Connect with us

Features

Why the Proposed Amendments to Sri Lanka’s Universities Act Raise Fears of Authoritarianism, Democratic Backsliding, and a Dangerous Precedent for Academic Freedom

Published

on

A Nation at a Crossroads:

Sri Lanka’s university system has entered a moment of profound uncertainty as the National People’s Power (NPP) government advances a series of amendments to the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978. These changes, presented with unusual speed and minimal public discussion, have alarmed academics, administrators, and members of the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA). While the government maintains that these amendments are intended to modernize higher education governance and introduce merit-based leadership structures, many within the academic community view them as a direct threat to university autonomy and a dangerous precedent for political interference.

The amendments, particularly those revising how Deans of Faculties and Heads of Departments (HoDs) are appointed and removed, have triggered deep anxiety among intellectual circles who fear that the proposed law signals an authoritarian shift rather than progressive reform. The sense of betrayal is especially pronounced because university teachers and intellectuals were among the strongest supporters of the NPP movement during the recent political transformations in Sri Lanka.

At the centre of the controversy are proposed revisions to Sections 49(1) and 51(1) of the Universities Act. These revisions expand the pool of academics eligible to contest for the position of Dean. Under the existing structure, Deans must be elected by the Faculty Board from among the current Heads of Departments or the former Dean. This ensures that only individuals with administrative experience and recognition within their faculty stand for the position. However, the new amendment widens eligibility to include Senior Professors, Professors, Associate Professors, and even Senior Lecturers Grade I.

Although on the surface this appears to broaden opportunities and allow for greater openness, academics argue that it in fact destabilizes long-standing governance structures and exposes the selection process to political influence. Expanding eligibility without strengthening administrative criteria, leadership experience requirements, or safeguarding against external interference creates an environment where politically backed individuals could easily bypass traditional academic merit.

Yet the expansion of eligibility is not the most contested element. What has shocked academics across Sri Lanka is the new provision empowering University Councils to remove Deans without any formal inquiry, disciplinary process, or due procedure. The Council, which includes several members directly appointed by the Minister of Education, is now given the ability to remove a democratically elected Dean purely on the basis of its internal vote. Such sweeping power is unprecedented in the history of Sri Lankan higher education. Under the current framework, any removal from office must follow established disciplinary protocols, including issuing charges, conducting inquiries, and allowing for defence and appeal. Eliminating these safeguards fundamentally undermines the principle of natural justice. Deans would become vulnerable to political pressure, personal vendettas, institutional politics, and ideological conformity expected by whoever influences the Council majority.

Many academics fear that this provision is not aimed at improving governance but at consolidating political authority over universities. Sri Lanka has a long history of political meddling in higher education, particularly in the appointment of Vice Chancellors. Recent events at some Public Universities where the University Grants Commission abruptly cancelled nominations for Vice Chancellor without transparent justification have been cited as a clear example of the politicization already occurring under the present administration. When the UGC, a supposedly independent regulatory body, acts in ways that reflect political pressures, academics reasonably fear that granting Councils unchecked power to remove Deans will worsen the trend. The arbitrary removal of a Dean could easily become a tool for control: those who express dissent, resist political directives, or support student movements might be dismissed simply because they do not align with the prevailing political agenda.

The speed with which the NPP government has introduced these amendments has amplified suspicion. Stakeholders were not consulted. Faculty Boards, University Senates, academic unions, and even experienced administrative leaders were excluded from discussions. No white paper was circulated. No formal invitation for comments was issued. Despite the NPP’s public commitment to transparency, inclusiveness, and “system change,” the process surrounding these amendments contradicts every democratic principle the party claimed to champion. Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA), usually open to policy dialogue, has openly condemned the amendments and questioned why such sweeping changes are being rushed without proper consultation. The irony is not lost on academics: prominent members of FUTA have previously held high national office, including the Ministry of Education and even the post of Prime Minister. For a government linked to former academic activists to ignore the voices of academic institutions feels especially insulting. For many academics believes, this amendment is not simply a legal misstep but it is also direct assault on the dignity, autonomy, and democratic traditions of Sri Lankan universities.

Beyond the legal and political dimensions, academics are deeply concerned about the cultural and institutional consequences of these changes. University leadership thrives on internal democracy. Deans and Heads of Departments are expected to operate independently, ensuring that academic decisions from curriculum development to student welfare are based on scholarly principles rather than government agendas. If Deans can be removed without reason, the effect will be chilling. Administrators may hesitate to challenge questionable directives or resist political pressure for fear of losing their positions. Academic freedom, already fragile in Sri Lanka, could deteriorate rapidly. Research agendas may shift toward safe, apolitical topics. Public commentary by academics could become muted. Students, too, may suffer indirectly as universities become more risk-averse, less critical, and more obedient to political authority.

The threat to fundamental rights is tangible. Removing a Dean without inquiry violates principles of natural justice, which guarantee individuals the right to know the charges against them, the right to respond, the right to a fair and impartial investigation, and the right to appeal.

These principles are cornerstones of administrative law and are embedded in democratic governance. Circumventing these procedures essentially creates a parallel system where academic leaders are treated as political appointees rather than elected representatives of their faculties. Such a shift would place Sri Lankan universities in the company of authoritarian or militarized higher education systems elsewhere in the world, not among democratic nations where university autonomy is protected by statute.

Furthermore, the long-term implications for Sri Lanka’s academic reputation are severe. Internationally, strong higher education systems rely on clear separation between government influence and academic leadership. In Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and many European nations, Deans and Heads of Departments cannot be removed by politically influenced councils without due procedure. Decisions of this nature require transparent evidence, independent panels, and documented disciplinary processes. By contrast, the amendments proposed in Sri Lanka resemble governance structures found in autocratic regimes, where political loyalty often trumps academic merit. This perception could discourage international collaborations, visiting professorships, and global partnerships. It may also affect accreditation pathways, research funding opportunities, and the ability of Sri Lankan institutions to compete on the global academic stage.

The academic community has warned that Sri Lanka already faces severe challenges relating to brain drain, low research investment, and institutional instability. Political interference will only accelerate the exodus of skilled academics who seek environments where independent thought and professional dignity are protected. Many have expressed that they would rather accept lower salaries abroad than remain in a system where their professional integrity is at risk. Young academics, too, may hesitate to pursue careers in Sri Lankan universities if leadership positions become subject to political manipulation. This could eventually weaken the country’s capacity for scientific innovation, policy research, technological advancement, and knowledge production at a time when Sri Lanka desperately needs a robust intellectual workforce.

The cultural consequences of these amendments extend beyond academia. Universities play a critical role in shaping national consciousness. They nurture critical thinking, foster debate, and provide a space for young people to question power. Weakening university autonomy indirectly strengthens authoritarian governance throughout society. If academic voices are subdued, public policy will lose one of its most reliable sources of informed critique. Citizens, too, will feel the effects as public discourse becomes narrower and more controlled. The erosion of intellectual independence in universities often signals the early phases of broader democratic decline. Sri Lanka, still recovering from economic crisis and struggling to rebuild public trust in institutions, cannot afford such regression.

For their part, the government has defended the amendments by claiming that the changes will improve accountability, expand merit-based opportunities, and eliminate ambiguous language in the existing Act. While their concerns about ambiguity and governance shortcomings may be valid, critics insist that the solutions proposed are disproportionate and destructive. Expanding eligibility for Deans might be reasonable if accompanied by strengthened administrative criteria, leadership training programs, transparent performance assessments, and independent oversight mechanisms. But none of these appear in the amendment bill. Instead, the government has introduced a removal mechanism that undermines every principle of due process and opens the door for political abuse. This raises a deeper question: if the objective truly is meritocracy, why remove the procedural safeguards that prevent unjust dismissals?

Even academics who are supportive of the NPP’s broader political agenda are uneasy. They emphasize that reform should not be undertaken in isolation or without community consensus. Universities are not merely state institutions; they are intellectual communities governed by collegial principles. Any reform affecting their leadership structures must arise from meaningful dialogue with those who understand the complexities of academic life. Senior professors note that university leadership cannot be improved simply by widening eligibility. True leadership requires experience, respect among peers, and an appreciation of academic culture, qualities that cannot be legislated into existence, especially not through rushed amendments. Many fear that the government sees universities through a bureaucratic lens rather than understanding the unique intellectual, cultural, and administrative ecosystem in which academic governance operates.

A particularly troubling argument raised by academics concerns what the amendments could mean for the future. Laws once passed remain in force far beyond the lifespan of any government. Even if the NPP claims benign intentions today, future administrations especially those with authoritarian tendencies could easily exploit these amendments to exert control over universities. Sri Lanka’s history provides countless examples of laws enacted for one purpose being used for another. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, for instance, was introduced as temporary emergency legislation but evolved into a tool for political suppression. Granting Councils the power to remove Deans without due process could become a similar mechanism in the hands of future governments. For academics, the question is not only what the NPP intends but what any future government might do with these expanded powers.

The sense of urgency within universities is palpable. Many academics argue that the government must immediately pause the parliamentary process surrounding the amendments and engage in genuine consultation. This includes involving FUTA, the UGC, university Senates, legal experts, student unions, former Vice Chancellors, and professionals with administrative experience. A comprehensive review should be conducted to identify governance gaps in the current system, determine whether changes are warranted, and develop reforms that enhance both autonomy and accountability. The academic community is not opposed to reform but it insists that reform must strengthen democracy, not weaken it.

In this context, the amendments are seen not only as legally flawed but morally troubling. They undermine the trust that academics placed in the NPP government, a trust built on promises of transparency, consultation, and respect for institutional independence. For a party that campaigned on ending authoritarian governance, introducing amendments that empower political appointees to remove elected academic leaders is deeply inconsistent. Academics now fear that this may signal a broader trend: that the government’s commitment to system change does not extend to safeguarding democratic principles within state institutions.

Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads. The amendments to the Universities Act are more than administrative adjustments; they are a test of the government’s commitment to democratic governance. If passed without modification, they risk undermining academic freedom, silencing critical voices, and enabling political interference in spaces that must remain independent. Universities have long been centres of intellectual resistance, social critique, and democratic activism. Weakening their autonomy will weaken Sri Lanka’s democratic fabric. A government seeking to build a more just, equitable, and educated society cannot begin by constraining the freedom of its universities.

These amendments to the internal academic administration structure proposed by the NPP government violate long-standing democratic values that safeguard academic freedom and independent thinking. Within the Commonwealth tradition, academic integrity policies emphasize honesty, trust, fairness, and responsibility principles that guide the behaviour of students, faculty, and administrators alike. These policies condemn any form of dishonesty, including fraud, plagiarism, misrepresentation, or abuse of authority, and insist on transparent processes, clear rules, and consistent enforcement to ensure a trustworthy academic environment. By contrast, reforms that enable arbitrary appointments or removals of academic leaders without due process undermine these foundational values. They weaken the institutional culture of responsibility and transparency, and erode the safeguards that have historically protected academic communities from political interference. In this context, such amendments not only threaten academic governance but also contradict the very principles of integrity and accountability upheld across the Commonwealth’s higher education systems.

The academic community has repeatedly warned that Sri Lanka is already grappling with serious challenges in the smooth functioning of universities, the retention of qualified academics, and growing institutional financial instability. In the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah an event that has further crippled the nation’s economic resilience, Sri Lanka can ill afford additional turmoil within its higher education sector. If universities are pushed into authoritarian administrative structures and governance chaos, the consequences could be devastating. Such disruptions risk accelerating intellectual flight, weakening academic institutions, and ultimately destabilizing the entire nation in the months and years to come. In this fragile national context, undermining universities is not merely an academic issue it is a national crisis in the making.

The path forward requires humility, reflection, and dialogue. The government must acknowledge the concerns raised by academics, pause the amendment process, and commit to a consultative approach that respects the knowledge and experience of those who have dedicated their lives to education and research. Only through meaningful engagement can Sri Lanka develop reforms that genuinely improve higher education governance while preserving its democratic values. The stakes are high. The future of Sri Lanka’s universities and by extension, the future of its democracy depends on the decisions made today.

By Prof. MPS Magamage
Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Pakistan-Sri Lanka ‘eye diplomacy’ 

Published

on

The writer handing over a donation to restore the eyesight of injured military personnel

Reminiscences:

I was appointed Managing Director of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Chairman of the Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd (TPTL – Indian Oil Company/ Petroleum Corporation of Sri Lanka joint venture), in February 2023, by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. I served as TPTL Chairman voluntarily. TPTL controls the world-renowned oil tank farm in Trincomalee, abandoned after World War II. Several programmes were launched to repair tanks and buildings there. I enjoyed travelling to Trincomalee, staying at Navy House and monitoring the progress of the projects. Trincomalee is a beautiful place where I spent most of my time during my naval career.

My main task as MD, CPC, was to ensure an uninterrupted supply of petroleum products to the public.

With the great initiative of the then CPC Chairman, young and energetic Uvis Mohammed, and equally capable CPC staff, we were able to do our job diligently, and all problems related to petroleum products were overcome.  My team and I were able to ensure that enough stocks were always available for any contingency.

The CPC made huge profits when we imported crude oil and processed it at our only refinery in Sapugaskanda, which could produce more than 50,000 barrels of refined fuel in one stream working day! (One barrel is equal to 210 litres). This huge facility encompassing about 65 acres has more than 1,200 employees and 65 storage tanks.

A huge loss the CPC was incurring due to wrong calculation of “out turn loss” when importing crude oil by ships and pumping it through Single Point Mooring Buoy (SPMB) at sea and transferring it through underwater fuel transfer lines to service tanks was detected and corrected immediately. That helped increase the CPC’s profits.

By August 2023, the CPC made a net profit of 74,000 million rupees (74 billion rupees)! The President was happy, the government was happy, the CPC Management was happy and the hard-working CPC staff were happy. I became a Managing Director of a very happy and successful State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). That was my first experience in working outside military/Foreign service.

I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention Sagala Rathnayake, then Chief of Staff to the President, for recommending me for the post of MD, CPC.

The only grievance they had was that we were not able to pay their 2023 Sinhala/Tamil New Year bonus due to a government circular.  After working at CPC for six months and steering it out of trouble, I was ready to move out of CPC.

   I was offered a new job as the Sri Lanka High Commissioner to Pakistan. I was delighted and my wife and son were happy. Our association with Pakistan, especially with the Pakistan Military, is very long. My son started schooling in Karachi in 1995, when I was doing the Naval War Course there. My wife Yamuna has many good friends in Pakistan. I am the first Military officer to graduate from the Karachi University in 1996 (BSc Honours in War Studies) and have a long association with the Pakistan Navy and their Special Forces. I was awarded the Nishan-e-Imtiaz  (Military) medal—the highest National award by the Pakistan Presidentm in 2019m when I was Chief of Defence Staff. I am the only Sri Lankan to have been awarded this prestigious medal so far.  I knew my son and myself would be able to play a quiet game of golf every morning at the picturesque Margalla Golf Club, owned by the Pakistan Navy, at the foot of Margalla hills, at Islamabad. The golf club is just a walking distance from the High Commissioner’s residence.

When I took over as Sri Lanka High Commissioner at Islamabad on 06 December 2023, I realised that a number of former Service Commanders had held that position earlier. The first Ceylonese High Commissioner to Pakistan, with a military background, was the first Army Commander General Anton Muthukumaru. He was concurrently Ambassador to Iran. Then distinguished Service Commanders, like General H W G Wijayakoon, General Gerry Silva, General Srilal Weerasooriya, Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody, served as High Commissioners to Islamabad. I took over from Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama (former Chief of Staff of Navy and Governor Eastern Province).

A photograph of Dr. Silva (second from right) in Brigadier
(Dr) Waquar Muzaffar’s album

One of the first visitors I received was Kawaja Hamza, a prominent Defence Correspondent in Islamabad. His request had nothing to do with Defence matters. He wanted to bring his 84-year-old father to see me; his father had his eyesight restored with corneas donated by a Sri Lankan in 1972! His eyesight is still good, but he did not know the Sri Lankan donor who gave him this most precious gift. He wanted to pay gratitude to the new Sri Lankan High Commissioner and to tell him that as a devoted Muslim, he prayed for the unknown donor every day! That reminded me of what my guru in Foreign Service, the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar told me when I was First Secretary/ Defence Advisor, Sri Lanka High Commission in New Delhi. That is “best diplomacy is people-to-people contacts.” This incident prompted me to research more into “Pakistan-Sri Lanka Eye Diplomacy” and what I learnt was fascinating!

Do you know the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society has donated more than 26,000 corneas to Pakistan, since 1964 to date! That means more than 26,000 Pakistani people see the world with SRI LANKAN EYES! The Sri Lankan Eye Donation Society has provided 100,000 eye corneas to foreign countries FREE! To be exact 101,483 eye corneas during the last 65 years! More than one fourth of these donations was to one single country- Pakistan. Recent donations (in November 2024) were made to the Pakistan Military at Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology (AFIO), Rawalpindi, to restore the sight of Pakistan Army personnel who suffered eye injuries due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) blasts. This donation was done on the 75th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army.

Deshabandu Dr. F. G. Hudson Silva, a distinguished old boy of Nalanda College, Colombo, started collecting eye corneas as a medical student in 1958. His first set of corneas were collected from a deceased person and were stored at his home refrigerator at Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7. With his wife Iranganie De Silva (nee Kularatne), he started the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society in 1961. They persuaded Buddhists to donate their eyes upon death. This drive was hugely successful.

Their son (now in the US) was a contemporary of mine at Royal College. I pledged to donate (of course with my parents’ permission) my eyes upon my death when I was a student at Royal college in 1972 on a Poson Full Moon Poya Day. Thousands have done so.

On Vesak Full Moon Poya Day in 1964, the first eye corneas were carried in a thermos flask filled with Ice, to Singapore, by Dr Hudson Silva and his wife and a successful eye transplant surgery was performed. From that day, our eye corneas were sent to 62 different countries.

Pakistan Lions Clubs, which supported this noble gesture, built a beautiful Eye Hospital for humble people at Gulberg, Lahore, where eye surgeries are performed, and named it Dr Hudson Silva Lions Eye Hospital.

The good work has continued even after the demise of Dr Hudson Silva in 1999.

So many people have donated their eyes upon their death, including President J. R. Jayewardene, whose eye corneas were used to restore the eyesight of one Japanese and one Sri Lankan. Dr Hudson Silva became a great hero in Pakistan and he was treated with dignity and respect whenever he visited Pakistan. My friend, Brigadier (Dr) Waquar Muzaffar, the Commandant of AFIO, was able to dig into his old photographs and send me a precious photo taken in 1980, 46 years ago (when he was a medical student), with Dr Hudson Silva.

We will remember Dr and Mrs Hudson Silva with gratitude.

Bravo Zulu to Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society!

 

by Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Continue Reading

Features

Lasting solutions require consensus

Published

on

Social Media training

Problems and solutions in plural societies like Sri Lanka’s which have deep rooted ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages require a consciously inclusive approach. A major challenge for any government in Sri Lanka is to correctly identify the problems faced by different groups with strong identities and find solutions to them. The durability of democratic systems in divided societies depends less on electoral victories than on institutionalised inclusion, consultation, and negotiated compromise. When problems are defined only through the lens of a single political formation, even one that enjoys a large electoral mandate, such as obtained by the NPP government, the policy prescriptions derived from that diagnosis will likely overlook the experiences of communities that may remain outside the ruling party. The result could end up being resistance to those policies, uneven implementation and eventual political backlash.

A recent survey done by the National Peace Council (NPC), in Jaffna, in the North, at a focus group discussion for young people on citizen perception in the electoral process, revealed interesting developments. The results of the NPC micro survey support the findings of the national survey by Verite Research that found that government approval rating stood at 65 percent in early February 2026. A majority of the respondents in Jaffna affirm that they feel safer and more fairly treated than in the past. There is a clear improving trend to be seen in some areas, but not in all. This survey of predominantly young and educated respondents shows 78 percent saying livelihood has improved and an equal percentage feeling safe in daily life. 75 percent express satisfaction with the new government and 64 percent believe the state treats their language and culture fairly. These are not insignificant gains in a region that bore the brunt of three decades of war.

Yet the same survey reveals deep reservations that temper this optimism. Only 25 percent are satisfied with the handling of past issues. An equal percentage see no change in land and military related concerns. Most strikingly, almost 90 percent are worried about land being taken without consent for religious purposes. A significant number are uncertain whether the future will be better. These negative sentiments cannot be brushed aside as marginal. They point to unresolved structural questions relating to land rights, demilitarisation, accountability and the locus of political power. If these issues are not addressed sooner rather than later, the current stability may prove fragile. This suggests the need to build consensus with other parties to ensure long-term stability and legitimacy, and the need for partnership to address national issues.

NPP Absence

National or local level problems solving is unlikely to be successful in the longer term if it only proceeds from the thinking of one group of people even if they are the most enlightened. Problem solving requires the engagement of those from different ethno-religious, caste and political backgrounds to get a diversity of ideas and possible solutions. It does not mean getting corrupted or having to give up the good for the worse. It means testing ideas in the public sphere. Legitimacy flows not merely from winning elections but from the quality of public reasoning that precedes decision-making. The experience of successful post-conflict societies shows that long term peace and development are built through dialogue platforms where civil society organisations, political actors, business communities, and local representatives jointly define problems before negotiating policy responses.

As a civil society organisation, the National Peace Council engages in a variety of public activities that focus on awareness and relationship building across communities. Participants in those activities include community leaders, religious clergy, local level government officials and grassroots political party representatives. However, along with other civil society organisations, NPC has been finding it difficult to get the participation of members of the NPP at those events. The excuse given for the absence of ruling party members is that they are too busy as they are involved in a plenitude of activities. The question is whether the ruling party members have too much on their plate or whether it is due to a reluctance to work with others.

The general belief is that those from the ruling party need to get special permission from the party hierarchy for activities organised by groups not under their control. The reluctance of the ruling party to permit its members to join the activities of other organisations may be the concern that they will get ideas that are different from those held by the party leadership. The concern may be that these different ideas will either corrupt the ruling party members or cause dissent within the ranks of the ruling party. But lasting reform in a plural society requires precisely this exposure. If 90 percent of surveyed youth in Jaffna are worried about land issues, then engaging them, rather than shielding party representatives from uncomfortable conversations, is essential for accurate problem identification.

North Star

The Leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Prof Tissa Vitarana, who passed away last week, gave the example for national level problem solving. As a government minister he took on the challenge the protracted ethnic conflict that led to three decades of war. He set his mind on the solution and engaged with all but never veered from his conviction about what the solution would be. This was the North Star to him, said his son to me at his funeral, the direction to which the Compass (Malimawa) pointed at all times. Prof Vitarana held the view that in a diverse and plural society there was a need to devolve power and share power in a structured way between the majority community and minority communities. His example illustrates that engagement does not require ideological capitulation. It requires clarity of purpose combined with openness to dialogue.

The ethnic and religious peace that prevails today owes much to the efforts of people like Prof Vitarana and other like-minded persons and groups which, for many years, engaged as underdogs with those who were more powerful. The commitment to equality of citizenship, non-racism, non-extremism and non-discrimination, upheld by the present government, comes from this foundation. But the NPC survey suggests that symbolic recognition and improved daily safety are not enough. Respondents prioritise personal safety, truth regarding missing persons, return of land, language use and reduction of military involvement. They are also asking for jobs after graduation, local economic opportunity, protection of property rights, and tangible improvements that allow them to remain in Jaffna rather than migrate.

If solutions are to be lasting they cannot be unilaterally imposed by one party on the others. Lasting solutions cannot be unilateral solutions. They must emerge from a shared diagnosis of the country’s deepest problems and from a willingness to address the negative sentiments that persist beneath the surface of cautious optimism. Only then can progress be secured against reversal and anchored in the consent of the wider polity. Engaging with the opposition can help mitigate the hyper-confrontational and divisive political culture of the past. This means that the ruling party needs to consider not only how to protect its existing members by cloistering them from those who think differently but also expand its vision and membership by convincing others to join them in problem solving at multiple levels. This requires engagement and not avoidance or withdrawal.

 

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Unpacking public responses to educational reforms

Published

on

A pro-government demonstration calling for the implementation of the education reforms. (A file photo)

As the debate on educational reforms rages, I find it useful to pay as much attention to the reactions they have excited as we do to the content of the reforms. Such reactions are a reflection of how education is understood in our society, and this understanding – along with the priorities it gives rise to – must necessarily be taken into account in education policy, including and especially reform. My aim in this piece, however, is to couple this public engagement with critical reflection on the historical-structural realities that structure our possibilities in the global market, and briefly discuss the role of academics in this endeavour.

Two broad reactions

The reactions to the proposed reforms can be broadly categorised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. I will discuss the latter first. Most of the backlash against the reforms seems to be directed at the issue of a gay dating site, accidentally being linked to the Grade 6 English module. While the importance of rigour cannot be overstated in such a process, the sheer volume of the energies concentrated on this is also indicative of how hopelessly homophobic our society is, especially its educators, including those in trade unions. These dispositions are a crucial part of the reason why educational reforms are needed in the first place. If only there was a fraction of the interest in ‘keeping up with the rest of the world’ in terms of IT, skills, and so on, in this area as well!

Then there is the opposition mounted by teachers’ trade unions and others about the process of the reforms not being very democratic, which I (and many others in higher education, as evidenced by a recent statement, available at https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/ ) fully agree with. But I earnestly hope the conversation is not usurped by those wanting to promote heteronormativity, further entrenching bigotry only education itself can save us from. With this important qualification, I, too, believe the government should open up the reform process to the public, rather than just ‘informing’ them of it.

It is unclear both as to why the process had to be behind closed doors, as well as why the government seems to be in a hurry to push the reforms through. Considering other recent developments, like the continued extension of emergency rule, tabling of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and proposing a new Authority for the protection of the Central Highlands (as is famously known, Authorities directly come under the Executive, and, therefore, further strengthen the Presidency; a reasonable question would be as to why the existing apparatus cannot be strengthened for this purpose), this appears especially suspect.

Further, according to the Secretary to the MOE Nalaka Kaluwewa: “The full framework for the [education] reforms was already in place [when the Dissanayake government took office]” (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/12/wxua-a12.html, citing The Morning, July 29). Given the ideological inclinations of the former Wickremesinghe government and the IMF negotiations taking place at the time, the continuation of education reforms, initiated in such a context with very little modification, leaves little doubt as to their intent: to facilitate the churning out of cheap labour for the global market (with very little cushioning from external shocks and reproducing global inequalities), while raising enough revenue in the process to service debt.

This process privileges STEM subjects, which are “considered to contribute to higher levels of ‘employability’ among their graduates … With their emphasis on transferable skills and demonstrable competency levels, STEM subjects provide tools that are well suited for the abstraction of labour required by capitalism, particularly at the global level where comparability across a wide array of labour markets matters more than ever before” (my own previous piece in this column on 29 October 2024). Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) subjects are deprioritised as a result. However, the wisdom of an education policy that is solely focused on responding to the global market has been questioned in this column and elsewhere, both because the global market has no reason to prioritise our needs as well as because such an orientation comes at the cost of a strategy for improving the conditions within Sri Lanka, in all sectors. This is why we need a more emancipatory vision for education geared towards building a fairer society domestically where the fruits of prosperity are enjoyed by all.

The second broad reaction to the reforms is to earnestly embrace them. The reasons behind this need to be taken seriously, although it echoes the mantra of the global market. According to one parent participating in a protest against the halting of the reform process: “The world is moving forward with new inventions and technology, but here in Sri Lanka, our children are still burdened with outdated methods. Opposition politicians send their children to international schools or abroad, while ours depend on free education. Stopping these reforms is the lowest act I’ve seen as a mother” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). While it is worth mentioning that it is not only the opposition, nor in fact only politicians, who send their children to international schools and abroad, the point holds. Updating the curriculum to reflect the changing needs of a society will invariably strengthen the case for free education. However, as mentioned before, if not combined with a vision for harnessing education’s emancipatory potential for the country, such a move would simply translate into one of integrating Sri Lanka to the world market to produce cheap labour for the colonial and neocolonial masters.

According to another parent in a similar protest: “Our children were excited about lighter schoolbags and a better future. Now they are left in despair” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). Again, a valid concern, but one that seems to be completely buying into the rhetoric of the government. As many pieces in this column have already shown, even though the structure of assessments will shift from exam-heavy to more interim forms of assessment (which is very welcome), the number of modules/subjects will actually increase, pushing a greater, not lesser, workload on students.

A file photo of a satyagraha against education reforms

What kind of education?

The ‘pro’ reactions outlined above stem from valid concerns, and, therefore, need to be taken seriously. Relatedly, we have to keep in mind that opening the process up to public engagement will not necessarily result in some of the outcomes, those particularly in the HSS academic community, would like to see, such as increasing the HSS component in the syllabus, changing weightages assigned to such subjects, reintroducing them to the basket of mandatory subjects, etc., because of the increasing traction of STEM subjects as a surer way to lock in a good future income.

Academics do have a role to play here, though: 1) actively engage with various groups of people to understand their rationales behind supporting or opposing the reforms; 2) reflect on how such preferences are constituted, and what they in turn contribute towards constituting (including the global and local patterns of accumulation and structures of oppression they perpetuate); 3) bring these reflections back into further conversations, enabling a mutually conditioning exchange; 4) collectively work out a plan for reforming education based on the above, preferably in an arrangement that directly informs policy. A reform process informed by such a dialectical exchange, and a system of education based on the results of these reflections, will have greater substantive value while also responding to the changing times.

Two important prerequisites for this kind of endeavour to succeed are that first, academics participate, irrespective of whether they publicly endorsed this government or not, and second, that the government responds with humility and accountability, without denial and shifting the blame on to individuals. While we cannot help the second, we can start with the first.

Conclusion

For a government that came into power riding the wave of ‘system change’, it is perhaps more important than for any other government that these reforms are done for the right reasons, not to mention following the right methods (of consultation and deliberation). For instance, developing soft skills or incorporating vocational education to the curriculum could be done either in a way that reproduces Sri Lanka’s marginality in the global economic order (which is ‘system preservation’), or lays the groundwork to develop a workforce first and foremost for the country, limited as this approach may be. An inextricable concern is what is denoted by ‘the country’ here: a few affluent groups, a majority ethno-religious category, or everyone living here? How we define ‘the country’ will centrally influence how education policy (among others) will be formulated, just as much as the quality of education influences how we – students, teachers, parents, policymakers, bureaucrats, ‘experts’ – think about such categories. That is precisely why more thought should go to education policymaking than perhaps any other sector.

(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya).

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

Continue Reading

Trending