2 March 2024 02:09 am Views - 475
When he was told at the interview that a father who had attempted to get electricity from a nearby house to support his child’s studies had died by electrocution, and was asked why the CEB could not be more considerate of the sufferings of the consumers, the Spokesman said that the children can use oil lamps for their studies without depending on electricity.
Despite the CEB having to take no direct responsibility for the electrocution incident, they have to accept the moral responsibility for the remote link between the incident and the recent huge surge in electricity tariff which deprived the deceased man’s family of electricity. And it was the point that the journalist was trying to drive home during the interview that landed the CEB Spokesman in hot water.
The prevailing economic crisis has resulted in a drastic drop in the revenue of a majority of low-income families, compelling them to struggle to make ends meet, as the prices of essential items have gone threefold or sometimes fourfold up since 2022. It was in that context that the CEB had increased electricity tariff twice by what they say 70 percent. However, the practical effect of these increases on the individual households has been fivefold or more.
This has compelled over a million households to default the payment of bills resulting in their power supply being disconnected, according to a speech by the subject minister, Kanchana Wijesekara. In a country where there are about 5.1 households, the depriving of one million households of electricity due to unaffordability is a serious matter. Asking them why their children cannot study using oil lamps is no doubt a cruel insult.
In fact, many of those households of which the electricity supply has been disconnected would have turned to the traditional oil lamp in a practical sense. The irony and the absurdity of the CEB Spokesman’s statement is the promotion of oil lamps by a representative of the institution that is tasked to supply power to the people.
Nevertheless, Priyantha must be commended for his outspokenness in this issue. Many officials of the Power and Energy Ministry and the CEB too might have shared his sentiments when people agitated against the unprecedented electricity tariff surge. But none of them ‘spoke from their heart’ like Priyantha did, or else they did not come across a situation that prompted them to speak on the matter. Hence, singling out Priyantha seems to be unfair.
Insensitivity towards fellow human beings is not a monopoly of an individual, sector or institution. The recent sudden vegetable price hike by six-fold or more cannot be attributed to any increase in production cost; obviously, it is the result of the heartlessness of ‘middlemen’. However, even those middlemen would have laughed at Priyantha’s oil lamp solution.
Insensitivity among the officials and employees of institutions which are well known to pay relatively higher salaries – such as the CEB, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation – is felt more by the low-income groups of the society. Apart from the recent two drastic tariff hikes, the CEB earned a huge profit due to the incessant rainfall in the catchment areas during the last six months of the last year. Hence, the Power and Energy Ministry and the CEB announced a possible tariff reduction with the advent of the new year. However, manifesting their insensitivity towards the hapless masses who are hit by the economic crisis they initially suggested only a 3 percent price reduction.
The absurdity of this suggestion would be vivid when it is applied to an electricity bill of an average family which uses just below 90 units of electricity. Such a family paid less than Rs. 1,000 in 2022, and the cost has increased now up to around Rs. 5,000. The reduction that was initially proposed was only Rs. 150. What an insult! Subsequent to agitations by consumer societies and the Opposition political parties, now the reduction has been suggested to be 18 percent.
It is against this backdrop, Central Bank has been taken to task by the Opposition parties for the recent 70 percent salary increment to its employees. Some higher officials of the bank have been given an increment of over half a million rupees. The Central Bank authorities cite the necessity to face the recent trend of brain drain, and the fact that the bank is an independent institution as the reasons for the move.
However, parity in salaries with the World Bank and its affiliate institutions, the Bank of England, the Commonwealth Secretariat and similar institutions – which the authorities cite as impacted by the recent brain drain – is something Sri Lanka cannot achieve, and the threat would continue to remain as it has been in the past. Those officers who had left the country recently would have been prompted to do so, due to the recent surge in taxes, uncertainty of the future and the galloping cost of living which are the effects of the current economic crisis.
The Central Bank as well as the politicians cannot absolve themselves from the responsibility of ruining the economy. The Supreme Court in its recent judgement on the economic crisis had ruled that two former Governors of the Central Bank, Ajith Nivard Cabraal and Professor W. D. Luxman and the former Monetary Board of the Bank were responsible for the crisis, along with connected politicians.
Yet, one has to admit that the Bank is faced with a dilemma now. Brain drain is a fact and it is threatening the very existence of the Bank, whilst as it is also responsible for the economic downturn, it has to be accountable to the people when it increases the salaries of its staff. Those are issues that have to be taken into consideration by the people as well.
Two more incidents where the insensitivity towards the people is highly evident were the one where former Health Minister, Keheliya Rambuwella commented on the funeral parlours near hospitals, and the remarks made by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa on the abolition of Executive Presidency.
When allegations were levelled against the Health Ministry over people dying and losing eye sight due to substandard medicine and the shortage of medicines, Rambukwella told Parliament on July 18 last year that not all patients admitted to hospitals make it out alive and that is why funeral parlours are located near hospitals. Literally he was correct, but at a time when some patients were believed to have died due to substandard medicines, the man who is responsible for health sector justifying that situation is no doubt outrageous.
Similarly, it is outrageous for the man who came to power twice – in 2005 and 2010 – mainly on the promise to abolish the Executive Presidency to say, “I enjoyed the Executive Presidency, it doesn’t matter if they abolish it now.” Rajapaksa expressed this view on February 15 while addressing the media.
At the same time, the insensitivity evident in the sudden strikes launched by the doctors and other employees of the health sector without prior notice or with short notice, leaving the patients to die and suffer more is no less than what was evident in Rambuwella’s remarks.