Features
1956, SWRD, Sir John, some ministers and drafting a Throne Speech on short order
(Excerpted from the Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Peiris)
In view of the dissolution of Parliament, I sat down to draft the Queen’s Speech. I drafted five different speeches, one for each person who might be a potential Prime Minister: Sir John, S.W.R.D., Philip Gunawardena, Dahanayake and N. M. Perera. The elections were spread over three days, and on the last day, April 12, 1956, was S.W.R.D.’s election at Attanagalla.
On the first day’s results, it was clear that there was a swing towards S.W.R.D.’s party, the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna. On the second day’s results, his position had considerably improved and it was clear to any thinking man that, if S.W.R.D. won his own seat on the 12th, he would automatically be Prime Minister.
The shortness of the time given for the drafting of the Queen’s Speech must have struck him as a constitutional lawyer because, on the 12th morning, while polling in his electoral area was going on, he asked me on the telephone to come to his bungalow to draft the Speech.
DS.’s and Dudley’s Secretary was N. W. Atukorale. When Sir John came in, Atukorale was elevated to Queen’s House and P. Nadesan took his place. Nadesan was an efficient officer and was known as Sir John’s man. He was able to write a speech for Sir John for the opening of a Commonwealth Conference or a Volley Ball court. If S.W.R.D. came in, everyone knew that Nadesan had to go; and he went.
Many, including my father, thought that I would have to go likewise although I saw no reason for taking a kick. When S.W.R.D. phoned over the Queen’s Speech, I told him that I did not mean any disrespect, that I wished to act constitutionally as Secretary to the Cabinet, that Sir John was still the Prime Minister, that he was not still member for Attanagalla, that I had no doubt that he would be elected, that I knew the urgency of the matter, that I had a draft ready, and that I would see him early the next morning with Sir John’s permission.
In the afternoon of the 12th, I drove to Kandawala. Sir John, dressed in a sarong and banian, was signing cheques for each of the minor employees of the External Affairs Ministry. When I explained my problem, he readily granted me permission to see SWRD. He then invited me to a drink. As it was only five o,clock, I said I would prefer a glass of iced water, and he said “You b…, you are also refusing my drinks, now that I am down?”
I said it was not that, that I had some drinks at lunch time, and that my throat was a bit parched. He was annoyed but asked the servant boy to bring two glasses of iced water. When I was there, Sir John’s house which is normally full of people was deserted by those who pretended to be his friends and enjoyed his hospitality while he was in power.
And so, the next morning, at 6. 30, I was on SWRD.’s doorstep at Rosmead Place. He had been returned by an enormous majority and was to be our next Prime Minister. I inquired from a servant boy whether the master was up and was told that he was reading a mass of newspapers. I sent my name in and was asked to come upstairs – I went in, in some trepidation, and again told him, that I meant no disrespect and that I was there with Sir John’s permission, and that at Sir John would be handing in his resignation as Prime Minister at noon.
SWRD. then made a short speech at me in a very loud voice. He said he saw no disrespect but complete integrity, that public officers from Government Agents down to village headmen had worked against him (“against me, against me” he shrieked about three times) in the election, and that he admired the correct and upright stand I had taken. He said I was the one public servant, he knew, who had acted correctly during the election. I knew now that I had saved my skin. He asked for my draft and read the three pages which I had written, slowly and carefully. He then took a blue pencil and cancelled all three pages saying “Pedestrian English Peiris, pedestrian English Take this down”, and with his usual intellectual superiority and arrogance, started dictating.
He was naturally elated at his success at the election and his future as the Head of the country. Several times I had to ask him to go slow on his dictation because I knew no shorthand, and he said “Sorry, my dear fellow”. What he dictated to me was not a Queen’s speech but a vitriolic attack on Sir John and the United National Party, an attack which he should properly have made on the floor of the house of Representatives or at a public meeting.
At the end of his dictation, I thought it my duty to point this out, which I did, adding that the Governor-General might refuse to read the Speech. There is the instance of King George V refusing to read a Speech until some objectionable words referring to His Irish subjects had been deleted. He said “take my order”.
While he was dictating to me, the servant boy was coming up every few minutes saying that another gentleman had arrived, and this was before seven o’clock in the morning. SWRD. was unwashed and unshaved and dressed in pyjamas and a dressing gown, not in the shirt and cloth. He was an Oxford man, and an Oxford man cannot easily slough his culture.
About the servant boy’s tenth visit, he lost his temper and shouted at the boy to tell them all to clear out of his house. I reminded him that he was now the Prime Minister and that his remark, if conveyed, would make a very bad beginning. I suggested that he go down as he was, in his dressing gown, see who these gentlemen were, and ask to be excused because he was extremely busy about the formation of a Cabinet and time was short.
He agreed and we both descended the stairs, he with one arm round my shoulder, and I with the draft of the Queen’s Speech under my arm. Before he lost his temper, he had suggested that I wait for bacon and eggs – Oxford again.
I cannot describe my surprise when I came down and saw who the gentlemen were who were calling so early in the morning on the new Prime Minister. They were all gentlemen in high places who used to frequent Kandawala and who had done a quick somersault and a long jump to the winning side. ‘Gosh,’ I thought, ‘aren’t there any decencies in life? What they were there for, I never found out because SWRD ordered me to get back to my office and get on with the job I had in hand.
The senior hands on my staff had dealt with the Queen’s Speech since 1974 and they were surprised when they read the draft in my long-hand before they typed it. They came to me and asked “Is this the Queen’s Speech?” And I said “No. This is Mr Bandaranaike’s speech. I am not going to have this printed”.
When the draft was typed, I took it back to Rosmead Place and asked S.W.R.D. to read in type what he had dictated to me. I told him that the language was far too strong and had to be toned down. He was calmer now; the first flush of victory and elation had receded and he was giving his mind to more urgent and important things like Cabinet-making. He again read the draft carefully, said that he agreed with me and asked me to tone it down.
I asked him whether he wished to see the second draft; time was running short. He said, “Certainly not, my dear fellow. You tone it down; you know my ideas; I can trust your discretion; have your amended draft translated and printed”. As Prime Minister, he was a mellow man. As Minister of Local Government he had been a terror to his colleagues and to the public servants who worked in his Ministry.
His Permanent Secretary, E. W. Kannanagara, told me that he had to be the shock-absorber.
The Speech, toned down by me and read by the Governor-General in S.W.R.D.’s excellent English, contained promises which the Government could not possibly fulfil. A people’s Government had been returned and the people had to be pampered and pleased, whether the Government could afford the luxury or not.
At the Opening of Parliament, the People’s Ministers, including the Prime Minister, were in national dress, wearing blue scarfs to indicate the party. I was surprised to see Ministers M. W. H. de Silva and Stanley de Zoysa in this dress. M. W. H. looked dignified as a judge of the Supreme Court in a full-bottomed wig and gown. Stanley, with his monocle and that meticulous English pronunciation of his which reminded you of a University Don – well, really, you had to look at him twice before you could recognize him. To the Senate and the House of Representatives, Ministers went in the national dress. To the Cabinet, they came in the most nondescript attire.
The first paragraph of S.W.R.D.’s first Queen’s Speech read as follows:
“The free votes of the people democratically cast at the last general election are a clear indication of dissatisfaction with many aspects of policy and administration hitherto pursued. My Government intends, in pursuance of its declared policy, to effect many changes with expedition and efficiency, but in a manner which will neither result in injustice nor cause confusion and dislocation.”
1956,SWRD, Sir. John,
The Speech continued:
“My Government wishes to assure minorities, religious, racial and otherwise, that they need have no fear of injustice or discrimination in the carrying out of its policies and programmes. My Government will ensure to all citizens the rights, privileges and freedoms to which they are entitled in a democratic state.”
Compare this with the following sentence in the Speech:
“It will also take necessary steps for the adoption of Sinhala as the one official language of the State.”
Was the Sinhala only policy not a discrimination against a minority? Was the Assisted Schools takeover not an injustice? Was it a blow at the Roman Catholic community? Are these some of the changes which the Government intended to effect with expedition and efficiency? If these were, then, many more were to follow in the years to come, some overtly, some surreptitiously and yet others by camouflage.
In SWRD.’s Cabinet there was one woman. There was also Dahanayake, later to be Prime Minister, who was always punctual and who came barefooted to meetings with a bottle of eau de cologne and, before he gave up smoking, with a tin of Peacock cigarettes. C. P. de Silva was a double first in mathematics and excelled, by reason of his previous experience as a Civil Servant, in matters relating to land and irrigation.
M. W. H. de Silva, Q. C., Minister of Justice and a kinsman of mine had held high office; he had been a Judge of the Supreme Court and our High Commissioner in India. His nickname in Hultsdorp was the ‘mule’ because, once he had made up his mind, nothing would make him change it. To illustrate this, I shall relate an incident which took place when I was an Assistant Legal Draftsman drafting the Constitution and he was Acting Legal Secretary.
A telegram had come from the Secretary of State asking for an amendment to be drafted on certain lines. M. W. H. told me the lines on which to draft. This was, in my opinion, not the lines that the Colonial Office intended, but I did not tell him so. Instead, I discussed the matter with D. S. Jayawickrama, Assistant Legal Secretary and E. H. T. Gunasekera, Crown Counsel, both of whom agreed that my interpretation of the telegram was right and that M. W. H. was wrong.
I accordingly ignored the Acting Legal Secretary’s order and drafted according to what I thought the Secretary of State wanted and took the draft to M. W. H. to be told “This is not what I want. Please draft on these lines”. I told him politely that I did not think that his interpretation of the telegram was correct, and he, equally politely, told me not to waste his time but to draft as directed by him.
I therefore went and prepared a fresh draft, but was careful to send it to him with a letter in which I said that the draft gave effect to his oral instructions but, in my opinion, did not give effect to the Secretary of State’s instructions as set out in his telegram. My second draft was telegraphed to England and soon there came back a telegram saying that the draft was not what they wanted.
M. W. H. sent for me and asked me to re-draft and I said “I told you, Sir”. All that the mule said was “Well, your job is to draft. Draft again”. I said “Here’s my first draft which you rejected earlier” and he was compelled to accept it. Except for this idiosyncrasy, he was a straight and honest and upright man, pleasant in his manner, with a sense of wit and humour. During a Cabinet discussion in which he was not interested, he would doodle, always the figure of a female.
There was William Silva, young in years, as Minister of Industries. He appeared to understand his work and the nature of his duties and made a useful contribution to the discussion. In charge of Finance was Stanley de Zoysa, an old Royalist, about two years senior to me at school, and an exceedingly polite man. Philip Gunawardene, Minister of Agriculture and food must, as a student, have spent long hours poring over Das Kapital. I had never met him before, but when I was a student in London, I had seen him addressing the mob on Sundays in Hyde Park from a soap box – a platform called the Indian Freedom League.
He always wore a canary jersey, and was a very effective and forceful speaker, with plenty of venom against the Britisher, ready wit and repartee. I mentioned this fact to him at his first meeting when I introduced myself, and he agreed that my memory was correct. He is the only Minister I have worked with since the beginning of Cabinet Government who came to a meeting thoroughly prepared, not only on his own memoranda, but also on the papers submitted by other Ministers. He would bring with him a number of Sessional Papers, Administration Reports and other official documents not referred to in the other Ministers Cabinet Papers but relevant to the issue. When he spoke, he never failed to make a useful contribution to the discussion.
As Minister of Agriculture, he was in charge of Paddy Lands and brought what the landowners thought was a revolutionary Bill. As Minister of Food, he was in charge of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment. In all his functions, he was inclined to take as much legislative power as possible into his hands. This, the other Ministers resented, particularly, the Prime Minister. Philip was definitely of the Left. SWRD, in spite of his public statements that he was for democratic socialism or for socialistic democracy or for the middle path or for pancha sila (he was so clever in stating or not stating his position that I think nobody ever understood what exactly he stood for) was inclined towards the Right. A rift had to come, and it came. Philip’s draft legislation, submitted for Cabinet approval, gave the Cabinet the idea that he, and not SWRD was to be the virtual dictator. What with the Paddy Lands Act, the Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, the People’s Bank and the Co-operative Banking system, and a heap of other legislation he proposed, he would have been in a position to wield tremendous power in the country.
These proposals were obviously put forward to implement his political creed and not for the furtherance of his personal position. I believe he was an honest man, not capable of being bribed or influenced. When be was annoyed, his reaction was violent.
Among the other Ministers were Mrs Wimala Wijewardena, Messrs A. P. Jayasuriya, Kuruppu, Marikkar and Maithripala Senanayake.
The Cabinet came to certain decisions at its first meeting. Ministers had no time to formulate their thoughts in memoranda and the discussion was on very general points. As a People’s Government, they did not believe in Honours and decided that no recommendation should be made to Her Majesty the Queen for the conferment of Imperial Honours on citizens of Ceylon and that Her Majesty be humbly and respectfully requested to be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring such Honours on such of Her subjects as were Ceylon citizens.
Some Ministers thought that the appointment of an advocate to be a Queen’s Counsel was the conferment of an Imperial Honour. Local honours suffered the same fate. Our Diplomatic Missions abroad, Ministers and public officers were informed that no alcoholic liquor was to be served at official functions. The Senate and the House of Representatives were requested to close their bars: the House acquiesced, the Senate refused.
The Prime Minister informed his Ministers that it was his intention to obtain the services of an expert from the United Kingdom to advise the Government with regard to the nationalization of the transport services. On the budget drastic changes could not be made as the budgetary proposals for the next financial year had already been drawn up by the public officials concerned. While accepting the general structure of the next budget, Ministers were requested to include, wherever possible, in the draft estimates, all necessary items in furtherance of the policy of the Government and to omit any items which were in conflict with that policy.
With a view to bringing down the cost of living, it was proposed to reduce the price of rice and sugar. It was pointed out that a reduction in the price of rice by one cent a measure would mean an annual loss to revenue of seven million rupees, and a similar reduction in the price of sugar would mean a loss of three million rupees. In spite of the difficult financial position, something had to be done by the Government, and it was agreed to reduce the price of rice by ten cents a measure and the price of sugar by five cents a pound.
The Minister was asked to explore the possibility of buying sugar direct on a Governmental basis with a view to eliminating middlemen and reducing the cost to the consumer. The Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics made offers of economic aid which the Cabinet gratefully accepted.
The Cabinet considered seriously the question of abolishing the death penalty for murder, although the murder rate in Ceylon was probably the highest in the world. We had a Buddhist teetotal Minister of Justice, M. W. H., who was strongly in favour of the proposal, and he persuaded the Cabinet to agree to a suspension of the death penalty for a period of three years in the case of murder, abetment of murder and abetment of suicide. A sentence of life imprisonment was substituted.
On July 7, 1956, the Official Language Act, declaring Sinhala to be the one Official Language in Ceylon, came into operation. This immediately split the country into two, separating the Sinhalese from the Tamils whose ancient language had been removed from the scene altogether. This controversial piece of legislation antagonized the entire Tamil community and, for the first time after years of DS’s strenuous efforts to make the numerous races and communities, religious and otherwise, of the country into one homogeneous whole, the country was being divided by SWRD.’s Sinhala only Act.
It could be quite premature to claim that the US has closed ranks completely with the world’s foremost fascist states: Russia, China and North Korea. But there is no denying that the US is breaking with tradition and perceiving commonality of policy orientation with the mentioned authoritarian states of the East rather than with Europe and its major democracies at present.
Increasingly, it is seemingly becoming evident that the common characterization of the US as the ‘world’s mightiest democracy’, could be a gross misnomer. Moreover, the simple fact that the US is refraining from naming Russia as the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its refusal to perceive Ukraine’s sovereignty as having been violated by Russia, proves that US foreign policy is undergoing a substantive overhaul, as it were. In fact, one could not be faulted, given this backdrop, for seeing the US under President Donald Trump as compromising its democratic credentials very substantially.
Yet, it could be far too early to state that in the traditional East-West polarity in world politics, that the US is now squarely and conclusively with the Eastern camp that comprises in the main, China and Russia. At present, the US is adopting an arguably more nuanced approach to foreign policy formulation and the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine bears this out to a degree. For instance, the UN resolution in question reportedly ‘calls for a rapid end to the war without naming Russia as the aggressor.’
That is, the onus is being placed on only Ukraine to facilitate an end to the war, whereas Russia too has an obligation to do likewise. But it is plain that the US is reflecting an eagerness in such pronouncements to see an end to the Ukraine conflict. It is clearly not for a prolongation of the wasting war. It could be argued that a negotiated settlement is being given a try, despite current international polarizations.
However, the US could act constructively in the crisis by urging Russia as well to ensure an end to the conflict, now that there is some seemingly friendly rapport between Trump and Putin.
However, more fundamentally, if the US does not see Ukraine’s sovereignty as having been violated by Russia as a result of the latter’s invasion, we are having a situation wherein the fundamental tenets of International Law are going unrecognized by the US. That is, international disorder and lawlessness are being winked at by the US.
It follows that, right now, the US is in cahoots with those powers that are acting autocratically and arbitrarily in international politics rather than with the most democratically vibrant states of the West, although a facile lumping together of the US, Russia and China, is yet not possible.
It is primarily up to the US voting public to take clear cognizance of these developments, draw the necessary inferences and to act on them. Right now, nothing substantive could be done by the US voter to put things right, so to speak, since mid-term US elections are due only next year. But there is ample time for the voting public to put the correct perspective on these fast-breaking developments, internationally and domestically, and to put their vote to good use in upcoming polls and such like democratic exercises. They would be acting in the interest of democracy worldwide by doing so.
More specifically it is up to Donald Trump’s Republican voter base to see the damage that is being done by the present administration to the US’ standing as the ‘world’s mightiest democracy’. They need to bring pressure on Trump and his ‘inner cabinet’ to change course and restore the reputation of their country as the foremost democracy. In the absence of such action it is the US citizenry that would face the consequences of Trump’s policy indiscretions.
Meanwhile, the political Opposition in the US too needs to get its act together, so to speak, and pressure the Trump administration into doing what is needed to get the US back to the relevant policy track. Needless to say, the Democratic Party would need to lead from the front in these efforts.
While, in the foreign policy field the US under President Trump could be said to be acting with a degree of ambivalence and ambiguity currently, in the area of domestic policy it is making it all to plain that it intends to traverse a fascistic course. As has been proved over the past two months, white supremacy is being made the cardinal principle of domestic governance.
Trump has made it clear, for example, that his administration would be close to ethnic chauvinists, such as the controversial Ku Klux Klan, and religious extremists. By unceremoniously rolling back the ‘diversity programs’ that have hitherto helped define the political culture of the US, the Trump administration is making no bones of the fact that ethnic reconciliation would not be among the government’s priorities. The steady undermining of USAID and its main programs worldwide is sufficient proof of this. Thus the basis has been adequately established for the flourishing of fascism and authoritarianism.
Yet, the US currently reflects a complex awareness of foreign policy questions despite having the international community wondering whether it is sealing a permanent alliance with the main powers of the East. For instance, President Trump is currently in conversation on matters in the external relations sphere that are proving vital with the West’s principal leaders. For example, he has spoken to President Emmanuel Macron of France and is due to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the UK.
Obviously, the US is aware that it cannot ‘go it alone’ in resolving currently outstanding issues in external relations, such as the Ukraine question. There is a clear recognition that the latter and many more issues require a collaborative approach.
Besides, the Trump administration realizes that it cannot pose as a ‘first among equals’, given the complexities at ground level. It sees that given the collective strength of the rest of the West that a joint approach to problem solving cannot be avoided. This is particularly so in the case of Ukraine.
The most major powers of the West are no ‘pushovers’ and Germany, under a possibly Christian Democratic Union-led alliance in the future, has indicated as much. It has already implied that it would not be playing second fiddle to the US. Accordingly, the US is likely to steer clear of simplistic thinking in the formulation of foreign policy, going forward.
by Upali Gamakumara,
Upali.gamakumara@gmail.com
The Clean Sri Lanka (CSL) is a project for the true renaissance the NPP government launched, the success of which would gain world recognition. It is about more than just cleaning up places. Its broader objectives are to make places attractive and happy for people who visit or use services in the country, focusing more on the services in public institutions and organisations like the SLTB. Unfortunately, these broader objectives are not apparent in its theme, “Clean Sri Lanka,” and therefore there is a misconception that keeping the environment clean is the main focus.
People who realise the said broader objectives are excited about a cleaner Sri Lanka, hoping the President and the government will tackle this, the way they are planning to solve other big problems like the economy and poverty. However, they do not see themselves as part of the solution.
From the management perspective, the CSL has a strategic plan that is not declared in that manner. When looking at the government policies, one can perceive its presence, the vision being “A Prosperous Nation and a Beautiful Life,” the mission “Clean Sri Lanka” and the broader objectives “a disciplined society, effective services, and a cleaner environment.” If the government published these as the strategy, there would have been a better understanding.
Retaining the spirit and expectations and continuing the ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ project is equally important as much as understanding its deep idea. For this, it needs to motivate people, which differs from those motivators that people push to achieve selfish targets. The motivation we need here is to evolve something involuntarily, known as Drivers. Drivers push for the survival of the evolution or development of any entity. We see the absence of apparent Drivers in the CSL project as a weakness that leads to sporadic hiccups and free flow.
Drivers of Evolution
Drivers vary according to the nature of envisaged evolution for progress. However, we suggest that ‘the force that pushes anything to evolve’ would fit all evolutions. Some examples are: ‘Fitting to survival’ was the driver of the evolution of life. Magnetism is a driver for the unprecedented development of physics – young Einstein was driven to enquire about the ‘attraction’ of magnets, eventually making him the greatest scientist of the 20th century.
Leadership is a Driver. It is essential but do not push an evolution continually as they are not sprung within a system involuntarily. This is one of the reasons why CSL has lost the vigour it had at its inception.
CSL is a teamwork. It needs ‘Drives’ for cohesion and to push forward continually, like the Quality Improvement Project of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Their drivers are outlined differently keeping Aims as their top driver and saying: Aims should be specific and measurable, not merely to “improve” or “reduce,” engage stakeholders to define the aim of the improvement project and a clear aim to identify outcome measures.
So, we think that CSL needs Aims as defined by NHS, built by stakeholder participation to help refine the project for continuous evolution. This approach is similar to Deming’s Cycle for continual improvement. Further, two more important drivers are needed for the CSL project. That is Attitudinal Change and Punishment. We shall discuss these in detail under Psychoactive Environment (pSE) below.
Aside from the above, Competition is another driver in the business world. This helps achieve CSL objectives in the private sector. We can see how this Driver pushes, with the spread of the Supermarket chains, the evolution of small and medium retail shops to supermarket level, and in the private banks and hospitals, achieving broader objectives of CSL; a cleaner environment, disciplined behaviuor, efficient service, and the instillation of ethics.
The readers can now understand the importance of Drivers pushing any project.
Three Types of Entities and Their Drives
We understand, that to do the transformation that CSL expects, we need to identify or adopt the drivers separately to suit the three types of entities we have in the country.
Type I entities are the independent entities that struggle for their existence and force them to adopt drivers involuntarily. They are private sector entities, and their drivers are the commitment of leadership and competition. These drivers spring up involuntarily within the entity.
Type II are the dependent entities. To spring up drivers of these entities commitment of an appointed trustee is a must. Mostly in state-owned entities, categorized as Boards, Authorities, Cooperations, and the like. Their drivers do not spring up within or involuntarily unless the leader initiates. The Government of a country also falls into this type and the emergence of drivers depends on the leader.
Type III entities have neither independent nor dependent immediate leader or trustee. They are mostly the so-called ‘Public’ places like public-toilets, public-playgrounds, and public-beaches. No team can be formed as these places are open to any, like no-man-land. Achieving CSL objectives at these entities depends on the discipline of the public or the users.
Clean Sri Lanka suffers the absence of drivers in the second and third types of entities, as the appointed persons are not trustees but temporary custodians.
The writer proposes a remedy to the last two types of entities based on the theory of pSE explained below.
Psychoactive Environment (pSE) –
The Power of Customer Attraction
Research by the writer introduced the Psychoactive Environment (pSE) concept to explain why some businesses attract more customers than others who provide the same service. Presented at the 5th Global Conference on Business and Economics at Cambridge University in 2006, the study revealed that a “vibe” influences customer attraction. This vibe, termed pSE, depends on Three Distinct Elements, which can either attract or repel customers. A positive pSE makes a business more attractive and welcoming. This concept can help develop Drivers for Type II and III entities.
pSE is not an all-inclusive solution for CSL, but it lays the foundation for building Drivers and motivating entities to keep entrants attractive and contented.
The structure of the pSE
The three distinct Elements are the Occupants, Systems, and Environment responsible for making a pSE attractive to any entity, be it a person, institution, organization, or county. Each of these elements bears three qualities named Captivators. These captivators are, in simple terms, Intelligent, Nice, and Active in their adjective forms.
pSE theorizes that if any element fails to captivate the entrant’s mood by not being Intelligent, Nice, or Active, the pSE becomes negative, repelling the entrant (customer). Conversely, the positive pSE attracts the entrants if the elements are Intelligent, Nice, and Active.
For example, think person who comes to a Government Office for some service. He sees that the employees, service, and environment are intelligent, nice, and active, and he will be delighted and contented. He will not get frustrated or have any deterioration in national productivity.
The Significance of pSE in CSL
The Elements and the Captivators are universal for any entity. Any entity can easily find its path to Evolution or Progress determined by these elements and captivators. The intangible broader objectives can be downsised to manageable targets by pSE. Achievements of these targets make the entrants happy and enhance productivity – the expectation of Clean Sri Lanka (CSL).
From the perspective of pSE, now we can redefine the Clean Sri Lanka project thus:
To make the Elements of every entity in Sri Lanka: intelligent, Nice, and Active.
How Would the pSE be A Remedy for The Sporadic Hiccups?
We have seen two possible reasons for sporadic setbacks and the discontinuity of some projects launched by the CSL. They are:
The absence of involuntary Drivers for evolvement or progress
Poor attitudes and behaviors of people and leaders
Remedy for the Absence of Drivers
Setting up a system to measure customer or beneficiary satisfaction, and setting aims can build Drivers. The East London NHS principles help build the Aims that drive type II & II entities. The system must be designed to ensure continual improvement following the Deming Cycle. This strategy will create Drivers for Type I & II entities.
This process is too long to explain here therefore we refrain from detailing.
Attitudinal Change
The most difficult task is the attitudinal and behavioural change. Yet it cannot be postponed.
Punishment as a strategy
In developed countries, we see that people are much more disciplined than in the developing countries. We in developing countries, give credit to their superior culture, mitigating ours as rudimental. The long experience and looking at this affair from a vantage point, one will understand it is not the absolute truth. Their ruthless wars in the past, rules, and severe punishment are the reasons behind this discipline. For example, anyone who fails to wear a car seatbelt properly will be fined 400 AUD, nearly 80,000 LKR!
The lesson we can learn is, that in Sri Lanka, we need strong laws and strict punishment together with a type of strategic education as follows.
Psychological Approach as a Strategy
The psychological theory of attitude formation can be used successfully if some good programmes can be designed.
All attitude formations start with life experience. Formed wrong or negative attitudes can be reversed or instilled with correct attitudes by exposure to designed life experiences. The programmes have been developed using the concepts of Hoshin Kanri, Brainstorming, Cause-and-Effect analysis, and Teamwork, in addition to London NTS Quality Improvement strategies.
The experience and good responses we received for our pSE programs conducted at several institutions prove and have built confidence in our approach. However, it was a time, when governments or organisations did not pay much attention to cultural change as CSL expects in the country.
Therefore, we believe this is a golden opportunity to take the CSL supported by the pSE concept.
Although they are visually impaired youngsters, under the guidance of renowned musician Melantha Perera, these talented individuals do shine bright … hence the name Bright Light.
Says Melantha: “My primary mission is to nurture their talent and ensure their sustainable growth in music, and I’m thrilled to announce that Bright Light’s first public performance is scheduled for 7th June, 2025. The venue will be the MJF Centre Auditorium in Katubadda, Moratuwa.”
Melantha went on to say that two years of teaching, online, visually impaired youngsters, from various parts of the island, wasn’t an easy ride.
There were many ups and downs but Melantha’s determination has paid off with the forming of Bright Light, and now they are gearing up to go on stage.
According to Melantha, they have come a long way in music.
“For the past few months, we have been meeting, physically, where I guide them to play as a band and now they show a very keen interest as they are getting to the depth of it. They were not exposed to English songs, but I’ve added a few English songs to widen their repertoire.
Melantha Perera: Invented a notation
system for the guitar
“On 7th June, we are opening up for the public to come and witness their talents, and I want to take this product island-wide, giving the message that we can do it, and I’m hoping to create a database so there will be a following. Initially, we would like your support by attending the show.”
Melantha says he didn’t know what he was getting into but he had confidence teaching anyone music since he has been in the scene for the past 45 years. He began teaching in 2015,
“When I opened my music school, Riversheen School of Music, the most challenging part of teaching was correcting tone deaf which is the theoretical term for those who can’t pitch a note, and also teaching students to keep timing while they sang and played.”
Melantha has even invented a notation system for the guitar which he has named ‘MelaNota’. He has received copyrights from the USA and ISO from Australia, but is yet to be recognised in Sri Lanka.
During Covid-19, Melantha showcased MelaNota online and then it was officially launched with the late Desmond De Silva playing one of his tunes, using MelaNota.
Melantha says that anyone, including the visually impaired, can play a simple melody on a guitar, within five minutes, using his notation system.
“I’ve completed the system and I’m now finalising the syllabus for the notation system.”
Melantha has written not only for the guitar, but also for drums, keyboards, and wind instruments.
For any queries, or additional information, you could contact Melantha at 071 454 4092 or via email at thebandbrightlight@gmail.com.
Michelle Trachtenberg, Gossip Girl and Buffy actress, dies aged 39
President Disanayake, Japanese Ambassador discuss bilateral cooperation
Thailand deports dozens of Uyghurs to China
-
Business4 days agoSri Lanka’s 1st Culinary Studio opened by The Hungryislander
-
Sports4 days agoHow Sri Lanka fumbled their Champions Trophy spot
-
News6 days agoKiller made three overseas calls while fleeing
-
News6 days agoSC notices Power Minister and several others over FR petition alleging govt. set to incur loss exceeding Rs 3bn due to irregular tender
-
Features5 days agoThe Murder of a Journalist
-
Sports5 days agoMahinda earn long awaited Tier ‘A’ promotion
-
Features4 days agoExcellent Budget by AKD, NPP Inexperience is the Government’s Enemy
-
News5 days agoMobile number portability to be introduced in June