By Tisaranee Gunasekara
“an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies”. – Avraham Burg (International Herald Tribune – 6.9.2003)
‘වෙළද පොල බිද වැටේ ආන්ඩුව නිදි’ -මෑනිං වෙළපොල සුරැකීමේ වෙළද සංගමය – Protest in Against Vegetable Law of the Sri Lanka Government – 14 Dec 2011 – Front of Railway Station Colombo Fort-pic courtesy: VikalpaSL
The ‘plastic crates saga’ is a quintessentially Rajapaksa tale.
Arbitrariness is a hallmark of the ‘Johnston Law’, decreeing plastic crates mandatory in transporting vegetables and fruits.
Amidst the furore over this inane law, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa told its maker, Minister of Cooperation and Internal Trade Johnston Fernando, “if grass roots level stakeholders are involved a lot of problems can be avoided” (Daily Mirror, December 14, 2011).
Minister Fernando’s doppelgänger law is unintelligent because it ignores actual conditions and is indifferent to real-life problems of small-scale traders and farmers who struggle to eke a liveable income. In talking to Derana TV, these grassroots-level stakeholders argued that this law would make farming more expensive and life more precarious.
Traders explained that two or three crates would be needed for what could be carried in one sack. An elderly farmer lamented that though he can walk the long distance from his plot to the road carrying a gunny bag on his back, carrying two or three plastic crates will be beyond his capacity.
Another said that several gunny bags could be strapped onto a bicycle easily but not several crates. Upcountry vegetable farmers pointed out the dangers involved in carrying crates downhill (especially on slippery or uneven tracks). These problems should have been obvious, had the power-wielders considered the issue with just a pinch of sense and a drop of sensibility.
The law criminalised what is harmless, normal and cheap. A trader who transported some papayas in sacks was reportedly fined Rs.8,000. When farmers and traders started protesting, the regime reacted as if they were national enemies. Protesters were tear-gassed and scores arrested. The army was called in and the Dambulla Economic Centre and the Manning Market occupied, under the guise of providing security. The Minister, a UNP defector turned Rajapaksa-favourite, threatened to transfer the Manning Market to Narahenpita, immediately, “if the vendors in the Manning Market continue their protest” (Lanka Page – December 14, 2011).
For the Rajapaksas, development is mostly facelifts. This beauty-parlour approach to development, which prioritises appearances even at the risk of economic fundamentals, is central to the Rajapaksa plan of imposing a First World façade on a Sri Lanka languishing in Third World conditions.
The resultant delusionary-development is a concomitant of the Rajapaksa project of building a one-family state behind a Democratic façade.
The ‘Johnston Law’ fits in well with this approach: colourful crates are easier on the eye than gunny bags/sacks; they seem ‘First Worldish’ unlike gunny bags/sacks which carry an unmistakably underdeveloped aura!
Even the Southern Expressway is not immune to this psychological-malaise. Last month, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) issued a public statement warning that it informed the authorities of shortcomings in the Expressway but did not receive a ‘noteworthy response’. The CILT also wondered whether “vital safety features have been compromised in design and cost cutting”).
The Rajapaksas have a habit of making bad laws, arbitrarily. The failed amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act is an excellent case in point. As Namini Wijedasa revealed, the amendment did not specify what a ‘sacred area’ is; this seminal omission would have given the Minister of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs a boundless right to declare anything a ‘sacred area’ and rendered legal remedies impossible: “How would one argue that one’s property is not ‘sacred’, if the law does not explain what ‘sacred’ means? (Lakbima News – December 11, 2011).
The indifference to the problems and concerns of ordinary people, a common condition of North-Eastern existence, is becoming increasingly manifest in the South as well. For instance, the regime is planning to build a 1,435 acre sports village in Suriyawewa by filling six tanks! Recently Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa appealed to the Minister of Sports to “be more sensitive to the needs of the farmers affected” (Daily Mirror – December 9, 2011).
The sports village will cost the people of Suriyaweva far more jobs and income than it can ever create. And one can imagine how many livelihoods and lives will be endangered by closing six dry zone-tanks and replacing them with a water-guzzling sports village (it would also raise the human-elephant conflict to new highs).
The regime says it will provide the affected families with alternate sources of water. Which irrigation scheme will be used for the purpose? At what cost to the nation and the people will this water be provided, if it is provided?
The Rajapaksa regime carries a makeup box in one hand and a gun in the other. When political/economic facelifts do not suffice, repression comes into play. Last week 45 human rights activists from the South were arrested in Jaffna, when they tried to join a protest to mark the International Human Rights Day. Disappearances too are mounting. The deployment of the army to counter Democratic protests by traders and farmers indicates why new military bases are mushrooming, post-war
The President has agreed to postpone the implementation of the ‘Johnston Law’ by a month. Will the regime do the sensible thing and allow this asinine law to lapse into oblivion by disuse? Or will it use that month to break the will of the farmers and traders through acts of targeted repression?
‘Who will get the commission for the crates?’ read a poster held aloft by a Manning Market protester against the ‘Johnston Law’. It was an apposite question. According to former Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, “the country’s development rate has dropped by 2% due to the increase in corruption…. Corruption costs Rs.100 billion to the country which in turn affects the poverty levels” (Sri Lanka Mirror – December 12, 2011).
Mr. de Silva is not only a former Chief Justice; he is also a current Presidential Advisor. Therefore his critique, made at a ceremony to mark International Anti-Corruption Day, cannot be dismissed as a piece of anti-Rajapaksa propaganda. Mr. de Silva is very firmly on the Rajapaksa side of the political divide and his remarks indicate that the regime’s outré conduct disturbs its more perspicacious supporters.
The former top judge turned presidential advisor drew attention to another dangerous malaise – income inequality: “The per capita income stated by the government in the budget is earned only by about 4% of the country’s population while the rest of the people earn around US$5 or 6 (daily)” (ibid). There is a connection between the exacerbation of inequality and the ubiquity of corruption.
The beneficiaries of corruption are mainly the powerful and the rich; the poor and the middle classes lose, because the money so stolen/frittered could have been used in alleviating poverty and improving services. The injection of more than Rs.3 billion of public funds to Mihin Lanka in just three years is not just a measure of Rajapaksa profligacy. It also indicates how governing by the Rajapaksas for the Rajapaksas can undermine national economic-health and popular living standards.
Even as traders were protesting against the ‘Johnston Law’ in Pettah, hectic preparations were going on in adjoining Fort for a game of night-races, reportedly a pet-project of the Rajapaksa Sons. Two antithetical worlds, which cannot co-exist, fated to collide
Flood the Farms with Plastic Crates in the ratio of 3 to a Gunny bag they have,
and the “Johnsons Law” described will be infectious.
The ingenuity of the “natemays” will follow. Make avialble Trolley with electrical loaders to all Farm Produce Transporters in all Farming Districts.
SL will beat what the Indian Govt. is trying to do in this direction with their “51% share Multi-mini-Market Trade with Foreign help” Bill.
Someone has obviouly obtained the concession of importing and supplying the ‘plastic crates’.
These crates are not long lasting – nothing made of plastic is. The ten percent handout will be a recurring source of ‘profit’.
Who says there will be no wastage, spoilage and spillage when gunny/PP bags are
replaced by the more weighty plastic crates that carry less. The Pettah is abuz with the news 2 Mudalalis – close to Johnny come Lately – have already imported from India 2nd hand plastic crates to the value of Ind.Rs. 20 million.
How diplomatic and people-friendly was this Minister when he threatened hundredds of hard-working labourers (Nattamai etc) with the pain of loss of heir livelihoods by closing Manning Market. Dr Kulatunga and others have already expressed their studied views in the subject disagreeing with Minister Fernando.
ISS
Fruits and vegetables get spoilt easily when put in plastic containers. Even broken plastic pieces are an environmental hazard.
I think forcing the use of Plastic crates is both wrong and counterintuitive, the latter in view of the revival of Green concerns world wide.
If, from an economic point of view, the growers, transporters, wholesalers and retailers have economic gains coming from switching to crates, then that will happen – there is no need to force.
Market forces will make that happen — once the various players factor in costs and benefits with due consideration to savings from wastage, spoilage, damage to goods, sanitation, cost of crates, costs of transport, implications to storage space in transport vehicles and in stores, etc.
All it would need to accelerate that process is, at best, “Extension Services” that helps hasten the education of such benefits. If officials are so sure of themselves about the benefits of switching to crates, then perhaps they could advance adoption by improving access to Plastic Crates (distribution through village level retailers) and perhaps even consider subsidizing it temporarily, to be phased out later, as producers and traders begin to realize the benefits.
If, even then, the producers, intermediaries and re-sellers do not adopt such a switch, then, that would merely prove that the producers and traders actually know better than the Government officials, even if they have PhD’s!
One other significant concern is the growing necessity to factor in the “Green” implications.
The crates are made of plastic, and brittle plastic at that, which raises potential breakage, especially given our transportation system and the very likely overloading possibilities in view of transportation costs. (A simple math exercise would help – What is the difference in weight of the number of crates required to pack one ton of onions, compared to the weight of gunny bags to pack that one ton — I am sure there is a significant increase for crates)
What then is the implication for dumping/recycling such broken crate plastics (given that we are already struggling with the overuse of plastic bags)?
Gunny bags are bio-degradable, easily recycled, does not harm environment. Further, demand for gunny bags support rural Ag income opportunities for producers of hemp or any other material (consider the case of woven coconut leaves to transport flowers and rambuttan, for instance). Who gains from the loss of income to these producers?
Let’s not promote ramping down foolish remedies down the throats of the poor and helpless, just for the fancy of it or for the commission opportunities!
Make up bag and gun ! Well said.
Rajapakshas have indeed borrowed Pirapaharans handbook.
This is exactly what the LTTE followed during the peace talk time.
At this rate, Rajapakshas will meet the same end as VP.
Selvan
While MS Thisaranee backers in the West enjoy their Salads in plastic wrapped individual serves, transported on super hyegenic plastic pallets, Srilankan inhabitants have to eat their Salada leaves and the Tomatoes , carried in Goniyas on sweaty backs.
When the same attend Grand Prix for 4 consecutive days in their luxury and sports sedans, Srilankan inhabitants ,some who haven’t even sat in a sports sedan let alone driving them, aren’t supposed to at least watch them.
Dear Kalu,
I think your response amounts to playing to the gallery.
Use of plastic/plastic crates is not via legislation in the West, but rather the result of the interplay of natural market forces. If the adoption of that here is lagging due to inadequate information, there are always options to raise awareness. Perhaps even some nudging with temporary subsidies to promote adoption may be O.K. – but legislating a mandatory switch is undisputedly ill conceived.
Also, frankly the West is earnestly looking for bio-alternatives to the use of plastics, even for transport crates – that is an intelligent move. I wonder if the sudden promotion of plastic crates in Sri Lanka may have something to do with unscrupulous Plastic crate producers and suppliers in the West trying to establish new markets since the Western demand is beginning to erode.
Going by your argument, should we then legislate that all Sri Lankans should switch to eating with fork & spoon – or perhaps, given the growing tilt, as encouraged by DJ, should we be thinking of legislating use of chop sticks?
There is no need to ape others, definitely not by legislation!
You make a great point with the necessity to aspire towards luxury consumption. Towards that end, we need to find ways to develop the domestic environment to be increasingly productive and thereby steadily raise wages of the masses while contributing productively to the country– not merely design “tamashas” at the back of the tax payer money. Nor would educating our children in Chinese and Korean to go do street cleaning and construction jobs at wage rates half that of other Asians (as proudly proclaimed by our foreign minister in a recent trip to South Korea) going to help us get these poor folks the luxury sport sedans you envisage – no, not even a Maruti from across the Palk Straight!
Hey consumers in SRI LANKA !!!! Compare this. You be the judge. This is what we pay in TORONTO, CANADA for FRUITS and VEGETABLES at RETAIL price at a competitively priced supermarket for properly transported (in crates), chilled fruits and vegetables. Keep in mind a shop worker is paid minimum Rs. 1200/= per hour and a lorry driver is paid minimum Rs. 1800/= per hour.
Bananas 1 lb is Rs. 80/= good quality Imported
Pine Apple Rs. 230/= each (Small) Imported
Oranges 1 lb Rs. 115/=
Apples 1 1b Rs. 80/=
Carrot 1 1b Rs. 60/=
Potato 1 lb Rs. 40/=
Beans 1 lb Rs. 115/= (Imported)
Leaks 1 1b Rs. 110/=
Beat 1 lb Rs. 110/=
Gowa 1 lb Rs. 100/=
Eggs each Rs. 20/=
Chicken legs 1 lb 80/=
Chicken Breast 1 lb Rs. 160/=
Now you compare what you pay in Sri Lanka for poorly transported damaged groceries. Now you can judge who is unfair. The government of Sri lanka or the traders in Sri Lanka.
Sarath
Yours is the most professional and considered argument against “ramping down foolish remedies”. It is a comprehensive argument. Thanks
Right! and where did this figure of 40 percent “spoilage” of fruit and veg when transported in gunny sacks come from? Surely, traders who would be loosing would have noted this if it was so high and done something in the past?!
Is the 40 percent spoilage based on any sort of scientific analysis — in which case we should see it, or is it pure fiction like many of the figures (poverty rate, budget deficit, number of tourists visiting Lanka) that the the Central Bank come out with periodically?!
All figures produced by this regime that is into lipstick-development need to be treated with a great deal of skepticism!
My attention goes to the bill board behind the seen.Just imagine how much money he could have wasted for that at least 1 million rupees.Wher did he gt his money thTS MY QUESTION PEOPLE WAKE UP AND SAVE SRI LANKA.
Why waste reason on Kalu Albert? Thanks for insightful comments
Sarath
Can you explain exactly how “natural market forces” dictate whether a vegetable is carried in a plastic box or a paper bag ?
I would surely like to be enlightened on this one
This question may be a little off-topic, Ever since plastic milk crates were introduced, people have been using them as storage items. Dairy companies have used plastic crates for years to transport milk all over the country. These crates are usually rectangular in shape and most of them are stackable with a convenient interlocking system. This is one of the reasons why people love using them as storage items. However, the system was designed to make it easier for milkmen to transport milk bottles to different locations. They can be stacked neatly at the back of a truck and they help in minimizing spillage and breakage. These crates are also made from very strong materials and they are built to last for many years.
Catch you again soon!
Before our inhabitants go for biodegradables ,they need to have a descent and hygienic meal, at least twice a day.
With the rapidly increasing per capita income and the increasing food consumption, it is good governace to ensure the consumers are protected ,without leaving them at the mercy of the transporters and middle men.
It is a surprise that a knowledgeable person like you , is not aware that there are mandatory regulations in transporting and handling food in every Western country.
Obviously you seem to have a gripe against the Govt to bring in irrelevant points such as Chines , Korean, Forks and Spoons to a simple and straight forward issue.
………….and to ensure that fruits and vegetables stay fresh in plastic containers while being transported in hot Sri Lanka, the government will order that refrigerated trucks be used.
There goes any profit the farmers would make and the cost of living through the roof for the common man!
The problem is the middle-man who works simultaneously against the hardworking producer-farmer and the suffering
cosumner. His greatest asset is the local politician – who has influence with the bigger political network. One way out of this racket is to encourage competition between the private and State Sector. The Marketing Dept, with some faults due to management, performed this function well for many decades.
ISS
Dear Ponkoh,
thank you for the kind words.
With regard to my pursuing discussions with Kalu (and even DJ for that matter), my view is that patriotism does not start and end with flag waving. We all have a responsibility to counter misinformation stemming from either ignorance or intentional pandering to political leaders. It is painful perhaps and may not be successful, but, there is a need – a need to try. And, that need has never been as urgent as it is today.
My Dear Ma-Rout-Ti
I am glad you asked for help and I am truly touched by your honesty in declaring your inability to understand these concepts.
The best way to explain is to illustrate the role of market forces in how a society adopts modernization. How do you think Sri Lankan fruits and vegetable transportation services transformed sometime in the past, possibly in the 20′s or 30′s, from bullock cart based transport system to the use of fuel powered lorry transport? Perhaps you thought that the Government one day abruptly legislated that from such-and-such a day forward all vegetables and fruits should be transported only by lorries and not by bullock carts, and mobilized the police battalion to every village corner to stop, search and fine all bullock carts carrying vegetables and fruits.
No, that is not how it happened. Rather, the natural market forces made it happen and Government certainly helped fashion the market forces towards such transformation.
Let me explain. Having recognized that such a transformation from bullock carts to lorries would be beneficial to the economy on several counts, some enterprising businessman or perhaps a prudent Government official or academic convinced the Government that if only the Government could help make it cost effective, then a lorry based transport system can be progressively developed to attain the efficiencies of the modernization. Convinced by the potential for overall economic gain, the Government agreed to discount commercial interest rates for imports of lorries and also provided subsidies on diesel fuel.
The Market forces, thus fashioned, supported the gradual transformation resulting in better producer price, wider (log-distance) demand markets, fresher produce to consumers as the goods got transported to end market within several hours rather than days, and the transport services made profits, the return on capital – So, every one gained and aptly tax payers footed the bill as they should, since the transformation helped the economy as a whole without burdening any one single sector unfairly.
I hope that gives you a reasonably clear picture on not only how market forces dictate such modernization, and also how the Government can help incentivize the process without burdening any one segment of the market players.
Please feel free to let me know if you need further clarification.
I will also be responding to Kalu, and perhaps you may find some of the details in that helpful as well in better understanding why legislation is not the best option, even if switching to plastic crates is indeed progressive.
My Dear Kalu,
I am moved by your “knowledgeable” compliment. How I wish I could reciprocate that even if only to a lesser degree.
Western Countries certainly aspire to provide consumer protection, especially when food health and safety are concerned. However, that is not by dictating that fruits and vegetables be transported in plastic crates or any other legislated containers. Instead the Governments provide an inspection service to do spot inspections at various points from production to consumption, and the enterprises have the liberty to chose their most cost-effective methods and containers for transport, provided they ensure that the minimum sanitary and safety standards, relating to contamination, infestation, spoilage, etc are met. Transporters could in fact avoid any packaging and transport in bulk if they felt that it was the most cost effective, and they still could meet the standards.
My concern is of two fold. First, even if it will make better sense to switch to plastic crates from gunny sacks in Sri Lanka, legislation is not the way to achieve that transformation. Next, I think there is a need to take a closer look at long-term implications of promoting use of plastics in the current day and age when progressive countries world wide are striving to move away from that for various reasons.
Please also note that the protesters are not Diaspora or Diaspora-influenced inhabitants. The protest is from farm producers, as they rightly feel that the burden of the switch, economic or otherwise, will fall unfairly on them and them alone. In effect, what you are suggesting is that, to make sure the Colombo consumer gets a cleaner salad, the farmer has to “pay” for plastic crates, either directly or indirectly as transporters will invariably shift that cost one way or another.
Shouldn’t the consumer take the responsibility of cleaning the vegetable – and not blindly expect that the producers and transporters to ensure that?
I do have a few specific questions on your conviction about the need to switch Plastic crates to improve hygiene.
You suggest that carrying vegetables in gunny sacks exposes them to sweat contamination. How sure are you if workmen carry vegetables in crates they will not be dripping sweat into the crates? Also, it seems that the small producers currently bring sacks of vegetables in cycles, motor cycles and three wheelers to the middlemen. Do you think the crates will protect the produce from dust, dirt and other contamination better than gunny bags in those modes of transport? Also, it would seem that the larger holes in the plastic crates would possibly allow for higher incidence of small rodent and vermin infestation than gunny sacks – I am no expert on this, so may be I am off-mark on this.
Even if you are right, and vegetables such as salad leaves are exposed to undue sweat contamination, why should the crate rule target other fruits and vegetables such as papayas, pumpkins– do you know anyone who eats papayas with the skin (remember the Rs. 8,000 fine for the sack of papayas?). Does the plastic crate rule exclude any fruits or vegetables? How about Pumpkins, Jackfruits, Mangusteens, Rambuttans, Dorians. Do they need to be crated as well? Are they gazetted in such detail?
Dear Kalu, I have no gripe with the Government – the gripe I have is with stupid, destructive and inconsiderate policies, put in place by equally qualified politicians.
And yes, I also have gripe with the pandering pseudo intellectuals.
And of course, I have gripe with the true intellects, the actual academics, who have shunned their responsibilities, lacking either the courage or the integrity to challenge such overtly stupid policies.
It is in regard to the stupid, destructive policy concerns that I brought in Chinese and Korean.
In my opinion, there couldn’t be a worse policy than re-gearing our education system to teach Chinese and Korean to rural kids, and promote that as seeking foreign employment at half the going rate for Asian workers. It is an insult to our kids – just reflects that we ourselves and our leaders have no faith in the productivity potential of the next generation. That is not the way to aspire for jobs that can endow the next generation with sport sedans – not even Marutis!
You may have heard that manpower is the most valuable resource a country can have, especially a country bestowed with such natural resources as Sri Lanka to complement its manpower.
However, between the JVP and LTTE episodes, we have wastefully slaughtered hundreds of thousands of youth. In addition we have chased away a million or more productive manpower, a large segment of which has proved its worth in the West and, as you note, have been endowed with sports sedans for their contribution to those economies. Does it not depress you to realize that despite all such manpower losses, we are still unable to find or create opportunities for the remaining manpower, and we have now resigned to prepare our future generation for half-wage jobs in China and Korea – and that is our best bet? You are O.K. with that?!
What about spoilage ? When bags of produce are loaded upon one another in stacks (as you can see on any ponderously swinging vegetable lorry coming down from up-country), the damage to the contents must be considerable.,
While I appreciate the environmental concern, Plastic crates would better protect their contents.
Dear Ma-Rout-Ti,
Are you then suggesting that low country vegetables can be transported in gunny bags, but not upcountry vegetables? — sorry! That was too tempting to let go!
Seriously, if transporting in plastic crates will give additional protection, then obviously that should increase profits. If so, don’t you think the market will make that switch on thier own so as to reap that additional profits – why would they stay with gunny sacks and lose potential profits.
The question, therefore, is not whether Plastic crates provide better protection or not, but rather why is it necessary for the Government to Legislate this? Is that so difficult to understand? Do you know of any Government that has legislated this.