ආර්ථික වර්ධනය අඩු වෙයි – දිවයින අනතුරු අඟවයි

ජන ලේඛන හා සංඛ්‍යාලේඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව විසින් මේ වසරේ (2009) දෙවන කාර්තුවට අදාළ දළ දේශීය නිෂ්පාදිත දත්ත, ඉකුත්දා (14 දා) රජයේ ප්‍රවෘත්ති දෙපාර්තමේන්තු ශ්‍රවණාගාරයේදී නිල වශයෙන් ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කළේය. ජන ලේඛන හා සංඛ්‍යාලේඛන අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජනරාල් සුරංජනා විද්‍යාරත්න මහත්මිය මෙහිදී ප්‍රකාශ කළේ මේ වසරේ (2009) දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී සියයට 2.1 ක ආර්ථික වර්ධනයක්‌ පවත්වා ගැනීමට ශ්‍රී ලංකා ආර්ථිකය සමත්ව ඇති බවයි. කවරක්‌ නමුත් 2008 වසරේ දෙවන කාර්තුවේදී වාර්තා වූ සියයට 7 ක ආර්ථික වර්ධනය සියයට 2.1 ක්‌ දක්‌වා පසුබෑමට ලක්‌ව ඇත. මේ සඳහා ලෝක ආර්ථික අර්බුදය ඇතුළු විවිධ හේතු බලපා තිබේ. මේ ලිපියෙන් අපේ අවධානය යොමු වන්නේ 2009 දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේ ආර්ථික ප්‍රගතිය පිළිබඳවයි.

මෙම සියයට 2.1 ක ආර්ථික වර්ධනය අප ළඟා කරගෙන ඇත්තේ ආර්ථිකයේ විවිධ උප අංශවල වර්ධනයන් හා පසුබෑම් තුළිනි. මූලික වශයෙන් ම 2009 දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී ආර්ථිකයේ ප්‍රධානතම අංශ තුන වන කෘෂිකර්ම අංශය සියයට 4.4 කින් ද, කර්මාන්ත අංශය සියයට 3 කින් සහ සේවා අංශය සියයට 1.1 කින් ද වර්ධනය විය. එහෙත් පසුගිය වසරේ (2008) දෙවන කාර්තුව හා සසඳා බලන විට මේ අංශ තුනේම වර්ධනය සැලකිය යුතු ලෙස පහත වැටී ඇත. මේ සමඟ පළවන වගුව මගින් දක්‌වා ඇති පරිදි 2008 දෙවන කාර්තුවේ කෘෂිකර්ම අංශයේ වර්ධය, 2009 දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී සියයට 4.4 දක්‌වා ද, කාර්මික අංශයේ වර්ධනය සියයට 6.9 සිට සියයට 3 දක්‌වා සහ සේවා අංශයේ වර්ධනය සියයට 6.9 සිට 1.1 දක්‌වා ද අඩු වී තිබේ. මේ අතර දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේ දළ දේශීය නිෂ්පාදිතයට කෘෂිකර්ම අංශය සියයට 12.2 කින් ද, කර්මාන්ත අංශය සියයට 27.9 කින් සහ සේවා අංශය සියයට 59.9 කින්ද දායක වී ඇති අතර, ආර්ථික වර්ධන අනුපාතයට කෘෂිකර්ම අංශය සියයට 25.9 කින් ද, කර්මාන්ත අංශය සියයට 40.7 කින් සහ සේවා අංශය සියයට 33.4 කින් ද දායක වී ඇතැයි ජනලේඛන හා සංඛ්‍යාලේඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව ප්‍රකාශ කරයි. මීළඟට අපි මෙම අංශ තුන පිළිබඳව වඩාත් පුළුල් වශයෙන් වෙන වෙනම සාකච්ඡා කරමු.

කෘෂිකර්ම අංශයට අයත් උප අංශ වන රබර් නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 4.5 කින්ද, පොල් නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 2.7 කින් ද, වී නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 12.2 කින් ද, පශු සම්පත් අංශය සියයට 6.1 කින් ද, අනෙකුත් ආහාර භෝග නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 7.6 කින් ද, වතු අංශය සියයට 4.5 කින් ද, දැව හා වන සම්පත් අංශය සියයට 6 කින්ද, වෙනත් කෘෂිකාර්මික භෝග සියයට 5 කින් සහ ධීවර නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 7.6 කින්ද, වර්ධනය වී ඇති අතර තේ නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 11.7 කින් සහ සුළු අපනයන භෝග නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 2 කින් පසුබෑමට ලක්‌ව තිබේ.

2008 වසරේ දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී සියයට 11.1 කින් වර්ධනය වූ තේ නිෂ්පාදනය 2009 දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී සියයට 11.7 කින් පසුබෑමට ලක්‌වීම කැපී පෙනේ. එනම් ශුද්ධ වශයෙන් මේ අංශය සියයට 22.8 කින් පමණ සැළකිය යුතු පසුබෑමකට ලක්‌වී තිබේ. මේ තත්ත්වයට හේතු ලෙස ජනලේඛන හා සංඛ්‍යාලේඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව පෙන්වා දෙන්නේ, ලෝක ආර්ථික අර්බුදයේ බලපෑම් නිසා 2008 වසරේ අග භාගයේ හා 2009 වසරේ පළමු කාර්තුවේ කොළඹ තේ වෙන්දේසියෙහි තේ මිල ගණන් පහත වැටීම හේතුවෙන් තේ දලු නෙළීමේ සහ සැකසීමේ කටයුතුවලට බාධා සිදුවීම සහ මේ කාලය තුළ පැවැති වියළි කාලගුණ තත්ත්වය නිසා තේ දලු නිෂ්පාදනය පහත වැටීමයි.

වී නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 12.2 ක්‌ වැනි ඉතා ඉහළ අගයකින් වර්ධනය වීමට 2008/2009 මහ කන්නයෙහි අස්‌වැන්න නෙළාගත් බිම් ප්‍රමාණය අක්‌කර දහස්‌ 1404.4 සිට අක්‌කර දහස්‌ 1494.5 දක්‌වා සියයට 6.4 කින් වැඩිවීම ද හේතු විය. විශේෂයෙන් සමස්‌ත වී නිෂ්පාදනයට සියයට 24.3 කින් දායක වෙමින් නැගෙනහිර පළාතේ වී නිෂ්පාදනය සියයට 37.4 කින් කැපී පෙනෙන ලෙස වර්ධනය වීම ද මේ තත්ත්වයට බලපෑවේය.

කාර්මික අංශයට අයත් උප අංශ වන පතල් හා කැණීම් කටයුතු සියයට 11.1 කින්ද, නිෂ්පාදන කර්මාන්ත අංශය සියයට 1.1 කින්ද, විදුලිය, ගෑස්‌ හා ජල අංශය සියයට 4.3 කින් සහ ඉදිකිරීම් අංශය සියයට 5.4 කින් ද වර්ධනය විය. වර්ධනයක්‌ තිබුණත් පසුගිය වසරේ දෙවැනි කාර්තුවට සාපේක්‍ෂව මේ සෑම අංශයකම වර්ධනය අඩු වී ඇත. විශේෂයෙන් නිෂ්පාදන කර්මාන්ත අංශයට අයත් රෙදිපිළි හා ඇඟලුම් කර්මාන්ත අංශය සියයට 8.9 කින් පහත වැටීම කැපී පෙනේ. ලෝක ආර්ථික අර්බුදය හේතුවෙන් ඇඟලුම් නිෂ්පාදන සඳහා ඇති ඉල්ලුම අඩුවීම මේ පසුබෑමට ප්‍රධාන හේතුව වී ඇත. මුළු අපනයන ආදායමෙන් සියයට 46.1 ක්‌ වන ඇඟලුම් අපනයන ආදායම ඇමෙරිකානු ඩොලර් වටිනාකම අනුව සියයට 13.6 කින් පසුබැසීමට ලක්‌ව ඇතැයි ජන ලේඛන හා සංඛ්‍යාලේඛන දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව සඳහන් කරයි. විශේෂයෙන් ඇමෙරිකාව, එංගලන්තය, ඉතාලිය, ප්‍රංශය සහ නෙදර්ලන්තය යන ප්‍රධාන ඇඟලුම් අපනයනය කරන රටවලින් ලැබුණු අපනයන ආදායම අඩු වී තිබේ.

මේ අතරම දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී මැණික්‌ අපනයන ප්‍රමාණය සියයට 2.2 කින් සහ මැණික්‌ අපනයන ආදායම සියයට 20.9 කින් ද අඩු වී ඇත. විශේෂයෙන් අපනයනය කළ ගෙවුඩ ප්‍රමාණය සියයට 73.7 කින් පහත වැටී ගෙවුඩ අපනයන ආදායම සියයට 49.1 කින් අඩු විය.

සුපුරුදු පරිදි රටේ දළ දේශීය නිෂ්පාදිතයට වැඩිම දායකත්වයක්‌ සපයා ඇත්තේ සේවා අංශය වුවත් දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී සේවා අංශයේ වර්ධනය අඩු වී ඇත. සේවා අංශයේ උප අංශ වන ප්‍රවාහන හා සන්නිවේන අංශය සියයට 6.3 කින්ද, බැංකු, රක්‍ෂණ හා නිශ්චල දේපොළ වෙළෙඳාම් අංශය සියයට 5.4 කින් ද, නිවාස අයිතිය සියයට 1.2 කින්ද, රාජ්‍ය සේවා සියයට 6.3 කින් සහ පෞද්ගලික සේවා සියයට 5.9 කින් ද වර්ධනය වන විට තොග හා සිල්ලර වෙළෙඳාම් අංශය සියයට 5.3 කින් සහ හෝටල් සහ ආපනශාලා අංශය සියයට 0.4 කින් ද පසුබෑමට ලක්‌ව තිබේ.

මෙහිදී තොග හා සිල්ලර වෙළෙඳාමේ වර්ධනය සෘණ අගයක්‌ ගැනීමට හේතු වී ඇත්තේ ලෝක ආර්ථික අර්බුදය හේතුවෙන් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ විදේශ වෙළෙ¹මට ඇති වූ අහිතකර තත්ත්වයයි. මේ අනුව දෙවැනි කාර්තුවේදී ආනයන වෙළෙඳාමේ වර්ධනය සියයට 15.9 ක සෘණ අගයක්‌ ගෙන ඇති අතර, අපනයන වෙළෙ¹ම ද සියයට 12 කින් පසුබෑමට ලක්‌ව ඇත. මේ හේතුව නිසා දේශීය වෙළෙ¹ම සියයට 6.7 කින් වර්ධනය වුවද, සමස්‌ත තොග හා සිල්ලර වෙළෙඳාමේ වර්ධනය සෘණ අගයක්‌ ගත්තේය. කවරක්‌ නමුත් අපනයන ආදායම අඩුවීමේ වේගයට වඩා වැඩි වේගයකින් ආනයන වියදම් අඩුවීම නිසා මේ කලය තුළ රටේ වෙළෙඳ හිඟය අඩු විය. මේ අනුව 2008 වසරේ දෙවන කාර්තුවේ පැවැති රුපියල් දශලක්‍ෂ 184,889.3 ක වෙළෙඳ හිඟයට සාපේක්‍ෂව මේ වර්ෂයේ වෙළෙඳ හිඟය රුපියල් දශලක්‍ෂ 70,764.2 දක්‌වා සියයට 61.7 කින් අඩු වී තිබේ.

ශ්‍යාම් නුවන් ගනේවත්ත – දිවයින

Poor Mahinda maama gets the boot from Hillary aunty

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday it “is not an appropriate time” to consider a massive International Monetary Fund loan for Sri Lanka.

Clinton told reporters that the United States has been “trying to convince both sides,” the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tiger guerrillas, to stop fighting.

“We have also raised questions about the IMF loan at this time. We think that it is not an appropriate time to consider that (loan) until there is a resolution of the conflict,” Clinton added.

The United States is the main shareholder in the IMF and its approval is key to the release of the loan.

Clinton’s comments came two weeks after the IMF said talks with Sri Lanka for a bailout package of around two billion dollars were continuing despite reports the fund was under pressure to withold the planned financing.

News reports said US officials indicated that they want the IMF loan to Sri Lanka, aimed at helping the low-income Asian country cope with the global financial crisis, delayed to prod Colombo to step up aid to civilians.

The central bank in Colombo said at the time that an IMF mission was in Sri Lanka to try to ensure there are enough controls to verify that the IMF funds for balance-of-payments support are not used for other purposes.

Sri Lankan central bank governor Nivard Cabraal said the IMF loan was on track and procedures such as safeguard assessments had to be finished regardless of whether the United States was dragging its feet over the loan.

Jeff Anderson, a US embassy spokesman in Colombo, rejected any notion that Washington was threatening to stop the IMF loan, which according to reports ranges from 1.9 billion dollars to 2.4 billion dollars.

But the French ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Jean-Maurice Ripert, was quoted in a media report as saying that the “Americans want to play with the question of the IMF loan.”

Clinton and her British counterpart David Miliband, during a joint appearance here Tuesday, called on all Sri Lankans to stop fighting immediately and allow trapped civilians to escape the conflict.

It was the latest in a series of so far futile international calls aimed at ending the fighting between government forces and the separatist guerrillas, holed up on a coastal strip in the island’s northeast.

They also expressed “alarm at the large number of reported civilian casualties over the past several days in the designated “safe zone” along the coastal strip.

The pair urged the warring sides to allow a UN humanitarian team to visit the conflict zone and help evacuate the civilians as well as allow food and medical aid to reach those trapped by the fighting.

In New York on Monday, Miliband and his counterparts Bernard Kouchner of France and Michael Spindelegger of Austria issued an appeal that called on the UN Security Council to address the “appalling” crisis in Sri Lanka.

Report from: www.dailymirror.lk

Sri Lanka’s Garment Sector Faces Major Crisis: 40,000 Lose Jobs, 50 Factories Closed

An estimated 40,000 workers have been laid off and some 50 garment factories have put up shutters in the past six months. But trade union leaders claim that unscrupulous apparel industry elements were blowing up the global recession to trim down on concessions given to the workers.

Joint Apparels Association Forum President Ajith Dias said more and more factories were either reducing staff or closing down because of the effects of the global recession. “More than 50 factories have put up shutters, and an estimated 40,000 workers have already been laid off but the unions are not willing to accept this reality,” Mr. Dias said.

Union leaders, however, claimed apparel factory owners were blowing up the global recession to drastically reduce benefits given to employees. “This is a cunning ploy of the factory owners to reap more personal profits at the expense of the poor workers,” Free Trade Zones & General Services Union Secretary Anton Marcus said.

Mr. Marcus accused the Labour Commissioner of being indifferent towards this issue which had affected thousands of workers.

He said that in desperation, the union had now appealed to President Mahinda Rajapaksa to intervene.

Palitha Athukorale, President of the Progressive Union, echoed a similar view. He said garment factory owners were projecting a false crisis situation with the aim of persuading the government to amend worker-friendly laws, such as gratuity payments.

He said that to avoid workers unrest, factory owners cunningly announce the closure of the factory for a week, citing some reason or other and allow the workers to go on leave for this period. However when the workers reported back after a week, they found the factory closed and the owners missing.

In response, Labour Comissioner W.J.L.U. Wijeweera hit out at the union leaders, saying they were opportunists with zero facts on the actual situation in the apparel industry. “This is not the appropriate time to bring out labour disputes and related issues, when the garment trade is finding it difficult to survive with the ongoing global crisis,” Mr. Wijeweera said.

He denied allegations that certain garment owners were blowing up the recession issue to cut down on benefits to their employees. However, the commissioner could not give an exact count on the number of workers laid-off or whether they had been paid their proper dues.

Leon Berenger/Sunday Times

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/090301/News/sundaytimesnews_14.html

Change UNP; Change the Nation

This is not the type of the post I thought I would make. Politicians don’t SWOT analysis their parties on the net. Barack Obama discusses everything under the sun, but not the Democratic Party issues.

Ajith P. Perera too is very much a part of United National Party. So everyone expects Ajith P. Perera to debug the system before opening his mind in public.

On the other hand, what the heck? This is the age of openness. UNP itself stands on the very pillars of democracy and pluralism. It encourages, not suppresses dissent views. Thus I guess a dosage of straight talk does no harm. Not even at a point Ajith P. Perera is standing for public office. (I am waiting for my number to make the big announcement!)

Added to that some readers, most long term supporters of UNP, have raised genuine concerns about the future of UNP. I have an obligation to answer them.

Is there anything wrong with UNP?

UNP has not shown a creditable performance in a series of recent elections. This will positively change in the forthcoming Western Provincial Council elections, but I will come to that later. For the moment let us only focus on past performance.

It is easy to provide excuses. SLFP shamelessly abuse public resources in its election campaigns; state media offers virtually no space for opposition while private media is threatened to follow suit; some self-concerned UNPers have already crossed the floor to badmouth their former colleagues. The list is endless.

In spite of all that, we cannot solely blame external factors for our poor performance. The genuine UNP supporters like to see the dawn of another JRJ or Premadasa era. When they see we don’t deliver, they feel annoyed. I do not blame them. We are not perfect. We need to find what’s wrong and address.

Where we have gone wrong?

The opinions vary.

A large section seems to think that UNP should blindly support Kurakkan uncle’s war agenda to earn its popularity. I vehemently disagree.

Firstly, why UNP, the only political party with a clear stance on the ethnic issue follow others’ formulae? UNP fervently opposes terrorism of any kind, but simultaneously believes the long term solution to ethnic issue can only be political. ‘Military solution’ is an oxymoron. War victories by the current regime will only be meaningful if supplemented with corrective measures to age old Tamil grievances. Otherwise, terrorism will soon raise its ugly head behind another acronym. Elimination of JVP in 1971 in a genocidal manner did not prevent Sinhala youth taking arms two decades later. Why should that change for Tamil youth? As long as breeding grounds exist, procreate the mosquitoes.

Secondly, the extended intentions of war agenda are dangerous and damaging to the nation in the long run. The war is not just to eliminate LTTE (if so, UNP finds no problem backing it) but also a long list that includes human rights of the Tamils in North and East; Tamil political parties first and the entire opposition later; any dissent voices including those of journalists and eventually the very foundation of democracy. All what Kurakkan uncle wants it to create Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe type dictatorship and continue the legacy of feudal rulers.

Sorry, No. Whatever the name, UNP has no intention of blindly supporting such a feudal dictatorship. We stand for democracy and not feudalism.

The policies of United National Party are crystal clear. They remain largely unchanged from the D. S. Senanayake days and will not change in the foreseeable future. Let me repeat in a nutshell and as I understand.

1. Unity and Equality: United National Party, as its name rightly suggests, is the party of united nationalistic political forces. UNP believes in equality. We do not think one’s ethnicity, race, gender, religion or any other attribute should stand in the way him/her enjoying citizens’ rights and privileges. We believe the country belongs to all Sri Lankans, and not to one ethnic or religious group.

2. Devolution of Power: UNP believes in an undivided (Eksath) Lanka; but not necessarily a system that concentrates power in Colombo. We have seen the flaws of such Colombo-centric governance and introduced Provincial Councils as a solution, which SLFP and JVP initially rejected, but now faithfully follow. We believe in devolving power, not only to Tamils in North but to Sinhalese in Hambanthota as well, instead of accumulating it in the hands of dictators. We believe empowering people not only at regional level but every stratum.

3. Economy: We believe in free markets; liberalization and globalization. We do not espouse unrealistic socialist dreams. We trust the private sector for its abilities. We do not equate suppressing the private sector to nation building. Economy has always thrived under previous UNP governments and there is no doubt it will continue to do so under a future UNP government.

4. Poverty Alleviation: Nobody understands the necessity of poverty alleviation than the UNP. We do not think poverty can be eliminated by redistributing public wealth. UNP had once spearheaded the most effective poverty alleviation program in Sri Lanka, under President Premadasa. What we look for is that. Beat poverty by creating more and more employment opportunities. Let poor stand on their own feet.

5. Employment Generation: UNP strongly believes more and more employment opportunities are the only way towards prosperity. It plans to achieve full employment by developing the private sector and not fattening the already overloaded government structure. To stimulate private sector growth UNP will also give utmost importance to infrastructure building. These may not be the highest priorities in populist agendas but we think in long term and not just the next six years.

I guess all UNP lovers should be proud that in spite of the immense pressure that we still stick to our original principles. We have no intention of changing these policies to enter the populist game.

If not policies, what can be the problem?

As I understand UNP faces serious organizational issues. That happens not just in political parties, but they are more vulnerable. SLFP underwent a similar period when in opposition. It won only 8 seats in 1977 election under the leadership of Sirima Bandaranaike. It could not come out of that misery for 17 long years. However, under the new popular leadership of Chandrika Bandaranaike, it did not take long for SLFP to regain the lost steam.

The poor performance at the recent Provincial Council elections was nothing but a symptom of poor organization. While working in the Eastern and Sabaragamuwa Provinces I have witnessed this firsthand. I visited many areas untouched till then. Given time limitations, even I could not visit so many areas. We surely need more man power. Strong and committed organisaers at ground level was the need of the hour of UNP at the Provincial Council elections. We could have obviously done much better with a stronger organization.

So, what is the solution?

Fortunately we see the remedial measures are already on the way and an improvement of the situation. Western Provincial Council will be the Waterloo for SLFP. UNP is geared to easily win all three districts. We have a solid unbeatable organization in most areas. The challenge is only to repeat that victory at the next Provincial council elections, to be followed by the General Election.

What UNP seriously need are true leaders who can make that victory happen. Fortunately we see many dynamic leaders emerging from the Western Province. This phenomenon needs to be replicated in the other parts of the country. That needs Change; stating from the Change in the way we act.

Barack Obama could make that Change within a period of one year. What made the ‘One woman race’ to end with a first American-African in White House was his sheer determination and organization. I see the same happening in the UNP now.

We are ready to Change the nation. Before that we need to Change UNP.

Let us start with the Western Province.

Sri Lanka’s Economic Independence: A Distant Dream?

Political independence in 1948 economically meant little to Ceylon. It was more a declined economic opportunity – to be a part of a trade empire on which the sun never set could have been far advantageous. Still independence was no excuse for failure. Not every post WWII-independent Asian nation took the wrong turn. Then most were behind us. Now they have surpassed us not just in GDP terms, but even in human development – what we used to boast about. Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, who once dreamt emulating the Ceylonese economic model, describe why and how we failed, in style.

The true independence, if anyone cares to celebrate, gained not in 1948, but in 1170 AD – give or take few decades. That was when Parakramabahu the great –the greatest to ever rule us – not only liberated the isle from the mighty Chola Empire but converted it to an economic powerhouse. Contrary to popular belief, agrarian self-sufficiency was not Parakramabahu’s goal. His futuristic strategy was to be the trade hub of South Asia. Indian, Roman, Arab, Javanese and Chinese traders were frequent visitors to Serendib. The twelfth century ‘granary’ of Asia, probably was the equivalent of modern Singapore.

The dark ages that followed the fall of Polonnaruwa kingdom saw less political stability, more power centers, more civil wars and less trade. Arya Chakravarties of Nallur, arguably the most powerful in the interim period were said to have a large naval force, but still no records that business was their forte. Meanwhile in the South it was more a battle among each other.

Like it or not, it was the Portuguese followed by Dutch, who brought the lost glory. Spices suddenly became hot products; cutting a cinnamon plant was punished by death. British, after capturing Kandyan kingdom in 1815, introduced coffee, tea and rubber – the new economic crops. This gave birth to two classes of entrepreneurs – first British but towards the end of nineteenth century, domestic. The transition from feudal to modern economy materialized many dreams – highways and railways, commercial sea ports, administrative system, fixed income jobs, developed corporate sector, postal service, communication system followed by even quality education and proper healthcare. By the middle of the last century Ceylon successfully eradicated a predicament as serious as foreign invasions to ancient rulers: Malaria

Thus strictly speaking, it was not the Europeans who robbed our independence. Rather it was them who brought it back directing us to a new age. Otherwise Seylan could have easily ended up another Burma, Cambodia or Nepal.

Post independence economic reveries were short lived. The Colombo Plan, which aimed to ‘uplift’ neighbours to our own level, is long forgotten. First Central Bank chief John Exter’s objections to subsidies in the middle of rubber-crisis were met with a Hartal to be followed up with the first populist government in 1956. The rest is history.

To cut short, Singapore had Dr Goh Keng Swee and we had Dr. Nanayakkarage Martin Perera. Both were products of London School of Economics – students of legendary Harold Laski and no doubt, brilliant economists. Strangely they acted in ways diametrically opposite. Their footprints were long seen in the respective economies. By mid 1970s Singapore had a first-rate airline and one of the busiest airports. We had kerosene smelling t-shirts, transparent sarongs (aptly named ‘Ganta mark’) and maniocs – to be eaten twice weekly.

J.R. Jayawardena, sadly the typical scapegoat for every woe, was the one who took us out of that mess. 1978 economic reforms were the beginning of a new era. It made possible almost every economic benefit we enjoy today; banking facilities, garment industry, tourism and information and communication technologies. Post-1978 Economic liberalisation brought more employment opportunities than ever imagined. The impact was so strong that even the SLFP, a political party that traditionally vowed closed statist economic policies, had to embrace open economy in 1994. JVP- the extreme statists hitherto, settled for a hybrid.

Unfortunately, J.R. Jayawardena could not complete the revolution he began – in the backdrop of ethnic tensions and the second JVP insurrection. Reforms in education, power, railway and even agriculture sectors hardly happened. (Interestingly, Dr. Sarath Amunugama, a former finance minister later called four of such sectors as ‘paraassayaas’ or demons, that suck the blood from the national economy) Decision making power, in spite of the 13th amendment, has sacredly maintained at the centre. Enthusiasm in infrastructure building was lost on the way. A sizable fraction of state income has continuously been spent in education and healthcare subsidies. Government grew till it provided job opportunities for every one in sixteen of the population – again, a large section is political henchman. Money printing, at the cost of thumping inflation rates became the norm of the day.

The only break in this vicious system was the two brief years from 2002-3. At least the first year saw a systematic approach in building the economy. We saw Sri Lanka starts shining after a long period of suppression. Then the masses rejected the system – it did not meet their short term goals; government jobs and fertiliser subsidies.

This brings us to the days of ‘national economy’ – whatever it means. Patriotism has many facets. We are back to 1970-77 times, sans queues and barriers. Government takes pride in the number of jobs newly created within, and has absolutely no shame in imposing high taxes (tax on petrol is 189%) and printing money to support war efforts. We believe in isolated economic models that can be ‘plugged out’ from international trade. Protectionism is more a religion. Be Lankan; buy Lankan is the theme of the day. Just like in any sub Saharan African state the opportunities for new ventures are traded under the table. Private sector is looked with suspicion. Bribery remains the best strategy, and centralised now, the process perhaps is less cumbersome. (Just bribe one big man, not five on the way!) The masses are insensitive, as long as they receive their fair share. Money is not the only commodity that makes a mass exodus; brains too do so.

We still cheer for independence and a government that failed to carry out a single economic reform since the day it took office in November 2005.

Is our economic independence a distant dream? You tell me.

Age of War mongers and Development killers

President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is halfway in his term, is “butchering” the country’s economic development, charged ‘Development Watch’ member Asanka Mahagedaragamage. The economy has fallen lower from where President Rajapaksa has started, he told a media briefing by development watchdog at ‘Workers Union’ at Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte this morning (Nov. 28th).

Mr. Mahagedaragamage said, “Today, Sri Lanka’s debt stands at Rs. 3,301,990 million. Just yesterday, Minister Dinesh Gunawardena told Parliament that a Sri Lankan owes Rs. 163,425 to the world.”

“Today, 22.7 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. Dependents of Samurdhi allowance is half of the country’s 20 million population. Public health has deteriorated. Budgetary allocations for health and development are lower than last year. One-third of the country’s children suffer from malnutrition. Also, one in every five births are of underweight babies. This is a very serious situation. What will happen is that the future generation will become mentally-retarded.”

Spokesman of ‘Development Watch’ attorney Nanda Muruttettuwegama said, “Today, Sri Lanka’s development is centred on a single family in Medamulana and a group of 700 to 800 surrounding it. It is unfortunate that the country’s development has narrowed down to such a level.”

He had this to say about the collapse of the local tea industry.

“The income of three million people of this country comes from the tea industry. It is the livelihood of one-seventh of the population. Although President Mahinda had boasted that the biggest relief from the budget would be given for tea cultivators, this budget had allocated not a cent for them. This government is trying to draw parallels between the world economic crisis and the crisis facing the tea industry. But, I want to make it clear that the tea industry crisis is a problem of this country. It has nothing to do with the world economic crisis.”

“That can be explained by the fact that Indian tea exports had increased in the recent past. When the price for Ceylon Tea and its exports go down, India’s prices and exports have increased rapidly. This is the same situation in China and Kenya. Their exports have gone up.”

‘Development Watch’ members, former Test cricketer Hashan Tilakaratne and North Western Provincial councilor Upulanganie Malagamuwa also addressed the media briefing.

http://www.lankadissent.com

Sajith Premadasa on Inflation, Interest Rates, GSP+, Brain Drain, Poverty Alleviation and ICT Policy

Excerpts from the speech made in Parliament

Mr. Speaker,

A careful and intricate examination of the prevailing economic conditions through a thorough analysis of the macro-economic indicators and economic trends, amply exemplifies the dire situation that Sri Lankans of all walks of life will endure in the short, medium and long term.

In recent times many politicians and economic analysts have extolled the virtues of high economic growth rates our country has achieved. Many have interpreted these figures as exhibiting the underlying economic strength of the family households of Sri Lanka.

A more careful look at the figures illustrate a totally different picture which confirms the ever expanding economic and social divide.

When we inspect the figures stated in the HIES 2006/2007 conducted by the DCS in a scrupulous manner, it states that while the richest 20% of our society receive 53.8% of income, the poorest 20% receive a meager 4.8% of income.

The present Budget proposals fail miserably to recognise this glaring shortcoming.

If one is to assume that economic growth rate in itself is an automatic cure for the economic ills of our country, let me remind this August assembly that it was the UNP administration under the able leadership of Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW), during the 2002-2004 time period, that propelled this country into achieving high rates of economic growth, from a position of economic malaise and stagnation. If the underlying Macro-Economic precepts, and principles of the RW era were continued, our growth rates today would have far exceeded the double digit levels that are presently experienced by a large number of states in India and India as a whole.

Today we see a lowering of our country’s growth projections in the Budget as a direct result of the inept and incompetent economic decision making processes and the policy resultants, of the present administration.

Inflation which was at 14.9% in November 2001 was meticulously brought down to 2.5% in March 2004. In fact in the beginning of 2004, SL had the rare distinction of experiencing zero inflation levels which is unprecedented in the interdependent and interconnected world that we live in. Such record levels of inflation (deflation) were achieved even in the face of drastic price increases in petroleum products which amounted to 91% during the 2001-2004 periods. There is an attempt in certain government circles to state that there is a direct correlation between price increases in petroleum products and inflation.

Once again the figures that I possess exhibit that such a deduction is misleading and erroneous.

It is time that the present defenders of the Government refrained from forwarding such bankrupt theories to justify the high levels of inflation which certainly has a direct link to irresponsible and reckless printing of money, and to over indulgent deficit spending facilitated through excessive borrowing at exorbitant rates of interest.

Merely changing the way inflation is calculated CCPI to CCPI will not suffice to control inflation. Once again it will be another futile exercise in mis­leading the Sri Lankan people.

If I may now turn to the key issue of unemployment which at present stands at approximately 5.8-6%, I cannot see any comprehensive effort on the part of the present administration to address this issue in an overarching manner. May I remind this house about the 200 Garment Factory Program that was championed by the late President Ranasinghe Premadasa precisely to tackle the issue of unemployment.

At that time this project was criticised as an utter failure. His political detractors resorted to virulent vilification of the scheme calling it a program, “to get our village boys and girls to stitch knickers for foreign women”.

However, what is the present situation in terms of the progress, that the garment trade has made to date? It has become the highest foreign exchange earner for SL today earning USD 3.2b annually. The industry also provides 270, 000 direct and 700, 000 indirect employments.

This is one of the main tools of monetary policy. However, presently the Government has embarked on utilising high interest rates as a tool in controlling inflation. While this has succeeded in reducing inflation from 29% to 20%, high interest rates have resulted in crowding out private investment.

When the country was in economic doldrums in 2001, IR’s were as high as 13.7%. However the RW administration gradually brought it down to down to 7.24%, in 2004, creating a propitious environment for the inflow of valuable capital and resources into the country.

Today IR’s are at 25%. This is inimical to promoting private investment which is universally accepted as the engine of economic growth.

Let me re-iterate: high IR is a disincentive to investment. Therefore, in order to spur EG and promote economic prosperity and therefore reduce unemployment, low IR is an essential pre-requisite for any economy with growth ambitions.

This fact is amply illustrated by the substantial cuts in IR through out the major economies in the world from USA, UK, China, Japan, and SK in order to counter the impending global recession.

Let’s now look at the issue of foreign exchange reserves. Presently the status of foreign exchange reserves is precarious to say the least. Recent months have seen a precipitous drop from USD 3.4b in August to 3.1b in September and 2.6b in October.

One of the main reasons for this is the “capital flight” syndrome as markets and investors deem SL as a high risk country to invest.

It is essential to maintain currency stability. However, this should take place at a realistic currency value, that does not adversely impact on export competitiveness and import costs.

The GSP plus issue is an impending economic and national disaster of enormous proportions. This facility bestowed upon us by the EU provides SL with preferential tariff free access to the world’s largest market numbering USN 16 trillion. The exponential rise in SL exports to the EU from USD 1.3b to 2.8b after the implementation of the GSP plus scheme, is a clear indication of the immense value of the scheme to our country. In 2007 alone SL apparel exports to the EU amounted to l.1b Euros.

With the expiration of these concessions coming to fruition in a few months, I believe the Government has completely mishandled and botched up the negotiation process.

Right at the inception there was ministerial conflict and bureaucratic wrangling over who should get the credit if negotiations were successful. Ultimately the policy prescription prescribed by the Government, amounted to a bailout package with a one off payment amounting to USD 150m in return for the Government obtaining redeemable preference shares in each company to the value of the investment.

All I can say is, that RP would have handled this issue in a manner that would have been in the long term interest of the industry and the country.

The brain drain issue continues to be an important policy issue that is consistently ignored by this Government. The possession of a highly skilled, capable, talented, educated work force is an indispensable pre-requisite to the functioning of a successful economy.

Statistical evidence with regard to brain drain paints a sorry picture as far as SL is concerned.

According to SLBFE figures in 2003, 1541 professional workers left the country and this figure rose to 2678 in 2005. Between 2003 and 2005, a total of 45,590 skilled workers have left the country. What policy prescription has the Govt. designed to address this fundamental issue of national importance?

There is universal acceptance that providing support to sustain high nutritional standards especially amongst the most vulnerable sectors of our society, that is infants, mothers and children is of superlative importance if a country is to succeed and prosper.

Here again statistics indicate the persistence of acute and chronic· malnutrition among the vulnerable sectors in SL.

Under these circumstances why has the govt. failed to formulate and implement a comprehensive integrated national nutrition policy?

The Samurdhi programme that has been apparently designed to achieve this objective is a dismal failure. The measly amounts that are dished out to the poor in the form of Samurdhi stamps are woefully inadequate in providing adequate resources to the target groups to overcome poverty.

When one examines the record of this Govt. in this field, there is a visible disparity in rhetoric and reality. When our neighbour and friend India have made significant strides in the ICT arena (where the ICT industry grew to USD 51 billion in 2006-2007) Sri Lanka continues to vacillate and hesitate to take the next great leap forward.

President Rajapaksa in his 2008 Independence Day speech claimed that SL has attained 25% computer literacy, but according to the figures provided by DCS CL has increased only from 9.7% in 2004 to 16.1 in 2006-7.

DCS survey also asserts that 46.9% of Sri Lankan households cannot afford to purchase a computer. How constructive it would have been if the govt. introduced a subsidised scheme for computer purchases and the expansion of computer literacy projects.

It is obvious to any lay person, that the current PA administration has totally ignored the external economic and political environment prevailing globally in formulating economic policy.

As a responsible and accountable administration, it should have taken account of the impending global meltdown. It is my humble premise that Sri Lanka’s Economy is in dire straits.

If one dares to question whether the situation is redeemable, the frank answer to that is “of course it is possible”.

However, it would take a paradigmatic shift in the design, structure and substance of public policy to achieve this monumental task.

J R Jayewardene: 102th Birth Anniversary of the father of modern Lanka

Junius Richard Jayewardene (September 17, 1906–November 1, 1996), famously abbreviated in Sri Lanka as JR, was the first executive President of Sri Lanka from 1978 until 1989. He was a leader of the nationalist movement in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) who served in a variety of cabinet positions in the decades after independence. Before taking over the newly created executive presidency, he served as the Prime minister of Sri Lanka between 1977 and 1978.

J.R. Jayewardene, who was the eldest in a family of 11 children, was the son of Hon. Justice Eugene Wilfred Jayewardene KC a judge of the Ceylon Supreme Court. He was schooled at Royal College, Colombo where he played for the cricket team, debuting in the Royal-Thomian series in 1925. He became a lawyer after attaining a distinguished academic record at the University College, Colombo and later at the Colombo Law College.

Jayewardene did not practice law for long, however. In 1938 he became an activist in the Ceylon National Congress (CNC), which provided the organizational platform for Ceylon’s nationalist movement (the island was officially renamed Sri Lanka in 1972). He became its Joint Secretary in 1940. He was elected to the colonial legislature, the State Council in 1943.

After joining the United National Party on its formation in 1946, he became Finance Minister in the island’s first Cabinet in 1947. He played a major role in re-admitting Japan to the world community at the San Francisco Conference.

Jayewardene’s acute intelligence and subtle, often aggressive political skills earned him leading roles in government (1947-1956 and 1965-1970) and in opposition (1956-1965 and 1970-1977). In 1951 Jayewardene was a member of the committee to select a National Anthem for Sri Lanka headed by Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne.

As Finance Minister in D.S. Senanayake’s government, Jayewardene struggled to balance the budget, faced with mounting government expenditures, particularly for rice subsidies. His 1953 proposal to cut the subsidies – on which many poor people depended on for survival – provoked fierce opposition and the 1953 Hartal campaign, and had to be called off.

No government gave serious thought to the development of the industry as an economically viable venture until the United National Party came to power in 1965 and the subject of tourism came under the purview of the Minister of State Hon. J. R. Jayewardene.

The new Minister Jayewardene saw tourism in a new dimension as a great industry capable of earning foreign exchange, providing avenues of mass employment, creating a manpower which commanded a high, employment potential in the world. He was determined to place this industry on a solid foundation providing it a ‘ conceptional base and institutional support.’ This was necessary to bring dynamism and cohesiveness into an industry, shunned by leaders in the past, ignored by investors who were inhibited by the lack of incentive to invest in projects which were uncertain of a satisfactory return. The new Minister Hon. J. R. Jayewardene considered it essential for the government to give that assurance and with this objective in view he tabled the Ceylon Tourist Board Act No 10 of 1966 followed by Ceylon Hotels Corporation Act No 14 of 1966.

This was the beginning of a new industry ignored by the previous governments but given a new life by Minister J. R. Jayewardene. As a result today tourist resorts exist in almost all cities and today an annual turnover of over 500,000 tourists are enjoying the tropical climes and beautiful beaches of Sri Lanka not to mention the enormous amount of foreign exchange they bring into the country.

In the general election of 1970 the UNP suffered a major defeat, when the SLFP and its newly formed collation of leftist parties won almost 2/3 of the parliamentary seats. Once again elected to parliament J. R. Jayewardene took over as opposition leader and de-facto leader of the UNP due to the ill health of Dudley Senanayake. After Senanayake’s death in 1973, Jayewardene succeeded him as UNP leader. He gave the SLFP government his fullest support during the 1971 JVP Insurrection (even thou his son was arrested by the police without charges) and in 1972 when the new constitution was enacted proclaiming Ceylon a republic. However he opposed the government in many moves, which he saw as short sighted and damaging for the country’s economy in the long run. These included the adaptation of the closed economy and nationalization of many private business and lands. In 1976 he resigned from his seat in parliament in protest, when the government used its large majority in parliament to extend the duration of the government by two more years at the end of its six year term without holding a general election.

Jayewardene won a sweeping election victory in 1977 to become Prime Minister. Immediately thereafter, he drew up a new national constitution which created an Executive Presidency with drastic and unchecked powers, and, on its adoption into law, became, in 1978, the first Sri Lankan Executive President. He moved the legislative capital from Colombo to Sri Jayawardanapura Kotte. He opened the heavily state-controlled economy to market forces, which many credit with subsequent economic growth but also with the greater divisions in society.

On the economic front, Jayewardene’s legacy was decisive. For thirty years after independence, Sri Lanka had struggled in vain with slow growth and high unemployment. Since Jayewardene’s reforms, the island has maintained healthy growth despite the civil war.

Jayewardene married Elina Rupasinghe, with whom he had two sons. One of his sons, Ravi Jayewardene was an officer in the Sri Lanka Army and went on to be a presidential adviser on security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junius_Richard_Jayewardene