{"id":86766,"date":"2019-03-26T17:09:53","date_gmt":"2019-03-27T00:09:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=86766"},"modified":"2019-04-07T05:05:24","modified_gmt":"2019-04-07T12:05:24","slug":"yahapalana-and-corruption-part-2a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2019\/03\/26\/yahapalana-and-corruption-part-2a\/","title":{"rendered":"YAHAPALANA AND CORRUPTION Part 2A."},"content":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA\u00a0 PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

REVISED 2.4.19<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay is a follow up of the matters\ndiscussed in the first essay. It is confined to happenings in 2017 and 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The head of the National Identity Card\ndivision was to be removed from office for opposing a racket, said Campaign for\nFree and Fair Elections (CaFFE). He had refused to award a tender illegally to\na company nominated by the Minister to take photos for the proposed electronic\nidentity cards.  Instead of the company\nwhich bid Rs 40 per photo the  Minister\nwanted  the tender given to a company\nthat bid Rs 80.  The company concerned\nwould collect  a whopping Rs 672 million\non this.  The minister wanted the commissioner\nGeneral NIC replaced with one of his lackeys.( Island 25.11.16 p 1<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VEHICLE\nIMPORTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Finance\nMinistry\u2019s attempt to grant special tax concessions for   selected few persons for the import of luxury\nvehicles has been thwarted, announced the media. The Finance Ministry ordered\nthe granting of tax relief for 26 persons who opened Letters of Credit  in their names on or before 26.05.2016, under\nthe Excise (Special Provisions) Act. This special tax relief seems to have been\ngiven to selected individuals and not to all who might fall into the same\ncategory of persons who may have opened LCs on or before 26.05.2016. These\norders were awaiting parliamentary approval. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sectoral\nOversight Committee on Public Accounts \nasked Parliament not to approve  the order. The country would be deprived tax\nrevenue of Rs. 104 million by granting these tax concessions, officials said.\nThe Committee decided to request the Minister of Finance to make known to\nParliament and to the country the background of each of these individuals,\nsince the list contains relatives such as father and son, also  several medical professionals . (Business Times on Sunday<\/em>\n14.5.17 p 1) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

NATIONAL PAYMENT\nPLATFORM <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many an eyebrow has been raised by a\ngovernment move to set up a hybrid company as part of the controversial\nNational Payment Platform (NPP) to facilitate \u2018single button transactions\u2019,\nsaid the media. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM)\nhad decided to recommend that the hybrid company be formed with the involvement\nof the Central Bank and the Information and Communication Technology Agency\n(ICTA). In 2015, Finance Minister Ravi\nKarunanayake allocated from the national budget as much as Rs. 25 billion for\nthe National Payment Platform.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The project however did not get off the\nground. There was opposition. This\nseems to be a  government move to bypass\nthe banking system in clearing retail payments, critics said. There was the\ndanger of a  private company gaining\naccess to all banking information, if  the NPP is allowed to be formed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Central Bank Governor Indrajit Coomaraswamy\nwrote to  the Prime Minister  on the matter, in 2018. He said, \u2018I would  like to emphasize that in most countries,\nthere exists only one organization for handling the  clearing of retail payments. For example,\nNational Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) is an umbrella organization for\nall retail payments in the country. It was set up with the guidance and support\nof the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Indian Banks Association (IBA). NPCI\ncurrently caters to a 1,324 billion population in India. It is not advisable to\nhave a  hybrid company [for Sri Lanka ]  with a population of only 21 million. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

LankaClear (LCPL) which is owned by the\nCentral Bank of Sri Lanka and all Licensed Commercial Banks (LCBs) operating in\nSri Lanka handles retail payment and settlement system in   Sri Lanka . Any new proposed payment platform\nwill need to fulfill the criteria of Principles of Financial Market\nInfrastructure (PFMI), user confidence, security, ease of use and integration\nwith other systems, etc. Further, failing to adhere to the PFMIs will curtail\nfinancial and technical assistance from various donor agencies to Sri Lanka and\nwill have an adverse impact on the stability of financial system, market\nconfidence, investor confidence, credit ratings of the country, etc. Considering all the above, CBSL is of the\nopinion that a new hybrid company is not required and any functions regarding\nretail payment and settlement systems can be carried out by the existing\nnational payment infrastructure provider, LankaClear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CENTRAL BANK DEPUTY GOVERNOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Financial sector\nmeddling was not confined to LankaClear. Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake had\nsuggested the appointment of an \u2018outsider\u2019 as Central Bank Deputy Governor,\nreported the media.  Traditionally it is\na senior bank officer based on seniority and experience. (Business times on Sunday\n5.2.17 p 1) <\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MONEY LAUNDERING<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake had in 2016\nasked for a \u2018no questions\nasked\u2019 policy for large scale remittances.  \u2018We will ask no questions in fact we\nwill provide measure to make the investor feel safer\u2019, he is quoted as saying.\nCentral Bank and commercial banks opposed this saying that it went against the\nanti money laundering policy of the banks. Ravi had asked whether they could at\nleast relax stringent control on foreign deposits or remittance below USD one\nmillion and maintain the usual checks for anything above.  Banks said they had to follow the local and\ninternational laws on the matter.  There\nare stringent rules on this. (Sunday Times 17.1.16 p 1 )<\/em> \n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CUSTOMS, INLAND REVENUE, EXCISE\nDEPARTMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Customs, Inland Revenue\nand Excise departments were subject to further interference. The Inland Revenue\ndepartment  complained that revenue\ncollection was going to be handed over to a private company. Excise unions  complained that the power of the Excise\ndepartment were whittled away by creating a special unit to do the work of the\ndepartment. Employees of\nCustoms and Inland Revenue departments protested against the deployment of\nofficials of the Finance Ministry units to supervise their duties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ENERGY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, the\nAnti Corruption Front (ACF) stated\nthat the energy situation  had\ndeteriorated since  Yahapalana took over.\nThose at the helm of the power sector w were taking decisions severely inimical to the national economy.\nThe ACF  called for reappraisal of the\nentire power generation plan to prevent an influential few from making a\nkilling at the expense of the national economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACF cited the\nexample of purchasing of coal from Swiss Singapore\nOverseas Enterprises  at nearly USD 10\nper tonne more than the market price as an example. “Each shipment cost\nSri Lanka nearly Rs 100 mn more than the current market price,”\n.”Corruption in the lucrative power sector is second only to the Central\nBank bond scam. The country is paying a very heavy price for corruption,” said ACF. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACF pointed\nout that the Yahapalana\ngovernment  was paving the way for\ngradual re-launch of diesel power generation facilities at a tremendous cost to\nthe country. ACF charged that\nthe Power and Renewable Energy Ministry was favoring costly diesel power\ngeneration and that four\ntop officials who had been directly involved in the  Yahapalana regime change of 2015, 2015\nwere responsible for ruining the power sector today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 ACF  urged\nYahapalana government to immediately review a series of\ninvestment proposals to establish liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. There \nwere several energy proposals made to Yahapalana which Yahapalana was\nignoring. A Hong Kong investor had proposed the setting up\nof LNG power plants for Katunayake and Biyagama Export processing Zones (EPZs)\nas well as LNG intake facility at Kerawalapitiya. The proposal worth USD 325 mn\nmade in Nov 2016 had been pending subject to necessary approvals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other offers had also come in. In 2016, BOI\nreceived two other project proposals from Indian and Chinese investors. The\nIndian investment worth USD 400 mn was to establish LNG intake and processing\nfacility at Kerawalapitiya and the Chinese investment amounting to USD 728.8\nwas for Hambantota. Cabinet approval\nas well as Petroleum Resources Development ministry approval were required the\nIndian project whereas the Chinese project awaited releasing of land in\nHambantota. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also\nthe CEB\u2019s controversial move to build a combined\ncycle power plant at Kerawalapitiya with the intention of transforming it to\nLNG facility in three years at a colossal cost. This should be examined against\nthe backdrop of long overdue approval for foreign investments in the same\nsector. CEB\nwas planning to invest nearly Rs 7 bn on the project at a time the government\nwas struggling to meet its overseas loan commitments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was\ncorruption in the energy sector long before Yahapalana came in , ACF said. A\nCanadian project had been held up since 2005 pending CEB approval. The previous\ngovernment hadn\u2019t been able to secure an investment amounting to US 750 mn from\nHong Kong for the establishment of 600 MW LNG plant and LNG intake terminal in\nJune 2008 for want of CEB\u2019s approval. A proposal made in Sept 2011 in respect\nof an American investment amounting to US 1000 mn couldn\u2019t get off the ground\nfor want of CEB approval. The US investment had been the largest of the five\nprojects and was intended to establish LNG storage and regasification plant as\nwell as 500 MW power plant at Hambantota.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 COAL TENDERS 1.NOBLE RESOURCES <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A tender \nwas called for the supply of 6.75 million tonnes of coal over a period\nof three years to the Norochcholai power plant, a contract worth well over Rs.\n60 billion. The Technical Evaluation Committee had originally recommended to\nthe Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee that Messrs Noble\nResources, Singapore was the lowest bidder. Thereafter the Standing Cabinet\nAppointed Procurements Committee (SCAPC) had received a letter dated 29 June\n2015 from Swiss Singapore Ltd. On the same day the SCAPC had directed the\nTechnical Evaluation Committee to re-evaluate the bids ignoring two of the\ncriteria. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tender   \nwas thereafter awarded to Messrs Swiss Singapore Ltd, by Cabinet\noverriding a ruling by the Procurements Appeal Board to cancel the tender and\ncall for fresh bids,  after considering\nan appeal made by Nobel Resources who charged that the tender criteria had been\naltered after the bids had been opened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nobel Resources  then petitioned the Supreme Court stating\namong other things that Cabinet had not been informed of the material facts of\nthe case and therefore  Cabinet was\nunable to make an informed decision about this tender. This was perhaps the\ncourt case of the year with the list of counsel appearing for the Petitioner\nand the Respondents reading like a Who\u2019s Who of the legal elite in this\ncountry. (Noble Resources International Pte Limited vs Minister of Power and\nRenewable Energy (SC FR No. 394\/2015) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a landmark case because the Supreme\nCourt heard it as a matter of national interest. Chief Justice K. Sripavan\nstated that the court had decided to go into the merits of the case as some of\nthe events that took place in the award of this tender \u2018shocks the conscience\nof the Court\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SC observed in delivering their judgment\nthat the Court had granted leave to proceed in this case even though the\nAdditional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the government raised the\nissue that the Petitioner did not have locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction\nof the Court because the Petitioner is a Company registered in Singapore which\nhas petitioned the SC without a local representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SC observed that \u2018it is essential to the\nmaintenance of the rule of law that every organ of the State must act within\nthe limits of its power\u2019 and that \u2018the Court cannot close its eyes and allow\nthe actions of the State or the Public Authority go unchecked in its\noperations\u2019. And further that \u2018If the Petitioner with a good case is turned\naway, merely because he …. has no locus standi to maintain this application,\nthat means that some government agency is left free to violate the law and this\nis not only contrary to the public interest but also violates the Rule of Law\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having considered the facts of the case the Supreme\nCourt  observed that the Government\nProcurement Guidelines required that bids have to be \u2018evaluated strictly\naccording to the criteria and methodology specified in the bidding documents\u2019. The\nlower granular size limit was among the two criteria removed from the bidding\ndocuments so that more powdery coal would be accepted. Messrs Swiss Singapore\nLtd was thereupon awarded the tender by the SCAPC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court observed that \u2018no one,\nneither the State nor the SCAPC shall act contrary to the bid documents and the\nGovernment Procurement Guidelines\u2019 and that \u2018it is of utmost importance that\nall the necessary safeguards laid down therein should be complied with fully\nand strictly and any departure from them make the evaluation process void\u2019 and\nthat \u2018if the SCAPC exceeds its authority, the purported exercise of power may\nbe pronounced invalid\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court stated that the Standing\nCabinet Appointed Procurements Committee should have rejected the bid of Swiss\nSingapore Ltd for influencing the tender procedure. The Supreme Court determination reproduced,\nin full, a letter written by Maithri Gunaratne the Chairman of Lanka Coal\nCompany (which procures coal for the Norochcholai plant) to the Secretary of\nthe Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy expressing shock that the SCAPC has\ndisregarded the clause in the company\u2019s bid document which strictly prohibits\nbidders from contacting anybody involved in the award of the tender from the\ntime of the opening of bids to the time the contract is awarded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SC stated that the decision made by the\nSCAPC was outside its jurisdiction and therefore null and void in this judgment.\nThe highest court in the land had struck at the very citadel of executive power\nby stating that the decision taken by the Cabinet of Ministers on 22 September\n2015 to award the contract to Messrs Swiss Singapore Ltd could not be\nconsidered a valid decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SC stated further that the power of the\nState was conferred on the members of the SCAPC and the Procurement Appeals\nBoard to be held in trust for the benefit of the public. The Supreme Court\nbeing the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights cannot refuse to\nentertain an application seeking protection against the infringement of such\nrights. The Court must regard it as its solemn duty to protect the fundamental\nrights jealously and vigilantly. It has an important role to play not only\npreventing or remedying the wrong or illegal exercise of power by the\nauthorities but has a duty to protect the nation in directing it (the\nexecutive) to act within the framework of the law and the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Chairman of Lanka Coal Company LCC Maithri\nGunaratne  had flayed the  Special Cabinet Appointed Procurement\nCommittee (SCAPC) and  Secretary Batagoda\nfor awarding a coal tender to Swiss Singapore, which is said to have caused a\nloss of over four billion rupees to Sri Lanka on an earlier occasion. Gunaratne said the LCC should have\nsought a clarification from the Supreme Court but the Ministry instead sought\nan opinion from the Attorney General, who recommended that the Cabinet take\nwhatever decision and went ahead with the deal, Gunaratne alleged.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 A week\nlater, Power and Renewable Energy Minister Ranjith Siyambalapitiya    removed Maithri Gunaratne from the post of\nChairman Lanka Coal Company (LCC), reported the media. Gunaratne\nhad been targeted for speaking out against those involved in mega corruption\nsaid CaFFe. In March 2017, Joint Opposition lodged a complaint with CIABOC and\nthe Criminal Investigations Department (CID) against Ranil Wickremasinghe,\nMalik Samarawickrema, R. Paskaralingam and Charitha Ratwatte over the Swiss\nSingapore coal deal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

COAL TENDERS  2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Secretary to Ministry of power\nand renewable energy, Dr R.M.S.Batagoda \nwrote  a strong letter to the CEB\nchairman  in 2016 on a number of\nirregularities in the CEB. The coal tender for Lakvijaya coal power plant has\nbeen riddled with irregularities and this has led to losses to CEB. The tenders\nare handled by the Lanka Coal Company which lacks the competence to do this.\nThis tender should be handled directly by the CEB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nLCC was soundly criticized. The LCC seems unable to get the suppliers to stick to regulations\nset out in the signed agreement or do the payments in a lawful manner. In\nseveral instances the tender documents has been altered to suit the supplier\nafter the tender had been awarded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Further, Nobel resources contracted to supply\n1.9 million metric tons in 2015 had only supplied 1.6 million. The loss to Sri\nLanka is estimated at 12,500 million. However\nLCC had defended the supplier saying they could not supply the balance due to\nthe monsoons. The supplier should not  be\nable to get away with such a flimsy excuse. \nThe matter should have come before a bigger committee. CEB had to bear the loss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Batagoda also drew attention to\nLiberty Commodities.  Liberty \nwas awarded  a tender to supply 165 metric tons of\ncoal  in May 2015, by a cabinet appointed\nprocurement committee. The sulphur and ash content of coal  had been altered to Liberty\u2019s benefit after\nthe tender had been awarded to it.  This\nis illegal.  It is also a financial\ncrime. But CEB kept quiet and paid huge sums of money to the tenderer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Liberty was awarded the tender again in  September 2015 and the price was altered by\nthe LCC. The contract signed by the LCC was not the one approved by the Tender\nboard but what LCC had passed off as an amendment to a previous tender. That is\nanother illegal act. In January 2016 LCC  again altered the tender  document to benefit Liberty and caused losses\nto the CEB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next tender  was awarded to Adani Global. The  supplier failed to supply 113 metric tons of\nthe contracted 260 metric tons causing heavy losses to CEB.  5 out of 6 tenders awarded by the LCC last\nyear had been full of controversy Batagoda concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Batagoda\nfound fault with the  LCC Board of\ndirectors for not taking remedial measures and tangible action to avert\nlosses.  Batagoda asked whether the LCC\nwas needed at all. According to the Attorney General\u2019s report  the LCC wasn\u2019t essential for the purchase of\ncoal.\nLCC\u2019s\nfuture should be examined against the backdrop of its failure to take remedial\nmeasures as recommended by the AG.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SRI LANKA \u2013 SINGAPORE FREE TRADE\nAGREEMENT<\/strong> (Business Times on Sunday 20.1.19)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sri Lanka\n\u2013 Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA) has run into troubled waters\nfollowing the startling revelations made by the 5-member Presidential Committee\nof Experts (CoE)) in their 280-page report. President Maithripala Sirisena has\ncalled for the suspension of the agreement pending its revision or abolition,\nas protests by professional associations, public interest groups and\nstakeholders of international trade over the SLSFTA grows to a boiling point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nPresident\u2019s directive comes at a time when the SLSFTA\u2019s validity under the\nConstitution is being challenged at the Supreme Court by eight petitioners\nclaiming that several professionals including doctors, engineers and lawyers\nwould be affected due to this pact. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, the\ncabinet of ministers and the Attorney General have been cited as respondents in\nthe case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After these\nmounting pressures exerted from all fronts especially from the Presidential\nlevel, a team of international trade experts is now scrutinising the\nobservations and recommendations contained in the CoE report,. The ministry\nwill submit counter submissions relating to adverse observations contained in\nthe report .however  they are not aware\nof any directive of the President calling for the suspension of the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CoE was\nof the view that the entire negotiation process was carried out without any\nfeasibility and cost-benefit studies from Sri Lanka\u2019s point of view. It\nobserved that some serious lapses were allowed to occur,  deliberately or inadvertently to expedite\nmatters in the process of signing the SLSFTA by Minister Malik\nSamarawickrema.The Minister had indeed acted without attending to the\nconditions laid down by the Cabinet of Ministers in its conditional approval\ngranted to him, the report said. These lapses relate to non-compliance with matters\nwhich the Cabinet had clearly indicated had to be fulfilled before signing,said\nCoE ,while making several other startling revelations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LAYARDS ROAD DEVELOPMENT<\/strong> (Sunday Times 4.3.18)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Megapolis\nMinister has issued a gazette notification, permitting mixed development on the\neastern side of Layards Road in Colombo 5, including a section which is at the\ncentre of a legal dispute between a condominium builder and several residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed\n\u2018Blue Ocean Layards Road\u2019 is advertised online by the developer as a luxury\napartment complex of 14 storeys. But in June 2017, eleven residents of Layards\nRoad filed a petition seeking to quash any preliminary planning clearance\nissued to Blue Ocean Breeze (Pvt) Ltd or D D Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd by the Urban\nDevelopment Authority (UDA) or the Colombo Municipality to erect a building of\nmore than five floors<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.The basis of\nthe legal challenge was that the plot on which Blue Ocean was putting up the\nhighrise is a \u2018Special Primary Residential Zone\u2019 under the 2008 City of Colombo\nDevelopment Plan (Amendment). The number of storeys allowed within such an area\nis five or ground plus four floors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January\nthis year, the residents once again petitioned the Court of Appeal for an\ninterim order to prevent the developers from starting construction after\nlearning that work was to begin soon. They sought a writ of prohibition to\nprevent the UDA or the municipality from issuing a fresh preliminary planning\nclearance or building permit for a construction exceeding five floors. They\nalso want a writ of mandamus compelling the UDA or the municipality to demolish\nan unauthorised construction\u201d should the developers proceed with the project,\nespecially if it exceeds five floors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in a\ngazette dated January 18, 2018, Minister Champika Ranawaka (who also holds the\nportfolio of Western Development) has designated the front lots along the\neastern side of Layards Road to be a \u2018Mixed Development Zone\u2019. This allows for\nthe construction of offices, apartments, entertainment facilities and shops.\nThe Minister\u2019s signature on the gazette is dated July 14, 2017, not long after\nthe residents took the matter to court.The gazette gives effect to a revision\nof the City of Colombo Development Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The Urban Development Authority Law empowers\nthe Minister to carry out periodic changes. The amendment now allows Blue Ocean\nto proceed with its project.The UDA rejected any suggestion that the amendment\nwas introduced to favour a particular developer. But Chairman admitted that\nBlue Ocean made a request to implement the project in the Special Primary\nResidential Zone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ndeveloper pointed out that one side [western] of Layards Road is designated a\nMixed Development Zone while the other side [eastern] is a Special Primary\nResidential Zone,\u201d  he said. The street\nis the boundary between the two and separate regulations apply to each side.\nHowever, the land value on both road-fronts is the same.\u201d The decision was not\nin favour of anyone,\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UDA\nfollowed a procedure. The Act clearly prescribes how any changes to the Plan\nmust be carried out. There may be certain development needs arising from time\nto time. These are referred to the Planning Committee appointed by the Minister\nand they make the decisions.\u201d The Committee, on policy grounds, ruled\nfavourably on the developer\u2019s request, adding that the change applies to all\nthe lots facing Layards Road. This means other companies can now erect\nbuildings on either side of the street.The Committee\u2019s outcome was referred to\nthe Minister for validation through a gazette. The date of his signature was\nonly a coincidence\u201d,. And the gazette was only issued in January because it\nhad been lying in files\u201d at the UDA (Continued)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA\u00a0 PIERIS REVISED 2.4.19 This essay is a follow up of the matters discussed in the first essay. It is confined to happenings in 2017 and 2018. NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD The head of the National Identity Card division was to be removed from office for opposing a racket, said Campaign for Free and Fair Elections […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[118,104,106],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corruption-and-bribery","category-kamalika-pieris","category-106"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86766","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86766\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}