The widening gap between rhetoric and reality

In the context of economic governance, an area that has been the focus of some political parties and Presidential aspirants has been how they will assist small and medium-scale entrepreneurs through SME loan facilities.

by Raj Gonsalkorale

“On the 138th observance of World Labour Day, born from a historic struggle for rights, our nation stands at a pivotal moment. Regardless of political affiliations, it falls upon each of us to shoulder the unshakable duty of fortifying our economy and propelling our nation onward.” 

~ President Ranil Wickremasinghe

Political catchphrases like “Dharmishta Samajaya” and “Yahapalanaya” have won elections. People voted for these and the leader’s rhetoric as they either genuinely felt that they lived in a society that was not just or in an “ayahapath palanaya,” an unjust governance environment, or they were conditioned to think as such with smartly managed political rhetoric. In either case, it’s the people who voted in leaders and governments to office, and in either case, the reality after years of governance did not match the rhetoric for the people of the country.

Grandmother with her Granson in Jaffna [ Photo credit Claudia Willmitzer - claudiawillmitzer.com ]

In its 76 years as an independent nation, one legacy that no rational person can deny is the financial dependence of the nation on others. The nation has survived because of this dependence. Today, the nation is in debt as it has never been before, and this debt exceeds its worth, its GDP, by more than 20%. Even if the country is sold at its GDP value, it will still owe more than 20% of its worth to its debtors.

This unprecedented dire predicament has not brought its current rulers and aspirants together despite the President’s call, which he has been making almost from the time he took office. Sri Lanka needs a different economic governance model as continuing with the status quo, policy-wise, will result in another debacle sooner or later. It needs some economic parameters, legislated by Parliament, to ensure economic discipline by any government of the day, which will ensure future generations do not have to face the consequences of economic mismanagement by a government.

What are the economic parameters that the rulers and aspirants could and should agree on irrespective of their political differences? They could, for example, agree by way of legislation to set some ceilings on debt, expenditure, a GDP target, savings of foreign exchange earned through exports and the sweat and tears of housemaids, construction workers, and others who have gone overseas and remitting money to Sri Lanka. Examples are:

• A legislatively agreed debt-to-GDP ratio that cannot be exceeded without a 2/3 majority in Parliament. It’s worth noting that as per Central Bank data, this ratio was 75% in 2015, it had increased to 97% in 2019, and it is 120% today.
• A legislatively agreed GDP growth target rate. It is worth noting again that the GDP growth as per the Central Bank was 6.9% in 2015, 2.7% in 2019, and averaging around 2% in 2024 after two years of negative growth. Again, any revision of this target will have to be agreed by a 2/3 majority in Parliament.
• A legislatively agreed consumption expenditure component as a percentage of the country’s income. While project expenditure that yields a dividend for the country could be excluded from this, the principle that consumption expenditure must be met with the country’s income has to be enshrined in the constitution. Any revision of this percentage will have to be agreed by a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Savings accrued from this could be credited to a rupee development fund.
• A legislatively agreed foreign exchange savings fund that is to be used only during emergency situations and with the approval of 2/3 of the Parliament.

These parameters will ensure the country operates within its income, saving money for a rainy day, and avoiding the disastrous situation that befell the country in the past. The country could contain its debt by not allowing it to exceed a legislated percentage of the GDP. It will be the responsibility of the government of the day to adhere to these legislative requirements, which will be enshrined in the constitution to save future generations from being driven into an abyss as happened. Assigning the responsibility for enacting this legislation and then ensuring its compliance is an onerous task, and judging by the reputation of most politicians of the day, one cannot be blamed for having a deep sense of skepticism about the political process related to compliance with the legislation. However, the legislature is the supreme law-making body of the country, and along with an independent judiciary, people should have the confidence that they could seek justice from the judiciary if members of the legislature fail to ensure the government of the day complies with the legislation.

Managing economic governance within the parameters that have been legislated will not thwart development and growth as they will give opportunities to increase expenditure, provided they have successfully increased the country’s income. They would have the opportunity to borrow more for new, viable projects if they have been successful in increasing the GDP of the country as debt will be a legislated percentage of the GDP. The amount saved in rupees and in foreign exchange will be more if they have managed to earn more foreign exchange or they have reduced their expenditure by astute expenditure management.

Corruption, waste, unproductive expenditure will all have an impact on these parameters, and necessary independent mechanisms will have to be introduced and existing ones strengthened to curb waste that occurs through corruption and unproductive expenditure. As everyone seems to agree, corruption by way of bribery, deliberate higher payments on contracts and tenders have become a way of life afflicting the country, and people should have the confidence they could resort to judicial action on these practices to take alleged perpetrators to courts. The taker of a bribe is not the only party responsible for the unsavory practice. The giver is equally responsible and should face punishment as severe as a taker of a bribe.

In respect of income, the government of the day should have the guts to reign in tax dodgers irrespective of who they are, especially the high-income earners who either do not pay any taxes or pay very nominal amounts. A tax system has to be fair to all concerned whether one is a low-income earner or a high-income earner, but a system should not burden lower income categories and deprive them of funds for essential expenditure. For most higher-income categories, a higher tax payment does not cause a reduction in essential expenditure, but a dip in their expenditure for optional luxury items.

Vast amounts could be saved by better expenditure management, and besides, it will increase the confidence of the people that their taxes are being utilized fairly and justly. Luxuries afforded to politicians could be drastically reduced.

While it is possible that institutions like the IMF may have agendas to further the particular interests, a key benefit for Sri Lanka is the degree of forced financial discipline that the IMF agreement brings in. Financial indiscipline is at the root cause of the debacle that the country faced, and the economic governance parameters proposed in this article need to be considered in this light. The country does not have to approach the IMF, resort to borrowings using ISBs, or take bilateral and multilateral loans if the proposed economic parameters are adhered to. Loans could be obtained for viable income-generating projects, but project financing could also be done by opening them to investors.

In this election year, in terms of closing the gap between political rhetoric and reality, a methodology for the ongoing accountability mechanism for political leaders and political parties to the people of the country has to be introduced. The manifestos of political parties and of aspirants to the high office of President should become a legally enforceable social contract between them and the people. Manifestos of the past have basically been useless documents mostly containing motherhood statements. Hardly any debate or discussion has been had on them, and voters too have shirked their responsibility in this two-way process that entails accountability and responsibility. A manifesto must enshrine not just grand policies but key action points as to how they are to be implemented. As the implementation of some policies is time-consuming, a manifesto could also include the imperativeness of a 5-year action plan as a minimum. Any citizen should be able to seek justice from the courts if a President and/or a government has not delivered on the inclusions in a manifesto without good reasons for non-delivery of promises. It is understood that the NPP is considering this and has sought legal opinion on it. If this is true, it is a welcome development.

Much has been said about increasing export earnings without spelling out how this is to be done. Exporters and would-be exporters need incentives and mechanisms for ease of business transactions. Specific proposals to increase the export potential of existing and new areas have to be included in the manifestos of Presidential aspirants and political parties contesting general elections.

Finally, in the context of economic governance, an area that has been the focus of some political parties and Presidential aspirants has been how they will assist small and medium-scale entrepreneurs through SME loan facilities.

While this is a welcome move, it would be necessary to identify who or which category of an SME qualifies as an SME to secure loans. For example, an owner-driven cab driver or a three-wheel driver should qualify as an SME as they are all small-scale entrepreneurs, and most if not all of them face major challenges with funding when confronted with repairs on their vehicles. Their livelihood and the welfare of their families are dependent on their earnings, and when this gets adversely affected, it creates a consequential impact on them and their families. SME loan facilities are an attractive mechanism to assist the thousands of small-scale business operators, but as far as the writer is aware, the process to secure an SME loan is a cumbersome one that needs simplification.

Raj Gonsalkorale is an independent health supply chain management specialist with wide international experience. Writing is his passion.

Read More

Ceylon Chamber of Commerce to Host IORA Business Conclave 2024

The conclave will feature a multifaceted agenda, including a strategic networking reception, B-2-B meetings, plenary sessions and several sector-focused breakout sessions.

“Sustaining Growth – Bridging Horizons”

The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce proudly announces its appointment as the Chair of the Indian Ocean Rim Business Forum (IORBF) for 2023 – 2025. In line with this prestigious appointment, the Ceylon Chamber in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sri Lanka will organise the “Indian Ocean Rim Association Business Conclave” (IORA Business Conclave) from May 28th to 29th, 2024, at the Shangri-La Colombo.

Image shows the Maldivian atolls in the Indian Ocean from above [Special Arrangement]

Themed “Sustaining Growth – Bridging Horizons,” the Conclave will focus on several sectors of particular relevance to global economic trends, including Agriculture, Renewable Energy, ICT, Logistics, SME & Women Empowerment, and Tourism.

The 23 IORA Member States comprise Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The 12 Dialogue Partners comprise China, Egypt, the European Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Saudi Arabia.

The IORA Business Conclave 2024 will present unparalleled trade, investment, and business opportunities across the Indian Ocean Rim. With representation from IORA’s 23 Member States and 12 Dialogue Partners, entrepreneurs, investors, and industry leaders from diverse sectors and economies will converge to explore untapped markets, forge strategic alliances and capitalise on emerging trends. In this manner, the event will catalyse cross-border collaborations and unlock the immense potential of the Indian Ocean Rim region.

The conclave will feature a multifaceted agenda, including a strategic networking reception, B-2-B meetings, plenary sessions and several sector-focused breakout sessions. From disruptive technologies to sustainable practices, the sessions will offer insights into the future of commerce across the Indian Ocean rim. 

“We are honoured to host the IORA Business Conclave 2024.  We encourage stakeholders from all sectors across the region to participate in this landmark event, seize the opportunities it presents, and contribute towards sustaining growth and bridging horizons across the Indian Ocean Rim’, Secretary General and CEO of the Ceylon Chamber and the Chair of the IORBF, Mr Buwanekabahu Perera said.

Strategic Partners: The Australian Government, Asian Development Bank, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka Convention Bureau, Sri Lanka Export Development Board, Sustainable Development Council of Sri Lanka, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), International Labour Organization Country Office for Sri Lanka and The Maldives, HSBC, Hayleys Advantis, VISA. Bronze Sponsors: Akbar Brothers, Zam Gems. Official Partners: Airline – SriLankan Airlines, Business Media – Echelon, EconomyNext, Communication – Lanka Communication Services (Pvt) Ltd., Hospitality – Shangri-La Hotel Colombo, IT – E-W Information Systems Ltd., Travel – Jetwing Travels. Thought Leadership – International Finance Corporation.

For registration and further information, please visit www.ioraconclave.lk or contact Lilakshi on 0115588818 or lilakshi@chamber.lk

Read More

Will the Golden Age for Corporate Shareholders Ever End?

Shareholders have assumed enormous influence over U.S. corporations over the last few decades. Despite their firm hold, shifts are underway that could alter the domestic corporate landscape.

by John P. Ruehl

On April 3, 2024, Disney CEO Bob Iger officially fended off the attempt by institutional investor Nelson Peltz and his hedge fund Trian Partners to secure two board seats. During the affair, Disney faced pressure from proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services to support Peltz’s initiative. While Iger prevailed, the costliest board fight in history underscores the significant influence of shareholders in shaping the fates of corporations.

[Corrupt man gaining a lot of profit out of embezzlement and illegal activities]

Historically, U.S. corporate power was concentrated among executives, though with varying degrees of influence held by workers and other stakeholders. However, over the last century, U.S. corporations increasingly oriented themselves around their stock price and the imperative to maximize shareholder value. This mindset has now firmly entrenched itself within U.S. corporate culture and continues to shape their decisions and priorities.

Until the early 20th century, shareholders wielded minimal influence over U.S. corporations, with notable changes instigated by industries such as railroad conglomerates. To sidestep antitrust accusations and manipulate competition, for example, railroad companies created “communities of interest” by buying shares in one another, frequently installing their financiers and bankers on targeted companies’ boards. However, increased antitrust enforcement from the Supreme Court discouraged these practices by 1912.

Investors remained undeterred. Throughout the 1920s Merger Wave, shareholders amassed large stakes in various companies, eroding the traditional influence of company founders, executives, families, as well as other stakeholders like employees, trade unions, suppliers, customers, and local communities. The momentum of the shareholder rights movement surged following the stock market crash in 1929, which prompted legislation aimed at increasing transparency granting shareholders increased authority and information access.

During World War II, U.S. industrial power was centralized under government control. This trend, however, waned after the conflict concluded, leading to a resurgence of privatization that benefited shareholders as control shifted away from government oversight. Despite initially dominating the post-WWII economic landscape, U.S. companies began encountering tougher competition from global rivals by the 1960s, hindering their growth.

During the 1970s, prioritizing stock price growth for shareholders gained traction. However, it was the 1980s when this mindset became institutionalized, with legal rulings such as Smith v. Van Gorkom, (1985) and Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews and Forbes Holding, Inc. (1986) affirming corporations’ duties to shareholders.

Amendments to corporate laws aimed to enhance shareholder rights, enabling actions like director nominations, and voting on executive pay. Executive stock rewards thus began to increase, incentivizing risk-taking for short-term gains. Additionally, the 1986 Tax Reform Law cut the individual top tax rate and fueled heightened interest in short-term stock trading.

The evolution of institutional investors also played a pivotal part in reshaping the financial landscape. The growing role of hedge funds, 401(k) pension plans managed through mutual funds, and the introduction of other major asset management firms like Vanguard and BlackRock began to herald a new era in the stock market and corporate governance.

In the decades up to the 1980s, corporate raiding had become increasingly common. However, regulatory changes during the 1980s lifted restrictions on mergers and acquisitions, leading to the peak of the U.S. corporate raiding era. During this time, riskier, higher-return bonds called “junk bonds” and leveraged buyouts involving a large amount of borrowed money to purchase a company evolved into crucial financial tools for funding corporate takeovers. Companies often targeted struggling companies or undervalued firms, acquiring them with the intention of privatizing operations, slashing costs, divesting assets, and eventually reintroducing them to the public market.

In response to these attempts, entrenched corporate management networks implemented defensive strategies. They issued new shares to existing shareholders as poison pills, diluting the ownership stake of prospective buyers. Dual-class share structures allowed company insiders to maintain their control even with a minority of shares. Staggered boards meanwhile divided boards into different classes to make it difficult for outside entities to gain control. However, many still found themselves compelled to yield to the demands of institutional investors.

While corporate raiding declined in the early 1990s, the concept of stock prices as the primary measure of a company’s performance, thereby ensuring shareholder loyalty, was established. With more individuals and pension funds investing in the stock market, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average becoming an even more important economic indicator, increasing shareholder value had become the prevailing corporate imperative by the close of the 20th century.

Criticism of the shareholder value system and its repercussions, such as job outsourcing and soaring CEO pay, continued into the 2000s and remains widespread. Boeing’s diversion of pandemic relief funds for stock buybacks highlights the issue of prioritizing immediate shareholder gains over long-term stability and growth.

Boeing’s actions, though legal due to a 1982 SEC ruling that legitimized buybacks, received public criticism without significant consequences. Nevertheless, Boeing’s ongoing troubles with the safety of its planes have been exacerbated by the lack of investment. Several incidents have led to a notable decline in its share price over the last few months, erasing the benefits achieved through short-termism policies.

The evolution of corporate culture toward shareholders has occurred globally but to a lesser extent in other capitalist countries. In South Korea and Japan, stakeholder consensus among customers, suppliers, and the community remains more prominent. Long-term relationships are common with employees and suppliers, facilitating trust and collaboration throughout the supply chain, though efforts to increase the influence of shareholders are ongoing.

Many European firms have traditionally been characterized by high levels of ownership by founding families and governments. While this has slowly changed, there remains a culture of “codetermination” in Germany and other European Union (EU) countries. This model grants greater rights to employees in the decision-making process, with a focus on stability and job preservation, and returned after Germany pursued more shareholder-friendly policies during the 1990s.

In contrast, the UK shares a corporate structure more akin to that of the U.S., and it remains Europe’s financial powerhouse even after Brexit. However, the UK only has 15 companies in the top 100 companies, compared to 27 for Germany, 31 for France, and 40 for Japan in 2023. China’s state-owned enterprises have meanwhile claimed the top spot from the U.S.

Nonetheless, advocates of U.S. corporate structure highlight the flexibility and adaptiveness of U.S. companies compared to European and Asian firms, which are often viewed as less innovative. Additionally, they contend that this system has contributed to higher GDP growth than other developed countries, while several EU states maintain high unemployment rates. It is also argued that U.S. companies have navigated recent challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine better.

U.S. companies have of course benefited from various factors such as the size of the domestic market, geopolitical influence, and status of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, attracting global investment. However, they have become enamored by short-termism driven by investors. By 2020, the average holding period of shares on the New York Stock Exchange had shrunk to roughly five months, compared to an average of eight years in the late 1950s. Shareholders can easily sell their shares without sacrificing any assets in the company, hindering long-term strategic planning.

Frustration with the persistent dominance of shareholders in the U.S. corporate world has prompted efforts to diminish their influence in recent years. In 2018, Democratic senators proposed the Reward Work Act and the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would require large companies to allocate 33 to 40 percent of board seats to worker-elected representatives. These proposals mirror the German concept of board-level codetermination, adopted in the post-WWII era and now popular in many European countries.

Some contend that the German-style codetermination model is a poor fit for U.S. corporations. Moreover, codetermination initiatives have primarily focused on facilitating discussions between workers and employers on immediate conditions, serving as a supplement to existing union representation and collective bargaining structures rather than radically strengthening worker influence.

One advantage is the flexibility granted by U.S. state law, enabling states to experiment with their own rules. On April 19, 2024, the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, voted to unionize after two failed attempts in 2014 and 2019. The decision not only brings representation to Volkswagen workers in the U.S. but also represents the first successful unionization effort at a non-Big Three (General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford Motor Company) auto plant in the South. And since the first unionization push in New York in 2021, 41 states now have at least one unionized Starbucks, reminiscent of a century ago when labor movements gained significant momentum.

Policy recommendations have also emerged. Corporate Social Responsibility emerged originally in the mid-20th century but then reemerged by the turn of the millennium. Environmental, Social, and Governance considerations then emerged by the 2010s, alongside Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. At a 2019 American Business Roundtable resolution, 196 CEOs advocated for a change in business culture and to commit CEOs to “meeting the needs of all stakeholders.”

Despite increasing calls for corporate accountability, these endeavors often lacked enforceability. DEI initiatives in particular have become embroiled in political controversies, leading to companies backtracking on their commitments. Shell meanwhile faced pressure from activist shareholders in 2021 regarding its contributions to climate change, including from its largest institutional investors, Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street. But as economic considerations took precedence, minimal pressure was put on Shell, resulting in negligible advancements in climate change initiatives.

Nonetheless, just as the rise of communication networks in the 20th century allowed investors to gain influence over corporations, the rise of the internet and social media has equipped stakeholders and grassroots activists with their own tools. Public pressure to raise the minimum wage has resulted in dozens of cities and counties increasing their minimum wage in recent years and compelled companies like McDonald’s to stop lobbying against it. The GameStop stock saga of early 2021 meanwhile demonstrated how retail investors, fueled by social media hype, drove the company’s stock price upward, threatening institutional investors by disrupting established market dynamics.

Institutional investors like Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, which all own major shares in one another, have helped lead to an immense concentration of corporate ownership. Failing to reduce their dominance, and shareholders in general, could inspire further reforms. Limited Liability Companies emerged partly in response to this dominance, with the first one established in Wyoming in 1977. Meanwhile, large companies like OpenAI and Stripe are opting to remain private, further reducing the power of shareholders.

Additionally, worker cooperatives, businesses owned and operated by employees who share in decision-making and profits, have experienced renewed interest in the U.S. Despite waning popularity after their initial rise in the 19th century, they began to rebound in the 1970s and 1980s. The founding of the United Stated Federation of Worker Cooperatives in 2004 has since helped expand the number of worker cooperatives in the country.

Benefit corporations, for-profit companies that prioritize both their societal and environmental impacts, have also seen significant growth in recent years. Maryland became the first U.S. state to enact laws providing for public benefit corporations in 2010, and has since been joined by 36 other states and Washington, D.C.

The corporate era preceding the current one characterized by shareholder dominance was far from ideal. However, to foster a more equitable corporate landscape, public support for political initiatives that challenge the status quo and multi-stakeholder-focused business initiatives will be crucial to reducing the influence of shareholders. This may lead to major upheavals in pension systems and 401(k) plans invested in the stock market, yet it holds the potential to greatly improve worker rights, inspire long-term strategic planning, and promote a more equal distribution of corporate profits.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C. He is a contributing editor to Strategic Policy and a contributor to several other foreign affairs publications. He is currently finishing a book on Russia to be published in 2022.

Read More

Singapore: Lawrence Wong to Lead Amid Economic and Political Challenges

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is set to become Singapore’s next leader on May 15, succeeding Lee Hsien Loong. His leadership will be closely watched as he takes the helm.

by Pranjal Pandey

Singapore has announced that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong will take over as the country’s next leader on May 15. Wong, 51, has garnered unanimous support from lawmakers within the People’s Action Party (PAP). He will succeed Lee Hsien Loong, who has held the top job for 20 years.

Wong, who earned praise for his management of the island’s pandemic response, has been regarded as Lee’s successor since April 2022. During this time, the ruling party selected him to lead the “4G” or fourth generation of leaders in Singapore’s political parlance—politicians the party aimed to have govern the country in the future.

Lawrence Wong, Singapore’s finance minister and deputy prime minister in Sept, 2021. Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Before that, Heng Swee Keat, a former central bank chief and education minister and choice for the post of Prime Minister, suddenly stepped aside in 2021, throwing the party’s succession plans into disarray.

The term “generation” suggests a significant transition rather than a complete overhaul of cabinets, as some ministers served under more than one prime minister. The first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, led the first generation of leadership from 1965 until 1990. He was succeeded by Goh Chok Tong, who held the premiership for the following 14 years until 2004 when Lee Hsien Loong assumed leadership.

Wong began his political career in 2011 and has since held various ministerial positions, including defense, education, finance, and national development. Following his successful leadership during Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Wong was selected by his fellow cabinet ministers in early 2022 as a leader of the next generation through a selection process that excluded Lee and other senior ministers. Shortly thereafter, Lee appointed him as Deputy Prime Minister.

Singapore adheres to a parliamentary system, where general elections are conducted once every five years. Since gaining independence, Singapore has been characterized by a one-party dominant state led by the ruling PAP. Despite this, the opposition led by the Workers’ Party has made notable strides, securing seats and now overseeing two group representation constituencies, marking a substantial breakthrough in the electoral landscape.

Lawrence Wong confronts numerous challenges as he readies to assume office on May 15. Singapore is grappling with significant concerns regarding the escalating cost of living. The ruling party has also been shaken by a corruption scandal.

In February 2024, Singapore’s core inflation, which excludes private transport and accommodation costs to better reflect household expenses, surged to 3.6 percent year-on-year. This marked a significant uptick from January’s rate of 3.1 percent and surpassed market expectations of a 3.4 percent increase. It represented the highest reading for core inflation since July 2023.

The acceleration in inflation was primarily driven by elevated services and food inflation, partly attributed to seasonal effects linked to the Chinese New Year. Chinese New Year, also known as Lunar New Year or the Spring Festival, stands as one of the most significant and widely celebrated holidays in Singapore. During this period, there is typically an increase in consumer spending, leading to price hikes.

This year, overall inflation also rose to 3.4 percent in February from 2.9 percent in January. 

The ruling party has also encountered an uncommon setback in recent years, which has tarnished its renowned clean image. This was an indictment on corruption charges of then-senior minister, S. Iswaran. He faces 35 charges (and more pending) linked to bribery and corruption. The prosecution alleges that he accepted various gifts from a Malaysian tycoon and developer, as well as from another contractor.

Singapore’s record on freedom of speech has been a subject of considerable concern. The 2021 People Power under Attack report by CIVICUS Monitor highlighted a decline in the country’s civic space rating from “obstructed” to “repressed.” This shift underscores a recurring pattern of infringements on civic rights, especially concerning freedom of speech. Throughout 2021, Singapore utilized restrictive laws such as the Public Order Act, the 2017 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, the Protection Against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), and defamation laws to target human rights advocates, journalists, and critics. 

A significant event occurred when the government applied legal pressure on independent news platforms. In September, the police gave a “serious warning” to New Naratif and its managing editor, Thum Ping Tjin, for publishing unauthorized electoral advertisements in 2020. Furthermore, in October, the national media regulator canceled the license of the Online Citizen after the platform allegedly refused to reveal its sources of funding.

The introduction of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act further threatened freedom of expression, allegedly in the name of preserving national sovereignty. These actions, ostensibly taken to uphold order and protect national interests, have raised substantial concerns about the diminishing of civil liberties and the silencing of dissent in Singapore.

But most importantly Singapore, once adept at harmonizing its economic ties with China alongside its security partnerships with the United States, now faces mounting difficulty in upholding this equilibrium, especially compared to the initial years of Lee’s premiership. The burgeoning economic sway of China in the vicinity has become markedly pronounced.

China’s assertiveness in regional waters has escalated. While the Philippines, led by Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., seems inclined towards siding with the United States on security matters despite China’s economic prowess, the remaining Southeast Asian nations (excluding Laos, Cambodia, and strife-torn Myanmar) continue to navigate a delicate balance among the dominant powers in the region.

Yet, even for a nation as affluent and diplomatically adept as Singapore, managing the delicate equilibrium between these two forces is becoming increasingly challenging. China’s efforts to extend its influence into the domestic affairs of every Southeast Asian nation are evident. Within Singapore, apprehensions regarding Chinese interference in domestic politics are mounting among senior officials, prompting the passage of stringent legislation to counter foreign intervention.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, which strikes a chord with Singapore’s substantial Muslim minority, has negatively affected the reputation of the United States in the city-state.

In the lead-up to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s impending leadership, Singapore finds itself at a critical juncture. The transition represents a continuation of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) governance, yet it also exposes the party to challenges and criticisms. Wong’s ascent to power is not devoid of complexities; he steps into a role overshadowed by economic uncertainties and recent damage to the PAP’s once-pristine image due to a corruption scandal. He faces the delicate task of navigating these turbulent waters.

Source: Globetrotter 

Read More

Renowned Sri Lankan Theoretical Physicist and Philosopher Passes Away

Professor De Silva's prolific literary output, comprising over one thousand five hundred newspaper articles, served as a repository of profound insights and thought-provoking analyses.

Sri Lanka mourns the loss of Professor Nalin De Silva, a distinguished figure in the realms of theoretical physics, philosophy, and political analysis. The eminent scholar breathed his last on May 1st, 2024. His departure marks the end of an era in Sri Lankan academia and intellectual discourse.

Professor Nalin De Silva, born on October 20, 1944, in Kowila Godella, Panadura, Sri Lanka, embarked on a remarkable journey of scholarly pursuits from his early years. Educated at prestigious institutions such as Vekada (Panadura) Bauddaloka Maha Vidyalaya, Colombo Thurston College, and later at the University of Ceylon, his academic prowess was evident early on. In 1970, he earned his PhD in theoretical cosmology from the University of Sussex, solidifying his standing as a formidable intellect in the field.

Nalin de Silva

One of Professor De Silva’s notable contributions to the scientific community was his groundbreaking work on theoretical cosmology. His mathematical prediction, stemming from the general theory of relativity, demonstrated the eventual synchronization of particle rotation, a concept that reverberated across scientific circles.

Beyond his scientific endeavors, Professor Nalin De Silva delved into the intricate interplay between politics, philosophy, and societal dynamics. His tenure as the Sri Lankan Ambassador to Myanmar underscored his multifaceted expertise and diplomatic acumen.

A staunch advocate of national thought and constructive relativism, Professor De Silva’s philosophical insights transcended conventional boundaries. His critical examination of Marxism and Western scientific paradigms reflected his intellectual fearlessness and commitment to questioning established norms.

Throughout his illustrious career, Professor Nalin De Silva served as a beacon of inspiration for aspiring academics and intellectuals. His leadership roles at the University of Kelaniya, including his tenure as Dean of the Faculty of Science, exemplified his dedication to fostering academic excellence and nurturing future generations of scholars.

Notably, Professor De Silva’s prolific literary output, comprising over one thousand five hundred newspaper articles, served as a repository of profound insights and thought-provoking analyses.

Read More

Sri Lanka: Sovereignty Sold

This blatant profiteering at the expense of travelers adds insult to injury.

Editorial

Last night’s chaos at the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) in Colombo is not just a logistical nightmare; it’s a glaring example of governmental negligence and the erosion of national sovereignty. The decision to hand over the authority of on-arrival visa issuance to an Indian private company is not only a betrayal of the Sri Lankan people but also a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of our nation’s security and sovereignty.

Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) in Katunayake

Let’s dissect this alarming situation. A few months ago, a statement by a local politician claiming Sri Lanka as a part of India stirred controversy. He even urged Indians to sell their properties in India and start living in Sri Lanka. Shamelessly, later, he tried to defend himself in the parliament during the debate. Nothing is surprising; we often come across men discussed as politicians without conscience or guilt when it comes to underhand dealings. They will deal with anything for money. We are not surprised that such a dirty game is behind these sorts of incidents too. Now, fast forward, and we witness the mayhem unfolding at our airport, all because of the dubious decision to outsource such a critical function to a private entity with questionable motives.

Could you provide a list of countries where On-Arrival Visas are facilitated by foreign private entities, yielding substantial profits while also maintaining records of visitors to the host country? Do politicians who betray their values for money truly understand the gravity of this situation?

What is particularly concerning is the lack of transparency and oversight surrounding this decision. Reports indicate that the Indian company assumed control of the visa issuance process without obtaining proper approval from the cabinet. This raises serious questions about who authorized this move and what their motivations were. Was there a backdoor deal struck for personal gain at the expense of national security?

Furthermore, it’s outrageous that this Indian company has been charging an extra $25 on top of the standard visa fee. This blatant profiteering at the expense of travelers adds insult to injury. The Immigration and Emigration Department had been managing this process smoothly for years, without any need for such exploitation. However, if there are any irregularities such as extracting extra money from individuals without proper documents by immigration officers, or opposition to installing CCTV cameras, these are internal management issues that should not be exploited by foreign entities. They should be addressed and resolved locally.

The scenes of chaos and frustration at the airport, as depicted in videos circulating on social media, are deeply disturbing. Long queues, canceled visas, and disgruntled travelers paint a picture of incompetence and mismanagement. One can only imagine the embarrassment and inconvenience faced by those who were subjected to this ordeal.

But perhaps the most egregious aspect of this debacle is the erosion of national pride and sovereignty. A Sri Lankan citizen rightly questioned how an Indian person could have the authority to decide his or his wife’s visa status on Sri Lankan soil. This is not just about administrative convenience; it’s about the fundamental rights of our people and the integrity of our borders.

The Sri Lankan Government must be held accountable for this grave lapse in judgment. By allowing foreign entities to control such sensitive functions, they are not only failing their duty to protect their citizens but also betraying the trust placed in them to safeguard our nation’s sovereignty.

It’s time for the government to wake up and realize the gravity of the situation. The decision to outsource the visa issuance process to an Indian company is not just a logistical blunder; it’s a slap in the face of every Sri Lankan citizen. We demand answers, accountability, and immediate action to rectify this dangerous precedent before irreparable damage is done to our nation’s security and sovereignty. Sri Lanka is not for sale, and it’s high time our government remembers that. But folks in white clothes continue to prove the ugliness and putrid souls they carry as they can do anything for profit.

Read More