Connect with us

Opinion

What the public expects of JVP/NPP

Published

on

In his editorial, ‘The art of debating without debates’ (12.09.2024) the editor of the The island in his customery style has hit the nail on the head with regard to the intentions of the NPP. Drawing attention to its Revolutionary Policy Declaration- The structure of the Economy (pp 23 and 24): “Foreign capital in every sphere shall be vested in the state without any payment of compensation. Free trade zones will be abolished ….” He raises the very valid, significant and crucial issue’ “a clarification should be sought from the JVP/NPP on the duality of socialism and capitalism it finds itself in”.

The editorial of the following day day (13.09.2024) ‘Foreboding and hope cheek by Jowl’ addresses the other significant issue which has been associated with the JVP/NPP namely- threats and violence. This matter has been further explored in an article of the same day- ‘Whither Sri Lanka: or would we have to say Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa?’ The question that ‘An old Connoisseur’ (AOC) is asking from the general populace of this country.

In the article AOC discusses the prospect of voting for Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa and the JVP/NPP. AOC then invites the JVP/NPP to acknowledge their past deeds –”terrible mistakes and blunders”, apologise for these and assure the public that these will not happen in the future.

It is in fact these two elements with regard to the JVP/NPP i.e. their apparent duplicity with regard to economic policy and historical association with violence that has caused reservations in the majority from voting for the JVP/NPP. The recent episode with the band Marians and their subsequent ‘retraction ‘WhatsApp clips of the force’s rank and file supporters of the JVP/NPP making threats against their own superiors, only make the voters more wary of voting for the JVP/NPP.

As reiterated in this article by AOC, numerous previous articles, editorials and opinions, the people of this country want a ‘change’. But, not at any price. The JVP/NPP is seen as this potential ‘change’. The question is will they be able to reassure the public that they have the responsibility and capability to bring about this change?

There is no doubt that there are many, many others like AOC. In fact, in the article AOC states ‘However, if these Sri Lankan brethren would be brave enough……they will get my vote’. Will is a future intention, not, the present intention. AOC further states that the ‘SAHODARAYAS WILL THEN GET A LANDSLIDE VICTORY’ (emphasis mine). THEN is the critical word. The JVP/NPP need to deliver on what AOC (and the rest of the country) are expecting: a categorical stand on their economic policies, taking responsibility for their past actions and a firm reassurance that such incidents will not occur under their watch in the future. It is only then that they will get the future vote.

AOC concludes, ‘All of us need to think very deeply before we exercise our much -valued franchise. Our decisions could be a harbinger of absolute disaster or a vista of an …. Let us contemplate ever so carefully and vote wisely for the sake of the country’. AOC is hoping that the JVP/NPP will step up to the task. However, when you take the two statements: ‘However, if these Sri Lankan brethren would be brave enough……they will get my vote.” And ‘SAHODARAYAS WILL THEN GET A LANDSLIDE VICTORY’. It cannot be clearer. AOC (and the majority of the country) has no intention of voting for the JVP/NPP, unless these above-mentioned issues are addressed and sorted out.

AOC in his penultimate paragraph dismisses all the other candidates. ‘There is no point in wasting time with them as none of them will even have a ghost of a chance’. This may very well be true. However, I feel that it will be the votes for the provisional second runner-up and the rest of the also rans that will determine the fate of this country.

In order to explain/understand my theory a knowledge of how our electoral system works is required.

In our voting system for the presidential election, in the absence of a clear victor (a candidate obtaining over 50% of votes) in the first count, a provisional winner and runner-up are determined. These numbers are noted and the boxes are ‘sealed’. The second and third preferences on these ballot cards are not taken into consideration. Thereafter, the second choice of all the remaining cards are noted. If anyone of these are for the aforesaid winner or runner-up, they will be added on to that respective candidate and in these cases the third choice on these cards is immaterial.

If the second choice is not in favour of the runner-up or the winner, the process is then applied to the third choice of the remaining ballot cards. It is important to realise that in this system the value of being the second or third choice is the same, as if it were the first choice i.e. it is the total count of all the choices that matter. To illustrate this through an extreme example, candidate A gets 30% in the first count -making him the provisional winner- and Candidate D gets 5%- making him the runner up. In the second count candidate A gets 10% and candidate D gets 5%. However, in the third count candidate A gets only 5% while candidate D gets 40%. Therefore, in the final tally, candidate A gets 45% against 50% for candidate D, making candidate D the winner.

It is being argued in some quarters that the JVP/NPP will have the highest count, but it probably will not be able to secure a clear majority in the first round. So, let us take a scenario – in keeping with the article by AOC- where the JVP/NPP has got 30% of the vote. The next runner up Ranil or Sajith gets 20%. There is a remaining 50% of the votes. This 50% will have a significant percentage of ‘AOC and the rest of the country’ who want the JVP/NPP to come into power, only if they ‘fulfilled the asking criteria’. In the absence of the JVP/NPP ‘coming clean’ as it were, this lot would reluctantly prefer the alternative. Therefore, this 50% (or a considerable Majority of them) will vote for Ranil or Sajith in whatever order as their second and/or third choice. Even allowing for half of these votes to be spoilt, that still leaves 25%, which would come down in favour of the second runner up being the victor, be it Ranil or Sajith, in the final count.

The JVP /NPP have its work cut out. It is up to them to deliver on the expectations of the populace, in less than a week. If it does not do so and end up losing this presidential election, ironically it will be a ‘Mea maxima culpa’ on its part.

Dr. Sumedha S. Amarasekara



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

The policy of Sinhala Only and downgrading of English

Published

on

In 1956 a Sri Lankan politician riding a great surge of populism, made a move that, at a stroke, disabled a functioning civil society operating in the English language medium in Sri Lanka. He had thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

It was done to huge, ecstatic public joy and applause at the time but in truth, this action had serious ramifications for the country, the effects have, no doubt, been endlessly mulled over ever since.

However, there is one effect/ aspect that cannot be easily dismissed – the use of legal English of an exact technical quality used for dispensing Jurisprudence (certainty and rational thought). These court certified decisions engendered confidence in law, investment and business not only here but most importantly, among the international business community.

Well qualified, rational men, Judges, thought rationally and impartially through all the aspects of a case in Law brought before them. They were expert in the use of this specialised English, with all its meanings and technicalities – but now, a type of concise English hardly understandable to the casual layman who may casually look through some court proceedings of yesteryear.

They made clear and precise rulings on matters of Sri Lankan Law. These were guiding principles for administrative practice. This body of case law knowledge has been built up over the years before Independence. This was in fact, something extremely valuable for business and everyday life. It brought confidence and trust – essential for conducting business.

English had been developed into a precise tool for analysing and understanding a problem, a matter, or a transaction. Words can have specific meanings, they were not, merely, the play- thing of those producing “fake news”. English words as used at that time, had meaning – they carried weight and meaning – the weight of the law!

Now many progressive countries around the world are embracing English for good economic and cultural reasons, but in complete contrast little Sri Lanka has gone into reverse!

A minority of the Sinhalese population, (the educated ones!) could immediately see at the time the problems that could arise by this move to down-grade English including its high-quality legal determinations. Unfortunately, seemingly, with the downgrading of English came a downgrading of the quality of inter- personal transactions.

A second failure was the failure to improve the “have nots” of the villagers by education. Knowledge and information can be considered a universal right. Leonard Woolf’s book “A village in the Jungle” makes use of this difference in education to prove a point. It makes infinitely good politics to reduce this education gap by education policies that rectify this important disadvantage normal people of Sri Lanka have.

But the yearning of educators to upgrade the education system as a whole, still remains a distant goal. Advanced English spoken language is encouraged individually but not at a state level. It has become an orphaned child. It is the elites that can read the standard classics such as Treasure Island or Sherlock Holmes and enjoy them.

But, perhaps now, with the country in the doldrums, more people will come to reflect on these failures of foresight and policy implementation. Isn’t the doldrums all the proof you need?

by Priyantha Hettige

Continue Reading

Opinion

GOODBYE, DEAR SIR

Published

on

It is with deep gratitude and profound sorrow that we remember Mr. K. L. F. Wijedasa, remarkable athletics coach whose influence reached far beyond the track. He passed away on November 4, exactly six months after his 93rd birthday, having led an exemplary and disciplined life that enabled him to enjoy such a long and meaningful innings. To those he trained, he was not only a masterful coach but a mentor, a friend, a steady father figure, and an enduring source of inspiration. His wisdom, kindness, and unwavering belief in every young athlete shaped countless lives, leaving a legacy that will continue to echo in the hearts of all who were fortunate enough to be guided by him.

I was privileged to be one of the many athletes who trained under his watchful eye from the time Mr. Wijedasa began his close association with Royal College in 1974. He was largely responsible for the golden era of athletics at Royal College from 1973 to 1980. In all but one of those years, Royal swept the board at all the leading Track & Field Championships — from the Senior and Junior Tarbat Shields to the Daily News Trophy Relay Carnival. Not only did the school dominate competitions, but it also produced star-class athletes such as sprinter Royce Koelmeyer; sprint and long & triple jump champions Godfrey Fernando and Ravi Waidyalankara; high jumper and pole vaulter Cletus Dep; Olympic 400m runner Chrisantha Ferdinando; sprinters Roshan Fernando and the Indraratne twins, Asela and Athula; and record-breaking high jumper Dr. Dharshana Wijegunasinghe, to name just a few.

Royal had won the Senior & Junior Tarbats as well as the Relay Carnival in 1973 by a whisker and was looking for a top-class coach to mould an exceptionally talented group of athletes for 1974 and beyond. This was when Mr. Wijedasa entered the scene, beginning a lifelong relationship with the athletes of Royal College from 1974 to 1987. He received excellent support from the then Principal, late Mr. L. D. H. Pieris; Vice Principal, late Mr. E. C. Gunesekera; and Masters-in-Charge Mr. Dharmasena, Mr. M. D. R. Senanayake, and Mr. V. A. B. Samarakone, with whom he maintained a strong and respectful rapport throughout his tenure.

An old boy of several schools — beginning at Kandegoda Sinhala Mixed School in his hometown, moving on to Dharmasoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda, Moratu Vidyalaya, and finally Ananda College — he excelled in both sports and studies. He later graduated in Geography, from the University of Peradeniya. During his undergraduate days, he distinguished himself as a sprinter, establishing a new National Record in the 100 metres in 1955. Beyond academics and sports, Mr. Wijedasa also demonstrated remarkable talent in drama.

Though proudly an Anandian, he became equally a Royalist through his deep association with Royal’s athletics from the 1970s. So strong was this bond that he eventually admitted his only son, Duminda, to Royal College. The hallmark of Mr. Wijedasa was his tireless dedication and immense patience as a mentor. Endurance and power training were among his strengths —disciplines that stood many of us in good stead long after we left school.

More than champions on the track, it is the individuals we became in later life that bear true testimony to his loving guidance. Such was his simplicity and warmth that we could visit him and his beloved wife, Ransiri, without appointment. Even long after our school days, we remained in close touch. Those living overseas never failed to visit him whenever they returned to Sri Lanka. These visits were filled with fond reminiscences of our sporting days, discussions on world affairs, and joyful moments of singing old Sinhala songs that he treasured.

It was only fitting, therefore, that on his last birthday on May 4 this year, the Old Royalists’ Athletic Club (ORAC) honoured him with a biography highlighting his immense contribution to athletics at Royal. I was deeply privileged to co-author this book together with Asoka Rodrigo, another old boy of the school.

Royal, however, was not the first school he coached. After joining the tutorial staff of his alma mater following graduation, he naturally coached Ananda College before moving on to Holy Family Convent, Bambalapitiya — where he first met the “love of his life,” Ransiri, a gifted and versatile sportswoman. She was not only a national champion in athletics but also a top netballer and basketball player in the 1960s. After his long and illustrious stint at Royal College, he went on to coach at schools such as Visakha Vidyalaya and Belvoir International.

The school arena was not his only forte. Mr. Wijedasa also produced several top national athletes, including D. K. Podimahattaya, Vijitha Wijesekera, Lionel Karunasena, Ransiri Serasinghe, Kosala Sahabandu, Gregory de Silva, Sunil Gunawardena, Prasad Perera, K. G. Badra, Surangani de Silva, Nandika de Silva, Chrisantha Ferdinando, Tamara Padmini, and Anula Costa. Apart from coaching, he was an efficient administrator as Director of Physical Education at the University of Colombo and held several senior positions in national sporting bodies. He served as President of the Amateur Athletic Association of Sri Lanka in 1994 and was also a founder and later President of the Ceylonese Track & Field Club. He served with distinction as a national selector, starter, judge, and highly qualified timekeeper.

The crowning joy of his life was seeing his legacy continue through his children and grandchildren. His son, Duminda, was a prominent athlete at Royal and later a National Squash player in the 1990s. In his later years, Mr. Wijedasa took great pride in seeing his granddaughter, Tejani, become a reputed throwing champion at Bishop’s College, where she currently serves as Games Captain. Her younger brother, too, is a promising athlete.

He is survived by his beloved wife, Ransiri, with whom he shared 57 years of a happy and devoted marriage, and by their two children, Duminda and Puranya. Duminda, married to Debbie, resides in Brisbane, Australia, with their two daughters, Deandra and Tennille. Puranya, married to Ruvindu, is blessed with three children — Madhuke, Tejani, and Dharishta.

Though he has left this world, the values he instilled, the lives he shaped, and the spirit he ignited on countless tracks and fields will live on forever — etched in the hearts of generations who were privileged to call him Sir (Coach).

NIRAJ DE MEL, Athletics Captain of Royal College 1976

Deputy Chairman, Old Royalists’ Athletics Club (ORAC)

Continue Reading

Opinion

Why Sri Lanka needs a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office

Published

on

President Dissanayake presenting Budget 2026 in Parliament

Sri Lanka is now grappling with the aftermath of the one of the gravest natural disasters in recent memory, as Cyclone Ditwah and the associated weather system continue to bring relentless rain, flash floods, and landslides across the country.

In view of the severe disaster situation, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne had to amend the schedule for the Committee Stage debates on Budget 2026, which was subsequently passed by Parliament. There have been various interpretations of Budget 2026 by economists, the business community, academics, and civil society. Some analyses draw on economic expertise, others reflect social understanding, while certain groups read the budget through political ideology. But with the country now trying to manage a humanitarian and economic emergency, it is clear that fragmented interpretations will not suffice. This is a moment when Sri Lanka needs a unified, responsible, and collective “national reading” of the budget—one that rises above personal or political positions and focuses on safeguarding citizens, restoring stability, and guiding the nation toward recovery.

Budget 2026 is unique for several reasons. To understand it properly, we must “read” it through the lens of Sri Lanka’s current economic realities as well as the fiscal consolidation pathway outlined under the International Monetary Fund programme. Some argue that this Budget reflects a liberal policy orientation, citing several key allocations that support this view: strong investment in human capital, an infrastructure-led growth strategy, targeted support for private enterprise and MSMEs, and an emphasis on fiscal discipline and transparency.

Anyway, it can be argued that it is still too early to categorise the 2026 budget as a fully liberal budget approach, especially when considering the structural realities that continue to shape Sri Lanka’s economy. Still some sectors in Sri Lanka restricted private-sector space, with state dominance. And also, we can witness a weak performance-based management system with no strong KPI-linked monitoring or institutional performance cells. Moreover, the country still maintains a broad subsidy orientation, where extensive welfare transfers may constrain productivity unless they shift toward targeted and time-bound mechanisms. Even though we can see improved tax administration in the recent past, there is a need to have proper tax rationalisation, requiring significant simplification to become broad-based and globally competitive. These factors collectively indicate that, despite certain reform signals, it may be premature to label Budget 2026 as fully liberal in nature.

Overall, Sri Lanka needs to have proper monitoring mechanisms for the budget. Even if it is a liberal type, development, or any type of budget, we need to see how we can have a budget monitoring system.

Establishing a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office

Whatever the budgets presented during the last seven decades, the implementation of budget proposals can always be mostly considered as around 30-50 %. Sri Lanka needs to have proper budget monitoring mechanisms. This is not only important for the budget but also for all other activities in Sri Lanka. Most of the countries in the world have this, and we can learn many best practices from them.

Establishing a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office is essential for strengthening Sri Lanka’s fiscal governance and ensuring that public spending delivers measurable value. Such an office would provide an independent, data-driven mechanism to track budget implementation, monitor programme outcomes, and evaluate whether ministries achieve their intended results. Drawing from global best practices—including India’s PFMS-enabled monitoring and OECD programme-based budgeting frameworks—the office would develop clear KPIs, performance scorecards, and annual evaluation reports linked to national priorities. By integrating financial data, output metrics, and policy outcomes, this institution would enable evidence-based decision-making, improve budget credibility, reduce wastage, and foster greater transparency and accountability across the public sector. Ultimately, this would help shift Sri Lanka’s budgeting process from input-focused allocations toward performance-oriented results.

There is an urgent need for a paradigm shift in Sri Lanka’s economy, where export diversification, strengthened governance, and institutional efficiency become essential pillars of reform. Establishing a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office is a critical step that can help the country address many long-standing challenges related to governance, fiscal discipline, and evidence-based decision-making. Such an institution would create the mechanisms required for transparency, accountability, and performance-focused budgeting. Ultimately, for Sri Lanka to gain greater global recognition and move toward a more stable, credible economic future, every stakeholder must be equipped with the right knowledge, tools, and systems that support disciplined financial management and a respected national identity.

(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies, Open University of Sri Lanka and you can reach Professor Abeysekera at nabey@ou.ac.lk)

by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending