Features
How to put Sri Lanka back to work
by Jayampathy Molligoda
Basic economic models followed by successive governments:
Since 1978, the successive governments have been following an aggressive open economic policy framework for Sri Lanka and there has been some progress in the much-needed infrastructure development compared to the period governed under a somewhat ‘closed economic system’. Basically, their open economic policy framework is founded on the following two basic economic models (i) ‘neo-classical’, monetarists policy prescription or (ii) ‘Post-Keynesian’ Economic school of thought which builds upon John Maynard Keynes’s argument that effective demand is the key determinant of economic performance.
The difference between these theories is that ‘ economics believe in controlling the supply of money that flows into the economy, while Keynesian economics involves government expenditures. In contrast to the neoclassical (mainstream) approach, Keynes argued that investment is not constrained by the availability of saving, but may be constrained by the availability of credit.
Monetarists believe that government spending causes inflation. The level of the money supply, which they feel has a direct impact on inflation, must be used to control it. In contrast, Keynesian economists believe that a troubled economy continues in a downward spiral unless an intervention drives consumers to buy more goods and services. Governments should balance out the cyclical movement of the economy by spending more in downturns and less in prosperous times (thereby preventing inflation).
One can argue, the open economic policy framework in Sri Lanka has not worked for the benefit of the majority of people although the governments from time to time used to follow either the ‘neo-classical’ principles or Keynesian Economic school of thought. The result is that the overall performance of the economy has been unsatisfactory. The economists are of the view that the economic downturn has been mainly due to serious structural weaknesses in the economy during a long period of time.
Sri Lanka’s relative export performance, especially during the last ten- year period has drastically declined and thus widening the trade deficit around US $ 8- 10 billion per annum. It is clear that the poor export performance relative to increased import bill, together with the external ‘current account’ deficit and large fiscal deficits in the government budgets, popularly known as the ‘twin deficits’, have been identified as the key structural weaknesses that have affected the economy for several decades with continuing adverse trends into the future. The positive feature is the export of goods during the last three years (2021,2022 and 2023) recorded a notable increase and surpassed US $ 13 billion since 2022, however, trade deficit remains a major concern due to the heavy import bill.
The government which came in to power in 2020 was not keen to have an IMF programme as they were of the opinion that such action (i) will definitely contract economic growth, (ii) imposing high taxes and high bank interest rates will reduce business activities, (iii) having a widely fluctuating rupee puts enormous burden on the people with high imported inflation and unbearable cost of living impact and (iv) many other adverse consequences. In short, their view was that people’s purchasing power will be badly affected. From the present socio/economic situation faced by the majority of people, it can be seen that there is some truth of what they had predicted if they had adopted the IMF policy prescription.
Pros and cons of the major policy shift since April 2022:
President GR during the latter part of his tenure was reluctantly compelled to adopt a slightly different economic strategy (i) received a positive response from IMF (in March ’22) to his letter requesting EF (Extended Fund) facility (ii) allowed the rupee to fluctuate, initially a ‘managed float’ mechanism as decided by CB on March 7, 2022 (iii) dissolved the cabinet during the first week of April ‘22 and appointed a new economic team (iv) the Treasury secretary in consultation with the Governor, CB and the new Finance Minister had announced one of the most controversial decisions, i.e. ‘pre emptive’ debt default on April 12, ‘22. Since then, the CB used the term ‘debt standstill’ instead of default (Page 187 of the CB Annual Report-2022)
Upon resignation of President GR in July ’22 then Prime minister RW was elected as President through a ‘parliamentary majority vote’ in accordance with the constitutional provisions for the remaining period of GR’s tenure which ends in October 2024. Since then, the CB Governor and his team have been advising the government on the macro- economic policies, especially the monetary policy area based on IMF programme.
The CBSL has adopted a strategy of curbing inflation as a high priority by increasing the interest rate, imposing high taxation and further tightening monetary policy. President RW and his economic team have been able to manage to stabilize the macro economy to a certain extent thus eliminating the acute shortages in the market place, including petroleum products, gas etc. and also tackled the power cuts imposed by CEB during that time.
However, this was achieved at the expense of unbearable burden on households due to high cost of living, job losses and closure of a number of SME businesses, micro enterprises etc. The annual report of the Institute of Policy studies (IPS) – 2022 stated that only remedy on hand was to curb inflation through a forced ‘economic recession’.
The Monetary board of CBSL on March 7, ’22 decided to move away from the fixed exchange rate that prevailed since September 2021, it was announced that they expect an upper limit of Rs.230/-. Nevertheless, from March 8 or 9 onwards, the rupee was allowed to be floated based on market sentiments until May 12, ‘22 and by that time, the exchange rate of Rs.230 has gone up to Rs 377/- per US $. That’s the period, where inflation skyrocketed due to supply side ‘cost push’ imported inflation, more than the ‘demand pull’ inflation. On May 12, CB had to rectify this market behaviour (undue volatility) by shifting its policy to a ‘managed float’ with the introduction of middle rate to facilitate orderly behaviour of the FOREX market.
So far, Sri Lanka has received a total disbursement of two tranches amounting to US$ 670 million out of the US$ 3 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) approved by the IMF. The government of the day has been managing the ‘day- today’ inflows/outflows in the ‘forex account’ satisfactorily and, also managed to improve the government revenue collection through higher taxes imposed on the people. The private players who operate businesses especially the exporters and other foreign exchange earners have been able to build up some confidence on the government policy environment and started remitting their ‘forex income’ to the country through established banking systems. The Tourism sector is performing relatively well and ‘forex’ income to the country continues to flow in, thus relieving some burden on the people.
On the negative side, there is an undue delay in the negotiation process of the ‘debt restructuring’ with foreign creditors. (Debt to GDP ratio remains a major concern) Most of the sub sectors of the economy i.e. the so called ‘production economy’ both in the agriculture and manufacturing sub-sectors are not performing well. Although, the government tax revenue has increased significantly, the budget deficit in nominal terms has not made any progress showing reductions.
According to recent surveys conducted by independent research teams, majority of the people – five million households, SMEs, micro enterprises – are really suffering due to high cost of living, higher unemployment rate, further job losses, lack of purchasing power as well as deteriorating health care and educational sectors. The real issue has been that our country’s economic growth has been ‘negative’ during the last five consecutive quarters since 2021.
Solution lies in putting Sri Lanka back to work:
As indicated in my previous published articles, the government must focus on economic (GDP) growth– meaning real economics not financial numbers (transfer payments) etc only. In simple terms, the fundamental solution lies in making one thing to happen;
GDP growth = C+I+ G+ (exports-imports), where, C- consumption and I- investment, G- government spending.
We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. During the great depression period in 1930’s, the US/western economies were able to overcome the crisis successfully by practicing the ‘school of thought’ recommended by John Maynard Keynes, not necessarily based on neo-classical economic principles. Since then, many governments have been adopting the same principles and eminent economists of the calibre Professor Joseph E Stiglitz, winner of Nobel Prize /former Chief Economist of World Bank, Thomas Piketty, French economist who wrote the landmark analysis of Western economic inequality, “Capital in the 21st Century” and others have further developed the Keynesian model.
These economists urge governments to embrace real solutions: investing in education, science, technology and infrastructure, offering more help to the children of the poor, doing more to restore the economy to full employment etc. It is interesting to note that even the IMF, an organisation not taking radical positions, has taken up the position that inequality is associated with instability. (‘Inequality and unsustainable growth; two sides of the same coin?’ – IMF staff discussion note- 2011)
According to Stiglitz, monetary policy instruments for managing the macro economy have proved ineffective. Here are some home truths:
(i) The single most important thing is how to put the country back to work.
(ii) The country should be focussed on job creation. We can’t raise economic growth, create jobs by cutting spending and firing workers. The reason that businesses with access to capital are not investing/hiring people is that there is insufficient demand for their products. Weakening demand in the market place only discourages investment and hiring people.
(iii) The advantage of having underinvestment in the public and private sector for so long (nearly 10 years) is that we have many high return opportunities. Use this opportunity with low ‘long term’ bank interest rates to focus high return, labour intensive- investments in infrastructure, education, health care, technology etc.
(iv) Increased output can generate higher tax revenue to the treasury to pay low interest on the debt. Higher income to people means higher tax revenue to treasury without unnecessarily increasing the VAT rate to 18% and other tax rates.
(v) Government can change the design of the tax system and expenditure pattern. Increasing taxes at the top five percent and lowering taxes at the middle class. This will lead to more consumption spending, which is not happening now- in other words create demand in the market place.
(vi) Review Indirect taxes: Direct taxes ratio. The revenue from Indirect taxes such as VAT compared to Direct taxes (income taxes) is disproportionately very high, thus creating inequality in the society and negating the cardinal principle of progressive tax system.
(vii) Sri Lanka’s debt burden will reduce and economic growth increases, meaning debt to GDP ratio will improve.
It is simply a matter of politics:
Presidential elections are due to be held in early October ’24 and it appears that the two main opposition parties tend to gain popularity among the people, who are eligible to vote, especially the NPP and SJB. The present government and the two main opposition parties are in possession of somewhat comprehensive policy packages. However, whether they could offer a viable economic model at the elections as against the two economic models practiced by successive governments is yet to be seen. My own view is the success depends on how to put Sri Lanka back to work.
by Jehan Perera
The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.
The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.
But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Proposed Laws
The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.
Civil Society
The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.
Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.
The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.
By Ramya Kumar
According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.
An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.
The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.
Top-down check-box activities
The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.
There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).
1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….
2: And with pictures and all…
1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”
2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..
1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…
2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!
1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.
2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…
Auditing everything but power
QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.
The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.
A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.
This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.
External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.
Rethinking university QA
Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.
QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.
(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)
. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.
Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.
The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.
Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.
The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.
Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor
Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!
This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.
Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.
Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!
For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.
-
Features6 days agoThe Sri Lankan who made Scottish history
-
Sports6 days agoNissanka absence opens door for Sri Lanka’s young guns
-
News5 days agoNDB fraud Rs 60mn more than reported
-
News7 days agoGnansara Thera to be assigned to prison printing section: Officials
-
News5 days agoRemoving monk’s robes matter for Sangha to decide: Mahanayake Theras
-
News7 days agoOIC of FCID summoned before Maligakanda Magistrate
-
Features6 days agoFuture of Sri Lanka’s state university system: Should it be shut down and reopened?
-
News6 days agoShiranthi R remanded until 13 Oct.