Features
Cabinet Committee on Brain Drain where leftists proved liberal
by Leelananda de Silva
In the 1970s there was concern in Sri Lanka and elsewhere about the migration of skilled people from their home countries. This was referred to as the “Brain Drain.” In Sri Lanka, action had been taken to try and stop the migration of talent by legislative measures like the Passport (Regulation) and Exit Permit Act of 1971. The attitude of the government had been on control, instead of incentives for people to stay. I was thinking about this subject, and once I had briefly discussed this with H.A.de.S Gunasekera, my boss, and the Prime Minister. H.A.De.S had other things to do and was not particularly concerned with this issue although I kept him informed. So whatever happened subsequently was on my initiative. This is one of the few areas I can claim credit for pushing this issue and that is why I had decided to devote a chapter in this book to this subject.
After discussions with Mrs. Bandaranaike in early 1974, we prepared a cabinet paper recommending the appointment of a cabinet committee on this subject. The cabinet appointed a committee to inquire into the problems of technologically, professionally and academically qualified personnel leaving Sri Lanka. The ministers on the committee were Maithripala Senanayake (chairman), P.B.G Kalugalle, Badi-ud-din Mahmud, Pieter Keuneman, N.M Perera, Leslie Goonewardene, C.Kumarasuriyar and W.P.G. Ariyadasa. H.A.de.S was appointed as secretary to the committee, and I was the assistant secretary. As H.A.de.S did not attend any of the sittings of the committee and I functioned as the virtual secretary.
The proceedings of the committee were kept as simple as possible. It met with the representatives of a few professional groups and associations. It met four times only, as it was difficult to get all these ministers together. I met with many of these associations and with individuals at my office. The procedure was for me to prepare drafts of the report and place it before the committee for their observations. It was my happy experience that the ministers rarely amended these drafts. Anyway, before the preparation of these drafts, we had discussed the substance of the issues involved, and the drafts reflected the views of ministers.
I was surprised that the Ministers, who were supposed to belong to a socialist government, with a penchant for control and inward looking politics, agreed to adopt a most outward looking approach to the problem of the brain drain. Instead of controls, it was agreed to offer incentives. The Ministers agreed to look upon the brain drain, not negatively, but in a more positive way, and look at the gains to the country in the long term. The Ministers felt that one way of addressing the problem was to increase the capacities of institutions producing professional skills, so that even if there are leakages, there would be sufficient numbers staying behind. It was encouraging to note that politicians of different political hues could agree on important issues in the national interest.
R.K. Srivastava, a UN expert attached to the Planning Ministry helped us with a survey of the push and pull factors associated with the brain drain, and with organizing relevant statistics for the last three years. Between the years 1971 and 1974, 400 doctors out of a total stock of 2,000 had left the country. Ten percent of the stock of engineers also had left. The majority of those leaving were between the ages of 30 and 34, which clearly indicated that they were unhappy with their future prospects in this country.
I do not want to dwell at length on the proceedings of the committee, which were harmonious and with hardly any difference of view among Ministers or between Ministers and the Planning Ministry which was servicing the committee. There was a series of recommendations in the final report, which was then published as Sessional Paper 10 of 1974 and was called the Report of the Committee inquiring into the problems of Technologically, Professionally, and Academically qualified personnel leaving Sri Lanka. One of the main recommendations was to reverse the then current attitude to control the flow outwards, and adopt a more liberal approach in granting long term leave. The committee recommended that the Compulsory Public Service act No. 70 of 1965 be implemented sympathetically, and allow doctors and engineers to leave the country. While not calling for the abolition of this legislation, the committee’s recommendations made it a virtual dead letter.
Another key recommendation was to allow public servants to obtain up to five years leave during their career to find employment abroad. The current rule was that a public servant leaving the country for employment abroad should sign a bond, and the maximum period of a bond went up to 15 years. The committee recommended that this should be reduced to 10 years, and corresponding reductions were made for shorter periods of leave. There were further restrictions on employment abroad. The Passport (Regulation) and Exit Permit Act no. 53 of 1971, required that a passport should be issued for only one year. Moreover, ten percent of the foreign exchange earnings of an individual had to be remitted every month to this country. These requirements were abolished.
Apart from the relaxation of controls, the committee suggested that there should be incentives for people who stay behind. The need for training abroad for professionals was recognized, and instead of discouraging them, there was to be a more encouraging approach for those proceeding abroad. Opportunities for training abroad were to be explored more intensively. The committee also recommended that training capacities in the country should be increased, and the facilities for research should be improved and expanded. It felt that scientific and academic literature should be made available in libraries, and for this purpose, foreign exchange was to be released.
It is my view that this report is one of the most politically liberal documents produced during that period. The Cabinet approved the recommendations of the committee without any amendments. The Cabinet established an inter ministerial officials committee to implement the recommendations. I was appointed chairman of this committee. It is my privilege to record here that the Cabinet decided to place on record its appreciation of my work on this committee. There is a Cabinet conclusion to this effect. I was present at the cabinet meeting where this decision was made and it was Dr N.M. Perera and Mr. Maitripala Senanayaka who called for it.
What happened with this committee is a fascinating story. The committee met twice or thrice and drafted the necessary circulars to implement the recommendations. So far as the public service was concerned, these circulars had to be issued by the Ministry of Public Administration. D.B.I.P.S Siriwardhana was the Secretary of the Ministry, and he had no objection to issuing the circulars. He issued one or two circulars almost immediately regarding the revision of rules on public service bonds for those going on leave, and extending the period of leave allowed for up to five years.
A curious incident took place once these circulars were issued. Felix Dias Bandaranaike was the Minister of Public Administration and he was not present at the cabinet meeting which approved the committee’s report and gave the go head for implementing it. Felix was not opposed to this committee at any stage. He decided himself that he would not be on the committee. By the time the committee report was out, relations between him and his secretary D.B.I.P.S, were strained. He disliked D.B.I.P.S issuing these circulars to implement the report in his absence.
At a subsequent cabinet meeting, he made quite a scene, attacking me in particular and also his secretary. I was asked by the Prime Minister to be present at this cabinet meeting when the issue came up, as Felix had given notice that he was going to take it up. Felix got his way and the circulars were withdrawn. Cabinet Ministers like Dr. N.M Perera and others, told Felix that the officials were merely implementing what the Cabinet had decided. Anyway, there was much tension. As I was about to leave the cabinet meeting, and as I was passing Felix’s chair, he signaled to me to say that what he said was not against me, but was directed at D.B.I.P.S. Anyway, the withdrawal of the circulars was a temporary affair as the recommendations of the report were implemented a little later, Felix having got over his reservations.
What is most interesting for me in the work of the Brain Drain Committee was that I was able to get this committee organized and examine an important issue in an integrated way at cabinet level. The report itself went against the grain of the times, in taking a liberal attitude towards this issue. It showed clearly that there are many opportunities for more holistic types of policy making by the Cabinet through the functioning of a system of cabinet committees. One aspect that became clear to me was that ministers were denied the opportunity for clear thinking, based on research and policy analysis. In the absence of rigorous analysis, they resorted to policy making on the hoof, based on their hunches and inaccurate information. Even 40 years later, the report is worth reading. We followed up this report later at a Commonwealth Summit and that aspect of it I shall describe in another chapter.
(Excerpted from the writer’s autobiography, The Long Littleness of Life)
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
