Meet the new MPs

• Entered politics to influence changes: Ravindra
• I want to implement programmes to benefit the people: Bandula

Entered politics to influence changes: Ravindra

This week we introduce Parakrama Bandula Gunawardane who replaced Reginald Cooray when he resigned from Parliament to become the Chief Minister of the Western Province and UNP National List member and celebrated actor Ravindra Randeniya.

As one of Sri Lanka's most celebrated actors, Ravindra Randeniya has avoided direct involvement in power politics for a long time. Yet, in less than a year since his entry, he finds himself in the legislature, giving 'artistic representation' to the UNP.

Excerpts:

Q: Are you in Parliament to give the UNP artistic expression-a glamorous appendage or symbol?

A: As an artiste, I have maintained a certain dialogue with the people. As issues affecting the industry largely slipped by without being addressed, I decided this wasn't the time to remain passive and merely criticize. I entered politics with the belief that I could actually attempt to influence changes, not just in the cinema, but in all spheres.

As for my presence in the House, the UNP leader may have selected me partly due to my achievements in the field of arts- and also to symbolize the UNP's dedication to fostering arts. I too have my ideologies as a politician, and wish to translate them into reality. Actors portray real life situations in a make believe fashion and in a sense represent people. Politics is the broader representation, heavily steeped in responsibility and duty.

Q: But your chosen party the UNP has a terrible track record regarding treatment of artistes. Many were victimized and denied airtime with the pinnacle of harassment being the brutal attack on Prof. Ediriweera Sarach-chandra.

How comfortable are you with a party like that?

A: The attack on Prof. Sarachchandra deserves unreserved condemnation. But the truth is that some isolated incidents are given political overtones and misrepresented. But it is the UNP, which has actually improved the lot of artistes. Housing and financial assistance schemes, theatre facilities, opportunities and most significantly a system which renders them economically stable were the UNP's creations.

The UNPs dilemma is that it has never defended itself, and had allowed the venom machines to work overtime and silently taken the flak and ended up being labelled as anti-democratic.

Q: Why is it that there is public aversion to the idea of artistes becoming politicians thereby losing respect?

A: Politics isn't a bad thing, but the way it is done here generates a stench that people don't wish their heroes to dabble in it. They dislike artistes being absorbed into the corrupt system.

But the significant thing is conduct. If you enjoy a certain level of public acceptance, it is a risk and a challenge to switch. My sensitivity as an artiste in 30 years in the public realm has taught me that public trust is sacred. While I understand their apprehensions, I seize the moment to present my vision and plans to the people and seek endorsement of my decision to serve them better without compromising my reputation as an artiste.

Q: You refused to talk politics a few years go, but today you are a politician. Why enter through the National List?

A: I entered with the hope of assisting the industry I love. I want a broader focus now, but with more emphasis on the arts. I am from that community and cannot cut the umbilical cord just like that. The industry was also my springboard to achieve political heights. It was the party which instructed me to come on the National List.

Q: When more burdens are being placed on the public, why is it that the UNP is unable to muster public support and carry out a strong campaign? What ails the UNP?

A: We have not neglected issues, but the UNP cannot act like small pressure groups and shout from the rooftops. Our conduct is different.

Q: But how can you defend the UNP's lacklustre performance which has created a vacuum by the conspicuous absence of a vibrant opposition as opposed to the JVP which thrashes out issues with zeal?

A: It is unfair to be compared with the JVP, which is still trying to create a slot for themselves. The ultra-left party is conducting itself in an admirable manner against all odds. It is also good to have them in the mainstream rather than resorting to subversive action.

But the two parties cannot be compared. We are a massive political force which runs on policy rather than personalities and rhetoric.

I want to implement programmes to benefit the people: Bandula

Parakrama Bandula Gunawardane in his short sojourn in politics has already represented three political parties. Having moved from the government service to the airline industry and finally to politics- in support of Lalith Athulathmudali's DUNF, he believes that Sri Lanka should veer towards a multi-party system and asserts that there is a slot for a third force which the JVP cannot fill.

Excerpts:

Q: You have represented several political parties within a short period. Is there public acceptance for those who regularly switch party affiliations?

A: I entered politics on Mr. Athulathmudali's invitation, in 1992. He told me that he would lead the country someday and wanted me to be part of that exercise. A year later, I was among the 17 DUNF members of the WPC. In 1999, I entered the WPC on the UNP ticket and entered Parliament three months ago, representing the PA.

I don't recommend party switching to anyone. It could be suicidal. I have explained to my electorate my reasons for switching. I became the Bulathsinhala SLFP organizer only on 3rd July, 2000 and couldn't visit the entire electorate. I have remained with the people and not victimized anyone, and the results prove that I am an integral part of Kalutara politics.

Q: What prompted the final switch? Was it the rebellious influence of the Alternative Group?

A: In 1993, the DUNF supported Mrs. Kumaratunga to become the WP Chief Minister. When I joined the UNP and was contesting the 1999 PC polls, many UNP leaders of the area maligned me as a person who went against the then UNP leadership and destroyed their administration. But I emerged with the second highest preferences.

On the 3rd of November, 1999 soon after my return from a trip to London, Mr. Susil Moonesinghe invited me to join an Alternative Group delegation to meet the President on the 5th. I was becoming disenchanted with the UNP and had the ambition to enter Parliament which is still possible only through the two main parties.

I also felt the PA was receptive to my programme of action.

Q: How do you view your elevation from provincial to national level politics, even though you were facilitated by the resignation of Minister Reginald Cooray?

A: A legislator has more clout- and a better opportunity to serve. I want to be more than a mere namesake legislator who goes opening bridges and cutting ribbons. I want to implement programmes which are beneficial to the people I represent, and leave something tangible behind.

We achieved much at PC level, but I wish to paint on a larger canvas now.

Q: Are you saying that the preference count was wrong and admitting election malpractices by the PA?

A: Yes. But Kalutara was a better example than other areas. I was away from Parliament for only 28 days. I was ready to challenge the result, but then Mr. Cooray resigned. As things settled, I didn't see the purpose in getting embroiled in an exhaustive legal process.

My original plan was to ask for a re-count of ballot papers, not preferences.

Q: The public is overburdened by many issues like the spiralling COL, defence expenditure, faltering economy etc., which creates a gloomy overall picture? Why is it the PA is unable to address issues of public importance?

A: The PA's predicament is a sad one. We are plagued by war expenditure and economic burdens, and also need to retain public trust. We accepted government with the genuine hope of creating a better tomorrow. But the reality is that we have inherited many problems which are not our creation.

Take the mammoth Cabinet. The PA leadership must be more embarrassed about it than anyone else! At present, we need to give responsibility to more thereby addressing needs of each sector. And that means, the breaking of a few promises and taking a political risk, but for a good reason.

Q: Isn't it the massive disenchantment with the PA that the JVP turns into votes? Haven't you failed to retain the forces that originally backed you?

A: There is no such decline in public trust. The JVP finds itself in Parliament thanks to their pet aversion, the PR system.

Q: Included among the many new faces of the 11th Legislature, how do you feel about the infusion of young blood?

A: It is a courageous and positive step on the part of the electorate. But they should have a vision of their own, otherwise it would be a wasted exercise.

We must overhaul the system and create a new political culture in which all these young faces would have their distinct role to play.

This will be the last interview in this series

Birds' paradise for the scavengers?

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Amidst protests from environmentalists over the selection of a bird sanctuary for the relocation of the Colombo-based tanneries, the government had given the green light to set it up in remote Bata Atha in the Hambantota district.

The relocation project was originally proposed in the '80s as Colombo's level of pollution had increased. Despite the originally proposed site being a barren area in the Puttalam district, Bata Atha has been selected amidst mounting protests from villagers and environmentalists who claim that no benefit would flow to the tiny village.

Kalametiya, a sanctuary declared way back in 1940 initially included an area larger than the proposed tanneries project site. Deregularisation followed in 1946 to accommodate duck hunting, a vintage sport of the colonial masters and the precarious legal position was corrected in 1984 when the two water boundaries of Lunama and Kalametiya were re-gazetted as forming one sanctuary.

History apart, the angry villagers took the matter up in courts in 1998 and legally established their right to have an additional period for public comment. Their grouse is that the tanneries would have an essentially negative influence on inland fishing which is their main livelihood, as also farming.

The villagers claim that the tanneries would adversely affect their two main sources of income- inland fishing and farming- as it is a highly polluting industry which would release effluents to the nearby lagoon waters.

Sources said there were about 120 families living in the Kalametiya area who were convinced that the expensive relocation project would make inland fishing, their main source of income, impossible when high tide made deep sea fishing difficult.

With the government giving the go-ahead to the controversial project, the lagoon is to be filled from one side and the effluent from the tanneries is likely to be released into the waters. Protesting villagers told The Sunday Times what they originally saw as a god-send to create employment in their little village had turned into a nightmare.

"What we are actually going to have is an alien industry of seasoned leather thrust upon us. There wouldn't be much employment creation as it is only a relocation, a shifting from place to place. The government had abandoned the original location in Puttalam and opted for a village which is fast becoming a ''threatened bird paradise," they claimed.

According to the MOU signed by the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Ministry of Industrial Development which cites a NARA report in support of this decision, it is claimed 20,000 gallons of lagoon water would be extracted daily earning the environmentalist's ire. Such an extraction would not have any adverse effect on the lagoon and its environs.

However, the Irrigation Department has endorsed this view and informed the Industrial Development Ministry that the lagoon would remain unaffected, a hotly disputed issue. The report has also not been issued to the public, sources claimed.

Earlier, it is claimed that there was a scarcity of agricultural water in the area, which is supplemented by lagoon waters.

Ambalantota Pradeshiya Sabha chairman Ajith Rajapakse told The Sunday Times while any employment generating scheme was welcome there, extraction of vitally important lagoon water for a project like that would cause a cultural conflict and environmental problems. It would also destroy farming in the area, he said.

Environmental lawyer Jagath Gunawardhane said this highly polluting industry was the last thing that should be landed in the midst of a village, especially a farming community which needed water for agricultural pursuits. The leather in a wet state would emanate a repugnant odour and provide a haven for scavenging birds which would eventually destroy the bird sanctuary, he said.

Mr. Gunawardhane said siting the tanneries at the originally proposed location would cause no repercussions of this magnitude and certainly would not affect a precious bird sanctuary.

A co-ordinator of the project speaking on the basis of anonymity disclosed that prepared leather would be transported from the far-flung areas of the Wanni and Anuradhapura districts, which would be impractical as transport expenses would be enormous.

Meanwhile, the Society for Environmental Education which originally took up the issue with the authorities to no avail, claimed that the relocation project obviously stemmed from economic considerations than a concern for hydrology or development of the area.

A society spokesman described water contamination and air pollution as the two biggest threats, in addition to having a damaging impact on the bird sanctuary. Effluent flow would contaminate the lagoon water and render fishing and farming impossible. The mangroves, salt vegetation, and the wetlands which were integral parts of the ecology would all be affected, he said.

Around 200 hectares of Lunama and Kalametiya areas would be absorbed by the project with the possible destruction of the habitat of around 127 bird species. The area was home to the great pelican, purple heron, egret, cormorants, ducks, glossy ibis and gray ibis and waders like the gargeny, fintails and resident ducks. The scavenger birds that would find a feeding ground would disrupt bird life altogether, he alleged.

The area which was declared a RAMSAR site in 1996 should have been afforded more protection, the society claimed, adding that soon the birds' paradise would be converted into a scavengers' paradise.