Connect with us

Editorial

The rice crisis

Published

on

Several decades ago, when the Food Drive led by Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake in a bold move to achieve self-sufficiency in essential foods wherever possible, the press officer in Mr. MD Banda’s Agriculture and Food Ministry, Lakshman Ratnapala telephoned several prominent personalities to get their views on the effort. One of them, the late Dr. EW Adikaram, the ascetic academic, told Ratnapala: “I can tell you what I think but you will not be able to publish my view.” The press officer urged “never mind, Sir, please tell me.” Adikaram’s reply: “I think we are already self-sufficient in rice because we eat twice as much as we need to!”

However that be, in the years since Dudley Senanayake’s Food Drive, we have heard boastful claims from many ministers that self-sufficiency in rice has been achieved. During Mr. EL Senanayake’s time as agriculture minister a cargo of rice was even exported to an African country. If the annual rice consumption of a population that has increased sharply over the years and the domestic production are compared, without doubt the self-sufficiency claim will be proved accurate. Yet we continue to often import rice to contend with a real or perceived shortages.

Our regular columnist Rajan Philips wrote on this page last Sunday of “Sri Lanka’s Perennial Rice Crisis: Scarcity Despite Self-Sufficiency” neatly summing up the existing situation. For the past several years, a so-called Mafia of large scale rice millers have been accused of hoarding and price manipulation to the detriment of both producer and consumer alike. Recent inspections have not been able to establish hoarding. Noises made by government on its commitment to end such practices have been all froth and no beer. Imposition of controlled prices have not worked with the available enforcement mechanism lacking the required muscle. Many traders refrained from stocking saying that selling at the declared maximum retail price (MRP) would mean losses.

Although government permitted rice imports, it imposes a high tax of Rs. 65 per kilo no doubt in an effort to safeguard producer interests rather than as a revenue raising measure. Finely balancing producer and consumer interests in determining the price of rice is a very difficult if not an impossible exercise. Recent and present shortages per se were not of rice itself but of certain varieties of rice, Nadu in particular. Red rice too was short in some areas, something the opposition seized on to say this affected the cooking of Pongal rice by Hindus to celebrate last week’s festival. The government countered by attributing the shortage to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s distribution of free red rice before the presidential election.

A variety of factors come into play in the availability and price of rice which is not only the country’s staple food but had also long been a staple of politics. For example there was a price incentive to produce keeri samba. When there was an over-supply of this variety, considered superior and therefore more expensive, some traders made the purchase of a quantity this variety a condition for selling cheaper rice. Whatever the recent convulsions regarding the prices and availability of rice, we were never confronted by a situation similar to the post-1970 crisis of the Sirima Bndaranaike-led United Front government when rice less days were mandated by law and haal pollas (rice barriers) erected to prevent the transport of paddy/rice across districts.

A factor that has contributed to the present problem has been the running down of the state-owned Paddy Marketing Board (PMB) and the fact that the PMB continues with outdated warehousing rather than using silos for grain storage like the big millers do. An effort to rehabilitate rundown PMB warehouse has now begun and hopefully the board will soon be effective in the market.

What’s in a name?

As readers are well aware, appreciations of people no longer alive, written by their friends and relatives are regular features in most newspapers. When very well know figures like former President Jimmy Carter of the USA and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India died recently, their obituaries were published not only in their own countries but also globally. In our paper last Sunday, Amal Jayasinghe, long time bureau chief in Colombo of the Agence France-Presse (AFP), wrote an appreciation of his father marking his seventh death anniversary.

This was no common or garden obituary. Using his considerable writing skills, the writer focused on his father’s names. Originally named Hirohito Edward Jayasinghe, these names were later replaced with Lenin Lindbergh with the subject living out his life as Lenin Jayasinghe. Lenin, though not common, was not totally unknown in then Ceylon and now Sri Lanka. If fact we even have a Joseph Stalin leading a teachers’ trade union and there have been more than one Hitler in this country. Also Shakespeare from Jaffna, a Bradman in the Ceylon Civil Service and elsewhere but no Mussolini we know of. Hirohito we have not heard before.

We all know the Solomon West Ridegeway (a British Governor General) Dias Bandaranaike though fewer would know that the name Solomon was carried by at least three generations of the Bandaranaikes with even Anura bearing that name. He was Anura Priyadhrshana Solomon Dias Bandaranaike. SWRD, apparently, was called “Solla” in close family circles. We also had Henry Woodward (famous principal of Mahinda College, Galle) Amarasuriya well know for his wealth and political role having been elected to parliament and served as a cabinet minister. The writer had a friend who named his daughter Romancita after a race horse – whether it was winner he backed we do not know.

Nicknames too are galore in schools and not only for teachers. There was a Yakadaya at royal College followed by his sibling Malakadaya!



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Reform imbroglio

Published

on

Friday 9th January, 2026

The SJB-led Opposition is in overdrive to move a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, for numerous shortcomings in the government’s education reforms, including content deemed unsuitable for children, flaws in modules, etc. The Opposition’s move is bound to fail in Parliament, where the government commands a two-thirds majority. But a debate on the no-confidence motion will provide the Opposition with an opportunity to gain some propaganda mileage at the expense of the JVP-led NPP, and the Prime Minister. Therefore, speculation is rampant that the government will do everything in its power to scuttle the Opposition’s no-faith motion. The JVP/NPP does not scruple to violate parliamentary traditions and Standing Orders when it has to defend its interests. The deplorable manner in which it prevented the Opposition from moving a no-confidence motion against Deputy Minister of Defence Aruna Jayasekera over some matters related to the Easter Sunday terror strikes is a case in point.

The general consensus is that education reforms are long overdue. However, reforming the education system is a very intricate task that has to be carried out carefully with the help of all key stakeholders. Intoxicated with power, the NPP government has blundered by rushing headlong to prepare an education reform package and trying to shove it down the throats of other stakeholders, triggering a backlash.

It has now been revealed that most of the modules prepared hurriedly under the current education reform programme contain flaws. But the government has declared that it will forge ahead no matter what. The arrogance of power blinds governments to reality. Supermajorities are jinxed in this country; they drive governments to perform dangerous high-wire acts without safety nets and suffer falls. Secretary of the Workers’ Struggle Centre Duminda Nagamuwa has aptly likened the NPP’s education reform programme to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s disastrous organic farming experiment which contributed to the downfall of the SLPP government.

A group of representatives of several education sector trade unions and professional associations, at a press briefing in Colombo, yesterday, pointed out numerous flaws in the NPP’s education reforms. They also said the government had not provided schools with facilities needed for the implementation of the education reforms. General Secretary of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union Joseph Stalin claimed that some schools were collecting money from students to buy smart boards, etc. The soaring cost of living has left most parents struggling to make ends meet. They cannot cough up any more money for their children’s education. Therefore, the government must put an end to the practice of schools raising funds at the expense of parents.

The critics of the controversial education reforms have called upon President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to direct PM Amarasuriya to abandon them. They are labouring under the misconception that President Dissanayake is not responsible for the education reforms at issue, and the blame for them should be laid solely at PM Amarasuriya’s doorstep. What they should bear in mind is that the controversial education reform package carries the imprimatur of President Dissanayake, who has been defending it to the hilt both in and outside Parliament. One may recall that in July 2025, taking part in a parliamentary debate, President Dissanayake waxed eloquent, endorsing the education reforms; he said no one could be satisfied with the current education system, the young generation it had produced, or the economy it has fostered. “Therefore, we urgently need comprehensive education reform. The proposed education reform is not merely limited to curriculum revision but will simultaneously elevate both the social and economic spheres of the country.”

Interestingly, both the opponents and proponents of the education reforms have concocted conspiracy theories. In response to the government’s claim of a conspiracy behind the campaign against the education reforms, the SBJ has argued that the conspirators may be some JVPers trying to smoke out PM Amarasuriya so that one of them could secure the premiership. If so, isn’t the SJB giving a boost to their campaign by singling out the PM for attack and moving a no-faith motion against her?

The only way the government can pull itself out of the current imbroglio is to put its education reform package on hold without delay and bring the key stakeholders to the table for a serious discussion.

Continue Reading

Editorial

The strange case of Sara Jasmine

Published

on

Thursday 8th January, 2026

The JVP/NPP leaders seem to have forgotten that serving justice for the Easter Sunday terror victims was a central plank of their election platform in 2024. They delivered thunderous speeches replete with theatrics at election rallies, condemning the previous governments for their failure to trace the masterminds behind the Easter Sunday carnage. They garnered favour with the families of the Easter Sunday carnage victims and other seekers of justice to win elections. Sadly, a fresh probe, launched into the Easter Sunday terror attacks, following the 2024 regime change, has been relegated to the back burner for all intents and purposes, and the government leaders have the audacity to give evasive answers when they are questioned on vital issues pertaining to the investigations into the Easter Sunday terror attacks. What transpired in Parliament yesterday is a case in point.

SJB MP Nizam Kariapper asked Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. (retd.) Aruna Jayasekera why four military intelligence officers who served under the latter when he was the Security Forces Commander in the Eastern Province, in 2019, had not been arrested and grilled in connection with the Easter Sunday terror attacks although the police had identified them as suspects. Jayasekera said he would not answer that question as investigations were still on. SJB MP Mujibur Rahman asked Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala a question about Sara Jasmine or Pulasthini Mahendran, the widow of Mohammed Hashtun, who carried out a suicide bomb attack on St. Sebastian’s Church in Katuwapitiya in 2019. Claiming that she had fled to India and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa himself had vouched for that fact when he was in the Opposition, Rahman demanded to know why the government had neither obtained an arrest warrant for her nor taken up the issue of her escape to India with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indian Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. Minister Wijepala’s reply was that there was no conclusive evidence that Sara had fled to India and a warrant would be obtained, if necessary.

MP Rahman’s claim about Dr. Jayatissa’s averment that Sara fled to India should be viewed against a very serious allegation made by Dr. Jayatissa, as a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed the Easter Sunday carnage. In an interview with BBC in 2019, Dr. Jayatissa declared that according to ‘investigative evidence’ he was privy to, India had been behind the Easter Sunday terror attacks. So, why the NPP government has not taken up the issue of Sara’s disappearance with India is the question. Minister Wijepala’s claim that there is no credible evidence to prove that Sara is in India is not convincing. Is the NPP government wary of taking up that issue with New Delhi lest it should antagonise the Indian leaders?

The incumbent government cannot be expected to allow the aforesaid four military intelligence officers to be arrested or even questioned as it does not want to open a can of worms. There is a clear case of conflict of interest where those intelligence operatives and Jayasekera are concerned. The same is true of Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, retired SDIG Ravi Seneviratne, and CID Director, retired SSP Shani Abeysekera. The CID, which was under Seneviratne and Abeysekera in 2019, has come under fire for its failure to prevent the Easter Sunday terror attacks and properly investigate terrorist activities in the Eastern Province, particularly the execution-style killing of two policemen in Vavunathivu, a few months before the carnage. The conflict of interest at issue has had a corrosive effect on the integrity of ongoing investigations into the Easter Sunday attacks.

It is imperative that a serious effort be made to arrest Sara, who was privy to the inner workings of the National Thowheed Jamaath, which carried out the Easter Sunday attacks, and therefore can reveal who actually masterminded the carnage. After all, the JVP/NPP leaders pledged to unravel the truth about the Easter Sunday bombings swiftly and have justice served expeditiously.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Workers’ fund under political gaze

Published

on

Wednesday 7th January, 2026

The lessons of history often go unlearnt in Sri Lankan politics, defined by policy contradictions and about-turns. The NPP government is planning to relaunch a risky mission that a powerful regime once had to abandon for fear of a backlash. Yesterday, Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe told Parliament that the NPP government had given thought to introducing a pension scheme for the private sector workers because the current lump-sum Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) payments did not help achieve the desired social security goals. The government apparently had him send a trial balloon in the House. Going by what he outlined, the NPP government’s private sector pension plan is similar to the one that President Mahinda Rajapaksa unveiled in Budget 2011 and made an abortive attempt to implement.

Presenting Budget 2011, President Rajapaksa revealed his intention to set up what he described as an Employees’ Pension Fund, which curiously had the same initialism—EPF—as the Employees’ Provident Fund. He proposed contributions from employees and employers to the fund to be set up.

Every employer would be required to transfer gratuity payments to the proposed pension fund, President Rajapaksa said, noting that employees too would have to contribute two percent of their pension fund balance to be withdrawn; a private sector worker would have to contribute to the pension fund for a minimum of 10 years to qualify for a pension, and the fund would be managed by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank.

The Rajapaksa government was planning to steamroller the Private Sector Pension Bill through Parliament in June 2011 to provide post-retirement monthly pension benefits to employees in the private and corporate sectors. A major point of contention was a provision that would have helped convert a portion of the Employees’ Provident Fund savings, paid as a lump sum upon retirement, into a monthly pension, effectively eliminating a significant part of the lump-sum payment option.

In an editorial comment on Budget 2011, we argued that the Rajapaksa government was playing with fire, and any attempt to implement the private sector pension scheme at the expense of the EPF or part of it would run into stiff resistance from workers. Intoxicated with power and impervious to reason, that regime tried to bulldoze its way through. Trade unions opposed the Bill tooth and nail, claiming that it aimed to end EPF lump-sum payments in respect of a portion of the accumulated funds, and replace it with a monthly pension starting at age 60, irrespective of the actual retirement age. An employee retiring at the age of 55 would have to wait five years to receive any benefits from that portion of his or her savings, the warring trade unionists argued, expressing concerns about those disadvantages and a lack of transparency about how the funds would be managed. The JVP was among the opponents of that controversial Bill. It was widely feared that the Rajapaksa government intended to use the large EPF asset base for other purposes.

The Rajapaksa government used force in a bid to overcome resistance, but in vain. In June 2011, mass protests erupted and a violent clash at the Katunayake Free Trade Zone, resulted in the death of a worker and forced the Rajapaksa government to suspend and eventually withdraw the ill-conceived Bill. The Rajapaksa regime accused the JVP of instigating violent protests against the Bill to advance a sinister political agenda. The withdrawal of the Bill helped bring the situation under control.

Ironically, the incumbent NPP government is trying to do what its main constituent, the JVP, together with workers, other Opposition parties and trade unions vehemently condemned the Rajapaksa administration for, about 15 years ago. Those who fail to learn from history are said to be doomed to repeat it.

Continue Reading

Trending