Why Santa comes every month to film star Sabitha’s building
Has Agriculture Minister Duminda furrowed the field but failed to sow the seeds on time to reap the yield?
For many, Christmas comes but once a year. But for film actress Sabitha, Santa Claus makes a regular house call every month with a bag full of the Yala Maha harvest. The monthly bumper crop, valued at over Rs 20 million, is dropped at her doorstep; and is sent courtesy of the Agricultural Ministry. And paid for, without a murmur, by the Lankan public, displaying Christian charity the whole year round.
For what, you may well ask? Well, nothing new to the story, except for the fact that the supplementary estimate presented to Parliament last week on December 5 for Rs. 11 billion to provide for immediate government expenditure, also included Rs 66 million to the Agricultural Ministry. A sum of Rs 66 million may, of course, seem like a drop in the ocean of an 11,000 mil- lion buck amount but it once more brought to the fore the scandal surrounding Sabitha and her husband’s building bonanza when it was revealed it was to pay some three months arrears in rent for their building block. In September 2015, the cabinet gave approval to acquire the Agricultural Ministry’s building ‘Govijana Mandiraya’ occupied by the Ministry of Agriculture and shift it to the adjoining Sethsiripaya new building in Battaramulla. However, it was found that that the space available at Sethsiripaya was not enough to house the Agricultural Ministry. A new building had to be found. What was chosen was a building owned by D.P. Jayasinghe Tours and Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd which belongs to Sabitha and her husband. It seemed the perfect fit. It had the space to house the Ministry of Agriculture and it was in close proximity to Parliament as well. Cabinet also gave approval to lease out the building for a period of five years and the lease agreement was signed in April 2016. The entire building was to be leased out for a monthly rental of Rs.21 million plus taxes, 24 months’ rent in advance and three months’ security deposit to be paid. The lease was for a minimum of five years. The rent was to be increased by 15% after three years. In the final two years the advance rent amount was to be deducted from the monthly rent due. In monetary terms it boils down to An advance of two years rent amounting to Rs 504 million, excluding taxes A monthly payment of Rs. 21million for the first two years (even though a two year rent advance payment of Rs 504 million has already been made) amounting to Rs 504 million. Another rent payment of Rs 252 million for the third year. Total payment for Sabitha’s building so far: Rent 756 million plus two year rent advance 504 million = Rs. 1,260 million. With the increase of 15 percent in the rent after the third year, a monthly payment of Rs. 24,150,000 which amounts to a payment of Rs. 579,600,000 for the last two years. But since the advance of the two year rent is to be deducted in these last two years of the lease, the Government will have to pay only Rs. 75 million for this period of two year. The final tally for this five year lease will thus be: Rs 1,335 million. And that’s without the interest earned on the two year rent of Rs 504 million paid in advance and on the 63 million security deposit. No wonder Sabitha and hubby will be laughing all the way to the bank to deposit the Rs 22 million the local Santa brings to their home every month. Give or take a few bob, that’s over 700,000 bucks a day. Fair enough. A lease is valid and can be executed with the mutual consent of both landlord and tenant: even as the Lanka-Chinese lease over the Chinese Port City was done, however obnoxious the terms may seem to some.
In the present case the issue is even simpler. The Agricultural Ministry’s place of residence on Government owned land was acquired for a higher purpose with cabinet approval. The government-owned Sethsiripaya building where it was to move lacked the space to give it a home. The Agro Dept had to seek refuge elsewhere to set up camp -- at least for the next five years. Luckily, private sector help was at hand. Sabitha and her husband D. P. Jayasinghe had a readymade, ready to move building at hand in close vicinity to Parliament, able to offer vacant possession to anyone who wished to occupy it on their price and terms.
None can be faulted for concluding this lease agreement. The Government Valuer is said to have valued it at approximately Rs. 13 million a month. But that does not mean a private landlord should cut his cloth and stint on his attire in an environment where market forces of demand and supply operate. Mr. Jayasinghe and his wife Sabitha happened to have a vacant newly built building at the right place at the right time. It suited the Agricultural Ministry, too, to find a home so soon.
Except for one thing. The scandal is not in the price and terms of the lease. But why, after a period of 20 months – from April 2016 to now – after the government has dished out with a shovel Rs. 504 million as two years’ rent in advance and a further Rs. 420 million as rent for the last 20 months, totaling Rs 924 million plus another Rs 63 million as a security deposit in April 2016 when the lease was entered into, why Sabitha’s building is still unoccupied? Why is it still vacant?
And the question is: Why did the Agricultural Ministry furrow the field and not plant its seed?
Why hasn’t the Agricultural Ministry still taken residence in this new billion buck building that awaits them, even though public money has paid for them to occupy it nearly two years ago? Or are they waiting for the buffalo calves bred under some livestock programme to mature to five years to take shelter in Sabitha’s building barn when the lease comes to an end?
When the agricultural ministry’s votes were taken up in the budget debate last month, and the issue popped up like a Jack in the box as it has done regularly these last twenty months, Parliamentarian Dr Nalinda Jayatissa, had a few pertinent statements to make in the House and put the Agriculture Minister in the dock. About how the delay had cost the nation and how the money needlessly spent could have financed so many other projects in the meantime. He spoke of opportunity costs, of the lack of proper planning, of mismanaging government funds and squandering the people’s money.
He said of what could have been done with the monthly rent paid for this unoccupied building, two months’ rent paid for the Agriculture building was equal to the money allocated to build a maternal and child health care unit at Polonnaruwa; two months’ rent paid for Sabitha’s building is equal to the amount allocated by the budget 2017 to build the biggest Buddhist Library in the country; the rent paid for 12 days for the building is equal to the amount allocated to provide a medical insurance cover for artists; the funds allocated to solve the issue of disposal of solid waste is equal to two months’ rent of the building; the funds allocated to thousand nurseries of cinnamon, pepper saplings as a project to give relief to women entrepreneurs and to build an institute for cinnamon industry is equal to two months’ rent of the Agriculture building. In March this year, Agriculture Minister Duminda Dissanayake admitted that his Ministry has been paying a monthly rental of Rs. 21 million since April 2016 for the new building in Rajagiriya, though still unoccupied. However, when asked what the reason behind this delay was, the minister had this to say: “Let me give you an example; say that you are giving out a house on rent and I’m interested in renting it out from you, I would tell you that it would take another three months to get the furniture ready. We talk about this transaction in January and then I ask if I may start paying from March since I have to get the furniture done. Would you agree or not? The person giving out the building doesn’t care about when the building would be occupied. I have to change it to suit the needs of an office complex and this would only be possible once I have actually rented out the building.”
Well, if the Minister wants the truth, as to whether we -- or any prudent person -- agree or not, sad to say, no way. Not if one was spending out of one’s own pocket more than a billion bucks, half a billion paid up front to the landlord. For instance, would the good minister have done so if he had to dig deep into his own pockets? Unless, of course, his pockets were deep enough, bottomless so to say, as politicians of all hues, think the public coffers are. One can afford to indulge in, or tolerate such wanton waste and limitless squander, only if it’s OPM -- Other People’s Money. If a private person wishes to waste his money, that is his own private business. But can a minister say the same when he is in charge of the people’s money?
Last month during the budget debate, the minister was forced to admit in Parliament he had been foolish to rush into the lease agreement. He said: ‘For some time now there has been a mudslinging campaign carried out against me over Sabitha’s building. I made a mistake in agreeing to vacate the present premises. I should have waited till a new building was made and the keys were handed over to me. Then I would not have had to face any blame. ‘
The Agriculture Minister Duminda Dissanayake was one of the brave few to cross the Rajapaksa moat with Maithripala Sirisena and for that he must be praised. But for admitting that he was foolish to enter into this lease without his ministry being ready to move in, occupy it and justify the enormous rental he must be blamed. Hundred marks for candour. Zero for competence. Can this nation afford the luxury of ministers throwing people’s money down the Mahaweli due to ministerial folly?
Yahapalanaya may have demonstrated its transparency to the full. But does it not stand naked when it comes to accountability?