Connect with us

Editorial

A budget oozing overoptimism

Published

on

Thursday 19th November 2020

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is also the Minister of Finance, has presented Budget 2021, which looks a good story with a happy ending. It has offered something to everyone, and is bound to go down well with those who are to benefit from tax exemptions and other such relief. All 75 budgets presented in the Sri Lankan Parliament have been tales told by Finance Ministers. Most budget proposals, especially the progressive ones, have remained unimplemented, all these years, for want of funds mostly due to failure on the part of successive governments to meet their revenue targets and curtail wasteful expenditure.

As for Budget 2021, proposals to abolish PAYE and the withholding tax and increase the personal income tax threshold will benefit a large number of people. But it will be swings and roundabouts for them if indirect taxes increase, as feared in some quarters. Steps taken to develop local agriculture and industries through tax exemptions, etc., and allocate additional funds for developing public health and education sectors are welcome. The proposed expansion of the university system, however, is a task that the government has to carry out cautiously, taking into consideration the need to ensure their standards. Even the existing universities are experiencing a severe dearth of qualified teachers and facilities. There are some more progressive budget proposals, and they are welcome. One can only hope that there will be enough funds for their implementation.

The devil is in the detail, though. When one reads Budget 2021 carefully, one sees that several crucial issues have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner. The government has made numerous expenditure commitments as regards development and social welfare, but how does it propose to meet the revenue shortfall resulting mainly from tax concessions and a significant decrease in foreign earnings? Borrowings, both foreign and domestic, will not be easy.

The government has undertaken to reduce the budget deficit to 4% of GDP by 2025. This is a very ambitious target. One may recall that it was first set by a UNP-led government, in 2002. The then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe declared, in Parliament, that the budget deficit would be brought down to 4% of GDP by 2008. (His government fell in 2004!) Later on, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government undertook to achieve that target. Now, another Rajapaksa government has repeated the same promise. It seems to believe that the economy will expand at such as rate that its revenue will increase automatically. It is being overoptimistic.

The success of any programme to reduce the budget deficit to the expected level hinges on the government’s ability to increase revenue to at least 10.8% of GDP, in 2021, as economists argue. This goal will be unattainable without new tax proposals. A shortfall in revenue collection may lead to a much higher budget deficit than 8.8% of GDP. Such a situation can be averted only by curtailing public investment, inter alia, to match lower revenue. This means most ministries will not receive allocated funds for the implementation of envisaged projects in such an eventuality.

It will also be an uphill task for the government to fulfil its expenditure commitments while reducing public debt from 90% of GDP to 70% of GDP and ‘minimizing the risk in debt composition caused by sourcing of foreign loans’. How the government is planning to achieve this target is not clear.

As for the envisaged budget deficit, 8.3% of GDP is expected to be financed through domestic borrowings. Enough domestic financial resources in terms of savings will not be available for the government to borrow such a large amount domestically, and the Central Bank may have to print money as it has done this year in view of the pandemic. If money printing continues, it will result in serious problems such as higher inflation and price instability.

The government has expressed serious concern about slow progress in foreign-funded projects and low returns therefrom. Pointing out that the number of programmes implemented annually with foreign financing has increased exponentially, the PM has said in Budget 2021: “However, a significant number of projects worth more than USD 6.000 million show slow progress. The main deficiencies identified in monitoring of project planning, feasibility, implementation are deviation of the projects from national requirements, and frequent cost and time escalations resulting in low returns … Due to these expenditures, productive investments which could have been implemented at a lower cost are not adequately financed …” Has the government forgotten that most of these problems are also due to rampant corruption involving politicians and bureaucrats. How does it propose to tackle corruption, which will put paid to its efforts to keep the costs of development projects low and increase returns?

Meanwhile, Budget 2021 does not reveal how the Treasury is going to meet USD 6 billion worth of foreign currency debt obligations falling due during 2021 while having only USD 5.5 billion official reserves with the Central Bank. If the government fails to raise at least USD 6 billion external borrowings, it will be forced to default on its external debt obligations––absit omen!––and this has never happened in Sri Lanka. If it were to happen, Sri Lanka would have a hard landing currency crisis similar to ones faced by Greece, Argentina and Zimbabwe, in the past.

Overall, we view Budget 2021 as a government attempt to achieve a set of highly ambitious goals within an overoptimistic macroeconomic framework.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Clear up fuel pricing confusion urgently

Published

on

Monday 22nd June, 2026

The JVP-NPP government, like all its predecessors, has got obfuscation down to a fine art. It muddies the water whenever issues concerning fuel prices are raised in Parliament or elsewhere. Its leaders give evasive answers to questions about fuel cost calculations in a way that makes one wonder if they stretch the truth and pluck figures out of the air to support their arguments. Curiously, their claims go unchallenged. The Opposition is apparently at sea; it lacks focus. A wag says it seems to have been affected by Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

An Opposition MP has at long last realised the need to challenge the government’s claims about its fuel pricing methodology and pump prices. SLPP National Organiser and MP Namal Rajapaksa has called upon the government to disclose how fuel prices are worked out and make public a full cost breakdown so that consumers will know whether its claim of a fuel subsidy is true or false. This is something the Opposition should have done much earlier. MP Rajapaksa has also asked the government to reduce fuel prices in keeping with world oil price decreases following the signing of an interim peace agreement between the US and Iran.

Interestingly, MP Rajapaksa’s contention is at variance with the position of some Opposition parties which are protesting against a government claim that funding will not be available for “the current fuel subsidy” after June. What one gathers from the aforementioned protests is that a section of the Opposition believes that fuel is actually subsidised and the subsidy must be retained. Given these contradictory claims about the so-called fuel subsidy, what needs to be done is to pressure the government to provide fuel cost breakdowns so that they can be examined independently. Figures given by government politicians apparently do not add up where fuel prices are concerned.

Last month, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake publicly stated that a litre of diesel cost as much as Rs 720 though it was sold at Rs. 392 at that time. (The current diesel price is Rs. 407 a litre.) The President also claimed the government provided a subsidy of Rs. 100 per litre on diesel. Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya has recently repeated the President’s claim in a bid to support her argument that it is not possible to reduce local fuel prices immediately in keeping with global oil prices drops. Going by the President’s claim, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the private fuel companies suffer huge losses.

The government has chosen to remain silent on taxes and a special loss recovery levy of Rs. 50 on a litre of fuel. There have been attempts to have this levy converted into a cess so that the Treasury can recover it from the private fuel companies as well, but they have been in vain, according to some Opposition politicians. This issue must be raised in Parliament. Will the Opposition officially seek an explanation from the government?

It is believed that the government imposes an unconscionably high price mark-up on fuel to recover losses caused by the extensive use of diesel for producing extra power to compensate for the Norochcholai generation loss caused by substandard coal procured fraudulently. The CPC has admitted that it purchased diesel shipments at prices ranging from USD 281 to USD 303 per barrel at the height of the Iran war to prevent supply disruptions. Perhaps, it would not have been so desperate if there had been no coal procurement racket and the Norochcholai coal-fired power plant had operated at full capacity, producing 900 MW.

It is nothing but fair to demand that the CPC and the Finance Ministry provide accurate cost breakdowns whenever fuel prices are revised so that the public can see whether official figures add up or fuel prices are increased arbitrarily. The incumbent government, which came to power promising to usher in good governance, should uphold transparency in the process of determining fuel prices.

Successive governments have used the cost reflective fuel pricing formula, claiming that it helps determine fuel prices in a rational and fair manner. If so, the question is why they have not cared to make it legally enforceable and ensure transparency and accountability.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Fuel crisis: Beyond price debate

Published

on

Global oil prices are falling thanks to the US-Iran peace deal. No sooner had US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian signed a framework for peace than some Opposition politicians in Sri Lanka began demanding fuel price reductions. The JVP-NPP government, which allegedly increased the prices of fuel stocks procured before the eruption of the West Asia conflict, has ignored the demand for fuel price decreases.

The JVP vehemently protested whenever fuel prices were increased during the previous governments, calling for measures, such as the abolition of petroleum taxes to bring fuel prices down. Its leaders even argued that there was no need for a government if local fuel prices were to be increased whenever global oil prices increased. Slashing fuel prices was one of the key election promises of the JVP/NPP. Now, the JVP-NPP government is under pressure to make good on its pledge.

There is much more to the fuel issue than high prices, and what is needed is a dispassionate appraisal of the situation. It is the prices of WTI and Brent benchmark futures that have decreased, and it will take some time for the oil prices to drop at the pump in many countries. Although the Hormuz Strait has been reopened, it will be weeks before international navigation through that chokepoint normalises, stabilising global oil and fertiliser markets.

There is no gainsaying that Sri Lankan consumers deserve relief and fuel prices should be reduced, but prudence demands that politicians stop playing politics with crucial economic issues, and cooperate to resolve them. The focus of the government and the Opposition must be on formulating a strategy to reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuel, which accounts for about 20% of national import expenditure. Curtailing the national fuel bill is half the battle in easing the country’s chronic balance of payment pressures and shoring up foreign currency reserves. Populist slogans and politically-driven ad hoc remedies will not help resolve the fuel crisis.

A country that does not strategise to achieve energy security cannot achieve economic development; it remains vulnerable to shocks, both internal and external, as evident from Sri Lanka’s experience in 2022, when a foreign currency crisis almost crippled the power and energy sectors, triggering political upheavals. The possibility of the country experiencing a similar situation either under the current dispensation or under a future government cannot be ruled out. It was a close call when the Iran war escalated, with global oil prices soaring, a few weeks ago. The current Opposition ought not to make the mistake of deriving perverse pleasure from the incumbent government’s predicament, making Machiavellian promises and calling for relief measures that are not feasible. The fuel crisis is likely to worsen under a future government, perhaps to the extent of making its leaders head for the hills. Hence, it will be in the best interests of the government, the Opposition and the public for a national action plan to be formulated, with the participation of all stakeholders, to ease the country’s dependence on fuel imports.

What Sri Lanka desperately needs to reduce its fossil fuel dependence significantly is a diversified approach combining renewables, biofuel, electrification and energy efficiency. Some progress has been made in expanding solar and wind power, but much more remains to be done. Renewable energy, which provides a reliable hedge against volatile global fuel prices, should constitute the core of any long-term strategy. Once installed, solar panels and wind turbines produce electricity without requiring imported fuel, but renewable energy technologies involve substantial initial investment and this has stood in the way of the expansion of renewable energy production. The government must secure financing without creating unsustainable debt burdens. International climate funds, concessional loans, and public-private partnerships may help bridge this financing gap, according to renewable energy experts. There are other factors that need to be addressed urgently to ensure energy sustainability. They include grid modernisation and the installation of energy storage systems, promoting energy efficiency in households, industries and public institutions, electrifying transport through promotion of electric vehicles and public transport systems.

It is hoped that the government and the Opposition will stop fighting over fuel prices and address the serious issues that threaten the country’s energy security and economic stability.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Some suspects “more equal”?

Published

on

Saturday 20th June, 2026

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has netted another senior state official. It arrested the General Manager (GM) of Lanka Salt Ltd., Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage Gunaratne yesterday for allegedly having caused a loss of approximately Rs. 14.3 million to the state and provided an undue advantage to a supplier by procuring Laklunu packaging for the Hambantota Salt Company through a re-order process in breach of procurement procedures.

Such action against state officials is certainly welcome, and all those who have enriched themselves through illegal means and/or caused losses to the state must be brought to justice. After all, that is the raison d’etre of the CIABOC.

On Thursday, the Central Crime Investigation Bureau (CCIB) arrested Sugeeshwara Bandara, who served as former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s private secretary. The arrest was made in connection with an ongoing investigation into allegations that Bandara drew two salaries from state institutions and thereby misappropriated public funds. Investigations have reportedly revealed that Bandara, while being Rajapaksa’s private secretary, held the position of Project Director at the Presidential Secretariat during the same period. The CCIB made Bandara’s arrest as dramatic as possible, perhaps to send a political message to other Opposition activists. Produced before court, Bandara was remanded.

Investigations should be conducted into alleged offences and credible evidence ascertained before suspects are arrested. Sri Lanka police often do it the other way around; they begin investigations and evidence gathering only after arresting and even detaining suspects. This deplorable practice is not of recent origin. The police acted in a similar manner during previous governments, which were bent on suppressing democratic dissent. The incumbent government came to power, promising a radical departure from that rotten political culture, but there has been no change.

The high-octane performance of the CIABOC and the police is curiously absent in situations where suspects happen to be cronies of the powers that be. How the CIABOC handled former Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody’s corruption case may serve as an example. The police stand accused of trotting out lame excuses for not arresting three JVP stalwarts involved in a forgery case. If they had been Opposition politicians, the CCIB itself would have swooped on them.

According to charges against Jayakody, while serving as the Manager of the Procurement and Import Division of the Ceylon Fertiliser Company, he committed an offence of corruption in 2016. He allegedly caused a loss of Rs. 8,859,708 to the state by influencing a procurement process for the benefit of a private company.

The CIABOC, which goes hell for leather to arrest suspects like Lanka Salt GM Gunaratne baulked at arresting Jayakody and hauling him up before court. Jayakody obtained bail immediately after being indicted.

Is it that all are equal before the law but JVP/NPP members are ‘more equal’ than others? The Opposition insists that no action has been taken regarding its complaints against Jayakody over a fraudulent coal procurement that has caused staggering losses amounting to billions of rupees to the state and led to an increase in diesel imports to operate oil-fired power plants and compensate for the generation loss at Norochcholai. One may recall that former Ministers Nalin Fernando and Mahindananda Aluthgamage have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment over losses suffered by the state due to irregularities in the procurement of carrom boards and checkers board in the run-up to the 2015 presidential election. Former North Central Province Chief Minister S. M. Ranjith and his secretary have been jailed for a fraud involving a fuel allowance.

It is our fervent hope that the CIABOC will become independent enough to treat members of the government and the Opposition equally.

Continue Reading

Trending