Features
Say NO to reforms in higher education
by Sivamohan Sumathy
The Parliamentary Select Committee on Education recently released its report on its programme for reforms in general education and higher education. Headed by Dr. Wijedasa Rajapaksa, the more than 10-member committee only had two members who had had anything to do with higher education, namely, Drs. Harini Amarasuriya and Charitha Herath. Yet it has audaciously proposed sweeping and fundamental changes in education, particularly higher education. It is noteworthy that Dr. Amarasuriya refused to be a party to the report and released her own dissenting report, outlining her fundamental differences with its findings.
I will take on the report through a partial examination of two related areas; one the substantive issue of its ideological maneuvering of higher educational policy, and to a lesser extent, the question of funds. Since the late ’90s, government policy has generated a slow erosion of free university education. The groundwork for reforms was laid through a systematic hounding of the university, its members, and through a reviling of the politics of its student body. Blaming the universities, particularly the humanities and social science streams, for the purportedly high levels of unemployment among the educated youth, the government came up with a rhetoric undermining the state university system around the term “unemployable graduate.” Conversely, its rationale and justification for funding came to be dependent on universities losing their own sense of what education is, forcing them to kowtow to pressures brought on by government bodies. By hounding university teachers and students with humiliating accusations of not being able to meet the demands of the private sector and calling them free loaders, the government tried to sell the idea that the universities were a burden on tax payers and on the economy. In contrast, the corporate sector was painted in the image of a beneficent godfather. In the policies advocated, the corporate sector became the role model, both in content and in administrative imperatives in universities.
The introduction to the section on Higher Education lays out the ideological frame for the proposals. It starts off with value judgements, like “[Higher Education] is plagued with many issues, including limited accessibility, low quality and weak relevance, poor governance, poor managerial capacity and inadequate resources” and absurdities, like “According to the Asian Development Bank (2020), much of the research output of public universities is of low quality and of low relevance to national needs”. Seemingly profound statements like “University-industry research collaboration is also very low” say little, for they do not offer any background understanding of the nature of our sciences and arts education, and, most importantly, the nature of our industries! Do we have a thriving corporate sector to drive research led projects? Our corporate sector is undeveloped and can barely sustain itself. Far more fundamental questions need to be asked. Do we want our research to be dependent on a set of corrupt, unregulated corporate entities? Has not research, at the global level, demonstrated the acutely problematic nature of corporate funding? Again, how much does the state invest in Research and Development?
The Commission
The proposals seek a new University Act and recommends the abolishing of the University Grants Commission (UGC). In its place a “National Higher Education Commission” will be set up, with four distinct committees functioning under it, namely State Universities, Non-State Universities/Higher Educational Institutes, Vocational Universities/Institutes and Quality Assurance. The functions of the Commission bring the state university system and private higher educational institutes together. This marks a radical departure from what is in place today. With all its ills, the UGC gives coherence to the higher education system across universities and, far more importantly, gives coherence to the Free Education system, by facilitating and overseeing the admission of students who come through the A/Levels. By abolishing such a body, and replacing it with a Commission that governs both the state university system and the private higher educational sector, and advocating cooperation between the two, the lines between the two are blurred. Under this National Commission, the student body of the state university system may become a two-tiered entity: students who enter through the free educational system and students who will pay fees; students who gain admission through the A/Levels and students who have lateral entry. These moves will lead to high levels of corruption. Not only will this create enormous socio-political inequality within the system, but will also pave way for the dissolution of free higher education.
The proposals envision a far-reaching role for non-state higher institutes. They are presented as core players in offering education at all levels of higher education and are expected to play the major role in setting up new universities across the country. Underfunding the universities and channeling funds into schemes for students by which they can choose the university they want to attend, as proposed here, will further weaken the state university system. The proposals emphasize Private public partnerships – PPP–a buzz word beloved of neo liberal ideologues. Ostensibly, PPP is about the private sector’s support for public institutions. But in reality, PPP is about the use of public institutions and their resources to sustain private enterprises The policy document Expansion of Medical Education in Sri Lanka With the Participation of the Private Sector: Adopting the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) as a Model released in November 2016 spells out policy makers’ views on PPP. It can be clearly seen in this document how parasitic the private sector is on the public. Ramya Kumar’s” Public–private partnerships for universal health coverage? The future of “free health in Sri Lanka” is a must read in this regard. https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-019-0522-6
Quality Assurance
As all those in the university system know, Quality Assurance (QA) is a contested normative framework. Its demands on the university system are ideological, for what it asks for in terms of quality is vague and extra-curricular, with little to do with the quality of education provided. QA is more about the management of education than education itself. It is about how well clerks are able to file letters in the filing cabinet. University teachers are being forced to spend an enormous amount of time writing those documents, so that they can be filed, and then be put on display as “evidence” of our compliance with the requirements of QA. QA does not in any way ensure quality, nor does it seek to ensure quality.
Quality in our world today is equated with corporate interests and research is understood to be in service to the corporate sector. QA instituted at the Commission will place state university education and private higher education on par, and make the objectives of the former subordinate to those of the latter, advocating uniformity, conformity, submission to authority and acquiescence.
Defunding State Universities out of existence
What rhetoric cannot achieve the government tries to extract through material means. State universities have been unimaginably underfunded in recent times. Funding is at an all-time low at present with 1.5% of the GDP. In turn, the government demands that universities generate funds, funds to be got at through establishing fee levying courses of all manner of quality. Underfunded and understaffed, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences, state universities are under immense pressure to engage in money making enterprises, via ramped up external degrees, certificate and diploma courses. At the moment, each of our faculties is busy finding ways to offer courses that can generate funds. Some faculties are exploring the possibility of admitting paying students at the undergraduate level.
The policies of the government range from attempts to delegitimize our curricula to flagrant underfunding of the universities.
Through systematic defunding, the path is being cleared for the take-over of higher education by the private sector and the privatization of state universities.
Undermining Democracy
In 2022, a mass uprising questioned the employability of our parliamentarians. Today, a bunch of uninformed parliamentarians, and an illegitimate government that has outlived its time by more than a year, are bringing about fundamental changes in an area that is one of the corner stones of the Sri Lankan socio-political map — Education, Higher Education and Free Education.
The country is in great economic stress. The cost of living rises daily, exponentially. Workers are facing a massive cut in opportunities for employment, while those in cultivation are confronted with depleting resources and decades-old erosion of their capacity to work. The proposals on education, if implemented, will dispossess the youth of this country of an education, exacerbating already existing social cleavages. This government and this Parliament have no political legitimacy to bring in such a sea change in policy. All those concerned must shout out to say NO!
(Sivamohan Sumathy is attached to the Department of English of the 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.
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News4 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News6 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Business5 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial4 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features1 day agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
Features6 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
News1 day agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
Opinion6 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
