From political autocracy to economic autocracy

It was reported in the Daily FT that Jonathan Alles, CEO and Managing Director of Hatton National Bank, sounded an alarm on the consequences of proposed consolidation of the financial sector.
According to the newspaper, he said: “It is not that I am negative and don’t see this as an opportunity, but I’ll just say that at the end of the day we will mess it up right royally.”
On the following day he made a statement emphasising the fact stated in the above statement as well that he and the bank are supportive to the consolidation initiative and have been actively involved in preparatory work.
Can Alles, who is a paid employee, go against the main shareholder of his bank, the regulator and the Government, three in one represented on his Board by none other than the Chairperson? No he can’t. Looks like even constructive criticism is also not encouraged, which is a must in this type of massive project.
Government control
In addition to the Government banks, Bank of Ceylon, People’s Bank and National Savings Bank, the Government is the major shareholder of major private banks in Sri Lanka. Considering the shareholding of Government entities, Bank of Ceylon, National Savings Bank, Insurance Corporation of Sri Lanka and Government-controlled entities Employees’ Provident Fund and Employees’ Trust Fund, the total Government shareholding in the major banks is given below:

•  Hatton National Bank: 28.87%
• Commercial Bank: 19.17%
• DFCC Bank: 20.63%
• National Development Bank: 23.58%

•  Sampath Bank: 12.64%
• Seylan Bank: 32.40%

It is appropriate to note that these percentages are well above the minimum allowed percentage of any one person and related entities can hold of a bank, which is 10%. Total collective voting rights in Hatton National Bank, of Milford Exports (Ceylon) Ltd., Stassen Exports Ltd. and Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka, which collectively hold 18.24% of the voting shares of the bank, are limited to 10% based on the said rule.

Conflict of interest
The Central Bank, being the regulator of the commercial banks and being the controller of the investments of the Employees’ Provident Fund, bought shares of commercial banks using EPF funds. As pointed out by many, there is a conflict of interest here. The EPF purchased little less than 10% of all the six banks above. Isn’t it appropriate to limit the shareholding of the Government to 10% in these banks considering its own rule since all the Government entities are related to one another?
The origin of the practice of acquiring shares of the commercial entities using funds of the Government entities goes back to the time of President Kumaratunga. When the current President was the Minister of Labour in the Government of President Kumaratunga, he purchased Salt Corporation with the funds of Employees’ Trust Fund Board and later he had sold it off.
Advantages of consolidation
Consolidation of banks and non-banking financial institutions has its advantages, which were pronounced by the Central Bank. Mainly there will be stability so that there is a remote possibility of a failure of a bank or a financial institution which is under the supervision of the Central Bank.
The Central Bank says that there is no urgent necessity for consolidation now. If consolidation is done now when there is a necessity, such as hardships of the economy in the future, we do not have to rush through. Let alone the mergers of the financial sector, any merger has its own merits and demerits. As Alles pointed out, we have to identify and cautiously face those situations.
Sri Lankan banks by and large lend on collateral and the ability of the borrower to pay and the prospects of the project are secondary. There are capable entrepreneurs of this country who do not have adequate collateral to offer and there are persons with ulterior motives as well. It is the capability of a bank to identify these persons and treat accordingly.
This is not an easy task as lending with the comfort of collateral and this is the way that the banks can contribute to our economy positively. It is great if we can achieve this with consolidation. Furthermore, as the Secretary to the Treasury points out, banks should move from credit card lending to long-term lending in order to have a lasting impact on the economy.

Interest rate spread
It is widely believed that the interest rate spread of Sri Lankan banks is high. It was reported that one main reason for this is inefficiency, one main reason of which is political influence of the two giant State sector banks, Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank.
Other commercial banks take the cover of these two giants and keep the spread high. Therefore, with consolidation, it is very much appropriate if the Government can consider seriously real restructuring of the two State sector banks. Then and only then will consolidation be effective.
Although the interest rate spread, which means the difference between the lending rate and the borrowing rate, of our banks is high, the margin which means net interest income over gross interest income is comparatively reasonable compared to international banks.
Over the last two years the margin of interest as explained above ranged from 33% to 46% of the above six banks. However, the same of HSBC Global and American Express, of which the main income is not interest, is around 65% to 70%. Their spread is low since the interest rates are low and hence it is not felt very much. Since our interest rates are high, the higher spread is felt very much.
The Central Bank is of the view that with consolidation, the interest rate spread will also be lowered with efficient utilisation of assets by the banks. However, the customers of the banks should be very cautious of this statement considering the present behaviour of the banks. Probably with fewer and stronger banks, competitiveness in the market would be affected. Especially if there are no reforms in the State banks, there would be a higher probability that customers would be affected.
Banks at the top
In the Business Today rankings, among the top 10 companies there are four banks: Commercial Bank, Hatton National Bank, Sampath Bank and the National Development Bank. DFCC bank is in the 14th slot whereas the country’s leading exporter Hayleys is in the 12th slot.
There are different reasons for this. But I believe in a developing country like ours, although the Governor of the Central Bank places the country a bit higher, top slots should be occupied by the manufacturing and exporting companies, not the banks which are just depending on the industry.
Banks should support the industry and not the other way around. This situation is not prevalent in any other country, if I am not mistaken, other than in China. The high profitability of Chinese banks is rooted in a large extent in the guaranteed high net interest margin and lower personnel costs advantage.
Among the top 10 highest profit making companies in the world there are two Chinese banks, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and China Construction Bank, and those are the only banks among the Top 10.
In the above six Sri Lankan banks, the net profit margin, which means profit before income tax over total Income including gross interest income, ranges from 10% to 33%. Although these are not comparable, considering the profits of a manufacturing company, these figures are very lucrative. With the consolidation, if it works well, this trend would probably continue a bit aggressively.
Adequate debate needed
Finally this question of consolidation was triggered when the Secretary to the Treasury wanted the banks to borrow in foreign currency from foreign entities. The Government probably wanted to ease its foreign borrowings and wanted the country to borrow continuously with an eye to maintaining the exchange rate as well.
Banks were unable to borrow the expected amounts and one reason is the comparative smaller size of the local banks. With the consolidation, this intention can be achieved. However, it should be noted that with the still higher Sri Lankan interest rate in the international markets (it may not be able to reduce it further in the short run), the Sri Lankan Rupee should depreciate in order for our export products to be competitive in the international market. It would be a mistake if the exchange rate is manipulated with borrowed funds.
When the country takes important policy decisions, there should be an adequate debate over pros and cons and then only should we take a decision. As Alles said, no one who argues against the consolidation is negative. What we should avoid is one-sided information and decision flow, which is prevalent in the political field today, and the ‘yes sir’ mentality.

(Published in Daily FT on 9th May 2014)

Buddhism, Dhamma, collectivism and individualism

In today’s context in Sri Lanka it is difficult to understand the role of certain Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists where they do engage in certain activities in order to protect Buddhism but in fact by those very actions they attack the very basics of Buddhism and pave the way to destroy it. In this article the writer tries to review this situation by analysing the prevalent culture in Sri Lanka and the impact on it to Buddhism.
Collectivism and individualism
Individualism and collectivism are concepts developed by the scholars who studied the cultures of the countries and the organisations. Geert Hofstede developed the most prominent conceptualisation. Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

“In collectivist cultures, laws and rights differ by group whereas in individualist cultures laws and rights are supposed to be the same for all. In Sri Lanka there are different laws and rights based on the level of influence one can exercise. This is evident today in the behaviour of politicians, police and to certain extent of the Judiciary as well”
In Sri Lanka, by and large there is a collectivist culture. There are various groups starting from the race, cast, and religion up to the informal in-groups. There are strong ties between individuals and very often relationships prevail over tasks. Identity is based in the social network to which one belongs, rather than based on the individual as in the individualist cultures. Special recognition is given by a person to another if the latter is studied at the same school of the former or the latter’s hometown is same as the former.
Very often opinions are predetermined by group membership and having private opinions are not encouraged. This is somewhat evident in political thinking of minority communities in Sri Lanka. It is evident in thinking patterns of the university students as well. In the electoral system also there are a large number of voters who are not members of political parties and who do not want to change their loyalty to a party. It is a question whether proper democracy can be established in collectivist cultures.
Collectivist cultures are not rule-oriented. They always try to take shortcuts or try to deviate from the accepted procedure/rule. In Sri Lanka when there is a queue, people try to break the order since, in the point of view of one person, the other persons who are in the queue are not belong to his in-group. They are generally hostile towards the members of the other groups.
In collectivist cultures, laws and rights differ by group whereas in individualist cultures laws and rights are supposed to be the same for all. In Sri Lanka there are different laws and rights based on the level of influence one can exercise. This is evident today in the behaviour of politicians, police and to certain extent of the Judiciary as well. Finally, the ultimate goal of collectivist cultures is harmony and consensus in the society whereas the same in the individualistic cultures is self-actualisation by every individual.
However there is a positive correlation between national wealth and individualism. When the society is modernised the urban family is nuclear, so that it paves way for individualism.
Buddhism and Dhamma
Gautama the Buddha rediscovered the law of nature 2,600 years ago. Law of nature is not an opinion, a dogma or a philosophy developed by the Buddha, but he just discovered it. If he did not discover it, we would be ignorant to that effect but the law of nature would be in force. Also it was a rediscovery. Many discovered the same in the past and many will discover it in the future. Therefore there was no such ownership to the law of nature by Gautama the Buddha. Law of nature is called Dhamma in Pali.
The Dhamma is not sectarian; it is universal. People cannot be divided based on Dhamma; instead it unites people. Dhamma is not for war but for peace. The Dhamma is not a belief but the reality. But anyone and everyone cannot understand the Dhamma. It is not so easy to understand and at the same time it is not so difficult either. If one could not understand the Dhamma in depth, one can develop a philosophy out of it, if one so wishes. This philosophy, which is based on the superficial understanding of the Dhamma, could be named also. The name given to this philosophy is Buddhism. Buddhism developed in various countries acquiring the beliefs and ways of life in those societies.
Therefore there is a clear difference between Dhamma, the law of nature rediscovered by Gautama the Buddha 2500 years ago and Buddhism, which was developed by his disciples, who could not or did not want to understand Dhamma. Buddhism is sectarian; it divides people. If it divides people it should also lead them to war although it preaches otherwise. Like any other organised religion, Buddhism is having lot of rituals, which has become an integral part of it.
When the South Indians invaded Sri Lanka, Hinduism also came to the country. Buddhism was accommodative towards Hinduism and with the influence of the Sinhala kings Hindu Gods came to the Buddhist temples in the Polonnaruwa era. This was the greatest influence the Sri Lankan Buddhism had. In the Kandyan era, the then King, Kirthi Sri Rajasinghe ordered only the members of Govigama caste should be accepted for ordination as Bhikkus since a low caste Bhikku worshiped the king contrary to accepted practice. The order of the king was simply the opposite of Dhamma. But it prevails to date and the members of the other castes had to have different Nikayas for them. When Western powers invaded Sri Lanka and started spreading Christianity, Buddhists became an in-group organised against Christianity.
Buddhism and collectivism
In collectivist countries, members of a religion act as members of an in-group. Buddhism also suffered the same fate in Sri Lanka. It was used to organise people against the South Indian invaders by the Sinhalese kings. It organised Buddhists against Christianity. It mobilised the masses against the Western invaders. Therefore it established as ‘Sinhala Buddhism’. Later it had different variations such as ‘Rural Buddhism,’ ‘Olcott Buddhism’ and ‘Dharmapala Buddhism’ identified by different scholars in order to denote different social groups.
Therefore present day Buddhism has a lot of variations from the original Dhamma. In some instances, it is completely the opposite of Dhamma. The laymen and the Bhikkus are practicing different social religions called various names such as Sinhala Buddhism, etc. In this context only we can examine the behaviour of certain Bhikkus coming to politics and promote ‘non-Buddhist’ concepts. In the present day social context there is nothing wrong in this act.
Some time back there was a book titled ‘Buddhism Betrayed’ written by renowned Sri Lankan social scientist Dr. S.J. Tambiah, who passed away recently. As we discussed, by and large the prevailing Buddhism in Sri Lanka is Sinhala Buddhism. Therefore there is no question of betrayal of Buddhism, considering the acts taken by Sinhala Buddhists against the Tamils. However there is a question of betrayal of Dhamma in favour of Sinhala Buddhism.
But Dhamma still prevails in this land. Still there are people interested in Dhamma. Still there are people practicing Dhamma. Still there are people achieved very high spiritual statuses in this very life through Dhamma.
Dhamma and individualism
In a course of vipassana meditation, if a Westerner is asked not to talk with other meditators or not to open his/her eyes while sitting in meditation he/she will follow the instructions up to the letter. If the same instructions were given to a local he/she will try to communicate with others with body language or open his/her eyes ‘little bit’ and see what is happening around while in meditation.
If an individualist promise to observe five precepts there are many chances that he/she observes the same so that there is no need to promise over and over again. In respect of a collectivist it would be the opposite.
In Dhamma the final understanding is individualistic. Initially one has to understand that he is a ‘robot’ not a real person. There is an entity due to causes and effects and there is no real person. The entire view one is having about the world shatters down with this understanding. Yet this understanding is individualistic although the result is that there is no individual.
Collectivism does not promote people to have this type of self-actualisation; instead it promotes harmony in the society. That is why there is a saying in Sinhala to condemn a person who wants to achieve a higher worldly status in life that he wants to achieve Buddha-hood all alone. In fact spiritual gains have to be achieved all alone, not with kith and kin. Dhamma says that one has to find out his own liberation and there is no God to help him. A Guru can guide him/her but he/she, no one else, has to go along the path. This type of thinking is alien in collectivist cultures. However the individualist Bikkus who meditate in isolation are well supported with food, clothes, lodgings and medicine by the collectivist cultures. Collectivist cultures would help to preserve Dhamma but those cultures would fail to get the benefits out of the same.
Therefore Dhamma was degraded to Buddhism and then to Sinhala Buddhism in the hands of Sri Lankan collectivist culture. Dhamma will get firmly established in the individualistic Western cultures if introduced properly.

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT on 30th Apr 2014

Foreign policy, defence strategies and the public

It looks like it is complicated and difficult to understand world affairs today. Many say that there are double standards, hypocrisy and hidden agendas in international relations. It is simple to understand the complicated situations if one can go to the basics. What are the basics? Those are self-protection and self-interest. Let us try to understand the complicated scenarios objectively by examining the basics.
Foreign policy of any super power is based on the defence strategy of that country and then comes trade interests. American foreign policy is based on the defence strategies of America. When the defence strategies are considered those are not based on rules and regulations. Those are coming out of fear which can be real or imaginary and are necessarily based on self-protection by hook or by crook.
Ukraine
What happened in Ukraine? Crimea was under the Soviet Union and during the time of Nikita Khrushchev, who served as the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist party, Crimea was handed over to Ukraine. Once the Soviet Union was broken up Ukraine became an independent state in 1991. Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union and hence entered in to Non Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon state.
In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych became the President and the Supreme Court held that the election was largely rigged and subsequently Viktor Yushchenko became the President and YuliaTymoshenko the Prime Minister. Viktor Yanukovych was once again elected president in 2010 with 48% of votes.
A wave of demonstrations and civil unrest called Euromaidan has begun in November 2013 mainly to protest against the suspension of preparation of signing an Association Agreement with the European Union by the President and by and large to protest against widespread government corruption, abuse of power and violation of human rights under the current President who is loyal to Russia.
The United States intervened in the unrest and it was reported that US invested around $ 5 billion in ‘developing Ukrainian Democratic Institutions’. In a leaked telephone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland wanted Arseniy Yatsenyuk, then an opposition leader, in the Government of Ukraine after throwing away the President Viktor Yanukovych against another leader Vitaly Klitschko. In this telephone conversation Nuland used obscene language against the European Union. Ironically Yatsenyuk is the current interim Prime Minister of Ukraine after the President took refuge in Russia.
The Crimean population is largely Russian. Crimea was an autonomous parliamentary republic within Ukraine and was governed by the Constitution of Crimea in accordance with the laws of Ukraine. Citing the interests of Russians in Crimea, Russia invaded Crimea and arranged a referendum to decide whether they want to stay with Ukraine or join Russia. On 16 March Crimeans by voting 97% in favour wanted to join Russia. Now Russia is in the process of acquiring the Ukrainian military bases in Crimea by force.
US and Russia
The facts were given above in brief and if we try to analyse the Ukraine crisis, one can argue that the US is wrong and another can argue that Russia is wrong but in fact both are wrong. The US capitalised on the civil unrest to plant a leader of its choice in Ukraine which is on the Russian border and which is having nuclear weapons. In turn Russia invaded Crimea against international rules and norms.
The US and Russia both acted to secure their defence in expense of the rights of Ukrainian general public. In the case of Russia it was very evident and the issue was very close to it. In the case of the US, it wanted to destabilise Russia to a certain extent and secure its defence to that extent.
The US certainly has not done what it preaches. In the case of Russia also hypocrisy is evident if we take the reasons they give against the resolution against Sri Lanka at Geneva. Crimeans I suppose got what they wanted. Ukraine lost Crimea, most probably permanently. With the organised civil unrest Yatsenyuk became the interim Prime Minister with the support of the US. What happened to the interests of the general public of Ukraine?
In today’s politics one has to look at the national interest or the interests of the general public of that country independent of the interests of the leaders of that country since the leaders very often look after their personal interests ahead of the interests of the country.
The Ukrainians had a ruler who was convicted in 2004 that he had rigged the elections. He was corrupt and autocratic who imprisoned the former Prime Minister who was his political opponent. He was a violator of human rights. The Ukrainians probably wanted him out. He was a man of Russia so Russia wanted to keep him and the US wanted him out. This is what happens when international politics is connected with domestic politics, especially in the case of small countries bordering powerful countries.
Sri Lanka
In line with this experience, let us examine the situation in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is located in a strategic position in the Indian Ocean and very close to nuclear-powered India which is in search of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and which has been having rapid economic growth in recent times.
Moreover, Tamil Nadu, an Indian state with a large Tamil population of 72 million, is very concerned about the situation of the ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka. During the time of President Jayewardene it was considered that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu played a pivotal role of the ethnic conflict here, which was reversed with the killing of Rajiv Gandhi. Hence Sri Lanka will have to manage Indian political interests and the concerns of the Tamil Nadu.
In addition to that due to the geographical location, Sri Lanka will have to manage the interests of the super powers as well. From the Jayewardene era during the war, Sri Lanka did not get an adequate supply of weapons from the West due to its bad human rights record. The situation was changed during the time of President Kumaratunga where the Foreign Minister was Lakshman Kadirgamar.
Sri Lanka used to buy weapons from China. Presently Sri Lanka is more lenient to China, firstly in order to counter the Indian influence and secondly to counter the Western pressure coming after the war. We should emphasise that this is not the non-aligned foreign policy practiced by Sri Lanka successfully during the time of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. This is somewhat a bargaining policy so that the country can get more benefits from one power pointing to the pressure of another power.
India handles this situation cautiously, considering the alignment of Burma with China a long time back due to the Indian policy towards Burma. However, the West would handle this aggressively considering what happened in Ukraine. We know that India is now aligned with the West and not with Russia as in the Jayewardene era.
Any country helps us for their benefit and for their benefit only. We should be cautious about China considering its policy towards Burma and South Sudan. Burma, after realising the Chinese aggression and with international influence in relation to human rights, disassociated with China. Now the Chinese influence is diminishing there. China abandoned South Sudan at that crucial moment and country was separated later.
Domestic problem
We have a domestic problem. The international community is demanding by and large just and fair treatment to all the citizens and to the ethnic and religious minorities who are very vulnerable under the present regime. This is a just and fair request which is in line with the international treaties the country has signed.
In addition to that they want us to have a credible investigation of what happened during the last stages of the war. In line with what the President agreed with several international dignitaries including the UN Secretary General and in line with international norms, this request is also reasonable. This would help the country clear its image.
In line with the historic stances taken by the heroes of Sinhalese from Dutugemunu who fought a one-to-one fight with his opponent by his will in order to avoid casualties to ‘both parties’ to Keppetipola who returned the weapons of the British which were in his possession in order to fight with them, this would be in order. How can we approve the deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, if there were any? If there were none, we should come forward and clear our name.
What is the Government doing?
What is the Government doing? It does not want to solve this problem eternally. However, it wants to be in power eternally. Hence it uses the communal-mindedness of the majority Sinhalese by influencing their sentiments by showing international pressure, which is interpreted in an undue manner, and by showing the requests of minorities, which is interpreted as separatism.
With this strategy to be in power for a long time, it is combining a domestic issue with an international geographical issue very dangerously. As evident in Ukraine with this dangerous combination, there can be far-reaching repercussions to the country – if not in Geneva, probably thereafter.
What should the people do?
Therefore, what should the general public of this country do? We should realise that there is absolutely no point in blaming the West. It is true that there can be double standards, hypocrisy and all the rest of it, but what can we gain by blaming them?
Blaming someone for your problem is you disowning the problem, which means you are not capable of coming up with a solution to the problem. This should not be done at national level. Rulers have their strategies to be in power. The strategy of the general public should be not to fall into the trap set by the rulers. Everything is based on self-protection and self-interest!

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT 25th April 2014

Should State protect Buddhism as a Constitutional provision?

For a long time as a nation we have been talking about a new constitution in place of the existing Constitution of 1978. During the time of President Kumaratunga, a new constitution was drafted and she was not able to get it approved by the Parliament. Recently the United National Party also has proposed the basic elements of a constitution and it was said that they were in the process of discussing with various stakeholders to get their views in order to draft the Constitution.
Rev. Maduluwawe Sobhitha wants to become the common candidate of the Opposition at the next presidential elections if there is no one else to be the common candidate, with the sole intention of abolishing the executive presidency and establishing a new constitution.
The Kandyan Convention of 1815
In this context I think it is appropriate to discuss a basic point in the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the place for religion. As a preamble to this discussion I would quote below the references to religion, in the Kandyan Convention of 1815, Soulbury Constitution, Constitutions of 1972 and 1978, Constitution of Burma in 1947, Constitution of Cambodia in 1993 and Constitution of Thailand in 2007.
Given is the fifth paragraph of the Kandyan Convention of 1815 where there is reference to Buddhism: “The religion of Buddho professed by the Chiefs and inhabitants of these Provinces is declared inviolable, and its Rites, Ministers and Places of Worship are to be maintained and protected.”

“The Burmese Constitution accepts the special position of Buddhism since the majority of the people belong to Buddhism. It is not the responsibility of the Burmese Government to protect Buddhism. What is important is it is an offence which is punishable to promote feelings of hatred under the guise of religion. Presently this requirement is freely violated in Sri Lanka with State patronage”
The Soulbury Constitution of 1947 by which then Ceylon was granted independence was silent of religion and therefore it was a secular constitution as in modern countries.
The first time after the independence protection of Buddhism was introduced to the Constitution in 1972: “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddhism, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 18 (b).”
In the 1978 Constitution this reference is almost the same. “9. The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).”
Article 10 refers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
“10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”
Article 14 (1) e refers to freedom of Speech, assembly, association, movement.
“14. (1) Every citizen is entitled to –
(e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching;“
Constitution of Burma in 1947 refers to Buddhism as follows.
“21. 1 The state recognises the special position of Buddhism as the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens of the Union.
21.2 The State also recognises Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Animism as some of the religions existing in the Union at the date of the coming into operation of this constitution
21.3 The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious faith or belief.
21.4 The abuse of religion for political purposes is forbidden; and any act which is intended or is likely to promote feelings of hatred, enmity or discord between racial or religious communities or sects is contrary to this constitution and may be made punishable by law.”
Burma and Cambodia
There is no reference to Buddhism in the Constitutions of Burma in 1974 and 2008. The Cambodian Constitution of 1993 refers to the religion in Article 43 in Chapter 3, the rights and obligations of Khmer citizens.
“Khmer citizens of either sex shall have the right to freedom of belief. Freedom of religious belief and worship shall be guaranteed by the State on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious beliefs or violate public order and security. Buddhism shall be the religion of the State.”
The Constitution of Thailand in 2007 has two references to Buddhism. One is under the King and the other is in Part 4 under directive principals of religious, social, public health, education and cultural policies.
“Article 9 The King is a Buddhist and upholder of religions
Article 79 The State shall patronise and protect Buddhism which the majority of Thais have followed for a long time and other religions. It shall also promote good understanding and harmony among followers of all religions as well as encourage the application of all religious principles to enhance virtues and develop quality of life.”
Different conditions
The 1815 Kandyan Convention clearly states that the State should protect Buddhism. The Kandyan Convention was entered into between the Chieftains of the Kandyan Provinces and the British rulers at the time the governance of the country was handed over to the British. At that time the religion of almost all the population of Kandyan Provinces was Buddhism and the country was taken over by Christian rulers who together with their predecessors were notorious in suppressing Buddhism and promoting their own religion in low country areas, which were under their rule. Therefore to include the condition of protecting Buddhism in the agreement was a mandatory political requirement.
The conditions in a constitution of a sovereign country and the conditions in an agreement entered into at the time one country conquers the other cannot be compared at all. The intention of the constitution of a sovereign country is to muster the entire population of the country and not to discriminate one community against the other or protect the religion of one community from the religions of other communities.
The person who drafted the Article related to Buddhism in the 1972 Constitution was in a colonial mentality in 1815 although he was the person who said earlier that if we have two languages we would have one country and if we have one language we would have two countries. Unfortunately now this colonial mentality was extended to the general public of this country, mainly to ignorant Buddhists.
This point can be discussed further by comparing the constitutions of other Buddhist countries with that of this country. According to the Constitution of this country, Buddhism has the foremost place and it is the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism. The State does not have any responsibility to foster and protect other religions and in respect of those religions the State has a minimal responsibility of assuring the basic human rights of the people of those religions.
Religious freedom
This situation is quite contrast to the Burmese, Cambodian and Thai Constitutions. The Burmese Constitution accepts the special position of Buddhism since the majority of the people belong to Buddhism. It is not the responsibility of the Burmese Government to protect Buddhism. What is important is it is an offence which is punishable to promote feelings of hatred under the guise of religion. Presently this requirement is freely violated in Sri Lanka with State patronage by some in robes, one of whom was found fault with by the courts for drunk driving.
In the Cambodian Constitution although it was stated that Buddhism was the religion of the State, prior to that it was stated that religious freedom was guaranteed and such freedom should not affect others.
In the Thai Constitution it was the responsibility of the King who should be a Buddhist, to protect not only Buddhism but also other religions. In Sri Lanka, the State is responsible only to protect Buddhism, not other religions. This unreasonable, defensive, frog-in-the well type of principle was derived from the 1815 Kandyan Convention. As stated earlier it is a grave mistake to adapt the unique political situation that prevailed at the time of Kandyan Convention to the present political situation, of which the prime requirement is to unite the people and not to divide them.
12th rock edict
The principle of respecting all the religions adapted by the Constitutions of Burma and Thailand was the principle adapted by Asoka, the most respected emperor of all times. Following is what he said in his 12th rock edict among the 14 rock edicts:
“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honours both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honours them with gifts and honours of various kinds…, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one’s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honour other religions for this reason. By so doing, one’s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one’s own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought ‘Let me glorify my own religion,’ only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. [24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.”
Rev. Shravasti Dhammika, an Australian monk of Theravada school who rendered the English version of the edicts of Asoka, states as follows:
“The protection of all religions, their promotion and the fostering of harmony between them, was also seen as one of the duties of the state. It even seems that something like a Department of Religious Affairs was established with officers called Dhamma Mahamatras whose job it was to look after the affairs of various religious bodies and to encourage the practice of religion.”
Asoka was a shrewd statesman. He was promoting Buddhism and was not imposing it. He declared that his relationship with the public was that of farther and children. He was the ruler of whole country and not of the Buddhists only. Therefore it was his duty to protect all the religions. Current rulers of Sri Lanka do not know even basics of governance and that is why they erect Buddha statues in predominantly Tamil areas, which is an insult to Lord Buddha himself.
Protecting Buddhism
Based on the discussion I suggest that the present Article 9 of the Constitution should be removed and be replaced with the suitable contents of Articles 21.1 to 21.4 of the Burmese Constitution of 1947 and Article 79 of the Thai Constitution of 2007.
Does Buddhism need any protection from the Government of Sri Lanka? No. During the past 42 years from 1972 was there any special protection or improvement to Buddhism by the Government? No. What is Buddhism? Buddhism is the research methodology of the noble research one has to undertake in order to understand self in this very life before death and not at the time of Maithree Buddha.
Buddhism is propagated in the world today because of documentation of the same at Aluvihara, Mathale during the time of King Walagamba and especially because of the introduction of age old vipassana meditation techniques brought down from teacher to pupil by Burmese and Thai meditation masters to lay persons and these are practiced widely in Sri Lanka as well.
The so-called protectors of Buddhism in Sri Lanka who engage in violent activities in the streets should know that they have no role to play in protecting Buddhism. They should keep quiet rather than destroying it. The Dhamma is open to anyone. If someone does not want it, there is no necessity of imposing it on him. Humans are benefitted from the Dhamma, not the States. Therefore I suggest that the State should be secular which means Article 9 of the Constitution can be removed altogether.
My second suggestion is an extension of the first suggestion. It is ideal if the second suggestion can be implemented. At least if the first suggestion can be implemented, it would somewhat be helpful to unite the nation which is divided by race, religion and caste today.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT 11th Apr 2014

Is Lanka combining domestic problem with intl. power struggles like Ukraine?

It looks like it is complicated and difficult to understand world affairs today. Many say that there are double standards, hypocrisy and hidden agendas in international relations. It is simple to understand the complicated situations if one can go to the basics. What are the basics? They are self-protection and self-interest. Let us try to understand the complicated scenarios objectively by examining the basics.
The foreign policy of any super power is based on the defence strategy of that country and then comes trade interests. American foreign policy is based on the defence strategies of America. When defence strategies are considered, they are not based on rules and regulations. Those emerge out of fear which can be real or imaginary and are necessarily based on self-protection by hook or by crook.
What happened in Ukraine? 
What happened in Ukraine? Crimea was under the Soviet Union and during the time of Nikita Khrushchev, who served as the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist party, Crimea was handed over to Ukraine. Once the Soviet Union was broken up, Ukraine became an independent state in 1991.
Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union and hence entered into the Non Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych became President and the Supreme Court held that the election was largely rigged and subsequently Viktor Yushchenko became the President and Yulia Tymoshenko the Prime Minister. Viktor Yanukovych was once again elected President in 2010 with 48% of votes.
A wave of demonstrations and civil unrest called Euromaidan began in November 2013 mainly to protest against the suspension of preparations to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union by the President and by and large to protest against widespread Government corruption, abuse of power and violation of human rights under the current President who is loyal to Russia.
The United States intervened in the unrest and it was reported that the US invested around five billion dollars in ‘developing Ukrainian democratic institutions’. In a leaked telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State, and Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine, Nuland wanted Arseniy Yatsenyuk, then an Opposition leader, in the Government of Ukraine after throwing President Viktor Yanukovych against another leader, Vitaly Klitschko. In this telephone conversation, Nuland used obscene language against the European Union. Ironically Yatsenyuk is the current interim Prime Minister of Ukraine after the President took refuge in Russia.
The Crimean population is largely Russian. Crimea was an autonomous Parliamentary republic within Ukraine and was governed by the Constitution of Crimea in accordance with the laws of Ukraine. Citing the interests of Russians in Crimea, Russia invaded Crimea and arranged a referendum to decide whether they wanted to stay with Ukraine or join Russia. On 16 March 2014 Crimeans by voting 97% in favour wanted to join Russia. Now Russia is in the process of acquiring the Ukrainian military bases in Crimea by force.

Analysing the Ukraine crisis
The facts were given above in brief and if we try to analyse the Ukraine crisis, one can argue the US is wrong and another can argue Russia is wrong, but in fact both are wrong.
The US capitalised on the civil unrest to plant a leader of its choice in Ukraine which is on the Russian border and having nuclear weapons. In turn Russia invaded Crimea against international rules and norms. The US and Russia both acted to secure their defence at the expense of the rights of the Ukrainian general public.
In the case of Russia it was very evident and the issue was very close to them. In the case of the US, it wanted to destabilise Russia to a certain extent and secure its defence to that extent. The US certainly has not done what it preaches. In the case of Russia also hypocrisy is evident if we take the reasons it gives against the resolution on Sri Lanka at Geneva.
Crimeans I suppose got what they wanted. Ukraine lost Crimea, most probably permanently. With the organised civil unrest, Yatsenyuk became the interim Prime Minister with the support of the US. What happened to the interests of the general public of Ukraine? In today’s politics one has to look at national interest or the interests of the general public of that country independent of the interests of the leaders of that country since the leaders very often look after their personal interests ahead of the interests of the country.
The Ukrainians had a ruler who was convicted in 2004 of rigging the elections. He was corrupt and autocratic and imprisoned the former Prime Minister who was his political opponent. He was a violator of human rights. The Ukrainians probably wanted him out. He was a man of Russia so Russia wanted to keep him and the US wanted him out. This is what happens when the international power struggle is connected with domestic politics, especially for the small countries bordering powerful countries.
Situation in Sri Lanka
In line with this experience let us examine the situation in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is located in a strategic position in the Indian Ocean and very close to nuclear-powered India, which is in search of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and has been having rapid economic growth in recent times.
Moreover Tamil Nadu, an Indian state with a large Tamil population of 72 million, is very concerned about the situation of the ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka. During the time of President Jayewardene, it is considered that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu played a pivotal role in the ethnic conflict here, which was reversed with the killing of Rajiv Gandhi.
Hence Sri Lanka will have to manage Indian political interests and the concerns of Tamil Nadu. In addition to that, due to its geographical location, Sri Lanka will have to manage the interests of the super powers as well.
From the Jayewardene era during the war, Sri Lanka did not get an adequate supply of weapons from the West due to its bad human rights record. The situation changed during the time of President Kumaratunga, when Kadirgamar was the Foreign Minister.
Sri Lanka used to buy weapons from China. Presently Sri Lanka leans more towards China, firstly in order to counter the Indian influence and secondly to counter the Western pressure coming after the war. We should emphasise that this is not the non-aligned foreign policy practiced by Sri Lanka successfully during the time of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. This is somewhat a bargaining policy so that the country can get more benefits from one power in the face of pressure from another power.
India handles this situation cautiously considering the alignment of Burma with China a long time back due to the Indian policy towards Burma. However, the West will handle this aggressively considering what happened in Ukraine. We know that India is now aligned with the West and not with Russia as in the Jayewardene era.
Any country helps us for their benefit and for their benefit only. We should be cautious about China considering its policy towards Burma and South Sudan. Burma, after realising the Chinese aggression and with the international influence for human rights, disassociated with China. Now the Chinese influence is diminishing there. China abandoned South Sudan at that crucial moment and country was separated later.
A just and fair request
We have a domestic problem which is highlighted by the international community. The international community is demanding by and large just and fair treatment to all the citizens and the ethnic and religious minorities who are very vulnerable under the present regime. This is a just and fair request which is in line with the international treaties the country has signed.
In addition to that they want us to have a credible investigation of what happened during the last stages of the war. In line with what the President agreed with several international dignitaries including the UN Secretary General and in line with the international norms, this request is also reasonable. This would help the country to clear its image.
In line with the historic stances taken by the Sinhalese heroes from Dutugemunu, who fought a one-to-one fight with his opponent by his will in order to avoid casualties to ‘both parties,’ to Keppetipola who returned the weapons of the British which were in his possession in order to fight with them, this would be in order. How can we approve of deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, if there were any? If there was nothing, we should come forward and clear our name.
Dangerous combination
What is the Government doing? It does not want to solve this problem eternally. However it wants to be in power eternally. Hence it uses the communal-mindedness of the majority Sinhalese by influencing their sentiments by showing international pressure which is interpreted in an undue manner and by showing the requests of minorities interpreted as separatism.
With this strategy to be in power for a long time, it is combining a domestic issue with a subtle international power struggle among superpowers very dangerously. As evident in Ukraine with this dangerous combination, there can be far-reaching repercussions to the country – if not in Geneva, probably thereafter.
Therefore what should the general public of this country do? We should realise that there is absolutely no point in blaming the West. It is true that there can be double standards, hypocrisy and all the rest of it, but what can we gain by blaming them? Blaming someone for your problem is you disowning the problem, which means you are not capable of getting a solution to the problem.
This should not be done at national level and by solving our own problem there would be no room for international interference. Rulers have their strategies to stay in power. The strategy of the general public should be not to fall into the trap set by the rulers. Everything is based on self-protection and self-interest!
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

published in daily FT on 28th March 2014

The power of teamwork

I was watching the 4×100 men’s relay of 2004 Olympics, live on the television. A few days earlier the 100 metres event was held. Justine Gatlin of USA came first and the legendary Morris Green of USA came third. Shawn Crawford of USA, who was the gold medallist of the 200m, came fourth. In the relay team of USA in addition to these men, there was another person called Coby Miller. The British team was comprised of four average persons.
Everyone thought that the USA team would win. I was shocked to see that the British team won the game. I was even more shocked to watch the lousy baton change of the US team. At the end of the event a journalist interviewed the US team. They were giving satisfactory answers about their individual performance. Finally the journalist asked the team, “Hey guys are you satisfied with the second slot?” The team was nonplussed. 
The timing of the British team was 38.07 and that of the USA team was 38.08. Timing of the relay is lower than the combined individual timing since there is no starting up time other than for the runner of the first lap. Recorded timing of both relay team members of the 100m final and of the preliminary events are given below. Morris Greene was the gold medallist of the 100m event of the previous Sydney Olympics and his timing was same in 2004 as well.
USA:

• Shawn Crawford (9.89 Final)
• Justin Gatlin (9.85 Final)
• Coby Miller (not available)
• Maurice Greene

(9.87 Final)
UK:

• Jason Gardener

(10.12 Semi Final, Heat 2)

• Darren Campbell

(10.35 Round 1, Heat 1)

• Marlon Devonish (not available)
• Mark Lewis-Francis (10.28 Semi Final, Heat 1)

What went wrong? 
What went wrong? The US team was focusing on the individual performance and their performance was very poor in the baton change in general and in the change between Justin Gatlin and Coby Miller in particular. When questioned by the journalist after the event, the US team was focusing on their individual performance and not paying any attention to the baton change.
To win a relay, there should be a team spirit. Team spirit is based on trust, understanding, cooperation and coordination. There was a lack of trust among the US team members and that is why they look back prior to the baton change to see whether the other member was running closer.
It was proved without any doubt that to win a relay, a team with real team spirit is needed. Results can be achieved even with average members. It is not necessary to have high performers.  If there are high performers and if there is no team spirit, the result would be poor.
The same principle can be applied to business as well. The businesses we are running are not about rocket science. An average person can understand the mechanism. If there is a good team, results can be achieved easily.
Focus on performance
I know one organisation where at that time team spirit was at very low level. There was no proper coordination between the sales team, production team and the purchasing team. The ignorant chairman of the company who knew nothing about manufacturing wanted to increase the market share of the raw material purchases and this was conveyed to the purchasing manager. His performance was monitored based on the quantity he purchased.
Incentives were given for the quantities purchased. The quality aspect was ignored and the production was hampered. Higher prices were paid for the raw materials and the production could not be sold at a margin. The result was a massive loss to the company. The CEO was not capable of coordinating the operation. Focus was on the performance of the individual and there was no focus towards the baton change. It was not monitored at all.
Most of the organisations prefer to recruit high performers at various levels. When one is a high performer, there is a lesser possibility for him/her to become a good team player. High performers are very often associated with high egos. They are individualists in general, not collectivists.
When one is having more achievements, one’s ego strengthens more. To become a good team player one has to control one’s ego to a considerable extent. One has to trust the associates. One should be humble enough and willing to be dependent on the associates. The leader of the organisation has to play a very creative roll if there are high performers in the payroll of the organisation. The responsibility of the leader is to bring all these high performers together. If they are allowed to perform according to their wishes, they will focus on running their lap and not on the baton change.
Performance-based pay
Performance-based pay can be effectively used as a tool to promote teamwork and to strengthen the baton change. Goals can be set in order to monitor the baton change. If the baton change is not done properly, indicators should be set to identify the lapse. Indicators can be set to identify whose lapse it was. In order to achieve best results the responsibility should be with both parties of the baton change.
There are limitations of tools like performance based pay. Developing teamwork is an art, not a science. It is the responsibility of the leader to promote teamwork. Team spirit is a feeling that the members of that team are having. It is a sense of belonging, inter-dependency and cohesiveness. It is a strong family-like feeling of love and friendship. Team members should understand that the final goal can be achieved if and only if they work all together.
Collectivist society
Sri Lankan society in general is collectivist compared to the individualistic American or British societies. Individualism vs. collectivism is defined by Geert Hofstede as follows in his landmark book Culture’s Consequences published in 1980:
“Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism, as opposite of Individualism, pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”
It is proved that when the income level goes up, there is a tendency to move from collectivism to individualism. When promoting teamwork the leaders of the organizations can use this cultural bias in Sri Lanka positively.
In Sri Lankan society, there are various formal and informal groups. There is a tendency to form a group or a clique consisting of close associates. Leaders should use this tendency to have cliques comprising of various departments and finally comprising of the whole organisation.
Japanese management tools
Japanese management tools like 5S or Kaizen are finally promoting collectivism and teamwork. The rituals associated with 5S encourage the members of the whole organisation to work together for a common goal.
The informal behaviour promoted will encourage greater ties among the members of the organisation. This breaks the formal relationships among the staff members which are rigid and promotes the informal relationships which are flexible and strong. Good leaders promote team spirit by organising informal events where interaction within the staff members is promoted.
Team spirit
What is more important is having team spirit. Having average individual performers with good team spirit is superior to have high individual performers with poor team spirit as very strongly proved by the US 4×100 relay team at the 2004 Olympics. However the best combination would be high individual performers with high team spirit.
At national level, how can we demonstrate the power of teamwork? The present Government led by petty-minded politicians not by farsighted diplomats, whether they are learned or not, tries to be in power by putting much weight on Sinhala Buddhists only, which is a sufficient vote base for them and thereby encouraging further segregation of the country which is already divided by race, religion and caste.
For our country to win the race we should solicit the support of entire team comprising of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and all the rest of them living in this beautiful country.
They who are collectivists by nature think on the lines of their religion, race or caste. The duty of the leadership of the nation, if there is any, is to enhance the petty-minded sectarian mindsets of the general public of this country to a level enabling them to gather the concept of nation rather than fishing in the shallow waters.  That is called nation building and not constructing roads and bridges as poorly conceived by the present regime.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT on 21st march 2014

Are we heading down the same disastrous way of the LTTE?

There are many similarities of the behaviour of the Liberation Tigers and the present Sri Lankan Government.
Autocracy 
The Liberation Tigers adopted a violent approach right from the beginning. They did not tolerate different views and opinions. They have gone to the extent of killing the members of rival militant groups with different viewpoints who also fought for the liberation of the Tamils. Thereafter the activities of such groups were seized and were restricted to name boards only.
Political leaders of democratic political parties who had different views were also killed and thereby kept those parties under their direction. In addition to that the intellectuals who critically supported the struggle of the Tamils were also killed. At last they have created an armed group who accepted the order of the leader only, whether it was correct or not.
The current regime using the determinations given by the Judiciary which were against the fundamentals of the present Constitution facilitated the crossovers of Opposition MPs to the side of the Government and then exercised a majority in the Parliament which was not granted by the general public of this country in order to pass the 18th Amendment to the Constitution extending the period of office of the President which was once again against the fundamentals of the present Constitution. It also over a period disassociated with the intellectuals who critically supported the Government and created an autocratic regime.

“The arrogant behaviour of the Liberation Tigers contributed a lot to their end. Together with that, the political ambitions of the Tamils also were in disarray. The present regime also works in the same manner of the Liberation Tigers. If the Government does not work intelligently, it may face the same scenario in the political field which was faced by the Liberation Tigers in the battlefield. If so not only the Government, the entire nation will have to face it”

Emphasis based on ethnicity 
It was the intention of the Liberation Tigers to create an independent state in the north and east regions in Sri Lanka. In order to achieve this objective they have launched a broad destructive program. It was their intention that the authority of those regions in the hands of ethnic Tamils.
Accordingly when the Sinhalese abandoned the area due to terrorist activities against them, the Liberation Tigers ordered the remaining Muslims to leave within a very short period. In certain instances Muslims in the Eastern Province were killed within their mosques.
It seems to be the intention of the present regime to create a Sinhala Buddhist authority of this country. The Government has not exercised appropriate and visible legal procedure against the extremist Buddhist Bhikkus who attacked mosques and churches and supported those extremists indirectly.
Intolerance of negotiation
Negotiation was a mere political strategy of the Liberation Tigers to arm themselves during the period of negotiations. They did not have any problem to solve with negotiations since their sole intention was to have an independent Tamil state. They did not show any honesty during the negotiations.
During the regime of Ranil Wickremesinghe at the negotiation table, theoretician of the Liberation Tigers Anton Balasingham agreed to internal self-determination. This was an opportunity for them for a political settlement. However, during subsequent discussions they did not agree to this and Balasingham was removed from the team of negotiators.
Discussion is only a political gimmick of the present regime. When Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, visited Sri Lanka soon after the end of war, there was a joint declaration with the Government of Sri Lanka where it was stated that the Government will implement a solution beyond the 13th Amendment and address the issues of accountability in relation to violations of human rights law. These promises were not fulfilled.
Also in violation of the promises given to the Prime Minister of India and to the Foreign Minister of India that the political solution beyond the 13th Amendment will be implemented, the Government tried to dilute the 13th Amendment legally and thereafter does not allow the smooth functioning of the Northern Provincial Council.
Indian factor
The Liberation Tigers over estimated themselves. It was a dishonour to them that Rajiv Gandhi summoned their leader to India and influenced him. Also it was a blow to them to fight with the Indian Peace Keeping Force. Therefore without considering the possible political setbacks they took steps to kill Rajiv Gandhi.
The present regime claims that unlike during the time of President Jayewardene they managed India well during the time of war by keeping India informed in all aspects of the war. What happened during the time of President Jayewardene was antagonising India by implementing political and economic policies lenient towards West during which time India was aligned with Soviet Union.
During the recent war India also wanted to crush the Liberation Tigers. Therefore it was not that difficult to manage India during that period. There can be serious consequences in deceiving India by giving false promises in relation to the political solution which will have a negative impact on Indian national politics through Tamil Nadu. This is a worse way of managing the Indian factor compared to Jayewardene era.
The Government seems to be in overconfident of them that they can manage India by pulling the Chinese factor. There can be serious consequences of this bargaining policy, which is not non-alignment, for a small nation like us.
Armed struggle and political solution
The Liberation Tigers could not understand that victory through an armed struggle is temporary so that the opponents can turn their victory to a defeat and in order to have a lasting peace there should be a political solution. This was because they had an autocratic leadership, a brainwashed membership, and lack of political dialogue.
The present regime thinks that there is no necessity for a political solution after the war. This is evident in the way that the dialogue for a political solution were going in a circle and the delay of holding an election in the Northern Provincial Council with disrupting the activities of the same after the establishing the NPC.
The reason for this is having a population who cannot think in a fair and just way due to prevalent Sinhala-Buddhist ideology, which is completely the reverse of Buddhist thinking and thereby there is no proper dialogue for a political solution which process is supported by the autocratic leadership.
Overestimation of self
The Liberation Tigers started fighting a conventional war against the Government troops face to face without guerrilla warfare since they were overconfident of themselves. They could not foresee their defeat and thereby in order to reduce the damage to the civilians and their cadre they could not surrender or start negotiations.
In relation to the resolutions at Geneva the current regime operates with arrogance. With the defeat of the Liberation Tigers which was a dream in the past they may be thinking that international community cannot do any harm to them.
After the war the foreign policy of the regime is operated with a mentality of a general rather than that of a diplomat just as they dealt with the foreign ministers of Britain and France who came here during the last stages of the war and with the Swedish Foreign Minister who was not allowed to come.
Approval rate of the international community is reducing. The second resolution of the Geneva Human Rights Council got more votes against us compared to the first one. Due to the harassment against the Muslim community it is doubtful whether the Muslim countries would vote in favour of us. The Government may be of the view that if China and Russia are with us, there is no problem.
Conclusion
The arrogant behaviour of the Liberation Tigers contributed a lot to their end. Together with that, the political ambitions of the Tamils also were in disarray. The present regime also works in the same manner of the Liberation Tigers.
If the Government does not work intelligently, it may face the same scenario in the political field which was faced by the Liberation Tigers in the battlefield. If so not only the Government, the entire nation will have to face it.
It is regrettable to note that Sri Lanka which gained international recognition one time as an ideological democratic state is getting condemned internationally. Being a small nation with lot of international dependence, it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to conduct its affairs in internationally-accepted standards and in accordance with international laws in order to avoid any international interference.
In today’s context this is a basic political lesson which was well understood and implemented by a housewife like Mrs. Bandaranaike. Big talk won’t help us and only big work will help.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT on 14th march 2014

Mariyakade diplomacy and non-aligned diplomacy

Senior Minister D.E.W. Gunasekara, MP for Kalawana electorate at that time, came home late in the night after a visit to his electorate. He was resting when then President J.R. Jayewardene called him and told him to come immediately to discuss an important matter which could not be discussed over the phone.
Gunasekara being an Opposition MP was reluctant to have discussions with the President late in the night and consulted the party General Secretary Peter Kenaman. With the approval of Kenaman he checked with Anura Bandaranaike, then Leader of the Opposition, who told the MP that he himself got an invitation from the President and planning to go there.
Once he arrived at the Ward Place residence of the President, Gunasekara realised that even the President’s security officers were not aware of his visit. When he met the President there were a very few people present, including then Prime Minister R. Premadasa, Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, Foreign Minister Shahul Hameed and the younger brother of the President, H.W. Jayewardene. They were joined later by then Leader of the Opposition Anura Bandaranaike and MP Dinesh Gunawardane.
Letter from India
The point of discussion was a letter sent by then Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. What he said was due to the military operations in northern Sri Lanka, there was a severe shortage of essential foods, which was of a great concern of Tamil Nadu, and due to the pressure of the politicians of Tamil Nadu, it had become his problem. Hence he warned if quick action to supply food items to north would not be taken, he would take action to do so.
The opinion of the President was the best place to reply would be the Parliament where the Prime Minister would make a statement that the Government of Sri Lanka would take immediate steps to supply food items to northern civilians.
Opposition MPs were summoned to get their consent rather than debating it in the Parliament. D.E.W. Gunasekara said that since this was a matter of national interest although he was an Opposition MP he was in favour of the suggestion and prepared to back the Government in this difficult hour. Anura Bandaranaike and Dinesh Gunawardane also consented.
Then the President informed E.L. Senanayake, the Speaker, to summon Parliament the following day. The statement to be made by the Prime Minister on the following day was also drafted.
The following day at his chambers of Parliament, the Prime Minister persuaded Gunasekara to make a statement in Parliament in this respect. The MP responded that he had made his stance clear the previous day and there was no necessity to make a statement.
At last the Prime Minister rose to make the statement. To the surprise of the persons who knew the ground situation, without making the prepared statement, he criticised India heavily with his own aggressive style. At that time Indian diplomats also were in the Gallery.
Indian invasion
After the thundering speech of the Prime Minister, which lasted for an hour, when the MPs were going home leaving Parliament, they were informed via news of the Broadcasting Corporation that the Indian Air Force had invaded Sri Lankan air space and was dropping dry rations on northern Sri Lankan soil.
This is how Prime Minister Premadasa jeopardised a problem which could have been solved with ease. This is how he sacrificed the future of the country for the cheap popularity expected at the upcoming elections. This is how he replaced the non-aligned diplomacy of Mrs. Bandaranaike and friends-aligned diplomacy of President Jayewardene with Mariyakade diplomacy of his own.
Why did he lose patriotism, generosity and tact which were displayed by the three Opposition MPs including D.E.W. Gunasekara? That is because a bunch of people who misinterpret patriotism were prepared to listen to him in the capacity of voters who were capable of determining his political future.
Invasion of sovereignty
This is the prevalent situation of the country today as well. Sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva have started and it is scheduled that the issue of Sri Lanka where there were previous resolutions passed will be taken up towards the latter part of the month. In case a resolution as requested by the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to have an international inquiry is passed against the will of Sri Lanka, it would be an invasion of our sovereignty.
It would not only be the invasion of “sovereignty of the ruling elite” if there is such a thing as thought by the majority of the people here, but also the invasion of sovereignty of the nation in true sense, unfortunately.
India invaded our sovereignty by dropping dhal in the northern part of the island, unilaterally and illegally, but the so-called friends of President Jayewardene did not take any step even to criticise the action of India and we were lectured to settle the differences with India. The situation today is far more serious than that. If the resolution is passed in Geneva it would be a legal resolution approved by the majority. This situation has not emerged all of a sudden. It has been evolving over a period of time.
All this time the Government was doing what Prime Minister Premadasa did at that crucial moment. That is to criticise foreign dignitaries who visited us in true Mariyakade style in order to satisfy a bunch of voters who unfortunately lack common sense whether they are educated or not and do not know head or tail about patriotism although they claim to be patriots. The ruling elite in power do not hesitate to sacrifice the sovereignty of the nation to satisfy the said bunch and in return to be in power.
True patriotism
After the unpatriotic statement of Prime Minister Premadasa and invasion of Sri Lankan air space by Indian Air Force, President Jayewardene said that India can conquer Sri Lanka only after the death of 18 million people and himself. He may have meant that according the situation prevailed at that time.
He had to say that since his Prime Minister has messed up the situation. President Rajapaksa also claims that he is prepared to go to the electric chair on behalf of the nation. He says that after messing up the situation with his approval. It seems to be that he does not mean it and no one wants him in the electric chair. His statement is also a part of the mess.
Therefore people should know what patriotism is. Patriotism is not something like the idiotic friend of the king attacking a fly with a sword in order to chase it away from the sleeping king. Patriotism of the politicians and the officials of the present regime is like that.
Patriotism is to save the nation, not to put it in danger and not to save a race within it. For this, one has to be intelligent, wise, with strategic thinking, and not emotional and without too much bravery. This can be understood by examining the American policy of former Iranian President Ahmadinejad and present President Rauhani. In relation to the diplomatic mess created by the Sri Lankan State with the Western nations, we need a policy like that of Rauhani.

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura. For this article, the writer interviewed Senior Minister D.E.W. Gunasekara to establish the factual situation he faced during the time of President Jayewardene. The rest of the article comprises the views of the writer.)

Published in Dialy FT on 7th March 2014

Cultural barriers to innovation in Sri Lanka

Cumaranathunga Munidasa, one of the great sons of the soil, once said the nation which does not create new things continuously does not rise in the world; when it is impossible to beg further it bogs down after singing the swan song. It is doubtful whether his vision was really appreciated in its true value in Sri Lanka rather than limiting to the literary meaning to his words.
The basic ingredient of innovation is the ability to challenge the status quo. The individuals who changed the world such as Buddha, Jesus and Marx challenged the status quo and took steps to change the same. They were rebels in the true spirit. When a question was asked by the Kalamas from the Buddha that there are several spiritual teachers and they are uncertain to what to believe, the Buddha responded as follows:
“Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskilful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering’ — then you should abandon them… When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skilful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.” (Translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
Ultimate authorisation of free thinking
This is ultimate authorisation of free thinking. Although the majority of the country is supposed to be Buddhists, cultural values prevailing in the country are not in line with that thinking. In contrary to what the Buddha recommended, in Sri Lankan society the status quo is hardly challenged. What are frequently challenged are phenomena within the status quo.
Sri Lankan society is plagued by power distance. Power distance between the rulers and the general public; bureaucrats and the common man; managers and the employees; priests and the laymen; teachers and the pupils; and parents and the children. This distance creates a hindrance to challenge the status quo.
The first Vice Chancellor of the Vidyodaya University Rev. Velivitiye Soratha Thero, a great scholar the country has produced, once said that the university students should be researchers and revolutionaries, non-violent of cause.
Power distance
Power distance was defined by Geert Hofsted, a Dutch sociologist, as follows: “Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.”
Hofsted’s original theory dealing with cross cultural issues discussed in the book ‘Culture’s Consequences’ published in 1980 proposed four dimensions along which cultural values could be analysed. Those are: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus person-orientation).
Subsequently he added a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm, mainly in relation to the Chinese culture. In the 2010 edition of ‘Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind,’ Hofsted added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint.
In Sri Lanka the power distance between the parents and the children is interpreted as obedience and the same between teachers and pupils is interpreted as respect. When the children are more obedient to their parents and express more respect towards their teachers, creativity would reduce to the same extent.
In the societies where obedience and respect is in abundance, children and students in those societies who question the status quo are rare. They try to follow the existing system due to their inherent obedience to the system and respect to the system. They do not question teachers in the lecture hall or class room. In the societies where power distance is high teachers teach and in the societies where power distance is low students learn.

“Although the majority of the country is supposed to be Buddhists, cultural values prevailing in the country are not in line with that thinking. In contrary to what the Buddha recommended, in Sri Lankan society the status quo is hardly challenged. What are frequently challenged are phenomena within the status quo.  Sri Lankan society is plagued by power distance. Power distance between the rulers and the general public; bureaucrats and the common man; managers and the employees; priests and the laymen; teachers and the pupils; and parents and the children. This distance creates a hindrance to challenge the status quo”
Power distance between managers and the employees can be interpreted as intention to follow. Employees want to follow the instructions given by the managers without questioning the reasonability of the decisions taken without giving a feedback, which creates ‘one way traffic,’ which is a hindrance for growth of any organisation.
Fear factor
Power distance between people and public officers and also people and politicians can be interpreted as fear. In the countries where power distance is high, people fear to work against the wrongdoings or malpractices of the politicians and the public officials.
When there is no strong resistance from the general public, politicians and the public officers do not hesitate to carry out their wrongdoings. They dare to threaten, intimidate, bodily harm, make disappear and kill those who work against them in order to establish the fear of people of them. In addition to this they give various concessions to those who oppose them and get their support as well.
Sometimes there can be a power distance among main political institutions, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary although the prevalence of such a situation is not expected. This comes out in the form of submissiveness. One pillar of the basic governance structure should not be submissive to another but the inherent power distance in the society supported by the other conditions may pave the way for this unfortunate situation.
Elimination of power distance
The starting point of the elimination of power distance basically and the associated fear, submissiveness, intention to follow, respect or obedience secondarily is the understanding by the weaker party of the relationship of the underlying reason of this which is the backwardness of the attitudes.
It would be difficult to take away these attitudes of the people which were in existence over a long period of time. But this can be done since the power distance was created by the weaker party of the relationship not by the stronger party according to the definition of Hofsted. Elimination of this would pave the way for the much needed innovation which is essential for a society to flourish.
Suggestion to reduce power distance could be interpreted by the cultural authorities as disrespect to the hierarchy. It is not disrespect at the personal level but lack of respect at the ideological level. When one is having ideological lack of respect only one can challenge the status quo. It is a democratic process against an authoritarian process hither to prevail.
Therefore Sri Lankan society should seriously be aware of this cultural aspect prevailing in the country although the culture of a country cannot be changed over a short period. This awareness itself might bring the desired results.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT on 12th Feb 2014