by Susantha Hewa

The Covid-19 pandemic, which took more than seven million human lives in its destructive sweep across all borders of the planet could teach us, among other things, two lessons; first, that greed for money can dislodge essential human empathy even when the entire humanity is in danger of annihilation by a common threat. The reports of increased sales of counterfeit healthcare and sanitary products as well as personal protective equipment made this patently clear at the time. As Oxfam stated in 2020, “Seventeen of the top 25 most profitable corporations are expected to rake in $85 billion more in profits during 2020 than what they averaged in the four years before the pandemic” (Who Profits from COVID-19, and How Can We Use That Money to Help Us Get a Vaccine?, 2020, https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/who-profits-covid-19-and-how-can-we-use-money-help-us-get-vaccine/). In other words, the pandemic bared to the world the most selfish and callous side of human nature – the craving for profit and personal enrichment at whatever cost. Conversely, the second lesson was regarding our concern for a better world; it taught us that the mechanisms that can benefit the entire society are the ones which best align individual interests with collective interests. That is, selfishness and altruism are not mutually exclusive; they can be made to coexist with each other sustaining each other for the benefit of all.

The latter is illustrated in the compulsory use of facemasks by all individuals. We wore masks principally for selfish reasons- to protect ourselves from the infected ‘other’, which, however, automatically translated into protecting the uninfected ‘other’ from being infected by us. That’s not very bad selfishness, to begin with. One might see it as a sort of connecting selfishness and unselfishness without splitting hairs about ethics. Perhaps it would become a jolly good moral with no undertones of religiosity – a kind of handy two-in-one, as they say, a selfish unselfishness. A serviceable idea which is potentially applicable in areas other than health. If the contagion had continued, people would have effortlessly learned it as a cool ethic without the stamp of any religious or moral authority. Perhaps it might work equally effectively in areas like business, policy making, education, ethics, social welfare, etc. For example, in business, it is likely to merge the maligned idea of unconscionable profitmaking seamlessly with the much commendable idea of profit-sharing.

Individual interests, instead of necessarily leading a person towards unashamed self-centeredness, may constructively be made to stand up with collective interests, says Zygmunt Bauman in his book “Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers?”. In extolling the idea of “collective insurance against individual misfortune”, he goes on to say that the “order of egoism” in society may be replaced with the “order of equality” by turning the citizens into “stakeholders in addition to being stockholders, beneficiaries but also actors – the wardens as much as wards of the ‘social benefits’”. It seems to be an illustration of the seemingly paradoxical precept of “selfish altruism” symbolised by the pandemic-prevention facemask.

We all are naturally self-centred, which ensures our survival. Self-interest becomes injurious only when it begins to harm others- not when it promotes others’ interests. Wearing the facemask proved to be an exemplification of the apparently absurd ‘moral’– be unselfish by being selfish. The sad fact is that a pandemic had to ravage the planet to drive the lesson home. Perhaps, the nagging issue of global poverty and the scandalous income gap between the few superrich and the impoverished masses may find some solution in Bauman’s idea of “stakeholders…being stockholders”. Can we think of any moral principle of pure altruism without even a spark of self-interest? Too good to be true. It will be like trying to conceptualise “we” denying “I” being an essential constituent of it.

Of course, selflessness – selfishness, kindness – unkindness, sensitivity – callousness, fairness – unfairness, justice – injustice, honesty – dishonesty, etc. are all opposites in the morality spectrum. In all these sets, the left is universally acclaimed as wholesome while the right is unconditionally reproved as harmful. All religions and long held values want you to favour the ones on the left- the good ones. When you come to think of children, generally, you would attribute the qualities on the left to children. Incidentally, one is reminded of Blake’s “Songs of Innocence” where the poet focuses on children’s ingenuousness and uses imagery to associate them with purity and innocence. And as we know, it is when they grow up and get “experienced” that they gradually move into a lifelong pursuit of success in which “innocence” makes room for “efficiency” with the blessings of all superiors, mentors and gurus- an efficiency which blossoms on a set of values more pragmatic than those favour that passing juvenile innocence.

It is at this time we develop a liking for books on how to grow rich, to think like a billionaire and to think big; and become go-getters and leaders and set an example in time-management by taking a little time off our tight schedules for meditation, which is said to polish our entrepreneurial skills in a roundabout way, of course. In all these things, we are fueled by the variations of the mantra of getting ahead, coming out on top, taking the prize, gaining the day, etc. as they say. All this is not bad except that in none of these are we encouraged to focus on anything other than the self. Naomi Klein attacks this ruthless acquisitiveness when she refers to Donald Trump and Meredith Mclver’s book “How to get rich”, in which the authors are said to promote crass egotism which excludes even the slightest regard for the common welfare. She sardonically sums up the book’s patently overt message: “You may be on the verge of personal bankruptcy today, but if you (literally) play your cards right, you could be living large by morning”. This is not the ‘altruistic selfishness’ of the pandemic times, which would benefit the individual as well as the society, but one which unleashes the most repulsive side of man, without making him worried about how such selfishness comes into conflict with his accustomed ‘religiosity’.

It is only a crisis of ‘pandemic proportions’ which can teach us the happier possibility of securing your wellbeing in ensuring the wellbeing of all- to make you feel that it is only when all are safe that “I” can be safe. In terms of its stark pragmatism, it is much more commendable than a load of ethics which make us ‘spiritual’ in a secluded tower.

It seems that the more we separate ethics from the day to day life of constant ambition and competition, the more we think of them in their abstract forms floating above our heads, which we try to catch when we get a ‘break’ from the rat race – a rat race, which atomises society by celebrating ‘success stories’ of nobodies becoming somebodies, where the ‘hard’ virtues like courage, diligence, persistence, drive, initiative, etc. get all the credit. The only virtues that get ignored are the ones codified in religion – love, kindness, empathy, etc. We know that they are passable when it comes to going places. Business is business. What is in tune with achievement is the ability to do ‘business’ without letting religion or the ‘soft’ ethics to mystify your vision of success. In fact, when it comes to success, all those practical people have a more nuanced and analytical approach not particularly susceptible to religion. Yuval Noah Harari shows our general reluctance to think of secular matters in terms of ethics, religion and spirituality when he writes, “The assertion that religion is a tool for preserving social order and for organizing large-scale cooperation may vex those for whom it [religion] represents first and foremost a spiritual path” (Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow).

Perhaps, the way forward towards a better world is not to put ethics on the backburner till the time comes to look forward to the trip to the next world where nobody wants to go, but to have a wise mixture of selfishness and altruism in all practical matters for the benefit of both “I” and “we”. Albert Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”. Perhaps, it may be relevant to changing our rigid attitudes about success which we take to be conflicting with common wellbeing.

By Lalin I De Silva

Senaka Muhandiramge

Senaka Muhandiramge holds a degree in Economics, Translation, and French from the University of Kelaniya, an MBA from the University of Colombo, and a National Diploma in Personnel Management (NDPM) from CIPM Sri Lanka. With over 35 years of HRM and administration experience, he has worked in various sectors, including multinationals. He is a lecturer in HRM and Organisational Behaviour (OB) for universities and professional institutions. A fellow of CIPM and a member of SLITAD, he now works as a freelance HR consultant and lecturer. Passionate about developing future leaders, he has supervised research and conducted numerous training programs. Senaka is a freelance value chain management consultant at www.vivonta.lk

Aim of this Write-Up:

To explore how Sri Lanka’s workforce is categorised and measured compared to global standards, and to offer HRM-driven solutions for optimizing workforce participation and economic growth.

The global workforce is divided into formal and informal sectors, including categories such as government employees, corporate workers, self-employed individuals, and casual labourers. Each of these groups contributes to a country’s labour force participation rate (LFPR) and overall economic performance. In Sri Lanka, much of the workforce remains informal, and the nation faces challenges in accurately counting and integrating these workers into official statistics. This write-up examines the complexities of workforce measurement, the legal and illegal employment divide, and how governments calculate the workforce. We offer insights into Sri Lanka’s labor market, focusing on the gap between its structure and global best practices, and suggest HRM strategies to improve workforce participation, particularly in the informal economy and underrepresented groups like women and rural workers.

The Gap:

The Gap Between Global Situation and Sri Lanka: Globally, workforce categorisation is well-defined, with labour force participation measured by both formal and informal sectors. In developed economies, governments have a more accurate count of the workforce due to strong institutional frameworks, labour surveys, and effective data collection methods. Additionally, formal employment, with legal benefits, dominates in these regions, supported by well-regulated informal sectors that contribute to the economy but are harder to measure.

In contrast, Sri Lanka faces significant gaps in its ability to fully measure and harness its workforce potential. The informal sector accounts for a large portion of Sri Lanka’s labor force, making it difficult for the government to assess economic contributions accurately.

Key challenges include:

High Informality: A large number of self-employed, day laborers, and family workers are unaccounted for in official statistics, reducing the visibility of their contribution to the economy.

Agricultural Workforce: In Sri Lanka, many agricultural workers operate informally, unlike global models where agriculture is more structured.

Under-the-Table Jobs and Illegal Workers:

Unregistered work, including informal domestic and casual labour, is prevalent in Sri Lanka but remains outside the tax and social security systems, limiting government oversight and revenue collection.

Limited Female Participation:

Gender inequality continues to affect Sri Lanka’s labour force, with many women excluded from formal employment opportunities.

Suggestions from an HRM Perspective: To address these challenges and bring Sri Lanka closer to global workforce standards, HRM strategies are vital.

Here are several recommendations:

1. Formalising the Informal Sector:

Introduce incentives for informal workers to register their businesses and encourage small business owners and family workers to transition into the formal economy. This could be done through tax incentives, business support, and microfinance opportunities.

2. Reinforcing Labor Laws:

Strengthen and modernise labor regulations to cover informal workers, ensuring protections for casual laborers and self-employed individuals. This includes creating labor policies that integrate informal workers into social security and pension schemes.

3. Promoting Agricultural Formalisation:

Develop structured cooperatives or associations in the agricultural sector, ensuring that workers are included in formal employment statistics. This can improve data accuracy and provide these workers with access to benefits.

4. Addressing Gender Inequality:

Implement targeted programmes to increase female workforce participation. These could include flexible work arrangements, affordable childcare, and training programmes focused on enhancing women’s skills in high-demand sectors like digital services, finance, and healthcare.

5. Enhancing Data Collection:

Improve labor force surveys to more accurately capture the informal workforce. This could be done through localized data collection efforts, particularly in rural areas, ensuring that underrepresented workers are included in economic planning.

Sri Lanka’s workforce is complex, with a significant portion operating outside the formal economy, making accurate measurement and effective policy-making difficult. Bridging the gap between global workforce standards and Sri Lanka’s current situation requires a concerted effort to formalise the informal sector, strengthen labour laws, and enhance data collection. From an HRM perspective, modernising labour policies, promoting female participation, and addressing the challenges faced by informal and unregistered workers will be crucial for Sri Lanka to improve its labour force participation rate, boost economic productivity, and foster long-term development. By taking these steps, Sri Lanka can better align its labor market with global standards and unlock the potential of its entire workforce.

Lalin I De Silva, former Senior Planter, Agricultural Advisor / Consultant, Secretary General of Ceylon Planters Society, Editor of Ceylon Planters Society Bulletin and freelance journalist

by Chandre Dharmawardana  
chandre.dharma@yahoo.ca

Political pollsters, as well as analysts, have claimed that the up-coming presidential election is a contest among the three main contenders, Anura K. Dissanayake, Sajith Premadasa and Ranil Wickremesinghe. This means that any one of them is likely to poll some 30-40% of the vote, and fail to reach a 50% winning vote. Consequently, unlike in any other presidential election of the past, votes for minor candidates, as well as second and third preference votes, become a matter of critical importance.

That is, a first-preference vote for a minor candidate is NOT a wasted vote, but it can be used to convey a definitive statement of a particular political agenda and a clarion call for those who are committed to a given agenda to “not to lose faith”. This gives an opportunity for various political-activist groups to bring out minor candidates to highlight their (possibly impractical but visionary or even idiotic) agendas in the first-preference vote, and also indicate their second and third preferences where they take account of the ground realities of the actual voting situation.

So, those who want to express a specific point of view using a first-preference vote for a minor candidate SHOULD vote for that candidate who has a specific programme, while such voters MUST carefully indicate their second and third preferences (STP) so that their vote has an impact on the final outcome as this presidential election is going to depend significantly on the STPs.

A faction of the TNA, and other independent Tamil groups, have chosen ex-Batticaloa MP Packiyaselvam Ariyanethiran as a means of expressing their ultra-nationalistic concerns, rekindling old fratricidal battles among Tamils, and between Tamils and Sinhalese.  Interestingly, the Muslims have avoided this approach. Ariyanethiran is not just a minor candidate, but the candidate of the most important minority group in Sri Lanka who fought a war against a majority 10 times its size and devastated the Tamil polity in the process. He is also representative of the hawkish segments of the Tamil diaspora.  Ariyanethiran can hope to collect a few percent of the Tamil vote; but he is not there to become the President of Sri Lanka. However, he could use this opportunity to eloquently and peacefully present to the general public (especially those in the South) the full folio of the “grievances and aspirations” of the minority group that he represents.

Unfortunately, Ariyanethiran has failed to do so, not even taking advantage of a public debate to which Namal Rajapaksa, Sajith Premadasa and Dilith Jayaweera were convened for a debate on 7th September. Rohana Hettiarchchi, Executive Director of the People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL), confirmed that candidates Sajith Premadasa (SJB), Namal Rajapaksa (SLPP), and Tamil common candidate P. Ariyanethiran had all initially committed to participating in the debate’s first phase. However, they were absent when the event commenced.

A majority of voters, who supported Gotabaya, found that they were deceived by Gotabaya’s maverick agricultural “toxin-free” policies, his Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s ignorance of an empty treasury, and the contradictory advice of tenderfoot Viyathmaga pandits. Some of Gotabaya’s supporters have banded together behind the entrepreneur-cum-media mogul Dilith Jayaweera. They have with them well-known highly articulate political figures like Wimal Weerawansa known for his nationalistic left-wing politics that he adroitly weaves into conspiracy theories to capture the public imagination.

Dilith Jayaweera’s media empire is there to give due publicity to his concerns that were once used by Gotabaya to capture six million votes. However, political observers claim that he is unlikely to get anything more than 3-5% of the votes. Dilith Jayaweera is in direct competition with Namal Rajapaksa for what is left of the nationalist electoral legacy of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

So, given that Dilith Jayaweers, Namal Rajapaksa and Ariyanethiran are all going to be running campaigns that would garner only a few percent of the vote, the first objective of their campaign should be to broadcast their specific agendas to the public. In addition, they have a singular duty to orient their voters to also indicate a second or third preference as they are of crucial importance in this election. Unfortunately, minor candidates like Dilith, Namal and Ariyanethiran have not indicated to their supporters what second and third preferences should be indicated in the ballot sheets.

The responsibility of the leading candidates, AKD, SJ and RW to also instruct their supporters regarding the second and third preference is paramount in this election.   Unfortunately, they, too, have shirked their responsibility and taken up the clearly false stance that they will win hands down.

If the major contenders were to indicate second and third preferences to their supporters, it would also reduce election tensions and the possibility of violence in the wake of the election.  While the electoral campaigns so far have been peaceful, the potential of violent events is high.  Several editorials of The Island (e.g., foreboding and hope cheek by jowl, 13th Sept.; Make candidates act responsibly, 10th Sept., The Island) have highlighted the potential for violence in this critical election.  In my article entitled “Looming danger in the wake of Presidential polls” …, 12th Sept., I, too, expressed my concerns, especially because this election, unlike previous ones, is going to be determined by how second and third preferences will be counted in.

Looming danger in the wake of Presidential Poll: Is Sri Lanka ready?

The danger of violence comes both from the right-wing parties who have “their thugs” who has links with the underworld, as well as from the left parties like the NPP who have accepted the doctrine that the “end justifies the means”.  Furthermore, the country is awash with arms, some given ostensibly for “crop protection”. The Aragalaya that started off peacefully turned violent due to attacks by armed individuals who had allegedly been at a meeting at Temple Trees only hours before.  This first phase of violence was met with organised violence allegedly attributed to armed groups linked with revolutionary left-wing student organisations.  An MP was killed, houses of MPs were burnt down and armed gangs had planned to take over the Parliament.

So, the EC must take note of these additional dangers and prepare its plan B for dealing with such eventualities, even though some writers  (e.g., Ajith de Silva, The Island 13th Sept.) have “pooh poohed” these concerns as mere fear-mongering.  Let us fervently hope that it is only fear-mongering, and that the EC succeeds in conducting a peaceful election.