Features

Sudden withdrawal of Prohibition of Obscene Publications Bill

Published

5 years ago

2022/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

MINISTRY of JUSTICE LEGAL REFORMS:

By Kalyananda Tiranagama
(continued from yesterday)

In early 2005, Lawyers for Human Rights and Development (LHRD) made a comprehensive and country-wide study on the spread of obscene publications throughout the country and their pernicious social impact, heavily contributing to the increase of sexual abuse of women and children and disruption of family life; on the weakness and lacunae in the existing laws to deal with the problem; the problems and difficulties faced by the Police in the enforcement of the law; how the existing law can be enforced more effectively till required amendments are made in the law and possible amendments that can and need to be made to strengthen the law to effectively deal with the problem. The Study was published in Sinhala and English in May 2005 and launched at a public seminar held with the participation of high officials from the concerned public institutions, Ministry of Justice, Attorney General’s Department, Ministry of Women’s Affairs, National Child Protection Authority, Women and Children Bureau of the Police and Department of Probation and Child Care.

Following the launch, at the initiative of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, a public seminar was conducted for law enforcement officers to explain to them how the existing law can be enforced more effectively to curb the menace of obscene publications. Over 500 law enforcement officers participated in the seminar held in the SLFI Auditorium, chaired by Chandra Fernando, Inspector General of Police.

Limitations in the existing law

In our study we pointed out the following limitations in the existing law:

a. Lack of a clear definition of the term ‘obscene’

retarding Police from taking action against publications that are clearly obscene.

b. Existing penalties,

Rs. 1500 – 2000 fine or/and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, are hardly adequate for these offences and they cannot have a deterrent effect.

c. No provision to deal with exposure of children to pornographic material.

The 1995 Penal Code amendment does not cover such offences.

d. No provision for confiscation of equipment used for the production and distribution of pornographic publications.

Without confiscating such equipment, the computers used to make these publications, the printing presses used to print them or the vehicles used for their distribution, this menace can never be arrested.

e. This law was hardly applicable to other media except print media

. At present a greater threat is posed by electronic media, social media.

f. The Police had the discretion to decide under which provision of law an offender is to be charged, the Penal Code or the Obscene Publications Ordinance.

g. Though many of the acts promoted through the stories and material published through various media are crimes punishable under the law, there is no specific provision to punish such incitement or promotion of criminal conduct.

h. More than the persons who sell these publications, it is the persons who print, produce and distribute these publications who are mainly responsible for this menace. Law needs to be further strengthened to enable the Police to arrest and prosecute persons who print, produce and distribute them rather than the sellers of obscene materials.

i. Producing and distribution of pornography is a big business with high profits, in which many people are involved. Existing law cannot deal with the partners in this business or the huge profits they make at a heavy social cost.

j. Though equally or more harmful material are shown by various T.V. Channels during peak hours when children are watching them, there are no provisions to prevent that or deal with the persons who are responsible for these shows either in the Public Performances Ordinance or in any other law.

Steps taken by the Government to Amend the Law in 2007

 Following the launch of the Study in May 2005, in August 2005 the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage obtained 100 copies of the Study for distribution among the members of the Cabinet of Ministers.

 As shown by a letter of the Secretary to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage, the Cabinet of Ministers has approved a Cabinet Memorandum presented by the Minister of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage for the Amendment of the Obscene Publications Ordinance and it has been sent to the Legal Draftsman for drafting the Bill.

 The Draft Bill prepared by the Legal Draftsman has been presented to the Cabinet of Ministers by the Minister of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardhana (now the Speaker of Parliament) and the Minister of Justice and Legal Reforms, Amarasiri Dodangoda with a Cabinet Memorandum dated 28 March, 2008.

 LHRD received a copy of the Draft Bill from the Secretary to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs with his letter dated 31 October, 2007 and LHRD sent its observations to the Secretary.

Provisions in the 2007 Draft Bill

This Obscene Publications Amendment Draft Bill has taken steps to rectify several weaknesses in the existing law:

a. Lack of a clear definition of the term ‘obscene’ –

S. 12 of the Bill defines the term ‘obscene’: Any matter, object or thing is obscene if such matter, object or thing tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear such matter, object or thing.

b. Existing penalties – Rs. 1500 – 2000 fine or/and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months – are hardly adequate for these offences and they cannot have a deterrent effect.

Draft Bill has proposed to impose heavy penalties which will have a deterrent effect:

– S. 3 of the Bill: For publishing obscene material – imprisonment up to 10 years or a fine not less than 25,000 rupees or both; second or subsequent conviction – imprisonment for a term which may extend up to twenty years or a fine not less than 100,000 rupees or both.

LHRD made the following observation on the penalties proposed in the Draft Bill

*** The Jurisdiction to try these offences has been given to the High Court. For practical reasons it is better to leave this jurisdiction with the Magistrate’s Court. Otherwise, these cases will pile up in the High Courts for decades.

*** These proposed sentences also appear too excessive. Mandatory jail sentence of two years coupled with a fine of Rs. 100,000 and confiscation of equipment will be more than enough to have a deterrent effect.

c. No provision to deal with exposure of children to pornographic material. The 1995 Penal Code amendment does not cover such offences.

–

S. 4 of the Bill: Exposure of children to obscene material: imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not exceeding ten years or a fine not less than 200,000 rupees or both; second or subsequent conviction – imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not exceeding twenty years and a fine not less than 500,000 rupees;

d. No provision for confiscation of equipment used for the production and distribution of pornographic publications. Without confiscating such equipment, the computers used to make these publications, the printing presses used to print them or the vehicles used for their distribution, this menace can never be arrested.

–

S. 16 (2) of the Bill makes provision for the confiscation of any movable property used in the commission of the offence.

e. This law was hardly applicable to other media except print media. At present a greater threat is posed by electronic media, social media.

– S. 3 (a) of the Bill makes it applicable to all media: Any person who (a) publishes, publicly exhibits or lets on hire or knowingly sells or distributes or in any manner introduces into circulation through any medium of communication, any matter, object or thing which is obscene – commits the offence.

f. The Police had the discretion to decide under which provision of law an offender is to be charged, the Penal Code or the Obscene Publications Ordinance.

– S. 4 of the Obscene Publications Ordinance is not in the Bill and they have to ignore Penal Code provisions and act under the new law.

Though this Bill was drafted by the Legal Draftsman to give effect to a Cabinet approved Memorandum, though the Draft Bill was presented to the Cabinet by two Ministers, the Minister of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage and the Minister of Justice and Legal Reforms as early as March 2008, for some unknown and undisclosed reason the Bill was never presented to Parliament.

In the study conducted in 2004 – 2005, LHRD had come across 29 different obscene publications published and distributed throughout the country by different publishers. Most of them were weekly or fortnightly publications with multi-colour photographs. Publishing of obscene material is a lucrative business. There can be no doubt that during election times many of our politicians and political parties get the support of these press owners to have their posters and other propaganda material printed. Otherwise, there is no valid reason for this important Bill not to be presented to Parliament even 12 years after the Bill was presented for Cabinet approval. That was the response we got from the Police as well when we questioned them as to why they raided only the paper stalls where these publications were available for sale and why they did not raid the printing presses where these publications were printed.

The ‘Prohibition of Obscene Publications Bill’ brought by the Ministry of Justice under its Legal Reforms Project was published in the Gazette on Friday, December 24, 2021. The weekend being Christmas Holidays, the public had hardly any time to go through the Gazette and see what it is. However, within two days of its publication the Bill was withdrawn by the Minister of Justice. A statement issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice M.M.P.K. Mayadunne on December 29, has stated that the decision to withdraw the Bill was taken due to concerns raised by civil society activists and other stakeholders, objecting to the bill on several grounds, including copyrights.

Several questions arise from the statement of the Ministry Secretary. Other than the definition of the term ‘obscene’ in the Bill, the contents of the Bill were not published in any print media. What are the provisions in the Bill that led to objections that aroused concerns of the civil society activists? When and how did they raise these concerns? Print or electronic media did not publish any news about the concerns of civil society activists.

Usually when people have objections to or concerns about any matter, they issue a statement or conduct a press conference expressing their views. But nothing of that sort has happened in this instance. Moreover, there was hardly any time for anybody to raise their concerns. If there was anything contrary to fundamental rights or inconsistent with the Constitution in the Bill they can go to the Supreme Court and challenge it.

Who are these civil society activists and other stakeholders who are so powerful as to compel a powerful Cabinet Minister as the Minister of Justice to withdraw a Bill published in the Gazette within 48 hours of its publication? Who are these stakeholders who may be adversely affected by the prohibition of publication of obscene material? What copyright they can have in the production of indecent and obscene material?

Definition of the word ‘obscene’

The word ‘obscene’ has been defined in the Bill as “any matter, object or thing, which by itself or where it comprises more than one distinct component taken by itself, is sufficient to deprave and corrupt the mind of a reasonable person, but does not include any matter, object or thing containing anything done in the interest of science, literature, art, education or learning.”

If it is this definition of the word ‘obscene’ in the Bill that has led to these concerns of civil society activists and other stakeholders, it must be pointed out that it is a definition found in the law of England and India and upheld by our Supreme Court in a number of cases.

The definition in the 2007 Draft Bill

: “Any matter, object or thing is obscene if such matter, object or thing tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear such matter, object or thing.’’

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

definition: disgusting to the senses; repulsive; abhorrent to morality or virtue; designed to incite lust or depravity.

Oxford Dictionary

definition: “Offensive to modesty; expressing or suggesting unchaste or lustful ideas; impure, indecent, lewd.”

The definition

given in the English Case of Regina vs. Hicklin: “I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.”- Cockburn C. J., Regina v. Hicklin, 1L. R. 3 Q. B. 360, Quoted in Archibold, 27th ed., 1321

In the case of Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangalle v. Dharmabandu, 33 NLR 14, our Supreme Court adopted the definition of ‘obscenity’ given in the English Case of Regina vs. Hicklin. The Court held: “An Article is obscene where the tendency of its contents would be to deprave and corrupt the minds of those into whose hands it may fall.”

In two other cases – De Bruin v. Dharmabandu, 32 NLR 88; and Perera v. Agalawatte, 39 NLR 22, the Supreme Court adopted the definition given above. In these cases, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down certain criteria for deciding whether a publication is obscene or not. These criteria can be enumerated as follows:

a. Are there persons whose minds are open to immoral influences of (obscene) publications?

b. Is the publication likely to fall into the hands of those persons?

c. Do the photographs, pictures, stories and articles contained in a publication have a tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of those into whose hands it may fall?

In respect of any publication, if the answers to these three questions are yes, then it is an obscene publication. In determining whether a publication could have had a harmful effect, the overall impact of the publication is taken into account. The intention of the editor/publisher/printer is irrelevant.

S. 292 and S. 293 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with obscene publications, enacted in 1969, has adopted the definition of obscenity given in Regina vs. Hicklin Case.

S. 292(1)

A book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstance, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it;

Certain things or items are clearly exempted from the application of this provision:

Exception – this section does not extend to –

(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, or figure-

(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern, or

(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;

(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in –

(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or

(ii) any temple or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.

The definition of the word ‘obscene’ given in the withdrawn Bill is more or less the same as the above mentioned definitions found in the English Law, Indian Penal Code and the definitions adopted by our Supreme Court. There is nothing objectionable or inconsistent with freedom of expression in it. There is no apparent valid reason or justification for the Ministry to withdraw this Bill immediately after its publication in the Gazette.

The Ministry Statement has stated that an amended Bill would be presented to the Cabinet for approval, once discussions are held with interested parties, including the BASL.

Who are these interested parties who are so powerful as to compel the Minister to immediately withdraw a Bill that was published in the Gazette?

Are they the same parties that prevented, all this time since 2008, the Cabinet approved Obscene Publications Amendment Bill, drafted by the Legal Draftsman in 2007, from being enacted?

Certainly, it cannot be the BASL.

(The writer is the Executive Director of Lawyers for Human Rights and Development)

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

8 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

8 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

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

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

8 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.