Government, opposition cooperation needed on vital issues:
75 percent of our diplomats should be from foreign service:
In a candid and insightful interview with The Sunday Observer, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) parliamentarian Eran Wickramaratne shared his perspectives on various pressing issues in Sri Lanka.
From concerns about the Online Safety Bill to the need for a new Constitution in Sri Lanka Cricket, Wickramaratne provided comprehensive insights into the challenges facing the nation.
He also discussed the state of the country’s health sector, foreign relations, and the importance of collaboration between the Government and the Opposition.
Q: What is the Opposition’s perspective on the current economic policies of the Government? Are there specific aspects that need urgent attention or reform?
A: The Government’s current approach is focused on stabilisation, but it is encountering significant challenges. One key issue is that the Government has primarily pursued a fiscal stabilisation program based on revenue.
Back in 2015-2016, we collaborated with the IMF on a revenue-based stabilisation program, aiming to generate revenue equivalent to 10 percent of GDP. By 2019, we had managed to increase it to nearly 13 percent of GDP.
However, the present Government altered the tax policy, resulting in a reduction in revenue collection to around 8 percent of GDP. This has proven to be problematic, and the Government is struggling to recover.
It’s essential to note that the Government, in collaboration with the IMF, should have initially adopted a fiscal stabilisation policy that addressed both revenue and expenditure.
While the Government argues that a substantial portion of the expenditure relates to human resources in the Government sector, the reality is more nuanced. There were areas where expenditure could have been trimmed, which would have sent a clear message that Sri Lanka was committed to managing its expenditure effectively.
In essence, the major expenses are in the public service and defence sectors, and these aspects should have been thoroughly examined.
The Government, despite taking the path of revenue-based stabilisation, has fallen significantly short of its targets. For instance, excise revenues have fallen short by approximately 43 percent, with collection at 125 billion rupees as of September, compared to the required 214 billion rupees.
Additionally, personal income taxes have seen a decline. In 2019, we had 1.4 million income taxpayers, but that number has dropped by approximately 200,000, with an alarming low of around 46,000 individuals paying Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT).
For the first time in Asia, a country in an IMF program has been informed of governance issues. This new development comes as part of the Governance Diagnostic Evaluation, which is unprecedented.
Consequently, the IMF’s ability to proceed has been delayed. The Government must first obtain IMF approval to move forward with the stabilisation process, and it is still far from experiencing economic growth.
Q: What is the SJB’s stance on the privatisation of strategically important State-owned enterprises?
A: State-owned enterprises represent a significant financial burden on the government, as many of them operate at substantial losses. These losses must be covered by the government’s budget, primarily funded through taxation. The current tax system is not regarded as equitable, with a substantial portion of taxes being indirect.
The primary objective of state-owned enterprises should be to benefit the public and provide essential services. However, in many cases, their viability and benefit to the public are questionable. Consequently, the Government should reassess these enterprises.
Some may need to be closed down for the greater public good, while others could be transformed into public-private partnerships or handed over to the private sector.
It’s important to shift the focus from ownership to return on investment. There may be strategic reasons for Government ownership in certain cases, such as ensuring food security and energy security. However, there are various approaches to achieving these goals, some of which may not require Government ownership. Ultimately, the focus should be on achieving returns from state-owned enterprises. If these entities generate returns, there is a justifiable reason for their existence because the revenue collected can be reinvested in social protection for vulnerable groups, education, and healthcare. Therefore, a comprehensive restructuring of State-owned enterprises is essential.
Q: How does the Opposition view the challenges faced in the health sector? You have mentioned that the Government has not offered any solutions or alternative arrangements to address these issues
A: The ongoing crisis in our health sector is deeply tragic. Initially, we believed it was primarily due to inadequate funding and financial resources. However, discussions in Parliament, including a recent conversation with the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee, have shed light on the fact that the problem goes beyond mere finances.
It is evident that there has been a significant breakdown in the management of our healthcare system. The challenges are multifaceted.
One aspect involves the procurement of essential supplies, including drugs and medical equipment. Shockingly, despite the country’s financial constraints, there have been reports of corruption in procurement.
Another concern is the lack of strengthening institutions like the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA), which should oversee the approval of drugs. There have been instances where the process has been bypassed, and political interference has occurred. In some cases, the NMRA has not convened as a body, and decisions have been made by individuals.
The issue of corruption can arise in any sector, but the proper response is to reinforce the institutional structure rather than disregard it. The focus should be on strengthening the NMRA.
The Government has not provided sufficient support to healthcare professionals, particularly in the medical field, to ensure effective service delivery. Salaries and income for medical professionals need to reflect market standards. Practical considerations, such as transportation and accommodation for professionals serving in remote areas, must be addressed.
The Debt Disturbance Availability and Transport Allowance require a thorough evaluation to retain skilled professionals and address the brain drain issue.
The existing model in the country has allowed medical professionals to work in both the Government and private sectors, although they are paid less than market rates.
However, if a shift towards a market-based model occurs, this may need to change. It is an issue that should be addressed to ensure fairness and market value recognition for healthcare professionals.
Q: How does the SJB view the government’s foreign relations? Are there areas where you believe the Government could improve its approach?
A: In a small nation like Sri Lanka, both the Government and the Opposition should adhere to fundamental principles in foreign relations. Historically, we practised a policy of non-alignment. However, in the contemporary context, non-alignment is less relevant. Sri Lanka should adopt a multi-aligned foreign policy.
Being a small island, a multi-aligned approach can be complex due to superpower rivalries and regional tensions.
The major powers and regional players often attempt to coerce smaller nations into taking sides. It is crucial to avoid such entanglements.
We must ensure that our closest geographical neighbor, India, does not perceive any threat to its security interests. This should remain a constant regardless of the Government in power.
Another primary focus of our foreign policy should be the economic interests of our citizens. Our export markets are primarily the United States and Europe, with some presence in the Middle East. However, we have overlooked potential markets in East Asia and Africa.
Diversification of exports is essential, and our foreign policy should reflect this by prioritising the advancement of our economic interests.
Our foreign service should be professionalised. At least 75 percent of our diplomats and ambassadors should come from the foreign service.
Although we can consider individuals with specific skills from outside the foreign service, their representation should not exceed 25 percent. This ensures that our diplomats are well-trained and experienced in diplomacy.
Political appointments to sensitive diplomatic positions should be minimised, with a goal of eventually having zero political appointees in such roles. We should promote professionalism within our foreign service.
Q: You have stated that the Government has struggled to gain the trust of both local and foreign investors. Could you provide some insights on this matter?
A: Certainly, the issue of investor confidence is a critical one. When it comes to investments, tax benefits are a consideration, but a deeper analysis of the past three decades, not limited to Sri Lanka but applicable globally, reveals that tax incentives are not the primary concern for investors. Their foremost consideration is what is referred to as “country risk.”
Country risk encompasses various factors, including political stability and the system of government. Additionally, it incorporates confidence in the legal system. Sri Lanka’s performance in global indices highlights some concerns. For instance, in the Doing Business Index, Sri Lanka ranks 99th in the world, while in the enforcement of contracts, it is positioned at 164th place. These rankings indicate notable room for improvement.
Investors are particularly concerned about the enforcement of contracts, ensuring that agreements made with local parties or the Government are honored and implemented as agreed.
Therefore, the primary challenge is the country’s risk factors, which affect investor confidence more than specific projects or industries. This is where we encounter significant issues in attracting investment.
The secondary challenge pertains to efficiencies in approvals, often referred to as the “one-stop shop” approach. Considerable improvements are needed in this regard as well.
However, it is essential to say that the rule of law stands as the overarching barrier to investment, both domestic and foreign.
Q: In what ways do you believe collaboration between the Government and the Opposition can address the nation’s challenges? How can bipartisan cooperation be strengthened?
A: Collaboration between the Government and the Opposition can be particularly effective in driving reforms. An excellent example is the recent anti-corruption legislation introduced by the Government.
The Supreme Court initially requested around 20 amendments to the law, which eventually ballooned to approximately 80 amendments. Many of these amendments were proposed by the Opposition, and we worked closely with the Government to refine the legislation.
The Government accepted these amendments, and the law was successfully passed. This demonstrates the potential for effective collaboration. However, the real test lies in the implementation of these laws, a responsibility that falls within the executive branch of Government. The Opposition’s role in this phase is to observe and ensure that the Government follows through on the enacted legislation.
Personally, I have introduced three private member’s bills in Parliament. One of these bills focuses on the declaration of assets and liabilities by politicians and high-ranking officials.
Much of this bill’s content was incorporated into the anti-corruption law, which was a positive development, as it was passed as a Government bill.
I have also introduced two other private member’s bills. One pertains to the special commodity levy, addressing the issue of ministerial discretion and the need for parliamentary approval. The other bill relates to value-added taxes (VAT) and follows similar principles of requiring parliamentary approval.
In light of the recent Aragalaya and the social revolution of the past year, the people of this country are expecting systemic changes. This presents an opportunity for collaboration across the political spectrum to address systemic issues.
It’s essential to note that the government needs to take swift action in this regard, as centralising power and delaying local council elections have raised concerns about the principles of democracy.
Collaborative efforts should focus on systemic changes, as the government has a considerable agenda ahead. Restoring elections in local councils, as requested by the Elections Commission, is a vital step in upholding democracy and averting potential consequences associated with power centralisation.
Q: Could you provide further insights into your concerns regarding the Online Safety Bill? You’ve indicated that its actual intent is different from its stated purpose. Why do you believe that the bill is more about controlling the media and suppressing dissent than safeguarding women and children on social media?
A: Certainly, my concerns regarding the Online Safety Bill are rooted in a careful analysis of its implications. To begin, the very nomenclature of “online safety” is misleading, as it obscures the true nature of the bill.
The central issue revolves around the centralisation of executive and judicial powers in a commission appointed by the President. This consolidation of power raises severe concerns regarding the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of our democratic system.
Such an arrangement undermines the checks and balances that ensure the independence of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Government.
In this context, the bill’s intent is questionable. The need for such legislation at this particular juncture is unclear, and its prioritisation is dubious.
Addressing issues that arise from user misuse of their online privileges is better suited to alternative mechanisms.
An effective approach should involve working with online platforms like Google and Facebook to ensure responsible usage and content moderation. With around 11 million Facebook users in Sri Lanka, this is a matter of their freedom and protection. It goes beyond the purview of those currently holding political power.
What is particularly perplexing is the bill’s association with the Ministry of Public Security, as it is a matter that pertains to justice. This raises questions about the choice of ministry through which the bill is being introduced.
Notably, there was a prior effort titled the “Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Bill,” which was initiated by the Ministry of Justice of the current Government in 2021. However, it was transferred to the Ministry of Public Security, a puzzling shift. The Ministry of Justice should rightfully oversee such matters, and this change should be reversed.
Moreover, the Online Safety Bill could run counter to international conventions. While the courts may decide on its constitutionality, the impact extends beyond the legal realm, affecting our way of life.
It’s essential to emphasise that protection for individuals, particularly vulnerable groups, is a legitimate concern. However, there are alternative approaches, such as defamation laws and working collaboratively with online platforms to moderate and remove inappropriate content. Such practical methods offer more effective and democratic solutions.
The bill, as it stands, may violate multiple articles related to freedom, expression, and thought. While the courts may uphold the constitutionality of these infringements, my concerns extend beyond legality. The fundamental question is whether this bill is genuinely necessary.
Sri Lanka already has other legislative frameworks in place, such as a data protection act and a pending cyber security bill, that align with international standards. However, these bills have been taken away from domain experts and placed under the purview of legal draftsmen, leading to concerns about the drafting process.
Our country’s welfare relies on both elected officials and professionals adhering to their roles diligently and with integrity.
Q: In a previous statement, you called for a new Constitution to address the issues within Sri Lanka Cricket. Could you please elaborate on your perspective regarding the role of a new Constitution in resolving these concerns?
A: I firmly believe that sports organisations, particularly cricket boards, should be insulated from political interference. This is an essential principle to ensure that they are managed professionally, transparently, and in the best interest of the sport itself.
It’s evident that a disturbing trend has emerged where politicians are appointed as chairpersons of sporting organisations, including cricket boards. This practice should be discontinued.
Turning to the specific case of cricket in Sri Lanka, there appears to be a misconception that legitimising governance relies solely on holding votes. This misunderstanding has led to the fragmentation of cricket administration into a multitude of associations, roughly numbering 140, each granted voting privileges. The majority of these associations lack the basic infrastructure, such as a cricket ground, required to facilitate the sport effectively.
The result of this practice is that smaller associations, with limited involvement in top-level cricket, are being given a significant role in electing cricket board officials. Regrettably, this has often been manipulated into a political-style election campaign, where the most popular candidate tends to be a skilled politician rather than a cricket expert.
It is crucial to reevaluate this system. The Constitution that governs cricket in Sri Lanka needs a substantial revision. We should entrust the administration of the sport to recognised institutions and established clubs, which have a genuine stake in cricket. By adopting a more professional and transparent approach to cricket governance, we can ensure the sport’s long-term health and success.
Q: How do you assess President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership thus far in his current role?
A: President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ascension to the position was somewhat unexpected.
To secure his legacy, President Wickremesinghe should utilise his current term to push through essential reforms with the backing of the entire Parliament, including the Opposition. Taking this bold step would result in a more favorable assessment of his legacy.
