Masses losing patience as politicians are busy with individual agendas

BY Gagani Weerakoon- AUG 12 2018

Tormented by constant fuel hikes and instant strikes, the masses of the country were seen resorting to violence last Wednesday (8) when they decided to protest against the railway employees who went on a lightning strike.

Hundreds of stranded commuters flocked in front of the Fort Railway Station and demanded politicians, including President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to come to the spot and resolve the matter.

The inconvenienced commuters, of whom the majority were part of the work force of the country and in public sector, in an apparent act of distress were seen attacking several trade union leaders of the Railway.

Minister of Finance and Mass Media, Mangala Samaraweera on the day after in Parliament on behalf of the Government extended an apology to both State and private sector workers, students and other citizens, for the inconvenience caused by the wildcat strike launched by the Railway workers.

Samaraweera asserted that he would not hold talks with Railway workers while their strike is on.

“It is my policy not to talk or negotiate with any striking worker. I have followed that policy for the entire political career of mine. If they want to hold talks they can suspend the strike and come to the table,” he stressed.

The Minister further said: “If an increment was given to the Railway workers, as they demanded, there would have been a crisis in other public institutions. If we granted that increment, their salary scales would have been above the salary grades of doctors, school principals and teachers. That was why I opposed their demands for a salary increment at the Cabinet meeting.”

He added that President Maithripala Sirisena had instructed him to prepare a Cabinet Paper to establish a new public service commission to exclusively look into the salaries and wages of the public sector employees.

“It is very unfair for the Railway workers to demand a pay hike only for themselves while the Government was preparing to bring about a mechanism to give salary increments to all public sector workers,” the Minister said.

Meanwhile, the Joint Opposition that boasts to be the ‘real Opposition’, which clearly seems to have taken one major step backwards from its original struggle to topple the Government, trying to secure the post of the Opposition Leader.

After hours spent on debating on the post of the Opposition Leader in the House and separately at the party leaders’ meeting, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya on Tuesday promised to inform of his final verdict on the matter to the House during the sitting week.

He said that he needed to look into two matters which he did not specify before making his decision.

The Speaker said so after MPs of both sides spoke on whether the post of Opposition Leader should be given to the Joint Opposition or not for nearly two hours.

Soon after the questions round was over, MEP and Joint Opposition Parliamentary Group Leader, Dinesh Gunawardena got up and demanded to know from the Speaker who would be appointed to the post of Opposition Leader. “We are the true and genuine Opposition in Parliament.

We have 70 members in our group and we vote against the Government. The Speaker promised us that he would give his determination on the matter today. Our group is led by Mahinda Rajapaksa. Millions of people voted for us. This is not an issue with incumbent Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan. The Speaker should keep that in mind”.

Speaker Jayasuriya: “Yes, I would keep that in my mind”.

MP Gunawardena: “All Speakers before you gave the Leader of Opposition post to the group which had highest number of MPs in the opposition. We have been waiting for three years now. The Speaker should not give priority to a letter given to him by a secretary of a party.

 Parliament is supreme and it should not be misled on the basis of a letter given by a party secretary. If you give an unjust determination for these 70 MPs it would turn this House into an invalid one. You would be held responsible for that. The Government is not in a position to select the Opposition Leader”.

Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella: “There are six parties in Parliament. The Joint Opposition is not a party recognized by Parliament. It is a clique. It is a gang like the Aava Group”.

The Speaker: “When Hon. MP Gunawardena had made that request I asked for it in writing. I told him that if he gives me the request in writing, I would give my decision on 7 July. But he delayed to give the request in writing. When the letter was given to me I told him that I would not be able to give my determination on 7 July. You all have been elected from a party and I am bound to inquire from that party to know about its official position. I need to consult legal experts. I cannot be a dictator”.

MP Dullas ALahapperuma: “Please do not minimize this to replacing Sampanthan with Dinesh Gunawardena. We are fighting for our rights.

From January 2015 to August 2015 the Leader of the Opposition post was held by the UPFA MP Nimal Siripala de Silva. During that period UPFA MPs were in Government ranks too.  There is a precedent of Speaker M.H. Mohamed giving the post of Opposition Leader to MP Anura Bandaranaike in 1993 in the absence of then Opposition Leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

Opposition Leader Sirimavo went abroad and wrote to the Speaker to appoint MP K.B. Ratnayake to the post of acting Opposition Leader. But SLFP members wrote to the Speaker and sought Anura Bandaranaike’s appointment to the post. Speaker Mohammed did so. You could follow that precedent”.

TNA MP MA Sumanthiran: “A party which has MPs in the Cabinet cannot hold the Opposition Leader post because that party is represented in the executive. There are 23 UPFA MPs in the Cabinet. Under such a situation selecting the Opposition Leader from the UPFA would be a joke.

There are six parties in Parliament, the UNP, UPFA, TNA, JVP, EPDP and SLMC. The TNA, JVP and EPDP are not part of the executive. The Joint Opposition is not a recognized party in Parliament. If they want to be in the Opposition, they should leave the Government. It is not fair to seek to represent the Opposition while remaining in the Government”.

MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara: “Do you know the position of the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) on the matter”.

The Speaker: “Yes they contacted me and spoke on the matter”.

MP Nanayakkara: “There is an issue here. The IPU recognizes this as an issue and advises that it should be solved following Latimar House principles. If MP Sumanthiran was right then how could Nimal Siripala de Silva become Opposition Leader while a group of UPFA MPs were in the Cabinet then? There is a precedent”.

NFF leader Wimal Weerawansa: “ The Speaker is not here to protect the interests of parties but of MPs. The Joint Opposition MPs’ rights have been violated. The rights of the people who had voted for those MPs have been violated”.

MP Kumara Welgama: “I am a senior leader of the UPFA. I was elected from the UPFA ticket. During the 100-day government some of our MPs got minister posts but the Leader of the Opposition post was given to Nimal Siripala de Silva who was also from the Opposition. After August 2015 General Election our party named me, for the post of Opposition Leader and MP Mahindananda Aluthgamage, for the post of Chief Opposition Whip.

But Hon. Sampanthan was appointed as the Leader of the Opposition”.

Puttalam District UNP MP Asoka Priyantha: “This issue should be solved and should not be further dragged on. This issue is a struggle for a post. The JO group was fighting for this post even when they had 52 MPs. When the President went to Polonnaruwa to declare open Pubudamu Polonnaruwa project, UPFA and JO MPs were there. We cannot understand whether the UPFA is in the Government or in the Opposition.

JVP MP Bimal Ratnayake: “The MPs do not know where they stand. Some Opposition MPs criticize the Government and the Prime Minister during the day time and meet the Prime Minister at night seeking solutions for their problems. There was one such who found a solution for his two-passport problem. What we have is a National Government as per the provisions of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. As per the provision of the 19th Amendment, there are six recognized parties in Parliament. If the UPFA needs to break the alliance with the Government and become an Opposition party, they could do so.

 Then the number of Ministers too should go down. That is good for the country. When Nimal Siripala de Silva was holding the post of Opposition Leader, the 19th Amendment was not in force. It was passed after that. The Joint Opposition could not call itself a party in the Opposition. You have been elected under the UPFA ticket. There are UPFA Ministers. Your leader Mahinda Rajapaksa had not voted at least once against this Government in Parliament. How could such a person be named for the post of Opposition Leader?”

Anuradhapura District MP Shehan Semasinghe: “There should be an Opposition for the sake of the people. The Opposition we have today is not a genuine Opposition. This is undemocratic.

UNP MP Nalin Bandara: “Those who talk of upholding democracy tried to bury it when they were in power. The Joint Opposition made many predictions. They predicted to get Government power by the Sinhala/Tamil New Year. Then they promised to gain power by Vesak. Thereafter, they pledged to send the Government home within two Full Moon Poya days.
They failed. Today they are fighting for the post of Opposition Leader”.
UPFA Galle District MP Chandima Weerakkody: “We have great respect for the Speaker. He should not lose it by protecting the UNP interests. The Prime Minister holds his position with the help of the TNA. So, the TNA has no right to hold the position of Opposition Leader”.

UNP MP Thushara Indunil Amarasena: “We have a group of backbenchers. We are planning to go to the Opposition side and ask for the Opposition Leader post so, that we would be able to get it although the UNP is part of the Government”.

UNP MP Mujibur Rahuman: “The UPFA group has internal problems. They demand the post of Opposition Leader because of those internal problems. They could sort out the problem with the President. They contested under the UPFA ticket. The President is the Leader of the UPFA”.

Anrua Kumara Dissanayake: “There are only six parties elected to Parliament. The Opposition has 23 MPs. There is another group of 70 MPs sitting in the Opposition from the UPFA. That same party has 26 MPs in the Government too. You have the President from your party. You could get together and form the Government, why ask for the Opposition Leader post? The 70 MPs are under the 26 MPs in the Government. Get together and that group could become UPFA group and ask for the Opposition Leader post.

Minister Harin Fernando: “This is an internal problem of a party. We are wasting Parliament’s time”.
Speaker: “I have acted democratically. I need to consult party leaders and legal experts on this issue. I would give my determination within this week”.
Ending a week’s long b
attle, Speaker Jayasuriya, making a special statement in Parliament, on Friday (10) reinforced the legitimacy of TNA Leader R. Sampanthan as Leader of the Opposition of the Eighth Parliament.

The Speaker, in his statement, said it was his final decision on the matter and he does not have a warrant as per the Constitution to change the Opposition Leader. He added that Parliamentary traditions also do not allow him to make such changes.

The Speaker’s ruling was with reference to the JO’s special written request on the 1st of this month to appoint the JO Parliamentary Group Leader Dinesh Gunawardena as Opposition Leader. They asked for the post claiming that the JO was made up of 70 Parliamentarians from the UPFA.
“I made this ruling after a careful study of the composition of the current Parliament and international best practices,” Speaker Jayasuriya said and added that he had heard all the arguments made on the floor of the House on Tuesday (7) and the opinions of experts on Parliamentary democracy on the post of Leader of the Opposition.

“The Opposition Leader post must be held by a person who is not from a political party now in the Government. According to the Parliamentary Resolution adopted on 3 September, 2015, the United National Front (UNF) and UPFA are partners of the National Government. MP Nimal Siripala de Silva served as Opposition Leader during the interim period after 8 January, 2015. It was different to the present context because there was no such Parliamentary Resolution for a National Government back then.”

The Speaker : “The Parliamentary Group Leader of a recognized political party that does not represent the Government and has the highest number of seats is the Leader of the Opposition. It is the tradition in both Sri Lankan and UK Parliaments.”

Speaker Jayasuriya assured, that he would allocate more time and also grant more seats in the Parliamentary committees for the JO, to be fair and in keeping with its number in Parliament.

Hidden political hand behind sudden strikes

“We are ready to talk if they are willing to stop strike” - Minister:

Rukshana Rizwie-Saturday, August 11, 2018

Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera struck a defiant tone yesterday saying that there was a political hand in the sudden strike by railway workers adding that this government would not be bullied into adhoc salary revisions.

“Next Tuesday, Cabinet is to approve a proposal for the setting up of a commission which would look into the salary anomalies of the state sector while their report will be the basis upon which any revisions would be made,” he said. “We cannot increase the salaries of only railway engine drivers as it would cause a huge anomaly within the other sectors of the government service.”

The Minister refused to hold talks with the strikers until they gave up the protest adding that the sudden strike was uncalled for and unfair. He alleged that there was a hidden political hand at work and that the government would do everything at its disposal to alleviate the difficulties faced by commuters and students sitting for their Advanced Level examinations. “During the last few days alone, we have had the unstinted support of the Army who ran additional buses, police and bus operators who offered their services at no cost,” he said.

“We have allowed bus operators without permits to operate and invite them to register with the National Transport Commission for a special service until the situation returns to normalcy,” Minister Samaraweera said.

The Minister added that once bus operators (even those without permits) have registered with the NTC, they would be given the opportunity to operate in the mornings and evenings and would be compensated for by the Treasury. Commuters are permitted to use their season tickets when travelling on SLTB buses. “I urge the strikes to stop their protest and come for a discussion with the authorities.

 Their issues can only be resolved through discussions and we are prepared to talk if they are willing to stop their strike.” he said.

The Minister elaborating further added that the existing basic salary of an engine driver was Rs.44,600. However, their take home salary inclusive of allowances amount to nearly Rs.200 000.
However, they have been agitating for an increase in their basic salary up to Rs.56,205.

Minister Samarweera added that an increase of the basic salary scale would cause a huge anomaly in the salaries of other state sector employees across the board. He assured that the issue would be sorted within the next two to three months.

MR makes outrageous statement that attack on railways union leaders by enraged public was organized by govt. ! (video)

(Lanka e News -11.Aug.2018, 11.45PM) The justifiable attack launched recently by the enraged public who went chasing after the leaders of the trade unions of the Railways when the railway drivers staged a sudden strike causing untold harships to the public was described by Kurunegala district M.P. Mahinda Rajapakse as an organized attack by the government when he attended a death commemoration ceremony of late Richard Pathirane at Galle on the 10 th.

Mahinda made this outrageous and irresponsible announcement some days ago after the incident when it came to light that the strike was organized by the lackeys and stooges of Basil Rajapakse (the photographs herein are testimony that Indika Dodamgoda , the secretary of Railways drivers union is a stooge of Basil Rajapakse). The statement made by Mahinda Rajapakse (who could not provide any relief to the masses during his tenure of office as president while allowing all his ‘men’ to rob freely along with him and his family) who has no feelings for the suffering and despairing people any day confirms he identifies the genuinely affected public also as a hired group like his that coughs for payment.

Video is hereunder 

---------------------------
by     (2018-08-11 19:11:48)

PC Poll muddle

The political parties that launched a massive protest against the Provincial Council system 31 years ago, leading to hundreds of deaths are making a big hue and cry now demanding the Government to hold elections for the same provincial councils. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the main party that took to the streets then claiming that the Provincial Councils would lead to the division of the country has been running the administrations of several Provincial Councils since 1994.

2018-08-10

The majority of the leaders and the members of the SLFP have left the party to join the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), leaving a small group of the party led by President Maithripala Sirisena to hold its name, SLFP.
If the SLPP does not now hold the stance that the Provincial Councils would divide the country, would its leaders take the responsibility for the lives of the hundreds of people who were killed in the late 1980s while agitating against the creation of provincial councils?
The main slogan of the SLPP and the Joint Opposition now seems to be related to the elections for the three Provincial Councils that stand dissolved after the expiry of their tenure in October last year.

They know that the Government cannot hold the elections for those three councils as there are technical issues to be sorted out after the introduction of the mixed electoral system for Provincial Council elections last September. Yet, they make a big fuss over these elections in order to embarrass the Government before the people who are not acquainted of the election laws.
On the other hand, the new mixed electoral system which has caused the delay in holding of Provincial Council elections was introduced by a Parliamentary Select Committee headed by Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader Dinesh Gunawardane during the tenures of Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Only the ratio between the number of members elected under the First-Past-The-Post (FPP) system and the Proportional Representation (PR) was decided during the present regime, by the party leaders.
The SLPP Chairman, former Constitutional Affairs Minister Professor G.L. Peiris had recently said that his party would take legal action against the National Elections Commission over the delay in holding Provincial Council elections.
This seems to be just a ploy to pressurize and embarrass the Government over the matter. The Chairman of the Elections Commission Mahinda Deshapriya had told last week in an interview with the Sunday Lankadeepa that the ball was now in the Parliament’s court and not in his.
He had explained clearly the reasons for the delay in holding elections for the Eastern, Sabaragamuwa and North Central provincial councils.

When the Commission was preparing to hold these elections in December last year the relevant election Act was amended in September in the same year compelling the Commission to delay the elections until the delimitation of wards in Provincial Council areas was completed, he had stated. After the enactment of the Provincial Councils Elections Amendment Act to introduce the mixed electoral system, a fundamental rights petition was filed against its adoption in the Parliament by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva on the grounds that the new electoral system was introduced in a fraudulent manner through an amendment to another amendment to the original Act, without giving prior notice to the House and the Supreme Court.
However, it was dismissed by the Supreme Court last month.

The new electoral system necessitated wards and a Delimitation Commission was appointed to demarcate the boundaries of the wards. The Delimitation Commission’s Chairman K. Thavalingam had handed over his Commission’s report to Provincial Councils and Local Government Minister Faiszer Mustapha recently.
The Minister, in turn, has presented it to Parliament for ratification. Mr Deshapriya in his interview explained that Speaker Karu Jayasuriya had included the matter in the Order Paper of Parliament, but the House had not taken it for discussion yet. In the meantime, a section of Parliamentarians affiliated to both the ruling party and the Opposition now demands that the law must be changed again to enable the Provincial Council elections to be held under the old PR system.
Before the mixed electoral system was introduced it was only the small and minority parties that preferred the PR system. But it was after the February 10 Local Government elections that many flaws in the mixed system were identified.

"The main slogan of the SLPP and the Joint Opposition now seems to be related to the elections for the three Provincial Councils that stand dissolved after the expiry of their tenure in October last year "

In the wake of the LG elections even former President Mahinda Rajapaksa under whose leadership the SLPP swept the electorate had stated that the new system had to be changed again as it had created a mess in many LG bodies.
An “all-party” meeting chaired by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was held on August 1 at the Temple Trees, the official residence of the Prime Minister to discuss the electoral system under which the PC election should be conducted.
It reportedly ended inconclusively.
Joint Opposition and the JVP, (two groups) which press the Government to hold the PC elections right away had not participated in the meeting.
Meanwhile, the Sunday Times reported that Elections Commission Chief Deshapriya and K. Thavalingam, who served as the Chairmen of the Delimitation Commission had resigned from a six-member committee appointed by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya and headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe citing “conflict of interest” involved in the process.

There are strong grounds not only for the politicians but also for the people to reject the mixed-electoral system in its present form, despite it having been experimented with only at the last LG polls. It doubled the number of LG members (From around 4000 to 8000).
Without a cut-off point for political parties to be eligible to represent the councils, many small parties won seats creating an Opposition larger than the ruling party in many councils.
This muddled situation was further aggravated by the ridding of the bonus seat system that strengthened the winning parties earlier.
There are no signs of this controversy over the electoral system being sorted out in the near future, despite predictions being made by Government Ministers that the elections would be held in January next year.

The allegation by the Opposition that the Government wanted the PC elections to be postponed is not without reasons.When the Supreme Court ruled in September last year that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution Bill was not consistent with the Constitution on the grounds that it would cause the postponement of Provincial Council elections, the Government sneaked in the mixed electoral system, which in fact necessitated the postponement of PC elections as an amendment to another Bill and got adopted.
Not only the PC elections but rather the whole PC system has become a mess and meaningless.
The proportionality between the service done by the PCs and the funds spent for maintenance  is questionable. They have just become a forum for the politicians in the Parliament to groom their sons and daughters as politicians.

The system was meant mainly for the resolution of the ethnic problem. In fact, PCs were to be created initially only in the north and the east.
That means only the Tamil dominated provinces needed such a mechanism under the power devolution. But even the Northern Provincial Council does not seem to have understood it.
The NPC is now being accused of being over-politicized. The Sunday Times in its July 29 issue reported that the NPC had adopted 415 resolutions during its five-year tenure, seven resolutions a day it had met, but many resolutions adopted had been related to issues which mostly do not come within the purview of the NPC.

Evolution of plantation sector into diversified, vertically-integrated, globally aligned, agri-biz

Friday, 10 August 2018

From its inception up to the present day, the history of Sri Lanka’s plantation industry has been unique; undergoing drastic changes from the colonial era, to the period of private management by Agency Houses, into an extended period of nationalisation and finally and most drastically through the sustained transformations that the plantation sector has undergone subsequent to the 1992 privatisation. 

In order to truly appreciate the present circumstances and performance of this industry and the role of the Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) in particular, it is vital to consider the development of our industry as a whole. 

Today’s international markets are changing at an increasing pace, while the threat of climate change continues to cause varying disruptions to agricultural productivity across the globe. At this crucial juncture, we assert that our entire industry must be viewed in its totality in order to ascertain the true reasons as to why Sri Lankan RPCs have achieved such success across so many key areas today – from improvements in the socio-economic conditions of its employees on the estates to substantial improvements in quality control, management techniques and infrastructure – in order to accurately ascertain what more is required of each and every stakeholder group and to ensure commercial, environmental and social sustainability for the Sri Lankan plantation industry moving forward. 

While coffee might seem to be the ‘go-to’ drink for those seeking a hot beverage, the world actually runs on tea. Aside from water, tea is the most popular beverage in the world and in the United States alone; tea imports have risen over 400% since 1990. It would be futile if we don’t capitalise on the trend and re-instate our position of being the number one exporter in USD terms.

Colonial roots 

Established in the era of British colonisation, Sri Lanka’s plantations experienced a period of progress with the agrarian elite investing in bank institutions, infrastructure, railways, credit expansion and industrialisation. The money earned from tea and later rubber exports was the essential capital that would bring about important changes in the country’s society, economy and culture. 

However, living and working conditions of the bonded estate labour was not a consideration and the feudal hierarchy lorded over them ensuring productivity, quality, and profit above all. Basic necessities like healthcare, housing and education were limited to the basic requirements. Plantations were run tightly, in order to maintain the lowest cost of production and highest rates of productivity and soon Ceylon tea began to be recognised and consumed the world over. 

When Sri Lanka gained its independence, the management of the country’s plantation industry was still retained in private companies known as Rupee and Sterling companies. While the British no longer retained sovereignty over the island, there was a substantial continuity in terms of how the island’s plantations were operated and managed. 

During the pre-nationalisation period, Agency Houses on behalf of them managed approximately 134,000 hectares of tea alone with rubber occupying 64,000 ha and coconut, 22,000 ha, all of which covered 8% of the Country’s land with their continuing performance instrumental in the preliminary establishment of Ceylon tea’s reputation for the highest quality. 

The nationalisation debacle 

During the 1972–1973 periods, the Government of Sri Lanka nationalised privately-owned estates, taking over some 502 privately-held tea, rubber and coconut estates, due to socialist ideologies that led to major land reforms, limiting the extents that could be privately held. In 1975 the Rupee and Sterling companies were nationalised – with Agency Houses continuing as trustees. Thereafter in 1976, these were turned over to the two largest State-owned plantation agencies, namely: Janatha Estates Development Board (JEDB) and State Plantations Corporation (SPC). 

Several smaller entities such as Usawasama, Janawasa, were also created and stacked with political appointees who mismanaged the estates to an extreme point where they had to be shut down and land distributed for village expansion. Pulling political strings was rampant, with totally incapable, inexperienced managers hired. 

Although socialist ideologies were being rammed into the system’s administration, the plight of estate workers was yet to be factored in. Rather, the debates surrounding nationalisation were almost purely motivated by a desire to take control of significant profit generating resources, ply it with political sycophants and distribute land in a sweeping, authoritarian manner. Estates began to degenerate rapidly under State management, while the numbers employed in these estates ballooned in size with the country’s political class increasingly viewing the sector as a job bank to purchase support each election cycle.

This reality was plainly understood even at the time, as evidenced by academic publications from the era. An excerpt from an American publication in 1992 noted: “The privatisation initiative in the tea sector as part of structural adjustment programmes advocated by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is intended to balance the national budget by removing Government subsidies and privatising State enterprises such as JEDB and SLSPC. Theoretically this policy initiative may generate more efficiency and equity in the Sri Lankan tea economy”. 

“Public funds which were previously used in subsidising inefficient bureaucratic agencies can now be reallocated for the purpose of much needed infrastructure and human development programmes. Moreover, the management of privatised entities may have the choice to operate free of political interference and financial regulations of the Government.” (Economic Rationale for the Privatisation of Tea Plantations in Sri Lanka by Dr. Patrick Mendis, 1992)

All official records and high powered government committees have confirmed that by the time the estates were handed over to the RPCs, post privatisation in 1995 that “the State-run plantations continued to make heavy losses and performed poorly throughout most of its existence”. 

Overstaffed, underperforming and riddled with debt that was ultimately costing the Sri Lankan tax payer approximately Rs. 400 million per month, there was only one lesson that ultimately came out of the 20 years of nationalised management of Sri Lanka’s plantation sector, namely that politicisation breeds inefficiency, especially when mixed with complex businesses. From this era the positive contributions that did come about were the result of World Bank funding which was directed towards much needed replanting, factory development and transport vehicles.

By the time privatisation was completed in 1992, conditions on the estates had reached their lowest point. Considering the continuous losses and increasing debts of JEDB and SLSPC up to the time of RPC’s and private management from 1992 onwards, it is very likely that they would have continued to make losses and incur Government financial support. If privatisation had not taken place, the Rs. 1.5 billion per year financial support provided by the Government to the JEDB/SLSPC in 1992, would in today’s Rupee amount to almost 12 billion per year. 

The political upheavals during the 1970s and 1980s were sharply felt by estate communities and the plantation industry as a whole. Our industry has endured through the severe weathering effects caused by the ensuing conflicts including the 1970s and ’80s JVP insurgency when many young college students were forced to take refuge in hill country estates. 

This in turn resulted in the estates becoming easy targets for violent police raids with estate management being hounded by the insurgents in turn. The situation became grave when planting executives on duty were brutally murdered in the remote plantations. Talented estate managers migrated overseas with many of their competent peers leaving in disgust at the senseless violence. 

The conflict with the LTTE also took its toll on the industry and estate communities with several thousand estate workers seeking refuge in South India with racial discrimination levelled against them. The scars of decades of ethnic conflicts are still clearly felt today, contributing to the mass exodus of the more productive estate staff and workers, leading to a depleted work-force, faced today.

Adapting on-the-go: The era of privatised management 

Once the inability of the State to manage the plantations had finally manifested, privatisation emerged as the only possible alternative to the collapse of the industry and offer-for-sale documents were prepared to serve as the legal foundation for privatisation. These documents, executed by the State, provided each RPC complete freedom to use the leased land for diversification into any other crop, extraction of minerals, forestry and timber harvesting and setting up of any venture permitted by law. 

The overarching provisions and terms of these documents hinged on the promise of complete autonomy for the private sector to manage their plantations in the most efficient and productive ways possible and this was the very reason for estates to attract strong interest, both locally and internationally. Unfortunately for our industry, neither the offer document nor the spirit of these initial agreements was respected by any subsequent Governments. Such a resounding failure on the part of successive Governments has been the source of continuous and severe disruption to many development plans for RPCs. 

The plantation companies were bequeathed a total land extent of 239,398 ha – comprising of 94,244 ha of tea land and 57,930 ha of rubber land at the time of privatisation in 1992. In the 23 years since, politically motivated acquisitions and illegal encroachment resulted in a 28.2% reduction in the most productive land extents – including a 16.3% reduction in tea land and a 25.8% reduction in rubber lands – shrinking total RPC land extent down to 180,291 ha by 2016. 

The main aim of privatisation was to improve the overall managerial performance and in just over a quarter century later, the plantation sector has showed drastic improvements across many indicators, be they economic, social or environmental. 

Significant investments were made by shareholders in the 1995/96 privatisation era, based on the several opportunities laid out in the bid document. These included agri-diversification, forestry, the setting up of hydro-power projects, and total autonomy on how the land should be best utilised.

Post privatisation, salaries of estate staff increased with employees confirming that there were more opportunities for promotions linked to performance rather than political connections and influence. Previous insecurities present in State-owned plantations, where political affiliation and influence determined employee security, were tempered down, as a performance-based culture was instilled by the new management.

Weathering all storms and hurdles, along with ad-hoc policy decisions detrimental to best agri-practices, the 2016 edition of world fact book on exports and commodities, stated Sri Lanka as second in total USD worth of exported tea, next to China. China at $ 1.5 billion commands 22.8% of total tea exports, Sri Lanka: $ 1.3 billion – 19.2%, Kenya: $680.6 million at 10.4%, India: $ 661.7 million at 10.1% and United Arab Emirates, the newest entrant that does not grow any tea: $ 287.9 million at 4.4%. 

While Kenya has beaten Sri Lanka as the biggest tea exporter, Sri Lanka continues to maintain its position as the world’s highest tea exports revenue earner, losing its number one position to Kenya as the highest exporter in the world a few years ago. Notably, Sri Lanka also remains as the most expensive tea producing nation in the world, with average wages having steadily increased, at a rate higher than the General Sales Average of Pure Ceylon Tea in international markets. 

Facing severe encroachments, a shrinking labour force, and the periodical obstacles created by Government policy interventions, RPC tea production reduced to 72.9 million kg, but the yield per hectare improved to 1,138 kg per ha in 2016, as compared with 1,021 kg per ha in 1992. However with another ad hoc decision of the Glyphosate ban since March 2015 the YPH dropped to 900 by end March 2017.

At this point, it must be mentioned that the glyphosate ban, a decision made on a whim, with no scientific evidence to justify such a drastic action has caused a total colossal loss of Rs. 35 b to the industry while the Country risks losing a longstanding, lucrative export market in Japan. 

Meanwhile, rubber YPH has recorded a sharp increase from 647.3 kg per ha in 1992 to 862 kg per ha in 2016. Since 1992 the RPCs have replanted vast extents, at times exceeding the average 3% replanting per annum. 

The RPCs strategic forward planning saw the need for diversification within a short period which prompted many RPCs to diversify in to another major crop oil palm in the best suitable areas. Mitigating total dependency on tea and rubber, factoring in shortage of workers was the strategic decision for oil palm – justifiably so, given that the financial performance of oil palm during the period 2013 to 2016, a tenure in which both tea and rubber prices crashed. Oil palm companies set up processing mills with their own funding which has saved the national economy valuable foreign exchange by curtailing edible oil importation. 

Today, it is the RPCs which are leading the charge on crop diversification, with upwards of 2,300 hectares of RPC land now under diversification on crops other than oil palm. 

The oil palm plantation industry is also facing turmoil with a temporary ban being enforced for the cultivation, based on emotional agitation by some groups with vested interests, sharply interrupting an entire development programme. Plants to the value of almost Rs. 400 m propagated with imported seeds with the necessary government approval is currently running the risk of being destroyed if they are not planted at the correct time.

Large-scale diversifications of innovative crops include arecanut, macadamia, pineapple, rambutan, soursop, lemon, oranges, papaya, avocado, passion fruit, pears, and vanilla together with spices like pepper, cloves, cardamom, and forestry initiatives from khaya, giant bamboo and other fuel-wood plantations. 

Meanwhile, the 36 State-managed estates which were also managed by the same JEDB and SLSPC during the nationalised era remain a horrendous burden on taxpayers, being in arrears of close to Rs. 3 billion on their statutory dues of EPF, ETF and Gratuity and the Government continues to subsidise them to the tune of Rs. 1.5 billion a year. Here, the State has ample opportunity to turn its attention to the massive loss making State-managed plantations and implement so called ‘alternative models’.

 

Government and stakeholders must clearly understand that plantations cannot be managed in the historical manner given the current political, environmental and economic issues and continue to be viable business entities. Provisions for changes are available in the lease document and RPCs must be given a free hand to exercise the rights without interference and subsequent directives which interrupt the development programmes. Each RPC has a business plan based on indicators such as location of the plantations, crop mix, availability of workers and several factors which are not common across all plantations. 

In the spirit of a privatised plantation sector

RPCs have invested a cumulative Rs. 70 billion between 1992 and 2016, contributing seven billion in lease rentals and a further 1.72 billion in income tax, coupled with dividends to Sri Lankan shareholders, totalling Rs. 8.17 billion, despite continuing challenges from diminishing availability of labour, incessant increases in labour wages not linked to productivity. The emergence of competitors like Kenya, operating on significantly larger economies of scale to produce volumes of tea, at drastically lower costs of production poses a big risk. 

In addition to the clear superiority of RPC management in terms of productivity, it has only been under our stewardship that more uncompromising, environmental protection standards have been adopted. These include Rainforest Alliance certifications secured only upon the completion of a stringent process of auditing and the implementation of extensive environmental safeguards. To date most RPCs have secured the Green Frog seal of compliance propelling them to the prestigious Global Sustainable Agriculture Network standard. 

Similar efforts have been channelled towards forest conservation and rehabilitation, with the majority of RPCs certified with the Forest Stewardship Council. Membership requires organisations to develop national forestry standards, localised to meet the unique requirements of each natural habitat, as per global standards. 

To-date RPCs have cultivated in excess of 20,000 ha of forestry. 

We wish to recognise and thank the Governmental authorities for commencement of guidelines towards a national policy for commercial forestry, on a request by the Planters’ Association. Despite a five-year forestry plan in place, a sudden ban, imposed five years ago on felling timber which is grown for fuel wood, meant that estates had to transport their requirement of fuel wood at an additional cost, causing additional and unnecessary burden on the bottom-line.

At present, there are 688 International certifications for 297 RPC factories including HACCP, ISO 22000, Fair Trade, Forest Stewardship Certification (FSC) ISO 9000, Care Quality Commission (CQC), Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP), UTZ, Rainforest Alliance (RA), Global GAP, SA etc., thereby ensuring the maintenance of extremely strict production and processing standards that ensure the safety of consumers, workers and the wider environment.

Furthermore, the ‘Ceylon Tea’ image and the branding of Food Factory Concept, Chemical Free Tea, Cleanest Tea in the world, Ethically Managed Plantations, Zero Child Employment, Ozone Friendly Tea, Sustainable Agriculture, Product Traceability to Source and Single Origin Estate Marks are predominantly RPC standards which is a huge plus for the image of Ceylon Tea and its branding.

Other internationally-accepted certifications which entail rigorous compliances with environmental, agricultural, economic and social standards of conduct, obtained by RPCs include Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for Rubber and Cinnamon processing, Global Organic Latex Standard, for rubber ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems Certification, for Oil Palm & Fruits, while the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification is work in progress.

To-date not a single estate worker has been laid off; instead, their opportunities have increased with the productivity linked clause attached to their daily wage. Living conditions have improved vastly with two-bedroom houses with en-suite toilets built to replace the line rooms. A total of 50,000 such homes have been built in an ongoing effort for the 180,000 families that still live on RPC estates – all of whom may not be actually working in the fields. 

From schools to hospitals, crèches to retirement homes, ongoing welfare activity to one-tenth of the country’s population is a priority of the RPCs which constitute the Plantations Human Development Trust (PHDT) along with trade unions and Government. Today an estate worker has the ability to earn in excess of Rs. 25,000 per month, in addition to all other infrastructure facilities provided by RPCs. 

The true strengths of Sri Lanka’s plantation industry and their source 

In light of these and many other achievements by the RPCs, standards of Sri Lanka’s plantations have been elevated far beyond its difficult past and therefore we assert that in truth, many of the strengths that remain in our industry today are initiatives taken by the RPCs. Environmental protection and quality standards have been implemented across the RPC sectors, where none were in place before privatisation. Our produce continues to fetch favourable – and often times record breaking prices from international buyers.

To say that worker wages have been increased periodically is an understatement. Wage increments have been awarded not commensurate with productivity, politically prodded and not considering the competitiveness of the company. Holding back wage increments was never the RPC agenda; however linking it to productivity will be the future of the plantation industry in Sri Lanka. 

Despite constant politically motivated interference, many RPCs have commenced investments into crop diversification in order to consolidate revenue streams, even when various Governments have continued to vacillate on vital policies such as the importation of seed material. Meanwhile, important progress is being made to emulate the successful examples of RPCs who have partnered with large conglomerates to enter into value addition; something which did not exist during the time of State management. 

Diversification through tea tourism is hugely successful. These include tea factory tours, hotels and niche luxury tea trails experiences –attracting high-spending tourists from across the globe – helping to further raise the profile of the island as a vibrant tourist destination. Many others are working on investments into this sector with the Planter’s Association committed to supporting the relentless exploration of innovative diversifications. 

Favourable policies that will look at the industry 50 years from now and start sowing the seeds to propel it to a future-ready, economic power base, is the need of the hour. As an industry we cannot afford any more random ad-hoc policy decisions. Extending leases is an economic imperative, given crop cycles of rubber and oil palm. RPCs must be assured that leased land will not be annexed or encroached through political heavy handedness. 

Ultimately, the RPCs each need to be allowed to draw upon their precious experience gained from the last quarter century of management, in a rapidly changing environment, to autonomously decide on the best course of action for each company, in alignment with a common ethic of sustainable, profitable, diversified plantations. 

 

(The writer is Chairman, Planters’ Association of Ceylon.)

Emerging New Triangulation: South Asia, China and the US 

Rajan Philips-August 11, 2018, 12:00 pm

Recent developments in South Asian countries, and foreign policy changes in China and the US towards South Asia, are causing alignment shifts and subtle tensions among South Asian countries, as well as between them and China and the US. The election of Imran Khan as Prime Minister in Pakistan has set the stage at least to start a new conversation between India and Pakistan, as well as between Pakistan and the US, and between Pakistan and China. Indian elections are due next year, and while Prime Minister Modi and the BJP are still the favourites to win, they are not as invincible as they were one year ago, and in any event a second victory is likely to be cut in size significantly compared to the landslide they won four years ago. Other South Asian countries, including Sri Lanka, are not as crucial in geo-political calculations as India and Pakistan are, but they are all implicated bi-laterally and multi-laterally in whatever geo-political shifts that occur in the region. Sri Lanka will have its presidential and parliamentary elections within the next 18 months and foreign policy options and alignments are already a major campaign issue.

The US and China are directly and indirectly trying to increase and assert their competing influences in South Asia. The Trump Administration has renamed America’s Asia focus from "Asia-Pacific" to "Indo-Pacific" to emphasize the importance it attributes to India and the Indian Ocean to counter the rising Chinese dominance in Asia. Even before Trump, in fact during the Bush Administration, the US started the ‘Quad’, comprising the US, Japan, Australia and India, for Quadrilateral Security Dialogue in response to Chinese influences in Asia. Australia pulled out of the Quad at some point, but the Quad has been revived with the launching of Trump Administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy.

However, the Quad revival is not going anywhere, because China has managed to separately tease out India and Japan, leaving only Australia and the US in what might now be a fruitless dyad. China’s "smile diplomacy", as it is being called, is proving to be more rewarding than Trump’s petulant approach and his ‘fire and fury’ warnings. There is something about the Chinese when it comes to tact and diplomacy, not only in comparison to the Americans but also South Asians. Old timers will recall accounts from the 1950s, of Chou En-lai’s (now Zhou Enlai) diplomatic charm in winning over leaders of countries emerging from colonial rule, in contrast to Jawaharlal Nehru who would put off even genuine admirers among them with his intellectual impatience.

Smile Diplomacy

More than 60 years later China’s President Xi Jinping is charming away India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is of a distinctly different political persuasion from Nehru. Xi and Modi had a very positive meeting in April this year, which Modi later described as a "milestone" in China-India relations. The talks were wide ranging and even though no specific problem was resolved, both sides were satisfied with the initiative and the approach to dealing with issues in the future. More to the point, observers have noted that India has since been "noticeably quiet about China." In Japan, China has used its charm offensive to break the hitherto icy relationship between the two countries with visits to Japan by China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and Premier Li Kepiang. The stage is now set for an exchange of summit visits next year by President Xi and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to each other’s countries. China is pursuing a tri-lateral relationship with Japan and South Korea, and Japan is also showing interest in China’s Belt and Road Initiative as Japanese companies can reap huge benefits from Japan’s involvement in China’s tri-continental (Asia, Europe and Africa) infrastructure venture.

As the Hong Kong based journalist Frank Ching has observed, while improvements in China’s relations with India and Japan are positive developments, neither India nor Japan "will remain quiet if China should overstep its bounds … in the South China Sea, the East China Sea or the Indian Ocean. The American response to China in Asia seems to be taking shape along three fronts, and is predicated more on the likelihood of China overstepping than being successful in its smile diplomacy. First, the US is investing in technology and security programs in Asia as part of Indo-Pacific strategy to promote a "free and open Asia that will not be dominated by any one country." A few days after announcing in Washington, $113 million in new technology, energy and infrastructure initiatives in "emerging Asia", the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a second announcement at the ASEAN Regional Forum on Friday August 3, the launch of a further US$300 million security assistance program (US$290.5 million in Foreign Military Financing to strengthen maritime security, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and peacekeeping capabilities, and $8.5 million in International Narcotics and Law Enforcement funds) "to counter transnational crime".

The program will cover Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, the Pacific Islands, the Philippines, Vietnam and others. Last week’s (August 5) Sunday Observer reported this announcement, and we can brace ourselves for a plethora of opinions and commentaries in the local media, excited by Sri Lanka’s inclusion as a small beneficiary in the US program. But the US initiatives "are tiny in comparison to China’s" $ 1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative, according to Eswar Prasad, now at Cornell University, and formerly head of the China Division at the IMF. They indeed are and the US explanation is that the American strategy is not to compete directly with China, but to provide "down payments" for a "more sustainable alternative by encouraging private investment." Small countries could also be smart by benefitting from the calculated largesse of the two economic giants, rather than picking sides when there is no larger principle or ideology involved on either side.

The IMF checkmate

The second front of American response may turn out to be more direct and even an affront to China’s BRI initiative. This arises from mounting pressure in the US, especially the Congress, for the Trump Administration to ensure that IMF is not providing funding assistance to countries that might be used by them to pay off their infrastructure debt to China. About 70 countries are participating in China’s BRI initiative and a number of them have got into deep debts to China owing to project borrowing. Almost all these countries go to IMF for bailout, and the pressure in America is to make sure that IMF funding is not used to repay Chinese debt. According to Siobhan Hughes and Josh Zumbrun in The Wall Street Journal, "Sri Lanka has already asked for an IMF bailout," which is known, but what is not known is if the IMF funds are to be used for repaying China.

More than Sri Lanka, it is Pakistan that is causing the ire among "China hawks" in the US Senate, many of them (Trump’s) Republicans. These Senators, who fear that China is using its BRI projects to achieve "global dominance", want the US government, as the largest contributor to the IMF, to "use its influence to ensure that bailout terms prevent the continuation of ongoing BRI projects, or the start of new BRI projects? "Pakistan is one of eight countries, along with Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, and Tajikistan, which have been identified as becoming financially vulnerable from project borrowing under the BRI initiative. For Pakistan, the US pressure is being mounted at a time when it has just elected a new Prime Minister with little experience in these matters, and is desperate for yet another IMF bailout to tide over its fiscal and balance of payment crisis.

For its part, the IMF has acknowledged both the global significance and the debt dangers of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. On the one hand, BRI is potentially a huge investment boost for upgrading physical infrastructure on an unprecedented scale. On the hand, as a one country initiative by China it is lacking in transparency, is unamenable to international standards for project implementation, and has so far proven to be debt trap for small countries. Formally, China has called such concerns as overreaction, while promising to adhere to applicable international standards and rules. What is more remarkable are reports of internal criticisms in Chinese economic circles, targeting what is seen as the government’s, especially President’s Xi’s, hubris and international posture. There are serious concerns within China over a likely trade war with the US and signs of skepticism over the manner in which the Belt and Road Initiative has been rolled out so far. Fueling this skepticism is the growing alertness in other countries to Chinese investments and initiatives. A number of OECD countries are sharpening their regulations targeting Chinese investments, while at the other end, voices within Pakistan are accusing China of "reckless lending", and Myanmar has scaled back a port project funded by China to avoid the debt trap.

India’s favoured trade status

The third American initiative as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy is the designation of India to receive the Strategic Trade Authorization-1 (STA-1) status. As reported under S. Venkat Narayan’s byline in last week’s Sunday Island, India is the third Asian country after Japan and South Korea to receive the STA-1 status. In what has been described as a "strong political message to China and the world," the American government both fast-tracked the STA process and made an exception by deeming India’s non-membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) a non-consideration. It is known that China has been stalling India’s admission to the NSG where decisions require unanimous consent. That could be the subject for the next "milestone" discussion between Prime Minister Modi and President Xi.

While reviewing the competing American and Chinese approaches to the Indo-Pacific region, or South Asia in particular, the elephant in the room is the bi-lateral relationship between China and the US. Much water has flowed everywhere 46 year after President Nixon toasted his historic visit to China: "This was the week that changed the word." The world is quite a different place now than it was in 1972. For much of the Cold War era, China was the outlier. In South Asia, Pakistan was dependently aligned to the US, while India asserted its non-alignment by signing the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation with the then Soviet Union. Even after Nixon’s visit to China, the relationship between the US and China has ebbed and flowed.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the Clinton Administration made a special pivot towards China. The financial crisis during the Bush Administration diminished America’s standing in the world more than its defeat in Vietnam. China became increasingly assertive during the Obama years, and set up the stage for the current Trump backlash. China is now taking a different tack by trying to take advantage of Trump’s global retractions and outbursts. In their 2011 monograph, "China, The United States and Global Order", Rosemary Foot (Oxford) and Andrew Walter (LSE) identify four dimensions to define the global norms appropriate to positively new global order: Use of Force, Macroeconomic Policy Surveillance, the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Climate Change, and Financial Regulation. The two important conditions for the fusion of global norms around these poles are: "widespread perceptions of procedural legitimacy and of fairness in the distribution of costs and benefits."

Neither the US nor China can claim "behavioural consistency", the test set by Foot and Walter for global stewardship, in regard to either procedural legitimacy or the sharing of burden. Other countries, in South Asia and elsewhere, can do little to stop or change misbehavior of the world’s two economic giants. But that does not mean that the governments of China and the US have unlimited power to misbehave. There are both internal and external consequences to their misbehavior. Many in the US and outside are simply resigned to sit out the term of Trump’s tumultuous presidency. There are voices within China questioning President Xi’s interminable hold on power. The leaders in other countries would do well to learn what not to do in their own countries, based on the misbehaviours of the American and Chinese leaders.

Israel kills medic during Gaza protests

The colleagues of Abdallah al-Qatati mourn outside a Khan Younis hospital after the volunteer medic was shot and killed by an Israeli sniper while on duty during Great March of Return protests on 10 August.

Ashraf AmraAPA images

Maureen Clare Murphy- 10 August 2018

Two Palestinians lost their lives on Friday as Israel used lethal force against Great March of Return protests along Gaza’s eastern perimeter.

One of those killed, Abdallah al-Qatati, 22, was a volunteer medic on duty at the time of his fatal injury in eastern Rafah, southern Gaza.

PRCS@PalestineRCS

PAlestineRCS condemns the killing of the medic, Abdallah Qatati, while on duty today by #Israeli occupation in Rafah. Abdullah volunteered with the Medical Relief Society to provide medical assistance to affected people during the march of return. #NotATarget

12:30 PM - Aug 10, 2018

• 12
• 17 people are talking about this

A photo of al-Qatati circulated on social media after his death:

View image on Twitter

شهداء فلسطين@Pal_Shaheed

الشهيد | المسعف عبد الله القططي
العُـمــر | 22 عام
التاريخ | 10 -08 -2018
المكــان | رفح - غزة

1:49 PM - Aug 10, 2018

• 63
• 53 people are talking about this

Al-Qatati is the third Palestinian medic to be killed by Israeli forces during Great March of Return protests beginning in late March.

The Israeli rights group B’Tselem found that medic Razan al-Najjar, killed on 1 June, was deliberately targetedby an Israeli sniper east of Khan Younis, also in southern Gaza.

Al-Najjar’s death came two weeks after the killing of Mousa Jaber Abu Hassanein, who like al-Najjar and al-Qatati, was wearing clothing identifying him as a medic when he was shot.

Tarek Loubani@trklou

Today's death of medic Abdullah Alqatati makes him the third medic killed by Israeli snipers since peaceful protests began in #Gaza. Five more medics were wounded by live ammunition. Photos: Abdullah Alqatati, Razan Alnajjar, Musa Abuhassanin

1:41 PM - Aug 10, 2018

• 470
• 841 people are talking about this

The second Palestinian killed on Friday was identified by Gaza’s health ministry as Ali Said al-Aloul, 55, also shot in eastern Rafah.

A photo of al-Aloul circulated on social media after his death:

Read More