say the President’s privileges and the independence attached to that office must exist, because Presidents must make tough decisions under heavy pressures. For example, the current President — as you say — is confronting the underworld, land-grabbers, hotel mafias and the like; but that is while in office. After that, when it comes to Bimal or later to Anura, these “facilities” will vanish. After retirement he cannot expect support from the State or JVP. Ultimately, the President must face all these issues. Discipline! We came to teach us discipline? Fine.

¶ 05 Let me continue. Why panic when I mention Minister Bimal’s name or say someone is beautiful? She is more beautiful than you, so do not pretend otherwise. Find someone beautiful from your side to make President, too.

¶ 06 Why does a President and his family need facilities and security after retirement? Look at Nepal’s recent crisis. Nepal was peaceful; then the Supreme Court gave a judgment without government mediation, and a popular communist government fell; chaos ensued; even the Prime Minister’s wife died. The only “fault” — coming to power democratically. Such conspiratorial agitations do not stop just because someone came to power democratically. Thus, even in retirement, the State has a duty to protect the lives of Presidents and Prime Ministers. Denying a pension, creating envy towards widows, and stoking hatred is not the conduct of a moral State. The leader must take difficult decisions for the country; even after retirement he faces the consequences. Whether it is Anura Kumara or someone else, we must ensure his life is protected and he has the freedom to take tough decisions for the nation’s upliftment.

¶ 07 Regarding MPs’ pensions: the 1977 Government of N.M. Perera’s time together with Opposition Leader J.R. Jayewardene introduced MPs’ pensions to protect democracy — so that a defeated MP’s political life is not over, and he can serve in Opposition and return if the ruling party fails. It was not to live in luxury. For retired Presidents and their widows too, provide limited, regulated facilities, but do not weaponise this as populist politics. I agree with your people’s mandate on this Bill, but we oppose the internal ideology that could destabilise the country. Presidents must decide for the country without fearing future personal repercussions.

¶ 08 Thank you for the time.