Sri Lanka: Attack on Services to People | Shamala Kumar

The Island - November 20, 2016

It’s less than two years ago that a sustained campaign was fought to rid this country of the tyranny of the previous regime. Under the platform of a government of the people, ‘yahapaalanaya’ won, rejecting the unilateral, anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic nature of the government that was then in place. Teachers, lawyers, students, fishers, garment factory workers, farmers, artists, women and men from urban centres and villages, ordinary people from everywhere left their daily lives to campaign for a government that would represent their needs. They went to events, marched, distributed leaflets, and talked to people so that they could form a future that was better for us all. I am thankful for their courage and dedication. It was clear what they voted for was not more of the same, but a change in the trajectory of the country. They voted for a government that was answerable to the people, a government that would strengthen education, health, law, and other services to ensure that people are not left out, and one that would rein in businesses so that another Rathupaswala would never happen.

The 2017 Budget is a slap in the face for all those people. It does not rein in business; in fact it frees it to make progressively greater inroads into services, particularly in health and education. While some initiatives clearly open doors today for profits from the public, others such as cost sheets for hospital services will pave the way for such future initiatives. In other words, today’s cost sheets are tomorrow’s bills. This budget is no more than a gift basket to big business at the expense of the rest of the people of the country. It is an attack on these people, and future generations of Sri Lankans who will find themselves at the mercy of profit oriented businesses to fulfill their needs.

Who are the biggest winners in our budget?

Insurance companies will gain through insuring teachers, schoolchildren, pensioners, artists, and accident victims. Secondly, technology companies will benefit as programmes to digitalize various aspects of government are proposed. Finally, other businesses that will be doled out resources ranging from private educational establishments, which are now eligible for government funded training and state subsidized educational programmes, to free trade zones.

Who loses from this budget?

Public education. Last year’s budget indicated some commitment to revive education. At least in paper, a substantial allocation was made to education. At the time the Government promised 6% of GDP to education, FUTA called for a gradual increase in the budget, a systematic review of the system, and a clear policy and action plan.

Looking through the budget carefully, it’s clear that what should have been a multi-year systematic project to uplift the school system has ended abruptly with nothing to show for it. In fact, funds for everyday functioning of the education sector are cut drastically. A one year’s rise and then a dip, on the excuse that they were unable to spend is simply not acceptable.

A demand made by FUTA and other groups to successive governments was for a clear policy education. The government has failed in this regard and 2017 allocations seem arbitrary at first glance. The Budget, however, is anything but aimless. Implicitly, the programmes support unprecedented steps to provide government funds to private educational interests, such as the Rs. 400 million as loan schemes to encourage students to join private educational institutes. The policy for education is not different from the pro-big business policy direction that permeates the rest of the budget.

Public Health .If Sri Lanka has a free health programme, why focus on health insurance? Such programmes allow the Government to reduce their responsibility to provide health services to its people. I have heard of countless accounts of greedy business people, sometimes doctors and sometimes hospitals, that would increase hospital stays, require unnecessary tests, and mandate unnecessary consultations simply to enhance profits. People are often left suspicious of whether they were tricked. Do we want more of this or do we want a government that makes a commitment to create a good public health service. This government has clearly indicated its myopic commitment to private health care.

Finally, the general public. With services diminishing and taxes on goods and services increased, people who are already struggling to make ends meet must spend more. The government has substituted welfare schemes with loans, which have to ultimately be repaid. This is a budget without mercy. It is not one for all those people who fought for a new beginning, who wanted more vision, caring, and service to the public through this government. What we have got is more of the same, spirited in under the cover of admittedly a more democratic environment. Can a government that shows a lack of accountability to its people even talk about yahapalanaya?

Shamala Kumar

Faculty of Agriculture

University of Peradeniya