Another “Singapore”?
Last week’s business pages of this publication carried “gloom and doom” quotations from two businessmen.
One was from Richard Jansz a rubber broker and the other from well known businessman Ajita de Zoysa. Both of their negative outlooks coincidentally revolved round the Euro Zone debt crisis and rising tensions in the Middle East (ME) brought about by Iran’s nuclear programme with possible military action by the West and Israel to stifle the same and the seeming impact of such on oil prices.
Euro debt crisis is bad for Sri Lanka’s exports (incidentally EU is Sri Lanka’s second biggest export market) while an attack on Iran will make oil prices go sky high, widening Sri Lanka’s trade deficit even further, which last year is estimated to have had touched a near US$ ($) 10 billion figure, with oil being responsible for half of that amount and causing a serious balance of payments crisis in the economy.
As it’s, even without a conflagration in the ME because of Iran, Sri Lanka’s oil bill in the first 10 months of last year grew by 48.5% year on year (YoY) to $ 3.68 billion. According to Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), oil prices on Wednesday were hovering around US$ ($) 113 a barrel, up by nearly $ one in a mere two days.
The Iranians threaten that if the West/Israel resorts to military action against them, oil prices will go up to $ 200. Oil last hit dizzy heights nearly three years ago, at the height of the commodity boom, when it almost touched $ 150 a barrel. That caused grave problems to the economy, with oil prices at the pump shooting up, commodity prices increasing, coupled with inflationary pressure on the economy, pressure on the exchange rate and electricity costs, which is mainly fuelled by expensive diesel, also increasing, That was also the time the terrorist war was in full swing, which was another blow to the economy. Thankfully, now that war is a thing of the past and Sri Lanka doesn’t have to worry about that evil. But despite the war end, the island has not lessened pressure on military spend, part of that problem being the costs that have to be incurred in maintaining a large defence and police force, not forgetting the Civil Defence Force, even in peacetime! But why aren’t’ they being demobilized? Can a poor country such as Sri Lanka afford to apportion its largest chunk of budgetary expenditure during peacetime to defence year in year out as has been the case even after the war has been won, for three years since, ie in 2010, 2011 and 2012? Are there not other more pressing commitments? Isn’t there something wrong somewhere?
It may be moot, at this juncture, to recapitulate excerpts of the business editorial published on these pages in The Sunday Leader issue of 31.5.09., 13 days after the terrorist war was over under the heading “Demobilisation.”
It said, “Whilst, no doubt, a large number of troops will be needed to man newly established or re-established camps in the North and East to ensure that there is no repeat of terrorism from those areas, there may still remain a surplus of soldiers who are no longer needed by the army, now that the 26 year long war with the L.T.T.E. is over.
What then is the Government going to do with those excess numbers of military personnel who have been trained to handle weapons, who have been trained to kill, but whose services are no longer required now that the war is over is the million dollar question.
Therefore the onus before the Government is to find alternative avenues of employment to those demobilized troops.
For this to happen, they may need to be trained in various vocational skills in order to be made employable elsewhere, similar to what the Government is doing to those captured or surrendered terrorist cadres who are now in the process of being rehabilitated, before being released to society.
Of course the excess number of troops are not terrorists, that is the subtle difference. But the sheer numbers involved in the case of demobilized troops may be phenomenal, possibly numbering in the thousands, if not in the tens of thousands, gigantic, when compared with the head counts of those Tigers who are being rehabilitated, and whose numbers may add up to only a few hundred, if not a couple of thousands at the most.
The Government may also be hard pressed to find the necessary resources to train them in various vocations so that they would be equipped with the necessary skills to make them suitable for employment in non military jobs.
A man who has been trained to kill, if not gainfully employed in other trades in the event of being demobilized, may be a threat to society itself, this is the reality.
One way that the Government may make these demobilized troops useful is to employ them in construction and reconstruction works, a very real requirement for a country whose assets have been destroyed and development and progress stultified as a result of the 26 year old conflict.
However, a cash strapped Government with little resources will be hard pressed to do this alone. It will need to muster the support of the donor community and N.G.O.s to see this through.
These are one of several issues which the Government faces in peacetime, for which international goodwill and international support are essential for lasting peace and sustainable development of this island nation…”
The phrase, “international goodwill and international support” prescribed in the last para of that editorial perhaps sums it all as a possible solution to this vexing question which drains out valuable resources for the upkeep of such a large force now seemingly redundant with the war end 2½ years ago.
“International goodwill and international support” revolve round not only around India, China, Iran and Myanmar, the canvas is broader than that and needs no elaboration.
Reverting to terrorism, leave aside the fear, the killings and the destruction caused by it, it also bled the economy white, but now that is all history, and as a result a plus point from a socio-economic perspective for the country, which Sri Lanka should take advantage of.
There are those who said that if not for the July 1983 disturbances that led to Sri Lanka’s 26 year old destructive protracted terrorist war, Sri Lanka would have had been another Singapore by now. Now that war has been over more than 2½ years ago, can we still say that we are on the path of being another Singapore from a development perspective? Blame it on the economic crisis in the EU region and in USA (the island’s second biggest export market) as well, but why not for a start turn the searchlight inwards and see whether Sri Lanka and its leaders too share part of the blame for the economic morass currently besetting the country and not necessarily only to external issues, as some of the articles published on these pages in this publication point out?
Now that the war is over, it may be good for President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Government to go back to the drawing boards and examine the success of the economic policies adopted in 1977 (which progress was however interrupted by the 1983 riots and terrorism that sprang thereafter, possibly due to certain political, both internal and external (India) ramifications and not necessarily due to economic policies) and try to learn lessons from the same, so that the country could go forward to the next level of development. Space doesn’t permit further elaboration.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/01/15/another-singapore/