Will the budget offer some solution to public transport issue?

 

"How the buses run on the city routes during the peak hours of the day scaring all other road users to death is ample testimony for the dire need to put an end to the current primitive system of operating buses. The question is how the proposed system can be implemented without getting bus operations in each district under the control of one single authority"

By Gamini Abeywardane

The budget among its many proposals which have received mixed reactions seems to contain some valuable suggestions targeting the much needed modernization of the public transport sector. It has clinically looked at the public transport sector identifying some of the main causes for its chaotic situation today. The approach has been to look at it from a long term perspective rather than proposing some quick fixes.

However, going by the history of our budgets and their implementation most Sri Lankans would be quite skeptical until these proposals are fully implemented. Overall, the Budget 2019 which is before the Parliament appears to be one instance where problems of public transport have been looked at rationally at least.

The most significant proposal is the idea of getting the revenue from all buses into a Revenue Support Fund as a transitional arrangement and paying the bus owners on monthly basis for the number of kilometers operated. This could be a solution to the central issue right now which is the unhealthy competition to collect passengers at the expense of the safety and convenience of both commuters and pedestrians on the road.  

How the buses run on the city routes during the peak hours of the day scaring all other road users to death is ample testimony for the dire need to put an end to the current primitive system of operating buses. The question is how the proposed system can be implemented without getting bus operations in each district under the control of one single authority.

The rat race for a bigger daily revenue collection is an inherent problem in a public transport service operated with individually owned buses. Most buses are bought with leasing facilities from financial institutions and as a result bus owners fix a high daily target for the crew. The wages of the bus crew depend on the volume of the daily collection.

The situation is made worse because there is no practice of issuing tickets to the passengers which has given the opportunity for the drivers and conductors to pilfer whatever the collection made over and above the stipulated daily target. It should also be noted that every attempt by the authorities to make issue of tickets compulsory in the past has been resisted and stifled by the bus operators.

At the moment there is no employment security, proper salary structure or EPF and ETF benefits for those employed in the private buses making the situation worse. Drivers and conductors in this sector lack any permanency of employment or social status quite in contrast to the situation prevailing in countries where there are well developed transport systems.

Drawing attention to this issue, Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, in his budget speech, said that private sector bus employees will be given better job security with EPF and ETF benefits and will be eligible to get loan facilities as an incentive for better service towards passengers. It is a fine idea, but it is necessary to have some sort of permanent employment for them before this could be introduced and it is doubtful whether such a system can be implemented under a regime of individual bus operators.

Poor quality buses

The poor quality of buses in the public transport system at the moment is another huge issue. It is a known fact that the majority of buses belonging to both private sector operators and the SLTB are goods transport vehicles converted into passenger buses and as a result they lack the standard comforts found in original passenger transport vehicles.

When these buses were introduced to our roads several decades ago only very a few people owned motor vehicles.  The income levels of the people were quite low and nobody looked for comforts. Today the situation has completely changed and people look for more and more comforts and that is why there is a major shift from use of public transport to private motor vehicles.

Finance Minister admitted that fact when he said “Our transport sector is yet not meeting the needs of a middle-income county.”  As a remedy he proposes a Bus Modernization Program in the next five years to transform bus services across the country. It is proposed to expand the SLTB’s fleet with addition of 250 buses with safety and user-friendly standards in the next two years while they will also introduce buses that are more suited for those with special needs.

A concessionary loan scheme ‘City Ride’, under ‘Enterprise Sri Lanka’, has been proposed where the Government will bare 75% of the interest cost for private bus fleet owners to expand their fleets by a total of 1000 luxury buses. The private bus owners who are willing to purchase luxury buses instead of the existing old buses and the reputed companies who are willing to provide comfortable transport services for their employees will be entitled to this loan facility.

Under this scheme the maximum loan amount will be Rs 10 million with an annual effective interest rate of 13.86% while 75% of the interest will be borne by the government. The repayment period will be five years including a one year grace period.

There are proposals aimed at upgrading and systematic phasing out of three wheelers which now have become an integral part of our transport system. ‘Mini Taxi / Electric Three Wheeler’ scheme under ‘Enterprise Sri Lanka’ will be introduced to upgrade current three wheelers into electric three wheelers and small cars that will be more environmentally friendly, safer and comfortable.

Persons who are 35 years of age or above, who own three-wheelers currently used for hiring purposes will be eligible for this loan while the existing three-wheelers should be disposed. The maximum loan amount available under the scheme will be Rs 2 million with an annual effective interest rate of 13.86% while 75% of the interest will be borne by the government with a repayment period of five years.

Multimodal transport hubs

There is also a proposal to introduce within the next few months, starting with the Central and the Western Provinces, pre-paid fare cards, electronic tracking of buses, using GPS and information on next bus and bus schedules, delivered to the palm of the passenger through mobile applications.

Modern multimodal passenger terminals will be introduced starting from Makumbura and will include Kandy, Kadawatha, Pettah and Moratuwa. The budget also proposes to establish a Joint Bus Operations Control Centre connected to live digital data streams throughout the country to make bus transport an attractive option. The budget proposes to allocate Rs 1300 million to support these investments.

Recognizing the significant demand for improved railway services in the country, it has also been proposed to enlist the support of the private sector. In this regard, the minister proposes to allow the private sector to lease/rent Sri Lanka Railway’s carriages, and improve their facilities in the four main lines.

These proposals together seem to have the potential to bring about some fundamental changes in our public transport system without resistance from any segments connected to the transport industry both in the state and private sectors.

Theoretically at least, this seems to be a good beginning because more effective remedies like getting the private sector capital and management skills into government owned bus transport services or railway networks is not possible without facing resistance and much disruption in our country under the present circumstances.

However, as the saying goes the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the country has to wait and see how much of these seemingly good proposals would be effectively implemented during the period covered by the Budget 2019 that is expected to be passed by the Parliament this week.

(The writer can be contacted on: gamini4@gmail.com)

Read More

Executive Presidency: Can it be abolished in a hurry?

With no party enjoying a majority in the Parliament, now it’s a favourable  alignment of forces in the political landscape for such a constitutional change and the JVP seems to have struck it at the most opportune time. Our political leaders in most instances have acted in their own interest and they are sure to do so this time as well, but it will incidentally do some good for the country if the result is going to be abolition of the executive presidency. 

By Gamini Abeywardane

Abolition of the executive presidency has surfaced in the political debate again.  Since early nineties the matter has been brought up many times in election promises -- first by Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1994, then by Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2005 and 2010, and lastly by Maithripala Sirisena in 2015. Yet for all, none of them kept their promises and instead displayed their duplicity by trying to enhance their power or stick to it as long as possible.

The only minor deviation from this trend was visible when Maithripala Sirisena agreed to prune down some of the presidential powers by establishing independent commissions and imposing a two term limit for a person to hold the presidency, through the nineteenth amendment. However, it became possible as it happened hot on the heels of the 2015 presidential election which was fought on the broad theme of curtailing authoritarian trends and introducing good governance. It was introduced within a few months of the election and there was hardly any time for a change of mind by the head of state.

All that is good evidence for one to believe that any changes to the executive presidency has to be introduced only in the first part of one’s term and towards the latter part any incumbent President will try to find ways and means to consolidate his position and come back to power for a second term. However, this is the first time that the idea of abolishing the presidency has come to the centre-stage towards the end of a government’s term and has also become the subject of discussion among the three powerful political leaders of the country representing different political groups -- Maithripala Sirisena, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Hidden consensus

JVP which brought forth the idea in the form of a twentieth amendment proposal has been in the forefront pushing the matter forward and discussing it with all relevant stakeholders and the Tamil National Alliance. Although the UNP had initially promised to abolish the executive presidency, towards the latter stages they did not display much enthusiasm to do so. However, with doubts over Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ability to win a presidential election and division of opinion in the party on the selection of a presidential candidate the UNP has now begun to look at the idea favourably.\

This matter has special relevance and advantage for Mahinda Rajapaksa because by virtue of the nineteenth amendment he is effectively debarred from contesting for a third term. Thus, the only avenue available for him to become politically powerful again is through a prime ministerial system and that is why he has told the JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake that he is in favour of abolishing the executive presidency although he is not ready to support the proposed twentieth amendment in its present form.

The joint opposition led by Mahinda Rajapaksa has not so far reached any consensus on a presidential candidate although Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has indicated his willingness and intensified his campaign. There seem to be a lot of confusion there as Rajapaksas themselves appear to be divided on the issue while the US citizenship issue of Gotabhaya is still not resolved.  

Then for Maithripala Sirisena the idea can be much attractive as his position is weakening day by day with little or no prospects for wining a second term. On the contrary he may stand the chance of becoming the non-executive head of state in return if he supports the abolition of the executive presidency. It would have been possible for him to think of a second term if the political coup he staged with Mahinda Rajapaksa had succeeded and there would have been some understanding between the two to that effect, but now the scenario has completely changed and that is why the proposed discussions between Sirisena and Rajapaksa on this matter has still not materialized.

In this situation the proposal is much likely to receive the support of the former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, the TNA and all civil society groups that have been clamouring for abolition of the executive presidency. However, the TNA will not simply back it and naturally they will expect a solution to the northern problem as well through the same constitutional amendment which finally has to be approved by the people at a referendum. It can be a new opportunity to resolve the northern issue because the same amendment can include a devolution package and establishment of a Senate.

It can also be an opportunity to modify or abolish the much maligned PR system of elections. Opposition will come from minority political parties if there is any attempt to abolish the PR system, but they may agree to a reasonable modification to the electoral system with 30 or 40 percent PR and the rest on a first-past-the-post system.

In the current situation a return to the Westminster system of government can be personally advantageous to all the main political leaders of the country. However some of the vocal politicians currently in the joint opposition may not like the idea because most of them do not have strong political parties that can independently survive in a parliamentary system of government. Instead they seem to be more comfortable with hanging on to a strong individual in the form of an Executive President.

Opportune moment

With no party enjoying a majority in the Parliament, now it’s a favourable  alignment of forces in the political landscape for such a constitutional change and the JVP seems to have struck it at the most opportune time. Our political leaders in most instances have acted in their own interest and they are sure to do so this time as well, but it will incidentally do some good for the country if the result is going to be abolition of the executive presidency. 

Moreover such a move will also ensure that the political power will remain in the hands of these two or three groups and with the traditional political families. The continuance of the presidential system with a two term limit will result in new individuals and new groups capturing the political power in the country. Therefore, it is very likely that all these three groups will act in such a way to retain the political power among themselves.

Time constraint

However, the question remains that with presidential elections being due in November whether the limited time available will be sufficient to effect such a major political change. It will not be possible to scrap the executive presidency without modifying the electoral system as the PR system and executive presidency are closely interconnected. The other issue is another set of constitutional proposals which may also aim at abolishing the executive presidency while also addressing all other relevant issues including devolution of power has been already developed through the Constitutional Assembly and is now before the Parliament.

In such a scenario it is difficult for the major political parties to look at the issue of abolishing the executive presidency in isolation while ignoring the issues of devolution of power and electoral system. If such an amendment is to successfully go through the passage of Parliament it should receive the blessings of the minority communities and the small political parties as well.

In this context it is difficult to imagine that the proposal, however attractive it may be to major political players, will gather the necessary momentum to become a reality within the available short period before the presidential election. In such a situation, it can be a priority for the next government and the set of constitutional proposals that have been developed through the Constitutional Assembly can be the basis for such a change. (The writer can be contacted on gamini4@gmail.com)

Read More

If Constitutional Council is bad, what is better?

By Gamini Abeywardane

A debate over the constitutional council was triggered by President Maithripala Sirisena’s angry remarks criticizing the Constitutional Council following his disagreement with it over some key judicial appointments. Some people who are not happy with it for whatever reasons, have gone to the extent of even calling for its abolition.

But the million dollar question is: What then is the solution? Are we to go back to the eighteenth amendment giving all powers to one person?  Having seen the ugly side of the eighteenth amendment all major political parties agreed to introduce the nineteenth amendment and it is unlikely that there will be any compromise on that.

Maithripala Sirisena

However, following the recent debate on the Constitutional Council in the Parliament some politicians have now proposed a reduction in the number of parliamentarians in the Constitutional Council, while some others have gone to the extent of proposing completely an independent body without any political party representatives in it.

Original draft

In this regard, it is worthwhile to re-examine the original Nineteenth Amendment Bill that was presented in the Parliament in March 2015 and the debate that followed.The original bill proposed a ten member Constitutional Council consisting of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and seven other members who were not supposed to be Members of Parliament.
The seven independent members were supposed to be: One person appointed by the President; five persons appointed by the President on the nomination of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; and one person nominated by agreement of the majority of the Members of the Parliament belonging to political parties or independent groups other than the respective political parties or independent groups to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition belong, and appointed by the President.

The bill also spelt out that the seven persons so appointed should be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life and who are not members of any political party. In short, the idea was as far as possible to depoliticize the process of appointing members of all the independent commissions operating under the Constitutional Council.

The unfortunate thing was these provisions were vehemently opposed by members of the Opposition who demanded a council with a majority of Members of Parliament, perhaps because they were against the inclusion of civil society members due to reasons best known to them.

Dinesh Gunawardena

Opposition members Dinesh Gunawardena and Vasudeva Nanayakkara at the Committee Stage debate strongly opposed the idea of having a majority of civil society members in the Constitutional Council and instead wanted seven out of its ten members to be Members of Parliament.

Vasudeva Nanayakkara

Amidst these objections it was difficult for the government to obtain the required two-thirds majority to pass the amendment and as a compromise it was agreed that out of the seven members only three members should be from outside the Parliament.

If not for this situation, the Constitutional Council would have had a set of distinguished people from outside the Parliament as the majority of its members resulting in a depoliticized Constitutional Council. It is rather ironic that the very people who were against the appointment of independent members are now asking for reconstitution of the Constitutional Council to include more independent members.

Mechanism to prevent deadlock

Then there is a need to remedy the situation which led to the current deadlock in appointing the President of the Court of Appeal. Such inordinate delay in making vital appointments can erode the confidence of the people in the system and therefore it is necessary to have a reasonable mechanism to avoid a deadlock arising from a disagreement between the Constitutional Council and the President.

Another allegation made by the President is that the Constitutional Council has not given any valid reasons when it rejected the names of some of the judges proposed by him for promotion to the higher judiciary. There had also been augments to the effect that in a democracy these processes should be transparent and people have a right to know the reasons for such rejections.

But it should also be noted that promotions in any organization are not a matter of right for the employees, but to some extent a matter of discretion on the part of the management and it’s more so when people are promoted to high positions. Judges of superior courts and other key officials in the government like the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police also fall into this category.

Then, how practical it is to give reasons publicly for rejecting some nominees? One may argue in favour of such transparency, but disclosure of one’s unsuitableness may trigger unwanted public discussion over these appointments while also causing damage to persons whose names have been rejected.

Such discussion could be very much like allowing public discussion on the correctness of judicial decisions and the end result could be hampering the smooth functioning of the system itself. Key persons in the country publicly criticizing these appointments will erode the people’s confidence in the system.

Public discussion of such matters may be common in the US and some countries in the West,but in our country it could be treated as prejudicial to the smooth functioning of the court system particularly in the context of the culture in our country.

Seniority and promotions

A certain minimum number of years of service will be necessary for a promotion or appointment to akey post. However, seniority alone should never be the criterion for appointments or promotions in any institution, be it in the judiciary, the state sector or the private sector. Seniority has to be considered along with other factors such as competency, integrity and educational qualifications. If seniority alone can be the only criterion promotions can be almost automatic and there will not be any need for the Constitutional Council or the President to get involved in such appointments.

The signs are that the ongoing process to introduce a new Constitution will take longer than anticipated. However the current deadlck with regard to some key appointments have to be resolved without delay.

The best option now is for all political parties to agree without delay and introduce the same provisions with regard to the Constitutional Council contained in the original nineteenth amendment bill. That will ensure a depoliticized constitutional Council which will include seven independent members who are not politicians, so that spirit of the nineteenth amendment as envisaged by those who advocated good governance will be retained.

Read More

New constitution: Is this the correct time?

"In most countries the majority of the people do not understand the importance of a constitution as they mistakenly think it does not have any direct bearing on their lives. All this seems to be arising out of ignorance that a good constitution is fundamental to all economic and social well-being of a nation." 

By Gamini Abeywardane

The debate over a new constitution has come to the fore again.  Many critics especially those who do not like to see any progress in this regard due to personal agendas are raising issues saying that there are many other grave issues facing the country which needs to be tackled before introducing a new constitution.

If there is a strong need for something in a country that has to be done at whatever time possible. No politically honest person will argue against the need for a totally new constitution. The election of 2015 was fought on the theme of abolishing the current constitution and establishing a system of good governance while resolving the national issue once and for all. All the minority communities as well as educated and right-thinking sections of the population whole-heatedly supported a political change with this intention.

The importance of a good constitution became clearer than ever before during the recent constitutional crisis which finally had to be resolved by the country’s highest court. Most people who earlier asked whether the constitution was for the people to eat (Vyavasthava Kannada), were reading that document day and night during this seven weeks of political and economic turmoil. So much so all the printed copies of the constitution and the nineteenth amendment were sold out like hot cakes and there was a shortage of them at the government publications bureau.

Need for a new constitution

The need for a new constitution began with anti-democratic and authoritarian trends experienced under the present constitution at different times. That is why both past Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga (in 1994) and Mahinda Rajapaksa (in 2005) and present President Maithripala Sirisena (in 2015) included abolition of the executive presidency as one of the main items in their presidential election manifestos.

In most countries the majority of the people do not understand the importance of a constitution as they mistakenly think it does not have any direct bearing on their lives. Even here our political landscape is full of rhetoric to say there are more important issues than a constitution at this point of time. All this has become possible because of the ignorance of the majority that a good constitution is fundamental to all economic and social well-being of a nation. 

It becomes more so in a multi-ethnic country which has a history of conflict among different communities. On the top of it, there is a segment of politicians who are not genuinely interested in sorting out any of these issues and try every trick in the book to stifle the implementation of a new constitution for their own political survival.

For the chauvinist and racist politicians both in the south and the north, the unresolved northern issue is a very useful thing much like the beggar’s wound (HingannageThuwale) as it is easy for them to survive in politics by harping on this issue. It is much easier to inflame communal feelings among people than finding actual solutions to social and economic issues faced by them.

The issue about the constitution has a long history in our country. When we got our independence there was no demand for separation from the Tamil mainstream politicians. They all agreed upon the Soulbury Constitution which was drafted after a consultation process which went on for more than two years. It had adequate protection for minority interests and continued to be our supreme law until 1972.

The first republican constitution of 1972 was a majority community imposed document which took away some of the specific provisions protecting the interests of minorities. It was bulldozed through a revolutionary method by a Constituent Assembly which sat outside the parliament without the participation of the Tamil parliamentarians. The whole exercise was carried out with the intention of severing all colonial constitutional links to facilitate quick implementation of socialistic policies of the then United Front government.

Then, the constitution of 1978 was similarly forced upon the country by the J R Jayewardene government by making use of the five-sixth majority they had in the parliament. It changed the whole governing and electoral system of the country by introducing the executive presidency and the underlying intention, it appeared, was to perpetuate the grip of the United National Party in Sri Lankan politics.

A significant constitutional development thereafter, was the introduction of the thirteenth amendment to the constitution which drastically changed the nature of the executive by taking away the powers to make key appointments and handing it over to several independent commissions. This was a great achievement because in passing this piece of legislation there was unanimity in the parliament which is a rare thing.

But unfortunately, this was short-lived as it was replaced by the eighteenth amendment which gave all those powers back to the executive president. It enhanced the power of the executive presidency by removing the two-term restriction. This led to a near dictatorial situation threatening rule of law as well as good governance.

The nineteenth amendment which is in force at the moment came as a direct result of the need for changing this situation. However, it addressed only the good governance issue by establishing a constitutional council and independent commissions and introducing a more democratic mechanism for appointing persons to some high posts. It was a hurriedly introduced interim measure and therefore did not address the vital national issue of power devolution which was left to an entirely new constitution as promised in the 2015 election campaign.

Accordingly, a process to draft a new constitution began with the formation of a Constitutional Assembly in March 2016 where all 225 members of parliament sit as a committee.  Thereafter, a Steering Committee consisting of 21 members reflecting the general political party leadership within Parliament was appointed for preparation of a constitutional proposal. From that time onwards through public representation committee and by other means the views of all sections of the people have been accommodated in the process of making a set of constitutional proposals which has finally gone into the tentative draft which has now come before the steering committee.

The final draft of a constitutional bill has to be prepared based on these proposals. In order for that to become law, it must be passed in the parliament by a two thirds majority and finally approved by the people in a nationwide referendum. This sort of long and participatory process will ensure that a constitution so adopted will have the approbation of the people and therefore likely to last long. 

Proper procedure

In other words this is the first time a constitution is being prepared with adequate time allocated for the process and giving opportunities to all segments of the people to make representations akin to the process followed in India when they wrote their own constitution soon after independence.  This is also the first time after independence, all the communities, particularly the Tamils are participating in a constitution making process.

Therefore, if these efforts become successful all the elements that are necessary for this document to be long lasting are present unlike in the previous instances. Therefore, the timing for its finalization is immaterial, if it is going to do some good for the country. The best time is the time whenever two thirds of the members of the parliament can agree on it.

It could be done by the current government or could be the first priority for the next government. Seventy years have passed since independence and it’s time that we develop the right constitution for the country ending the fears over dividing the country. We need to get all communities and all regions to actively participate in economic development if we are not to become the losers in South Asia in this fast changing world scenario.

Read More

Local polls: A referendum on the two-party rule

 

By Gamini Abeywardane

With the withdrawal of the fundamental rights petitions in the Court of Appeal against the delimitation gazette, the holding of the local government elections has now become almost a certainty. Nearly two years of delay has been attributed to both genuine efforts to complete much wanted election reforms as well as attempts to postpone elections till the anticipated settlement of the major rift in the SLFP.

Although, the inordinate delay cannot be justified, the electoral reforms which introduced a mix of 60 percent first-past-the-post and 40 percent PR which ensures a representative for each electoral ward is a salutary measure. Delimitation of wards to accommodate the demographic changes that have taken place after the wards were carved out several decades ago was also an important development.

Moreover, the reform of the electoral system was one of the main objectives of the national unity government and thus the time genuinely taken for completion of that part of the reform is well justified. The efforts to patch up the differences between the two warring factions of the SLFP – the official SLFP   led by President Maithripala Sirisena and the Joint Opposition led by Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa – also is understandable because, if succeeded, that would prevent a humiliating defeat for the party.

A defeat would certainly be a bad experience for a political party led by the country’s President who has maintained a reasonable level of popularity both nationally and internationally. Those who were behind the reconciliatory moves from the Sirisena group would have thought that an electoral defeat for the party would mean a greater shift of the party membership towards the Former President, making it difficult for President Sirisena to keep his grip over the party.

At the same time such a defeat would also mean a bad omen for some of the SLFP cabinet ministers who have been half-heartedly remaining in the government, while having secret links with the Joint Opposition. Worst of all, some of them are defeated candidates or who have crossed over to the government after the change of government and accommodated as MPs on the national list. Naturally, they have the worst fears about the future and their only intention is to remain in power for few more years.

There are people with similar issues on the Joint Opposition as well. Most of them have pending FCID inquiries or court cases against them and have no political future on their own. For their very survival they have no alternative other than depending on the residual popularity of Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the war winning national leader.

However, for President Sirisena, it’s not the end of the world. For him there are many options including working further with the UNP to accomplish the remaining goals of the National Unity Government. They include the complete resolution of the national issue and carrying out the remaining economic and other reforms.

In fact, one should not forget that most of the international support and recognition for him, is with the expectation that he will deliver these goals brining about the much needed economic transformation.

Fulfillment of these expectations is sure to make him an unforgettable national leader who will also enjoy the support of the minorities. And that would give him a special status independent of the electoral success of his party and he could even become the President and Head of State for another term, probably through a vote in the parliament, though minus some of the executive powers he enjoys at present.

On the other hand, President Sirisena must surely be aware that joining hands with the Joint Opposition would mean electoral success at the local level, but could be suicidal for him at national level particularly with the prospects of Mahinda Rajapaksa faction taking over the control of the SLFP.

The unsuccessful dialogue between the two factions and some of the impossible demands made by the leaders of these groups and the fact that some of their leading members publicly opposed unity talks, also showed that there was no genuine desire to join together.

Despite these developments the current situation is that elections are likely to be held simultaneously throughout the country under the new system as planned earlier, though there can be a slight delay with dates being pushed to somewhere early February.

The UNP is like to gain out of the rift in the SLFP, at the same time it is not easy for the Mahinda Rajapaksa backed Sri Lanka Podu Jana Peramuna (SLPP) also to make a major impact. The past experience shows that it is not easy for a breakaway group from a main stream party to succeed in politics.

It is likely that the political heat will be over with the conclusion of the election, whatever its outcome may be. With the threat from the breakaway group subsiding, the official SLFP will be able to determine its future direction. One cannot even rule out the possibility of the two parties in the unity government forming joint governments in some local authorities as well.  

Though, a local level election it will be an important mid-term election which in reality be a referendum on the future direction of party politics in the country. The people will see the real electoral strength of each party, independent of the outward manifestations often seen in the form of disproportionate noise and protest campaigns.

Read More

Amidst no faith motions more prospects of early LG polls

 

By Gamini Abeywardane

The week began with the much waited climax in the Treasury Bond saga with none other than Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe giving evidence before the Bond Commission on Monday. It was an unprecedented development where the country’s prime Minister had to fall in line with a presidential commission of inquiry appointed by the very administration in which he himself is an important component. To that extent, it displayed the true nature of the democratic environment prevailing in the country, in contrast to what Sri Lankans witnessed in the last several decades.

The commission being only a fact finding exercise, as usual, it will end with a formal report with certain recommendations. There is a long way before anyone can be found guilty of any wrongs and legally punished. Even if any legal process is to be carried on in that direction, it has to be an entirely a different exercise and a time consuming one.

Some of the SLFP Ministers who were among those pressurizing President Sirisena to appoint the Commission of Inquiry into the controversial bond issue apparently were elated that they managed to get even the Prime Minister before the commission and expose some of those from the UNP camp who were responsible for the alleged fraud. Both the Joint Opposition and the JVP apparently tried to claim the credit for getting a Commission of Inquiry appointed to look into the matter.

There have been sensible debate as well as mere political mudslinging and empty noise over the issue. Although final result of this exercise is not predictable much damage has been caused to those who are accused of involvement in this scandal, the worst affected being former finance minister Ravi Karunanayake who has been already sent to political wilderness.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who came to be testified before the commission on his own volition apparently made some political capital out of it with nothing having gone against him at the commission. He made use of the opportunity to explain the macro picture surrounding the bond issue such as the urgent need for money at the time, why auction system was introduced for bond issues and some aspects of the government’s economic programme.

Ministers Malik Samarawickrama and Kabir Hashim who were called before the commission earlier also came out of it without much damage for themselves. The most devastating effect of the appointment of this commission was on Minister Ravi Karunanayake and some of the reformist young backbenchers of the UNP made use of the opportunity to force him out of the political mainstream at least for the time being.

The backbencher group led by Deputy Minister Ajith Perera throughout tried to display a different stance over this issue, publicly saying that it was an unfortunate incident in which the UNP should not have got involved and those who are responsible should be punished. They tried their best to maintain their image as a cleaner group within the party and use the scandal to expedite the reform process they were clamouring for.

However, the opposite happened when it partially boomeranged on them. A good many of that group together with some UNP members of the COPE, the parliamentary committee which earlier looked into the scandal, also got implicated over some sensitive telephone conversations with Arjun Aloysius around the time COPE inquiry was going on.

Now, the public sittings of the Bond Commission are over and its final report is due to be handed over to the President shortly. There was a huge media show surrounding the whole exercise while the only tangible outcome for the moment was the removal of Ravi Karunanayake from the cabinet of ministers.

For the joint Opposition led by Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa the bond scandal was a blessing in disguise. Although many are now trying to claim the credit for getting the bond commission appointed a greater amount of it should go to them because they were the group which vigorously campaigned for a high level probe into the matter which was later picked by others as well.

This unfortunately happened at a time when the whole country was waiting for some progress over the probe into allegations of massive crimes and corruption against the bigwigs of the former government and the new scandal gave them a fantastic opportunity to cover up themselves from the public eye at least for the moment.

Local elections

As the dust settled over the bond commission local government election issue has begun to occupy the media space with the possibility of elections getting further postponed in the face of the stay order issued  by the Court of Appeal preventing the implementation of the gazette notification pertaining to Local Government bodies until December 4.

The popular belief was that the filing of fundamental rights cases by voters in several districts was a sinister move by interested parties to postpone elections indefinitely. Provincial Councils and Local Government Minister Faizer Mustapha for quite some time has been in the middle of this controversy with accusations leveled against him for using various legal loopholes to postpone the elections.

Meanwhile, the reluctance of the SLFP led by President Maithripala Sirisena to face any elections at this time due to the internal split in the party has been attributed to these attempts to postpone local government elections. Amidst these political moves public opinion has been building against the idea of postponing elections with rights groups voicing their opinion against it.

UNP which earlier appeared to be colluding with attempts to postpone elections now seems to have changed their stance, perhaps after realizing that the ground situation is in their favour. Another reason for the change of attitude would have been the displeasure in the UNP camp amidst growing tension that has been building between the coalition partners following revelations at the bond commission.

In this background now both Joint Opposition and the JVP have already handed over two separate Motions of No Confidence against the Provincial Council and Local Government Minister Faizer Mustapha alleging that he has deliberately complicated matters to ensure postponement of local polls and thereby undermined the people’s right to vote.

Meanwhile, the backbenchers of the UNP also have stated that Minister Mustapha has acted in such a way that democratic rights of the voters have been violated and that they would support any No Confidence Motion against him in Parliament. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe also has asked the legal committee of the UNP to examine the possibility of having LG polls before February 4 next year.

The Speaker Karu Jayasuriya is expected to have a meeting of all political parties in the Parliament to take a decision in this regard. Observers say that in the event all of them insist on going ahead with the elections, a motion can be passed by the Parliament to that effect with a two third majority to go ahead with elections as planned.

Meanwhile, there seem to be a lot of pressure being built up asking minister Mustapha to resign from his ministerial position before any No Confidence Motion is presented in Parliament and if that happens he will be the third minister to resign on similar issues in the recent times with Ravi Karunanayake and Wijedasa Rajapaksa being the other two.

With lessor or no prospects of the two warring factions of the SLFP getting together, if the elections are held the general belief is that the ground situation will be much favorable to the UNP. It is true that the ruling joint government has not gained any popularity in the recent times, while the Joint Opposition not being in control of any established political party will also be not in a position to make much of an electoral impact. Therefore, politically speaking it will be a strange situation where the voters will be compelled to elect the best out of the bad lot.

If the elections are held it will be an opportunity for each party to know its real strength which in reality could be different from disproportionate noise they have been making on the political stage. It will also provide an opportunity for the people to show their response to all political and other developments that have been taking place since the last general election in 2015.

However, whatever happens in a local government election, it is unlikely to bring about a major change in the government and the SLFP led by President Maithripala Sirisena and the UNP led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremeseinghe will have no alternative other than going ahead with their joint administration until the next major national election.

 

 

 

Read More

Bottom line of the petroleum issue

 

Only proper liberalization can resolve the problem

By Gamini Abeywardane

The Cabinet sub-committee appointed to look into the recent petrol crisis, has found that the failure to maintain buffer stocks and the absence of a mechanism to carry out emergency supplies were the reasons for the shortage.
The committee also raised doubts as to how the delay in the arrival of the two shipments – one ordered by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the other by the Lanka Indian Oil Company (LIOC) – and the breakdown of the refinery, all happened around the same time.
Based on the committee report, Petroleum Resources Development Minister Arjuna Ranatunga had directed the CID to conduct an inquiry into this matter. Whatever the outcome of this investigation, it is not going to resolve the issue in the long run and it could be a matter of time before another shortage occurs.

This is certainly an indictment on our current petroleum management system. The severe shortage of petrol, long queues at fuel stations which lasted nearly a week created much frustration among the masses. Irrespective of whatever the reasons behind, it talks volumes about the state of affairs in the energy administration in the country. Each party involved in the issue tried to pass the buck on to the other, while no one has taken responsibility for the crisis situation that arose. The immediate reason for the calamity was the rejection by the authorities, of a shipment of petrol meant for Lanka IOC, on the ground the product was substandard. Spreading of this news resulted in panic buying of fuel increasing the daily average sales beyond the supply capacity of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) resulting in a shortage.

Meantime, there have been allegations that officials of the CPC had failed to keep sufficient stocks to meet an emergency. Around the same time the stories about an inexplicable breakdown at the Oil Refinery at Sapugaskanda and political pressure to unload the substandard oils shipment etc. indicate the level of politics and possibilities of corruption around oil business. Now, much light has been thrown on these factors by the findings of the Cabinet sub-committee which looked into the matter. It is supposed to have recommended a regulatory mechanism to avoid repetition of such situations.

The quantum of monies involved in these deals is such even in the past there have been enough and more allegations of corruption involving politicians handling the subject, directors as well as high officials of the CPC. We have also witnessed the disastrous effects of substandard petrol being imported and released to the market and how government had to pay compensation for the damages caused to vehicles. There are also conspiracy theories and possibilities of sabotage etc. to make the current government unpopular in the face of highly probable local government elections in the near future. Despite these possibilities what is clear is that there is a serious issue in managing the petroleum industry in the country.

There are doubts as to whether country has gained anything by nationalizing the petroleum industry in 1961. At the time the government had no involvement in the petroleum business. Market was controlled by Shell while Esso and Caltex had relatively smaller market share and import, storage and distribution went on smoothly. Nationalization of the industry would have been inevitable because of the need for the state to control the commanding heights of the economy in terms of the political thinking at the time. But the question is whether we have gained much out of it.

Since the government takeover of the petroleum industry the CPC continued as a monopoly till 2003. With unsustainable losses and other inherent issues normally associated with the government sector, the need for deregulating the industry arose and accordingly the monopoly of the CPC was ended with the formation of LIOC, a subsidiary of the Indian Oil Corporation being given nearly a one third share in the local petroleum market in 2003. Storage units in Kolannawa and Muthurajawela were made common user facilities by establishing a separate company called Ceylon Petroleum Storage Terminal Limited (CPSTL) with the joint participation of the Government, CPC and LIOC.

Following the Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) Act passed in 2002 there were plans to have three players – the CPC and two other suppliers in the petroleum market along with a common storage facility. Accordingly, all arrangements were ready with 100 petrol sheds kept under treasury to be handed over to a third player who was to be picked on an open bid system. However, with political changes that did not happen and as a result the expected level of openness or competition has not been achieved in the market.

Had that happened the real benefit of liberalizing the petroleum market would have been achieved with more players in the market and the government having to get involved only in quality control and regulating aspects. This would have been much similar to the situation that prevails in the telecom sector after privatization. If that had happened much of today’s problems associated with the petroleum market like what we have just witnessed and even threats of sudden stoppage of work will not be a problem for anybody.

More over in today’s world it is foolhardy to think that potential foreign investors will come and operate in a country where the whole transport system can become inactive in a moment due to shortage of petrol and diesel due to wild cat strikes or whatever other reason. Therefore, the best way to have some energy security in the coutry and stability in the petroleum market would be to have a third player or more in the market and for the government to regulate it in an efficient manner.

Even the current storage system should be re-examined because a central storage system also has its inherent weaknesses and it’s too much of a risk to depend on one entity for storage. Perhaps, it may be more practical to have more players with each one having its own storage facility. Building new storage facilities may be out of the question in present times because of the high costs involved. No private investor, foreign or local, will spend such a colossal amount of money, especially in an unstable environment with possibility of state takeovers and so on.

The idea of putting the world war 11 era oil tanks in Trincomallee to some good use also becomes relevant in this context as it will also go hand in hand with this issue. If these tanks are utilized in a fruitful manner Sri Lanka will never have a domestic oil shortage and keeping such a buffer stock will ease our problems even in the face of a worldwide petroleum issue. So, the way out is to have a more open attitude towards the petroleum market with more players. Unfortunately with the latest fuel shortage for which the immediate reason appeared to be the low quality shipment ordered by the LIOC, interested parties have spread the distorted opinion that it is the privatization that created the issue.

The strangest thing is that although the petroleum monopoly of the CPC is supposed to have been ended, 82% of the market is still controlled by them and LIOC has only 18%. In such a situation it is highly illogical to blame the small player saying that the reason for the shortage is the rejection of a shipment of theirs over a quality issue. In fact, in such a scenario the bigger player should be able to cash on the situation by releasing additional stocks to the market and increasing their sales. So it is clear that the real reason for the current unhealthy situation is the country’s inability to complete the liberalization process in the manner it was originally planned.

If there are three or more players with nobody having the market control and a proper regulatory mechanism, there can never be shortages and that seems to be the only way to resolve this permanently. Only such a situation will protect the market from disastrous impacts of sudden shortages or work stoppages by employees of one player. However, because of the political sensitivities no government will be able to choose that path in the near future. But, if we are to resolve this issue permanently and lay the foundation for a stable economic future such decisions will have to be taken one day.
  

Read More

SAITM issue, likely to be reloved

 

But overall standards should not be compromised

By Gamini Abeywardane

The seemingly irresolvable SAITM issue has shown some signs of being resolved in the near future. The government’s decision to remove it from the control of Dr. Neville Fernando family and run it as a not-for-profit entity under the supervision of the University Grants Commission (UGC), in terms of the recommendations of Harsha de Silva committee has received some favourable response from the GMOA.

If the GMOA still has some concerns over the admission criterion, overall quality standards or clinical training, it is quite understandable going by our past experience in setting up private medical educational institutions. SAITM as well as infamous North Colombo Medical College (NCMC) which happened to be closed down in the eighties amidst severe protests by medical students of the state universities is a grim reminder of our history of trying to do right things in the wrong way.

Private medical education

Private medical education is not a bad thing, but world over there are stringent criteria for admitting students to medical schools because of the sensitivities involved in the work of the doctors whose competency is a key factor in saving the lives of thousands of patients. Therefore, the minimum entry qualifications for medical studies are quite high compared to what is required for higher education in Arts, Humanities or Pure Science.

Unfortunately, what usually happens in our country is whenever the private sector launches medical schools on a fee levying basis those who are involved in them including respected medical professionals try to misuse those institutions for their mediocre sons and daughters to enter the medical profession. Often the entry requirements are kept at a minimum level having such ulterior motives in mind.

There is a proposal to attach the SAITM operation together with its current students to Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLITT) at Malabe which has been running for quite some time now, as a not-for-profit higher educational institute for IT and engineering. Under whatever set up the school is going to be placed in future, some justice should be done to its current students who have been wasting both time and money for quite some time due to no fault of theirs. At the same time future intakes should be picked on a proper admission criterion with definite arrangements for clinical training and maintenance of overall high standards.

Now, the issue of SAITM has become internationally known, whatever we do in future in the field of medical education should be properly done because it will affect the country’s reputation for quality of its higher education. With many private institutions of higher education already operating in the country and newer ones coming up frequently, it is time for the government to step in and establish quality control mechanisms for higher education as found in the western countries where private higher education is popular.

In fact there was a similar issue recently with regard to the foreign law degrees awarded through some of the local higher educational institutions when the Council of Legal Education refused to accept them. However, the issue did not attract much public attention as it was settled well in time.

The issue arose because some of the content based on Sri Lankan law included in the foreign degrees and their assignment based evaluation process were questionable. This too arose due to the lack of a suitable quality control mechanism for awarding of degrees through private institutions.  

Politics in higher education  

With proper mechanisms the country can avoid unwanted controversies in whatever new medical schools or other institutions of higher education which are set up in the future. It’s bad enough we have done the same mistake twice – in NCMC and SAITM, because of the lack of proper policy or quality control system in higher education. It’s true these were done under two different regimes, but education policies should not differ depending on the government in power.

The worst scenario as we have just witnessed is when things are done in the wrong way; it opens opportunities for various bankrupt political groups to make capital out of it. In the SAITM issue medical students of the state universities had a genuine grievance because of issues of standards and entry qualifications. The GMOA came in because it was an issue affecting the medical profession.

However, when the issue was dragging for too long without a solution some sections of the JVP as well as Frontline Socialist Party and their affiliate Inter University Students Federation saw much potential for new slogans and seized the opportunity organizing massive student protest campaigns. Some of them went to the extent of demanding total closure of SAITM and putting a stop to private medical education.

With these latest government proposals which have been partially accepted by the GMOA, there are some hopes for resolving it and the most displeased over this development would be those political groups who were making capital out of it.

Quality control

Introduction of stringent quality controls will not only take politics out of higher education but also will enhance the quality and make our higher education more acceptable internationally. This is quite important because Sri Lanka with its educated population has all the potential of becoming an education hub in the region attracting even reputed international educational institutions into the country.

Private medical education is quite an accepted thing everywhere in the world. Some of the best medical schools in the world are private institutions, but governments in respective countries monitor them with strict standards. Therefore, what is needed here too is a proper monitoring regime for higher education with strict standards for medical education. Such high standards should apply to all higher education institutions in the country, be they private or state controlled.

Read More