REVALUATING THE RAJAPAKSE PRESIDENCY
Repost This ArticleIf President Rajapakse should come in for a bit of stick, it is not for the overall record of his just completed first term and the dawn of his second. If anyone deserved it for performance and achievement, it is surely him. An evaluation of a political leader must be historically concrete. What was the context in which he/she assumed power? What was the situation he/she inherited and what did he/she make of that inheritance? Did he/she improve the situation in respect of the central challenge or main problem, cause it to worsen, or remain unchanged? The evaluation must also factor in the actually available alternative to his/her leadership; how that alternative personality would have fared and at what cost.
It often takes a critical outsider to register the authentic dimensions of the achievement of a distant nation and its leader. Though they contributed negatively to the emergence of that challenge, how many of Mahinda Rajapakse’s post- Independence predecessors prevailed over a challenge that was as formidable by any standard of contemporary world history; indeed of “the era”? In his recently released volume ‘Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power’, Robert D Kaplan, member of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis writes of “…the government’s gradual victory over the Tamil Tigers, among the post World War II era’s most ruthless and bloodthirsty organizations…Prabhakaran had been causing death and destruction to a much greater extent and for a much longer period than Osama bin Laden in the case of the United States. This was the kind of clear-cut, demonstrable victory that any American administration could only hope for…” (pp. 203, 210)
President Rajapakse won his second term fairly and squarely. The debate on the 18th amendment is irrelevant here, because that followed, not preceded his re-election and pertains to a possible third term, not the second.
Is Sri Lanka, in better shape in the most basic sense, at the commencement of Rajapakse’s second term than it was on the eve of his first term? Sri Lanka, like any other country, has to be evaluated as a totality, not through the prism of its ethnic minority, though the minorities question must indubitably be part of the evaluation. Assessing Sri Lanka through the lens of the Tamil Diaspora or the Tamil question is as misleading as assessing Turkey through the lens of the Kurds, India through the Kashmiris or Nagas, the Philippines through that of the Moros, and Spain through the Basques. That would provide insights, but a partial, skewed perspective. Things must also be classified as primary and secondary. At this point in time, has the record of achievement of the Rajapakse presidency been in the main, positive or negative, and is the contribution made to the country and its people by him primarily good or bad?
Mahinda Rajapakse inherited a Sri Lankan state in grave crisis, with a powerful armed enemy rooted in a part of its soil, attempting to dismember its territory. Three previous Presidents and four previous leaders, JR, Premadasa, Wijetunga, Chandrika and Ranil failed to restore the territorial integrity and unity of the country, end the war and terminate the secessionist challenge. This, Rajapakse accomplished. The result is that for the first time in decades, there is no deadly violence on a large or medium scale. For all this, he was freely elected to a second term. After thirty years of life in its shadow, the country and all its peoples are safe and secure from an existential threat of the most basic and awful kind.
Sri Lankan opinion and opinion on Sri Lanka are broadly divisible into two categories: those who regard Mahinda Rajapakse’s achievement or contribution as more positive than negative and those who view it as more negative than positive. However critical or ambivalent they may be on this or that specific policy, action or inaction on his part, there is little doubt as to which side of the divide the vast majority of Sri Lankan people are. There is also little doubt in my mind as to what history’s verdict would be, given the magnitude of his historic achievement.
Critique must not be distorted by nihilistic negation, just as recognition of the positive must not be discredited with blindness towards the negative, and a defence of achievement must not be vitiated by avoidance of that which remains to be done. Sadly, most commentary by and on Sri Lanka is warped by one or the other distortion.
The analytically slipshod shows of erudition which wildly toss references to leaders who have been elected to power only to establish dictatorships, omits the vital datum that such leaders proceeded to bury representative multiparty democracy by violently smashing the main opposition. Mahinda Rajapakse has not done so. Whatever his transgressions, he cannot be held responsible for a diminution of the competitiveness of representative democracy through the prolonged leadership debility of the Opposition and the dwarfing of that Opposition by his achievement of destroying the Tigers (something that he did not prevent his predecessors from doing themselves)! Still more absurd is the attempt to equate Rajapakse with Prabhakaran. This assumes that the strategic projects of the two (reunification vs. dismemberment of the country) can be equated, as can the lamentable compliance of Tamil society with a movement that decimated the political leadership of that community (burning alive the TELO youth, to name but one instance) with the democratic state and the Southern public sphere that resisted and rolled back anything that came close. Even so acerbic a Western analyst of the Rajapakse dispensation as Robert D Kaplan does not fail to balance his observation that there is a “more severe coarsening of politics in Colombo” with the repeated definition of the country as a democracy—on which he places his bet as Sri Lanka’s ultimate salvation.
While there are some analysts in whose perspective the defining narratives of Sri Lanka are the one that accepts the existence of an ethnic problem and those that do not, and that President Rajapakse’s achievement has been retrogressive than positive because he is (seemingly) classifiable in the latter category, it is far likelier that history will define the age we have lived through as that of the Thirty Year War of secession. An analogy would be Europe in the 20th century. While it is certainly true that this history is rooted in the rise of Germany, and the triangular relations between Germany, Britain, France and Russia, history correctly uses the more important classification of the two World Wars, the inter-war years, and the Cold War. Similarly, the dominant and determinant driver of our contemporary history and crisis has been the protracted war. Against that backdrop there were two narratives in the intersecting spheres of the state and civil society: those who regarded a negotiated settlement with Prabhakaran and the Tigers as both feasible and desirable, and those who did not, grasping instead that the nature of the enemy rendered a comprehensive military victory desirable, imperative and possible. This is how the people will remember it and history record it.
Tragically, many, perhaps even most, of those who belong to the narrative of recognising the existence of an ethnic problem wound up either temporising or worse still in the camp of appeasement, while the camp of determined resistance to the Tigers comprised mainly of those who failed to recognise or accept the existence of an ethnic problem which required a political settlement. Thus, the ‘ethnic problem/political solution’ narrative was subsumed within the ‘stop the war/negotiated endgame’ one and its votaries de-legitimised in the eyes of the people and history, just as ‘the spirit of Munich’ remains a dirty word in the West or the issue of collaboration, the Vichy regime and the Resistance remain the defining elements of that period of the history of France. The narrative of ‘no political solution/zero devolution’ was legitimised by wrapping itself up in the flag.
More than a year after the war and at the dawn of the Rajapakse second term the polarisation continues, with the call for war crimes investigations coming from those who failed to endorse the decisive drive to eliminate the Tigers, while the strident defence of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty coming mainly from those who do not wish to acknowledge the need for a political solution to the country’s ethnic problem and the need to forge a new, pluralist and multiethnic identity. It is ironic that those who seek to oppose President Rajapakse and champion democracy, also refuse to endorse Sri Lanka’s last war and its heroic, defining final battles, going to the extent of criticising the administration for non-compliance with hypocritical Western calls for ‘war crimes’ probes. If democracy means anything it means popular sovereignty, and the ultimately sovereign people are conspicuously clear on the issue of the war, its final battles, the military, and ‘international war crimes investigations’.
This leaves a paradoxical situation. Within the dominant Sri Lankan discourse (not to be confused with actual public opinion polling stats), those (of us) at the interface of the two competing narratives, those who stood and stand for the military defeat of the Tigers, the resolute defence of national sovereignty and for a political settlement of the ethnic question, are a minority, but in the international arena, this is precisely the position of the Eurasian and Non Aligned states which supported Sri Lanka. It is also quite definitely the Asian consensus.
The fact that our external critics depict their excessive strictures as coming from the ‘international community’ when they reflect, if at all, only a segment of it, does not mean that the international community does not exist;Â it simply means that these unfair and prejudiced critics are not synonymous with it.
Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence showcased Sri Lanka’s recent and ongoing achievement in the following words to an international scholarly audience attending the 6th international conference of the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) of the National University of Singapore:
“…Sri Lanka has emerged from a decades-long civil war, and is enjoying an economic revival. It is currently the second-fastest growing Asian economy after China, a fact not lost upon the IMF, which recently upgraded Sri Lanka to middle income emerging market status. Like Brazil, Sri Lanka enjoys an adult literacy rate of just over 90%. Sri Lanka’s gross enrolment ratio, which gives an indication of school attendance, is also comparable to that of China. What is particularly noteworthy of Sri Lanka’s growth is the narrowness of its gender gap. In the Global Gender Gap Report 2010 published by the World Economic Forum, which measures gender-based disparities on economic, political, education and health-based criteria, Sri Lanka ranked within the top 20, the only South Asian country to do so. Closing the gender gap is not just an issue of gender equity, it is also one of harnessing the current human resource potential, and uplifting the potential of the next generation. The most important determinant of a country’s competitiveness is its human talent – the skills, education and productivity of its workforce. In any country, women account for half of the current talent base and have a key role in nurturing the next generation.”
No two yardsticks are more important in assessing the state of a nation-state and the performance of its leadership than (a) war and (b) the economy. President Rajapakse has won the first, has improved the second and seems to be laying the foundations for a stronger economy. If Sri Lanka is positioned to benefit from the rise of Asia and the significance of the Indian Ocean region, it is because Mahinda Rajapakse has cleared the way for it to do so by overcoming the most formidable obstacle: the secessionist enemy.
The grade on Sri Lanka’s score card as given by an important Singaporean leader represents at least five significant things. Firstly, that there is more than one view of Sri Lanka in the international system. Secondly, that the primarily positive views do not limit themselves to those of allegedly ‘rogue’ or ‘maverick’ states, regarded as ‘anti-Western’. Thirdly, that there is an Asian or Eastern ‘Realist’ perspective on Sri Lanka. Fourthly, that the country’s main external constituency is Asia the region that is on the rise and to which power is shifting. Fifthly, the views of Sri Lanka’s ‘Atlanticist’ critics and civil society denouncers (INGOs, the western media and local publicists) are relatively less relevant to the country’s destiny and are seriously warped, in that they do not flow from and fail to contain a recognition of the positive achievement of Sri Lanka in the Rajapakse years, as any honest, objective evaluation surely must.
Holy Cow! Am I sharing the same universe with this man? I pinch myself to make sure I am not dreaming. All of a sudden now there are GOOD Americans (Bob Kaplan – they come from the defense side and look around the region what good they are doing).
Are you really believe in what you say, Dayan? Or is this a cover letter for a job application? There should be a limit to shamelessness and shame seems to have disappeared from your vocabulary.
Just a question to quench my curiosity and a comment:
(Q) “Sri Lanka, like any other country, has to be evaluated as a totality, not through the prism of its ethnic minority, though the minorities question must indubitably be part of the evaluation.”
Well, whose prism are we looking through now? Could you give some examples to show where that “indubitable” part exist in the evaluation, please?
(Comment) “If democracy means anything it means popular sovereignty, and the ultimately sovereign people are conspicuously clear on the issue of the war, its final battles, the military, and ‘international war crimes investigations’”.
Gobbles couldn’t have written it any better.
There certainly are many respectable jobs in the world than putting lipstick on pigs. Hope you sleep well at night without nightmares of the antiquated proletariat revolution. Remember that, Comrade?
No doubt that Dayan did a great job in the crucial discussionsessions in Geneva a year ago, but the manner he writes today is very biased to the current govt. Country^s so called senior polical scientists continue to do so, masses who own the opponent thoughts about deeds of current politicos become helpless. He should know it better as a political analyst whether we have the freedom that the lankens enjoyed in the country earlier. Being biased to Rajapakshe units what we can expect is – not democratic values but dicatate values that no nation would praise of.
Most of all – I am irriated by reading this –
President Rajapaksa won his second term fairly and squarely. The debate on the 18th amendment is irrelevant here, because that followed, not preceded his re-election and pertains to a possible third term, not the second.
I asked myself even today, whether he was fairly elected ??????????????”
I never thought that Premadasa – style era could emerge in the country again. At the time, Premadasa spent millions of public funds by celebrating his unique Gamudawa projects – there were growing masses of the country who felt very against to him. But today, war win has been instrumental to do whatever the UPFAers do, as if particular success was due to – 4 year govt plans by MR. The poor masses who are the majority of the country have no choice than the info they are fed by their media units.
- right at the moment, which state leader would celebrate his second term (won by vote rigging) while leaving significant massesn in hunger, even being unable to face the life for them next day, with sky high price hikes in most essential food items
- and ones who work for current govt in the coalition, those who had different angles of thinking also seem to be blind folded – not being able to go against UPFA rulers ? Champika Ranawaka, Wimal Weerawanse, Dinesh were unique to their own political thinking before, but today, they have become biased politicians – can anyboday answer to this ?
- except few prominent interlletuals getting biased to the govt – most evident example is – Dayan. I like his writings before, I have compared all these to today^s – as average would feel – he too seems to have got -BRAIN washed ?
If Rajapakse is awarded the monarchy for defeating a tiny group of slipper-clad rebels, then the USA ought to be made emperor of the world for defeating the Nazis and Japan!
Once again, defeating the LTTE was not some phenomenal victory. All that had to be done is impose a very strong naval blockade around the island (thereby cutting off LTTE logistics) and then push the LTTE into a corner. You cannot apply the same logic to, say, Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Afghanistan. In particular, Afghanistan has mountains and shares a porous border with Pakistan. Imagine for a second that Sri Lanka had mountains and shared a border with India, say Tamil Nadu. Keeping in mind that the madrassas in Pakistan provide a constant source of militants for “holy war” across the border, Rajapakse would never achieved an amicable result of the type that he does today. Similarly, the Israelis cannot decimate Hamas/Hezbollah, and the Russians cannot stem the Chechnyan uprising, all because the terrain combined with the porous borders make this a herculean task. I have not even mentioned financing. The financing of Islamic militancy vs. the meager billion or so collected annually by the LTTE are two different beasts altogether. If all the poppies in Afghanistan were converted into opium and sold on the market, the revenue would easily rival that of the SL budget. In fact, this is exactly how the Taliban/Al-Qaeda finance their operations in Afghanistan, in addition to the “donations” sent by wealthy Muslims (particularly in the Middle-East).
In a different post, “Concerned Citizen” has already mentioned how this was an unjust war… in particular, he mentions the use of cutting-edge weapons. In other words, the scale was always tipped in favor of the Sri Lankan military, which had access to better weapons. The Sri Lankan military chose to use those weapons without any regard for civilian casualties, hence the constant dramatic crescendo in the tempo of the war. Let us imagine, now, if the Western nations (specifically NATO) resorted to nuclear warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. The battlefield would change overnight. But would it be a just war?
*of the type that he did today
Dear, Dear Dayan,
It is clear the rupial-Pottoinger has taken full reins, now that the original Brit is out of the scene. You have an exceptional capacity to hunt down the meager, convenient compliments, while burying the whole mass of abundant inconvenient truth that is glaringly obvious. What a talent!
You state “there is little doubt as to which side of the divide the vast majority of Sri Lankan people are”, no doubt implying that that should be adequate to subordinate any critiques. When SWRD replaced the Queen’s language with swabasha, the Sinhala jubilation was no less euphoric – but alas it took twenty years, and a whole generation of opportunities lost, let alone the thousands and thousands of youth-life sacrificed by both communities, and a whole heap of brain-drain before we opened our eyes to the need to re-introduce English to schools – and that by his own daughter.
We need intellects and political scientists who can look beyond their noses to guide the Government to longer-term stability and prosperity. Not wolves in sheep’s clothing to pay undue homage solely help satiate self indulgence.
If one strips your article of all the fluff and the glitter of word-adornments, basically your argument is that Rajapaksa has done right by the country only because Kapalan and Singapore Deputy P.M. said so.
Let me point out a few issues that need a little more thought rather than be merely used as word-candy to seduce the masses.
• Politician’s are not the most dependable to validate statistical accuracy, and they certainly don’t need to be. I checked. IMF estimates Singapore has the fastest growth expectation, well ahead that of China at 10%. Most countries in the Asian region are forecast to grow at between 7 to 9%; and the expected growth of Sri Lanka is actually at the lower 7%. Last year, despite all the hoopla, Sri Lanka managed to eek out just 3% growth, not even a third of China’s growth. My point is, not that Mr. Hean, the Deputy PM was lying, but rather that Sri Lanka is not the “next China” as you would want us to believe — there is no expectation of uniquely magnificent growth outlook there for Sri Lanka.
• It is possibly accurate that Sri Lanka has a relatively narrow gender gap compared to most of Asia. The compulsory education for all children that we have retained even since independence is no doubt a primary reason for this – unlike in most other nations including India, Pakistan, China, etc where emphasis on girl’s educational need is sadly inadequate. There is, however, no credit that is owed to Rajapaksa on this – that needs to be clear.
• Further, it will be interesting to check how much of the narrowing in gender-gap earnings resulted from the concentration of mass employment in garment manufacturing and maid-exports that, by its unique nature, provides greater opportunities for mothers, sisters and daughters rather than to fathers, brothers and sons, who to the most part remain domestics, with hardly any employment opportunities. Is that really a good thing?
• Similarly Rajapaksa has no claim to credit on the 90% literacy rate. On the other hand, despite this 90% literacy rate, a significant share of foreign-exchange earnings comes from maid-exports. Rajapaksa’s first-election promise of 50,000 (or was it 500,000) foreign employment (read labor & maid) reflects not only the bankruptcy in development foresight, but also the plight to which this educated nation has been reduced to. Remember the good old days that Sri Lankans enjoyed uniquely disproportionate foreign employment as doctors, engineers, accountants and teachers in almost all regions of the world?
• Another point that you proudly, but blindly reiterated is “In any country, women account for half of the current talent base and have a key role in nurturing the next generation.” Do you think expanding programs to send our mothers, sisters and daughters to the arrogant Middle East and pursuing similar “golden” opportunities in Korea, Malaysia and now in Chennai is the best we can do to nurture our next generation? Think, Dayan Think – it won’t hurt! You attended institutions beyond the middle school for a reason, a reason beyond cutting and pasting.
• You thought it fit to reiterate ” The most important determinant of a country’s competitiveness is its human talent – the skills, education and productivity of its workforce.” Words are easy to come-by – action speaks louder. Aside from the initial promise of 50,000 at the first elections, Mahinda recently appealed to give Sri Lankan labor another chance suggesting that “we would work for half the wages you’d pay to the Chinese, the cheapest available.” In addition we are now inducing (forcing?) the children to learn Korean and Chinese (Hey! What happened to swabasha??!) Are we expecting them to take away from Koreans and Chinese the engineering, medical, legal or any other professional employment opportunities worthy of the 90% literacy rate that we proudly claim (kind of like the insistent Dr. title some of us are addicted to)? No – not at all. Neither Koreans nor Chinese are going to give us anything but janitorial work at best – the Sri Lankan chakkili force to the fore! Is that the goal behind the Korean and Chinese language programs? Think about it Dayan – don’t just parrot.
As for Kaplan’s summary, all I can say is your aptitude to take convenient words as gospel is unparalleled. In his recent writings Kaplan leaves little doubt about not only his sentiments on China’s intrusive aspirations, but also how the best of intelligence of his country did not have a clue of what China was up to, until it was too late. We don’t need any new evidence to evaluate credibility of US’s military intelligence (or rather the intelligence gap) – even Bush lately, and finally expressed his dismay. There is a vast amount of credible academic and non-academic literature available out there, that is produced without the (some-times necessary) military biases. So, read a few more reports from academics other than those who help sell you — that is not an intellectual profession; there is another word for that.
I have asked you many a time – but I am not easily discouraged. In Democracy, development and stability, what is more important is not where we are but in which direction we are headed, and how fast. Could you name a few policy or program changes that Mahinda has put in place that YOU would consider as progressive?
Did you hear of the clown named Grumpy who got elected to the Congress in Brazil? His support was based on his motto “it can’t get any worse”. That is principally where we are now, I suppose.
All these academics and pundits who write here-including Dayan- are trying to assess this person called Rajapakse with the yard-sticks they are familiar with, in academic situations. This is bound to fail as you can’t measure ‘radiation’ with kilograms or kilometres!
While admitting that Rajapkse is the best leader Sri Lanka had, after independence, as far as the Sri Lankan national pride and national ethos are concerned, he also qualifies to be the most pretentious, self-absorbed and opportunistic leader who stands about two three steps ahead of Premadasa!(may be Sri Lankan values of the modern age!) His practical mind knows what the average Sri Lankan mind is like the back of his hand; the short lived memory, attraction for void aura and personification, bigotry and hypocricy.
He will definitely do a lot of good to the country ; and a lot of bad in his rule and also will successfully make the peple believe that everything he did was very justifiable!
He is a ‘ring leader’ and a performer to the public and will keep people glued to their seats with his acrobats!
The Samitha is saying,
“- except few prominent interlletuals getting biased to the govt – most evident example is – Dayan. I like his writings before, I have compared all these to today^s – as average would feel – he too seems to have got -BRAIN washed ?”
I am fully and completely and absolutely agreeing with you, the Samitha, but with one difference. Nobody is wahshing the brain of the Dayan. He is washng it himself, even selecting the detergent all on his own!
We won the war because there was humility to re-assess what went wrong before and courage to stay the course –
Granted there was political and military leadership and ground level sacrifice and commitment. My question is – when is this party going to end?
We have a lot of catching up to do – the environment and global economy are changing fast – we need leadership for the future / not a self congratulatory regime that looks to the past.
Please stop wallowing in self indulgence. Just because the army, navy, air force and some politicians did the jobs they were paid to do for once does not mean they own the country. It is sad to see intellectuals helping to confirm this view.
we had a funeral – the same way when the two JVP insurgencies ended with many young lives terminated. it is not the perspective of success that we need now – it is the pespective of suffering – of pain and hardship and hunger.
Unless we meet these challenges we will remain lost – a set of people without a true identity and without values
What Prabha could not destroy in 30 years MR has wiped out in one year. The destruction is complete. So for those who want to hang onto their glorious military victories – i say congratulations – you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams ….
at the end of the day – what is the use of our education and learning – we are all useful idiots to the juvenile progeny that continues to rule us
until such time that we find ways and means of becoming USELESS to the powers that be…
when we criticize MR we dont need to justify RW – or find alternative presidents – No we just need to call a spade a spade
I am sorry Dr Dayan … I take you so seriously sometimes …
The 18th Amendment was introduced during MR’s first term after winning the support of the people for his second term. A possible third term has been enabled for MR because of the amendment. It very much pertains to his first two terms. But I would say that the people would have voted in favor of the amendment had there been a referendum, given the Sinhala chauvinism prevalent in the South. I think what we need to analyze is whether Sri Lankan citizens value a political culture which respects pluralism and diversity. Why can’t we analyze the political behavior of the people? Academics and intellectuals seem to patronize people the way politicians do. Are we prepared to say that the majority of the Sri Lankans are racist as they don’t show any opposition to MR’s lack of interest in addressing the minority question? Are Tamil intellectuals prepared to accept that racism on the part of Tamils is one of the factors that prevented them from seeing the parochial political ideas of the LTTE? Why do majority of the people of this country always vote for politicians from either the UNP or the UPFA while there are candidates from less dominant parties who represent a better political culture and ideology?
Sarath has a point, Sri Lanka introduced Swabasha so that even the village youths can aspire to become professionals in medicine, engineering and other fields.
By teaching Korean and Chinese, what are our youths being groomed to?
Servants, maids and sweepers, is this the development we are being promised?
Dr. D, can you please address this too.
DJ is the only diplomat so far to acknowledge the greatness of the Rajapakse Presidency.
Is it gratitude for his reinstatement?
There will be many more ‘whitewashers’ soon, competing with each other for the goodies – posts,perks,contracts etc.
The government has hired UK firm Bell-Pottinger to recoup its image abroad at great expense.
But all our diplomats abroad are minitaining a studied silence about the Second Term and the Grand Cabinet of 90 ministers and deputies.
Are they fearful of being replaced by military men?
looking at the bright side, MR was da leader who could solve the problem in N/E by any mean. and he still has greater chance of turning SL into next Malaysia.
but improving ease of doing business in the country n attracting more FDIs are musts for a 10% growth rate.
10% Growth rate for 5years would be a solution for grievances of minorities.
The Citizen is saying,”
looking at the bright side, MR was da leader who could solve the problem in N/E by any mean. and he still has greater chance of turning SL into next Malaysia.”
I am geting confused. Spome peoples saying the Malaysia, some saying the Singappore. Some even saying the myanmar. Others are saying not going anywhere just staying in the same country but going back to the past into the golden age. Where are we going? I don;t want to be disturbing the president and asking him. He is too busy having the cake and eating it also.
Yes citizen –
We are 90% literate, looking at the bright side, on a path to steady 10% growth for the next several years, and be able to solve all our miority problems — and the pathway for that glorious growth is to teach Korean and Chinese to our kids so that we can send more of our “skilled, educated and productive workforce” to do menial jobs in 60% literate countries! That all makes sense to you – right? God bless you.
Sarath Fernando
There is nothing called ‘menial’ or ‘low’ lobs in a developed country. All are jobs and work means work! Only difference is that skilled jobs are paid better, When you say ‘skilled’ it doesn’t mean the doctors and engineers only as many Sri Lankan children seem to be thinking. Any skilled job is a good job in a developed country.eg.Plumbers, carpenters and meat cutters. Sri Lanka is still an under-developed country and those kind of jobs are paid badly and looked down upon. This is a sign of our backwardness as far as the work culture is concerned.
If a Newly Industrialized country like Korea pays our workers better, let them go there and earn, why are you worried about the type of jobs they would be doing? It’s none of your business as long as the person who works is satisfied! Just because we ‘imported’ doctors and engineers do you think that we have a special ‘status’ in the Wes?. Work is work for them (and they don’t care what you do there!) and they don’t have this pathetic Siri Lanket status problem!
Correction…
In the last para of my previous post, the word ‘imported’ should be corrected as ‘exported’!
We are producing slaves to work for foreign capital and foreign employers – the education system has disintegrated – our true foundation – our poor people are facing very little choices and opportunities – and we are enjoying the fruits (forex) of their hard earned labour – we are occupying a crumbling foundation –
and the lack of intellectual honesty and character will ensure that we will never face up to the truth for another 100 years.
why bother to learn
when we are only here
to teach others?
to flex our muscles
and applaud ourselves
why bother to learn?
when our lifestyles
are fully funded
with slave labour?