Features

British troops in Panadura and going to work in shorts

Published

3 years ago

2023/04/9

Thilina Walpola

Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Geoffrey Layton

Excerpted from A Cabinet Secretary’s Memoirs by BP Peiris

The next incident I can remember is a matter of a two-line by-law sent by Davidson, Assistant Government Agent, Matara, which said “The part of the… D.R.C. road lying between the first and the second mile posts is hereby prohibited for lorry traffic over three tons in weight.” I amended the draft to read “No lorry weighing over three tons shall be driven over that portion of the… District Road Committee road which lies between the first and the second mile post on that road.” Davidson took offence at my correcting his draft and inquired why his draft had been amended.

I argued with Mervyn that “that portion” was better than the “part” and that generally my draft was better than Davidson’s. Mervyn agreed with me and wrote accordingly to Davidson. Soon afterwards, a four-paged letter was received from Davidson, citing Fowler’s Modern English Usage, and asking for a full report on the reasons for the amendments. Mervyn was angry. He wrote back to say that his assistant who revised the by-law was far too busy with drafting and had no time to be writing reports on the reasons for the amendments, and that he was not prepared to give a full report or any report other than the report he had already given stating that the draft was in due form as amended in red ink.

He added, that if Davidson would call by appointment at the Chambers of his assistant, the reasons would be orally explained to him. He also added, “You must not be so sensitive as to feel that when your draft is amended in this office, it is a reflection on your capacity to write good English.” Davidson never came to see me.

In 1936, three years after I joined the Public Service, came the Second World War with the necessary influx of allied troops and troop ships and all the evils always associated with war. There was rationing and a shortage of essential commodities, hoarding and black-marketing, rapid money-making by some, the downfall of others as a result of the appointment of the Custodian of Enemy Property, the return of pensioned prostitutes, the WRENS, WAAFS and their male counterparts, the blackout, uncertainty, tension…

It was all there for anyone who wished to see. The ordinary man’s feeling was that the order of the day was, as Charlie Chaplin said in his film “The Dictator”, Tightenden belten! A Commander-in-Chief assumed office, and the Governor became responsible only for the Civil Administration.

It was, as the newspapers said, a phoney war, but our Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Geoffrey Layton was getting the country prepared. Emergency Regulations, drafted by Mervyn and Villavarayan were being turned out of the Government Press faster than ham came sliced out of a machine. Then, one day, Ceylon woke up. On Easter Sunday, the Japanese air-arm dropped some bombs over the Fort of Colombo.

A few days later, they dropped a couple of bombs over Trincomalee. The damage was slight, but the people panicked. Most of those who could afford it left for the hills with their children. Those who could not, parked with friends out of the danger zone.

There was a British Volunteer Brigade stationed at Panadura. The Brigade was a mixed crowd consisting of surveyors, engine drivers, carpenters, London taxi drivers etc. The Officer Commanding, Major… was a King’s Counsel and a snob. There were also a Captain and Lieutenant, both decent men. I once invited the Captain, his junior officer and twenty men (I did not invite the snob) to my house for drinks and a singsong from six to nine p.m. They arrived sharp on time, marching in formation.

Following them came a military van with an enormous crate of N.A.A.F.I. beer. It was the first time that they had been invited by a householder in the town. I had a little gin and whisky and plenty of arrack. Everyone, including the officers, preferred the arrack, and the beer was untouched. With a shortage of servants, my guests had to help themselves, and I laid the drinks out in my small study which could accommodate comfortably only about six at a time. I accompanied each group in until they knew the ropes.

One of them, who looked a typical London taxi driver, saw a picture on my study wall and exclaimed, “Blimey! That’s Lincoln’s Inn.” I inquired whether he was a member of the Inn, and he said, “Lord, no Governor, I’m a taxi driver and know the place well.”

There was good singing and tap-dancing with hobnailed boots on my polished floor. The Captain looked worried and asked me whether his men were not spoiling my floor. I suggested that the boys be allowed to enjoy themselves. At a quarter to nine, the captain gave the order, “Last three songs.” When I inquired why he was bringing my party, which everybody was enjoying, to a sudden end, he said, “Your orders, Sir”.

I asked them to continue for another half-hour. At 9. 30 sharp, there were salutes from the men, handshakes from the two officers, and they were gone after one of the finest evenings I have had. They left for me the unused crate of beer. I remembered a Defence Regulation which penalized the possession, by private persons, of stores intended for the fighting forces.

Early the next morning, there were two of the men on my doorstep saluting me and saying “Good morning, Sir. Captain’s orders, Sir. Sent us to clean and polish your floor, Sir.” My wife gave them a cup of tea instead.

In view of the necessity to tightenden belten in all respects, Governor Caldecott made an order prescribing a new dress for public servants—long trousers and shirt without a tie, or shorts and shirt; no coat need be worn. I avidly seized this opportunity of being able to come to work in the sensible dress and be comfortable during my daily journey by train from Panadura to Colombo and back. The day after the Governor’s order was given publicity in the press, I came to work in khaki shorts and an open shirt.

The lawyers were particular about their striped trouser and black coats and Hultsdorp was surprised to see me in the new attire. A few days later, Mervyn sent for me. When he saw me, there was a look of horror in his face. It was obvious that he did not approve of the dress prescribed by the Governor in a case where the public servant concerned was a lawyer. He mentioned the matter to Sir Robert Drayton, Legal Secretary, who had expressed the view, which Mervyn conveyed to me, that shorts were the last thing a lawyer ought to be seen in while at work. As the Legal Secretary could not countermand the Governor’s order, I continued to wear shorts for the duration of the war and, I am sure, incurred Drayton’s displeasure.

Drayton had been Legal Draftsman of Palestine and, soon after he assumed duties as Legal Secretary of Ceylon, Mervyn took all his assistants with him to listen to a talk by Drayton on legislative drafting. The talk was interesting and instructive. Sir Robert, who was a heavy smoker, passed his enormous cigarette case round the table. Smoking before a superior officer, if one was a smoker, was the normal practice in Hultsdorp. The Civil Servants never did it. For example, a Class 11 man never smoked in the presence of a Class I officer, and a Class I Officer would not have dared to smoke in the presence of the Chief Secretary.

This struck me forcibly during a conference at the Secretariat in wartime. Drayton, who was in the Colonial Legal Service had been transferred as Chief Secretary, a rather unusual appointment for a lawyer and a draftsman, and had been succeeded by Nihill. The Conference was about the territorial waters of Ceylon and was attended by Nihill and myself, top army, navy and air force officers and top civil servants. Drayton presided. Sir Robert had, at that time, given up smoking as he had some trouble in his throat. Nihill was a smoker but never appeared to have his own cigarettes.

After some time, I asked Drayton whether I had his permission to smoke, permission which was readily granted with apologies that he was sorry that he had none to offer. I lit up and Nihill promptly borrowed one from me and continued to do so during the conference. Not one Civil Servant smoked while he Chief Secretary was in the Chair. As we left the conference room one of the Civil Servants offered me a cigarette and lit one himself.

C. L. Wickremesinghe, then Land Commissioner and a Class I Civil Servant came one day to see Mervyn Fonseka over some draft legislation. Mervyn asked Harry Wendt, an Assistant, to come with the relevant file and Harry came with the file and his tin of cigarettes and, during the ensuing discussion, kept puffing away as he was a heavy smoker. It was a shock to the senior Civil Servant to learn that in Hultsdorp, an assistant was permitted to smoke in the presence of his Head, nay, that he indulged in this practice almost as a matter of right.

On another occasion when Percy de Silva, another assistant, was sent for when another very senior Civil Servant was present, he came with his cigarettes and matches, his pipe and his tin of tobacco and placed them all on the boss’s table. The news soon spread in Civil Service circles, of the utter indiscipline and disrespect for seniority prevailing in Hultsdorp.

In 1924, with the appointment of E. G. P. Jayatilleka to the Bench, the post of Attorney-General fell vacant. Governor Caldecott offered the vacancy to Mervyn. At this time, M. W. H. de Silva, a good friend of Mervyn’s and the older of the two, was Solicitor-General. M. W. H. told Mervyn that if he accepted, he would be appointed, and would thereby, by reason of age and precedence, shut M.W.H. out of future promotions. He requested Mervyn to stand down, which he did.

He informed the Governor that he was willing to accept the post of Solicitor-General under M. W. H. as Attorney – General Mervyn showed me the letter written to him by Caldecott in his own hand informing him that he would be appointed Solicitor-General (“under protest” underlined three times and followed by three exclamation marks). I am not aware of any other case in the public service where one man has stood down for another, on grounds of age and friendship, in the matter of appointment to such high office.

Mervyn was accordingly appointed Solicitor-General and took silk. He had been admitted as an advocate in 1928 and, five years later, was appointed Legal Draftsman. His knowledge of the law and devotion to duty were so greatly appreciated that he was appointed to act as Legal Secretary when Drayton moved over as Chief Secretary. He died in 1946 at the early age of forty-nine.

His Excellency the Governor made the following minute:

“His Excellency the Governor desires to place on record his deep regret at the death of Mr J. Mervyn Fonseka, OBE., K.C., Solicitor-General. Mr Fonseka’s services under the Ceylon Government extended over a period of 19 years and was characterized by able and conscientious devotion to duty. At the time of his death, he held the highly important office of Solicitor-General in the Island of Ceylon and had performed the duties of that office with marked ability. His death is deplored by his colleagues and by his numerous friends throughout the Island.”

In the Supreme Court, tributes were paid to him. Basnayake, the Attorney-General, addressing the Judges, said that Mr Fonseka’s early death had removed from their ranks an outstanding personality and created a void which could not be filled. Like many distinguished members of the Bar, Mr Fonseka had shown great promise both in his academic and professional studies. There was no prize which was worthy, no distinction which was coveted, that he did not win for himself. The profession of teaching attracted him first, but that was only for a time till he qualified for the Bar with its glittering rewards.

Early in his professional career, he entered the service of the Crown. His rise was rapid. He successfully held the offices of Crown. Counsel, Assistant to the Attorney-General, Assistant Legal Draftsman, Legal Draftsman, Acting Legal Secretary, Solicitor-General and Acting Attorney-General. Had death not intervened, and so suddenly and so early removed him, he would undoubtedly have attained the highest judicial office in the Island.

The Attorney-General continued: Mr Fonseka had a lofty sense of duty and intense loyalty. His burning zeal for work was the despair of his colleagues who strained every nerve at times to keep pace with him. In the field of drafting, he excelled. The care with which draft legislation was prepared, the precision and perfection of his work, were known to every legislator since the reforms. He organized and reared a new department, the destinies of which he guided for eight years.

Those eight years were the busiest and most strenuous of the 24 of his professional life. He had made a worthy and lasting contribution to legislative drafting in this Island. Not only had he improved the standard and style of Ceylon enactments but he had also trained a band of brilliant young men in the technique of legislative drafting. His work in that sphere would remain a monument to him more permanent than marble or bronze.

In the period of the war, he toiled night and day to meet the imperious demands for urgently needed legislation. Although His Majesty did not fail to recognize his work, the stress of labours made itself felt and, since 1943, each succeeding year indicated that he had over-strained his constitution. Mr Fonseka’s outside interests had a wide and varied range. Music, literature, the classics, radio, chronometers were but a few. His love for music was great and his home became the Mecca of music-lovers. Mervyn Fonseka is no more, but the high ideals which he cherished and practised will serve as an inspiration for generations to come.

Sir John Howard, Chief Justice replied: Mr Fonseka’s record of achievements spoke for itself. He had a wide and extensive knowledge of every branch and every system of law. In the application of that knowledge, he did not adopt any ultra legalistic pedantry, but brought to bear a common sense point of view. Apart from Mr Fonseka’s legal knowledge, he was a brilliant scholar and a very well-read man.

It was sad to reflect at a time like this, when Ceylon was about to embark on a new order, that by Mervyn’s death, she would be deprived of one of her most brilliant sons at an early age and one so well fitted to guide her future destinies.

At a time like this, when Mervyn has passed to the other side, I prefer myself to dwell not so much on his record of achievements but on Mervyn as a colleague and a friend. For several years I was associated with him when I was Legal Draftsman. During that time, I incurred a debt of gratitude which can never be paid. He was a most loyal and devoted colleague. I think myself, that if he had devoted a little less time to his work, if he had been a less devoted public servant and given more care to his physical health, it is possible that he would have been with us today and going on from height to height till he reached that pinnacle to which the legal people can rise in Ceylon.

All his Assistants loved him and we carried the coffin to his grave. It would be impertinence on my part to add to what the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice said. Suffice it to say that if I have been efficient as a public servant, my efficiency has been due to the very thorough training I received under Choksy and Mervyn. He will always be in my memory.

All News Advertisement

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

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

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

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

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

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

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

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

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

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

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

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

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

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

The opening of an RO plant

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

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

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

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

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

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

Areas where the RO plants are located

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

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

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

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

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

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

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

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

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

Appointment of Deans

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

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

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

Appointing Heads of Department

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

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

Process of amending the Universities Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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