Here’s a poser: has any country withdrawn its own onsite border control personnel at key ports of entry and planted a third party to directly deal with immigration traffic?

The answer is provided by the very company that is now in the eye of a storm in Sri Lanka, VFS Global, which states on its official website: “The company manages non-judgemental and administrative tasks related to applications for visa, passport, and consular services.” Thereafter, the website further explains: “VFS Global’s role is limited to front-end administrative tasks only, which include collecting visa application forms, required documentation as per the respective government’s checklist, and enrol biometrics, where applicable.”

How then is it possible for this same company to be manning the immigration desk at Sri Lanka’s premier port of entry, engaging in a judgemental role on who should or should not be issued a visa, free of charge or otherwise? Is the company taking on a new role that is yet to be included in its official site or is the Government of Sri Lanka heading into uncharted and dangerous territory by assigning a highly-sensitive task to an entity ill-equipped for that role by its own admission?

If so, does it not amount to a serious compromise of Sri Lanka’s national security, given that this private entity will not only be taking on a judgemental role at the point of entry but also be privy to sensitive information as to who is arriving in the country and their private details? How daft can a regime get so as to blindly trust an external entity over which it has no control to keep such information confidential at a time when geopolitical compulsions could turn out to be overwhelming, notwithstanding the fact that the company’s bread and butter comes from the West?

For argument’s sake, even if the company honours its security-related commitments to the letter – assuming those commitments include watertight confidentiality clauses mitigating even the remotest possibility of impinging on national security concerns, a document the country is yet to see – what assurances are in place that its operating platform, previously provided by State-owned Sri Lanka Telecom’s subsidiary Mobitel, is compliant with Sri Lanka’s national security protocols?

These are questions that need to be answered by those who entertained what has now been confirmed as an unsolicited bid to outsource the country’s immigration function and assurances must also be forthcoming from these same individuals on the entity’s alignment with Sri Lanka’s national security interests.

What is unsavoury about the whole episode is that such profound governance initiatives with long-term implications are being hastily implemented by a Government on its way out. The ethicality of such decisions cannot and should not be lost on a country that has had to grapple with the consequences of external interventions for the longest time. Now, with the clamour for a foothold in this country reaching a climax, the Government appears to have handed over the keys to the front gate to an external entity whose credentials are rooted in its current client list.

Be that as it may, the tourism industry is up in arms over the sudden move, calling it all kinds of unmentionable names. The industry, which is only just returning to normalcy after five straight years of disruption – starting from the Easter Sunday terror attacks of 2019, followed by the global pandemic and economic crisis thereafter – appears to have been taken aback by the Public Security Ministry’s sudden announcement last month of a change in the visa issuance procedure.

Following the bolt-from-the-blue announcement, not only did it transpire that visa issuance that had hitherto been seamlessly carried out by the Department of Immigration and Emigration using the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) on the Mobitel operating platform would be discontinued overnight, but that the entire operation itself had been outsourced to an external entity.

Then, to add fuel to the already raging fire, it transpired that this foreign company is primed to make billions of rupees in income owing to the additional charges it has been allowed to levy in the form of a service/handling fee of $ 18.5 per visa plus a convenience fee of another $ 5 – all of which was done at the cost of $ 1 previously. Funnily enough, even those eligible for a free entry visa must now pay the service provider’s fees.

The big question therefore is, what was the compelling reason to replace a system that had been operating perfectly well for the past 10 years and had come in for praise from both the industry as well as travellers? Besides, what is the justification for almost doubling the visa charges and then adding a further $ 18.5 + 5 that is set to go to an external entity? The Leader of the Opposition in an X message had attributed the change to alleged “corruption”.

Those responsible for the decision are taking up the stance that the new additional levies are in keeping with uniform charges made by the company in other territories it operates, which therefore begs the question as to why its services were needed in the first place.

A basic premise in both business and service delivery is that you don’t fix something that is not broken, because there is nothing to fix! In fact the ETA was one of the rare success stories of efficient digitalisation by a State sector entity and was instrumental in facilitating quick immigration processing at Katunayake. In fact when the country welcomed 2.3 million tourists in 2018 – the highest recorded to date – it was this same system that was in operation and there were far more bouquets than brickbats.

Besides, what is the rationale and justification for doubling visa fees for tourists – with the exception of seven identified countries – at the worst possible time – the end of the peak winter tourism season when arrivals traditionally take a dip? Should not the reverse have been done to entice visitors during the ‘low’ season, which, with the exception of August, extends to end-November?

Thanks to the ill-thought action, Sri Lanka now has the most expensive visa in the whole of South East Asia for Western and Middle Eastern tourists. However, the biggest joke is that while Budget 2024 has allocated Rs. 2 billion for tourism promotion globally, VFS will earn six times that merely by issuing Sri Lankan visas if the Tourism Ministry achieves its target of 2.5 million arrivals this year. Nevertheless, given the newly-revised visa rates, industry stakeholders are sceptical of achieving that target.

It is obvious that the Tourism Ministry as well as industry stakeholders were kept in the dark on the new visa regime by the implementing authority – the Ministry of Public Security – whose Minister is no stranger to controversy. It will be recalled that this particular individual by his own admission was instrumental in channelling funds to the LTTE in the run-up to the 2005 Presidential Election.

Now the same controversy-prone Minister is at the receiving end of the public’s as well as the legal fraternity’s ire for openly advocating Police brutality. In a recent speech, the Minister told an audience consisting of Police personnel that there was “no sin” in using their firearms while apprehending criminals. 

In a country where giving an inch is equivalent to taking a mile, such a comment by the Minister is unlikely to go without consequence with an already trigger-happy Police. It will be recalled that it was this same Minister who moved heaven and earth to get his man appointed as the new Inspector General of Police despite the Supreme Court convicting the nominee of torture and human rights violations, dragging the Police to a new low.

Unsurprisingly, the legal fraternity led by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka wasted no time in issuing a stinging rebuke of the Minister’s speech, reminding him that the courts exist for a reason and the Police cannot be the judge, jury, and executioner.

Recent developments seem to indicate an increasing dysfunctionality within the ranks of the regime, with the President preferring to look the other way rather than lock horns with a minister. Whether that is part of the election game plan of the majority party or preservation plan of the Executive, only time will tell, but as things stand, the regime’s liabilities appear to far outweigh its assets.