Features

Herbal research, the scientific method and Oncoceuticals

Published

12 months ago

2025/10/17

“After nearly 17 years of continuous research since 2008, the Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology of the University of Colombo has successfully developed a nutrient-based drug capable of destroying cancer cells. The breakthrough was led by Professor Sameera R. Samarakoon and his research team, who discovered that a combination of five medicinal plants – Vernonia zeylanica, Nigella sativa, Hemidesmus indicus, Leucas zeylanica, and Smilax glabra – has the potential to kill cancer cells. This discovery marks a significant step forward in cancer research, highlighting the value of traditional medicinal plants in modern scientific innovation.”

Daily News– October 3^rd 2025

“A locally developed nutraceutical targeting cancer stem cells is expected to generate around two million U.S. dollars in export revenue for Sri Lanka by 2027, according to Prof. Sameera R. Samarakoon of the Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Colombo. The product, launched three years ago, has already gained traction among Sri Lankan consumers, with positive feedback on its effectiveness in improving quality of life. While emphasising that it is not a drug, Prof. Samarakoon said the nutraceutical was developed as an alternative approach in the fight against cancer.”

Daily Mirror

(online) – 10^th October 2025

Preamble

Herbal medicine has been used since at least the Paleolithic era, with written records from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, Greece, China, and India documenting its development and application over millennia. Modern herbal medicine is widely used globally, especially in Asia and Africa. Traditional medicine systems involve long-standing, culturally-embedded practices using local herbs, animal products, and spiritual elements. These systems have influenced and contributed to modern pharmacology. Herbalists believe that plants, having evolved defences against environmental stressors, produce beneficial phytochemicals, often extracted from roots or leaves, that can be used in medicine. (Wikipedia)

Hippocrates (460-380 BCE), revered as the Father of Western Medicine, used herbal medicines and classified herbs into their essential qualities of hot and cold, moist and dry, and developed a system of diagnosis and prognosis. The number of effective medicinal plants he discussed was between 300 and 400 species. Thus, most medicines in the early allopathic pharmacopoeia, originated from plants – the ‘foxglove’ to ‘digitalis’ and cinchona to Quinine stories are but two such famous examples.

Current controversy

The knee-jerk negative reactions of most doctors who practise Modern, Western Scientific Medicine to ‘curative’ claims of herbal medicines (as seen from the extracts from news-items above) is to be expected. Suspicions are indeed enhanced particularly when there are many grey areas and lacunae in the explanations offered by the principal investigator (PI) Prof. Sameera Samarakoon of the Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (IBMBB), University of Colombo.

The Research at IBMBB has faced controversy before with their claim of anti-cancer properties of their research products. One such is a report in The Sunday Times’ of 24^th March 2024 under the headline ‘Concerns over alleged cancer-fighting product developed by Colombo University’ which leaves many questions unanswered by Prof. Samarakoon, the lead researcher. The report states that Prof. Samarakoon, when contacted by the Sunday Times’ said that it was a “nutraceutical” based on a traditional herbal formulation. He said that a literature review including in traditional texts on this formulation had been carried out and that he also studied other research done worldwide and practices of traditional and ayurvedic practitioners.

Further, when Prof. Samarakoon referred to “evidence-based medicine” in this product development, the Sunday Times sought a specific answer whether it was evidence-based western medicine or any other. His reply was that it was not western medicine but “traditional and ayurveda medicine”. When requested to give a step-by-step account of the research processes that were followed, as the ‘Vernolac’ blurbs claim “extensive research”, he said that he had conducted laboratory testing on different cancer cells for about 14 years.

Later, animal testing with regard to toxicity studies had been carried out according to WHO (World Health Organization) guidelines. To the query whether the animal testing data were published, he had answered in the negative. When asked about clinical trials with human participation before the marketing of ‘Vernolac’, Prof. Samarakoon had said that when they received registration from the Department of Ayurveda, they could market the products. They were given a period of three years to conduct human testing.

As can be seen, this product, which was on sale since July 2023, does not seem to have undergone human trials as yet.

In the circumstances, this publicity given to even this latest still unnamed ‘neutraceutical’ seems highly premature. What disturbs me more, is that there seems to be an undesirable haste to market these products. We are told by Prof. Samarakoon (in a short video interview available on the web) that they already have had ‘international’ requests and expect to earn about UDS 2.0 million in the coming year. Whereas it is the accepted wisdom in today’s science, that commercialisation of research is necessary, the linkage between ‘money’ and ‘science research’ worldwide has had too many negative outcomes. Hence, a careful watch by public-interest watchdogs becomes essential. To add to it, I am further perturbed that the IBMBB has embarked on Sri Lanka’s first ‘Bio-entreprenuership programme’ advertised on their website in June 2025. When this gets linked to IBMBB research that is creeping through loopholes in rigorous research and ethical protocols that are demanded in modern scientific research in an institute that has gained a reputation in the Western scientific tradition, their rush to commercialise and market products under ‘neutraceuticals’ – a word that is not easily understood by the average person to be distinctly different from a medicine, the research and ethical bona fides of the research team comes into serious question.

The gross lacunae in their scientific methodology have been given serious critical evaluation in great detail in the social media by Prof. Suneth Agampodi, an internationally recognised researcher, which needs to be addressed by Prof. Samarakoon’s research team. We await a more sedate approach to good research and its commercialisation. An attempt to fast-track commercialisation of good phytopharmacologcal research by the IBMBB will only cast a veil of doubt over their pioneering attempts which could bring benefits to mankind – particularly in the area of oncopharmacology.

What I would disagree with is to make a comparison of the research outcomes of the IBMBB with Dammika Peniya and its equivalents. Let us be scientifically charitable. Weaknesses in the research methodology of Prof. Samarakoon’s team should not be used to denigrate that research with one dismissive ‘black brush’.

What of cancer treatment in modern Western scientific medicine?

Except in a few cancers, the word “cure” is never used. Even then, the cautious physicians use the more conservative terms “remission” and “five-year survival rates” – early detection being the key single factor. Modern scientific medicine has still failed to overcome cancer in any acceptable and reliable form. There are over 10 million cancer deaths by latest estimates (2025) and over 20 million new patients every year, worldwide. Tie that up with the extremely high costs of cancer drugs – the most expensive medicines in the market, and you have a multibillion-dollar business that is, perhaps, more lucrative than even the armament trade.

The grim reality of cancer medicines and improvement in survival is epitomised in this Mayo Clinic Proceedings (October 2012):

“Last year, ipilimumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The benefit in survival over and above standard treatment arms was 3.7 months in previously treated patients and 2.1 months in previously untreated patients. The cost: $120,000 for 4 doses. As staggering a figure as that is, the drug is hardly alone in its lofty price. We believe that the immense cost of contemporary cancer drugs signals even greater costs for future drugs.”

To give you some idea what we are up against in trying to face up to cancer treatment, let me give you a few random snippets:

· Immunotherapy is one of the four pillars of cancer treatment that has recently emerged as a beacon of hope for cancer patients.

· Danyelza costs $20,368 per vial, and patients typically use around 48 vials per year, bringing the annual cost close to $977,664 (SLR 293 million). It is used to treat a certain type of cancer (neuroblastoma in bone or bone marrow).

· Dostarlimab, a monoclonal antibody, has surprised the medical profession by showing complete (100%) cure of patients with colorectal cancer. It costs about USD 12,000 (SLR 3.6 million) per dose.

So where do cancer patients in Sri Lanka stand?

This is an area that I am not competent to comment on in any detail. Our oncologists will have to fill in the blanks here. But in a nutshell, being a poor country, with largely a publicly-funded national healthcare service, the cancer drugs used in Sri Lanka already take a significant slice of the annual health budget. Due to the economic crisis, there have been shortages of these and other essential medicines. Our oncologists are doing a valiant task in unenviable circumstances with the available onco-medicines. I don’t think we have any reliable data on cancer survival rates in Sri Lanka. But with late cancer detection, and best available medicines being absolutely not affordable, they can’t be that very good.

Then again, how reliable are the medicines on offer in modern western scientific medical practice? How scientific is scientific?

The BMA note of warning must be digested carefully.

“The medical profession has an obligation to assure the public that treatment offered is appropriate and is justified by its intrinsic merit, uninfluenced by commercial or financial interests. This is especially important in relation to pharmaceutical products.”

(British Medical Association, Philosophy & Practice of Medical Ethics, 1988; Gresham Press, Survey, 59.)

In the introduction to his book “Science in the Private Interest: has the lure of profit corrupted biomedical research“, Sheldon Krimsky, Professor at Tufts University, USA, says that:

“The mix of science and commerce continues to erode the ethical standards of research and diminish public confidence in its results.”

In this book, Krimsky details several case studies. Here is one of them in some detail:

“A scientist signs a research agreement with a drug company and loses control over the science.

Betty J. Dong, pharmacologist at the University of California, San Francisco, signs a contract not to publish results without consent of Flint Laboratories (subsequently taken over by Knoll Pharmaceuticals) who funded her research on the antithyroid drug Synthroid in 1987. In 1990, she found that Synthroid was no more effective than other preparations, including generic preparations. The results of her research were adverse to the company. In retaliation, they complain of flaws in the research protocol. These allegations were rejected following an inquiry by the Chair in Pharmacology of UCSF. Her research was reviewed and accepted for publication by JAMA in November 1994. The company threatened to sue her for sales losses if the research article is published. The UCSF lawyers refused to defend her as the agreement is to her disadvantage. Fearing large legal costs, she had no other option but to withdraw the article from JAMA 2 weeks before the date of publication. After the Wall Street Journal published an investigative report on April 25, 1996 about Dong’s negative findings and the attempts of Knoll Pharmaceuticals to obstruct publication, the FDA notified Knoll that it had “violated provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act by misbranding Synthroid.” By November 1996, after much legal wrangling, Knoll agreed not to block the publication. The article was finally published by JAMA in their April 1997 issue – 10 years after the research had commenced – during which time, sales of Synthroid had continued under false pretexts.”

Here is another from the literature on a scandalous controversy that erupted at Harvard Medical School (the details of which, I have no space to elucidate.):

Dr. Marcia Angell, a faculty member at Harvard Medical School and former editor-in- chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, is among the professors who argue that industry profit motives do not correspond to the scientific aims of academic medicine and that much of the financing needs to be not only disclosed, but banned. Too many medical schools, she says, have struck a “Faustian bargain” with pharmaceutical companies. “If a school like Harvard can’t behave itself,” Dr. Angell asks, “who can?”

I have described earlier, many such instances in great detail where pharma companies have paid medical researchers to bend and even distort their own research findings. (Prof. K.N. Seneviratne Oration, Physiological Society of Sri Lanka 2009).

What I am trying to say here, is that as much as IBMBB is accused of dubious research on onco-medicines fast-tracked for financially lucrative purposes, so have too many medical researchers paid by ‘Big Pharma’ in reputed research institutes and universities in the US and the West. The web is replete with such information for those interested in seeking them.

I am not attempting to totally dispute the efficacy of western onco-medicines in alleviating suffering of cancer patients and perhaps improving their quality of life. Palliative medicine is now a well-acknowledged speciality that recognises that cancer cannot be completely cured and they deal with terminally ill cancer patients – especially in pain relief during their last days of life. But the fact remains that attempts to improve the quality of life of the terminally ill, is basically what IBMBB researchers are also claiming. Is it not?

Since neither Western Medicines that have gone through the full spectrum of scientific human clinical trials, and methodologically weak IBMBB research are capable of definitive cures for cancer, as yet, and the IBMBB is only claiming that their ‘Nutraceuticals’ are only supplements to whatever regular treatments the patients are undergoing and not an alternative, it should not have been a battle between oncologists and IBMBB. It should be a serious attempt to combine their intellectual resources towards seeking effective new medicines in the alleviation of suffering of terminal cancer patients. Herbs, as shown clearly, in the history of Western medicine, have much to offer.

Where does the rigours of the scientific method come into existential conflict with the contextual and situational reality of the terminal cancer patient? If that sentence sounds verbose gibberish, let me ask it simply. Does it make much difference to terminal cancer patients if they try a ‘herbal concoction’ in their last days, in some fervent hope that it could give them relief from the terrible adverse effects of Western onco-medicines?

To end on a personal note. My wife died of breast cancer after three years of western onco-treatment – not only of uncontrolled spread of the disease, but also of suffering from the horrible adverse effects brought on by western onco-medicines and radiation. In her last days, would I have tried the IBMBB concoction in the hope of decreasing her adverse effects and improving her quality of life – even the littlest bit? Of course, I would have.

by Susirith Mendis
Professor Emeritus, University of Ruhuna

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

16 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

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

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

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

Proposed Laws

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

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

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

Civil Society

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

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

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

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

16 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

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

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

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

Top-down check-box activities

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

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

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

2: And with pictures and all…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auditing everything but power

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

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

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

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

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

Rethinking university QA

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

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

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

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

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

16 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

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

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

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

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

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

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

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

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

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

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

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