Editorial

Editorial

Setting the right example

The message that has emerged clearly from Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s New York visit, when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly and several other fora, is that the on-going peace effort is receiving a wide spectrum of international support which some of his critics and detractors who earlier attempted to play a spoiler role must take note of. Quite apart from the U.S., many other Western and Asian countries have warmly endorsed what is being attempted and thus far achieved. Despite the pitfalls that clearly lie ahead, and Wickremesinghe is the first to acknowledge them, there is room for optimism that the process will gather increased momentum in the months and years ahead.

The prime minister has sought international assistance for the reconstruction and rehabilitation work that must now begin. While many foreign countries have time and again indicated their willingness to support this effort, there is an understandable reluctance on the part of many to commit serious funds until peace is stabilised on the ground. Wickremesinghe and his government are attempting to persuade them that the continuance of the peace process and bringing it to a successful conclusion is largely dependent on rebuilding the war-ravaged areas and reviving the national economy for which external assistance is desperately needed. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two, and one process cannot happen without the other.

But we cannot expect foreigners to forever pick up every tab for problems we have created for ourselves. There must be visible demonstration of the willingness on our part to help ourselves, to maximise what we have and eliminate waste and extravagance. We must try to extract hundred cents of value for every rupee of public expenditure, something we have woefully fallen short of over a very long period of time. The economy which shrank last year is now expected to demonstrate modest 3 per cent growth in 2002. This is far short of what is required. The mere fact that the cease-fire has held since December last year does not mean that huge military expenditure is now in the past tense. While operational expenditure is no doubt less than what it was with the guns no longer booming, establishment and other costs remain. Also, as the premier had said in New York, we will be paying arms procurement bills until 2008.

Dr. Nadeem ul Haq who recently left Colombo after a high profile stint here as the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund has often said that our government is too big and that we have been running large budget deficits and accumulating debt. The public sector was employing far too many people. The national debt last year was higher than GDP. As much as 12.8 per cent of GDP is swallowed servicing this debt with over 30 per cent of government’s current expenditure paying interest on the public debt. It is obvious that the government has to downsize but no serious intent in this regard is yet visible. There is plenty of lip service, but the bad example continues to be set at the top with a bloated cabinet and accommodation of defeated politicians in various positions at the taxpayer’s expense.

The country howled its protest when President Chandrika Kumaratunga, embracing UNP dissidents, expanded the size of the cabinet to unbelievable proportions. The JVP won some mileage for itself by compelling a 20-member limit on the number of ministers in return for its support for the survival of the PA government. But everybody knows how those who had to step down were looked after with cars, staff and various other perks they enjoyed as ministers. The UNF initially tried to hold down the size of its cabinet but succeeded only for a few weeks. The numbers were increased within the first months of its tenure and there is danger of further bloating to accommodate PA personalities helping the government to obtain the two thirds majority it needs to enact the nineteenth amendment to the constitution next month. Political needs, sadly, are fulfilled at the cost of the taxpayer.

Consider the number and size of our diplomatic missions abroad. Countries with resources hugely superior to ours maintain far fewer. These missions are expensive to set up and maintain, but the more we have, the more patronage our leaders can offer their supporters. Many countries where we have diplomatic representation do not favour us with reciprocity and for good reason. Why should they spend good money in maintaining missions here when there are no good political or economic reasons to do so? But not so Sri Lanka where profligate governments spend resources we do not have in extravagant representation abroad. Added to that is the choice of ambassadors heading them. There are reports that a septuagenarian is being considered for Japan, a vital mission for this country requiring the services of one of our best professionals whether from the foreign service or outside.

The number of politicians who accompanied the prime minister to New York also appears unreasonable. This kind of junketing at a time the country is faced with a huge cash crunch and is looking for substantial external assistance does not send the right message to anybody, whether they be foreign donors or local voters. The way politicians in office are spending public funds at a time they must set the right example to enable economies to be effected across the spectrum of public expenditure does not bear examination. It is time that the prime minister cracks a whip on this score and brings both the political and bureaucratic establishments to order. The people cannot be expected to tighten their belts and foreign countries to pour in assistance when leaders do not set the right example.

Your comments to the Editor