Features

Biological control of dengue epidemic in Sri Lanka

Published

2 months ago

2026/08/24

By Professor M. W. Amarasiri de silva

The dengue hotspot pattern observed in Sri Lanka in 2025 reflects several interconnected realities shaped by urbanisation, climate, and human mobility. Colombo continues to stand out as the country’s strongest hotspot. Its dense housing clusters, construction activity, and high daily movement of people create ideal conditions for Aedes aegypti to thrive. The combination of crowded neighbourhoods and rapid urban development ensures that even small pockets of stagnant water become breeding sites, allowing the mosquito population to regenerate quickly, despite control efforts.

Gampaha and Kalutara together formed a continuous coastalurban dengue belt. These districts share similar environmental and demographic characteristics—large suburban populations, expanding commercial zones, and frequent waterlogging during monsoons. Their proximity to Colombo also contributes to the spread of dengue, as human movement between districts facilitates the circulation of the virus. This coastal belt has become one of the most persistent dengue-affected regions in the country.

Kandy has shown elevated transmission, driven by hillside urbanisation and household waterstorage practices. As the city expands into hilly terrain, construction sites, terraced housing, and irregular drainage systems create numerous microhabitats for mosquito breeding. In many areas, residents rely on stored water due to intermittent supply, and these containers often become breeding grounds, if not properly covered. The combination of climate, geography, and human behaviour makes Kandy a recurring hotspot.

Kurunegala has emerged as a major inland hotspot with repeated outbreaks. Its role as a transportation hub, coupled with rapid suburban growth, has led to increased mosquito density. The district’s mix of urban and semiurban environments provides abundant breeding sites, and seasonal rainfall patterns further amplify transmission cycles. Kurunegala’s dengue burden has remained consistently high over the past decade.

Batticaloa and Trincomalee experienced rising case numbers, linked to rapid development and monsoon-driven breeding cycles. Both districts have seen significant expansion in housing, tourism, and infrastructure. Heavy monsoon rains frequently create standing water in lowlying coastal areas, while new construction sites add additional breeding opportunities. These conditions have contributed to a noticeable increase in dengue transmission in the eastern region.

Jaffna, meanwhile, faces periodic spikes, influenced by climate variability and urban expansion. The district’s unique climatic conditions, particularly rising temperatures and irregular rainfall, have made mosquito breeding more favourable in recent years. Urban growth, combined with waterstorage practices common in the peninsula, has created environments where dengue outbreaks can flare unexpectedly. These periodic spikes highlight how climate change and development patterns are reshaping dengue risk in northern Sri Lanka.

One Sri Lanka’s most persistent public health emergencies

Dengue fever has entrenched itself as one of Sri Lanka’s most persistent public-health emergencies, with the country recording more than 80,000 cases in 2023 and surpassing 60,000 cases by mid-2024, according to national surveillance data. In some years, the toll has climbed even higher, with 2017 marking a historic peak of over 186,000 cases, overwhelming hospitals and prompting emergency responses across multiple districts. Colombo, Gampaha, Kandy, Kurunegala, and Batticaloa have repeatedly emerged as hotspots, reflecting a pattern in which densely populated urban and semi-urban regions bear the brunt of transmission. The economic cost is equally staggering: dengue-related healthcare expenditure, lost productivity, and household financial strain collectively amount to billions of rupees annually. These figures underscore a reality that Sri Lanka has lived with for decades; dengue is not merely a seasonal illness, but a structural challenge woven into the country’s environment, infrastructure, and public-health landscape.

Resilience of Aedes aegypti mosquito

Despite extensive public-health campaigns, fogging operations, school-based awareness programmes, and community clean-up drives, dengue continues to return with alarming regularity. The Aedes aegypti mosquito, the primary vector of dengue, has adapted with remarkable efficiency to Sri Lanka’s climate and human behaviour. It thrives in warm, humid conditions, breeds in even the smallest containers of stagnant water, and has evolved to exploit the very environments humans create, construction sites, household water storage, discarded plastic, and clogged drains. Its eggs can survive for months in dry conditions, waiting for the slightest moisture to hatch. This biological resilience has made dengue control a formidable challenge, one that traditional methods alone have struggled to overcome.

Fogging, a widely used method in Sri Lanka, targets adult mosquitoes but has limited reach. It cannot penetrate every corner of a neighbourhood, nor can it eliminate eggs or larvae hidden in sheltered containers. Larviciding is more targeted but requires consistent application and community cooperation, both of which are difficult to sustain over long periods. Public-awareness campaigns, though essential, often face behavioural fatigue. People may clean their surroundings diligently for a few weeks, only for old habits to return once the immediate threat seems to have passed. The mosquito’s ability to exploit even small lapses in environmental cleanliness allows it to rebound quickly. As a result, Sri Lanka finds itself trapped in a cycle of control, decline, and resurgence that has persisted for years.

New possibilities

In recent years, however, scientific developments emerging internationally have introduced new possibilities for dengue control, particularly biological methods that intervene directly in the mosquito’s reproductive process. One such approach involves releasing specially bred male mosquitoes that carry a biological trait preventing their offspring from surviving. These males, which do not bite and, therefore, pose no risk to humans, are released into areas with high mosquito density. They mate with wild females, and the resulting larvae inherit the trait that causes them to die before reaching adulthood. Over time, this leads to a significant reduction in the mosquito population. Field trials in several countries have shown reductions of more than 80 percent in targeted areas, a level of suppression far greater than what traditional methods typically achieve.

Precision is the key

What makes this approach particularly compelling is its precision. It targets only the dengue-carrying mosquito species without affecting other insects or the broader ecosystem. Unlike chemical insecticides, which can harm beneficial species and contribute to environmental contamination, this biological method is species-specific and environmentally safe. It also leverages the mosquito’s own behaviour specifically, the male’s strong ability to locate females, to deliver the intervention effectively. The method does not rely on perfect community compliance or constant human vigilance. Even if some breeding sites remain, the released males continue to seek out females and disrupt the reproductive cycle. This makes the approach resilient in real-world conditions where complete environmental cleanliness is difficult to achieve.

Sri Lanka’s dengue situation aligns closely with the conditions under which this biological method has proven effective elsewhere. The country’s warm climate, high humidity, and dense urbanisation create ideal breeding conditions for Aedes aegypti. Urban areas, such as Colombo, Gampaha, and Kandy, experience repeated outbreaks, often linked to rapid development, inadequate waste management, and the proliferation of small water-holding containers. Semi-urban and rural areas are not spared either, especially where household water storage practices create opportunities for mosquito breeding. The mosquito’s adaptability means that even well-intentioned community efforts can fall short. A single forgotten bucket, a clogged drain, or a neglected construction site can become a breeding hotspot capable of sustaining transmission.

Strong foundation for biological methods

Sri Lanka’s public-health infrastructure, however, offers a strong foundation for integrating new biological methods into existing dengue-control strategies. The Epidemiology Unit, local Medical Officer of Health (MOH) offices, and Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) maintain detailed surveillance systems that track dengue cases and mosquito density. These systems allow authorities to identify high-risk zones and respond quickly during outbreaks.

The country has experience with biological control in agriculture and environmental management, meaning the concept of using biological methods to suppress pests is not unfamiliar. Sri Lankan scientists and institutions, including the Medical Research Institute and several universities, have the capacity to collaborate with international partners to evaluate and implement such approaches.

If Sri Lanka were to explore the biological suppression method, pilot projects could be conducted in selected high-density urban areas. These projects would involve releasing specially bred male mosquitoes over several months and monitoring changes in mosquito population density and dengue case numbers. The results would provide valuable data on the method’s effectiveness under Sri Lankan conditions. If successful, the approach could be expanded gradually to other districts. Importantly, this method would not replace traditional control measures but rather complement them. Community clean-up efforts, larviciding, and personal protection would remain essential components of dengue control. The biological method would strengthen the overall strategy by attacking the mosquito population at its root, reducing the number of mosquitoes capable of transmitting the virus.

The potential benefits for Sri Lanka are significant. A sustained reduction in mosquito populations would lead to fewer dengue cases, less pressure on hospitals, and reduced economic burden on families and the healthcare system.

Schools would face fewer disruptions, and communities would experience greater peace of mind during monsoon seasons. The environmental advantages are also noteworthy. Reducing reliance on chemical insecticides would help protect beneficial insects and reduce chemical exposure for humans. The biological method’s species-specific nature ensures that it does not interfere with ecological balance.

Sri Lanka’s dengue challenge is not merely a medical issue but a social and economic one. Families often face financial strain when a member falls ill, especially if hospitalisation is required. Parents worry about children during school outbreaks, and workplaces experience reduced productivity when employees are affected. The psychological burden is also considerable. Dengue outbreaks create anxiety, particularly when severe cases or fatalities occur in the community. A more effective and sustainable control method would alleviate these burdens and contribute to national well-being.

The country’s experience with COVID-19 demonstrated the importance of scientific innovation, public-health preparedness, and community cooperation. Sri Lanka mobilised resources, strengthened surveillance, and adopted new technologies to manage the pandemic. The same spirit of innovation and collaboration can be applied to dengue control. Biological suppression methods represent a new frontier in public health, offering tools that are more precise, sustainable, and effective than traditional approaches. By exploring these methods, Sri Lanka can position itself at the forefront of dengue-control innovation in South Asia.

Of course, any new method must be evaluated carefully. Public acceptance is crucial, and communities must be informed about the safety and purpose of releasing male mosquitoes. Transparent communication, community engagement, and scientific oversight would be essential components of any pilot project. Sri Lanka has a strong tradition of public-health education, and this can be leveraged to ensure that communities understand and support new approaches. The involvement of local scientists and institutions would also help build trust and ensure that the method is adapted appropriately to Sri Lankan conditions.

The fight against dengue requires both persistence and innovation. Traditional methods have served the country well but have not been able to eliminate the threat. The mosquito has proven too adaptable, too resilient, and too deeply embedded in the environment. To break the cycle of recurring outbreaks, Sri Lanka must consider new tools that go beyond conventional approaches. Biological suppression methods offer a promising path forward, one that aligns with scientific advances, environmental sustainability, and the practical realities of mosquito behaviour.

Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads in its dengue-control journey. The country can continue relying solely on traditional methods, accepting the recurring burden of outbreaks, or it can embrace new scientific approaches that offer the possibility of long-term suppression. The choice is not between old and new but between a limited toolkit and a more comprehensive strategy. By integrating biological methods into its dengue-control efforts, Sri Lanka can strengthen its ability to protect communities, reduce disease burden, and build a healthier future.

The challenge is significant, but so is the opportunity. Dengue has shaped Sri Lanka’s public-health landscape for decades, but it does not have to define the country’s future. With scientific innovation, community cooperation, and strategic planning, Sri Lanka can move toward a future where dengue is no longer a seasonal crisis but a manageable threat. The biological suppression method represents one of the most promising tools available today, and its relevance to Sri Lanka is clear. The time has come to explore it seriously, evaluate it rigorously, and consider how it can be integrated into the nation’s ongoing fight against dengue.

In moving toward this future, Sri Lanka would benefit from adopting a clear policy direction that recognises dengue as a long-term structural challenge requiring modern solutions. A national policy framework could begin with pilot deployments of biological suppression methods in selected high-risk districts, supported by rigorous scientific monitoring and community engagement. It could establish partnerships between local research institutions and international experts to ensure that the technology is adapted safely and effectively to Sri Lankan conditions. The policy could also strengthen environmental management systems, ensuring that waste disposal, urban planning, and water-storage practices reduce opportunities for mosquito breeding. Public-health education could be expanded to emphasise both traditional preventive measures and the role of new biological tools. Over time, the policy could evolve into a nationwide programme that integrates biological suppression with surveillance, environmental management, and community participation, creating a comprehensive and sustainable dengue-control strategy.

Such a policy would not only reduce dengue transmission but also demonstrate Sri Lanka’s commitment to scientific innovation and public-health leadership. It would signal a shift from reactive crisis management to proactive disease suppression, offering hope to communities that have endured the burden of dengue for far too long. The path forward requires courage, collaboration, and a willingness to embrace new ideas. But the reward, a healthier, safer, and more resilient Sri Lanka, is well worth the effort.

Integrating new developments into dengue control strategies offers a promising opportunity for Sri Lanka to enhance public health and protect communities across the island. By adopting innovative solutions, improving mosquito management, and building stronger public awareness, the country can significantly reduce infection rates and relieve pressure on healthcare facilities. I hope the government will pay attention to this new development in dengue control and take positive measures to address the issue, ensuring a safer and healthier future for everyone.

The following are some scientific papers explaining the new method for Sri Lankan scientists to follow. Research on Wolbachia-mediated biological control demonstrates that introgressing Wolbachia bacteria into Aedes aegypti populations significantly limits virus transmission and alters reproductive mechanisms (Al Noman et al., 2023).

Systematic reviews evaluating mathematical models of vector control highlight that biological methods, including the release of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes, copepods, and larvivorous fish, offer self-sustaining mechanisms for reducing dengue transmission compared to traditional chemical alternatives (Ogunlade et al., 2023).

Broader vector-control frameworks integrate biological control alongside disease surveillance and biotechnological innovations as essential components of a multi-pronged approach to dengue mitigation (Procopio et al., 2024).

Also, there are number of TED talks on the subject such as TED talk on biological control of dengue fever. You may google and find these valuable discussions which explains the method

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

13 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

13 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

13 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.