Features
Landmarks in tea industry:More recent developments
by ACB Pethiyagoda
(continued from last week)
The Tea Propaganda Board was established in 1932 with participation by Government to plan and market teas rather than purely effect sales. All interested parties such as producers, traders, brokers etc. contributed generously in cash and with their expertise to assist the Board to achieve its objectives.
Mention has been made earlier of the Planters Association of Ceylon (PA) but a few significant stages of its development over the years must necessarily be mentioned.
The inaugural meeting of the Association was held on March 13, 1854 (also recorded as February 17, 1854) at which Captain Keith Jolly (ex Merchant Navy) was elected Chairman with headquarters in Kandy. Some of the early problems, which received the Association’s attention, were recruitment of South Indian labour, transport of produce (estimated at about 79,000 cartloads in one year from Kandy to Colombo) marketing, determination of Planting Districts etc.
Due to long distances planters had to travel, especially from Uva, Dimbulla and Sabaragamuwa attendance at meetings was poor even though some meetings were later held in Nuwara Eliya to correct this situation. Even so, at times the Association was nearly folding up. However, in gradual stages it stabilized itself with improved participation of its members in its deliberations and a permanent headquarters in Kandy was opened in 1900.
After about 40 years from then major structural defects surfaced, the building was demolished and its business was carried out from a temporary office in Kandy. The Association then moved to Colombo in 1947 and into its own building, in Galle Road, Kollupitiya in 1948. Following the nationalization of estates this building was taken over by Government and the Association moved to its present location at Vajira Road, Bambalapitiya.
With London being the predominant market and most owning companies based there, the PA decided to have its own Agent in London and in 1861 E.R. Power was appointed to the post on a fee of 50 pounds a year and expenses. About 1888 this position developed into the powerful Ceylon Association in London and around that time a member of the local Association gained a seat in Ceylon’s Legislative Council.
Other organization that came into being through the commendable efforts of the PA were the Ceylon Estate Agents Association in 1913 and later the Ceylon Estates Propriety Association, which also had a seat in the Legislative Council. Another such organization which owed its origins to the PA was the Ceylon Estate Employers’ Federation now the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon.
With a decline in the numbers of propriety planters, Superintendents and their Assistants felt the need for a body to safeguard and promote their interests resulting in the formation of the Ceylon Planters’ Society in 1936. Its main objectives were the promotion of their professional and personal interests while ensuring the interests of the proprietors.
Up to this the record is of the early proprietors and Superintendents of tea estates and their contribution to the development of the industry. Another highly significant contribution was made mainly by the labour recruited in South India whose trials and tribulations in their journey to their new homes and of life in the estates merits recording.
The first manual workers on plantations were the Sinhalese who were good at contractual tasks such as felling jungle, sawing timber, constructing buildings, turning out tools and implements etc. but who had no stomach for land preparation, planting and harvesting and living in estates. They, by and large, preferred to cultivate their own paddy and highlands in their villages free of regimentation by alien men. Hence, with the fast expansion and proliferation of plantations the obvious answer to much needed field workers was to draw from readily available sources in South India as other countries in the East and South Africa etc. had done before.
The Dutch were the first to bring in hired labour from South India to Ceylon for cultivation of cinnamon followed by first British Governor Fredrick North for the many public works he initiated.
Estimates indicate that there were about 4,000 Indian workers in 1841, which by 1848 had grown to about 32,000. Lt. Col. H.C. Bryde of Black Forest, Pussellawa is said to have claimed to be the first British planter to have brought in Indian labour for work in his plantation. This may have been around 1839.
Men and women who undertook the journey from their dry and barren South Indian villages to Ceylon may never had done so if they knew how arduous, dangerous and long it would be. They were escorted by Sub Kanganies, who were paid for their efforts by the planters, in small boats from Dhanushkodi to Talaimannar or from Tuticorin and other ports to Colombo. The rest of the journey to the Upcountry was on foot through dense, animal and reptile infested jungles.
The numbers who died on the way of malaria, dysentery, lack of food and water, accidents etc. during the 15 to 30 day march were not accounted for. On arrival at the plantations they were provided with manna grass or cadjan roofed houses, (better described as hovels), where they barely withstood the rigours of heavy rain, mist, cold, soggy walls and floors having lived all their lives in hot, drought scourged villages.
Under these appalling conditions they worked from dawn to dusk for a daily wage of around 30 cents for men and 25 cents for women. Of these wages the head kangany collected two cents per worker per work day while one of his many sub kanganies who was directly in charge of the gang of workers brought by him to the country drew ‘pence money’ (whatever that meant), of four cents per worker for each day worked. He was also paid daily wages by the superintendent.
Many head kanganies owned boutiques on the plantations from which they sold at exorbitant prices essentials required by the workers. They also lent money on compound interest rates leaving workers in eternal debt and in obligation to them. Generations of these men virtually lived on the sweat, toil and tears of the exploited workers and their progeny in later years did well for themselves financially. The system mercifully faded away in the late 1930s with the recognition of workers’ trade unions by the government of the day.
On January 1, 1929 the Minimum Wage Ordinance for Immigrant Indian Labour, came into force. Incidentally it was in this year that HRH the Duke of Gloucester visited the country and the Stanley Power Station was opened to provide electricity to Colombo.
The wages provided by the ordinance for men over 16 years was 54 cents, women over 15 years 43 cents and children over 10 years 32 cents per working day. Each worker was also entitled to receive a free issue of rice of a quality valued at not exceeding Rs. 6.40 a bushel at the rate of seven to eight bushels for men, three to four bushels for women and five to eight bushels for children per month.
Trade Unions representing estate workers’ interests were, as to be expected, treated with suspicion and hostility by all those who had a stake in the industry. General unrest on many estates encouraged by leftist political parties, came to a head on April 17, 1939 with the first labour strike at Kotiyagala Estate, Bogawantalawa. The workers demand was to organize a temperance movement which the Superintendent refused to allow perhaps correctly suspecting that what would follow would adversely affect discipline and consequently profitability.
Soon thereafter the second strike took place on January 1, 1940 on Mooloya Estate, Hewaheta during which Govindan, a worker, was shot dead by Police Constable D.G. Suraweera on the orders of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Robin of the Kandy Police. This incident almost led to a constitutional crisis, with the British Inspector General of Police P.N. Banks in the center of things as it were, but was averted by the able handling of the situation by Mr. D.S. Senanayake in the State Council.
The strike on Mooloya like the numerous others which followed in the years to come was on account of demand for higher wages and better living conditions. Since then many improvements have been regularly and consistently carried out with regard to housing and allied amenities throughout the country’s plantations. Unfortunately some villages in the borders of upcountry estates especially, lack the most basic amenities which are freely available on estates. This deplorable situation is mainly due to lack of organized representation on behalf of these villagers from whose very ancestors these estate lands had been arbitrarily taken over by the early British.
After Ceylon gained Independence in 1948 and particularly after the General Elections in 1956 when the SLFP came into power, the number of European planters declined making way for more Sri Lankan Assistants being promoted to positions as Superintendents and recruitment of Assistants locally. Agency Houses in Colombo gave preference to young men from the better known schools with impressive records in sports and leadership qualities.
The appointees followed the traditions and norms observed by their European predecessors in their working and social lives and the transition was smooth. With the rapid increase in competition in the world market the working lives of these planters were harder than that of their predecessors to retain the estates ‘mark’ with a quality product and to effect economies in any possible area to meet ever increasing costs, mainly labour wages.
These challenges were met with admirable results by the majority and their efforts in 1965 resulted in the country achieving the highest ever production and exports and also it became the largest exporter of tea in the world. Of the several reasons for this spectacular performance some of the most important were higher application of inorganic fertilizer, improved cultural practices recommended by the Tea Research Institute, vegetatively propagated (VP) tea coming into bearing, increase in small holdings and their production coupled with close supervision at all levels of management.
This happy situation came to an end following the Land Reform Law of 1972 and the consequent nationalization of the plantations. This event brought about a near total loss of planters’ initiative and enthusiasm on account of the reduction of their salaries and perquisites after the formation of the two organizations set up to manage the plantations – the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation and Janatha Estates Development Board.
Superintendents and Assistants who had previously administered their estates in the best interests of their properties were compelled to adhere to controls seeping down from bureaucrats in Colombo, many of whom had no experience in estate management or for that matter any business enterprise. Political influence from the highest to the lowest levels of the administration of estates became a common feature with labour union leaders often dictating terms. Appointments to executive and staff positions influenced by politicians resulted in wrong choices to the detriment of discipline which was of the highest importance earlier and instances of alleged bribery and dishonesty were not unknown.
The result was that by the late 1980s Government realized that to halt the deterioration, management of estates need to be privatized and grouped in 1992 the 450 odd estates into 22 management companies. Within a year or two a marked improvement in production both in terms of quality and volume was seen.
Now a century and a third after the first commercial planting of 19 acres in tea at Loolcondera, the country can be proud of 180,000 hectares of productive tea lands. The major portion of this comprises of large plantations and a lesser extent in small holdings. However, the yield per unit of land of the small holdings surpasses that of the estates and their combined production is around 283 million kilograms a year. By far the larger portion of this is marketed around the world in bulk form with a small portion as value added teas.
The industry employed directly and indirectly around one million men and women and bring in much needed foreign exchange with relatively insignificant outgoings of exchange on inputs. However, the industry’s anathema is that productivity is lower by far than practically all other tea growing countries.
The pioneers, those who followed them and those who contributed with numerous support services to develop the industry to its present status merit our admiration for their initiative, courage and dedication. Those men and women in the industry today and those who will follow it themselves have the best wishes of the country to better the achievements of their predecessors and perpetuate the once popular slogan ‘Ceylon For Good Tea’.
((First published in 2000. The late author was a tea planter who also worked for the Tea Research Institute early in his career. He ended his working life handling agricultural projects for the Ceylon Tobacco Co. Ltd.)
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.
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.
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.
-
Features6 days agoThe Sri Lankan who made Scottish history
-
Sports6 days agoNissanka absence opens door for Sri Lanka’s young guns
-
News5 days agoNDB fraud Rs 60mn more than reported
-
News7 days agoGnansara Thera to be assigned to prison printing section: Officials
-
News5 days agoRemoving monk’s robes matter for Sangha to decide: Mahanayake Theras
-
News7 days agoOIC of FCID summoned before Maligakanda Magistrate
-
Features6 days agoFuture of Sri Lanka’s state university system: Should it be shut down and reopened?
-
News6 days agoShiranthi R remanded until 13 Oct.