The Wickremesinghe Presidency Response to Dr Mahim Mendis

By Anura Gunasekera

All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common; it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership- J.K. Galbraith.Dr. M.M., through an inexplicable thought process, has seen it fit to classify my writing as – quote- “…. A reflection of a segment of the English-speaking middle class of Sri Lanka, confused and burdened by the state of flux, or the terrible uncertainty that engulfs the nation at large. They often confine their criticism to private gatherings, while a few others express themselves through newspaper columns with hard-hearted sentiments against politicians like Premadasa, whom they love to undermine”- end quote

Firstly, my viewpoints on national issues have been exposed in the public domain, through newspaper articles, fairly frequently across the last couple of decades. I cannot quite understand what he means when he says, “members if this social class, going by the contents of Mr. Gunasekera’s column, never believed in ousting Rajapaksas or Wickremesinghe, as they easily embrace the status quo”. To clarify, I have been a steadfast critic of the odious status quo that successive Rajapaksa regimes have represented since the day Mahinda Rajapaksa was first elected President, and I maintain that position to this day. I can also state with total confidence that I represent the viewpoint of a large mass of people, not all of them part of the so-called “English-speaking middle class”. If Dr. MM is in any doubt about my credentials, I suggest that he check out the blog, ‘Rilawala Reflections’, or my medium account – if he can find the time and the inclination.

I do not “resent” (Dr MM’s word) the militant outlook of the university student federations and the other participants of the Aragalaya. It is not possible to confront repression without militancy and steadfastness. But my concern, as an average, law-abiding citizen, was the descent of justifiable civil protest in to violence, particularly after the 9th May. Violence is frequently an outcome of civil protest, the world over, and Sri Lanka was no exception. The occupation of Temple Trees, the President’s house, the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s office were unnecessary, and the physical damage caused within those premises, unacceptable. The countrywide damage and destruction of private property was criminal and the murder of two men in Nittambuwa abhorrent, as was the torching of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s house. As far as I am aware, none of the leaders of the Aragalaya, insofar as it has a defined leadership, has publicly condemned those incidents.

Irrespective of the righteousness of the original purpose of the Aragalaya, which I endorse without reservation, those responsible must be made accountable for those crimes. To endorse the Aragalaya unequivocally is to endorse all those unacceptable acts. Dr. MM perceives this position differently. Quote- “Anura Gunasekera has taken the typical position often repeated by the English-speaking elites …”- end quote. The call for law and order is common amongst all right-thinking people and certainly not confined to “elite” groups. If Dr. MM wishes to explore the evolution of my views on the Aragalaya and connected events, I suggest that he reads my articles in The Sunday Island editions of April 11, April 17, April 25, May 15, June 05 and July 17. It is not necessary for me to go in to detail in this writing.

As for the “fatherly advice to these militant youth”, (Dr. MM’s words) let me illustrate my position with a detailed, real-life episode.

In or around 1992, R. Paskaralingam, Secretary of Finance in the R.Premadasa regime, summoned all private company corporate heads and directors, seeking from them a solution to the issue of unemployed graduates. He requested the assembled corporates to provide suitable in-house training, without remuneration, for a minimum period of six months, to make those graduates—in his own words—”employable”. However, Ken Balendra, then Chairman of John Keells, insisted that all trainees be paid and in order to maintain uniformity, it was agreed that each trainee would be paid an allowance of 3,000 per month. Paskaralingam’s ministry supplied around 6,000 names of unemployed graduates to the private companies represented at the meeting. I was present at the first meeting as well as all the meetings which followed.

At the final meeting, six months later, the late Lyn Fernando of the apparel sector submitted the graduate training programme details to Paskaralingam. Of over 4,000 graduates given training appointments, fewer than 10% completed the training programme. On behalf of my company, of which I was then the Head of Human Resources, I interviewed over two dozen candidates and did not employ any, as none of them were prepared to report for training on a Saturday. Exchanging notes then with many of my contemporaries in the private sector, I found that my experience was mirrored right across the sector. The project was a failure entirely due to the reluctance of the greater majority of unemployed graduates, despite being provided with employment opportunity, to conform to the diligence expected by the private sector. Hence, my ‘fatherly advice” to unemployed graduates.

In the last five decades, till retirement in 2020, I have been directly associated, in every organization that I worked in, with Human Resource Management. During this period, I have interviewed thousands of candidates. Therefore, I am fully aware of the issues regarding educational standards, especially in outstation areas, and the difficulties faced by graduates seeking employment. Contrary to Dr MM’s assumption, I speak with reasonable awareness and knowledge of the relevant issues, especially from the perspective of an employer. My knowledge is derived from direct interaction with every level of employment, from manual workers to senior corporate managers.

My criticism of Sajith Premadasa is not an attempt to undermine him. I have no party affiliations but I have voted at every election since 1977, casting my ballot on the basis of strongly held views on major national issues. I voted for Premadasa at the last presidential election as I considered a Gotabaya presidency abhorrent, for reasons I have explained in detail in other writings which pre-date the Yahapalanaya regime. In this instance, promoting Dullas as opposition to RW was, to me, and to many other people who expected greater things of Premadasa, a great disappointment for a number of reasons.

The rationale behind the promotion of the Dullas candidacy was probably the result of a think-tank deliberation, which, judging by Dr MM’s observations, he himself may have been privy to. Given the content of my article at issue, even without reference to any of my previous writings, it is quite absurd of Dr MM to pose the question, “Is Anura Gunasekera an appeaser of the Ranil-Rajapaksa regime to have a serious grouse with Sajith Premadasa for not accepting the Prime-Ministerial post under Gotabaya?” Frankly, that proposition does not merit debate.

Dullas A has been a Rajapaksa loyalist, which means a Rajapaksa lackey, for over two decades. He was the regular spokesman for Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the most incompetent leader this country has ever had. Until he suddenly developed a conscience and defected from the Rajapaksa ranks- though only when the writing on the wall was clear to all- Dullas endorsed the Gotabaya inspired tax concessions, the money-printing, the organic fertilizer fiat, the sugar scam, the ban on agrochemicals and the 20th Amendment.

In the above context, within a few short weeks after switching a decades- long loyalty, what makes him a better candidate for the presidency than Premadasa? The nation was confronted by the most crucial leadership vacuum since independence and, in my view, Dullas was not a choice. In his writing, Dr MM has detailed many of the issues Premadasa has been involved in, and the initiatives he has launched, as an Opposition leader. But that is exactly what an Opposition leader is expected to do. Weighted speeches and impressive rhetoric in parliament and at other forums are, at best, poor substitutes for concrete action at opportune moments. The ground reality, as far as I am concerned, is that he has faltered twice when confronted with the final hurdle. Ordinary citizens like me are not privy to what goes on in the minds of our leaders. We only see the results and, obviously, weigh those against our expectations and arrive at our conclusions. Sajith cannot expect to win by lying low, limiting his profile and interminably biding his time. In the words of another great crisis manager, “The nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders, who are keeping their ears to the ground.” ( Winston Churchill)

Dr MM’s writing suggests a preoccupation with the segment of our society which he labels as the “English-speaking middle class” and, in a sweeping generalisation, attributes to this group all manner of socio-political and ideological inadequacies. There is also a confusing reference, seemingly irrelevant to the context, “to those who have proved that they have not read any decent books in their own libraries.” As for me, although I now habitually write in English, I am quite fluent in Sinhala and reasonably so in Tamil. I also, calculatedly, seek the views of all linguistic groups in the country and many of my views are informed by such discussions.

I understand Dr. MM’s compulsion to reinforce his leader’s position and I respect his views, whilst holding firmly to mine. As for Sajith Premadasa, I pray, on behalf of a nation desperately in need of a viable leadership option in troubled times, that before long he is presented with that perfect opportunity he is awaiting. If it comes to a people’s ballot Sajith is assured of mine.

Dr MM has concluded his writing with a quotation on the “significance of compromise in politics,” attributed to Kevin Spacey, American actor and film producer, currently embroiled in a major sexual misconduct controversy. Let me conclude mine with a quote, attributed to another American, celebrated for genuine greatness; “Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”- Abraham Lincoln.