16 July, 2024


Political Machinations: The Irresponsibility Of A Cabinet Decision

By Rajiva Wijesinha –

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Having looked at one example of rent seeking, in an unusual format, in the field of education, I came across another that was also quite illuminating about the way in which we allow ourselves to be exploited. This, also startling, case of abuse came to my notice when I went through the documents sent by the National Lotteries Board, after they had been examined by the Committee on Public Enterprises, and been found wanting.

What I read seemed to suggest appalling waste, and I hope very much that COPE will include strong strictures in its Report and recommend strongly that better systems be put in place. Though the aberrations that came to my notice had occurred a decade ago, and I don’t suppose there is any way in which the money wasted by government can be recovered, there are lessons to be learnt.

In particular it seems clear that there should be measures to ensure more careful assessments by Cabinet or any Committee it appoints about proposals made in Cabinet papers. As far as I can make out, what happened then was that the Minister of Economic Reform, Science and Technology had a discussion with ‘Norwegian Authorities’, who were not specified,  and then put a paper to Cabinet to ‘set up a scholarship fund to provide scholarships to needy students in the country through an innovative lottery project’. Why the Minister of Economic Reform, Science and Technology should have been concerned with lotteries or with scholarship funds is not clear, but it seems that the question did not occur to Cabinet. Perhaps the word Norwegian was seen then as a sign sent from God, or the Prime Minister, so the Cabinet then approved setting up a Committee to ‘negotiate suitable terms & conditions with NORSE TIPPING Norwegian Lottery and make suitable recommendations’.

The President seems to have had a different view, and made some shrewd observations about the whole business, but still said she had no objection to the composition of the Negotiating Committee nor, in principle, to setting up an on-line lottery. I thought in her defence that she was probably under so much pressure at the time that she did not want to seem a stumbling block on what might have been thought a comparatively minor matter. But I fear that she was also affected by the general culture of not rocking the boat, and felt one should not interfere with the proposals of other individuals, even when they dealt with matters that were not within their purview.

The Committee, which was chaired by a Public Servant I have always thought a capable and decent man, made a report which recommended favourably the deal suggested by the Minister. In that report it was taken for granted that the rate of return on the investment would be 30.75%. There were no arguments to substantiate this, and perhaps it was simply assumed to be the case since the Norwegian consultants who had initiated the project said it was. A later report, which is not dated, but seems to have been written when the project had begun to run into trouble, notes that no feasibility study was undertaken to ascertain social impact, impact on other lotteries or ‘impact on dependent on other lotteries’ (whatever that means). The report notes that ‘the prices of the ticket at Rs 10 is three times higher than other lotteries’ but there is no sign that a market survey was undertaken before any contract was signed to see if sales would be satisfactory and the investment likely to be profitable.

Needless to say, the investment collapsed, aided perhaps by the fact that some equipment for the lottery lay in the harbor for some time because the Telecom Regulatory Authority had not issued a licence. Demurrage was paid on this.  In addition there were disputes with the Inland Revenue since, though the Cabinet Paper approving the project had noted that the net earnings of the Lottery were to be exempt from all taxes, evidently the Inland Revenue Department was not been informed.

By 2006, when it was decided that the Online Lottery Company should be liquidated, it had made just over Rs 7 million over 8 months, whereas its fixed overheads were around Rs 2 million a month. Amongst the costs were payments for five cars, including four Mitsubishi Lancers, which had been leased since February 2004.

In 2009 the Cabinet was asked to approve writing off the lost, which amounted to Rs 982 million. Assets worth Rs 213 million had been disposed of, but only Rs 36 million had been received for these. The paper noted that Online Lotteries were more suited to countries which had greater knowledge of Information Technology, but this had not been taken into account when Cabinet approved the project.

I am strongly of the view that misjudgments – or abuses – of this sort should be publicized further and mechanisms put in place to ensure that official committees have clear terms of reference and that Cabinet establishes guidelines according to which sudden proposals of this sort are examined. But in addition there should be mechanisms to penalize both politicians who advance such proposals without proper care, and officials who recommend them without proper study.

One of the problems that both these elements face is the habit of relying on the other. Ministers can claim that it is up to officials to check on details and provide comprehensive reports with well argued recommendations. Officials on the other hand claim that they have to fall in line with what Ministers want, and for them to produce reports that give a contrary view would be dangerous.

Both these arguments are specious. Officials should realize that, if they function with the transparency that the public deserves, they will be safe from undue pressures. And Ministers must realize that it is up to them to read the reports officials produce and reject them if they are inadequate.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0

    This man has no shame. Why don’t you get out of the Government. Oh! I know, you are sacred.

  • 0

    Rajiva has been searching for subjects to write about and has come up
    with one – as usual and highlighting the most crooked of all Cabinet
    Ministers in the world!
    One way around is that there should be a pre-COPE Committee (for want of a title) that should vet all Cabinet Papers seeking an expenditure of over Rs. 10 million, prior to it being presented in the Cabinet. It
    must made up of Accountants, qualified Consultants/Experts and the like.
    Why not deal on these and not the mere 982 million Rs;-?
    (Probably by the next Government, if there is to be one!)

    Hedging deal
    Robbed and wasted amount Rs. 230,000 M 230 B
    Air Lanka
    Wasted and robbed amount Rs. 10,000 M 10 B
    Mihin Air
    Wasted and robbed amount Rs. 5,000 M 5 B
    Mig Deal
    Robbed amount Rs 4,00M 0.4 B
    Weerawila Air Port
    Wasted amount Rs 500M 0.5 B
    VAT Scam
    Robbed amount Rs. 35,000 M 35 B
    Safari Park
    Wasted amount Rs. 16,000 M 16 B
    Robbed amount Rs. 23,000 M 23 B
    Uma Oya project
    Robbed amount Rs. 28,000 M 28 B
    Computers for divisional
    Robbed amount Rs. 1,200 M 1.2 B
    Purchase of Gantry
    Cranes total amount robbed Rs. 24,150 M 24 B
    Fly over contracts
    Total amount robbed Rs. 3,500 M 3.5 B
    Kerawalapitiya (Additional Losses)
    Robbed amount Rs 25,550M 25.5B
    Road Development in
    North amount robbed Rs. 28,000 M 28 B
    Rs. 430,300 M 430.3 B

    Source – Posted by transCurrents on January 3, 2010 editor@transcurrents.com

  • 0

    Oh please…..this guy is back….holding my breath for this to be followed by Dayan’s……

  • 0


    Here is an excellent opportunity to express your wisdom and courage in objectively discussing current events rather than good-for-nothing post-mortems.

    Could you please look at the the “Land Acquisitions for Holiday Resorts by the Army” issue.

    Would you comment on your assessment as to whether, as you characterize, it is an issue that qualifies as “Ministers claiming that it is up to officials to check on details and provide comprehensive reports with well argued recommendations,” or is it “Officials claiming that they have to fall in line with what Ministers want, and for them to produce reports that give a contrary view would be dangerous.”

    It will be good to see your participation in throwing light on current events with some courage, rather than merely doing worthless post-mortems couple of decades from now.

  • 0

    “This man has no shame.”
    Thats true and no one is going to dispute that.

    “Why don’t you get out of the Government”.
    Where else can he make the same living with the same or equvalent perks without doing anything?

    Prof. why not write something on what you have achieved for the people during the last three years for all the funds that you have taken from the state in terms of salary and perks?

  • 0


    Why do we need to have this in a Buddhist country???

  • 0

    The so called Mahinda Chinthana vision is designed to bring and stamp a legacy of Rajapakse & family and not for any socioeconomic benefits. Most of the landmark projects completed hitherto are not generating any revenues and are colossal waste of public funds or borrowed money.

    The idiotic Ministers have no say, they are paid mercenaries of the President, as long as the are inline with the President they will be looked after very well. If you go against their plight will be very similar to ex army commander, ex-CJ and ex-power and Energy minister depending upon the severity and the challenge to President and his cohorts.

  • 0

    Rajiva- This is the story of all government investments and privatizations since 1977. Please go into the case of the State Fertilizer Manufacturing Corporation, which that loud crude mouth Ronnie de Mel, destroyed and allowed JRJ’s friends to import fertrilizer.See what a mess we have got into.Why do not you propose that all Ronnie de Mels assets are taken over by the GOSL and throw RdeM on to the roads only with his under wear.Yes including Geekiyana kanda.

    • 0

      This is typical Sri Lanka.

      What happened to the JRJ’s shipping corporation ?

      Every thing is like that.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.