“We must develop a Sri Lankan identity”

Asserting that the success and productiveness of the controversial senior minister portfolios entirely depend on proper implementation, Senior Minister of Scientific Affairs Prof.

Tissa Vitarana notes that if the required backing, personnel, funding and expertise are provided, it is possible to make a success of the new scheme.

Airing his candid views on the Budget, Prof. Vitarana points out the shortcomings of the five per cent salary allowance and also makes a few other suggestions that would have been beneficial for the development of the country. Prof. Vitarana is the General Secretary of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and headed the All Party Representative Conference (APRC).

Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: What do you think about the Budget?

A: The Budget is a development-oriented Budget, which is hoping to draw in maximum private sector involvement – both local as well as foreign. For this purpose, tax concessions and a number of incentives have been given.

At the same time, there is expectation that there will be investments in value addition to increase the value of our raw material. There is a cess which is going to be levied in case people continue to export raw material. To escape that cess, there needs to be some value addition. There will be incentives for value addition. The idea is to promote value-added industrialisation.

At the same time, there is support for information communication technology, which is a very good move. We are now generating software and currently in the seventh position internationally. The expectation is that we will be able to improve our position and get more BPO income.

There should have been greater incentives for the scientists for research and to generate new technology, which would add value. I hope that there will be high tech development, particularly in nanotechnology, biotechnology and electronics, which would result in the degree of value addition being very much higher. The returns would be greater. This is the area we need to develop.

The scientists are given stimulus to generate more research outcome by having an added allowance of 25 per cent of their salary. These are being done in addition to infrastructure development and it is going to be strengthened in the period ahead.

Meanwhile, there is a need for developing venture capital. This is an area through which developed countries forge ahead. Unfortunately, venture capital in Sri Lanka is very weak. Though DFCC and NDB were basically set up to function as development banks with the emphasis of providing venture capital, they have become routine commercial banks. This is a serious shortcoming. Unfortunately this Budget has not addressed this issue.

There should be good government and private sector venture capital and development banks coming up. You are cutting down the individual tax limit, which was 35 per cent, to 25 per cent. The hope is that the extra amount of money will be invested in development. But what is to prevent those people having a luxurious existence and spending it on travelling aboard and sending money abroad? But if you get that money coming into the development banks, the development banks can then channel it to the appropriate industries for development. That will be a stimulus to the economy. That is one of the shortcomings of this Budget. I don’t know why they have not made mention of this important area.

Q: Do you believe the five per cent salary allowance is sufficient to meet the skyrocketing cost of living?

A: There is a five per cent addition to the salary. In addition there is an increased cost of living allowance, which would be about Rs. 600. Therefore, altogether the increment comes to Rs. 1,200. That is for the lower rungs and the higher rungs will be getting much more depending on their total salary.

When this was discussed within Government circles, the choice was between development and welfare. So the Government had to make a choice there. The emphasis has been on development and therefore there has been a reduction of what could be allocated for salary increases.

I would have been preferred it if the Government had given one figure for both lower and higher rungs as the allowance so that everyone gets the same amount. Maximum support needs to be given to those who are in the low income bracket. This percentage means the higher income will be getting more quantitatively.

I think the Government was basically trying to stimulate development, because it is through development that employment generation and salaries can be increased the long term. If you don’t have development you can’t achieve that.

Q: The IMF targets and expected budget deficit could not have been achieved if such an increment was given. The President has already said that it was with much difficulty that the 5% allowance was given. Don’t you think going for a higher pay hike would result in the economy collapsing?

A: No. What I suggest is that the amount the Government is going to spend on salary increments be divided by the number of people and the same amount is given to people at the bottom of the ladder as well as those higher up, which would be fairer. I am not saying to incur an extra cost.

Q: What do you think about the cabinet reshuffle?

A: That is a matter for the President. I think in terms of his development objectives, he has made the necessary changes. There are other imperatives and political issues that need to be give due consideration, so that is a matter for the President. He has to get the cooperation of all those who formed the Government and make sure that leaders or representatives of those parties are also given a place in the Government set up.

Q: How would you define the controversial ‘senior minister’ portfolios?

A: I think the call for better coordination, functions and targeting in areas of importance has been generally expressed by not only politicians but also development economists over the years. The idea here is to get that improved coordination and improved performance in the areas that are going to make a difference in the economy. The intention I believe is a good intention. Having the senior ministers who are specifically going to address those issues would be productive, if there is proper implementation.

For example, in the area of science and technology, I came out with a science, technology and innovation plan which was accepted by the President and the Cabinet. And it was made into a national plan.

The idea is to develop science and technology in an appropriate manner to maximise economic development and set up an international world class centre which will take those advanced technologies forward. This will have to benefit those ministries that are producing raw materials and low level value addition products. Thereafter, there has to be an interaction with industry, agriculture and plantation sector.

Then higher education has to come into the process because we have to get the PhDs and human resources and so forth. To implement that plan we have to interact with the scientific sections of all those ministries. As a head of a line ministry, I have no authority to do that. I have to depend on the goodwill of those individual ministers and the extent to which they fit in this national plan the cabinet has now accepted.

The mandate that has been given to me as the Senior Minister of Scientific Affairs covers that, so that I can by right not only influence the performance of those different line ministries in relation to implementation of our plan but also interact with the concerned institutions, which would enable me to implement the plan better than if I had just been a line minister.

However, this clearly depends on how well this new scheme will be implemented: if we get the necessary backing, personnel, funding and expertise, we can make a success of it.

Q: Most senior ministers are unhappy because they have not been given proper power to engage in any work.

A: I don’t know. You have to ask them.

Q: Are you happy?

A: If what I said will be actually achieved, I will be happy.

Q: Under the leadership of former Premier Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, senior ministers requested a meeting with President Rajapaksa to discuss issues that matter to them. However, Minister Basil Rajapaksa and the Attorney General represented the President and the meeting ended up on a disappointing note. What actually happened at the meeting?

A: I don’t think that is something we should discuss. There was an exchange of views. I think both parties understood each other better.

Q: The Ministry of Science and Technology, which was earlier under your purview, has now been divided into two ministries; Scientific Affairs and Technology and Research. Do you believe such a move was required?

A: That is a decision for the President. I don’t want to comment on that. Now that he has done that, we have to see how we can best work together and achieve what is necessary in the interest of the country.

Q: How optimistic are you that the long-term projects commenced during your tenure, now under the Ministry of Technology and Research, would be carried out as you planned?

A: I started the ‘Vidatha’ programme to take science and technology to the village. This has been going ahead despite a number of constraints; financial, personnel, equipment and so on. But this programme has been making good progress. I am personally satisfied with the progress we have made during the last four-and-a-half years.

We have been able to set up 263 computerised centres in different administrative divisions. Through that we have been able to transfer 138 different technologies from the research institutions, universities and other centres to the village. As a result, more than more than 8,000 entrepreneurs have benefited. Actually 5,200 of them are new entrepreneurs. There are 14 who export products and 164 selling their products to various supermarket chains. In addition, another 68 entrepreneurs subcontract to those who supply to supermarket chains.

On the other hand, we have trained young people, especially to use computers, and more than 25,000 have been trained during this period.

We have upgraded the training to enable those who get that training – which is given free – to sit for the Computer Driving License, which is a basic qualification accepted worldwide. The Computer Driving License will enable a person to become a professional in the ICT field. If there is more support given to the ‘Vidatha’ programme, it can contribute very much more. Now the programme is under Pavithra Wanniarachchi; my hope is that she will continue this programme with greater vigour if possible.

Q: After contributing so much for the science and technology sector, why did the President divide your previous Ministry into two? Does this mean your work was not recognised by him?

A: That you have to ask the President. I hope the President was aware of the work I carried out. I tried to get it conveyed as best I could. I must confess that being a researcher all my life, we are used to getting satisfaction out of the doing research rather than getting publicity for what we do. I may not have given sufficient publicity for what I have done. But certainly in the area of nanotechnology, I am very satisfied about the Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology (SLINTEC), which we set up.

SLINTEC has been recognised even by visitors from abroad as being up to international standards. Already in the space of one year we have been able to generate six international US patent applications. We have been able to demonstrate that given the facilities and the support, we are able to achieve our goals. Here I must thank the private sector, which also assisted in this endeavour.

The outcomes have been very practical and beneficial to the economy. Even though most of the scientists who participated came from the universities, the fact they have been able to interact with the industry and conduct productive research in a short period like this augurs well for the future.

Q: What is happening inside the Lanka Sama Samaja Party?

A: We have just had our 17th Conference. Normally we have it once in five years, this time we had it after almost six years. The conference consisted of very serious political discussion. Two resolutions were up for discussions and there was extensive discussion among the membership. The party has now clearly committed itself to working with the present Government, trying to achieve maximum economic development for the country while also trying to achieve maximum social justice. In that context, I have been selected as the General Secretary. I think that would give me a better opportunity to take the party forward on the basis of the political resolution.

Q: What happened to the rift in your party following your decision to support the 18th Amendment?

A: The party understood that we did our very best to get the 17th Amendment suitably modified and also get the executive presidency removed. Our party, together with the Communist Party and the Democratic People’s Front, together had five members. Our five votes were essential to get a two-thirds majority; we were able to get a change in the stance of the SLFP and the Government where they accepted that they would do away with the executive presidency.

The talks that took place between the President and Ranil Wickremesinghe accepted that they both go along with the removal of the executive presidency. Subsequently, when the SLMC came in, then further sections of the UNP came in and the number of supporters for the Government went up to 160. Then our five votes were no longer critical. In that context, our bargaining power was diminished. Then we had to accept the new reality. That’s what we did; as the leadership of the three parties, we went along the new reality. We gave up our earlier struggle temporarily.

For instance, in the statement that I made to Parliament, the first two-thirds was a clear indication of the stand of the LSSP with regard to the executive presidency; we continue to hold that view. Similarly, we feel that there should be certain conditions; for example, the Elections Commission must be absolutely neutral and impartial. There are other commissions which are necessarily for governmental administration and governmental programme implementation, such as the Public Service Commission.

You must have a Public Service Commission which is supportive of the Government. Then you have a public service that is going to do that. You can’t have a public service which is not going to do that. There you need to have a Public Service Commission that will be much more proactive carrying forward the problems of the Government. These commissions have to be viewed in terms of what their purpose is and then there should be suitable selection procedures.

And the other thing of course is that when the question of removing the two term barrier came up, our point of view is that we accept the new reality, where there is a democratic election process. As a long you have a free and fair election, then it will be up to the people to decide whether they want to have Mahinda Rajapaksa for the third term or not. It’s not as if he is imposing a third term by compulsion on the country or the people.

So when we look at various choices before the country, we consider Mahinda Rajapaksa a progressive, left-of-centre politician who has always acted in the interests of the poor people. Therefore we are even prepared to support him for the third term of office. When it comes to appointing the commissions, we have requested the President to act in a way that will win the confidence of the people so they feel that what they have done is fair. If we can go ahead on those lines, then it should be.

We were able to convince the conference that this was the correct line and I must say that when we had this delegates’ conference, we got 317 votes from those who supported my position, while those who were for a much more critical position – in which case my decision would have resulted in leaving the Government – got only 61 votes. So you can see that the conference clearly accepted our position.

Now that there is a clear conference division and I personally got a very good vote – out of the total 378 I got 348 votes – it shows a clear vote of confidence in me. That has given me the strength to work as the General Secretary of the party. I am hoping that now we can work united as one party with a clear policy.

Q: What happened to the All Party Representative Commission (APRC) proposals?

A: When we reached a consensus among the 13 political parties that were participating, there was a strong unanimous decision before finalising our document that we should get the views of the President. I went and presented the document to the President and explained to him the various decisions that had been arrived at.

There were 21 political issues on which we reached agreement, which would be the basis for a new constitution. Then the President wanted time to study this and what has happened over time was that five of these proposals which we reached agreement on have been accepted and included in the ‘Mahinda Chinthana’. I am convinced that they will be implemented.

The remaining ones were issues where I feel the consensus would be broad and representatives of the Tamil people in the north and east who now live without the pressure of the LTTE should be brought in to continue the dialogue. If the dialogue can be conducted on the basis of the APRC proposals, it would be most productive. What I feel essentially is that there should be an effective dialogue where their views are considered and suitable political decisions taken.

Q: Didn’t the President hurry the commission to submit the proposals before the scheduled time?

A: There was hurry only at the beginning of 2009. The President wanted us to come up with a set of proposals quickly. At that point of time we compromised saying go along with the 13th Amendment, with suitable changes. As a first interim measure our conviction was that the 13th Amendment by itself had too many shortcomings which we don’t need to saddle ourselves with.



Contd. on page 14



“We must develop a Sri Lankan identity”...

Contd.from Page 14

For instance, the concurrent list there has resulted in those powers which were going to be actually exercised by the province in consultation with the centre have been practically usurped by the centre; one of the things that we did as the APRC process was clearly separate the powers, so that there were powers which the centre exercised and powers which the province exercised.

Then we went down further to give 53 powers to the level of local government. This was all done with the idea of having devolution right down to village level and we were so on to the revival of the village council system, which I am glad the President has included it in the ‘Mahinda Chinthana’.

In that way, while we broaden devolution and bring it down to village level, we don’t need to encumber ourselves with the weaknesses of the 13th Amendment. Just to cite an example, the 13th Amendment says that there should be a separate police commission in each province. This is modelled on what was done in India. In India each state has its own police commission.

A state in India is bigger than Sri Lanka so that there is some sense in doing that. They each have different languages, different cultures and far larger economic units. But in small Sri Lanka, having a separate police commission in addition to the national police commission in each province is nonsensical.

All appointments of ASP and above are done by the centre. If you have the provinces each having their own systems recruitment and promotions, then you have ASP and above national system, which may not be coterminous in what is done in provinces. We will have all sorts of problems and complications. We decided to do away with that. We need to implement those things judiciously in terms of our reality and our views and not just imitate someone else.

I am very strongly for the continuation of the APRC process and getting the representatives of Tamil and Muslim people who have been elected this time to give their views and also to get the parties that left the process like the UNP to come back and give their final inputs and get the broadest possible consensus for a new constitution which suits the country and our people.

Q: What are your suggestions for reconciliation and economic development?

A: It’s not enough to have just economic development. Though it is essential to build infrastructure and increase job opportunities, you have to satisfy youth aspirations. Youth frustration was also a factor which contributed to the conflict arising. We have to address those issues; but to think that alone will satisfy the aspirations of minorities, the Tamils in particular, is short-sighted.

We need to have an adequate sharing of power so that they can meet their own needs as far as possible through their own leaders. To the extent that they do that and are happy in the ability to do that, they will actually feel part of and get absorbed into our society better.

I think the time has now come where we have to – while respecting, protecting and developing individual identities and cultures – have an overriding Sri Lankan identity and Sri Lankan culture. We must get together as one nation. It is to the extent that we can do that, that we will be able to achieve the necessary economic development in a very hostile environment.

As you know, it’s a highly global economy which is now in crisis. Therefore, we have to compete in a crisis-ridden economy for development with countries that have a big advantage over us in terms of capital technology and so on. It a good challenge. We need to get together as one nation to meet that challenge.