Features
Cabinet Committee on Brain Drain where leftists proved liberal
by Leelananda de Silva
In the 1970s there was concern in Sri Lanka and elsewhere about the migration of skilled people from their home countries. This was referred to as the “Brain Drain.” In Sri Lanka, action had been taken to try and stop the migration of talent by legislative measures like the Passport (Regulation) and Exit Permit Act of 1971. The attitude of the government had been on control, instead of incentives for people to stay. I was thinking about this subject, and once I had briefly discussed this with H.A.de.S Gunasekera, my boss, and the Prime Minister. H.A.De.S had other things to do and was not particularly concerned with this issue although I kept him informed. So whatever happened subsequently was on my initiative. This is one of the few areas I can claim credit for pushing this issue and that is why I had decided to devote a chapter in this book to this subject.
After discussions with Mrs. Bandaranaike in early 1974, we prepared a cabinet paper recommending the appointment of a cabinet committee on this subject. The cabinet appointed a committee to inquire into the problems of technologically, professionally and academically qualified personnel leaving Sri Lanka. The ministers on the committee were Maithripala Senanayake (chairman), P.B.G Kalugalle, Badi-ud-din Mahmud, Pieter Keuneman, N.M Perera, Leslie Goonewardene, C.Kumarasuriyar and W.P.G. Ariyadasa. H.A.de.S was appointed as secretary to the committee, and I was the assistant secretary. As H.A.de.S did not attend any of the sittings of the committee and I functioned as the virtual secretary.
The proceedings of the committee were kept as simple as possible. It met with the representatives of a few professional groups and associations. It met four times only, as it was difficult to get all these ministers together. I met with many of these associations and with individuals at my office. The procedure was for me to prepare drafts of the report and place it before the committee for their observations. It was my happy experience that the ministers rarely amended these drafts. Anyway, before the preparation of these drafts, we had discussed the substance of the issues involved, and the drafts reflected the views of ministers.
I was surprised that the Ministers, who were supposed to belong to a socialist government, with a penchant for control and inward looking politics, agreed to adopt a most outward looking approach to the problem of the brain drain. Instead of controls, it was agreed to offer incentives. The Ministers agreed to look upon the brain drain, not negatively, but in a more positive way, and look at the gains to the country in the long term. The Ministers felt that one way of addressing the problem was to increase the capacities of institutions producing professional skills, so that even if there are leakages, there would be sufficient numbers staying behind. It was encouraging to note that politicians of different political hues could agree on important issues in the national interest.
R.K. Srivastava, a UN expert attached to the Planning Ministry helped us with a survey of the push and pull factors associated with the brain drain, and with organizing relevant statistics for the last three years. Between the years 1971 and 1974, 400 doctors out of a total stock of 2,000 had left the country. Ten percent of the stock of engineers also had left. The majority of those leaving were between the ages of 30 and 34, which clearly indicated that they were unhappy with their future prospects in this country.

I do not want to dwell at length on the proceedings of the committee, which were harmonious and with hardly any difference of view among Ministers or between Ministers and the Planning Ministry which was servicing the committee. There was a series of recommendations in the final report, which was then published as Sessional Paper 10 of 1974 and was called the Report of the Committee inquiring into the problems of Technologically, Professionally, and Academically qualified personnel leaving Sri Lanka. One of the main recommendations was to reverse the then current attitude to control the flow outwards, and adopt a more liberal approach in granting long term leave. The committee recommended that the Compulsory Public Service act No. 70 of 1965 be implemented sympathetically, and allow doctors and engineers to leave the country. While not calling for the abolition of this legislation, the committee’s recommendations made it a virtual dead letter.
Another key recommendation was to allow public servants to obtain up to five years leave during their career to find employment abroad. The current rule was that a public servant leaving the country for employment abroad should sign a bond, and the maximum period of a bond went up to 15 years. The committee recommended that this should be reduced to 10 years, and corresponding reductions were made for shorter periods of leave. There were further restrictions on employment abroad. The Passport (Regulation) and Exit Permit Act no. 53 of 1971, required that a passport should be issued for only one year. Moreover, ten percent of the foreign exchange earnings of an individual had to be remitted every month to this country. These requirements were abolished.
Apart from the relaxation of controls, the committee suggested that there should be incentives for people who stay behind. The need for training abroad for professionals was recognized, and instead of discouraging them, there was to be a more encouraging approach for those proceeding abroad. Opportunities for training abroad were to be explored more intensively. The committee also recommended that training capacities in the country should be increased, and the facilities for research should be improved and expanded. It felt that scientific and academic literature should be made available in libraries, and for this purpose, foreign exchange was to be released.
It is my view that this report is one of the most politically liberal documents produced during that period. The Cabinet approved the recommendations of the committee without any amendments. The Cabinet established an inter ministerial officials committee to implement the recommendations. I was appointed chairman of this committee. It is my privilege to record here that the Cabinet decided to place on record its appreciation of my work on this committee. There is a Cabinet conclusion to this effect. I was present at the cabinet meeting where this decision was made and it was Dr N.M. Perera and Mr. Maitripala Senanayaka who called for it.
What happened with this committee is a fascinating story. The committee met twice or thrice and drafted the necessary circulars to implement the recommendations. So far as the public service was concerned, these circulars had to be issued by the Ministry of Public Administration. D.B.I.P.S Siriwardhana was the Secretary of the Ministry, and he had no objection to issuing the circulars. He issued one or two circulars almost immediately regarding the revision of rules on public service bonds for those going on leave, and extending the period of leave allowed for up to five years.
A curious incident took place once these circulars were issued. Felix Dias Bandaranaike was the Minister of Public Administration and he was not present at the cabinet meeting which approved the committee’s report and gave the go head for implementing it. Felix was not opposed to this committee at any stage. He decided himself that he would not be on the committee. By the time the committee report was out, relations between him and his secretary D.B.I.P.S, were strained. He disliked D.B.I.P.S issuing these circulars to implement the report in his absence.
At a subsequent cabinet meeting, he made quite a scene, attacking me in particular and also his secretary. I was asked by the Prime Minister to be present at this cabinet meeting when the issue came up, as Felix had given notice that he was going to take it up. Felix got his way and the circulars were withdrawn. Cabinet Ministers like Dr. N.M Perera and others, told Felix that the officials were merely implementing what the Cabinet had decided. Anyway, there was much tension. As I was about to leave the cabinet meeting, and as I was passing Felix’s chair, he signaled to me to say that what he said was not against me, but was directed at D.B.I.P.S. Anyway, the withdrawal of the circulars was a temporary affair as the recommendations of the report were implemented a little later, Felix having got over his reservations.
What is most interesting for me in the work of the Brain Drain Committee was that I was able to get this committee organized and examine an important issue in an integrated way at cabinet level. The report itself went against the grain of the times, in taking a liberal attitude towards this issue. It showed clearly that there are many opportunities for more holistic types of policy making by the Cabinet through the functioning of a system of cabinet committees. One aspect that became clear to me was that ministers were denied the opportunity for clear thinking, based on research and policy analysis. In the absence of rigorous analysis, they resorted to policy making on the hoof, based on their hunches and inaccurate information. Even 40 years later, the report is worth reading. We followed up this report later at a Commonwealth Summit and that aspect of it I shall describe in another chapter.
(Excerpted from the writer’s autobiography, The Long Littleness of Life)
Features
‘Lord Edgware Dies’
It has been some time since I read an Agatha Christie, the plot of which I cannot remember. So, I was delighted to find on the shelves of a friend Lord Edgware Dies, which I had a vague memory of, but no certainty about who had done it.
When I read it, I found that my memory of who was probably the killer was correct, but I could not be certain and the red herrings Christie threw in were so diverting that until almost the very end I wondered if I had been wrong.
The plot is very simple. Jane Wilkinson, who is married to Lord Edgware, tells him that she is desperate for a divorce since she is in love with a very proper Anglo-Catholic peer, Lord Melton, but Edgware refuses to divorce her. She asks Poirot to talk to him, which he does, and is surprised to find that Edgware has told Jane he is prepared to give her a divorce. This was, after he had categorically refused, through a letter, which Jane said she had not received.
That night Edgware is murdered, after Jane had been to see him, or so the butler said, and also Edgware’s secretary. But Jane had been that evening at a grand dinner many miles away, where a dozen fellow guests could swear to her presence.
There was a solution however to the mystery of two Jane Wilkinsons, namely a skilful impersonator called Carlotta Adams who, in the opening chapter had impersonated Jane Wilkinson, who had also been at the performance. But when Poirot goes to see her, he finds that she had been found dead on the morning after Edgware had been killed, of an overdose. And in her bag was a gold case, with a strange inscription, that contained the drug, along with a pair of pince-nez.
Her maid said she had written a letter to her sister in America and posted it the previous night. Poirot asks Inspector Japp to get the letter, and a transcript is received from America, and in it the name of Edgware’s nephew Ronald Marsh is mentioned; he had taken Carlotta to dinner after her performance, with which the book opens, and had then set her a challenge. Japp arrests Marsh, but Poirot is not happy and asks for the original of the letter, which the sister sends him. That shows that a page is missing, and the tear is obvious, though that raises the question as to why it had not simply been cut.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that Marsh had gone in a taxi to the Edgware house, along with Edgware’s daughter Geraldine, in the interval of an opera which had previously seemed to provide them with cast iron alibis. Geraldine had gone in to fetch her pearls so that Marsh could raise money he needed, and thus had an opportunity to kill Edgware, as did Marsh, for the driver said he had got out of the taxi while waiting and gone into the house.
Marsh explained why he had gone to the house on the night of the murder as having followed Bryan Martin, an American actor, who had been in love with Jane, whom he saw go into the house with a key. But there was no one visible when he entered, and Geraldine almost immediately came down and they left together. And Martin too has become an object of suspicion to Poirot, for he had been to see him before the murders were discovered with a story of being followed by a man with a gold tooth – a story Poirot immediately realized was false when he was asked how old the man was, and was told he was young, for young people did not have gold teeth.
A heap of French money Edgware had got for a trip to Paris was missing, but since Marsh had no need for it after his cousin’s offer of help, Poirot deduces that it must have been taken by the butler, who has disappeared. Christie has stressed that he is astonishingly handsome, unusual in a butler, and Poirot notes a resemblance to Martin, so he thinks the mysterious man going into the house must have been him.
Incidentally, later Poirot assumes that Edgware’s change of mind was because he was involved in some scandal, and I believe Christie intends us to see the cause of this in his handsome butler, though this is not specified.
Meanwhile, Poirot has asked Japp to find out the provenance of the case found in Carlotta’s handbag, and it turns out to have been made in Paris, specially commissioned, and collected by a woman with pince-nez.
But then another murder occurs—that of another guest at the grand dinner, which provided Jane with her alibi. The victim is an actor who had been bemused when Jane, at a lunch, thought the Judgment of Paris referred to the city. He told Hastings he wanted to see Poirot, but was killed before he could get to the appointment. Poirot had rushed there when told about his request, but it was too late.
Meanwhile, Poirot has tried out the pince-nez on Edgware’s secretary, but she could not see through these. It was only a chance remark heard outside the theatre that led him to try them out on Wilkinson’s maid Ellis, a spare pair that had been appropriated for the night of the murders.
Poirot then lays things out, having summoned Martin and told him that he probably suppressed Edgware’s letter, as he had been dropped by then and he did not want Jane to marry another. But after teasing Martin, Poirot says that Jane was in fact the murderer, and she got Carlotta to impersonate her at the dinner while she went to the house and killed her husband. After meeting Carlotta later and checking with her through a call that she had
not been rumbled, Jane had gone ahead with the murder – she put veronal into her drink and the case with veronal into the handbag. She forgot to take out the pince-nez she had used earlier to imitate an American. Carlotta had registered as the American in a hotel and Jane had gone to see her, and there they exchanged identities. After seen the letter, she made use of it by tearing off the page that referred to her, and the S of She, so that the person who had challenged Carlotta to impersonate her seemed to be a man.
There is a coda in which Jane, condemned to death, writes to Hastings, still full of pride at her ingenuity hoping she will be remembered.
Features
Desilt reservoirs, learn from our ancient irrigation systems
by Prof. O. A. Ileperuma
Silting of reservoirs is a major problem today affecting our hydropower production and irrigation systems. The main Mahaweli reservoirs are silted to a considerable extent reducing the water holding capacity of them. Due to poor soil management practices, floodwaters deposit large amounts of silt in these reservoirs. When the Polgolla reservoir was fully drained about two years back, one could see mountains of silt in the lower reaches of the reservoir. A rough estimate is that 50% of the total capacity of these reservoirs has been lost to siltation. This is a serious issue which affects not only power and agriculture but also flood control.
Our ancient irrigation systems ensured that desilting of reservoirs took place under royal decree where all users of the reservoirs were ordered to carry out desilting of reservoirs during the dry season. The clay thus collected was used in making bricks for the construction of great stupas which dot the landscape of our ancient kingdoms. This ensured that the reservoirs had their full capacity filled with water for the next cultivating season. Our ancient kings were clever enough not to construct reservoirs by blocking main rivers such as the Mahaweli. A classic example is the Minipe left canal where they tapped only the surface water of Mahaweli. Even the bigger tanks such as Nuwara Wewa and Parakrama Samudraya were fed with minor rivulets. There were also other ingenious features in the cascade irrigation systems built by the ancient kings, such as mud sluice canals and forest reservations between the reservoirs in the cascade system. These reservations helped trap silt and remove excess nutrients, which could otherwise contribute to increasing salinity as water flowed from one reservoir to another.
- Parakrama Samudraya
- Kalawewa
- Kotmale
A classic engineering marvel is the former Yoda Ela, which carries water from Kalawewa to Nuwara Wewa and Tissa Wewa. It is 87 km long although the straight distance between these points is only about 40 km. The gradient of this canal is about 10 cm per km or 6 inches per mile. Yodha Ela functions as a moving reservoir and feeds about 4,600 hectares of paddy lands. It is a winding canal with about 120 smaller reservoirs on its way. It was constructed during the reign of King Dhatusena around 459 AD and later expanded by King Parakramabahu by connecting more reservoirs to the network. Unfortunately, during the Mahaweli project our modern-day engineers constructed a concrete canal replacing the winding path of this Yoda Ela also called Jaya Ganga. This effectively removed the ability of the old Yoda Ela to remove silt and nutrients. The bank of this Ela has wet zone trees such as jak and areca nut growing well. They take up the nutrients from the flowing stream making the water suitable for irrigation later.
Ancient Mesopotamian civilisations depended on dams constructed along the two main rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. After continuous irrigation of their fields over several thousand years, salinity of the irrigated lands increased making them unsuitable for agriculture. People died due to famine and this clearly illustrates the danger of blocking main rivers for agriculture. There is scientific evidence that the salinity of paddy soils in the Mahaweli C area is increasing.
We saw the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. The sluice gates of the Kotmale Reservoir were opened, and Kandy and Peradeniya were flooded. If the reservoir had had greater storage capacity, couldn’t the opening of the gates have been delayed? This may not be an argument that modern-day engineers would readily accept, and I am not an irrigation expert. These ideas may well be naïve. But most of us tend to think of reservoirs mainly in terms of hydropower generation and irrigation, while their role in flood control receives much less attention. The question therefore deserves serious consideration. Could restoring lost reservoir capacity through desilting help improve our ability to manage extreme rainfall and reduce flood risks?
Desilting our reservoirs should be considered a national priority.
Features
Losing out to Ethiopia
Export diversification – Missing the wood for the trees – Part III
by Gomi Senadhira
In Sri Lanka, the word “Ethiopia” is often used as disparaging slang to describe individuals or areas experiencing extreme poverty, starvation, or severe economic hardship. This linguistic habit originated in the 1980s with the Western media coverage of the devastating Ethiopian famine of 1983-85. That media coverage shocked the world but also left an outdated and offensive global stereotype that the country is permanently starving. Much has changed since then. By now, with an annual growth rate of around 9%, it is the fastest-growing economy in sub-Saharan Africa. Ethiopia has also emerged as a highly competitive exporter and is challenging not only its competitors in the region but also countries like Sri Lanka. This article is on how Sri Lanka has lost ground to Ethiopia (and a few other countries) in the GCC markets for agricultural and floricultural products.
Sri Lanka – A Pioneer in the Agriculture and Floricultural Market in the GCC
As discussed in Part II of this article, by the mid-1980s Sri Lanka had established a strong foothold in the GCC’s fruit, vegetable, and floricultural market. Geographical proximity and well-established shipping and air links gave Sri Lanka a strong comparative advantage over Southeast Asian and African nations. Thailand, Vietnam, and Kenya were not even in the market. At that time, Ethiopia was experiencing (as BBC news reports described) “a biblical famine”.
The market was not very large, but it was lucrative and growing. Trade Minister Lalith Athulathmudali as well as the Chairman of the Export Development Board, Victor Santiapillai, who visited Kuwait (and the GCC countries), recognised the market potential for these products and encouraged us to continue with our work. The minister was particularly keen to further develop links between the market for these products, exporters, and his Export Production Villages (EPVs). So, it was becoming a successful case not only for export diversification but also for transferring gains from exports directly to rural households.
From Trailblazer to Tailender
As a result, even by the beginning of this century Sri Lanka had a larger market share than most of its competitors from Asia or Africa. But since then, our competitiveness has weakened significantly. The tables below provide a comparative snapshot of Sri Lanka’s performance vis-à-vis Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya and Ethiopia in the GCC market for vegetables, fruits and floricultural products. As illustrated therein, in 2001 Sri Lanka was ahead of Thailand, Kenya and Ethiopia in this small but rapidly growing market. Since then, we have fallen behind Thailand, Kenya and many other countries in that lucrative market. If this trend continues, Sri Lanka will fall behind Ethiopia within the next few years. (See Table 1)
In the GCC market for vegetables (covered in HS chapter 07), Sri Lanka was ahead of most other competitors in 2001. As illustrated in Table 1 , Sri Lanka had failed to develop this market, while Thailand, Kenya, and even Ethiopia had very efficiently increased their market shares. The GCC is a market to which Sri Lanka can supply some vegetables, like cabbages, by sea. It appears Sri Lanka had also failed to exploit this mode of supply.
We can see a similar trend in the market for fruits. Vietnam, Kenya, and Thailand have emerged as major players, while exports from Sri Lanka have staggered on slowly. In this segment, Vietnam has emerged as a leading player during the last twenty years and the GCC imports from Viet Nam have shot up from US$44 thousand in 2001 to US$346 million by 2024. In part one of these articles, I discussed the remarkable increase of jackfruit exports from Vietnam “…just $3 million in 2015 to an impressive $236.8 million in 2023” while most of our jackfruit production rots under the trees. This explains how countries develop their markets, geographically and product-wise. (See Table 2)
Sri Lanka’s performance has been weakest in the market for floricultural products (HS Chapter 06), which groups live trees, cut flowers, and ornamental foliage. When we first entered the market in the 1980s, the market was dominated by the Netherlands, and Kenya and Ethiopia were not even in the market. At that time, we identified the Gulf states as a market where Sri Lanka could have a dominant presence due to geographical proximity. Even in 2001, Sri Lanka was ahead of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Thailand. But by now, Kenya has emerged as the dominant supplier. Ethiopia is also expanding its market share and is the third-largest exporter. (See Table 3)
Missing the Wood for the Trees
In the mid-1980s, Sri Lanka first established its foothold in the GCC market. Since then, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya, and even Ethiopia have moved well ahead of us and have become leading players. Why did we lag behind in our export diversification efforts in general and, more particularly, in the GCC market?
The reasons are very clear. After the initial attempts in the 1980s and early 1990s, Sri Lanka has not been proactively involved in identifying, developing, and promoting new products and markets, or protecting and further developing new markets already established. The focus has simply been on traditional exports: tea, coconut, cinnamon, and garments, while other products were almost ignored. In essence, we have been and continue to focus intensely on a narrow group of products and markets, and we have lost sight of the bigger picture.
(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
-
Sports2 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
Latest News7 days agoTharanga creates history with Diamond League crown in Brussels
-
Features6 days agoAfter the parade: What a traffic OIC’s walk-out tells us
-
News7 days agoDispute which triggered listed company director being detained at BIA resolved
-
Editorial6 days agoArrests as theatre
-
News5 days agoThailand shuts door on undesirables from Sri Lanka
-
Latest News6 days agoHarshitha’s composed knock seals Sri Lanka’s semi-final berth
-
News6 days ago‘Choka Malli’ slips out of country before travel ban






