Connect with us

Features

The Politicization of the Supreme Court of the United States

Published

on

The Leaked Opinion of Ruling Against Reproductive Freedom

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

The radical right’s aspirations for control of the US Supreme Court since the 1970s, and the ongoing wet dream of Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, are both now a fait accompli. The radical right will have control of the Court for the next few decades, considering the ages of three Justices with right wing values appointed by a treasonous president. And a fourth Republican Justice, Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginny Thomas, was actively and seditiously involved in the January 6 insurrection in the effort to violently overturn the November 2020 presidential election.

According to Article II of the Constitution, Justices to the Supreme Court are nominated by the sitting president, confirmed by the Senate. The framers of the Constitution envisaged a Court, representative of the will of a majority of the American people, with Justices appointed and confirmed by presidents who enjoyed the support of the majority of Americans.

Not so, today. Due to the archaic system of the Electoral College, added to the completely lopsided system of representation in the Senate, the current Supreme Court represents a minority of American voters. Two Presidents, Bush Jr. and Donald Trump, who both lost the popular vote to Al Gore (2000 – by 500,000 votes) and Hillary Clinton (2016 – by 3 million+ votes), respectively, have been responsible for the nomination of four Justices, with meagre legal qualifications but with a sycophantic commitment to the values of those espoused by the extreme right, Evangelical wing of today’s Republican Party. The Court now enjoys, and will enjoy for generations to come, a massive conservative 6/3 majority, composed of the Chief Justice and five Justices who do not represent the will of the majority of the American people.

The right to reproductive freedom has the overwhelming support of 80% of Americans, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed on numerous occasions in the past five decades, has been considered to be a super precedent, the law of the land. A ruling which serves to empower women with the nationwide right of choice for an abortion with no governmental restrictions.

Gun control regulations also have the support of 90% of Americans, but will never see the light of day because of the intransigence of a Republican Party venally ensconced in the deep pockets of the National Rifle Association. The complete lack of such regulations saw yet another racially motivated mass murder recently. An 18-year old white supremacist, armed to the teeth with military-style weaponry, killed 10 African Americans and injured three more at a supermarket, targeting a predominantly black community in Buffalo, NY.

The Supreme Court has already started to flex its newfound muscles with a leaked draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling which has been unsuccessfully challenged by the Republican Party over the last 50 years. The current opinion is designed to leave the interpretation of abortion laws to individual states. 28 states controlled by the Republican Party will outlaw abortion immediately after the ruling is ratified. The remaining states, mainly in coastal areas controlled by Democrats, will retain their existing laws permitting abortion under varying circumstances. It is estimated that 36 American million women will lose their right to choose under this ruling.

Strangely, Republican Justices, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, who, like all other Justices underwent a scrutiny of their impartiality in the Senate before confirmation, averred, under oath, that they considered Roe v. Wade an established precedent, and had no intention of overturning it. A complete falsehood, possibly tantamount to perjury, as is evinced by their endorsement of the current leaked opinion.

Outlawing legal abortion will not do away with unwanted pregnancies. Pregnant women financially able to travel interstate will still be able to choose to get an abortion in a state that honours reproductive freedom. However, those who are too poor to so travel, women from rural states in the Republican controlled heartland of America, usually blacks and minorities, will be compelled to resort to illegal, unhygienic, back alley abortions conducted in conditions with enormous risks to themselves and to the unborn foetus.

Extracts from the leaked draft resolution authored by Alito:

“We hold that Roe and Casey (another defeated challenge by the right to overturn abortion rights) must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives”.

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any Constitutional provision. Alito counters that “although some rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, such rights must be deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Alito and his radical Justices choose to ignore the fact that the words “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions” referred to such traditions prevalent during an era in, and context of, the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Many other freedoms, not referenced in the Constitution, in fact, freedoms specifically denied by it, have, in the past two+ centuries, become deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions, and enacted into the nation’s laws. Laws like all women’s right to vote, Blacks to have their humanity increased from 3/5 to 1.0 of a man, civil rights and Jim Crow laws to end segregation, voting rights, the rights of the LGBTQ community and gay marriage are such deeply rooted freedoms which are now the law of the land.

If the Supreme Court is successful in overturning women’s rights of reproductive freedom, there is no doubt that they will next be encouraged to overturn the hard fought freedoms referred to above, especially voting rights, the rights of the LGBTQ community and gay marriage, freedoms which are being bitterly contested by the current Evangelical Republican Party.

The main argument about abortion is when a foetus becomes a human being. Scientifically, up to four weeks, an embryo is just a complex of cellular elements. The brain, spinal cord and heart begin to develop around the fifth week; a foetal heartbeat may be detected by vaginal ultrasound after 5-6 weeks of gestation, which US Christians regard as “ensoulment”, a concept deeply rooted in religion and faith. However, the brainstem of the foetus is fully developed around the 28h week, when doctors are able to monitor foetal brain activity.

All the great religions practiced in the world today are Pro Life, the only difference being the reasons and the stage of the pregnancy for justification of its termination. The Bible is often quoted by the Evangelical right as evidence to justify abortion being the equivalent to murder (thou shalt not kill), although the Good Book makes absolutely no reference to abortion.

According to the Bible, Genesis 2.7, “Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being”. In fact, one Mosaic law contradicts that the Bible is anti-abortion, clearly stating that miscarriage (which abortion also is, miscarriage by choice), does not involve the death of a human being. Judaism considers the foetus to be part of a woman’s body until the baby is born.

Catholics also believe that life begins at conception. It also believes that salvation and entry into heaven hinges on the sacrament of baptism. This is a central tenet of the Church. However, the Church conducts baptism only after the child is born. It doesn’t baptise an unborn or stillborn foetus. So a foetus which does not make it to childbirth for any number of tragic reasons is presumably denied salvation and entry into heaven.

Though Hinduism and Buddhism have clear Pro Life positions on abortion, involving the concepts of Ahimsa, Karma and reincarnation, the agreed stipulation is that the final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy should be left to the pregnant woman. The Dalai Lama believes that abortion has negative karmic consequences, as it interferes with the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. However, he believes that abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each individual circumstance.

One school of thought on Islam teaches abortion is unlawful as a foetus becomes a human being “once the drop of the man had mixed with the blood of the mother”; another believes that “a foetus becomes a living soul after 16 to 20 weeks’ gestation”. According to yet another source, abortion should be determined entirely on the threat of harm to the mother.

In atheistic, scientific reality, a foetus becomes a human being only after birth, when the infant takes his/her first breath, just as death is confirmed when a person takes his/her last breath. Your birthdays are celebrated not on the day your father successfully fertilized your mother’s egg, nor on the day your heartbeat was heard through a sonogram. Your birthdays are celebrated on that wonderful day your parents held you in their arms for the first time.

Roe v. Wade ruled that the decision to allow a woman the right to legal abortion was not just about the age of the foetus. The circumstances of the pregnancy (rape, incest, etc.) were also taken into consideration, as were the dangers of a continuing pregnancy to the health and well-being of the pregnant woman and/or the foetus.

With the proposed opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, this Supreme Court may rule that abortion will be illegal, under all circumstances and at any stage of the pregnancy. Life, a gift from God, begins at fertilization, with no regard to the circumstances which caused the pregnancy. I am only surprised these religious kooks in Justices’ robes do not consider that life begins at erection.

Considering the most gruesome scenario, this draft opinion against abortion will compel a 12-year-girl, raped by a monster or family member, to carry the baby to childbirth, and gaze upon the eyes and features of her rapist all her life. An unwanted, even hateful tragedy which may prove to be a disaster for both the 12-year old child and the newborn infant.

There is no woman in the world who would want to terminate the life of the foetus growing inside her, unless there are circumstances which would make her life, or that of the unborn, totally unbearable. That decision, those circumstances and that choice, is hers, and hers alone, in consultation with her doctor and her God.

If the US radical right has genuine claims to be Pro Life, they will make benefits like extended periods of maternity leave, help with free care of the newborn child, its health and education. Also they will provide all assistance necessary to the mother whom they have forced to carry the infant to full term to pursue her own personal dreams.

But they will not, not in the USA, anyway. These Evangelical Republicans are not Pro Life; they are simply Pro Birth. Their interest in the well-being of the mother and the infant disappears after birth. Both the mother and the child will be abandoned to fend for themselves as best they could.

This leaked document is only a draft opinion, with no legal status. But there is a silver lining. The implied opposition to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling which has the support of the vast majority of Americans, may so incense voters of all stripes to support the Democratic Party in the midterms in November 2022. The attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade might well be the first nail in the Trump Republican coffin, and present the Democrats the opportunity of holding, even adding to, their majorities in the House and the Senate in November, a prospect projected to be highly unlikely before this leaked draft opinion emerged to overturn Roe v. Wade.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Educational reforms under the NPP government

Published

on

PM Amarasuriya

When the National People’s Power won elections in 2024, there was much hope that the country’s education sector could be made better. Besides the promise of good governance and system change that the NPP offered, this hope was fuelled in part by the appointment of an academic who was at the forefront of the struggle to strengthen free public education and actively involved in the campaign for 6% of GDP for education, as the Minister of Education.

Reforms in the education sector are underway including, a key encouraging move to mainstream vocational education as part of the school curriculum. There has been a marginal increase in budgetary allocations for education. New infrastructure facilities are to be introduced at some universities. The freeze on recruitment is slowly being lifted. However, there is much to be desired in the government’s performance for the past one year. Basic democratic values like rule of law, transparency and consultation, let alone far-reaching systemic changes, such as allocation of more funds for education, combating the neoliberal push towards privatisation and eradication of resource inequalities within the public university system, are not given due importance in the current approach to educational and institutional reforms. This edition of Kuppi Talk focuses on the general educational reforms and the institutional reforms required in the public university system.

General Educational Reforms

Any reform process – whether it is in education or any other area – needs to be shaped by public opinion. A country’s education sector should take into serious consideration the views of students, parents, teachers, educational administrators, associated unions, and the wider public in formulating the reforms. Especially after Aragalaya/Porattam, the country saw a significant political shift. Disillusionment with the traditional political elite mired in corruption, nepotism, racism and self-serving agendas, brought the NPP to power. In such a context, the expectation that any reforms should connect with the people, especially communities that have been systematically excluded from processes of policymaking and governance, is high.

Sadly, the general educational reforms, which are being implemented this year, emerged without much discussion on what recent political changes meant to the people and the education sector. Many felt that the new government should not have been hasty in introducing these reforms in 2026. The present state of affairs calls for self-introspection. As members affiliated to the National Institute of Education (NIE), we must acknowledge that we should have collectively insisted on more time for consultation, deliberations and review.

The government’s conflicts with the teachers’ unions over the extension of school hours, the History teachers’ opposition to the removal of History from the list of compulsory exam subjects for Grades 10 and 11, the discontent with regard to the increase in the number of subjects (now presented as modules) for Grade 6 classes could have been avoided, had there been adequate time spent on consultations.

Given the opposition to the current set of reforms, the government should keep engaging all concerned actors on changes that could be brought about in the coming years. Instead of adopting an intransigent position or ignoring mistakes made, the government and we, the members affiliated to NIE, need to keep the reform process alive, remain open to critique, and treat the latest policy framework, the exams and evaluation methods, and even the modules, as live documents that can be made better, based on constructive feedback and public opinion.

Philosophy and Content

As Ramya Kumar observed in the last edition of Kuppi Talk, there are many refreshing ideas included in the educational philosophy that appears in the latest version of the policy document on educational reforms. But, sadly, it was not possible for curriculum writers to reflect on how this policy could inform the actual content as many of the modules had been sent for printing even before the policy was released to the public. An extensive public discussion of the proposed educational vision would have helped those involved in designing the curriculum to prioritise subjects and disciplines that need to be given importance in a country that went through a protracted civil war and continue to face deep ethno-religious divisions.

While I appreciate the statement made by the Minister of Education, in Parliament, that the histories of minority communities will be included in the new curriculum, a wider public discussion might have pushed the government and NIE to allocate more time for subjects like the Second National Language and include History or a Social Science subject under the list of compulsory subjects. Now that a detailed policy document is in the public domain, there should be a serious conversation about how best the progressive aspects of its philosophy could be made to inform the actual content of the curriculum, its implementation and pedagogy in the future.

University Reforms

Another reform process where the government seems to be going headfirst is the amendments to the Universities Act. While laws need to be revisited and changes be made where required, the existent law should govern the way things are done until a new law comes into place. Recently, a circular was issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to halt the process of appointing Heads of Departments and Deans until the proposed amendments to the University Act come into effect. Such an intervention by the UGC is totalitarian and undermines the academic and institutional culture within the public university system and goes against the principle of rule of law.

There have been longstanding demands with regard to institutional reforms such as a transparent process in appointing council members to the public university system, reforms in the schemes of recruitment and selection processes for Vice Chancellor and academics, and the withdrawal of the circular banning teachers of law from practising, to name a few.

The need for a system where the evaluation of applicants for the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be manipulated by the Council members is strongly felt today, given the way some candidates have reportedly been marked up/down in an unfair manner for subjective criteria (e.g., leadership, integrity) in recent selection processes. Likewise, academic recruitment sometimes penalises scholars with inter-disciplinary backgrounds and compartmentalises knowledge within hermetically sealed boundaries. Rigid disciplinary specificities and ambiguities around terms such as ‘subject’ and ‘field’ in the recruitment scheme have been used to reject applicants with outstanding publications by those within the system who saw them as a threat to their positions. The government should work towards reforms in these areas, too, but through adequate deliberations and dialogue.

From Mindless Efficiency to Patient Deliberations

Given the seeming lack of interest on the part of the government to listen to public opinion, in 2026, academics, trade unions and students should be more active in their struggle for transparency and consultations. This struggle has to happen alongside our ongoing struggles for higher allocations for education, better infrastructure, increased recruitment and better work environment. Part of this struggle involves holding the NPP government, UGC, NIE, our universities and schools accountable.

The new year requires us to think about social justice and accountability in education in new ways, also in the light of the Ditwah catastrophe. The decision to cancel the third-term exams, delegating the authority to decide when to re-open affected schools to local educational bodies and Principals and not change the school hours in view of the difficulties caused by Ditwah are commendable moves. But there is much more that we have to do both in addressing the practical needs of the people affected by Ditwah and understanding the implications of this crisis to our framing of education as social justice.

To what extent is our educational policymaking aware of the special concerns of students, teachers and schools affected by Ditwah and other similar catastrophes? Do the authorities know enough about what these students, teachers and institutions expect via educational and institutional reforms? What steps have we taken to find out their priorities and their understanding of educational reforms at this critical juncture? What steps did we take in the past to consult communities that are prone to climate disasters? We should not shy away from decelerating the reform process, if that is what the present moment of climate crisis exacerbated by historical inequalities of class, gender, ethnicity and region in areas like Malaiyaham requires, especially in a situation where deliberations have been found lacking.

This piece calls for slowing-down as a counter practice, a decelerating move against mindless efficiency and speed demanded by neoliberal donor agencies during reform processes at the risk of public opinion, especially of those on the margins. Such framing can help us see openness, patience, accountability, humility and the will to self-introspect and self-correct as our guides in envisioning and implementing educational reforms in the new year and beyond.

(Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the University of Jaffna)

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

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan

Continue Reading

Features

Build trust through inclusion and consultation in the New Year

Published

on

Looking back at the past year, the anxiety among influential sections of the population that the NPP government would destabilise the country has been  dispelled. There was concern that the new government with its strong JVP leadership might not be respectful of private property in the Marxist tradition. These fears have not materialised. The government has made a smooth transition, with no upheavals and no breakdown of governance. This continuity deserves recognition. In general, smooth political transitions following decisive electoral change may be identified as early indicators of democratic consolidation rather than disruption.

Democratic legitimacy is strengthened when new governments respect inherited institutions rather than seek to dismantle them wholesale. On this score, the government’s first year has been positive. However, the challenges that the government faces are many.  The government’s failure to appoint an Auditor General, coupled with its determination to push through nominees of its own choosing without accommodating objections from the opposition and civil society, reflects a deeper problem. The government’s position is that the Constitutional Council is making biased decisions when it rejects the president’s nominations to  the position of Auditor General.

Many if not most of the government’s appointments to high positions of state have been drawn from a narrow base of ruling party members and associates. The government’s core entity, the JVP, has had a traditional voter base of no more than 5 percent. Limiting selection of top officials to its members or associates is a recipe for not getting the best. It leaves out a wide swathe of competent persons which is counterproductive to the national interest. Reliance on a narrow pool of party affiliated individuals for senior state appointments limits access to talent and expertise, though the government may have its own reasons.

The recent furor arising out of the Grade 6 children’s textbook having a weblink to a gay dating site appears to be an act of sabotage. Prime Minister (and Education Minister Harini Amarasuriya) has been unfairly and unreasonably targeted for attack by her political opponents. Governments that professionalise the civil service rather than politicise them have been more successful in sustaining reform in the longer term in keeping with the national interest. In Sri Lanka, officers of the state are not allowed to contest elections while in service (Establishment Code) which indicates that they cannot be linked to any party as they have to serve all.

Skilled Leadership

The government is also being subjected to criticism by the Opposition for promising much in its election manifesto and failing to deliver on those promises.  In this regard, the NPP has been no different to the other political parties that contested those elections making extravagant promises.  The problem is that  the economic collapse of 2022 set the country back several years in terms of income and living standards. The economy regressed to the levels of 2018, which was not due to actions of the NPP. Even the most skilled leadership today cannot simply erase those lost years. The economy rebounded to around five percent growth in the past year, but this recovery now faces new problems following Cyclone Ditwah, which wiped out an estimated ten percent of national income.

In the aftermath of the cyclone, the country’s cause for shame lies with the political parties. Rather than coming together to support relief and recovery, many focused on assigning blame and scoring political points, as in the attacks on the prime minister, undermining public confidence in the state apparatus at a moment when trust was essential.  Despite the politically motivated attacks by some, the government needs to stick to the path of inclusiveness in its approach to governance. The sustainability of policy change depends not only on electoral victory but on inclusive processes that are more likely to endure than those imposed by majorities.

Bipartisanship recognises that national rebuilding and reconciliation requires cooperation across political divides. It requires consultation with the opposition and with civil society. Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa has been generally reasonable and constructive in his approach. A broader view  of bipartisanship is that it needs to extend beyond the mainstream opposition to include ethnic and religious minorities. The government’s commitment to equal rights and non-discrimination has had a positive impact. Visible racism has declined, and minorities report feeling physically safer than in the past. These gains should not be underestimated. However, deeper threats to ethnic harmony remain.

The government needs to do more to make national reconciliation practical and rooted in change on the ground rather than symbolic. Political power sharing is central to this task. Minority communities, particularly in the north and east, continue to feel excluded from national development. While they welcome visits and dialogue with national leaders, frustration grows when development promises remain confined to foundation stones and ceremonies. The construction of Buddhist temples in areas with no Buddhist population, justified on claims of historical precedent, is perceived as threatening rather than reconciliatory.

 Wider Polity

The constitutionally mandated devolution framework provided by the Thirteenth Amendment remains the most viable mechanism for addressing minority grievances within a united country. It was mediated by India as a third party to the agreement. The long delayed provincial council elections need to be held without further postponement. Provincial council elections have not been held for seven years. This prolonged suspension undermines both democratic practice and minority confidence. International experience, whether in India and Switzerland, shows that decentralisation is most effective when regional institutions are electorally accountable and operational rather than dormant.

It is not sufficient to treat individuals as equal citizens in the abstract. Democratic equality also requires recognising communities as collective actors with legitimate interests. Power sharing allows communities to make decisions in areas where they form majorities, reducing alienation and strengthening national cohesion. The government’s first year in office saw it acknowledge many of these problems, but acknowledgment has not yet translated into action. Issues relating to missing persons, prolonged detention, land encroachment and the absence of provincial elections remain unresolved. Even in areas where reform has been attempted, such as the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the proposed replacement legislation falls short of international human rights standards.

The New Year must be one in which these foundational issues are addressed decisively. If not, problems will fester, get worse and distract the government from engaging fully in the development process. Devolution through the Thirteenth Amendment and credible reconciliation mechanisms must move from rhetoric to implementation. It is reported that a resolution to appoint a select committee of parliament to look into and report on an electoral system under which the provincial council elections will be held will be taken up this week. Similarly, existing institutions such as the Office of Missing Persons and the Office of Reparations need to be empowered to function effectively, while a truth and reconciliation process must be established that commands public confidence.

Trust in institutions requires respect for constitutional processes, trust in society requires inclusive decision making, and trust across communities requires genuine power sharing and accountability. Economic recovery, disaster reconstruction, institutional integrity and ethnic reconciliation are not separate tasks but interlinked tests of democratic governance. The government needs to move beyond reliance on its core supporters and govern in a manner that draws in the wider polity. Its success here will determine not only the sustainability of its reforms but also the country’s prospects for long term stability and unity.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Not taking responsibility, lack of accountability

Published

on

While agreeing wholeheartedly with most of the sentiments expressed by Dr Geewananda Gunawardhana in his piece “Pharmaceuticals, deaths, and work ethics” (The Island, 5th January), I must take exception to what he stated regarding corruption: “Enough has been said about corruption, and fortunately, the present government is making an effort to curb it. We must give them some time as only the government has changed, not the people”

With every change of government, we have witnessed the scenario of the incoming government going after the corrupt of the previous, punishing a few politicians in the process. This is nothing new. In fact, some governments have gone after high-ranking public servants, too, punishing them on very flimsy grounds. One of the main reasons, if not the main, of the unexpected massive victory at the polls of this government was the promise of eradication of corruption. Whilst claiming credit for convicting some errant politicians, even for cases that commenced before they came to power, how has the NPP government fared? If one considers corruption to be purely financial, then they have done well, so far. Well, even with previous governments they did not commence plundering the wealth of the nation in the first year!

I would argue that dishonesty, even refusal to take responsibility is corruption. Plucking out of retirement and giving plum jobs to those who canvassed key groups, in my opinion, is even worse corruption than some financial malpractices. There is no need to go into the details of Ranwala affairs as much has been written about but the way the government responded does not reassure anyone expecting and hoping for the NPP government to be corruption free.

One of the first important actions of the government was the election of Ranwala as the speaker. When his claimed doctorate was queried and he stepped down to find the certificate, why didn’t AKD give him a time limit to find it? When he could not substantiate obtaining a PhD, even after a year, why didn’t AKD insist that he resigns the parliamentary seat? Had such actions been taken then the NPP can claim credit that the party does not tolerate dishonesty. What an example are we setting for the youth?

Recent road traffic accident involving Ranwala brough to focus this lapse too, in addition to the laughable way the RTA was handled. The police officers investigating could not breathalyse him as they had run out of ‘balloons’ for the breathalyser! His blood and urine alcohol levels were done only after a safe period had elapsed. Not surprisingly, the results were normal! Honestly, does the government believe that anyone with an iota of intelligence would accept the explanation that these were lapses on the part of the police but not due to political interference?

The release of over 300 ‘red-tagged’ containers continues to remain a mystery. The deputy minister of shipping announced loudly that the ministry would take full responsibility but subsequently it turned out that customs is not under the purview of the ministry of shipping. Report on the affair is yet to see the light of day, the only thing that happened being the senior officer in customs that defended the government’s action being appointed the chief! Are these the actions of a government that came to power on the promise of eradication of corruption?

The new year dawned with another headache for the government that promised ‘system change.’  The most important educational reforms in our political history were those introduced by Dr CWW Kannangara which included free education and the establishment of central schools, etc. He did so after a comprehensive study lasting over six years, but the NPP government has been in a rush! Against the advice of many educationists that reforms should be brought after consultation, the government decided it could rush it on its own. It refuses to take responsibility when things go wrong. Heavens, things have started going wrong even before it started! Grade Six English Language module textbook gives a link to make e-buddies. When I clicked that link what I got was a site that stated: “Buddy, Bad Boys Club, Meet Gay Men for fun”!

Australia has already banned social media to children under 15 years and a recent survey showed that nearly two thirds of parents in the UK also favour such a ban but our minister of education wants children as young as ten years to join social media and have e-buddies!

Coming back to the aforesaid website, instead of an internal investigation to find out what went wrong, the Secretary to the Ministry of Education went to the CID. Of course, who is there in the CID? Shani of Ranjan Ramanayake tape fame! He will surely ‘fix’ someone for ‘sabotaging’ educational reforms! Can we say that the NPP government is less corrupt and any better than its predecessors?

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Trending