Connect with us

Editorial

The ‘new normal’ budget

Published

on

The run-up to the 2021 budget which Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, wearing his finance minister’s hat, presented to parliament last week was obviously “new normal” as the post-covid minted cliché goes. There was no dramatic build-up to it with people rushing to buy vehicles, electronics, appliances or whatever as was often the rumor-fuelled case in the past. As has been inevitable in every past budget in the medium, if not the long term, the price of arrack and cigarettes routinely thrashed with a price stick, will go up once more. But nobody knows by how much and smokers and imbibers continue to pay the old price for their bad habits. But they have the certain knowledge that Christmas will soon be over on the authority of the budget speech.

This 2021 budget was crafted, as Dr. Dushni Weerakoon, head of the Institute of Policy Studies, said in a post-budget commentary, “under an exceptional level of uncertainty.” Obviously the crisis measures now in force will remain with us for a long time and it will be unrealistic to assume that fiscal policy will revert to its “pre-crisis setting anytime soon.” This must influence both spending priorities and what Weerakoon called “the slow burn scenario for revenue generation.” It is common knowledge that revenue has already slumped, and not only because of covid and its consequences. Assurances of boosting the country’s growth rate and narrowing the budget deficit, which has for too long burdened the country’s fiscal policy as well as its macro economy, have been repeated. These are old stories that have been heard before and few will buy them.

A persistent criticism of the budget is that it did not say enough about how the government is going to deal with the covid crisis, and the consequences arising from it, by taking the people into its confidence. This, more than all else, is the greatest danger confronting not only Sri Lanka but also the whole world. Neighboring countries is South Asia, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, have been much more transparent than we with Pakistan even going as far as labeling her next year’s budget as a “covid budget.” Former Central Bank Governor Nivard Cabraal, now the deputy in the finance ministry, who will be the key speaker for the government in the budget debate, has already said at one of the regular remotely held post-budget seminars that the timing was not right for declaring a covid-19 austerity year. But belt-tightening all round will be inevitable. Protecting the very large numbers of daily wage earners and others deprived of their livelihoods by the present crisis must remain high priority. Money printing alone to tide over cannot be the solution. Budgetary provision would have been appropriate.

There was a lot of old wine in new bottles in the 2021 budget speech including self-serving (or should we say government politician serving) measures announced. One of these is the raising of the private sector retiring age to 60-years for both men and women. Currently women working for private employers can retire at 50-years of age and men at 55 and gain access to their EPF benefits. Now both genders will have to wait longer – as many as 10 years in the case of women and five where men are concerned. There is no need to labour the harsh reality that the EPF is the only social security net that private sector workers have for their retirement. Government servants have had their pension benefits from colonial times, a cushion that served them well over a long period and a major attraction of a government job.

This raising of the retirement age of private sector employees also has the undisclosed benefit for the government of slowing EPF payouts and enhancing available funds for government borrowing. We all know that the EPF is the major captive lender to the government and the billions or trillions in its books is always on call for government expenditure. Given the overload of foreign borrowing that has long burdened this country and made the possibility of repayment default an ever-growing risk, postponing the payout of a looked forward to EPF nest egg to private sector employees, confers a substantial benefit on big brother. The private sector generally did not enforce the minimum retirement age rule but allowed employees to formally retire and gain access to their EPF with the assurance of an employment contract to keep them in harness post-retirement.

Let us not forget previous efforts made to convert the EPF to a pension fund that was abandoned due to massive resistance. Even if these attempts succeeded, the new pensioners paid from a contributory scheme – both employer and employee make monthly contributions to the EPF – would not have received the same benefits as their government counterparts enjoying non-contributory pensions. These matters, no doubt, will be raised during the ongoing budget debate which has been abbreviated because of the covid issue. It has up to now been lacklustre with the press and public galleries closed when the prime minister made his budget speech, a necessary precaution in the present context. But it has elicited, as budget debates must do, matters of widespread public interest. One of these relates to Dr. Anil Jasinghe, the previous Director General of Health who was highly regarded for his leadership in handling of the covid emergency. Health Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi told parliament on Thursday that Jasinghe, currently Secretary Environment, was now attending covid meetings at her ministry. That sounded apologetic to most people not appeased by the suggestion that ‘kicking him upstairs’ was just a promotion issue.

It is clear from the budget that policies of curtailing inessential imports and import substitution would continue and a conscious effort appears to have been made not to heap new burdens on ordinary people for revenue reasons. But the impact of the Goods and Services Tax that has been announced have not yet emerged. It is unlikely that this will not leave people altogether unscathed. And that too not only with regard to their booze and fags.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Prez in the dock

Published

on

The US has acted decisively to rein in a runaway Executive, as it were. The House of Representatives has passed a resolution curbing President Donald Trump’s powers to attack Iran without congressional authorisation. Four Republicans joined Democrats to ensure the passage of the landmark bill in a vote of 215 to 208. However, the actual enforcement of this legislative measure will have to clear several hurdles, with the White House remaining determined to undermine it. But the Congress’s message to Trump is loud and clear. The War Powers resolution is bound to hang like the sword of Damocles above Trump’s head. The congressional action to keep the Executive in check is proof of institutional robustness, which helps safeguard the separation of powers, among other things, in the US.

Sadly, in Sri Lanka it is virtually impossible to restrain the Executive President, especially when his or her party has control over the legislature. The subservience of Parliament to the President largely owing to the numerical inferiority of the Opposition has created a situation where civil society organisations and professional associations have to lead a countervailing force against the Executive and help protect democracy.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association (CHCLA) have moved in to bolster the ongoing efforts to frustrate a questionable government bid to increase the retirement ages of the judges of the Superior Courts arbitrarily. They have issued well-reasoned statements opposing the proposed move.

Pointing out that the retirement ages of the judges of the Court of Appeal (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) have been constitutionally fixed at 63 and 65, respectively, the two associations have very convincingly demolished all arguments for the proposed government move, stressing the need for the Executive to act with restraint. The Opposition has also put forth cogent arguments against the government bid at issue. Former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris was perhaps the first to take up the issue and alert the public, and galvanise the lawyers’ associations, etc., into putting up stiff resistance.

The proposed move to extend the retirement ages of CA and SC judges has come as a surprise because there is no dearth of qualified judicial officers in this country. What the government ought to do urgently is to take action to fill all existing judicial vacancies, the CHCLA has said, pointing out that any attempt by the Executive or the Legislature to amend the constitutional provisions governing the retirement of judges, without a compelling rationale and without following the prescribed process, would constitute “an act of the gravest constitutional impropriety”.

It has warned that “the impact of an upward revision of the retirement ages of Judges of the Superior Courts will produce “immediate, concrete, and deeply unjust consequences for the dedicated officers of the Judicial Service of Sri Lanka, who have devoted their professional lives to the service of the administration of justice”. It goes on to argue that the proposed extension of the retirement ages of the Superior Court judges, in the absence of any transparent, constitutionally grounded, and publicly articulated justification could risk “the public perception that the Executive seeks to secure the continued service of particular Judges whose disposition may be regarded as favourable to the interests of the State in litigation before the Superior Courts”.

It is also deeply troubling that the proposed government move smacks of a sinister attempt to undermine the doctrine of the separation of powers. Having come to power, promising to abolish the executive presidency, the JVP/NPP should be ashamed of its deplorable attempts to enhance the executive powers of the President through questionable means. It has made a mockery of its commitment to upholding the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.

The government has chosen to remain silent on questions being raised about its deplorable move at issue. The only way President Anura Kumara Dissanayake can put the matter to rest is to do the following, as requested by the CHCLA: immediately withdraw and abandon the proposal to enhance the retirement age of the judges of the CA and the SC; direct the competent constitutional authorities to take immediate and decisive steps to fill all existing vacancies in the Superior Courts in accordance with the constitutional process and without further delay; affirm, by word and by deed, the government’s unequivocal commitment to the independence of the judiciary as guaranteed by the Constitution of Sri Lanka, and to the full and faithful observance of the constitutional provisions governing the tenure and conditions of service of the Judges of the Superior Courts, and engage the legal profession, the Judicial Service Commission, and other relevant stakeholders in any future discussion of matters affecting the judiciary, in a spirit of transparency, constitutionalism, and mutual respect for the rule of law. The BASL has also asked the President to deep-six any plan to raise the retirement ages of the judges of the Superior Courts and help preserve the integrity, independence and dignity of the judiciary and reinforce public confidence in the judicial service.

An immediate course correction, in line with the fervent appeals of legal professionals, is the least President Dissanayake can do to dispel the public perception that he too has failed to resist the autocratic tendencies embedded in the executive presidency.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Beyond tragedy that shook the nation’s conscience

Published

on

Saturday 6th June, 2026

Tuesday’s tragedy at Anguruwatota, where a fire engulfed an elders’ home, claiming 13 lives and seriously injuring several others, has shaken the conscience of the nation. Equally shocking are the allegations that the residents of the care centre had been mistreated; among them were persons with disabilities, and some of them had been restrained with chains, according to eyewitnesses. The police have said they found the charred body of a resident in chains. It has now been revealed that the care home was not registered. The question is why the authorities did not take any legal action against it.

The Director of the gutted elders’ home has been remanded and the police will press charges against him. However, the Anguruwatota tragedy is not a problem that should be addressed in isolation. It should be examined in the context of a wider socio-economic issue.

There are other elders’ homes across the country, and they number about 250, according to media reports. They are run by a mix of government institutions, provincial councils, religious organisations, NGOs, and private operators. Some of them are reportedly under-resourced, and poorly-regulated. These institutions can accommodate only a fraction of the country’s elderly population needing assistance. Most of them, however, are basic residential care facilities rather than fully developed geriatric care centres, often functioning more as shelters than as medically supported long-term care institutions, which the country badly needs.

Sri Lanka has already reached a rapidly ageing phase of its demographic transition, with the proportion of citizens above 60 years increasing. About 18 out of every 100 Sri Lankans are aged 60 or above. This proportion has risen sharply from about 12.4% in 2012. It is doubtful whether successive governments have addressed this issue adequately, much less formulated a strategy to face challenges arising from an ageing population. This shift has placed increasing pressure on many families that are struggling to make ends meet and therefore cannot provide full-time care for their elderly members and relatives. Hence the need for policymakers to intensify their focus on structured elderly care for those without family support or social security.

While action is taken to ensure that the existing elders’ homes are run properly, it is incumbent upon policymakers to devise ways and means of facing the problems associated with an ageing population. Experts have pointed out that a national elderly care strategy to address these issues need to integrate several components. First, it should strengthen community-based care models that allow elders to remain in their homes for as long as possible, supported by home visits, mobile health services, and social workers. Second, it should develop a graded system of care homes, ranging from basic shelters to medically supported nursing facilities, all under proper regulatory supervision. It was a chronic lack of oversight and poor regulation that led to the Anguruwatota tragedy. Third, local government authorities should be formally involved in identifying vulnerable elders, coordinating welfare benefits, and ensuring minimum care standards at community level. Fourth, financial protection mechanisms such as social pensions, subsidised care, and public-private partnerships should be expanded to reduce the burden on low-income families.

It is hoped that Tuesday’s tragedy will jolt politicians and policymakers into addressing the long-felt need for a coherent national strategy to enable the elderly to spend their twilight years in comfort and dignity.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Emperor’s new clothes

Published

on

Friday 5th June, 2026

The Opposition’s propaganda mill is in overdrive, manufacturing various stories about a split in the JVP-NPP government. Mighty governments collapse not because their political enemies regain lost ground and turn the tables on them. They fall largely because the arrogance of power blinds their leaders to reality while their members dare not speak truth to power. Government members sing hosannas to their leaders and even defend the latter’s wrongdoing, committing collective political hara-kiri in the process. The incumbent JVP-NPP government has its fair share of acolytes who try to defend the indefensible.

Former Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekera (SW), in his response to a recent editorial in this newspaper, has sought to lay the blame for the failure of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) government on others. In his letter published on the opposite page, today, he insists that the Rajapaksas had the national interest at heart. He implies that they never engaged in dynastic politics, and the 2022 economic crisis was due to factors other than the mismanagement of the economy.

The economy went into a tailspin during the GR government not solely due to the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic and the repayment of foreign loans obtained by the Yahapalana government. Economists have pointed out that the pandemic did not cause bankruptcy on its own, but it acted as a major trigger that exposed pre-existing weaknesses such as high debt, weak foreign reserves, and overdependence on exports and tourism. All governments pay back loans obtained by their predecessors.

The GR government should have sought IMF help at the first signs of trouble. One may recall that acting on Central Bank (CB) advice, the Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) government (2005-2010) secured IMF assistance and managed an emerging forex crisis, which would have derailed the war effort. If the GR government had heeded CB advice and taken action to increase tax revenue and shore up the country’s foreign currency reserves with IMF help, the 2022 economic crisis could have been averted.

Sri Lanka had to opt for a soft default and seek IMF assistance in 2022. The choice it had was between a soft default and a hard default, which would have ruined its chances of borrowing from external sources again. Sri Lanka was bankrupt, and that fact had to be announced.

The UPFA and SLPP administrations during MR’s second presidential term (2010-2015) and GR’s presidency (2019-2022) were in fact governments of the Rajapaksas by the Rajapaksas for the Rajapaksas. In the GR government, the number of key ministries held by the Rajapaksas increased to five. The share of government expenditure linked to the ministries controlled by them was more than 50% between 2010 and 2015 and between 2019 and 2022, according to political commentators. The other members of the MR government (2010-2015) became so disgruntled that a group of prominent UPFA MPs including ministers voted with their feet in 2014, and General Secretary of the SLFP Maithripala Sirisena went on to challenge MR in the 2015 presidential contest and secure the presidency. As many as 41 SLPP MPs broke ranks with the GR government in early 2022.

Aragalaya,

which crippled the Rajapaksa rule, began as a genuine, leaderless protest campaign against economic hardships, especially prolonged fuel shortages and power cuts. Some political forces infiltrated it subsequently, but it was losing steam when a group of SLPP goons set upon peaceful protesters at Galle Face in May 2022, and triggered a spree of retaliatory violence, which led to the ouster of the Rajapaksas, and paved the way for the 2024 regime change.

As for reconciliation, a retired Major General known for his distinguished military career and respected leadership, writing under a pseudonym––‘Old Soldier’––recently had this to say in his letter critical of the way the government handled this year’s War Heroes’ commemoration, which was the topic of the editorial comment under discussion: “Reparations are claimed by the winners in wars between nations. After civil conflicts there should be reconciliation. There should be no humiliation. When will commemoration of the dead be national in Sri Lanka?”

If the SLPP is to make a comeback, its leaders and their apologists must shed their aversion to self-criticism. The same applies to their equally self-righteous counterparts in other Opposition parties.

Continue Reading

Trending