Features

JRJ in action and events leading to the July 1983 disaster

Published

3 years ago

2023/01/8

Excerpted from volume two of Sarath Amunugama’s autobiography

Another innovation of the JRJ regime was the introduction of lotteries to supplement national budgetary allocations. The pioneer of this scheme was Wickreme Weerasooria who was the Secretary of the Ministry of Planning. I got associated with this project because printing was a subject assigned to the Ministry of State of which I was the Secretary.

The idea of a lottery was first mooted by Ingrid McAlpine nee Wijeratne, who lived in UK for a long time and returned after the UNP victory to be inducted as a close friend of the President and a member of Madam Elina’s inner circle. She was the niece of Philip Gunawardena, her mother being Philip’s elder sister. But the Wijeratnes were UNP supporters and had been strong backers of JRJ when he contested the Kelaniya electorate.

As President, JRJ went out of his way to help those families whose parents and grandparents had backed him when he was a young, and perhaps lesser known, candidate. Among them were the Gunasekere and Wijeratne families whose progeny were promoted in the Mahara, Gampaha and Kelaniya areas. Ingrid’s project proposal was accepted by JRJ and Wickreme with his usual gusto launched the National lottery which was at that time the only lottery permitted.

The funds so collected were available to the President as discretionary funds which were not permitted earlier under the National Budget. Other senior ministers in his cabinet quickly saw the advantages of these discretionary funds, as well as printing contracts and began to lobby the President to set up their own lotteries. Predictably the first to lobby the President and set up the Sevana Fund and lottery was the Prime Minister.

He did not use the good offices of Ingrid but chose his favourite Ajantha Wijesena, who used his marketing skills to develop the Sevana Fund for subsidizing his minister’s housing development program. Lalith followed with his request for a Mahapola lottery to be managed by Ingrid. By this time the Finance Ministry was getting alarmed at the proliferation of discretionary funds of individual ministers and the setting up of extra-budgetary mechanisms which diluted Treasury control of state finances.

Wickreme also pointed out the wasteful duplication of publicity and marketing agencies and even more urgently the decline of income of the National Lottery which was under the charge of the President. Other Ministers were also lining up after being promoted by printers and advertising agencies who saw a golden opportunity. Finally the President had to put his foot down and refuse new requests.

However he directed that a substantial portion of the income from the National Lottery be diverted to Mahapola. Lalith was satisfied but it created a bad precedent because successive trade ministers started playing politics with those funds. They saw a god given opportunity to divert funds to their electorates outside the country’s budget.

Lalith won the hearts of the undergraduates of his time with his initiative. I can testify to the fact that many of the Mahapola recipients flocked to pay homage at his funeral and lined the roads as a tribute to a man with a vision who made their lives better. The role of Lalith, Gamini and Ronnie clearly showed the value of literate and dynamic ministers. Unfortunately that tendency was nipped in the bud by political leaders who had to pay their dues to loyalist party hacks and financiers who had helped them in times of adversity.

Chambers of Commerce

Lalith was the ideal choice for establishing commercial links with our partner countries as the Minister of Trade. With his wide range of contacts, superlative knowledge of the law and the English language and his well-known habit of hard work and diligent preparation he made ministerial missions abroad most fruitful for the country. He also had excellent contacts with our private sector which at that time happened to be dominated by old Royalists.

Among them were Ken Balendra, Ratna Sivaratnam, Chari de Silva, Wijemanne, Ranjan Gooneratne and several others. The plantation sector was dominated by old Royalists and Old Trinitians. They were all close to the young minister and could interact with him on a friendly basis. Many successive Presidents tended to appoint second raters as ministers who could not reach out to the important capitalists in the country. They had to depend on cronies as intermediaries who were usually corrupt and were rent seekers. This parasitic class came to the fore with Chandrika and especially Mahinda Rajapakse.

I was directed by the President to join Lalith’s pathbreaking mission to set up the first Japan-Sri Lanka Trade chamber in JRJ in action and events leading to the July 1983 disasterTokyo. This high level delegation

included Chandi Chanmugam from the Treasury, Paul Perera of BOI, Raju Coomaraswamy, Chari de Silva, Wettasinghe, Cornel Perera, H.R. Fernando and a few others. I represented the tourism sector. The Japanese side included Yasoao Fukuda who was later to be Prime Minister of Japan and all the leaders of the ‘Daibatsu’ or the major business houses of the country.

It included Mitsui, Mitsubishi, C. Itoh, Sumitomo and many other companies who wanted to do business under the JRJ dispensation. This meeting contributed to making Japan one of our major economic partners and a long term friend. Over 40 years later when on an official visit to Japan I was able to participate in another meeting of the chamber. I referred to the fact that the Chamber had met continuously from that inaugural meeting and Mr. Fukuda and I were probably the only living survivors of the original meeting held in the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo under the leadership of Lalith.

Lalith’s expertise was also sought in Geneva by Gamini Corea for UNCTAD and Lakshman Kadirgamar for negotiations on `intellectual property’. These invitations led to a milestone in Lalith’s life when he began to date Srimani de Saram who was working in the secretariat of UNCTAD, on the staff of Gamini Corea its Secretary-General. He married her in Geneva and she became his standard bearer after his death. Tragically Srimani herself was afflicted with a cancer and died not long after her husband.

Ethnic Conflict

If there was one issue which spelt the eventual doom of the UNP it was JRJ’s inept handling of the ethnic issue. Like Hitler’s ‘Thousand year Reich’ the euphoric UNP hoped to remain in power for a long period of time. JRJ’s models of Singapore and Malaysia were, in effect, one party states. Unlike in the UNP, in those nations leaders who obtained freedom remained to guide their destinies with near dictatorial powers.

JRJ too wanted to ‘roll up the electoral map’. This was a euphemism for the untrammeled perpetuation of UNP rule. The JRJ constitution, with its new electoral system, was tailormade to accommodate the UNP which was the largest party in the country. There was no hope for the SLFP except through coalition politics. With no prospect of regaining office, the usually indisciplined SLFP leaders, who had earlier paid homage to the Bandaranaike ‘family show’, now began to cut loose, criticize their leader and even enter into a dialogue with JRJ. But all these plans went awry due to the prolonged ethnic conflict.

The President was beleaguered, abandoned by his erstwhile comrades, and had to literally fight for his life. Walls in Colombo were plastered with JVP slogans calling for “Death to the Old Man”. How did this happen? What were the series of blunders that bedeviled JRJ’s second term of office? The main factor was his inability to contain the ethnic conflict. This led to his alienation from India which at that time, opportunistically or otherwise, espoused the Tamil cause.

Later when he attempted to compromise with India he was reviled by the majority of the Sinhalese who followed the virulent anti-Indian line of the JVP, supported by the SLFP. By making Cyril Mathew and some of his backbenchers to join that bandwagon he further alienated India and Sri Lanka was put on a slippery slope to disaster.

At the beginning of his tenure JRJ had an opportunity of solving the Tamil question. Though his rival Kobbekaduwa did well in the North and East at the 1982 Presidential election, largely because the SLFP closed the door to foreign agricultural products which Jaffna farmers grew in abundance, many Tamils believed that JRJ will remove restrictive communal provisions like the language laws, University quotas and offer better opportunities to them for trade.

In addition the Tamil elite in Colombo were mostly supporters of the UNP. It is ironical that the most pro-devolution politician in the State Council days was Bandaranaike. When he entered politics as a young man Bandaranaike was an advocate of federalism. In contrast JRJ was from the beginning a supporter of a strong unitary nation based on his historical readings about Sinhala kings.

The Senanayakes and following them JRJ, had a streak of Sinhala nationalism. In my personal experience when talking to JRJ about the ethnic question he usually referred to the Tamils as ‘Damilas’; a terminology used in ancient Sinhala inscriptions. The problem was that instead of addressing the real concerns of the Tamils, the youth in particular, he spent time in attempting to ‘strike a deal’ with the Tamil leadership.

Though this seemed a viable option at the start, the entry of militant Tamil youth swung the pendulum towards the confrontation. The communal riots that followed the UNP victory reduced JRJs options because he did not want to antagonize the Sinhala extremists at the very beginning of his regime. In allying himself firmly with the US he did not watch his flank which was Indira Gandhi’s India.

Under normal conditions, for instance with Nehru, Shastri or Morarji Desai, JRJ would have had room to maneuver. But at this stage Indira was taking India on a different path which asserted India’s primacy in foreign relations in the subcontinent. She wanted India to be a regional super power as demonstrated in her invasion of East Pakistan and the creation of a pro-India new nation called Bangladesh.

In this scenario both JRJ and his policies appeared to be irritants to Indira’s left leaning advisors who were jubilant that their military interventions against their main enemy Pakistan was successful. At this juncture with the Indian Congress being challenged electorally for the first time, Indira was also persuaded that the Tamil ‘card’ would benefit her in the forthcoming elections. In the face of her defeat in the Nehru stronghold of Rae Bareilly, she had moved to the Chikmagalur seat in South India signaling the growing strength of the ‘southern cow belt’.

During the SLFP coalition regime of 1970-1977, Tamil disquiet was rapidly increasing. The educational policies of Minister Badiuddin Mahmud, which was dominated by two nationalist extremists – Udugama and Sumathipala as its top bureaucrats brought in policies designed to build up education in Sinhala rural areas which had been badly neglected by successive governments. This attempt at re-balancing education was at the expense of Tamils who had earlier benefited from widespread education.

During the Colonial period Christian Missionaries, particularly from the US, had introduced a system of education which was not bettered anywhere else in the island. Education had been the lifeline of the Tamils; their passport to employment and relief from the harsh, dry climate and water shortage which marked the peninsula.

The worst of these Udugama-Sumathipala fiats, as far as Tamil youth were concerned, was the introduction of ‘standardization of marks’ in determining entry to higher education provided by the state. Since due to socialist policies the state had a monopoly of education this decision appeared to be discriminatory of the minorities and the urban poor.

As Director of Combined Services during this time I sat on several committees to examine the effects of these policy shifts on the public service. At these meetings Parliamentarians representing urban electorates like Pieter Keuneman and Bernard Soysa opposed district wise quotas for higher education saying that urban poor children were no better off than the rural poor child and were unfairly discriminated against by the new educational laws.

But the rural based SLFP was in favour of ‘positive discrimination’. They argued not very convincingly that this policy would help rural Tamil students as well. But the stakes were too high to win over the Jaffna based students. They were now anyway skirmishing with the police who were mostly disaffected Sinhala lower orders sent on punishment transfer far away from their homes. The situation in Jaffna was a tinder box about to explode and the Tamil Parliamentarians were too scared to reach out to Sinhala leaders for a solution now that seniors like Chelvanayagam and Ponnambalam were no more.

The progressive alienation and radicalization of Tamil youth led to a stiffening of the attitudes of the Tamil Parliamentarians. This led to the landmark Vadukkodai declaration of the Tamil United Liberation Front of 1975. This declaration emphasized the concept of the North and East as the ‘homelands’ of the ‘Tamil speaking people’. Merging the North and East for the first time to make it a viable geographical entity necessitated the inclusion of the Muslims as part of the ‘Tamil speaking entity’ since the Muslims were in a majority in the East and together with the Sinhalese in the Eastern province formed a clear numerical majority over the Tamils.

It was the Vadukoddai ideology which was gaining ground when JRJ entered the scene. The stinging defeat of the SLFP in reality complicated the situation. If the SLFP had a greater number of MPs in Parliament after the 1977 election they would have constituted the main opposition. But with their abysmal defeat the Tamil United Liberation Front had a bigger member of MPs and JRJ, with great delight, helped in making the TULF leader Amirthalingam the leader of the Opposition.

But this fateful decision had many long term consequences. -Amirthalingam was known as a firebrand orator and an extremist. With the weight of office as the Leader of the Opposition his fire was doused. Though he tried to play the role of a national leader in his impassioned defence of Mrs. B, he naturally used his powers as Opposition leader to highlight the grievances of the Tamil people further polarizing the two main ethnic groups. Whereas, on the other hand, the SLFP deprived even of the consolation prize of Opposition leadership, had no hesitation in promoting Sinhala extremism in order to embarrass the UNP.

JRJ’s solution to this unhealthy state of affairs was worse than the disease. He unleashed Cyril Mathew as the UNP’s own Sinhala extremist. Mathew with the resources of the state behind him not only attacked Tamils he disliked but also attacked other opponents of the UNP like Madoluwawe ‘Sobhita and Ediriweera Sarathchandra which alienated a swathe of the Sinhala intelligentsia.

Mathew consolidated his position as a Sinhala hero by promoting goon squads drawn from Corporations under his care as the Minister of Industries. These goons were unleashed on the urban Tamils in August 1983 leading to an unprecedented communal holocaust which marked a point of no return. After 1983 JRJ downgraded Mathew but it was much too late. The UNP government was held up as being a promoter of state violence against Tamils.

All News Advertisement

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

13 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

During a discussion at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Sri Lanka on 9 December, Dr. Neil DeVotta, Professor at Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA commented on the “gravity of a geopolitical contest that has already reshaped global politics and will continue to mould the future. For Sri Lanka – positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, economically fragile, and diplomatically exposed- his analysis was neither distant nor abstract. It was a warning of the world taking shape around us” (Ceylon Today, December 14, 2025).

Sri Lanka is known for ignoring warnings as it did with the recent cyclone or security lapses in the past that resulted in terrorist attacks. Professor De Votta’s warning too would most likely be ignored considering the unshakable adherence to Non-Alignment held by past and present experts who have walked the halls of the Foreign Ministry, notwithstanding the global reshaping taking place around us almost daily. In contrast, Professor DeVotta “argued that nonalignment is largely a historical notion. Few countries today are truly non-aligned. Most States claiming neutrality are in practice economically or militarily dependent on one of the great powers. Sri Lanka provides a clear example while it pursues the rhetoric of non-alignment, its reliance on Chinese investments for infrastructure projects has effectively been aligned to Beijing. Non-alignment today is more about perceptions than reality. He stressed that smaller nations must carefully manage perceptions while negotiating real strategic dependencies to maintain flexibility in an increasingly polarised world.” (Ibid).

The latest twist to non-alignment is Balancing. Advocates of such policies are under the delusion that the parties who are being “Balanced” are not perceptive enough to realise that what is going on in reality is that they are being used. Furthermore, if as Professor DeVotta says, it is “more about perception than reality”, would not Balancing strain friendly relationships by its hypocrisy? Instead, the hope for a country like Sri Lanka whose significance of its Strategic Location outweighs its size and uniqueness, is to demonstrate by its acts and deeds that Sri Lanka is perceived globally as being Neutral without partiality to any major powers if it is to maintain its autonomy and ensure its security.

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

Neutrality as a Foreign Policy was first publicly announced by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during his acceptance speech in the holy city of Anuradhapura and later during his inauguration of the 8th Parliament on January 3, 2020. Since then Sri Lanka’s Political Establishment has accepted Neutrality as its Foreign Policy judging from statements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministers up to the present when President Dissanayake declared during his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly and captured by the Head Line of Daily Mirror of October 1, 2025: “AKD’s neutral, not nonaligned, stance at UNGA”

The front page of the Daily FT (Oct.9, 2024) carries a report titled “Sri Lanka reaffirms neutral diplomacy” The report states: “The Cabinet Spokesman and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath yesterday assured that Sri Lanka maintains balanced diplomatic relations with all countries, reaffirming its policy of friends of all and enemy of none”. Quoting the Foreign Minister, the report states: “There is no favouritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach, he said…”

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

“Those who are unaware of the full scope and dynamics of the Foreign Policy of Neutrality perceive it as being too weak and lacking in substance to serve the interests of Sri Lanka. In contrast, those who are ardent advocates of Non-Alignment do not realize that its concepts are a collection of principles formulated and adopted only by a group of like-minded States to meet perceived challenges in the context of a bi-polar world. In the absence of such a world order the principles formulated have lost their relevance” (https://island.lk/relevance-of-a neutral-foreign-policy).

“On the other hand, ICRC Publication on Neutrality is recognized Internationally “The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (June 2022)” (Ibid).

“A few Key issues addressed in this Publication are: “THE PRINCIPLE OF INVOILABILITY of a Neutral State and THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES.

“In the process of reaffirming the concept of Neutrality, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that the Policy of Neutrality would operate in practice in the following manner: “There is no favoritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach” (The Daily FT, Oct, 9, 2024).

“Essential features of Neutrality, such as inviolability of territory and to be free of the hegemony of power blocks were conveyed by former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry at a forum in Singapore when he stated: “We have always been clear that we are not interested in being an ally of any of these camps. We will be an independent country and work with everyone, but there are conditions. Our land and sea will not be used to threaten anyone else’s security concerns. We will not allow military bases to be built here. We will not be a pawn in their game. We do not want geopolitical games playing out in our neighbourhood, and affecting us. We are very interested in de-escalating tensions. What we could do is have strategic autonomy, negotiate with everyone as sovereign equals, strategically use completion to our advantage” (the daily morning, July 17, 2024)

In addition to the concepts and expectations of a Neutral State cited above, “the Principle of Inviolability of territory and formal position taken by a State as an integral part of ‘Principles and Duties of a Neutral State’ which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved” enabled Sri Lanka not to get involved in the recent Military exchanges between India and Pakistan.

However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country.

Another sphere where Sri Lanka’s Policy of Neutrality would be compromised is associated with Infrastructure Development. Such developments are invariably associated with unsolicited offers such as the reported $3.5 Billion offer for a 200,000 Barrels a day Refinery at Hambantota. Such a Project would fortify its presence at Hambantota as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Such offers if entertained would prompt other Global Powers to submit similar proposals for other locations. Permitting such developments on grounds of “Balancing” would encourage rivalry and seriously threaten Sri Lanka’s independence to exercise its autonomy over its national interests.

What Sri Lanka should explore instead, is to adopt a fresh approach to develop the Infrastructure it needs. This is to first identify the Infrastructure projects it needs, then formulate its broad scope and then call for Expressions of Interest globally and Finance it with Part of the Remittances that Sri Lanka receives annually from its own citizens. In fact, considering the unabated debt that Sri Lanka is in, it is time that Sri Lanka sets up a Development Fund specifically to implement Infrastructure Projects by syphoning part of the Foreign Remittances it receives annually from its citizens . Such an approach means that it would enable Sri Lanka to exercise its autonomy free of debt.

CONCLUSION

The adherents of Non-Alignment as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy would not have been pleased to hear Dr. DeVotta argue that “non-alignment is largely a historical notion” during his presentation at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Colombo. What is encouraging though is that, despite such “historical notions”, the political establishment, starting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs extending up to President AKD at the UNGA and Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, have accepted and endorsed neutrality as its foreign policy. However, this lack of congruence between the experts, some of whom are associated with Government institutions, and the Political Establishment, is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

If as Professor DeVotta warns, the future Global Order would be fashioned by US – China Rivalry, Sri Lanka has to prepare itself if it is not to become a victim of this escalating Rivalry. Since this Rivalry would engulf India a well when it comes to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC), Sri Lanka should declare well in advance that no Exploration or Exploitation would be permitted within its EEC on the principle of inviolability of territory under provisions of Neutrality and the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.

As a measure of preparedness serious consideration should be given to the recommendation cited above which is to set up a development fund by allocating part of the annual dollar remittances to finance Sri Lanka’s development without depending on foreign direct investments, export-driven strategies or the need to be flexible to negotiate dependencies; A strategy that is in keeping with Sri Lanka’s civilisational values of self-reliance. Judging from the unprecedented devastation recently experienced by Sri Lanka due to lack of preparedness and unheeded warnings, the lesson for the political establishment is to rely on the wisdom and relevance of Self-Reliance to equip Sri Lanka to face the consequences of the US–China rivalry.

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

1132nd RO Water purification plant opened at Mahinda MV, Kauduluwewa

Published

13 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

Sponsors (senior management from M/S Perera and Sons), Principal and SLN officials at Opening of RO Plant

A project sponsored by Perera and Sons (P&S) Company and built by Sri Lanka Navy

Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

When the 1132nd RO plant built by the Navy with funds generously provided by M/S Perera and Sons, Sri Lanka’s iconic, century-old bakery and food service chain, established in 1902, known for its network of outlets, numbering 235, in Sri Lanka. This company, established in 1902 by Philanthropist K. A. Charles Perera, well known for their efforts to help the needy and humble people. Helping people gain access to drinking water is a project launched with the help of this esteemed company.

The opening of an RO plant

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) started spreading like a wildfire mainly in North Central, North Western and Eastern provinces. Medical experts are of the view that the main cause of the disease is the use of unsafe water for drinking and cooking. The map shows how the CKD is spreading in Sri Lanka.

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

In 2015, when I was the Commander of the Navy, with our Research and Development Unit of SLN led by a brilliant Marine Engineer who with his expertise and innovative skills brought LTTE Sea Tigers Wing to their knees. The famous remote-controlled explosive-laden Arrow boats to fight LTTE SEA TIGER SUCIDE BOATS menace was his innovation!). Then Captain MCP Dissanayake (2015), came up with the idea of manufacturing low- cost Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants. The SLN Research and development team manufactured those plants at a cost of one-tenth of an imported plant.

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

Gaurawa Sasthrawedi Panditha Venerable Devahuwe Wimaladhamma TheroP/Saraswathi Devi Primary School, Ashokarama Maha Viharaya, Navanagara, Medirigiriya

The Navy established FIRST such plant at Kadawatha-Rambawa in Madawachiya Divisional Secretariat area, where the CKD patients were the highest. The Plant was opened on 09 December 2015, on the 65th Anniversary of SLN. It was an extremely proud achievement by SLN

Areas where the RO plants are located

First, the plants were sponsored by officers and sailors of the Sri Lanka Navy, from a Social Responsibility Fund established, with officers and sailors contributing Rs 30 each from their salaries every month. This money Rs 30 X 50,000 Naval personnel provided us sufficient funds to build one plant every month.

Observing great work done by SLN, then President Maithripala Sirisena established a Presidential Task Force on eradicating CKD and funding was no issue to the SLN. We developed a factory line at our R and D unit at Welisara and established RO plants at double-quick time. Various companies/ organisations and individuals also funded the project. Project has been on for the last ten years under six Navy Commanders after me, namely Admiral Travis Sinniah, Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe, Admiral Piyal de Silva, Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna, Admiral Priyantha Perera and present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda.

Each plant is capable of producing up to 10,000 litres of clean drinking water a day. This means a staggering 11.32 million litres of clean drinking water every day!

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

On the occasion of its 75th Anniversary celebrations, which fell on 09 December 2025, the Navy received the biggest honour. Venerable Thero (Venerable Dewahuwe Wimalarathana Thero, Principal of Saraswathi Devi Primary Pirivena in Medirigiriya) who delivered the sermons during opening of 1132nd RO plant, said, “Ten years ago, out of 100 funerals I attended; more than 80 were of those who died of CKD! Today, thanks to the RO plants established by the Navy, including one at my temple also, hardly any death happens in our village due to CKD! Could there be a greater honour?

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

13 hours ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by the Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.

The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicisation of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicisation has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.

But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.

Appointment of Deans

Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.

By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratised approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.

In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.

Appointing Heads of Department

Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.

The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.

Process of amending the Universities Act

The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”

Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”

These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.

Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.

It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratis0…..ation of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.

All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.

In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.

If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.