Connect with us

Features

Cabinet Committee on Brain Drain where leftists proved liberal

Published

on

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)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka

Published

on

World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future

by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?

These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.

World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.

We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.

Making more of what we already have

Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.

Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.

The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.

Stop wasting the food we produce

Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.

Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.

Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.

Nutrition and food safety come first

Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.

Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.

Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.

A food system that can cope with climate change

Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.

Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.

Give young people a bigger role

Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.

A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.

A pathway designed for Sri Lanka

We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.

The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.

The choices we make today

The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.

So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?

The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.

A better food future begins with the choices we make today.

Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna

Continue Reading

Features

20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried

Published

on

Aftermath of the terror attack

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.

It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.

By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.

I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.

When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.

The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.

The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24

I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.

The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.

The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.

After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.

Clark

The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.

Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.

Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.

He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.

Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.

Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.

Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.

Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.

So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.

Continue Reading

Trending