brand logo

The unbearable price of spiritual lightness

16 Sep 2022

  • Public weighs in on whether religious sites should be exempted from utility tariff hikes
BY Sumudu Chamara   Sri Lankans have, by now, grown accustomed to fresh news of price hikes streaming in every day. From essentials to luxuries, everything has become significantly more expensive. Electricity, water, and fuel prices, which remained unchanged for years, are also on this list of expensive goods and services. With the recent electricity tariff hike, some religious leaders, especially Buddhist monks, protested, claiming that the increased cost of electricity is unbearably high and that the Government should provide subsidies for religious places. According to some Buddhist monks, the cost of electricity for some temples has increased by around fivefold. They raised concerns about Buddhist temples that have no considerable income. While providing special facilities or subsidies for religious places or exempting them from various costs or charges is not unusual in Sri Lanka, due to the nature of the prevailing economic situation, there is a discussion regarding whether religious places can be provided with the same subsidies or exemptions that were available before. The Morning discussed this matter with several members of the general public.   Protecting a part of the country’s identity    Some who spoke with The Morning shared the idea that religious places should be supported in the prevailing dire economic situation, especially because most such places do not have a stable or adequate source of income, and that it is the responsibility of both the Government and people.  According to 70-year-old retired public sector employee P. Samaratne, religious places provide a unique social service while depending almost entirely on donations, and should therefore be exempted from having to pay utility bills by considering them as institutions providing social services. He stressed that treating religious places as business institutions that make high profits or amass wealth should be stopped.  “The reason we need to exempt religious places from utility charges, especially electricity charges, is based on why we have and need religious places. These are institutions that provide some sort of spiritual guidance to society, educate the people on aspects pertaining to good and bad, and establish discipline in a smoother way that the laws cannot.  “Therefore, essentially, religious places are institutions that provide a very special, unique social service. Taking that service into account, I think that religious places should be treated as institutions providing social services and be exempted from electricity charges. That is the least that a Government can do. The money that the Government has to spend to provide this facility should be considered money spent on social services.”  He spoke of the income-related aspect of religious places: “Religious places depend mainly on donations. In some cases, they make some money by renting out buildings or lands owned by them or by selling fruits or vegetables grown on their lands. However, overall, there is no stable income for most religious places. Even if these forms of income methods were stable, in most cases, the income is not adequate.” However, Samaratne acknowledged that since some religious places receive large donations while some do not receive sufficient donations to cover basic expenses at the very least, exempting them from or giving subsidies for electricity expenses subject to the amount of income (donations or otherwise) is reasonable. However, some believe that such subsidies should not be conditional, and that all religious places of all religions should receive subsidies. They opine that religious places should be considered priorities when providing subsidies, in a context where they have a huge role in shaping people’s lives. Subhasha Palitha Perera, a 38-year-old dancer, expressed these sentiments: “Religious places are not institutions that merely spread an ideology. They have traditional, historical, cultural, ethnic, and national importance. They have helped create law-abiding, peaceful, and disciplined people for centuries. Religious identities have always been a part of people’s lives, and therefore, they should be protected by providing whatever support that we can provide. A mere electricity bill should not be allowed to destroy the stability and functions of religious institutions.” He noted that the present situation is such that both the Government and the people should get together to protect religious places, because most religious places do not have any income other than donations.  “Providing electricity-related subsidies is the least that the Government can do in this difficult time. People do donate money, but not as much as before. While the people can continue to donate any amount they are able to, the Government can support religious places by ensuring that adequate subsidies are in place. This is a collaborative effort to protect an important part of Sri Lanka’s identity, regardless of the religion. In fact, this is a time when we should increase our contribution to maintaining religious places and religious leaders, because, unlike ordinary citizens, religious leaders cannot be committed to a paying job and religious places are not always able to raise donations.” In addition, he said that religious institutions that receive higher donations should share a portion of their donations with those that do not receive sufficient donations.    Tightening the belt   Meanwhile, some opined that in a context where the entire country has had to suffer the consequences of the economic crisis, religious institutions should also be prepared to make sacrifices, like every other citizen and institution. Instead of asking the Government to maintain or increase subsidies for religious places, they said that religious leaders should set an example by reducing electricity use to a considerable extent.  “Perhaps this is the time for religious places to be accountable and responsible, and spend only what they have. Using electricity lavishly and expecting the people to pay the bills is not an option anymore in a context where the people are finding it extremely difficult to pay their own electricity bills,” said Lalitha Yasaravi, a 47-year-old housewife. She opined that religious places are one of the leading institutions that should advise people on cost-cutting measures, and added: “Previously, religious places were a part of the people’s lives and of society. Religious elders such as Buddhist monks were close to the people’s day-to-day lives and advised the people on leading simple lives.  “However, like many other religions, Buddhism too has become commercialised. As a result, instead of adopting cost-cutting measures and guiding the people to do the same, Buddhist monks are determined to continue to use electricity as lavishly as before, and are asking the Government to pay for it.” Adding that true Buddhism is not even remotely concerned about how many lights a temple has, she said that switching off unnecessary light bulbs at night and refraining from using unnecessary electrical equipment should not be a difficult task. She opined that such would encourage the people to do the same.  Yasaravi further said: “This is not a matter of whether the Government can provide subsidies. This is a matter of whether religious leaders are ready to take the economic situation seriously, especially given the fact that it is the ordinary people’s hard-earned money that maintains religious places and religious leaders. Religious leaders of all religions should understand the fact that people are going through extremely difficult economic conditions, to which the former are not as exposed. Soon, people will find it difficult to even provide food for religious leaders, let alone pay massive electricity bills.” Meanwhile, some raised concerns about the impacts of giving religious places electricity subsidies on the economy. In this regard, Udaya Fernando (name changed on request), a 34-year-old tailor, said that providing religious places more and more subsidies cannot be classified as a good deed aimed at supporting religious places, but is rather a disservice to tax-paying citizens. He said that at the end of the day, it is the general public that is going to have to pay the price of subsidies. He explained: “If I am not mistaken, religious places have already been given subsidies when it comes to electricity. Regardless, giving subsidies to religious places will only contribute to worsening the mountain of losses that the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) is suffering. In a context where the CEB’s only approach to dealing with its losses has become putting the entire burden on taxpayers, giving subsidies to religious places will indirectly affect tax hikes, whether it is electricity tariffs or other taxes, aimed at covering losses. If the Government decides to cover this loss by printing money or getting money from the Treasury, that too will indirectly affect the general public.” In this context, he said, when religious leaders ask for subsidies or exemptions, what they are essentially asking for is that the Government transfer the burden of increased electricity charges, which is caused also by the wasteful use of electricity at religious places, onto tax-paying citizens, who are already suffering due to the economic crisis. While providing or increasing subsidies remains the most direct answer to religious leaders’ concerns, given the state of the economy, it does not seem to be the most beneficial one. At the same time, people suggest alternative approaches such as cost-cutting measures and sharing resources among religious places. For whatever the support provided for religious places to be sustainable and not a burden on the country, it is important to look at alternative solutions as well.


More News..