The
Sunday Times published Asoka's helpless state a fortnight ago
Peradeniya University graduate Chandra Asoka who had been forced to
cut stones in a quarry to support her poor family, because a hard society
gave her no other opportunity, has reached the cornerstone in her life
after The Sunday Times spotlighted her case on July 13.
Early this week the talented and hardworking Asoka took up a post as a Samurdhi Development Officer in Udunuwara. The job was offered to her by Minister S.B. Dissanayake after he read The Sunday Times story, while the letter of appointment was presented to her personally by Parliamentarian, Wilson Kuruppuarachchi.
Within a few days after The Sunday Times story was published, Asoka received several job offers and pledges of assistance from institutions and individuals here and abroad. But she chose the Samurdhi post, because it would enable her to be close to her poverty-stricken family and also help to bring out her full potential.
Among those who offered jobs or other assistance to Asoka were the Army, Peradeniya University, the Women’s Affair’s Ministry, Hatton National Bank and Central Finance. There was one job offer even from the United States, while a Sri Lankan well-wisher in Britain is sending financial assistance.
Hands reached out generously and no stone was unturned in helping the brave girl, showing that despite all the selfishness and violence, beautiful things still happen in this world.
The handing over of the Queen Elizabeth Quay (QEQ) to P&O is likely to be signed on August 20 between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority and the P&O, according to Secretary Ministry of Ports, M.N. Junaid.
He told ‘The Sunday Times’ yesterday that the decision was taken to sign the agreement for the betterment and the development of the QEQ, rather than to waste time by giving in to trade union demands and protests.
Meanwhile, senior Port officials said that the government’s plans are to hand over the QEQ to a private company the South Asia Gateway Terminals, for 30 years.
“SLPA will have an equity share of only 7.5% of this company while the P&O and the John Keells will own 51%. Ownership of the balance 41.5% of the equity is not known at present. The SLPA’s equity share of 7.5% is only for the three cranes and not for the very valuable asset of 50 acres of land that is being taken over,” they said. Officials said if the QEQ is given to the P&O then the present labour force of 1800 will be reduced to 500 as indicated by P&O. If 500 employees are taken from QEQ, it leaves about 1300 workers who will have to be paid without adequate work. Their annual salary will add to about US$ 4 million, which is double the ground rent promised by the P&O for the QEQ.
The LSSP was not consulted and did not agree on the decision to partly privatise Sri Lanka Telecom and the party will take whatever action it deems fit regarding this matter General Secretary Batty Weerakoon said.
In an interview with The Sunday Times Mr. Weerakoon said the recent decision to sell 35%of Sri Lanka Telecom shares to the Nippon Company of Japan was taken by the President without consulting the Cabinet or the PA Executive Committee. Excerpts from the interview:
Batty:
"we want to maintain the parlimentary system"
Q. How would you justify the LSSP’s alliance with a right-wing government
which advocates, among other things, open economy, privatization etc?
A. First of all, you assume that this is a right-wing government. It has to be noted at the very outset that the People’s Alliance consists of the SLFP, the LSSP, the C.P the SLMP and several other political parties.
Now I would agree with you that the SLFP is a right-wing party. It is today, if right-wing, only just as much as, say the Labour Party in England or any Social Democratic party in Europe, is right-wing. In any case, when we formed the government, we knew that it would be what is called, a centre-left government.We also knew that on the economic policy, it has no alternative to what the UNP had embarked on in accordance, we hoped and continue to hope that unlike in the period of the UNP government, under the present regime we will be able to safeguard the welfare measures that exist in a situation of economic difficulty. And by and large we have succeeded in doing so. However, the major achievements we hoped for and ask still hoping for are the political solution to the ethnic conflict and the restoration of democratic institutions and practices. The major move there will be the replacement of the Executive Presidency with a full-blooded Parliamentary System.
So in form and substance, you have been looking at it purely in economic terms. It has to be assessed in a more comprehensive perspective.
Q. But don’t these differences shake the very root of your party policies?
A. We are not wedded in any way to state ownership. In fact state ownership in this country started not with any Socialist government but with the UNP on the recommendations of the World Bank at that time. The State Corporations Act which was enacted to vest certain war time industries in the government was introduced by the UNP government of 1952.
I think Mr. M.D.H. Jayawardene was then the Finance Minister. The idea then was that Ceylon had no capitalist class strong enough to enter into industrialization and the state should step into it. Even prior to that the Bank of Ceylon was established with the state as the major share-holder. So state intervention started long before any left or left-ward government.
In fact, the railway, the postal and telegraph systems were established as infra-structure for the plantation economy during the early British rule. So there is no ‘holy cow’ attitude of ours to state ownership. But we still believe that sectors of the economy like the state banks, plantations, transport, electricity, telecommunications etc. should be in the hands of the state for several reasons.
Firstly, they are important for national development and secondly, some of them, as plantations, are our prime income-earners and still others such as free health and free education, can give a service to the people in a third world country like ours where almost half the population is below the poverty line and more than 75% of the rest belong to the lower income groups.
Q. Doesn’t your own government continue to privatise particularly plantations and telecommunications?
A. The People’s Alliance and the Cabinet have not been consulted in connection with these matters.
Under the privatization Act No. 23 of 1987, a law enacted by the UNP government, the President does not need to come to the Cabinet. The only time the Cabinet is consulted and a decision need be taken under that Act is when a state corporation is converted into a public company.
With such conversion, all the shares of the public company are vested in the Secretary to the Treasury. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Treasury can dispose of them perhaps in accordance with the wishes of the President and the Minister of Finance but with no reference to the Cabinet. In any event, in the P.A. set-up we take responsibility as LSSP for any major governmental decision only if it is in keeping with the P.A.’s August ‘94 election programme or if it has been discussed in the P.A. Executive Committee before such decision is taken or executed. No such procedure was adopted with the sale of the plantation owning companies. Nor was any such discussion had on privatisation of the Telecom though I myself had written to the President on the matter immediately after the LSSP became aware from outside sources in late April this year about the government wanting to hawk 35% of the shares to the private sector.
So, these are not our decisions nor are these decisions shared by us. We are free to speak against them, act against them and do what we like about them.
Q. Some political analysts point out that all LSSP hopes to form a government on its own was dashed in March 1960 and ever since it has struggled to secure a few seats in Parliament and learnt to be content with them. What are your comments?
A. You and your political analysts are wrong because the LSSP has never sought to form a government of its own. Since about 1952 with the split in the UNP in the parliamentary field a new development commenced viz. the possibility of a left, left-oriented or centre-left alliance of political parties being able to defeat the UNP and form a government.
We have been working with varying results and fortunes within that perspective. In 1956, we had a no-contest pact with the SLFP and after the election there was no obligation on either party to work together and we went our separate ways especially because of the different positions taken by the SLFP and ourselves on the language issue. Nevertheless, we co-operated on other matters as, for instance, in the nationalization of private bus companies and the formation of what was then known as the Ceylon Transport Board.
It is to Dr. N.M. Perera that the then Prime Minister Mr. S. W.R.D. Bandaranaike turned when he wanted a competent person to be the Chairman of the C.T.B.
We co-operated in the nationalisation of the harbour services which were earlier provided by contractors. We supported that government on the Paddy Lands Act and the establishment of the People’s Bank.
Then in 1964 and 1970 we went beyond the no-contest pact position and entered into agreements to jointly form a government on an agreed programme. So as it will be seen it is not a question of either the SLFP forming a government of its own or a left party forming a government of its own in a parliamentary situation.
Q. Why has your party lost its appeal among the youth in recent times?
A. I don’t think such a thing has happend because there are so many youths in our party.
Q. Has the LSSP denounced ‘revolution’ or is it that the time is not yet ripe for such a giant step?
A. In a parliamentary situation the question of revolution does not arise. That came up in circumstances where the people felt that the situation of capitalist dictatorships as in the case of Batista in Cuba and in several other South American and African States, had to be changed and there were no parliamentary means to do so.
We Socialist parties are not dreaming of revolutions within the capitalist system. Even where there is parliamentary democracy, there is a struggle for a more just and equitable distribution of the national product. Welfare systems and better working conditions are a part and parcel of this struggle.
So long as the capitalist system exists, that struggle will continue and we Socialist parties will be in it. But, today there is an even further addition to that struggle.
For instance, the capitalist class in countries like ours is not strong enough to undertake genuine national development. They don’t have the necessary money and resources to do so. It is not just a question of technology. All the capitalists in the third world countries are turning to imperialism for development and the country gets a raw-deal on that.
For example, all our privatisation from their commencement under the UNP up to the most recent privatisation which is that of the state-owned telecommunications demonstrates that the bourgeois or the capitalist class cannot maintain national unity.
Our ethnic war demonstrates that the bourgeois cannot maintain or safeguard democracy. What the UNP did under Mr. J.R. Jayewardene and Mr. R. Premadasa, as far as democracy and individual security are concerned, are comparable with some of the worst practices in the South American dictatorship.
Q. Do you say that the LSSP has full faith in the Parliamentary System?
A. Not that we have faith but we want to maintain the parliamentary system and make it more democratic. That is why we are a party which has opposed the 1978 J.R. Jayewardene Constitution right from its inception. Even today, the only critical study of that Constitution is the monograph written on it by Dr. N.M. Perera.
We want a full-blooded democratic system and we believe that devolution of political power as proposed by the president could go a long way towards achieving that. In fact, proposals of devolution of power were first made by Dr. Colvin R. de Silva when he represented the LSSP together with Mr. Bernard Soyza at the All Party Conference convened by the then President J.R. Jayewardene to seek a solution to the ethnic strife. This was in the 1986-87 period.
The proposals he placed there were what our comrade Leslie Goonewardene formulated about 5 or 6 years prior to that for the purpose of enlarging the participation of the people in the administration in the areas in which they lived. We are still very consistently struggling for these positions.
Q. Even though the LSSP has been in the Sri Lankan political arena for almost 62 years, it has failed so far to secure a considerable number of Parliamentary seats. In your opinion, what went wrong?
A. Ours is a working class party based on objectives of that class. Flashing back at our performance, we are not dissatisfied nor disillusioned and there is a lot more for us to do both in the immediate present and in the immediate and distant future.
Q.What are your party’s plans for the Provincial Council elections which are due in April next year?
A. We are approaching it as part of the People’s Alliance. So, they will have to be P. A. plans. Very recently we adopted a resolution in our central committee and we have made a full survey of the political situation with a view to getting the P. A. on to a ‘fighting fit condition’ for the Provincial Council elections.
Q. Isn’t it correct that the Central Committee in principle agreed recently that it was futile to remain in the Cabinet if the LSSP was continued to be ignored on important governmental decisions?
A. No, it is not we have not decided to quit the cabinet. Moreover, ours is not just a parliamentary party. We are a revolutionary party. We use Parliament in parliamentary situations.
Q. It is widely believed that your party has lost its former glory and glamour. What steps are being taken to revitalize party activities?
A. I don’t see we had any glory of that nature which we have subsequently lost. We had a phase during which we were in the struggle for national independence. In 1947 with the Soulbury Constitution that phase came to an end in the country. Thereafter, it has been a struggle to fight capitalism of the UNP. The hartal of 1953 was our challenge to that capitalism. The fall of the UNP regime in 1956 was to a large extent anticipated in the hartal movement in 1953. We were part of the forces that struggled against the 17-year regime of the UNP. We have nothing to regret.
Q. What do you see as the main differences between the LSSP and the current government policies?
A. We have major differences but the LSSP confines itself to the issues of peace and abolition of the Executive Presidency. We will stick to the government whatever its short-comings. What most people don’t realise is that no government can do anything for the welfare of the people so long as this war, which costs us about Rs. 50 billion a year, continues. The UNP is only politicking when it says “ keep your economic policies”. They forget that whatever promises given had the basic assumption that the government’s peace effort would succeed and the government would not have to get on with this type of a terribly costly, wasteful and meaningless war.
I think the people should put pressure on the UNP to stop playing games and in the national interest, to co-operate with the government to bring about the needed political solution. The UNP does not want to do it because there are shortsighted people in it who think that given a leader like President Chandrika Kumaratunga, the P. A. will last a long, long time, if this problem of the war is solved.
Continue to the News/Comment page 3
Return to the News/Comment contents page
| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk