News
We may lose leaves and branches; but UNP, the tree is intact: Ranil
Some love to hate him. Others say he’s not “marketable”. Still more believe he’s the one national leader who understands the interplay of politics, economics and international relations. 
Overrated or underestimated, United National Party Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has been Prime Minister four times: under the Executive Presidential system, “Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.”
His best chance of winning the Presidency was in 2005 when the LTTE robbed him of certain victory by forcing a boycott in the North under controversial circumstances. He lost to the eventual winner Mahinda Rajapaksa by 180,786 votes.
Mr Wickremesinghe’s unwavering loyalty to the UNP began under his uncle J. R. Jayewardene’s mentorship. His finest hour was when he steadfastly supported then President R. Premadasa during a party revolt in the famous impeachment crisis of 1993.
Becoming party leader in 1994 following the assassination of Gamini Dissanayake, his leadership has been challenged ever since. But with a display of extraordinary tenacity, the Colombo University student leader and Attorney-at-Law remains the head of one of the oldest political parties in the country.
Excerpts from an interview with the Sunday Times:
On why people would choose UNP after rejecting its presidential candidate
Well, within a short time they discovered what a disaster this Government has been. Now people are saying the UNP is good at handling the economy. The last election was not fought on the economy but on many other things. And I was only campaigning for our candidate.
But I must say that, for the first time, we had a surplus in our primary budget. When we left the Government in November, we had money. But they were unable in January to pay the allowances we granted public servants because they reduced Government revenue. In the first quarter, I think Government revenue was only Rs 476bn when it was Rs 598bn in 2019.
That was the first crisis, before corona came. And, then, there are shortages. They haven’t got funding to meet the foreign exchange shortfall.
On where to get funding
From outside. The G20 decided that, because of this crisis. economic help should be given to countries. They will give a moratorium on their debt. The remaining issues were handed over to the IMF. All our neighbouring countries have received IMF assistance other than Sri Lanka.
On high prices
You cannot have high prices in this economy when actually there is excess supply. Why is it that vegetables are in excess supply but the prices are up here? Sri Lanka is one country in which prices are going up. Agriculture production never stopped because of corona.
On the economy
When you missed your first quarter, you’ve got into trouble. In the first quarter, most countries were alright. It (COVID-19) affected only the last month of the four quarters. It shouldn’t have gone down so much. But revenue was down even in December. That’s why our campaign focuses on the home economy. The crisis will affect Sri Lanka for a minimum of two years, maybe three. Can you manage for another two years?
We will ensure there is supply in the country. At the moment, there is a breakdown on supply of goods. First, in local production, from agriculture–which shouldn’t happen–and, second, imports are banned so it’s keeping prices up.
On banning imports
We could have stopped about Rs 2bn of imports but our domestic economy is also an import economy. A lot of the items we buy are not produced here. Competition with imports reduces the price of local goods, which is good. Thirdly, we are a value addition economy. Many industries depend on value addition. If small and medium industries don’t get the raw material, you’re in serious trouble.
There are other things. For instance, people who have lost their jobs. That is why we are talking of paying Rs 10,000 a month to the unemployed. Look at people who send their children to private schools. When you can’t pay the fees, they can’t pay the teachers. In turn, your children are thrown out. Our mini forests programme seems to be quite popular, judging from the questions we receive.
On the Presidential election
We were campaigning for Sajith. He went on a completely different manifesto. The economy was not even debated. I must say Gotabaya Rajapaksa also didn’t talk of the economy. That was not his speciality. Since we were not pressing on him, he was getting away on one of his weak areas.
There was also the Easter bomb. We tried to ignore that in the Presidential election. We paid the price. We had to deal with it. We were the Government. Of course, we didn’t know. That is no excuse not to talk about it and to explain what had happened. Some of them thought he (Sirisena) would join the coalition. So, they didn’t want to take it up.
On him being in charge at this election
We are getting our message through.
On targeted voters
I want to keep the UNPers with us and I want to get the floating voters.
On the UNP
The tree, the trunk, is intact. From time to time, we lose leaves and we lose branches. But the tree is not affected. The UNP is the tree. Sometimes leaves go, when one or two members cross over. Sometimes branches fall, like when Bandaranaike took out the (Sinhala) Maha Sabha which was a constituent party of the original UNP. The tree and the trunk are intact.
On who will take over the UNP
There are a whole lot of young people. I told them you all can have competition among each other but you must all hang together. One can be the leader or maybe two. If you can’t hang together, you’ll make the same mistake that Premadasa, Lalith and Gamini did.
So my job is not looking at who should be the leader but to ensure that the four or five who are in that category, together with others around them, stick together as one group. They should be able to elect one as leader, possibly by unanimity.
On why he won’t leave
I’m ready to go away, that’s what I told them. But I want a UNP for someone to go to. We also told Sajith, he can be Prime Ministerial candidate but he must come as UNP. You can’t do away with it.
On the four, five potential leaders
If I name one, someone who thinks he should be leader and I haven’t mentioned will come up to me! On Sunday night, I’ll be having telephone calls. So, let it be.
On his Government having incurring debt after 2015
We were getting into a position where we could repay. When you could have a surplus in the primary budget, in about three years, you are in a position even to pay part of the loans’ interest and, a little bit later, the full interest. By 2030, leaving aside a few years for setbacks, we could have covered this whole issue of debt. Once you are able to service your loans, you can again recycle the debt. Look at the debt of the United Kingdom.
On why he didn’t get along with Sirisena
This is a question you have to ask him. I somehow hung together with him till November 2019. He wanted to get rid of me. I said no, I’m the PM. But he had his own ideas. Originally, the President was not to be an Executive President and the Government was to be run by Cabinet. But, somewhere or the other, he got the idea that he could lead it. The UNP didn’t want to be under anybody else and his own party split into “pohottuwa” and the SLFP.
Your National Government in 2015 split the SLFP
It need not have. First they all came along. Then they decided they will part company because some of them were not given ministries.
On whether he regrets not pursuing corruption cases against the Rajapaksa administration
There is a procedure. Police have to investigate. I didn’t want people to go and influence it because there was pressure on the part of the Government. Everyone had made corruption an issue. It had to be driven by the AG and the court process, which was the biggest obstacle. We established the Special High Court when the delays were discovered. I don’t think cases were filed before 2016 to 2017. In 2018 we brought the legislation for the new High Court. But, then, how many such High Courts can we have? We virtually emptied the bench. In all our countries, prosecution is a long-term process.
On whether he was protecting Mahinda Rajapaksa from corruption charges
I don’t think there were specific ones against him. There were some against the Government. But I also don’t think that former Heads of Government and Heads of State, as a rule, should be brought up and prosecuted unless on charges of murder because people have defeated them. I told President Jayawardene also (that) we are not prosecuting Mrs Bandaranaike. We can take off her civic rights but we should give it back as soon as possible. It was just a symbolic act.
On the bond scam and his reputation
People shout at me but we haven’t lost anything. They attacked (me) and opponents will now keep hammering away. That’s a part of politics. But we didn’t lose anything. Now the problem is Perpetual Treasuries was going to sue the Government saying the money is there and there has been no loss. Even if there had been no loss, you can’t do without the criminal aspect if there had been collusion. But that’s all. On the civil side, there’s a different issue. I think the Government has to deal with both those issues.
On the impact of the bond scam on the Government
It was a blow to the Government but we showed that we had nothing… When you govern, you have to ensure that minimum damage is done. In this case, there was no money lost. There was question of ethics.
On insider dealing in the bond scam
Insider dealing was going on in a big way from 2009 or so. That’s why we said relations shouldn’t be in it and we were just sorting it out. We said the Governor’s son-in-law must resign and sell his shares. He resigned and wanted three months to sell the shares. The question in this deal is because Perpetual Treasuries put so much of money. Did the Governor in any way give him a tip-off? Was it a hunch or was it the usual sources? This was famous for insider dealing so he could still have got some information from somewhere. That’s what you have to investigate. But overall it was that this should not have happened, a tip from inside or a hunch.
On what he would do
differently this time
Now we are in a different situation. I will go directly, take action. Last time we had problems because we had to get a consensus. Now we haven’t got that. There are four or five areas on which you will receive a mandate. The rest of it, you can discuss a common approach in Parliament. One thing I will do different is we must get agreement among all parties on the medium and long-term policy framework.
On being blamed for dividing the UNP
Basically, as it is recorded (in court) today, we asked for a coalition with the elephant as a symbol. Secondly, we said if Sajith wanted to be the Prime Ministerial candidate, he could do it. But now, officially, they have given their version and the court has said there is misrepresentation. They have ruled on it so I think we can’t be blamed on that.
Why they decided to leave was something that they have to (explain). The party was formed, registered, without our knowledge.
On whether he felt betrayed
I feel it was a big let-down for the party when a solution was in sight.
Whether the Parliamentary election is a waste of time given the President’s popularity
I thought the UNP had a duty to put forward our plans and take it to the country. I’m happy because others are not doing that.
On whether UNP will form a National Government
We are asking for an overall majority. I don’t think any party will get anywhere close to 125 seats. This is going to be an election of a pure majority or a largest party.
If UNP does not get an overall majority
If the UNP is the largest party without a majority, I would invite the President to summon all the party leaders and ask them what they want to do. Do they want to go for another election and look for a majority? Or do they want to carry on for a year or two or three? If so, what should be the internal arrangements? Can you put two parties or three parties together? Or will you allow a minority group to go on, subject to certain conditions. Those have to be resolved before a Government is sworn in, if no one has a majority.
On what is significant in the manifesto
One is controlling corona because, if you don’t, your economy will go out of shape and so will many other things like schooling. Second is the economy. If we don’t stabilise it and bring it up, we are going to be in serious trouble. It is important to get moving. We have to look at new sources of income. It will take a while and there will be high debt in every country. We need foreign assistance or we need to borrow, one of the two.
On not having opinion surveys this time
The first one showed a confused electorate. Then our people said it was not worth doing surveys.