Connect with us

Features

Corporations, Boards and Foundations

Published

on

By Leelananda De Silva

One of the occupational hazards of the Planning Ministry was that one is obliged to serve on boards of corporations as a member. By statute and by practice, the Planning Ministry was represented on many governing boards. I represented the Ministry on several of them, and serving on these boards was interesting and instructive. Whether I contributed to the work of these organizations is something I cannot say.

I had a busy schedule of my own, and the time I could spare to the work of these boards was not much. My policy was to attend board meetings whenever I could and keep myself informed of the board agendas whenever I could not attend, so that I could inform the chairmen of my views on any relevant item. I made it a policy to be engaged at the board level only on key policy and other substantive issues. I did not want to be involved in the administrative items which were a major part of board agendas. I left it to the chairmen to handle that kind of subject.

In this way, I could focus on the issues that interested the Planning Ministry. Throughout my service on these boards, I had a cordial relationship with all the chairmen. I had a free hand in my decisions at these board meetings and it was rarely that I kept H.A.de.S (Gunasekera, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs) or the Prime Minister informed. The fact that I was representing the Planning Ministry and the minister who was Prime Minister gave me considerable influence whenever I was intervening on an issue of interest to me. Whenever I was out of the country, the chairmen always kept me informed and adjusted agendas on any important item which they thought the Planning Ministry would be interested in. It is in these ways that I could be an effective representative on these boards.

I was a member of the Tea Board from its inception in 1974 until 1977. The Tea Board brought together the separate entities of the Tea Controller, Tea Research Institute and the Tea Promotion Board, and it functioned under the Ministry of Plantation Industries. There were three chairmen in my time. The two most notable of them were Doric de Souza and Bertie Warusawitharane, and I was to travel with them to Rome for FAO meetings.

One board member was G.V.S. de Silva, who had been a brilliant economist, university lecturer and the man behind the Paddy Lands Act, advising Philip Gunawardana in the 1950s. Another was Hector Divitotawela, a well known planter, who happened to be the Prime Minister’s sister’s husband. The chief executive was Mahinda Dunuwille, highly competent and very knowledgeable on all aspect of the tea industry. So was T. Sambasivam who was the deputy.

I do not want to describe in any detail the work of the Tea Board and I shall confine myself to one or two snapshots of my experience there. I have already dealt with elsewhere the paper I presented to the Tea Board on the London Tea auctions. Another paper I presented to the Tea Board was on the subject of a tea museum. The sterling and rupee company estates were being taken over and there were many artefacts on these estates, which would be valuable in relating the story of tea in Sri Lanka. With the transfer of ownership, there was a danger that they would be lost, and I know that such losses took place.

My proposal was to establish a tea museum somewhere in the upcountry, preferably on a tea estate which would relate the history of Ceylon tea over a period of 75 years. While the proposal was adopted, nothing came of it, as the climate of opinion at the time was to forget about colonial experiences. A tea museum was later established and that was after many of the artifacts that would have been of interest had been lost.

There is another little nugget of a story. I was visiting London on official business and happened to visit the London Tea Centre which is run by the Tea Board. Attached to the Centre was a Sri Lankan restaurant which was very popular. The main purpose of the Tea Centre was to promote Sri Lankan tea with appropriate displays of various types of tea, and the restaurant was an ancillary business. What I found when I went there one day for lunch was that the Centre was closed during the lunch hours of 11.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and the reason for this was that some of the staff were engaged at the restaurant and the others were out for lunch.

This was a ridiculous practice, as those were the hours when there were visitors and opportunities for tea sales. I explained this to the Tea Centre people and when I came back to Colombo, I told the Tea Board about it. This practice was changed, and the Tea Centre remained open during the lunch intervals subsequently. What I was amazed was that the Tea Centre people had so misplaced their priorities that running a restaurant became more important than running the Tea Centre.

I was a member of most of the boards dealing with ports and shipping between 1972 and 1977. I was a member of the board of the Port Cargo Corporation, Ceylon Shipping Corporation, Colombo Dockyards Limited and the Central Freight Bureau. All these boards had one thing in common. The chairman was PB Karandawela (Karande). He was one of the most efficient public servants I have ever met. He was master of the organizations he ran, apart from being Secretary of the Ministry of Shipping and Tourism.

During these years, he crafted a comprehensive policy for the development of the shipping industry in Sri Lanka and built up the Ceylon Shipping Corporation as a profitable enterprise. He stood up to the strong vested interests, specially the British shippers who dominated the carrying of cargo in and out of Sri Lanka. There was a gentleman by the name of P.J Hudson, representing the Conference Lines of the time, coming annually to Sri Lanka always with bad news for Sri Lanka’s freight rates. The Conference Lines had an iron grip on Sri Lanka’s trade. Karande broke that monopoly.

He developed a farseeing training policy for Shipping Corporation staff, equipping them with all the range of skills that a shipping firm requires. He left a highly skilled and very competent staff. I have not seen that kind of commitment to training in any other Sri Lankan institution. Karande died young after joining the UN in Geneva as Registrar of Shipping and serving for 10 years. We saw a lot of him and his wife, Geetha during his time in Geneva. He left for Tasmania as his wife was teaching maritime law there. A few months before his death in Tasmania, he visited us in England, and came for our daughter’s wedding in 1992. He was a great friend and it is sad that his life ended so prematurely. His services to the Sri Lanka shipping industry has never been adequately recognized.

There was a dedicated team of officers at the Shipping Corporation. I came to know many of them. David Soysa, was an old hand from the Commerce Department, and now a close colleague of Karande in both the Ministry and the Shipping Corporation. There was Ranjith de Silva, general manager of the Corporation and Mahinda Katugaha, the legal officer, who later joined the World Food Programme in Rome. These were all highly competent officers. The Minister whom I met many times was P.B.G Kalugalle, and his private secretary Wilbert Perera, a charming Mr. Fixit if ever there was one.

A major concern of the Minister was to get employment for as many constituents from Kegalle (he was MP there) in the various corporations under his ministry. He left Karande to get on with his job. I must record that although I was on their boards, the Freight Bureau and Colombo Dockyards were of marginal interest to me. There is one person I cannot forget who was involved in many of these things and that was Harold Speldewinde, who was a real authority on every aspect of ports and shipping. He had long experience with the private sector and Karande brought him in to the ministry. I enjoyed talking with him and if I have any knowledge of shipping and ports, I owe a lot to Harold.

There was also Tommy Ellawala, whom I got to know well who was an advisor to Karande on various matters although he was in the private sector. Michael Mack also served in a similar capacity. At that time, there was a very friendly atmosphere among Karande’s extended shipping circles. On the board of the corporation I was privileged to work with Chandra Cooray of the Treasury, Dr. S.T.G. Fernando from the Ministry of Trade, and Charlie Amarasekara.

Before I leave shipping, there is one little contribution of my own. I prepared a brief paper and got the approval of the board for Shipping Corporation vessels to carry cargo destined for charitable organizations in Sri Lanka free of charge. This could be done without any costs to the Corporation as there was much free space in most vessels.

I must mention one foreign trip which I made with Karande and David Soysa. We went to New Delhi in 1974 to negotiate an agreement with the Indian Shipping Corporation, whose chairman was C.P. Srivastava, who was later to become the head of the UN International Maritime Organization in London. It was a friendly discussion over three or four days and we enjoyed our stay at the Ashok Hotel in New Delhi. I did not have the time to travel on Shipping Corporation business on any other occasion.

I was fascinated by the ports and shipping industry. There were many colourful characters I came across. At the Port Cargo Corporation, the Chairman was Hubert A. de Silva and later Babu Dolapihille. Hubert left early to join the private sector, and I worked with Babu who knew everything about the port. The Colombo port ran smoothly during those days, and that period saw the start of containerization. On the Board of the Port Cargo Corporation were D.B.I.P.S Siriwardhana, then Principal Collector of Customs, whom I got to know well over a period of five years.

Then there was K. Sittampalam, Director of Finance at the Treasury and very knowledgeable about the intricacies of government finance. Among the officials, the one I came to know well was Dayasiri Muthumala, the chief accountant, with an extensive knowledge of port operations. He was later to have a long career in London with the International Maritime Organization.

The Shipping Corporation nominated me to be on the board of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd, when it bought 40 percent of that company. That was a mandatory purchase by legislation. I looked upon this assignment as a fascinating experiment in public-private partnerships. The management was with the private sector, as they controlled 60 percent of the company. I hardly ever missed attending their board meetings, and they were good enough to schedule these meetings to suit me. They were anxious to have a good working relationship with the Shipping Corporation and the government.

My policy once again was to allow them to manage the company and for me to be kept informed on key issues. I had a very happy time with Mackinnons. When I first joined the board, the chairman was Adrian Wijemanne whom I had known from my days in the Land Commissioner’s department, where he was deputy. He had left the public service and joined the private sector. The next chairman was F.G.N (Ricky) Mendis, who owned Mackinnons. Ricky and his wife Charmaine were to be good friends of ours from that time (much later, Charmaine and Ricky visited us in Geneva and we drove to Leichtenstein for a holiday). Ricky sold his shareholding to John Keells a little while later. With the sale to John Keells, D.P.D.M de Silva, a charming gentleman became chairman and we worked very well together. Mark Bostock, a legendary British businessman who had a major say at John Keells also came on to the board.

The board during this time was a very enterprising one and the experience in working with the private sector was illuminating. Two of the chief executives of Mackinnon’s, D.S.P.S. de Silva and Cyril Lawrence were outstanding business executives. Much later on a history of John Keells has been written and I am pleased to see an extensive reference to me, and to my contribution in making this private public partnership work. I learned a lot about business and the private sector from my experience at Mackinnon’s.

I was a director of the National Savings Bank, which came under the Ministry of Finance. M.Sanmuganathan (Sam), its chairman was a friend of mine and be persuaded me to come on to the Board to fill the Planning Ministry slot. There was little room for any initiatives in running this bank, as its investments were mainly in treasury assets. It was also funding the government’s financial demands. I remember one incident which is instructive.

The Minister, Dr N.M Perera had told the chairman to recruit a clerk, who was a niece of the jailor who had assisted Dr N.M to escape from jail during the war years. I told Sam that this is not right and if the minister wished to have her recruited, he should give a direction to that effect, which he was entitled to do under the legislation establishing the bank. With difficulty I persuaded him to go to the Minister with me and others and to explain our difficulty. Initially the Minister was angry but he calmed down and said he would issue a directive.

I mention this incident to illustrate the independence we as public officials had to conduct official business fairly, without being frightened of politicians. Dr. N.M never held that against me and he was always friendly and had a cordial relationship even after he left office. We had a common interest in cricket and also the London School of Economics (LSE). A few years after, he came to Geneva and visited us. He was on his way to London and he told me that he would like to go to the LSE where he was a well-known figure in the late 1920s and got his DSc. He studied under Harold Laski. By the time he came to Geneva, he had no contacts with LSE. So I contacted Peter Dawson at the LSE and he met NM and showed him round. Peter told me that N.M’s thesis on the Weimar constitution was one of the well thumbed documents in the library.

In the 1970s, we still had the University of Ceylon. The Permanent Secretary of Planning was on the board of the University board of governors. H.A.de.S nominated me to be the representative on his behalf. I attended board meetings from time to time. Once there was a most distressing episode. The vice chancellor had presented a paper to the senate to appoint a particular gentleman to be the professor of international relations. This was a newly created chair. Regrettably, the vice chancellor after a hurried advertisement and superficial interviews had recommended the appointment of a gentleman who was a lecturer in political theory and without any background in international relations, to be the new professor.

There was a highly suitable candidate in Shelton Kodikara, who was in the department of political science and who has written on international relations. He was on leave from the university and was Sri Lanka’s deputy high commissioner in Madras. He got to know about the chair after the applications had closed. When this came up to the Senate, I made a strong protest to the vice chancellor and suggested that he should advertise the post again so that Shelton Kodikara could apply. There was much recrimination at this senate meeting. The vice chancellor advertised the post again and appointed Shelton Kodikara as the first professor of international relations. Regrettably, the vice chancellor and I ceased to be friends.

Let me now go to a different type of board. I was appointed to be a member of the Board of the United States Educational Foundation (USEF), now the Fulbright Commission. It managed the Fulbright programme in this country. It was not a large technical assistance programme, but it did very useful work. The board consisted of three members of the US embassy which included its cultural affairs officer (during my time it was Dick Ross), and three members from Sri Lanka nominated by the Secretary of the Planning Ministry. The US Ambassador was the nominal chairman of the Board, and at that time, it was Chris Van Hollen who was to become a good friend of ours.

H.A.de.S appointed me to be on the board. During my time, there were many members on the Sri Lanka side. Premadasa Udagama, the Secretary of Education was there during my five years on the Board. The others who served for shorter spells were W.J.F. Labrooy, Professor of History at Peradeniya university and who had been my lecturer in history, Dr. Daphne Attygalle, Professor of Pathology and Prof. B. Hewavitharana, Professor of Economics. Aelian Fernando, a former vice principal of Wesley was the chief executive.

During this assignment of mine, I received much assistance from Miss. Diana Captain, who was in the cultural section of the embassy. She had an enormous knowledge of how the system worked. This was the start of a long friendship with Diana. During my period, the Foundation must have sent about a 100 scholars from Sri Lanka. They sent some of the best and brightest and many of them had outstanding careers later on. One of the scholars who went to the US was Mrs. Indira Samarasekara, who had obtained a first class in mechanical engineering from Peradeniya. She was exceptionally bright. Later, she was to become the President of the University of Alberta in Canada and arguably the Sri Lankan to reach the highest pinnacles of academic governance abroad.

There was another interesting committee of which I was a member. It was a non governmental body- the Ecumenical Loan Fund (ECLOF), of Sri Lanka, which was an NGO created by the World Council of Churches (WCC), around 1973. Adrian Wijemanna, whom I had known from my days in the Land Commissioner’s Department, was now with the WCC and was responsible for the creation of this new body. It had a modest amount of financial resources, from the WCC in Geneva, and these resources were channelled through ECLOF to small mini-development projects in the country.

Adrian requested me to join the board of ECLOF and the other members of the board included Chandi Chanmugam, Mark Fernando (later Supreme Court judge), Soma Kannangara (President of the Lanka Mahil a Samithi), and a couple of others. It was an interesting experience.

(Excerpted from the writer’s biography, The Long Littleness of Life. Leelananda De Silva. A member of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service from 1960-1978 he was Senior Assistant Secretary and Director of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs from 1970 – 1977)

(Editor’s note: We regret that the byline was omitted from last Sunday’s excerpt on the Commonwealth also written by De Silva.)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

When Batting Was Poetry: Remembering David Gower

Published

on

For many Sri Lankans growing up in the late nineteen fifties and early sixties, our cricketing heroes were Englishmen. I am not entirely sure why that was. Perhaps it was a colonial hangover, or perhaps it reflected the way cricket was taught locally, with an emphasis on technical correctness, a high left elbow, and the bat close to the pad. English cricket, with its traditions and orthodoxy, became the benchmark.

I, on the other hand, could not see beyond Sir Garfield Sobers and the West Indian team. Sir Garfield remains my all-time hero, although only by a whisker ahead of Muttiah Muralitharan. For me, Caribbean flair and attacking cricket were infinitely superior to the Englishmen’s conservatism and defensive approach.

That said, England has produced many outstanding cricketers, with David Gower and Ian Botham being my favourites. Players such as Colin Cowdrey, Tom Graveney, Mike Denness, Tony Lewis, Mike Brealey, Alan Knott, Derek Underwood, Tony Greig, and David Gower were great ambassadors for England, particularly when touring the South Asian subcontinent, which posed certain challenges for touring sides until about three decades ago. Their calm and dignified conduct when touring is a contrast to the behaviour of the current lot.

I am no longer an avid cricket viewer, largely because my blood pressure tends to rise when I watch our Sri Lankan players. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised recently when I was flipping through the TV channels to hear David Gower’s familiar voice commentating. It brought back fond memories of watching him bat during my time in the UK. I used to look forward to the summer for two reasons. To feel the sun on my back and watch David Gower bat!

A debut that announced a star

One of my most vivid cricketing memories is watching, in 1978, a young English batsman pull the very first ball he faced in Test cricket to the boundary. Most debutants play cautiously, trying to avoid the dreaded zero, but Gower nonchalantly swivelled and pulled a short ball from Pakistan’s Liaquat Ali for four. It was immediately apparent that a special talent had arrived.

To place that moment in perspective, Marvan Atapattu—an excellent Sri Lankan batsman—took three Tests and four innings to score his first run, yet later compiled 16 Test centuries.

Gower went on to score 56 in his first innings and captivated spectators with his full repertoire of strokes, particularly his exquisite cover drive. It is often said that a left-hander’s cover drive is one of the most pleasurable sights in cricket, and watching Sobers, Gower, or Brian Lara execute the cover drive made the entrance ticket worthwhile.

A young talent in a time of change

Gower made his Test debut at just 21, rare for an English player of that era. World cricket was in turmoil due to the Kerry Packer revolution, and England had lost senior players such as Tony Greig, Alan Knott, and Derek Underwood. Selectors were searching for young talent, and Gower’s inclusion injected fresh impetus.

Gower scored his first Test century in only his fourth match, just a month after his debut, against New Zealand, and a few months later scored his maiden Ashes century at Perth.

He finished with 18 Test centuries from 117 matches. His finest test innings, in my view, was the magnificent 154 not out at Kingston in 1981 against Holding, Marshall, Croft, and Garner. Batting for nearly eight hours and facing 403 balls, he set aside flair for determination to save the Test.

He and Ian Botham also benefited from playing their initial years under Mike Brealey, an average batsman but an outstanding leader. Rodney Hogg, the Australian fast bowler, famously said Brealey had a ‘degree in people’, and both young stars flourished under his guidance.

Captaincy and criticism and overall record

Few English batsmen delighted and frustrated spectators and analysts as much as Gower. The languid cover drive, so elegant and so pleasurable to the spectators, also resulted in a fair number of dismissals that, at times, gave the impression of carelessness to both spectators and journalists.

Despite his approach, which at times appeared casual, he was appointed as captain of the English team in 1983 and served for three years before being removed in 1986. He was again appointed captain in 1989 for the Ashes series. He led England in 1985 to a famous Ashes series win as well as a series win in India in1984-85.

In the eyes of some, the captaincy might not have been the best suited to his style of play. However, he scored 732 runs whilst captaining the team during the 1985 Ashes series, proving that he was able handle the pressure.

Under Gower, England lost two consecutive series to the great West Indian teams 5-0, which led to the coining of the phrase “Blackwashed”! He was somewhat unlucky that he captained the English team when the West Indies were at the peak, possessing a fearsome array of fast bowlers.

David Gower scored 3,269 test runs against Australia in 42 test matches. He scored nine centuries and 12 fifties, averaging nearly 45 runs per inning. His record against Australia as an English batsman is only second to Sir Jack Hobbs. Scoring runs against Australia has been a yardstick in determining how good a batsman is. Therefore, his record against Australia can easily rebut the critics who said that he was too casual. He scored 8,231 runs in 117 test matches and 3,170 runs in 114 One Day Internationals.

A gentleman of the game free of controversies

Unlike the other great English cricketer at the time, Ian Botham, David was not involved in any controversies during his illustrious career. The only incident that generated negative press was a low-level flight he undertook in a vintage Tiger Moth biplane in Queensland during the 1990-91 Ashes tour of Australia. The team management and the English press, as usual, made a mountain out of a molehill. David retired from international cricket in 1992.

In 1984, during the tour of India, due to the uncertain security situation after the assassination of the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the English team travelled to Sri Lanka for a couple of matches. I was fortunate enough to get David to sign his book “With Time to Spare”. This was soon after he returned to the pavilion after being dismissed. There was no refusal or rudeness when I requested his signature.

He was polite and obliged despite still being in pads. Although I did not know David Gower, his willingness that day to oblige a spectator exemplified the man’s true character. A gentleman who played the game as it should be, and a great ambassador of England and world cricket. He was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame in 2009 and appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1992 for his services to sport.

By Sanjeewa Jayaweera

Continue Reading

Features

Sri Lanka Through Loving Eyes:A Call to Fix What Truly Matters

Published

on

Love of country, pride, and the responsibility to be honest

I am a Sri Lankan who has lived in Australia for the past 38 years. Australia has been very good to my family and me, yet Sri Lanka has never stopped being home. That connection endures, which is why we return every second year—sometimes even annually—not out of nostalgia, but out of love and pride in our country.

My recent visit reaffirmed much of what makes Sri Lanka exceptional: its people, culture, landscapes, and hospitality remain truly world-class. Yet loving one’s country also demands honesty, particularly when shortcomings risk undermining our future as a serious global tourism destination.

When Sacred and Iconic Sites Fall Short

One of the most confronting experiences occurred during our visit to Sri Pada (Adam’s Peak). This sacred site, revered across multiple faiths, attracts pilgrims and tourists from around the world. Sadly, the severe lack of basic amenities—especially clean, accessible toilets—was deeply disappointing. At moments of real need, facilities were either unavailable or unhygienic.

This is not a luxury issue. It is a matter of dignity.

For a site of such immense religious and cultural significance, the absence of adequate sanitation is unacceptable. If Sri Lanka is to meet its ambitious tourism targets, essential infrastructure, such as public toilets, must be prioritized immediately at Sri Pada and at all major tourist and pilgrimage sites.

Infrastructure strain is also evident in Ella, particularly around the iconic Nine Arches Bridge. While the attraction itself is breathtaking, access to the site is poorly suited to the sheer volume of visitors. We were required to walk up a steep, uneven slope to reach the railway lines—manageable for some, but certainly not ideal or safe for elderly visitors, families, or those with mobility challenges. With tourist numbers continuing to surge, access paths, safety measures, and crowd management urgently needs to be upgraded.

Missed opportunities and first impressions

Our visit to Yala National Park, particularly Block 5, was another missed opportunity. While the natural environment remains extraordinary, the overall experience did not meet expectations. Notably, our guide—experienced and deeply knowledgeable—offered several practical suggestions for improving visitor experience and conservation outcomes. Unfortunately, he also noted that such feedback often “falls on deaf ears.” Ignoring insights from those on the ground is a loss Sri Lanka can ill afford.

First impressions also matter, and this is where Bandaranaike International Airport still falls short. While recent renovations have improved the physical space, customs and immigration processes lack coherence during peak hours. Poorly formed queues, inconsistent enforcement, and inefficient passenger flow create unnecessary delays and frustration—often the very first experience visitors have of Sri Lanka.

Excellence exists—and the fundamentals must follow

That said, there is much to celebrate.

Our stays at several hotels, especially The Kingsbury, were outstanding. The service, hospitality, and quality of food were exceptional—on par with the best anywhere in the world. These experiences demonstrate that Sri Lanka already possesses the talent and capability to deliver excellence when systems and leadership align.

This contrast is precisely why the existing gaps are so frustrating: they are solvable.

Sri Lankans living overseas will always defend our country against unfair criticism and negative global narratives. But defending Sri Lanka does not mean remaining silent when basic standards are not met. True patriotism lies in constructive honesty.

If Sri Lanka is serious about welcoming the world, it must urgently address fundamentals: sanitation at sacred sites, safe access to major attractions, well-managed national parks, and efficient airport processes. These are not optional extras—they are the foundation of sustainable tourism.

This is not written in criticism, but in love. Sri Lanka deserves better, and so do the millions of visitors who come each year, eager to experience the beauty, spirituality, and warmth that our country offers so effortlessly.

The writer can be reached at Jerome.adparagraphams@gmail.com

By Jerome Adams

Continue Reading

Features

Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms

Published

on

Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms

Global temperatures in January have been polar opposite – plus 50 Celsius down under in Australia, and minus 45 Celsius up here in North America (I live in Canada). Between extremes of many kinds, not just thermal, the world order stands ruptured. That was the succinct message in what was perhaps the most widely circulated and listened to speeches of this century, delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos, in January. But all is not lost. Who seems to be getting lost in the mayhem of his own making is Donald Trump himself, the President of the United States and the world’s disruptor in chief.

After a year of issuing executive orders of all kinds, President Trump is being forced to retreat in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by the public reaction to the knee-jerk shooting and killing of two protesters in three weeks by federal immigration control and border patrol agents. The latter have been sent by the Administration to implement Trump’s orders for the arbitrary apprehension of anyone looking like an immigrant to be followed by equally arbitrary deportation.

The Proper Way

Many Americans are not opposed to deporting illegal and criminal immigrants, but all Americans like their government to do things the proper way. It is not the proper way in the US to send federal border and immigration agents to swarm urban neighbourhood streets and arrest neighbours among neighbours, children among other school children, and the employed among other employees – merely because they look different, they speak with an accent, or they are not carrying their papers on their person.

Americans generally swear by the Second Amendment and its questionably interpretive right allowing them to carry guns. But they have no tolerance when they see government forces turn their guns on fellow citizens. Trump and his administration cronies went too far and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Barely a month has passed in 2026, but Trump’s second term has already run into multiple storms.

There’s more to come between now and midterm elections in November. In the highly entrenched American system of checks and balances it is virtually impossible to throw a government out of office – lock, stock and barrel. Trump will complete his term, but more likely as a lame duck than an ordering executive. At the same time, the wounds that he has created will linger long even after he is gone.

Equally on the external front, it may not be possible to immediately reverse the disruptions caused by Trump after his term is over, but other countries and leaders are beginning to get tired of him and are looking for alternatives bypassing Trump, and by the same token bypassing the US. His attempt to do a Venezuela over Greenland has been spectacularly pushed back by a belatedly awakening Europe and America’s other western allies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The wags have been quick to remind us that he is mostly a TACO (Trump always chickens out) Trump.

Grandiose Scheme or Failure

His grandiose scheme to establish a global Board of Peace with himself as lifetime Chair is all but becoming a starter. No country or leader of significant consequence has accepted the invitation. The motley collection of acceptors includes five East European countries, three Central Asian countries, eight Middle Eastern countries, two from South America, and four from Asia – Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pakistan. The latter’s rush to join the club will foreclose any chance of India joining the Board. Countries are allowed a term of three years, but if you cough up $1 billion, could be member for life. Trump has declared himself to be lifetime chair of the Board, but he is not likely to contribute a dime. He might claim expenses, though. The Board of Peace was meant to be set up for the restoration of Gaza, but Trump has turned it into a retirement project for himself.

There is also the ridiculous absurdity of Trump continuing as chair even after his term ends and there is a different president in Washington. How will that arrangement work? If the next president turns out to be a Democrat, Trump may deny the US a seat on the board, cash or no cash. That may prove to be good for the UN and its long overdue restructuring. Although Trump’s Board has raised alarms about the threat it poses to the UN, the UN may end up being the inadvertent beneficiary of Trump’s mercurial madness.

The world is also beginning to push back on Trump’s tariffs. Rather, Trump’s tariffs are spurring other countries to forge new trade alliances and strike new trade deals. On Tuesday, India and EU struck the ‘mother of all’ trade deals between them, leaving America the poorer for it. Almost the next day , British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced in Beijing that they had struck a string of deals on travel, trade and investments. “Not a Big Bang Free Trade Deal” yet, but that seems to be the goal. The Canadian Prime Minister has been globe-trotting to strike trade deals and create investment opportunities. He struck a good reciprocal deal with China, is looking to India, and has turned to South Korea and a consortium from Germany and Norway to submit bids for a massive submarine supply contract supplemented by investments in manufacturing and mineral industries. The informal first-right-of-refusal privilege that US had in Canada for defense contracts is now gone, thanks to Trump.

The disruptions that Trump has created in the world order may not be permanent or wholly irreversible, as Prime Minister Carney warned at Davos. But even the short term effects of Trump’s disruptions will be significant to all of US trading partners, especially smaller countries like Sri Lanka. Regardless of what they think of Trump, leaders of governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from the negative effects of Trump’s tariffs. That will be in addition to everything else that governments have to do even if they do not have Trump’s disruptions to deal with.

Bland or Boisterous

Against the backdrop of Trump-induced global convulsions, politics in Sri Lanka is in a very stable mode. This is not to diminish the difficulties and challenges that the vast majority of Sri Lankans are facing – in meeting their daily needs, educating their children, finding employment for the youth, accessing timely health care and securing affordable care for the elderly. The challenges are especially severe for those devastated by cyclone Ditwah.

Politically, however, the government is not being tested by the opposition. And the once boisterous JVP/NPP has suddenly become ‘bland’ in government. “Bland works,” is a Canadian political quote coined by Bill Davis a nationally prominent premier of the Province of Ontario. Davis was responding to reporters looking for dramatic politics instead of boring blandness. He was Premier of Ontario for 14 years (1971-1985) and won four consecutive elections before retiring.

No one knows for how long the NPP government will be in power in Sri Lanka or how many more elections it is going to win, but there is no question that the government is singularly focused on winning the next parliamentary election, or both the presidential and parliamentary elections – depending on what happens to the system of directly electing the executive president.

The government is trying to grow comfortable in being on cruise control to see through the next parliamentary election. Its critics on the other hand, are picking on anything that happens on any day to blame or lampoon the government. The government for all its tight control of its members and messaging is not being able to put out quickly the fires that have been erupting. There are the now recurrent matters of the two AGs (non-appointment of the Auditor General and alleged attacks on the Attorney General) and the two ERs (Educational Reform and Electricity Reform), the timing of the PC elections, and the status of constitutional changes to end the system of directly electing the president.

There are also criticisms of high profile resignations due to government interference and questionable interdictions. Two recent resignations have drawn public attention and criticism, viz., the resignation of former Air Chief Marshal Harsha Abeywickrama from his position as the Chairman of Airport & Aviation Services, and the earlier resignation of Attorney-at-Law Ramani Jayasundara from her position as Chair of the National Women’s Commission. Both have been attributed to political interferences. In addition, the interdiction of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament has also raised eyebrows and criticisms. The interdiction in parliament could not have come at a worse time for the government – just before the passing away of Nihal Seniviratne, who had served Sri Lanka’s parliament for 33 years and the last 13 of them as its distinguished Secretary General.

In a more political sense, echoes of the old JVP boisterousness periodically emanate in the statements of the JVP veteran and current Cabinet Minister K.D. Lal Kantha. Newspaper columnists love to pounce on his provocative pronouncements and make all manner of prognostications. Mr. Lal Kantha’s latest reported musing was that: “It is true our government is in power, but we still don’t have state power. We will bring about a revolution soon and seize state power as well.”

This was after he had reportedly taken exception to filmmaker Asoka Handagama’s one liner: “governing isn’t as easy as it looks when you are in the opposition,” and allegedly threatened to answer such jibes no matter who stood in the way and what they were wearing “black robes, national suits or the saffron.” Ironically, it was the ‘saffron part’ that allegedly led to the resignation of Harsha Abeywickrama from the Airport & Aviation Services. And President AKD himself has come under fire for his Thaipongal Day statement in Jaffna about Sinhala Buddhist pilgrims travelling all the way from the south to observe sil at the Tiisa Vihare in Thayiddy, Jaffna.

The Vihare has been the subject of controversy as it was allegedly built under military auspices on the property of local people who evacuated during the war. Being a master of the spoken word, the President could have pleaded with the pilgrims to show some sensitivity and empathy to the displaced Tamil people rather than blaming them (pilgrims) of ‘hatred.’ The real villains are those who sequestered property and constructed the building, and the government should direct its ire on them and not the pilgrims.

In the scheme of global things, Sri Lanka’s political skirmishes are still teacup storms. Yet it is never nice to spill your tea in public. Public embarrassments can be politically hurtful. As for Minister Lal Kantha’s distinction between governmental mandate and state power – this is a false dichotomy in a fundamentally practical sense. He may or may not be aware of it, but this distinction quite pre-occupied the ideologues of the 1970-75 United Front government. Their answer of appointing Permanent Secretaries from outside the civil service was hardly an answer, and in some instances the cure turned out to be worse than the disease.

As well, what used to be a leftist pre-occupation is now a right wing insistence especially in America with Trump’s identification of the so called ‘deep state’ as the enemy of the people. I don’t think the NPP government wants to go there. Rather, it should show creative originality in making the state, whether deep or shallow, to be of service to the people. There is a general recognition that the government has been doing just that in providing redress to the people impacted by the cyclone. A sign of that recognition is the number of people contributing to the disaster relief fund and in substantial amounts. The government should not betray this trust but build on it for the benefit of all. And better do it blandly than boisterously.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Trending