NEVILLE DE SILVA

If the news flowing along the grapevine is correct- and the ear- splitting silence from the Foreign Ministry seems to suggest it is - then the new Foreign Minister deserves much more than a pat on the back. In fact a few hallelujahs would certainly not be out of place for the cleansing process he envisages was much overdue. That is if the country’s diplomatic service is ever to come within striking distance of what it was in its early days.

Even if it cannot achieve the reputation acquired not only within but without our shores during the years when highly professional, competent and intelligent officers (too many to mention though some deserve to be named) dedicated to their profession rather than self served with aplomb, it can be resurrected to fit some more meaningful purpose.

To do that, however, it is necessary to scrub the service of those who grovel, resort to political manipulation, use of influence and throat- cutting. It is publicly-known that these are methods used by some career officers and political appointees with much on their minds and little in their heads. This has been nurtured into a fine art often to cover up inadequacies and ignorance.

The news reaching us was that Foreign Minister Ravi Karunanayake had said at a meeting with senior ministry officials and heads of various divisions that he intends as a matter of policy, to stop the practice of granting extensions to Sri Lankan diplomats serving in missions abroad and they should return to Colombo at the end of their tour of duty, usually three years.

I understand that the minister wanted it recorded in the minutes of that meeting. If all this is true then he is doing a service - not only to the diplomatic service but to the country as our own experience and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate.

There would, of course, be occasions when a short extension could be justified due to exigencies. When I was serving as deputy chief of mission in Bangkok the ambassador and I received a fax from the ministry saying I was transferred to the London High Commission from May 2012.

The then ambassador and former army commander General Shantha Kottegoda immediately wrote to the ministry asking it be deferred. It was not because we were from the same alma mater though the old school tie has proved very useful under the yahapalanaya administration.

The extension was sought because then President Mahinda Rajapaksa was due in Bangkok on a working visit which we had arranged, on the same day I was to leave for London. He asked for a short delay of my transfer ( how I could be ‘transferred’ was strange as I was not a ministry official) as I was involved in arrangements for the presidential visit. It was indeed granted and I stayed on until July.

There are occasions when short extensions are necessary or may be allowed on certain compassionate grounds. But to seek extensions for the flimsiest of excuses is surely unfair by other officers awaiting their due postings abroad. To make use of contacts within and outside the career service to seek extension after extension is to discriminate against deserving officers in their own service who have contributed far more to preserve some of the traditions and standards of the career service than some of those seeking longer stays have ever done or will do.

It is because of these diplomatic shenanigans that politicians and public target the diplomatic service for criticism, sometimes unfairly and ignorantly, calling the service a holiday home for the incompetent whose real purpose in wanting to prolong their stay is to educate their children abroad at public expense and build a bank balance.

That criticism is at times unfair by those officers who dedicate themselves to working long hours and going out of their way to be helpful to Sri Lankans and others.

There are others who shortly after taking up their new posting are already planning on how to become an ambassador before their retirement two or three years hence. I have personally come across both the dedicated and the duplicitous in my time.

Looking for excuses to gain extensions by connivance or deceit is a practice more widely resorted to in modern times because the use of political influence has penetrated the public service at almost every level unlike in decades gone by when there was little political interference in the administration.

This has all changed in recent times. It would not be a strange phenomenon to hear of pleas made on behalf of officers