New Cabinet sans 6 SLFPers within two days: Rajitha

 

2018-04-11

The new Cabinet of the UNP/SLFP-led Yahapalana Government would be sworn in before the Sinhala-Hindu New Year, sans the six SLFP Ministers, who voted in favour of the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Cabinet Spokesman, Health Minister Dr Rajitha Senaratne said today.

Minister Senaratne added that the SLFP Central Committee was expected to meet last night (11) Chaired by President Maithripala Sirisena to give its sanction to 16 SLFP Ministers, State and Deputy Ministers to resign from their respective portfolios, making way for President Sirisena to swear in a new cabinet.

He said that the Cabinet vacancies created by resigning six SLFP Ministers would be filled with six SLFP members, who did not support the NCM.

“However, the group of 16 will remain in the SLFP as a separate independent group under President Sirisena in and out of Parliament and will not join the SLPP or the Joint Opposition,” he said.

Addressing the weekly Cabinet news briefing yesterday, Minister Senaratne said he hoped that the inter-party and intraparty squabbles in the UNP and the SLFP would come to an end as the Yahapalana Government was determined to launch a new journey with a new Cabinet and a new work plan.

“There will be changes when allocating portfolios to Ministers in the new Cabinet as President Sirisena is to follow a more pragmatic and scientific method when Cabinet portfolios are allocated. For instance, there will be no portfolio of Higher Education and Highways,” he noted.

Secretary to President Austin Fernando and Secretary to Prime Minister Saman Ekanayake are attending to the allocation of portfolios in the new Cabinet on the instructions President Sirisena, Minister Senaratne said.

Responding to a journalist, Minister Senaratne said if a Cabinet Minister who supported the NCM wanted to remain in the Cabinet he or she would have to express regret and make a full confession to the Government to be considered whether to accept it and give a Cabinet post.

“The Yahapalana Government consists of 148 members from the UNP and the SLFP and therefore, it needs only three more members to have a two-thirds majority,” he said.

Minister Senaratne said Ministry Secretaries would submit tender of resignations enabling President Sirisena to appoint Secretaries afresh to Ministries in the new Cabinet.

Answering to another question, Minister Senaratne said it was likely that Parliament would elect a new Deputy Speaker also replacing incumbent Thilanga Sumathipala at the first session of Parliament after the New Year.

“If the Parliament was dissolved soon after the 2015 Presidential Poll, the UNP would have achieved a landslide victory with a two-thirds majority but it was Prime Minister Wickremesinghe who proposed to President Sirisena to form a Unity Government with the SLFP.

“Basil was in the US and Mahinda was in Carlton at Tangalle licking the wounds of defeat,” Dr Senaratne said.

“It was because of the magnanimous gesture and statesmanship of Premier Wickremesinghe that led to the forming the Yahapalana Government with the SLFP as a partner.

“Unfortunately many in the SLFP have forgotten this,” Minister Senaratne lamented.

“If the LG Polls were also announced in the euphoria of election victory, the UNP would have been the absolute winner but Prime Minister Wickremesinghe wanted to form a common front to face the domestic and global issues.

“The foreign debts were escalating to unprecedented heights to trillions of rupees, the allegations of war crimes and human rights violations were gathering momentum in the global community. The UNHRC was in the process of passing resolutions against Sri Lanka.

“The economy was in tatters and prices of essential commodities were unbearable. It was because of these calamities that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe wanted a unity government, Minister Senaratne said.

Ministers Susil Premajayantha, John Seneviratne, S.B. Dissanayake, Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Chandima Weerakkody and Dayasiri Jayasekera were among the 16 SLFP Ministers, State and Deputies who voted in favour of the NFM (Sandun A Jayasekera)

Transparency and Public Accountability in Sri Lanka

Following article based on the excerpts of the Keynote Address by Dr. Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough, World Bank Country Director for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, in the launch of the Handbook on Good Governance for Chairmen and Boards of Directors of Public Enterprises at the Member’s Lounge, CA Sri Lanka, Colombo

by Dr. Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough-Apr 11, 2018

( April 11, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) While many of us may not be governance specialists; we can equally relate to the impacts of good and bad governance.  It’s this shared experience that has brought you all here today; that has influenced the development of the handbook that is being launched today; and that dictates that the recommendations in this guidebook be implemented.

Let’s start with the what. What does good governance require? It requires credible and trustworthy institutions built on principles of transparency and accountability. Accountability goes beyond the mere responsibility of delivery of a task or service. It also means answerability if a service is not delivered in a timely and efficient manner such that it becomes a burden. It is the citizens right but also their duty to demand it.

What is true at an individual level, is true at the level of a society. International experience, from research, and also as illustrated in a few countries, such as Botswana, Chile or South Korea show that there is a strong positive correlation between accountable and transparent political and economic institutions and the sustainability of the development outcomes. Douglas North’s historical analysis of the transition from natural states to open societies shows how the latter are more sustainable as they use economic competition rather than political institutions and rents to regulate social relations.

Likewise, numerous cross country studies show the negative impact of corruption on growth and investment.  For example, a Study by Aidt et all (2007) of 70 countries indicated that countries with higher quality institutions experience higher growth and lower corruption. It further estimated that countries moving to high quality institutions had a growth premium of 26% in the short run and 40% in the long run.

Similarly, the World Bank’s publication on the changing wealth of nations shows that beyond capital accumulation, it is a country’s intangible capital that makes the difference. Intangible capital being composed of human and natural capital, institutional capital and social capital. I trust these dimensions of development are also very relevant for Sri Lanka, which has made important progress in strengthening the country’s governance framework and institutions with the 19thconstitutional amendment.  The amendment provides for more independent accountability of institutions such as the Human Resource Development Council, the Auditor General, Information and the Procurement Commission.  The recently approved Right to Information and Audit Acts are also very progressive.  All these create a conducive environment to improve the transparency, accountability and performance of the public sector in general, and of public enterprises.

Public Enterprises, represent a major part of Sri Lanka’s public-sector institutions, and their governance therefore matters greatly.   Around 400 SOEs operating in Sri Lanka play a key role in the country’s economy not only in terms of size;, but also because they provide the most important infrastructure and services. Total turnover of the 55 strategically important State Owned Business Enterprises (SOBEs) alone amounted to LKR 1.5 trillion, equivalent to 13 percent of GDP in 2016.  Their performance therefore impacts directly Sri Lanka’s competitiveness and the achievement of its socio-economic development objectives.

But do we know how citizens feel about the service provided by their public enterprises? The World Bank together with our Government counterparts wanted to get a citizen’s perspective on their public enterprises; so we launched an opinion survey.  What we found was both interesting and in some cases perhaps unsurprising.  A summary of the results showed that a) many Sri Lankans aren’t happy with the performance of Public Enterprises –  38% think they perform poorly, while 36% think that the quality of services provided are very poor.

We also asked them to list the top reasons why the performance of Public Enterprises should be reformed.  The leading reason was to improve the quality of essential services. They also sited issues with political interference; and need for better corporate governance.  So, as I said at the beginning beneficiaries of good/bad governance do not need to be specialists; they just need to be recipients of its impact.

Governance of public enterprises also has an impact on fiscal costs and fiscal risks. Many State-Owned Enterprises reported significant and persistent operating losses, which will need to be covered, generally at the expense of core social programs. Between 2012 and 2015, the net transfers from the State to Public Enterprises amounted to 460 billion rupees, more than the health budget of 380 billion rupees.  And these losses haven’t stopped; Apart from financial sector institutions, the State is contributing more to its commercial public enterprises than receiving from them. It is also exposed to growing liabilities, through guaranteed and non-guaranteed debt, equivalent to 12% of GDP, not counting other contingent liabilities.

Evidence shows that a good corporate governance system is associated with benefits for all companies, whether private or state owned. In Malaysia, a program aimed at transforming government-linked companies, now in its seventh of a 10-year program, has contributed to improving performance. The return on equity of 20 large companies rose from 7.7 percent in 2009 to 10.5 percent in 2010, while total shareholder return grew by 16.4 percent from 2004 to 2011. A 2011 study of 44 Public Enterprises in the water and electricity sectors of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean finds a positive correlation between six dimensions of corporate governance reform such as the legal and ownership framework, the composition of the board, the performance management system of the enterprise, the degree of transparency and disclosure of financial and nonfinancial information, the skills of staff, and the operational performance of the utilities.

We therefore fully support the efforts of Parliament, Government, the Human Resources Development Council and Civil Society, to improve the governance and performance of Public Enterprises. Success will require a collective effort; and I am heartened to see so many stakeholders coming together to support this important reform.

I hope you will allow me to lay out what we feel could be a few critical next steps to better governance in public enterprises – my wish list, so to speak:

1. Firstly,future consideration of good governance of public enterprises must apply a holistic approach – realigning and strengthening the State’s ownership and oversight function; which includes improving performance monitoring and evaluation; transparency and accountability; corporate governance, and the capacity of Boards and their senior management.
2. Secondly, increase their ability to compete – competition raises the performance bar
3. Thirdly,improve the business environment in which they operate.  Provide opportunities for sharing lessons; creating feedback loops between service deliverer and recipient; and rapid course correction when needed.
4. Fourthly,modernize the accountability framework – and reduce unnecessary external and political influence.
5. Fifthly,improve the legal framework through a PFM Act;
6. Lastly,establish a central clearing house that brings together consideration on investments, revenues, budgetary considerations – resulting in better fiscal considerations and management.

It is against this backdrop that we very much welcome the timely release of the Handbook for Corporate Governance of Public Enterprises, which reflects upon internationally adopted principles and good practices. Every stakeholder – from the individual, the NGOs, the government, and private sector – must read the handbook, identify actions and implement them. The handbook is an important tool; but unless it’s used its impact will be minimal.

The Handbook complements well the capacity building framework for Public Enterprises jointly developed last year between the Ministry of Public Enterprise Development, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Management Accountants and the World Bank.  This work and the Handbook will inform a certification program with the Ministry of Finance, the Sri Lankan Institute of Directors and IFC for Board leadership.

Let me end by congratulating the host, Dinesh, and respected participants for this event.  This event marks an important start to a dialogue – and hopefully action. Its focus on why we should care about better governance of public enterprises; what can be done to improve on a solid base that has been laid out; and how each concerned stakeholder can assist in the process is poignant.  Ultimately, everyone wants better service delivered at value for money; in a timely manner and at high quality.  That to me, as a layman amongst many is what good governance means to us.  We experience the impact.  That’s why we should all care.

We look forward to continuing to partner with the various entities that have been involved in the Handbook’s creation; the Government, concerned and interested stakeholders.  I would like to also acknowledge the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have been instrumental in supporting our activities on improving good governance of Public Enterprises.

Indian Ocean Crisis Management Through Oceanography

By Damsarie Ranasinghe –APRIL 11, 2018

Damsarie Ranasinghe

Importance and relevance of oceans keep increasing every day due to land based resource scarcity, growing population rate and reduction of land mass due to rise in sea levels. Despite technological advances, 95% of the ocean remains unexplored. With more than 60% of the world’s population living within 100 km from the coast, and with 13 out of 15 largest cities predicted to be located near oceans by the turn of the millennium, – academics, professionals, and scientists have turned their central attention towards understanding oceans. The enormous ocean resources, slightly discovered and mostly hidden, is of immeasurable value in the future given the excess utilization of land-based resources.

Over the past few decades, techniques and theories have been developed as an attempt to understand oceans a little better. Yet, the potential and scope of ocean studies remain wide. With increased understanding and findings, study of oceans has become more specific and categorized, one of which is Operational Oceanography. 

In layman terms oceanography is the study of marine or ocean sciences. Operational Oceanography, a derivative of this vast subject area, aims to provide sustained and accurate marine measures, analyses, predictions and assessments which are used to advance marine policies and activities including national security and marine environment. The European Component of the Global Ocean Observing System (EuroGOOS) defines OO as the activity of systematic and long-term routine measurements of the seas, oceans and atmosphere, and their rapid interpretation and dissemination.

As such, OO is capable of producing accurate now-casts, hind-casts, re-analyses and future forecasts of the ocean including state of the living resources, covering global-to-coastal marine environments and ecosystems through rapid transmission of observational data. These observational data, generated by means of mathematical forecasting models can foretell early warnings of adverse weather changes, electronic charts, prime routes for ships, ocean currents and even the productivity. Being a fairly new concept, OO has managed to provide accurate and valuable real time data on marine and coastal environment, marine resources, marine resources, marine safety and climate and seasonal forecasting. 

In order to deliver successful and accurate forecasts, there must be enough ocean observations available with super computer facilities and models to decipher and disseminate the data. As a result of such, the OO facilities were limited and applied by financially and technically competent nations, such as the USA. In other developing nations, most OOs are run either by national weather centres or by coordinated partnerships between government and various research organisations.

The US Navy has pioneered in OO having incorporated them in its military strategies since Cold war. In Italy, OO has been used to define its marine strategy directive related to ecosystem sub-regions. As a result, sea surface temperature seasonal data, chlorophyll climatology data and trends along with wind coastal upwelling indices are obtained which helps determine the environmental impact at a given location and time. The EU project ‘Mediterranean Ocean Forecasting System: Toward Environmental Predictions’(MFSTEP) composed of a real time observing system with satellite and in-situ elements, a numerical ocean forecasting system at the basin scale, biochemical models for algal biomass forecasting and a product dissemination system. These products were used to determine oil spill drift and dispersion, sediment transport and fish stock assessments which determine the operational value for the stakeholders.

Indian Ocean Region over the past half a decade has faced many unpredicted natural disasters in the form of earthquakes, cyclones and flooding resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Given the proximity of South Asian and South East Asian states to the Indian Ocean, a better understanding of the ocean currents, salinity, wind and sea level could have reduced the damage caused. Lack of effective OO centres resulted in the enhanced damage to both property and human lives. However, some efforts have been taken by East and South East Asia to incorporate OO.

In 2005, the first Ocean Operational system was implemented in the Indonesian archipelago with the collaboration of Indonesia and European Institutes. The system provides information for sustainable use of marine resources, improved management of the sea with high business impact for both public and commercial operators. It further capitalizes on their capabilities in fisheries, environmental policies and human activities in the marine environment. The Chinese Global Operational Oceanography Forecasting System (CGOFS) includes both ocean circulation and ocean wave models providing 3D predictions on marine temperature, salinity, currents, sea levels and ocean waves.

Read More

Exporting rubber and importing erasers!

Thursday, 12 April 2018

Another year’s growth data has been released and some of us may be red-faced!

The economy grew by 3.1% in real terms, which has been the lowest for 16 years. Sri Lanka was ranked 71st among 138 nations in the 2016/17 ranking of the Global Competitive Index and 90th among 127 economic entities in the 2016 Global Innovation Index ranking.

These are not healthy positions and as some unofficially express, if one is below the 25th position, you may skip additional details. None of these rankings and the underlying set of data are encouraging and should be inputs for decision making by the planners.

Sri Lanka today, though identified as a middle-income country, has a structurally poor, non-competitive industry sector. Over the years this sector mostly has lacked the vision and the direction required to be a competitive contributing sector to the economy.

Industry 4.0

The world is marching towards Industry 4.0 (cyber physical systems) whilst the Sri Lankan economy is still seeing remittances from Middle East labour as the most important and the planners consistently claim Sri Lanka to be an agricultural country and direct policy with that underlying basis. Thus Sri Lanka has never aspired to be strong in manufacturing or in processing.

Industry 4.0, the new technology revolution, is considered to be revolutionary and with the ability to fundamentally change humankind. Eng. Wimalasurendra who is a pioneer pushed for industries once electricity was realised and he specifically identified salt-based industries and this was in 1932.

Today our electricity production is mostly to satisfy home consumers and that too at night-time. The night-time peak is effectively killing the CEB. It is time manufacturing is given its due place for an economic upswing.

An observation made by World Bank in 1952 is that ‘the rate of development in Ceylon is actually limited less by finance than by lack of technology at all levels’. Today we may have finance problems as well as technology problems. Sri Lanka has witnessed different stages of industrialisation efforts. In the period of 1920 to 1977 the country witnessed policy applications in varying ways to support import substitution. The post-1977 era suddenly witnessed markets opening up and export-driven manufacturing strategy adopted.

Sri Lanka’s journey

Sri Lanka’s journey to Middle Income Level status had been via services and with remittances added to good measure. As Central Bank in its Annual Report for 2016 pointed out, Sri Lanka has leapfrogged from an agrarian society to a service-based economy.

What is usual to observe is that developed nations usually have achieved such status through industrialisation. Another feature is that the contribution from manufacturing has weakened too with substantial contribution coming from the non-manufacturing industrial sectors.

Consequent to manufacturing becoming weaker it is not surprising to observe the steady falling of exports relative to GDP. The proportion of the value from high technology manufactured exports compared to all of the manufactured exports is amounting to only about 0.9%, which is an extremely low figure.  Since independence in almost all the years it has been the norm for export income to be less than the expenditure on imports. The direct interpretation is that what the Sri Lankan economy has to offer in terms of exports is much less exciting. Similarly the interest internally is also on external goods and this unbridled consumerism has meant that the import expenditure is significant and thereby resulting in an even more difficult situation.

Industry development

Sri Lanka can identify the industry development from the 1920s. An exception from the textile industry is the birth of Wellawatte Spinning & Weaving Mills in 1888, which had a chequered history till 1981 when it was closed down. It has been stated that post 1977 when it failed to meet with competition it had the largest collection of textile machinery of ‘antique value’.

The plantation industry sector had its beginning during the colonial times from around 1830 starting with coffee, when Ceylon became the birthplace for the desiccated coconut industry. The reason for the industry to start was simply due to the colonial interest in taking coconut products abroad but without incurring costs on transporting associated moisture. The tea industry today has a history of 150 years but in many situations if you visit a factory it is like walking into a museum.

Around the 1920s there was the view that the island should strive to be less dependent on the plantation industry. Report of the Industries Commission in 1922 identified a number of new industries glass, paper, soap, cement, Cyanamid, charcoal, acetic acid, alcohol and other chemical products, fish oil, fish manure and tinned fish as suitable to be set up in Ceylon.

The Government did launch pilot industrial projects from 1930 to entice the private sector to be engaged in manufacturing. However, these never yielded any results due to poor technology adoptability, lack of capital for investment and with a private sector which lacked experience as well as interest.

Sri Lanka

starts slipping

Sri Lanka in the 1950s had a better economy and a foreign exchange reserves due to war years and a bumper income from tea benefitting the nation. However, the gains have been frittered away with the Government engaged in welfare expenditure and without much of an effort in bringing structural reforms to the economy.

This lack of foresight and the complacency meant Sri Lanka slipping in the economic ladder since 1960s. Sri Lanka too may have had an entrepreneurial class that did engage in primary product processing but they never elevated themselves with additional influx of technology and investment to the next level. Innovative behaviour has not being evident at all.

The early 1960s witnessed some development in the industrial activities of the country, with restrictions imposed on the import of manufactured articles, which actually was due to acute foreign exchange crisis facing the country. The renewed policy interest in industrialisation with the State taking charge was subsequent to the report of Director of Industries (1957) and the 10-year plan (1959-68). However, political developments along with the deteriorating current account balance prevented much of the execution of these plans.

In the 1970s the Government again set up a committee with an emphasis on heavy chemicals to identify and prepare feasibility studies on manufacturing industries. It recommended an expanded caustic soda industry, ilmenite TiO2 industry, calcium carbide and associated industries (acetic acid, formalin and PVC), charcoal and other forms of carbon, sulphuric acid, soda ash, lime, alcohol and yeast industries.

There was never a major drive for the development of process industry in Sri Lanka. Even though the country is surrounded by the sea, Sri Lanka continue to import salt and fish. Perhaps it was through the misunderstanding that job creation was the major intention and chemical process industry usually is not a major job provider.

The chemical industry can thrive only in an industrial climate and integrative planning is important. With decision-makers consistently identifying Sri Lanka to be an agriculture-based country, this conducive climate never materialised.

Pitfalls in

decision-making

Naylor who visited Ceylon in 1966 raised many questions with regard to all industries that were managed by State industrial corporations. An extract on paper is indicative of many of the pitfalls in decision-making that plagued all most all the industrial enterprises.

Paper – How did they err in choosing the wrong raw material? As a result, the plant is now uneconomically sited. Why couldn’t irrigation authorities and the Police protect the corporation’s water supply? How come irrigation authorities permit the tank to be exhausted without reserving an adequate quantity for the paper plant? How come irrigation authorities fail to repair the anicut? Why does Paper Corporation have to lose money to subsidise Government departments through sales at prices below the cost of production?

His report was an indictment of the way the industries have been managed from conception to operations and indicate the problems faced by the industry sector. Most of the industries were outright grants and only with the mindset of a trained workforce to run the system given there was no clear industrial work ethos that was developing. Some industries were clearly not planned with sustainability in mind and consequently became liabilities not because the objective was unsound but the adopted scale of operations.

Industry strategy

Post-1977 era witnessed the establishment of Export Processing Zones and inducing Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). The opening up of the Katunayake EPZ in 1978 was quite an important event. Yet one cannot forget that Sri Lanka had the first industrial estate in this region going back to fifties when the Ekala Ja-Ela industrial estate was opened up for operations.

In 1989 the Government adopted an industry strategy, placing specific emphasis on export-led growth with the private sector taking a lead role. However, to date Sri Lanka cannot defend the comment that it still predominantly is a nation that ‘exports rubber and imports erasers’ in almost all its trade segments.

When perusing history of industry in Sri Lanka in modern times it is clearly seen that the change of political regimes with different political ideologies had meant industrial policies taking a serious beating. Industrial development needs foresight but short-termism has reigned.

Sri Lankan policymakers can be reminded of the advertisement once placed in ‘The Times’ by the Engineering Council of UK when British Government was moving with a very much service sector-based development mindset – No nation can have a well-fed, well-clothed healthy population with a service and a tourist-based economy! This was the essence of the full page advertisement that the Engineering Council ran as an open message to the Government. Sri Lanka needs to understand the same.

There is a critical need for revitalisation of the manufacturing sector. Coming in line with nations that have realised development status, this is the most likely path available to Sri Lanka in obtaining sustainable economic growth. Modernisation of industry and especially the manufacturing sector can have definite beneficial impacts on the other two sectors as well. Agriculture should be coupled to the industry sector in this modernisation.

Development challenges and moving forward

2018-04-12 

The change of regime in 2015 January raised people’s aspirations for a positive social and political transformation. Many people felt that the country could move away from the conflictual past to a more peaceful future. They also expected that their myriad of problems could now be managed by a regime committed to the well-known principles of good governance. But, after three years, since the formation of the new Government, people’s hopes have been largely dashed and the country is embroiled in an unprecedented political crisis. Nobody knows how we are going to get out of it!

• Taking a closer look at how research and development helps and what happens when it is neglected

As I have pointed out in several articles in these columns, immediately after the formation of the new regime in 2015, some of the key constituents of the new regime represented extremely contradictory political views that it was virtually impossible for them to pursue a collective programme of reform. This was evident throughout the three-year period and this became quite clear whenever the Government leaders were forced to take a firm stand on important public policy issues. Yet, they could not do so because the regime was caught between two very different ideological positions that I have described as “corrosive neo-liberalism” and “violent ethno-nationalism” in the political domain. 
Mismanaging development process 

As is well known, neo-liberalism was embraced by many countries since the late 1970’s and some of them have since then made many economic gains by way of FDI, technology transfer and rapid economic growth. China is the most notable example in the world, but there are many others in east Asia and elsewhere. Though deficient in terms of democratic governance and civil liberties, the technocratic nature of the regimes enabled these countries to mange their economic development process in an efficient manner by making necessary public investments in such areas as education, research, institution building and essential infrastructure development without wasting borrowed money on economically and socially useless projects. But, Sri Lanka by and large mismanaged the development process and allowed industries we had built over many decades to collapse. We put all our eggs in one basket; i.e. the garments industry and, with increasing wages due to inflation and devaluation of the rupee, many people started migrating to other countries. 

Instead of scientifically managing the sector, populist Governments took short-term, popular measures to appease the rural voter, making the latter dependent on subsidies such as highly subsidised inputs and income support. Yet, many youth had no interest in agriculture due to its precarious nature as a source of income. The main reason was that the agricultural sector has remained stagnant due to lack of crop diversification, neglect of agricultural research leading to almost a total collapse of agricultural research institutions, devaluation of agricultural extension and the lack of development of agro-based industries to create more lucrative employment opportunities in rural areas. Moreover, liberal import policies led to the collapse of many rural industries, forcing many people to leave rural areas. 

Our political leaders have been either extremely inward looking, confined to their close social circles in Colombo or reproducing themselves through exchange of favours

Education 

Persistently low public investments in education did not help improve its quality, making many of the products of public educational institutions unfit for highly skilled and productive employment in a competitive labour market. This situation encouraged the private education sector ranging from private tuition classes through international schools to private higher educational establishments in urban centres. Products of private educational institutions and those who returned after receiving education overseas filled most of the vacancies in the private sector. Meanwhile , the products of public educational institutions in general were left out of more lucrative employment in the corporate sector.

 The situation became serious with the rapid expansion of the public university system during the past three decades without a commensurate increase in budgetary allocations for general and higher education. While the quality of education either stagnated or declined, successive Governments continued to absorb university graduates into state institutions to fill non-existent jobs. Almost random deployment of new recruits in diverse state institutions without any training or preparation not only did not contribute to their performance and productivity, but also created a demoralised and frustrated youthful workforce. 

Technological capabilities 

As is well known, both developed as well as developing countries today compete with each other on the strength of their technological capabilities. Countries that invest heavily on R and D, usually have an edge over the others because the former can either improve the quality of their export products or introduce new products into the global market. Many East Asian countries have done extremely well in this regard. Global university rankings put many East Asian universities ahead of the universities in other parts of the non-western world. The same pattern is evident in the registration of patents across the world. Most recent university rankings underscore that none of the South Asian universities appear in the first hundred universities in Asia, let alone the Sri Lankan universities. None of our universities is included even in the first 2000 universities in the world. 

As indicated above, it is research and development that enable countries to enhance the production processes or introduce new products into the market. So, it is critically important to invest in R and D.

What is outlined above shows the developments challenges we have faced over the years and how we would have overcome them by adopting strategies that have worked in other countries. But, what has been missing in the case of Sri Lanka is the absence of an enlightened political elite. Our political leaders have been either extremely inward looking, confined to their close social circles in Colombo, reproducing themselves through exchange of favours and sharing the social surplus produced by hapless masses through corrupt practices or extremely archaic and parochial, making use of backward segments of society to gain and retain power and privilege for them and their retinue while preventing the country from making any progress on any front. What is common to both the elites are corruption and the abuse of power. 

Most recent university rankings underscore that none of the South Asian universities appear in the first hundred universities in Asia, let alone the Sri Lankan universities

As a result, neoliberalism that has enabled many countries in the region and elsewhere to promote rapid economic growth has been turned into an extremely corrosive force by one faction of the political elite that thrives on gross inequalities and injustices in society, the other faction has used ethno-nationalism to lead the country on a downward spiral of inter-community discord, corruption, economic stagnation and increasing misery for the vast majority of ordinary people.

As a result, today, the country is torn between two powerful, but equally negative political forces. The challenge before the right thinking citizens is to find an alternative path to development, public welfare and national unity, that helps the country to move away from both corrosive neo-liberalism and violent ethno-religious nationalism. The future well-being of the ordinary masses will depend on whether the progressive political forces succeed in taking the country on the alternative path mentioned above.(The writer is an Emeritus Professor of Sociology and a product of the University of Colombo) 

Challenges for Resolving Complex Conflicts

Consequently, given his conception of nonviolence, Gandhi’s intention is to reach a conflict outcome that recognizes the sanctity and unity of all life which, obviously, includes the lives (but also the physical and emotional well-being) of his opponents.

by Robert J. Burrowes-Apr 11, 2018

( April 11, 2018, Victoria, Sri Lanka Guardian) While conflict theories and resolution processes advanced dramatically during the second half of the 20th century, particularly thanks to the important work of several key scholars such as Professor Johan Galtung – see ‘Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (the Transcend Method)’ – significant gaps remain in the conflict literature on how to deal with particular conflict configurations. Notably, these include the following four.

First, existing conflict theory does not adequately explain, emphasize and teach how to respond in those circumstances in which parties cannot be brought to the table to deeply consider a conflict and the measures necessary to resolve it. This particularly applies in cases where one or more parties is violently defending (often using a combination of direct andstructural violence) substantial interrelated (material and non-material) interests. The conflict between China and Tibet over the Chinese-occupied Tibetan plateau, the many conflicts between western corporations and indigenous peoples over exploitation of the natural environment, and the conflict between the global elite and ‘ordinary’ people over resource allocation in the global economy are obvious examples of a vast number of conflicts in this category. As one of the rare conflict theorists who addresses this question, Galtung notes that structural violence ‘is not only evil, it is obstinate and must be fought’, and his preferred strategy is nonviolent revolution. See The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective p. 140. But how?

Second, existing conflict theory does not explain how to respond in those circumstances in which one or more parties to the conflict are insane. The conflict between Israel and Palestine over Israeli-occupied Palestine classically illustrates this problem, particularly notable in the insanity of Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. But it is also readily illustrated by the insanity of the current political/military leadership in the USA and the insanity of the political, military and Buddhist leaders in Myanmar engaged in a genocidal assault on the Rohingya. For a brief discussion of the meaning and cause of this insanity see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

As an aside, there is little point deluding ourselves that insanity is not a problem or even ‘diplomatically’ not mentioning the insanity (if this is indeed the case) of certain parties in particular conflicts. The truth enables us to fully understand a conflict so that we can develop and implement a strategy to deal with all aspects of that truth. Any conflict strategy that fails to accurately identify and address all key aspects of the conflict, including the insanity of any of the parties, will virtually certainly fail.

Third, and more fundamentally, existing conflict theory does not take adequate account of the critical role that several unconscious emotions play in driving conflict in virtually all contexts, often preventing its resolution. This particularly applies in the case of (but is not limited to) suppressed terror, self-hatred and anger which are often unconsciously projected as fear of, hatred for and anger at an opponent or even an innocent third-party (essentially because this individual/group feels ‘safe’ to the person who is projecting). See ‘The Psychology of Projection in Conflict’.

While any significant ongoing conflict would illustrate this point adequately, the incredibly complex and interrelated conflicts being conducted in the Middle East, the prevalent Islamophobia in some western countries, and the conflicts over governance and exploitation of resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo are superlative examples. Ignoring suppressed (and projected) emotions can stymie conflict resolution in any context, interpersonally and geopolitically, and it does so frequently.

Fourth, existing conflict theory pays little attention to the extinction-causing conflict being ongoingly generated by human over-consumption in the finite planetary biosphere (and currently resulting in 200 species extinctions daily) which is sometimes inadequately identified as a conflict caused by capitalism’s drive for unending economic growth in a finite environment.

So what can we do?

Well, to begin, in all four categories of cases mentioned above, I would use Gandhian nonviolent strategy to compel violent opponents to participate in a conflict transformation process such as Galtung’s. Why nonviolent and why Gandhian? Nonviolent because our intention is to process the conflict to achieve a higher level of need satisfaction for all parties and violence against any or all participants is inconsistent with that intention. But Gandhian nonviolence because only Gandhi’s version of nonviolence has this conflict intention built into it. See ‘Conception of Nonviolence’.

‘But isn’t this nonviolent strategy simply coercion by another name?’ you might ask. Well, according to the Norwegian philosopher, Professor Arne Naess, it is not. In his view, if a change of will follows the scrutiny of norms in the context of new information while one is ‘in a state of full mental and bodily powers’, this is an act of personal freedom under optimal conditions. Naess highlights this point with the following example: Suppose that one person carries another against their will into the streets where there is a riot and, as a result of what they see, the carried person changes some of their attitudes and opinions. Was the change coerced? According to Naess, while the person was coerced into seeing something that caused the change, the change itself was not coerced. The distinction is important, Naess argues, because satyagraha (Gandhian nonviolent struggle)  is incompatible with changes of attitudes or opinions that are coerced. See Gandhi and Group Conflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha pp. 91-92.

To elaborate this point: Unlike other conceptions of nonviolence, Gandhi’s nonviolence is based on certain premises, including the importance of the truth, the sanctity and unity of all life, and the unity of means and end, so his strategy is always conducted within the framework of his desired political, social, economic and ecological vision for society as a whole and not limited to the purpose of any immediate campaign. It is for this reason that Gandhi’s approach to strategy is so important. He is always taking into account the ultimate end of all nonviolent struggle – a just, peaceful and ecologically sustainable society of self-realized human beings – not just the outcome of this campaign. He wants each campaign to contribute to the ultimate aim, not undermine vital elements of the long-term and overarching struggle to create a world without violence.

Consequently, given his conception of nonviolence, Gandhi’s intention is to reach a conflict outcome that recognizes the sanctity and unity of all life which, obviously, includes the lives (but also the physical and emotional well-being) of his opponents. His nonviolent strategy is designed to compel participation in a conflict process but not to impose his preferred outcome unilaterally. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

This can apply in the geopolitical context or in relation to ordinary individuals ‘merely’ participating in the violence of overconsumption. Using nonviolent strategy to campaign on the climate catastrophe or other environmental issues can include mobilizing individuals and communities to emulate Gandhi’s asceticism in a modest way by participating in the fifteen-year strategy outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which he inspired.

But even if we can use nonviolent strategy effectively to get the conflicting parties together, the reality is that suppressed and projected emotions – particularly fear, self-hatred and anger as mentioned above – or even outright insanity on the part of one or more parties may still make efforts to effectively transform the conflict impossible. So for conflict resolution to occur, we need individuals who are willing and able to participate with at least minimal goodwill in designing a superior conflict outcome beneficial to everyone concerned.

Hence, I would do one more thing in connection with this process. Prior to, and then also in parallel with, the ‘formal’ conflict process, I would provide opportunities for all individuals engaged in the process (or otherwise critical to it because of their ‘background’ role, perhaps as a leader not personally present at the formal conflict process) to explore in a private setting with a skilled ‘nisteler’ (who is outside the conflict process), the unconscious emotions that are driving their particular approach to the conflict. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’. The purpose of this nisteling is to allow each participant in the conflict process to bring a higher level of self-awareness to it. See ‘Human Intelligence or Human Awareness?’

I am not going to pretend that this would necessarily be possible, quick, easy or even work in every context. Insane individuals are obviously the last to know they have a psychological problem and the least likely to participate in a process designed to uncover and remove the roots of their insanity. However, those who are trapped in a dysfunctional psychological state short of insanity may be willing to avail themselves of the opportunity. In time, the value of this aspect of the conflict resolution process should become apparent, particularly because delusions and projections are exposed by the person themself (as an outcome of the expertise of the person nisteling).

Obviously, I am emphasizing the psychological aspects of the conflict process because my own considerable experience as a nonviolent activist together with my research convinces me that understanding violence requires an understanding of the psychology that drives it. If you are interested, you can read about the psychology of violence, including the 23 psychological characteristics in the emotional profile of archetype perpetrators of violence, in the documents ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

Ideally, I would like to see the concept of nistelers operating prior to, and then parallel with, focused attention on the conflict itself normalized as an inherent part of the conflict resolution process. Clearly, we need teams of people equipped to perform this service, a challenge in itself in the short-term.

If, however, conflicting parties cannot be convinced to participate in this process with reasonable goodwill, we can always revert to using nonviolent strategy to compel them to do so. And, if all attempts to conduct a reasonable conflict process fail (particularly in a circumstance in which insanity is the cause of this failure), to impose a nonviolent solution which nevertheless takes account of the insane’s party’s legitimate needs. (Yes, on just that one detail, I diverge from Gandhi.)

Having stated that, however, I acknowledge that only a rare individual has the capacity to think, plan and act strategically in tackling a violent conflict nonviolently, so considerable education in nonviolent strategy will be necessary and is a priority.

Given what is at stake, however – a superior strategy for tackling and resolving violent geopolitical conflicts including those (such as the threat of nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and decimation of the biosphere) that threaten human extinction – any resources devoted to improving our capacity to deliver this outcome would be well spent.

Provided, of course, that reducing (and ultimately eliminating) violence and resolving conflict is your aim.

In addition to the above, I would do something else more generally (that is, outside the conflict process).

Given that dysfunctional parenting is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of those individuals who generate and perpetuate violent conflicts, I would encourage all parents to consider making ‘My Promise to Children’ so that we start to produce a higher proportion of functional individuals who know how to powerfully resolve conflicts in their lives without resort to violence. If any parent feels unable to make this promise, then they have the option of tackling this problem at its source by ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If we do not dramatically and quickly improve our individual and collective capacity to resolve conflicts nonviolently, including when we are dealing with individuals who are insane, then one day relatively soon we will share the fate of those 200 species of life we drove to extinction today.

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.

Saudi crown prince’s gift to Israel

Mohammad bin Salman at the United Nations headquarters in New York City on 27 March.Amir LevyReuters

Omar Karmi-10 April 2018

It was no innocuous remark. It was also not all it was made out to be.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s recently, and apparently successfully, concluded tour de charmto the US included a number of interviews with American media, including one in The Atlantic that caused some reverberations.

It was a remarkable interview in many ways, not least for the way in which MBS, as he is now almost universally known, is described as having “made all the right enemies” – Hamas, Iran and Hizballah along with Islamic State and al-Qaida – and for, “like many Arab leaders, [having] tired of the Palestinians.”

While that may simply have been projection by the author, MBS was certainly outspoken about his views on the Middle East, at times sounding like his talking points had been drafted by some junior at a K-Street PR company.

Thus, undoubtedly, the “triangle of evil” was born (to describe Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and groups like al-Qaida and Islamic State), an expression so trite it didn’t even make the headline or subheading in The Atlanticitself.

Thus, too, we learn that in the Middle East, “you don’t have good decisions and bad decisions. Sometimes you have bad decisions and worse decisions.”

And then to compound matters, MBS – otherwise keen to present himself as a Silicon Valley leader with his finger on the tech pulse – said Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made “Hitler look good” (by wanting to conquer the world, not just Europe), ignoring the golden rule of online debating: the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument.

On the rights of peoples

Yet his answer to the question of whether he believed “the Jewish people have a right to a nation-state in at least part of their ancestral homeland” (a wonderfully loaded question) was not quite as radical as it was made to appear.

His answer was seized upon by some as groundbreaking. He did what “no Arab leader has ever acknowledged,” The Atlantic breathlessly reported: he “recognizes the right of the Jewish people to have a nation-state of their own next to a Palestinian state.”

But, weary as he may or may not be with the Palestinians, and unlike the bluntness with which he addresses other issues, MBS’ answer here was fairly conservative. “I believe,” he said, “that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land.”

As published, this answer – one part standard universal rights language, one part restatement – offers Israel no more and no less than Saudi Arabia did with its 2002 two-state peace initiative. Indeed, MBS added that “we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations.”

So why the brouhaha?

In part of course this suits Riyadh. Clearly obsessed with Tehran, the young Saudi prince is setting the stage for a confrontation of uncertain nature. Washington is the crucial ally in any such showdown and saying something vaguely nice about Israel – a well-trodden PR strategy in Arab capitals – always plays well in America, not least due to Israel’s many cheerleaders in the US media.
In addition, the remarks must be seen in the broader context of how MBS says he sees the region.

Risible as it may seem, if you believe that the Iranian revolution in 1979 was the first step in a deliberate campaign by an Iranian theocracy to take over the world and see the emergence of the hidden Imam, then the past 15 years will have been particularly worrying.

A map of perceived woes

All you need is a map of the region. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, warnings of a Shia crescent hanging over the Arab world like a scimitar, would seem to have come dramatically true. From Lebanon, through Syria and Iraq, all the way over to the Afghan border in the east, Iran’s sphere of influence would seem to have amputated the Arabian peninsula from the rest of the world.

Indeed, if you include Yemen, where Saudi Arabia launched a deadly military intervention in 2015 in defense, it says, of a legitimate government under threat from Iran’s proxies there, Iran is trying to surround Arab countries.

Never mind that it was the US that invaded Iraq and created a vacuum there for the country’s majority Shia population to step into to then deepen relations with Iran. Never mind that Syria’s conflict, which has seen Iran establish a significant military presence in the country, was inspired by uprisings across the Arab world, including in Yemen, against autocratic leaders.

To some, evidently including MBS, this is confirmation that Tehran’s nefarious plans to see the return of the hidden Imam are coming to fruition.

And in this conflict, Israel and Saudi Arabia have a common enemy in Iran, as MBS readily admits. But he has also been clear that “we cannot have a relation with Israel before solving the peace issue.”

Israeli impunity

How that “peace issue” is to be solved and what Riyadh will support in this context is a different matter. There have by now been several reports about an imminent US administration plan for sealing what President Donald Trump has called the “deal of the century.”

But beyond calamitously acceding to Israel on Jerusalem – a most unpropitious start – there has been nothing.

Officially, Riyadh has rejected Trump’s Jerusalem announcement. Unofficially, rumors to the contrary abound. But Trump and MBS will find that however much pressure they apply to Palestinians, there is only so much any Palestinian leader, whether from Fatah or Hamas or anywhere else, can accept.

This is about more than settling for a less than optimal deal. “Reality,” as Trump seems to have mistaken political expediency for, is no substitute for the kind of peace agreement that addresses the core elements of a conflict – the reasons there is conflict – in a way that doesn’t simply let the powerful take what they want.

Justice is a much-maligned concept, but trying to divorce it from any solution to the conflict is a fool’s errand. A sense of injustice is what drives Palestinians to protest their right of return even at the risk of death and in the knowledge that Israeli soldiers operate a shoot-to-kill policy that they apparently enjoy quite a bit.

Israel has always acted with impunity, regardless of Riyadh. But a seemingly pliant crown prince with a similar regional agenda will only encourage Tel Aviv. If Saudi Arabia wants to offer Israel a carrot, it needs to find a stick too.

Otherwise – as successive US administrations have discovered, having been maneuvered into trying to curb Israel’s settlement building and land snatching by offering more and bigger loans, aid and arms deals over the years in an unusual “carrot and bigger carrot” tactic – relations will go only one-way.