Sri Lankan unions betray university workers’ strike

The government’s refusal to increase the pay of non-academic staff is part of the broader austerity program being dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Wage rises are being suppressed, even as the government has lifted prices on fuel, food and other essentials, and slashed social spending.

l by Dehin Wasantha

(04 July, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Inter University Trade Union Joint Committee (IUTUJC) has shut down a strike by non-academic staff at Sri Lankan universities, without achieving any of its demands. The strike, for an immediate 25 percent salary increase and the rectification of salary anomalies, began on June 5, dragged on for three weeks, and was ended on June 26.

The IUTUJC includes unions affiliated to the opposition parties—the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the United National Party (UNP)—as well as several so-called independent unions. While a part of the IUTUJC, the union associated with the ruling Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) did not participate in the strike.

Joint Committee leaders boasted at the start of the strike that they would make no compromise with the government and the university authorities. They would stand for “an indefinite strike” until the demands were met. This was hot air designed to hoodwink striking workers. From the outset, the unions indicated their willingness to reach a deal with the University Grants Commission (UGC) and government officials.

The unions held two rounds of discussions with the UGC and the Treasury, as well as another three sessions of talks with Labour Department officials. Contrary to the reality, the impression conveyed to the strikers by the union leaders, all the while, was that a favorable outcome was about to be reached.

While the discussions were continuing, Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake arrogantly declared that he was not ready for talks with strikers, and ordered them to immediately return to work. He also threatened to withhold the salaries of workers for the strike period.

The unions began to signal a sell-out. IUTUJC co-president R.M. Chandrapala told the media at the end of the second discussion with the Labour Department that the unions were ready to “reconsider” the demand for a 25 percent pay increase.

Ultimately the union leaders signed a collective agreement with the UGC. IUTUJC media spokesman Wijetilleke Jayasinghe, one of the signatories, claimed that the UGC had agreed to issue a circular within 45 days promising to rectify the salary anomalies. There was no mention of the 25 percent salary increase or the minister’s threat to cut pay for the strike period.

Once again, the IUTUJC has betrayed workers for a cheap promise to address pay anomalies—in the future. This is from a government that is notorious for breaking its promises.

The government’s refusal to increase the pay of non-academic staff is part of the broader austerity program being dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Wage rises are being suppressed, even as the government has lifted prices on fuel, food and other essentials, and slashed social spending.

For nearly a decade, the IUTUJC, which is bitterly opposed to any political struggle against the government, has betrayed one struggle after another on the wages issue.

When non-academic workers walked off the job in September 2004, demanding a 2,500-rupee monthly allowance, the union officials shut down the strike in return for a 1,000-rupee allowance.

In July 2005, when workers struck again over similar demands, their struggle was sabotaged by the JVP-led Inter University Services Trade Union (IUSTU). The IUSTU insisted that workers end their industrial action in order to focus on the JVP’s communal campaign against the joint management of tsunami relief funds by the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

In May 2007, the IUTUJC called off another strike because of “the prevailing situation in the country”—in other words, that workers had to subordinate their interests to President Mahinda Rajapakse’s renewed war against the LTTE.

From the beginning of the latest strike, Socialist Equality Party (SEP) warned that workers could not win their demands without a political struggle against the Rajapakse government.

An SEP statement explained: “The pay cuts and increasing workloads for non-academic workers are bound up with the government’s pro-market agenda. As is the case in Europe and around the world, President Rajapakse is implementing the demands of the financial markets to impose the burden of the world capitalist crisis onto working people through austerity measures.

“The unions and the political parties to which they are affiliated have no fundamental differences with the government’s policies and promote the illusion that Rajapakse can be pressured to make concessions.”

The SEP urged workers to break from the unions and wage their own independent struggle. This required the establishment of Action Committees, independent of unions, in work places and neighbourhoods.

In this political fight, the working class must be armed with a socialist perspective to end capitalist rule and establish a workers’ and peasants’ government to reorganise society on the basis of meeting social needs, not private profit. This task requires the unification of Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim workers, independent of all sections of the bourgeoisie, as well as with their class brothers and sisters throughout the region and internationally.

From the outset, the unions were utterly hostile toward such a political struggle. When the SEP campaigned among the workers at Peradeniya and Ruhunu universities, union leaders and their supporters threatened SEP members and prevented them from continuing their discussions.

At the University of Moratuwa, union leaders of all colours joined together to use physical violence against the present writer, who defied the threats and addressed striking workers at meetings several times.

The workers as a whole must draw the necessary lessons from this betrayal. Without a complete break from the union apparatus and the turn to a socialist perspective, it is impossible for the working class to take a step forward. We urge non-academic staff and other sections of workers to seriously study the SEP’s program and to join and build it as the new mass revolutionary party of the working class.

Read More

University Nirvava

We make discoveries through our own lives. If the discoveries were made through genuine investment in the protocols and Due Processes of the existing system – which in this instance includes FUTA as part of the University system and our discoveries do not confirm the protocols and Due Processes that already exist then we need to publish our discoveries – for they qualify as Research. Due Processes are the flow of policies/ law. Law/Theory is the current version of yesterday’s discovery. Yesterday’s discovery beyond previously existing theories / laws is given fluid form to assist low investors in an institution/family. Those investors invest from their respective angles only.

l by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(03 July, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the article“Are FUTA’s demands regarding national policy on higher education within the Mandate of a Trade Union? Shamala Kumar of University of Peradeniya.

I do not have direct investment with the University of Peradeniya. My direct investment in the University system was/is through the University of New South Wales. The Truth is known more quickly by the average human, through direct life in a natural environment. My investment in University of Peradeniya is through my husband and his engineering colleagues and more importantly, through my father in law who insisted that my husband who won the Best Science Student prize at Jaffna College should not accept the place offered to him to study Engineering at Kattubadde campus but instead wanted my husband to try again for a seat at Peradeniya campus. To this day, we are grateful for that decision by my father in law Mr. Nallathamby Subramaniam. Hence my investment to uphold the investments by my father in law would naturally go towards ownership value in the University of Peradeniya.

Ms Shamala Kumar states ‘Three university academics, who are currently under State patronage, Jagath Wellawatta (Chairperson, State Mortgage Investment Bank formerly, National Child Protection Authority, Sri Lanka Foreign Employment Bureau), Rohan Rajapakse (Advisor to the Minister of Higher Education; formerly Executive Director, Sri Lanka Council of Agriculture Research), and Ranjith Bandara (Chairperson, Sri Lanka Foundation Institute and Senior Economic Adviser, formerly, Director of the Financial Service Cluster, Strategic Enterprise Management Agency) discussed the trade union action on the evening of the 1st of June, 2012. It is disappointing to note that FUTA was excluded from this discussion.’

Trade Unions are part of the Democratic system. They are the parallels of Opposition in Parliament. Academics making decisions without an Opposition are therefore opposed to Democracy. By avoiding FUTA these academics have confirmed that they are fearful of FUTA and therefore are desirous of the company of FUTA’s opposition – the Government. In other words – they have ‘sold’ themselves to the Government and thus have let their own institution down. This happens when one desires immediate benefits over inherited higher status. The ‘right’ way to show this self-demotion is to renounce the higher status and become part of the University Council as representatives of the Government. Transparency requires that we ‘show’ our own valuation of our status.

We make discoveries through our own lives. If the discoveries were made through genuine investment in the protocols and Due Processes of the existing system – which in this instance includes FUTA as part of the University system and our discoveries do not confirm the protocols and Due Processes that already exist then we need to publish our discoveries – for they qualify as Research. Due Processes are the flow of policies/ law. Law/Theory is the current version of yesterday’s discovery. Yesterday’s discovery beyond previously existing theories / laws is given fluid form to assist low investors in an institution/family. Those investors invest from their respective angles only. These various angles are the positions in those institutions. Due Processes if they flow from true discoveries – would lead back to the original value of that position. These Due Processes are standard relationships that would lead us to get into the person at the other end of the relationship. Thus we would realize the core value of the position and with it the institution/family. Once realized we would work all parts of the institution through that position at its current value. Its current value is the value we inherited plus the value we added. Each time I took up an Accounting position, I worked genuinely through that position (which was usually lower in status compared to the positions I held in Sri Lanka) and added my own genuine value to it. The value added was the Truth I learnt about all on the ‘other side’ of that position plus my own investment in Sri Lankan Chartered Accountancy (including Accountants) . This usually lifted the position to a higher level. That was how I usually restructured positions that I held – at the workplace as well as within family. In the process, I accepted reduced status to ‘get the job done’. I became more democratic because of that.

The above academics are giving Politics greater status than Higher Education. This naturally leads them to ignore the Opposition (in this case the Union) and therefore behave as if they were the government. The position of Opposition is like the position of Mother in a family. A mother has Equal status in democracy and yet not visible to the outside world.

Ms Shamala Kumar states ‘In Australia, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union campaigns to increase funding for Australian higher education, and in India, the All India Federation of University and College Teachers in their June 2012 newsletter lists their struggles against commercialization of higher education (although this seems minor in contrast to their main campaign for increased pay).’

Australia’s Higher Education Union – NTEU is not yet a Democratic Opposition to University Administration. Like our Opposition in parliament and mothers of the old hierarchical system, the NTEU operates as second management and not Equal Opposition to University Management. As a Senior Academic of the University of New South Wales observed – once these Union leaders get into Administrative positions – they start talking like management. That happens when our status is not truly earned but is worn as makeup. To be a true Opposition the Union needs to have performed close to 50% of the Management’s work and therefore ‘show’ the other side.

Recently, my cousin Ravi Prakash forwarded as a Sai Devotee message the speech by Mr. Azim Premji, Chairman, Wipro Corporation. The message had the title ‘Respond instead of Reacting’. The following excerpt illustrates the difference between being second class management and equal opposition by making it yourself. Mr. Azim Premji says:

‘The second lesson I have learnt is that a rupee earned is of far more value than five found. My friend was sharing me the story of his eight year-old niece. She would always complain about the breakfast. The cook tried everything possible, but the child remained unhappy. Finally, my friend took the child to a supermarket and brought one of those ready-to-cook packets. The child had to cut the packet and pour water in the dish. After that, it took two minutes in the microwave to be ready. The child found the food to be absolutely delicious? The difference was that she has cooked it! In my own life, I have found that nothing gives as much satisfaction as earning our rewards. In fact, what is gifted or inherited follows the old rule of come easy - go easy. I guess we only know the value of what we have if we have struggled to earn it.’

I do not identify with the last part – about easy come easy go inheritances. Some of us value our inheritance by surrendering our current work to the old system. I did that here in Australia – at workplace as well as family level – especially after my children got married to white Australians. I had to ensure that my grandchildren carried the real values of my Sri Lankan heritage. Hence the way I included my Sri Lankan Chartered Accountancy minus its status as per Sri Lankans – I included my Jaffna-Sangarathai family values minus its status from the Community, into my positions freely allowed and accepted in Australia.

When we strip ourselves naked of all benefits – including status – what remains is our true value – as Mr. Nilantha Ilangamuwa , Editor, Sri Lanka Guardian, often says – our nudity. Truth has no status. It is wholesome. Hence when only our values merge – it matters not whether I am a Mentally Ill Australian challenging the Vice Chancellor or Smart Sri Lankan Chartered Accountant developing Chartered Accountancy in Jaffna with Jaffna Tamil status ONLY.

As the records would show, our sponsored relatives – once they started wearing the ‘Australian’ makeup would use even ‘mentally ill Tamil Tiger supporting - opposition’ label if they are not allowed to play the immigration game – Aussie style. Our relatives are not alone. Most parents sponsored by children are in this category and their children – like the Unions are taking up second management positions as Australians to demote anyone who shows signs of ‘made in Sri Lanka’ status. They are no longer in touch with their Sri Lankan heritage and they are very remote from the Australian heritage. If they were true refugees – their national values – naked of their Sri Lankan status would have naturally merged with Australian values to validate their current legal status as Australians.

If Sri Lankan Unions blindly follow Australian Unions they would also be like these refugees and start dictating to anyone who ‘shows’ true ownership in the old system. The Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW who had me arrested in the first instance – is the parallel of these refugees at the higher level. Likewise the above academics who sidelined the Union - FUTA

Read More

Must Professionals dance to politicians' tune ?

l by Shanie


"Out of a broken window
of a damaged car -
dead driver -
the radio.....unscathed
on a commercial break
a man’s pleasant voice announced
that big or small, insurance
protects them all."

(February 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Vivimarie VanderPoorten, who teaches English at the Open University of Sri Lanka, is a sensitive poet who was awarded the Gratiaen Prize five years ago. Written in the aftermath of the Central Bank bombing, this last stanza of her poem captures the utter incongruity of the advertiser’s jingle on the radio extolling insurance protection amidst the mayhem and carnage around. It also perhaps epitomises the kind of warped values that prevail in our society. Amidst the reality of abject poverty and economic and social insecurity experienced by many throughout the country, including the war-displaced, we have many who go about leading extravagant lives and proclaiming that Sri Lanka is on the verge of becoming the wonder of Asia.

The challenge before the professionals and the civil society leadership today is to provide an apolitical and responsible perspective on issues of good governance. In recent years, under several regimes, political decisions have been made that undermined the rule of law and set back the economic and social development of the country. The professionals have either chosen to remain silent or shamelessly acquiesced with such political decisions. They need to have the strength of character and of their convictions to take an independent stand on issues within their areas of expertise. In many areas, we need a change of course if governance issues are not to lead the country to chaotic levels that we have seen in some other countries in recent times. Such a change can about only if the professionals who have the capacity to influence political decision-making are willing to put the national interests before personal ones. In the long term, taking a principled stand will not only enable them to stand tall but also ensure that the country moves away from a political, social and economic downward slide.

A Strong Bench and a Strong Bar

The newspapers this week have carried some significant opinion columns that focus on governance issues. Javed Yusuf, a respected educationist and civil society activist, castigates the legal professionals for failing to take a stand when the rule of law and the administration of justice were threatened by political action. He refers to J R Jayawardena’s UNP government, in the aftermath of a huge victory at the 1977 General Election enacting a new constitution the following year. Giving the excuse of a new constitution, senior Supreme Court and High Court Judges were sacked, promoted or demoted by the political authority. The Executive Committee of the Bar Association at that time, despite consisting largely of political supporters of the UNP (Mr H W Jayawardena, brother of JR) was elected President in 1975), passed a resolution condemning the political action affecting the independence of the Judiciary. Today, laments Yusuf who has been a long standing supporter of the SLFP, the Bar Association has been reduced to a shadow of its proud self. When the 18th Amendment with its wide ramification was presented in Parliament, the BASL made no analysis of the amendment to guide either the country or the government. Yusuf also laments that it was left to the LLRC to comment and make recommendations on human rights violations, the rule of law, disappearances, etc when it was the professional duty of the BASL to do so earlier.

The election of a new President to the BASL takes place next Wednesday. One of the candidates has quite rightly stated that ‘when grave violence is done to the Rule of Law, the Bar Association, which by reason of the commitment of its membership to uphold and defend the Constitution, must intervene and convert such issues into public interest litigation with all its implications, and, for this specific, the membership of the Bar Association must be as one, irrespective of political, ethnic, religious or other differences.’ We have no doubt that the other candidate, despite his political affiliations, will also agree. We hope that the BASL will restore their earlier pre-eminent and independent position as legal professionals. The same candidate at next week’s election quoted former Supreme Court Judge Das Edussuriya as having stated that ‘a strong Bar begets a strong bench’. Nothing could be truer. It is only a strong and independent Bar living up to its professional role that can stand by and encourage the independence of the Judiciary and the safeguarding of the rule of law.

Police and Political Interference

Another revealing article in the week-end newspapers was by the outspoken retired Senior Superintendent of Police Tassie Seneviratne. Today, political interference coupled with the sycophancy of some senior police officers has eroded the professionalism of our law enforcement authority. There have been instances in the past of Inspectors General of Police who refused to accede to political requests to do something unprofessional even when it came from the highest in the land. Seneviratne refers to the assassination of Vijaya Kumaratunga in 1988 during the southern insurgency. Despite the unsettled times, the sleuths of the Police Crime Detection Bureau had been able to crack the case and arrest the suspected assassin who had confessed to the murder not only of Vijaya Kumaratnga but also of several other including Colombo Vice Chancellor Professor Stanley Wijesundara. It was at this stage that the then Defence Minister Ranjan Wijeratne ordered the CDB’s SSP Gamini Perera who was handling the case to transfer the suspect to the CID. Perera pleaded with Ranjan Wijeratne to let him handle the case which was coming to a successful conclusion and he was confident of obtaining a court conviction. But to no avail. The accused was transferred to the CID. Frank de Silva, later IGP, was then senior DIG/CID and he was transferred out of the CID and replaced by a compliant DIG/CID. The upshot of this was that the accused in the Vijaya Kumaratunga murder simply disappeared. It was in keeping with the political policy then of insurgent suspects being extra-judicially killed. This, Seneviratne says, put paid to the professional manner in which the Police were conducting the investigations.

There was a sequel to this sordid tale. After the change of government in 1994, a Commission of Inquiry was appointed to probe the assassination of Vijaya Kumaratunga which, for known reasons, never came to trial. By then, Kumaratunga’s widow had become the President of Sri Lanka. The Commission comprising two Supreme Court and one High Court Judge implicated, contrary to the findings of the Police investigations, former President Premadasa and Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in the assassination. Justice Alles commented at that time that the findings of the Commission were ‘a concept completely alien to established principles of criminal law.’ Was that another case of the Judiciary sacrificing their independence to please the political leaders of that time?

Politics in the University System

Earlier, many of them protested about the orientation being given to new entrants at military camps. Many also protested when the University Grants Commission ordered that security services in the Universities be handed over to a newly set-up a security company under the Ministry of Defence, violating the provisions of the University Act. But sadly most of the Vice Chancellors chose to go along with the political decisions being made by the bureaucrats in the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Higher Education.

Higher education is another area where professionalism has been found wanting. Prior to the last Presidential Election in 2010, we had the disgraceful spectacle of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission and several Vice Chancellors appearing at a Press Conference and pledging support to one of the candidates, the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapakse. That was unpardonable and unprofessional. The only silver lining was that the Vice Chancellors of Peradeniya and Moratuwa, Professors S B Abeykoon and Malik Ranasinghe, refused to participate at this Press Conference, obviously not wanting to abuse their professional position. About twenty senior academics wrote an open letter condemning the collective participation of the Chairman of the UGC and the Vice Chancellors as a betrayal of the very raison d’etre of a University; and complimenting the Vice Chancellors who did not participate. But it is a pity that only twenty academics were brave enough to sign that letter. This was a matter of academic integrity and there should have been many more who should have signed that letter.

But it was encouraging to learn of the protests by the Peradeniya University Teachers’ Association to the heavy-handed response of the Police and Army to recent student agitation at the Galaha Road Junction. Earlier, many of them protested about the orientation being given to new entrants at military camps. Many also protested when the University Grants Commission ordered that security services in the Universities be handed over to a newly set-up a security company under the Ministry of Defence, violating the provisions of the University Act. But sadly most of the Vice Chancellors chose to go along with the political decisions being made by the bureaucrats in the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Higher Education. We do not wish to ascribe motives, but it is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, many of the Vice Chancellors choose to dance to the advertiser’s jingle in VanderPoorten’s poem (in this case the politician’s tune) while academic integrity, freedoms and rights are being violated under their very noses. The deterioration in academic standards in our Universities over the last few decades is directly related to political interference in the university system.

The true professional must stand by his conscience. He/She must not get trapped by the politics of our time, cajoled by politicians into action that is clearly wrong and violates their own conscience. Sri Lanka can move forward towards good governance and sustainable peace only when the professionals take a principled stand on these issues.

Read More

Training of University Students in the Army Camps.

Basically the army training is meant to allow the recruited youth to develop the skills to kill and destroy the enemy as well as design systems to subjugate the opponent. Also, the youth are trained merely to carry out blindly the orders of their senior officers without any right to question them.

by Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda

(June 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A leadership training programme for the students who are selected to the universities is currently been conducted in several army camps on the initiative of the Minister for higher education. 

The often heard phrase, ‘the tree is known by its fruits’, has a strong relevance to the topic discussed here. The underlying question is about the competence of the army to train the university students. We read every day in the media that some of those young people who have got army training, not just for three weeks but for longer periods, are now engaged in robberies, raping of women and various other acts of violence. This sad phenomenon makes one wonder how effective such training would be in disciplining the educated youth? 

Basically the army training is meant to allow the recruited youth to develop the skills to kill and destroy the enemy as well as design systems to subjugate the opponent. Also, the youth are trained merely to carry out blindly the orders of their senior officers without any right to question them. 

That is not the discipline we expect from university students. They are not expected to follow orders blindly. What we expect from a university student is to develop his/her capacity for free and critical thinking. The students need to live and work in a climate of freedom. Is the current training promoted by the authorities a move towards depriving the students of that freedom? 

In my view, the development of a student’s personality can and should be achieved only in a climate of freedom and academic formation; and not through something imposed upon them from outside. 

It is a recognized fact toady that our school system in Sri Lanka, fails to instill discipline in the students, who are under its care for about a period of 13 years. Doesn’t that indicate that there is something deficient in our system of education? Will a ‘three week of training’ in the army camps make much of a difference?

The youth by nature have a critical mind. They value justice and hate hypocrisy. Whenever they see injustices and hypocrisy around them they begin to react strongly. We know very well that within the university set up there are situations of injustices, hypocrisies, malpractices and political interferences, causing numerous deprivations to the students. 

They would naturally question the authorities over those matters and look at them rationally and critically. In such a climate one has to expect strong reactions from the student population. The adults need to possess qualities of leadership such as patience and maturity to listen to what they have to say, when handling such situations. 

The university teachers themselves are the best persons to conduct courses on personality development. They are more knowledgeable than the army officers. SL Army is not capable of offering leadership training such as required by the university students.

Discipline imposed from outside will not last long. What is needed is self-discipline which is the outcome of a sustained interior personal development. Can such training be provided by the military officers?

In the matter of disciplining the younger generation, one of the indispensable factors is the exemplary lives of the elders, especially of the leaders of the country. Today the younger generation is very much influenced by the negative examples of our national leaders. Our youth are well aware of the corrupt practices of our politicians; bribery, abuse of public resources, nepotism, thuggery, vote rigging, election violence and politicization of administration etc. The youth today are deeply affected by these negative influences. Unless they are fed with positive influences, the mere instilling of military discipline and military outlook into them will not bring about the expected results. 

Read More

Spotlight again on universities and university administrators

There are no civilians involved in the training to the University new entrants that has been arranged by the Ministry of Higher Education with the concurrence of the University Grants Commission. It is being held in military camps. Apart from the usual military type exercises and hikes, there are some lectures as well. According to one report, there are lectures on world-renowned personalities, Sri Lanka’s history and national heritage and on the National Anthem.

by Shanie

"In the first year of Freedom’s second dawn

 Died George the Third; although no tyrant, one

 Who shielded tyrants, till each sense withdrawn

Left him nor mental nor external sun;

A better farmer ne’er brushed dew from lawn,

A worse king never left a realm undone!

He died – but left his subjects still behind,

One half as mad – and t’other no less behind."

– Lord Byron (1788-1824)

The Vision of Judgment

(May 28, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Europe was recovering after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo when in 1820, King George III died in England after years of blindness and insanity. Robert Southey, whom the King had made Poet Laureate of England wrote a ‘loathsomely flattering poem’ about the King. Byron responded with a satirical masterpiece from which the above verse is taken. Byron’s long satirical poem has been described as more than a demolition of Southey’s flattery; it demonstrates ‘the complexities and tensions, the mingled outrage and affection in Byron’s view of human life.’

It was Byron’s satire that comes to mind on reading the recent statement issued by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Directors. One does not know how many of the Vice-Chancellors attended the meeting at the Ruhuna University where this statement was issued. It is simply signed as CVCD without any names. It is unthinkable that all Vice Chancellors would have endorsed this statement which seems to have been drafted at some political office. Even a Committee of Village Committee Chairmen would have done a better job. The statement, as quoted in a Sunday newspaper, reads, inter alia: "The UNSG should not be permitted to arbitrarily appoint panels and take action on their reports without explicit sanction from wither the Security Council or the General Assembly. (We are) concerned that the UNSG’s initiative may extend to a subtle and ingenious ‘cold war’ which could include lobbying of governments of other UN member states and the Non-Aligned Movement, international organisations, international funding agencies, international courts with the intention of bringing other sanctions against Sri Lanka. These attempts will be a concerted effort by international vested interests to interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka that could culminate in a final objective of regime that is currently being achieved by violence and military intervention in other parts of the world. With regard to the recommendation that he should establish an international; investigative mechanism, the UNSG is advised that this will require the host country’s consent or a decision from member states through an appropriate inter-governmental forum."

The Vice-Chancellors should conduct themselves as academics exercising autonomy and freedom, not as willing tools of politicians. The statement is replete with sloganeering and conjectures best left to nondescript politicians. No attempt has been made to analyse even one issue raised in the Panel’s report. Even their criticism of the UNSG is a repetition of what politicians have stated elsewhere. Their final sentence is, word to word, what the UNSG himself has stated about the options available to him. This is why it seems clear that the Vice Chancellors who have endorsed this statement have simply placed their signatures to a statement drafted elsewhere in a political office. Surely, at least one of the Vice Chancellors who attended the Ruhuna University meeting could have had the strength of character to suggest to his colleagues the need to respond to the issues raised in the report in a mature reasoned way, rather than engage in sloganeering?

Training for the new entrants

We titled last week’s column by asking the question whether higher education in our country was in safe hands. We expressed our concern that the Government’s unlawful and unethical response to the trade union action by the university teachers was jeopardising higher education. We are this week compelled to repeat the question in view of the ill-thought out "leadership training" programme that is being imposed on new entrants to the universities. A rights petition was filed in the Supreme Court and the Court suggested to the Attorney-General to advise the authorities to postpone the programme until they had made a determination on the petition. The Government’s response was typical – cock a snook at the suggestion. There has been no word, not that the public expected any, from the Attorney General about this lack of courtesy shown to the Supreme Court.

There are no civilians involved in the training to the University new entrants that has been arranged by the Ministry of Higher Education with the concurrence of the University Grants Commission. It is being held in military camps. Apart from the usual military type exercises and hikes, there are some lectures as well. According to one report, there are lectures on world-renowned personalities, Sri Lanka’s history and national heritage and on the National Anthem. As far as we know, there was no consultation with the academics on the the kind of orientation that was required for the new entrants and about the course content. Even if they had private reservations, there has not been a word of public protest about all this either from the University Grants Commission or from the Vice Chancellors. Obviously, they feel it more prudent to meekly accept political interference in academic matters.

According to a report, six of the leaders being discussed are – Gandhi, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Puran Appu, Dutugemunu, Ranasinghe Premadasa and Anagarika Dharmapala. The subjects under national heritage course includes the coming of the Aryans, foreign invasions, Dutugemunu (again), the Anuradhapura era, King Vijayabahu and the Sacred Tooth Relic. If the report is correct, the courses have been designed with a strong majoritarian nationalist element in it. Of course, it would not be fair to comment until we hear from the students what exactly was taught. But the published course content does not sound at all very encouraging for the promotion of inclusivity, pluralism and national reconciliation.

In respect of the National Anthem, there was a foreign journalist who once interviewed the Army Brigadier in charge of training the child soldiers conscripted by the LTTE. The military officer was asked why the Tamil children were being asked to sing the National Anthem each day in Sinhala. His answer was that nowhere in the world is the national anthem sung in more than one language, the language of the majority. This answer was to be repeated later by President Rajapaksa himself and his Minister Wimal Weerawansa. Unfortunately, the journalist interviewer did not pursue that point. But we now know that that answer was incorrect and almost every bi-lingual country has bi-lingual national anthems. Will the national anthem subject for the university new-entrants now be taught any differently? It is not likely, judging by the military’s insistence that at all official functions in the North and East, school children must sing the National Anthem only in Sinhala.

It has also been reported that the facilities at the camps are inadequate, particularly for the girls. But this shortcoming can be put down to teething problems caused by these camps not being equipped to handle an influx of such a large number of civilian young men and women. But still it will not leave a very good impression on these young people.

The whole concept of pre-admission training for the new entrants should have been thought out and discussed with the academics. It should have been they who decided on the curriculum and course content and most of the lecturers should have been civilians/academics. Such a process would have ensured that the students when they entered the university were adequately equipped for tertiary education. That would have been in keeping with the lofty traditions set by the founding fathers of university education in our country – traditions of university autonomy and academic freedom cherished by universities throughout the democratic world.

Trade Union Action by teachers

After meeting an unrepresentative group of university teachers and university administrators earlier in the week, President Rajapaksa seems finally to have condescended to meet a delegation from the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations who are now engaged in trade union action. This is a dialogue that should have taken place weeks earlier, before FUTA, frustrated by intransigence from the Ministry of Higher Education, launched their action. In the interests of higher education in Sri Lanka, it is hoped that a solution acceptable to all can be arrived at. It is necessary to repeat again the wise words of Indika Gunawardena that we quoted last week. There was a similar dispute with FUTA in 1996 during the Presidency of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. Indika Gunawardena, who was a cabinet minister then as he is now, chaired a sub-committee that included S. B. Dissanayake, to look into the FUTA demands. Submitting their proposals to resolve the dispute, the sub-committee had this to say:

"We can defeat the academics by manoeuvring our political and propaganda machinery. Some people in the government wanted to do it that way. But these people don’t know that if that happened, the government would lose the academics and will jeopardise the higher education system."

Now in the hot seat, the Minister of Higher Education seems to thinks differently. And when you have administrators who, for whatever reason, are unwilling to advise him that, instead of manoeuvring the state propaganda machinery, it was necessar to safeguard higher education in our country, the Minister will continue to think and act like a politician. The country will not require Presidential intervention in every dispute if our administrators have the strength of character and the wisdom to take a principled stand to ensure that justice and national interests take precedence over sycophantic attempts to toe the politician’s line. They will need to listen and uphold their own conscience on vital issues.

We may end by quoting Adam Michnik which we have done before in this column. Michnik was associated with the independent trade union Solidarity which was founded in 1980 when Poland was still in the ‘Soviet bloc’. He was imprisoned several times (he was later to be elected to Parliament when Poland freed itself from the Soviet bloc and held open elections). On one occasion when he was in prison, the Army General who was also the Minister of Internal Affairs made a proposal to Michnik that if he would consent to leave Poland, he would be freed very soon. The Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka, in their excellent series of booklets on the Value of Dissent, published Michnik’s reply to the Minister of Internal Affairs as ‘a superb affirmation of the need for conscience as an undeniable guide to ethical conduct, in politics and public life as in private life’:

"In the life of every honourable person there comes a difficult moment, General, when the simple statement ‘this is black and this is white’ requires paying a heavy price.... At such a time, General, a decent man’s concern is not the price he will have to pay, but the certainty that white is white and black is black. One needs a conscience to determine this. Paraphrasing the saying of one of the great writers of our continent, I would like to suggest that the first thing you need to know, General, is what it is to have a human conscience ......General, you may be the mighty Minister of Internal Affairs, you may have the backing of power, ...... but something invisible, a passerby in the dark, will appear before you and say: this you must not do. That is conscience."

Read More

Military training to university students is a violation of their freedom conscience

CHR Director Ranjith Keerthi Tennakoon states that the Sri Lankan higher education system was influenced by Buddhism which encourages critical thinking. The university Act No 16 of 1978 accepts the importance of academic freedom and the necessity to give lecturers and students the necessary space to think freely. However this freedom has been gradually taken away by the authorities in the last decade.

by Ranjith Keerthi Tennakoon

(May 23, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) University student is essentially a person who is expected to question authority and to look at things rationally and critically. Therefore Centre for Human rights (CHR) believes that the decision taken by the government to give 'leadership training' to university entrants in military installations and by predominantly military personnel is a violation of accepted norms.

CHR Director Ranjith Keerthi Tennakoon states that the Sri Lankan higher education system was influenced by Buddhism which encourages critical thinking. The university Act No 16 of 1978 accepts the importance of academic freedom and the necessity to give lecturers and students the necessary space to think freely. However this freedom has been gradually taken away by the authorities in the last decade.

The decision taken to give this leadership training inside military camps is done against the will/consent of the majority of the students. This is a violation of Article 10 of the 1978 constitution 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion.' Also how this action is looked upon by students belonging to minorities, especially Tamils, should deeply pondered upon.

CHR in its previous reports and press releases spoke extensively about the gradual suppression of academic freedom in universities. Not only students but also lecturers are victims of this and in the last few years many independent academics have left universities. The intolerance of authorities can also be shown in the way they are handling the university lecturers salary issue.

During his or her tenure at the university a student is trained to think rationally and critically. They are not expected to follow orders blindly. If that is whta the government expects/wants, CHR condemns that decision as a continuation of government suppression of universities.

Read More

EDITORIAL : Who Needs Leadership Training?

Based on this background, I suggest the Government to review the plan to test avenues like identifying key National challenges that is best solved in collaboration with local Universities in order to provide broader opportunities for students to discover their leadership skills before sending them on compulsory leadership training in military establishments, because future intellectuals are best nurtured through exposure to diverse leadership opportunities than through moulding them into one Worldview. The Government itself can show leadership by increasing engagement with students in humanities to develop know how in conflict resolution, peace, democracy, rule of law, justice, anti-nepotism, combating corruption, strengthening the notion of citizenship etc.

by Thrishantha Nanayakkara

(May 21, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Do Sri Lankan University students lack leadership skills? The Government of Sri Lanka believes they do, and has come up with a remedy to provide compulsory leadership training in a military establishment under a secret curriculum. As usual, the basis to take this decision, nor the details of the program have not been made clear to the students and their parents. Submit without questioning is the order!

My experience with Sri Lankan students and graduates prompts me to disagree with the Government's attitude. Let me quote few examples. I was in the staff of the University of Moratuwa when 2004 Tsunami Struck Sri Lanka. Students took no time to organize, plan, and launch a humanitarian mission for one week from 28th December, 2004, in Hambantota. About 200 students hired four buses, packed food, medicine, computers, and other hardware for a mission nobody expected. They converted a mountain of dry rations in sacks and boxes piled up in some warehouses in Hambantota to a sorted resource so that when a request came from a refugee camp, a database could be searched to find the exact location of any item. Since communication towers were broken, they set up an HF link to communicate with Colombo to update the status. The students even initiated a plan to dry up the Saltern, worked closely with the Engineers Brigade of the Sri Lanka army to clear bodies, etc. Their task sharing was so impressive that a sub-group kept documenting the progress and status of finances to keep their sponsors like the Lanka Academic Network, Sri Lanka Mini Hydro Power Association, etc, in the loop. In fact the military officers expressed their surprise at the way the students planned and worked. Meanwhile, the students and staff witnessed the dedication, leadership, and effectiveness of the Engineers Brigade, and were proud of them. The students even proposed to grant leave to all University students in Sri Lanka to participate in various fact finding and documenting missions in the humanitarian efforts, so that those who show leadership skills in such crisis situations can officially mention their experience in their curriculum vitaes, that might enhance their employment opportunities. Such requests fell on the deaf ears of the political leaders who were busy planning for the opportunities that came in disguise. This particular example suggested me that the nature of student leadership is different from that of the army in so many ways. First, the students didn't have an apparent leader nor a command structure. They moved to Hambantota with an open mind, and then figured out the best courses of action given the limited time and resources. Decisions were based on discussions and consensus. The leadership of the army was far more authoritative, had a defined mission and modes of communication with other organizations. No doubt, students benefited from collaborating with the army. However, if they were to work within the modus operandi of the army, their experience would have been much more restricted.

The Inter-University Federation Front (commonly known as "Anthare") approached me to solicit funding to support an education program to support A/L students affected by the tsunami. Their plan was to photocopy a series of tutorials made by a popular tuition master to be freely distributed among the affected students. It gave me an opportunity to learn some strengths and weaknesses of this rebellious student body. They had an impressive idea. Rather than asking money to cover the photocopying expenses, they calculated and showed me that buying a second hand photocopy machine and toners would be cheaper. I asked two questions: one was whether they had obtained permission from the author of the tutorials to copy them. The answer was NO. the justification was that their initiative is based on a pure motive. I did my duty by highlighting the importance of respecting intellectual property no matter what the objective is. They agreed. The second question was about the guarantee that the machine would not be used for political purposes. They were honest to tell me that they will try their best to use the machine for the welfare of the students. The take home lesson of this encounter was that, rebellious student groups are not entirely non-negotiable, and their leadership skills can be properly directed towards good purposes through consultation and negotiation.

Sometime later, in 2006, I became the commissioner of the Sri Lanka Inventors Commission, that idles without a board and a commissioner these days. Among the staff of the institute were a group of new recruits under a Government scheme to provide employment to unemployed university graduates. Everybody looked at them as "unfit" graduates needing "Government compassion". Though none were from the University of Moratuwa, it did not take much time for them to reinforce my generalized positive view about the leadership skills of Sri Lankan university graduates. These "unemployable" graduates requested me few favors. First was to equip them with mobile facilities like laptop computers, video cameras, scanners, etc, so that they could go out of Colombo to serve village level innovators. They also wanted me to sponsor them to obtain a better training on computing, English language communication, and business planning. The National treasury was kind enough to grant funds for these initiatives. All what I did was to equip them, train them a little more on areas of their own needs, and to let them lose to be driven by their own leadership skills. Within few months, one of them was coordinating very dynamic programs in the North, East, and Central provinces without any demand for additional pay. Others led product incubation initiatives in collaboration with universities to empower village level innovators, and gave leadership to hold the first National exhibition of such incubated products under the title "Opportunities 2006". They communicated with local and international banks, investors, and lawyers with a determination to commercialize as many exhibits as possible. And they did it. It kept momentum even after I left Sri Lanka, though it has come to a halt after the Government decided to keep these energetic graduates without a board of directors and a commissioner for SIX months as of today.

I have numerous other experiences with student initiatives and leadership in engineering, through projects to support National efforts like demining, agriculture, security, etc. All those who volunteered not only surprised me, but also impressed their subsequent employers with tangible results. Based on this background, I suggest the Government to review the plan to test avenues like identifying key National challenges that is best solved in collaboration with local Universities in order to provide broader opportunities for students to discover their leadership skills before sending them on compulsory leadership training in military establishments, because future intellectuals are best nurtured through exposure to diverse leadership opportunities than through moulding them into one Worldview. The Government itself can show leadership by increasing engagement with students in humanities to develop know how in conflict resolution, peace, democracy, rule of law, justice, anti-nepotism, combating corruption, strengthening the notion of citizenship etc. Science students could develop their leadership skills through projects in areas like micro-forestation in tropical cities, technologies for more efficient humanitarian demining, better technologies for marine resource exploration and value addition, city planning, traffic management, agricultural productivity, food preservation and transportation, nutrition, etc. Even the military should not be excluded to show better leadership in areas like conducting a court martial without losing notes of the hearing, respecting the rights of an accused till proven guilty, etc. The Government could also consider encouraging the private sector by offering TAX concessions for collaborating with Universities, while encouraging vice chancellors to spend more time promoting student engagement with the society and the private sector without wasting time in efforts like checking the virginity of female students.

Read More