Following are excerpts;

By Wilson Gnanadass

Q: What are the reasons for joining the UNP and leaving the SLFP?

A: There are two major reasons. One is of course concerning the national interest. The other is somewhat personal. Talking of the national interest, I think I am also going to tell you what all others who have crossed over have told you.

Firstly, I must say that most of the members from the Peoples Alliance (PA) are fed up with President Chandrika Kumaratunga's way of handling the PA. This is the problem. Now more than the politicians the people at the grassroots level have got sick of the PA leadership and what happens is that when we closely associate with her, the people go against us. We therefore become very unpopular. People are angry because the PA has not fulfilled anything, especially what was mentioned in the PA manifesto in 1994.

On the other hand, we are also unable to do anything substantial for our supporters. What affects all of us is the president's attitude. She is never punctual. She always gets late for anything. Even for cabinet meetings, either she walks in very late or doesn't come at all. What happens then is that it affects the major decisions that need to be taken by the cabinet. She was never a good listener. She never wanted to confide in us either. She always suspected everybody. More than anything she was acting on gossip. This is what nobody liked.

For the past seven years, President Kumaratunga never changed her style of governance. It was the same. A good leader does not believe in one set of ideas and styles. She/he must be able to change according to the need of the hour. But with President Kumaratunga we never saw this. This is why governance virtually came to a halt. It was not moving.

The other reason for my quitting the SLFP is this. Recently my wife fell seriously ill and she had to be taken to a foreign country. I took her to Canada on September 5 this year. At this time, though I planned to go with her I could not due to the political crisis in the country. But I managed to go on the third of this month. I did not just walk out of the country but did so with prior approval from Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake. He granted me leave and I informed the president also of my visit. At this time I did not have much knowledge about the no-confidence motion. Then on the 8th of this month, the president called me and wanted me to come back to the country soon which I could not do, because my wife was serious. In fact she is still undergoing treatment in Canada.

When President Kumaratunga called me, I asked her when the election was going to be held. She told me there was no proper decision on it. Then she also told me the vote of no-confidence may be taken up on 24th of this month. So I was waiting to get the confirmation. But my party people thought I stayed back on purpose, in order to avoid the motion. This is not true. The other thing is that some politicians in my electorate, Matale, wanted to somehow put me out because they knew that I was a very strong member there.

I rose to this position in politics alone. In the south we have politicians who have a strong family background. They come from highly influential and educated families. But I am not like this. So when I was away from the country, these politicians thought of engineering a conspiracy against me. Also these people started to carry out a mud slinging campaign against me and I thought I must quit the party and join the UNP especially to serve the country along with others who had already crossed over.

Q: All those who crossed over say similar things. But why could you not help mend your party while you were a member of that party? Also, having said that there were so many lapses on the part of the PA leadership, how did you manage to survive in the party for seven years?

A: Just like the others, I too managed to survive. We all tried to do something but failed miserably. We could never approach the president to say what we really wanted to say. This is where we failed. You see, as I mentioned earlier she was never a good listener. She had a few people who functioned as official advisors and they, in my view, misled the president and she believed them more than us. Before coming to power we had a good rapport with the president. After she became president, the relationship became strained. We could not see eye to eye.

Q: Why do you think this happened?

A: May be because we came from ordinary families and were not influential. What the president looked for was English and family background which we didn't possess. On the other hand, those who had the influence were able to get closer to her fast. For instance, being the president she should have thought that it was her responsibility to look into the interests of the entire nation. But she was more concerned about her own electorate. She is worried about Attanagalla and the Gampaha district. This should not be the way. Not only the president; there are some other ministers and MPs who only serve their electorates. Mangala Samaraweera is more interested in Matara district. I think this is bad.

Q: The PA has won most of the elections after 1994 and we learn that the party managed to do so fraudulently. But now with the PA members themselves crossing over to the opposition, do you think the PA could still win elections by rigging?

A: I do not think so. How much can one cheat? Certainly the PA cannot do this in Matale district. People thought that I was a meraya, a thug. They thought I was the only person who could stand against the UNP's Alick Aluwihara. True enough. Though I never exercised thuggery, I did face the UNPers those days. But now we are together. We will fight the PA together.

Q: All those who have crossed over so far, seem to have some grudge against President Kumaratunga. What do you think her weaknesses are?

A: She is never focused. For instance, when one topic is taken for debate or discussion, she jumps from this to another within seconds. Most of all she wastes time. Not hers but ours.

Q: What are her strengths?

A: She can attract anybody with her charm. She as a political leader could convince anybody. I think that is a quality that a leader should possess. She has a good personality. She also likes to help others. For instance when I told her that my wife fell sick and that she needed treatment abroad, she immediately organised air tickets for four of us. So in that way she is very understanding.

Q: The PA, understandably has not fulfilled any pledge made in its manifesto in 1994. Do you agree with it?

A: Yes I do.

Q: Don't you think you too must be held responsible for it?

A: Yes, I am also responsible for it. In fact all cabinet ministers and members of the PA must shoulder that responsibility. Nobody can escape it. We genuinely tried to solve the ethnic crisis but failed. This is at the very beginning. But later on some people only tried to pocket money out of the war. This is what happened.

Q: Are you of the opinion Deputy Defence Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte attempted to earn money out of the war?

A: I do not have evidence. Therefore I cannot answer this question.

Q: Do you think he (the deputy minister) mismanaged the war?

A: There again I am unable to tell you correctly. But of course there were so many reports published in the newspapers indicating corruption and malpractices in the defence circles. But I am of course not too sure about all these.

Q: Are you of the opinion that the government took a keen interest in trying to solve the north-east crisis?

A: At the beginning. But after some time there was a decline of this interest. Now the people do not believe that the PA government can solve this crisis.

Q: Are you planning to contest the forthcoming election in the Matale district? If so how are you going to stand against SLFP strongmen like Janaka Tennakoon and Monty Gopallawa?

A: It is very simple. They may be powerful but they do not have people support. The people are with me. These members are not trusted and thereby isolated from the people. Even when I contested under the PA, the people gave me more support than them. The only intention of these people was to push me out from the leadership. I have been the group leader for a long time. Janaka Tennakoon comes from a highly influential family. Monty Gopallawa is also like this. But he is shrewd. He has pride and he always wants to be the leader. Now the people of the area know about the characters of these people and mine. After the presidential election in 1982, Monty being the district leader, ran away from the area. I was left alone to fight the strong UNPers at that time. Yet I could work with everybody. Then I reorganised the area with my supporters and other members. Once this was done, Monty came back in 1983 after winning the municipal council election. Again in 1988, after the presidential election, he ran away from the area. Then again he came back. You see, nobody could take up the leadership in this area and do a good job. It was I who organised the party in this area. Since the PA took over governance, this area was won in all ten elections under my leadership. The PA could win all twelve wards of the municipal council in 1997 only in the Matale district and this is a record for your information. These things happened under my leadership.

Q: The economy under the PA administration has suffered a severe blow. Why do you think?

A: The UNP, when it introduced the open economy to Sri Lanka, had an idea of what it should do. The UNP had a clear knowledge of the open market system and it worked well. The PA on the contrary did not have a clear cut policy on any kind of economy. The PA thought it could manage the economy but failed. We have to admit that the PA economic policies have not been upto standard. In the PA manifesto we did mention that there will be transparency and the shortcomings of the open market system would be looked into and rectified. But nothing of this sort happened. The PA said it would do away with corruption that came up from the open market system. But I see more corruption now.

Q: How do you see the Sri Lanka Freedom Party being always led by the Bandaranaikes?

A: Let me tell you this first. When the UNP was formed, it was led by D. S. Senanayake. He was succeeded by Dudley Senanayake. After him the party was led by Sir John Kotalawela. After him it was Dudley who led the party. After him J. R. Jayewardene took over. After JR, Ranasinghe Premadasa. After him D.B.Wijetunge and after him the party was led for a short time by Gamini Dissanayake and now we have Ranil Wickremesinghe. So within a period of fifty years or so the UNP has had seven leaders. Now this is a clear indication that there is democracy in the UNP. That means even a small man can rise up to the position of being the leader. Then take the SLFP. It was S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike who led in 1951. And after him it was led by Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike in the 1960s. Then the leadership was taken over by Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1994. So within this period we have had only three leaders and all from the same family. My view is that an ordinary person cannot lead the SLFP.

Q: Do you also feel that the governance of the Bandaranaikes might come to an end with this election?

A: No I have my doubts. I got to know that there is a move to appoint Anura Bandaranaike as the deputy leader of the party. And I feel Anura would be made the opposition leader if the PA is defeated in the election. And he may even be nominated as the prime ministerial candidate at a future parliamentary election. Who knows?

Q: There is a move by the opposition to bring a no-faith motion against President Kumaratunga if it comes to power. And the party says the president would be ousted within three months after they assume power. Would you support this move?

A: It is very difficult to run a government with the executive president being from one party and the parliament in another. So the best thing is to send the president home. In any case it would be difficult to work with the president because she never comes on time.

Q: How do you see the PA's chances at the forthcoming general election?

A: I do not see a swing either way. The opposition may be expecting to have the normal opposition swing after all the propaganda barrage the UNP has led against the PA. But I do not see such a major swing even to the opposition. So in that situation I see that the PA's chances are good. There may not be a major swing to the PA, but the PA has now stabilised itself.

Q: Would you say the defection of a formidable group from the SLFP will have an impact on the PA campaign?

A: I do not think so. Certainly, three of the dissidents were key ministers. Specially one minister had a lot of clout in the inner chambers of the government. But the other two were not that significant. In fact Prof. G. L. Peiris was sort of marginalised long before he even realised he was marginalised. And Mahinda Wijesekara really had no pull from the government the way S. B. Dissanayake or Mangala Samaraweera had. So really it is not a group that we are looking at. We are looking at one man who in the last stages of his career in the PA was able to get himself appointed as the secretary to the SLFP. But of course he got himself appointed solely due to the effort of President Kumaratunga. In any case, those who went away were not certainly going to earn any place in the PA in the future because the president had information that everything that was discussed here within the party was going to the Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. And she also knew that this was going out through G. L. Peiris. This is why she did not bring him in, into the constitutional matters. So he was disenchanted for sometime. Then when SB, a man with clout, decided to move out, GL clung on to him. If at all there is an impact, it would be only to the SLFP as SB has a clout only in the SLFP. This may in my view not have a major impact on the PA.

Q: What is your personal view about defection?

A: You see, I don't think there was anything wrong in GL, SB or even Mahinda going on to the opposition side. Because upto now I don't believe any financial transaction took place. But when the JVP came in and the ministers and the deputy ministers lost their positions because of the pruning down of the cabinet, then there was a large pool from which people could fish MPs. And the bait used for this was money. Not in thousands but in millions of rupees. It is reported that Sumathipala has given all the money. But I do not believe so. Sumathipalas don't have that much of money. But it is up to the people to guess. If I look at the politics of the situation I may ask in whose interest was this done. Or in whose interest did those people cross over?

Q: Various allegations of corruption have been made against the PA dissidents after their defection, including S.B.Dissanayake's house. Was the government and President Kumaratunga unaware of these details prior to their defection?

A: You see, corruption is not something that started with S. B. Dissanayake. Corruption set in to the country after 1977. There was privatisation and in this setup there was a lot of corruption. That is why it came to be known as crony privatisation and crony capitalism. So it prevailed in a big way during the UNP regime, and very few people saw it. But in the SLFP, I do not say there is no corruption but it is done in a small way and it becomes noticeable. I could say the only government against which corruption was never a charge was from 1970 to 1975 under Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Talking of SB's corruption, I did not know. I knew that other ministers and some officials were corrupt but believe me I did not know that SB was corrupt. I did not even know about his house. But I was not happy about the way he was handling the Samurdhi scheme. He was handling it like his personal property. I myself was not happy in politicising this. When he planned to take in thousands of Samurdhi Niyamakes from the PA through the MPs, I objected to it. I said this was like the UNP time where MPs were given the task of getting jobs for their supporters. But SB asked for permission only to politicise this particular thing. He said if this is not allowed, it is the UNPers who will be benefiting through the Samurdhi scheme. Of course Samurdhi Niyamakes did a good job. But I don't understand why the Samurdhi recipients were forced to save. You see, it is those savings that were handled in an autocratic way.

Q: There are counter allegations by the dissidents including on the style of governance and management style of President Kumaratunga where it is alleged even cabinet meetings are not conducted properly with the president either being absent or arriving late. Are these unjustifiable allegations?

A: They say the president is late. But can they say she was sleeping? She like any other person starts work at 9.00 or 9.30 in the morning. And thereafter she goes on. We often see her lunch in her office not eaten. About three days ago we had an appointment at 10.00 in the night. But she came late and the meeting went on till 3.00 AM the other day. The same day we had the cabinet meeting. And when I went for the cabinet meeting thinking that I could walk out early, I saw her also there. That means she has also slept for a few hours like us. The cabinet meeting went on till 12.00 noon. So you see, these are habits of people. She likes to talk. She is by nature very friendly and she talks to people unlike other leaders. The other day Mr. Ronnie de Mel was saying how J.R. Jayewardene used to come about 15 minutes before the Cabinet meeting started. Now in my view that is dictatorial. But Mrs. Kumaratunga was not like this. She spent more time with people. Now the person who got the appointment at 9.00 am, may have got a chance to meet her on time. But the person who got a time at 10.00 am, may not have met the president sharp at 10.00 am. This is the story. Also I think these are baseless allegations. In fact, GL, has come to this office (Justice Ministry) in his capacity as the minister of justice only for seven days. If you want you can ask my officials. He has been operating from Visumpaya and appointed coordinating officers to function here. Now who are these coordinating officers? He has also been spending time on the constitution. Now what happened? What came out of that? Nothing. Have we solved the problems? His contribution I must say has been virtually nil. Only thing is he brought out a book during his term here with us. It was good. It was a collection of his speeches. The speeches were collected by the Ombudsman. Nothing was done in the ethnic affairs matters. Nothing was done in the national integration matters. But he was a good man and a good scholar. All that I could tell is that his inaptitude was monumental.

Q: How many candidates does the LSSP hope to field at the election?

A: We do not want to field candidates for the sake of having candidates. The SLFP is the one that could pull the larger percentage of votes. So we have asked the SLFP to have the major portion of the nominations. And the SLFP does not think that we are good candidates. Also nowadays where there is a culture of violence, all parties want to have men who could counter such violence. So looking at it from that way, we are seen as a disadvantage as far as electoral pull is concerned. So we have put in people only where they were very very essential for getting to the PA vote element that they could get.

Q: Is there a possibility of the PA linking with the JVP before or after the election to form the government?

A: I can't say that now. I don't think the JVP will come into government but I hope they won't make the mistake they made last time by joining the UNP and start whacking the government.

Q: In hindsight do you think the PA benefited from the MOU signed with the JVP?

A: I don't think it was beneficial. But the PA was able to get back to its original position. We were reminded that we had certain specific commitments. Today some people even within the PA are talking of a grand alliance and so on. What is this? This is rubbish. You send parties to parliament not to make grand alliances.

Q: Did you personally support the marriage between the PA and the JVP?

A: There was no such marriage. When Rauf Hakeem walked out of the PA we were a minority government. A minority government has to work with the opposition. There were moves to work with the UNP. I myself proposed that the JVP should be brought in and that is what happened.

Q: What is the PA's campaign theme for the election and what do you hope to offer the electorates?

A: Firstly it is to end the war. Then reducing the cost of living. How the real wage could be maintained. And reducing the inflation. We are focussing on these above mentioned matters. We will tell the people the kind of plan we have to arrest these situations and bring out a better economy.

Q: What would be the PA's position with regard to the LTTE. Are you for a negotiated settlement or for a military solution?

A: First of all there must be a political solution. I don't think that the LTTE is willing to negotiate. At least not with this government, because this government is not willing to accept their terms. We are willing to negotiate but not on the terms of the LTTE. The LTTE feels that if the UNP comes to power, there could be some concessions. But what we have to do is to bring the people into discussions on the solutions. The moderate Tamils will come in. And Sinhalese who are interested will come in. You can't have a political solution without the amendment to the constitution. You can't have constitutional amendments without national consensus. So for that you have to have a much open method and not the way adopted by G.L. Peiris. He took the draft constitution to the select committee. This is a closed area; even newspapers cannot report the proceedings of the meeting. GL took the draft there and kept it for two years. Ultimately what happened?

Q: How important would the JVP factor be at the election. In your view would it increase the PA's vote bank?

A: The JVP would not significantly make an effect in the PA. The dissident votes will go to the UNP. JVP is not a class based party. It is a radical party. The party is only moving away from us and not looking at us. But the JVP factor is good. It highlights certain things and it is good.

"Janasaviya was time bound - Samurdhi open ended - in theory, lasting forever. Janasaviya had more funds per household - Samurdhi less. Janasaviya - through the Janasaviya Trust Fund had a complementary develop-ment program implemented through partner organisations in the NGO and CBO sector, implementing infrastructure, credit, nutrition, social mobilisation through a participatory process, and a capacity development program for the partner organisations. Samurdhi tried to do all these things through a vast number of government servants recruited through a political process," said Development Consultant and UNP Chairman, Charitha Ratwatte in an interview with Dinesh Weerakkody

Q: What is the current status with regard to the poverty situation in Sri Lanka?

A: Poverty in Sri Lanka is currently increasing. The number of people - the percentage of the population living on less than 1 US$ a day is unacceptable for a country which was only recently classified as a middle income country. The most serious result of this is the nutritional condition of the nation's children. Infants and pregnant and lactating mothers are the worst affected by poverty, due to the fact that the long term effect of malnutrition on children is virtually irreversible.

This is further compounded by the fact that the present Samurdhi program is an untargeted program and many non poor have been included in the program on political criteria. Further, a recent survey commissioned by the World Bank also showed that large numbers of poor families do not have access to the program at all. Overall the position is very bad.

Q: Why has this situation gone from bad to worse?

A: Inflation and the increase in the cost of living putting the cost of basic food stuffs beyond the reach of poor families, the inadequacies of the Samurdhi program, compounded by the very high administrative costs of managing the Samurdhi program, and politicisation of the poverty alleviation program are the main reasons for the situation going from bad to worse.

Q: Are the funding agencies also responsible for the deterioration of the living standards of the rural poor?

A: We Sri Lankans cannot blame the funding agencies for our local incompetence and inefficiency. IMF conditionalities are imposed with the consent of the GOSL to achieve an economic reform process. Getting the process right is a Sri Lankan responsibility.

Q: Handouts have been a popular method to uplift the living standards of the poor in South Asian countries, but lately, countries like India have been focusing on high growth to eliminate poverty. Which strategy should Sri Lanka adopt?

A: Handouts create a dependency and in our system - a political dependency - which is anti poor, high growth is the way to go, combined with a targeted support system with a dynamic developmental component to deal with the proven inadequacies and slowness of the trickle down process.

Q: Elimination of poverty through growth is generally considered as a long term strategy and the poor cannot wait so long, specially if they are dying of hunger. Therefore, how should a government address this issue?

A: A targeted intervention aimed at the real poor for the provision of funds or a supplement of food resources, with a dynamic development component which will be managed in a devolved manner by local authorities, jointly with local community organi-sations. Such a program must have a special nutritional component targeted at mothers of children under three years and pregnant and lactating mothers. This sub program should use the mother as the entry point.

Q: How different was the Janasaviya programme from the Samurdhi programme?

A: Janasaviya was time bound - Samurdhi open ended - in theory, lasting forever. Janasaviya had more funds per household - Samurdhi less. Janasaviya - through the Janasaviya Trust Fund had a complementary development program implemented through partner organisations in the NGO and CBO sector, implementing infrastructure, credit, nutrition, social mobilisation through a participatory process, and a capacity development program for the partner organisations. Samurdhi tried to do all these things through a vast number of government servants recruited through a political process.

Q: Both these programmes have done very little to eliminate poverty from Sri Lanka. What type of programme do you recommend for Sri Lanka in the future?

A: I do not accept the position that the Janasaviya Program and the Janasaviya Trust programs "did very little to eliminate poverty in Sri Lanka." Poverty elimination is a long term process requiring sustained planned intervention over a long period of time in positive and supportive policy framework.

The Janasaviya interventions did not have the required time frame, but in the short term the Janasaviya interventions came up with some superb replicable models which were crudely copied by Samurdhi and inefficiently implemented in a highly politicised environment. The vast majority of the partner organisations of the Janasaviya Trust Fund, such as the Women's Development Federation of Hambantota, through its Janashakthi Bank network, the Wilpotha Kantha Parshadaya, Arthacharya, Sewalanka, Sarvodaya SEEDS, Mithuru Mithuro Sansadaya, Sandun Vihara Sanwardhana Padanama, Kundasale Praja Sanva- rdhana Padanama, Nation Builders Association, Sinhala Demala Gami Kantha Sammenalaya, Manawa Sampath Sanwardhana Madystahnaya, P.I.D.A. Tharuna Swayan Rakiya Thorathutu Madyastanaya, Gami Jana Pubuduwa, Sirilak Sahana Sewa Padanama, Samadeepa Samaja Kendraya, Sabaragamu Janatha Kendraya, Shanthi Nikethanaya, Jaiwa Vivi dhathwa Puhunu Thora thuru Madysthanaya, Uva Govi Jana Kendraya, Ana gathaya Ape Athe, Saviya Sanwardhana Padanama, Samastha Lanka Praja Isuru Sanwardhana Man dalaya, Sri Bodhi Raja Padanama, Galigamu Janatha Padanama, Manawa Parisarika Sanwardana Padanama, Lanka Praja Isuru Sanwardhana Padanama, etc., to name only a few, are still carrying out their poverty alleviation work.

Even the Credit Fund of the Janasaviya Trust Fund is still disbursing funds to partners under its new guise of the National Development Trust Fund. So, clearly, from the aspect of sustainability the Janasa-viya interventions were a success.

For the future, a national government should distance itself from the day to day implementation of the program - only provide the funds and set down policy - de-politicised implementation should be the responsibility of local governments working in tandem with community organisations in the NGO and CBO sector.

The entry point should be through the mother in the family. The resources should be provided through the mother, by using a smart card, which can be used at a cash dispensing electronic teller at a commercial bank branch using a personalised PIN number (this is presupposing that the bank network will have a wide branch outreach which is sufficiently wired up before this is implemented - and thereby making it possible to eliminate the current corruption at the disbursement point).

The program will be a development one. Income generating schemes, self employment schemes, small enterprise in both agriculture, fishery and industry, skills development programs, through a targeted voucher program, which will enable the poor to access training programs from providers in the private sector, especially in the field of computers and information technology, should be the primary thrust. As Mark Mallock-Brown, the UNDP's administrator has famously said, "Poverty is due to ignorance and the internet is the answer."

The ILO's 'Start Your Business Program,' the German GTZ's 'CEFE' should be lead players in this process of enterprise promotion. The disabled, the disadvantage and the sick, who cannot benefit from the developmental aspect of the program, should be placed on a separate poor relief program, so that they do not dilute the development thrust of the program aimed at making the poor self reliant and empowered participants in a globalised open economy.

Q: Lastly, what role can the private sector take on to reduce our poverty levels and support the government of the day, in their efforts?

A: An effective poverty alleviation program is a great opportunity for business and enterprise. Backward and forward linkages in supplying raw material, technology, extension services, know how and machinery and equipment for entrepreneurs in the families emerging out of poverty and the marketing, the further processing, value adding and export of their products are all possible market opportunities for the business community.

Private business and enterprise will have to reengineer their business processes to cater to the demand of the investments being made by the government in the poor. Business will have to disaggregate their operations and take them out of the south west quarter of the island where they are traditionally concentrated. They will have to diversify their dealer and distribution network to meet the new demand for goods and services which the investments in the poor being made through public fund will generate. Skills development programs are a very special opportunity, as employable skills will have to be provided to the poor to make them upwardly mobile in the economy.