Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, May 12, 2018


Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:39 am SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.


Lankapage LogoMay 11, Colombo: The Office on Missing Persons (OMP) is launching a series of regional-level public consultations, commencing in Mannar on Saturday, 12th May 2018.

The consultations are a vital step in the process to operationalize the functions of the OMP in its search for missing and disappeared persons, the Chairman of the OMP attorney Saliya Peiris said in a statement.

Consultations will be held with the families of missing and disappeared persons, activists, professionals and organizations working on the issue.

Within the next few weeks, the OMP will visit the districts of Matara, Trincomalee, Mullaitivu, Kandy, Kilinochchi, Jaffna, Batticaloa and Ampara. The visits are included in the first phase of tours planned by the office.

The purpose of these meetings will be to share the OMP�s organizational plan and strategies, as they currently stand, in order to hear public views and incorporate suggestions on measures and processes.
The plans thus far attempt to build on the lessons learned and recommendations from previous commissions and the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms process.

The OMP understands the urgency and frustration of the families and individuals who have been searching for their loved ones over a number of years, but respectfully requests their patience to ensure vital processes are put in place in order to ensure an effective response and to avoid ad hoc measures.


These consultations mark the start of the outreach process of the OMP and are a positive indication that the search for missing and disappeared persons is underway.

INFOGRAPHIC: 10 Types of Mis And Disinformation


Featured image courtesy Tacstrat
GROUNDVIEWS- 
Editor’s Note: This infographic is part of a series Groundviews is releasing addressing media literacy. The need for media literacy came into central focus during rioting and violence targeting Muslim-owned property, homes and places of worship in March. In the wake of the violence, bots began spreading false information, with apparently malicious intent. As a result Groundviews tweeted about the importance of fact-checking before sharing unverified content, and also shared content related to media literacy in a bid to raise awareness on its importance.
View the full size infographic below.
Download the high-resolution jpeg file here.

On modern day witches and portents of anarchy

Sunday, May 13, 2018

The Sunday Times Sri LankaChants of the Joint Opposition and its enthusiasts that anarchy has been let loose upon the land as a result of foibles of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government bear an uncanny resemblance to the ancient cackling of ‘double, double toil and trouble, parties burn and nonsense bubble’ by Shakespeare’s three witches immortalized in Macbeth.

The political nonsense that bubbles


Politically correct critics may well object to this ancient rendering of witches as evil. Quite rightly chroniclers must be blamed for ascribing the downfall of kings, princes and generals to temptresses rather than acknowledging that their own follies, power and greed were to blame rather than any other external temptations. But the modern-day incarnations of doomsday voices at least in Sri Lanka are certainly not of the feminine gender though the Joint Opposition’s portents of impending chaos do sound unkindly like the shrill squawking of those witches of old.

Let us separate the wheat from the chaff and see if anarchy really stalks the country. True, it must be said that the ‘nonsense that bubbles’ on the part of those in power has led to far more confusion than what is warranted. It is inconceivable for one that appointments such as the President’s Chief of Staff could have taken place without thorough vetting of the credentials of the selected persons.

It is even more inconceivable that, even after the Chairman of the Timber Corporation was arrested along with the President’s Chief of Staff after getting caught in an act of bribery in flagrante delicto, (to put a racy spin on that term) recently, the appointment of an individual who had been prosecuted for a financial crime as the next head of the Timber Corporation was stopped only at the eleventh hour.

Is the impact of public pressure enough?

What do these astounding lapses speak to? Certainly on the scale of things, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka treasury bond imbroglio and the safeguarding of the then Governor Arjuna Mahendran by many in the United National Party is not comparable to the netting of the two giant whales by the Bribery and Corruption Commission though attempts are being made to equate the two in that regard.
As has been repeatedly said in these column spaces, it was not only the fact of the treasury bond scandals themselves but the way that they were sought to be exempted from public scrutiny through one devious tactic or the other by many in the top rungs of the UNP despite manifest public fury, which called for the strongest opprobrium. Here in contrast, the sting operation of the Bribery and Corruption Commission proceeded without calls from those in the seats of power halting the process and the interdiction of both officials came soon after.

But does this suffice? Is the fact that public pressure can change the Government from a disastrous appointment that should not have been contemplated in the first place enough to feel warm and safe inside in thinking that things have really changed. It is said that a drowning man or woman clutches for any straws that he or she can find. And that is very true even where the Rule of Law is concerned in a country where the minimum has become something to be glad for. In the Rajapaksa decade, appointments of notoriously corrupt people were made with impunity and the very idea of a sting operation by the Bribery and Corruption Commission would have been laughed off as a cruel joke. Misappropriation of state funds was a given. Their cackling now is therefore even more of a joke.

Monstrous growth in Sri Lankan public life

But three years since this National Unity Government came into power in 2015, we have been taught, if nothing else, the manner in which tentacles of corruption have sunk into every aspect of the public service and bureaucracy, academic and professional life and the judiciary. And to its credit, at least now, some light is being shone on the alarming extent to which this monstrous growth has sapped the functioning of Sri Lanka’s governance processes.

At another level, growing public concern regarding the functioning of legal and justice institutions cannot be ignored, however much one may try. Unlike the conventional media subjected to restraints of civil critique, social media which has no such niceties has ripped the mask off the face of these institutions, subjecting all to a merciless beating that makes no distinctions between the honourable and the dis-honourable. Indeed as a long-time critic of the travails of Sri Lanka’s justice system, I must confess to being appalled myself at the deeply disturbing level to which social criticism has now reached, where the judiciary and the legal profession is concerned. But this was inevitable.

As two eminent judges of the Supreme Court, the late Justices MDH Fernando and ARB Amerasinghe warned repeatedly in several judgments relating to criticism of Government one and a half decades ago, if justifiable criticism is not allowed to flourish, that gives room for destructive criticism. This was said of the Government. But that is true in another sense as well. And indeed this is what has happened to the very institution to which both judges were once proud to belong to, during a very different time. It does not require much imagination to vision the supreme disdain with which respected judges of old would have shown in response to the crassness and the crudity that now prevails in the legal profession.

Containing public anger sensibly and constructively

So the questions that arise deserve more probing than the wild flailing of the Bar Association which appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that threatening all and sundry with contempt of court will be the answer to the problem. What is the role of the Bar in disciplining its members who engage in corrupt practices? How many of these characters have in fact, been dis-enrolled or otherwise dealt with?

It is common knowledge for example, that some of the prime miscreants in effecting fraudulent land transactions throughout the length and breadth of Sri Lanka are lawyers themselves. But how many of these rogues have been brought to book? Without playing politics one way or the other (ie with whoever is in power or out of power as the case may be) and without having innumerable conferences on Good Governance and the Law, the Bar should look to itself in cleaning up its own house.

Else, public anger which is raw and visceral and emanating from years of pent-up fury by suffering that ordinary people have had undergone in the face of the denial of justice may well become unstoppable. That will be the true anarchy, not the nonsensical burblings of the Joint Opposition.

“Lanka’s Yahapalanaya government has passed its shelf life”

“Lanka’s Yahapalanaya government has passed its shelf life”
By Veeragathy Thanabalasingham/Daily Express-By  on 
NewsIn.AsiaSri Lanka’ Good Governance regime headed by President Maithripala Sirisena came in 2015 with a promise to end  partisan politics and the abolish the Executive Presidency. But its record in the past three years shows that it is going the way previous regimes went, sacrificing ideals at the alter of political expediency. With just 18 months to go for the next elections, the regime may already have passed its shelf life.
President Maithripala Sirisena in his speeches on two separate occasions early this week made two politically important pronouncements.
Addressing the May Day rally of his Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and its ally United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) in the Eastern town of Chengalady near Batticaloa last Monday  (May 7) he declared that he would not retire from politics in 2020 when his current term of office ends; that he has a mission and a vision for the people and the country beyond 2020, and that would retire only after accomplishing them.
The next day, while  delivering his policy statement at the ceremonial inauguration of the second session of the Eighth Parliament, the President said that the National Unity Government (NUG) has failed to attain political maturity since it was appointed three years ago, resulting in discord being sowed between parties in the ruling coalition.
He further said that the two main political  parties in the government are yet to reach a consensus on sustaining the  national government and that a consensual political culture has provided the base for many successful states in modern times. But it seems that it is still very much alien to Sri Lankans.
It is important to note that the President’s pronouncements came at a time when his National Unity government is at the tail end of its five year term. We cannot find fault with anybody who interprets his speeches as a confession of failure to deliver on his promise of good governance in the past three years of his administration.
The people of this country won’t have forgotten the declaration made by Maithripala Sirisena immediately after being sworn in as the new President of Sri Lanka on January 9, 2015 at the Colombo Independence Square, that he would not contest another Presidential election.
That was viewed as an honest demonstration of his determination to abolish the Executive Presidency, the main pledge made during the campaign.  But, his approach and actions thereafter, have been contrary to the promise and the expectations of the people who voted for him.
After more than three years in office, Sirisena is leading a party that has become an ardent advocate of the retention of the Executive Presidency.
During the deliberations of the constitution making process, the SLFP took up the position that the abolition of the Executive Presidency is not prudent. At the same time a President who came to power having the abolition of the Executive Presidency as his main pledge, has been maintaining a stoic silence on this important issue.
Again Sirisena continued to keep silent when several ministers and senior politicians from the SLFP came out with statements  that he will be the party’s Presidential candidate in the 2020 Presidential election.
in the fluid political situation that emerged after the local government polls three months ago, it would be unrealistic to hope that the stalled constitutional reform process would be revived and a consensus reached regarding the future of the Executive Presidency.
All signs confirm that Executive Presidency, post 19 th amendment to the constitution, will continue for the time being.
It is in this context one must see the declaration of  President Sirisena that he is not going to retire in 2020 and will continue to be in politics until he accomplishes his mission and  vision for the people and the country.
One may wonder whether the people of this country will find any meaning in the President’s claim that he has a vision for the country, if the last three years of his administration is anything to go by. Surely, at the end of his political career he will be remembered as one of the Presidents who did not make good his promises to the people.
By reneging on the pledge that the Executive Presidency would be abolished, Sirisena is now going to join the list of Presidents who came to power after promising to abolish the Executive Presidency and later forgetting about it.
One is reminded of a saying by Machiavelli that the promises given were a necessity of the past; and the breaking of that promise is a necessity of the present.
When it comes to the Presidential lament that the National Unity Government has failed to attain political maturity and the failure of the Sri Lankan society to grasp the importance of consensual political culture in this modern times; surely we have a pertinent question to ask him: “Is he of the opinion that it is because of the failure to attain political maturity, that discord has been sowed between the parties in the ruling coalition ?. And if so, what has been his contribution to nurturing a consensual political culture?”
Like many of the ministers and leaders of his party, Sirisena is also contributing tremendously to strengthening partisan politics. This process went to the extreme during the recent local polls campaign where President Sirisena’s speeches were unbecoming of a Head of State leading to an unprecedented crisis in the coalition government.
This writer wishes to remind readers of Sirisena’s comment in this column a few months ago that the unprecedented coming together of the two main parties to form a government, for the first time in the country’s post independence history, was initially a good opportunity to explore ways and means to find solutions to the  country’s problems including the ethnic problem. But all too soon, it began to appear as though the leaders of the two parties were trying a bizarre experiment on how best to  push party politics to the fore, while being partners in a government.
After all this, in his statement made in the House, President Sirisena called upon partners in the national government to give up their struggle for power and  the ruling coalition and the Opposition should end competing for supremacy, in a joint effort contribute to overcoming the challenges which the country is facing today.
While all the main parties, including his terribly weakened SLFP, are preparing to face the next Presidential election due in less than 18 months, and are in the process of selecting their prospective Presidential candidate, President Siriena is talking about parties giving up the power struggle.
Further the main parties are also talking of forming a government on their own in the future. In the background of the intensifying political and economic crises, it is doubtful if  the National Unity Government will be able to continue till 2020.
To put it succinctly the ‘yahapalanaya’ arrangement is now past its shelf life.
(The featured image at the top shows Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena at the right and  Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe) 

Memories Of Late K.G Amaradasa – An Ardent Tamil Literary Lover & Advocate For National Unity

By L. Murugapoopathy –
logoSome might say that if a Sinhala man marries a Tamil woman or a Tamil man marries a Sinhala woman, then national unity will be born. I don’t think so. If people of different ethnic origin get married, only the children would be born as a natural consequence” quipped Ven. M Ratnavansa Thero – a Buddhist monk much loved and respected by Tamil writers and community members alike. 
K.G Amaradasa
Late K.G. Amaradasa is someone of similar calibre who also held the strong belief that national unity is not a one-way street. He is a remarkable man who learned and excelled in the Tamil literature and who pioneered the way in introducing the great Tamil national poet Mahakavi Barathiyar to the Sinhala people.
Due to the introduction of the controversial Sinhala Only legislation in 1950s and the promotion of Sinhala as a compulsory subject in the curriculum, a large number of Tamils who held government positions learned Sinhala and mastered that language. Many Tamil writers also proceeded to learn Sinhala literary forms and translated them in Tamil. Sinhala cinema and drama productions were also subject of Tamil literary critique. In contrast, there was little or no reciprocal engagement by Sinhala literary figures and community members with the Tamil language and its rich literature. K.G Amaradasa was one of the handful of Sinhala writers who deeply regretted this situation and recognised that it ought to change even as early as 1970s.
He was a man of resolution who acted on his preaching. He learned Tamil and was able to speak our language fluently. His Tamil pronunciation had the beauty a child ‘s utterings and he also had the dedication to constantly ask his Tamil friends for feedback so that he can improve his Tamil language command. The warmth and generosity of his character was something deeply endearing. 
Prof Kailasapathy
He made his entry into the literary world in 1957. Only gradually he grasped the bitter reality of the ethnic question unfolding at the time. He envisaged that preserving the millennium long Sinhala-Tamil relationships from the devastating political catastrophe is an utmost duty of each and every writer of that divisive era. 
He embarked on translating many Tamil literary works and introduced them to the Sinhala readers through newspapers. As he commenced working at the Department of Cultural Affairs he became a friend of many Tamil literary figures and writers. It is said that “Friends are not born -they are created”. The strong friendship that flourished between K.G Amaradasa and many Tamil writers was a living proof of this.
The sudden death of Professor Kailasapathi devastated Amaradasa. He wrote a moving tribute for his friend in Tamil which he titled as “Ayubovan My Brother!”:
“Along the ranges of Himalayas -there lies the impenetrable peak of Kailash!
So have I read in many books.
Its beauty and majesty compete with each other, and there resides the omnipotent Lord Shiva!
So have I heard as well.
To date, I have not witnessed that splendid sight.
Beyond the point of Kumari, in our holy land 
There also lived a Kailash -atop the Tamil literary Himalayas 
For 49 blessed years! 
It cast its light, burning bright and rid the literary world 
Of the misery of darkness in every fold and made life anew!
Alas! That Kailash was felled by a lightening blow and I am grief -stricken!  
I wonder whether Lord Shiva resented a mortal competitor to the repute of his majestic abode!
My dearest friend, why did you abandon us without any warning?
Wander where you wish, but do not tread on Himalayas -your place is here and here only!
May your soul live on and serve this blessed land of Sri Lanka. 
Be born and re-born for thousands of years- here and here only!
So that art and literature can live on and chant your name endlessly!
Until we meet next time-Ayubovan my brother!” 
This deeply moving tribute farewelling Professor Kailasapathi was published in the Tamil daily “Veerakesari” in 1982. Sadly, today, we have also farewelled KG. 

Read More

SL’s external sector is under severe stress, contrary to Central Bank’s favourable comments



logoWednesday, 9 May 2018

Sri Lanka is facing harsh external financing vulnerabilities, in contrast to the Central Bank’s recent claims that the country’s gross official foreign reserves have risen to the historically highest level of $ 9.9 billion reflecting improved economic prospects.

According to a press release issued by the Central Bank last week, oversubscription of the International Sovereign Bond (ISB) amounting to $ 2.5 billion (largest ever), which was offered in April, signals foreign investors’ confidence in Sri Lanka’s economic performance and potential. The Central Bank goes on to say that it has received favourable response from the international community for a proposed term loan of $ 1 billion which is to be utilised by the Government to repay more expensive existing debt.

The affirmative statements issued by the IMF with regard to the country’s economic performance and the better credit ratings given by two international rating agencies are also a reflection of positive foreign sentiments, according to the press release.

As regards the ongoing depreciation of the rupee, the Central Bank authorities are reported to have dismissed the popular “myth” of aggravating foreign debt liabilities by rupee depreciation, and expressed their unwavering capacity to tackle any resulting inflationary pressures through monetary policy.

Central Bank’s complacency unwarranted

The above statements indicate that the Central Bank is quite complacent about the economic achievements, particularly on the balance of payments front, and thus, the general public is given the impression that there is no reason to panic.

However, the rapid exchange rate depreciation during the past couple of weeks itself reflects the external finance fragility. Such fast depreciation, of course, is inevitable given the grave balance of payments situation. The depreciation has far reaching repercussions on debt service payments from the viewpoint of fiscal balancing, although the Central Bank denies such adverse effects. The supply-side effects of exchange rate depreciation on inflation and cost of living too are undeniable, and the central bank has limited ability to control such price increases through its demand-side policy tools within the now famous inflation targeting monetary policy framework.

We cannot afford to be too complacent about the unprecedented rise in foreign reserves, as those are nothing but funds borrowed from international capital markets, which are subject to stringent terms and conditions. Oversubscription of the ISB to the tune of 2.6 times is undoubtedly a reflection of the improved foreign sentiments, as claimed by the Central Bank. However, it should be noted that these foreign loans are taken at very high costs to the country. Such market borrowings further enhance the already unsustainable debt stock posing severe debt sustainability risks in the near future, though they may help to ease the present external financing problems and to postpone the inevitable economic reforms.

Private foreign lending institutions are ever ready to disburse sovereign loans to governments in poor countries at premiums favourable to them. Many countries in the regions of Latin America, Africa and Asia have fallen into this debt trap.

Foreign reserves raised by commercial borrowings 

The increase in foreign reserves is no reason for complacency, as it is entirely an outcome of borrowings from overseas capital markets, rather than a result of any improvement in the domestic economy. The Central Bank itself admits in its press release that the inflow of recent ISB proceeds is the reason for the rise in international reserves to the peak level. The increase in gross official reserves from $ 7,959 million at the end of 2017 to $ 9,927 million by now is entirely a result of the foreign borrowings raised through the ISB.

Foreign borrowings through an ISB amounting to $ 1.5 billion issued by the Central Bank last year too helped to improve the reserve position previously. It was complemented by a net inflow of Treasury bond proceeds amounting to $ 360 million in 2017. Thus, debt security inflows were the major contributory factor that led to an external financial account surplus of $ 2,068 million in 2017, and the resulting equivalent amount of increase in foreign reserves.

The rise in foreign reserve stock, for whatever reason, is a temporary phenomenon in the current context, as it is going to fall down soon due to the upcoming foreign debt commitments. The net drain on foreign reserves within the next 12 months is estimated to be $ 7.5 billion, of which $ 6.3 billion is for foreign currency loans, securities and deposits, and the balance $ 1.2 billion is for foreign currency forwards and futures.

Hence, unless the Central Bank borrows continuously from foreign capital markets, it is impossible to maintain the foreign reserve position at a satisfactory level. This means further acceleration of the country’s foreign debt burden.

Rupee depreciation mirrors the

economic downfall

The rupee has depreciated sharply against the US dollar since the beginning of this year, as shown in the chart. The weakening of the currency is largely a reflection of the continuing setback in the external sector characterised by the wide trade gap and heavy external debt commitments. The rupee fell by 3.3% against the dollar this year so far, compared with a drop of 2.5% last year. In April alone, the rupee fell by 1.1% reflecting a sharper depreciation.

Undoubtedly, freer movement of the exchange rate is essential to improve the country’s export competitiveness and to discourage imports so as to reverse the weakening of the balance of payments. Such an exchange rate system is compelling, as the Central Bank is in the process of moving towards an inflation targeting monetary policy framework in which it is not permissible to have a nominal anchor such as the exchange rate or the money supply.

In terms of the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement with the IMF, the Central Bank is committed to pursuing a flexible exchange rate regime with intervention limited to preventing wide fluctuations and building up official reserves.

The adverse effects of the Central Bank’s previous attempts to defend an overvalued currency on the external sector were clearly evident. Hence, the shift towards a more flexible exchange rate regime is commendable.

Nevertheless, certain statements issued by the high-ranking Central Bank officials few days ago with regard to the rupee depreciation tend to mislead the public. They have dismissed the “myth” of aggravating foreign debt liabilities by rupee depreciation. They also defended the rupee fall on the grounds of their ability to intervene in the foreign exchange market at any time due to the strong foreign reserve position. They further claim that any inflationary pressures arising from the rupee depreciation could be tackled by adjusting their policy (interest) rates.

Exchange rate pressures on foreign debt

burden undeniable

The effects of currency depreciation on foreign debt burden are well known. Although the depreciation does not cause any rise in the foreign debt stock in US dollar terms as claimed by the Central Bank, the external debt stock as well as its service costs in rupee terms go up proportionately to the depreciation causing severe burden on fiscal operations. The rupee depreciation resulted in a rise in the foreign debt stock by a staggering Rs. 225.2 billion at the end of 2017, according to the Central Bank’s latest Annual Report. This year’s depreciation to date has led to increase the foreign debt stock further by around Rs. 155 billion.

The main reason for the rise in foreign debt is the financing of budget deficit through foreign sources, mainly commercial borrowings. As a result of these continuous foreign borrowings, the debt service payments have bunched heavily at present costing the government a whopping US $ 17.8 billion during the period 2018-2022; $ 2.8 billion 2018, $ 4.2 billion in 2019, 3.7 billion in 2020, $ 3.3 billion in 2021 and $ 3.7 billion in 2022.

In rupee terms, the external debt service payments for this year is likely to go up by over Rs. 14 billion as a result of the exchange rate depreciation that took place to date. These costs will increase further during the rest of the year depending on the extent of depreciation.

Balance of Payments

is in crisis

The country’s external sector is in a dismal state. The trade deficit widened from $ 8.9 billion in 2016 to $ 9.6 billion in 2017. The rapid increase in imports outpaced the slower export growth. The export sector, which still depends largely on garments and commodity exports, has failed to increase its share in the global market with innovative, knowledge-based, high-tech products, unlike in the fast-growing neighbouring countries. In contrast, imports rise at a faster pace calling for monetary policy tightening.

The larger surplus generated in the services account in 2017, which was due to increased earnings from transport and tourism, was inadequate to offset the negative impact of the huge trade deficit on the balance of payments. The situation is being worsened by a slowdown of worker remittances due to unsettled conditions in the Middle East countries.

Overall, the current account recorded a deficit of $ 2.3 billion amounting to 2.6 percent of GDP in 2017. This had to be financed mainly through foreign borrowings consisted of Sovereign Bonds, Treasury Bonds and long-term loans. In the absence of dynamism in the export sector and the weak macroeconomic fundamentals which hinder foreign direct investments, the balance of payments situation is unlikely to improve in the near future.

Exchange rate pass-through to inflation

The rupee depreciation obviously has had cost-push effects on import prices and consequently on domestic consumer prices. This process is usually measured through the ‘exchange rate pass-though’, defined as the effect of exchange rate changes on domestic inflation.

Evidently, rupee depreciation has varying upward effects on both wholesale and consumer prices with the maximum effect occurring in the second month of the shock on wholesale prices and between the second and the third month on consumer prices. Around 25 percent of the variation in consumer price inflation could be explained by external shocks including exchange rate, oil price and import price shocks.

The initial round of inflationary effects of the rupee depreciation is already evident with the recent price increases in milk powder, LP gas and fuel. Inflation is likely to escalate further in the coming months owing to the currency depreciation. Needless to say, that high inflation has adverse spill-over effects on the living standards of the poor and lower middle-income class families.

Pragmatic economic strategies lacking

The country’s GDP growth rate slumped to 3.1% in 2017 – the lowest since 2001 – reflecting the economic downturn. The growth prospects are severely constrained by the balance of payments difficulties discussed in this article. The increasing debt burden has adverse effects on both the external and fiscal sectors. The country does not have the capacity to repay its foreign loans, and therefore, maturing debt has to be rolled over into new debt posing painful rollover risks in the coming years.

In the meantime, the ongoing rupee depreciation resulting from the weak external finances exerts adverse effects on the cost of living, debt burden and many other economic variables.

Amidst this precarious economic plight, the Government is preoccupied with its own political agendas such as strengthening the political parties, frequent Cabinet reshuffles and cross-overs. In the circumstances, adequate attention is not given to tackle the current economic crisis. The current political instability has disastrous effects on the country’s international image discouraging prospective foreign investors.

The Government is engaged in fire-fighting exercises to tackle the day-to-day problems rather than addressing the underlying economic disarrays with comprehensive economic strategies from a long-term perspective. The Vision 2025 launched with grand fanfare not so long ago seems to be side-tracked as in the case of previous economic policy statements. In any case, all those policy documents contained only wish-lists rather than any pragmatic macroeconomic policy frameworks that are geared to resuscitate the falling economy.

In this context, the Central Bank has the leading role to play in rectifying the disarrays in macroeconomic fundamentals, rather than consoling itself with the success of foreign loan mobilisation.
(The writer is Emeritus Professor of Economics, Open University of

Sri Lanka.)

President’s make-believe world comes a cropper and falls apart


RIGHT ROYAL WELCOME: Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, warmly greets the First Lady and President Maithripala Sirisena as he arrives to deliver his throne speech
The Sunday Times Sri Lanka


  • Sunday, May 13, 2018



  • Evidently, these are not the best of times for President Sirisena. As he surveys the horizon, he can only expect to see the ominous prospect of fast gathering clouds further darkening the twilight sky, with thunder’s rumble starting to resound in the distance, portending bad, bad, bad stormy weather. One that will blow without respite.

    Sri Lanka: Mr. President, Learn from Mahathir in Malaysia

    President Sirisena is free to draw inspiration from the Mahathir miracle, but he cannot re-enact the Malaysian example while being stuck in the executive presidency.

    by Rajan Philips-
    ( May 13, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President has got it all wrong when he said in his May Seventh Day speech that he is not going to retire from politics. No one has asked him to retire from politics. Only, retire the executive presidency. That’s what he promised to do, when he became President in January 2015. And retiring the executive presidency would be to lift the unnecessary term limit on the head of government, as there is now thanks to Sri Lanka’s uncommon marriage of the elected parliament and the elected executive.
    In a parliamentary system there is no term limit to being Prime Minister. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammad has just demonstrated that and more by his victorious return to politics and from retirement. “I am still alive at 92” he impishly told the reporters who thronged him after his victory. Maithripala Sirisena, the youngest of the three leading political rivals in Sri Lanka, can take much heart and cue from the Malaysian example. But he also needs sterner stuff as well as smarter stuff if he is to be positively different from what he has been so far.
    Politicians hardly retire from politics in Sri Lanka. Only death or defeat can part the two. And death to many of them came involuntarily and undeservedly by way of assassination, beginning with the largely isolated killing of Prime Minister Bandaranaike and becoming twenty years later the macabre epidemic unleashed by mostly, but not only, the ruthless LTTE. JR Jayewardene, the creator of the all-powerful presidency, is ironically the only significant exception who voluntarily retired from the presidency and politics, but at the ripe old age of 81 years. After what Dr. Mahathir Mohammad has done at 92, JRJ’s 81 was an early retirement.
    More to the point, Sri Lanka has plenty of opportunities for its politicians both before and after retirement. Leaving aside the Head of State, you can be PM or a Minister with no term limit. You can be a Chief Minister or Minister at the provincial level. Even at the local government level, the elected councillors can feel the local proportional weight of national sovereignty on their shoulders, although their importance has been reduced by half after the doubling of their numbers. And in retirement, one can aspire to be a Provincial Governor, although the right combination of caste and ethnicity may be a requirement in the more feudal of the provinces.

    The big silence and the bigger swindle

    For all the gazette notifications and over the top citations of constitutional provisions, the President’s Policy Statement last Tuesday was a damp squib, a wet firecracker. There was no fire in the speech or in his belly. It was a litany of what the government has done so far, as inspiring as an audit’s post-mortem. To anyone looking for a rousing plan of action for the remainder of the government’s term, there were only bromides and platitudes. There is one assertion that deserves mention, however, not only for what it said but also for what it failed to say:
    “If any single political issue was met with so much opposition in the recent history of Sri Lanka, it was the system of Executive Presidency. However, over this period nobody could curtail the excessive powers of Executive Presidency. On the contrary, the powers were further enhanced in an authoritative manner. The true potential of consensual politics is that, on May 15, 2015 the maximum power reduction of Executive Presidency, without going in for a national referendum as ruled by the Supreme Court, was achieved.”
    There is no more mention of the executive presidency or what the plans are to do with it in the next 18 months. “The maximum power reduction of Executive Presidency” under the 19th Amendment falls short of the President’s undertaking to abolish executive presidency during his first and only term as President. It is not total abolition that anyone is looking for now, but a serious modification of it as is being suggested by the JVP and its 20th Amendment proposals. President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe were again silent about it in their May Seventh Day speeches. The two leaders and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa were only asserting that their parties will form the next government in 2020. As if Sri Lankans must brace themselves to having three governments at the same time.
    It is one thing if the President and the Prime Minister genuinely try to modify the executive presidential system and end up failing in their efforts either because of the inability to secure two-thirds majority in parliament, or to prevail in a national referendum. That would be perfectly understandable and the two leaders will deserve everyone’s respect at least for trying. But it would be quite a different thing if the two men were to simply ignore their 2015 undertaking and present themselves as presidential candidates in 2019. That would be the biggest electoral swindle ever in Sri Lanka’s political history. And that should invite the biggest political outrage from everyone who supported them and who voted for their victory in 2015.
    Also, last week, in a public lecture, Tilak Abeysinghe, Research Director at the Gamini Corea Foundation and Adjunct Professor at the National University of Singapore, made a rare advocacy for terminating presidential term limits in Sri Lanka. I say rare because the 19th Amendment, that rescinded the 18th Amendment and its proviso for extending presidential term limits, was passed almost unanimously by parliament, and there was only support for it in the country.
    As we saw earlier, President Sirisena considers 19A to have been the greatest achievement of ‘consensual politics.’ True, close to 100 parliamentarians who voted for 19A had earlier voted for 18A but that only shows their lack of conviction about anything. And keep in mind that all of them belong to the SLFP, the SLPP, or both, or their umbrella UPFA. So it is surprising to see a new John the Baptist preaching the virtues of 15 year terms and single-party rule as non-economic pre-conditions for sustained economic growth.
    Dr. Abeysinghe was touting his thesis as a lesson to be learnt from the development experience of Singapore. He is not the first person to inaptly compare Singapore and Sri Lanka. Every such comparison has provoked a timely rebuttal. And no time was lost in rebutting Dr. Abeysinghe’s thesis, and the credit for it goes to Dr. Dushni Weerakoon, Executive Director at the Institute of Policy Studies, who reportedly intervened at the end of Abeysinghe’s lecture and pointed out the basic differences between Sri Lanka and Singapore and the danger of imitating inimitable contexts and processes.

    Maithri’s nightmare and Mahathir’s miracle

    What used to be a similarity between Singapore and Sri Lanka is that until 1978 both countries had a parliamentary system of government. In 1978, Sri Lanka made a mess of marrying the parliamentary and presidential systems of government. In contrast, Singapore as well as neighboring Malaysia kept faith with the parliamentary system but under dominant party regimes. The parliamentary system gave both countries the flexibility to have Prime Ministers serving multiple terms spread over decades without resorting to the rigidity of executive presidency.
    Thus Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, served as Prime Minister for over thirty years from 1959 to 1990, in a virtually one-party polity. The formalities of election and parliamentary representation were honoured in the observance but the premises of the underlying social contract were: the assurance of an efficient and corruption-free government, scrupulous adherence to merit, consistent material advancement and opportunities, and socio-ethnic peace. On the debit side were (and are) suppression of dissent, one-party government, regimental socialization and occasional social engineering. The contract survived because of Singapore’s historical limitations and circumstances and the experience as a whole is inimitable and is not transferable.
    In the neighbouring and much larger Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, a medical doctor, was first elected to parliament in 1964, became the country’s fourth Prime Minister in 1981, and was in office for over twenty years till 2003. He was the rebel outsider who usurped power from the traditional feudal elites and transformed the state and the political system to accommodate Malaysia’s ethnic (Malay, Chinese and Indian) differences and propel economic development. Most of all he became totally authoritarian and intolerant of dissent or opposition. In 1998, he expelled from the government and orchestrated the trial and incarceration of Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir’s chosen protégé, successful Finance Minister as well as Deputy Prime Minister. These actions led to protests and outcries for the release of Anwar and political reforms. The slogan ‘reformasi’ became the galvanising call for ousting Mahathir from power, but he held on till his retirement in 2003, and the transfer of power to another of his protégés, Abdulla Badawi, who was later succeeded by Prime Minister Najb Razak. It is Razak’s governing National Front party (UMNO) that lost the elections last week, for the first time in sixty years, to Mahathir Mohammad’s upstart Malaysian United Indigenous Party, an alliance of opposition parties.
    At the centre of the government’s defeat and Mahathir’s triumphant return are the unpopular goods and services tax and the political scandal involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MBD), a government-run strategic development company. The allegation is that the company has, among other questionable actions, transferred USD 700 million to the personal bank accounts of (the outgoing) Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, a transaction that was exposed through the investigations of the US Justice Department. Dr. Mahathir’s second-coming mission is to bring to book everyone involved in the 1MBD scandal, and in a bittersweet irony – to pardon and free from prison Anwar Ibrahim and potentially hand over the government to the younger man and his former protégé.
    President Sirisena is free to draw inspiration from the Mahathir miracle, but he cannot re-enact the Malaysian example while being stuck in the executive presidency. The system will not give him flexibility and the electorate will crush him if he were run as a presidential candidate. There is only one path to politically look after his enlightened self-interest – that is to modify the executive presidency. The Joint Opposition (JO) and the SLPP forces are clamouring for an early parliamentary election. But holding a parliamentary election prematurely before its term ends is not going to solve any of the problems that have been there for forty years, that are there now, and that will continue to be there so long as the unwarranted marriage of parliament and the presidency continues to fester below everyone’s radar.
    For all its shortcomings, the economic success of Singapore is predicated on the total absence of corruption in government. In Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohammad’s electoral success at the age of 92 is the result of the public’s revulsion at high level corruption. In Sri Lanka, with the exception of a few state institutions including the judiciary, everything else is mired in corruption. Given these manifest differences in contexts, it will not be prudent to advocate for Sri Lankan adoption the rather tendentious notions of removing presidential term limits, fifteen year terms for government, and a dominant single-party system. On the other hand, what we can advocate for, emulate, or rather revert to, is the old parliamentary system which provides for Heads of Government – multiple terms in office, with no term limits or age limits.

    Dr. Jayasinghe’s “No Poison In My Plate” Syndrome & His “Need To Ban Glyphosate”

    Dr. Chandre Dharmawardana
    logoDr. Lal Jayasinghe (LJ) writing in the Island (11-05-2018)  gives three reasons that he says are put out  in opposing the ban. He is of course for the ban.
    The glyphosate debate in Sri Lanka is an intellectual and scientific scandal. Seemingly, Sri Lankan scientists are remaining silent about it? No, in fact, what seems to be the case is that newspaper Editors  do not publish the letters submitted to them by scientists – unless they are against agrochemicals!   Most editors, journalists and the reading public do not have a scientific background. Editors themselves  are also infected by the  “I don’t want poison in my plate” syndrome. Capitalizing on it, Ven. Ratana has pushed a “Toxin-free Nation” program to give himself  political mileage.
    All those who write against the ban are claimed to be in the pay of the multi-national companies. However,  at least to his credit, LJ does not make that unsubstantiated accusation. Instead he  lists his arguments. LJ’s  article reveals the thinking behind this “no poison in my plate” syndrome. Let us look at his arguments.  LJ lists the three reasons that he thinks are given to lift the ban:
    1. “Firstly, it has not been proved that Glyphosate caused Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Origin (CKDu)”.
    Let alone kidney disease, it has in fact BEEN PROVED  that intense regular  use of glyphosate for 23 years is NOT correlated with ANY  disease. The heath data of some 90,000 members of farming families in Iowa and Minnesota were followed for 23 years where data on blood, urine, and other bio-samples were followed by researchers funded by the US Departments  of Agriculture, and Health. No correlations what so ever with any diseases, and in particular with 200 different cancers were detected. (Read here )
    Thus GLYPHOSATE FORMULATIONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE NO ILLNESSES.
    So why ban it?
    In dealing with glyphosate, why do newspaper graphics artists always depict a person wearing a goggled hood? Why are file photos showing lethal  danger pulled out to illustrate the article? They reveal the unjustified common mistrust of  this herbicide.  Glyphosate formulations often are applied WITHOUT protective clothing or goggles as they are very safe and hardly need such precautions.  
    2. “Secondly, that other countries have not banned it.
     Sri Lanka does not have the funds to run a massive health test on thousands of people. So we have to rely on others, just as for pharmaceuticals used in Sri Lanka.
    3. “thirdly, the tea industry (and even paddy cultivation or maize cultivation) cannot survive without glyphosate”.
    Tea cannot survive in the competitive international market if it has to pay for manual labour while other countries use a cheap effective herbicide. Maize cultivation is completely wiped out and Victor Ivan’s  “Ravaya” article documents the tragedy. Tea industry  suffers  a loss of some 15 billion rupees per annum, making a total loss of 45 billion since the ban. Paddy industry uses very little glyphosate and can do without it by keeping the field flooded to kill weeds. Manual weeding, and  flooding to control weeds increase soil erosion. An inch of eroded soil takes thousands of years  to be replaced.
    LJ  then give his own arguments. He says:
    It is different in the case of Glyphosate. We can do without it. It is very difficult to prove that one particular chemical that is in wide use is the cause of a particular disease or group of diseases”.
    It is indeed very difficult to prove that a substance causes a given disease. But one CAN prove that it does NOT cause the disease, by showing its anti-correlation with diseases. That is what was done in the 23 year-long US study. Furthermore, countries like New Zealand and Malaysia which use many dozens of times more glyphosate per annum per hectare have no higher incidence of chronic diseases.
    LJ  says:
    We must not make the common mistake of thinking “absence of evidence is evidence of absence“.
    It is NOT absence of evidence. We in fact HAVE evidence that it does NOT cause chronic toxicity. Chronic toxicity caused by ingestion of very small amounts over a long period.
    LJ  says:
     Therefore, as the group of eminent doctors have written in The Island, we should use the precautionary principle”.
    These eminent doctors did  not even mention the massive US study. Neither did the GMOA. Instead they mentioned the WHO-IARC classification of glyphosate as a class-2 hazard, and also failed to mention that it was NOT listed as a health risk. The precautionary principle (PP)  was also misunderstood by these doctors. When there is a hazard, we navigate with caution. That is, the PP requires using “controls and constraints (CC) ” and not “ban and banish (BB)”. Guns, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, radioactive substances,  etc., are dangerous but they are not banned. They are available through the police, trained pharmacists and trained operators. To apply PP by banning something is a no-brainier not practiced anywhere in the world any more.
    LJ  asks questions ignoring the distinction between ACUTE Toxicity and CHRONIC Toxicity.
    Supporters of glyphosate cannot deny that Glyphosate is a poison, at least for plants. That is the reason it is used to kill weeds. The manufacturers will say that it does not harm humans, but advises people to protect themselves from unnecessary exposure. Why? Because if exposed to large amounts it undoubtedly causes harm. Will the supporters of Glyphosate drink a pint of the stuff? Of course not.
    If you drink 250 grams (a cup) of glyphosate, it will surely cause acute toxicity. But what if it is diluted many many times, as used in farm applications? LJ knows well that if you take 250 g of the daily vitamin it can kill you (acute toxicity). However we don’t ban vitamins. A dose of 25 g of the vitamin is not toxic, and it is in fact good for you. That is, there is no chronic toxicity even if the vitamin is acutely toxic. The massive, 23-YEAR long US study on 90,000 farmers PROVED  THAT  GYLPHOSATE FORMULATIONS HAVE NO DISCERNIBLE CHRONIC TOXICITY.

    Read More