“The rejection from ‘Aswesuma’ has left me in limbo,” shared Gayan Perera, 37, from Galle, reflecting on his ongoing struggle, speaking to The Sunday Morning. “I was asked to apply by the programme’s coordinator in my village, but my application was turned down without explanation.” Gayan’s frustration is palpable as he grapples with the lack of clarity surrounding his rejection.
“Meanwhile, my neighbour qualified for assistance, leaving me to wonder why I was overlooked,” he added. With his family’s livelihood hanging in the balance amid the economic crisis, Gayan’s lament highlighted the pressing need for transparency and fairness in the Government’s newest initiative ‘Aswesuma’.
Gayan’s sentiments echo those of Priyantha Dharmabandu, another villager from Kurunegala, who criticised the Government’s approach to welfare distribution.
“What people need is support, not free money,” Dharmabandu asserted. “The lump sum provided by the Government is not enough to make any meaningful difference. Instead of empowering people to improve their situation, the Government continues its political campaigns by distributing money to people.”
Dharmabandu’s words highlight a deeper issue embedded in Sri Lanka’s political landscape – a system where welfare facilities often serve as tools for garnering votes rather than addressing the root causes of poverty and inequality.
“People in this country have been accustomed to this system for decades,” he explained. “Similarly, ‘Aswesuma’ is President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s election campaign. Poor people will remain trapped in the same cycle of poverty as before.”
Amidst these criticisms, allegations of political manipulation swirl around ‘Aswesuma,’ with a growing number of disqualified individuals claiming that the programme is merely a political gimmick. The lack of transparency and accountability in beneficiary selection processes further fuels uncertainty and distrust among the public.
As Sri Lanka grapples with the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and other socioeconomic challenges, the need for genuine, sustainable solutions to uplift the most vulnerable cannot be overstated. For now, the future of ‘Aswesuma’ remains uncertain, as the promise of ‘Aswesuma’ assistance is overshadowed by allegations of political expediency.
No support for GNs
Against this backdrop, Sri Lanka Grama Niladhari Association (SLGNA) Secretary Asanka Gunaratne shed light on the reasons behind the widespread criticism of the programme. Gunaratne emphasised that the Government had failed to conduct a proper awareness campaign to educate the public about the beneficiaries and eligibility criteria of the programme.
“‘Aswesuma’ represents a different approach; it is a welfare programme not solely intended for the poor. Since it is a welfare initiative, anyone can apply. Applications are automatically assessed by the system, which then determines eligibility. ‘Aswesuma’ operates in contrast to ‘Samurdhi,’ but this distinction is not widely understood. Therefore, the Government needs to undertake efforts to inform the public about the programme,” he explained.
Expanding on this, Gunaratne highlighted that the programme had been initiated by the Welfare Benefits Board (WDB), established under the Welfare Benefits Act No.24 of 2002. Similar to other acts, this legislation outlines penalties for providing false information, applicable to both the public and officials involved.
“At the initial stage, many individuals were disqualified, who alleged that officials had failed to accurately input the provided details. To address this, we suggest obtaining duly filled applications with the applicant’s signature as proof. Not every villager possesses technical appliances, so maintaining such records is crucial for verification purposes,” Gunaratne stated.
Furthermore, Gunaratne stressed that while all Grama Niladharis (GNs) were obligated to implement the programme, they currently received no additional allowance for this task. He highlighted the burden placed on GNs, who had limited time off and now faced additional responsibilities without adequate support.
“This is an additional workload. We only have one day off, which we can only take if no other work is pending. Yet, we are now saddled with extra duties without any accompanying facilities. Therefore, we have requested the Government to provide an additional allowance of Rs. 20,000 per GN,” he concluded.
Welfare Benefits Act
Section 20 of the Welfare Benefits Act No.24 of 2002 delineates the legal repercussions for a spectrum of transgressions related to the provision of false information or obstruction of duties specified within the act.
These offences encompass furnishing erroneous declarations or information under Subsection 3 of Section 7; neglecting to inform the commissioner of any alterations to the particulars provided in the declaration; supplying false details in response to notices outlined in Section 11; obstructing, interfering with, or attempting to influence individuals in the execution of their duties as outlined by the act; and failing to adhere to any regulations promulgated under the act.
Upon conviction after a summary trial before a magistrate, the perpetrator is subject to a fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or both such penalties. This provision serves as a pivotal deterrent against fraudulent activities and upholds adherence to the regulations delineated within the Welfare Benefits Act, ensuring the integrity of the welfare system.
Section 21 states that any public officer who, in the exercise, performance, or discharge of his powers, duties, or functions under this act, knowingly and willingly acts on any information which is false or incorrect, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction after summary trial before a magistrate be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000 or to imprisonment to a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment.
‘Aswesuma’ shortcomings
‘Aswesuma’ was launched by the Welfare Benefits Board following a proposal by President Wickremesinghe and intends to create an entrepreneurial state instead of a welfare state. However, welfare beneficiaries have been organising protests against alleged injustice in the evaluation process of ‘Aswesuma,’ even as the Government and Opposition trade charges in what has now become a fresh political controversy following a significant rise in poverty.
The ‘Aswesuma’ benefit scheme, as outlined in the Second Report of the Committee on Ways and Means, has been allocated Rs. 180 billion (equivalent to Rs. 12 billion per month). However, the scheme encountered significant challenges in effectively identifying and distributing benefits to deserving individuals.
One major issue was the lack of an objective and multi-dimensional criteria for selecting beneficiaries, leading to confusion and inconsistency. Additionally, the use of an excessive number of parameters or criteria further complicated the selection process. Marks were allocated equally across three dimensions: education, health, and economic level, which may not accurately reflect the needs of individuals.
Furthermore, the absence of field officers familiar with the community’s ground reality hindered the effective implementation of the scheme. Allocation of marks was based on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) conducted in 2019, potentially overlooking changes in household circumstances since then.
Numerous beneficiaries faced delays in receiving benefits due to various issues such as duplicate National Identity Card (NIC) numbers, repetitive bank account numbers, and discrepancies between NIC numbers and bank accounts. The ongoing appeals and objections process also contributed to delays, as did instances where beneficiaries lacked valid bank accounts.
Addressing shortcomings
In response to these challenges, the Welfare Benefits Board has requested the Department of Census and Statistics to review the parameters before the second enumeration of the ‘Aswesuma’ scheme, scheduled for 2024. The importance of dedicated field officers at the rural level has been emphasised to ensure effective implementation.
Additionally, the Department of Samurdhi Development has been tasked with empowering 300,000 beneficiaries of the ‘Aswesuma’ scheme. Annual assessments will determine continued eligibility and interim payments have been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers for 395,000 recipients of the ‘Samurdhi’ allowance who withdrew from ‘Aswesuma’.
Moving forward, disbursements under the ‘Aswesuma’ scheme will occur exclusively through bank accounts regulated by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, aiming to streamline the process and ensure transparency in benefit distribution, as per the report.
Govt. plans
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, State Minister of Finance Shehan Semasinghe said that the Government intended to initiate a fact-finding mission after completing the second round of ‘Aswesuma’ to assess the programme’s effectiveness.
“We will first finalise the selection of beneficiaries and disburse payments by July for 2.4 million families. Following this, we plan to conduct an independent survey to understand how these funds have been utilised and how we can further improve. We must prioritise finalising the beneficiary list by July, totalling 2.4 million families, before proceeding with the survey. While we may not conduct the survey nationwide, we will seek assistance to determine the best approach for a sample survey and assess its outcomes,” Semasinghe explained.
He emphasised that the categories for considering a beneficiary encompassed all citizens, including those vulnerable due to the recent economic crisis, those in transition, and those classified as poor and most poor.
Referring to recent discussions with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), Semasinghe clarified that while there was no formal agreement between the Welfare Benefits Board and the HRCSL, the Government was open to feedback.
He also acknowledged the need for adjustments in certain areas to address concerns raised during the enumeration process conducted by volunteers and said that going forward, the involvement of existing Government officials, under the guidance of divisional secretaries, would ensure a more efficient process.