Features

Passage of 20A:

Published

5 years ago

2020/10/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Auspicious prelude to creation of a New Constitution

By Rohana R. Wasala

The Sinhalese in independent Sri Lanka have been nationalistic, but never narrowly communalistic; they have never illtreated non-Sinhala minorities on the basis of race or religion. Those who are wallowing in a sea of misinformation having been swept there by tides of hostile propaganda over the decades, may bristle at this, but the truth must be stated. The nationalism of the Sinhalese is not a construct of the last colonial era. Contrary to what Eurocentric theorists, their local clones, imperialist lackeys and their modern dupes believe, it is an inclusive nationalism. In their long history, the nationalism of the Sinhalese has been synonymous with patriotism or the love of their country, their island homeland. The JVP of 1971 and 1987-89 shed blood in the name of the country, not in the name of a race or a religion unlike respectively the defeated LTTE and the recent NTJ. To point this out is not being communalistic; it is only reacting to a false criticism. The racists and the extremists among the minorities raise false allegations of communalism against the majority community to justify their own communalism.

Today, even a section of the Sinhalese polity, including some young members of the FB generation, seem to think that to be a nationalist is the same as being a racist. That misconception is largely because they are not well enough informed about their own true history and truly admirable, multifaceted heritage, a legacy that is enjoyed by all communities in common: the still functional parts of the ancient hydraulic system, archaeological remains that attract foreign tourists and earn foreign exchange for the public coffers,and many other treasures. But anti-national individuals and agencies still censor Anagarika Dharmapala, the pioneer national revivalist of the colonial era, as a hate figure for ideologically rekindling, around the beginning of the 20th century, the nationalist spirit of the patriotic Sinhalese that had been choked in the course of a number of popular uprisings by force of arms by colonial invaders following the 1815 British intrigue. All the Sinhalese leaders who caused the 1948, 1956, 1972, 2009, and 2019 restorative revolutionary watersheds to happen were inspired by Dharmapala and were opposed by the real racists and received little support from non-Buddhist religious extremists.

The ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British imperialists was naturally to the greater disadvantage of the majority community than to the minorities, who in fact stood to gain from it. The British exploited the minorities to weaken the historical defenders of the land. It may be plausibly argued that they used them as tacit allies to restrain the Sinhalese from rebellion, in return for privileged treatment (although this was limited to an elite that politically mattered to them, while the majority of the dispossessed mixed masses consisting of common Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims shared the rigours of colonial exploitation without discrimination).

Particularly, the racist leaders of the Tamil minority feared that a parliamentary system of government where the Sinhalese would hold power because of their numerical superiority would mean a loss of their privileged status (hence the notorious 50-50 seat allocation demand of G.G. Ponnambalam which was contemptuously rejected by the Soulbury Commissioners in 1946. All the overtures that Sinhalese leaders, from D.S. Senanayake to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, made to the few but powerful racists (among the minority politicians) who somehow manage to hoodwink their people and persuade them to vote for them have failed to convince them to cooperate wholeheartedly with the majority in making unitary Sri Lanka a strong sovereign state where they harbour equal stakes and enjoy equal rights and share equal responsibilities.

The false allegation of Sinhala communalism finds a convenient platform in the demand for the constitutional emasculation of the institution of the executive presidency (if complete abolition is not possible). This is because it is usually a Sinhalese who stands a chance of getting elected as president by the pan-Sri Lanka electorate. These minority politicians (the extremist few, not all minority politicians) propagate the idea that all Sinhalese are communalists, and that every president will be biased against their people. But this is a fallacy. Though, at present, there is no likelihood of a minority politician becoming president because the minority polities are still mostly under the sway of racists and religious extremists, it is not an impossibility. If the non-racist, non-extremist politicians that there are among them are allowed to emerge dominant, they certainly will find more favour with the average Sinhalese voters than a conceited Premadasa or a clueless Sirisena, and a correspondingly modest and knowledgeable Tamil or Muslim president will no longer be just a dream. There are many examples from the past to illustrate the possibility of such an eventuality, but this is not the time for dwelling on the subject.

Unwarranted dilution of the powers of the executive presidency was what was achieved by the controversial 19A, which, effectively divided people’s sovereign power between the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker. It was a three-headed monster, as a government minister recently said. As a result of it the sovereign people had to put up with a severely dysfunctional parliament that brought disaster to the country for an interminable four and a half years before it was finally dissolved by the President and a fresh Parliament elected. The potential for the continuation of such a corrupt malfunctioning parliament is greater when the executive power of the President to dissolve it is curtailed or is completely taken away. That provides a situation open to exploitation by the Rishads and Hakeems of this world.

The Island

editorial/October 20, 2020 made the following comment, which suggests the despicable way they are ready to cock a snook at the sovereignty of the people:

‘Bathiudeen brought down the hurriedly formed Sirisena-Rajapaksa government, in 2018, by refusing to vote with it in Parliament. That administration crashed, unable to raise a simple majority in the House. This time around, Bathiudeen can give the present regime the kiss of death by voting for the 20A. If he and his four MPs vote for 20A, as expected, those who claim that he and the government have struck a secret deal will be vindicated. The only way the government can avert such a situation is to engineer the crossover of some other Opposition MPs so that it does not have to depend on Bathiudeen…..’

Who is this Bathiudeen? He was one of the Muslims forcibly evacuated from the North as a result of Prabhakaran’s ethnic cleansing policy. When Bathiudeen came down to Colombo he was a penniless youth with nothing but the worn out clothes on his body, it is said. Today, he is a billionaire with palatial houses here and there, and thousands of acres of land in his possession, with some more lands given to his relatives. He was able to help himself to such great wealth and also indulge in philanthropy at the expense of the state because he became a politician and managed to join the winning side continuously from the previous MR government to the end of Yahapalanaya, and battened on the suffering of the fellow members of his own displaced community. During the near decade in power, he was charged by environmental groups with the devastating deforestation of the Wilpattu forest reserve; he was rumoured to be complicit in importing cocaine hidden among goods in CWE containers, illegally exploiting the ilmenite containing mineral sand deposits at Pulmudai for personal profits, abusing the CWE to propagate extremist Islamist ideology, and he was even accused of having connections with the Jihadists who carried out the Easter Sunday attacks on churches and hotels. When the police finally started looking for him to arrest him on the charge of having abused state/public property by transporting by SLTB buses some 10,000 voters from their new places of residence to their old (for casting their vote a second time it was alleged in the media) on the day of the presidential election in November last year. How is it that an extremely unscrupulous, originally insignificant penurious politician has been allowed to invest himself with such power as The Island editorial has described?

This is because the minority communalists who stick that label on the majority have been empowered by the existing faulty electoral system being abused, and the majority community effectively disenfranchised in the process. Having to strike a deal with political criminals or to ‘engineer the crossover of some other Opposition MPs’ as The Island editorial suggests in order to get 20A or any other nationally important piece of legislation through parliament, is a wretched proposition for any sovereign nation even to contemplate. But, isn’t there any prospect for the nation to reverse this unfortunate self inflicted anomaly? In my opinion, there is. It is to get rid of our own fear of adopting strategies that might run the risk of being attacked as racist, Sinhala Supremacist, discriminatory towards minorities, contrary to international standards, etc. We have to learn not to give a fig to such unfounded accusations.

At present, the Sinhalese are scrupulously guiltless in this respect. Still they are treated as if they were the worst racists, human rights violaters, xenophobes, chauvinists in the world. Sometimes their own leaders criticise them for being jaatiwadin, or racists as Premadasa and Sirisena have already done:

Former President Sirisena was heard, at the Easter Sunday Attacks inquiry recently, referring to racists among the Sinhalese. In a Twitter message, which was only in English and Tamil, but not in Sinhala, during the presidential election campaigning period, SJB leader Premadasa charged that Muslims were subjected to discrimination at the hands of the Sinhalese! He toured the North, presumably to show the northern Tamils that he was a champion of Tamil rights. He was given a heroic welcome in Jaffna and he garnered many Tamil votes, too. But it is not that they fell for stratagems; they knew that he was ready to betray his own people for a mess of (electoral) pottage.

Could a person who doesn’t care about his own kind be concerned about other people?

The alleged Sinhala racists are none other than the few monks and some young Sinhala activists who are merely reacting to proven cases of harassment, aggression, and subversion against them by some extremist elements from among the minorities. Considerable numbers of young Tamils and Muslims are also among their supporters. Had the successive governments taken them seriously, the slaughter of innocents on April 21 could have been avoided. They represent millions, but are they taken notice of? Are they given proper media coverage? Global media (international TV channels such as Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, etc) broadcast distorted news about them.

There’s no place for them on the You Tube, either.

The true situation in the country is different from what is usually reported in these media. Why did the nationalists win very nearly two thirds of parliamentary seats, with the racists and religious extremists getting fewer than what they usually win? The result surprised even the nationalists. This shows that the Sinhalese electorate can decide the future of the country by themselves. But they naturally prefer to do so with the participation of the minorities. If the Sinhalese MPs in parliament forget their partisan divisions and remember the patriotism of their ancestors who shed their blood to save their motherland for all its inhabitants, they will voluntarily help the government to muster the two thirds majority required or even more for introducing a completely new constitution when the time comes for that.

Not less than the survival of the unitary state, the nation, the dominant Buddhist culture and the island territory is at stake. The America-led West and India seem to have found a deus ex machina opportunity to further crank up pressure on economically doddering Sri Lanka in the fast expanding mysterious Brandix Covid-19 cluster and in a court judgement given in UK that is favourable to the LTTE rump still active there: It was reported in the media on Wednesday (October 21, 2020) that UK’s Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission has concluded that the Home Office decision to keep the LTTE as a proscribed terrorist organisation was flawed and unlawful. So, the British parliament is likely to lift the ban on the organization in that country. Britain is one of the forty countries that proscribed the terror outfit. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, this will make little difference to the status quo, because the UK has practically always allowed its members to behave as if there was no ban on it.

So, all MPs in parliament, please forget your party, ethnic, religious and interpersonal differences in the name of our motherland. At the time of writing, the ad hoc 20A is to be put to the vote. It will be passed with necessary amendments. It is good if this was carried out without the government having to strike secret deals with communalists or to engineer crossovers from the Opposition (which would be a slap in the face of the voting public). The more momentous responsibility that you are going to fulfill is to create a sound new constitution for our country that will save our nation from squabbling geopolitical powers who are promoting their own separate national interests at our expense, leaving us in perpetual political instability and endless economic misery. You Hon. MPs, especially the fresh thinking young ones, owe our resplendent island homeland no less.

(PS: The 20A was passed in parliament with 156 voting for it and only 65 against. The votes cast in favour exceeds the required two thirds majority by 6 votes. It is obvious that the government did not have to make undue special overtures towards Muslim MPs. There were only 6 Muslim votes but they were not critical, they were dispensable. It is clear that the Muslim MPs thrust themselves on the government side without being asked. Probably, they did this on the prior instructions of Hakeem (and Rishad as well). I think so because, about two weeks ago, Hakeem told media men that he wouldn’t vote for 20A but that the other members of his party would probably do so. The government had better be careful: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Only Faustian bargains can be made with fundamentalists. No reasonable democratic dialogue is possible with Islamists. The government, it seems, was short of only 2 votes for acquiring the required number of votes, which was 150. Those two votes came from Tamil MP Aravind Kumar and SJB’s Diana Gamage. The latter violated her leader’s injunction, for which she must be praised. In my opinion, it is obvious that the former president, Sirisena, didn’t take part in the voting, not because the controversial NGO drafted and promoted 19A was passed under his presidency, but because he couldn’t any longer get associated with the hypocrisy of its defenders.

The drafting of a completely new constitution commenced two or three weeks ago. The process will get into top gear now. The multiethnic drafting committee is headed by the renowned PC Romesh de Silva, and includes other legal luminaries such as Manohara de Silva and experts in related fields such as geologist and geopolitical analyst and commentator Prof. Gerald H. Peiris. They who love Sri Lanka as their beloved motherland can be expected to collectively produce a document that will be as much acceptable to the minorities as it is to the majority.)

All News Advertisement

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

1 day 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

1 day 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

1 day 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.