CO885-(11-12) — Page 490

410

PUBLIC

RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

111C.0.882/12

| PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BY REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

OPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOL 10

i

42

denied to Ministers or to Executive Committees the fullest opportunity to make recom- mendations regarding the numbers and remuneration of the staff which the execution of their policy requires, and no new interpretation of the Schedules is necessary to secure that opportunity. It would appear, however, to be the main purpose of the Acting Minister, in asking for the interpretation which he suggests, to prevent comment by any Officer of State upon the adequacy of the staff proposed by an Executive Com- mittee, as long as that staff could not be deemed excessive, and so to deprive the Governor of the assistance of any Officer of State in the exercise of his own responsi- bilities in such matters. It will be apparent from what I have already stated that I consider it essential to the adequate discharge of those responsibilities that proposals which may possibly call for their exercise should be brought to the notice of the Governor by the only Officer of State who is in a position to do so. As long as the Governor gives due consideration to the recommendations of Executive Committees I can see no objection to that procedure. The essence of the difference of opinion between the Executive Committee and myself lies in the questions whether due con- sideration has or has not been given to those recommendations and whether my decision not to accept them was or was not a proper exercise of the Governor's reserve I am unable to powers to secure the efficient administration of essential services see that the answer to those questions requires any other interpretation of the Schedules to the Order in Council than that which has always been given to them.

I have, &c.,

SIR.

GRAEME THOMSON,

Governor.

Enclosure in No. 26,

Colombo, 10th July, 1933.

Irrigation Engineers.

I HAVE the honour to address you in regard to a disagreement which has arisen between His Excellency the Governor and the Executive Committee for Agriculture and Lands. I am aware that the disagreement has already been the subject of corre- spondence between His Excellency and you. My request to His Excellency that I be granted access to this correspondence as well as to the correspondence that passed between him and the Honourable the Financial Secretary on the subject has been refused. In consequence I find myself seriously handicapped in making my observa- tions in full or in removing any misapprehension that might have occured in the presentation of the facts to you.

2. His Excellency has also forwarded for niy information a copy of his telegram No. 107, dated 21st June, 1933, despatched to you. I am not aware whether or not you have accepted His Excellency's advice in the telegram not to comply with my request to defer your decision pending the receipt and consideration of this communi- cation. I need hardly state that this piece of advice on the part of His Excellency has caused me considerable embarrassment. I entertain serious doubts whether this communication will serve any purpose at all in so far as your decision is concerned, as it may not be unlikely that, acting on His Excellency's advice, you might have already prejudged the case and arrived at your decision without awaiting my representations. Nevertheless, in fairness te my Committee and to the Board of Ministers and in view of the grave and fundamental issues involved in regard to the working of the present Constitution in Ceylon, I have reluctantly decided to address you directly on the subject and to request your ruling.

3. The circumstances which have led to the disagreement are brought under review by His Excellency the Governor in his despatch No. 324 dated 29th May, 1933. and annexures thereto. In amplification of the despatch I have certain observations to make.

4. In the first place, whatever might have been the views of my Committee or of His Excellency the Governor during the early stages, when the question of what would constitute an adequate staff of Engineers to carry out my Committee's policy was under consideration and discussion, His Excellency had ultimately to agree with the decision of my Committee and the Board of Ministers that the estimates for 1933-34 #hould provide for the services of fourteen trained Engineers.

•

5. Secondly, the fact is not emphasized in the despatch itself that in the past the Department of Irrigation has been staffed in its higher ranks by Engineers imported

13

from abroad. It appears to have been the policy of successive Heads of the Depart- ment to exclude Ceylonese. The result is that although Ceylonese Engineers have risen to high positions in the Public Works Department and in other technical departments of Government and rendered meritorious services to Ceylon, yet there is to-day not a single Ceylonese either in the Headquarters' Staff or in the grades of Divisional Irrigation Engineer and of Irrigation Engineer of the Department. This fact, along with others of a similar nature, has contributed in no small measure to the growth of political discontent in the country, particularly among the well-educated classes, in whose ranks there are several Engineers with British academic and professional quali- fications obtained after prolonged study and training in the United Kingdom. I would invite the favour of your special reference to paragraph 3 of the letter dated 4th April, 1933, of the Honourable Mr. D. S. Senanayake, addressed to His Excellency and which forms Annexure I to his despatch. The Honourable Mr. D. S. Senanayake has. it is true, sought to explain away, in his own inimitable, tactful way, the policy of what he describes as rigid exclusion.” But my Committee appear convinced that there is more than what seems on the surface for the absence of even a single Ceylonese Officer in the ranks of the Irrigation Engineers of the Department. My Committee and I are therefore naturally desirous that the earliest possible opportunity should be taken to remove this slur on one of the Departments under their charge. They have made no secret of their intention to Ceylonise the Department of Irrigation as expeditiously as possible. My Committee are glad to know that in this desire they have the

"entire sympathy of His Excellency the Governor, as stated in paragraph 11 of His Excellency's letter dated 13th May. 1933 (Annexure V to the despatch), to the Honourable Mr. D. S. Senanayake. But I regret--and I shall give my reasons later- to have to observe that His Excellency the Governor has not availed himself of the very first opportunity to give a practical turn to his sympathy.

"

6. Thirdly, my Committee have had steadily in view your despatch, dated 14th November, 1932, in which you indicated the manner in which, in your opinion, retrenchment should be effected in the establishments of the Island. It would be seen that in his very first letter itself to His Excellency the Governor on the subject, the Honourable Mr. D. S. Senanayake referred to your wishes in this matter and made them part of the reasons for the proposals of my Committee. I would submit that, in my humble opinion, the decision of His Excellency the Governor that he should place on the permanent pensionable establishment two highly paid officers who hold only temporary agreements under definite contracts is not in conformity with the spirit of your despatch and is detrimental to the best interests of the country both from the point of view of economy and from that of efficiency.

For arriving at his decision and for coming to a conclusion which is in conflict with the wishes of my Committee, His Excellency has urged his reasons in the following terms in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his letter dated 13th May. 1933 (Annexure V to his despatch), to me. I reproduce them here without attempting to summarize them at this stage, as it is necessary that I should deal with them explicitly. His Excellency

states:-

*

It is admittedly necessary to have in the service of the Island for at least the next five years a minimum of 14 trained Engineers. To maintain this mumber the retention or recruitment of two Europeans is inevitable. This has not been disputed. The Government has available live European Engineers whose ability has already been tested by a considerable period of service in Ceylon from whom it can select the two European Engineers whom it requires. Having regard to the great importance of local knowledge and experience on the part of the Irrigation Engineers, it is unthinkable that all these five Temporary Irrigation Engineers should be allowed to go and that two new European Engineers of untested ability and with no knowledge or experience of local conditions should be taken in their place. I cannot bring myself to believe that public opinion would condone a course of action so evidently prejudicial to the efficiency of the irrigation services which are being rendered to the people of Ceylon. For all practical purposes. therefore, the issue can be narrowed to the simple question whether I should' endeavour to secure the services of two of the five Temporary Engineers by offer- ing them extensions of their agreements or whether the fact that their continued services are required by the country does not entitle them in fairness and equity to the permanent and pensionable status which attaches to the posts which they have been holding for over three years on temporary agreements."