Opinion
Is forest clearing really necessary for development of agriculture?
By Upali Cooray
(Former General Manager of CWE)
The Island newspaper has carried a very relevant editorial, on 5th December, as well as in recent times, in respect of the government’s agricultural policies. The government’s policy of permitting Divisional Secretaries to give approval to suitable farmers to clear forests in some areas for agricultural activity, while legal action is being taken against clearing swathes of forests in the Kallaru area, by a political strongman, during the yahapalana regime, amounts to duplicity.
My argument is that it is not necessary to clear forests at all because the present agricultural output would be more than enough if productivity in growing and marketing is improved two-fold. The authority to permit clearing residual forest land has now been given to the district secretary. These officials mostly become flexible in the face of political pressure. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Devani Jayatillake, the female forest officer who stood her ground despite a political strongman trying to force her to permit a wetland to be converted to a playground. The ignorance of one of the politician’s henchman was visible when he asked the female official whether oxygen can be ‘eaten’. (Oxygen kannada?)
It is pertinent to mention here that the constitution of Bhutan compels any of its governments to maintain a minimum of 60 percent forest cover, yet it has a forest cover of 70 percent. Also, it’s a carbon neutral country. I know that Sri Lanka cannot emulate Bhutan, but we must thrive to increase the forest cover as much as possible. What every government in the past has done and is doing is destroying forests gradually.
In order to debase the argument that residual forests should be cleared for agricultural activity, one must first ascertain how the present system of the agricultural marketing chain operates. It is a well-known fact that nearly 40 percent of the produce perishes by the time it reaches the final retailer.
A main drawback is the existence of multiple intermediaries causing low realization to the farmer, high losses and high prices to the consumer. Most of the lower level markets, such as the ‘pola’ and the ‘kada mandi’ markets are underdeveloped and imperfect. Over 90 percent of these markets are periodic, ill equipped and lacking in facilities. The farmers deal with collectors, commission agents and wholesalers. The number of growers who bring their vegetables to the government managed economic centres are a minority.
In Sri Lanka, the farmers have a strong bond with these intermediaries contrary to the perception that the intermediary is a swindler. Though the numbers of farmers, who bring their produce to the Government managed Dedicated Economic Centres (DEC), might show high numbers, many are collectors or traders who operate under the guise of farmers. They may even do some farming while their main activity is collecting. The evil picture of the middleman is not always correct.
The collector or the wholesaler mostly buys the produce from the farmer, on credit, and the settlements are made only when the produce is sold. Besides, many intermediaries are considered as personal friends in need, who will offer credit for contingency expenditure of the farmer family or for occasions such as weddings and funerals, etc, keeping the future harvests as collateral. Therefore these numerous intermediaries of the traditional inefficient channel of very low productivity have become an integral part in our country’s economy.
The hidden cost, healthwise consequent to consuming pesticide sprayed and unhygienically washed and stored vegetables have not been factored by any specialist and I have great doubt that the way the government is going about allowing more forest land clearance for agricultural activity will not give the expected result of increasing farmer income or reducing the cost to the cosumer. Besides this step will reduce the already depleted forest cover further. There will still be farmers engaged in subsistence agriculture at the mercy of the middleman
The DEC project was started in 1998 with the worthy vision of improving the productivity of the agriculture marketing channels and it was expected to be done through modern efficiencies in backward and forward integration. While the government owned the infrastructure, the traders operating were private wholesalers. The board of governors is appointed by the government and generally a person of Additional Secretary level at the Ministry of Trade or District Secretary is the Chairman. However, this seemingly modern idea was distinctive from the totally state owned and operated channels that existed at that time such as now defunct Marketing Department, Markfed and Sathosa. Even then, the private sector traders and wholesalers still dominated the system.
The DECs which have now grown to 15 in number have not been able to serve the purpose for which they were established due mainly to political interests taking precedence over the other economic objectives. Most of them have become political strongholds where middlemen with full patronage of the political strongmen of the areas have made them their power bases than serving farmers and consumers. DECs are just another link in the marketing channel adding to cost of the produce. The millionaire wholesalers obviously are funding their political masters and in return they are protected and allowed to hold sway in the market.
I vividly remember how some years ago, during my tenure in the CWE, a political strongman in an area famous for big onions prevented the CWE from entering into forward contracts with big onion growers for direct purchase from farmers. When he got to know the programme, he nominated one of his henchmen as a Chairman of fake farmer organisation from whom the CWE was directed to purchase onions. Chairman of the farmer organisation was in fact a commission agent. The Central Bank- sponsored forward contract programme, which was of immense benefit to the farmer, was sabotaged by this politician who is still a lawmaker.
Some private sector companies, in Sri Lanka too have done a total integration process of agricultural produce very successfully and a supermarket chain has been able to sell very good quality vegetables at lower or competitive prices. It is reported that the waste has been reduced to 10 percent and the dedicated number of out grower farmers in the chain is over 1,000.
There have been newspaper headlines, such as “fruits and vegetables sold near overflowing toilets” and the title “Dambulla- Economic centre scandal”. There was also a legal case which went before the Dambulla Magistrate where the courts have warned the manager about the unsanitary conditions of the Centre. This is a good illustration of the situation in the vegetable and fruit marketing exercise in Sri Lanka. Vegetable vendors and farmers washing vegetables in polluted canals and drains near the cities and towns is also a common sight.
The use of suitable plastic crates and wooden crates for transporting fresh vegetables and fruits is an effective way of reducing costs and minimising waste which is now said to be around 40 percent.
The primary objective of this exercise should be to give a higher income to the farmer and a lower price and good quality produce to the consumer. It is known that other developing countries which have already done total integration have found that farmer income could be increased by 20 percent and wastage reduced to five percent. Transportation in crates ideally has to begin from the farm gate and end with the retailer which means that the new rule has to be complied with by all concerned in the chain, starting from the farmer, the consumer being the exception.
There is going to be only a very minimal benefit enforcing the transporters and wholesalers/traders to use crates. Then the question arises whether such total integration of the supply chain is practical in the existing marketing channels. The present archaic system is driven by the sole objective of exploitation, nothing else, when the driving objective should be satisfying the needs of the farmer and the consumer. It is necessary to understand the inefficiencies in the present infrastructure set up of agriculture marketing which consequently results in an inefficient wholesale market.
Some other developing countries in South America, Africa and, specially India, have done total integration successfully in a completely different manner. Sri Lanka is still proceeding with the same archaic system with inefficiencies aplenty.
One can see lorry loads of vegetables being transported to various parts of the country packed in polypropylene bags and the labourers traveling while sleeping on the bags. The result of this need not be elaborated.
In these circumstances any major overhaul of the system could be manipulated in a manner more advantageous to the trader than the consumer or the producer. The wholesalers will still pay the same low prices to the farmers and keep his unconscionable margins when selling to the consumer. For instance, there have been occasions where Nuwara- Eliya vegetables brought to Dambulla DEC for transport to other parts of the country, have gone back to Nuwara- Eliya for resale during the April season. The reason is pretty obvious.
My umpteen visits and interactions in a long career in matters relating to procurement of agricultural produce, such as onions, potatoes, dhal, dried chilies, coriander, garlic and rice, from India, enabled me to closely interact with major state sector players, private sector traders, companies, farmers in many states of India and I have seen the strides taken by the Indian agricultural marketing channels towards modernization. The change that has occurred is remarkable. The responsibility of managing marketing channels for agricultural produce has been gradually taken over by the private sector companies that are selected by a government bidding process. The setting up of the channels according to guidelines spelt out by the government, is the responsibility of the companies. It is a practically possible and proven symbiosis of state and private sector. This is very much a state facilitated and guided system. The difference is that the most suitable companies with proven track records, and the professionalism, are selected.
The main equity holder is a company selected by a two- stage bidding process. Twenty percent to 40 percent of equity is subsidized by the government depending on the area, but the government, is not a shareholder and has no role other than monitoring to ensure that the company complies with required standards. Only the professionals selected by the company manage it. The farmer to retailer link is straight and there are less or no superfluous intermediaries. Producer and consumer satisfaction is very high.
It is known as the hub and spokes channel. The hub is known as a terminal market situated in a major city or a town. The spokes connect the hub straight, without or with a minimum of intermediaries. The hub offers facilities such as export processing, stocks for wholesale and retail trading, cold storage, temperature and sunlight controlled storage, ripening chambers, packing houses, quality testing facilities, cool chain transport, payments and market information.
Sri Lanka is a country with high humidity. Certain areas in the up country, specially the area in and around Boraland,a in the Badulla district, in the Uva province is very suitable for storage of big onions for long periods of two to three months without perishing. The onions lose weight due to lack of moisture in the atmosphere. The disadvantage is Boralanda is very far from the markets thereby increasing cost. However, the dry atmosphere, with low humidity can be emulated artificially by dehumidifiers or air conditioning near the market. Dried Chillies have to be stored in a very dark atmosphere with dehumidification. Fruits and vegetables in cold storage and ripening chambers.
Farmers bring produce to collecting and grading centres set up by the company in close vicinity to the farm, in crates having cleaned and graded them. Further cleaning and grading is done at the collecting centers. Though farmer/out-grower is dedicated to the company they have the freedom to select the buyer. But the Indian farmers are quite satisfied and happy with the companies and they have a better income, better methods of cultivation and their welfare is assured including support for children’s education.
Most farmers are changing rapidly to Agribusiness and are no longer subsistence farmers. Modern methods of increasing productivity are inculcated among all stake holders by the company. The farmer has instant information about the market, especially the prices, electronically conveyed at the farm. The sale of produce, at the terminal market, is based on electronic auctions and no middleman holds anybody to ransom or manipulate the system. Yet the traditional systems In India have not totally gone away and exists parallel to the modern system. The government does not meddle with it. But one can see it being given tough competition to exist.
Sri Lanka government should rectify the exploiter-based system which will leave no stone unturned to maintain the status quo. It is worthwhile to investigate and see whether there are hidden hands benefiting from the present system. It is high time to give up subsistence farming and inculcate the concept of Agribusiness to the farmer so that he would not be exploited by the middleman.
It will be prudent to think of the idea of operating a terminal market system with the collaboration of the private sector, initially as a pilot project with the option with whatever the adjustments necessary to suit local conditions. Terminal markets are not an Indian idea but appears to be borrowed from developed countries with adjustments in line with Indian market conditions.
I am fully aware that the government finds it difficult to subsidize various services to the people. This should not be a subsidy but only startup support to genuine companies having the expertise.
Let the present system remain with no more DECs. The government need not be shy to get guidance from the private companies that have already done this locally, though in a small way. Such a private state terminal market is a vital necessity in Colombo to compete with the Manning Market and Dambulla – a hotbed of inefficiency, waste and exploitation. The brand new modern vegetable market in Peliyagoda is a good place to commence it.
Let’s hope it will not fall a victim of the politically- controlled vegetable mafia.
The writer can be contacted on (egalawan288 @gmail.com)
Author
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Author
-
By Dr Laksiri Fernando
The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.
In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.
Initial Addresses
UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.
His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.
High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.
Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.
But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.
Controversial Presentations
China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.
He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”
“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”
It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.
His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.
His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,
“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”
‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.
What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.
In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.
Author
Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya
Dr Janaka Rathnasiri laments (The Island 19 Feb 2021) that the Power Ministry has ignored the President’s directive to draw 70% of energy from renewable sources by 2030. I saw the approved costs of electricity production for 2019, published by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL).
PUCSL has also approved the prices to sell electricity to customers. Although various customers pay at various “approved” prices, the average income from such “approved” prices in 2019 was Rs 17.02 per unit. It is not only the Ministry, according to Dr Rathnasiri, ignoring the President; PUCSL is also breaking the law, which says prices and approved costs should be equal.
So there is already an illegal gap of Rs 21.59 minus 17.02 = Rs 4.57 per unit of electricity sold. If electricity prices are not to be increased, as stated by many in the government and PUCSL, let us say the following: Distribution costs should decrease by 0.57 Rs per unit. Generation costs should decrease by Rs 4.00 per unit.
PUCSL also published the approved cost of purchasing or producing electricity from various sources for 2019. The actual energy values were different to what was approved, but let us stick to PUCSL approved figures:
I suggest Dr Rathnasiri fills-up the following table, to show how much electricity will cost in 2030 to produce and deliver, if the President’s 70% target is to be achieved and for PUCSL to abide by the law. Let us assume that electricity requirement in 2030 will be double that of 2019.
Since PUCSL has to save Rs 4 from 13.92, the average selling price for energy should be Rs 13.92 minus 4.00 = Rs 9.92. With a target network loss of 7% (in 2019 it was 8.4%), the average cost of production has to be Rs 9.27 per unit. Eight cages have to be filled-up by Dr Rathnasiri.
In 2012, PUCSL approved the energy cost of electricity produced from coal power to be 6.33 Rs per kWh. In 2019, PUCSL approved 9.89 (56% increase). For renewable energy, it was 13.69 in 2012, and 19.24 in 2019 (a 40% increase, but double the price of electricity from coal fired generation). In 2012, rooftop solar was not paid for: only give and take, but now paid Rs 22, against Rs 9.89 from coal. There seems to be something wrong. The price reductions of renewable energy being promised, being insulated from rupee depreciation, are not happening? Either Sri Lanka must be paying too little for coal, or it may be renewable energy is severely over-priced?
On coal we hear only of some corruption every now and then; so Sri Lanka cannot be paying less than it costs, for coal.
Enough money even to donate
vaccines
Another reason for the Ministry of Power to ignore the President’s directive may be the Ministry’s previous experience with similar Presidential directives. In 2015, the President at that time cancelled the Sampur coal-fired power plant, and the Ministry faithfully obliged. That President and that Prime Minister then played ball games with more power plants until they were thrown out of power, leaving a two-billion-dollar deficit (still increasing) in the power sector. Not a single power plant of any description was built.
Where is this deficit? You do not have to look far. In the second table, replace 24.43 with 9.89, to reflect what would have happened if Sampur was allowed to be built. The value 12.79 will go down to 8.55, well below the target of Rs 9.27 per unit to produce. Not only would CEB and LECO report profits, but the government too could have asked for an overdraft from CEB to tide over any cash shortfalls in the treasury. All this with no increase in customer prices. Producers of electricity from renewable energy could enjoy the price of 19.24 Rs per unit. And that blooming thing on your rooftop can continue to enjoy Rs 22 per unit. The Minister of Power, whom Dr Rathnasiri wants to replace with an army officer, would have been the happiest.
In the absence of Sampur (PUCSL’s letter signed by Chairman Saliya Mathew confirmed cancellation and asked CEB not to build it), PUCSL approved electricity to be produced at Rs 21.59 and sold at Rs 17.02 per unit. The annual loss would be Rs (21.59 – 17.02) x 15,093 = Rs 69 billion per year of approved financial loss. Sri Lanka has a Telecom regulator, an Insurance regulator, a Banking regulator, who never approve prices below costs. Sometime ago the telecom regulator asked the operators to raise the prices, when operators were proposing to reduce prices amidst a price war. But the electricity industry regulator is different: he approves costs amounting to 27% more than the price, not just once but, but continuously for ten long years !
That is 370 million dollars per year as of 2019, the economy is spending, and for years to come, to burn oil (and say we have saved the environment). Did the Minister of Health say we are short of 160 million dollars to buy 40 million doses of the vaccine? Well, being a former Minister of Power, she now knows which Presidential “order” of 2015 is bleeding the economy of 370 million dollars per year, adequate to buy all vaccines and donate an equal amount to a needy country.
Prices are the production costs approved by PUCSL for 2019. The selling price approved by the same PUCSL was Rs 9.27 per unit.
Author
If you listen to politicians and journalists here, you will hear of that curious creature rajya novana sanvidane, a Non-State Organization (NSO). Where do you get them? In the uninstructed and dead minds of those who use those terms. In the real world, where politicians and journalists have developed minds, there are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The United Nations is an organization set up by state parties, not by governments. It is true that agents of states, governments, make the United Nations work or fail. Governments may change but not the states, except rarely. When Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia, a new state was formed and was so recognised by the United Nations. However, the LTTE that tried to set up another state was crushed by the established state that it tried to break away from, and the UN had nothing to do with them.
This entirely unnecessary confusion, created out of ignorance, is so destructive that organizations completely loyal to the existing state, are made to be traitorous outfits, for they are ‘non-state organizations’ within the state. There are citizens of each state, but no citizens of any government. Government is but an instrument of the state. In most states there are organizations, neither of the state nor of government: religious organizations including churches. But none of them is beyond the pale of the state.
Those that speak of rajya novana sanvidane give that name partly because they have no idea of the origin of non-governmental organizations. NGOs came into the limelight, as donor agencies, noticed that some governments, in East Africa, in particular, did not have the capacity and the integrity to use the resources that they provided. They construed, about 1970, that NGOs would be a solution to the problem. Little did they realize that some NGOs themselves would become dens of thieves and brigands. I have not seen any evaluation of the performance of NGOs in any country. There was an incomplete essay written by Dr. Susantha Gunatilleka. NGOs are alternatives to the government, not to the state.
Our Constitution emphatically draws a distinction between the government and state, and lays down that the President is both Head of Government and Head of State (Read Article 2 and Article 30 of the Constitution.) It is as head of state that, he/she is the Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints and receives ambassadors and addresses Parliament annually, when a prorogued Parliament, reconvenes. He/she presides over the Cabinet as head of government. The distinction is most clear, in practice, in Britain where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and head of government. However, in principle, Johnson is the Queen’s First Minister appointed by the sovereign, and resigns by advising her of his decision to do so.
In the US and in India the term ‘state’ has special significance. In India there is a ‘rajya sabha’ (the Council of States) whose members represent constituent States and Union Territories. Pretty much the same is true of the United States. In the US, executive power is vested in the President and heads the administration, government in our parlance. The Head of State does not come into the Constitution but those functions that one associates with a head of state are in the US performed by the President of the Republic. The US President does not speak of my state (mage rajaya) but of my administration, (mage anduva). Annually, he addresses Congress on the State of the Union. Our present President must be entirely familiar with all this, having lived there as a citizen of the US for over a decade. It is baffling when someone speaks of a past state as a traitor to that same state. It is probable that a government was a traitor to the state. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their (States’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort’. That a state was a traitor to the same state is gobbledygook.
Apart from probable confusion that we spoke of in the previous paragraph, it is probable that a president and other members of a government, including members of the governing party here, find it grandiloquent to speak of his/her/their state (mage/ape rajaya), rather than my government (mage anduva) or Sirisena anduva’ and not Sirisena state; it was common to talk of ‘ape anduva’ in 1956; politicians in 1956 were far more literate then than they are now.
When translating from another language, make sure that you understand a bit of the history of the concept that you translate. A public school in the US is not the same as a public school in the UK.
MAHADENAMUTTA
