Columns

As the furore over the ban on chemical fertiliser and pesticides continues unabated with soil scientists, economists, agriculturists and experienced tea producers joining in the verbal fray, one is tempted to look back at promises made at election time by contending candidates.

One is reminded of a remark made by the leading candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa at a public rally when he announced that “Mahinda called me in the morning and told me, if elected, we should give free fertiliser to paddy farmers.”

Whether this was intended to be a campaign promise to paddy farmers or a show of concern displayed by Mahinda aiyya or even a play on Mahinda’s public popularity enhanced at the time by the shenanigans in the ruling coalition, I would not know.

But to the leading opponent of Rajapaksa in the contest for the presidential crown, Sajith Premadasa, it was a vote attracting pledge that needed to be countered. So Premadasa promised free fertiliser not merely to rice farmers but to all farmers big and small — from farmers with a few perches in a chena to broad acres of tea in the plush Nuwara Eliya hills.

If Rajapaksa’s promise of free fertiliser to rice growers was going to cost Rs 45 billion according to some calculations, how many billions more would have Premadasa’s sweeping promise to farmers of multiple hues and crops cost the country, one would have liked to know.

One would have expected that Money Minister Nivard Cabraal whose expertise on most things including Greek Bonds to the unmitigated success of the Colombo Port City with trillions of dollars of investment anticipated for stashing away in the secret entrails of Chinese technology, to constantly expose the financial profligacy of Premadasa had he hoisted the presidential standard some 20 months ago.

But no, Cabraal seems to be on the backfoot these days as increasing criticisms in print and electronic media and websites about government economic policies such as almost halving of VAT, abolition of PAYEE tax and other ill-conceived decisions have led to the slashing of state revenue and depletion of the country’s foreign reserves to judge by the strongly advocated views of economist and experts.

But it is not only domestic revenue that has dipped precipitously as economists have pointed out but also the country’s foreign reserves.

Last Sunday this newspaper’s economic affairs commentator Dr Nimal Sanderatne, formerly of the Central Bank, Chairman of the Bank of Ceylon and a professor at Peradeniya University’s Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture, opened his weekly column thus:

“The external finances of the country are in a perilous state. External reserves have fallen, the trade deficit is widening, the balance of payments deficit is increasing and there are foreign debt repayments of about US$ four billion during the rest of the year.

“External reserves that were US$ 4.47 billion at the end of April have fallen to US$ 4.02 billion at the end of May. The trade deficit expanded at the end of the first quarter and is expected to widen further. This is in a context when foreign debt repayments are about US$ four billion during the rest of the year.”

If the country’s foreign reserves are in such a “perilous state” as many knowledgeable persons believe what economic logic prompted the government to engage in the extravaganza of proposing the import 299 expensive vehicles for the 225 MPs and unnamed others in an exhibition of unconscionable profligacy while a worsening pandemic was continuing to asphyxiating the economy and the people?

The Government has justified the ban on chemical fertilisers and pesticides on the grounds they are harmful to man’s health and to the environment. Fine and it is true. But when did government leaders and the opposition discover their harmful consequences? Apparently it had not dawned on them when manifestos were been prepared and election pledges made to the people.

If politicians and the collectives of their so-called intelligent advisers drawn from diverse professions and occupations did not know about this they could not be such great advisers their supporters profess them to be.

If, on the other hand, they knew about it, but still did not advise their political leaders or just ignored it altogether for political and electoral gain by making promises to farmers of free fertiliser, then surely this is tantamount to deception of the citizens.

It is not that Sri Lanka does not possess competent and knowledgeable advisers. The problem is the quality of the persons who form rings round political leaders for whatever purpose.

Then they should take advice from those able to provide it. Many years ago Lee Kuan Yew who turned Singapore from a backwater without resources into a world class multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation stated that Sri Lanka elections were a periodic “auction of non-existent resources”.

Instead of trying to imitate Singapore as some leaders try to do but took serious note of Lee’s acerbic remark and acted on it, we might not be in these dire straits. Space does not permit me to recall some of the other comments the Singapore leader of the day made to me during a conversation I had several years ago in Hong Kong.

But some of what he said makes me wonder about the currency swap we made with Bangladesh, a country that we used to treat in its early days with a whiff of condescension.

Instead of swapping our currency should we have not swapped some of those who advise our governments and made it a permanent arrangement?

(Neville de Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London.)