By Rusiripala Tennakoon –

Mr Ajith Nivard Cabraal, new Prime Minister’s Senior Adviser on Economic Affairs, has come up with a novel proposal in his quest for advise to find ways and means of helping those affected by the Coronavirus endemic. The advising role apart, his quest is ours too. Nevertheless, going by the Press notice there are many areas which puzzle those who look at things bit more analytically. Hence this write up.

Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the government, compulsory as it is, falling within the Fundamental Duties and State Policy, guaranteed under the Constitution to take meaningful measures to alleviate the adversities of the people. More so, at times of unprecedented events causing severe hardships to the populace such as the current catastrophe. The constitution specifically provides for the direct intervention of the government to prescribe planning and controls towards social objectives and the public weal. The country can demand this as a right and not consider it as some ex gratia benevolence extended on merciful grounds. In this context and in a broader standpoint of the plight the people are facing, let us take a look at the Economic Adviser’s formula.

As understood by the Public Statement reported by the media, the ‘Cabraal’ formula devolves upon “……… as an alternative to providing a direct fiscal hand out, around Rs.5oo Billion could be infused into the economy by unconditionally returning around 20% of the EPF member balances to the respective members,……..” from the balances lying to the credit in the EPF. Several issues arise out of this such as follows;

1. The proposal is more concerned with the boosting of the grinding economy, since the emphasis is to “infuse Rs.500 Bn. Into the economy”. There is no dispute that the Falling economy needs to be addressed with a serious concern and suitable planning to be put in place. But in a situation where “first things will have to be addressed first” there appears to be a mix up in the enunciated initiative. Boosting the ailing economy? or finding some way of providing some fiscal assistance to a section of the people? due to the incapacitation of the Government to provide any stimulus to the people {‘ absence of any fiscal space’} due to the continued devastation the economy has suffered during 2015 to 2019.   Or is he aiming to address both in one shot ,  ie.financial assistance as well as economic resurrection?

2. The proposal is to allow 20% of the individual balances to be returned to the respective members.Balances in the EPF of any individual will depend on the remuneration package and  his period of employment. Out of the total membership of around 2.5 million, what percentage would have sufficient balances to their credit which would make a significant contribution to boost the economy with a 20% or 1/5^th withdrawal? 

3. According to the available statistics, so far only 1.9 Mn members have recorded their NIC numbers under the updating programs in progress. A large number of members are contributing very small amounts into the EPF due to poor wages. The Estate workers, piece rate workers and several informal sectors who employ people periodically too are included in the total number of members for statistical purposes and does not reflect the true position of the active categories. The 20% of the balance lying to the credit of such categories will hardly be helpful and sufficient to be a contributory factor to  boost the economy.

4. Certain special schemes now in operation permit the members to draw on their balances. Eg. Obtaining Loans from approved lending institutions against the security of the EPF balance for housing purposes. In 2018 the EPF administration has issued 10,036 guarantee certificates on account of housing loans. And during the same year a total amount of RS. 2759 Mn. has been debited to the accounts of members to settle their obligations overdue and otherwise towards these institutions in respect of the Housing loans.

5. Amendment Act No.2 of 2012 provided for the withdrawal of 30% of the balance lying to the credit of a member under a pre-retirement refund scheme. This scheme came into effect from July 2015 and to date a sum of Rs.73.1 Bn. has been paid out under the program. About 130,000 beneficiaries have availed this facility. As at end of 2018 records indicate 18.6 Mn. member accounts with an increase of 8.8% during the year which infers that a significant number of members are new in the scheme, hence with small accumulated balances in their individual accounts. 

All the above factors signify a low pitch of intensity of the effectiveness of the proposal.

We also witnessed some opinions expressed by opposition politicians in a mild manner about the availability of funds that could be disbursed under the proposal. In that regard I wish to make certain observations.

As at end 2018, the investment portfolio of the EPF consisted of the following composition;

Government securities                      92.2% 

Equity investments                               3.3%

Corporate Debentures                         1.9%

Fixed Deposits                                       1.5%

Reverse Purchase agreements           1.1%

In this background Rs. 500 Billion targeted by Mr.Cabraal appears to be too high to be available immediately unless he has undisclosed information of an improved fund situation in  the EPF During the year 2019.

The anticipated benefits according to his pronouncement too are bleared and indistinct.

1. The expectation of high investment at a time like this sounds extremely wishful although the fund infusion will have a significant contribution to the consumption patterns. People are hard pressed to have access to their day to day requirements and the climate is not at all conducive even to any excessive consumption appetite.

2. If people need they can avail the 30% pre-retirement refund scheme already in operation. On the other hand, if they are allowed a refund of further 20% that would mean busting of 50% of their lifeline savings support. If it is the high interest rate that they are currently paying on account of their outside borrowings that  worries the government, they can lower the interest rates and allow the EPF members to benefit by the guaranteed investment interest rate paid on their EPF balances.

3. We cannot comprehend the existence of a mind set to invest in new business ventures in a situation like this unless a few can start manufacturing face masks! Or is there a blessed and highly privileged mafia surreptitiously operating behind the scenes to cripple first and acquire later in the business circles? 

4. In a realistic assessment banks are stretched to the maximum under the various incentive and other relief schemes now implemented under the auspices of government schemes. Hence the debt possibility anticipated under the ‘Cabraal formula’ remains volatile and appears to be illusive.

5. Mr. Cabraal refers to the EPF as Locked savings. The concept of EPF is far from being considered as locked savings at least in an individual sense. The price the State has to pay and the burden on the government to support a helpless elderly population with no other retirement benefits will overrun all other short lived advantages. “The danger of spending down of the lump sum too quickly shall become a charge on the State”.

However, for governments which have been sleeping over the years without adding any value to the EPF his reference is very valid. To make a long story short let me  passingly refer to the Singapore example how they expanded the economy using the EPF.

6. Are we realistic to presume an upturn in the construction activities, in a situation like this? If at all it will have to be focused under different circumstances.

So much, as different viewpoints, with no malice, for the visionary benefits articulated in the article of Mr.Cabraal.

Now let us examine a few other aspects in this regards;

* Government’s responsibility to provide a living assistance at times of hardships beyond the control of the masses should not be limited to only sections of the society. Big and small alike will have concerns that need to be addressed. It calls for a certain degree of uniformity in the applications of course with varying degrees depending on the individual categories. In this instance it only applies to those who are employed since EPF  is relevant to them only.

* State cannot derelict its’ obligation under various excuses. Refunding the EPF is similar to asking someone to withdraw from his account and spend. Accruing repercussions to the beneficiaries will affect in the long term. In particular, to the lower income categories.

* Any withdrawals from the EPF balances will deny them the accruing compulsory interest benefit assured to them under the EPF Act until the final withdrawal in respect of the amount withdrawn.

* Unless the refund scheme is properly planned out paying out from the EPF balances will be a highly complicated task specially if such payments are to meet urgent contingencies. The hassle one has to go through in withdrawing  even the final balance on retirement is too well known to be highlighted here. 

* For those members with very high balances in their individual accounts this does not apply and the immediate relief is highly alien to such categories.

Considering all the above factors it will be prudent for the Senior Economic Adviser to look into the two aspects (each separately) that he wishes to accomplish under his proposal.

A. Expected economic boost and investment promotion;

Those members with very high EPF balances like the fortunate High Executives drawing in millions as remuneration having large EPF balances may be permitted to withdraw or refunds up to any feasible percentage. They will have to on their own plans how they economically manage those funds in the given situation or under improved conditions of the country later, which may consequently fulfil the expectation.  

B. Providing stimulus in the face of the current Covid-19 pandemic

a) With regard to those categories of deserving people who need to be supported, ( but State not having space to do so) to be granted financial assistance directly, funds for this purpose could be borrowed from the EPF under a government guarantee without affecting the individual balances, thus providing for the EPF to continue without any depletion.

b) Instead of a general refund of all balances up to 20% if those in the employed category who need supplementary funding, to be allowed to do so under a planned scheme to facilitate such refunds.

Country is passing through a critical phase. Today we see and experience disaster but we have to lead today for tomorrow’s future. WE cannot sacrifice the future nor can we ignore the dilemmas of  today. Let us quote from  historical records what advisers have advocated at times of calamities; 

“ famine relief goes back more than 2000 years. This treatise is commonly attributed toKautilya who was also known as Vishnugupta(Chanakya), who recommended that a good king should build new forts and water-works and share his provisions with the people, or entrust the country to another king. Historically, Indian rulers have employed several methods of famine relief. Some of these were direct, such as initiating free distribution of food grains and throwing open grain stores and kitchens to the people. Other measures were monetary policies such as remission of revenue, remission of taxes, increase of pay to soldiers, and payment of advances. Yet other measures included construction of public works, canals, and embankments, and sinking wells. Migration was encouraged. Kautilya advocated raiding the provisions of the rich in times of famine to “thin them by exacting excess revenue.”