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)