Connect with us

Opinion

Understanding what GSP+ means for Sri Lanka:

Published

on

By now, the term GSP+ has become almost a household word in Sri Lanka. As the European Union’s GSP scheme’s current cycle is set to expire by the end of 2023 and the new cycle for the next ten years (2024–2033) is about to begin, Naveera Perera, the Research and Publications Manager (Internal) of the Moot Court Bench International Trade Law Program, interviews Gomi Senadhira, an expert in International Trade Policy who, among other key roles, has held the positions of, Director General of Commerce of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative of the World Trade Organisation (2004-2006), the Chair of the WTO Committee on Trade and Development (2005), Minister of Commercial and Economic Affairs at the Sri Lanka Mission to the European Commission in Brussels (2001-2004), and the Commonwealth Senior Advisor for Trade Policy and Negotiations to the Government of the Seychelles (2013-2015), to discuss what GSP and GSP+ are and has subsequently meant for Sri Lanka. This article was originally published on Moot Court Bench International Trade Law Program Website

Compiled by Naveera Perera

Q: What does the term ‘GSP’ mean?

A: “GSP” is an abbreviation of “Generalised System of Preferences”. It is one of the most important tools in global trade policy to support the economic development of developing countries through international trade. However, to understand what it really means and its legal status, it is necessary to understand another important international trade term: MFN, the Most Favoured Nation principle. The MFN is the most important principle in multilateral trade law, as embodied in Article 1.1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It requires all members of the GATT (now the WTO) to be treated in the same manner in terms of market access. In other words, the best tariffs or non-tariff conditions extended by any member of the GATT to any other country have to be automatically and unconditionally extended to every other member of the GATT. The only possible exceptions are Free Trade Agreements, which are covered under Article XXIV of the GATT. Thus, even if a developed country wanted to give trade/tariff concessions to a developing country, it was not possible to do so without extending it to all other members of the GATT.

At the time when GATT was negotiated, a few preferential systems existed between developed and developing countries. These included, among others, the Commonwealth preferences and preferential trade arrangements between France and her former colonies. Therefore, attempts were made to find a way to use preferential trade as a tool of international development policy at the United Nations. This was deliberated at the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD I) in 1964. Then in 1968, the second session of UNCTAD adopted a resolution to establish a system of generalised, nonreciprocal and non-discriminatory preferential tariffs system in favour of developing countries. This is what is known as the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).

Subsequently, the necessary legal cover was provided by the GATT: first through a temporary waiver for GSP from Article 1 obligation and then the Enabling Clause (which became an integral part of the GATT). Under these decisions, “Notwithstanding the MFN obligation under Article 1.1, developed countries can extend developing countries more preferential tariffs in a generalised, nonreciprocal and non-discriminatory manner”. With the approval of these waivers, developed countries could establish autonomous GSP schemes, according to its own regulations, whilst staying true to its basic principles, that is, “preferential tariffs for developing countries in a generalised, nonreciprocal and non-discriminatory manner”.

Q: How does GSP relate to EU-Sri Lanka Trade Relations?

A: The first to launch a GSP scheme was EEC (EU). When this was done in 1971, it was extended to all developing countries in a generalised, nonreciprocal, and non-discriminatory manner. However, the EEC also continued with the trade preferences for some of their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP preferences). The ACP preferences included broader product coverage and deeper preference margins (mostly duty-free) than what was provided under the GSP preferences. The Asian and Latin American (former) colonies were left out of this enhanced preferential arrangement. So, from the very beginning, Sri Lanka and other Asian developing countries were not getting MFN in the European market.

Q: Then why didn’t Sri Lanka and/or other Asian countries challenge that in the GATT?

A: To challenge that, Sri Lanka had to go against not only the EEC but also against other developing countries. That was the early stages of the Non-Alignment Movement and the Group of 77 (G77). Perhaps, at that stage, the cohesiveness of developing countries was much more important to us than market access, particularly because Sri Lanka’s development policies at the time were not export-oriented. We were inward-looking, concentrating more on import substitution. Possibly due to these reasons, Sri Lanka did not make much effort to obtain ACP-like preferences in the European Market. Instead, we were more focused on becoming the leaders of the G77 and the Non-Alignment Movement.

On the other hand, Andean, and Central American Countries (some of these countries are also loosely called “Banana Republics”) started lobbying at every possible point for ACP-like preferences in the European market. We do not have much literature on this, but available reports show the intensity of their lobbying. For example, during the official tour of these countries by Mrs. Rosalynn Carter, the US First Lady, in 1977, the main message the Presidents of Costa Rica and Colombia wanted her to take back to the US president on their behalf was to gain his assistance in getting ACP-type preferential market access to the EEC whilst receiving a similar arrangement for them in the US market.

After 10 years of consistent lobbying by Andean and Central American Countries, in 1990, the EU came up with a bizarre kind of GSP arrangement called “GSP Drugs” or the GSP “Special arrangements to combat drugs production and trafficking”. This facility was extended only to the Andean and Central American Countries. Some of these countries were among the top coca-producing countries in the world. Most of them exported bananas, cut flowers and other tropical products. The concessions under “GSP Drugs” were very similar to the concessions under ACP and provided duty-free treatment for most of the products. Only a few items, like bananas, were left out.

In the early 1990s, Sri Lanka and the Asian Group took this up at UNCTAD very strongly. We argued that “GSP Drugs” violates the non-discrimination principle of the GSP and pointed out that it should be either aborted or extended to all preference-receiving countries. The EEC defended it under the Enabling Clause. Though the EEC position was incorrect, no one wanted to challenge this in the GATT dispute settlement system, as it was weak and expensive, and the decisions were not effectively enforceable.

A few years later, in 1999, the EU introduced two other special GSP arrangements. These were; GSP Labour and GSP Environment. Additional tariff concessions were available under these arrangements, and these were open to all beneficiary countries under certain conditions. Subsequently, the EC introduced another GSP arrangement specifically for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) called “Everything But Arms (EBA)”. In addition to that, the EU also had developed a few other trade arrangements, like Euro-Med Agreements, under which some developing countries received deeper preferential tariffs.

Q: What other countries in South Asia raised similar concerns? Did any one of them succeed in getting ACP-like preferences?

A: Bangladesh, Nepal, the Maldives, and Bhutan received duty-free access to the EU market under EBA. Then after 9/11, the EU extended “GSP Drugs” to Pakistan. So overnight, Pakistan also got duty-free market access to the EU. Though India didn’t get ACP- like preferences, it was the second largest beneficiary (after China) of the GSP arrangements. Sri Lanka could not even fully benefit from GSP general arrangement due to very strict and complex “Rules of Origin” requirements, and Sri Lanka’s GSP utilisation ratio was below 50%. As a result, at the beginning of this century, Sri Lanka was seriously marginalised in the EU market and was paying the highest average tariff rate.

Q: You mentioned that Sri Lanka held a strong position against the Commission, arguing that we were being discriminated against. Could you elaborate on that?

A: To give you some context, in the year 2000, the WTO appointed a group of “Eight Wise Men” to study and clarify the challenges the multilateral trading system faced. This group was chaired by Peter Sutherland, the first WTO Director General and the former Commissioner of the European Commission in charge of Competition Policy and consisted of very eminent people (one of the eight men was John Howard Jackson – the John H Jackson Moot Court Competition is named after him).  This committee submitted a report (‘The Future of the WTO,’ published in 2004) where they noted:

At the heart of GATT was the principle of non-discrimination characterised by the MFN clause and the national treatment provisions principally embodied in Article 1. The MFN Clause was regarded as the central organising rule of GATT and the world trading system of rules it constituted [para 58] …. Yet, nearly five decades after the founding of GATT, MFN is no longer the rule; it is almost the exception… Certainly, the term might now be better defined as LFN, a Least Favoured-Nation treatment [para 60] …. This is best illustrated by reference to the EU, which now has the MFN tariff fully applicable to only nine trading partners, albeit including the US and Japan. All other trading partners are granted concessional market access under Article XXIV, the Enabling Clause, GSP schemes, “Everything but Arms”, and other relationships [para 74].

Around the same time, the discrimination Sri Lanka faced in the EU market was highlighted in a research undertaken by Oxfam/UK (‘Running into Sand’, published in 2003 by Oxfam). On page 28, they noted: “The available evidence suggests that the EU’s Common External Tariff (CET) is fundamentally anti-poor. Here too, the principle of perverse graduation applies. In Britain, tax rates on imports of goods from India are around four times higher than for the USA, rising to over eight times higher for countries such as Sri Lanka and Uruguay.”

While the above publications proved a point in favour of Sri Lanka’s claims, before these studies were published, the Sri Lanka Mission to the EC in Brussels directly took it up with the Commission in 2002. Our arguments were based on our own studies.

Perhaps, 2002 also marked the start of a new chapter in EU-Sri Lanka trade relations. The South Asia division in the Commission’s Trade Directorate was only established that year. Prior to that, South Asia and South America were handled by the same section. Within that section, South America comparatively received more focus, barely providing much attention to “South Asia” as a region. India had a strong presence in Brussels and better access to the commission. So, on a one-on-one basis, India managed to negotiate her concerns with the EC. By then, India was the second largest beneficiary of the EU GSP Scheme. The South Asian LDCs managed access through the LDC track and, by 2001, had full duty-free market access to the EU under GSP-EBA. Pakistan also had received duty-free market access, purely due to political reasons, under “GSP Drugs”.

At the very first meeting we had with the new South Asia section, we made a strong representation of the marginalisation of Sri Lanka due to the EU’s discriminatory trade policies. Around the same time, then-Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe visited Brussels and also took this up with the Commission. At the end of a prolonged process over a few months, the EC agreed to have a joint study through one of its think tanks and also funded it. The Joint study largely came with the same conclusions as our original study, although theirs was a bit watered down. While this was going on, the commission suggested that Sri Lanka apply for GSP Labour to get additional duty concessions. So, we went on to apply for it, and we were the first developing country to get the GSP Labour. However, even with the GSP Labour, we were very much marginalised in the EU due to GSP rules of origin, which were loaded against small countries like Sri Lanka.

Q: So, where does GSP Plus (GSP+) come in, and how is that different from the previous GSP scheme?

A: In December 2001, Thailand became the first country to start a case (EC – GSP Drugs) in the WTO dispute settlement system. They followed the relevant procedure, first requesting a consultation and a panel. However, the dispute did not progress beyond the consultation phase, and the panel was not established. Presumably, Thailand and the EU may have possibly come into an agreement during the consultation process and decided not to move forward with the case. This is not unusual within the WTO dispute settlement system.

After the GSP Drugs facility was extended to Pakistan, in March 2002 India challenged the EU GSP scheme at the WTO. India argued that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under the special arrangements nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1 of the GATT and the relevant paragraphs of the Enabling Clause. The WTO Panel decision in December 2003 and the Appellate Body decision in April 2004 agreed with the main points of the Indian submission.

In fact, the WTO ruling on the India – EU GSP case confirmed what Sri Lanka has been advocating for more than ten years. That is, EU preferential arrangements nullified or impaired the benefits that should have accrued to Sri Lanka under the MFN provisions of the GATT and the relevant paragraphs in the Enabling Clause.

Subsequent to the WTO Appellate Body Decision, the EU launched a renewed GSP scheme in April 2005. The new scheme contained, instead of five arrangements of the previous scheme (General, “Drugs”, Labour, Environment, and EBA), only three arrangements. It continued with the general arrangement and EBA, but “Drugs”, Labour and Environment arrangements were combined to form a new arrangement called “GSP+”. The GSP+ introduced a few additional conditions. The potential beneficiaries of the arrangement were the beneficiary countries of the “GSP Drugs” arrangement (other than Pakistan) and the countries that were receiving GSP Labour or were in the final stages of qualifying for GSP Labour. Under the arrangement, subject to the Rules of Origin, the beneficiary countries received duty-free market access for most of their exports.

However, it is important to understand that the “GSP+” does not provide Sri Lanka with a major competitive advantage over most of our competitors, as they had similar or better access into the EU market under the arrangements like ACP, “GSP Drugs”, or EBA. It only offered Sri Lanka a level playing field in the European Market after thirty years of being denied something which was rightfully ours.

At the same time, it is also necessary to point out that the EU extended the GSP+ facility to Sri Lanka at a very crucial juncture of our trade relations. Prior to 2005, the tariffs did not impact much on our garment exports to the EU because those were covered by the quota arrangement. However, after 2005, it was different. The cheapest source secured the market, and 9% to 12% duty made a difference. So, after 2005, GSP+ helped our apparel exporters to remain competitive in the EU market.

Moreover, it is also necessary to point out that Sri Lanka’s GSP utilisation rate still remains relatively low, at 63%. In other words, only 63% of preference-eligible exports receive preferential tariffs, whereas 97% of preference-eligible exports from Pakistan and Bangladesh receive preferential tariffs. As a result, as illustrated in the GSP Hub portal of the European Commission, only 54% of Sri Lanka exports get preferential GSP tariffs (as against 86% for Pakistan and 97% for Bangladesh). That means even with the GSP+, nearly half of Sri Lanka’s exports are under the MFN (or what the Sutherland Report called LFN – Least Favoured-Nation) tariffs.

Q: Recently, there has been much contention about the European Parliament (EP) resolutions that have threatened the position of Sri Lanka and other countries’ participation within the GSP+ Scheme. What are your thoughts on that?

A: In June 2021, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution urging the commission “….to use the GSP+ as a leverage to push for advancement on Sri Lanka’s human rights obligations and demand the repeal or replacement of the PTA, to carefully assess whether there is sufficient reason, as a last resort, to initiate a procedure for the temporary withdrawal of Sri Lanka’s GSP+ status….”. Before that, the EP had adopted similar resolutions on Pakistan and the Philippines.

After the EP adopted the resolution on Sri Lanka, to put things into perspective, I wrote an article to compare the resolution on Sri Lanka with the resolutions on the Philippines and Pakistan. In that article, I pointed out that the EP resolutions on Pakistan and the Philippines called on the Commission to take immediate action to withdraw the concessions, and interestingly, the language used in the resolution on Sri Lanka was milder.

Although the EP may pass a resolution, it should be noted that the enforcement of the resolution is the responsibility of the commission. When it came to Sri Lanka, it appears that the commission had opted for a more cautious approach. Take the case of the Philippines – the wording used in the resolution was more immediate, implying that no alternate form or tool could be used against the country. An important point in this respect is that, to date, no action has been taken. The Pakistan resolution was also similarly strongly worded, and yet nothing has happened. In contrast, in the case of Sri Lanka, GSP+ was said to be removed “as a last resort” if the government did not address the concerns raised on the PTA.

It is also necessary to emphasise that the use or misuse of the PTA directly and adversely impacts people in Sri Lanka. Similarly, the issues related to human rights or labour standards are matters that have a direct impact on the citizens of the country. Therefore, the people in this country are more interested than the Commission in solving such issues. If GSP+ is removed or not extended on the claim that human rights or labour standards are not enforced properly, the EU would only penalise them, the victims. As of now, the Commission has much more forceful tools at its disposal to penalise those who violate the basic rights of the people. Therefore, the withdrawal of the GSP+ status from Sri Lanka only is considered “a last resort” after exhausting all other options. Similarly, I believe the Commission would adopt a more cautious approach as it reviews the GSP Plus eligibility for the next cycle.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

When crisis comes to classroom:

Published

on

Sri Lanka Navy helping schoolchildren during the recent floods

How Sri Lankan children face natural disasters and economic problems

Sri Lanka has always found ways to survive storms. But during the past ten years, the storms have come more often and with more force. Floods have swallowed villages, landslides have buried homes, droughts have dried wells, and cyclones have pushed families out of their coastal towns. Then came the economic crisis in 2022 and 2023, which felt like an invisible disaster happening quietly inside every home. In the middle of all this were our schoolchildren. Their names rarely appeared in newspapers. Many of their stories were never told. A new study brings these voices together and shows how overlapping crises have reshaped education across the island. It also reveals something important: not all children suffered the same way.

This article tells that story through the experiences of teachers, parents and children. It also explains why some regions, some ethnic communities and some families struggled much more than others.

A decade of disruption

Over the past decade, Sri Lanka’s school system has been hit again and again. Floods in Ratnapura, Kalutara and Galle have become almost yearly events. Landslides in Badulla and Nuwara Eliya have cut off whole communities. Cyclones in Batticaloa and Ampara have damaged classrooms and left children in fear. Long droughts in the North and East have forced families to live with empty wells.

Then the economic crisis arrived. It brought fuel shortages, food shortages, transport problems, high prices and a heavy sense of uncertainty. Teachers stood in long queues just to buy a few litres of petrol. Parents struggled to buy exercise books. School buses stopped running. Many children stayed home. A school principal from the hill country said he could not remember a single year without crisis. “One month we have floods. The next month we have landslides,” he said. “The children keep losing learning time.” These experiences echo earlier concerns raised by Angela Little (2003) and Harsha Aturupane (2014), who showed that rural, estate and conflict-affected areas have always faced extra barriers. The new study suggests that recent disasters have made those old inequalities even wider.

When geography decides a child’s future

Sri Lanka is small, but the risks children face depend heavily on where they live. In the flood-prone river areas, schools often close for long periods. Many become temporary shelters filled with families, mats, cooking pots and clothing. Teachers say it can take weeks to clean and reopen classrooms. In the estate sector, children live high in the hills. When a landslide blocks a single narrow road, school simply stops. A teacher in Badulla said she once walked six kilometres during landslide season just to reach her students. “Some days I held on to tree roots to climb,” she said with a tired smile.

In cyclone-prone districts like Batticaloa and Ampara, fear becomes part of childhood. When the wind changes, parents start to worry. School roofs fly off. Books get soaked. Homes crumble. Recovery takes time, and many families cannot afford repairs.

In the drought-hit North and East, children sometimes miss school because they must help their mothers collect water. Teachers say these children return dusty, tired and unable to focus. Lalith Perera (2015) showed how geospatial tools can identify the highest-risk schools. The new study supports his findings and shows that children in these areas lose far more learning days than children in urban schools.

Ethnicity adds another layer to the struggle

Sri Lanka’s ethnic geography shapes children’s lives in deep ways. Tamil families in the North and East still face the long shadow of war-related poverty and lack of resources, as described by Shanmugaratnam (2015) and Samarasinghe (2020). Many schools in these areas are old, understaffed and in poor condition. When a cyclone or drought hits, recovery becomes slow and difficult. A teacher in Mullaitivu said her classroom lost its roof during a storm. “The children sat under a tree for weeks,” she recalled. “They still came. They did not want to fall behind.”

Muslim communities along the Eastern coast face frequent displacement during cyclonic seasons. When fishing families lose their boats and nets, income disappears. Children often miss school because parents cannot afford uniforms or bus fares.

Estate Tamil communities, studied earlier by Little and Jayaweera, continue to face long-term marginalisation. Many children rely heavily on school meal programmes. When the economic crisis disrupted these meals, teachers saw hunger more clearly than ever. Some children fainted in class.

In all these communities, ethnicity and geography combine to create layers of disadvantage that are hard to escape.

The economic crisis: A silent blow to education

The economic crisis of 2022–2023 affected every Sri Lankan home, but its impact was especially hard on low-income families. Economists like Nisha Arunatilake (2022) and Ramani Gunatilaka (2022) have shown how inflation and job losses pushed households into deep stress. These pressures directly affected children’s education.

With no fuel, many teachers could not travel. They walked long distances or hitchhiked. In some schools, several classes were combined because only a few teachers could come. School supplies became expensive. Parents reused old books or bought cheap, low-quality paper. Uniforms were patched many times. Some children wore slippers because shoes were too costly. Food shortages made everything worse. With rising prices, families reduced meals. In the estate sector, teachers saw hunger growing. Attendance fell.

Gender roles also shifted. Girls in rural areas took on childcare and cooking while parents worked longer hours. Boys were pushed into temporary labour. A mother in Monaragala said her teenage son cut timber to support the family. “He comes home exhausted,” she said. “How can he study after that?” Earlier, Selvy Jayaweera (2014) warned that crises deepen gender inequalities. The new study shows that her warning has come true again.

Schools tried to cope, but not all were ready

During field visits, researchers met principals who showed remarkable leadership. Some created disaster committees, organised awareness programmes and kept strong communication with parents. These schools recovered fast. Communities helped clean classrooms. Teachers volunteered for extra lessons. But many schools struggled. Some had no emergency plans. Others had old buildings damaged from past disasters. Some principals lacked training in crisis response. A few schools did not even have complete first aid boxes.

The difference between prepared and unprepared schools became painfully clear. After a cyclone in Batticaloa, one school restarted within a week. A nearby school stayed closed for nearly a month because debris and broken furniture filled the classrooms. Resilience expert Rajib Shaw (2012) highlighted the importance of strong partnerships between schools and communities. This study confirms that his message still holds true.

Families found ways to cope, but children paid the price

Every Sri Lankan family has its own survival strategies. Some borrow money. Some rely on relatives abroad. Some work extra hours. Some move to other districts. But these strategies often disrupt children’s schooling. When a father leaves home for work in another district, children lose emotional support. When a mother works late at a tea estate, older daughters must care for younger siblings. When a family moves temporarily, children lose teachers, routines and friends. A father in Ratnapura said he felt torn. “I want my daughter to study,” he said. “But how can I think of school when the river rises every year and we lose everything?” Years ago, sociologist K. T. Silva (2010) wrote about how poverty and displacement interrupt education. The new study shows that these patterns continue today.

How crises make old inequalities worse

One strong message from the study is that disasters do not create inequality they deepen what already exists. Rural schools with fewer resources suffer greater damage. Estate children who already face hunger become even more vulnerable. Tamil and Muslim families in hazard-prone areas must deal with both environmental and historical burdens.

Climate disasters also come in cycles. One flood does not end the struggle. Children who lose one month of school every year slowly fall behind. Their confidence drops. Their chances of continuing to higher education shrink. Meanwhile, well-resourced urban schools recover quickly. They have strong buildings, better communication and supportive parents. Their losses are small and temporary. The gap between privileged and vulnerable children grows wider each year.

What Sri Lanka can do now

Sri Lanka stands at a turning point. Climate change will bring more storms and droughts. The economy is still fragile. Schools must be prepared.

Every school needs a clear emergency plan. Preparedness should be part of daily school life safer buildings, evacuation routes, first aid training, and strong communication networks. Vulnerable regions need extra support. Flood-prone river basins, cyclone-hit coasts, drought-affected northern districts and the estate sector require more funding and attention. School meals must be protected. For many children, this meal is the difference between hunger and hope.

Teachers need help with transport and crisis training. Families need social protection so children are not forced into labour or long absences. Most importantly, education policy must place fairness at the centre. As Aturupane (2014) explained, equality cannot be achieved by giving all schools the same amount. Some schools need more because their burdens are heavier.

Stories that should guide policy

The most powerful part of this research is not the statistics. It is the stories:

A boy in Ratnapura losing his schoolbag to the floods.A teacher in Badulla walking through mud for her students.A mother in Batticaloa cooking in a cyclone shelter.A girl in Mullaitivu studying under a tree after her classroom roof blew away.A Muslim family in Ampara sheltering in a mosque during every storm.A Tamil child in Kilinochchi missing school to fetch water during drought.

These are the voices policymakers must listen to.

A future that values every child

Sri Lanka’s future depends on the minds of its children. If classrooms become unstable places, the country’s future becomes uncertain. But there is hope. Many teachers showed deep dedication. Many parents worked tirelessly to keep their children in school. Many communities showed unity and strength. If the government builds on this resilience through better planning, fairer funding and stronger support for vulnerable regions children’s dreams can survive the storms ahead. What we choose today will decide whether the next generation inherits disaster or opportunity.

References

Aturupane, H. (2014). Equity and Access in Sri Lankan Education. World Bank.Arunatilake, N. (2022). Economic Vulnerability and Social Protection in Times of Crisis. Institute of Policy Studies.Fernando, P. (2018). Household Vulnerability and Educational Participation in Rural Sri Lanka. SAGE Publications.Gunatilaka, R. (2022). The Impact of Economic Shocks on Sri Lankan Households. International Labour Organization.Jayaweera, S. (2014). Gender Dimensions of Educational Inequality in Sri Lanka. Centre for Women’s Research.Little, A. W. (2003). Education, Conflict and Social Cohesion in Sri Lanka. UNESCO.Perera, L. (2015). Geospatial Approaches to Educational Planning in Disaster-Prone Regions. Asian Development Bank.Samarasinghe, V. (2020). Regional Inequalities and Social Exclusion in Sri Lanka. Routledge.Shanmugaratnam, N. (2015). Post-War Development and Marginalisation in Northern Sri Lanka. Nordic Asia Press.Shaw, R. (2012). Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and School Resilience. Earthscan.Silva, K. T. (2010). Poverty, Displacement, and Educational Access in Sri Lanka. Social Scientists’ Association.UNICEF Sri Lanka. (2018). School Safety and Disaster Preparedness in Sri Lanka.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The policy of Sinhala Only and downgrading of English

Published

on

In 1956 a Sri Lankan politician riding a great surge of populism, made a move that, at a stroke, disabled a functioning civil society operating in the English language medium in Sri Lanka. He had thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

It was done to huge, ecstatic public joy and applause at the time but in truth, this action had serious ramifications for the country, the effects have, no doubt, been endlessly mulled over ever since.

However, there is one effect/ aspect that cannot be easily dismissed – the use of legal English of an exact technical quality used for dispensing Jurisprudence (certainty and rational thought). These court certified decisions engendered confidence in law, investment and business not only here but most importantly, among the international business community.

Well qualified, rational men, Judges, thought rationally and impartially through all the aspects of a case in Law brought before them. They were expert in the use of this specialised English, with all its meanings and technicalities – but now, a type of concise English hardly understandable to the casual layman who may casually look through some court proceedings of yesteryear.

They made clear and precise rulings on matters of Sri Lankan Law. These were guiding principles for administrative practice. This body of case law knowledge has been built up over the years before Independence. This was in fact, something extremely valuable for business and everyday life. It brought confidence and trust – essential for conducting business.

English had been developed into a precise tool for analysing and understanding a problem, a matter, or a transaction. Words can have specific meanings, they were not, merely, the play- thing of those producing “fake news”. English words as used at that time, had meaning – they carried weight and meaning – the weight of the law!

Now many progressive countries around the world are embracing English for good economic and cultural reasons, but in complete contrast little Sri Lanka has gone into reverse!

A minority of the Sinhalese population, (the educated ones!) could immediately see at the time the problems that could arise by this move to down-grade English including its high-quality legal determinations. Unfortunately, seemingly, with the downgrading of English came a downgrading of the quality of inter- personal transactions.

A second failure was the failure to improve the “have nots” of the villagers by education. Knowledge and information can be considered a universal right. Leonard Woolf’s book “A village in the Jungle” makes use of this difference in education to prove a point. It makes infinitely good politics to reduce this education gap by education policies that rectify this important disadvantage normal people of Sri Lanka have.

But the yearning of educators to upgrade the education system as a whole, still remains a distant goal. Advanced English spoken language is encouraged individually but not at a state level. It has become an orphaned child. It is the elites that can read the standard classics such as Treasure Island or Sherlock Holmes and enjoy them.

But, perhaps now, with the country in the doldrums, more people will come to reflect on these failures of foresight and policy implementation. Isn’t the doldrums all the proof you need?

by Priyantha Hettige

Continue Reading

Opinion

GOODBYE, DEAR SIR

Published

on

It is with deep gratitude and profound sorrow that we remember Mr. K. L. F. Wijedasa, remarkable athletics coach whose influence reached far beyond the track. He passed away on November 4, exactly six months after his 93rd birthday, having led an exemplary and disciplined life that enabled him to enjoy such a long and meaningful innings. To those he trained, he was not only a masterful coach but a mentor, a friend, a steady father figure, and an enduring source of inspiration. His wisdom, kindness, and unwavering belief in every young athlete shaped countless lives, leaving a legacy that will continue to echo in the hearts of all who were fortunate enough to be guided by him.

I was privileged to be one of the many athletes who trained under his watchful eye from the time Mr. Wijedasa began his close association with Royal College in 1974. He was largely responsible for the golden era of athletics at Royal College from 1973 to 1980. In all but one of those years, Royal swept the board at all the leading Track & Field Championships — from the Senior and Junior Tarbat Shields to the Daily News Trophy Relay Carnival. Not only did the school dominate competitions, but it also produced star-class athletes such as sprinter Royce Koelmeyer; sprint and long & triple jump champions Godfrey Fernando and Ravi Waidyalankara; high jumper and pole vaulter Cletus Dep; Olympic 400m runner Chrisantha Ferdinando; sprinters Roshan Fernando and the Indraratne twins, Asela and Athula; and record-breaking high jumper Dr. Dharshana Wijegunasinghe, to name just a few.

Royal had won the Senior & Junior Tarbats as well as the Relay Carnival in 1973 by a whisker and was looking for a top-class coach to mould an exceptionally talented group of athletes for 1974 and beyond. This was when Mr. Wijedasa entered the scene, beginning a lifelong relationship with the athletes of Royal College from 1974 to 1987. He received excellent support from the then Principal, late Mr. L. D. H. Pieris; Vice Principal, late Mr. E. C. Gunesekera; and Masters-in-Charge Mr. Dharmasena, Mr. M. D. R. Senanayake, and Mr. V. A. B. Samarakone, with whom he maintained a strong and respectful rapport throughout his tenure.

An old boy of several schools — beginning at Kandegoda Sinhala Mixed School in his hometown, moving on to Dharmasoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda, Moratu Vidyalaya, and finally Ananda College — he excelled in both sports and studies. He later graduated in Geography, from the University of Peradeniya. During his undergraduate days, he distinguished himself as a sprinter, establishing a new National Record in the 100 metres in 1955. Beyond academics and sports, Mr. Wijedasa also demonstrated remarkable talent in drama.

Though proudly an Anandian, he became equally a Royalist through his deep association with Royal’s athletics from the 1970s. So strong was this bond that he eventually admitted his only son, Duminda, to Royal College. The hallmark of Mr. Wijedasa was his tireless dedication and immense patience as a mentor. Endurance and power training were among his strengths —disciplines that stood many of us in good stead long after we left school.

More than champions on the track, it is the individuals we became in later life that bear true testimony to his loving guidance. Such was his simplicity and warmth that we could visit him and his beloved wife, Ransiri, without appointment. Even long after our school days, we remained in close touch. Those living overseas never failed to visit him whenever they returned to Sri Lanka. These visits were filled with fond reminiscences of our sporting days, discussions on world affairs, and joyful moments of singing old Sinhala songs that he treasured.

It was only fitting, therefore, that on his last birthday on May 4 this year, the Old Royalists’ Athletic Club (ORAC) honoured him with a biography highlighting his immense contribution to athletics at Royal. I was deeply privileged to co-author this book together with Asoka Rodrigo, another old boy of the school.

Royal, however, was not the first school he coached. After joining the tutorial staff of his alma mater following graduation, he naturally coached Ananda College before moving on to Holy Family Convent, Bambalapitiya — where he first met the “love of his life,” Ransiri, a gifted and versatile sportswoman. She was not only a national champion in athletics but also a top netballer and basketball player in the 1960s. After his long and illustrious stint at Royal College, he went on to coach at schools such as Visakha Vidyalaya and Belvoir International.

The school arena was not his only forte. Mr. Wijedasa also produced several top national athletes, including D. K. Podimahattaya, Vijitha Wijesekera, Lionel Karunasena, Ransiri Serasinghe, Kosala Sahabandu, Gregory de Silva, Sunil Gunawardena, Prasad Perera, K. G. Badra, Surangani de Silva, Nandika de Silva, Chrisantha Ferdinando, Tamara Padmini, and Anula Costa. Apart from coaching, he was an efficient administrator as Director of Physical Education at the University of Colombo and held several senior positions in national sporting bodies. He served as President of the Amateur Athletic Association of Sri Lanka in 1994 and was also a founder and later President of the Ceylonese Track & Field Club. He served with distinction as a national selector, starter, judge, and highly qualified timekeeper.

The crowning joy of his life was seeing his legacy continue through his children and grandchildren. His son, Duminda, was a prominent athlete at Royal and later a National Squash player in the 1990s. In his later years, Mr. Wijedasa took great pride in seeing his granddaughter, Tejani, become a reputed throwing champion at Bishop’s College, where she currently serves as Games Captain. Her younger brother, too, is a promising athlete.

He is survived by his beloved wife, Ransiri, with whom he shared 57 years of a happy and devoted marriage, and by their two children, Duminda and Puranya. Duminda, married to Debbie, resides in Brisbane, Australia, with their two daughters, Deandra and Tennille. Puranya, married to Ruvindu, is blessed with three children — Madhuke, Tejani, and Dharishta.

Though he has left this world, the values he instilled, the lives he shaped, and the spirit he ignited on countless tracks and fields will live on forever — etched in the hearts of generations who were privileged to call him Sir (Coach).

NIRAJ DE MEL, Athletics Captain of Royal College 1976

Deputy Chairman, Old Royalists’ Athletics Club (ORAC)

Continue Reading

Trending