The Colombo city development debate

Victor IVAN
(Translated from an article published in the Ravaya of October 9)

Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s Colombo city development programme has come in for much flak by the Opposition parties. But looking at it I have already seen a tangible change in the Colombo city. It is clean as never before. Dumping of garbage alongside Colombo streets has stopped for some reason or other.

Not only Colombo 7 where the rich and well to do persons live but areas like Borella and Wanathamulla populated by the poor and underprivileged are cleaner as never before. The traffic congestion has eased to a very large extent. It can be further reduced if container traffic is limited to the night. We can also see Colombo transforming into a beautiful city. Now there are no pavement vendors on pavements. They have been provided with alternative places for business and informed persons say that they are for better off now with more facilities and increased business turnover. The pavements are also made more attractive paved with cement blocks.

Pavements are becoming more beautiful and attractive. Welcome changes are seen in Colombo Fort, Galle Face, Beira Lake, Independence Square and Diyawanna oya areas. Ancient buildings are being rehabilitated by protecting their ancient beauty and aesthetic value. Some of these rehabilitated buildings have added beauty and grandeur to the city. Fine examples are the Dutch hospital in Fort, Clock Tower and old buildings at Chatham street.

Although programmes to develop the area around Beira Lake and other places in the city were undertaken during the Premadasa regime and during the tenure of Mangala Samaraweera as Minister of Urban Development, a single such programme did not bring good results. Today a big change is being done in Colombo city as a whole instead of selected places.

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s development programme however has some features which may lead to debate which I wish to dwell on. However, taken as a whole his programme can be considered as a good programme which has made the city more systematic and beautiful.

Some may see this observation made by me as an opportunistic comment made to please the Rajapaksa family as Gotabhaya is the brother of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. But I wish to say that I am writing this without any such petty objective and because any good done by anyone deserves praise. I have no personal connection or ties with Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. He has met me only once for a discussion I have both praise and criticism regarding his work. I appreciated the services rendered by him during the war period with genuine feelings rather than any petty aims.

The late Ranjan Wijeratne also comes to mind when I talk of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Ranjan Wijeratne was also a character who faced strong opposition from certain ideologists. But I saw Ranjan Wijeratne who acted in a dedicated and selfless manner to cater to a historic need. Socially my relationship was with Rohana Wijeweera rather than Ranjan Wijeratne. I saw Wijeweera’s second rebellion as a rebellion which should be suppressed and defeated before long.

The person who took over that responsibility was Ranjan Wijeratne. If not for Ranjan Wijeratne’s leadership defeating Wijeweera’s second rebellion would have been difficult. Although a destruction was caused by Ranjan Wijeratne’s hands in suppressing the rebellion a greater destruction would have been caused if the rebellion succeeded. I saw the suppression of Wijeweera’s rebellion as a good forward step although I was socially related to Wijeweera.

Therefore, I had a praiseworthy attitude regarding Ranjan Wijeratne who gave leadership to that programme.

When Ranjan Wijeratne was assassinated there was a group of people who rejoiced considering him as a hangman. But on his death I wrote an editorial praising him and it was not very popular. But I considered it my responsibility to write that editorial.

I see the defeating of Prabhakaran’s rebellion too as an important step forward. A destruction was caused during the defeat of Prabhakaran too. But if he was not defeated the destruction caused would have been greater and much bigger. Although Gotabhaya Rajapaksa played a big role in the war initially I never thought that he had the capability to play such a successful role in the field of development. But now he has already proved his skill and talent in that subject too. Trying to see everything from a military angle can be seen as both his strength and weakness. But cleanliness is a target which should be achieved through creating awareness rather than fear among the people and implementing the law to the letter against those flouting laws and regulation. Although it could be achieved by driving fear into them it is not the best way for selection.

It is by leaving the military attitude and changing over to a position of working at things from a democratic angle that the Defence Secretary can become a good pilot of development.

The hottest topic for debate among Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s Colombo Development proposals is the programme to eject people from the shanties they are living in. Even looking from the angle of shanty dwellers themselves their present standard of living is not at all good or heartening.

It will not benefit the Colombo city or the country. If anyone thinks that they should be allowed to live as they are it cannot be considered as a progressive or forward thinking attitude.

According to official statistics 66,000 families are living in Colombo’s shanties. If there are five members in each family according to rough estimates the total shanty population will be 330,000.

The total area occupied by them is 142 acres. Accordingly, nearly three families are living in one perch of land. A perch is 273.5 square feet. If each family has five members each person has only 18.23 square feet area to live. An entire family lives on a 91.16 square foot area including people, buildings and toilets. It is needless to say that this is a very tragic situation.

This situation has to be changed not only for the sake of the city but also for the sake and benefit of these poor people. There is no doubt that the only solution to this is flats. But providing flats to 66,000 families is no simple or easy task. A sizeable amount of money needed for it can be found by joining shanty allotments together and selling them as large plots of land.

It is said that the extent of land identified for this so far is 142 acres of which each perch could be sold for Rs 2 million. Then the total income earned by selling 142 acres would be 45,440 million. When this is divided by the number of families each family will have Rs 688,000. This will not be sufficient to build a flats complex with a house with sufficient space and basic facilities for each family.

But the income derived from the sale of land will account for almost 70 percent of the total funds needed for a housing complex consisting of flats. If the government can grant the balance 30 percent a housing complex of flats with facilities can be built to enable them lead a good and contented life.

If there are people unwilling to join such a programme there can be a programme to pay them compensation too. A programme of this nature will not only enable to overcome the shanty problems in Colombo city but also create a positive change in the lives of shanty dwellers and transform Colombo into a beautiful city.

The eradication of unauthorised buildings and structures in Colombo city would have happened in a rough and coarse manner. But it needed to be done someday by someone. As a correct decision was not taken about it earlier new additions came up for unauthorised buildings making Colombo a whole mess.

The tradition of putting up unauthorised buildings in Colombo city may also come to a halt with this.

Even Karl Marx who represented communism and wanted to dismantle capitalism appreciated certain salient and progressive features of the capitalist system.

It is this virtue most lacking in marxist criticisms in this country on the subject of development.