Columns

When the current government assumed power in the name of the National Unity Government last August, portfolios multiplied faster than rabbits. The numbers far exceeded what the public was made to expect.

The reason for such liberal distribution of largesse was clear enough. The new President Maithripala Sirisena was trying to attract to his fold sections of the SLFP, especially those who were seen as supporters of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa. If they were to jump ship – never mind loyalties – inducements had to be offered.

Portfolios attract politicians of all hues like bears to wild honey. So it proved to be. But to distribute ministries in such large numbers they need to create new ones. The mastermind who set about stitching ministries together and came up with curious creations raised many a guffaw and a lot of head scratching.

Take a portfolio like Higher Education and Highways. One wonders whether there is some Shakespearean symbolism — you know like the thunder and lightning in King Lear for instance – but it sure seems the highway represents the road to higher education.
Whoever thought up this strange combination of functions deserves a national award, something like a Deshabandu. A former colleague of mine, Christie Seneviratne, then Sports Editor of the Daily News used to tell us about a store in that architectural maze called the Pettah that sold iron safes and ghee.

That story about the curious mix came to mind last week when I read that Minister Lakshman Kiriella was embroiled in an exchange with the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) and a subsequent news report that Kiriella berated a journalist for asking a very legitimate question.

This confrontation was provoked by a letter Minister Kiriella wrote last month to the Head of the Economics Department/ Kelaniya University proposing that an individual who is “personally known” to him be considered for a temporary lecturer’s post in political science.

Minister Kiriella is a lawyer by profession. What I did not know was that he was also a man of letters. It has now come to light that this is not the first letter he wrote to Kelaniya University besides one he had written to the Rajarata University, all of them trying to foist individuals into various positions.

The first attempt was to plant a person, said to be his former secretary, as member of the Council of Kelaniya University which apparently failed, media reports say. The second was a letter written in January to Rajarata University which, again according to media reports, was to recommend for employment as a labourer an individual named of S. A. Nirosha Nayanangani Subasinghe who had already been shortlisted. The relevant sentence read: “During the interview, if she had the relevant other qualifications required for the post, employ her regardless of her age.” This letter was reportedly signed by Kiriella.

One wonders what the “relevant other qualifications” for the post of a labourer would be if the age of the applicant is ignored.
Now if all this is true then Kiriella has been quite busy putting pen to paper to influence appointments to various positions in institutions of higher learning made on his say-so.

Instead of burying his head like an ostrich and letting this incident blow over Minister Kiriella thought he will mount a defence — a bad mistake. His Media Secretary responds to FUTA’s letter to President Sirisena protesting at the unwarranted intrusion into matters that concern universities and their autonomy.

Minister Lakshman Kiriella: Embroiled in controversy over a letter of recommendation.

Whoever the author of that reply it really takes the papaw, leaves and roots as well. Kiriella reportedly told a local journalist who had queried him about the letter that evoked a FUTA rejoinder to go read the Universities Act if he does not know the powers vested in the minister under it.

It might have been wiser if such reading of the legislation started in the very ministry that quotes the Act with such gusto and aplomb. The media secretary claims that “according to Article 19 of the Universities Act the Minister has the authority to give directions to universities.” This is a classic example of ignorance, mental sloth or deliberate prevarication.

Article 19 actually reads: “The Minister shall be responsible for the general direction of university education and the administration of this Act.” Curiously the word “general” has disappeared from the ministry version. Why? The responsibility of the minister is to provide the general direction of university education and not to give specific instructions with regard to appointments to academic or non-academic positions in the universities. Surely one does not need to be a lawyer -even a bad one – to understand that simple sentence.

By deleting the word “general” which gives a different connotation to the powers vested in the Minister, the ministry attempts to mislead the public into believing that the Minister has the power to interfere or intervene in appointments.The said article underlines the responsibility of the Minister for the general direction of university education not any authority to do what he likes.
It seems the ministry cannot distinguish between responsibility and authority. Perhaps lessons in basic education should start at the ministry.

I really do not know where Kiriella was when the Universities Act was discussed at the old Parliament by the sea in 1978. As then Parliamentary Editor of the Daily News and its sketch writer I remember the draft bill which had all to do with the establishment of the University Grants Commission.

Hansard should provide the reports of the enlivening debate that took place at the time with MPs voicing the need to preserve the autonomy of the universities which were then only a handful. The ministry says that the Minister’s letter specifically stated that the “candidate shall be considered only if he or she is suitably qualified.” It seems the ministry does not know whether the candidate K.P.D.D Amarasinghe of Watte Waluwwa, Doranegama, Medawala, Harispattuwa who the Minister recommends as one personally known to him, is a man or a woman.

One supposes that in the case of the Minister’s recommendation of a woman to the post of labourer at the Rajarata University, the ministry would quote the same Art.19 in mitigation. Here again one is constrained to ask how the cause of higher education is served unless the purpose of having a handy labourer is to sweep Rajarata university education into a convenient dust bin.
As though the Minister and his ministry have not made a sorry mess of this episode, in steps the Vice Chancellor of the Kelaniya University Prof. Sunanda Madduma Bandara like a ministerial standard bearer.

He is shocked to hear the “hue and cry” over the Minister’s letter. He says that as administrators they regularly receive such missives, so what’s new.The vice chancellor may have heard the plethora of promises about yahapalanaya, how it would make a clean break with the past, that good governance would entail non-interference in administration and appointments.

Prof. Madduma Bandara asks why rake up this when it happens regularly. That seems a reckless piece of reasoning. His argument is that even if a wrong occurs regularly it should be ignored. Does it apply to murder as well, or even accidents professori? One can only hope that he does not father this kind of thinking in his students.

In case il professori has not noticed the “hue and cry” comes from his academic colleagues in the universities. His comments should therefore be addressed to them rather than bothering the public with such inanities.