Vijitha smiling and smiling at Vijitha

The responses and behavior of Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath at a recent international press conference in India have sparked intense discussion and debate on social media these days. Especially regarding the Minister's answers to direct questions from a foreign journalist about Sri Lanka's geopolitical stance and the Iran conflict, the public is divided into several factions, expressing their opinions on his English language proficiency and body language.

Critics point out that the Minister's English pronunciation and grammar usage are completely unsuitable for an international platform. They also strongly emphasize that his manner of sitting with one leg crossed over the other during the interview was not befitting a diplomatic representative, causing damage to the country's image and embarrassing the nation internationally. Some believe that this incident is a form of 'ditthadhamma vedaniya kamma' (karma that ripens in this very life) for supporters of the current ruling party who severely ridiculed the linguistic weaknesses of other politicians in the past. They further suggest that if there is difficulty in handling the English language, seeking the assistance of a translator without arrogance is an accepted practice followed by leaders in many other countries, and not doing so is a significant mistake.

Those who justify the Minister's actions say that what happened was actually a diplomatic victory. They point out that if the Minister had answered the journalist's trap question, which sought a direct "yes" or "no" answer, in that manner, Sri Lanka would have had to displease either the United States or Iran. Therefore, this group views the Minister's subtle evasion of the question by discussing United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and neutral policies as a sign of his intelligence. Their argument is that the audience present did not laugh at the Minister's English proficiency, but rather because the Minister successfully evaded the journalist's attempt to elicit an aggressive answer.

Those who support the Minister further emphasize that language is merely a tool for communication, and using English as a measure of a person's ability or intelligence is a characteristic of a colonial mindset. Their opinion is that since the current cabinet has no allegations of corruption or fraud, the opposition and critics are trying to attack by seizing upon such minor linguistic weaknesses. They cite world leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia and Narendra Modi of India, who also conduct international affairs in their native languages, as examples.

Meanwhile, moderate commentators point out that while it is extremely important for individuals with no corruption charges and a clean political background to govern the country, a higher degree of professionalism is expected when representing a country on an international stage. They suggest that regardless of political ideology, it is essential to have good training in basic etiquette, correct posture, and professional communication skills when participating in international conferences. Many who commented on social media generally agreed that it is more practical and honorable to express ideas proudly in Sinhala and use a translator, rather than struggling with English and facing criticism internationally.

Watch the video related to this discussion ›