Features
Crossovers from the SLFP to the UNP during the lead-up to 2021 elections
I too was at the President’s House when a small group of Cabinet Ministers were invited for dinner by CBK to discuss the changing political scenario in the light of Minister Hakeem’s increasingly erratic behaviour. Among those present were Kadirgamar, Mangala, Maithripala Sirisena and me. We first discussed Hakeem’s possible options. It was clear that he had struck a bargain with his Royal College friend Ranil.
Hakeem had got a scare at the last election [2000] when he nearly lost his seat in the Kandy district. It was no secret that Dr. Mahroof, the SLFP leader of Kandy Muslims, – had worked against him. In fact it was rumoured that Hakeem had lost in the first count and that a last minute appeal to Balapatabendi -CBK’s secretary-had helped him to clear the hurdle by a narrow margin. On the other hand if he was a candidate with the elephant symbol he had a better chance of being returned. [Subsequent results have confirmed this thesis].
Also he was wooed by Milinda Moragoda who had a reputation as a successful interlocutor. Rauf was proud of his Royal College education as a scholarship holder from Galagedera. He shared that pride with Ranil who too had a soft spot for Royalists. There may have been many other perks which were discussed. But we did not know his actual game plan. Should he be sacked from the Cabinet before he makes a grandiose exit or should we play for time in view of our narrow majority in Parliament, was the question.
Ideas were being tossed to and fro when Kadirgamar suddenly got up and went to the phone to address his high level contact who was the editor of a Sunday newspaper. He was told that Hakeem was about to resign with a publicity splash to embarrass the government. That helped to clear our collective mind and CBK decided to dismiss him forthwith. Her Secretary was asked to draft the necessary papers.
Then we explored the possibility of detaching Ferial Ashraff and a few of her minions from the Muslim Congress group. A problem arose because Ferial was in “purdah” or isolation because of her husband’s death. No male could meet with her. However there was a glimmer of hope as CBK could meet her, woman to woman. I do not know whether CBK did meet her or not but such a meeting became redundant because on the following day the full complement of MC members, including Ferial, visited Ashraff ‘s grave to honour their late leader and presumably get his good wishes from on high for an alliance with the UNP which he had resolutely opposed when he was in the land of the living. [Later Ferial left Hakeem and contested under the SLFP].
Probably according to a preordained plan Ranil then called for a vote of confidence secure in the knowledge that we could not muster a majority. As an alternative it was suggested that we could go for a referendum on the proposed new constitution which had been approved by Ranil. But this was abandoned because we were not sure whether the UNP would honour its agreement to back it.
Since we were now a minority in the House it became imperative that we get the support of the JVP if we were to continue in power. Mangala and Anura who were asked to negotiate did not have a difficult brief After their anti-UNP tirades it was scarcely possible for the JVP to look on while the UNP formed a government. Further they were not ready for another election so soon after 2000 when they had won 16 seats. Their solution was to extend their support to us for one year subject to some conditions, especially that the Cabinet should be restricted to 20 members.
This was agreed to and a new Cabinet was sworn in. Among the 20 members so selected I was assigned the portfolio of Education and Higher Education. I was to take over from Susil Premajayantha who was relegated to Deputy Minister status overnight. Anyway a change was on the cards in the Education Ministry since Susil and the Secretary Tara de Mel, who had CBK’s ear, did not get on. While appointing me to this prestigious post CBK told me that this was the Ministry she would have chosen for herself had she not been the President.
I knew it was a subject close to her heart and felt honoured to be selected when many of the former Ministers were being reduced to Deputy Minister status. But there was not much I could achieve since my tenure as Education Minister lasted only four months [August 2001 to December 2001]. Since Tara de Mel made a distinctive contribution in this field I wrote a very favourable review of her book on education. It contains much that we would have achieved had I remained in that Ministry for a longer time.
A signature initiative of the CBK administration from 1994 to 2005 was the attempt to reform the education system of the country. The free education system was in crisis largely because the demographics of population growth had put a strain on the resources which could be made available to this sector. However because it was a “sacred cow” in our political animal farm, politicians were loath to make the necessary changes demanded by our growing economy and the transformation of concepts of education which were the hallmarks of a modern society and culture.
From the start the President took the bold step of paying special attention to the subject of education. What were the areas that were identified for special attention? They were “education quality improvement, teaching of English, forms of assessment, compulsory education, primary education, reorganization of school management, counseling and career guidance, media and education technology university admissions and education legislation”
It was estimated that during the 1996-1997 period 14 percent of the children in the age five to 14 category did not attend school. The reasons identified were poverty, the need to help their parents, caring for siblings, household work and lack of documentation like birth certificates which were needed for school admission. As a result of Ministry intervention the introduction of the free midday meal and the provision of stationary helped in increasing enrollment. Regarding primary education “It was to be child centered and not teacher centered. Emphasis will be on developing the child’s mind, skills, attitudes and abilities through an activities based programme”.
Another focus of interest was the grade five scholarship examination. Says Tara, “Preparation for sitting the two papers in the exam began as early as when the child was in Grade three since parents were keen to enter good schools in urban settings. Although the competition was not as severe as now and although the tuition industry and tuition lobby was not as strong as today, yet tuition teachers held sway in the run up to the exam”. The apotheosis of ‘tuitiondom’ came when Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed a tuition master as the Minister of Education.
Free education has become a joke today because even the poorest parent has to beg, borrow or steal to pay for tuition. A crucial change was recommended by the education authorities. They recommended that teaching of English from grade three and making English a core subject for GCE “O” level. But this suggestion was shot down by the Cabinet. Says Tara, “After lengthy discussion only a few Cabinet Minister endorsed the proposal. They included ministers Lakshman Kadirgamar, Mangala Samaraweera and Sarath Amunugama.”
What I do remember is that it was a difficult time when we could not even attend a school prize giving without a scare of a terrorist attack. When her old school St Bridget’s invited CBK to be the chief guest at their prize giving Anura and I had to hang around in the hall with the guests for three hours till CBK was given security clearance to attend.
Crossovers
The political atmosphere after the 2000 reshuffle was one of despondency. Many seniors who held cabinet rank had to be satisfied with posts of deputy minister owing to the insistence of the JVP. SB Dissanayake who was a livewire and CBK’s early supporter, fell out with her and was busy canvassing PA members for a crossover to the UNP. As I was informed much later many of the mudalalis who were offended by CBK’s refusal to pander to their requests spent freely to subvert her regime. One such
businessman later told me that to ensure secrecy he bought tickets for representatives of the rebels and the UNP leaders to travel to Singapore for their discussions. [This became a habit among parliamentary conspirators later on.]
On hearing of these conspiracies CBK removed SB from the post of Secretary of the SLFP – a post she had canvassed for him earlier, breaking all rules – and appointed Maithripala Sirisena instead. She publicly apologised to Maitri for opposing him earlier. It was a motley crew that left the Government which included SB, GL Peiris, Bandula Gunawardena, Mahinda Wijesekera, Ediriweera Premaratne, Wijekoon, Ananda Munasinghe and surprisingly Wijepala Mendis who was angry that he was not given a portfolio. However with this move the government again lost its majority and CBK dissolved Parliament and called for elections to be held on December 5, 2001.
2001 Elections
With the crossover of 13 members of the SLFP, including several Ministers, the CBK administration lost its majority in Parliament. Several solutions were considered including the luring of members of the Opposition by engineering a countervailing crossover to the government ranks by offering them “plums” of office. This was rejected by CBK. Another option was to call on Ranil to take over as PM. This was considered seriously by CBK but finally she decided to dissolve Parliament and go for another election because she was persuaded by party bigwigs that we could be returned with a bigger majority.
About this time I met her as Education Minister to discuss our calender of public examinations. Many of them were scheduled to be held in December. CBK listened patiently to my submissions and laughingly replied that examinations will have to be postponed because the general election will be held about that time. That was the first intimation I had that she had made up her mind to go for a fresh election. My view was that Ranil should be asked to form a government because the voting public will punish us for going for another election so soon which will be an admission of our failure to govern.
The constant reversals in the war in the northern theatre, the ailing economy and the undercutting of CBK by her own party leaders were taking their toll. We could not face this election with confidence.
The general election was fixed for December 5, 2001 just 14 months since the previous election. Unlike in the past the momentum was with Ranil and the UNP. I entered the fray again from Kandy district. As Minister of Education I had high visibility and it was not difficult for me to be confident of being returned. A large number of teachers and teachers unions supported me and undertook house to house canvassing on my behalf. But it became apparent that the public service and the police were turning to the UNP thereby joining the gathering storm against us.
In addition to the above mentioned crossovers, several others also chose to contest in 2001 under the UNP banner. Lakshman Kiriella and Sarath Munasinghe who had been considered “true blues” went to the UNP. Thondaman too joined a UNP-led coalition. These shenanigans had their amusing side. Jeyaraj Fernandopulle proclaimed that he too was crossing over. But he discovered that his “bete noir” Wijepala Mendis had also crossed over to the UNP. He created a drama by getting his supporters to climb a roof and “in response to their wishes” came back to the SLFP.
Mahinda Rajapaksa whose sympathies were with the defectors [They all came back when he became leader] declared that he on principle would not leave the SLFP come what may. Anura Bandaranaike, with his early opponents out of the SLFP, decided to come back to the family firm. It was in such a confused state that the public again went to the polls and punished the SLFP for its inability to hold on to its 2000 victory.
The UNP led coalition won the election and Ranil exulted that he had broken the hoodoo of losing elections under his leadership. The national results were as follows;
United National Front
– [45. 6 percent] 96/109 seats. People’s Alliance – [37. 1 percent] 66/77 seats
Ianatha Vimukthi Peramuna
– [9. 1 percent] 13/16 seats Tamil United Front – [3. 8 percent] 14/15 seats. Muslim Congress – [1. 1 percent] 4/5 seats. (The second figure is after adding on National List seats)
It was clear that with the support of the TULF and SLMC the UNP could muster a majority in Parliament. But they did not have a majority of their own which was their Achilles heel.
The results for the PA in Kandy was as follows; Anuruddha Ratwatte – 102,906
Sarath Amunugama
– 78,100
Thilina Tennekone –
51,542
M. Aluthgamage
– 50,618
I had increased my vote substantially [by over 10,000] while all the others had reduced votes when compared to their 2000 performance. This was a reason for some satisfaction as I contemplated a long innings in the Opposition. It did not bother me very much since CBK remained the President and we could rebuild the PA after the people’s verdict. She appointed me a Presidential Advisor on Irrigation and I set about planning to use the President’s discretionary funds for promoting water management. Irrigation Engineers helped me by booking me into their circuit bungalows and the new Minister of Irrigation, Jayawickreme Perera, did not object.
There was a rule that farmers had to pay for their water connections. This was counter productive and I used the President’s Fund to pay for those connections for the poorest farmers. We prioritized Hambantota district and I was able to help Chamal Rajapaksa whose base was among the farmers of the district. Chamal and I are good friends and I urged him to contest the Presidency after Mahinda bowed out. The Rajapaksa family selfishly overlooked his claims and paid the price for it with the Gota debacle.
(Excerpted from Volume 3 of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography) ✍️
Features
Pakistan-Sri Lanka ‘eye diplomacy’
Reminiscences:
I was appointed Managing Director of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Chairman of the Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd (TPTL – Indian Oil Company/ Petroleum Corporation of Sri Lanka joint venture), in February 2023, by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. I served as TPTL Chairman voluntarily. TPTL controls the world-renowned oil tank farm in Trincomalee, abandoned after World War II. Several programmes were launched to repair tanks and buildings there. I enjoyed travelling to Trincomalee, staying at Navy House and monitoring the progress of the projects. Trincomalee is a beautiful place where I spent most of my time during my naval career.
My main task as MD, CPC, was to ensure an uninterrupted supply of petroleum products to the public.
With the great initiative of the then CPC Chairman, young and energetic Uvis Mohammed, and equally capable CPC staff, we were able to do our job diligently, and all problems related to petroleum products were overcome. My team and I were able to ensure that enough stocks were always available for any contingency.
The CPC made huge profits when we imported crude oil and processed it at our only refinery in Sapugaskanda, which could produce more than 50,000 barrels of refined fuel in one stream working day! (One barrel is equal to 210 litres). This huge facility encompassing about 65 acres has more than 1,200 employees and 65 storage tanks.
A huge loss the CPC was incurring due to wrong calculation of “out turn loss” when importing crude oil by ships and pumping it through Single Point Mooring Buoy (SPMB) at sea and transferring it through underwater fuel transfer lines to service tanks was detected and corrected immediately. That helped increase the CPC’s profits.
By August 2023, the CPC made a net profit of 74,000 million rupees (74 billion rupees)! The President was happy, the government was happy, the CPC Management was happy and the hard-working CPC staff were happy. I became a Managing Director of a very happy and successful State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). That was my first experience in working outside military/Foreign service.
I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention Sagala Rathnayake, then Chief of Staff to the President, for recommending me for the post of MD, CPC.
The only grievance they had was that we were not able to pay their 2023 Sinhala/Tamil New Year bonus due to a government circular. After working at CPC for six months and steering it out of trouble, I was ready to move out of CPC.
I was offered a new job as the Sri Lanka High Commissioner to Pakistan. I was delighted and my wife and son were happy. Our association with Pakistan, especially with the Pakistan Military, is very long. My son started schooling in Karachi in 1995, when I was doing the Naval War Course there. My wife Yamuna has many good friends in Pakistan. I am the first Military officer to graduate from the Karachi University in 1996 (BSc Honours in War Studies) and have a long association with the Pakistan Navy and their Special Forces. I was awarded the Nishan-e-Imtiaz (Military) medal—the highest National award by the Pakistan Presidentm in 2019m when I was Chief of Defence Staff. I am the only Sri Lankan to have been awarded this prestigious medal so far. I knew my son and myself would be able to play a quiet game of golf every morning at the picturesque Margalla Golf Club, owned by the Pakistan Navy, at the foot of Margalla hills, at Islamabad. The golf club is just a walking distance from the High Commissioner’s residence.
When I took over as Sri Lanka High Commissioner at Islamabad on 06 December 2023, I realised that a number of former Service Commanders had held that position earlier. The first Ceylonese High Commissioner to Pakistan, with a military background, was the first Army Commander General Anton Muthukumaru. He was concurrently Ambassador to Iran. Then distinguished Service Commanders, like General H W G Wijayakoon, General Gerry Silva, General Srilal Weerasooriya, Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody, served as High Commissioners to Islamabad. I took over from Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama (former Chief of Staff of Navy and Governor Eastern Province).

A photograph of Dr. Silva (second from right) in Brigadier
(Dr) Waquar Muzaffar’s album
One of the first visitors I received was Kawaja Hamza, a prominent Defence Correspondent in Islamabad. His request had nothing to do with Defence matters. He wanted to bring his 84-year-old father to see me; his father had his eyesight restored with corneas donated by a Sri Lankan in 1972! His eyesight is still good, but he did not know the Sri Lankan donor who gave him this most precious gift. He wanted to pay gratitude to the new Sri Lankan High Commissioner and to tell him that as a devoted Muslim, he prayed for the unknown donor every day! That reminded me of what my guru in Foreign Service, the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar told me when I was First Secretary/ Defence Advisor, Sri Lanka High Commission in New Delhi. That is “best diplomacy is people-to-people contacts.” This incident prompted me to research more into “Pakistan-Sri Lanka Eye Diplomacy” and what I learnt was fascinating!
Do you know the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society has donated more than 26,000 corneas to Pakistan, since 1964 to date! That means more than 26,000 Pakistani people see the world with SRI LANKAN EYES! The Sri Lankan Eye Donation Society has provided 100,000 eye corneas to foreign countries FREE! To be exact 101,483 eye corneas during the last 65 years! More than one fourth of these donations was to one single country- Pakistan. Recent donations (in November 2024) were made to the Pakistan Military at Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology (AFIO), Rawalpindi, to restore the sight of Pakistan Army personnel who suffered eye injuries due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) blasts. This donation was done on the 75th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army.
Deshabandu Dr. F. G. Hudson Silva, a distinguished old boy of Nalanda College, Colombo, started collecting eye corneas as a medical student in 1958. His first set of corneas were collected from a deceased person and were stored at his home refrigerator at Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7. With his wife Iranganie De Silva (nee Kularatne), he started the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society in 1961. They persuaded Buddhists to donate their eyes upon death. This drive was hugely successful.
Their son (now in the US) was a contemporary of mine at Royal College. I pledged to donate (of course with my parents’ permission) my eyes upon my death when I was a student at Royal college in 1972 on a Poson Full Moon Poya Day. Thousands have done so.
On Vesak Full Moon Poya Day in 1964, the first eye corneas were carried in a thermos flask filled with Ice, to Singapore, by Dr Hudson Silva and his wife and a successful eye transplant surgery was performed. From that day, our eye corneas were sent to 62 different countries.
Pakistan Lions Clubs, which supported this noble gesture, built a beautiful Eye Hospital for humble people at Gulberg, Lahore, where eye surgeries are performed, and named it Dr Hudson Silva Lions Eye Hospital.
The good work has continued even after the demise of Dr Hudson Silva in 1999.
So many people have donated their eyes upon their death, including President J. R. Jayewardene, whose eye corneas were used to restore the eyesight of one Japanese and one Sri Lankan. Dr Hudson Silva became a great hero in Pakistan and he was treated with dignity and respect whenever he visited Pakistan. My friend, Brigadier (Dr) Waquar Muzaffar, the Commandant of AFIO, was able to dig into his old photographs and send me a precious photo taken in 1980, 46 years ago (when he was a medical student), with Dr Hudson Silva.
We will remember Dr and Mrs Hudson Silva with gratitude.
Bravo Zulu to Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society!
by Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Features
Lasting solutions require consensus
Problems and solutions in plural societies like Sri Lanka’s which have deep rooted ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages require a consciously inclusive approach. A major challenge for any government in Sri Lanka is to correctly identify the problems faced by different groups with strong identities and find solutions to them. The durability of democratic systems in divided societies depends less on electoral victories than on institutionalised inclusion, consultation, and negotiated compromise. When problems are defined only through the lens of a single political formation, even one that enjoys a large electoral mandate, such as obtained by the NPP government, the policy prescriptions derived from that diagnosis will likely overlook the experiences of communities that may remain outside the ruling party. The result could end up being resistance to those policies, uneven implementation and eventual political backlash.
A recent survey done by the National Peace Council (NPC), in Jaffna, in the North, at a focus group discussion for young people on citizen perception in the electoral process, revealed interesting developments. The results of the NPC micro survey support the findings of the national survey by Verite Research that found that government approval rating stood at 65 percent in early February 2026. A majority of the respondents in Jaffna affirm that they feel safer and more fairly treated than in the past. There is a clear improving trend to be seen in some areas, but not in all. This survey of predominantly young and educated respondents shows 78 percent saying livelihood has improved and an equal percentage feeling safe in daily life. 75 percent express satisfaction with the new government and 64 percent believe the state treats their language and culture fairly. These are not insignificant gains in a region that bore the brunt of three decades of war.
Yet the same survey reveals deep reservations that temper this optimism. Only 25 percent are satisfied with the handling of past issues. An equal percentage see no change in land and military related concerns. Most strikingly, almost 90 percent are worried about land being taken without consent for religious purposes. A significant number are uncertain whether the future will be better. These negative sentiments cannot be brushed aside as marginal. They point to unresolved structural questions relating to land rights, demilitarisation, accountability and the locus of political power. If these issues are not addressed sooner rather than later, the current stability may prove fragile. This suggests the need to build consensus with other parties to ensure long-term stability and legitimacy, and the need for partnership to address national issues.
NPP Absence
National or local level problems solving is unlikely to be successful in the longer term if it only proceeds from the thinking of one group of people even if they are the most enlightened. Problem solving requires the engagement of those from different ethno-religious, caste and political backgrounds to get a diversity of ideas and possible solutions. It does not mean getting corrupted or having to give up the good for the worse. It means testing ideas in the public sphere. Legitimacy flows not merely from winning elections but from the quality of public reasoning that precedes decision-making. The experience of successful post-conflict societies shows that long term peace and development are built through dialogue platforms where civil society organisations, political actors, business communities, and local representatives jointly define problems before negotiating policy responses.
As a civil society organisation, the National Peace Council engages in a variety of public activities that focus on awareness and relationship building across communities. Participants in those activities include community leaders, religious clergy, local level government officials and grassroots political party representatives. However, along with other civil society organisations, NPC has been finding it difficult to get the participation of members of the NPP at those events. The excuse given for the absence of ruling party members is that they are too busy as they are involved in a plenitude of activities. The question is whether the ruling party members have too much on their plate or whether it is due to a reluctance to work with others.
The general belief is that those from the ruling party need to get special permission from the party hierarchy for activities organised by groups not under their control. The reluctance of the ruling party to permit its members to join the activities of other organisations may be the concern that they will get ideas that are different from those held by the party leadership. The concern may be that these different ideas will either corrupt the ruling party members or cause dissent within the ranks of the ruling party. But lasting reform in a plural society requires precisely this exposure. If 90 percent of surveyed youth in Jaffna are worried about land issues, then engaging them, rather than shielding party representatives from uncomfortable conversations, is essential for accurate problem identification.
North Star
The Leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Prof Tissa Vitarana, who passed away last week, gave the example for national level problem solving. As a government minister he took on the challenge the protracted ethnic conflict that led to three decades of war. He set his mind on the solution and engaged with all but never veered from his conviction about what the solution would be. This was the North Star to him, said his son to me at his funeral, the direction to which the Compass (Malimawa) pointed at all times. Prof Vitarana held the view that in a diverse and plural society there was a need to devolve power and share power in a structured way between the majority community and minority communities. His example illustrates that engagement does not require ideological capitulation. It requires clarity of purpose combined with openness to dialogue.
The ethnic and religious peace that prevails today owes much to the efforts of people like Prof Vitarana and other like-minded persons and groups which, for many years, engaged as underdogs with those who were more powerful. The commitment to equality of citizenship, non-racism, non-extremism and non-discrimination, upheld by the present government, comes from this foundation. But the NPC survey suggests that symbolic recognition and improved daily safety are not enough. Respondents prioritise personal safety, truth regarding missing persons, return of land, language use and reduction of military involvement. They are also asking for jobs after graduation, local economic opportunity, protection of property rights, and tangible improvements that allow them to remain in Jaffna rather than migrate.
If solutions are to be lasting they cannot be unilaterally imposed by one party on the others. Lasting solutions cannot be unilateral solutions. They must emerge from a shared diagnosis of the country’s deepest problems and from a willingness to address the negative sentiments that persist beneath the surface of cautious optimism. Only then can progress be secured against reversal and anchored in the consent of the wider polity. Engaging with the opposition can help mitigate the hyper-confrontational and divisive political culture of the past. This means that the ruling party needs to consider not only how to protect its existing members by cloistering them from those who think differently but also expand its vision and membership by convincing others to join them in problem solving at multiple levels. This requires engagement and not avoidance or withdrawal.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Unpacking public responses to educational reforms
As the debate on educational reforms rages, I find it useful to pay as much attention to the reactions they have excited as we do to the content of the reforms. Such reactions are a reflection of how education is understood in our society, and this understanding – along with the priorities it gives rise to – must necessarily be taken into account in education policy, including and especially reform. My aim in this piece, however, is to couple this public engagement with critical reflection on the historical-structural realities that structure our possibilities in the global market, and briefly discuss the role of academics in this endeavour.
Two broad reactions
The reactions to the proposed reforms can be broadly categorised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. I will discuss the latter first. Most of the backlash against the reforms seems to be directed at the issue of a gay dating site, accidentally being linked to the Grade 6 English module. While the importance of rigour cannot be overstated in such a process, the sheer volume of the energies concentrated on this is also indicative of how hopelessly homophobic our society is, especially its educators, including those in trade unions. These dispositions are a crucial part of the reason why educational reforms are needed in the first place. If only there was a fraction of the interest in ‘keeping up with the rest of the world’ in terms of IT, skills, and so on, in this area as well!
Then there is the opposition mounted by teachers’ trade unions and others about the process of the reforms not being very democratic, which I (and many others in higher education, as evidenced by a recent statement, available at https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/ ) fully agree with. But I earnestly hope the conversation is not usurped by those wanting to promote heteronormativity, further entrenching bigotry only education itself can save us from. With this important qualification, I, too, believe the government should open up the reform process to the public, rather than just ‘informing’ them of it.
It is unclear both as to why the process had to be behind closed doors, as well as why the government seems to be in a hurry to push the reforms through. Considering other recent developments, like the continued extension of emergency rule, tabling of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and proposing a new Authority for the protection of the Central Highlands (as is famously known, Authorities directly come under the Executive, and, therefore, further strengthen the Presidency; a reasonable question would be as to why the existing apparatus cannot be strengthened for this purpose), this appears especially suspect.
Further, according to the Secretary to the MOE Nalaka Kaluwewa: “The full framework for the [education] reforms was already in place [when the Dissanayake government took office]” (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/12/wxua-a12.html, citing The Morning, July 29). Given the ideological inclinations of the former Wickremesinghe government and the IMF negotiations taking place at the time, the continuation of education reforms, initiated in such a context with very little modification, leaves little doubt as to their intent: to facilitate the churning out of cheap labour for the global market (with very little cushioning from external shocks and reproducing global inequalities), while raising enough revenue in the process to service debt.
This process privileges STEM subjects, which are “considered to contribute to higher levels of ‘employability’ among their graduates … With their emphasis on transferable skills and demonstrable competency levels, STEM subjects provide tools that are well suited for the abstraction of labour required by capitalism, particularly at the global level where comparability across a wide array of labour markets matters more than ever before” (my own previous piece in this column on 29 October 2024). Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) subjects are deprioritised as a result. However, the wisdom of an education policy that is solely focused on responding to the global market has been questioned in this column and elsewhere, both because the global market has no reason to prioritise our needs as well as because such an orientation comes at the cost of a strategy for improving the conditions within Sri Lanka, in all sectors. This is why we need a more emancipatory vision for education geared towards building a fairer society domestically where the fruits of prosperity are enjoyed by all.
The second broad reaction to the reforms is to earnestly embrace them. The reasons behind this need to be taken seriously, although it echoes the mantra of the global market. According to one parent participating in a protest against the halting of the reform process: “The world is moving forward with new inventions and technology, but here in Sri Lanka, our children are still burdened with outdated methods. Opposition politicians send their children to international schools or abroad, while ours depend on free education. Stopping these reforms is the lowest act I’ve seen as a mother” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). While it is worth mentioning that it is not only the opposition, nor in fact only politicians, who send their children to international schools and abroad, the point holds. Updating the curriculum to reflect the changing needs of a society will invariably strengthen the case for free education. However, as mentioned before, if not combined with a vision for harnessing education’s emancipatory potential for the country, such a move would simply translate into one of integrating Sri Lanka to the world market to produce cheap labour for the colonial and neocolonial masters.
According to another parent in a similar protest: “Our children were excited about lighter schoolbags and a better future. Now they are left in despair” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). Again, a valid concern, but one that seems to be completely buying into the rhetoric of the government. As many pieces in this column have already shown, even though the structure of assessments will shift from exam-heavy to more interim forms of assessment (which is very welcome), the number of modules/subjects will actually increase, pushing a greater, not lesser, workload on students.

A file photo of a satyagraha against education reforms
What kind of education?
The ‘pro’ reactions outlined above stem from valid concerns, and, therefore, need to be taken seriously. Relatedly, we have to keep in mind that opening the process up to public engagement will not necessarily result in some of the outcomes, those particularly in the HSS academic community, would like to see, such as increasing the HSS component in the syllabus, changing weightages assigned to such subjects, reintroducing them to the basket of mandatory subjects, etc., because of the increasing traction of STEM subjects as a surer way to lock in a good future income.
Academics do have a role to play here, though: 1) actively engage with various groups of people to understand their rationales behind supporting or opposing the reforms; 2) reflect on how such preferences are constituted, and what they in turn contribute towards constituting (including the global and local patterns of accumulation and structures of oppression they perpetuate); 3) bring these reflections back into further conversations, enabling a mutually conditioning exchange; 4) collectively work out a plan for reforming education based on the above, preferably in an arrangement that directly informs policy. A reform process informed by such a dialectical exchange, and a system of education based on the results of these reflections, will have greater substantive value while also responding to the changing times.
Two important prerequisites for this kind of endeavour to succeed are that first, academics participate, irrespective of whether they publicly endorsed this government or not, and second, that the government responds with humility and accountability, without denial and shifting the blame on to individuals. While we cannot help the second, we can start with the first.
Conclusion
For a government that came into power riding the wave of ‘system change’, it is perhaps more important than for any other government that these reforms are done for the right reasons, not to mention following the right methods (of consultation and deliberation). For instance, developing soft skills or incorporating vocational education to the curriculum could be done either in a way that reproduces Sri Lanka’s marginality in the global economic order (which is ‘system preservation’), or lays the groundwork to develop a workforce first and foremost for the country, limited as this approach may be. An inextricable concern is what is denoted by ‘the country’ here: a few affluent groups, a majority ethno-religious category, or everyone living here? How we define ‘the country’ will centrally influence how education policy (among others) will be formulated, just as much as the quality of education influences how we – students, teachers, parents, policymakers, bureaucrats, ‘experts’ – think about such categories. That is precisely why more thought should go to education policymaking than perhaps any other sector.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya).
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
-
Life style3 days agoMarriot new GM Suranga
-
Business2 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features3 days agoMonks’ march, in America and Sri Lanka
-
Opinion6 days agoWill computers ever be intelligent?
-
Features3 days agoThe Rise of Takaichi
-
Features3 days agoWetlands of Sri Lanka:
-
News3 days agoThailand to recruit 10,000 Lankans under new labour pact
-
News3 days agoMassive Sangha confab to address alleged injustices against monks

