Sinhala Buddhist Supremacy breeds "Rural Poverty"

2017-10-27

“We have decided to include the responses of political parties in the interim report so that MPs could study them before coming for the debate. Some MPs utter things without knowing the details.”
The  Prime Minister said referring to comments made on the framework resolution for a Constitution presented to parliament by the Steering Committee. 

The PM is right. There is only a framework for a Constitution proposed and there is no draft Constitution per se. Yet, it is within this framework resolution, the proposed new Constitution is expected to be drafted. Not necessarily though. Thus it is the duty and the responsibility of the government to provide political leadership for serious social discussion on the proposals and concepts laid out in the framework resolution agreed upon in the 21 member Steering Committee. This Steering Committee includes MPs Dinesh Gunawardne and Prasanna Ranatunge from the JO, along with Ministers Nimal Siripala de Silva, Susil Premjayantha and Dilan Perera representing the SLFP controlled by President Sirisena.   

As for the JO, they have no moral right to oppose this framework resolution. In the Steering Committee Dinesh Gunawardne and Prasanna Ranatunge had consented to the framework resolution. At the audience Dinesh Gunawardne had with the Malwatte high priest, he could only murmur “Eheyi” when the high priest Ven. Thibbotuwave Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera told him, “You were there in those committees, weren’t you?” The JO have no right now to mislead the public. 
Within the SLFP that is part of the government, there is no clear stand on the Executive Presidency. The solemn promise given by candidate Maithripala Sirisena of stepping down after the end of the first tenure is now dead as wood. President Sirisena would be a candidate at the next presidential election in 2020. The only issue he would want sorted out is how the next President would be elected. He would certainly wish to be elected from the parliament. There, he believes, he could once again strike a political “deal” with PM Wickremesinghe. That would only be possible if the presidency is further pruned, with the premiership strengthened for Wickremesinghe to be next PM.   

Sirisena’s dilemma is in facing elections. He cannot go before the public now as a SLFP candidate having contested against the SLFP candidate at the 2015 January 08 presidential elections. Among SLFP voters, he is seen as the sole obstructer who denied the SLFP forming a government in 2015 August parliamentary election. If as President he refrained from disturbing the election campaign, the UPFA that won 95 seats, could have easily cleared over 100 MPs and reduced the UNP to less than 100 MPs. That would have allowed the SLFP led UPFA to form the government. Having denied the SLFP that opportunity, President Sirisena now cannot face any election as SLFP.   

For the UNP while being in this hybrid government and most of its MPs also playing for Sinhala Buddhist votes, they have been party to stifling investigations into alleged war crimes. They have been delaying the forming of the OMP for well over one year. The UNP leadership too has not intervened in any way to release Tamil youth detained for many years without any charges. In short, the UNP too goes along with the Sinhala Buddhist “war hero” politics of President Sirisena. They too shy away from social discourse when it is politics for an inclusive, secular society. When it is politics that has to challenge the Sinhala Buddhist “supremacy”. That keeps the total process of making a new Constitution within parliament. All efforts by this government therefore are to keep MPs well looked after to collect the required two thirds for passage within parliament. They believe Tamil and Muslim votes would tilt the balance in their favour at a Referendum, as it did against Rajapaksa at the 2015 January presidential election.   

This timid effort in trying to avoid any engagement with the Sinhala South has allowed Rajapaksas to take the lead against the new Constitution that is in the making. They are left with an empty ground, they could dribble, pass and kick their utterly racist football to any corner of the ground they wish. And they have been allowed to choose their own goalkeepers, referees and cheer leaders too. Thus the ground is being filled by Rajapaksa campaigners who are now rallying not only the Buddhist clergy against the passage of a new Constitution, but the rabidly racist GMOA leadership, middle class Sinhala professionals and the “anti SAITM” street fighting IUSF to impress upon the Sinhala South, this proposed new Constitution would not only undermine “free health” but would definitely divide the country, the Sinhala war heroes fought to save for future generations.   

In such an awfully racist build up, Ven. Bellanwila Wimalarathana Thera, endorsing the Karaka Sabhas of the Malwatte and Asigiriya chapters and the Kotte Samagri, provides legitimacy not just to the campaign of the Buddhist monks, but to the filthy hate campaign orchestrated by Gotabaya promoting “Viyath Maga” gang too. Those who propose “federalism” and a “secular” State would be “traitors” from what Ven. Wimalarathana Thera says. For the Ven. Thera, all provisions that are “subtly introduced” without using the term “federal” would by implication lead to “separation”. Thus for Ven. Wimalarathana Thera, this “is a national crisis situation that is developing”. He therefore makes a call for “all patriotic forces” to “join hands to reject the proposals for a new constitution”. Those who would not heed his call for “patriotism” would therefore be “traitors” the “Viyath Maga” hate campaign says should be killed and buried the way the JVP promoted during the 1987 to 90 savage insurgency. 
Ironically as it was during 1987 – 90 JVP savagery, I and the like minded who are now living a “bonus life” as their hit squads could not lay hands on us, could once again be “traitors” listed to be “killed”. For the same political reason of accepting a “federal system” of governance in a “united, undivided” country. For stronger democracy reaching the provinces, where not only the Tamil and Muslim people in the North and East, but also the Sinhala Buddhists in the South, Uva, North-Central provinces could “have the authority to take their own decisions” for their own benefit.   

It is for this benefit we stand for greater devolution to the provinces. Seventy years of continuous centralising of power as a “Unitary” Sinhala Buddhist State has only left the ordinary Sinhala Buddhists, struggling to live a decent human life. This Unitary Sinhala Buddhist State has continuously eroded the quality of life of over 70 per cent of the people living in rural Sri Lanka. In the name of Sinhala Buddhism, these leaders have allowed heavy corruption, nepotism, politicisation of public administration and law enforcement at local level and drained the rural economy in creating a “filthy rich” urban life. The latest CBSL Report on Socio-Economic Data (2016 June) says while the Western Province’s share of income is Rs.42,100 per household, it is Rs.28,921 in the South, Rs.24,228 in Uva, Rs.29,343 in Wayamba and Rs.27,775 in Sabaragamuwa. The North-East is far worse. 

The solemn promise given by candidate Maithripala Sirisena of stepping down after the end of the first tenure is now dead as wood. President Sirisena would be a candidate at the next presidential election in 2020

It is this continuous neglect of rural Sinhala South that prompted Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine to make the public statement, “We must ask, why Federalism to Tamils? Why not to the Sinhalese in the South? We need Federalism for the South because centralised power from 1947 Parliament to 2017, for 70 years, have failed to develop the rural Sinhala society” delivering the keynote address at the S.J.V. Chelvanayagam commemoration. (DM - 28 April, 2017)   

This “Unitary” State with Buddhism given the privileged status under Article 09 of the Constitution from 1972, has not given the rural Sinhala poor anything worth to live on. All those who claim to be Sinhala Buddhist “patriots” have only left the larger majority of the Sinhala Buddhists in poverty. This Sinhala Buddhist Unitary State the Sinhala “patriots” want to continue with, during the past 06 years from 2010 to 2015 (both years included), had sent at an average 117,274 young mothers and women to the M-E as house maids, despite hyped publicity about women being nailed, stoned, sexually abused and physically harassed.   

Thus I wrote “The Sinhala South has never asked themselves, why they should leave their districts in search of jobs that are nothing but menial-jobs that only or mostly provide temporary living and no secure future. They don’t ask why only exploitative manufacturing factories come to rural towns and not modern private hospitals, high-end shopping complexes, condominiums and jogging paths. There isn’t any cash flow in these rural areas for those investments to go rural. There’s only cheap labour.” (DM - 28 April, 2017)   

None who want a Unitary State with Buddhism given the privileged Status takes responsibility for that miserable poverty in the provinces. They don’t even talk about the rural poor. They in fact are not the poor and despite some who claim to have come from the “village” are affluent urban middle class consumers. This utterly rabid Sinhala Buddhist racism has therefore to be debunked at least for the sake of the Sinhala Buddhist rural poor and all provinces including North and East given “the authority to take their own decisions” to break out of poverty they have been left with during all these 70 years since independence.   

Lies nailed to the counter

Friday, October 27, 2017

Proposed new Constitution has become a hot topic for public debate between the Government and the Opposition. However, the Opposition criticism is limited to their attitudes and platitudes on one or two articles in the Constitutional draft presented to Parliament for discussion, which they consider to be non-negotiable. Even then they fail to substantiate their claim. The Government also merely repeats the same story that those non-negotiable articles would remain so and deny any attempts on its part to change or modify them. Beyond that there is no substantiated discussion.
Amidst the thunder and fire of the Opposition’s mounting campaign against the draft Constitution a serious observer could see a range of lies, damn lies and suspicions. Let us see what these lies and suspicions are.

Lie No. One: No party in Parliament has a clear majority. Hence, there is no mandate of the people for a new Constitution. Therefore, the whole exercise is illegitimate.

Though no party received a clear majority the people voted for a change in the Constitution. The UNP clearly manifested its intention to bring in a new Constitution and the group that joined it with President Sirisena concurred with them. The UPFA had been campaigning and promising a new Constitution since 1978. It was in their election manifestos throughout the period including the last Presidential election.

Tamil Parliamentarians did not support both 1972 and 1978 Constitutions as they were kept out of the Constitution making process. So there was no question of their demanding the retention of the existing system. Thus there was an absolute mandate for a new Constitution. The SLFP change of heart came after the new government was formed and its former leader sat in the Opposition benches in Parliament with a group of dissident SLFP MPs and began a campaign against the new Constitution. Even then President Sirisena has so far refrained from endorsing the new SLFP thinking.

If one accepts that Constitution cannot be changed since no single party has an absolute majority in Parliament, it would take aeons to do so. International experience is against it. Nepal did draft a new Constitution after years of hard work despite the fragmented nature of its Parliament or the Constituent Assembly.

Lie No. Two: There is no participation of the public in the Constitutional reform exercise.
The reality is that a special Committee held people’s consultations at national and regional levels to obtain popular suggestions and recommendations. It published its report which included a wide range of proposals. On the other hand, the existing Constitution which the Opposition wants to preserve was rushed in Parliament in a matter of days with no public participation in its making.

Lie No. Three: The views of University teachers, lawyers, doctors etc. were not sought for the purpose.

The actual fact is that such views were sought but few of the professionals responded while the response of the ordinary public was substantial. It would be a sad mistake to call those who made representations to the above Committee as foreign agents or NGO representatives.

New Constitution

Lie No. Four: A federal solution would inevitably lead to separation.

It is not federalism that would lead to separatism and bifurcation of the country. It is the denial of human rights and repression of a particular community or group of people that would lead to separatism. Our own experience shows that the unitary state is no bar to separatism.

Federalism is being misinterpreted separatism to dupe the people. Even our Supreme Court has ruled that federalism is not separatism. Actually in the present world there is no Chinese wall separating federal and unitary states. While federal states such as India have unitary features unitary states such as the United Kingdom have federal features. Like everything evolves concepts too evolve and change over time. Hence, one cannot expect to rigidly cling on to stereotyped or ossified concepts.

Birth and development of capitalism

Lie No. Five: Sri Lanka has been a unitary state from ancient times.

Both States and unitary states were historical concepts that emerged during the birth and development of capitalism. It is in the 1972 Constitution that the term ‘unitary state’ was used for the first time. To call it historic would be an untruth.

Of late an attempt is made to make people believe that there is almost universal acceptance of the term and it is taken as unchangeable by the public. This view was also expressed by a legal luminary this week. To believe so would exclude majority of the entire population of the North and East and sizeable sections of the population elsewhere in Sri Lanka.

The Joint Opposition campaign against the new Constitution is based not only on lies but also on suspicions. One of the main allegations against the Government is that it proposes to do away with the privileged position afforded to Buddhism in the Constitution.

There are two formulations concerning the same in the draft proposals of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly. They both have the following statement: “Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana …”

They say, however, that it will be dropped in the final version on the insistence of outside powers and the NGOs. This is mere suspicion.

Similarly they suspect that the term ‘unitary state’ has been replaced by the Sinhala term "Ekeeya rajyaya" in the English text and "Orumitta Nadu" in the Tamil text to deceive both the Sri Lankan people and the international community and Sri Lanka would be considered a federal state by the latter. In fact some of them have overnight become linguistic experts on the Tamil language, interpreting the Tamil term in a biased manner.

Some extremist elements including a section of the Maha Sangha ask why the Constitution should be replaced and what are the problems that Tamils have which the Sinhalese do not have.

They seem to be born again. We have seen continuous agitation against the new Constitution, of course with its ebb and flow, ever since it was enforced in 1978.

Similarly the discrimination that still continues in the use of Tamil language in public sector institutions and the administration, the still continuing occupation of private lands by the Armed forces and the unexplained disappearances of Tamil youth are some of them. It was only recently that the President said that the people in the North and East suffer most. A Household Income Survey recently disclosed that there the average income is half that of the national average. Do we need to say more? 

Sri Lanka: Some Aspects Of Economic Freedom

By Anushka Wijesinha –OCTOBER 26, 2017

Anushka Wijesinha

Good Morning ladies and gentleman, honourable State Minister Eran Wickramaratne, a lot of other familiar faces in the room, and of course the dynamic team at Advocata who have really taken this think tank from a start up to really making waves in the Sri Lankan think tank circuit.

It’s a real pleasure to be with you this morning and deliver a keynote at the Advocata and Fraser institute Economic Freedom Summit.

In my remarks to you today I’ll highlight some aspects of Economic freedom from my own perspective. They don’t neatly tie into the economic freedom index necessarily-my comments are a little broader- but you’ll realize through some of the running threads that they link up quite a bit with some of the elements of the Economic Freedom Index.

Much of these remarks will be from my own perspective, my own personal viewpoint. And some of they may find some resonance with you and try to provide food for thought for further discussion whether it’s for today’s proceedings, or for institutes like Advocata to take forward later on. It’s of course by no means an exhaustive discussion about economic freedom in Sri Lanka. I’m sure you’ll find many things you wish I had said, and you’ll find fault with me for that, but I’ll try and keep it to some perspectives for you to ponder on.

My keynote will be on three parts: part one is on policy orientations and the role of the state-might be an unusual point to start on given that this is a largely a free market discussion but I think it’s an important discussion to have on policy orientations and the role of the state, in part two I flag a few examples of contradictions or tensions in our economic debate where I think the lens of economic freedom needs to come in very strongly and very quickly that will enrich the debate here in Sri Lanka, and in part three my comments will be about how we can create and shape a popular narrative around economic freedom in our country.

Lets dive right into part one with a few thoughts on policy orientations and the role of the state. I must state upfront that I’m not a believer of absolutes, either blindly following that market forces can solve everything and we should just leave it to that, or that the state must overbearingly do everything because there are too many market failures. I think to be absolute in this debate will be missing the opportunity to make real change and really influence policy, but might be disconnected to the growing acknowledgement globally that there is a need for both the market and the state so long as we get the balance right. But hey, I guess that’s the big elephant in the room-getting that balance right- and we seem to have not gotten that balance right lately.

I recall a conversation that I had with the chief of UNIDO (United Nations International Development Organization) a year or so back. We were driving to the SLINTEC Nano tech facility in Homagama and we had a chance to chat. I asked him having seen so many policy orientations across the world with his work, what would his one piece of advice be to Sri Lanka. And he answered choose pragmatism over dogma. And he recalled, once again you might find it odd that in an economic freedom discussion we are referring to China- but this is just his remarks, he recalled Deng Xiaoping’s famous remarks —  “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice”.

So he went onto argue that for too long academics have been preoccupied with trying to classify development paradigms to neat, discrete categories. But given the complexity of our world today, the impatience of societies to prosper, and the pragmatism required of politicians, clinging on to particular ideologies may not help. Instead he argued whatever policies that can get the job done. In this case, gets the job done of expanding prosperity to more Sri Lankans is where the focus should be. So we need to be pragmatic about our policy mix but it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t focus on economic freedom — that should be our anchor.

Read More

Meritocracy in a Democracy and other oxymoron-morons

---

Friday, 27 October 2017

Every now and again some state mandarin will make a statement that reminds people (ok, me) of Monty Python’s “Flying Circus”. Rather than leave the strutting and fretting to petty functionaries in the Ministry of Silly Walks, these senior ministers take it upon themselves to shower us with their precocious platitudes. And the results are chaos, confusion, consternation. Note first the casus belli given below.

A.The State Minister of Finance this week called for the establishment of a ‘meritocracy’ built on the principles of ‘good governance’. He invoked the participation of various non-state actors – including the private sector – in this, er, meritorious act. That politicos are part of the problem in perpetuating a culture of corruption and nepotism he was not loath to admit. Be that as it may, the sovereign people of any democracy worth its salt must ensure that politicians don’t usurp their privileges in this regard. While politicians can continue to nominate their prospective appointees to state sector positions, the public must challenge the prerogative of their elected representatives to make such appointments by acting unilaterally. Every government nominee must be vetted for suitability. He surmised that the proposed new constitution may create a culture where government appointments are made on merit and not at the whim of ruling politicians.

B.This meritocracy is challenged by the business community when it claims that it does not matter if some corruption exists – so long as the whole system works efficiently. Challenging the private sector to deal comprehensively with this stumbling-block to good governance in the corporate sector, the state minister emphasised the imperative to create a ‘meritocracy’. The former senior banker with over a quarter of a century’s experience in the private sector averred that establishing ‘good governance’ requires the participation of the private sector. He added (in case no one had realised the precariousness of our position) that “for every bribe taker, there is a bribe giver”. Passing the buck for the responsibility of rectifying this culture, our sea-green incorruptible affirmed that if everyone waited (as they had been waiting for the past 70 years) for governments to deliver – presumably on the promise of eliminating corruption in its hydra-headed forms, in the case of this administration – “we will be waiting another 70 years”.

C.There has been some movement towards a change in dominant paradigms, our mandarin affirmed. Such a cultural shift is taking place before our very eyes, whereby even government ministers are now compelled to step down from office as a result of ongoing investigations into their allegedly suspect activities in the fiscal and financial spheres. But the incumbent administration has been criticised for both its ostensible complicity in dubious bond auctions and unconscionable dabbling in hedging. So this semi-formal spokesperson for the government felt it was incumbent on him to asseverate that those who had trespassed against the law must pay for their crimes, particularly if they had robbed the public. In the meantime, these two under-fire mechanisms need not be done away with. “We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” he is reported as saying.

It was not immediately clear if the baby was a reference to the namby-pamby former Finance Minister who acted so much like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth that his infantile denials of all knowledge had cartoonists apparel him in nappies and soother. Be that as it may, the present State Finance Minister’s observations may be characterised – or caricatured – along the three broad classifications that follow. (If they seem categorical, it is simply to match the ethos of the seemingly unequivocal statements that issue from time to time from the sapphire tongues of senior mandarins…)   

1 Chaos (Or, if you’re a citizen of topsy-turvy-land, ‘Order’)

The state minister means what he says and says what he means. That we must establish a meritocracy through the good offices of transparent and accountable government is non-negotiable. There must be private sector buy-in to this so that the excellence we see in the incumbent administration is sooner than later reflected in Corporate Sri Lanka. However there is dissent in business chambers because as everyone knows there is a giver of bribes for every taker of bribes. Therefore everybody must cooperate with the best of good governments presently in situ to eliminate the insidious cancer of corruption that is corroding the fabric of society.

(This is a CHARITABLE view… And you’d be forgiven for regarding it as a tad naïve these days…)

2 Confusion

The state minister can’t possibly know what he is saying. That we can establish a meritocracy through the good offices of transparent and accountable government is a non-starter at present. There can’t be private sector buy-in to this because the egregiousness we see in the incumbent administration – to say nothing of the immediate past regime that was rotten to its core – is already mirrored in what Corporate Sri Lanka countenances. Therefore the dissent against democracy and meritocracy in business chambers is because everyone knows who the takers of bribes are as much as they know who the givers of bribes are. However it is clear that everybody must cooperate with the best of a bad lot presently in situ to pre-empt the possible return of the king and countrymen of corruption who once ruled the roost – and still would, given half a chance.

(This is an increasingly CYNICAL view, as good goes from bad to worse in the Mouthing Platitudes Dept.)

3 Consternation

The state minister intends to say much more than he really appears to mean. That we must establish a meritocracy despite the worst excesses of transparent and accountable government is non-evident to many if not most. There must be more than private sector buy-in to this, because the excellence we wish to see in the incumbent administration must not be allowed to be refracted by anyone in Corporate Sri Lanka or anywhere else… not even – not especially – the government of the day, be that what it may. Because there will always be a giver of bribes for every taker of bribes, good governance can and must begin with the business community. Therefore everybody must cooperate with the best of good governments presently in situ to eliminate the insidious cancer of corruption that is corroding the fabric of society. No, really.

(This is the controversial contrarian view, in which the state minister is subtly critiquing the wrongdoings of his own party – and despite seeming to be its simple spokesperson, is actually attempting to subvert the culture of which he cannot conscionably be a part…)

Whichever view you may take – take the tests below. All you can do is scrape through, which is no better or worse than is being done by Corporate Sri Lanka and Constitutional Reform alike.

The tongue-in-cheek tests

(N.B. candidates will be examined on merit – theirs, or those of their imitators or impersonators…) 

A.Essays.

1.“‘Establishing Good Governance’ (‘EGG’) needs private sector participation.” Eggsamine. Or, if you think GG is a rotten EGG, throw some EGGs at them…   

B.Short Answers.

1.To ensure that a meritocracy works, we need our public to be proactive. True? False? Wishful thinking? 

2.Govt. cannot achieve Good Governance alone. Yeah? Right! Told you so, dummies!

C.MCQ.

1.Interested parties insist that systems must not be abandoned because of the failing of individuals, because:

a.They are interested in people over principles.

b.They are partisan to their parties’ values or vested interests.

c.They are opposed to dumping interesting people with gay abandon.

d.They are failed individuals who trust in systems over principles or values.

2.State ministers argue that bond auctions and hedging instruments are defensible, because:

a.Arguing makes your case more convincing to the media and other impressionable minions.

b.Bonding is better for best buddies under good governance than coming unstuck. 

c.Churlish, no, not to hedge your bets…

d.Defending the indefensible is par for the course in playing one’s part as a defender of the faith.

3.Constitutional moves aim to create an independent state sector, claims senior mandarin and defender of democratic meritocracy, because:

a.Aiming to create something where nothing existed before looks good on a CV. 

b.Bribe-givers and bribe-takers are doing too thriving a business without it!

c.Corruption as a culture is the curse of unconstitutional regimes…

d.Democracy means we’re free to do what our masters merit as that which matters.

With that said – I’m not quibbling too much… Don’t forget there’s such a thing as Democratic Dementia, too. Where the previous regime can’t remember what meritocracy looked like in their time… And the present lot have forgotten that they are incumbent because we believed they wouldn’t forget what we all had to go through in the past… 

(A senior journalist, the writer was once the Chief Sub Editor of The Sunday Leader, 1994-8, and is ex-LMD, having been its Editor, 2004-8. He has made a career out of asking questions, and not waiting for answers.)

Our curious contradiction 

2017-10-27

The protests work for the protestors and their backers, whether they win or lose. On the other hand, even if they win, the protests rarely work for the people. Those behind them win whatever the outcome, while the people lose even if they are supposed to win

A man in Polonnaruwa died because of a power outage (the nearest hospital didn’t have a generator; by the time he was despatched to the city hospital, he was dead). He was 55. The Government’s fault? Hardly.

Part of the reason why strikes never really work today, unless enough effort is put into them, is that the people are tired. They are tired of looking for scapegoats to censure and criticise.

A friend of mine, having seen through last month’s spate of strikes rather cynically, had an interesting point to make: “The protests work for the protestors and their backers, whether they win or lose. On the other hand, even if they win, the protests rarely work for the people. Those behind them win whatever the outcome, while the people lose even if they are supposed to win.” 

Such an observation is of course crass when considering that not all protests have reneged on the public and that most if not many of them, if history is a good indicator, have served that same public. But then you do get his point: protests are political, and protestors, particularly today’s protestors, have become ineffectual. 

September and October were bewildering. To say the least. First, the weather: abnormal, destructive, ruthless. Then the strikes-touching on almost everything from electricity to the railways. The demands were all the same: Rectify salary anomalies or face the consequences. There were areas outside Colombo which suffered power outages for over five days. Yes, five days. And there were people, whose daily routine consisted of going to work at nine in the morning and coming back home at nine in the night, who found themselves stuck when the trains they were on stopped over a sudden strike, forcing them to either walk the rest of the way home or wait until the SLTB sorted the mess. 

In all these instances the strikers had one thing to say: “If the people find it difficult to get about their work, then it is the Government’s fault.” But then a man in Polonnaruwa died because of a power outage (the nearest hospital didn’t have a generator; by the time he was despatched to the city hospital, he was dead). He was 55. The Government’s fault? Hardly. 

Which brings me to my point: Part of the reason why strikes never really work today, unless enough effort is put into them, is that the people are tired. They are tired of looking for scapegoats to censure and criticise. 

They know the Government isn’t any better, but they also know that this is arguably the worst time since the war years for strikes to take place. When times are tough, when protests are by default the order of the day, they look at those they can blame the quickest. Not the State, but the striker. 
It’s a well known fact that in Sri Lanka, antipathy towards trade unionism is informed less by political inclinations than by personal prejudices. It’s interesting to note that whether one supports this Government or its predecessor, one continues to view these protests as an inconvenience. 

Those for the Government wish it to use the power it has (but rarely uses) against them, even hinting at violence before a crisis imposes it as a necessity. Those for the predecessor curse the Government based on what they feel their preferred political candidates would have done were they elected: Again, use power and violence to quell these strikes. 

They try to be modernists, political or cultural, sincere in their intentions, but then when the moment of reckoning comes they find their inability to think beyond sustaining their milieu a good enough reason to abscond the ideals  

And that’s just what members of the unofficial opposition want: get the incumbent regime to commit hara-kiri by resorting to force and then diminish their sense of moral superiority. For the record, they haven’t resorted to it yet. 

Voters here identify with and idealise a man of force in power. Even those who advertise democracy and individual rights, from a legal or humanistic perspective, tend to wallow before preferred political outcomes that give rise to such men of force. It is this fascination with contemporary supermen (in a disturbingly Nietzschean, neo-fascist sense) which has divided our polity into two intertwined political movements that don’t differ from each other. 

By this I am not really disparaging one particular movement and taking sides with another, rather just pointing out that the so-called divide between the progressives and the reactionaries has never been sustained in Sri Lanka: Our progressives become reactionaries once they reach Parliament, and even our bitterest and most conservative reactionaries become liberals once they are swept over to the opposition. 

My point is that despite Sri Lanka being a former bastion of radicalism and trade unionism, protests and strikes will not and cannot work in a context where the people opt for one of those two aforementioned political movements. 

That this Government has not resorted to cracking down forcefully on dissidents is good (I can’t imagine a former Government, from living memory, tolerating a week-long strike at the Electricity Board without doing something about it), but then from various comments I got down from people – everyday, ordinary, mostly middle class though not consumerist, the sort who commute to Colombo from Galle and Beruwala on the train – I have realised that they are taking the people they have elected, or are opposing, as powerless, irresolute. 

They may not know much about political history of other countries but from those conversations one name and one country crop up frequently. Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore. 

The obsession of Sri Lanka’s anti-trade union bourgeoisie with the politics and politicians of East Asia is both fascinating and silly. To start things off, no two regions could have been structurally more different, in terms of economics or pretty much everything else. In an intriguing but relevant article written on the pre-1977 economy (which was when trade unionism thrived, even under the political right), Vinod Moonesinghe contended that three factors differentiated us from the Asian Tigers: That compared to them we didn’t implement wide ranging land reforms, that we ran out of foreign exchange because of the rice ration and the culture of democracy we implemented successfully after 1948 and 1956, and that we did not enjoy the benefit of friendship with the Atlantic powers, especially the USA, which East Asia did. 

Given this, the attempts we made to become an industrial hub, during the Sirimavo Bandaranaike regime, were at most half-hearted and abortive, and would quickly be dismantled in the name of robber baron capitalism. 

It is this fascination with contemporary supermen (in a disturbingly Nietzschean, neo-fascist sense) which has divided our polity into two intertwined political movements that don’t differ from each other. 

This curious contradiction – between who we want to be and who we are – explains why our bourgeoisie are rather stunted, hybridised, never really in one place for a long time, reactionary when in power and liberal when out of it, and irresolute. 

They try to be modernists, political or cultural, and they have a whole horde of artistes, intellectuals, professors, and civil society activists who are, I daresay, sincere in their intentions, but then when the moment of reckoning comes they find their inability to think beyond sustaining their milieu a good enough reason to abscond the ideals those intellectuals and activists stand for. 

The anti-trade unionism this country has been swept with in recent years is, I believe, something we inherited because of the empowerment of that bourgeoisie, who tend to fill and inherit the corridors of power whatever the Government and political party they are backing. They idealise Singapore but find themselves poorly equipped for the task of transforming their ideals into a breathing, living reality. 
So, if we take the electorate, or ourselves, as a reflection of who we elect, it’s only natural that our fondness for men of force over men of integrity runs concurrently with our political bourgeoisie’s inability to formulate a proper vision for the country and its people. Whatever the political movement, it’s almost always intertwined with the political movement it opposes, through that bourgeoisie. 

What happens in the end is that we are all tired, of our leaders and those who oppose them. Naturally then, trade unionism and student movements here, in recent years, have been lost on our people. The reason for that, more than anything else, is the fact that we have conditioned ourselves to accept the political moment, whether or not we are content with it, and let our private lives go on undisturbed. The moment it’s disturbed, and not just disturbed but downright distracted, we denounce those who protest in favour of the men and women they protest against. Even if those being protested against happen to be those we want out of power. 

What is impeding Maithri from abolishing executive presidency when even Mahinda is for it? Viyangoda (Video)

(Lanka-e-News - 26.Oct.2016, 11.30PM)   When  Mahinda Rajapakse who polled 5.8 million votes at the last presidential election too has consented to the abolition of the executive presidency , what is obstructing president Sirisena from going ahead with it   and what is militating against  ? Gamini Viyangoda asked during a media briefing held recently. 

During the period of the Kings there existed a very primitive society.   It was   only the Sangha society which came within the category of educated social class then , and  only they who had some education to read and  write books .It was   owing to that primitive society  , guidance and advice of the sangha was sought by the Kings , but now we are in  the 21 st century society of knowledgeable engineers , educational  experts, economic specialists, Lawyers, accountants and political experts .

While there is such  a knowledgeable society now , if we are still to say , like in the ancient days of the kings , today too we must rule the country only on  the counsel  and instructions of the Sangha members , it is  a retrograde view .’

Popular writer Gamini Viyangoda made the above comments vis a vis  the new constitution , and the statements made recently by the Sangha council , when he addressed the media discussion held at the CSR Institute , Colombo on the 20 th by the ‘National campaign  for a new constitution’

Video footage hereunder 

---------------------------
by     (2017-10-26 18:33:46)

#MeToo – Analysing The Conversation

Featured image courtesy The Daily Star

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE-on 10/26/2017

On October 15, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted a request that inadvertently breathed new life into a movement.

‘Me Too’ was initially coined by Tarana Burke, who eventually formed a non-profit organization to help victims of sexual harassment and assault. Milano’s tweet was a response to allegations of sexual assault and harassment levelled against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

It didn’t take long for #MeToo to go viral, across multiple social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Social analytics platform TalkWalker tweeted an animated gifshowing the spread of the campaign across the world. More than 1.7 million tweets used the hashtag, as Milano herself noted, while there were more than 12 million posts, comments and reactions on Facebook within 24 hours.

Almost immediately there was controversy. On Twitter, some criticised the way the movement conflated sexual harassment and assault. An article in the Guardian called for people to out perpetrators as a more concrete method of action.

One thing was undeniable – the vast number of people who participated, including men and women from Sri Lanka. A spokesman from Twitter confirmed that the hashtag had been tweeted nearly half a million times in 24 hours, globally.

And yet, despite the numbers, there has been little attempt at analysing the conversation.

Due to sheer volume, it proved impossible to capture all of the tweets using the hashtag, using Google Spreadsheets’ inbuilt Twitter archiving function, (TAGS). However, a sizable sample of over 40,000 tweets were archived from October 15 to 18, viewable here.

Having captured a sizable sample, we then searched for keywords.



This is a visualisation of the conversation. Words such as assault, sexual, woman have been frequently used. Many of the sample were tweeting in Spanish – the Twitter URL referenced in the cloud is of a cartoon highlighting that sexual assault and harassment are not isolated incidents restricted to Hollywood. This explains the frequency of the term “solo” (only/alone in Spanish) and Yo también (Me Too). Harvey Weinstein was frequently referenced too, as is Alyssa Milano and Tarana Burke. Notable also is the appearance of #HimThough, a hashtag which was created shortly after #MeToo went viral,  in order to “urge men to take responsibilityfor their actions.”

In our sample, the word “assault” appeared 5,681 times. Groundviews also searched for other assault-related keywords such as rape (1,344 occurrences), slap (19), grab (204), punch (27) and attack (101).


In comparison, harassment appeared 1,240 times. Words like whistle appeared 11 times, while words such as catcall (28) leer (20) and remark (9) also appeared in the sample.

This debunks the idea, put forward in many opinion pieces including this piece from the Telegraph, that the hashtag was solely related to sexual harassment broadly and street harassment in particular.
However, even this doesn’t truly give a sense of what the interactions around the hashtag were. Of the 5,681 tweets tagged using the word “assault” approximately 250 were of people sharing their personal experiences of assault, including rape, marital rape, childhood molestation, sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

Meanwhile, 121 out of the over 1,200 mentions of the word harassment were users recounting personal experiences. These ranged from catcalls to derogatory remarks. Many of the tweets highlighted workplace harassment, with women sharing examples ranging from inappropriate comments to untoward sexual advances from their colleagues or, at times, from immediate superiors. Many within the sample of tweets examined said they had experienced both sexual assault as well as harassment.

Also of interest were tweets acknowledging that many women would choose not to use the hashtag – either due to stigma, ennui or lack of access to social media. One of these tweets, declaring that victims of violence did not owe anyone their stories, quickly went viral. This in itself indicated the polarisation around the hashtag. A number of ‘spinoff’ hashtags, created after #MeToo went viral highlighted this. These included #HimThough, and #UsToo, the latter of which was primarily used by men and members of the LGBTIQ community. Both these hashtags reflected the general perception that #MeToo was for women only. Despite this perception, it should be noted that several men and members of the LGBTIQ community did share their personal stories in the sample Groundviews examined.

Another hashtag, #HowIWillChange attempted to take the conversation from rhetoric to action. This hashtag saw many thoughtful contributions, particularly from men on steps that could be taken to address the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment. These ranged from the simple – actively speaking out against such behavior, or donating to women’s shelters, to the more complex – acknowledging toxic behavior and pledging not to remain silent when faced with evidence of abuse.
In the space of a few days, the conversation was already showing signs of dying down.

58% of the tweets in the sample were on October 15, and 27% on October 16. Just 4% of the sample had used the #MeToo hashtag on October 18.

However, as the use of the hashtag waned, conversations on the topic continued.

In the US, a Google Spreadsheet accusing a number of men in the media of sexual harassment was widely circulated – though the disclaimer itself noted that it was “a collection of allegations and rumours”.  The spreadsheet was an attempt to move conversations around sexual harassment from informal whisper networks, as they were termed, to naming and shaming. Closer to home, a list of South Asian academics also began circulating on Facebook.

Both efforts were subject to much controversy as there was no way to verify the claims being made by the women, and whether the information obtained was firsthand or based on rumour. However, they do indicate a willingness to continue these difficult conversations.

Whether this will translate into direct action has also been extensively discussed. The Hindu, for instance, raised some thought provoking questions in a recent article, arguing that the stories shared deserved more than online activism, and asking whether the stories were being ‘reduced to a hashtag.’ There was also discussion from The Wire about what the true value of all this outrage amounted to, whether it was genuine, and how it might impact a person expressing it.

Despite these caveats, #MeToo did succeed in generating conversation around sexual assault and harassment, at least more so than earlier campaigns. Within 24 hours, its use surpassed #YesAllWomen and #EverydaySexism – both trending hashtags which dealt with similar themes earlier in the year.

That alone is worth acknowledging.

Ranjan appears in SC without notice

Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake outside the Supreme Court with his lawyer, President’s Counsel M. A. Sumanthiran MP and MP Dr. Ashu Marasinghe. Picture by Ranjith Asanka

Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Thursday, October 26, 2017

Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake appeared before the Supreme Court, without notice to do so, in two Contempt of Court actions filed against him.

President’s Counsel M. A. Sumanthiran appearing for Ramanayake informed court that his client is yet to receive notice. “We have not got any notice. But we are appearing in court following newspaper reports that my client had been noticed,” Sumanthiran said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday re-issued notice on Ramanayake to appear before the Supreme Court on November 21. This is to show cause regarding two Contempt of Court actions filed against him for allegedly casting insulting remarks on the reputation of the judiciary and lawyers at a press conference.

Ramanayake who had been named as the respondent in the petitions, was present before Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The Two-Judge Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Buwaneka Aluvihare and Justice Anil Goonaratne decided to re-issue notices on the Deputy Minister pursuant to two contempt of court actions filed by two individuals.

Sumanthiran informed Supreme Court that on the next date he would explain to Court as to why court should not issued summons on Ramanayake. He told Court that the book ‘An Unfinished Struggle’, written by Victor Ivan had also highlighted corruption in the judiciary.

Ven. Magalkande Sudantha Thera of the Bodu Bala Sena Organisation and R. Sunil Perera, a retired Air Force Officer complained to Supreme Court seeking a Contempt of Court action against Ramanayake for allegedly making insulting remarks on the reputation of the judiciary and lawyers, at a press conference held on August 21. Former Sri Lanka Medical Council chairman Prof. Carlo Fonseka was present in court in support of Ramanayake.

Counsel Rasika Dissanayake with Sandun Senadhipathi under instructions of Sanath Wijewardena appeared for the complainants. President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran appeared for Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake.

Power of insight and foresight for Sri Lanka: A regional first!

Friday, 27 October 2017

When Science, Technology and Research Minister Susil Premajayanth and United Nations Development Program Sri Lanka Country Director Jorn Sorensen exchanged jointly signed documents at Waters Edge on Friday, 22 September, along with trading the associated pleasantries, the event heralded the birth of a regional first – the social innovation lab for Sri Lanka.

The Social Innovation Lab – Sri Lanka was officially launched at a press conference, which was held on Monday, 25 September 2017 at the UN compound. The media was present and information was distributed and I hope Sri Lanka has noted this event as I am writing this almost a month after. The lack of awareness will only point to the knowledge transfer effectiveness in Sri Lanka based on the perceived importance of highlighting any type of news by our Fifth Estate. 

Country Director Sorensen said: “The innovation brought about by the Sri Lankan lab is expected to be a driver of change and to encourage more critical thinking and close equality in Sri Lanka.” 

The Sri Lankan lab is likely to be the 27th such lab in the world but from this region we will have the distinction of starting the first. Looking before leaping is an often-used comment but in Sri Lanka it is mentioned usually after taking the plunge and when the situation has worsened afterwards. Superb Sense in hindsight is unfortunately quite frequent.

Policy Innovation Lab

On May 2016, a few organisations – both public and private – with the leadership of UNDP Sri Lanka and the Ministry of National Policies and Economic Affairs staged the National Conference on Foresight and Innovation. 

One declared resolution at the end of the two-day event was to establish a Policy Innovation Lab which will look at policies and issues with foresight tools in place. One can say the approach will really benefit decision-making as we have not seen in general, consistent and progressive data-driven and evidence-based decision-making in our environment. Even good ideas have failed after following an implementation pathway which is flawed. 

No one can be happy with situations where you roll out directives in the morning and by evening you are looking at retrieval or revisal after plenty of discontent and discord at the ground level.

What if one can test your ideas in a simulator with the participation of stakeholder representatives? What if I see my idea supported or opposed, backed by data, and then I suitably modify my approach but execute it with much more confidence and with due sensitivity. Those were the types of situations that were to be enabled via rapid prototyping by the innovation lab established, connected to the Government. Work on realising the objectives continued over a year and the event at Waters Edge last month was a culmination of all the necessary preliminaries. 

The UNDP has been instrumental in driving the establishment of labs of this nature in quite a few countries. Mindlab of Denmark comes to the mind along with the Pulse Lab of Jakarta, Indonesia.

The understanding for this program comes from knowing the value of foresight and that the labs are vehicles for bringing foresight into play in economic and social planning. In the interim period, from resolution to implementation, the Pulse Lab team actually visited Sri Lanka and carried out a landscape survey, which enabled better planning. This process culminated with the recommendation that the Policy Innovation Lab concept be transformed into a Social Innovation Lab and the base of the lab be at the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research. 

I am quite happy to record the active engagement of the Coordinating Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation (COSTI), which is with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research in this process.   

Foresight concept

Definitely the establishment of a lab of this nature is a more formalised process for ensuring that an evaluatory mechanism is enabled in the public machination. The foresight concept is not new and today is deployed in both private and public systems across the world by those with some foresight to start with.   

One should remember how the scenario analysis, which is a foresight tool, enabled Shell to understand the impending 1973 oil crisis which changed the global economy rather dramatically and was positive for Shell. 

Now this is quite a famous example. Consider the Mindlab, which consist of around 20 people engaging in so many areas providing answers after evaluating multiple alternative scenarios.  Being a cross-governmental innovation unit, it involves citizens and businesses in developing new solutions for the public sector. 

A limited number of personnel will be present in the lab and there will definitely be data scientists among them. As per Thomas Prehn of Mindlab in Denmark: “A lab should really be focused on how to change the way a public sector works,” explains Prehn. “The most important task for public service innovators should be to disseminate the way they work through an organisation, and then the organisations will, in some cases at least, be more innovative, agile and adaptive as a result.” We must also remember that the Sri Lankan Government is Sri Lanka’s largest employer.

Our public sector may be a world record-holder in terms of numbers – breadth and width, etc. All of us readily agree that this machine is slow to respond and slow in delivery. Agility is not something we can speak much of and similarly public sector innovation is almost unheard of.   

If a cross-governmental discussion can be made over programs and service innovation is embraced as a need of the hour, the lab can go a long way in supporting transformation and surely it is then a win-win program.

Early delivery

It is important that the lab is seen to start delivering early. This aspect has been given attention in the planning document. In the months following the creation of the lab, it is imperative to undertake a series of activities that demonstrate the capabilities of the lab via quick wins, thereby providing the lab with proof-of-concepts to appeal to stakeholders, to move on to other engagements and more ambitious projects.   

The concept of policymaking behind closed doors too will be dispelled hopefully where much more citizen engagement will take place in analysing policy options. One question raised by the press in the meeting regarded solid waste.

I think one can think of many a need – how can we fill university places with speed without allowing spaces to exist due to the inability to fill them on time, how can we eliminate the waiting time and ensure our students graduate one year earlier to the current norm, how can we have both Western medicine and Indigenous medicine both serving people at the same location, etc. There are so many possibilities for high-impact yet low-hanging fruits for consideration. However, a must initially is the interest to engage and develop the cross-governmental platform. This type of support to a country is always to be appreciated. This reminds one of the statement about teaching someone how to fish rather than providing just a meal. The persistence of the young UNDP team, led by Fadhil with Yasas and Deshani, is to be really appreciated. They never gave up.

The Ministry of Science Technology and Research, with Udaya Senevirathne as the Secretary, also supported the journey in all ways possible. Now an innovative mechanism has been created where one can plan a destiny better and differently.

It is not a big idea – I do not think this can be claimed as Sri Lanka’s next Big Idea - but a very important one. Time will tell when Sri Lanka too can boast of true public sector innovation with clear timelines known in advance and the probability of successful action guaranteed.   We have burial grounds for policy due to a lack of executioners or those that met with many a Waterloo due to execution sans thinking. When the lab finally materialises at the grounds of the Industrial Technology Institute – which will happen quickly as all hands are ready to move on – the footfalls at the site may hopefully make some permanent footprints with a defined direction in the history of our progress.

Wither Our Universities?

By Garvin Karunaratne –OCTOBER 27, 2017

Dr. Garvin Karunaratne

It is lamented that our Universities enjoy very low rankings even among the Asian Universities. In the Quacqarelli Symonds Asian University Rankings – the University of Colombo ranks at 156 and the University of Peradeniya ranks at 242.

It is my attempt to request our Universities to make an attempt to be more useful to our country in the first instance and to the world. Our country is at the moment steeped in debt and so are other Third World Countries. We have all come to a stage where our debts have to be serviced by falling into further debt. Perhaps this is an area that can bring repute and stature to our Universities if only they can try. Can our erudite dons address what is happening to our economy today. If any university can do this task the world will be at their feet.

One method is to develop Courses of Study in Development at graduate and post graduate level for the purpose of equipping graduates with a broad knowledge of development as well as the know how of bringing about development and to build up research in order to arriving at a model of economic development that is particularly suitable for Developing Countries. In other words the latter aim is to build up a new paradigm for development.

Building up a new paradigm for development is a crucial area because the World today has failed in every respect, be it economics or politics. The Third World countries are riddled with debt, the European Countries and even the USA are finding that the designs of development they have hitherto follow cannot bring about prosperity.

It is observed that Third World countries, since  achieving sovereign status  were managing their economies in a self reliant manner, controlling the use of foreign exchange, controlling imports and building up the necessary infrastructure to enable a peasant economy to increase production, etc. till the Seventies, when the IMF introduced its Structural Adjustment Programme and followed free trade – the open liberalized economy, liberalized the use of foreign exchange, abolished  import controls, accepted the private sector as the engine of growth, and when the countries could not make ends meet, advocated the use of loans and the  privatization of State assets, resulting in the present predicament of indebtedness. The countries were slowly but effectively brought under the control of the IMF and the financial institutions of Developed Countries- the creditors. These countries saddled with debt survive by raising more loans in order to pay up their debts. This story is narrated in my most recent publication: How the IMF Sabotaged Third World Development (Kindle & Godages).

Hitherto forays by Universities into Development has been to develop faculties in important disciplines like agriculture. economics etc. There is not a single University that has taken on the mantle of enabling the all development encompassing subjects into one well integrated Faculty of Development. Universities have made a distinct contribution in teaching but forays into the field of development have been marginal. Their main aim has been to teach students and conduct research within their own disciplines, which has been achieved. New inventions in scientific research have also helped corporations and the private sector, which is creditworthy. However though sciences like animal husbandry, agriculture, geography, education and industry have been concentrated on we seemed to have sidetracked and paid less emphasis on equipping the graduates to attend to the total task of bringing about development. Today this is left to be achieved when a graduate gets appointed to a job in development within the Government Sector.

It appears that even the foray of the IMF, since the Seventies, to enforce the concept of the free trade-open economy and liberalization of the use of foreign exchange even when a country does not have the foreign exchange, which is the teaching of Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics, has gone without comment by academics all over the world. It has so happened that it was only after the Third World Countries came to be burdened with foreign debt, devalued currencies, increased poverty and deprivation that many authorities have opened their eyes. Major critics of the IMF happen to be Professor Joseph Stiglitz and Professor Jeffery Sachs. However they too are only critics and have not come up with any alternate model of development. It is important to note that Universities that specially attend to Development Studies like the University of Sussex, the University of East Anglia in the UK have not addressed the inroads of the IMF into the Third World Countries, structuring their economies to make them indebted since the Seventies. Even today there is not a single University in the entire world that has concentrated on the total field of development including the economics underlying the Structural Adjustment Programme of the IMF.

It is my opinion that if a University directly tackles this subject, there will be world acclaim, many graduates from foreign countries will apply to study this subject and the prestige of the University is bound to increase.

It is suggested is that all major disciplines are brought together in teaching aimed at equipping graduates with a complete knowledge of Development in the first instance and applying their knowledge in order to develop practical applications in development projects all aimed at building up a new paradigm for achieving economic development. Students and Faculty will be researching on this subject and their publications will  be acclaimed.

It is hoped that the Peradeniya/Colombo University will take on this mantle to bring about development to a world that is ridden with poverty, unemployment, and inequality – the rich becoming richer, while the rest, the majority, are becoming poor and more deprived. Such an aim is all the more required in the concept of free education up to the graduate level, which is an avowed undertaking of the Government of Sri Lanka. Free higher education can be expected to be adequately funded only if education is totally contributive to development. Teaching in development studies and equipping graduates with the know how to apply themselves to the field of development will immediately be accepted as helping Government Departments that are functioning in the key areas of agriculture, animal husbandry, rural development and the sciences. This would apply not only to Sri Lanka but all countries.

A major breakthrough of academic knowledge into development was the Land Grant Universities in the USA. The aim was to forge a link between higher education and development. In every State a university was established to spearhead development in both conducting research and application of knowledge to bring about development. For instance Michigan State University, a Land Grant University that was mainly established to teach and also to apply academic knowledge to bring about development in the State of Michigan concentrated on the sciences like agriculture and animal husbandry. It also developed studies in Resource Development. The Faculty of Education had studies in Non Formal Education, a term which broadly denotes unstructured education for development. The work involved building up private enterprises as well as cooperative enterprises. The economic prosperity achieved in the USA is ascribed to the work done by Land Grant Universities.

Read More