Features

Take-over of Sterling Company Estates

Published

4 years ago

2022/07/3

by Leelananda de Silva

From the time of independence, there has been agitation against sterling company estates. There were complaints that they were a colonial imposition, and that they were not well managed. The plantation owners themselves had begun to lose interest in some of their properties, as the profits could not be sent abroad, due to exchange control restrictions.

The estates were being managed by agency houses, and Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, the Minister of Plantation Industry, had set up a Commission on Agency Houses and Brokering Firms. This Commission had reported, but had not recommended the takeover of sterling company estates. It had recommended the control of agency houses.

Prior to that, in 1971, the Seers mission which looked into land reform issues, had proposed land reforms, but had exempted the sterling companies, as they felt that they were too important for Sri Lankan exports, to be disrupted in any way. In the meantime, there had been land reforms, to take over private land holdings of Sri Lankans, allowing only 50 acres per family.

This was the background to a sudden decision taken by the Cabinet to take over sterling companies in 1974. One Wednesday, H.A.de.S (Gunasekera) was summoned to the cabinet meeting by the Prime Minister, and he phoned me from the cabinet office and asked me what I think are the implications of a takeover of sterling companies. I had a discussion with him on the phone. He asked me to prepare a short note to be given to the Prime Minister.

Anyway, the Cabinet went ahead and made the decision to take over sterling company estates. There was no cabinet paper on this subject. It was a totally political decision. A week or two later, the Cabinet decided to take over the rupee companies, which had been left alone by the earlier decision.

The Prime Minister decided that the whole matter of the takeover of sterling companies and rupee companies should be dealt with by the Planning Ministry at this stage.

The Cabinet was not in a hurry to settle the issue of compensation relating to rupee companies. But they were eager to settle issues of compensation for the sterling companies. They were aware of the implications of this subject for Sri Lanka- British relations. From now on I was fully involved in handling this issue, along with H.A.de.S.

The Cabinet decided to appoint a committee to negotiate with the British on the matter of compensation, and H.A.de.S was appointed its chairman, and I was a member and secretary of the committee. Others in the committee included the exchange controller, a representative of the attorney general’s department (Elanga Wikramanayake), the chief valuer and one or two others.

There were many actions prior to the final settlement of compensation for sterling company estates. The British government had to be informed. The Prime Minister was visiting the UK and was meeting the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. He told her that the British government was neutral on the question of the takeover of estates, but that if estates were taken over, fair, equitable and prompt compensation should be paid to these companies.

The Prime minister appreciated this and promised early compensation. British aid to Sri Lanka at the time was about four million pounds annually, and this was an important consideration. At this time, there was a suggestion that Sri Lanka should obtain a credit line from the British government so that compensation could be paid promptly.

We had informed the local sterling company interests and the British High Cmmission to this effect. At this time, Hector Kobbekaduwa, the Minister of Agriculture, was visiting the UK to attend a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers of Food Production, in London. Mahinda Silva, Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and I accompanied the Minister to London. Judith Hart was the Minister for Overseas Development and she was responsible for British aid. She was also chairing the Meeting of Commonwealth Ministers and we saw her daily.

We sought a separate meeting with her at her ministry to discuss the subject of compensation for sterling companies. We went to her office to meet her and was greeted by her private secretary, Tony Banks (later a Member of Parliament and Minister of State). Tony Banks was a left wing radical with a great facility for words, for which he became famous in the House of Commons later. He told us that rather than ask for credit lines, we could consider delaying compensation payments, or not paying at all. It was clear that his views were not that of the government, as Judith Hart told us more or less the same thing that Harold Wilson had told the Prime Minister.

We had to decide on the modalities of compensation payment negotiations. H.A.de.S and I informed the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the best way to proceed was to negotiate with the British owners as one group, instead of negotiating with individual companies. There were some objections to this approach, as it was felt that we could get a better deal by negotiating with estate companies individually.

There were about 125 companies, owning over 150,000 acres, who were willing to be represented as a group. There were few others who were not part of this group. The Prime Minister felt that we must show a degree of goodwill towards the British and allow them to negotiate as a group. We informed Alec Ward, the acting British High Commissioner in Colombo and Trevor Moy who was Chairman of George Steuarts, who was negotiating for the British companies of this decision and they were pleased.

Alec Ward and Trevor Moy were my counterparts in all the discussions I had, many of them in private during this period. H.A.de.S allowed me to handle these details. In all these discussions between the government and the British, we worked through the British High Commission in Colombo and I cannot remember ever contacting our High Commissioner in London for any assistance.

There was one other important decision made by the Cabinet during this period, and that is regarding the level of compensation. Prior to that decision, we had to do a lot of home work in the Ministry of Planning. Fortunately for us, at that time, there was Derek Robinson, a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and an expert on statistics (Derek was later to be chairman of the Social Science Research Council of the UK) assisting the ministry through a UN project on the question of labour wages on the estates.

We requested Derek to suspend his work and do some research into the share prices of sterling company estates on the London Stock Exchange. He was to come up with a figure of about £20 sterling per acre. This was a very low figure, as prices of estates were being kept artificially low, due to exchange controls in Sri Lanka.

There were also two other instances of recent estate transaction on the London Stock Market. Pelmadulla Holdings, with about 15.000 acres, had been sold to Middle East investors at about £20 per acre. Grand Central Estates, with about 20,000 acres in Sri Lanka had been bought by a Sri Lankan entrepreneur (Upali Wiyawardane) for about the same price on the London stock exchange.

There were also a few transactions by the State Plantations Corporation, which was under the Ministry of Plantation Industry of which the Minister was Dr. Colvin R. de Silva. Four or five estates had been bought at about £60 per acre. Based on all this information, the Cabinet decided that the British should be offered £45 per acre as compensation. This was the price which was recommended by the Planning Ministry.

Compensation was to be paid over a period of time which would be negotiated. This figure of £45 was known, outside the Cabinet, only to H.A.de.S and to me. The other members of the committee were not told of this figure or that there was a decision of the Cabinet on the level of compensation. Those days, this kind of secrecy did work.

Alec Ward and Trevor Moy informed H.A.de.S and me that they would like their delegation for compensation talks to be led by Sir Michael Walker, former British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka who was now living in retirement in England. We agreed to this and their delegation consisted of Sir Michael Walker, Alec Ward, Trevor Moy and two or three others. We met a few times at the Planning Ministry in H.A.de. S’s room on the eighth floor of the Central Bank building, over three days. It was very amicable. H.A.de. S was a superb negotiator and he did it with a great sense of humour and respect for the other side.

At this point, let me record an engaging story. Eric Lubbock, former British parliamentarian and Liberal M P for Orpington now reincarnated as Lord Avebury, a member of the British House of Lords was in Colombo, on holiday. I had met him briefly through a friend and I got to know his views about the sterling companies. I then alerted a Lake House journalist, through Mervin de Silva, the Ministry Director of Information, on this matter.

Lord Avebury’s view, very colourfully expressed, was that the estate owners should not be given any compensation whatever. One or two days before the British delegation met us for compensation talks, there was a news item in the local newspapers that Lord Avebury had suggested that the British had exploited the Sri Lankans for long enough and that they should not pay any compensation for the estates.

After the preliminary greetings, the compensation talks started with an opening statement by Sir Michael Walker. He said that he was at his London club a few days before, where he met Sir Percival Griffiths, authority and historian of Indian tea and he had asked for his views regarding the value of tea estates. Sir Percival had suggested £300 per acre.

H.A.de.S, following on Sir Michael, brought to his notice, the remarks of Lord Avebury, and as H.A.de.S said, a noble lord in the British upper house. H.A.de.S asked whose views we should take seriously- Sir Percival’s who was a relative nonentity in Britain or Lord Avebury’s. This was the only time during the negotiations that I saw Sir Michael losing his temper, calling Avebury a maverick and a chap who is not taken seriously in his own country.

Anyway this set the tone for the negotiations on the price. A couple of hours later, Sir Michael had come down to f 100 an acre. After two days regarding prices, modes of payment, time periods and so on, the main issue came to a head. H.A.de.S offered a final £42 per acre. Sir Michael stuck to £45. At this point, Alec Ward came round to me and suggested that we offer 50 pence more, that is £42.50 and that we can finalize the deal.

I told H.A.de.S what Alec had told me and we decided to make that offer, which ended the negotiations regarding the price level. That 50 pence was worth £75 000 in total, but the price was well within what the Cabinet had decided to offer. Then there were the negotiations on the methods of payment. It was decided that payment will be made over a period of four years. The price offered was to remain fixed in terms of sterling, and not in rupees in the event of devaluation. Hector Kobbekaduwa, the Minister made a statement to Parliament, about the decisions of the compensation committee, which I drafted, with a schedule of sterling company estates.

The takeover of sterling company estates was taking place within the overall framework of land reform. Mrs. Bandaranaike was anxious that her coalition partner, the LSSP, was kept away from the management of these properties. Hence, when the rupee companies were taken over at about the same time, the legislation for that purpose was described as Land Reform Act No. 2 ((1 assisted Nalin Abeysekara, the assistant legal draftsman, in drafting this legislation).

The original Land Reform Act was the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and sterling and rupee companies were also to be the responsibility of that Ministry at this stage. It is my impression that the LSSP was not in favour of the takeover of either rupee or sterling companies. If the LSSP had wanted these estates to be taken over, they could have easily made use of the opportunity of the Agency Houses Commission to make recommendations on those lines. That was not done.

Later on, I was involved in the distribution of the estates between the two corporations- the State Plantations Corporation (SPC) and the Janavasama (JEDB). The SPC was with the Ministry of Plantation industries and the Janawasama was with the Ministry of Agriculture. By the time the properties were to be assigned to the two corporations, the political coalition had broken down and the two ministers were both from the same party.

There was not much acrimony about the division of assets as a result. K.H.J Wijeyadasa from the Ministry of Agriculture was the other official engaged in the decisions to divide the assets. Wije was an old friend of mine from university days, and a public servant of great integrity. What happened then was political, but it turned out to be rational.

The Minister of Agriculture was from Kandy, and the up country plantations, went to the Janavasama. The Minister of Plantation Industries, Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, was from the low country and most of the low country estates went to the SPC. This meant that most of the tea estates were with Janavasama, and most of the rubber and coconut properties went to the SPC. This was a logical outcome in terms of efficient plantation management.

One other related matter that I wish to record was my membership of the Committee on Land Ceilings, which was appointed by the Cabinet. It was chaired by R.T. Ratnatunga, former Settlement Officer and its membership included the Chief Valuer, W.M. Tilakaratna, Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, R.K.W. (Raja) Goonesekara, Principal of the Law College and several others.

This committee was established prior to the legislation on land reform. We met three or four times and we had some papers prepared by the Ministry of Planning, examining the implications of alternative land ceiling limits. I discussed this subject of land ceilings with the Prime Minister and my impression was that while she might have favoured a higher limit, she had no clear directions to offer me. The two main alternatives being discussed at the time was 25 acres and 50 acres for a family. There were two or three on the committee who wanted the lower limit and I went along with the higher one, as I felt that would be more fair and more feasible to manage as a viable economic unit. The majority of the committee opted for the higher limit of 50 acres, which ultimately became the policy of the government.

(Excerpted from the author’s memoirs)

All News Advertisement

Features

‘There are no private universities in Sri Lanka’ – some considerations for higher education reform

Published

8 hours ago

2026/07/21

Thilina Walpola

Academics involved in education policy like to say that there is no such thing as a private university in Sri Lanka. The only ‘universities’ in the country are state universities; anything else offering degrees is a private higher education institution (HEI). This position is technically accurate. Yet, in the discourse and imagination of the public, private universities are very real – people teach in them, students register in them, families pay fees, and such degree holders enter job markets in Sri Lanka and outside.

For decades, activists concerned for public higher education have ignored or resisted looking at private HEIs, as if such scrutiny would taint them. Others have worked in both types of institutions, carrying practices from each to the other. The apex body governing state universities, the UGC, has, meanwhile, ignored the concept of conflict of interest and appointed individuals in private higher education in committees and leadership positions. It is unsurprising then that some of the ideologies informing private higher education appear in reform agendas in the state sector.

This is a good time then to consider the varying types of private HEIs around us, and to take a look at some of the issues within them in the hope that higher education reform agendas will include private, as well as state higher education.

What is a ‘private university’?

First, some clarifications. In the public imaginary, a ‘private university’ is typically an institution that provides a foreign or local degree for which the student makes a payment. But this broad classification encompasses a host of diverse institutions and types of degrees which I detail below.

The Non-State Higher Education Division (NSHE) of the Ministry of Education has recognised 295 degrees by 32 institutions. Most of these are private companies and include a handful of established, well-known private HEIs that are ‘university like’. The degrees are local degrees conferred by the institutions accredited by the NSHE Division. While private HEIs conferring local degrees must be accredited by the NSHE Division, there appears to be no legal consequence for not doing so. In addition, there are several permutations of the private degree that miss the net of this Division and the Standing Committee on Accreditation and Quality Assurance (SCAQA) that assists this Division.

For one, degrees conferred by foreign universities offered, via these same private HEIs, are not vetted by the NSHE Division. Secondly, there is a growing plethora of private HEIs which have either no physical presence locally or only a dubious presence. The University Grants Commission has notified the public, through their website, that foreign universities listed in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook and the World Higher Education Database are recognised, but refrained from giving any other details – which degrees? Offered by what modes? These details are not known. Some of the foreign universities in the lists may be legitimate entities in their own land but the degrees conferred locally, in their name, may not adhere to curriculum or teaching specifications of the NSHE Division or the UGC.

Another troubling phenomenon is the ‘top up degree’, which appears to work on the same principle as that of a pre-paid mobile connection: if I have a Diploma or an HND of a sort, I am eligible to complete a course of study which provides me with a degree, usually from a foreign university. The idea that someone who does not initially qualify for a degree programme should be able to work their way towards one is a progressive notion. This is the concept that open and distance learning (ODL) was based on initially, but which is now sadly exploited. ODL models are expected to provide opportunity for learning for those who may be excluded from traditional learning institutions. In Sri Lanka, however, we have seen ODL become a marketplace offering easy to obtain, for-fee qualifications by institutions with little commitment to superior teaching and learning.

Finally, a perusal of the many types of private HEIs and their varied degrees bring to mind another question – how should the private degrees, provided by state institutions (that are not educational institutions), be regulated? Who should do so?

All of these create a host of problems for the public – for hopeful students and parents and trusting employers. For the higher education sector, recruitment of academic staff, too, has become difficult due to this plethora of ambiguous higher education qualifications, as I discussed in a previous Kuppi article (‘Recruiting academics to state universities’).

Some issues in private HEIs – a bellwether for change in state universities

In this second part of this article, I will discuss some aspects of work in private HEIs – albeit the more established institutions – given that such issues may appear in reform agendas in future.

Across state universities, all permanent staff of a specific category are paid according to the same criteria. The picture is not so clear when it comes to private HEIs since they are different entities legally, typically companies. Private HEIs have salary scales and financial incentives that are different to each other. The more established private HEIs reportedly have attractive renumeration packages, possibly a reason for academics of state universities migrating eagerly to such institutions during sabbatical years and on retirement. This may not of course be the case with other less established, or improperly registered HEIs of which we know little. Academic staff of these more accepted private HEIs seem to value the high financial remuneration they receive (in comparison to state universities) as something that makes their work rewarding.

Attractive remuneration is important to sustain the good life and is at times seen as the institution’s way of encouraging good work. Yet, this has implications for the future of the institution: to continue to deliver on promised financial packages, institutions must continue to have large profit margins. One strategy has been to enroll multiple cohorts of students per year, even up to three or four intakes per year. This can result in exploitative work conditions, since staff must cater to all these cohorts in that same year. If there is inadequate staff, employees are further burdened. On the other hand, if there is a sudden drop in enrolments (degrees can go out of fashion) unexpected layoffs occur. Similar to other sectors that employ short-term contract staff – including state universities – in private HEIs, too, individual teachers, who are on short term contracts that need regular renewal, can feel pressured to work under difficult or exploitative conditions.

At the same time, even in the more established private HEIs, work norms differ from those of state universities in that they include promotional work that keeps the institution’s name in the eye of the public. The Marketing (or similarly named) unit comes up in conversations as one of the most important departments. It appears to weigh in on decision-making related to the number of staff, the amount of re-sits per exams, and other pedagogically important matters. This is a worrying example of how financial rationales interfere with pedagogically or academically sound processes, resulting in problematic results in the classroom. On the plus side, junior colleagues, who had experience in both state and private HEIs, also felt that they faced less harassment in private HEIs – primarily due to the private HEIs ability to take swift action in reported cases of harassment. This is a real indictment on state institutions and their reluctance to address chronic issues of harassment in our universities.

Yet, while we hear much about problems in state universities, we hardly hear of problems that staff in private HEIs face. One rationale for a lack of public expressions by staff is that expressions of discontent might lead to trouble given the importance of reputation for private HEIs. The worry about reputational damage is a growing concern in state universities, too, as evidenced by social media policies and internal conversations on reputational damage, consequent to negative publicity. Institutional worries of reputational damage are harmful in the long run since these impact not only freedom of expression by student and staff, but also research that is possible in and about the education sector.

Some thoughts at the end…

A close look at the private higher education sector is important given its strong presence in the country. Impending reform needs to regulate this diverse array of higher education offerings in the private sector, as well as the state institutions that offer privately-funded options of higher education (a topic for a separate Kuppi on its own). It is time we carefully considered how to build a whole system of higher education out of this broken mess.

Kaushalya Perera is a senior lecturer at the University of Colombo.

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Ready for solo spotlight

Published

8 hours ago

2026/07/21

Thilina Walpola

Nish Peiris: Excited about future plans

Singer Nish Peiris is set to take the next big step in her music journey.

The talented vocalist, who has been seen and heard in the scene here for a short while, and was also featured with the now-defunct band, Inner Vision, has announced that she will be fully committing to her solo career, after completing her degree this year.

“I’m finishing my degree this year, and after that I’ll be fully committing to my solo music career,” Nish told The Island.

“I’ve already got a few tours lined up for next year, so I’m really excited for what’s ahead.”

Fans, no doubt, will remember Nish for her smooth voice and stage presence, and the good news is that she is now ready to chart her own path and bring new music to audiences at home and abroad.

With tours already planned for 2027, the year 2026 promises to be an exciting year for the young artiste as she steps into the spotlight on her own.

We wish Nish every success in this new chapter!

Features

Exclusive musical evening for Sri Lankans in Toronto

Published

8 hours ago

2026/07/21

Thilina Walpola

Toronto Ceymphony Live Band, with Sri Lankans doing the needful

While Sri Lankan music lovers, in Dubai, are eagerly looking forward to being a part of the action on Saturday, 25th July, with Rajiv Sebastian in the limelight, Sri Lankans, in Toronto, Canada, are equally excited and are anxiously awaiting the arrival of Sri Lanka’s famous singer/entertainer Sohan Weerasinghe.

Having done the needful with The X-Periments, the legendary performer has now embarked on an exciting new chapter – a solo career – and Toronto, Canada, will see him do the needful, on Friday, 31st July, 2026, from 8.00 pm to 12.00 am, at the Angus Glen Golf Club.

Sohan Weerasinghe: In Canada, and ready to do the needful on 31st July

Reports indicate that it’s a ‘sold out’ event – naturally with Sohan in the spotlight.

Gamini Hemalal: Creating all the excitement for Sri Lankans in Toronto

Having built his reputation through years of unforgettable performances, and hits that became part of our musical fabric, Sohan is ready to bring his own vision, sound, and stories directly to the audience, in Toronto, Canada, backed by the phenomenal Toronto Ceymphony Live Band.

Says Gamini Hemalal, who has been instrumental in reviving the Sri Lankan entertainment scene, in that part of the world:

“The countdown begins for the most exclusive musical event of the summer! Join us for a premium night of incredible music, elite hospitality, and a lavish buffet as the legendary Sohan Weerasinghe takes the stage live in Toronto!

“This is a high-end event, designed for those who appreciate exceptional entertainment and great food.”

Gamini, who is also a member of the Toronto Ceymphony Live Band, mentioned that it’s going to be an intimate musical evening with the celebrated Sohan Weerasinghe.

From packed auditoriums to intimate shows, Sohan continues to prove why he remains one of Sri Lanka’s most beloved entertainers.

For decades, Sohan Weerasinghe has been a household name in Sri Lankan entertainment.

Known for his captivating smooth voice and charismatic stage presence, Canada will experience it all on Friday, 31st July.

Next on the list of events, Gamini Hemal is working on, is Halloween night and he says “what we plan to do will be very interesting and unique … with a surprise guest star, as well!”