Mahinda Wijesekara: a fisheries minister who did not achieve much!

In Sri Lanka, we have a habit of remembering our politicians with more emotion than honesty. When a public figure fades from power or passes on, the narrative often shifts quickly from scrutiny to sympathy. But a country that has paid such a heavy price for poor governance cannot afford selective memory. It must ask a simple question: What did this leader actually do for the people?

Take Mahinda Wijesekara. He held office during a time when Sri Lanka’s fisheries sector needed strong, practical leadership. As Fisheries Minister under President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he was in a position to influence the lives of thousands of coastal families. Yet when we look back, it is difficult to point to a single transformative policy or reform that improved the livelihoods of fishermen in any lasting way.

Sri Lanka is an island. The ocean is not just geography. It is survival. For generations, fishing communities have battled unpredictable weather, rising fuel costs, middlemen exploitation and a lack of proper infrastructure. A capable fisheries minister could have focused on modernising the sector, improving cold storage, ensuring fair market prices, and protecting local fishermen from foreign competition. Instead, what we often saw was stagnation.

Even today, fishermen in many parts of Sri Lanka struggle with the same problems they faced years ago. Boats remain outdated. Access to technology is limited. Harbours lack basic facilities. Many are forced to sell their catch at low prices because they have no storage or bargaining power. And mostly they have to deal with the Indian fishermen trespassing into our waters and stealing our catch.

These are not new issues. These are longstanding failures that successive governments, including the one Wijesekara served in, did not adequately address.

Too often, Sri Lankan politics rewards loyalty over performance. Ministers are appointed not because they have a clear vision or expertise, but because they are politically useful. Once in office, many do just enough to stay relevant, but not enough to create real change. Over time, this has created a culture where holding a title matters more than delivering results.

And yet, when such figures exit the stage, there is a rush to celebrate them.

Why do we lower our standards when it comes to leadership? Why do we hesitate to say that a politician simply did not deliver?

There are, of course, leaders in our history who have left a genuine legacy. They introduced reforms, built institutions, and improved lives in ways that can still be felt today. Celebrating them is not only appropriate but necessary. It sets a benchmark for future leaders.

But placing every politician in that same category does a disservice to the country. It sends the message that performance does not matter. This is a dangerous mindset.

In the fisheries sector alone, the cost of inaction has been high. When the government fails to protect local industries, it is the small-scale worker who is pushed further into poverty.

Since the time of independence, Sri Lanka has never seen or appointed a courageous a fisheries minister who has worked for the benefit of fishermen. I remember back in the day when I had walked into the Fisheries Ministry when Wijesekara occupied the seat and asked him some questions over what he had done for the benefit of fishermen, Wijesekara known for his ill temper and ill language had taken only minutes to chase me out. 

A minister such as Wijesekara, could have introduced fuel subsidies that actually reached fishermen instead of being lost in bureaucracy. He and all the others who occupied the fisheries portfolio could have launched training programmes to help younger generations adopt sustainable fishing practices. Export opportunities could have been expanded with proper quality control and certification systems. Even simple measures like improving harbour sanitation and storage facilities would have made a difference. The absence of such progress speaks volumes.

A minister is not defined by how long they stayed in office, but by what they left behind. Did they make life better for the people they were meant to serve. If the answer is no, then silence is more honest than praise. 

A country that demands results will eventually attract leaders who are willing to deliver them. The need for effective, accountable leadership has never been greater.