Options galore for the disenchanted

People are good. Even bad people are good. They don’t think they are bad and they do things to make others believe they are good. In short, there are few wrongdoers in this world. This is why, when politics is the subject at hand, those offering comment talk as though they are the most sincere, most just, most democratic, most fair and most principled people on earth.  

How do they do this? Well, they can be selective. They can be myopic. They can look ‘good’ by painting others as ‘bad’. There are all kinds of mechanisms available to paint oneself as being virtuous. 

At the same time there really are decent people. Honest, if innocent, citizens, who want the rules fixed so that wrongdoing is not possible, efficiency is enhanced and overall freedoms and life chances improved. I believe there were more than a handful of such people who honestly believed that those who pledged yahapalanaya were serious about and capable of delivery. It didn’t take long for that innocent balloon to get pricked. 

Nepotism. Vindictiveness. Corruption. Cronyism. Outright theft. Kickbacks. Political patronage. You name it. We had it from almost Day One of the Yahapalana regime led by Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe. Naturally those who banked on ‘real change’ and were short-changed were and are disappointed. Even those who were acutely aware of the track records of the yahapalanists they had voted for were and are disappointed. For difference reasons. They knew it was all poppycock. Their objective was to defeat the Rajapaksas and keep them out of power. That’s where their disappointment comes from: the fear that the Rajapaksas may very well make a comeback. 

Disappointment and fear notwithstanding, they are not tearing their hair over whom to vote for in the upcoming election. ‘They’ meaning the born again democrats, funded voices, candlelight ladies and others masquerading as lovers of humankind when in fact such garbs hardly cover their deep green skins.  Some of them may talk of supporting the JVP but that’s a fake that’s hard to sell. Simply, their antipathy to the previous regime is clear and so strong that they would not back a horse that’s destined to be a distant third. Sajith is their man. 

So what about the truly decent people who in innocence and hope (perhaps) voted for Maithripala on January 8, 2015? Now, shed of illusions, wiser therefore and disappointed, they have two options. Give up on elections as a mechanism that is of any use when it comes to obtaining real change or else use their votes to send a message to one and all. Simply, they could dismiss the mainstream parties and their candidates and cast their votes to persons with better track records and more wholesome programs which actually address the issues that the yahapalanists did nothing about and their predecessors didn’t care about. 

They know now that change takes long coming. They know now that there are no quick fixes. They know the road is long and strewn with obstacles. They are, in other words, wiser for the experience, more tempered even, and probably going to be more judicious when it comes to political investment.

And their choices? Let’s quickly list those they cannot vote for (we are talking about the truly decent people who want freedom for all, a secure nation for all, resources protected and futures that are wholesome). Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, OUT. Sajith Premadasa, OUT. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, OUT. They are all guilty of various wrongdoings, by omission or commission. We are talking about candidates who are in comparison untainted. 

For obvious reasons I will leave out Rev Battaramulle Seelarathana Thero, a perennial also-ran, and A.S.P. Liyanage. So we are left with (in alphabetical order), Nagananda Kodituwakku, Rohan Pallewatte and Mahesh Senanayake.  The first two announced their intentions early enough while the last is the choice of the National People’s Movement, an organization that has advocated systemic change and which has worked tirelessly for months to draft a program of action and find a good candidate.   

Can any of them win? And if not can any of them or all of them together secure enough votes to impact the outcome? I am not going to answer such questions for answers to such questions are not sought by those who want real change but those who have resigned themselves to the sustainable development of the status quo and/or have invested their emotions on one or another set of crooks, incompetents or jokers. 

The innocents. The decent. The true lovers of this nation, it’s people and resources. The truly invested in wholesome futures. These deserve much better than be harangued with questions such as ‘will he/she win and if not, what’s the whole point?’

The ‘whole point’ is that politics is a lengthy affair. There are ups and downs. Bends in the road. Roadblocks. The accosting by brigands. And yet there are no short cuts. It’s a tough road to walk on and only the decent and determined should undertake the journey.  

The decent and determined have floundered in disappointment and disillusionment. They are  therefore excellently placed to tread an illusion-free path. They can forget Sajith. They can forget Gota. They can forget Anura Kumara Dissanayake. They can take a fresh look at the freshest faces in the fray: Nagananda Kodituwakku, Rohan Pallewatte and Mahesh Senanayake.  To those who do so, known and unknown to me, I say ‘I respect you Sir/Madam; you have refused to poison this earth, refused to celebrate poisons and poisoners; you water this earth and something surely will bloom someday!’ 

malindasenevi@gmail.com 

Read more

Notes for a Manifesto: Education Reforms

If anyone doubts that the entire education system should be reformed, a quick listen to statements made by the Minister of Higher Education Wijedasa Rajapaksha (WR) would force a re-think. On the one hand he extols the virtues of private education and insists that this way lies the future. Then he submits a Cabinet Paper to take over the Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT).

The reasons offered are hilarious. WR tells us that SLIIT was initially managed by a private company although owned by the Government (he probably meant ‘state’) with money being released from the Mahapola Trust Fund (MTF) to construct the first building.  Three years ago, WR claims, SLIIT had paid some 400 million rupees to the MTF and purchased a new lease for the property.  

WR is concerned that there are no government officials on the SLIIT board now. He believes that less than half a million rupees is a gross under-valuation considering the worth of SLIIT assets, which by the way were not paid for by the Government. He’s most concerned about the fate of SLIIT students since ‘there is no rightful owner to this institution’!  

That’s WR’s SLIIT story. Another version would give a more comprehensive and detailed picture. It would speak of SLIIT being established in 1999 by a group of eminent academics and professionals as a Company Limited by Guarantee in order to address the demand for IT professionals. It would mention how SLIIT expanded, establishing centers in Matara, Kandy, Jaffna and Kurunegala, while creating opportunities for the study of other fields. 

It is a success story, by and large. If an ‘ownerless’ institution can offer graduate and postgraduate degrees in multiple disciplines, secure accreditation from renowned international certifying authorities in a country where the ‘owned’ universities have little to brag about, it is clear that ownership is not an issue.  PerhapsWR should study how not-for-profit entities operate, assess the track record of SLIIT, compare it with institutions such as the one he wishes to turn SLIIT, and check his tongue before making statements if only to curb contradiction and obtain coherence. 

It’s more than an issue of private versus public (or a mixture). It is about institutional and programmatic coherence and it is also about quality. Let’s consider the current situation.

The state spends billions on education and yet the end product clearly indicates that the return on investment is low.  It appears that the relevant authorities have not updated themselves about the objectives of education, new methodologies and the need for synergy.  

At present the public education system lags behind private systems by as much as two years. It is an exam-oriented system and one which effectively pushes a 15-16 year old into a particular stream. A student that young cannot know what he/she is good at or what would sustain his/her interests. Moreover it makes it impossible for him/her to shift streams in the event it is discovered that he/she chose poorly.  Blinders are imposed early and a student cannot explore other areas of study. For example, the course-rigidity does not allow a mathematics student to learn biology, commerce or literature.  

This needs to be corrected. It cannot be impossible to come up with a system which gives students more flexibility in the combination of subjects, especially at the tertiary level. For example, it should be possible and indeed compulsory for a student focusing on the social sciences to obtain more than rudimentary instruction in commerce, mathematics and biology where the student can select from a basket of subject options.  The entire examination schedule can be restructured to allow for two or more exams that count for the final overall result where a student, if he/she feels that he/she has made a mistake could, after the initial set of exams, shift disciplinary focus.  

While there are assignments, group projects and such, they do not count towards the final grade that a student receives. Therefore, naturally, what is fostered is a culture of exam-mania. It’s a do or die matter and those who die are buried, as per ‘custom’. 

Ideally, there should be a system which strikes a balance between school based assessment and evaluation through competitive exams. Centers could be set up to facilitate schools and teachers to conduct such assessment and also oversee the integration of new and innovative learning/teaching mechanisms.  

In any event, there has to be a strong civil-education component in the school curriculum especially to ensure that students who benefit from subsidies are made aware of how much is spent on them, who coughs up the money and what this entails in terms of ‘giving back’ at some point. 

Such an initiative would have to be complemented by a licensing system for all those who aspire to be teachers. Having a degree does not mean one is automatically suited to teach. It is unfair to subject children to the supervision by those who are engaged in on-the-job training. That’s like getting a medical student to prescribe medicine.

The overall idea is to ensure that when a student exits school, he/she has a more rounded education, is empowered with the ability to work with others, a healthy curiosity, good communication skills in at least two languages (including English) and an innovative frame of mind among other things. 

There are other issues. International schools operate largely without any supervision. In this case it is not about curriculum, but policies and practices, some of which are highly questionable. What is proposed is of course not policing, but a system of licensing that requires adherence to standards across all areas of operation. 

There are lots of institutes devoted to higher studies, both private and public. There are also institutes that focus on technical education. There’s overlap and there’s sidelining. Such things can be corrected by reviewing and if necessary restructuring the institutional arrangement to obtain a greater degree of coherence and enhance synergy.

Education is obviously a key element of national development. Therefore higher education (subsequent to the empowerment through a reformed school education structure) has to be tied to overall skills requirements. This necessitates a comprehensive occupational classification based on current realities and those that envisaged development could produce.  In other words we need to know what kind of human resources we need, envisage the needs down the line and ensure that these ‘needs’ do not compromise the fundamentals of education — a solid enough foundation in the sciences, mathematics, social sciences and humanities regardless of whether or not direct arrows can be drawn from courses to jobs.  

Unfortunately, we are stuck in a mindset that’s best exemplified by the confusion betrayed by the Minister of Higher Education. The preference has been for uttering truisms, misunderstand and misarticulating the problem, addressing piece of it and in an ad hoc manner, and leaving things by and large unchanged. 

We can and must do better.  Please take note Nagananda Kodituwakku, Rohan Pallewatte, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Maithripala Sirisena and any other individual entertaining hopes of becoming the next President of Sri Lanka.

Other articles in this series:

An introductory note

The State

Justice, Law and Order

Understanding the Executive

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The specter of ‘The Outsider’ in a Presidential Election

A little over a year ago when I announced that I would be contesting the next Presidential Election, some people laughed, some took it seriously and many, including those who know me, were confused. 

‘Are you serious?’ was a common question. My response was simple: ‘when I think about all those who were serious about contesting, including the winners, when I think about their track records and what they actually did after the particular election, I am wary of using the word “serious”.’ 

A good friend, after speaking with me on the subject for about half an hour, said ‘I am not sure if you are serious or not!’ I responded, ‘neither am I’.  We both laughed. Let’s leave my presidential ambitions and their seriousness aside. It’s not important. Let’s talk instead of the outsider-phenomenon.  

‘Outsider’ can be understood in many ways. Maithripala was an outsider to the party machinery that backed his campaign in 2015. Sarath Fonseka was an outsider in that he was not a politician when he decided to take on Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010. Mahinda Rajapaksa was treated like an outsider by the leader of his party in 2005. Chandrika Kumaratunga was an outsider to the SLFP not too long before that party decided to back her candidacy in 1994. Ranasinghe Premadasa was an outsider to the UNP’s inner circle despite the positions he held in that party; support was offered grudgingly. 

In other words being an outsider doesn’t necessarily mean that the odds are stacked against you.  However, what’s common about the above personalities is that they were all placed in the driving seat of a big vehicle, i.e. either the UNP or the SLFP or coalitions led by one of these two parties. Those who drove smaller vehicles were non-factors; they couldn’t prevent eventual winners from getting the 50%+1, an eventuality that would have required consideration of the second preference.  

There are names doing the rounds. From the major parties there is Ranil Wickremesinghe (UNP) and Maithripala Sirisena (SLFP). The latter’s chances hinge on a replay of 2015 and this under severely reduced circumstances. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has not announced a candidate, but it seems likely that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would be the choice of that party.  Gotabhaya is an outsider but less so than Fonseka was.  Patali Champika Ranawaka is spoken of as a possible UNP candidate in the event that Wickremesinghe declines on account of probable defeat.  

Then there are the ‘total outsiders’ (as of now). Nagananda Kodituwakku and Rohan Pallewatta have already announced that they would contest, the latter registering a party and hiring an advertising firm to do brand positioning (for now). Kodituwakku is a strident and relentless voice against corruption and has made the courts his battle ground, even taking the custodians to task.

Kumar Sangakkara’s name has come up but he hasn’t said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (so far). Then there is Halpage Madhusanka Nuwan (Madhu Roxz) claims on his Facebook account that he is an actor, singer, lyricist, music producer and film maker. Madhu Roxz has also ‘announced’. 

This morning (August 1), a young man named Ravisha Thilakawardana posted a status update on Facebook that has generated a lot of comments. This is what he said: ‘If you want to take revenge on anyone, all you need to do is say that the person is going to take on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa at the next presidential election; immediately that person would be ridiculed before the entire country by bayyas (roughly, Rajapaksa supporters) who would sling mud beginning from the time the person defecated in the pants in the kindergarten.’ 

Someone made a post to the effect that the UNP’s Working Committee has decided to nominate Ravisha to represent the liberal camp headed by the UNP at the next presidential election. This prompted many posts supporting Ravisha. There were congratulatory messages, expression of support and some neat ‘campaign visuals’ of the man.  

As someone said, the success of Maithripala Sirisena has made any idiot think that he/she can become President. It also seems that the anti-Rajapaksa camp is stumped; they simply can’t find a candidate who has a reasonable chance of defeating Gotabhaya Rajapaksa — hence the Kumar Sangakkara ‘Option’. Whether Pallewatte’s campaign ends up with him being the choice, we do not know. As of now, he is indicating (like Kodituwakku insists) that he wants to steer clear of the two major political parties and/or the coalitions led by them.  Madhu Roxz echoes these sentiments. 

While part of all this is pure fun and part of it is clever media work to test waters as well as throwing off balance the perceived political ‘other’, some of it is dead serious. Just because those who didn’t get into a big vehicle failed, there’s nothing to say that this would always be the case. 

The rise of ‘outsiders’ in other parts of the world have made many believe that such a phenomenon is not impossible in Sri Lanka. Those who for whatever reason back the major parties have already started asking ‘well, can he win?’ which implies that the particular ‘he’ is not unsuitable. The counter question is also being asked: ‘shouldn’t we be thinking more about whether someone is suitable, rather than focusing on whether a person can win?’ After all the winnability-factor hasn’t exactly delivered a civilized, democratic country where the fundamentals of good governance (yahapalanaya) have been consecrated.  

What all this indicates to me is that people are now getting sick of ‘same old, same old’. Sure they’ll vote for the candidate put forward by the major parties if that’s all the choice they have. Many will no doubt let ‘winnability’ and ‘worse evils’ frame thinking when it comes to it. However, if anything was learned in the 2015 ‘decision,’ it is that there’s room for surprise. 

While on paper the SLPP seems poised to win, the very fact that the yahapalanists are in disarray means that an outsider can make a decent run. What’s crucial is for the outsider to remain outside. If there’s momentum created then such a momentum-creator could be wooed by the anti-Rajapaksa camp. Then it boils down to a battle between personal glory and genuine need to turn things around. If the former is chosen, then we are at ‘same old, same old,’ but if the particular person declines, there is that outside chance that his/her campaign will get an extra boost which could wreck the political equation. 

Once that happens, who knows? There is palpable disgust at the two major parties (and I could the SLPP as more blue than any other color, taking into consideration the recent political fortunes of the SLFP). So here’s to Rohan Pallewatta, Nagananda Kodituwakku, Ravisha Thilakawardana and Madhu Roxz: steer clear of the UNP and SLFP/SLPP so we can hope that a different future can be charted for our nation.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

Read more

Presidential Election: choose your poison, ladies and gentlemen

There’s a term that has consistently defined electoral politics in Sri Lanka: default option.  We’ve heard it before. We vote people and parties out. Naturally other people and parties get voted in.  It’s a pay-back option for a people whose franchise is mostly about reflecting for a few moments before a ballot box before deciding to pick from a group of people or parties patently unsuited to hold office or rule the country.  

Punishment is salve, obviously. It’s also the easier option, the difficult one being sweating for years to build a movement that can subvert a system that favors those with wealth, thugs and networks that are not necessarily wholesome.  

Therefore, come election time, the focus is whether incumbents should stay or go. Those who argue for the former talk about alternatives being worse. Those who decide on the latter, if pointed out that alternatives are no better, have a ready response: ‘true, but right now, we need to get rid of this government; that’s the necessary first step!’  

We saw all this in January 2015. The track record of the alternative and those of his principal backers were brushed aside as irrelevant to ‘the matter at hand,’ i.e. ‘getting rid of a corrupt, undemocratic and abusive regime.’  

Wait. Who were the movers and shakers of ‘The Alternative’?  Let’s revisit.

First, Maithripala Sirisena.  Former president Chandrika Kumaratunga and the person who flanked Sirisena when he addressed a media conference to announce candidacy said that he was the only clean member of the then government.  I don’t think people who supported Sirisena at that point were really interested in the character certificate that Chandrika gave. It’s not that her word counted much, anyway. Also, the cleanliness of the candidate didn’t really matter. 

Ranil Wickremesinghe would make the relevant point three years later when addressing newly elected members to local government bodies. He observed how those who began their political careers owning just a push bicycle ended up with Benz cars. ‘What was Maithripala’s vehicle when he first entered politics and what kind of car and how many did he own by the time he declared candidacy?’ was not a question that seemed to have troubled Ranil back then.  ‘How did his brothers prosper so much after 1994?’ is another question that wasn’t asked.  

Chandrika. Well, another ardent supporter of the Yahapalana drive, Victor Ivan, wrote an entire book about her ‘cleanliness’. As for the commitment to yahapalana ethics, just months into her first time Chandrika brushed aside workers’ protests saying ‘we didn’t promise freedom of the wild ass’ (never mind that she guaranteed the continuation of such freedoms accorded to the business class by her predecessors. The ‘Satana’ editor was murdered under her watch. The Wayamba election was marked by violence and the public stripping of a woman. 

Ranil. He signed a Ceasefire Agreement with a terrorist outfit without consulting Parliament or informing the President. He was a senior member of the UNP cabinet during the most violent period in post-Independence history, the 1988-89 bheeshanaya.  Illegal detention, proxy arrests, abduction, torture and people being burnt alive, remember? His leader at the time famously said ‘let the robber barons come!’  Not all the robbers had to come, some were already here and some cut their thieving teeth in the UNP governments led by J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa. Those who complain of media freedom being curtailed, the white van culture, abuse of state resources, graft and so on, are either ignorant of that time or choose to be silent for reasons of self-interest. That was the worst period, period.

Rajitha Senaratne was the other person who attended that first media conference; a political opportunist if ever there was one with a gab that’s only bested by S.B. Dissanayake’s for drivel.  Senaratne was accused by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (we’ll come to them soon) of making enough bucks to buy ships. He is by training a dentist. We don’t know which vehicles mark his wealth-trajectory. 

The JVP didn’t exactly say ‘vote for Maithripala,’ but not only did they desist from fielding a candidate but spent those campaign-months ranting and raving against Mahinda Rajapaksa. The JVP has had its moments. They should be applauded for bringing the 17th Amendment for example. They’ve abandoned the idea of armed struggle after being vanquished in 1989, although their thuggery has not died in the political spaces they control, notably the universities. They were the junior partner of the terror that was unleashed on the entire citizenry during the bheeshanaya. They assassinated political opponents, government servants, academics, members of the security forces and the police, threatened and killed families of those who opposed them, destroyed public property, burnt factories and were engaged in extortion.  

Among the lesser backers were the NGOs, especially those that focus on advocacy.  Their history does not make for applause.  

We need not go into all the ‘big names’ of that political moment, but we must mention that the USA funded that campaign. Need we say more, considering the politics of ‘bringing democracy’ to the world?

Did any of this matter? No. What mattered was ‘getting rid of the Rajapaksas’.  It was a ‘by any means necessary’ affair; the end justifying the means, if you will.  ‘Change’ was the slogan and that word was frilled with the yahapalana goodies. No one remembered what Mangala Samaraweera (another staunch backer who according to the wide-eyed is a master strategist, never mind that he ‘masterminded’ defeat after defeat for the UNP including at the recent local government elections) once said about mandates.  He essentially said that mandates are only relevant until results are announced. 

Today, the yahapalana dream has turned out to be a nightmare. The naive are upset. The knowing knew all along that this was not about good governance but about their people being in power. The project has failed. The best proof is the fact that no one wants to take responsibility for drafting the policy document of the yahapalana drive, namely the ‘100-days program’.  Victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is always, always, a foundling, they say. The 100-days program being fatherless today clearly indicates that ‘defeat’ has been acknowledged (in less than 100 words).  

The yahapalanists have quickly shifted to the game of relative merits. Their arguments are full of terms and words such as ‘still!’ ‘but’ ‘anyway,’ and ‘at least’.  Some even talk of ‘known devils’ which is actually an honest proposition by those who knew that ‘change’ was not doing to see ‘devilry’ being flushed down the tube.  

In fact ‘known devil’ is the key argument of the incumbent(s). The only difference is that the identity of the ‘known devil’ changes from time to time. Back then it was Mahinda, now it is the yahapalana twins, Ranil and Maithripala.  

The incumbents, naturally, stress the ‘danger’ of returning to ‘dark days’ as though none of them were ever party to the bleeding of light.  That’s their problem. The deeper issue is that we are once again facing a default option.  

Today there are very few who will sing the praises of Ranil and Maithri. Only those who are politically sophomoric or are plagued by the blindness of loyalty or direct beneficiaries of this corrupt, violent and incompetent regime will applaud. And even this, in cautious tones and with lots of caveats of the ‘still-but-anyway-at-least’ kind. 

The general sway is towards ‘out!’ The questions that are not being asked are exactly the questioned that were brushed aside when Mahidna’s ouster was plotted.  In other words we are at a junction called ‘Default Option’.

And so we have a virulent attack on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, a man who has not announced presidential aspirations but who is seen as ‘the alternative’ by many. His past, including the track records of his associates, then and now, probably will not matter. The smear campaign that has been launched is only giving him the kind of visibility that people spent millions to obtain. He’s getting it free.  

That, however, is a problem for his opponents. The issue is the poverty of our political culture that seems to so ready to press the default-option button.

The histories of the major political parties and other groups that have clung on to them for reasons of political expedience (rather than ideological agreement) are known. They have robbed, deceived, cheated and killed. 

The more serious issue is that few are talking about two people who have announced that they will run for President, Nagananda Kodituwakku and Rohan Pallewatte. 

Neither are affiliated to either of the major parties or the coalitions they lead. Neither have benefitted from political friendships. They are strong in their own way.  Pallewatte is a self-made man. He is a successful businessman. He is down to earth, has a sense of humor, has a keen intellect and is clearly not burdened by track-record. 

Kodituwakku has led a lone battle on behalf of the entire citizenry in the courts. He’s pointed out systemic flaws, he’s exposed crooks, he’s been brave and forthright to the point that he has earned the ire of many in the judicial system. He stands for integrity. He stands for a democratic constitution. He fights corruption. He has the credentials.

Now if people were really serious about Yahapalanaya and a different way of doing things, they would take both these candidates seriously. They would back them with more enthusiasm than they backed Maithripala in 2015 or (as the case may be) as they back a possible Gotabhaya Rajapaksa presidential bid.

Love for a candidate (regardless of track-record) or hatred for a candidate (for flaws they refuse to see in those they love) dominate thinking when it comes to showing preference. It’s a matter of choosing one poison over another.  Some are shocked when they break out with a rash. Others scratch in private. Some, eventually, will switch one poison with another.  

That’s where we are at, ladies and gentlemen; we choose the poison that will make us ill or even end up killing us.  

Perhaps it is high time we did something else; like have a conversation with either Rohan Pallewatte or Nagananda Kodituwakku or both or think of other non-poisonous options.

The truth and dare of presidents, presidencies and the presidential

Read more