Governor confronted by conundrum over March Central Bank salaries

By Rathindra Kuruwita

Governor of the Central Bank, Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe said that he agrees with the recommendations given by Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on the recent salary increments given to CB employees.

Dr. Weerasinghe said the CB has no issue with COPF recommendations but there is a slight problem with the COPF recommendation to immediately defer the payment of increased salaries.

“The salaries of CB employees for March have already been processed in the system and they are to be paid on Monday (25). If we are to go back to the earlier one, we will have to revise the system completely. This will take a bit of time. Its too short for us to do this. This is the first issue,” he said.

Dr. Weerasinghe said the second issue is that if the salaries are taken to previous levels, some take home salaries of CB staffers will be in the negative.

“They have taken loans, etc. We have to address this. We have to get their consent on how to address negative take home salaries. What we seek from you, while respecting what you have recommended, is guidance on implementing them,” he said.

Head of the COPF, SJB MP, Dr. Harsha de Silva said the two sides should work to find an amicable solution to the problem.

“I want to put your request to the committee whether to allow CB to go ahead with the March salaries. After March you can hold off payments until we arrive at an acceptable resolution,” he said.

COPF member, SLPP dissident MP Chandima Weerakkody said that the committee is not against CB officials getting a reasonable salary hike. Sajith demands immediate withdrawal of Age of Consent Penal Code amendment

Opposition and SJB leader Sajith Premadasa on Friday in Parliament called on government to withdraw immediately a proposed amendment to Sri Lanka’s Penal Code which will see a reduction in the age of consent (for sexual relations) from 16 years to 14 years of age.

Premadasa said the draft bill amending the Penal Code has proposed to lower the age of female consent to 14 and this move had been denounced by women and civil society organisations. Previously the age of consent was 16 and anyone engaging in sexual activities with a girl under 16 was considered to be statutory rape.

“With these amendments the age of consent of a girl has been reduced to 14. The age of the man who can be held accountable for such actions has been increased to 22 from 18,” he said.

He said that concerned individuals and civil society organisations had pointed out that child abuse is rife in Sri Lanka. “We do not know how this policy was formulated, and it ignores current realities in Sri Lanka on the high incidence of sexual abuse of minor children including girls, and the abysmal failures in law enforcement,” he said.

Meanwhile a statement signed by 150 individuals and 55 civil society organisations said: “This has created a culture of impunity and even legitimacy for child sexual abuse. The age threshold of 16 years for sexual consent by a minor, was accepted in the 1995 amendments because it conforms with an age at which a minor under 18 years acquires capacity for other acts such as release from parental custody, capacity to give consent to medical treatment, and now, to be legally employed.

“This age has been considered relevant in legal and medical scholarship. Age 16 years as an appropriate age for sex with consent has been recognised globally including in many countries in Africa and Asia.”

“It is reprehensible that this Bill is being presented as an amendment to the Penal Code at this time when the challenge is to strengthen enforcement of the existing law and protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

“The manner in which impunity for such abuse is being encouraged by lowering the age of consent of girls to 14 years, and then providing for suspended sentences for male perpetrators under 22, clearly points to a growing practice of ad hoc policy formulation according to agendas. What we need is coherent consistent law and policy reform that can address and impact usefully and resolve problems relating to violence against women and girls.”

The statement pointed out that this bill contradicts the national policy of protecting the human rights of women and girls through the much-publicized proposed Gender Empowerment Bill and the National Policy on Women.