Q: Your Union is saying that LECO is to be sold in a manner that is detrimental to the, country. Could you elaborate?
A: Whether the conditions are favorable or not we, in principle, are against the privatization of LECO. It is one of the biggest profit-making ventures of the state.
The question the government keeps asking is why should the CEB employees worry in the event of privatization of LECO? It is because CEB owns 54 percent of LECO shares and sale of the latter and CEB employees. If the proposed agreement comes into operation, 64 major customers of the Electricity Board like the Glass Co., will have to be transferred to a multinational company. This in turn puts a full stop to one of the Board's chief sources of income, thereby directly affecting even the general public. For example, the Board will be compelled to scrap the concession now being given to the ordinary customers. Presently, the first 100 units which costs the Board Rs. 3.66 per unit are given at a concessionary rate of Rs. 1.66 with a loss of Rs. 2.00. These kind of losses, among other things, are generally set-off with the help of amounts of money pumped in by its major customers.
Another condition was that all High-tension Power Lines along with Transmission Systems in this 'Golden Belt' (areas which bring the highest income) too be transferred to the successful bidder. Moreover, all the areas coming under the golden belt are electrically fully developed in that the foreign successor would only have to maintain them.
The agreement also enables the multinational company to generate power by establishing new power stations, a monopoly hitherto enjoyed by the CEB. It goes further and says that 75 percent of the power generated by such plants have to be bought by the CEB even if the Board doesn't require it. For instance, where hydro-generated power is concerned, even if our reservoirs surpass the spill level and overflow, we are still bound to buy it.
To make matters worse, the Board has to make the purchase in Dollars in the background of a continuously devaluing rupee. But on the contrary, when we sell them, the sales are to be transacted in the Sri Lankan currency. We now sell a unit to LECO at Rs. 2.66. If the agreement were to become operative, the Board will lose Re. 1.00 per unit on the starting day itself.
After considerable protests, this part of the agreement was changed and substituted with the inflationary rate. If this was to be put into operation, the Board would invariably have to burden particularly its general customers more. Inflation in the country would naturally shoot up in no time. All this was done on the advice of the PERC. Even at present, Sri Lanka becomes second only to Singapore where the most costly electricity units in Asia are concerned.
We normally have plenty of water here. Why should we allow the foreigners take away money derived directly from our own natural resources?
The LECO which currently has over 250,000 customers earns about Rs. 200 million annually, with a net profit ranging around Rs. 35 million. If it is privatized, it would mean draining out of Rs. 30 million each year and the Electricity Board would suffer a loss of Rs. 22.5 million annually. The purported agreement sought to sell LECO valued at Rs. 4,000 million for Rs. 1,200 million, completely disregarding the fact it is a profit-making body. After we took Trade Union action, the government announced that it was withdrawing the agreement as the highest bid received was very much below the expected sum. We did not accept it as a 'clear reply' to our demand, for we knew very well that the government was planning to call for fresh tenders on May 29. With our strike the prospective buyer, who was staying at Hotel Galadari Meridien, left the island.
Q: It is mentioned in certain printed material put out by your Union claims it met President Chandrika Kumaratunga on March 7, and explained to her the dangers involved in the proposed agreement. What happened at that meeting?
A: I am unable to comment, as I did not take part in that meeting.
Q: What are the main demands of your Union?
A: Don't privatize the CEB, don't privatize LECO and grant the recommended salary increases.
Q: Six members of the Union, including an Electrical Superintendent were arrested on charges of sabotage during the strike. What steps has the Union taken in this respect?
A: Our lawyers are dealing with it. The Superintendent referred to , has already been bailed out, and two others were produced before Courts recently. The rest next week. In addition the Union has written to other trade unions soliciting their support. We also intend carrying on a poster campaign.
Q: Has the CEB taken disciplinary action by way of internal inquiry in respect of the arrested members or others involved in the strike?
A: No. On the contrary, documents are being prepared to the effect that the action taken by strikers was for the protection of the equipment, machinery etc. and no sabotage was involved. This will be forwarded to the Attorney General shortly.
Q: What have you got to say to the charge of sabotage?
A: We deny it totally. It is rubbish, absurd. It is true that we took certain preventive measures. Sabotage means destruction of property or machinery. None of us resorted to that. If what we have done is sabotage then not having hung catalogues close to generators depicting how to operate them too, can be defined as sabotage. But nobody strikes like that. We can't take the responsibility just because some armed forces personnel had failed to bring the system back to operation. That is not our fault.
Q: If it was not sabotage why did it take six long hours to restore power after the strike was called off?
A: It is a complex network. Power cannot be restored islandwide in minutes. Coordination and balancing take time. For instance if one side goes unbalanced, power drops can occur in the other side. This is the situation even in normal circumstances.
Our motive was not to damage CEB property. In fact, we fought on the basic premise that they being part of the 'national wealth', should be saved for future generations. Those who know nothing about the subject may say that we took six hours to 'fix the parts removed earlier'.
Q: What happened at the meeting with the Mulberry Group. Was it successful or did it act as a spoke in your wheel?
A: Personally, I was against the intervention of the group, except on certain conditions. However, speaking on behalf of the Union, I must say that the strike was called off after the group's assurances and not because of challenges of Minister Ratwatte. There were some members in the Mulberry Group who were really concerned of issues confronting the country.
CEB engineers have warned they would respond strongly if the management took disciplinary action against probationary officers who took part in the recent strike. The engineers' union has stated that Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of any employee to join a legally constituted trade union of his or her choice.
The union says probationary status does not prohibit employees from exercising the right to take part in a strike. Moreover the appointment letter does not contain any clause that bars them from joining a Trade Union during probation period.
The union has said that it took a decision to join the strike by a resolution unanimously passed by its Executive Committee, having given due notice to the General Manager of the CEB.
A union official told The Sunday Times they were expecting a reply from the General Manager soon and would then decide on a course of action.
The Government on Tuesday with a foreign consortium, allowing full control over a portion of the Colombo harbor, will have serious repercussions, harbor professionals have warned.
Under this agreement the consortium known as South Asia Gateway Terminals (Pvt) Limited (SAGT) will undertake development of the Queen Elizabeth Quay (QEQ) and the outer harbor areas of the Colombo Port.
The share-holders of the consortium will be P&O Containers Limited (UK), P&O Australia Limited, P&O's local partner John Keells Holdings Limited and SLPA. They will take over QEQ and the adjacent area on a build operate and transfer (BOT) basis on a 50 year lease.
The QEQ, which handles 22 per cent of the Colombo Port's container, bulk, and general cargo is to be turned into an absolute container terminal.
Professionals at the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) told The Sunday Times a majority of the 15,000 harbor employees were opposed to the move. They said the original tender was for development of area outside QEQ, but there had been a deviation from tender procedures through a clause in the tender notice.
The SLPA staff/Technical Evaluation Committee which was appointed following the tender notice, rejected P&O's proposal after a long study where they found out that it would become extremely difficult to handle vessel traffic in the harbor basin.
The tender was floated in the middle of last year, soon after SLPA went into an agreement with Japan to implement a Master Plan at a cost of US $ 86 million, based on a soft loan scheme by the Overseas Economic Corporation Fund (OECF).
It is learnt that the Japanese to are concerned over the Government's move to shun their project, which would mean no more aid from Japan towards development of the Port.
"The Sunday Times" learns that a crisis is brewing among the minor employees at SLPA who are preparing for a major strike if the new agreement for containerization leads to a loss of jobs.
P&O who are to containerize the QEQ, will demolish the passenger terminal, and the bulk & general cargo berths, where a large portion of essential items and fertilizers are stacked. As P&O does not take the responsibility to re-locate berths which are to be demolished, Port officials warn that there should be no demolition of berths unless it is re-located elsewhere. "But in this case P&O expects SLPA to do the re-location which is likely to cost millions of rupees.
Several passengers arriving at Colombo airport have complained of loss of baggage and asked the authorities to enforce a strict procedure immediately.
Passengers say there is no proper system for checking the number of baggages a passenger is carrying. Anyone can take another's luggage and pass through the door undetected. They called for the earlier system which was adopted by the airport security services.
Earlier, the number of bags was checked at the final exist, against the baggage ticket appended to the air ticket at the port of origin. The latest victim was the an AirLanka manager who lost his baggage when he flew from Muscat.
AirLanka spokesman told The Sunday Times they were working out a plan with security authorities to curb loss of baggage.
Continue to the News/Comment page 3 - AirLanka fares to India up, Muslim-Tamil embrace in east, It's time to end the pantomime, Oil and Islam: an explosive mix
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk