Features
From abolishing the Senate to adopting a third new constitution
The 50-year Constitutional Odyssey:
by Rajan Philips
There are three infliction and, perhaps also, inflection points to this article. First, is the sequel to my article two weeks ago (Sunday Island, October 10) where I alluded to the possibility of Sri Lanka’s parliament restoring itself and changing the ways of the regime between now and the next elections. In a situation of unprecedented crises, changing the ways of the regime is more vital than waiting for a potential electoral regime change three years from now. That was my plea, if not contention. I did not write last week, so it is carryover business this week. It is also the first point of infliction on the always indulgent editor and the more ageing than ageless readers of English newspapers.
The second point emanates from the visit (also on October 10) by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to the Gajaba Regiment Headquarters, at Saliyapura, Anuradhapura, to commemorate the 72nd Anniversary of the Sri Lankan Army. In his speech to mark the military occasion, President Rajapaksa included a promissory note on the Constitution, that he will be “bringing in (of) a new Constitution,” as he had promised in November 2019, and that it “will be delivered within the next year.” The President’s obiter of reassurance literally took away the wind out of whatever parliamentary reform sails that I might have been hoping to use for my unsolicited purpose.
The third and the most obviously inflexion point, thanks entirely to Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama and the article he wrote last Sunday (October 17), is the 50th anniversary of the death, on October 2, 1971, of the Senate of Ceylon at the young age of 24. It was death by legislative euthanasia, brutally premature at so young an age and for a body that bore no incurable ill. It was a rather bad riddance of a good body.
Dr. Jayawickrama’s commemorative piece is quite remarkable at many levels. He neither asserts that the Senate deserves what it got, nor is he patently critical that it was put down at all. He is fair in his account of the purpose for which the Senate was created and the manner in which it played its constitutionally assigned role despite its lopsided composition and nominating procedure. He does not cite Sir Ivor Jennings’s scholarly cynicism that an unelected Senate can only be either “mischievous” (when it goes against the elected House) or “superfluous” (when it passes what has already been passed by the House); nor does he refer to Dr. Colvin R de Silva’s forceful contention that the Senate that “frustrates the will of the people” was one of the “five major defects” of the Soulbury Constitution.
That contention alone was enough to indicate the Senate’s fate in the new constitution that was being prepared by the United Front government. What came as a surprise at that time was the manner of the Senate’s riddance by an amendment to the Soulbury Constitution rather than through the new constitution. What struck me in the story of that riddance recounted by Dr. Jayawickrama was the pattern of disownment by all the key players in the parliamentary drama that began with a Bill to amend the Soulbury Constitution to save the SLFP MP for Ratnapura, Nanda Ellawala, from expulsion over a conviction and imprisonment, and ended with a Bill to amend the same constitution to abolish the Senate. To wit, Dr. Colvin R de Silva who introduced the first Bill in parliament, in July 1970, made it a point to ‘disown’ the bill by indicating that the Bill had been drafted in the Ministry of Justice and not by ‘his’ Ministry of Constitutional Affairs. And the disclaimers continued even as the Senate was let to die.
Committee of Experts
Nihal Jayawickrama’s article also provides a foil for contrasting the current urge to create a new constitution with the circumstances 50 years ago when Sri Lanka began its long odyssey of constitutional makeovers. No one would have thought then that it would come this far and could go still further. His intervention is particularly striking because he might be the only person alive who was closest to the making of the First Republican Constitution of 1972. He is also expertly familiar with the genesis and entrenchment of the 1978 Constitution. And perhaps the only other constitutional scholar of the same vintage is Prof. Savitri Goonesekere. If I am not mistaken, I do not think there is anyone alive today, who was associated with the making of the 1978 Constitution.
On the other hand, and I do not say this to be uncharitable, in President in Gotabaya Rajapaksa, we have the first Sri Lankan to become the most powerful person in the country with the least familiarity with anything constitutional. And it gets worse. In 1970, Parliament was the master of the country’s constitutional destiny, not only by representation but also by virtue of its legal luminaries. The finest legal minds in the country were in parliament, with the House and the Senate combined. Today’s parliament is not only bereft of talent, but is also powerless in spite of the government’s two-thirds majority. Worse, it is totally sidelined from the making of the new constitution.
That task has been outsourced to a committee of experts none of whom are in parliament, or ever held any elected office. Without tracing the bio-data of individual committee members, I will not be too far off the mark to suggest that with the exception of Prof. GH Pieris, all the other members of the committee would have been in their early twenties at most when Sri Lanka began its constitutional odyssey in 1970. If they were all kids then, they would do well to read Dr. Jayawickrama’s article on the Senate and reflect on what they are about to do now as grownups in creating a new constitution for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
If they are also keeners, and they ought to be so to be considered ‘experts’, it is reasonable to assume that they would have by now had some discussions with Dr. Jayawickrama to benefit from his experience and expertise. If not, it’s a shame. It is a travesty that this government is hellbent on creating a new constitution without consulting with or getting advice from people like Prof. Savitri Goonesekere or Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama. Travesty though it is, it should not come as a surprise to anyone considering the way the government availed itself of expert advice on Covid-19.
The impetus for the constitutional change in 1970-72 came from a side remark (obiter) in a 1964 Privy Council ruling that highlighted the legislative limitations of the Sri Lankan (then Ceylon) parliament. Although the contentious Privy Council obiter had been around since 1964, it became a political issue in parliament only in 1969, and it became an election issue in the April 1970 elections. The landslide victory of the United Front Parties in 1970 and the appointment of Dr. Colvin R de Silva as Minister of Constitutional Affairs eventually led to Sri Lanka becoming a Republic with a new constitution in 1972.
The inspiration for the 1978 constitutional overhaul came almost entirely from JR Jayewardene’s idiosyncratic liking for a presidential system of government. He was fortuitously able to use the flexibility of the Colvin constitution to create a far more rigid constitution predicated on an elected executive presidential system. He was also fortunate in getting to be the country’s first and only executive president without an election. Ever since, the constitutional debate has been about abolishing or significantly modifying the presidential system. Until now. And nobody knows why there should be a new constitution now to continue the same presidential system.
Why a new constitution?
Do the members of the experts committee know why Sri Lanka needs a new constitution? Other than the reason that President Rajapaksa wants to have one to show that he kept his promise that no one paid attention to. Going by some of the reasons for a new constitution provided by self-proclaimed patriots and nationalists, Sri Lanka needs a new constitution to enshrine its civilizational heritage. Its greatest heritage, Buddhism, needs no textual enshrinement by a committee of worldly experts. Constitutionally, or textually, does it mean that Chapter II of the Constitution will be expanded to fill a whole page instead of the four and half lines there are now? How will that ennoble an already great and noble religion, or edify its faithful followers?
A starkly different reason is apparently to constitutionally enshrine the implications of the 2009 war victory over the LTTE? How is that going to be textualized; in the preamble or Svasti to the current Constitution? Will it be before or after the assurances about Human Rights and the Independence of the Judiciary, in the preamble, that is? Is the purpose of enshrining triumphalism to ward off outside calls for investigating war crimes allegations? How can new constitutional provisions prevent anybody from saying or doing anything outside the country? Can a new constitution prevent another Easter tragedy, or will it unpack secrets of the last one? Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith is in no mood to trust any this-worldly Sri Lankan government or leaders. He is warning about curses and he is calling for divine intervention by the God of Israel and is looking for intercession by the silver-tongued Saint of Padua.
When the debate was about abolishing the presidency the counter-argument was that the presidency must be retained to check and contain the devolved provinces. The key players in the current Administration including President Rajapaksa himself were strong proponents of abolishing the Provincial Councils and rescinding the 13th Amendment. Now there are no active Provincial Councils to abolish as they are all dissolved. And with the government’s two-thirds majority the PCs can be abolished the same way the Senate was abolished 50 years ago. There might be a snag though if the courts were to say that Provincial concurrence is needed for their abolishing even though no concurrence is needed for their indefinite dissolution.
Surprisingly, or not, the government is now keen to go ahead with the Provincial Council elections as soon as possible, with or without a new constitution. Several reasons are being touted for this new shift. India’s hand in this is apparently not so hidden.
Second tier SLPPers are said to be getting restless without provincial offices and perks, and they need to be rewarded and kept contented. Third, a chief characteristic of Rajapaksa politics is the restless urge to keep validating themselves by constantly calling elections in the hope of winning them all the time. Their public support is said to be at its lowest point in the 16 years since they first hit the presidential jackpot in 2005. But they know it is better to test the pulse early and consolidate themselves before things get “worser and worser” as Muhammad Ali used to say. Finally, Provincial Council elections could be a trial run for a referendum that will be necessary for adopting a new constitution.
So, one needs to go back to the Committee of Experts and ask them – which of these reasons do they find to be so compelling as to devote their efforts and energies to producing a new constitution? It was the arrogance of two-thirds majority power that precipitated the abolishing of the Senate in 1971. Fifty years later, there is no palpable arrogance in spite of power, but there is great potential for its abuse out of abundance of ignorance. The question to the Committee of Experts is whether they are going to be aiding and abetting a potential abuse of power in creating a new constitution?
To circle back to the first point of infliction that I started with, it would be a fool’s paradise to discuss parliamentary reform when the government’s priority is to swing the constitutional wrecking ball at parliament and everything else that is still working in Sri Lanka. We can only wait and see how extensive the wreckage is going to be before talking about any reform. What if some or all in the Committee of Experts want to have no part of this wreckage and honourably excuse themselves from the Committee? Stranger things have happened.
Features
Own the car or let the App drive?
The real cost of daily travel in urban Sri Lanka
For many middle-class Sri Lankans, the private car still carries connotations of stability, dignity, and upward mobility. Yet in today’s Sri Lanka, with petrol at Rs. 434 per litre, following the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation’s revision, effective 30 May, 2026, loan-to-value ratios tightened to 40% requiring a 60% down payment, and ride-hailing apps now joined by app-based three-wheelers, the question of whether to own a car has become sharper than ever. The answer is not emotional but economic: for ordinary day-to-day travel, is it actually cheaper and wiser to own a car, or to let the app do the work?
Take a generic urban Sri Lankan commuter making a 40 km daily round trip to office and back, with routine errands built in. That is about 880 km a month across 22 working days. At that level of usage, the arithmetic becomes surprisingly clear: for a large group of moderate urban users, app-based mobility, whether a car or a three-wheeler, is financially smarter than owning a car, unless the non-financial benefits of ownership matter deeply enough to justify the premium.
The Sri Lankan distortion:
cars cost too much
In most developed economies, cars are consumer durables. In Sri Lanka, they behave more like luxury financial assets. A moderate vehicle, such as a Toyota Raize or Honda Civic, often costs several times what a comparable car would in a developed market, once taxes, import restrictions, and scarcity are priced in.
Assume a moderate privately used car priced at 10 million. Under the Central Bank’s current 40% LTV directive, the buyer may borrow only 40% against the vehicle’s value, requiring a 60% down payment of 6 million and a five-year lease on the remaining 4 million. At a typical Sri Lankan leasing rate of 14% per annum, the monthly lease instalment comes to approximately 93,000. A moderate petrol vehicle averages around 12 km per litre in urban traffic. At Rs. 434 per litre, fuel cost alone is 36 per km, or 31,800 per month for 880 km. Add insurance of 12,000 and a conservative 4,000 for routine running costs, and total cash outgoings reach approximately 140,800 per month.
But cash outgoings alone understate the true cost. The 6 million down payment, if invested elsewhere at 9% per annum, would generate approximately 45,000 per month in foregone return. Adding this opportunity cost, the full economic cost of the moderate car rises to 185,900 per month, or 211 per km.
The app alternatives: car or three-wheeler
Urban Sri Lankan commuters today have many distinct app-based mobility options, each serving different journey types and comfort preferences.
Uber and PickMe (car hire): A premium car hire through Uber or PickMe costs approximately 150 per km. For 880 km of monthly travel, that comes to 132,000 per month. Compared with the moderate owned car at 185,900, the app saves 53,900 per month, or 61 per km. On purely financial terms, the app wins decisively.
App-based three-wheelers: App-based three-wheelers currently charge approximately 110 per km. For 880 km, that is 96,800 per month, saving 89,100 per month and 101 per km compared with the moderate owned car. The tuk-tuk app is the most economical of the three mobility options for short urban trips, though clearly unsuitable for highway travel, poor weather, carrying passengers in formal settings, however, it represents a compelling financial case.
Non-financial advantages of ownership
Transport decisions are never purely accounting exercises. A private car offers privacy, immediate availability, flexibility, and family utility in ways that no app can fully replicate. With your own car, you can leave when you want, stop when you want, change route mid-journey, carry files or groceries without thought, respond to emergencies, and avoid the uncertainty of waiting for a driver to accept your ride. It also becomes a family coordination tool: school drop-offs, medical visits, elderly passengers, unplanned errands, and weekend travel all become easier. In psychological terms, ownership buys autonomy. No app-based alternative, whether car or three-wheeler, provides that.
The hidden burden of car ownership and app limitations
Yet the same car creates stress. Urban Sri Lankan driving is rarely relaxing. Congestion is exhausting, lane discipline is weak, and parking is a recurring headache. Every daily driver absorbs cognitive fatigue that accumulates invisibly over months.
Uber and PickMe remove the burden of driving, fuelling, and servicing. But they introduce their own friction: waiting times, driver cancellations, surge pricing during peak hours or rain, and inconsistent vehicle quality. App three-wheelers add further constraints, limited luggage capacity, exposure to weather, and social context limitations. The app does not eliminate inconvenience; it transforms driving stress into coordination stress.
There is also the administrative burden of ownership that many buyers underestimate. A car is not just a vehicle; it is an asset management project. Lease payments must be tracked, insurance renewed, service appointments remembered, tyres monitored, and documents maintained. Even a low-maintenance new car carries the persistent fear that one breakdown or accident can create a large unexpected outflow. The app user, by contrast, simply pays for completed trips, no garage anxiety, no debt-linked asset stress, no renewal calendar.
Sensitivity analysis: what if the car is a lower-grade Wagon R?
The picture changes if the household opts for a lower-grade entry-level vehicle. Assume a Suzuki Wagon R or equivalent at 6 million, again with a 60% down payment of 3.6 million and a five-year lease on 2.4 million. At 14% per annum, the monthly lease instalment is approximately 55,800.
The smaller car delivers better fuel economy, around 15 km per litre. At 434 per litre, fuel cost becomes 29 per km, or 25,500 per month for 880 km. Add insurance of 7,000 and running costs of 3,000. Including opportunity cost at 9% on the 3.6 million down payment (27,000 per month), the total economic cost is 118,300 per month, 134 per km.
Now the comparison becomes more nuanced. A lower-grade Uber or PickMe alternative costs around 125 per km, or 110,000 per month for 880 km. The gap narrows dramatically: owning the Wagon R costs only 8,300 more per month, just 9 per km, compared with the app car option. The app three-wheeler at 110 per km (96,800 per month) is still materially cheaper, saving 21,500 per month against the lower-grade owned car. (See Table 1)

So, what should an urban Sri Lankan do?
If you travel alone on routine urban routes, the app three-wheeler at 110/km is the most economical option by a wide margin, saving up to 89,100 per month against a moderate owned car. Its limitation is not financial but practical: unsuitable for families, formal occasions, highway travel, and bad weather, but convenient-no stress.
For families, formal occasions, highway travel, and bad weather and convenient-no stress, Uber or PickMe Moderate car at 150/km delivers private-car comfort without the asset burden, saving 53,900 per month against the moderate owned car. The saving is if you get an economy APP car.
If you need family flexibility, late-night mobility, or privacy, ownership remains rational, but preferably through a lower-grade car around 6 million. At 134/km, the Wagon R-type car is only 9/km more than the app car alternative and 24/km more than a tuk-tuk, a gap that autonomy, family convenience, and immediate availability can legitimately justify.
Therefore, in Sri Lanka’s distorted vehicle market, with fuel at LKR434/lt, a 60% mandatory down payment, the Wagon R-type leased car remains relatively a better choice for a family with moderate earnings.
The private car still offers freedom. But in 2026 Sri Lanka, that freedom comes at very different prices. The real question is how much each household can afford to pay for autonomy, prestige, and convenience, and whether the extra 61/km for a moderate leased car, against a perfectly capable app car, or 101/km against a tuk-tuk app, represents a rational expenditure of household income. For most salaried urban commuters, the honest answer is: probably not.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe.
Views expressed in this article are personal.)
Features
Justice and democracy in Sri Lanka’s new political era
The legal processes are steadily closing in on some of the most controversial cases that have remained as open questions without closure for many years. These include the Easter Sunday bombings of 2019, the Treasury bond scam that erupted in 2015, and a range of corruption allegations that became synonymous with successive governments over the past two or more decades. What once appeared to be stalled investigations are now showing signs of movement through the courts and investigative agencies. Recent developments suggest that these long running cases are entering a decisive phase. In the Easter Sunday attacks investigation, new arrests and investigations have brought renewed attention to allegations that extend beyond the immediate perpetrators and into questions of intelligence failures and possible political complicity. The arrest and detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has intensified public interest in uncovering the full truth behind the attacks.
The Treasury bond scam has also re-entered the spotlight. The Supreme Court has recently overturned legal obstacles that had prevented prosecutions from proceeding and directed that the case moves forward expeditiously. This has reopened one of the most sophisticated financial scandals in the country’s recent history and brought several prominent political and financial figures back under legal scrutiny. As those implicated in these unresolved cases are leading figures from previous governments, which have spanned both sides of the political divide since Independence, it can well be imagined that there is tremendous opposition to the gradually enveloping legal processes that is both seen and unseen.
These cases that are now being investigated cut across political camps and involve individuals who occupied some of the highest offices in the country. The result is that resistance to accountability is likely to emerge from many quarters. Still to be opened are the thousands of cases of persons gone missing during the war. Presidential Commissions have been appointed with regard to them, but there has been no serious investigations of the type now taking place.
In these circumstances, it can be surmised that the government led by those who are new to power would wish to retain a maximum of power to face the pushback that is bound to emerge from those in the opposition who have wielded power for generations. The government may calculate that this is not the time to disperse authority or reduce the instruments of state power available to it. Instead, it may believe that a period of centralised control is necessary if investigations, prosecutions and reforms are to proceed without interference.
Provincial Elections
It appears that the opposition’s efforts to mobilise the people and public opinion against the government have not been successful so far. One such instance was the attempt to generate opposition to price increases. Although people have undoubtedly been affected by rising prices and economic difficulties, these efforts failed to gather significant momentum. Another attempt came when President Dissanayake predicted that opposition politicians would face imprisonment in the month of May as legal cases progressed, though this has not happened. Critics claimed that such remarks suggested an intention to influence judicial outcomes. Yet this criticism also failed to gain traction among the public. The likely reason is that public memory remains fresh. Many people continue to associate previous governments with economic mismanagement, corruption scandals, abuse of power and the eventual economic collapse. In comparison, the present government continues to enjoy a reservoir of public goodwill and credibility. As long as legal action appears to be based on evidence and proper process, the public seems prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
The government’s deliberate and cautious approach to political reform that would reduce its centralised power needs to be seen in this context. The monthly approval by Parliament of the emergency regulations is justified by the government as due to the continuing need to respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. However, when viewed together with the reluctance to hold provincial council elections on the grounds of electoral reform, the failure to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the postponement of constitutional reform, they all appear to reflect a preference for retaining maximum control at a politically sensitive moment. There is a logic to this approach. Governments facing major legal and political confrontations often seek stability and control. So does every despot. However, there is also a downside.
When political competition is denied to legitimate outlets, it often finds expression in confrontation, obstruction and polarisation. The advantage of prioritising the conduct of provincial council elections at this time is that it could reduce the political pressures that are building up. The main opposition parties are united in calling for these elections to be held. Conducting them would provide an opportunity for opposition political parties to obtain a measure of democratic representation and political authority at the provincial level. This would be especially true in the northern and eastern provinces, in which the ethnic and religious minorities predominate. It cannot be forgotten that the provincial council system was developed as a constructive response to the ethnic conflict. Elections at the provincial level would create opportunities for a new generation of political leaders to emerge through democratic competition rather than patronage. Many of those now facing legal scrutiny belong to an older generation to whose needs the younger may be less deferential.
Two Pillars
Another reform that could command bipartisan support is the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The PTA has once again become controversial because it is being used in situations that extend beyond its original purpose. The detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Act, the continued incarceration of some Tamil detainees from the war period, and the arrest of individuals accused of speech related offences have all revived concerns regarding prolonged detention without trial and excessive executive power. The reason the PTA has been difficult to repeal is that it is closely associated with concerns regarding national security and territorial integrity. Introduced in 1979 as a temporary measure to confront the emerging separatist conflict, it survived through decades of war and has remained on the statute books long after the conflict ended.
At the same time, history shows that extraordinary powers are likely to be misused. Laws that permit detention without trial or broad executive discretion are rarely confined to their original purpose. Governments of different political parties have used such powers against opponents and critics. The temptation to do so is inherent in the possession of unchecked authority. The way forward could therefore be a combination of accountability and reform. The government should continue to support independent investigations and prosecutions in major corruption and security related cases. Demonstrating political will in this regard would strengthen public confidence in the rule of law and reinforce the principle that no individual is above the law. The PTA could be replaced with legislation that amends the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code in a manner that addresses legitimate security concerns while complying with democratic norms and human rights standards.
There are also international dimensions to consider. The European Union has repeatedly linked governance and human rights reforms, including reform of the PTA, to Sri Lanka’s continuing access to the GSP Plus trade concession. Progress on these issues would strengthen Sri Lanka’s international standing at a time when economic recovery remains a national priority. The government has a rare opportunity. It possesses a strong electoral mandate, public goodwill and a reputation for integrity that previous governments lacked. It can combine the pursuit of justice in long delayed cases with meaningful democratic reforms that reduce political resistance and broaden public support. At this time, accountability and power sharing are the two pillars which Sri Lankans need to be committed to build a just and democratic society for a better future without delay. Failure now would make for a long period of waiting for the next time.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Pitfalls and exclusions in academic recruitment
A public university relies on its teachers in fulfilling its responsibilities to the wider community. While teaching remains the chief responsibility of the academic staff, they also conduct research and play a central role in keeping the university a vibrant space where they and students can freely participate in conversations that concern not just routine classroom education but also society at large. The broader intellectual culture and intellectual integrity of a university thus depend on how its academics perform their functions. Therefore, universities should take the task of recruiting their academics seriously. It is important to ensure that this task is done responsibly, transparently and credibly through a fair, thorough and multi-phased evaluation process.
As both an applicant and a member of selection panels for recruitment, I hold that the recruitment procedures, currently in place in our university system, require radical reforms. Echoing some of the concerns raised by Kaushalya Perera in her Kuppi article on recruitment in March 2026, I focus on the limitations I have observed and experienced, specifically in the recruitment of Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions. The article also aims to explore how these shortcomings could be addressed.
The Advertisement
Recruitment for Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions is done through an open-advertisement which also involves an interview with shortlisted candidates. Advertisements are finalised in line with a template issued by the Registrar’s Office. Generally, an initial draft, prepared by the Registrar’s Office, is sent to the relevant academic departments for revisions. The revisions have to be made within the template provided, which allows space for the mention of only specialisation requirements.
It should be noted that not all revisions to the advertisement, suggested by the Department Head, are accepted in the next round. Deans, Vice Chancellors and Registrars, who have very little understanding of the disciplines associated with the position, sometimes reject the changes proposed by the Department. Technocratic in their thinking, they don’t recognise that an academic programme can be taught by persons with specialisation in another overlapping discipline. For instance, a position in English, at a university in Sri Lanka, is very well suited to not just those who have postgraduate qualifications in literary studies but also those who are from the disciplines of Applied Linguistics, Cultural Studies or Translation Studies, as these areas are taught as sub-fields of English studies at most universities in the country. These disciplinary overlaps, even when pointed out by Heads, are often overlooked by our administrators.
In place of this process, dominated by academic administrators and registrars, the advertisement should ideally emerge, from the relevant department, in the form of a comprehensive job description. It should mention the nature of the position advertised, the kind of teaching (and research) expected, how the position relates to other positions in the department, in terms of specialisation and workload, and the ways in which the recruited candidate would contribute to overall institutional development.
There can be no one-size-fits-all model when it comes to recruitment. Individual departments vary in size, strength and specialisation requirements. Departments with sizable academic staff may want to emphasise specialisation during recruitment, whereas smaller departments may prefer generalists who can handle a wide-array of courses. Specifying the rationale for the requirements included in the job description may help potential applicants get an understanding of the position advertised and the selection panel to conduct the evaluation process in a fair manner.
Review of Applications
Once applications are received, we sometimes find promising candidates but with qualifications that don’t carry in their title the name of the discipline or the department in which the position is advertised. Sometimes the disciplines or fields of specialisation that appear in the advertisement and the ones that appear in the qualifications are not identical in nomenclature, even though the research undertaken by the applicant during their graduate studies is strongly relevant to the position advertised. Even when such applications are accompanied by strong and relevant publications, our system does not view them positively. Instead, nomenclatural differences are used to reject promising candidates. Such differences are also used as a pretext when universities want to exclude a candidate for their cultural background, political beliefs or other reasons. Even if academic departments recognise such applications, at the next stage, the administrators of the university try to veto them. We lose inter-disciplinary scholars of high academic standing because of the high-handedness of university administrators.
Selection Panels
Selection panels for academic positions typically comprise the Vice Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty, the Head of the Department, two academics nominated by the Senate and two members of the University Council. In the case of programmes/disciplines jointly housed under a single department, if the Head comes from a discipline other than the one in which the position is advertised, they may not be able to contribute in an informed manner to the recruitment process. However, some Heads refuse to appoint nominees from the relevant discipline in their place as they view sitting on selection panels as their exclusive privilege.
Sometimes university Senates do not take the appointment of Senate nominees seriously. These appointments are decided in a hurry without serious deliberations at senate meetings packed with numerous agenda items. Sometimes even if the relevant department has suitable academics to serve as Senate nominees, the Senate chooses academics from other departments or disciplines who do not have a nuanced understanding of the requirements of the position advertised and its disciplinary parameters. Sometimes specialists in the relevant discipline may not be available at a university. On such occasions, Senates tend to fill up the positions with academics from other disciplines, instead of inviting external nominees from other universities. At a state university in Sri Lanka, I was interviewed thrice for academic positions by selection panels that comprised not even one specialist from the relevant discipline.
The Marking Scheme
The marking schemes used in recruitment have their own drawbacks. Publications are sometimes evaluated for their quantity rather than quality. The opinion of the subject specialist is not sought or taken seriously when a candidate’s research is evaluated. This is why our universities are saddled with academics who engage in plagiarism or predatory publishing. The evaluation process should be tightened in such a way to bar the entry of those who lack academic integrity.
It is worrying to see that marking schemes and schemes of recruitment penalise applicants who have excelled in their graduate studies and are well-reputed for their recent research and publications just because they did not earn a first-class or second-class upper-division pass at the undergraduate level. Our narrow focus on a candidate’s first degree prevents us from giving due recognition to how that person has gained intellectual depth over the years. Some marking rubrics, which allocate points for eye-contact and posture during the interview, dilute the seriousness associated with the academic position, de-prioritise scholarship and turn the interview process into a stage performance.
Cultural Credibility
In recruitment, many universities look for cultural credibility (a term that I borrow from the work of Sulaxana Hippisley) as an unwritten requirement. Some departments are reluctant to hire applicants who are not their alumni. Some selection panels discriminate against candidates from certain ethnic or religious backgrounds. In some departments, women are rejected because they are likely to go on maternity leave or have more domestic responsibilities than men. Gender and sexual minorities have to mute and censor their identities at interviews because they are likely to face rejection if they openly declare their orientation. We have no policies and procedures in place to ensure recruitment is conducted in an inclusive way that sees diversity as a strength.
The Way-forward
When recruitment fails, the entire intellectual culture of that university takes a hit, and several generations of students are affected. Some of the current problems, related to quality in our higher education system, stem from bad recruitment policies and practices. Instead of trying to address these issues through rigorous and inclusive recruitment practices, we try to seek solutions via band-aids like quality assurance and workshops on curriculum writing and pedagogy for university academics.
In developing alternative recruitment policies and practices, we have to demand that the needs and expectations of individual departments are heard. Our selection panels should include more subject specialists than administrators and council nominees. Most of the evaluation should be completed before the interviews, and interviews should be treated as opportunities to get to know candidates in person and pose clarifying questions rather than as occasions for full-scale evaluation. We have to be open and receptive to new, inter-disciplinary scholarship and cultural, ethnic and gender diversity. If we are unwilling to introspect and bring about these reforms and revise our marking schemes, we will continue to recruit the wrong candidates and thereby fail our students and the wider community.
Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the 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.)
by Mahendran Thiruvarangan
-
Latest News7 days agoKusal Mendis, Pathum Nissanka, bowlers put Sri Lanka 1-0 up
-
News7 days agoNew US tariffs proposed on 60 countries, including Sri Lanka
-
Features6 days agoPower crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart
-
Features6 days agoKondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary
-
News4 days agoWomen’s T20 World Cup 2026 warm-up: Chamari Athapaththu’s 94 helps Sri Lanka beat Pakistan
-
Features6 days agoSaudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey
-
News5 days agoAsst. Manager, security officer arrested over Rs 30 mn snatch at Horana PB branch
-
Editorial3 days agoProbe Sallay’s complaint
