POETIC MEMORIES OF CHINA II: THE FLYING DRAGON
CONFESSIONS OF A GLOBAL GYPSY
By Dr. Chandana (Chandi) Jayawardena DPhil
President – Chandi J. Associates Inc. Consulting, Canada
Founder & Administrator – Global Hospitality Forum
An Opportunity to introduce Sri Lankan Cuisine to Hong Kong
In early 1981, from the post of Manager of one of the Walkers Tours/John Keells Hotels, I was promoted to the corporate office. I was the first Manager-Operations for Hotel Management and Marketing Services Limited, with some responsibility for all six hotels of the John Keells Group. At age 27, I was getting used to the corporate culture of the largest group of companies in Sri Lanka.
I was busy taking over the management of the Ceylinco Hotel, which became the seventh hotel of the group. In the midst of my busy schedule, my immediate superior, Bobby Adams, Director-Operations entrusted me at short notice, to travel to Hong Kong. He wanted me to quickly plan and organise a large Sri Lankan and Maldivian food festival at the Hotel Furama Inter•Continental.
It was an important two-week tourism promotional festival with partnership of a few organisations represented by: M. Y. M. Thahir for Walkers Tours, Pani Seneviratne for Ceylon Tourist Board and Ahamed Didi of Universal Resorts of the Maldives. The Inter•Continental Hotel Group, was expected to be represented by their Executive Chef in Colombo. The festival included 28 large
buffets for lunch and dinner over 14 days, promoting Sri Lankan cuisine and a few dishes from the Maldives. The Hotel Furama Inter•Continental had agreed to provide three cooks to assist the Guest Executive Chef representing Sri Lanka.
At the eleventh hour, the Executive Chef of Hotel Ceylon Inter•Continental had refused to take part, complaining that the support in Hong Kong is inadequate to produce 28 large buffets over 14 days. He wanted three Sri Lankan chefs from his brigade to be provided with air tickets to Hong Kong. That request was not accepted by Air Lanka, the airline sponsor of festival.
The reputation of Walkers Tours as the main organizer of the festival was at stake. Bobby asked me, “Chandi, we need someone like you to rise to the occasion. Can you please help the company?”. I planned the menus, calculated quantities of all ingredients and purchased a few key buffet decorations on the same day from Laksala, and took off on an Air Lanka flight to Hong Kong, the very next day.
My trip to Hong Kong in 1981
During the flight, I was thinking of my father’s advice given to me just before my trip. He said, “Chandana, try your best to do even a short trip to China, after the food festival. Future global tourism will be divided into two – China and the rest of the world! Don’t miss this opportunity.” My father was a visionary thinker and his predictions since his visit to China in 1958, were: “China one day will become the number one tourist destination in the world and China will also become the most powerful nation in the world.”
When I debated with him about his rationale for this prediction, he said that when many democratic countries in the world do their national master plans for a shorter period, China does 50-year master plans. China is not impacted by aspects such as general elections and change of political parties in power, as experienced in democratic nations.
The food festival was a big success. By the end of the two weeks, I was exhausted from cooking virtually all dishes for 28 buffets. My three Hong Kong Chinese assistants also worked very hard providing me support, but they were totally dependent on my final cooking. The experience I gained in Hong Kong was helpful in later years, when I organised four more large Sri Lankan food and culture festivals in Singapore, Oman, Guyana and Jamaica, as the Guest Executive Chef and Event Coordinator.
I was in Hong Kong for three weeks. My extra (non-cooking) seven days were spent on event planning, advance preparations, public relations and promotional events for the national TV in Hong Kong.
My trip to Macau and China in 1981
Finally, before leaving Hong Kong, I found two days to do a quick trip to Macau and Southern China. Compared to Hong Kong, Southern China, appeared to be totally underdeveloped in 1981. Nevertheless, I loved the experience of being one of the early tourists in China. In terms of Tourism in 1981, China was at a very early developmental stage, much behind small countries such as Sri Lanka.
My father was pleased and proud of me. Upon my return home, he had long chats with me about China, Macau and Hong Kong. He told me, “’I must go back to China to see if they are getting closer to the predictions, I made in 1958!” I felt that he was disappointed that he did not get an opportunity to re-visit China, for 23 years since his first visit.
Two More Trips to China in 1985 and 1987
Having retired from the Sri Lanka Administrative Service by the early 1980s, my father worked as a Consultant to the Chairman of Phoenix Advertising (Pvt) Ltd, a Company Director for Lanka Tiles and the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Ayurvedic Drugs Corporation. He continued to travel overseas for business purposes, but did not get another opportunity to travel to China. He was getting frustrated about it. One day in early 1985, on the spur of the moment, he decided to visit the Chinese Embassy in Colombo, with a copy of his 1963 book, Cheena Charika (Travels in China). He showed the book to the Deputy Ambassador and narrated stories about his memorable trip to China in 1958. He also told them that he would love to visit China again to see the development in the areas he visited 27 years ago. My father had a gentle persuasive personality.
A week later my father was invited to have tea with the Ambassador for China. During tea, my father was given the good news. The Chinese Government had invited my father to travel around China for three weeks as a special guest of the Chinese Government, on a fully paid trip. They honoured my father for being one of the first foreigners to write a book about the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
In addition to re-visiting most of the cities and attractions he visited in 1958, my father was able to visit places of importance related to visual arts during his second trip to China in 1985. It was evident that he especially valued the opportunity to get some art lessons at the famous Shanghai School of Art. Years later, my father published the following poem about that productive visit.
Some skilful strokes
with a bamboo brush
on a sheet of rice paper
and stamping it in red
with his signature seal
the Chinese painter says:
“Let this painting be
the memento of your visit
to the Shanghai School of Art.”
I thank him and wonder why
salient features of the landscape
are not in the painting.
Reading my mind
his response was quick:
“What is most important
In a work of art is what
The artist chooses to leave out.”
And that advice has been my guide
every time I tried to paint or write.
(R. D. K. Jayawardena, 2008, p. 15, Fingerprint, Sarasavi Bookshop (Pvt) Ltd, Nugegoda)
My father was an excellent landscape artist. After his art lessons at the Shanghai School of Art in 1985, he tried simplistic black and white drawings, in addition to his China-inspired landscapes in oil paint. As my life-long mentor and art teacher, he continued to give me lessons on visual art on new techniques he was mastering. As a semi-professional artist, I benefited tremendously from my father’s passion for arts and his ability to teach all forms of art.
In mid-1980s, my father was invited to help a friend of his, Minister Gamini Jayasuriya. He assisted the minister and worked as the Coordinating Secretary for the Ministry of Health, Agricultural Development, Food and Co-operatives. In that capacity he traveled to China again in 1987, representing Sri Lanka at the World Food Council meeting in Beijing. He used that opportunity to travel around China, once more.
Three more Trips to a changing Hong Kong
In 1991, I was able to arrange a Management Observer period at then the best hotel in the world – the Regent of Hong Kong. I was proud to hear that the resident band of this great hotel was the well-known Sri Lankan band, The Jetliners. My friends Tony Fernando and Mignonne Fernando (Band Manager and the Lead Singer) arranged my assignment.
A year later, in 1992, I returned to Hong Kong to present a case study from Sri Lanka at the Pacific Asia Regional Tourism Education Forum, organised by the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) and an agency of the United Nations – the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO). I was proud to meet two Sri Lankans leading PATA at that time – Lakshman Ratnapala, President & CEO and Renton De Alwis, Vice President – Asia.
I returned to Hong Kong in 2001, to present a case study from the Caribbean. This was at the International Hospitality Industry Evolution Conference, organised by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Cornell University, USA. On this fourth visit, I felt the changing political climate of Hong Kong. In time to come, I will narrate fun stories from my trips to Hong Kong in chronological order in this column.
My memorable trip to
China in 2010
In 2010, l was asked by my then employer, George Brown College, Toronto, Canada (where I worked as a dean), to spend three weeks in China on work assignments. Two members of my team of professors accompanied me. Our work was mainly at the Guilin University of Technology, with whom, George Brown College had an educational pathway agreement. In time to come, I will provide more stories about this memorable trip, in this column.
When I stayed in Shanghai for some education partnership work, I took a couple of days off to attend the largest exhibition I had ever seen (EXPO 2010). The train I took from Shanghai city centre to the exhibition ground was also memorable.
It was easily the fastest, the cleanest and the most efficiently operated train ride I experienced during all my travels around the world. The most memorable experience I had in China was a day excursion on the mystic Li River and ending the day by watching a fully choreographed show staged on the banks and in the water of Li River for an audience of 4,000 spectators. This show, ‘Impression Liu Sanjie’ by director Zhang Yimou is a local tourist attraction. The show is the world’s biggest natural auditorium that uses Li River waters as its stage, with its backdrop to be twelve mist-enveloped hills.
On my return to Canada, I could not stop dreaming about the mystic hills, the beautiful Li River and the fascinating show in Guilin. Inspired by my Chinese tourist experiences, I completed a series of Li River paintings. The largest of this series was purchased by the President of George Brown College, during a fund-raising art show I did in Toronto in 2010. This art exhibition, ‘Century ½ – 50 years in Art’, was presented by George Brown College’s School of Design to raise money for student scholarships.
First Art Lesson
A guiding hand
Taught me to walk
Talk and read
Then to paint
A little kid
In a tropical zoo
A first-time wonderer
Amazing big animals!
“Paint what you see”
“Pen what you feel”
Still useful, decades later
“Use less paint”
“Be gentle with the brush”
Critical, as ever
During my last meeting
Lessons in life and art
From my first visit to the zoo
To the final lesson from my father
My last meeting with my father was in 2020, in Colombo a few months before he passed away at nearly 99 years of age. We discussed many things that were important to him – my three children, visual art, poetry and China. He repeated his 1958 and 1981 predictions, again, “China one day will become the number one tourist destination in the world and China will also become the most powerful nation in the world.”
Today, China has climbed to the number four slot in the world of Tourism (after USA, Spain and Italy) and has become the second most powerful nation in the world after USA. I think that my father’s prediction will become a fact during my lifetime. International criticism about China’s behaviour is ever growing. The list includes poor record of human rights, religious freedom, handling of prolonging conflict in Tibet, handling of protests in Hong Kong, lack of respect for the Law of the Sea, indirect colonisation via massive developmental projects with 99-year rights, environmental pollution, cyber warfare and honesty about COVID-19. In spite of all these black marks as a bad global actor, the Dragon is Flying Higher. Meanwhile, my curiosity and fascination over China continues…
Singarasa Case should guide GoSL’s Geneva policy
BY Dharshan Weerasekera
In 2005, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court ruled in the seminal case Singarasa v. Attorney General (SC/SPLA/182/99) that the U.N. Human Rights Commission (the predecessor of today’s U.N. Human Rights Council) did not have jurisdiction, within Sri Lanka, to make recommendations on behalf of the petitioner. In doing so, the court decided that Sri Lanka’s accession to the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1997 had been done in a manner contrary to the Constitution, and hence illegal.
This case has invaluable lessons to teach in regard to the present government’s ‘Geneva Policy.’ By ‘Geneva Policy,’ I mean the government’s stance to the UNHRC’s follow-up resolutions to Sri Lanka’s unilateral withdrawal, in March 2020, from the co-sponsorship of Resolution 30/1 of October 2015. In response, the Council adopted Resolution Resolution than 30/1. Among other things, it establishes an evidence-gathering mechanism to collect evidence of war crimes and other crimes against Sri Lankans.
Meanwhile, in September 2022, the High Commissioner released a report on Sri Lanka’s progress in implementing the recommendations of Resolution 46/1. The government has officially rejected both, Resolution 46/1 and the High Commissioner’s report, on grounds that they were done without Sri Lanka’s consent and, therefore, contrary to the founding principles of the Council. (See A/HRC/51/G/1, paras 1.1, 1.2). However, the Foreign Ministry, in its response, lists various things that the government is doing to comply with Resolution 46/1.
I argue that the government, continuing to comply with the Resolution while, at the same time, rejecting it in principle, without first obtaining a definitive interpretation of the relevant legal position, from an international forum, or even the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, creates a dangerous precedent. Given the fact that state practice is one of the sources of customary international law, the government’s conduct has the potential to do irreparable harm to the long-term interests of the country.
Unfortunately, there is little, or no, discussion of these issues in local newspapers, and academic journals, and it is in the public interest to start one. In this article, I shall discuss: i) the facts and reasoning of the Singarasa judgment, ii) the High Commissioner’s report and the government’s reply, iii) assess of the government’s position, and draw the relevant conclusions.
The Singarasa case
In 1991, the High Court of Colombo convicted Singarasa of five charges, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The charges dealt with alleged attempts by Singarasa, and others, to attack the Army camps,in Jaffna and its suburbs. Singarasa appealed against the conviction to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court. He also complained to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The HRC could entertain petitions under the Optional Protocol to ICCPR. Sri Lanka had ratified the ICCPR, in 1980, and acceded to the protocol, in 1997. The HRC said that, Sri Lanka was under obligation to release Singarasa.
The main issue, in this case, is whether Sri Lanka’s accession to the ICCPR, and the related protocol, gives a right to an international body to intervene in the domestic sphere to determine Singarasa’s fate. The court answers ‘no,’ because of the following reasons. The court starts with the premise that the authority for the President to enter into international agreements comes from Article 33(f) of the Constitution. Article 33(f) states: “To do all such acts as, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution…he is required or authorized to do.” It follows that the President cannot agree to anything inconsistent with the Constitution.
The court then assesses the signing of the ICCPR, in 1980, and the subsequent accession to the optional protocol, in 1997, separately. The court points out that the ICCPR requires that the respective signatories adopt domestic legislation to implement the provisions of the covenant. This does not conflict with our Constitution and hence is lawful.
However, when acceding to the optional protocol, the government had issued a declaration that envisioned that the rights of Sri Lankan citizens could be adjudicated in tribunals, and forums, outside this country. The court points out that the institutions, through which Sri Lankans can vindicate their rights, within this country, are exhaustively set out in Article 105 of the Constitution, and the HRC is not one of them. Therefore, the court deems the accession to the optional protocol illegal. The court states:
“Where the President enters into a treaty or accedes to a covenant the content of which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law it would be a transgression of the limitation in Article 33 (f) and ultra vires—such acts of the President would not bind the Republic qua State.” (p. 11)
The High Commissioner’s report and the Government’s reply
The most disturbing aspect of the High Commissioner’s report is its description of the progress made by the impugned evidence-gathering mechanism. It states: “OHCHR continues to develop the information and evidence repository using an e-discovery platform….OHCHR commenced identifying material held by other actors and engaging with information providers. To date, the databases of two organisations have been migrated into the repository, and negotiations with other information providers are ongoing.” ((A/HRC/51/5, 4th October 2022, para 54.)
The report also details what the OHCHR plans to do with this information. It says: “To develop possible strategies for future accountability processes, the project team started mapping potential accountability process at international level, including through consultations with relevant stakeholders, in particular national authorities, victims and civil society organisations.” (para 56.)
In sum, it is clear that a vast operation is underway, not just to collect evidence against Sri Lanka but to set the groundwork to help prosecute Sri Lankans before various national and international forums. To the best of my knowledge, the founding statutes of the UNHRC, as well as the OHCHR, do not give enforcement capabilities to these institutions to prosecute or assist in the prosecution of people for violations of human rights and other offences.
Their respective mandates to protect and promote human rights are to be carried out with the consent of all nations concerned and in a spirit of “cooperation and constructive international dialogue.” Therefore, through the impugned mechanism the OHCHR has now arguably expanded its mandate to include an enforcement component, seemingly without any debate or discussion of the matter before the Council.
To turn to the government’s response, in the introductory paragraphs of the said document, the government rejects both resolution 46/1 as well as the High Commissioner’s report on grounds that they violate the UN’s founding principles. However, for much of the remainder of the report (which runs to 16 pages) the government enumerates the various things it has been doing to implement various provisions of the resolutions. For instance, the government discusses the work being done under the Office on Missing Persons, Office for Reparations, and so on.
On the OMP, the report states inter alia: “The OMP conducted panels of inquiries as part of the verification process. More than 89% of persons (1207 of 1370 applicants invited for inquiries) met with members of the panel and their testimonials were recorded.” (A/HRC/51/G/1, 9th September 2022, para 46)
Meanwhile, on the Office for Reparations, the report says, “The office processed 5964 claims for payment, by the end of 2021, and paid a sum of Rs. 399.8 million in settlement, out of the allocated sum of Rs. 800 million….Upto the end of 2022, the OR received Rs. 226 million to pay compensation and 2097 claims were settled utilizing Rs. 153 million.” (para 56)
In sum, even though the government has nominally rejected resolution 46/1 and by extension resolution 30/1 as well, the government is expending great energy, including enormous sums of money, to comply with various provisions of those resolutions.
Assessment of the policy
The Singarasa case establishes that the President, when conducting foreign policy, is exercising the power conferred under Article 33 (f) of the Constitution. One cannot suppose that it is consistent with the Constitution to comply with the provisions of a resolution that the Government itself considers to be in violation of the founding principles of the UNHRC.
Admittedly, a resolution of the UNHRC does not rise to the level of a treaty or covenant. However, there should now be a serious debate in this country about whether the reasoning above should apply to such resolutions which continue to target Sri Lanka on the world stage.
Furthermore, if, as I have suggested, the OHCHR has expanded its mandate by exploiting the provisions of Resolution 46/1 to acquire capabilities that were never envisioned in the relevant founding statutes, permitting such conduct to continue has the potential to set precedents in customary international law, with grave consequences for Sri Lanka, as well as other nations.
Therefore, Sri Lankan citizens are entitled to know the legal basis for the government’s continued compliance with provisions of Resolution 46/1, while nominally rejecting the Resolution. The only institution that can provide a legal opinion binding on the government is the Supreme Court. The President has the capacity, under Article 129 of the Constitution, to request an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any matter of public importance.
In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the government to seek an advisory opinion as to whether it is lawful for the government to continue complying with provisions of Resolution 46/1 unless and until the UNHRC clarifies its position in regard to the impugned mechanism.
It is in the interest of all Sri Lankans to keep a close eye on what the government is presently doing in Geneva. There is a famous legal maxim that says, “The laws assist the vigilant, not the sleepy.” Ultimately, it is the Sri Lankan people who will pay the price for any mistakes or missteps that successive governments make in regard to their “Geneva Policy.’
(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law)
Human Papillomavirus vaccine: one that can prevent a cancer
This article has been written as a fervent plea to the parents of little girls of the eligible age group. Please make sure that your precious daughters get this vaccine. It will be an investment for their happiness in the future.
By Dr B. J. C. Perera
All vaccines by definition are substances that are used to stimulate immunity against a particular infectious disease or a specific causative organism. Such vaccines are used to prevent the occurrence of the said diseases in humans and animals. Several vaccines have been introduced to combat such infectious diseases over the last few decades. In some countries, the use of some of these vaccines has led to the elimination of dreaded diseases like Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough or Pertussis, Polio, Measles, German Measles or Rubella, just to name a few.
Sri Lanka has a very efficient and inherently equitable system that looks after the Expanded Programme of Immunisation (EPI) for children and young people. In general, we have been extremely successful in this programme and can boast of over 90 per cent coverage for the vaccination of all children. We have successfully eliminated polio, the last case being confirmed as far back as 1993, and we are free of diphtheria, tetanus, measles and German measles or rubella. The success of the EPI is due to many factors that include government commitment, the unstinted dedication of parents, the promotion of the programme through all media channels and the dedicated work of all grades of healthcare personnel. The very high literacy rate of the populace of our country enables all information regarding vaccination to be most conveniently conveyed to the population. Sri Lanka has been hailed as a country that has achieved so much in this field, but with so few resources. It has been cited as a model to the entire Asian region as well as even the world.
In addition to their undoubted effectiveness in protecting against infective microorganisms, some of these vaccines have other bonus effects. At least two of the vaccines in use today have telling effects in preventing certain cancers. One is the Hepatitis B vaccine. It provides protection against liver cancer. The other is the more recent Human Papillomavirus vaccine (HPV vaccine) which protects females against cancer of the neck of the womb, which is also referred to as the cervix of the womb. That disease is generally referred to as Cervical Cancer.
The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is sexually transmitted and most people become infected sometime during their lifetime. In the majority, it is soon after becoming sexually active. Most infections are asymptomatic and usually clear up spontaneously, accounting for remission in 90% within two years. Only 10% of persistent HPV infections with certain genotypes of HPV can persist and progress to changes in the cervix. If infection from cancer-causing HPV types persists over 10-15 years, women can go on to develop precancerous lesions that, if left untreated, develop into cervical cancer. This process takes an average of 20-30 years from infection to the development of cervical cancer.
In 1995, Dr Anne Szarewski, a renowned researcher from the United Kingdom, led a team who outlined the role of human papillomavirus in uterine cervical cancer detection and screening. Then the researchers began work on an HPV vaccine. Szarewski was also a chief investigator, principal investigator and author of key HPV vaccine trials and publications, who helped to develop the bivalent HPV vaccine. The word bivalent is used to indicate that it contains two strains of HPV. HPV infections are very common, often with minimal symptoms, but high-risk HPV strains can go on to cause other medical conditions, particularly cervical cancer.
In 2006, the first vaccine for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) to be used globally was approved. HPV vaccination has now gone on to become a key part of the effort to eliminate cervical cancer. According to the available research results, HPV vaccination could reduce the lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 35–80%; the rather wide range being due to several studies with different methods. The vaccine was initially promptly snapped up in the West, especially in the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden, the coverage of the vaccine is over 80 per cent. However, according to the data put out by the World Health Organization (WHO) in November 2022, the human papillomavirus vaccine against cervical cancer has been introduced in just 41 per cent of low-income countries, even though they represent much of the disease burden, compared to 83% of high-income countries. We have a set of 10-year data on the benefits of the vaccine and in certain Western countries, a significant drop in the morbidity and mortality rates of cervical cancer is already evident.
In Sri Lanka, the National Vaccine Summit in January 2015 recommended the usage of the HPV vaccine and the government introduced it in 2017 for girls within the age range of 10 to 13 years. That age group was decided on the premise that to get the best results, we need to introduce the vaccine before sexual activity starts. The vaccine was to be administered to the selected age groups in the schools free of charge and in the fee-levying private sector. To date, the vaccine is not available through the Immunisation Clinics of the Provinces and the MOH Clinics.
NOW HERE IS THE REAL CRUX OF THE MATTER. For a variety of reasons, the coverage of the HPV vaccine in the entire cohort of eligible girls in Sri Lanka is somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent. This is woefully inadequate coverage to get the best possible results, especially when looked upon in the light of over 90 per cent coverage of the other vaccines in the National Expanded Programme of Immunisation. Cervical cancer ranks among the five commonest cancers in women in Sri Lanka. HPV vaccine is just one of two vaccines that can prevent cancers. All children have had the Hepatitis B vaccine which protects against liver cancer, as it is given through the National Programme of Immunisation. But, and this is a BIG BUT, the only other vaccine, the HPV vaccine that can prevent cervical cancer, shows a rather low uptake.
We do need to escalate the uptake rate of the HPV vaccine to at least around 80 per cent to get reasonable benefits in the reduction of the morbidity and mortality that is currently seen in cervical cancer. I think we have to admit that due to very many reasons, the message has not gone through to the general population in the country. When inquiries are made from the mothers of eligible girls, the vast majority of them are not even aware of the existence of this vaccine and more importantly, the future beneficial potential of this endeavour. The age group selected is a rather tricky cohort. They get upset at the drop of a hat. The last thing they want is an injection. They will run away, as fast as possible, to avoid it. Some are so frightened that it is not uncommon to see them faint even at the sight of the syringe and the needle. One way of getting the cooperation of these little girls is to allow either the mother or the father to be present to hold her hand most reassuringly when the vaccine is administered. An additional initiative would be to make it widely available through the Immunisation Clinics for it to be administered to all those who have missed it when it was given in the school. This is particularly important as the vaccine is quite expensive when administered in the private sector.
Latest position on debt restructuring process
By Jayampathy Molligoda
According to the announcement made by the Managing Director of the IMF Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF Executive board meeting will be held on 20 March to consider and hopefully approve the EFF arrangement for Sri Lanka. In the meantime, the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank in consultation with IMF have finalised the latest position of Sri Lanka’s Public Debt as at end 2022 just prior to commencement of debt restructuring negotiations with creditors. Having perused the document uploaded to the Ministry of Finance (MOF website) recently, which is a comprehensive summary of debt stock as at end 2022, I have tabulated the summary of the main facts and figures (See Table). As can be seen, the total public debt stock has skyrocketed to US $ 83.6 billion, which includes total foreign debt of US$ 45.6 billion and the local debt of 38 billion in US $ equivalent. The total debt as a % of GDP as stated in the above MOF doc is 128%. The public debt is expected be reduced to 100% of GDP in order to ensure debt sustainability in line with IMF supported program parameters coupled with ‘comparability of treatment principle’ whilst ensuring equitable burden sharing for all restructured debt.
However, I have my doubts about GDP computation here. As per the MOF doc page 1, the Nominal GDP was stated as Rs. 23.7 trillion for the year 2022. The $ exchange rate used for conversion as Rs.363.10 clearly indicating that it is the year end figure, they have taken the year end Exchange rate of Rs 363.10 per US$. It is pertinent to ask the question as to why ‘year- end exchange rate’ figure to convert our annual GDP in rupee to US dollars? It should have been the ‘average exchange rate’ as in the past so many years computed by CBSL. As a result, the GDP (in US$ terms) works out to US$ 65.2 billion only. That’s why the total public debt stock of US$ 83.6 billion works out to 128% of GDP – my initial query is; why did they take year-end figure of Rs363.10 instead of taking the average exchange rate?
Besides, the real critical issue is how to reduce the debt stock to a level of 100% of GDP in the context of declining GDP (- 7.8% in 2022) and on the other hand, our debt stock is on the rise. More importantly, if we take the total ‘multilateral debt’ out, then the foreign debt is US $ 34 billion only, which includes ISBs and bilateral loans. Assuming a higher ‘haircut’ of 33% for foreign debt is agreed upon, it works out to 11 billion thus reducing the total public debt to 73 billion only.
In this regard, The President in his latest open letter dated 14 March ‘23 to Sri Lanka’s official Bilateral creditors has clearly indicated that there will be equitable treatment of burden sharing in respect of all creditors (except IMF/WB/ADB) Quote; ” ..we reiterate our commitment to a comparable treatment of all our external creditors with a view to ensuring all round equitable burden sharing for all restructured debt. To that end, we will not conclude debt treatment agreements with any official bilateral creditor or any commercial creditors or any group of such creditors on terms more favourable than those agreed. …To this end we also confirm that we have not and we will not make any side agreements with any creditor aimed at reducing the debt treatment impact on that creditor.”
In the circumstances, my own view is we are reluctantly compelled to restructure local debt i.e.; TBs and, it is inevitable that the local debt of USD equivalent of 38 billion would also need to be taken into consideration for debt restructuring – otherwise there is no way of reducing the total public debt stock to the level that is required as per IMF conditions. This would create a serious issue for our ‘finance system stability’ and all our commercial banks will be in trouble. Further the deposit holders including pension funds are badly affected. The temperature of social unrest is brought closer to the boiling point.
As stated in the global research article by Jonathan Manz recently, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank, and Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz, has slammed the IMF for unleashing riots on nations the IMF is dealing with; he has pointed out that the riots are written into the IMF plan to force nations to agree with the average 111 conditions laid down by the IMF and they destroy a country’s democracy and independence. He has been a critique of IMF causing great damage to countries through the economic policies it has prescribed countries to follow in order to qualify for IMF loans. However, neither Stiglitz nor any other eminent economist has yet to come out with a practical and alternative policy framework to overcome the most serious economic and financial crisis faced in the 75 years of Sri Lanka’s independence.
EU agrees to send Ukraine one million artillery shells
Dominant Delhi Capitals dethrone Mumbai Indians from top spot
SRI LANKA RECEIVES IMF EXECUTIVE BOARD APPROVAL FOR THE EXTENDED FUND FACILITY (EFF) ARRANGEMENT
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
U.S. Congress to probe assets fleecing by US citizens of Sri Lankan origin
Sports6 days ago
Dickwella – a monster the selectors created
News7 days ago
LG polls: Cardinal asks Prez to abide by SC order
Opinion7 days ago
Tear gas: More than Tears
Editorial7 days ago
Canker of clientelism
News7 days ago
Funds not released despite SC order Govt. intensifies campaign against LG polls
Features4 days ago
Earth’s Greatest Rivalry
Breaking News5 days ago
Credit Suisse slump renews fears of global banking crisis
News7 days ago
Sri Lanka adopting new economic model: CBSL Chief