Dress Sense or Discrimination?

(Previously published in The Island on Wednesday 28th October 2009)

I remember, a few months ago, there was an exchange of correspondence in the Opinion Column of The Island between a couple of readers about what is decent or not decent in the way some Sri Lankan women dress themselves, and the controversy eventually petered out; it appeared all over and done with. However, in the recent weeks there seems to have been a revival of interest in the subject.

Probably it betrays a lingering fascination with the topic of women’s attire. The nature of this apparent enchantment has both positive and negative aspects. Personally I don’t have anything original or interesting or useful to say about the matter. Nonetheless my attention was caught by what I would suspect to be a trace of possible bias against women in the collective treatment of the subject, though it is cunningly couched as light-hearted banter (though not all those who have commented on the subject can be said to be guilty of such an attitude).

There is a popular a piece of wisdom, especially among men themselves, that some men condemn in public any deliberate or inadvertent display of nudity or supposed wantonness or erotic insouciance in women which they would indulgently connive at in private. I don’t at all want to suggest that any of those who wrote critically about the question under discussion are guilty of such hypocrisy. Yet the risk of being suspected of some degree of hypocrisy is a realistic possibility that people who venture to express their opinions about a hush-hush topic like this including me cannot avoid. Not that it matters.

Some women, like some men, exhibit a poor dress sense, and upset others for that reason. Whatever it is, there is reason to believe that our society prefers to observe a critical point beyond which women are not expected to dress down, if they are allowed to dress down at all by their family or community, which restriction does not seem to apply to men at all. Apparently, dressing up has no such limit for either gender.

What I am writing here should not be taken as an attack on someone, or a challenge of some point of view. It is just a reflection on a state of affairs that has prevailed, properly disguised of course, in human society at least for centuries, if not for millennia.

The exchange of views about women’s attire led my mind to an instance where the subject is treated in classical English literature. I decided to share with my readers two delightful short lyrics from 17^th century English poetry: Ben Jonson’s (1573-1637) ‘Still to be neat…’, and Robert Herrick’s (1591-1674) ‘Delight in Disorder’. (Texts of the poems reproduced below are from A Book of English Poetry Collected by G.B.Harrison (Penguin Books. First published 1937). But first, let me provide a little bit of background information to facilitate understanding of the poems, for the social context in England in which these poets wrote, and the existential realities they took for granted, no longer exist even for English people today. It is also useful to be aware that certain key words which may seem familiar to a modern reader could mean something different from their modern denotations.

Both these poets were junior contemporaries of the famous William Shakespeare (1564-1616), who was a dramatist and a poet. However, Shakespeare is identified with the Elizabethan period, and Jonson and Herrick with the Jacobean and the Cavalier periods (the 17^th century) when it comes to talking about the history of English literature.

Though Herrick was eighteen years junior to Jonson they were closely associated with each other in their literary pursuits. Jonson was a poet and a dramatist of repute; Herrick became his fan and pupil. This teacher pupil duo enjoyed many a “lyrick feast” in taverns. (It was normal at that time for artists and men of letters to meet in pubs to have learned discussions.) Their “lyrick feasts” were (needless to add, both literally and metaphorically) spirited conversations about art and literature. A common theme among 17^th century poets is the hedonistic view that the most important thing in life is to enjoy to the fullest the present moment without worrying too much about the future, as expressed in Herrick’s well known line “Gather ye rose-buds while ye may”.

This is called the carpe diem theme: “carpe diem quam minimum credula postero” is a line from the ancient Latin poet Horace (65-8 BCE) which in English means “Enjoy the present day, trust the least possible to the future” (Chambers Dictionary). Such ideas were probably due to the uncertainties and apprehensions about what was yet to come for most people in that time of political instability at home (mainly characterized by the tussle between the King and the Parliament), and to the inevitable undermining of the sense of security guaranteed by traditional religious faith as a result of expanding horizons of scientific knowledge and rational thought.

Nevertheless the contemporary society was a highly ordered one. And it was a men’s world. Women were treated as naturally inferior in intelligence and strength of character to men. Another related point is that the time had not yet come when ordinary men and women began to be considered as proper subjects for treatment in literature. Poets wrote about the lives of lords and ladies. Women (of high class) generally figured as objects of beauty, love and romance. They were immaculately dressed; women covered themselves in flowing robes, and much finery. But since people were, unlike today, usually unaware of the causes of diseases, and the importance of personal cleanliness for good health, they were satisfied with very little washing! Poor hygiene led to outbreaks of illness among the population. Allusions to venereal disease abound, especially in Elizabethan poetry.

Let us now look at Ben Jonson’s “Still to be neat…” whose original title was “Simplex Munditiis” (another phrase from Horace which means “elegant in simplicity”). It was first published in 1609.

Still to be neat, still to be dressed,
As you were going to a feast;
Still to be powdered, still perfum’d;
Lady, it is to be presum’d,
Though art's hid causes are not found,
All is not sweet, all is not sound.

Give me a look, give me a face,
That makes simplicity a grace;
Robes loosely flowing, hair as free:
Such sweet neglect more taketh me
Than all the adulteries of art;
They strike mine eyes, but not my heart.

The poet is apparently saying to the elaborately dressed woman here that she might be trying to hide some unpalatable truth about herself (like sexual promiscuity) by dressing up like that; as far as he is concerned, an plainly attired woman in “Robes loosely flowing, hair as free:” with a touch of “sweet neglect” would be more alluring; such simplicity will take his heart more readily than all “the adulteries of art”.

The four times repeated “still” in the first stanza means “always” in modern English. The repetition registers the poet’s censure of the woman’s apparent preoccupation with dressing up. Is it to be assumed that there is some not so sweet, not so sound secret that she is trying to conceal under an attractive exterior? She might be an immoral woman who is even carrying venereal disease. The impersonality of “…it is to be presum’d…” suggests that such a negative judgment is unavoidable in these circumstances; it is not a matter of personal preferences; the poet is taking a hard objective look at this deceptive show! He will not be taken in by such a sham. He is not impressed by “all the adulteries of art” which, though appealing to his eye, will not move his heart. The simplicity he asks for is found in “such sweet neglect” as seen in “Robes loosely flowing, hair as free”. The word “art” is used in both stanzas. In “Though art’s hid causes are not found” art may mean either creation of beauty or crafty conduct; the same ambiguity is repeated in the recurrence of the word in the second stanza; but the phrase “adulteries of art” is a direct reference to the features of her make-up which are designed to invite an adulterous response from men.

Women’s vulnerability to accusations of impropriety or even immorality in the matter of dress in a male dominant society, especially when traditional social mores are deemed threatened, is not a new thing.

Below is Robert Herrick’s “Delight in Disorder” published in 1648.

A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness:
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction:
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthrals the crimson stomacher:
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribbands to flow confusedly:
A winning wave (deserving note)
In the tempestuous petticoat:
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility:
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.

Robert Herrick’s lines above differ somewhat from Jonson’s in tone as well as in theme. The latter’s rather dispassionate dismissal of “the adulteries of art” in favour of a woman being “elegant in simplicity” forms a fine contrast to Herrick’s presumably fatal attraction to a “sweet disorder in the dress” (of a beautiful woman). Though the tendency to represent women as a source of potential danger is common to both poets, the menacing manifestation of that potential is differently viewed. Whereas Jonson perceives possible/almost real treachery where

“Though art’s hid causes are not found

All is not sweet, and all is not sound”,

Herrick detects it in the apparent nonchalance of the way the woman is dressed: “A sweet disorder in the dress – Kindles in clothes a wantonness”; the scarf is thrown into a fine distraction (something that distracts you or makes you crazy); the erring lace …enthrals (enslaves) the crimsonstomacher (a separate piece of cloth for the centre front of a bodice); A cuff neglectful …Ribbands to flow confusedly ; a winning wave… in thetempestuous (stormy, violent) petticoat; a careless shoestring in whose tie the poet sees a wild civility… All the words that I have underscored above help conjure the image of a woman who is far from being a submissive, demure character before males, contrary to what traditional norms of propriety would demand. Instead, the “sweet disorder” that Herrick delights in seems to imply a promise of sexual abandon of the same kind (obviously not looked kindly upon in the strictly conservative, puritanical, male chauvinist 17^th century English society).

This interpretation of the two short lyrics and their appropriation in this context are entirely mine, though my reading of the poems has been naturally influenced by what other commentators have written about them. However, it represents only one of the many different ways in which they could be creatively experienced by discerning readers.

I feel that these two specimens of lyrical poetry, despite their obvious literary worth, embody a warped view of women in society and that this idea is likely to be an essential strand in the fabric of any critical text produced on them. On a more positive note, I may add that the poems also represent two delightfully elegant responses to a display of female beauty through dress in a world where “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”.

Rohana R.Wasala

Cooperation and Capacity Building

(Previously published in The Island on 8^th and 9^th January 2008)

In the present critical context of sky-rocketing global fuel and food prices attention is being focused on a revitalization of the cooperative sector in Sri Lanka. Enhancing its development and effectiveness should be a central concern of all those who are responsible.

Cooperative enterprises are non-profit business organizations whose essential mission is to serve the interest of their member community. They are different from both the public and the private sector businesses. Normal businesses are all for-profit or profit-oriented organizations whose principal motive is to maximize profits at the expense of consumers. In the case of cooperative enterprises, the main aim being the promotion of the welfare of the members, the profits made are either distributed among the members or ploughed back into the business. There is no room for exploitation of consumers by a few capitalists.

A major challenge that any non-profit or for-profit organization must accept is the task of enhancing its ability to achieve its mission, i.e. capacity building. Capacity building in respect of cooperative enterprises involves devising strategies, developing skills, and increasing resources in order for them to survive, adapt and thrive in a fast-changing socio-economic , and political environment. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, the cooperative movement enjoys favour among all shades of political opinion, and its success and survival will naturally be the concern of whatever political party assumes power. Enhancing the effectiveness of cooperative enterprises should therefore be considered a key national concern. As a result, capacity building is the main priority for cooperative enterprises.

Cooperation means working together for a shared purpose. Though not defined or articulated as such, the cooperative principle was actively adopted even by our most primitive cave-dwelling ancestors in their daily struggle for survival, and it has been in operation to date among human communities since the time of the world’s earliest civilizations such as those of the Byzantine, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, and Roman nations. However, the modern cooperative movement cannot be said to have naturally evolved from the form of cooperation found in ancient societies. It is, instead, a consequence of Europe’s socio-economic development in the 18^th and 19^th centuries accelerated by technical and mechanical innovations during what is known as the Industrial Revolution, a term which refers to changes such as those that took place in Britain between 1750 and 1850. Scientific discoveries and the resulting technological advances together contributed to great changes in industry. Capitalist entrepreneurs established factories which employed thousands of workers for low pay. These workers were the dispossessed poor who had nothing but their labour to sell. During the Industrial Revolution a minority of wealthy capitalists monopolized the means of production, exploiting a large majority of dispossessed workers who had to work for them just in order to survive. The Industrial Revolution brought poverty, social injustice and inequality to the societies in Europe in spite of their rapid economic advancement at the state level.

These problems were acute in Lancashire, England which was an industrial centre where cotton and woollen industries were mechanized in the last quarter of the 18^th century. It was in Rochdale in Lancashire that the first cooperative society was founded in 1844 to relieve the poverty of the textile factory workers; but in Germany the cooperative movement started among poor farmers. That was in 1849.

This modern cooperative movement which started in Europe was introduced to Sri Lanka at the beginning of the last century. It was an easy task because Sri Lanka from ancient times had adopted communal cooperation in their economic, cultural, social, and religious activities. Sri Lankans formed a mainly agrarian society. They always cooperated with their neighbours in all forms of agricultural labour such as tilling, planting, weeding, harvesting, etc, and also in maintaining and repairing irrigation works, and so on. Therefore the cooperative idea found a hospitable environment in our country.

Since the colonial government focused all its attention on the plantation sector to the virtual neglect of the rural agrarian economy the Sri Lankan peasants who formed the major proportion of the country’s population were left chronically poor and indebted. It was with a view to relieving them that the Crawford Commission of 1909 recommended the setting up of credit unions – the pioneer cooperative venture in Sri Lanka. Then the first cooperative society was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act in 1911. The cooperative movement in Sri Lanka gradually expanded. The Department of Cooperatives was made a separate unit on 1^st October 1930. Until then it had remained a sub-department of the Department of Agriculture. In response to the acute shortage of consumer goods during the Second World War, which allowed profiteers to fleece the already suffering populace, the government established consumer cooperative societies, which later spread to all parts of the island. The Cooperative Wholesale Establishment (CWE) was set up in 1943 for the purpose of meeting the needs of the large number of consumer cooperative societies.

Since the cooperative movement played a very important role in the implementation of the government’s development plan, and in the distribution of consumer goods, the government included in the Throne Speech of 8^th July 1967 its intention to appoint a commission to look into the movement. The Royal Commission appointed in 1968 consisted of five members and a secretary, and was headed by Dr Alexander Fraser Laidlaw, an internationally recognized authority on the cooperative movement.

The commission’s first recommendation was that the cooperative movement should be recognized as a distinct economic sector between pubic and private sectors, and that it should be a public-owned voluntary organization subjected to little government control it should be reorganized in such a way that it could contribute well to the economic and social development of the nation. The commission envisaged a rapid development of the movement through the reorganization of both urban and rural cooperatives. Between 1970 and 1972 three acts were passed in the parliament based on the Royal Commission recommendations.

Today the cooperative movement is involved in a large number of various enterprises: fisheries, textiles, agriculture, industry, insurance, etc. in all their numerous divisions. The nearly one-hundred year old Sri Lanka cooperative movement, both under the British and after, has steadily developed, survived crises, and made a great contribution to the economic well-being of the nation, especially through catering to the less affluent sections of the society.

Although there are clashes of opinion between different political parties allied to opposing economic ideologies regarding how to manage the various cooperative enterprises in the best interest of their members and of the nation as a whole, there is overwhelming consensus in respect of the vital importance to the country of the cooperative movement itself . So it is universally recognized without any dispute that the effectiveness of the movement must be increased.

Capacity Building , therefore, is the key priority for the cooperative movement at present. The Rochdale pioneers of the cooperative movement included democratic control as one of the eight cardinal principles on which it was based. This applies even today. Therefore cooperative enterprises enjoy a measure of autonomy not usually found in either public or private business organizations, a condition favourable for the implementation of capacity building.

According to Carter McNamara MBA, PhD, amongst the variety of definitions of ‘capacity building’ the most fundamental one is ‘actions that improve non-profit effectiveness’ . Carter quotes this basic definition from Barbara Bluementhal’s book ‘Investing in Capacity Building’ published by the Foundation Centre. Alternatively, we may say that the idea of capacity building concerns practices aimed at improving a non-profit organization’s ability to work towards its mission.

Cooperative enterprises are non-profit organizations. In our country we have a large number of cooperative enterprises in different fields of business, both producers and consumers, ranging from the common village cooperative society to the Cooperative Wholesale Establishment. The importance of the numerous cooperative enterprises to the nation’s economic well-being need hardly be reiterated. So the effectiveness of their functioning is vital for the whole country. This is where the concept of capacity building becomes relevant, because enhancing the ability of an organization towards the fulfillment of its mission is what capacity building is all about.

The concept of capacity building we are applying for cooperative ventures is not different to the concepts of organizational development, and organizational effectiveness with or without performance management applied in for-profit organizations. Capacity building efforts may include a wide range of approaches such as granting management development funds, providing training and development sessions, providing coaching, and supporting collaboration with other similar organizations.

At this point we may look at a more explicit definition of the concept of capacity building : ‘…. is the process of developing and strengthening the skills, instincts, abilities, processes and resources that organizations and communities need to survive, adapt and thrive in the fast changing world’. This is how Ann Philbin defines the phrase in her book ‘Capacity Building in Social Justice Organizations’ published by the Ford Foundation in 1996.

Deborah Linnell’s ‘Evolution of Capacity Building: Lessons from the Field’ contains an explanation of the term, the actions involved in the field, and the concept’s relationship with organizational effectiveness. In terms of this explanation capacity building, capacity itself, and organizational effectiveness are all related, but not identical. Capacity refers to an organization’s ability to achieve its mission effectively, and to sustain itself over the long term. It also refers to the skills and capabilities of individuals.

Capacity building therefore comprises the set of activities that improve an organization’s ability to achieve its mission or an individual’s ability to define and realize the goals or to do their job effectively. For organizations capacity building relates to almost any aspect of its work: improved governance, leadership, mission, strategy, administration including human resources, financial management and legal matters, programme development and implementation, fundraising and income generation, diversity, partnerships, and collaboration, evaluation, advocacy and policy change, marketing, positioning, planning, etc. For individuals capacity building relates to leadership development, advocacy skills, training and speaking abilities, technical skills, organizing skills, and other areas of personal and professional development. There is a large range of capacity building approaches that include peer-to-peer learning, facilitated organizational development, training and academic study, research, publishing and grant-making.

Capacity building agents are of various types: Management consultants provide expertise, coaching and referrals. Management support organizations provide consulting, training, resources, research, referrals, and other services. Grant-makers – foundations and government organizations - often get involved in capacity building either through their grants or by offering training, consulting and resources themselves. Researchers contribute to capacity building by identifying issues and trends, building knowledge for organizations and other capacity builders to use. Universities and other academic centres help by conducting training and providing certification. Organizational effectiveness relates to the capacity of an organization to sustain the people, strategies, learning, infrastructure and resources it needs to continue to achieve its mission.

To conclude, it is nearly a century since the introduction of the cooperative movement to Sri Lanka from Europe. The movement has survived in our small country through various crises- largely the result of global upheavals such as the two world wars in the last century, the Great Depression between 1929 and 1934 (the latter characterized by a sharp fall in output and prices), and fluctuations in fuel prices in the world market; critical situations also resulted from domestic political and social unrest. Over the decades cooperative enterprises have multiplied, and have been recognized as a vital part of our economy. Being owned and managed by combinations of consumer-customers who supply the capital they are non-profit originations; they focus on achieving mutual benefit for the members, rather than on profit-making. Such organizations, devoted though they are to a constant mission, must nevertheless operate in a fast-changing world, changing in technical achievement, economy, culture, politics, and in adapting to consequences of natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, etc, and also in innumerable other ways. To succeed in such a world, cooperative enterprises must adopt strategies to sustain and improve their effectiveness in achieving their mission. Capacity building is the way to do this, and that is the priority for cooperative enterprises in Sri Lanka today.

Rohana R.Wasala

Towards a better civil service for national development

(Previously published on Wednesday 9th September 2009)

Like it or not, for us Sri Lankans, this present moment of triumph is also our moment of truth. Let’s believe that it is a fortunate coincidence. The opportunities as well as the dangers and the uncertainties that our present situation embodies are unprecedented; yet in my view, they hold out great hope for a bright future for all of us.

Our prospects look roseate as never before. We’ve just put behind us a costly war, but no one would say that we are feeling the pinch after that experience; on the contrary, we find ourselves relieved a great deal, and contented to some degree for the first time in at least three decades (though the cynics among us made some scornful fun of the news about the high rating that Sri Lanka got in the recent study on consumer attitudes conducted by the advertising firm Grey Group Asia Pacific). The government’s development programmes across the island, including the rebuilding projects in the north and the east, are in progress. The village based economic strategy with adequate attention to the urban industrial sector, rightly pursued by the government, will deliver the benefits of development to the whole country. Foreign exchange reserves are growing. A healthy climate is emerging for investment. Those in the tourism industry have enough reason to expect that better times are in the offing. Overall, the economy is looking up. No wonder, the provincial council election results indicate popular endorsement of the policies of incumbent leadership.

Five of the major challenges before the government are: i) economic development of the whole country with special emphasis on the rebuilding of the terrorism-devastated north and east, and resettlement of the IDPs, ii) establishing good governance, iii) enhancing the law and order situation by eliminating crime, iv) reinforcing the communal harmony that was under severe strain for thirty years, and v) establishing an efficient, people- friendly public service which, at the present time, is performing well below the level of its true potential. These five equally formidable factors are interrelated; any improvement achieved in one will affect the rest.

To mend an unsatisfactory civil service machinery and to maximize its capacity will be a decisive undertaking in ensuring that the benefits accruing from the recent victory over terrorism reach the people. This essay aims to focus (from an ordinary citizen’s point of view) on the importance of launching a national drive for promoting the efficient management of the human factor involved in this service.

I don’t mean that nothing is being done in this direction already. In fact, this subject is receiving a great deal of attention from others like me and, more importantly, from those who are in a position to do something about it. I wish them well. My essay should be taken as an aside for whatever it is worth.

In my opinion, there are five major prerequisite conditions to be fulfilled before we could expect a significant enhancement of the quality of the civil service in our country: commitment to an api wenuwen api (Let’s dedicate ourselves for the welfare of us all) concept; understanding the value of whatever work we do; keeping clear of politics in the performance of our duties ( in other words, not allowing our personal political beliefs, preferences, and affiliations to obstruct the implementation of the development plans of the democratically elected government of the day) ; a just, people-friendly toning down of belligerent trade union activism among civil service personnel, and finally, a contented body of civil servants.

The overriding precondition is that civil servants be inspired by a shared sense of patriotism - a feeling of love and pride derived from the consciousness that whatever ethnic group or religion or political ideology or social rank or field of work we belong to, Sri Lanka is our mother land. Just as we have only one mother, we have only one ‘mother country’, which is a unique entity of incomparable value consisting of not only its geographical territory, its rare blend of natural beauty with its temperate climate, and its beautiful fauna and flora, but above all, its diverse people, second to none in the world, justifiably proud of their ancient historical heritages and cultures. If we happen to leave our shores, whatever appurtenances of sophistication we might deck ourselves with, we won’t be honoured with any other identity than as Sri Lankans. And that, we must humbly realize, is today not an insignificant identity. We should be proud to be Sri Lankan. All those of us who work, study, or play, from the street cleaner to the head of state, from the kindergarten child to the university professor, serve the country, because whatever we do will ultimately contribute to our common good. Since civil servants expressly serve the public the value of their work is, in terms of service performed in the name of the country, inestimable.

Civil servants must sincerely appreciate their role in nation building at this time when our country is at a crossroads. A great vista of opportunity has opened before us. Much development work is waiting to be done. Who will do it other than those in the public and private sectors? Who will, in effect, preside over, organize, coordinate, and guide all this development activity for the benefit of the nation? The public servants, of course. A sense of love for the country will inspire civil servants to maximize the quality of their service, and even to make personal sacrifices whenever necessary for that purpose.

All regimes since Independence tried to implement different development programmes with equal enthusiasm and achieved varying degrees of success, with a civil administrative system undergoing a steady metamorphosis in tune with the political changes that began to gradually expand the ordinary citizens’ involvement in the process of governing. The attempts at transforming an imperial (albeit mostly efficient) bureaucratic system inherited from the British at Independence into a more popular administrative service which would facilitate the active participation of the common people in democratic governance, especially since the birth of the republic in 1972, seem to have finally created (through human error, perhaps inevitable in a maturing democracy) a bloated monster of inefficiency which partakes of the worst features of both dispensations (for example, a propensity to bureaucratic red tape from the former, and a vulnerability to meddling by political nincompoops from the latter).

However, this should not be taken as an indiscriminate condemnation of the whole of our civil service. For example, there is no doubt that an understanding but silent public have nothing but admiration for the elections commissioner and his staff for carrying out the duties assigned them with an excellent sense of commitment, probity, and firmness, sometimes having to work under not very encouraging circumstances. There are thousands of other brave, honest civil servants like them in other departments too.

Politics (in the sense of people failing to properly fulfill their public responsibilities because of a selfish desire to indulge their petty political egos ) as a problem is connected with the next factor in my list: the responsibility on the part of public servants to limit their trade union activity as far as possible to negotiations in order not to hurt the masses with their strike weapon.

The purpose of a trade union is to secure and defend the rights of workers against oppressive employers. Trade unionism started at a time when a profit driven, extremely inhuman, exploitative capitalist system prevailed in the world. In such a working environment, fighting for worker rights was just, and unavoidable; but, on the other hand, maintaining a healthy level of productivity and profitability in any industry has always been considered a legitimate objective (because an industry must survive for workers to have jobs). This is no less important when the state is the employer. The sort of oppressive, exploitative attributes mentioned above cannot be applied to the state in its relation to those who serve it.

Unlike workers in other businesses or industries, public servants are least likely to have their rights violated. If there are such problems by any chance, they can be settled without much ado.

The public servants are, after all, employed by the people, of which they are themselves a part. When they resort to strike action, it becomes a kind of self-inflicted collective punishment on all of us. Nowhere is the truth of this more abjectly felt than when those employed in the education and health services go on strike. Strike action by such is likely to be criticized as more inhuman, and hence more reprehensible than any similar pressure tactic used by other workers because education and health sector workers hold hostage the two weakest, most vulnerable sections of any society, respectively children and patients including the old and the infirm. Therefore many believe that, in the event of a labour dispute between public servants and the government, it is the duty of both sides to do everything possible to settle the matter quickly through negotiations in the public interest.

None of these conditions could be adequately fulfilled without a reasonably contented workforce. To bring about such contentment among public servants requires the synergetic alliance between them and their employer, the government. In this connection the human needs of the workers must be met. A machine performs efficiently when it is well tuned, oiled, and maintained in good repair. But human beings need much more than the barest essentials necessary for their physical survival. In addition to a good pay, they need comfortable conditions of service, and a stress free, secure work environment. They should be encouraged to focus on their work with honesty and dedication, and their good performance must be appreciated and recognized in a tangible way such as promotions and material benefits. There should be provision for relaxation through social, cultural activities, and occasional excursions, etc. Above all, each individual should be enabled to achieve a sense of self-fulfillment in the performance of the work they do.

A more propitious time to achieve such a rejuvenation of our civil service has never come before than the present moment when politically, socially, and economically a new dawn is peeping over the horizon.

Rohana R. Wasala