charindra chandrasena 00:05 Hi Dana. Dhananath Fernando 00:06 Hi Chari. charindra chandrasena 00:07 Hi Riyadh. Speaker 1 00:08 Hi Chari. charindra chandrasena 00:09 After a while, you know, you're with us, but good to have the two of you. So there's a lot to discuss, lot to Analyse lot to digest. Lot to digest. Speaker 1 00:24 Yeah. Yeah. charindra chandrasena 00:25 And our thoughts are with everybody who has been affected. And you know, we we hope that that this matter will be resolved as soon as possible with the shortest timeline. But just to get initial thoughts on let let's start with what a narrative that is going on in on social media mainly about the government dropping. I mean, government not allowing this. Sorry, government Speaker 1 01:06 dropping the ball basically. Dropping the ball, charindra chandrasena 01:08 right? And this could have been mitigated. Yeah, you know, a natural disaster can't be prevented. No, but the impact could have been minimised. What are your thoughts on that? And and one of you can take this or both. Dhananath Fernando 01:24 So if I yeah if I no I think definitely the let's I would like to go to the framework chari how we can how should we think about it? Definitely there is a role of the government in any disaster because there's no other way that you can do it, so there's a government's role and there's a community role, and then there's sort of risk assessment sort of a role which comes with markets. The role of the government probably is to invest more and more money to really identify the alert levels or like whatever the disaster management systems that they have, it could be a Doppler machinery or whatever that thing for any disaster that you should have that indication because no, there's no. I mean, one thing is it's expensive. The other thing is that no individual will just you know invest on to monitor the weather entire weather in Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, so that investment has to be happen. In this case, I really do not know the truth. There are there are indications that you know people are claiming that it was you know mentioned in some of the TV interviews, and some people are quoting some of the BBC weather reports and all that. So I don't know the truth, but definitely we know one thing: the alert system could have been better for whatever reasons. If it could have been indicated before, and it could have been communicated to people, and there's also conversation whether even the communication was done in all three languages, even if you go to the disaster management website and their Facebook post, social media, whether that communications have been done in all three languages is a separate conversation because some people who are affected may be speaking Tamil. So as a result, they really did not know. But I think overall, on that conversation, I, to be honest, I do not know. Yeah, it has to be investigated. But one thing that we know for sure, the alert system could have been better, and also people's awareness. For an example, whether 100 milli millimetre rainfall is okay or whether it's 200 200 is okay. At least we should know what is the threshold. Like okay, if it's going when it's 100, people should. I don't think people really knew whether it's 100 was over. So charindra chandrasena 03:40 right now, what has happened is we got over 300 millimetres, and just on the previous point about, I think nobody is disputing the fact that an alert system. I mean, the alert system could have been better. We could have detected this a little earlier. I think the point of contention is whether the government could have been more proactive and and now referring to these warnings that were given by an official of the Med Department, I watched that interview. There is nothing conclusive. In fact, at one point he stopped short of calling it a cyclone. He says that the rainfall could increase with this disturbance that is happening, and he says from the 14th onwards. So there is nothing precise for anyone to act on that two weeks in advance or anything, and then if you look at the med department forecasts in the days leading up to the cyclone, that red alert was issued only a couple of days before, and before that, it is just purely about. So I don't know where this narrative is coming from that the government was notified a couple of weeks or a week in advance. I don't think that's entirely accurate. And then when when we when we you know push that narrative, what we do is we get lost in that conversation instead of focusing on on what we really want to do, so unless you have anything to add, I think we can move on from that topic. No, that pretty Speaker 1 05:28 much covers it. Yeah. So Dhananath Fernando 05:30 I think the next thing is what was the. I mean, okay. Let's say whether they identified on 12th or wherever we don't know. I I don't know. But when what was the mode of communication on that, let's say, okay, whether it's a cyclone or whatever that thing. Now there has to be a there has to be some authority to really alert them. It could be either to like informing the government to whom, like whether there is a disaster management committee, whether it's the president, or whether now for an example in police and tri forces, they basically come out and say there's a security threat. Please do the needful. I mean that media power was given, and where was it? Like whether they really came out and say, look, red dollar, don't go out, move people move. Whether to what level and whether the coordination has been happened. From the little that I read, there was a gazette. There's a I think a disaster management act which was enacted after tsunami. So which actually empowers apparently, where basically you can make all the calls because at the point of disaster, none other circulars. I mean you can override on that. So I'm not sure how the mechanism has worked or what is the process? But definitely, from the surface, from the little that we can see, definitely the gravity wasn't very clear, and the communication probably between the institutions. It seems there has been some leakages or breakages that probably we have to address, but I think we all know what has happened has happened. Probably we will move forward with revealing it than it was before. charindra chandrasena 07:10 Yeah, and I think just final point on that is that I heard from some quarters that people were told to move, and they were staying there because their houses could be robbed, or you know, and and and these are really human reasons. So you know, you can't just blame people for not wanting to move when this is on an unprecedented scale. Speaker 1 07:35 But one thing, Charlie, that didn't happen because it it never came to my phone. At least, yeah. The thing is, not not only in charindra chandrasena 07:40 terms of phones. Phones, yeah. They had they had gone and yeah, they had gone Speaker 1 07:44 on loudspeakers. That was, I think, that was the right right at the end. And I think some news, I think messages and social media and all that happened. But normally, I think during the tsunami, after the tsunami. Sorry, not after the tsunami. They they had a warning system where there is a cell broadcast. Yeah. I mean, both of us, we were in the we were in we were you know we worked for mobile networks where they had a system where all the all the mobile networks it was sent on a burst right so everyone gets that same message warning this particular and the other one is with the mobile networks it's very easy because you can geo fence now for example people who are not getting affected you don't have to create unnecessary panic so so people in candy wouldn't tsunami exactly exactly right. So the thing is, and and the other thing is the the networks won't get jammed. Yes, because you are sending out. I mean, close to about some people have multiple two or three phones with them. So technically, if you take you know, there's Sri Lanka has 24 million, at least 30 million Sims must be working at the moment now, right? Or maybe less. I don't know, but but I'm saying is the network can get jammed. So what they do is when they geo fence, it'll go particular to the people that it matters. But to be honest, I didn't get anything on my phone. I just I just went and I don't think anybody got anybody got anything, right? If someone has got and seen it, please do put it on the comments, right? I don't think anybody has. Exactly. So the thing is, I think that was a shortcoming. I think on the on the on the administration. What I meant Dhananath Fernando 09:04 by like you know how to communicate. Yeah. And on the framework, sorry, actually, with all credits to Learn Asia, basically the professor Rohan Samarjee and their team had done lot of work way before from tsunami. So the the model that I mentioned was basically what was mentioned in their research papers. The the the way the the the very the the latest thing that you mentioned, like for people to move out, it's as you said, it's a very emotional, emotional thing, and also there are very security because there have been instances that when people leave, basically of course there are things of theft and all that. Speaker 1 09:39 Correct. So the thing that now is in other countries. So, for example, I'm talking about advanced economies, right? Not, not, not in, not in a part of the world where lot of the houses are insured, right? So, what happens is, even if a disaster hits, you know, okay, because in Sri Lanka, as I don't know, we have spoken about this a lot on in some of the other podcasts, like two things in life. One thing is a house and a vehicle. It's like two huge benchmarks in life. So that's the reason people are. You know, one reason is you know they attach. You know it might get robbed. That it might get robbed, like what you said. Or the other one is okay. It might happen to someone else. It might not happen to me, right? So, but the thing is, nobody will take an unnecessary risk if the if the risk is insured, right? So I think that's another one. Yeah, another one we need to kind of absolutely. So what Dhananath Fernando 10:25 they have recommended is you have to have a community mechanism that to ensure that the role of the government is okay. You move as fast as possible. We will have a some community mechanism that your properties security is insured. Yeah. So then they are at least, of course, not everyone will leave, but at least the resistance levels comes down. And the third one is the role of the insurance, because for an example, at the high risk areas, ideally the insurance premiums has to be quite higher. Absolutely. So with that, actually, the good it's not about the claims after the damage being done. It's about the information system because then the insurance companies and everyone has to invest more and more to identify the real risk levels. So whether it's a flood risk or whether it's landslide risk, so then it becomes better, which can save a lot of people because then they will give the first alert saying, "Look, move. There's a you know something is happening, and as insurance providers, they can. It doesn't mean that all properties we are pushing for everyone to get insured. Of course, that could have been the that could have been ideally the way to think about. But all three has to work hand in hand. The role of the government, and then the community network, Speaker 1 11:37 correct, Dhananath Fernando 11:37 ensuring the the the security, so that people is not resistant to leave. And third, the role of the insurer. So then you price the risk accordingly, accordingly, and then the damage can be auto, but to an extent controlled. Correct. So that's the long way to. I mean, the you know long run. That's the way to think about it. But I think we jumped a bit from from response. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Speaker 1 12:00 And just one more little thing that I want to add is probably if before the crisis, like before before everything hit, before there was landfall, if the military was deployed in advance, I think the coordination because generally the military has a very good system on communication. Because one thing is what happens is when you hit a disaster, establishing communication. That's the first thing you have to do, right? So the cell towers were definitely-they were inundated, right? Some were completely washed off, some had collapsed, some ran out of diesel, some generators got flooded. So various things happened. So then you lose the cell connection. But one thing is, if you deploy the military in advance, the military runs; it has its own communication thing, which is not depend on civilian communication infrastructure, right? I mean, they run with they run with satellite, they run with shortwave, they have various things like ham radio. They they have various things, right? Those Motorola units, right? All that. So I think if that was deployed in advance, I think still things would have been easier because one thing is communication, other one is the logistics. Military has its own logistics unit, and plus they have their own engineering unit, right? If something needs to break, or something needs to be fixed, they can do it. So I think that also probably would have had a, I would say, a say right at the end. So on the number of saying that the military was deployed too late, it looks that way, you know, because it looks that way. I mean, normally, if you know, even on the last stuff, because generally the military, if any country the military is designed in a way where they can do short deployment. So charindra chandrasena 13:31 another another thing related to that is now the military eventually was deployed. Yeah. After it was deployed, another narrative that was going around, and I would particularly like Advocata's view on this is a lot of people saying if military budgets had been cut, Speaker 1 13:53 yeah, charindra chandrasena 13:54 where would all this coordination, all this manpower come from Speaker 1 14:01 right, charindra chandrasena 14:02 and therefore stop this narrative of military budget must be cut. Dhananath Fernando 14:09 So yeah, sorry. So our I think our stance was the military. the The problem was with the how how the budget of the military being utilised. So the challenge was the military spending was not targeted and focused enough. So as a result, that we maintained a large army basically prevented us from investing on the things that we should have invested. So even in this case, there's no one has said there shouldn't be a military. There has to be a military who is very well equipped with the latest technology. So what has happened? I think our strategy had been expanding the, I mean, the manpower component of it, which has restricted us on having invested on the right type of technology and the equipment. Now even you look at the unfortunate incident that took place. Probably Riyadh has a better sense on these helicopters and things like that. But we all know that our it's Speaker 1 15:10 all outdated. It's all Dhananath Fernando 15:11 outdated. These are like I mean, and I have I have I mean Captain Elmu has multiple times mentioned because this was not the first time. Even because of bad bad weather, there was another Air Force crash, the helicopter crash took place. So every time, because there are radar systems and things, I'm not the technical person, but there has there's this technology is how it out. charindra chandrasena 15:30 Generally, I think the people's understanding when this argument and and and Advocata is not the only organisation making this argument that the military budget is bloated when people. hear that, what they understand is stop funding the military so much. Speaker 1 15:49 No, no. That is charindra chandrasena 15:49 that is not the scientific argument. No, no, it's not. So proponents of this. Shall I quickly run through the numbers? Speaker 1 15:55 Just shall I just quickly run? So the military. I mean, this latest budget, 2026 budget, the total defence budget is 407 billion, right? Recurrent is 361, which is 89% of the budget. So what goes into recurrent? I'll just go through. It's basically the salaries of the soldiers, uniforms, and food, food and nutrition. So that is 89% of the budget. Capital expenditure is only 11% So if you are modernising, you have to spend on capital expenditure. And I'll give you a breakdown on the capital expenditure of the tri forces, like the the the three individual units. The navy is 10 point 5 billion, right? Army is 1.8 billion. Air force is 16 point 8 billion. Now, what was critical for this particular disaster is the air force, right? Because air force, air force does the rescue most of the you know the the rescue and all that. The air force gets very heavily involved during floods and landslides because all the roads get inundated or gets cut off, and you can only go by air. Now the the the choppers or the helicopters that we have now. I remember I know I'm not exactly sure about the numbers of what do you call helicopters? Sri Lanka Air Force has, and I'm not exactly sure how many of them are actually airworthy, because I mean you can have helicopters, but if they are totally 24/7 grounded, then it's it's a it's it's basically they're equivalent to zero. So the I remember there was a statement where the president where President Anurag said that that he even gave his two helicopters. So normally presidential helicopters are VIP helicopters. They are not rescue helicopters. Rescue helicopters are completely different what you call equipment because the reason is the the the rescue helicopter comes with particular equipment, which normal VIP transporters don't have. Like, like for example, on the door you have a side winch. So normally the cable is sent down because you can't land a helicopter in a disaster because you can't land it on water, you can't land it on a roof, and suddenly you can't land it on an unstable ground. So normally people on top of their roofs and all that, and they want the helicopter to come and pick them up. So you can't land it on the roof because the building will collapse. So the only thing what you can do is you have to basically get those specific helicopter which is pegged for that particular task, which I don't think we have enough. Yeah. charindra chandrasena 18:17 So again, it comes that to that point, that what you're arguing for is more capex, Speaker 1 18:26 yeah, charindra chandrasena 18:27 and less of the the recurrent expenditure. But that can only be done, I suppose, yeah, by cutting down the numbers. Speaker 1 18:36 No, so so that's the thing. So you need to you need to bring the exact balance, right? So the balance has to be maintained. So what's the point of having a huge standing army, which is technically bigger than the British army, without having the equipment to deploy it? I mean, what's the point of having an army that will just sit inside the inside the camp where they want to go and do something? They can't do it because they don't have the equipment to do it, right? So that is something you really have to look in because now if you look at the air force budget, right? Maintaining air force is very expensive. Maintaining an AV is very expensive, right? If you look at the Air Force budget, 16 point 8 billion. That is less than the loss of what Sri Lankan Airlines made. If I'm not mistaken, I think they allocated 20 billion for Sri Lankan Airlines. A loss-making SOE. So do you understand? You know, money has to be prioritised. If you don't prioritise money, then this and this is national security. So I think Dhananath Fernando 19:24 our definitely we are. I mean, our argument has been it is what we are saying is for the betterment of the military services because now even in that that there was a incident or that there was a bus accident and these people were on a rooftop, and even lot of politicians and everyone was asking why helicopter couldn't be sent and rescue people. Actually, the air force actually provided a clarification on that. That the spokesperson said we tried the helicopter, but the first type of helicopter that we were used, the thrust was so much. The ground. We were worried that the asbestos, that the roof will collapse. Speaker 1 20:04 And then they Dhananath Fernando 20:05 checked another helicopter, and he provided another technical thing. That okay. Then we real because there were electrical wires and all that, which we which we could not take to a lower point because then it could have been a crash. So then only we realised we basically our fleet really doesn't have an option, so that's why we have to deploy navy to rescue them. Now Riyadh's point on if there's a rescue, I don't know the technology of Speaker 2 20:29 it, Dhananath Fernando 20:30 but that's where ideally what we have to do is definitely have to spend money on the military, but on the right things. What we basically say is you you know you having a very quite a different structure, which is quite labour heavy, is not helping them. Yeah. charindra chandrasena 20:48 Only thing that other is that I think it's a difficult solution. Yeah, it's a very difficult because to bring down the numbers now, especially after this incident, after people have seen the commitment of the the military personnel to rescue and relief, it's going to be a hard sell to say we are cutting down the military in terms of manpower, because when people talk about it, they they are not necessarily talking about on the level that you are talking about in terms of equipment. They are saying they are seeing these soldiers knee deep in water, right? Helping out with the rescue. So they are saying it's it's a more of an emotional argument about you know look at how committed they are to other saving other people's lives, and they are the ones who are always coming forward to help out. Correct. So I think it's going to be a difficult solution because if you don't cut down that budget, sorry, if you don't cut down the manpower, the human resources, then that recurrent expenditure is going to be there. Speaker 1 21:53 So in in other in some of the other countries, what they do is they have something called the national guard, right? So the national guard is there. They are basically civilians who have been trained in military. So when a disaster comes, they are recalled for that particular purpose. So maybe that's another model they can look at. Because if you remember, in Hurricane Katrina devastated the south coast of the U.S. Where was it, Louisiana? Somewhere there, right? So what happened was the National Guard was deployed, and the National Guard normally the deployment is done by the president. It's a presidential order, as far as I know. Stand to be corrected if I'm wrong. The National Guard is presidential, presidential, right? Yeah, that is probably a model that you can look at, because the thing is, then you can cut down on the number because you need the force or you need trained people for the specific tasks who know how to use the equipment, who have been trained to use the equipment for special needs. That doesn't mean you need them 24/7 for you know you know for eternity. So that might be a model I think for the government to kind of you know to see because currently the existing one doesn't work. No, that is clear. No, right? Because you can't have the cake and eat the cake. Right? We don't have the money for it. So if that is the incident, we look for alternative options, and we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can check what other countries are doing when when they when they hit crisis when they hit a crisis moment, and then we can follow that particular model and you know redo the whole setup. That is something that needs to be overhauled. So I think if you kind of work something out like that, I think that is a more plausible option for anyone to take, charindra chandrasena 23:24 right? So we also have to talk about the impact and the recovery mechanism as well. But when it comes to impact, the closest comparison is not 2016. I think it's it's maybe 2004. Now, when the president was giving his first address after this happened a couple of days ago, he said something which I found interesting because I don't particularly agree with it. But he said that this is the worst natural disaster we have ever had. Now I don't know whether it's the stress of the situation or whatever, because in terms of human casualties, this Speaker 1 24:13 is much not even not charindra chandrasena 24:15 even you know in the same ballpark as yeah same universe as the tsunami, but could he have been talking in terms of infrastructure damage, in terms of impact on the economy, in terms of the the scale of the rebuilding that is required? What are what are your thoughts? Don't know. You want to take it to yeah. Dhananath Fernando 24:39 Probably here we may have a different view. So my estimation is. I was also surprised when President mentioned that it's like the pretty much. Transcribed by https://otter.ai