http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/04/01/fea01.asp

Betrayal, the prelude to foreign invasion

Minister of Economic Development Basil Rajapaksa was interviewed by
ITN on its program ‘Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow’ on March 3.
Q: Higher vegetable prices have dropped sharply. Is it due to the
market dynamics or due to a targeted program launched by the Government?
A: President Mahinda Rajapaksa since his ascension to presidency had
implicit faith in two things. He believed that joint action by the people,
government and its officials on a determined effort always produced the desired
results. It was such a frame of mind which culminated in heralding lasting peace
for the country by President Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and
the Security Forces. Food prices began to escalate daily from the time of
national independence.
President Rajapaksa launched a National People’s Movement to resolve this
problem. He enlisted the services of public officers such as former Grama Seva
Niladaris, Samurdhi Officers, Agri-Research Officers and Family Health Officers.
It was with the participation of all these officers including a number of
ministries that Divi Neguma was launched under one Senior Minister in the
agricultural sector. This led 1.5 million family units to contribute their mite
to the production drive. The process was accelerated with the fertiliser subsidy
being extended to vegetable cultivators and other sectors such as tea, coconut,
rubber and export crops. Domestic poultry farming too was encouraged. The
campaign became a success with the direct contribution by the Government in
providing seeds and other agricultural inputs.
Q: As a leader of this campaign are you happy with the public
response?
A: Yes, I am fully satisfied since we have reaped good results. The
Opposition harped on green chillies and spoke about it at local fairs. Today
they are talking adversely about the reduced prices. Those who did harp on
coconut prices in the past are today deaf.
People have responded to the government positively. Despite the criticism
levelled at the public service, its members dedicated themselves to advance the
cause of Government programs and Pensioners, students and teachers participated.
Q: Has the Government taken any measures to cushion the effect of
price reduction in vegetables in the interest of vegetable cultivators?
A: Yes, steps had to be taken to protect the interests of the
cultivator. High prices was one reason for the good public response. People will
not take pains to cultivate if the prices remain cheap.
It is something universal. That is why globalisation has its impact on us.
The Government should help bring down the cost of production, to enable us to
continue our program.
The government on its part provided the fertiliser subsidy, organic
fertiliser in place of chemical fertiliser, seeds and plants, greenhouses too
were constructed to withstand the ill-effects of the environment. Production
increased and the need for a lucrative market arose.
Self-sufficiency in vegetables
The prime target of Divi Neguma is individual self-sufficiency in vegetables
which will encourage people to grow fresh vegetables and fruits apart from
improving the intake of nutritious food. We need to provide a market to secure
higher prices for the produce of the farmers who cultivate paddy on a commercial
scale.
We helped them to export these produce and where possible to supply them to
tourist hotels. This program needs to be further expanded. Action has also been
taken to accelerate the import substitution process. Our priority should be to
cultivate vegetables to cater to the domestic demand and if there is any excess,
it could be exported. Despite our being self-sufficient in rice, the
carbohydrate intake necessary to maintain a healthy body has not improved. Even
in Anuradhapura and Hambantota which are predominately rice-producing districts,
the demand for wheat-flour is increasing.
It is time for Sri Lankans to depend on rice for their three meals daily as
we have plenty of rice.
Q: What action has been taken by the Government to facilitate the
purchase of paddy and also to maintain a stable price for paddy?
A: Rice is our main staple diet. Over prime aim was to achieve
self-sufficiency in rice which epitomised national pride and sovereignty. It was
in this context that President Mahinda Rajapaksa directed that the fertiliser
subsidy be provided to farmers at Rs. 350.
The plight of paddy farmers was such that they were forced to commit suicide
as they could not sell their produce. Paddy lands were filled and the Paddy
Marketing Board was closed and garment factories had been set up in abandoned
paddy stores. We took action to renovate tanks and anicuts and ensure a regular
supply of water to the farmer. We revived the Paddy Marketing Board and
purchased paddy from farmers. Fertiliser sold at Rs. 3,500 was brought down to
the concessionary rate of Rs. 350 which helped cut down the costs of production
and alleviate the farmer’s burden.
The guaranteed price for a measure of paddy was fixed at Rs. 18, in the
interests of the consumer. The demand for rice has increased in the World Market
and, therefore, the price of rice has to be maintained without leaving room for
consumers to switch to wheat flour. Any increase in the price of paddy will have
its effect on the market which results in lowering rice prices and increasing
the demand for wheat flour to the detriment of the paddy cultivator. The Paddy
Marketing Board cannot purchase the entire harvest since its capacity is
limited. It was during Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s tenure of office
when the late Hector Kobbekaduwa was the Minister concerned that the PMB
purchased the largest quantity of rice. That was the time when President
Rajapaksa representing the Beliatta electorate pioneered the setting up of the
PMB. The average purchase by the PMB was around 10 percent. The Government did
not release the rice stocks to the open market, but supplied it to the consumer
via ration books. At present the PMB purchases around seven percent of the
harvest which is more than sufficient. Apart from the PMB, the Finance and
Economic Development Ministries too through its network of Government Agents
continue to intervene.
Despite shortcomings, this system works but it has its ups an downs. When the
price of paddy in the Ampara district dropped, we purchased the harvest through
the Government Agent and improvised a government-owned vacant factory to store
it. We have launched the ‘one project for each village’ program in 14,000 Grama
Seva divisions by which priority was given to construct paddy stores and
fertiliser storage facilities in the village itself, so that the village-based
farmers’ organisations could purchase the paddy harvest.
Q: The Government maintained that the decision to provide the
fertiliser subsidy at Rs. 350 was a public investment. Is it so even today?
A: Certainly so, the moment you withdraw the fertiliser subsidy, the
cost of production goes up affecting the paddy farmers. This in turn has its
impact on increasing prices of rice and vegetables which eventually retards the
production process. We call this a subsidy, other countries operate it under
different names. This time we had the soil tested for its effect on cultivation.
Development of village
Q: What was the rationale behind ‘One Project for Each Village’
program?
A: The development of the village is the focal point of the Mahinda
Chinthana program when president Mahinda Rajapaksa assumed office in 2005. Over
80 percent of the population live in villages and, therefore, we felt that
infrastructure facilities have to be upgraded. During my visits to India and
Japan we were cautioned against urbanisation which would result in a myriad of
environmental problems such as contamination of waterways, slums and other
concomitant social problems. President Rajapaksa resolved this complex problem
under the Maga Neguma program by giving pride of place to the village. Basic
infrastructure facilities such as electricity, water supply and roads and
telecommunication development were provided. Today a Sri Lankan could
communicate with anybody in the world through the internet and other media.
Potable water, development of schools, rural health centres, small playgrounds,
children’s parks, pre-schools and community schools were the other amenities
provided. We will also set up small jungle parks in villages to preserve the
ecological balance. The ‘one project for each village’ introduced by the
President as a mega development program through the national Budget was aimed at
dissuading inhabitants from leaving the village and abandoning it to wilderness.
The President was made aware of the problems faced by the village when
matters such as waning population, loss of preferential votes, and the
non-representation of the village, led to its isolation. He responded by
allocating Rs. 1 million to each village totalling 14,000 villages in the
country. This allocation was made exclusively for the particular project meant
for the village. Some people entertained doubts about such a village
re-awakening project! I personally examined each and every village development
proposal after discussing it with people’s representatives and public officers.
Q: The Government hopes to ensure community participation for the
development of the village-based project. How could those interested form the
project?
A: From the very beginning of the Gama Naguma program, the President
gave priority for community participation. We enlisted the support of the local
organisations, people’s representatives, Public Officers, Divisional
Secretaries, Samurdhi Officers, Cultivation Officers, and School Development
Committees. The proposals became people-oriented and it had its fair share of
weakness. However, we decided to give effect to it.
Secondly, from the concept to the formulation of the project proposal,
community participation is guaranteed. What is most important is that the people
should identify the project as one of their own to ensure its quality and proper
implementation. Ultimately the people themselves feel a sense of relief and
derive satisfaction. The bitter truth is that the private contractor does not
welcome community participation since he had overestimated the project for the
sake of profit.
Q: What is the progress achieved by Gama Neguma?
A: We received more votes from areas where the Gama Naguma had been
implemented. The Gama Naguma was originally launched by the Nation Building
Minister under President Rajapaksa. Karandeniya and Moneragala were the
electorates where we received a significant number of preferential votes. The
periphery was largely benefited by the Gama Naguma program which provided
potable water, irrigation facilities and toilet facilities for schools in rural
areas. There are altogether 9,700 schools in the island and 8,300 school toilets
were constructed under the auspices of the Gama Naguma
Q: March 2012 has been designated as the ‘month for household economic
planning’. What is a household economic unit?
A: Nutrition, road security, additional income and reducing
cost-of-living are the four objectives to be realised under the Gama Naguma
program. We also decided to launch small-scale projects instead of mega projects
for the economic development. For example, it costs the Government Rs. 5 billion
to import chillies. If each family is motivated to cultivate vegetables and
other minor food crops in their plot of land to meet its needs it would not only
improve the family economy but also contribute to the national economy.
Q: Proposals at grass-roots level were entertained for village
development. Has this helped win the confidence of people in rural areas?
A: President Rajapaksa sought the views of the people, trade unions,
public officers, politicians and university dons before launching the Mahinda
Chintana program. This had helped develop children’s and maternity homes. We
have first-hand experience of the deplorable situation at the weekly fair
visited by the rich and poor alike. It is unclear and stinking. Heaps of garbage
remain uncleared. There are no toilet facilities for the public. We have
identified the shortcomings and having gathered first-hand experience, we
formulated the projects to help people to overcome their difficulties.
Foreign interference
Q: A developed economy and food security are indispensable for Sri
Lanka to effectively withstand foreign interference. Is there a special program
launched by the Government to realise these objectives?
A:Food consumption and the cost-of-living affect public life. The
country progressed at a rapid pace. Foreign exchange has to be allocated to
import machinery. Our foreign exchange earnings did not match its outflow.
Exports reached dizzy heights and there were heavy tourist inflows. Expatriate
earnings increased. Such earnings were insufficient to offset the escalating oil
bill.
Q: The President in the budget made proposals for export development
and incentives for import substitution. Have these proposals been implemented?
A: With the local cultivation of five food crops we aim at being
self-sufficient in food. At present we are self-sufficient in Indian-corn. About
80 percent of Ulundu is cultivated locally in the North and the East. Expo 2012
is held in Sri Lanka after a lapse of about 20 years. Foreign representatives,
buyers, tourists, foreign companies, chambers and officials from foreign
countries are due to visit Sri Lanka for the Expo 2012 exhibition. It would
benefit both Sri Lankans and foreigners. The Government in collaboration with
the private sector will launch a program to export vegetables, fruits,
ornamental fish and flowers. This will certainly help farmers secure a good
price for their produce. Traditional craftsmen too get the rare opportunity of
meeting foreign experts.
Q: People have their misgivings whether the US resolution moved
against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC sessions would hamper our roadmap for progress.
A: We had received threats in the past. There were challenges thrown
at us whenever we took a decision or appointed a person to a post. When we
opened the Mavil Aru anicut there was opposition by certain countries that we
breached the provisions of the Ceasefire Agreement but we acted without fear. We
were denied the GSP+ as a result of restoring peace in the country. We had to
decide as to what mattered most whether we safeguard the image of the country or
dent the self-reliance of our people or at last yield to the pressure of the
Euro? We did not let down the people. We faced GSP+ challenge and got over the
crisis through a Government-private sector integrated program. Our export
percentage increased. We could however conquer the market through the
competitive quality and price of our commodities.
Q: Has our past performance been helpful in meeting international
challenges?
A: Not only today,we also faced threats in the past. Organisations
masquerading under different names threatened us. The foreign ministers of some
countries too did likewise when they were in Sri Lanka. Several countries
opposed our efforts to negotiate a loan from the IMF. Some of them maintained
that when negotiating loans the politics of the client country would not be
taken into consideration. What was important was only the country’s economic
performance.
Eventually, we succeed. Later, when the World Bank funds were negotiated for
Northern development we faced a similar situation. At the UNHRC sessions too we
fared well.
Lanka-India deliberations
Q: You had represented the government at the previous Sri Lanka-India
deliberations. What is the government’s stand on India’s voting for the US
resolution at the recent UNHRC sessions?
A: This problem affects them more than us. India is in a quandary over
what it had not done, a thing with which their country is not concerned. They
had to face the big problem of getting their budget passed in Parliament.
Threats by some South Indian political elements and America itself became a
problem to India. In our region except for India all other countries voted in
favour of Sri Lanaka.
The Maldives and Bangladesh stood by Sri Lanka. Although Pakistan did not
have voting rights, yet in its capacity as president of the council of Muslim
States supported Sri Lanka. Japan though without voting rights extended its
support to Sri Lanka while China, Indonesia and the Philippines also voted for
us. India took a decision different to those of all other Asian countries. India
maintained its policy of not supporting country-specific resolutions throughout.
India was internationally recognised not only as an independent Non-Aligned
state but also a major power opposing powerful countries trying to exert undue
pressure on smaller countries.
Q: Of the 542 seats in the Lok Sabha, the Indian Government has only
271 seats. The DMK party threatened to quit the government ranks with its 18
MPs. The next general election will be held in another two years. Was not this
precarious internal political situation that compelled India to make its
controversial decision to vote for the US Resolution?
A: I think so. Let us reflect on our own position during the
humanitarian operation. We did not have a majority in Parliament. It was a
critical situation. What sort of a serious problem we would have faced had we
acted in the interests of the international community or yield to the pressure
of another country? We should consider the interests of our own country first
when we have to make decisions internationally. A number of small and powerful
countries stood by Sri Lanka. We should pay tribute to these countries. India
and other countries should understand that Sri Lanka too feels the impact of
both national and international problems. Whatever decisions we make we should
do so with the concurrence of the people belonging to different races and
religions. This Government cannot ignore the people’s mandate and continue in
office. When we are called upon to make decisions, attention has to be focussed
on internal complexities. Interests in the international community come second.
Q: As long as people remain inseparable from the government, the
international community would not be able to interfere in our internal affairs.
Therefore, the people’s support is the best insurance for the government. Does
the government command the sovereignty of the people?
A: Sri Lanka is one country which had been voted to power by the
democratic will of the people. Their support is a tremendous strength for the
Government to face challenges. The US moves a resolution against a country if it
makes nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. We do not make any such weapons
except perhaps, a Galkatas or a shotgun. We are also not a member of any
strategic alliance or a threat to the security of another country. The US moved
a resolution against Cuba on the pretext that it was a member of the Socialist
Camp. I am at a loss to understand as to why they moved a resolution against Sri
Lanka when we have not invaded any country or made weapons.
Many challenges
Q: We faced many challenges during the humanitarian operation. Over
280,000 people had been relocated in the welfare villages. Most of the areas
have been demined. Life in the North and West was made easy via Livelihood
Development Programs. Around 11,900 LTTE combatants were rehabilitated and
handed back to their parents.
A: The families of LTTE leaders are still looked after by the
government while the leaders have been reintegrated into mainstream life.
Q: Did we not convince the international community of these
achievement, or do they pretend not to know what the Sri Lanka government had
done to improve the lives of those in the North and the East?
A: The problem is that those who are fully aware of the colossal
amounts of funds pumped into the North and the East, and the massive development
schemes launched to alleviate the misery of the people and ensure a decent life
for them either pretend not to know or else keep silent. There was an instance
when the OCHA representative questioned several Western diplomats as to why they
did not brief their governments about what the Sri Lankan Government had done
for the North, one of them is reported to have said, “What Sri Lanka did was
colossal’ while the other said, “there are allegations by the South that more
government funds and foreign aid are pumped into the North”.
In fact, we have allocated only one million rupees for a village in the South
while as equal amount is spent on a single family in the North to upgrade their
infrastructure facilities and standard of living.
Some people who are well aware of these achievements remain tight-lipped. It
is difficult to enlighten or explain matters to such people.
No sooner President Rajapaksa received the UPFA ticket for presidential
election he was denied access to the party headquarters. Nor was he permitted to
issue a manifesto under the UPFA. The then leader opposed the move. It was from
that day that there were threats. We need to face challenges when we begin to
usher in a new era of prosperity for the people.
the LTTE rump overseas, certain sections of NGOs and some Western countries
have got together and hatched conspiracies against Sri Lanaka. Funds spent to
buy military hardware are being used for their disinformation campaign
worldwide. Those who spoke on our behalf including the media are now silent.
Q: How did the opposition parties respond to the challenges posed by
the foreign elements?
A: When the entire country stood by the President and the Security
Forces during the humanitarian operation for peace certain political elements in
the country made utterances to demoralise the soldiers, incite the people and
cause a rift among our supporters. Attempts were also made to re-enact a ‘Black
July’ to breach the unity among the communities. Websites were used to
disseminate false propaganda.
All these were resorted to force the international community to intervene in
our country. However, the people stood by us irrespective of political
differences.
Betrayal is the prelude to foreign invasion as borne out by history. Sri
Lanka was no exception. At times the media too turns a blind eye to these
situations.
Translated by K.D.M. Kittanpahuwa