Employment: Is it an imperative for today’s youth?

Why this short-sightedness, lack of commitment to finding better jobs or put in effort and aspire to climb to the next step of current jobs? What brought on this disdain for work? How is it that the youth of today are not desperate for work, to earn money and support themselves? – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Wednesday, 2 January 2019

A strange, inexplicable situation that had started creeping up slowly is now progressing rapidly. Young people are appearing to be shying away from work. The initial rush of interest in applying for a position that may be advertised or heard of through the grapevine suddenly dwindles, sometimes with the first interview after sending in a resume and sometimes even before attending the first interview. Recruiters are left scratching their heads and wondering why. The initial reaction – “what did I say to frighten off this candidate?” Second reaction – “did I undersell the position?”

In the first place, it is not at all necessary to “sell” a position or wonder whether candidates was de-motivated during the interview process in any way. Finding a job is the foremost thought in the minds of all parents when their off-springs are almost immediately out of the womb. Fathers would proudly announce that their toddler would become a doctor in later life or an engineer or any of the few most preferred occupations. Little ones would be heard piping that they are going to be pilots when they grow up!

Over decades every single parent had the highest expectations from their children and made every effort to push them in the direction of the parent’s dreams… Up to perhaps 10 or 15 years ago, a job vacancy always attracted scores of applicants, well-dressed young people awaiting their turn patiently, polished shoes, neatly-slicked hair, file in hand – nervous! Ponderous interviewers had no difficulty in filling vacancies. In fact they found it more difficult to drive away the queues of desperate job seekers. That is not so today!

The hardened young breed of people who should be in employment, those generally within the age of 22 and 30 are most often smart and street-savvy, made so by commonly-viewed TV content not suitable to produce healthy emotions in young and impressionable people. Young people also have access to the internet more or less from their palmtops and from their formative years are subject to a barrage of “garbage” as well as good content.

There is also, sadly, a lack of awareness amongst parents on what goes on with their young. It may be safe to say that probably due to the rush of daily living, there is a lack of discipline in most homes. There is also a clear lack of commitment and interest in most educational establishments.
Today’s job seekers
It is interesting to see today’s job seekers. They saunter in for interviews and then suddenly completely drop off with no excuses and no explanations after – or if at all – the first interview. As a pioneer head-hunter with over four decades of consulting, search and placement in diverse fields and hands-on experience in unearthing good talent, I am, for once, floored!

Reports from my recruiters, not those who deal with mid to higher managerial cadres but those who deal with lower to general categories employment, do not make sense. Here lies a good vacancy, an employer seeks one or more energetic, vibrant and knowledgeable young people to fit a position. Recruiters contact and line up a few good potential candidates only to be surprised to find that either some of them or none of them arrive for the interview.

There is no guarantee that those dispatched for interviews would reach their destination. Those who do meet the prospective employer may suddenly become un-contactable when it is time for the next step. Those who are contacted might evade direct answers as to their disinterest in the job. This phenomena, also echoed by a number of company CEOs, had occurred so many times that it warranted investigation. I made a determined effort to reach the bottom of this dilemma and came across quite a few interesting facts.

Scratching the surface – an investigative interview across many errant candidates revealed answers that seemed more out of fiction than fact. Here are some of the actual answers: Husband or parent did not like the company for which the person was being recruited; applicant decided it was too far to travel on a daily basis; applicant fell ill on the day of the interview; parent fell ill; applicant suddenly found he/she could not take leave from current employment to face interview; applicant was unable to trace the location of the company; applicant fell off the bus; applicant fell at home and was injured; applicant’s boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/parent had reservations about the job; applicant just got another job…

None of these facts were conveyed to the interviewing company or to the client company – no explanations, no excuses, no apologies, silence – all this leaving the recruiter and the client in confusion at the last minute lapse/s on the part of candidates.

My recruiters were not satisfied with any of the above explanations, nor were these ludicrous excuses the sort a professional organisation which dealt with procurement of staff for clients could tender to such clients. Further investigation revealed facts that warranted some concern.
Causes for concern

• A certain category of candidates were in the habit of sending in their resumes with no idea of changing their jobs. In fact they were not in a hurry to leave their current employment nor had they studied the requirement of the job they had applied. 
• Applying for a job has become one of the simplest actions today. With plenty of job sites and online options for applying, a resume could be dispatched with a click of a button when in a past age it required a lot of copious writing, photocopying of attachments and making a trip to the post office. Today’s candidates find it an effortless pastime to send in a resume, whether for serious or frivolous reasons
• Some do get offers that are better than their current employment by the very act of distributing their resumes at random as stated above
• The applicant suffers doubt about the stability or size of the organisation when on the point of being recruited
• Employers offer pay raises upon getting to know that an employee is seeking other employment;

Even worse facts emerged. Some young people just embarking on a career with basic qualifications and very little experience seemed to be looking at slots reserved for experienced workers with years of experience behind them. Others, fledgling candidates, wished to join large, well-reputed organisations and would not consider smaller establishments. Another category wished for a considerable wage and benefits package that did not fit with their qualifications, skills of experience and would not settle for anything less.

Why this short sightedness, lack of commitment to finding better jobs or put in effort and aspire to climb to the next step of current jobs? What brought on this disdain for work? How is it that the youth of today are not desperate for work, to earn money and support themselves?

Sri Lanka does not have social security measures to provide for the unemployed, hence the youngsters of today do not have a fall-back mechanism if they do not have work. Amazingly, they appear content with very little, though it may not appear so by their attire and the best of mobile technology they carry. Perhaps they had a fall back on their parents, brothers, sisters, in-laws and others in the family who did hold jobs (though for how long?). Almost none of them had any idea of further training or self-development.
Long-term damage
I have been in the people consultancy business for almost 40 years. With over three decades of experience in recruiting and consulting, I have had close contact with all grades of workers. My recruiters attached to a network of companies have encountered various levels of employees over these years. The associate companies in the group have also provided recruitment and placement services to a wide array of technical and non-technical junior and mid-level staff to many countries around the globe and are backed by a wealth of experience.

My recruiters confirmed that there are jobs – plenty of jobs in certain categories – but very few takers! The positions referred to in this article are junior level in the line of receptionist, customer care executives, marketing executives, accounts executives, data entry operators, computer operators, clerical staff, sales executives, sales coordinators.

This attitude could have long-term damaging effects in several ways detrimental to society. Any economist would agree that high levels of unemployment are costly not only to the individuals and families directly affected, but also to the local economy. Unemployment or under employment (not working to fullest potential) causes a waste of scarce economic resources and reduces the long run growth potential of the economy. The hours that the unemployed do not work can never be recovered.

Both unemployment and under employment wastes some of the scarce resources used in training workers. Furthermore, workers who are unemployed for long periods become de-skilled as their skills become increasingly dated in a rapidly changing job market. This reduces their chances of gaining employment in the future, which in turn increases the economic burden on government and society.

Areas of high unemployment will also see a decline in real income and spending together with a rising scale of relative poverty and income inequality. When individuals are unemployed they pay no income tax. As they are spending less, they contribute less to the government in indirect taxes. High unemployment has an impact on government expenditure, taxation and the level of government borrowing each year.

If unemployment could be reduced and under-employment addressed effectively, total national output would rise, leading to an improvement in economic welfare. Thus, it is important that all young employable persons are in full employment. The current lackadaisical attitude must change. Disinterest can be very damaging. I believe that the responsibility of reversing this mindset rests on many factors that are the underlying root of the issue.

As a recruiter with long years of experience, I believe the strength of an employer lies in fitting their staff into positions that suit their interests. An employee’s interest must be incorporated to their jobs and this must be made clear to them. A wrong fit between position and employee could lead to disinterest in work which could have several negative effects on employees and the organisation, such as lower work performance and higher turnover.

Some employees are actually not aware of the realities of their jobs until they have it. People have many preconceived notions of the job which could be nothing of what they expected. A good recruiter knows that jobs should fit the primary interest of the employee which is a good way of ensuring they adapt and grow in the position. Given a job that interests them and provided some autonomy is also given within the scope of the job, the main criteria for job satisfaction is in place.

A job could be either your passion or just a pay check. Armed with knowledge and experience in placing people in the “right fit” job that ensured both employee and employer satisfaction – here was a problem I needed answers to. Why, in the first place, were more and more young people adopting a devil-may-care attitude about getting a job? If this trend continues, what would be its effects on the next generation apart from its impact on the economy?

The country needs young hands to drive its goal statements forward. Parents need children of worth and value who contribute to themselves and society. Society needs committed adults to carry on where we stop, with responsibility and values.
Lack of values
I note with alarm that the most basic of all values – the courtesy of a return call, responding to a message or even an apology – are severely lacking. Most people do not exhibit any sense of values. There does not seem to be any “action” or excitement in values. Perhaps the first sin lies with parenting styles.

One of the most important things a young person could do is to internalise the values they will live by. Most of these values are picked up at home through those they look up to in their formative years – their parents or care givers. Other influences in their lives—peers, media, other adults – can influence them to adopt values and perspectives that we may not agree with.

It’s easy to shrug off responsibility by thinking it’s out of our hands. But it is not! Children are born with a natural sense of honesty, compassion and justice. It is we who make them otherwise. Sometimes, young adults may do things that contradict our deeply held values and whilst it is critical that young people hold on to their own values, adult guidance continue to shape and influence the values of young people.

I believe that firstly parents/homes should start with providing young adults with adequate information, guidelines and structures. Educational institutions play a highly crucial secondary role. The home and the school, working hand in hand would undoubtedly provide an 80% chance of instilling responsibility and conscientiousness in young people.

Given guidelines and clear and fair expectation of consequences, together with follow through of choice consequences, there would develop a sense of careful balance that would be productive to the end result of responsible adults.

Whilst what we need today is a concerted national effort that would bring much-needed results as early as possible, the MIL Group of companies, backed by 35 years of experience, will soon be introducing mini sessions on the etiquette of facing an interview and follow-up courtesies, free of charge for those coming to its doorstep in search of employment.

(The writer is MD/Principal Consultant of Executive Search Ltd./Appointments of International Management Specialists (AIMS) and Mankind International, a well-known headhunting guru who is a pioneer in the field of executive search and headhunting with almost 40 years of experience in the business. The associate companies in the group also provide recruitment and placement services for a wide array of technical and non-technical junior and mid-level positions to many countries around the globe.)

Why the President should resign..? - Lal Wijenayake

(Lanka-e-News - 01.Jan.2018, 11.30PM) Though the constitutional crisis that arose from the conspiracy hatched between the President and Mahinda Rajapakse which brought the country to the brink of civil war has ended due to the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of the constitution on the dissolution of Parliament, the political crisis that emerged out of it has not receded. The Supreme Court has held that the President cannot dissolve Parliament within the first four and a half years of the life of Parliament unless Parliament by a resolution passed with 2/3 majority request that Parliament be dissolved.

The removal of Ranil Wickramasinghe from the office of Prime Minister, appointment of Mahinda Rajapakse as Prime Minister, prorogation of Parliament and, dissolution of Parliament by the President were in violation of the Constitution.

Under the Constitution the President has no power to remove the Prime Minister. Article 42(4) mandates the President to appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament who in his opinion is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. The wording “in his opinion” does not give the President an absolute discretion to make an appointment not based on the ground situation. The discretion has to be used with objectively. In any case once he uses his discretion and appoints a Prime Minister his discretion ends there.

Thereafter there is no provision enabling the President to remove the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ceases to hold office only under the circumstances specifically set out in the constitution. The President can appoint a new Prime Minister only when the Prime Minister ceases to hold office under the constitution.

Under Article 46(2), the Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the constitution.

The exceptions laid down in Article 46(2)(a) is where the Prime Minister resigns his office and Article 46(2)(b) where the Prime Minister ceases to be a Member of Parliament.

The other circumstances where the Prime Minister will cease to hold office will be under Article 48(2) where Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no confidence in the Government.

Therefore the action of the President in removing the Prime Minister and appointing Mahinda Rajapakse as the Prime Minister is an intentional violation of the Constitution.

The next step in the process, the prorogation of Parliament is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. The President is vested with the power to prorogue Parliament under Article 33(2)(c). This Article confers the general power of prorogation. But the purpose for which this power is vested in the President is governed by conventions. The word “prorogation’ itself in a Parliamentary system carries with it what it means. Under the British Parliamentary conventions, which we follow, Parliament is prorogued either to give the members of Parliament a recess or to clear the order paper of Parliament when it is full of motions that has not been disposed of so that the House can commence the new sessions with a clean slate. The tradition even in our Parliament is for Parliament to be prorogued on the advice of the Prime Minister.

If the power to prorogue Parliament is given a wide meaning to mean that the President can prorogue Parliament at any time for any purpose, the President would be able to make use of this power to trifle the functioning of Parliament. Such an act will violate the sovereignty of the people.

In Public law no authority is vested with absolute discretion. The discretion vested in a public authority has to be used for the purpose for which the discretion is vested. Power is vested on a public authority with the trust that the power will be used for the purpose for which it is vested in the authority. It is accepted in Public Law as the “trust doctrine.”

The President prorogued Parliament when Parliament was about to consider the appropriation bill. Obviously the President prorogued Parliament to enable Mahinda Rajapakse to get the support of 113 Members of Parliament. How he was expected to find the numbers was reveled later by the President himself when he said that Mahinda Rajapakse failed to show the support of 113 Members because Members of Parliament has raised their price to over Rupees five hundred million.

Therefore prorogation of Parliament admittedly was for an illegal purpose.

This again amounts to an intentional abuse of power in violation of the Constitution.

Thereafter, when the Mahinda Rajapakse government was short of the number necessary to function in Parliament the President dissolved Parliament, This is a blatant intentional violation of the constitution. This is confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Announcement by the President that he will not appoint Ranil Wickramasinghe as Prime Minister even if all 225 Members of Parliament request him to do so is a threat to act in violation of the constitution, as it is clearly laid down that the President has to appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament who has the confidence of majority of members of Parliament. This too is an act of intentional violation of the constitution.

The President claims to be the leader of the UPFA. UPFA claims that they be recognized as the main party in the opposition and demands that Mahinda Rajapakse be appointed as the leader of the Opposition. On the other hand the President holds three ministries Defense, Environment, and Mahaweli Development as stipulated in the constitution and has also kept under him the Ministry of Law and Order and some Media Institutions. Therefore the President is the head of the main opposition party, holds Cabinet Ministries and chairs Cabinet meetings as President. There is clearly a conflict of interest. This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Therefore the President has no moral right to continue to function as the President. His continuing to hold office is an obstruction to the smooth functioning of the Government.

Therefore the President should resign from the position as President and allow the country to be governed upholding the Constitution.

LAL WIJENAYAKE

ATTORNEY AT LAW

GENERAL SECRETARY

UNITED LEFT FRONT.

---------------------------
by     (2019-01-01 18:41:16)

Investors may be underestimating the political turbulence in Sri Lanka

• What might seem like a crisis averted in Sri Lankan politics is far from being over and investors may be underestimating the level of uncertainty that currently prevails in the country, an expert told CNBC.
• The country’s president attempted to oust its prime minister, but then the premier was ultimately reinstated in December.
• While that development may seem to be a return to the status quo, it is “at best an uneasy and fragile truce” according to Sasha Riser-Kositsky, senior analyst at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, center, speaks to supporters at the prime minister’s official residence in Colombo on December 16, 2018.Ishara S. Kodikara | AFP | Getty Images

TUE, JAN 1 2019


What might seem as a crisis averted in Sri Lanka — is actually far from being over and investors could potentially be underestimating the level of uncertainty in the country, an expert told CNBC.

The hostility between the country’s top two statesmen reached its peak in October when President Maithripala Sirisena fired Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, claiming the action was within his constitutional rights and swore in Mahinda Rajapaksa — a former president whose decade-long regime had a track record of suppressing free speech, intimidating minorities and harassing critics.

 

After that, Sirisena forced the country’s parliament into a three-week recess, stopping lawmakers from holding a no-confidence vote against Rajapaksa.

Last month, the country’s supreme court ruled that the president’s moves to dissolve parliament and prepare for snap elections were illegal and unconstitutional. Sirisena complied with court orders and reinstated Wickremsinghe as prime minister in mid December.

While that development seemed to be a return to the status quo, it is “at best an uneasy and fragile truce” explained Sasha Riser-Kositsky, senior analyst at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

“What I think is under appreciated by a number of investors is how fragile things still are. The relationship between the prime minister and the president is fundamentally broken. The president has now shown that he is willing to take pretty out-there unconstitutional actions, there’s nothing preventing him (from doing) something like this again,” Riser-Kositsky said.

The country is set for its political divisions to yet again come to a head during presidential elections that are expected to occur in late 2019 and the parliamentary elections that are scheduled for the 2020.

 

“It’s going to be a pretty rocky and tumultuous time through the next elections. Governance rarely works when the two most senior figures in government despise one another. And one is continuously seeking means to undermine the other,” he said.

“It does not make for stability or policy making. And that’s the scenario investors will confront in Sri Lanka for much, if not all, of 2019,” he added.

The country has already suffered some economic repercussions: Reports said the country’s financial sector and tourism industry have taken a hit following the political crisis.

Backlash for minorities

Another potential result of the governmental infighting is that minority groups in Sri Lanka could see their fortunes slide.

There is fear that, in the run up for upcoming elections, there could be an attempt by various parties to stoke Buddhist nationalistic sentiments to win over voters from the roughly 70 percent of the country that identifies with that religious label, according to Pratyush Rao, lead analyst for India and South Asia at global risk consulting firm Control Risks.

Minority issues currently at play in domestic politics include investigations into alleged war crimes during the civil war and the transfer of some administrative powers to the Tamils in the northern region, Rao said.

The United Nations and rights groups have accused the Sri Lankan military of killing thousands of civilians, mostly Tamils, during the final weeks of the 1983-2009 civil war and have pressed for justice for the families of those who disappeared. Rajapaksa’s administration had resisted the probe and denied U.N. officials entry to the country.

“There is a concern that minority rights — or at least progress on some of the pending issues — will slow down between now and the elections. And you might see progress only after the elections and that, too, if you have the right kind of verdict. If Rajapaksa comes to power you can almost be rest assured that he is ... not concretely going to make a move towards these (minority) issues,” said Rao.
Sirisena has the authority to call presidential polls as soon as mid-January, but too early of an election could reduce the chances of him winning, some political analysts have said.

The China factor

China was one of the first and few countries to publicly support Rajapaksa when he was named Sri Lanka’s replacement prime minister. That decision from Beijing could ultimately lead other countries to be more skeptical of Chinese investments, according to Riser-Kositsky.

Experts have noted that, Sri Lanka forged friendlier relationships with China under Rajapaksa’s presidency, and Colombo was seemingly more willing to accept Chinese investments during his tenure.

“After the civil war — when Rajapaksa was under a lot of international criticism from India and the rest — China made the the point that, ‘Look, we do not really care about your democratic deficit and we are more than happy to do business with you.’ Back then it was a pragmatic decision on his part to gravitate toward the Chinese,” Rao said.

The return to the status quo in Sri Lanka will “probably make China more wary of so openly backing adventures in third countries,” said Riser-Kositsky.

“The perception that China backed a series of unconstitutional moves designed to replace a national leader with an individual seen as friendlier toward Chinese interests will set back China’s broader push to win friends and influence people around the world, particularly in Belt and Road Initiative countries, ” he told CNBC in an email.

And, when countries consider future investments from China, they may now be more likely cast a “critical eye toward the potential political and economic dependencies on Beijing that they could create,” Riser-Kositsky added.

— CNBC’s Nyshka Chandran, Sri Jegarajah and Reuters contributed to this report

Gota Won’t Contest Presidency: Dupes Businessmen Into Donating Millions Of Rupees

JANUARY 2, 2019

Contrary to widespread public speculations and claims by Joint Opposition parliamentarians, Former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa will not contest the next Presidential election, Colombo Telegraph can reveal today.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa

Sources within the Rajapaksa family confirmed to Colombo Telegraph that Rajapaksa would not contest the Presidential nor has he applied to the US state authorities seeking cancellation of his US citizenship.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution bars people with foreign citizenship from running for public office. Many supporters of the Rajapaksa camp have expressed confidence that the former Defence Secretary will revoke his US citizenship to make himself eligible to run for the presidency.

“As far as I know, he does not have any plans to contest the Presidential election,” our source said, adding that Gotabaya had fooled many people, including leading businessmen, into believing that he would run for the presidency.

They added these businessmen donate him millions of rupees on a monthly basis allowing him to live a luxurious life in the suburbs of Colombo. He continues to receive specialised Police protection and other government facilities, including vehicles, despite the absence of any threat from the LTTE.

The former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence has so far avoided obtaining membership with the Sri Lanka Polujana Peramuna (SLPP), the proxy party of the Rajapaksa family which was set up as a political front for the next national level elections.

The businessmen, sources from the Rajapaksa family said, maintain an uninterrupted supply of funds to ensure Gotabaya becomes the President. “Gota often laughs at their naivety. These businessmen will only realize their stupidity when the name of the presidential candidate is announced.”

Read More

Census Dept. reporting issue rendering 100 per cent accurate figures on growth not possible'

-

By Hiran H.Senewiratne -January 2, 2019, 9:25 pm 

The Census and Statistics Department has a reporting issue when releasing certain statistical and economic data, such as economic growth, due to lack of  resources at the institution. This has resulted in not releasing 100 percent accurate figures,  Central Bank Governor Dr.Indrajit Coomaraswamy said

" It is said that the 2018  economic growth rate has not been finalized yet but I presume it would be less than 3.5 percent to 4 percent. However, due to the Census and Statistics Department resources problem when reporting certain calculations and survey reports at certain times it does not reflect the actual figures, Dr Coomaraswamy said presenting a road map for monetary policy for 2019. at the Central Bank auditorium yesterday.

He said that the  economy faced heightened challenges in 2018, emanating mainly from the global economic, financial and geo-political developments that adversely affected the external sector. "There were also several domestic challenges. Political uncertainties, especially during the last quarter of the year, amplified challenges to overall macroeconomic stability. Sub-par economic growth continued in 2018 following subdued growth in 2017, the Governor said. 'Favourable weather conditions supported a rebound in the agriculture sector while the expansion in services activities has been broad-based. However, industrial activities slowed in 2018 mainly due to the slowdown in the construction sector, he said. 'Consumer price inflation remained low in 2018 in spite of temporary ups and downs due to volatile food prices and administrative price adjustments, the Central Bank Governor added.'In response to the tight monetary policy stance pursued by the Central Bank in the past two years, monetary and credit growth decelerated in 2018 from the higher levels observed in 2016 and 2017. An adequate expansion in domestic credit flows driven by demand from the private sector was witnessed during the year, he explained.

Dr. Coomaraswamy  also said that forensic audit on the controversial bond issue will be completed before end of this year. The  report has been handed over to the Auditor General and he will select relevant audit firms and auditing procedure based on national procurement guidelines.

" There is some delay in the system due to the complexity of the procedure, he added.        

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka will cut the volume of rupee bonds foreigners can hold from 10 percent of total outstanding to 5 percent,  Dr. Coomaraswamy said, as a soft-pegged regime has put renewed pressure on the currency.'Some bond investors are footloose, and making the external sector volatile, he said."In view of the increased volatility in global financial markets we intend to reduce the threshold for foreign investment in rupee denominated from 10 percent to 5 percent, the Governor said. He added:'Sri Lanka runs a soft-peg with the US dollar and has found it difficult to cope with bond outflows as it tries to prevent a 'disorderly adjustment' of the exchange rate and then print money to keep rates down.'Rupee bond holders have been fleeing Sri Lanka from around May after the Central Bank cut rates and injected liquidity in April.'

Towards an economically prosperous Sri Lanka

Given the disruptive weather patterns it now seems advisable to import much of the agricultural products we consume (Pix courtesy www.irinnews.org)

2019-01-03

The majority of Sri Lankans showed their eagerness to usher in 2019 which they did by the lighting of thousands of firecrackers and sky rockets on the stroke of 12 midnight on December 31.

Stepping into the future with zest is good, but when its done with an intoxicated mind, which for a moment makes us forget our responsibilities, liabilities and commitments, a question arises whether we have messed up our priorities?

• Now the GoSL must take measures to stop the rupee from reaching the 200 mark against the US Dollar
• Last year again agriculture was a disaster given that there was a drought and later a flood situation
• This cash-trapped GoSL needs the much looked forward to IMF Loan

The year 2019 is so important because the Ranil Wickremesinghe Government must make things happen rather than wait for things to happen. Past governments were not proactive and that contributed to the depreciating of the Sri Lankan rupee. Economic experts state that when the governments of other countries took adequate steps to deal with the developments in the global markets the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) allowed its economy to ‘run its own course’ without taking protective measures.

One factor that affected the global financial market was the deposited money in other countries flowing back into America because the Trump-led administration began paying a higher return for investments. Now the GoSL must take measures to stop the rupee from reaching the 200 mark against the US Dollar. For this to happen the GoSL must maintain a healthy balance between imports and exports.

For the IMF to release the loan, ‘Sri Lanka must agree to implement policy reforms that require strict financial discipline and reduce Budget deficit and the accumulation of debt stock’

The biggest challenge for the Wickremesinghe led Government is to have the support of the minority parties within the Parliament. Budget 2019 has to be passed, but before that the Government must reveal its plan to escape from the present debt trap.

Financial experts have warned that the government must financially discipline itself. There is a past history of a request having being made by the Yahapalana regime to raise the salaries of a minister by over 200%. This move was thwarted by President Sirisena. With over US $ 4 billion needed to pay off annual debts this year, the Wickremesinghe Government must cut down on lavish spending.
This year there are almost two elections on the cards. Elections mean there would be spending and such activities tax the Government coffers. Any government will have to spend money to buy votes. As stated by the Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshappriya an election would cost as much as rupees 4.5 billion while a public referendum would cost around rupees 3.5 -4 billion.

TNA Leader R.Sampanthan wants a permanent solution to the national question and President Sirisena quoting poet T.S Elliot has looked to the future with a sharp pair of eyes

The Elections Commissioner also said that these three elections-Provincial Councils, Presidential Elections and General Elections-have to be held within the next two years.  Last year again agriculture was a disaster given that there was a drought and later a flood situation. Time and again adverse weather conditions in the island have underscored the fact that Sri Lanka doesn’t have a bright future in agriculture anymore. We have never been able to negotiate the drought and floods. Given the disruptive weather patterns it now seems advisable to import much of the agricultural products we consume. Some experts also point out that we also don’t have the needed machinery expertise and have to hire machine operators from countries like India to work on agriculture fields.
This cash-trapped GoSL needs the much looked forward to IMF Loan. The IMF has promised to resume a 3-year US$ 1.5 billion extended loan facility given that Sri Lanka meets certain conditions. For the IMF to release the loan, ‘Sri Lanka must agree to implement policy reforms that require strict financial discipline and reduce Budget deficit and the accumulation of debt stock’. If Sri Lanka meets these conditions the IMF will release the Sixth Tranche which amounts to US$ 250 million.

Given the disruptive weather patterns it now seems advisable to import much of the agricultural products we consume

New Voice 

Given that 2019 will centre around the economy and the possible elections it is interesting to note what top politicians have said in the releases issued to newspapers to be carried on their issues on new year day. Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa has played on the patriotic theme once again asking the citizens to protect the country from the enemy, Premier Wickremesinghe has promised to make a better society for the future generation, TNA Leader R.Sampanthan wants a permanent solution to the national question and President Sirisena quoting poet T.S Elliot has looked to the future with a sharp pair of eyes. Sirisena has quoted Elliot saying, “for last year’s words belong to the last year’s language and next year’s words await another voice”. This is quite interesting given that we have tried all our present leaders of the likes of Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa to establish a ‘healthy system’ where state funds are not squandered and there are checks and balances with regard to spending. For this to happen we need a ‘new voice’; most importantly of an individual with a proven track record in business and finance who wishes to give quality time to politics and most importantly someone who can boast of a clean character. Is this too much to ask for from a citizens perspective?

Ensuring Social Justice

Patient’s Rights v. Patent Rights and their harmonization

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

The right to health is a human right recognized by the International Human Rights Law. Similarly Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are seen as a human right of the inventor worthy of recognition. Moreover, IPR is very much a private property rightfully owned by the proprietor. However, the relationship between human rights and IPR has been the topic of many debates in the recent past.

The position with regard to International Human Rights Law is very clear – the socio-economic and cultural (ESC) rights of the people are and indivisible part of human right and must be respected, protected and fulfilled by state. The economic reality today, on the other hand, forces State to turn away from these ESC rights, towards harnessing entrepreneurship and increasing trade and also on the grounds of resources conflicts. IPR too have increasingly come into conflict with ESC rights, specially the right to health.

The adverse impact of IPR on the right to health has been in the forefront of human rights debate in the 21st century. Intellectual Property law is an essential piece of legislation in any country. The challenging tasks therefore, is to ensure at least basic level of harmonization with the human rights - such as right to health – that are imperiled by these laws.

International Legal regime on the Right to Health

Traditionally, adequate health care has been associated mainly with prevention of disease and availability of health care. Today however, health is viewed as a right, which encompasses highest attainable standard or physical and mental health. Thus the right to health ‘embrace [s] a wide range of socio-economic factors that promote conditions in which people can lead a healthy life, and extends to the underlying determinants of health, such as food and nutrition, access to safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, safe and healthy working conditions, and a healthy environment’. It further includes the right of the population to participate in all health related decision making at the community, national and international levels.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and several other international covenants recognize the obligation of State to guarantee the enjoyment of right to health. The General Comment on the Right to Health issued by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is considered the authoritative interpretation of the rights to health as contained in the ICESCR. This General Comment delineates the nature and the extent of the obligation cast on the State towards the realization of the right to health.

According to these provisions, the obligation to guarantee all persons the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health is multifaceted. The General Comment outlines threefold obligations, to respect, protect and fulfill the right to health. It specifics a minimum standard of obligation which must ensure the availability of minimum essential levels of primary health care at all times, irrespective of other considerations, such as resource constraints.

At present, however, the right to health is not recognized in the Sri Lankan Constitution, nor is it included in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Recognition of a justiciable right to health would be essential. This would permit persons whose right to health is violated to take his complaint to a court of law.

Intellectual Property Law in Sri Lanka

The intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) replaced the Code of Intellectual Property Act No. 52 of 1979 (as amended). The new law has been designed inter alia to provide for the law relating to intellectual property and for an efficient procedure for registration, control and administration thereof.

Patents

Section 62(2) of the Intellectual Property Act (IPR) states that Act: ‘An intervention may be, or may relate to, a product or process. The provisions in the Act give effect to the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property, commonly referred to as the TRIPS agreement.’ Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement defines the subject matter of a patent as any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.

An Invention is patentable if it is new and involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. (i) An invention is considered new if it is not anticipated by prior art by the date of application or of the convention priority. (ii) An invention involves an inventive step if, having regard to the prior art relevant to the patent application claiming the invention, such inventive step would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. (iii) An invention is industrially applicable if it can be made or used in any kind of industry.

A patent is granted by the Intellectual Property Office upon the successful application made by the applicant. The applicant must conform to the formal requirements prescribed by law and must contain a description of the invention, claim or claims, drawings if any, and an abstract. A patent is valid for a period of 20 years from the date of application for grant. The patented is required to keep the patent in force by paying an annual prescribed fee.

The owner of a patent has the exclusive rights during the valid period the patent,
(a) to exploit the patented invention;

(b) to assign or transmit the patent;

(c) to conclude license, contracts involving the patented invention.

From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, it must be noted that patents are of special significance. The marginal cost or the cost of manufacturing drugs is usually very low. However, these companies have incurred very high ‘sunk costs’ or initial investments for the research and development of these drugs. By protecting their drugs through patents, the companies protect themselves from competition and can recoup the costs of research and development.

The State must ensure that at least the minimum core obligations are fulfilled. By enacting tougher patent laws the government provides for the continued profitability of pharmaceutical companies. But this burden of paying the dues for the companies cannot be at the cost of deteriorating health standards.

Tougher patent laws will increase the extent of state obligations with regard to the provisions of health care, necessitating an increased in State expenditure on drugs. It is therefore important to keep in mind that State expenditure on health must increase with the introduction of tougher patent laws. It is then the responsibility of the State to introduce the properly planned system of State financing and /or compulsory licensing to prevent escalation of drug prices in countries like Sri Lanka, at the very least for essential drugs.

IPR v. Human Rights - need for harmonization

In Re Intellectual Property Bill can be commended as a judgement that impacted on millions of Sri Lankans as well as on generations to come. Former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva adopted a very farsighted approach and analyzed the likely effect of the proposed legislation on the millions of poor consumers and industrialists in developing countries like Sri Lanka. The Supreme Court took special note of the rights of patients, and also effectively addressed the issues of patenting plants and microorganisms. This judgement is a great victory not only to Sri Lanka but to all those in the developing and the least developed world right now faced with the ultimatum of drafting IP laws in conformity with the TRIPS Agreement in the near future. The Court stressed that people’s right to health must be accorded primacy.

The ratifications and effective implementation of ratified Conventions are central to ensure decent work practices in Sri Lanka. Provisions referred to in the judgement are found in the TRIPs agreement as well as the Doha Declaration, on the TRIPS agreement and right to health which recognized this problem by stating that the “TRIPs agreement does not and should not prevent governments from taking measures to protect public health.” These mitigatory provisions can be utilized by countries to protect the interests of the right to health of the people. Therefore a clear understanding of the same is essential in attempting to harmonize the protection of IPR and human rights. Under the heading ‘TRIPS and Public Health’ the Doha Declaration identified the rights of governments in the following instances.

(The writer is Retired Professor in Law in the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, he is an Attorney-at-Law and holds PhD in law as well.)

Sri Lanka: Lasting Memories About Comrade Prins Gunasekara

by Lionel Bopage-Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 2019

I came to know of the late comrade Prins Gunasekara through the large amount of work he did in the social transformation that took place in 1956, while representing the Habaraduwa electorate in the Galle district. He was a joint-secretary of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) established in 1956 and was a contemporary and a follower of Mr SWRD Bandaranaike and comrade Philip Gunawardena. In the General Elections of March 1960, he contested and won the Habaraduwa electorate from the MEP ticket with a small majority of around 100 votes but was defeated at the General Elections of July 1960. Again, he contested and won the 1965 General Elections as an independent leftist candidate with a majority of about a hundred votes. He contested and won the General Elections of 1970 handsomely under the United Front led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. His political determination at these elections was a source of satisfaction to us even when we were younger. Nevertheless, my view is that the ideology he held could be branded as an admixture of left-wing progressive and Sinhala nationalist ideas.

His attitude towards the thousands of youth who took part in the Uprising of April 1971 was quite different to the attitude most of the members displayed at the time, who appeared to be leftists in the Parliament. The attitude comrade Prins displayed towards our group including comrade Rohana Wijeweera, who took a stand against the then government during the “Main Trial” filed in the Criminal Justice Commission had irritated Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike as well as many leftist leaders who were in the ruling coalition. The “Main Trial” was prosecuted by the Attorney General Victor Tennakoon, the Deputy Solicitor General Percy Colin Thomé, Advocate Ranjith Abeysuriya, the current Minister of External Affairs and Attorney at law Tilak Marapana and Attorney-at-law Sarath N. Silva, who later became an infamous Chief Justice.

Comrade Prins Gunasekara being an Advocate, was prominent among the group of lawyers, who came forward to challenge the legality of the Criminal Justice Commission, when the government of the day filed charges against 41 people for conspiring to wage, waging and/or abetting to wage war against the Queen and conspiring to overawe by means of criminal force the Government of Ceylon. He was also prominent among the group of lawyers who stood up and walked out protesting against the unusual procedure of the Commission which was following the instructions of Mr Felix Dias Bandaranaike, the Minister of Justice at that time. The Chair of the Criminal Justice Commission, Chief Justice H N Fernando banned from appearing in the Commission any of the lawyers who had walked out in protest.

Even within certain groups who were in government, especially within the Communist Party of Sri Lanka (Moscow wing), there had arisen a tense situation over the arbitrary moves that would have been taken under the Criminal Justice Commissions Act. The Communist Party and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party could not control the issues that were rising from among their young party members. They did not support the JVP but were terrified of the Criminal Justice Commissions Act and the government getting enhanced judicial powers under the state of emergency.

Comrades such as the General Secretary of the Ceylon Mercantile Union, Advocate Bala Tampoe and Prins Gunasekara and other independent groups were disclosing information to the rest of the world about the cruel state repression. Comrade Prins had brought Lord Avebury of the Amnesty International, a high-ranking human rights activist and a member of the British Parliament for a tour in Ceylon. They accompanied by Comrade Bala Tampoe had been collecting information by visiting various areas that had been subject to destruction due to state repression. The real nature of the state repression led by the United Front regime began to be internationally revealed. Especially incidents like comrade Premawathie Manamperi, being paraded naked on the street and then shot and killed in Kataragama, came to the attention of foreign media.

Before his departure from the island, Lord Avebury and comrade Prins were to meet comrade Rohana at Welikada Prison. When they were ready to enter through the gates of the prison, they were prevented from doing so. Orders had come from the then Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, Mr Nihal Jayawickrama following the instructions he received from the then Minister of Justice Mr Felix Dias Bandaranaike. The then Commissioner of Prisons Mr J P Delgoda prohibited comrade Prins and Lord Avebury from entering the prison premises. Even during the seventies, not allowing comrade Prins, who was then a Member of Parliament, to enter prison premises displayed the autocratic nature of the then government. Such was the commitment and determination of comrade Prins Gunasekara for protecting human rights against the autocracy.

Comrade Prins, who left parliamentary politics in 1977, fearlessly confronted the social and national issues. Having been released due to the repealing of the Criminal Justice Commissions Act around 1978, comrade Rohana and I had the opportunity of meeting with Lord Avebury at the home of comrade Prins in Colombo. We also had the opportunity through comrade Prins, of having discussions at his home, with Professor Venerable Walpola Rahula Thero, at the time a lecturer at the Vidyalankara University. Ven Walpola Rahula Thero was also closely associated with Lord Avebury.

The “Gini Pupura” (Spark) group in London established connections with the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna in the early seventies through the campaign to free political prisoners that had been launched during that time. It has been comrade Prins who had arranged for comrades Acha de Lanerolle and C I Fernando of the “Gini Pupura” group to establish connections with comrade Alwis, who had been active in the trade union of the Railway Yard in Ratmalana. When I was carrying out political work for the JVP in Galle District and when contesting for the Galle District Development Council, comrade Prins Gunasekara allowed me the opportunity to continue my work while staying at his parental house in Kataluwa. During the Presidential Election campaign in 1982, he voluntarily allowed his house in Colombo to be used as the main office of the JVP’s presidential election campaign.

The only national referendum held so far in Sri Lanka, known as the “Lamp -Pot Play”, was held in the latter part of 1982. The referendum was held to extend the parliamentary term by another six years. At this referendum we, together with all other opposition parties campaigned against the extension of parliamentary term. While government supporters vehemently violated the election laws with the mediation of President J R Jayewardene, our request to the Elections Commissioner and the Police to prevent such illegal election activities received no response. Nevertheless, the law against the opposition was implemented to the letter. Due to opposition to this referendum, the office of the “Aththa” newspaper of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka was sealed and some of the leaders of the SLFP including comrade Vijaya Kumaratunga were arrested on the pretext of preparing for a ‘Naxalite plot’. Documents were also seized from the party offices that had been broken into.

According to the results of the referendum held under the use of massive thuggery and illegal state power and resources, the lamp had received more than three million valid votes. Accordingly, the term of office of the Parliament was extended to August 1989. Since the government of Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike had worked to extend the parliament in 1975 by another two years, some members of the opposition parties were ambiguous and seemed unable to oppose the results of this referendum.

It was only the JVP that came forward to challenge the results of the referendum through a motion submitted to the Supreme Court. It was led by Comrade Rohana. Advocate comrade Prins Gunasekara and former Minister of Justice Felix Dias Bandaranaike appeared for the petitioners in this case. This had become a serious headache to President J R Jayewardene. The JVP had in its possession evidence of election fraud and corruption. The report the then Commissioner of Elections, Chandananda de Silva had released around 1988 also appeared to confirm that there had been undue pressure brought on achieving the outcome of the referendum.

Overcoming this legal challenge was not an easy task for the then President and the government. It was during this time, the Black July pogrom was launched against Tamil people in the South in mid July 1983. An army attack killed a group of LTTE members and in revenge the LTTE had launched a retaliatory attack on July 23. Thirteen soldiers were killed as a result. On the instructions of the President, the then Army Commander Lieutenant General Tissa Weeratunga had arranged the burial services of the dead soldiers to be conducted on July 24, at the Borella Cemetery.

The attack led by some of those gathered at Kanaththa that day on Tamil shops in the Borella town and the Tamil houses in the vicinity was like a signal to the groups that had been armed to destroy the Tamils and their properties throughout the country. Almost in every town, government politicians had planned and launched these attacks. Some leaders associated with the Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya (JSS), some government members of parliament and some thugs associated with the government had led these attacks in public with electoral register in hand to look for the properties owned by Tamil nationals.

The government allowed the attacks to go on for two days and then curfew was imposed on July 26. The President addressed the people on July 28. Similarly, organized Tamil groups had attacked the Sinhalese people living in the North and East. By July 31 by an extraordinary gazette notification the Communist Party of Sri Lanka, the Nava Sama Samaja Party and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna were banned. The President declared that those parties were proscribed because of the reports he received that the attacks launched against the Tamil people were an anti-government conspiracy of the extremist Leftist leaders.

This is how the basis of the massive state repression that ran till 1988-89 was set. Using these incidents as a pretext, the JVP was banned also with an aim of escaping the defeat that the state was destined to due to the petition submitted to the Supreme Court challenging the results of the referendum. Comrade Rohana Wijeweera went underground. Due to the ideological differences and ideological clashes developed with the party leadership, by that time I had already decided to leave the party. I also did not agree with comrade Rohana’s decision to go underground at that particular moment.

During the 1983 Black July, about 17 activists of the JVP, including myself were detained under the emergency regulations at the fourth floor of the Criminal Investigation Department. Comrade Prins Gunasekara was also one of those detained. Every month, we should have been given a signed copy of the order the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence issued to hold us in detention. Though we received this for the first two months, later on we did not receive any signed notifications.

Comrade Prins Gunasekara suggested that to protest this illegal action by the government, we should leave the cells we had been detained in and walk out of the building of the Criminal Investigation Department. While most of us agreed with this suggestion, some of us felt that we could be assassinated on the tried and true pretext that we have been trying to escape from the CID. Most of us including me and comrade Prins were of the view that they could kill us if they need to even while we are in detention, but we should take the risk and carry out our protest.

One morning when ASP Punya de Silva was present at the first floor, Comrade Prins Gunasekara and I went to him and told him that the CID had no right to detain us because we have not been given an order signed by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to be detained. We left the door to exit the section we had been detained in and with the rest we walked onto the corridor. When we approached the staircase to the ground floor, Sub Inspector of Police, Mr Chandra Wakishta arrived via the lift from the upper floor, showed us the documents with the seal of the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and pointed out that we have been detained legally and if we walk out of the building, force will have to be used against us. As such, we had to go back to the cells. Due to a Habeas Corpus petition my wife comrade Chitra had filed before the Courts and with the help of President’s Counsel Nimal Senanayake, we were released without any charges.

Though comrade Prins continued to act against the government after being released from detention, comrade Prins acted in agreement with the nationalistic position the JVP followed. The country was in a highly vulnerable situation in the face of the armed and terror activities between the nationalist separatist struggle of the north, the nationalist patriotic armed movement of the south and the military forces of the state. Many activists and lawyers who staunchly worked for defending human rights were mysteriously assassinated. Faced with all these challenges, comrade Prins continued to fight for basic human rights. The state security forces used para-military death squads under diverse names such as PRA, Green Tigers, Black Cats. They assassinated thousands of youth. Meanwhile the JVP’s patriotic armed movement targeted and assassinated political leaders, activists and the civilians who did not implement their orders.

The killing of comrade Kanchana Abeypala, his elder sister’s son, was the last straw. Disappearances as well as mysterious killings had become a daily occurrence. In the face of intensive state violence and the armed struggle launched by the JVP, comrade Prins had to leave the country in 1989 and to seek and obtain political asylum to save himself and his family. Mr Felix Dias Bandaranaike too had gone abroad temporarily. The petition filed by the JVP in the Supreme Court challenging the referendum result was dismissed under the pretext that no one was present in courts on behalf of the petitioners of the case.

In the latter period of 1989, we were forced to leave the country as a result of death threats targeting me and other members of my family. While in Australia, I came to understand that comrade Prins Gunasekara together with Lord Avebury had continued his activities in defence of human rights. Sadly, my efforts to rekindle a relationship with him did not materialise. It may be because that the political road he had chosen to thread on would not have been compatible with the political ideas I hold.

Nevertheless, I cannot but salute comrade Prins, who was always a peerless and fearless humanitarian. Despite the political differences I do not have any diminution in the respect and the loyalty I have always held towards comrade Prins Gunasekara, who devoted his entire life to defending democratic rights.

In conclusion, my family and I would like to express our deepest sympathy to his dear wife and children and friends in their time of grief.

Recollecting the unforgettable memories, we salute you comrade Prins Gunasekara – a giant and exemplar of human rights.

Your contributions to the society will be solely missed.

Lionel, Chitra and the rest of the Bopage Family