When the shepherd doesn’t know his sheep…
View(s):
IRD office
It was about two weeks after the Easter Sunday terrorist attack that in an unexpected moment, police officers were at my doorstep. They asked me about the residents at my home. Then they gave me a form, and asked me to fill it and return to the nearest police station with photocopies of the national identity cards of the residents.
A few days later I went to the Police Station and handed over the documents according to the instructions. As I was returning, I thought to myself that even if I had an opportunity to provide inaccurate or false information; there was no way to verify the accuracy of the information.
For the Police, which didn’t intend anyway to conduct a “population census”, the information provided on the papers might have been satisfactory for the purpose. It must be the case that my information on the documents did not raise any point of suspicion demanding verification; but this is not the point I want to get across in this column today.
Let me recall two more incidents, out of many that I can cite in order to highlight the issue which I intend to address today. When I come to the crux of the matter, I have no doubt that you may have many cases of your own experience in order to substantiate my point.
Self-assessment
Last year the Inland Revenue Department sent by post the new income tax forms to many people to provide information of their incomes and to pay income taxes. I also noticed that some of my colleagues, comprising public and private sector employees (including university academics), professionals in various fields, and some others had received the new income tax forms.
It was quite strange that some have received the tax form, while some others haven’t. “How fair is it to tax someone, and exempt another of the same income status?” I asked one of my friends from the Inland Revenue Department.
I was told that the Department does not have people’s information to decide who should pay taxes, and by how much. So it is customary that the Department depends on indirect information to chase after probable taxpayers.
Moreover, the Department has to depend on people’s “self-assessed” income information, whether such information is genuine or not. It is not only an issue of being genuine or not, but also an issue that tends to penalise the people who provide genuine information and to reward the people who provide false information.
Show your face
Since last year, the problem seems to have become a cumbersome manual exercise. The new Inland Revenue Act No. 24 of 2017 became operational in April 1, 2018. An electronic tax administrative system is also in operation at the Department now. But the issue is how to find taxpayers without an effective revenue collection mechanism.
As a result the revenue collection is still carried out in old fashion way by looking at the “face” of individuals; some may get caught, and some may not. Besides, I thought to myself: how long would it take to catch income-earners out of 21 million people of Sri Lanka?
I have no issue of citizens paying income taxes – in fact, every citizen of the country, because it is the price that we pay for living in a “civilized” society. But I have many issues about what people pay by those who pay, and how it is spent by those who spend – the issues that we need to discuss some other time.
Romans’ population census
The last story I want to recall is about population census: Even more than 2000 years ago, the Romans have carried out a population census.
Mary and Joseph had to make a long journey of about 150 km from Nazareth – their residential town, to Bethlehem – the home town of Joseph, to be present in front of the enumerators employed by the Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus. Today the enumerators come to us rather than us going to them.
Romans must have carried out the population census, not to compile and analyse demographic data of their empire, but to make use of the census for many purposes, including tax collection.
Sri Lanka’s population census
Sri Lanka is one of the few countries in the world which started a population census as far back as 148 years ago in 1871; it reported total population in the country at that time as 2.4 million. The most recent Population Census of Sri Lanka was carried out in 2011/12, which reported over 20 million total population. The next one has been planned for 2021.
I wonder to what extent population census has been improved and how much have we made use of it to serve the needs of the country then and now between the 19th and the 21st Centuries; we can even extend the times of comparison to cover 2000 years.
Moreover, I want to highlight the fact that today in many countries a population census is just a “mouse-click” away. They have got rid of the need of carrying out complicated “census” organising from time to time. At any given day of each year, population data can be generated without a complicated census.
What’s the big deal?
The big deal is that the government doesn’t have complete and accurate information about the people – the lack of a fundamental requirement of effective and efficient system of governance, which include policy-making, implementation, and monitoring.
There is no question that numerous government agencies spend time and resources, and employ workers to collect information about people, and about their related activities such as businesses, living conditions and other. We have also heard about “e-governance” and electronic information among most of the agencies. In spite of all that, the “fundamentals” have hardly changed.
In most of the cases the information is incomplete and repetitive. Many government agencies work in isolation and, there is little coordination among them. Some of the information is collected only at times as and when the need arises.
The cases I mentioned above shows that the Police, the Inland Revenue Department and, the Census Department all need people’s information. There are many other government agencies which collect people’s information: For instance, the Registrar General’s Department, the Department for the Registration of Persons, the Department of Immigration and Emigration, the Department of Motor Traffic, and the Election Commission are some of the important agencies which collect and maintain their own information systems.
Social Service agencies (including the Department of Samurdhi Development), the Provincial and Local government authorities, District and Divisional Secretaries (including the Grama Niladari offices) also collect people’s information according to their requirement.
Scattered vs. centralised information
In a more developed system of governance, “information is centralized and shared by various agencies” so that governance is efficient and effective. People’s information is usually generated at local levels, and are fed into a centralized information system. The information is shared by various agencies which need to use the relevant information for their own purpose.
There is no need to conduct a population census as all types of socioeconomic and demographic data will be generated with a “mouse-click”. Police and other local authorities know residents in the area. The Inland Revenue Department knows income and wealth of each individual. Social services agencies know who should and who shouldn’t receive social benefits and subsidies.
Governance is based on complete accurate information with no opportunities for information manipulation. There is less room for corruption and wasting resources. There is less room for disputes as the information system is transparent. Policy-making is easier and effective, and is based on better-informed facts. The government knows “how to lead the nation”, when the government knows about the people. (The writer is a Professor of Economics at the University of Colombo and can be reached at sirimal@econ.cmb.ac.lk).