The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, on 1st January, the Hon. President addressed the nation about the Clean Sri Lanka programme. We were pleased that he was moving towards a much-needed national objective. Afterwards, there was much debate about the programme’s aims. What is Clean Sri Lanka, and what objective is it expected to achieve? Yesterday, when this debate commenced, the senior MP Mano Ganesan asked the Hon. Prime Minister to clarify what this programme is. She said, “Do not teach me how to debate; give me time and I will explain later.” We waited, but the objectives were not clarified.

¶ 02 Please read the Gazette Extraordinary issued by the President on 19 December 2024 establishing the Clean Sri Lanka Task Force. The most valuable legal document describing its objectives is that Gazette. At present, that is the only document with legal force regarding this programme. Many on both sides of the House claimed this programme goes beyond environmental cleanliness to eliminating bribery and corruption, ensuring efficiency in the public service, and setting out a comprehensive plan to take the country forward. However, nowhere in the Gazette is there mention of eradicating bribery and corruption or upholding the rule of law. The Attorney-General is not a member of the Task Force. Nor is the Director-General or a representative of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption. Where the objectives are described, the focus is on the environment.

¶ 03 We need not stretch this beyond its scope. The environmental issue is very important and sufficient for a Government to proceed. But none of us here should misunderstand that this Task Force was established to eradicate corruption in the State apparatus, to prevent crimes by the private sector in collusion with the State sector, or to ensure efficiency in State institutions. If such aims exist, please show where the Gazette states: “Eradication of bribery and corruption is included here; upholding the rule of law is included here.”

¶ 04 Tasks have been assigned by the Gazette. The first is to complete the programme within a stipulated timeframe. But to date, the Task Force has not set such a timeline with steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and their completion dates. A Government MP said in this House that the timeframe is five years—the full term of the Government. We want to know if that is true. There is no such timeline.

¶ 05 The second objective speaks of creating an organizational structure. Such a structure has not yet been established in the country. If one is to be created, it must be given legal authority to issue directions, implement orders, and conduct supervision. No such structure or Gazette has been presented to Parliament.

¶ 06 The third objective is to engage experts, professionals and institutional representatives. To date, there is no publication listing such groups, individuals, and subject areas. I checked the website even at the last moment. Still nothing.

¶ 07 Financing is also important. As the fifth objective, funding is mentioned. It was stated that Rs. 90 million has initially been received, and that funds are expected from the private sector. Hon. Deputy Chairperson, Government Financial Regulations apply. The country’s laws apply. Therefore, a special institutional procedure must be established—set up an institution and a fund—before collecting monies. Otherwise there is no legal basis to collect funds. If monies have already been collected for such a fund, that is illegal and procedurally wrong, and will be a major obstacle.

¶ 08 It is also stated that programmes will be identified and aligned. Regrettably, for a flagship programme said to be in effect from 1 January 2025, there has been no progress in identifying programmes and aligning them with Clean Sri Lanka. Therefore, Clean Sri Lanka reduced itself to a narrow aim of removing parts from buses and three-wheelers. That should not have happened. We know that is not the Government’s aim. There is no programme prepared; no plan printed and distributed to State officers; no awareness given to State officers or Police. Thus, a major problem arose at the outset.

¶ 09 On digitalization for implementation and monitoring: yes, digitalization can help monitor a large programme, but a platform for monitoring has not been created so far. That is regrettable. We are not against the programme. It is good. Please at least achieve the objectives in the Gazette. Do not claim things that are not there. Speak only to what exists and implement what is stated. As the Opposition, we are ready to support. Please do what you say, and say what you do. Thank you.