Features

ARAGALAYA FAILED? LURKING? LIKELY TO COME BACK? MORE VIOLENTLY?

Published

4 years ago

2022/10/16

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

The Aragalaya on Galle Face drew incredible support largely because of its peacefulness and cosmopolitan support. Perhaps it was the largest public rally since Independence, Many professional commentators expressed the view that since it lacked “political” leadership, it was doomed to fail. But was it not the very message that the placards and slogans proclaimed? They demanded “System Change” – well beyond cosmetics and shuffling of the same old discredited pack. The “Gota go home” “Naaki Mynah” and “Kaputu Kaak, Kaak” was merely the expression of acute disgust and frustration with the Rajapaksa family, which in their opinion, symbolized the evil and venality of the entire cabal of the politically corrupt.

The destruction of their parental monument was symbolic. The Sri Lankan Nation is not a bunch of vandals, they are not easily provoked to desecrate parental monuments. It is a measure of the uncontrollable fury and frustration at the abusive parasitism of an insensitive bunch of nepotistic degenerates. The spontaneous bursting of a blister of revolt against a bunch whose unprincipled exploitation of a hapless people. The corruption by the Rajapaksas and their arrogance was astonishing.

The extent and popularity of the venting of this reality was stunning. Especially in a country where politics is so deeply- rooted, extensive and corrupt. The image of maturity and “political maturity” is a clever myth. On balance, a fair opinion is that we are not discerning enough to see fraud and manipulation. The deliberate cunning which has led to family dynasties dominating governance – of which the Rajapaksa group has been the most nasty, corrupt and oppressive.In no truly democratic country, can we see such a venomous, exploitative, and enormously mediocre family, reach such pinnacles of “Prosperity and Splendor”.

The demand is for radical surgery, not sticking plaster patchwork. The current trend seems to want to revert to the universally maligned and draconian provisions of the immensely maligned PTA. This is bad at any time, and particularly so at a time when we are being drawn over the coals at the UNHRC in Geneva. In the way the issue, has been handled by us suggests a kind of “Death Wish”. One of the most startling examples of supreme stupidity and inaction relates to how the government handled the revelations of Lord Naseby. One joker was supposed to have stated that the government awaited the “Right Time” to expose it. Gnanakka again?

The placards which “Kick out All 225” gave a clear message. To pretend that it was only a call to reject the obnoxious Rajapaksa brood, is a fallacy. The residue may soon learn otherwise.Mahatma Gandhi, the symbol of the success of the Satyagraha campaign of peaceful resistance was effective in dislodging the most formidable power of the British Raj. He was assassinated in 1948, barely one year after India gained Independence.

His conviction was that mass movements could displace immensely powerful occupier regimes. It was so. This was widely regarded as having much to do with making the British to free India from a period of long bondage. The British made a cardinal error of resorting to suppress the peaceful obstinacy by unleashing unspeakable atrocities in attempts to suppress an essentially peaceful and popular protest. See any similarity?

The fact is that the effective campaign of the Mahatma began with the “Salt March.” This was simply to lead all Indians to evaporate in sunlight a few buckets of seawater to supply their domestic need. The stranglehold disappeared. The British colonialists maintained a “monopoly” or control over this universal ingredient in food (as they did in Ceylon as well). If it chose to throttle and dissent by the ruled, they simply cut of the supply of this commodity.

For a comprehensive account of the evidence of how the occupier British unleashed extreme brutality and robbed India of its resources, one cannot do better than to search the Web, for speeches of Shashi Tharoor on the plunder of India’s wealth, We were a great beneficiary of Indian Independence which was secured after a long drawn struggle. This was a great boost for our own Independence, and this should be gratefully borne in mind.

(Even greater, the gift of the teaching – The Dhamma expounded by Siddartha Gautama, The Buddha, which rose to its zenith during the reign of Emperor Asoka the Great.)

The “Aragalaya” was notable on several grounds.

(i) Tenacity.

The protest went on for over 100 days. Despite rain, heat of noon, absence from work, domestic pressure, risk of catching Covid 19, lack of basic necessities etc. The part played by individual and corporate donors was exemplary,

(ii) Apolitical.

There were many who expressed doubts that the movement, with no (political) leadership, is doomed to fail. Events proved otherwise. But to most, this exclusion of entry or dominance by parties, was a virtue. It was the very point that all political groupings were culpable, but to varying degrees.

Some laxity was shown, after political thugs, let loose by “Temple Trees,” were shamelessly ignored by the police as they set about demolishing the shelters and structures built by the demonstrators. Even those who decry vandalism and violence of any kind, could not help but be amused by the sight of the marauders who were shown clutching their sarongs, in the drunken hope that they will not “outrage the modesty” of the jubilant crowd.

This State vandals of the Galle Face shelters and services of the Aragalaya would never have expected the retaliation, firstly, by dumping their transport buses into the Beira Lake. Even those who resolutely oppose violence, could not help being tickled by the way drunken thugs, who had been tossed along with their buses into the Beira, clutching their sarongs in order not to outage the modesty” of an amused public ranged on the banks of the lake.

(iii) Cosmopolitanism.

The range of the persons participating in this protest was amazing. The most moving were the foreigners who joined in with enthusiasm. In a clearly clumsy and irrational move, an attempt was made to “deport” one active person. This, understandably, is being judicially challenged. Some of our citizens abroad, have rallied to join the Aragalaya. Among many, was this lady who had been away from home long enough for her parents and others to look forward to spending as much time as possible together. For this lady to forgo that pleasure in the token even symbolic interest, in support, carries with it a powerful message of youthful commitment to a worthy cause.

(iv) A genuinely youth movement.

Not even the most bigoted or prejudiced observer, could deny the important fact that it is a truly youth movement owned and led by the youth. This is the first such movement that has passionately attracted and been owned by the youth.

In order to judge the success or failure of the aragalaya, one has to first recognize what it wished to achieve. First, to get rid of the Cabinet, to banish the PM. This they did. The next was to dislodge the Executive President. This they did, actually leading to the invincible Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country in ignominy. As expected, much is being made of the invasion of the Presidential abode, as an act of vandalism. While the alleged triumphalism was highlighted, not a word has been uttered about the millions in currency notes that the “invaders” found and carefully handed over to the Police. What about the collection of top-end cars found in the garages, by a man who never had to use them, because of a massive contingent of “official vehicles” that were his to marshall. (By the way, what about the suitcase full of some 50,000,000/= that changed hands in a Hotel Car Park?).

Clearly Gotabaya, is not the only rogue ln the galaxy of Presidents who have debased the honour of that position.

So, the “Aragalaya” gets top marks. They have however to realize that the worms may start leaving the woodwork and this has to be prevented. The disgraced Rajapaksa brigade may assemble, to creep into positions offering access to pilferable funds. Ranil Rajapaksa may need to step cautiously. If the ugly allegations of his collusion, with a family greatly contributing to our present state of Bankruptcy, can be assured of an even more severe expression of public disapproval. His long political career is not without blemish. There is no doubt that he will be closely watched. Some of his early decisions are not hopeful.

Cabinet – size and composition.

One of the hopes of the Aragalaya was “system change”. With every passing day, the new dispensation seems to be wayward and betraying what was the popular demand. The Cabinet was bloated beyond reason. Several of the discredited and despised politicians are “back in business”. So-called State and Subject Ministers only serve to drain an already desperate budget. There is little evidence of serious thought being given to what the Sirisena era proclaimed as a “Scientific Cabinet.” If this is so, one can only marvel at the success of the disguise.

It has to be remembered that the voting public have been misled before – most recently by their choice of the last President. The dominant consideration was that electing a non-political person to the top post would usher in a non-corrupt, efficient, fair and decent administration. How wrong could they have been. Thievery, profligacy and corruption thrived. Nepotism reined everywhere. The attempts at creating a “family dynasty” continued arrogantly.

Public disgust was resolutely expressed by the “Aragalaya,”and the banishment of an all-powerful President into a world of total rejection. He had barely survived the mid-point of his first term.What have we got now? The first few weeks have thrown up some frightening prospects of a tyranny. Every action smells of a disaster in the making, Clearly, Mr. Wickremesinghe is a puppet tenant until (it is feared), the hated Rajapaksa dynasty thinks it is opportune to creep into power – complete in thievery, crime and nepotism.

One of the first acts of RR (re-christened Ranil Rajapaksa) was to meet up with the Army top brass. A few hours later was the brutal and unnecessary attack on the Aragalites who had already promised to leave in the morning. This was perhaps one of the ways that RR believed he could display his overweaning authority and power of the Presidency.In this, he was possibly dead wrong. Overkill by those in authority, carries no guarantee of peace or enduring stability. Mr Wickremesinghe takes pride in his nearly half a century in Parliament and no less than five times as prime minister. The downside of this is, that he cannot convincingly claim ignorance of all the unsavoury decisions that previous governments have taken.

In less than one month of his ascendancy, he has taken many actions that are indicative of a man hell bent on revenge and subordination. We may have a little time to see whether it is true or not. The conscience of a people cannot be erased by brutal control. This has been borne out by the way that curfews and road barriers have been ignored. The authorities need to be reminded that excessive use of tear gas may have long- term health hazards. It is likely that the cheapest may also be the most hazardous. One is led to believe that reckless use may be to dispose of outdated stocks, or to encourage the import of more cylinders, with the opportunity for bribes and commissions.

The effectiveness of policing is grounded on respect for the uniform. Thus, even a single uniformed officer could quell a restive crowd of a hundred. If this respect is lost, open physical violence will manifest. Then even a dozen demonstrators can overawe an officer. There is troubling evidence that militant members have resorted to confronting police with violence. Result – open brawls.It must be remembered that physical authority must be dictated by care and considerations of necessity. It should never be recklessly resorted to in panic or haste.

The effectiveness of control is governed by the mind-set pf both sides. The authorities must remember that an army, used as protection of persons or Institutions, must be just, fair and necessary. At the present juncture, when the parents or wives are suffering in long lines to buy a morsel to quench the hunger of their children, soldiers must be under severe strain. Particularly, as they are they being compelled to attack their own people, but are paying with their lives and loyalty for misdeeds in which they are not even remotely responsible. If the forces feel over-taxed, the possibility of resentment leading to disaster, must always be kept in focus. Else, Mutiny is its name. Unless this fragility is heeded and addressed, disaster may not be far away. In this too, the RR dispensation may not be too far away. Apparently, the RR belief is that a show of resolute thuggery is what is needed. They may be painfully wrong.

This answers my second question, whether resistance is lurking and poised for the kill. Thus my reading is that such fear is real. The major demand of the Aragalaya is that we need a system change. In my view, this is a pressing necessity, constantly ignored by a corrupt system whose main (or only) desire is for the corruptible system to prevail. If only RR’s guile can be combined with ability and wisdom, there may be hope. The prognosis is bad.

Considering the stubborn resistance and unwillingness to listen and heed the voice of the people, the future is bleak. If RR and his lapdogs realize that violence begets violence, and continues in the present way, incarcerating dissenters, with scant respect for the Law and even more so, the tenets of common decency, the future is gloomy. What is “lurking” may be larger numbers in readiness and more incensed than before, by the inaction, or lack of sensitivity to the travails of the people. Instead it is a case of new Constitutions, perks and privileges (obscene) while the people suffer. The manipulation for ministerial posts, party positions, crossovers, coalitions and break-ups are a diet that does not calm a desperate citizenry. The blame too should be shared by the media. Just a glance at the newspaper headlines shows an obsession whether somebody had or did not have lunch with a disgraced fugitive from justice. The only reaction of many, is “So What?”

President RR comes in with a heavy load of baggage. Among the unsavoury and in some cases, inexcusable departures from propriety. Batalanda, Bond Scam, One sided Ceasefire agreements with the LTTE, the betrayal of the army’s Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (leading to the murder of some thirty of their members) are only a sample. Can a person win the confidence of locals – leaving aside the international after such an inept record? How can one forget that “Kawda Hora, Kawda Hora, Kawda Hora” episode in Parliament! He seems quite comfortable now in the arms of this one time hora. Thus another uprising is beyond a mere possibility. What form a resurgence it would take is anybody’s guess. But the signs are distinctly unfavourable.

If the brutal manner in which the Aragalaya was dismantled is a foretaste of what is yet to come, it will be deadly. This is not the time for the Government to tinker around. When the cry was for systemic change, mere cosmetics would not be it. Some basic assumptions will need critical reexamination of all the trappings of good governance. This is to question the validity, necessity, and relevance of the current system. This would involve

· Universal franchise. Are we mature enough to be able to make mature choices?

· The Party system. What purpose does it serve?

· Electoral Units (Constituencies).

· Proportional representation or first past the post.

· Parliament reforms (rationalization of salaries, perks and various allowances).

· Improving standards and services to justify its existence.

· Size of Cabinet. Downsizing with respect to true requirements and not political expediency.

· Powers of recall.

· Crossovers.

· The Party Whip and confidentiality of voting.

· Abuse of the National List.

This is by no means a completelist and leaves much room for expansion and refinement. As a passing thought, particularly for the demonstrating youth, let me say maybe an unkempt appearance, long hair, undisciplined beard, shabby clothes, body piercings, tattoos and bulky chains and bracelets may be in fashion; but they would be “off-putting” as it is for the writer. A well-groomed youngster, would command much support for the cause.

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

16 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

16 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

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

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

16 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.