Ceylon Today Editorial

Joblessness increases

26 January 2017

Sri Lanka's labour force participation rate (LFPR) in the third quarter (3Q) of the current year declined over its 1Q figures, while unemployment increased, latest Census and Statistics Department (CSD) data showed.

Whereas the LFPR in the review period decreased from 54.1% to 53.8%, a 0.3 percentage point or a 0.55% fall, the unemployment rate in review period increased from 4.2% to 4.5%, a 0.3 percentage point or a steep, 7.14% incline.

In numerical terms, the LFPR in 1Q 2016 numbered 8,318,667; whereas by end 3Q, this figure had had jumped to, 8,376,002; a massive increase of 57,335 (0.69%).LFPR or the economically active population is defined as those who are 15 years and above who are employed, coupled with those who are of the same age category who are unemployed, but who are actively looking for employment.

However, from a percentage perspective, LFPR has declined from 54.1% to 53.8% in the review period. Such an indicator may be pointer to people giving up hope of looking for employment, as reflected by the lower LFPR, or, otherwise, due to ageing, which may increase their inability to search for work (thereby pushing, or else due to sickness, which too would make them unable to look for work.) On the assumption that the majority of those who are sickly are the aged and are therefore unable to search for work, based on that hypothesis,then, ageing comes first, ipso facto followed by sickness, therefore, another reason for the low LFPR may be due to ageing.

Based on that premise of thinking, it, then, logically follows, that the two reasons behind the lower LFPR may be due to ageing and/or simply people giving up looking for work, either because they have no hope of securing a job, or, the third reason, because they have got rich! If they have become wealthy, then too there is no necessity for them to look for work.

But, considering the fact that poverty in the island has stagnated last year, therefore, it's unlikely that the decline in the LFPR in the review period is due to poverty having had declined and those being rich have had increased, but, rather, the decline in the LFPR may be attributed to ageing and/or people, having had given up looking for a job, and not due to any other reason.

In fact Sri Lanka has been bogged down in poverty for the whole of last year, CSD data showed. Of Sri Lanka's 25 districts, 14 of those, or 56% of the island's total districts were mired in poverty at the beginning of last year, with no change in the status quo by the year end. (Ceylon Today of 20 January 2017).

In tandem with these unsavoury developments, it, naturally followed that the country's unemployment rate in the review period increased from 4.2% to 4.5%, a 0.3 percentage point or a steep, 7.14% incline. The ranks of the unemployed jumped from 349,686 to
376,180; an increase of 26,494 (7.58%) in the review period.

But, also from a numerical perspective, the number of employed in the review period increased by 30,891 (0.39%) to 7,999,821; whereas, those who were economically active increased much faster, by a speed of 57,385 (0.69%) to 8,376,002; but, not as fast as those who were considered as being of an eligible age for employment, which number increased by a massive 186,576 (1.21%) to 15,568,777 in the review period, hence the reason behind the decrease in the LFPR between the two review periods, because, not everyone who's eligible for work, according to the criterion adopted by CSD, was looking for a job, whereas among those looking for a job, their numbers have increased, as reflected by the unemployment statistics.

The increase in unemployment may be due to the drought, in the context that nearly 30% of Sri Lanka's labour force is employed in the Agriculture Sector. For instance the numbers of those employed in this Sector in the review period declined from 2,274,722 (28.5% of total employment) to 2,168,982 (27.1%); a fall of a massive 105,740 (4.65%) in the review period.

In comparison, the Industry Sector grew from 2,068,453 (26%) to 2,144,808 (26.8%); an increase of 76,355 (3.69%) and the Services Sector from 3,625,756 (45.5%) to 3,686,092 (46.1%); a hike of 60,336 (1.66%) in the review period. Those show that on a net basis a total of 30,951 new jobs were created in all three sectors, whereas the LFPR in the review period increased much more rapidly, i.e. by a number of 57,385 (0.69%) to 8,376,002; but not as fast as those eligible for employment which grew by 186,576 (1.21%) to 15,568,777 in the review period. The number 15,568,777 is derived by computation of the LFPR and the economically active population, as CSD hasn't given that number.

Therefore, it may be construed that the failure of the Agriculture Sector is the cause for increased unemployment in Sri Lanka.

The need therefore is to hone new skills to those in the Agriculture Sector to find alternate employment in the other sectors of the economy.

Daily News Editorial

Sampanthan makes common cause

26 January 2017

Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan has often been accused of speaking only on issues affecting the people of the North. This voicing of sentiments only of a particular people or community naturally attached the racist label onto him and other members of the TNA. There were misgivings across the political spectrum if the octogenarian politician would fit the bill as an effective Opposition Leader whose primary interest lay in voicing the grievance of the Tamil people to the exclusion of all national issues.

On Tuesday though, in parliament, Sampanthan strayed from the beaten track and touched on a topic that has been the talking point of the nation as a whole - corruption. The Opposition Leader lashed out at all governments since independence for doing nothing about corruption. “All governments present and past defend the corrupt he said. He said people who are patently guilty are not punished. “Is there anyone who was punished by a court for corruption? There is no one. You are just fooling the people” the Opposition leader noted. Sampanthan said political parties hit out at each about corruption, but when one party is defeated and replaced by another, corruption continues. There is finger pointing at each other but nothing happens, he said, adding that the people were getting sick of this situation.

Corruption by politicians of all hues is not a recent phenomenon and had been accepted as a matter of course since the dawn of independence, although it must said that corruption in the past pales into insignificance when considering its scale and scope in the present day. In the past, corruption was largely confined to what is called santhosams where a politician may have received a consideration for a favour granted. Corruption was by no means macro, as it is today, where the illegally amassed wealth of politicians are stashed away in foreign banks. But there is no denying that there was corruption in the past too, but these did not get exposed, as is the case today.

Sampanthan mentioned the names certain post independence politicians such as D.S. Senanayake, Dudley, SWRD and Srima as examples of politicians who were untainted by corruption. But corruption did exists under their rule, engaged in the by the lesser minions, of which, those mentioned above may or may not have been aware of. Particularly the era of the 1970-77 United Front Government under Mrs Bandaranaike was marked by large scale corruption involving members of her government and which formed the chief plank of the UNP election platform in 1977. But corruption soared to new heights under the Jayewardene government, with the liberal economy adding grist to the mill for corrupt acts. JRJ increased the salaries of his Ministers and MPs on the basis that this would keep them out of temptation’s way. But corruption thrived on an unprecedented scale, with top ministers in his government named in many of the crooked deals.

This state of affairs gave CBK and her team to come up with an attractive and very effective slogan of eradicating dooshanaya and bheeshanaya in her general election campaign. But the situation only turned for the worst with corruption getting institutionalised and the trail leading even to the very top echelons of power.

Corruption, needless to say, became a way of life under Mahinda Rajapaksa and for the first time in post independence Sri Lanka, an oligarchy ruled the country which apportioned for itself 70 per percent of the national budget. What is more, the chief anti corruption body was paralysed while the Attorney General’s Department was taken under the wing of the chief executive, putting paid to any attempts to rope in the corrupt. No wonder, no politician has so far been convicted for corruption by a court of law, as Sampanthan says. Even at present, we see Opposition politicians only being paraded before the various commissions. Whether they will actually be convicted is another matter. No wonder politicians are being described as a “special breed”.

The Opposition Leader said accusations have also being hurled at the Yahapalanaya government. True, but it is too early to say to what degree this will be taken, although it is already tainted with issues such as the bond scam, against which even government functionaries have spoken out openly.

Hence corruption is deeply ingrained in the country’s body politic where no party or government could claim innocence. Try as they might, no leader will succeed in combating corruption if it is done in a halfhearted manner. A steely will is required by those at the helm to rid the body politic of this canker. But political imperatives sometimes make even leaders baulk at tackling this problem, the way it should be done. They tolerate the corrupt acts of party members for a multitude of reasons, chief of which is their ability to deliver votes at an election through popularity or muscle power. No anti-corruption body will dare pursue such individuals. Sampanthan’s outcry will hence remain a cry in the wilderness.

The Island Editorial

Democracy in a quandary

26 January 2017

Brexit was a political tsunami, which swept across the UK. Rejecting calls from all major political parties which wanted the UK to remain in the European Union (EU) people voted for a withdrawal last year. Prime Minister David Cameron, who took the referendum gamble in keeping with a pre-election promise and campaigned hard to keep the UK in the EU, had to resign. It was thought at that time that Brexit would trigger itself, unhindered though the referendum was non-binding. But, a recent UK Supreme Court ruling has come as the proverbial straw for the opponents of Brexit. It has prevented Prime Minister Theresa May from exercising her executive powers or ‘royal prerogative’ to invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty to make Brexit a reality.

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that any change in the law to give effect to the referendum has to be made in the only way permitted by an Act of Parliament in keeping with the British constitution. It is being speculated in political and media circles that the opponents of Brexit may want to use the SC ruling to promote their agenda. The SC has, however, held that the May administration is not bound to seek approval of the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before triggering Brexit. The will of the people expressed at a referendum has apparently obviated the need to do so. This decision has, however, cut no ice with the proponents of devolution.

A model democracy finds itself in a dilemma! The SC ruling has caused people to be pitted against their representatives. Sovereignty, which resides in people, is exercised by Parliament in a democracy. Now that the British people themselves have called for Brexit does any of their representatives have a moral right to defy a popular verdict expressed in the most democratic manner via a referendum? How democratic will it be for the MPs, most of whom opposed Brexit, to meddle with PM May’s plans to pull out of the EU or even try to block Brexit following the Supreme Court ruling at issue based on a lacuna in the Act of Parliament which created the referendum but has remained silent on what should happen as a result? Should the MPs decide to try to block Brexit, with or without success, wouldn’t it be a case of the tail wagging the dog? What would such a precedent lead to vis-a-vis relations between people and their legislators?

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has said his party will not try to derail Brexit but may seek amendments to the legislation. But, the British media are convinced otherwise. They think as many as 80 Labour MPs will vote against the government’s move to trigger Article 50, according to agency reports. If what is being speculated comes to pass, the trigger Bill, as it were, will be more than a formality contrary to the thinking of the Leave campaigners.

The British SC ruling makes us revisit A. C. Dicey’s authoritative view of sovereignty. What we gather from his numerous works on this concept which is the be-all and end-all of the modern state is that parliament is the legal sovereign and the people are the ultimate repository of political sovereignty. He very convincingly argues that the legal sovereignty of parliament is not only constrained by but also subordinate to the political sovereignty of the people.

One cannot but agree with Dicey. The will of the people expressed through a referendum or a plebiscite must always take precedence over that of their representatives. It will be interesting to see how the British Parliament handles the Brexit issue which, if mismanaged, will have a corrosive effect on the principle of people’s sovereignty.