Opinion
Boris going, Gota gone –
British Politics and Ours
Both Sri Lanka and the UK have experienced an unprecedented political upheaval of late. It is interesting that both leaders agreed to resign within a day of each other. Everybody else saw the ‘the end is nigh’ sign for quite a while. They didn’t or didn’t want to see it until the very end. (There are none so blind as those who refuse to see). As a result, whereas they could have exited a little earlier in a more dignified, the final departure was unedifying.
Two years ago, this outcome would have been unimaginable. There are similarities and differences between these two leaders, their fate and how it came about. This article attempts to explore these.
At the beginning
Both Boris and Gota were relative newcomers to politics. They had a reputation for ‘getting things done’ by banging heads together, if necessary. The establishment was too slow and sluggish and needed to be shaken up. Traditional rules are the bugbear of development and should be broken or bypassed. This was their philosophy and, on the whole, they did get things done.
At the time, people wanted a change from the ineptitude of the previous regime and saw them as a breath of new life into politics and government. Thus, they were given a massive mandate. The supporters raised Gota to ‘Kinghood’; Boris didn’t need the supporters – he did it himself! The rules were for others – ‘we make them and we break them’. The supporters believed they ‘could walk on water’. The rot set in when they started believing it themselves.
When caught having broken the rules, Boris tried to change them. Gota believed he was the law and in fact said, ‘my word is the gazette’. That was the beginning of the end.
The reasons for and the manner of the final departure could not have been more different. Gota ruined the economy and bankrupted the country. Boris did neither – he merely attended parties during the lockdown! Yet, he wasn’t ousted for that but for being caught lying about it. One could see the difference in the standards expected of our rulers in the two countries.
There was no ‘BorisGoGama’ camping outside the No. 10. No protests or rioting in the streets. His ministers merely descended on him one by one and told him, ‘Boss, the game is up. Time to go’. It was all over within 24 hours.
In contrast in Sri Lanka, the parliament did nothing to resolve the matter for three months. It was busy throwing insults at each other. It was irresponsible and impotent.
The manner of replacement
In the UK, this is very orderly and democratic. Starting with eight candidates for the leadership (hence for the Premiership), they were whittled down to a final two by a series of elections amongst the Conservative MPs. These two will go head-to-head to all the Party members in the country for the final choice. In the meantime, Boris stays on as the caretaker PM. The transition is very smooth and the work of the government goes on.
In Sri Lanka on the 20th of July, the Parliament met to vote for a new interim President. It was a rare occasion when the MPs behaved in a civilised manner. The Secretary-General and his team deserve praise for carrying out the election efficiently and professionally. Apparently, there has been some last-minute bartering and the favourite lost to Ranil who performed ‘a Phoenix’.
‘Buying and selling’ of votes happens here in the UK Parliament too. Apparently, the total pledges to the respective candidate by the Tory MPs total to about 50% more than the actual number of MPs!
I was impressed by Ranil’s speech of acceptance – it was brief, inclusive and statesmanlike. Dulles A’s speech too was generous and accommodating (if a bit long). In contrast, AKD simply threw his toys out of the pram! It was a pathetic display of pure envy full of negativism. He claimed that this president or any president elected by this Parliament has no legitimacy. Then who has? The JVP, who polled a mere 3.84% at the last election, or the mob outside??
When Ranil was appointed PM, there were some legitimate misgivings as he came ‘through the back door’. But now that he has come through the front door, he deserves the support of all parties to pull the country back from the brink. People must stop carping and barking from the sidelines. If they have nothing positive to offer, the least they can do is to keep quiet.
The most important barometer of stability is the view of Dr Nandalal Weerasinghe, Governor of the CBSL. As long as he feels he could work with the new government, we could feel confident. If he packs up and goes, as he did before, that is the time to start worrying.
So, let us give time to the new administration to get on with the urgent task of rebuilding. The Mahindagama protestors have taken a wise decision to do so. They must be saluted. Those left in the streets run the risk of becoming ‘forever protesters’. Let the reality sink in that they are in fact being used. They have become mere puppets in the hands of their masters, hiding in the dark. Let them go home and start doing some productive work like the silent majority and thus help the economy.
It is high time the Police started doing their job of maintaining law and order and retook the streets, by force if necessary. They have been very tolerant so far, now is the time to get tough. In the meantime, let the priests start behaving as such, instead of hurling insults and agitating the crowd.
The Calibre of the players
This could not be more different in the two countries. In the UK too, the general public treat politicians with some disdain and suspicion. In reality, the vast majority are educated and have had successful careers before entering parliament. In fact, most of them lose money once they become a government minister (as we shall see). Also interesting are the equal gender and ethnic mix of the field and their outside interests.
Let us examine the profiles of some of the candidates for the leadership.
Rishi Sunak
: Chancellor of Exchequer (Minister of Finance) until recently. One of the final two. British Indian. Attended the prestigious Winchester College, where he was the Head Boy. First Class Honours degree from Oxford in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE), which is the stepping stone for a successful career in politics. Fulbright Scholar in Stanford, USA. Worked in the USA and earned millions in the hedge fund business. He was rich and married richer; to the daughter of the Indian billionaire, Narayana Murthy, Founder of the ‘Indian Google’, Infosys. She is one of the richest women in the UK. Following a recent fuss about not paying tax in Britain for her earnings in India, she agreed to do so. It is estimated thereby she will lose 20 million pounds sterling a year! Clearly, a man who did not come into politics to EARN money.
Liz Truss
: Currently Foreign Secretary (Secretary = Cabinet Minister).
The second final contender. Daughter of a professor of mathematics. Oxford graduate in PPE. Worked as a management accountant for Shell and then as the economic director for Cable and Wireless. Has authored six books, including one on ‘The Value of Mathematics’.
Sajid Javid
: Previously Home Secretary, Chancellor and Health Secretary. Resigned twice on matters of principle. Son of an immigrant bus driver, and a mother who could not speak English. In school, he was told his best hope was to become a TV repairman! Obtained a BA from the University of Exeter in Politics and Economics and went into banking in the USA. Became the youngest Vice President of the prestigious Chase Manhattan Bank (at the age of 25). Later the Managing Director of the Deutsche Bank in London, where his salary exceeded 3 million pounds a year. He is supposed to be the MP with the highest earning potential and had to give up 98% of his earnings to become a cabinet minister. Another one who did not come into politics to earn money.
He also climbed Kilimanjaro for charity.
Knocked out in the first round of the leadership race.
Nadhim Zahawi
:
Currently Chancellor. Iraqi Kurdish immigrant, came to Britain when 11 years old. Degree in Chemical Engineering from Univ. of London. An astute businessman with multiple interests and assets. Co-founded the famous polling organisation, YouGov. His own company, Zahawi and Zahawi (co-owned with his wife), has an estimated worth of 100 million Pounds. An expert horse rider, owns a riding school.
Was knocked out in the second round.
Jeremy Hunt
:
Son of a naval officer. First class degree from Oxford in PPE. Found his own company and later sold it for 30 million pounds to enter politics. Was the richest MP at the time.
Knocked out in the second round.
Kwasi Kwarteng
:
Currently Business Secretary. Son of middle-class immigrants from Ghana. King’s scholar at Eton. First Class degree in History and Classics from King’s College, Cambridge. Kennedy scholar at Harvard. PhD in History from Cambridge. Worked as Financial Director at J P Morgan. Has written six books.
Did not have enough votes to stand.
Dominic Raab:
Justice Secretary and Deputy PM. Son of Jewish immigrants. BA in Law from Oxford and a Masters from Cambridge. Gave up a promising legal career to enter politics. Authored at least 12 books/publications.
Also, a Black Belt in Karate!
Did not have enough votes to stand.
The above list illustrates the calibre of candidates in the cabinet who are potential contenders to become PM. Thus, it is clear that the British ‘Cabinet’ is made largely of prime teak and solid oak.
And Ours
…?
Dr Asoka Weerakkody
Opinion
Missing 52%: Why Women are absent from Pettah’s business landscape
Walking through Pettah market in Colombo, I have noticed something both obvious and troubling. Shop after shop sells bags, shoes, electronics, even sarees, and yet all shops are owned and run by men. Even businesses catering exclusively to women, like jewelry stores and bridal boutiques, have men behind the counter. This is not just my observation but it’s a reality where most Sri Lankans have observed as normal. What makes this observation more important is when we examine the demographics where women population constitute approximately 52% of Sri Lanka’s population, but their representation as business owners remains significantly low. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2023 report, Sri Lanka’s Total Early Stage Entrepreneurial Activity rate for women is just 8.2%, compared to 14.7% for men.
Despite of being the majority, women are clearly underrepresented in the entrepreneurial aspect. This mismatch between population size and economic participation create a question that why aren’t more women starting ventures? The answer is not about capability or intelligence. Rather, it’s deeply in social and cultural barriers that have been shaping women’s mindsets for generations. From childhood, many Sri Lankan girls are raised to believe that their primary role is as homemakers.
In families, schools, and even universities, the message has been same or slightly different, woman’s success is measured by how well she manages a household, not by her ability to generate income or lead a business. Financial independence is rarely taught as essential for women the way it has been for men. Over time, this messaging gets internalised. Many women grew up without ever being encouraged to think seriously about ownership, leadership, or earning their own money. These cultural influences eventually manifest as psychological barriers as well.
Years of conditioning have led many skilled women to develop what researchers call “imposter syndrome”, a persistent fear of failure and feel that they don’t deserve success kind of feeling. Even when they have the right skills and resources, self-doubt holds them back. They question whether they can run a business independently or not. Whether they will be taken seriously, whether they are making the right choice. This does not mean that women should leave their families or reject traditional roles. But lack of thinking in a confident way and make bold decisions has real consequences. Many talented women either never start a business or limit themselves to small, informal ventures that barely survive. This is not about men versus women. It’s about the economic cost of underutilising 52% of the population. If our country is genuinely serious about sustainable growth. we must build an inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem through confidence building programs, better finance access to women, and a long term societal mindset shift. Until a young girl walking through Pettah can see herself as a future shop owner rather than just a customer, we will continue to waste our country’s greatest untapped resource.
Harinivasini Hariharasarma
Department of Entrepreneurship
University of Sri Jayewardenepura
Opinion
Molten Salt Reactors
Some essential points made to indicate its future in Power Generation
The hard facts are that:
1) Coal supplies cannot last for more than 70- 100 years more at most, with the price rising as demand exceeds supply.
2) Reactor grade Uranium is in short supply, also with the price rising. The cost is comparable to burning platinum as a fuel.
3) 440 standard Uranium reactors around the world are 25-30 years old – coming to the end of their working life and need to be replaced.
4) Climate Change is increasingly making itself felt and forecasts can only be for continuing deterioration due to existing levels of CO2 being continuously added to the atmosphere. It is important to mention the more serious problems associated with the release of methane gases – a more harmful gas than CO2 – arising from several sources.
5) Air pollution (ash, chemicals, etc.) of the atmosphere by coal-fired plants is highly dangerous for human health and should be eliminated for very good health reasons. Pollution created by India travels to Sri Lankans by the NE monsoon causing widespread lung irritations and Chinese pollution travels all around the world and affects everybody.
6) Many (thousands) of new sources of electric power generation need to be built to meet increasing demand. But the waste Plutonium 239 (the Satan Stuff) material has also to be moved around each country by lorry with police escort at each stage, as it is recovered, stored, processed and formed into blocks for long term storage. The problem of security of transport for Plutonium at each stage to prevent theft becomes an impossible nightmare.
The positive strengths to Thorium Power generation are:
1) Thorium is quite abundant on the planet – 100 times more than Uranium 238, therefore supplies will last thousands of years.
2) Cleaning or refining the Thorium is not a difficult process.
3) It is not highly radioactive having a very slow rate of isotope decay. There is little danger from radiation poisoning. It can be safely stored in the open, unaffected by rain. It is not harmful when ingested.
4) The processes involved with power generation are quite different and are a lot less complex.
5) Power units can be quite small, the size of a modern detached house. One of these can be located close to each town, thus eliminating high voltage cross-country transmission lines with their huge power losses (up to 20%).
6) Thorium is ‘fertile’ not fissile: therefore, the energy cycle has to be kick-started by a source of Neutrons, e.g., fissile material, to get it started. It is definitely not as dangerous as Uranium.
7) It is “Fail – Safe”. It has walk-away safety. If the reactor overheats, cooled drain plugs unfreeze and the liquid drains away to storage tanks below. There can be no “Chernobyl/ Fukoshima” type disasters.
8) It is not a pressurized system; it works at atmospheric pressure.
9) As long as reactor temperatures are kept around 600 oC there are little effects of corrosion in the Hastalloy metal tanks, vessels and pipe work. China, it appears, has overcome the corrosion problem at high temperatures.
10) At no stage in the whole chain of operations is there an opportunity for material to be stolen and converted and used as a weapon. The waste products have a half- life of 300 years, not the millions of years for Plutonium.
11) Production of MEDICAL ISOTOPE Bismuth 213 is available to be isolated and used to fight cancer. The nastiest cancers canbe cured with this Bismuth 213 as Targetted Alpha therapy.
12) A hydrogen generation unit can be added.
This information obtained from following YouTube film clips:
1) The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor – what Fusion wanted to be…
2) An unbiased look at Molten Salt Reactors
3) LFTR Chemical Processing by Kirk Sorensen
Thorium! The Way Ahead!
Priyantha Hettige
Opinion
Foreign degrees and UGC
There are three key issues regarding foreign degrees:
Recognition: Is the awarding university recognized by our UGC?
Authenticity: Is the degree genuine or bogus?
Quality: Is it a standard, credible qualification?
1. The Recognition Issue (UGC Role)
The UGC addresses the first issue. If a foreign university is listed in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook or the International Handbook of Universities, the UGC issues a letter confirming that the university is recognized. However, it is crucial to understand that a recognized university does not automatically imply that every degree it issues is recognized.
2. The Authenticity Issue (Employer Role)
The second issue rests with the employer. It is the employer’s responsibility to send a copy of the foreign degree to the issuing university to get it authenticated. This is a straightforward verification process.
3. The Quality Assurance Gap
The third issue
—the standard and quality of the degree—has become a matter for no one. The UGC only certifies whether a foreign university is recognized; they do not assess the quality of the degree itself.
This creates a serious loophole. For example:
Does a one-year “top-up” degree meet standard criteria?
Is a degree obtained completely online considered equivalent?
Should we recognize institutions with weak invigilation, allowing students to cheat?
What about curricula that are heavy on “notional hours” but light on functional, practical knowledge?
What if the medium of instruction is English, but the graduates have no functional English proficiency?
Members of the UGC need to seriously rethink this approach. A rubber-stamp certification of a foreign university is insufficient. The current system ignores the need for strict quality assurance. When looking at the origins of some of these foreign institutions (Campuchia, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Sudan..) the intentions behind these “academic” offerings become very clear. Quality assurance is urgently needed. Foreign universities offering substandard degrees can be delisted.
M. A. Kaleel Mohammed
757@gmail.com
( Retired President of a National College of Education)
-
Features1 day agoWhy does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
-
Features1 day agoVictor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
-
Features1 day agoReconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
-
Features1 day agoVictor, the Friend of the Foreign Press
-
Latest News3 days agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Latest News2 days agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News3 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction
-
Features1 day agoBarking up the wrong tree
