LBO Home IndoChina | About Us | To Advertise | Contact Us rss LBO Mobil
Sun, 26 May 2013 07:57:06
Sri Lanka fuel subsidy fraud bared in newspaper editorial
02 Jun, 2008 06:02:41
June 02, 2008 (LBO) – An influential weekly has slammed Sri Lanka's practice of giving subsidies in the guise of helping the common man, and exposed the depth of the deception involved in doling out diesel 'subsidies'.
"The much touted diesel 'subsidy' that leaders of government from the president downwards have long trumpeted as an index of their concern for public transport users and the price sensitive haulage sector, means that petrol users, including poor three-wheeler drivers, carry the tab for the cross subsidy," The Sunday Island newspaper said in an editorial titled 'Saying it like it is.'

"So the rich man riding a luxurious diesel powered sports utility vehicle (SUV) has part of its cost paid for by three-wheeler operators.

"This is the stark reality and the sooner people understand it the better."

Almost all Sri Lankan politicians own SUVs imported tax free. Only the richest sections of society can buy expensive diesel vehicles. Petrol is mostly used by motorcycle owners, small car users and three-wheelers.

The editorial came in the wake of plain speaking by Sri Lanka Railways chief Lalithasiri Gunaruwan who said it was an 'economic crime' to freeze prices and depend on Treasury subsidies as the poor who did not use the service ended up paying for them.

This was after transport minister Dallas Alahapperuma told the utility to raise prices, going against the usual practice of ministers who buy votes and popularity by running down the financial health of institutions coming under them.

"Governments, and not only this one, have for too long conned the people on fuel subsidies," The Sunday Island said.

"It is seldom if ever admitted that a major revenue stream for the exchequer comes from the various taxes charged on fuel.

"When whoever is in a seat of authority talks about the cost of fuel and the sale prices, pointing out that the various types of fuel are being sold below cost, the tax component is conveniently ignored.

"This is the kind of spin that the people are subjected to by their leaders who heap their own plates with gravy at the cost of those they represent."

Though 'subsidies' are promised to all and sundry and tax increases are resisted by politicians of all hues, budget deficits and accommodative monetary policy later result in high and chronic inflation which hurt the poorest sections of society most.

Sri Lanka has suppressed two inflation indices in the recent past as inflation moved to 29.9 percent. Inflation measured by the new 'official' index is now 26.2 percent which is the highest in Asia.

The full editorial of the Sunday Island is reproduced below:

Saying it like it is

The General Manager of Railways, Lalithasiri Gunaruwan, in a burst of candour last week blasted the long-held myth that governments, whoever they are, subsidizes consumers be they kerosene or diesel buyers or bus or train travelers. He rightly pointed out that when so-called subsidies are given to sections of consumers, all the people including those who do not consume the subsidized products, pay for them. This is a self-evident economic truth that too many people do not fully realize consciously. Thus when train fares are subsidized, those who never ever use a train also bear part of the cost. The much touted diesel ``subsidy’’ that leaders of government from the president downwards have long trumpeted as an index of their concern for public transport users and the price sensitive haulage sector, means that petrol users, including poor three-wheeler drivers, carry the tab for the cross subsidy. So the rich man riding a luxurious diesel powered sports utility vehicle (SUV) has part of its cost paid for by three-wheeler operators.

This is the stark reality and the sooner people understand it the better. Governments, and not only this one, have for too long conned the people on fuel subsidies. It is seldom if ever admitted that a major revenue stream for the exchequer comes from the various taxes charged on fuel. When whoever is in a seat of authority talks about the cost of fuel and the sale prices, pointing out that the various types of fuel are being sold below cost, the tax component is conveniently ignored. This is the kind of spin that the people are subjected to by their leaders who heap their own plates with gravy at the cost of those they represent. A crunch time is now approaching with the recent increase in fuel prices having already forced increases in bus fares. In all probability rail fares will almost double in the very short term because the railway cannot continue to depend on the Treasury for the various handouts it needs to keep its services going at the present fares. Haulage rates are up and that reflects on the cost of everyday essentials.

There is very little chance, if any, of the rising trend in international oil prices reversing. An ever optimistic leadership relates sunshine stories about the prospects of finding oil off our shores. Even if such is the case, and there are grounds to hope this is so, it will take a very long time to exploit such a resource to the advantage of the country. What matters to ordinary people is the cost of what they must take home in their grocery bags every few days and this, already at impossible highs due to the galloping inflation unleashed by unsustainable budget deficits and money printing, is now going higher in sympathy with higher oil prices. When the president met newspaper editors and heads of the various electronic media early last week, Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal said that the only way rising global oil prices can be countered by a country like ours is by a sharp reduction in fuel consumption. He said that government was looking at a 25% target. President Mahinda Rajapaksa added that proposals to achieve this objective are being awaited in the short term.

We do not think our readers will brand us as cynical if we say that it is very unlikely that government will impose fuel restrictions on either the political or bureaucratic establishments that have for too long been profligate consumers of diesel and petrol at public expense. The vast number of those swanking around in high powered, fuel-guzzling vehicles on our roads, do not pay for their own petrol (or diesel). Either the government (read tax-payer including the beggar on the street who also pays indirect taxes) or their companies pick up the tab. If a 25% saving in consumption is to be achieved, a first step would be to impose an across the board 25% slashing of fuel use by the public sector. That should include everybody right down from the top to the bottom. The price deterrent now in force will lower consumption to a degree, as has been seen in the case of wheat flour in recent months. But other measures too must be imposed. One of these would be to end the gridlock traffic jams, in Colombo particularly, that compel the wasting of billions of rupees worth of fuel every day. Some practical ideas, like banning all cars on the roads during specified hours, and leaving them free for buses, and banning buses and lorries from the roads at other times, clearing them for cars has been suggested in an article we run in our business section today. It has been written by a qualified accountant now turned dry zone farmer. There are other ideas too that have been offered in that article and these certainly merit serious examination. Some, we think, can be usefully implemented.

GMR Gunaruwan said at the press conference that followed the fuel price hike that the railway charges 50 cents fare per passenger kilometer while the buses charge twice that amount. But Transport Minister Dallas Alahapperuma, who was also present at the briefing, wants the railway to keep train fares a shade below that of buses. Other anomalies also emerged during that discussion. The minister pointed out that while ordinary people paid 50 cents a passenger kilometer to travel by train, government servants paid only five cents and the railway’s own employees, there are 17,000 of them, just three cents! It is unlikely that a government demanding economies from the people in the context of spiraling global oil prices will have the political will to take away perks it gives its employees and face the consequences.

Doling out duty free vehicle permits to public servants was not done out of appreciation of the onerous work load they carry. It was all a question of soliciting their political support. Right now CEB engineers who had been excluded from the last such concession are mounting a rearguard action withholding attendance at technical committees etc. in an effort to get the perk. We would offer better than even odds that they will get what they want at this stage, or later when they ratchet up the pressure. Our governments, sadly, too often do what is convenient rather than what is right. And given that the politicians who lead them are ever mindful of their own interests, both material and political, the caravan will continue the same old way.

Bookmark and Share
Your Comment
Your Name/Handle
Your Email (Your email will not be dispalyed)
Location
Country
Your Email
Receivers Email
Your Comment
 
READER COMMENT(S)
16. Meerkat Jun 04
Dear Sudo,
Samurdhi is the one of the biggest money wasting scams the government has come up with.
More than 60% ( over Rs. 3 billion) of the funds go to pay the salaries of the 2000 odd Samurdhi officers and according to some reports more than 80% those receiving handouts should not have been eligible! Talk about honesty of the average Sri Lankan!!

" The poor are not necessarily innocent and the innocent are not necessarily poor"

15. abe Jun 04
Its again and again interpreting differently. But, effective tax on poor are greater than rich. Better do an analysis and see where are the majority of taxes coming in.

I am not talking about the exclusive rich community which may be less than 2% of population. On average, taxes are collected on basically everything – majority of goods & service. Weather its food or essential service or whatever. Indirect taxes are skewed towards the poor.

14. Meerkat Jun 03
Sudo,
There is no VAT on local produce, medicines and most essential foods. A poor person , therefore should not be paying any significant amount of VAT or indirect taxes, unless that person is consuming Fragata Olives with a glass of wine or Nutella spread on French Toast every morning - in which case that person cannot be considered poor.

The problem with Targeted Subsidies to the' poor' ( definition required) is that, majority of Sri Lankan citizens being honest and honourable,will plead poverty- as it happens with the Presidents fund payments for heart surgery.

A C class Mercedes which is sold in USA for USD 30,000 ( Rs 3.2 million) is sold here for Rs. 24 million. The buyer is paying about Rs. 21 million in taxes - now thats in addition to all the other VAT and income taxes he is paying. To say that the poor are effectively paying more in indirect taxes is nonsense. In addition they also get free land or subsidized housing, low cost water and electricity connections, samurdhi, free education etc. This is why the government coffers are empty. I am all for removing subsidies - but to say that subsidies benefit the rich is pure fantasy.

People pay for all services ( defense, health, education, infrastructure) through the government treasury - therefore it is pedantic to differentiate people and the government for the purpose of discussion.

13. Sudo Jun 03
Kanishke
As you rightly point out, subsidies induce behaviour. Cross subsidising diesel from petrol will encourage more people to switch to diesel, since there is no restriction on people switching.

Furthermore, the heavy users like industry will be the first to switch. Hence my point that it is a very inefficient manner of achieving wealth transfer. More so it is not sustainable.

12. Kanishke Mannakkara Jun 03
Abe, Sudo-your points are noted. I fully agree that a 'Government' does not pay for subsidies, the public do. In a certain sense, a 'Government' in a country IS the people, but let me stop myself before getting philosophical.

The point I was trying to make was that subsidies and taxes can be used for two things; to redistribute wealth and to discourage behaviour which results in a negative impact to society. I believe a diesel subsidy funded by a petrol tax can achieve both these things.

1. Because diesel tends to be used by poorer sections of society and petrol by the richer ones, taxing petrol and subsidising diesel can be one way of redistributing income. This is not perfectly efficient given that poor people do use petrol and rich people do use diesel, but it may be inefficient to try and differentiate between these groups too much (it may cost the Government too much money to try and identify poor petrol users and rich diesel users).

2. Since diesel is used more by public transport such as busses and trains, it can be subsidised at the expense of petrol, which is used largely by private vehicles, in an attempt to bring down pollution and congestion. Obviously, this needs to go hand in hand with a good transport policy, but sadly, this seems to be long long way away.

11. abe Jun 03
It seems that the issue is getting more & more attention. The point I wanted to raise (Sorry – my language may be bit emotional) here is that the subsidies have to be funded some ways- money printing, borrowing or more taxes today or future –(to pay debts ). There is NO government bearing the burden.

So where do they get more money – if taxing - more income taxes – NOT really. Almost 70% of taxes are indirect taxes- that may be collected without status- rich or poor. Infact rich businessman can claim majority of their VAT as input –outpout VAT. Not only that dear friends, the beggar on the side of the road need to east same three meals as you do. (whether he can or not is another issue).

Sri Lanka has 20 mn population so no point of talking about a very few people. But ,in general what this subsidies has done?? Made the poor even the poorer.

But, subsidies can be better targeting those who need. We can have millions of examples in regional countries.

10. Sudo Jun 03
Kanishke, Meerkat, DDM
Dont miss the point in the article; i.e.
1. Subsidies are a cost borne by the public (rich and poor), and not the ‘govt’ as our politicians try to make out. This is one of the biggest cons they play on people.

2. In a country like SL, where the bulk of the govt's revenue comprises of indirect taxes, higher subsidies will necessitate even more taxes such as VAT. As a result the poor do pay taxes. In fact I would guess that the effective rate of tax for the poor is even higher than for the rich as a larger share of their income is used on consumption. Where is the equality in that ?

3. Therefore, it is better not to have untargeted subsidise at all.

4. You need to introduce other mechanism's to bring about better income distribution and wealth transfer. For instance better direct taxation.

5. SL's lower middle, and middle class use their own vehicles because of the dilapidated condition of public transport. They would gladly pay several times 50cts/KM if the services were good. It would make a lot more sense for institutions like the railways to charge sufficient to recover costs, but ensure sufficient investment into the railways.

6. Targeted handouts like Samurdi are probably preferred to the general untargeted subsidies. This way a recipient could use that money in ways which is most beneficial to him. He may decide to walk or cycle, (rather than use the money to buy train tickets) and invest the money on some other venture.

6. And finally, if I may digress, subsidies should also be used to induce desirable behaviour. Subsidising diesel or petrol for that matter encourages people to consume not conserve.

9. Meerkat Jun 02
Abe is more emotional than rational. He assumes that people who travel in three wheelers are mostly the poor. I know several multimillionaires in Dollar and GBP terms, who regularly three wheelers. I also know several three wheeler drivers who owns several expensive houses!

Most three wheeler drivers make Rs 1000-2000 profit a day- thats why there are so many three wheelers around. Some make more money than the average junior doctor in government service. The only difference is that they don't look it!

I also know a guy who walks around Union Place in torn shorts and rubber slippers, who owns 90 perches next commercial bank building worth at least Rs 500,000,000. I know a another person who looks like that but owns the biggest property down Flower Road.

Not sure how LBO readers judge who is poor and who is rich but 40 years ago , when I walked to school down Nawala-Narahenpita road, I used to feel sorry for the guy who was repairing car exhausts by the road-side by patch welding. He was obviously carrying out his trade illegally on government Land. Today at the same spot there is a multistory building housing one of the biggest dealers in exhausts and Roller shutters!!

The moral is don't feel too sorry for the guy who looks poor- he maybe richer than you think and quite possibly richer than you are!!

8. ddm Jun 02
Meerkat
The poor certainly do pay taxes - About 70% of GoSL's revenue is from indirect taxes such as VAT, import duties and other levies on consumption. The poor pay taxes almost every time they consume something.
7. aj Jun 02
The majority of the goods and services are consumed by those who are in a position to do so. That is not the absolute poor.

The poor can only consume so much of anything, transport services or vegetables included.

The absolute poor will however pay through inflation and turnover based taxes.

The rural poor walk, as pointed out by Dr Gunaruwan or they bicycle. They also go in three wheelers and on land master 'buses' which are very common in rural agricultural areas. They pay higher rates than city buses.

The majority of the buses are in built-up areas, where people commute daily. Most of the goods grown/manufactured/imported are consumed in cities, where poverty is lowest.

In Asia or Africa, the poor is poor because government policies exploit them for the benefit of the rich.

It makes sense to give subsidies to identified poor - says rural bus transport subsidiy - but not to subsidize diesel out of hand.

Whatever the government give - any subsidy or whatever - will be 'fair' only if there is an effective tax collection system which taxes the rich. But in a country where inflation covers up fiscal shortfall, there will be very many poor. That is why many Asian countries are poor. As long as 80 percent of the population is 'subsidized' there is no hope for the 'poor' 20 percent.

6. ddm Jun 02
Abe makes the valid point that targetting of subsidies is an issue. But that is also true of samurdhi and pretty much any other form of welfare transfer that he/she suggests.

Mr. Mannakkara's 3 points remain valid. Even if 70% of bus/train users are non-poor private and state sector employees (i'm assuming abe mean's the urban sector since the figure of 70% would not be valid in a rural sector), this is expected since the majority of the population in urban sectors are non-poor. But when the poor do use transport they are most likely to use bus or rail - which consume diesel.

5. Meerkat Jun 02
Abe
Poor people do not pay taxes of any kind, therefore subsidies cannot affect them. It's the tax payers who subsidize the poor. Beggars and poor people benefit from subsidies. Thats why almost all asian countries including, China,India, Bangladesh and Indonesia , where the majority are poor, subsidise Petol Diesel and other essential commodities.
4. Meerkat Jun 02
Kanishke,
As you correctly pointed out,, several others including myself have written the same thing. Some readers seem to delight in writing about the same flawed assumption that subsidies benefit the rich!!!

I have pointed out the same to LBO, but they keep harping the subsidies. Sure, subsidies skewer the financial aspects of companies but to say that they benefits the rich more than the poor is beyond belief.

The well off tax payers also subsidise the poor by other means also. For example
1. Not utilising government hospitals- they go private
2. Not utilising government schools- send their children to private schools
3. Not utilising government universities- send their children abroad
4. Live in gated communities- that have their own water supply, sewage treatment and garbage disposal.

3. Abe Jun 02
It’s ridiculous to see that always our people make comments on everything without knowing the facts. You see the daily travel figures of people by busses & trains. At least 70% of travelers are govt. and private sector people. They are not poor – middle class if Mr. Mannakkara’s version is taken here.

You mind Lorries transport essential goods are driven using diesel- true. But, you people being rich consumed a same amount of dhal and rice as ordinary people do. Why do govt. want subsidizes it?

Ok, Lets assume 10% of diesel vehicles are luxury. Who bears the burden of this 10%. –the entire population including beggars on the side of the road have to bear the burden. But, if not subsidize people who use will pay no burden on the economy. If government need, can use this subsidy money to direct the need- elected schools, or pregnant mothers or “ Samurdhi recipients”.

Issue of threewheeler,is such misunderstood. It’s used for goods transport (heavily) especially shorter duration. It’s poor people’s vehicle for taking a patient to hospitals …etc.

The most new dimension of the rural society is that each and every home in the village has a motor bike—that’s because our transport system in rural areas is so good. You travel a village in Mavilachchiya, Embilipitiya or Polonaruwa and see….!!!!!

Anybody who proposes government subsidies should understood they are committing a crime by robbing poorest of the poor of the society.

2. fran Jun 02
I think only people in Colombo who read english dailies understand these issues. The vast majority who live outside Colombo and do not read English dailies dont understand economic realities.

The message has to go the grass root levels, so that people dont get conned by politicians. If a man has basic economic sense, he'll surely sacricifice for the long term good of his future generation. Here what happends is that politicians create a mountain of a mole hill citing that the rich are getting richer and that they can efficiently correct this wealth distribution anomally. I see the problem as one of knowledge, we need to somehow educate and empower our people, so that they can hold their policiticans accountable.

1. Kanishke Mannakkara Jun 02
I am sorry LBO, but your position is ridiculous. Below are some of the points which I feel you are trying to make.

1. Petrol is used largely by the poorer sections of society, whereas the rich use diesel. I disagree. Most poor people in thie country rely on bus (100% diesel) or rail (mostly diesel)transport. Those who use small cars are, by Sri Lankan standards, relatively wealthy! Yes three wheelers run on petrol, but we all know from experience that these prices are quite comfortably passed on to their customers. Again, people who use three wheelers are normally, by Sri Lankan standards, relatively well off, and certainly not poor.

2. Diesel is used mostly by the very rich. Wrong. A vast majority of the diesel consumption in this country is by busses and lorries. Another very important point here.

3. Politicians are biased towards subsidising diesel because their SUV's run on diesel. Wrong. Fuel bills of politicians are paid by the state (i.e. us). Why should they care whether they run on petrol or diesel? It is in fact better they run on diesel because although it has a slightly higher cost per litre, you are able to run more miles per litre of diesel, thereby saving money to the exchequer.

From an economic perspective, giving unfunded subsidies fuels inflation (pardon the pun), and actually hurts the poorest of the poor (those who do not even use bus transport). However (despite being somebody who drives a petrol vehicle), I am broadly supportive of cross subsidising diesel by taxing petrol. It will help transfer money from wealthier sections of society (such as myself, other petrol car owners and people who can afford to use tuk tuks) to the poorer ones (bus and train users). It will also help reduce pollution (private cars pollute much more per passenger mile than buses). This should run hand in hand with a prohibitive tax on the importation of diesel vehicles for private use.

I have given up on expecting anything at all our of our useless politicians!