Archives

Please forward your letters to editor@dailynews.lk  in plain text format within the e-mail message, since as a policy we do not open any attachments.

Indian visas - why not the Lankan way?

Abuse of children

Withholding Tax on Interest Income

Political instability

The present political instability in Sri Lanka is mainly due to this unsuitable constitution which had been introduced in 1978. Prior to 1978 the political party which won the highest number of seats in Parliament was in total control of the affairs of the country. Moreover the members were elected electoratewise. At that time each member so elected was recognised as "Our MP", and the MP had a personal interest in the welfare of the electorate.

The earlier we revert to the former system is the better for the country. Then the candidate who first past the post becomes the Member of Parliament for that particular electorate. This proportionate and preferential voting system is a curse for our country. Political rivalry has become greater because of this system. Pundits from this side and that side may say various things, but the evil lies in the current Constitution.

We must have a system like that of England or India. Then whatever the Party comes to power will carry on till the next general election, and the country will have peace politicalwise. That means the Parliament is supreme and the popularity will prevail. Very soon due to the present crisis, there will be a General Election. But if this constitution remains unchanged, no progress or development could be expected.

Because of the current Constitution, today the country is in a state of anarchy. Developments, peace-talks and other day to day activities at a standstill.

Today the people are suffering as they are deprived of a proper leader. We should think of India or England and allow our old system to continue once again.

Then only there will be less clashes and the peace and progress will prevail in Sri Lanka.

W. A. THOMAS SILVA, Maharagama

Indian visas - why not the Lankan way?

The Indian Embassy annually in their Independence Day newspaper supplements ad nauseum announced obtaining visas to visit India has been further streamlined and the process has been made much easier for local visa applicants. The reality is that the process appears to have been "engineered" to be more frustrating and inconvenient. One look at the hundreds queuing up from dawn at the IHC gates need no further proof of what Sri Lankans are made to undergo to obtain an Indian Visa.

In the past few years due to relaxation of travel restrictions and freeing of foreign exchange here more Sri Lankans visit India now than before. It is the duty of the Indian government to ensure Sri Lankans are not unnecessarily made to suffer particularly now that more tourist income flows into India.

It should really be the other way around. India, with its supposedly far able and superior administrative service, vast material and man-power resources should have no difficulty in meeting the challenges of meeting the task of increased visa applications from here.

We are told previous Indian Ambassadors responding to complaints made by influential Sri Lankans made things somewhat easier by providing more windows, counters and staff at the IHC office here. It looks like while senior Indian diplomats are doing their best to bring better image to their Mission here, there is some organised resistance from their lower ranks bent on ulterior motives to make things difficult for visa applicants.

It is common knowledge that substantial money is involved in the issue of visas. On several instances, visa applications rejected on trivial grounds, from applicants from the North and East are approved through "other" methods often through touts.

The higher-ups of the Embassy cannot be ignorant of this. Every effort made by the seniors in the Indian Embassy to put matters to some form of acceptable order appears to be shot down after sometime. The claim their switch to computerization has simplified matters is far from convincing.

Daily queues becoming larger at their gates belies this claim. Some years ago this mission issued daily about 10 visas each through about 20 IATA-registered travel agents. While this scheme worked satisfactorily for both sides for sometime, scheming insiders sabotaged this scheme citing bogus excuses such as "abuse by travel agents" and so on. This satisfactory scheme was withdrawn soon thereafter.

It must be said to little Sri Lanka's credit, we have handled visa matters much more meaningfully and efficiently than India in helping ease visa traffic between the two countries.

Already Indians visiting Sri Lanka for stays under 30 days are given their visas immediately at the Sri Lankan entry point. One cannot understand why India cannot reciprocate similarly unless someone has an agenda to "make hay while the sun shines".

Instead of subjecting local applicants to the terrible inconvenience that is their sad lot, the Indian authorities should have acted long ago to save Sri Lankans from the inconvenience and frustration of queuing at their gates from dawn. In many cases, inspite of this early arrival applicants are turned away.

Simple folk coming from distant places are forced to spend thousands of rupees daily in travelling, boarding and lodging, which they can ill-afford, merely to get a simple visa from this Embassy. Many I know who had plans to visit India on pilgrimage and shopping are switching to Nepal and singapore - unwilling to go through the humiliation, inconvenience and sometimes extra-legal payments in getting a visa to India. Some of the lower rungs of the Indian Embassy staff also seem to gather pleasure in turning visa applicants out. They are very rude and impolite even to old ladies - leave alone others. Certainly there are cultured gentlemen in the Embassy staff at the higher levels.

The lower staff can learn much from them and should be taught to be polite and courteous to the public here. After all, they too are "Ambassadors" of their country here and have a responsibility in maintaining India's good image.

The claim by Indian Embassy authorities of having eased the issuance of business visas is yet another joke. Almost all businessmen I spoke to, dismiss this claim. On the contrary, they say officials at the Embassy harass them by asking all sorts of un-necessary documents - and, this after keeping them loitering for hours inside. Very few businessmen have got their visas on one single visit to the visa section of this mission.

How can trade between the two countries develop when officials inside the Embassy make it a "business" to issue visas? It will take this Embassy a long time to issue five year business visas as done by the USA and UK Embassies - who do it for the sake of convenience and economy to both parties.

To check on these complaints and before making press representations, I telephoned the Embassy last week and was sent "from pillar to post" before an arrogant-sounding official answered a few of my questions.

He was irritated when I was questioning him on a matter which he said "was strictly their business". I told him other embassies are more accommodating, polite and that visas are issued without much hassle. He told me that the Embassy has to deal with nearly 600 applicants daily because the North and East is "now open" and not only these applicants make things worse but some of them seem to 'enjoy" coming back over and over again for just one visa.

This is certainly not true and cannot be understood.

I also reminded him the situation was no better when the North-East was "closed" - something which he did not like to be told. This representation is certainly not to embarrass the present High Commissioner Nirup Senn, who has taken over a few months ago but largely aimed at bringing to the notice of Mr. Senn the trouble in obtaining a visa from his staff.

I am sure he will take meaningful steps to spare our visa applicants the growing frustration and inconvenience in getting a visa to travel to India.

Why not simply follow the example set by Sri Lanka and arrange issuing of visas at the point of entry in India itself if the Indian embassy staff here are not upto the task of meeting the increasing demand? Surely, this is not too much to ask?

S. RAJARATNAM, Colombo 4

Abuse of children

The word abuse is used very superficially when it comes to children - we assume either sexually abusing them or physically harming them only to be real abuse. Rather teaching them false values, cheating on their childhood, using them for ads with bad manners. Our society seems to be abusing our future generation systematically in many other ways.

Watch the TV - the ads teach them all wrong values. A child hiding things from the teachers, another breaking all the rules laid by the mother - trusting just one kind of concoction to protect her from all ill effects of cold, cough, phenomena and what not; another, inviting loads of friends for drinking and dancing as soon as the parents' back is turned - and hide the fact when they return.

We teach them to spend by not only giving so much of importance to consumerism but also encouraging them to use credit cards at tender ages.

We, the elders are telling the children of today, that it is okay to cheat, lie and steal. Some without principle makes up these ads and all responsible, right-thinking adults just let them pass by. What we are doing is to give wrong signals to our youth and desensitize them to all what is wrong. Let's clean up our acts and allow only what is good-nothing but the good - to prevail.

Dr. MAREENA THAHA REFFAI, Dehiwela

Withholding Tax on Interest Income

The notice published by the Secretary to the Treasury J. Charitha Ratwatte on the withholding tax on interest income - amendments to the Inland Revenue Act, No. 38 of 2000 - on December 30, 2003 states the following:

"Any individual who is in receipt of a total interest income of not more than Rs. 25,000 in any month or Rs. 300,000 in any 12 month period, on all deposits made in any bank or financial institution may apply to the relevant bank or financial institution not to deduct any withholding tax from such interest income, if the following conditions are satisfied-

i. (a) such interest income is the sole income of such individual; or

(b) such interest income is the primary source of income of such individual (i.e. more than 90 per cent of the total income); and

ii. the total income of such person for the relevant year of assessment, including any income that is exempt from tax, does not exceed Rs. 300,000".

These new rules, paradoxically, will result in deducting withholding tax from the interest income of a person who is not liable to income tax under the existing rules.

Let us take the case of a person whose annual interest income from all his fixed deposits in a bank (say National Savings Bank) for the income tax year 2004/2005 is Rs. 210,000. His other income is only from his government pension, which is tax exempt, and this pension amounts to Rs. 82,300 a year. Thus, his total income is Rs. 292,300 which is below Rs. 300,000.

However, his interest income is 71.9 per cent of his total income and therefore his interest income is not the primary source of income (i.e. more than 90 per cent of the total income).

Consequently, even if his total income is less than Rs. 300,000 he will be called upon to pay the withholding tax. The curious thing however, is that although his interest income is less than 90 per cent of his total income, he will not have to pay income tax as his statutory income is only Rs. 210,000. The statutory income excludes the income from his government pension as all government pensions are exempted from tax.

Thus, his statutory income being less than Rs. 240,000 he will not have to pay income tax on his interest income. Paradoxically, however, he is required to pay the withholding tax on his interest income which being below Rs. 240,000 is tax exempt. This withheld tax has to be refunded to the person later on as, although under the new rules he is subject to the withholding tax, under the existing income tax law, he is not liable to pay tax.

The new rules therefore are first wrong an unjust as they tax the interest income of a person who is not liable to income tax and second, it will load the Inland Revenue Department with unnecessary paper work in refunding the withholding tax thus collected. The Secretary to the Treasury must issue a new set of instructions to prevent this anomalous situation.

These rules were designed to provide relief mainly to government pensioners whose pensions are inadequate to meet current living expenses.

Would if not be simpler and more effective if government pensions were excluded from total income calculation? This will mean first, any person will be exempted from the withholding tax so long his interest income and other income (other than government pension) do not exceed Rs. 300,000 a year and his interest income forms over 90 per cent of his total income. As an alternative, a person who is not liable to income tax should be exempted from the withholding tax. Even if interest income is the sole source of assessable income as in the case quoted above, it will be limited to Rs. 240,000 a year.

The limit is lower than Rs. 300,000 but it is easier, more just and involves much less paper work.

A g p

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager