Features

WHY THE HURRY ABOUT 20A?

Published

6 years ago

2020/09/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Professor G. L. Peiris

Minister Of Education

May I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Kandy Professionals Association for embarking on this very timely initiative of meeting every month, on a Sunday, to discuss in depth the issues involving constitutional reform, and the way forward in our country. I consider this an exercise of immediate relevance and value.

The decision by the Government to present to the Cabinet of Ministers the text of the 20th Amendment to modify significantly the contents of the 19th Amendment and, after obtaining the approval of the Cabinet, to move the Amendment in Parliament, has attracted considerable public interest and discussion. As a preliminary to this, I think it is important to explain to the country the need for this. The public should have a clear understanding of the rationale underpinning this reform. This is all the more necessary because of the elaborate myths which have been assiduously cultivated, skilfully spread, by vested interests throughout the spectrum of our society.

The core of their argument is that the retention of the 19th Amendment is essential to preserve seminal values which we all believe in – the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. They contend that removal or reform of the 19th Amendment is an act of treachery and that all must stand firm against it. If this is allowed to happen, so they contend, the result will be a mortal blow struck against human rights, democracy and seminal institutions including Parliament. The argument, set forth in the most emotional terms, needs to be assessed in the light of cold reason. What is the truth of this? Nothing is more crucial at this point than to inform the public mind about the reality of the current situation.

It is strenuously contended by interested parties that the 19th Amendment brought immense benefits in its wake, and that it has to be protected at any cost. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is for the entrenchment of narrow vested interests that this intricately orchestrated campaign, fortified by abundant resources and closely knit organization, has been launched. Why is 20A necessary? For a variety of reasons, no doubt. But chief among them, indisputably, is the maintenance of law and order – essential as it is for the protection of life and limb. This takes precedence over all other obligations – development in the economic, social and cultural fields.

This, then, is the principal and indispensable obligation of the State. If this duty is not fulfilled, all else become illusory.

What impact did the 19th Amendment have in this regard? The 19th Amendment categorically states that the President is debarred from holding any portfolios. Who is the President? He is the leader elected by the entire population of the country by the free exercise of the franchise. The inalienable duty of the President is the security of the State and the People. But the 19th Amendment prevents him from functioning as the Minister of Defence. We emphatically reject this position.

The 19th Amendment did contain a transitional provision. That, however, was limited in its operation to former President Maithripala Sirisena, who was permitted to hold the portfolio of Environment and Mahaveli Development during his tenure of the Presidency. This was an individual-centric provision which did not apply to Presidents who succeeded him.

For all other Presidents, the 19th Amendment imposes an inflexible bar against the holding of any portfolio, including Defence. Arguably, Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, read together, allow and indeed require, the President to hold the Defence portfolio, but this is a matter that would require judicial interpretation, in the event of a challenge in the Courts. Is this uncertainty and ambiguity desirable? Does it buttress or destroy the human rights and democracy which are sanctimoniously appealed to?

The 19th Amendment involves a basic conundrum. Articles 3 and 4 have the effect that the President is the repository of the Executive power of the State. Article 4(b) makes it clear that the defence of the nation is an integral and inseparable element of Executive power.

The defence of the country, then, is the sacred duty of the President. This is, without question, his responsibility. What he lacks, however, is the authority required to fulfil this responsibility. Here lies a fundamental contradiction, entailing as it does dire consequences for the nation’s security.

Prior to the enactment of the 19th Amendment, the Constitution of Sri Lanka contained explicit provision in respect of Urgent Bills. In the event of an unexpected contingency, an Urgent Bill could be presented to Parliament within seven days. The legislative process in ordinary circumstances, Is cumbersome and protracted: it may not enable a swift response to an unanticipated situation. To cater for this, the pre-19A law made provision for rapid intervention through the mechanism of Urgent Bills. It is this statutory provision that is abolished by 19A which compulsorily requires an interval of 14 days before legislation is introduced in Parliament. It is scarcely difficult to conceive of contexts in which this could imperil the safety and security of our country.

We have recently seen before our very eyes the horrendous consequences that were brought about by 19A. It created, in its foundation, two potentially warring centres of power. If the President and the Prime Minister belong to different political parties, we saw for ourselves the intensity of the conflicts, in terms of values, policy and even personalities, which arose in the day to day practice of Governance. It is the people of this country that paid an exorbitant price for this state of affairs. As many as 265 valuable lives were lost in the Easter Sunday carnage. To whom do we attribute responsibilities for this calamity? The Prime Minster says: “What can I do? I am not even invited to the National Security Council”. Indeed, meetings of the Council were not held for months on end. Was information conveyed to the President available to the Prime Minister, and vice versa? There was an internal tug of war – working not together but at odds with each other.

It is in the heat of this battle that the security of the nation collapsed altogether. The evidence being given on a daily basis before the Presidential Commission investigating this tragedy, is truly alarming. On the day this occurred, I was in Munich, Germany. On the following day the New York Times – a world renowned newspaper – carried on its first page the names, telephone numbers and addresses of those who were said to be involved in planning and executing this catastrophe.

Indian intelligence had brought these particulars to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government not once, but repeatedly. However, because of the internal dissensions which went from bad to worse, nothing whatever was done to avert the tragedy.

If there had been no 19A, responsibility would have been clear and undivided. What 19A did was to split it up and create chaos. The results are a permanent blemish on our national conscience. These are the matters of which the public should be informed.

What is the constant refrain of those who insist on the retention of the 19A? They proclaim the sanctity of the separation of powers, and regard authority in an individual or institution as the death knell of democracy and the basic elements of democratic culture. They assert their resolve to resist with the utmost vigour any attempt to dismantle the dual structure embedded in 19A. Is this an acceptable position?

At its very root, 19A elevated several institutions above the President. It took away the authority, hitherto vested in the President, to make appointments to high offices in the public service and the security establishment, including the Police. It characterised the retention of this authority in the hands of the President as a danger against which the public need to be protected.

On this footing the President was shorn of these powers. But to whom were they then transferred? To a Constitutional Council dominated by representatives of non-governmental organisations. This Constitutional Council is at the apex of the structure established by 19A, and wields the authority to constitute each and all of the Commissions which are said to be independent. Without the recommendations, or the approval, of this all-powerful body, the President is no longer empowered to make crucial appointments to the public service and the Police. In this regard the President is subordinated to this body – the Constitutional Council – which is sought to be sanctified as the embodiment of integrity, impartiality and probity.

Let us take a closer look at this body, close to being deified. Its membership includes persons who can in no way be regarded as legitimate representatives of the people. The whole object of the exercise, so the protagonists of the 19A whereby, stridently tell us, is to ensure depoliticisation of the State. Their contention is that everything in our country has become progressively politicised, and that the time has come to evolve a constitutional process where persons of undoubted rectitude, far removed from partisan politics, and professing fidelity to the highest moral and ethical standards, are vested with this awesome responsibility.

This is an absolute myth. Can it be maintained, by any stretch of the imagination, that the personnel constituting these Commissions are not tainted by partisan politics? A few examples will suffice. Professor Hoole is a member of the supposedly independent Elections Commission. He is expected to be apolitical. And yet, in an interview with a TV channel, he exhorted the public not to vote for the SLPP; he said that, if they were to do so, they would certainly regret their decision in the future. Can there be a more partisan intervention, coming as it has from a member of a Commission exalted as the zenith of objectivity and political neutrality? The yawning chasm between aspiration and reality is all too evident. Practice on the ground belies the grandiose pretence.

The Elections Commission is itself the creature of the Constitutional Council, identified by 19A as the source from which all the Commissions derive their authority. Mr. Javid Yusuf is a member of this overarching body. His impartiality is, therefore, by definition, axiomatic. Nevertheless, he makes so bold as to declare to the country at large in uncompromising terms, at a public forum: “Whatever you do refrain from giving the Lotus Bud a two-thirds majority. If you do this, you cannot evade responsibility for pushing the country to the brink of disaster”. Words to this effect are unabashedly uttered by a representative of the supreme body which functions as the fons et origo of all the “independent” Commissions.

Faced with this uninspiring reality, I state without hesitation that these “independent” Commissions brought into being by 19A are far more politicised than any other practicing politician in this country. It is to Commissions of this ilk that powers denied to the President of the country are supinely entrusted.

Here is a state of affairs which defies rational understanding, by any criterion. The position of apologists for 19A is, at bottom, the following: conferment of these powers on the President is preposterous and unthinkable; they represent an intolerable affront to the basic elements of democratic culture, and to the essence of human rights. However, these same powers, in the hands of institutions created in the manner defined by 19A, are innocuous and entirely acceptable.

Does this bear scrutiny for a moment? The President of the Republic is elected by all the people of our country, for the finite period of five years, at an Islandwide election. If they are dissatisfied with his performance at the end of his tenure, they have every right and power to reject him at the conclusion of this period. But can the people, in whom sovereignty resides according to the Constitution, make a similar decision is respect of the members of the Constitutional Council and the “independent” Commissions? They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one.

During the last few months, the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament have all changed in keeping with the democratically expressed will of the People. But members of the Constitutional Council and the “independent” Commissions remain entrenched in their positions, impervious to the winds of change. Is this defensible as the epitome of a structure of democratic governance, to be acclaimed widely?

Nowhere are the effects of the dichotomy established by 19A more apparent than in the domain of the economy. Ever increasing volumes of debt cannot provide a sustainable avenue for economic advancement. President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, in his Manifesto, has explicitly underlined the importance of resiling from the debt trap. The answer is investment, which is certainly feasible, but subject to obvious conditions. The essential requisite is confidence.

In the current intensely competitive international environment for investment, confidence has to be engendered by appropriate policy initiatives. Would any investor look seriously at Sri Lanka as a destination for investment, given the conditions generated by 19A?

The contemporary Yahapalana experience under the aegis of 19A was that the Prime Minister, in the exercise of authority conferred on him, established a Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) which, in effect, arrogated to itself, under his Chairmanship, the authority to make major decisions straddling the whole spectrum of the economy, these decision being submitted to Cabinet for its mere formal imprimatur. President Sirisena, increasingly incensed by what he saw as the relegation of the Cabinet with regard to economic matters, in due course found his patience exhausted, and eventually intervened by doing away with the Prime Minister’s brainchild and substituting for it a novel institution, the National Economic Council, under his own superintendence and direction. A few months later, however, he dismissed his own handpicked Chairman of this body, declaring that the officer concerned, although drawing a handsome salary, was seldom in the country. This state of things is hardly likely to offer any incentive for investment in Sri Lanka.

These developments provide the backdrop for a series of reflections. Empirical experience has convincingly demonstrated the weakness of the foundations of 19A. In truth, political power is not to be viewed with innate fear or obsessive suspicion. The contrary is a facile assumption, intuitively made with a total lack of dispassionate thought. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia are telling examples of Asian countries which could not have achieved the remarkable economic development they did accomplish without the advantage of strong Executive authority.

Admittedly, any system of democratic governance must contain viable checks and balances. However, as with everything else in life, there needs to be a sense of proportion. If the Executive is to be so constrained and hamstrung in every way as to make coherent decision making and movement forward impossible, the inevitable outcome is stagnation, or worse, anarchy.

This is the sad legacy of 19A which is now sought to be swept away as a matter of urgent priority.

All News Advertisement

Features

Sections of US media looking power straight in the eye

Published

10 hours ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Trump addressing the media at the White House.(BBC)

Some fundamental freedoms seen to be at the heart of democracy in the US – religion, speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the government – are at risk of being undermined at present by the country’s Executive President. However, the latter is being legally challenged on this score by some sections of the US media and the citizenry of the country could take heart from this notable defense of media freedom.

In fact this is good news for the world of democracy. The push back is coming from organizations such as CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC who constitute the nucleus as it were of the US media and their solidarity no less than their resourcefulness calls for commendation.

Following a recent White House decision to suspend CNN from what was referred to as ‘participation in presidential pool coverages’, the other media organizations mentioned refused to replace it in the pool. Their position was that the public had a right to receive ‘accurate and independent information about the government.’

Earlier, the White House decided to bar MS NOW and Politico from entering its premises following the restrictions imposed on CNN. The organizations were accused of publishing “FAKE NEWS’ , ‘Fiction’ and ‘lies’ in respect of the administration. These organizations lost no time in initiating a federal lawsuit accusing the central administration of violating their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

However, the latter litigating organizations could now consider themselves as having been vindicated because the federal court hearing their case has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily restore White House press access to journalists from the mentioned media institutions. Notably, the court has declared that the ban is ‘likely unconstitutional’. The case is proceeding.

The mass media of the most vibrant democracies of the West ought to be no strangers to such inspirational acts of solidarity and exemplifications of independence but there are lessons here for the democracies of the South that could stand them in good stead. Minus the right of a people to be informed, the rest of fundamental rights featuring in Southern Bills of Rights and legislation of the kind are bereft of substance and meaning.

It is informed decision-making on the part of a citizenry that makes for democratic vibrancy and on this score many a Southern democracy fails. While Southern publics generally demand of their governments continuous economic well being and substantive material benefits they are not equally desirous of being informed and knowledgeable.

This lacuna in the consciousness of many Southern publics enables their governments ‘to get off the hook’, so to speak and govern, or more often misgovern, their countries with impunity. Among other factors, this species of mass ignorance makes it possible for governments to dismantle democracy and rule in perpetuity.

Accordingly, an educated and constantly informed public is an essential precondition for the flourishing of democracy and independent media are integral to this process. Minus an independent mass media sector that meets the knowledge needs of the people responsibly, democracy is as good as dead.

Needless to say, those sections of the US media that are currently taking the Trump administration to task over its media curbs are acutely aware of the cruciality of these fundamental knowledge requirements.

The hope of democratic opinion worldwide and locally is likely to be that media independence would thrive in the manner in which it is flourishing in the most vibrant and accountable democracies of the West.

Southern countries such as Sri Lanka that lay claim to democratic credentials, but are democracy-deficient in many ways, need to be particularly cognizant of these requirements. The publics of these countries need to go the extra mile to ensure the thriving of an independent but responsible mass media sector.

In fact it is veritably a matter of life and death. It is only an independent media sector that could, while ensuring the existence of an informed public, impress on the latter the need to protect and perpetuate its fundamental rights. In the absence of these campaigns, such publics could be eventually having on their hands governments that boast of ruling in perpetuity.

Taking a leaf from the sections of the US media referred to independent media organizations in Southern states need to act in solidarity as well. They would need to act on the basis of the principle that acts of victimization suffered by members in their fold at the hands of governments, for instance, are in fact inimical acts directed at their collectivity and which call for united remedial action. In short, no independent mass media institution could see itself as ‘an island’.

Besides some general guidance on the importance of media independence and solidarity, the message coming from the US with regard to media praxis is that power must be stood-up to unblinkingly. The mentioned sections of the US media are primarily in a struggle to ward off encroachments on their independence in the areas of policy and practice by the political executive, that is the President.

The latter would ride rough-shod over the media in the absence of robust opposition by the media itself to inimical executive action of this kind.

While media independence needs to be seen as crucial to democratic development, an obligation is cast on the media to ensure that it uses such independence responsibly and constructively.

The worst that could afflict a media sector is for it to fall prey to the clichetic ‘freedom of the wild ass’. In fact recurring irresponsibility on the part of the media could lend credence to the perception that a tightly regulated media is best for a country. It is a short step from this misguided view to the position that political authoritarianism is best for a state. That turn of events would be of course catastrophic for a democracy.

The issues discussed thus far point to the need for a broad discourse among Southern democracies in particular on what is best for them in this connection. Given the risks underscored earlier for Southern countries in particular a broad discussion on the matters at hand, which includes the public, emerges as a must for Sri Lanka. Besides, media solidarity within democratic countries and internationally is a must.

Features

What lessons can be learned to improve quality of Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus

Published

10 hours ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya

by Prof. M. W. Amarasiri de Silva

Following public controversy over an inappropriate web link found in an English study module, the Sri Lankan government formally deferred the full rollout of the Grade 6 curriculum reforms to January 2027. In the interim, state schools will maintain the existing syllabus, reverting to standard eight-period daily timetables and previous textbooks to ensure uninterrupted instruction. Prime Minister and Minister of Education Dr. Harini Amarasuriya emphasized that this temporary pause allows the Education Ministry to thoroughly review all instructional materials, fix editorial flaws, and conduct scientific impact assessments across pilot schools prior to nation-wide implementation.

To address the oversight, an expert committee evaluated the flawed materials, completed necessary amendments, and finalised discussions to resubmit corrected modules for printing. Beyond revising written texts, the Ministry established a broader preparation roadmap—allocating funds for extensive teacher training programs set to begin mid-year, alongside scheduled informational briefings for parents, teachers, and students. Prime Minister Amarasuriya reaffirmed that none of the valid first-term modules were completely discarded or scrapped, preserving state resources while systematically rebuilding public trust and strengthening quality assurance protocols.

In this respect, this article reviews the current grade 6 syllabus comparing it with similar syllabi of India and the USA, with a view to make recommendations for the upcoming grade 6 syllabus revision.

Architecture of nation’s future

Education is the quiet architecture of a nation’s future. It is the unseen scaffolding upon which generations build their character, their intellect, and their capacity to contribute meaningfully to society. In Sri Lanka, the Grade 6 syllabus occupies a particularly important place in this architecture. It is the bridge between primary learning and the more demanding intellectual terrain of secondary education. It is the moment when children begin to move from learning basic facts to understanding concepts, from memorising information to applying knowledge, and from passive reception to active engagement. Yet, despite its importance, the Grade 6 curriculum in Sri Lanka has long struggled with issues of breadth, depth, relevance, and pedagogy. As global education systems evolve, Sri Lanka must examine what lessons can be learned from international models—particularly India and the United States—to strengthen its own curriculum and prepare students for a rapidly changing world.

The first lesson Sri Lanka can learn is the value of conceptual clarity. India’s NCERT curriculum, especially in Mathematics and Science, is globally respected for its logical progression and conceptual depth. Indian students are introduced early to the idea that mathematics is not merely a set of procedures but a language of reasoning. They learn why a ratio works, not just how to compute one. They understand the structure of an equation, not merely the steps to solve it. In Science, they explore the properties of materials, the structure of plants, and the principles of motion with a clarity that encourages curiosity rather than rote memorisation.

Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus, while competency-based, often leans heavily toward content coverage. Students are expected to learn many topics, but the time allocated for each is limited, and the teaching culture often emphasizes memorisation over understanding. If Sri Lanka wishes to improve the quality of its syllabus, it must embrace the idea that fewer topics taught well are better than many topics taught superficially. Conceptual mastery builds confidence, and confidence builds lifelong learners.

Lesson from the US

A second lesson comes from the United States, where the curriculum is built around skills rather than content. American students in Grade 6 are expected to read complex texts, analyse arguments, write essays supported by evidence, conduct experiments, and engage in collaborative projects. The emphasis is not on how much they know but on what they can do with what they know. This skills-based approach encourages critical thinking, creativity, and independence—qualities essential for success in the modern world.

Sri Lanka’s syllabus, by contrast, often rewards students for reproducing information rather than interpreting it. The exam culture reinforces this tendency, as students are assessed primarily through written tests that measure recall. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must integrate more opportunities for students to think, question, debate, and create. The classroom should become a space where students learn to solve problems, not just memorize solutions.

Another important lesson comes from the breadth of Sri Lanka’s own curriculum. One of the strengths of the Sri Lankan system is its inclusion of cultural and religious education. Subjects such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity provide moral grounding and cultural identity. Art, Music, Drama, and Health contribute to holistic development. These subjects remind students that education is not merely about academic achievement but about becoming a balanced human being. However, breadth without depth can become burdensome. Grade 6 students in Sri Lanka often juggle more than ten subjects, each with its own textbook, competencies, and assessments. This creates pressure not only for students but also for teachers, who must rush through content to meet syllabus requirements. The lesson here is not to reduce cultural subjects but to integrate them more meaningfully. Religious education can be taught through ethical discussions, community projects, and reflective writing. Art and Music can be connected to history, literature, and social studies. Health can be linked to science and physical education. Integration reduces overload while enriching learning.

Another lesson from India

India offers another valuable lesson in the form of standardised textbooks. NCERT books are used across the country, ensuring consistency in quality and content. They are written by subject experts, reviewed rigorously, and updated periodically. Sri Lanka’s textbooks, while generally well-structured, vary in quality and often lag behind modern pedagogical standards. Some are dense, text-heavy, and lacking in visual aids or real-world examples. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must invest in high-quality textbooks that are engaging, accessible, and aligned with contemporary educational research. Textbooks should not merely transmit information; they should inspire curiosity. They should include stories, diagrams, experiments, and activities that make learning enjoyable and meaningful.

The United States provides a lesson in inquiry-based science education. American students conduct experiments, build models, observe natural phenomena, and engage in engineering design challenges. They learn science not as a set of facts but as a process of discovery. Sri Lanka’s science curriculum includes experiments, but many schools lack the resources, laboratory facilities, or teacher training to implement them effectively. Improving the syllabus requires improving the ecosystem around it. Schools need laboratories, equipment, and teacher development programs that empower educators to teach science through inquiry. A syllabus is only as strong as the environment in which it is taught. ***

International models

Another area where Sri Lanka can learn from international models is language education. In India, students often learn three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit or Urdu. This heavy language load has its challenges, but it also produces students with strong linguistic skills. In the United States, English Language Arts emphasises reading complex texts, writing arguments, and analysing literature. Sri Lanka’s English curriculum, while improving, still struggles with uneven implementation across schools. Many students reach secondary school without adequate proficiency in English, limiting their access to global knowledge. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must strengthen English instruction through better teacher training, more reading opportunities, and a shift from grammar-heavy teaching to communication-focused learning. At the same time, Sinhala and Tamil instruction should be modernised to include creative writing, literature appreciation, and critical reading.

Social Studies is another area ripe for improvement. Sri Lanka’s curriculum includes History, Geography, and Civics, but the teaching often emphasises memorization of dates, definitions, and facts. India’s Social Science curriculum, while also content-heavy, provides clearer conceptual frameworks. The United States, however, excels in teaching civics and citizenship. American students learn how governments function, how laws are made, how communities solve problems, and how citizens participate in democracy. Sri Lanka can strengthen its Civics curriculum by incorporating more discussions on governance, rights, responsibilities, and community engagement. Students should learn not only the structure of government but also the values that sustain it—justice, equality, and participation.

One of the most important lessons Sri Lanka can learn is the value of reducing exam pressure. In both India and Sri Lanka, exams dominate the educational landscape. Students are judged primarily by their ability to perform on written tests. The United States, while not free from assessment challenges, uses a wider range of evaluation methods—projects, presentations, portfolios, and continuous assessment. These methods allow students to demonstrate learning in diverse ways. Sri Lanka should consider adopting a more balanced assessment system that values creativity, collaboration, and practical skills alongside academic knowledge.

Technology integration is another area where Sri Lanka can improve. The United States incorporates digital literacy, coding, online research, and digital citizenship into the curriculum. Sri Lanka’s ICT syllabus is well-structured, but implementation varies widely. Many schools lack computers, internet access, or trained ICT teachers. Improving the syllabus requires improving infrastructure. Students must learn to navigate the digital world safely and effectively. They must learn coding not as a luxury but as a basic skill. They must learn to evaluate online information critically, a skill essential in an era of misinformation.

Teacher training

Teacher training is perhaps the most critical lesson of all. A syllabus is only as effective as the teachers who deliver it. India invests heavily in teacher training through national programs, workshops, and online platforms. The United States emphasises professional development, peer collaboration, and instructional coaching. Sri Lanka must strengthen its teacher training programmes, ensuring that educators understand not only what to teach but how to teach it. Teachers should be trained in inquiry-based learning, differentiated instruction, formative assessment, and classroom management. They should be empowered to adapt the syllabus to the needs of their students rather than follow it mechanically.

Sri Lanka must learn the lesson of relevance. A syllabus must prepare students not only for exams but for life. It must teach them how to think, how to communicate, how to solve problems, and how to work with others. It must prepare them for a world where knowledge is abundant, but wisdom is scarce. It must help them navigate a future shaped by technology, globalisation, environmental challenges, and social change. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must ask: What kind of citizens do we want to produce? What kind of thinkers? What kind of leaders? The answers to these questions should shape the curriculum.

Lastly, improving the quality of Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus requires learning from both international models and local strengths. From India, Sri Lanka can learn the value of conceptual clarity and standardised textbooks. From the United States, it can learn the importance of skills, inquiry, and creativity. From its own traditions, it can preserve cultural education, moral development, and holistic learning. The goal is not to copy another country’s system but to build a uniquely Sri Lankan curriculum that is modern, relevant, and empowering. A curriculum that honours the past while preparing students for the future. A curriculum that nurtures thinkers, creators, and compassionate citizens. A curriculum worthy of a nation with immense potential and a proud educational heritage. If Sri Lanka embraces these lessons, the Grade 6 syllabus can become not just a bridge to secondary education but a foundation for national progress.

Features

Three magical nights at Colombo Fashion Week

Published

10 hours ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Melloney Dassanayaka is certainly a familiar name here, and abroad, as well, having represented Sri Lanka at the Miss Universe 2024 pageant, held in Mexico.

A former National Basketball player, she is also involved in several projects, beneficial to the community, including financial literacy for single women-headed families in the country.

A banker by profession, Melloney hold a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration.

Melloney with Asanka de Mel of Lovi Sri Lanka

This extremely talented old girl of Holy Family Convent, Bambalapitiya, was in the limelight, once more, when she was seen on the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week.

It was her very first experience, at this prestigious event, and she loved every minute of it, she said, and, what’s more, she was featured on three consecutive days.

According to the itinerary, on day 01 she walked for Lovi Sri Lanka; day 02 Rizwan Beyg (Pakistan designer), Arsath Furkhan (Indian designer), Haoyi Yan (Chinese designer) and Samant Chauhan (Indian designer); and on day 03 Vaishali Shandangule (Indian designer).