TV Derana Switches Footage To Whitewash Sri Lanka’s Defence Attaché In London

author: COLOMBO TELEGRAPH-February 8, 2018

The television station Derana has used footage related to a demonstration against Sri Lanka over the treatment of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy to gloss over the recent incident at the same place where Brigadier Priyanka Fernando, attached to the mission made a throat-cutting gesture.

The television station showed footage of Fernando engaging with protestors over the issue of Tamil Nadu fishermen, but Derana made out that it was in fact footage related to the controversial gesture.

‘It is “nice” if the Foreign Ministry bases its decisions on videos and comments on Facebook. Since you have not seen the first part of that exchange, we will show it to you,” the presenter said.

Thereafter the station proceeded to show footage of an exchange between the same officer, but a different set of protestors. The station clearly failed to see or deliberately ignored the difference in Fernando’s attire and the obvious difference in weather conditions evidenced in the footage.

The incident which sparked outrage and precipitated an investigation by the London Metropolitan Police following complaints had the Brigadier using a ‘slitting-the-throat’ gesture. He was responding to protestors demonstrating over alleged human rights violations by the Sri Lankan security forces.

Outraged protestors complained to the Police over what they considered a threatening gesture. It also prompted the British High Commissioner in Colombo James Dauris to lodge a strong official protest with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The incident also saw Paul Scully, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, writing to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs urging him to take immediate action and withdraw Brigadier Fernando’s diplomatic papers and expel him from the United Kingdom.

Read More

Whither independence without its spirit

Independence Day celebrations last Sunday: The freedom struggle continues

2018-02-09

Freedom: What a great idea it is! As we celebrated this Sunday Sri Lanka’s 70th freedom day, it is relevant to ask how free we are and what freedom meant to us then and today. 

Seventy years ago, when the Union Jack was brought down and the magnificent Lion flag was hoisted at Independence Square, the spirit of freedom came alive in the country’s collective psyche. However, between then and now, the spirit of freedom was lost and we remain a bonded nation once again – bonded to ethnic politics, casteism, religious bigotry and, of course, greed that makes us selfish, corrupt and, some of our politicians, corrupt to the core. 

Freedom is defined in a spiritual sense also and it is a matter for the ascetics and the spiritually enlightened to elucidate what freedom is about in a spiritual sense. Yet, a modicum of spiritual freedom could have done marvels for this country. It could have freed us from racist politics and spared us of the 30-year agony of a separatist war and many ethnic riots. If only we had defined freedom from a moralistic perspective also, we would not have fallen into the hell hole of corruption that has retarded our progress. 

However, in this post-independence gloomy picture, a few bright spots also could be seen. Certainly, Sri Lanka’s activism during the early post-independence days in the global arena was such one bright spot reflective of its quest for international recognition as an independent state. We did work hard to make our presence felt in the international arena to show we were independent in the face of scorn heaped on us by the Soviet Union. In the core of the Soviet scorn was the fact that the Queen of England was still our sovereign and that we have signed a defence pact with Britain.  It took some seven years for us to gain membership in the United Nations following a quid-pro-quo deal between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the best display of our spirit of independence was seen in our commitment to Afro-Asian solidarity and our support for freedom struggles wherever they existed. 

It could have freed us from racist politics and spared us of the 30-year agony of a separatist war and many ethnic riots

Sri Lanka, together with like-minded states such as India, Indonesia, Egypt, and also China, was part of a global movement that tried to set up a just international order.  The newly independent nations were so united that they helped one another in achieving social and economic progress. They displayed determination and dedication, honesty and hard work, to create a world free of colonialism in all its forms. They were so firm in their resolve that they called for the redrafting of the UN Charter and international treaties, pointing out that they were not parties to these agreements when they were adopted.  

At the deliberations for a new treaty on the Law of the Sea and talks at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the newly independent states had their say and sometimes, their way. For instance, when the Law of the Sea Convention was being deliberated, the United States held the view that any nation should be able to exploit the resources of the international seabed. Sensing that such a proposal would give an unfair advantage to technologically advanced nations, the newly independent nations proposed the setting up of the International Seabed Authority, which will be the custodian of the international seabed and its resources for the benefit of all nations. Sri Lanka led by Shirley Amerasinghe, one of its all-time best diplomats, played a pivotal role in the drafting of the Convention, which has been ratified by all maritime states with the solitary exception of the United States.

At UNCTAD talks, Sri Lanka led by its world renowned economist Gamani Corea, who went on to become the Secretary General of the UNCTAD, succeeded in establishing global mechanisms to ensure fair prices in the world market for the commodities of the newly independent states, though such safeguards were eventually to disappear in view of trade liberalization efforts in accordance with the provisions of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) first and later the World Trade Organisation. 

But seventy years on, freedom from servility from an economic point of view still remains elusive

Moreover, little Sri Lanka played a peacemaker role in the conflict in Congo, the Suez war, the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Sino-India war.

All this was long before the spirit of our independence lost its sheen.

Coinciding with the hyper activism of the newly independent states, was the development of a body of economics theories that condemned the skewed world order which allowed developed nations – or the old colonial states -- to continuously exploit the new sates.

Significant among them was the dependence theory expounded by Andre Gunder Frank, a German intellectual who was ostracised by the capitalist world. His was a theory, which alerted the developing nations to the reality that they were still under the yoke of colonialism or neo-colonialism though they had gained independence.

In his book ‘The development of underdevelopment’, Frank rejected the idea that underdevelopment stems from an individual country’s isolation from the larger world and due to the influence of more traditional societies. On the contrary, he said underdevelopment resulted from the unequal distribution of resources and exploitation of the less developed and emerging countries by the more developed countries through the so-called “metropolis-satellite relations” theory or the core-periphery relations theory. At the global level, the periphery constitutes the exploited while the core represents the exploiter. He tried to change the system where the periphery at its own expense enriches the core. 

Though Frank’s theory has been debunked by the ultra-liberals and conceited capitalists, who mistakenly think they have won the ideological battle with the socialists, it became a rallying cry for the developing nations to resist the exploitation of their resources by rich nations. Many independent nations from the 1950s to 1970s adopted economic protectionism and launched ambitious drives to make their countries self-sufficient in their bid to achieve economic freedom.

But seventy years on, freedom from servility from an economic point of view still remains elusive. We are more and more dependent on aid and loans from developed countries and international financial agencies. The increasing debt burden and the dependence on more debt to repay debts and undertake development work have made developing nations once again dependent nations. In most cases, what is at stake is a country’s sovereignty itself. Aid- or loan-dependent nations have little freedom to take independent decisions at the United Nations or other international forums.  

For a few million dollars, the developing nations are compelled to sacrifice the spirit of independence with which they, from the 1950s to late 1970s, gelled themselves together in Afro-Asian camaraderie and later under the banner of non-alignment.  These countries which were once under the yoke of colonialism have diluted their commitment to freedom struggles, especially with regard to the Palestinian crisis. 

To be called ourselves independent, we need to achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear. We need to give a moral interpretation to freedom and independence to free ourselves from the clutches of corruption. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has seen several false dawns: The last one being the end of war in 2009. 

The Significance of the 25% Quota for Women in Local Government

Photograph courtesy IPS

CHULANI KODIKARA AND KUMUDINI SAMUEL-02/07/2018

Context

The next round of elections to local government in Sri Lanka is scheduled for February 10, 2018. The election is significant for many reasons. It is being held after several postponements; it is the first elections to be held by the National Unity government since it’s election to power in August 2015; it is the first elections to be held under the new hybrid electoral system introduced at local government level in 2012 as amended in 2017. It is also significant for another reason. It is the first election to be held which puts into operation a mandatory 25% quota for women in local government. While much can be written and said about the history and politics of electoral reform at local level in Sri Lanka and the upcoming elections, here we confine ourselves to the quota for women.

Brief History

Local government has a long history in Sri Lanka going back to 1946. This system was given a new lease of life with the introduction of a three tier system of local government comprising Pradeshiya Sabhas, Urban Councils and Municipal Councils in 1977. The electoral system to local government also shifted from a ward based simple majority system of elections to elections based on proportional representation and a list system in 1977 (first implemented in 1989). A hybrid system of elections, which combined first past the post (Ward) and proportional representation (PR) was introduced in 2012, in an effort to redress the anomalies of proportional representation (PR) and re-introduce the positive elements of ward based elections abandoned in 1989. A further amendment of the local Authorities Elections Act in 2017 (The Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 2017) now ensures that local councilors are elected according to a proportional representation system where 60% of members represent single member or multi member wards and 40%  are returned from a list called the ‘additional persons’ list without a ward based constituency. The total number of members in local government has been increased from 4486  to around 8356 members. In terms of Section 27F of the Amendment, 25% of the total number of members in each local authority shall be women members.

The Mixed Member Proportionate Electoral System and a Quota for Women

Under this new system, each political party submits two nomination papers – the first nominations paper comprises members who are assigned a ward within each local authority area (LAA). At least 10% of the members assigned a ward have to be women. The second paper is the additional persons list and 50% of those in this list have to be women. It should however be noted that each voter only casts one vote for a political party candidate or independent group candidate of their choice at the ward level. At the conclusion of the elections, all votes  obtained by a political party or independent group in the local authority area comprising several wards are aggregated to determine the total number of members from both the wards and the additional persons list that each party is entitled to. This is done by the Elections Commissioner, once election results are finalized.

In order to do so, the Commissioner must first determine the number of votes required for entitlement of a member.  This is computed by dividing the total number of votes received by all parties and independent groups by the prescribed number of members of each local authority (this number is gazetted). The total number of votes received by each political party/independent group is then divided by the number of votes required for entitlement of a member to ascertain the number of members elected by each party.


Source: Gayani Prematileke, Legal Officer, Ministry of Local Government.

In case a party has secured less wards than the number of members they are entitled to, those number of members (shortfalls) are selected from the candidates of the first nomination paper who contested and lost their seats or from the additional persons list.

Each political party’s obligation towards the 25% quota for women is determined after these computations are completed by the Commissioner of Elections, taking into account how many women were elected to a local authority at the ward level. Once this number is known, the Commissioner will decide how many women have to be put forward from the additional persons list of each political party or independent group to ensure 25% of women within each local council.
If the number of members elected from a political party results in an ‘overhang’ and thereby exceeds the number ascertained to be elected as members and such number of members do not include any women members, then the 25% women’s representation is secured through the PR seats of other political parties. Similarly, if a political party or independent group has received less than 20% of votes in a local authority area and is entitled to less than 3 members, they are also exempt from appointing women from the additional persons list.

Source: Gayani Prematilleke, Legal Officer, Ministry of Local Government.

As a result, the obligation of fulfilling women’s representations within local authorities in terms of this new quota may fall on the parties receiving the next highest number of votes rather than the party winning the majority of votes.

The significance of this quota

This quota is the result of a long struggle waged by women’s activists, organisations and the National Committee on Women (NCW) going back almost 20 years, to address the under-representation of women in politics in general and in local government in particular. Women’s representation in local government in Sri Lanka has historically been extremely low and has never exceeded 2% due to the dominance of a patriarchal culture within political parties and the extremely low nominations for women at elections. For instance, nominations for women by the major alliances/parties in the past has generally tended to be somewhere between 4% to 10%.

The formal or official consultations to shift from the PR system to a mixed system which began in the early 2000s and went on for over a decade, was mainly centered on balancing the needs and interests of larger established political parties and how to safeguard the status quo, particularly in terms of protecting the historical patterns of representation, voter base and voting patterns and more equitable representation for minority parties. Incredibly, this process completely ignored the needs of other historically marginalized groups or constituencies, in particular youth and women from representative politics, and the consistent demand for redressing the marginalisation and discrimination experienced by women through all the various electoral reforms. In fact, the 2012 law, which put into place the hybrid system completely did away with the 40% mandatory quota for youth candidates between the ages of 18 and 35 and instead introduced a 25% discretionary quota for women and youth, which political parties could have ignored without any consequences.

The new electoral system offers us an opportunity to democratize politics starting at the local level by paving the way for closer engagement between the people and their representatives at the ward level. Moreover, the women’s mandatory quota offers a historic opportunity to bring women in to the public domain of representative politics, increase women’s participation in politics, change public perceptions about women’s ability to do politics and break with the now entrenched political culture of big spending in politics, patronage, corruption and violence.

The importance of this quota and the 25% representation that it ensures for women cannot therefore be overemphasized. Yet there are still some troubling aspects in its formulation and its operation. While the quota will significantly increase the number of women in local authorities, it does not materially challenge the status quo of male incumbency. While the bulk of seats (60%) are contested at the ward level, only 10% of these seats or wards are available to women. Winning a ward is an assurance of a seat and the smaller constituency of the ward allows for easier and cheaper campaigning and familiarity with a vote base. The majority of women will be appointed from the list, and will not therefore have their own constituency and will also be robbed of the opportunity of building up a constituency and relationships with voters. They will be perceived as not being accountable to anyone and may not be taken seriously which will hinder their efficient and equal participation within local authorities.

The onus of naming women to contest wards, the selection of wards that women are given nominations for and the inclusion of women’s names in the PR list is held by the party, in particular party organisers at local and district level, the vast majority of who are male. This system remains unchallenged and women will be dependent on those who wield political power within their parties for nominations and appointments from the PR list following the elections.

While all those contesting wards can win their seats if their party polls the majority of votes, those appointed from the additional persons list have no certainty of the basis on which they can secure a seat. They are also required to campaign beyond the confines of a ward in the entire Local Authority area and will bring in the bulk of the votes to a party.  Therefore women will be required to do more campaigning but will have no assurance of a seat.  Continuing misogyny within political parties has also meant that men perceive women as interlopers and the 25% an undue advantage, which has resulted in women on the campaign trail receiving threats and being intimidated by fellow male candidates competing for seats on the PR list. Furthermore, as explained above, ultimately the responsibility of ensuring the 25% quota for women does not fall on all parties equally, The implications of these varied dynamics, for the potential of this quota to transform gender relations in local politics therefore remains to be seen.

The Brigadier Intervention

By Chamindra Weerawardhana –February 8, 2018

The conduct of [now suspended] Brigadier Priyanka Fernando, Defence Attaché of the High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to the United Kingdom has already made viral headlines not only in the UK and Sri Lanka, but also across the world. The Brigadier’s‘throat-slitting’ intervention, intended at Tamil nationalist/secessionist protesters who were protesting on the National Day of Sri Lanka, has resulted in many a debate on social media and beyond. While what happened was unfortunate, this incident sheds light upon crucial issues of relevance to post-war Sri Lanka, which are equally important to the worldwide Sri Lankan community. This article is intended at making sense, albeit parsimoniously, of the Brigadier’s intervention and the wider issues it sheds light upon.

Context and Pretext

This incident took place in London, once the capital of the British Empire, a monstrous structure built on murder, destruction, confiscation of land, waterways and bodies. The imperial project was one of creating division where there was none, aggravating division where there was some, and in ensuring a regular flow of profit and plenty to the coloniser’s hands. This historical backdrop needs to be constantly kept in mind when reflecting upon what happened at the doorstep of Sri Lanka House, formerly 
Ceylon House, at Hyde Park Gardens on National Day 2018. In the present-day context, the stealth of the imperial prowess continues to be felt in many places across the ex-Empire, through neocolonial and neoliberal politics and diplomacy. Why, for instance, should a British company be given the multi-million-pound contract to print biometric Sri Lankan passports? This decision was taken at the highest levels of power in Colombo, at the behest and persuasion of British authorities. Despite reports from within relevant government departments in Colombo that an upgrade to state-owned facilities would suffice to print biometric passports, [at a cost much lesser than that that incurred by the deal with the British company], Sri Lanka’s top leaders decided to look away and do as they were asked and pressured. By the British. The point I wish to make here is that when it is of advantage to British interests, Britain continues to wield tremendous power over Sri Lanka, to the level of influencing cabinet decisions and more.

Read More

70 years of resilience and romanticism

Just the other day I came across a Facebook post written by a foreigner (I can’t remember the nationality of the author). He or she wrote something to the tune that Sri Lanka, widely vilified as a failed state even after we had defeated arguably the single most dangerous terrorist organisation in the world, had much to be grateful for: free education, free healthcare, freedom of religion, an integrative society that rehabilitated former terrorist cadres, and the resilience of the people. This coming from a foreigner who probably would have set foot in the country for a short time reminded me, rather cynically I should say, of the many glamourous accounts of the former Soviet Union by first-time idealists who had never visited Russia before.   

2018-02-09

It’s okay to go overboard sometimes. Okay to say your country is the greatest in the world. Okay to say that there’s much to be grateful for. What’s not okay, though, is turning a blind eye to certain realities. Hours after that well-intentioned foreigner posted on social media, a Sri Lankan posted some of those realities which I felt needed to be made clear; in a nutshell, that the free education we receive suffers from qualitative deficits, that the free healthcare we get has become bureaucratised (need we mention the many strikes that doctors and nurses perpetuate everyday?), that freedom of religion is okay as long as you’re Sinhalese and Buddhist, that integration works for LTTE cadres as long as they flirt with the Establishment (think of Karuna Amman), and that while the people are resilient, their lives are deeply complicated.   

Who are the romantics?

   
Obviously, not everyone agrees. Not everyone would consider what was posted palatable. One week after the free nation in us turned 70, perhaps it would do well to revisit history, to privilege facts over frill, to understand where we are and to keep the debate: this compels from romantics on both sides of the divide. Naturally enough, this provokes a significant question; when it comes to that debate, who are the romantics?   
The romantic nationalists are easier to identify. They are the idealists who believe not just in a better tomorrow, but a better today. They turn a blind eye to the realities that occupy our lives because they privilege the nation over the individual. Their opponents would suggest that they suffer from apathy, indifference, and a not-so-healthy dose of an inferiority complex, that what they idealise in terms of historical monoliths is miles away from the true status of those monoliths. Even in the arts, this apathy persists. We are wont to inflate the national hero without delving into what turned that hero into who he or she eventually became. We are very often anti-American at heart, regardless of political affiliations, but what we borrow from the United States is their romanticised disregard for history. The cowboy film in America, and the Cinemascope epic, is adapted here into the final battle in Aloko Udapadi, which turns out to be so inflated that we can only suspend our disbelief.   

The romantic anti-nationalists are less easy, but still not that hard, to identify. They generally hail from close academic circles, and if they are not wont to rubbishing the nation and all its ills without considering the arguments put forward by their ideological opponents, they go a step further and perpetuate the ultimate myth: that we were better off under the colonialists. These are the same academics who criticise the Buddhist clergy’s involvement with the independence movement and what is felt to be their orientation towards socialist politics, and at the same time praise the status quo authoritarianism of Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore (H. L. Seneviratne’s The Work of Kings, otherwise an interesting sociological document, fails precisely because it sustains this contradiction throughout). In other words, we had better prospects as a Dominion, never mind that we were never free, because we had it both ways; we would be defended by the Queen’s Army while the locals would be free to pursue their own national interests, in terms of economics.   

What they privilege   

The latter opinion is, even today, widely disseminated, though only by a diminishing demographic; the generation of the fifties and the sixties, educated in the Ivor Jennings-styled University system, largely in English, and comprising, for the most, those academics pointed out above. They are a rare breed, but what they lack in numbers they make up for through academic and ideological unity. To put it in perspective, what they privilege – economics – is so important to them that everything else – culture, identity, national freedom – dissolves away and can be thrown to the dust.   

If we empathise with the first of these two groups on the basis of their affiliation with the ideal of nationhood and sovereignty, then it goes without saying that there’s nothing wrong in empathising with the second of those groups on the basis of their rational, albeit flawed, conception of economics and technocracy. The romantic nationalists have been put down, in print, by the young and the old, everywhere, since time immemorial. Their critics snigger, and not without reason, when they hear Sekara’s Me Sinhala Apage Ratai and in particular the following words: Mulu lova eya ratata yatayi. There’s nothing wrong in healthy criticism of this sort, the way I see it, because going overboard with nationalism risks a serious long-term problem.   

Which is this; in any country, trying to shackle itself from colonialism, the most immediate nationalists, who emerged after the dawn of independence, hailed from a rather elitist English-oriented (if not bilingual) background that gave them access to the University and the Civil Service. We see this in other postcolonial societies too – Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya – and we see in the best of them an ability to transform their elitist backgrounds to a populist base on which complete independence was sought. Neither Nasser nor Nkrumah nor Kenyatta, on that count, were content in perpetuating the elitism that they had imbibed in their early years; they succeeded in making their backgrounds the buffer on which they based their populist, nationalist calls for freedom and sovereignty.   

The romantic nationalists have been put down, in print, by the young and the old, everywhere, since time immemorial. Their critics snigger, and not without reason, when they hear Sekara’s Me Sinhala Apage Ratai and in particular the following words: Mulu lova eya ratata yatayi

But those who followed these elites-turned-nationalists, born from the structures of empowerment which those elites opened (in Sri Lanka, free education; in Egypt, the concept of Pan-Arabism), were somewhat doomed because they repudiated any need to imbibe the modernity their forefathers had. In other words, especially in societies run on religious lines, the spiritual was raised to a position higher than the material, which proved to be the undoing of both in later decades. The ultimatum here is that these societies were contorted by their own independence struggles and movements.   

As a final point though, if these points are adequate for us to criticise the romantic nationalist, it’s only fair to consider that the base on which criticism of over-the-top nationalism is sustained – the existence of elites – is also the base on which we can constructively assess the romantic anti-nationalist. Here too, the argument is both simple and complex; that Dominion status, while superficially emboldening us through the fact that our defences and foreign affairs would be handled by a foreign entity, would not embolden us to look after our own economic interests, because those in charge of handling those interests, before and after independence, were fatally tied to the interests of the colonialist: in other words, the colonial elite, the colonial bourgeoisie.   
UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM     

Sri Lanka’s foreign debt servicing payments to top $15B over four years to 2022-Fitch

By Paneetha Ameresekere-2018-02-09

Sri Lanka's external debt service outlook remains challenging over the next year (2019) and going up to 2022, Fitch, a credit rating agency dual headquartered in New York and London, in a report released on Tuesday said.

The sovereign's (Sri Lanka's) external debt service payments over this period are around US$ 15 billion against current reserve levels of about $ 7.7 billion. The authorities expect to pass a liability management bill this year (2018), which would allow them to smooth debt payments by potentially extending maturities over this period. However, the scale of external refinancing over the next few years creates a potential vulnerability for the sovereign, particularly against a backdrop of expected monetary tightening in developed markets. However, Sri Lanka's track record of accessing international capital markets remains a mitigating factor.

Fitch however, affirmed Sri Lanka's below investment grade rating of ''B+'; Outlook Stable.'
Fitch's minimum investment grade rating for a country is 'BBB-Outlook Negative.' Sri Lanka therefore, is several notches below Fitch's investment grade rating.

Nonetheless, the island's 'structural' factors, such as governance standards, GDP per capita and levels of human development are high compared with the 'B' and 'BB' medians and continue to provide support to the rating, said Fitch.

In the United Nation's Human Development Index, Sri Lanka ranks in the 61st percentile compared with the 'B' median of the 36th percentile. On the World Bank's composite governance indicator score, Sri Lanka ranks at a favourable 48th percentile against the 'B' median of the 31st percentile, the rating agency said.

Fitch further said that the affirmation of Sri Lanka's sovereign ratings reflects the following factors: Sri Lanka's revised policy framework supports macroeconomic stability. In Fitch's view, policies aimed at fiscal consolidation and maintenance of a disciplined monetary stance under the framework of the three-year IMF-supported programme have improved Sri Lanka's policy coherence and credibility. Although GDP growth of an estimated 3.9 per cent last year fell short of forecasts due to weather-related supply disruptions, "we expect growth to recover and stabilize at around five per cent this year (2018) and in the next (2019)," said Fitch.

The shift towards greater exchange-rate flexibility since the second half of 2015 has strengthened the external position, and the planned shift towards flexible inflation targeting should further enhance monetary policy credibility, said Fitch.

Credit growth has declined to a more sustainable level of around 15 per cent last year (2017) from a high of 20 per cent in 2016. Fiscal performance has improved following the approval and implementation of tax reforms. Fitch expects Sri Lanka's ratio of general government revenue to GDP to improve to 15.5 per cent of GDP this year (2018) and to 16.2 per cent of GDP in the next (2019), from a low of 11.6 per cent in 2014, reflecting the passage of revenue enhancing measures under the IMF programme, said Fitch.

Those include an increase in the VAT rate to 15 per cent in 2016 from 11 per cent and implementation of a new Inland Revenue Act from 1 April of this year (2018) that aims to simplify tax laws, reduce exemptions and improve the efficiency of the tax system.

"We think the increase in general government revenues will support a further narrowing of the budget deficit to 4.8 per cent of GDP this year (2018), from 5.2 per cent in the last (2017) and four per cent of GDP in the next (2019)," said Fitch.

"While these revenue reforms should be positive for a more credible fiscal framework over time, ineffective implementation and/or weaker-than-expected GDP growth remain downside risks to our fiscal projections," the rating agency said.

Sri Lanka's interest payments as a share of revenues remain exceptionally high at an estimated 38 per cent at last year end (2017), far above the medians of 9.4 per cent for 'B' and 9.6 per cent for 'BB' rated sovereigns, it said.

The expected pick-up in general government revenues should lead to lower ratios over time,' but we expect this ratio to remain above the 'B' and 'BB' medians for the foreseeable future,' said Fitch.
Further, despite the expected improvement in gross general government debt (GGGD) dynamics, GGGD will likely remain above the 'B' median over 2018-2019. GGGD is forecast to decline to 77.2% of GDP this year (2018) and to 75.8 per cent in the next (2019), from an estimated 79.5 per cent at last year end (2017), the rating agency said.

These assumptions are based, mainly on account of sustained primary surpluses and stable GDP growth rates, said Fitch.

However, even after the forecast reduction, Government debt would still remain above the 'B' and 'BB' medians at next year end (2019).

Further, nearly half of Sri Lanka's Government debt is denominated in foreign currency, which increases the risk to debt dynamics in the event of a further depreciation of the Sri Lankan rupee. Sri Lanka's external balance sheet remains a weakness for the rating, with high net external debt, weak sovereign net foreign assets and a low international liquidity ratio compared with rating peers.
Foreign-exchange reserves rose to around US$ eight billion at last year end (2017), representing 3.3 months of current external payments (CXP), from $ six billion (2.7 months) at end-2016, but reserves remain below the rating category median of 3.9 months, said Fitch.

The improvement in reserves reflects the allowance of greater exchange-rate flexibility, as well as a combination of foreign exchange (FX) purchases from the market, inflows from the Hambantota Port lease and new external borrowings.

Fitch's outlook for the banking sector is negative, based on our assessment of a difficult operating environment. This is reflected in an increase in non performing loans (NPLs) following a period of rapid credit growth and some capitalization pressures, the rating agency said.

Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics

By Ameer Ali –February 8, 2018 

The Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe’s revelations about Sri Lanka’s national debt (The Island, 7 Feb. 2017) cast doubt on all published statistical data from government sources on the economic status of the country. Favourable statistics on employment growth, inflation control and economic growth are three most popular figures on which the rulers rely to trumpet their regimes economic success. If those figures look extremely unfavourable, then political pressure may compel the experts who produce the data to do something to soften the severity of the gloom. If statistical fine-tuning or manipulation is not possible then politicians look for scapegoats to shift the blame. Muttukrishna Sarvananthan exposed in 2014 (Colombo Telegraph, 4 Aug. 2014) how the Department of Census and Statistics and the Central Bank incorrectly deflated the actual inflation rate to produce incorrect economic growth rates. 

The final data published by the government and its agencies are the ones transferred to international economic managers such as the IMF and the World Bank. Even though these institutions has the resources to cross check this data they rarely do so especially when the country concerned is a student of their school of economic ideology. Finally, the false data feeds into the research output of comprador intellectuals and economists who for reasons of political correctness and personal gain spin those statistics with complex econometrics to provide results satisfactory to the rulers. Reality hidden from the public; and lies, damned lies and statistics lead the commoner to a fool’s paradise.This is the economic world in which not only the Sri Lankans but also many other citizens live all over the world. In the Trump era of “alternate facts”, the Central Bank is also engaged in systemic skulduggery. Unfortunately, those who question this malicious exercise become heretics to be condemned.

The gravity of the debt situation in Sri Lanka is more serious than what the figures show. In reality, those who were and are responsible to this gross mismanagement have mortgaged the welfare of several generations of future Sri Lankans to the benefit of a living few. Rising cost of living, depreciating local currency in real terms, mounting unemployment, corruption, cronyism, absence of rule of law and recolonization via foreign investment are the reigning dimensions of the Sri Lankan economy and society.

Given this depressing scenario, some form of diversion is required for the regime to stem the growing anger of the masses. Democracy has provided one such diversion in the form of elections in which tamasha the country is currently involved.Thousands of contestants from dozens of parties are vying for positions in the regional councils, and ultimately when the time comes in the national legislature. In spite of accusations and counter accusations of each other’s personalities and shortcomings, no one so far has come out with a workable solution to the economic ills facing the country.

Read More

AUDITOR GENERAL DROPS BOMBSHELL; SRI LANKA WINDOW DRESSED FISCAL DATA; HID BORROWINGS

08/02/2018

Government institutions have engaged in continuous “window dressing” of financial records to underreport national debt and bypass borrowing limits imposed by debt management regulations, Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe revealed yesterday.

Taking the balance sheet of the Finance Ministry as an example, Wijesinghe said data presentation has been manipulated to avoid presenting the total amount under ‘Consolidated Fund – Accumulated Deficit’.

“If you go through the balance sheet of the Finance Ministry, you will see what we call balance sheet window dressing, they have presented in the balance sheet in a way that we cannot get a true reading, to give a positive,” he said.

“Although there is a line in the balance sheet called ‘Investment on Borrowings’ they have already accepted in writing that there is no such account. It is a dummy account,” he said.

Auditor General has given a qualified opinion on Finance Ministry final accounts from years 2013 to 2016. To bypass the regulation in Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act imposing a ceiling on national debt to be 80% of GDP, officials in the previous government kept loans out of the balance sheet of the Finance Ministry, and instead instructed different institutions to obtain loans individually.

“During that time the Finance Ministry secretary advised the officials, secretaries of ministries to keep certain loans out of the balance sheet. Even certain loans which were not possible to be kept out of Finance Ministry balance sheet were transferred to other institutions which is illegal,” Wijesinghe said.

The practice has led to lack of records and proper monitoring of loans taken, said Wijesinghe adding that Government is not able to assess exactly how much debt Sri Lanka is in at the present.
“It is such a mess that, if we start to clear the mess now, maybe in about ten years we will be able to get a proper idea,” he said.

“Some loans we don’t even know if they have been paid in full or not, as we have been paying instalments and interest but proper records have been kept.

To date the Auditor General’s Department has identified loans amounting to Rs. 826 billion which have been taken off the balance sheet in the Finance Ministry balance sheet, when the total loans payable as per 2016 was at Rs. 8861 billion. This includes the Rs. 116 billion loan taken to finance Mattala Airport construction, three loans taken to finance construction of Hambantota phase I, II and extra work amounting to Rs. 142 billion and Norochcholai power plant phase I and II Rs. 166 billion.
Apart from this, the Road Development Authority has debt totalling to a staggering Rs. 136 billion while the Pensions department owes Rs. 37 billion. Last year alone, the Pensions department has paid Rs. 1.4 billion as interest, but has no record as the unit does not maintain a balance sheet, Wijesinghe said.

“This is all we can say now, there are loans totalling to trillions, which we will uncover as we go on. The main one is the bond. The Finance Ministry does not record the face value of the bond issued, but when it matures we have to pay the amount. But this is not in our records now, and it is difficult to rectify this immediately,” he said.

The gravity of Sri Lanka’s indebtedness is heightened as the asset base has not grown in-line with the increase in national debt over the years. According to Central Bank figures, loans payable as at 2017.11.30 are Rs. 10 trillion while Finance Ministry records a total national debt of 8.860 trillion as at 2016.12.31. But the assets base has only grown to 1.1 trillion, according to Finance Ministry balance sheet as at 2016.12.31.

“It is a grave concern that the assets have not grown compared to the growing debt. It is ok to obtain loans as long as it is invested well and not used for recurrent expenditure. But we see that the loans have been used to cover budget deficit and for recurrent expenditure,” the Auditor General said.
Wijesinghe also highlighted that the investments recorded each year has been lower than the loans taken the same year. The investments have included social welfare expenditure awarded to government institutions and provincial authorities, which according to him are recurrent expenditure items. This increase is reflected in the increase in per capita debt to Rs. 417,913 in 2016 from Rs. 124,711 in 2006, he said.

FT
ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s has systematically window dressed fiscal data hiding borrowings to understate national debt and the budget deficits over a decade in a bid to circumvent a fiscal responsibility law, Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe said.

“Because borrowing exceeded ceiling set by law, to hide them they had been taken off the books and transferred to different places,” Wijesinghe told reporters Wednesday.

“Even I cannot give you a correct number for the national debt.”
Fiscal Rule

He said a Fiscal Management Responsibility Law set up in 2003 had set limits for national debt and deficits and over the last decade through various methods devised during the time of then Treasury Secretary.

“The Treasury Secretary has done a number of acts to completely destroy (sampoornayen vinasher kirimeeter) financial discipline (moolya vinaya),” he said.

According to central bank provisional data, the national debt was 10,339 billion rupees by end November 2017 he said.

By 2016 the official figure was 8,869 but about 332 billion rupees had been taken off the books.
These included 24 billion rupees taken for the Mattala International Airport, 33 and 109 billion taken for Hambantota Port and 116 billion rupees taken for Puttalam Coal power plant.

In the past loans for state enterprises were ‘on-lent’ when borrowed directly by the government.
In addition there were over billion rupees of borrowings by the Road Development Authority from local banks under Treasury guarantees, he said.

The RDA has no revenue to speak of to settle any loan. These were classified as contingent liabilities.

Contingent Liabilities

The Treasury is now making annual allocations to repay these liabilities he said. They continued to be classified as ‘contingent liabilities’.

A total of 536 billion rupees had been borrowed via Treasury guarantees or letters of credit.
The Department of Pensions also appeared to have borrowed over 35 billion rupees from the Bank of Ceylon and Hatton National Bank to pay ‘commuted pensions’, over several years, Wijesinghe said.
These expenses do not appear to be counted as recurrent expenditure in the budget of relevant years, he said, understanding expenses and the budget deficit.

Analysts have also pointed out that loans to RDA, unlike to agencies like the Ceylon Electricity Board which can make profits, were not contingent liabilities, but actual liabilities of the central government which could never be repaid by the road agency out of its own revenues.

The loans are still classified as ‘contingent liabilities’ even when the Treasury has started to pay them back.

Many of these practices are still continuing with officials unable to decide where to start corrections. He said there was a 487 billion rupee gap between the face value and recognized value of bonds.
There was a massive gap between total liabilities and recorded assets.

Window Dressing

But from 2013 a balancing figure labelled ‘investment on borrowings’ which was exactly the same as borrowings had been introduced to push up total assets, Wijesinghe said.

As a result a line item called Total Financial Assets had suddenly jumped from 620 billion rupees in 2013 to 8.7 billion rupees in 2016, he said.

“The balance sheet had been window dressed,” he said. In 2016 Wijesinghe disclaimed the finance ministry accounts.


Under the current administration about 1.6 billion in assets had been identified, he said.
Analysts say the problem could be solved either by introducing an unallocated asset account for unidentified assets, which will be periodically debited and credited to a non-financial asset account or by admitting the existence of negative net assets.

The current administration has identified about 1.6 trillion in assets, Wijesinghe said.
Due to chronic subsidy culture, and a bloated public service coming from giving jobs to unemployed graduates and political henchmen Sri Lanka has a bloated public service and a current account deficit in the budget, which is filled with more borrowings.

Wijesinghe said the ‘grace periods’ of a number of large loans were now starting to end, and instalments will kick in over the next three years, pushing up debt service.

Per capita debt had 417,913 rupees in 2016 from 124,711 rupees in 2006, he said. (Colombo/Feb07/2018 – Updated)

Defeating corrupt government & corrupt former regime is the responsibility of the people

February 8, 2018 by

A twofold challenge of defeating the corrupt government and the corrupt clique of former regime is before the voters at the local government election says Dr Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri.

He says the birth of the process of corruption and fraud is at the local government councils and requested the voters to use their vote correctly at this election so that it would prevent the situation where an axe has to be used to remove something that could have been removed with the nails.

Boycotting the election due to disappointment with politics in the country is a meaningless act said Dr Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri and invited those who are disappointed with the present political culture to enter profound insight into contemporary politics.

He made these observations at a press conference organized by ‘Inception of Change’ held at Solis Hall at Etul Kotte. A number of university lecturers, professors and former ministry secretaries participated.

Speaking further Dr Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri said, “This election is important in two ways. The local government should represent the day to day matters of the public. In addition to that generally, the whole society needs a political insight. The change that occurred on 8th January 2015 did not intend to bring one or two parties into power. The mandate given has been violated and those who have come to power are moving in a wrong direction.

This has given way to the corrupt forces that were defeated on 8th January to raise their ugly heads again. This is why we have to confront a twofold challenge at present.

We have to fight against the corrupt group that grabbed power on 8th January as well as with the defeated clique that was beaten but are preparing to raise their heads again. Our political system has become extremely corrupt. Those who are engaged in frauds and corruption too are attempting to show that they too represent the anti-corruption movement which we genuinely represent with the JVP.

The foreign loans should be utilized for the welfare of the public. What happens is misusing such funds. A fruitful step should be taken to change this situation.”

Former Ministry Secretary Ashoka Peiris said, “This local government election will have a big impact on national politics. The election campaign divides into two camps. It has been proved that the UNP, SLFP and SLPP are in the same camp. All three groups engage or have engaged in various frauds, corruption and misuse of public funds and assets. The bond scam has taken a centre stage.

Despite being in three groups they are directed by a small group of seven. This clique of seven manipulates the group that comes to power. As such, there would be a difference whoever from these three groups come to power.

These three groups are responsible for the degeneration of the country. The widest disparity in income distribution can be observed at present. The richest 10% gets 34% of the wealth in the country while the poorest section gets only 1.3%.

People have to decide whether to continue with this system. Only the JVP could an answer to the issue. Minister Kiriella says allocations are given only to councils ruled by the UNP. This proves that the attempt is to get one party to control the whole country. This time the people should use their vote to prove that there is a movement worthy of people’s vote.”

Dr Harini Amarasuriya of the Open University said, “In 2015 people rallied with the intention of a long-term change. However, it is observed that this change never took place and matters have taken place to give strength to the defeated forces. Despite, a group acts fanatically to promote communalism, the civilized public expects a change.

We cannot expect change from the three main parties. The only force that could bring this change is the JVP. There is nothing much to think at this election. We should make a change nationally as well as to get a clean administration for the village.”

Dr Anura Karunatilleke of the University of Kelaniya says, “The discussion today goes beyond the local government election. We request the people to think beyond the mere election of a member of a local government council but to rally to select clean politics for the country.”

Senior Lecturer of the University of Fine arts Asela Rangadeva says, “At the moment various dramas are being acted. There are arrests and we see different election gimmicks. We could see that more and more people are involved in the Central Bank bond scam.”

Chartered Quantity Surveyor Dr Chandana Jayalath says, “The biggest corruption in the country takes place in the construction projects. There is no Central Data Bank for Construction in this country. Even today, we cannot trust the data put forward by the media. The subject ministers hand over contracts, spend money arbitrary without any responsibility. This is a curse. Two or three individuals get together to pickpocket 14%. There is no transparency in money transactions. Even the Auditor General has been inconvenienced.

We know what the issue is. We have to give the solution now. We should give the JVP a considerable amount of power in local councils. We need not be overcome by the past.”

Read More

MEPs cross political lines over Tunisia’s inclusion on anti-money laundering blacklist

30-01-2018 - 

MEPs on the Economics and Home Affairs committees have been deeply divided by the recent addition of Tunisia on the Commission’s blacklist of “high-risk third countries.”

But in a close vote they failed to support -- by 28 votes for, 32 votes against, with 0 abstentions -- a move to reject the inclusion of Tunisia, Sri Lanka and Trinidad and Tobago to  the Commission’s list of third countries considered to have strategic deficiencies in the anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regimes.

As part of its obligations under the EU’s Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the European Commission is periodically obliged to draw up a list of “high-risk third countries”.  In mid-December, in line with its custom of following the lead of the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF), it decided to include Tunisia and the other two states to its blacklist.

“Surprise and incomprehension”

Ana Gomes (PT, S&D) echoed the views of many MEPs when she said she felt “divided” in her response.  She said she recognised that Tunisia was of strategic importance to the region and also to the EU.  But, “on the other hand”, she said her work as shadow rapporteur in this field had been driven by a determination to force everybody to live up to their commitments in the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing.

But Marie-Christine Vergiat (FR, GUE) expressed “surprise and incomprehension” at the inclusion of Tunisia.  She pointed to other countries on the list: Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen -- all war-torn countries which needed especial attention.  “I can’t understand how you can put Tunisia in the same basket,” she insisted.

The Chairman of the  Economic’s Committee, Roberto Gualtieri, had sharp words for the European Commission, condemning the initial statement from the representative of the Commission, Director General Tiina Astola, as “too bureaucratic to be serious.”   Mr Gualtieri suggested that Tunisia had been held to a more demanding standard than other countries that were not included on the list, such as Libya.  He wanted to know why.

Following the Commission’s lead

But Bernd Lucke (DE, ECR) said that he was prepared to follow the Commission’s lead on the blacklist.  However, he asked that in future each new addition to the blacklist should be added through a separate delegated act so that countries were not assessed collectively. 

Burkhard Balz (DE, EPP) insisted that all three countries must give high-level declarations as to how they expected to meet the undertakings they had given to the Financial Action Task Force.

The MEPs heard from the Ambassadors of Trinidad and Sri Lanka, and the Tunisian Minister of Finance who all strongly protested their inclusion on the Commission’s blacklist.  They pointed to gaps in the methodology and a failure to recognise recent moves to address shortcomings in their anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regimes.

For the European Commission, Director General Tiina Astola, acknowledged the strategic importance of Tunisia to the EU and said it was a strong ally “in our common fight against terrorism.”  She said the North African country would be reassessed “as soon as possible in 2018” and if it was found to be implementing its high-level political commitments on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing, it would be “swiftly” removed from the list.  But she declined to give a timetable for its removal.

American Obsequiousness in Sri Lanka Continues

Washington continues with a misguided approach.

By Taylor Dibbert-February 08, 2018

Sri Lanka turned 70 on February 4. On February 1, the U.S. Embassy in Colombo put out an effusive press statement, another example of the depths of American obsequiousness when it comes to Sri Lanka.

The statement celebrates 70 years of U.S.-Sri Lanka relations and announces a new campaign to promote bilateral ties:

[T]he U.S. Embassy in Colombo will launch a series of programs over the course of the next twelve months. Encompassing cultural events, educational opportunities, and community engagements that will involve Sri Lankans from all backgrounds and regions of the country, the #USASL70 campaign underscores the seven decades of respect and partnership that have characterized the U.S.-Sri Lanka relationship.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

The statement also refers to America deepening ties with Sri Lanka’s military. “During the campaign, exercises between the two countries’ militaries will enhance disaster response capabilities and expand interoperability.”

An institution that’s rotten to the core, Sri Lanka’s security forces are widely (and credibly) believed to have committed crimes against humanity and other egregious human rights violations during the country’s three-decade-long civil war – in addition to major violations that have occurred post-war (which the statement conveniently doesn’t mention).

The United States is getting Sri Lanka dangerously wrong. As I’ve previously argued, increasing ties with the island nation’s military needs to be rethought immediately: “[T]he flurry of increased U.S.-Sri Lanka security cooperation is an especially bad idea – because such activity ensures that legitimate security sector reform won’t come any time soon. Recent Associated Press reporting has reiterated that sexual violence and the torture of ethnic Tamils continue to be big problems. (The alleged perpetrators are Sri Lankan security personnel.)”

Donald Trump’s presidential victory has presented obvious challenges for promoting global human rights. Nevertheless, there have been various instances over the past year where American officials have reiterated the importance of human freedom and pluralistic values.

A smart Economist piece notes that “[w]ith a small country … policy remains broadly set by career foreign service officers (among them the American ambassador), by staff in the National Security Council and by members of Congress …”

Suffice it to say that the U.S. ambassador to Sri Lanka, Atul Keshap, has basically ignored Sri Lanka’s human rights issues since he moved to Colombo. He seems far too busy emphasizing how robust U.S.-Sri Lanka relations have become on his watch.

When Maithripala Sirisena unexpectedly won the presidency in January 2015, many people – perhaps naively – believed that Sirisena would usher in an era of dramatic change. Three years on, it’s clear that their hopes have not materialized.

While there have been some positive changes, Sri Lanka’s reform agenda has mostly fallen apart. Essentially, the naiveté that permeated official thinking in Washington about the “new” Sri Lankan government is a thing of the past. Those still bloviating about how terrific Colombo’s performance has been are not being remotely transparent about what’s happening inside the country. Surely that’s worth mentioning.

Ambalavaner Sivanandan obituary

Director of the Institute of Race Relations who helped change the way Britain thought about race

 Sivanandan renamed Race, the IRR’s journal, Race & Class, to reflect his ideas on institutional racism. Photograph: Jane Bown for the Observer

Gary Younge @garyyounge Wed 7 Feb 2018 12.39 GMT


In 1958, Ambalavaner Sivanandan, later a leading intellectual of the left who changed the way that race relations were viewed in the UK, dressed up as a policeman in his native Sri Lanka and brandished a gun without any bullets, in order to save members of his Tamil family from a Sinhalese mob. Later that year Siva, as he was more commonly known, left what was then Ceylon and came to Britain, arriving only to witness the anti-black race riots in Notting Hill. “I knew then I was black,”
he later wrote. “I could no longer stand on the sidelines: race was a problem that affected me directly. I had no excuse to go into banking or anything else that I was fitted up to do … I had to find a way of making some sort of contribution to the improvement of society.”

In his position as the director of the Institute of Race Relations for 40 years, from 1973 to 2013, and the editor of its journal, Race & Class, Siva, who has died aged 94, remained true to that mission. He was a tireless and eloquent voice explaining the connections between race, class, imperialism and colonialism.

Siva highlighted – in what was a radical position at the time – that it was not the presence of black people that created racism, but the refusal of the British state to evolve in a multiracial society. His writing was key to ideas that later entered the mainstream with the publication of the Macpherson report in 1999, which concluded that the flawed handling of the death of Stephen Lawrence was because of institutional racism – defined by Siva as “that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions – reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn”.

Siva was the chief librarian at the IRR when he led a staff revolt against the management board in 1972. The board members were forced to resign and Siva was elected director. He went about transforming what was an anodyne academic institution, embedded in the establishment with a government advisory role, into a radical thinktank whose mission was to support black communities in their anti-racist struggles both locally and globally. As director, Siva focused his advocacy on the most excluded, and those affected by the most vicious manifestations of racism. “There are two racisms: the racism that discriminates and the racism that kills,” he wrote.

This was one of Siva’s many celebrated aphorisms – easy-to-remember encapsulations of complex ideas that challenged simplistic assumptions. Others included: “We are here because you were there” (relating to post-colonial migration); “If those who have do not give, those who haven’t must take”; and “The personal is not political, the political is personal”.

The latter illustrated his growing frustration with the solipsism of emerging identity politics, particularly among what he saw as a more well-heeled, younger generation of intellectuals, who he felt were reluctant to engage with issues of class even though it was the struggles of the black working-class who had paved the way for them. “The people who made this mobility possible were those who took to the streets,” he once told me. “But they did not benefit.”

It was Siva who renamed Race, the IRR’s journal, Race & Class. It became a leading voice for radical race politics, with writers such as John Berger, Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky. His own groundbreaking essays for the journal included The Liberation of the Black Intellectual (1974), Race, Class and the State (1977) and From Resistance to Rebellion (1981), all of which, in different emphases, provided an analytical narrative of the history of black British struggles.

He was also perceptive when it came to the kind of developments that shaped our economic systems and social consciousness. In a prescient essay written in 1989, New Circuits of Imperialism, he laid out how new technology would displace labour and liberate capital: “Where once steam and subsequently electricity replaced muscle power, today microelectronics … replaces the brain. Changes in the production process … have freed industrial capital from spatial strictures.”

Born in Jaffna, the son of Ambalavaner, a postal worker, and Nageswari, a homemaker, Siva was educated at St Joseph’s College, Colombo. He studied economics at Ceylon University, graduating in 1945, and became one of the first native bank managers at the Bank of Ceylon. In 1950 he married Bernadette Wijeyewickrema.

On arriving in the UK, Siva worked briefly as a clerk in the trading company Vavasseur and Co. Unable to find banking work, he retrained as a librarian. He worked for Middlesex and other public libraries, then the Colonial Office library, before becoming chief librarian at the IRR in central London in 1964. His first marriage ended in 1969, and he married his long-time partner, Jenny Bourne, currently joint-editor of Race & Class, in 1993. In 2006 the library on race relations that he had built up at the IRR was moved to the University of Warwick library, where it is known as the Sivanandan Collection. His novel When Memory Dies (1997) won both the Commonwealth Writers’ first book prize (for Eurasia) and the Sagittarius prize. Where the Dance Is, a collection of short stories, was published in 2000.

In his polemic he was scathing. In the essay The Hokum of New Times (1990), he slated the shift towards a progressive politics rooted more in identity than class, branding it “a sort of bazaar socialism, bizarre socialism, a hedonist socialism: an eat, drink and be merry socialism because tomorrow we can eat drink and be merry again … a socialism for disillusioned Marxist intellectuals who had waited around too long for the revolution”.

In his person he was generous, a keen mind with a sharp, impish wit and a mischievous, impish manner. When New Statesman called on prominent figures to write a letter to God in its 1991 Christmas supplement, Siva – raised Hindu, in a Buddhist society, and educated by Catholics – wrote: “It is that sense of self-determination, self-belief, that authority over myself, the sense of being my own author, that has taken your place. But of course it frightens the hell out of me. For there is no adjudicator except myself, no one who can forgive me except myself, no one who can excoriate me, absolve me, lift me up again, except myself.”

He is survived by Jenny and by three children, Tamara, Natasha and Rohan, from his first marriage.
• Ambalavaner Sivanandan, writer and editor, born 20 December 1923; died 3 January 2018