Features

1956, SWRD, Sir John, some ministers and drafting a Throne Speech on short order

Published

3 years ago

2023/07/23

(Excerpted from the Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Peiris)

In view of the dissolution of Parliament, I sat down to draft the Queen’s Speech. I drafted five different speeches, one for each person who might be a potential Prime Minister: Sir John, S.W.R.D., Philip Gunawardena, Dahanayake and N. M. Perera. The elections were spread over three days, and on the last day, April 12, 1956, was S.W.R.D.’s election at Attanagalla.

On the first day’s results, it was clear that there was a swing towards S.W.R.D.’s party, the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna. On the second day’s results, his position had considerably improved and it was clear to any thinking man that, if S.W.R.D. won his own seat on the 12th, he would automatically be Prime Minister.

The shortness of the time given for the drafting of the Queen’s Speech must have struck him as a constitutional lawyer because, on the 12th morning, while polling in his electoral area was going on, he asked me on the telephone to come to his bungalow to draft the Speech.

DS.’s and Dudley’s Secretary was N. W. Atukorale. When Sir John came in, Atukorale was elevated to Queen’s House and P. Nadesan took his place. Nadesan was an efficient officer and was known as Sir John’s man. He was able to write a speech for Sir John for the opening of a Commonwealth Conference or a Volley Ball court. If S.W.R.D. came in, everyone knew that Nadesan had to go; and he went.

Many, including my father, thought that I would have to go likewise although I saw no reason for taking a kick. When S.W.R.D. phoned over the Queen’s Speech, I told him that I did not mean any disrespect, that I wished to act constitutionally as Secretary to the Cabinet, that Sir John was still the Prime Minister, that he was not still member for Attanagalla, that I had no doubt that he would be elected, that I knew the urgency of the matter, that I had a draft ready, and that I would see him early the next morning with Sir John’s permission.

In the afternoon of the 12th, I drove to Kandawala. Sir John, dressed in a sarong and banian, was signing cheques for each of the minor employees of the External Affairs Ministry. When I explained my problem, he readily granted me permission to see SWRD. He then invited me to a drink. As it was only five o,clock, I said I would prefer a glass of iced water, and he said “You b…, you are also refusing my drinks, now that I am down?”

I said it was not that, that I had some drinks at lunch time, and that my throat was a bit parched. He was annoyed but asked the servant boy to bring two glasses of iced water. When I was there, Sir John’s house which is normally full of people was deserted by those who pretended to be his friends and enjoyed his hospitality while he was in power.

And so, the next morning, at 6. 30, I was on SWRD.’s doorstep at Rosmead Place. He had been returned by an enormous majority and was to be our next Prime Minister. I inquired from a servant boy whether the master was up and was told that he was reading a mass of newspapers. I sent my name in and was asked to come upstairs – I went in, in some trepidation, and again told him, that I meant no disrespect and that I was there with Sir John’s permission, and that at Sir John would be handing in his resignation as Prime Minister at noon.

SWRD. then made a short speech at me in a very loud voice. He said he saw no disrespect but complete integrity, that public officers from Government Agents down to village headmen had worked against him (“against me, against me” he shrieked about three times) in the election, and that he admired the correct and upright stand I had taken. He said I was the one public servant, he knew, who had acted correctly during the election. I knew now that I had saved my skin. He asked for my draft and read the three pages which I had written, slowly and carefully. He then took a blue pencil and cancelled all three pages saying “Pedestrian English Peiris, pedestrian English Take this down”, and with his usual intellectual superiority and arrogance, started dictating.

He was naturally elated at his success at the election and his future as the Head of the country. Several times I had to ask him to go slow on his dictation because I knew no shorthand, and he said “Sorry, my dear fellow”. What he dictated to me was not a Queen’s speech but a vitriolic attack on Sir John and the United National Party, an attack which he should properly have made on the floor of the house of Representatives or at a public meeting.

At the end of his dictation, I thought it my duty to point this out, which I did, adding that the Governor-General might refuse to read the Speech. There is the instance of King George V refusing to read a Speech until some objectionable words referring to His Irish subjects had been deleted. He said “take my order”.

While he was dictating to me, the servant boy was coming up every few minutes saying that another gentleman had arrived, and this was before seven o’clock in the morning. SWRD. was unwashed and unshaved and dressed in pyjamas and a dressing gown, not in the shirt and cloth. He was an Oxford man, and an Oxford man cannot easily slough his culture.

About the servant boy’s tenth visit, he lost his temper and shouted at the boy to tell them all to clear out of his house. I reminded him that he was now the Prime Minister and that his remark, if conveyed, would make a very bad beginning. I suggested that he go down as he was, in his dressing gown, see who these gentlemen were, and ask to be excused because he was extremely busy about the formation of a Cabinet and time was short.

He agreed and we both descended the stairs, he with one arm round my shoulder, and I with the draft of the Queen’s Speech under my arm. Before he lost his temper, he had suggested that I wait for bacon and eggs – Oxford again.

I cannot describe my surprise when I came down and saw who the gentlemen were who were calling so early in the morning on the new Prime Minister. They were all gentlemen in high places who used to frequent Kandawala and who had done a quick somersault and a long jump to the winning side. ‘Gosh,’ I thought, ‘aren’t there any decencies in life? What they were there for, I never found out because SWRD ordered me to get back to my office and get on with the job I had in hand.

The senior hands on my staff had dealt with the Queen’s Speech since 1974 and they were surprised when they read the draft in my long-hand before they typed it. They came to me and asked “Is this the Queen’s Speech?” And I said “No. This is Mr Bandaranaike’s speech. I am not going to have this printed”.

When the draft was typed, I took it back to Rosmead Place and asked S.W.R.D. to read in type what he had dictated to me. I told him that the language was far too strong and had to be toned down. He was calmer now; the first flush of victory and elation had receded and he was giving his mind to more urgent and important things like Cabinet-making. He again read the draft carefully, said that he agreed with me and asked me to tone it down.

I asked him whether he wished to see the second draft; time was running short. He said, “Certainly not, my dear fellow. You tone it down; you know my ideas; I can trust your discretion; have your amended draft translated and printed”. As Prime Minister, he was a mellow man. As Minister of Local Government he had been a terror to his colleagues and to the public servants who worked in his Ministry.

His Permanent Secretary, E. W. Kannanagara, told me that he had to be the shock-absorber.

The Speech, toned down by me and read by the Governor-General in S.W.R.D.’s excellent English, contained promises which the Government could not possibly fulfil. A people’s Government had been returned and the people had to be pampered and pleased, whether the Government could afford the luxury or not.

At the Opening of Parliament, the People’s Ministers, including the Prime Minister, were in national dress, wearing blue scarfs to indicate the party. I was surprised to see Ministers M. W. H. de Silva and Stanley de Zoysa in this dress. M. W. H. looked dignified as a judge of the Supreme Court in a full-bottomed wig and gown. Stanley, with his monocle and that meticulous English pronunciation of his which reminded you of a University Don – well, really, you had to look at him twice before you could recognize him. To the Senate and the House of Representatives, Ministers went in the national dress. To the Cabinet, they came in the most nondescript attire.

The first paragraph of S.W.R.D.’s first Queen’s Speech read as follows:

“The free votes of the people democratically cast at the last general election are a clear indication of dissatisfaction with many aspects of policy and administration hitherto pursued. My Government intends, in pursuance of its declared policy, to effect many changes with expedition and efficiency, but in a manner which will neither result in injustice nor cause confusion and dislocation.”

1956,SWRD, Sir. John,

The Speech continued:

“My Government wishes to assure minorities, religious, racial and otherwise, that they need have no fear of injustice or discrimination in the carrying out of its policies and programmes. My Government will ensure to all citizens the rights, privileges and freedoms to which they are entitled in a democratic state.”

Compare this with the following sentence in the Speech:

“It will also take necessary steps for the adoption of Sinhala as the one official language of the State.”

Was the Sinhala only policy not a discrimination against a minority? Was the Assisted Schools takeover not an injustice? Was it a blow at the Roman Catholic community? Are these some of the changes which the Government intended to effect with expedition and efficiency? If these were, then, many more were to follow in the years to come, some overtly, some surreptitiously and yet others by camouflage.

In SWRD.’s Cabinet there was one woman. There was also Dahanayake, later to be Prime Minister, who was always punctual and who came barefooted to meetings with a bottle of eau de cologne and, before he gave up smoking, with a tin of Peacock cigarettes. C. P. de Silva was a double first in mathematics and excelled, by reason of his previous experience as a Civil Servant, in matters relating to land and irrigation.

M. W. H. de Silva, Q. C., Minister of Justice and a kinsman of mine had held high office; he had been a Judge of the Supreme Court and our High Commissioner in India. His nickname in Hultsdorp was the ‘mule’ because, once he had made up his mind, nothing would make him change it. To illustrate this, I shall relate an incident which took place when I was an Assistant Legal Draftsman drafting the Constitution and he was Acting Legal Secretary.

A telegram had come from the Secretary of State asking for an amendment to be drafted on certain lines. M. W. H. told me the lines on which to draft. This was, in my opinion, not the lines that the Colonial Office intended, but I did not tell him so. Instead, I discussed the matter with D. S. Jayawickrama, Assistant Legal Secretary and E. H. T. Gunasekera, Crown Counsel, both of whom agreed that my interpretation of the telegram was right and that M. W. H. was wrong.

I accordingly ignored the Acting Legal Secretary’s order and drafted according to what I thought the Secretary of State wanted and took the draft to M. W. H. to be told “This is not what I want. Please draft on these lines”. I told him politely that I did not think that his interpretation of the telegram was correct, and he, equally politely, told me not to waste his time but to draft as directed by him.

I therefore went and prepared a fresh draft, but was careful to send it to him with a letter in which I said that the draft gave effect to his oral instructions but, in my opinion, did not give effect to the Secretary of State’s instructions as set out in his telegram. My second draft was telegraphed to England and soon there came back a telegram saying that the draft was not what they wanted.

M. W. H. sent for me and asked me to re-draft and I said “I told you, Sir”. All that the mule said was “Well, your job is to draft. Draft again”. I said “Here’s my first draft which you rejected earlier” and he was compelled to accept it. Except for this idiosyncrasy, he was a straight and honest and upright man, pleasant in his manner, with a sense of wit and humour. During a Cabinet discussion in which he was not interested, he would doodle, always the figure of a female.

There was William Silva, young in years, as Minister of Industries. He appeared to understand his work and the nature of his duties and made a useful contribution to the discussion. In charge of Finance was Stanley de Zoysa, an old Royalist, about two years senior to me at school, and an exceedingly polite man. Philip Gunawardene, Minister of Agriculture and food must, as a student, have spent long hours poring over Das Kapital. I had never met him before, but when I was a student in London, I had seen him addressing the mob on Sundays in Hyde Park from a soap box – a platform called the Indian Freedom League.

He always wore a canary jersey, and was a very effective and forceful speaker, with plenty of venom against the Britisher, ready wit and repartee. I mentioned this fact to him at his first meeting when I introduced myself, and he agreed that my memory was correct. He is the only Minister I have worked with since the beginning of Cabinet Government who came to a meeting thoroughly prepared, not only on his own memoranda, but also on the papers submitted by other Ministers. He would bring with him a number of Sessional Papers, Administration Reports and other official documents not referred to in the other Ministers Cabinet Papers but relevant to the issue. When he spoke, he never failed to make a useful contribution to the discussion.

As Minister of Agriculture, he was in charge of Paddy Lands and brought what the landowners thought was a revolutionary Bill. As Minister of Food, he was in charge of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment. In all his functions, he was inclined to take as much legislative power as possible into his hands. This, the other Ministers resented, particularly, the Prime Minister. Philip was definitely of the Left. SWRD, in spite of his public statements that he was for democratic socialism or for socialistic democracy or for the middle path or for pancha sila (he was so clever in stating or not stating his position that I think nobody ever understood what exactly he stood for) was inclined towards the Right. A rift had to come, and it came. Philip’s draft legislation, submitted for Cabinet approval, gave the Cabinet the idea that he, and not SWRD was to be the virtual dictator. What with the Paddy Lands Act, the Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, the People’s Bank and the Co-operative Banking system, and a heap of other legislation he proposed, he would have been in a position to wield tremendous power in the country.

These proposals were obviously put forward to implement his political creed and not for the furtherance of his personal position. I believe he was an honest man, not capable of being bribed or influenced. When be was annoyed, his reaction was violent.

Among the other Ministers were Mrs Wimala Wijewardena, Messrs A. P. Jayasuriya, Kuruppu, Marikkar and Maithripala Senanayake.

The Cabinet came to certain decisions at its first meeting. Ministers had no time to formulate their thoughts in memoranda and the discussion was on very general points. As a People’s Government, they did not believe in Honours and decided that no recommendation should be made to Her Majesty the Queen for the conferment of Imperial Honours on citizens of Ceylon and that Her Majesty be humbly and respectfully requested to be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring such Honours on such of Her subjects as were Ceylon citizens.

Some Ministers thought that the appointment of an advocate to be a Queen’s Counsel was the conferment of an Imperial Honour. Local honours suffered the same fate. Our Diplomatic Missions abroad, Ministers and public officers were informed that no alcoholic liquor was to be served at official functions. The Senate and the House of Representatives were requested to close their bars: the House acquiesced, the Senate refused.

The Prime Minister informed his Ministers that it was his intention to obtain the services of an expert from the United Kingdom to advise the Government with regard to the nationalization of the transport services. On the budget drastic changes could not be made as the budgetary proposals for the next financial year had already been drawn up by the public officials concerned. While accepting the general structure of the next budget, Ministers were requested to include, wherever possible, in the draft estimates, all necessary items in furtherance of the policy of the Government and to omit any items which were in conflict with that policy.

With a view to bringing down the cost of living, it was proposed to reduce the price of rice and sugar. It was pointed out that a reduction in the price of rice by one cent a measure would mean an annual loss to revenue of seven million rupees, and a similar reduction in the price of sugar would mean a loss of three million rupees. In spite of the difficult financial position, something had to be done by the Government, and it was agreed to reduce the price of rice by ten cents a measure and the price of sugar by five cents a pound.

The Minister was asked to explore the possibility of buying sugar direct on a Governmental basis with a view to eliminating middlemen and reducing the cost to the consumer. The Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics made offers of economic aid which the Cabinet gratefully accepted.

The Cabinet considered seriously the question of abolishing the death penalty for murder, although the murder rate in Ceylon was probably the highest in the world. We had a Buddhist teetotal Minister of Justice, M. W. H., who was strongly in favour of the proposal, and he persuaded the Cabinet to agree to a suspension of the death penalty for a period of three years in the case of murder, abetment of murder and abetment of suicide. A sentence of life imprisonment was substituted.

On July 7, 1956, the Official Language Act, declaring Sinhala to be the one Official Language in Ceylon, came into operation. This immediately split the country into two, separating the Sinhalese from the Tamils whose ancient language had been removed from the scene altogether. This controversial piece of legislation antagonized the entire Tamil community and, for the first time after years of DS’s strenuous efforts to make the numerous races and communities, religious and otherwise, of the country into one homogeneous whole, the country was being divided by SWRD.’s Sinhala only Act.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:E. W. Kannanagara ministers Sir John Throne

Up Next

Advice my mother gave me, founding Sujatha Vidyalaya and a national honour

Don't Miss

Getting Community Based Rehabilitation started in rural Botswana

Click to comment

Features

Sections of US media looking power straight in the eye

Published

19 hours ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Trump addressing the media at the White House.(BBC)

Some fundamental freedoms seen to be at the heart of democracy in the US – religion, speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the government – are at risk of being undermined at present by the country’s Executive President. However, the latter is being legally challenged on this score by some sections of the US media and the citizenry of the country could take heart from this notable defense of media freedom.

In fact this is good news for the world of democracy. The push back is coming from organizations such as CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC who constitute the nucleus as it were of the US media and their solidarity no less than their resourcefulness calls for commendation.

Following a recent White House decision to suspend CNN from what was referred to as ‘participation in presidential pool coverages’, the other media organizations mentioned refused to replace it in the pool. Their position was that the public had a right to receive ‘accurate and independent information about the government.’

Earlier, the White House decided to bar MS NOW and Politico from entering its premises following the restrictions imposed on CNN. The organizations were accused of publishing “FAKE NEWS’ , ‘Fiction’ and ‘lies’ in respect of the administration. These organizations lost no time in initiating a federal lawsuit accusing the central administration of violating their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

However, the latter litigating organizations could now consider themselves as having been vindicated because the federal court hearing their case has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily restore White House press access to journalists from the mentioned media institutions. Notably, the court has declared that the ban is ‘likely unconstitutional’. The case is proceeding.

The mass media of the most vibrant democracies of the West ought to be no strangers to such inspirational acts of solidarity and exemplifications of independence but there are lessons here for the democracies of the South that could stand them in good stead. Minus the right of a people to be informed, the rest of fundamental rights featuring in Southern Bills of Rights and legislation of the kind are bereft of substance and meaning.

It is informed decision-making on the part of a citizenry that makes for democratic vibrancy and on this score many a Southern democracy fails. While Southern publics generally demand of their governments continuous economic well being and substantive material benefits they are not equally desirous of being informed and knowledgeable.

This lacuna in the consciousness of many Southern publics enables their governments ‘to get off the hook’, so to speak and govern, or more often misgovern, their countries with impunity. Among other factors, this species of mass ignorance makes it possible for governments to dismantle democracy and rule in perpetuity.

Accordingly, an educated and constantly informed public is an essential precondition for the flourishing of democracy and independent media are integral to this process. Minus an independent mass media sector that meets the knowledge needs of the people responsibly, democracy is as good as dead.

Needless to say, those sections of the US media that are currently taking the Trump administration to task over its media curbs are acutely aware of the cruciality of these fundamental knowledge requirements.

The hope of democratic opinion worldwide and locally is likely to be that media independence would thrive in the manner in which it is flourishing in the most vibrant and accountable democracies of the West.

Southern countries such as Sri Lanka that lay claim to democratic credentials, but are democracy-deficient in many ways, need to be particularly cognizant of these requirements. The publics of these countries need to go the extra mile to ensure the thriving of an independent but responsible mass media sector.

In fact it is veritably a matter of life and death. It is only an independent media sector that could, while ensuring the existence of an informed public, impress on the latter the need to protect and perpetuate its fundamental rights. In the absence of these campaigns, such publics could be eventually having on their hands governments that boast of ruling in perpetuity.

Taking a leaf from the sections of the US media referred to independent media organizations in Southern states need to act in solidarity as well. They would need to act on the basis of the principle that acts of victimization suffered by members in their fold at the hands of governments, for instance, are in fact inimical acts directed at their collectivity and which call for united remedial action. In short, no independent mass media institution could see itself as ‘an island’.

Besides some general guidance on the importance of media independence and solidarity, the message coming from the US with regard to media praxis is that power must be stood-up to unblinkingly. The mentioned sections of the US media are primarily in a struggle to ward off encroachments on their independence in the areas of policy and practice by the political executive, that is the President.

The latter would ride rough-shod over the media in the absence of robust opposition by the media itself to inimical executive action of this kind.

While media independence needs to be seen as crucial to democratic development, an obligation is cast on the media to ensure that it uses such independence responsibly and constructively.

The worst that could afflict a media sector is for it to fall prey to the clichetic ‘freedom of the wild ass’. In fact recurring irresponsibility on the part of the media could lend credence to the perception that a tightly regulated media is best for a country. It is a short step from this misguided view to the position that political authoritarianism is best for a state. That turn of events would be of course catastrophic for a democracy.

The issues discussed thus far point to the need for a broad discourse among Southern democracies in particular on what is best for them in this connection. Given the risks underscored earlier for Southern countries in particular a broad discussion on the matters at hand, which includes the public, emerges as a must for Sri Lanka. Besides, media solidarity within democratic countries and internationally is a must.

Features

What lessons can be learned to improve quality of Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus

Published

19 hours ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya

by Prof. M. W. Amarasiri de Silva

Following public controversy over an inappropriate web link found in an English study module, the Sri Lankan government formally deferred the full rollout of the Grade 6 curriculum reforms to January 2027. In the interim, state schools will maintain the existing syllabus, reverting to standard eight-period daily timetables and previous textbooks to ensure uninterrupted instruction. Prime Minister and Minister of Education Dr. Harini Amarasuriya emphasized that this temporary pause allows the Education Ministry to thoroughly review all instructional materials, fix editorial flaws, and conduct scientific impact assessments across pilot schools prior to nation-wide implementation.

To address the oversight, an expert committee evaluated the flawed materials, completed necessary amendments, and finalised discussions to resubmit corrected modules for printing. Beyond revising written texts, the Ministry established a broader preparation roadmap—allocating funds for extensive teacher training programs set to begin mid-year, alongside scheduled informational briefings for parents, teachers, and students. Prime Minister Amarasuriya reaffirmed that none of the valid first-term modules were completely discarded or scrapped, preserving state resources while systematically rebuilding public trust and strengthening quality assurance protocols.

In this respect, this article reviews the current grade 6 syllabus comparing it with similar syllabi of India and the USA, with a view to make recommendations for the upcoming grade 6 syllabus revision.

Architecture of nation’s future

Education is the quiet architecture of a nation’s future. It is the unseen scaffolding upon which generations build their character, their intellect, and their capacity to contribute meaningfully to society. In Sri Lanka, the Grade 6 syllabus occupies a particularly important place in this architecture. It is the bridge between primary learning and the more demanding intellectual terrain of secondary education. It is the moment when children begin to move from learning basic facts to understanding concepts, from memorising information to applying knowledge, and from passive reception to active engagement. Yet, despite its importance, the Grade 6 curriculum in Sri Lanka has long struggled with issues of breadth, depth, relevance, and pedagogy. As global education systems evolve, Sri Lanka must examine what lessons can be learned from international models—particularly India and the United States—to strengthen its own curriculum and prepare students for a rapidly changing world.

The first lesson Sri Lanka can learn is the value of conceptual clarity. India’s NCERT curriculum, especially in Mathematics and Science, is globally respected for its logical progression and conceptual depth. Indian students are introduced early to the idea that mathematics is not merely a set of procedures but a language of reasoning. They learn why a ratio works, not just how to compute one. They understand the structure of an equation, not merely the steps to solve it. In Science, they explore the properties of materials, the structure of plants, and the principles of motion with a clarity that encourages curiosity rather than rote memorisation.

Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus, while competency-based, often leans heavily toward content coverage. Students are expected to learn many topics, but the time allocated for each is limited, and the teaching culture often emphasizes memorisation over understanding. If Sri Lanka wishes to improve the quality of its syllabus, it must embrace the idea that fewer topics taught well are better than many topics taught superficially. Conceptual mastery builds confidence, and confidence builds lifelong learners.

Lesson from the US

A second lesson comes from the United States, where the curriculum is built around skills rather than content. American students in Grade 6 are expected to read complex texts, analyse arguments, write essays supported by evidence, conduct experiments, and engage in collaborative projects. The emphasis is not on how much they know but on what they can do with what they know. This skills-based approach encourages critical thinking, creativity, and independence—qualities essential for success in the modern world.

Sri Lanka’s syllabus, by contrast, often rewards students for reproducing information rather than interpreting it. The exam culture reinforces this tendency, as students are assessed primarily through written tests that measure recall. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must integrate more opportunities for students to think, question, debate, and create. The classroom should become a space where students learn to solve problems, not just memorize solutions.

Another important lesson comes from the breadth of Sri Lanka’s own curriculum. One of the strengths of the Sri Lankan system is its inclusion of cultural and religious education. Subjects such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity provide moral grounding and cultural identity. Art, Music, Drama, and Health contribute to holistic development. These subjects remind students that education is not merely about academic achievement but about becoming a balanced human being. However, breadth without depth can become burdensome. Grade 6 students in Sri Lanka often juggle more than ten subjects, each with its own textbook, competencies, and assessments. This creates pressure not only for students but also for teachers, who must rush through content to meet syllabus requirements. The lesson here is not to reduce cultural subjects but to integrate them more meaningfully. Religious education can be taught through ethical discussions, community projects, and reflective writing. Art and Music can be connected to history, literature, and social studies. Health can be linked to science and physical education. Integration reduces overload while enriching learning.

Another lesson from India

India offers another valuable lesson in the form of standardised textbooks. NCERT books are used across the country, ensuring consistency in quality and content. They are written by subject experts, reviewed rigorously, and updated periodically. Sri Lanka’s textbooks, while generally well-structured, vary in quality and often lag behind modern pedagogical standards. Some are dense, text-heavy, and lacking in visual aids or real-world examples. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must invest in high-quality textbooks that are engaging, accessible, and aligned with contemporary educational research. Textbooks should not merely transmit information; they should inspire curiosity. They should include stories, diagrams, experiments, and activities that make learning enjoyable and meaningful.

The United States provides a lesson in inquiry-based science education. American students conduct experiments, build models, observe natural phenomena, and engage in engineering design challenges. They learn science not as a set of facts but as a process of discovery. Sri Lanka’s science curriculum includes experiments, but many schools lack the resources, laboratory facilities, or teacher training to implement them effectively. Improving the syllabus requires improving the ecosystem around it. Schools need laboratories, equipment, and teacher development programs that empower educators to teach science through inquiry. A syllabus is only as strong as the environment in which it is taught. ***

International models

Another area where Sri Lanka can learn from international models is language education. In India, students often learn three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit or Urdu. This heavy language load has its challenges, but it also produces students with strong linguistic skills. In the United States, English Language Arts emphasises reading complex texts, writing arguments, and analysing literature. Sri Lanka’s English curriculum, while improving, still struggles with uneven implementation across schools. Many students reach secondary school without adequate proficiency in English, limiting their access to global knowledge. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must strengthen English instruction through better teacher training, more reading opportunities, and a shift from grammar-heavy teaching to communication-focused learning. At the same time, Sinhala and Tamil instruction should be modernised to include creative writing, literature appreciation, and critical reading.

Social Studies is another area ripe for improvement. Sri Lanka’s curriculum includes History, Geography, and Civics, but the teaching often emphasises memorization of dates, definitions, and facts. India’s Social Science curriculum, while also content-heavy, provides clearer conceptual frameworks. The United States, however, excels in teaching civics and citizenship. American students learn how governments function, how laws are made, how communities solve problems, and how citizens participate in democracy. Sri Lanka can strengthen its Civics curriculum by incorporating more discussions on governance, rights, responsibilities, and community engagement. Students should learn not only the structure of government but also the values that sustain it—justice, equality, and participation.

One of the most important lessons Sri Lanka can learn is the value of reducing exam pressure. In both India and Sri Lanka, exams dominate the educational landscape. Students are judged primarily by their ability to perform on written tests. The United States, while not free from assessment challenges, uses a wider range of evaluation methods—projects, presentations, portfolios, and continuous assessment. These methods allow students to demonstrate learning in diverse ways. Sri Lanka should consider adopting a more balanced assessment system that values creativity, collaboration, and practical skills alongside academic knowledge.

Technology integration is another area where Sri Lanka can improve. The United States incorporates digital literacy, coding, online research, and digital citizenship into the curriculum. Sri Lanka’s ICT syllabus is well-structured, but implementation varies widely. Many schools lack computers, internet access, or trained ICT teachers. Improving the syllabus requires improving infrastructure. Students must learn to navigate the digital world safely and effectively. They must learn coding not as a luxury but as a basic skill. They must learn to evaluate online information critically, a skill essential in an era of misinformation.

Teacher training

Teacher training is perhaps the most critical lesson of all. A syllabus is only as effective as the teachers who deliver it. India invests heavily in teacher training through national programs, workshops, and online platforms. The United States emphasises professional development, peer collaboration, and instructional coaching. Sri Lanka must strengthen its teacher training programmes, ensuring that educators understand not only what to teach but how to teach it. Teachers should be trained in inquiry-based learning, differentiated instruction, formative assessment, and classroom management. They should be empowered to adapt the syllabus to the needs of their students rather than follow it mechanically.

Sri Lanka must learn the lesson of relevance. A syllabus must prepare students not only for exams but for life. It must teach them how to think, how to communicate, how to solve problems, and how to work with others. It must prepare them for a world where knowledge is abundant, but wisdom is scarce. It must help them navigate a future shaped by technology, globalisation, environmental challenges, and social change. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must ask: What kind of citizens do we want to produce? What kind of thinkers? What kind of leaders? The answers to these questions should shape the curriculum.

Lastly, improving the quality of Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus requires learning from both international models and local strengths. From India, Sri Lanka can learn the value of conceptual clarity and standardised textbooks. From the United States, it can learn the importance of skills, inquiry, and creativity. From its own traditions, it can preserve cultural education, moral development, and holistic learning. The goal is not to copy another country’s system but to build a uniquely Sri Lankan curriculum that is modern, relevant, and empowering. A curriculum that honours the past while preparing students for the future. A curriculum that nurtures thinkers, creators, and compassionate citizens. A curriculum worthy of a nation with immense potential and a proud educational heritage. If Sri Lanka embraces these lessons, the Grade 6 syllabus can become not just a bridge to secondary education but a foundation for national progress.

Features

Three magical nights at Colombo Fashion Week

Published

19 hours ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Melloney Dassanayaka is certainly a familiar name here, and abroad, as well, having represented Sri Lanka at the Miss Universe 2024 pageant, held in Mexico.

A former National Basketball player, she is also involved in several projects, beneficial to the community, including financial literacy for single women-headed families in the country.

A banker by profession, Melloney hold a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration.

Melloney with Asanka de Mel of Lovi Sri Lanka

This extremely talented old girl of Holy Family Convent, Bambalapitiya, was in the limelight, once more, when she was seen on the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week.

It was her very first experience, at this prestigious event, and she loved every minute of it, she said, and, what’s more, she was featured on three consecutive days.

According to the itinerary, on day 01 she walked for Lovi Sri Lanka; day 02 Rizwan Beyg (Pakistan designer), Arsath Furkhan (Indian designer), Haoyi Yan (Chinese designer) and Samant Chauhan (Indian designer); and on day 03 Vaishali Shandangule (Indian designer).