In conversation with Chandraguptha Thenuwara: Art, politics and education in Sri Lanka

4 Sep, 2012 Groundviews Arts and Theatre, Colombo, Culture, Education, Features, Peace and Conflict, Politics and Governance, Post-War

Chandragupta Thenuwara is one of Sri Lanka’s best known artists. As noted online, he is the director of the Vibhavi Academy of Fine Arts in Colombo, a not-for-profit art school which he founded in 1993 as an independent alternative to state-run art institutions, with the aim of teaching young and marginalied artists the basic tenets of fine art practice under the instruction of practicing artists.

In this programme we start by discussing the enduring ethnic divides and identity politics in Sri Lanka through the frame of Thenuwara’s son, and his naming. We use this as an entry point a discussion about the artist’s own identity and how it developed, growing up as he did in the East of Sri Lanka, having being born in the South and after his studies, returning to live in Colombo.

Thenuwara’s speaks about his father’s early influence in becoming an artist, and how even from a very modest household, he always had the opportunity to draw and paint as a child. He also makes the point that his father was, as a government servant and teacher, involved in politics, a trait which we half-jokingly note was clearly passed down to son.

Looking at Thenuwara’s work in the 90s, and juxtaposing his iconic Barrelism with the barbed wire that features so prominently in his art today, we discuss whether to him as an artist, barbed wire is to Sri Lanka today, what barrels symbolised in the 90s. Thenuwara talks about a society framed today by barbed wire, how space today is demarcated and defined with the use of barbed wire and the violence embedded into this.

We then talk about the politics of remembering, and why for Thenuwara the anti-Tamil pogrom and violence of July 1983 as well as the violence inherent in beautifying Colombo by erasing all markers of a violent past is so important, when government and country writ large may want to forget, and move on. Thenuwara speaks about the importance of memory, and of recording for posterity the violence that is part of Colombo’s, and Sri Lanka’s socio-political fabric. In this context, we also talk about the recentobliteration of Road Painting Commemorating Neelan Tiruchelvam on Kynsey Road, which in fact, Thenuwara painted.

We talk about Thenuwara’s association with, and by extension, approach to art as part of the No Order group, which when it released its manifesto in August 1999 suggested that art was rooted in a specific context, and that it was both a felt experience as well as an intellectual experience. Thenuwara explains this further, and also how he approaches the creation of art. We use this to explore whether as an artist, Thenuwara has sensed, since 1999, any shift in the way audiences perceive his art, and art as a political construct.

This then leads to a discussion about Thenuwara’s politics, and how it is inextricably entwined with his art, and his life as an artist. In particular, we talk about the issue the t-shirt he sports during the interview clearly flags – the on-going struggle by FUTA around increasing Sri Lanka’s spending on public, and in particular, tertiary education. We talk about whether FUTA’s struggle, and his support towards it as an artist, really has any wider social and political traction, and why the issue is so fundamentally important for the future of education in our country.

We end by talking about how difficult it is to be an activist, teacher and artist combined, and why Thenuwara – who is in fact all three – thinks it is his duty to do and say what he does.

Interview – Chandraguptha Thenuwara from Young Asia Television on Vimeo.

FUTA Statement on Current Status of The Trade Union Action

Download the googledoc

FUTA and the Cabinet Paper

Daily Mirror, 31/09/2012

From chalkboards to picket lines:The journey of a trade union

The Island, September 2, 2012, 7:47 pm 

By Shamala Kumar

The university system in Sri Lanka is at a standstill. The Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA), the umbrella body of 43 university teachers’ trade unions, is attempting to negotiate with a government that sees even the acknowledgement of FUTA’s position as a threat to its power and control. A trade union action that began a year ago as a simple demand for salaries goes viral as school teachers, students, and political parties examine the trajectory of the system of education in the country - a trajectory that can spell nothing but disaster - if left unchecked. While FUTA’s chief concern is education, the movement it has spurred promises to nurture the fragile state of democracy in Sri Lanka. It does so through a sustained demand for change in educational policy, in spite of, or perhaps because of, a membership that is refreshingly dispersed across party lines and a leadership with limited centralised power. With an agenda that has found resonance with the broader public, FUTA’s ongoing trade union action has opened a discussion that brings hope for a new direction in public policy driven by democratic principles rather than patronage and politicking.

FUTA’s efforts began some time ago with concerns over salary. A faltering and protracted process of negotiation had yielded little in preceding years. With the war over in 2009, there was hope that the government would be at last ready to look into the grievances of university lecturers. Following a token strike in September 2010, the FUTA leadership assured its members that university teachers’ salaries would be increased in the next budget. However, the budget for 2011 showed no such indication. Feeling betrayed by their leadership, FUTA’s member unions simultaneously elected new executive committees to their respective unions. These new committees resulted in new representatives and a new leadership at FUTA, a leadership that was to prove stronger and more resilient than its predecessors. It was this group that galvanised an already frustrated membership to take trade union action against the government’s neglect of their salary demands.

In the wake of these events, actions by the government aggravated the situation. Instead of increasing salaries, the government added insult to injury by introducing a scheme that would give university lecturers research grants. It was ill thought out and appeared developed by those unfamiliar with the costs and processes of research. This scheme was presented as a solution to the low research output from universities. Implicit was that the problems of the faltering university system were due to academics and their lethargy. The scheme ignored the problems of attracting strong applicants with the existing salary structure, the steady depletion of academics and the drained resources for teaching and research. It ignored the lack of qualified support staff, a manifestation of continued political interference in the recruitment of these staff categories. Broadly, it failed to acknowledge the problems, far greater than individual motivation, that resulted in a weakened university system.

At this juncture of the trade union action, these larger issues remained peripheral to the chief concern of salaries. However, as the trade union action continued for three months, these issues were to surface and to have more prominence in discussions both within and outside the universities.

At the onset, the response of the Government and reactions from the public to the trade union action were varied. The first public forum, held in Kandy, drew large crowds. This was at a time when there was very limited space to criticise the government. The war had ended with a deafening silence save from euphoric quarters celebrating the war victory. How would the public and the government react? A half hour before the event, there were just two people in the auditorium. ‘I remember seeing them and feeling deflated,’ said one organiser. An hour later, however, there was hardly any standing room. The speakers, while discussing salaries, drew on broader issues to make their case. The energy at the event surprised even the organisers. It was while this event was in session that the government finally engaged with FUTA by calling them for a hurriedly held meeting in Colombo.

This forum was the beginning of a larger public engagement. Public events were organised by member unions across the island. A march from the University of Ruhuna, was a first for university teachers and the march in Jaffna, was the first public protest in post-war Jaffna. At each event, the role and responsibility of universities in education were addressed, partly compelled to by those outside FUTA who accused the academic community of silence on political issues in the recent past, especially during the war, and of backing a self-interested agenda. Such criticism was also fueled by the government that used the media to portray FUTA’s demand for higher salaries as selfish.

The nature of the government’s response also suggested that the issues FUTA grappled with were deeper than anticipated. Circumventing established procedures, hurried circulars were dispatched to disrupt the trade union action. Students, later found to have connections with the government, filed legal action through a legal system that was perceived to be controlled by the government. The government’s position towards the protest respected neither the law nor the very bodies they had established to coordinate and monitor universities.

Three months later, the trade union action was suspended abruptly with vague and unwritten promises. A dissatisfied general membership of FUTA, directed their anger to the negotiation team which was criticised for making decisions unilaterally without consultation with its membership. There was no sense of closure or accomplishment because there was very little in terms of a tangible outcome. However, the events of 2011 left academics changed. They were more critically aware of their role and responsibility towards public education. Links created across universities at the time would remain strong in the months to come. In retrospect, it was perhaps the abrupt end and the residual energy from 2011 that stimulated the debates and discussions which opened the space for the resumption of trade union activity in the form of a full blown strike in July 2012.

In the period that followed the suspension of the initial trade union action, the government’s general disregard for law and procedure became the focus of attention when several controversial steps were taken by the Ministry of Higher Education. The Ministry attempted to introduce a University Reforms Bill that would centralise the powers of universities to the Minister of Higher Education. The Bill would override bodies of academics, such as university faculties, senates and the University Grants Commission, in making decisions. The Ministry usurped the universities’ authority and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) that would allow CIMA classes to be held on campuses. A private security firm, consisting of retired military staff and owned by powerful government officials, was hired to provide security services to the entire university system at three times the cost of its predecessors. Prospective university students were essentially forced to complete ill-conceived ‘leadership’ training at military camps. Appointments of vice chancellors and members of university councils were made to satisfy the whims of politicians with seemingly little consideration for the welfare of the universities. These steps overrode university autonomy, which is protected by law. When seeking means of curtailing these initiatives, universities and the trade union found that there were none.

These disturbing events prompted concerned groups of academics, such as University Teachers for Democracy and Dialogue, and representatives of FUTA to meet with other trade unions and civil society organisations. These networks contributed significantly to the success of subsequent efforts of FUTA.

When 2012 arrived, the promised salary demands remained unmet. FUTA’s letters to the Ministry went unanswered. Ministerial interference with university procedures continued to jar the academics, as universities experienced cuts in funding and resources. Importantly, notification sent in April by FUTA that in July it would resume its trade union action was ignored. After much debate and discussion within its membership, FUTA went on Strike on July 4, 2012. Because of the member unions’ dissatisfaction with the ending of the previous trade union action, FUTA agreed that all decisions of the negotiating team would need to be first ratified and sanctioned by its member unions. In this way, the power of FUTA became even less centralised.

Unsurprisingly, the government’s response to the full-blown strike was one of disdain and nonchalance. Once again, they attempted to shame and ridicule the academics. In the first month, they did little beyond hold a few superficial meetings to address the issues put forward. They dragged their feet and generally closed their eyes to FUTA and its demands.

Today, as FUTA completes two months of striking, the trade union action itself has transformed into something that looks very different from anything university teachers in Sri Lanka have engaged with in the past. FUTA saw that the issues of education would be addressed only if the message came loud and clear. For any impact, the call for change had to come from the broader public. Therefore, FUTA’s efforts from the outset were to mobilise the public and other civil society groups to address issues in education.

Aware of the insidious control that the government has over the, FUTA and its representative unions decided to go directly to the grassroots. The all-island signature campaign has collected over 200,000 signatures so far. Public meetings were held across provinces and dialogue with other interest groups was initiated. Attempts were made to get a large number of political parties onboard. Meetings were held with trade unions and civil society organisations.

In the process of engaging the public, the parallels between higher education, education and other sectors became evident. The destitute nature of the primary and secondary schooling system, the politicisation of funding to schools, and the closure of schools that were catering to the most disadvantaged became apparent. Events in the health sector, including cuts in health spending, privatisation of healthcare, and the politicisation of medical institutions seemed comparable to those in the education sector. Despite increased investment in the transport sector with new roads and highways and the increase in luxury services, the deteriorating quality of the public transport system became clear. Even within the corporate sector, interference by political appointees was common, with two successive Securities Exchange Commissioners handing in their resignation within the last year.

At the crux of it all are concerns of democracy, transparency, and the general disregard of the public good. While the trade union action continues, the government continues to spout half truths, lies and more lies. It is unclear where this will end. Will the government be able to crush this movement? By closing the universities, the government has demonstrated its will to explore all avenues to do so.

Having said that, however, FUTA seems to have already won. FUTA has succeeded in convincing and building the support of the larger population. Last week, a pledge to work together to influence education policy reforms was made by over forty trade unions and other civil society organisations. The statements made by political parties across the board and other allies demonstrate that these are not issues that can be ignored by governments in the years to come. The tremendous success of the rally last week with the participation of varied segments of society reflects the pulse of system. Perhaps most encouraging is the general awareness that the problems of education are symptomatic of the widening fissures in our social system and the realisation that we need change. This change, as demonstrated by the recent events around the FUTA trade union action, can only come about if there is widespread support from the larger population, an undeniable and unrelenting force.

Shamala Kumar is a member of the Peradeniya University Agriculture Teachers’ Association (PUATA, a member union of FUTA) and University Teachers for Democracy and Dialogue (UT4DD).

அரசுடனான பேச்சுக்கள் பலனளிக்கவில்லை: விரிவுரையாளர்கள்

BBC Tamil Service, கடைசியாக பிரசுரிக்கப்பட்டது: 1 செப்டம்பர், 2012 - 16:27 ஜிஎம்டி

போராட்டத்தை மக்கள் மயப்படுத்துவதாக விரிவுரையாளர்கள் கூறுகின்றனர்

இலங்கை பல்கலைக்கழக விரிவுரையாளர்கள் சம்பள உயர்வு உட்பட பல்வேறு கோரிக்கைகளை முன்வைத்து நடத்திவருகின்ற பணிபுறக்கணிப்பு தொடர்பாக நடைபெற்றுள்ள பேச்சுவார்த்தைகள் பலனளிக்கவில்லை என்று பல்கலைக்கழக ஆசிரியர்கள் சங்கங்கள் சம்மேளனம் தெரிவித்திருக்கின்றது.

பல்கலைக்கழக ஆசிரியர்களின் கோரிக்கைகளுக்கு அமைச்சரவை பத்திரத்தில் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ள பல்வேறு விடயங்களின் மூலம் தீர்வு காணப்பட்டிருப்பதாக அரசாங்கம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

தொடர்புடைய விடயங்கள்

• துஷ்பிரயோகம், 
• மனித உரிமை

ஆயினும் அதில் பல விடயங்கள் குறித்து தெளிவில்லை.

கூறப்பட்டுள்ள விடயங்களை நிறைவேற்றுவது தொடர்பில் காலவரையறை குறிப்பிடப்படவில்லை என்று பல்கலைக்கழக ஆசிரியர்கள் சங்கங்கள் சம்மேளனத்தின் பொருளாளர் பவித்ரா கைலாசபதி பிபிசி தமிழோசையிடம் தெரிவித்தார்.

அதேவேளை, பல்கலைக்கழகங்களின் செயற்பாடுகளில் உள்ள அரசியல் தலையீடு உட்பட்ட பல விடயங்கள் நீக்கப்பட்டு பல்கலைக்கழகங்கள் மீண்டும் சுதந்திரமாகச் செயற்படுவதற்கு வழிசமைக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்ற கோரிக்கைக்கும் அரசிடமிருந்து உரிய பதில் கிடைக்கவில்லை என்றும் அவர் குறிப்பிட்டார்.

பல்கலைக்கழக ஆசிரியர்களுக்கு சம்பள உயர்வு தரப்படமாட்டாது என்று அரசாங்கம் ஏற்கனவே அறிவித்திருப்பதாகத் தெரிவித்த பவித்ரா கைலாசபதி, பல்கலைக்கழக ஆசிரியர்களை விசேட பிரிவின் கீழ் கொண்டு வருவதன் மூலம் சம்பளப் பிரச்சினைக்குத் தீர்வு காணலாம் என்ற தமது யோசனை குறித்து அமைச்சரவை பத்திரத்தில் எதுவுமே குறிப்பிடப்படவில்லை என்று சுட்டிக்காட்டினார்.

இந்த நிலையில் பல்கலைக்கழக விரிவுரையாளர்களின் தொழிற்சங்க நடவடிக்கையில் எந்தவிதமான மாற்றமும் இல்லை என்றும் அதனை நாடளாவிய ரீதியில் மக்கள் மயப்படுத்துவதற்கான நடவடிக்கைகள் முன்னெடுக்கப்படவுள்ளன என்றும் பவித்ரா கைலாசபதி தெரிவித்தார்.

இந்த தொழிற்சங்க நடவடிக்கை காரணமாக பல்கலைக்கழக மாணவர்களின் கல்வி பாதிக்கப்படுவதைத் தாங்கள் உணர்ந்துள்ளபோதிலும், தமது கோரிக்கைகளை நிறைவேற்றாமல் இழுத்தடிக்கின்ற அரசாங்கமும் அதில் பொறுப்பேற்க வேண்டும் என்றும் பவித்ரா கைலாசபதி கூறினார்.

‘Six per cent save education’

Lakbima, 02/09/2012

The headline of this editorial resonates a self explanatory slogan of the Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA) and with that we express our solidarity with the on-going campaign for higher budgetary allocation for education. Public spending on education has been on the downward spiral since the early 1970s and it has been on a free fall in recent years. Sri Lanka  spent 3.98 per cent of GDP on education in 1970, which declined to 2.9 per cent by 2005. The national expenditure on education has since seen a rapid decline, hitting below 2 per cent (1.9) this year. According to the most recent data on the government spending on public education, we are ranked at 190 out of 205 countries in the world, ahead Republic of Congo — not to be mistaken for Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), one of the most wretched places on the globe, which is also ranked 9 slots below us (Source: World Bank). We are losing out and even some of the least developed countries are on a spending spree on social infrastructure, including health and education in order to leapfrog in economic development. On average, Sub Saharan Africa spends 4.7 per cent of GDP on education. Among our neigbours, the Maldives spent 11 per cent on education in 2009. 
The apathy on the part of the government is disturbing. What is further worrying is that, due to  the continuous neglect of the government, Sri Lanka is missing out yet another historic opportunity to transform itself into a knowledge economy. A previous opportunity to leapfrog the nation from an agrarian economy to a Newly Industrial Country (NIC), alongside the Tiger economies in Southeast Asia was lost due to a brutal civil war, and stems from repeated and deliberate blunders committed in the nation building exercise since independence.

Countries such as Malaysia which aims to be a developed nation and a knowledge economy by 2020, on average, spends 8 per cent of GDP on education. Needless to say our failure to pick development priorities is glaring. A country which spends Rs200 billion on defence to sustain a large and redundant peacetime army has failed to spend one third of that amount on its schools and universities. 

The systemic failures in the education system, ranging from the decline in international reputation of local universities, to the recurrent blunders in national exams, which this year has delayed the university admission of 20,000 students are symptoms of an impending, much dangerous collapse of our education system, largely  due to neglect and low public investment. Our universities, once the centres of academic excellence have lost their glamour. The top 10 per cent of their graduates migrate to greener pastures, seeking better employment opportunities and the bottom 30 per cent of the university intake take to the streets, demanding government jobs.  Our university dons are paid the lowest salaries even by South Asian standards and many who leave for higher education in the West never return. This status quo has been in place for the last 30 years and now, at last, university academics have decided to rally, demanding a qualitative improvement in the system, and more funding for education. We salute them for that act of courage.

However, higher budgetary allocations are not a panacea for the ills in the education system. The government monopoly in the education system, mainly in higher education is equally responsible for the gradual decay in our university system. In the absence of competition, our universities have been enveloped by a sense of complacency and the recent international ranking of Sri Lankan universities, none of which come within the top 1000 universities in the world, is a reminder of the pathetic conditions of our centres of higher learning. Student activists and academics alike, who have vehemently been opposing the setting up of private universities stand condemned for their share of the rot in our universities. It is time for Sri Lanka to truly revamp its education policy, drastically increase its investment on education and to embark on a concerted plan to regain the lost glory of its centres of higher learning.

Editorial - Students in blackboard jungle, Ministers must go

Daily Mirror, 01/09/2012

Police used water cannon and tear gas to prevent students from marching towards a high-security zone to protest over the latest blunders and bluff in last month’s GCE A/L examination amid serious concern over when and how the answer scripts will be marked.

A spokesman for the protesting students said they feared the marking of the answer scripts might be delayed for several months because university teachers were still on strike and the education sector was in turmoil. The students said if the announcement of the results was delayed till May next year it would give only about two months time for studies by students who needed to sit the examination again. Major questions have also arisen over the recent Grade V scholarship examination with allegations that some question papers were leaked and tuition teachers were known to have given the answers to students before the examination. The Examinations Commissioner said he had decided to go ahead with the marking of the Grade 5 scholarship test papers from Monday. But the Ceylon Teachers’ Union and other professionals said it would be a grave injustice to go ahead with the marking before probing the allegations that some papers were leaked. What a mess. If cheating and fraud are allowed or encouraged at Grade V level, we may be teaching young students the wrong lessons that they could pass examinations by fair means or foul, and the consequences will be disastrous both for the students and society.



UNP leader Ranil Wickremasinghe and other critics or analysts say the root cause of the breakdown in the vital education system is the reduction in the budgetary allocation. A mere 1.8% has been allocated for education, while the equally vital area of health also suffers from a meager allocation.
Opposition and student leaders said the fiasco over the Z-score marking system for the 2011 A Level examination, the blunders and delays in marking the answer scripts of last month’s examination and other crises in the education sector were intended to undermine or sidetrack the free education system which booked a place for Sri Lanka as the most literate nation in South Asia. They say that just as the free health service is being privatised in subtle if not deceptive ways, the same fate may befall the education sector. If health is put in the market, the poor will be left to die. If education is put in the market, the doors for higher education will be slammed in the face of about 75% of our young people who will be denied the opportunity of becoming medical doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, or moving into other major professions. Education Minister Bandula Gunawardene and Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake are not only staying on but arrogantly defending what they have done or not done, despite widespread calls for their resignations. If the ministers refuse to bow to public opinion, the President must act against them.

Solution to the University Crisis: A View from an Academic

The Island, September 1, 2012, 7:59 pm 

Amal S. Kumarage
Senior Professor, Faculty of Engineering
University of Moratuwa

Mr CA Chandraprema in his article published in the Sunday Island of 19th August has dedicated two paragraphs to my detailed response to his previous criticism of the current trade union action of academics. Even though he states that his faith in academia has been restored after reading my article, I find that his faith is still wavering as it has not stopped his dismissal of the key issues and usual endorsement of Government view. I was however encouraged enough to write a further article to address the concern he has raised why ‘senior academics’ were not involved in negotiations and in drafting the FUTA demands.

Missing the Issue by asking ‘Who’ instead of ‘What"

Sri Lankan society has steadily been conditioned to filter any information based on who says it rather than what is said. From branding all dissent as ‘unpatriotic’, all criticism as ‘politically intent’ and even opinion as ‘unnecessary’, society has been conditioned to listen to and believe in a single source as opposed to appreciating different views. This sadly, in spite of our long legacy of education, reflects the lack of a truly educated populace. In the context of the current trade union action, the attempts at dismissing FUTA as extreme and painting all universities and academics as clowns in a circus are attempts at yet again distancing the populace from one of the last bastions of resistance to popular political ideology that seems bent on making people accept explanation without inquiry and leadership without accountability. Many responses to my earlier article called it ‘realistic’ and ‘moderate’. Thus I stand on that confirmation to propose the following as a direction towards solving the university crisis.

Slipping and Sliding: Irresponsible Stewardship

The Table 1 shows funding for full time undergraduate courses for the last three years where detailed figures are available.

Accordingly, the Faculty cost which is the academic input costs plus cost of libraries etc, are highest in Medicine at Rs 170,657 per student per year, while Commerce and Management records the lowest at Rs 44,470 per student per year. The university overhead per student which comprises mostly of other (administrative and non-academic) staff costs amounts to Rs 59,057 per student. Sadly this means that in some of our faculties the cost of non-academic staff inputs is higher than academic staff inputs! Adding all other cost components, the total average (weighted) cost across all the faculties’ amounts to around Rs 200,000 per undergraduate per year. This table shows how the average total cost per student has reduced by over 20% in the last three years, mostly due to reducing capital allocation. Even recurrent spending can be considered to have reduced when adjusted for inflation. This is the alarm that academics are raising for society to be mindful of the irresponsible handling of higher education.

It is seen from the table, that fund allocation per student has gone down over the last few years. Budgets for each university are not computed according to student numbers. Each year the budget is increased by a nominal margin and thereafter the Government usually requests for more students to be taken. These are not joint decisions. That is why Ministers prefer Vice chancellors and Deans who will readily oblige. This process lacks basic management safeguards of ensuring quality is maintained. A good example of this is the current request made by the UGC from the universities to admit some 6,300 extra students (an increase of around 30% on usual intake) due to the Z-score blunder without any additional resources. The mistake and responsibility of one institution is now conveniently passed on to all the universities. A few years ago, a similar problem with the Chemistry paper saw pressure put on the University of Moratuwa to increase the number admitted to a new program from 50 to 106, which led to over 40 students being unable to find employment on graduation. The Rajarata Medical Faculty came to being for the same reason. In many new programs, promised facilities are provided many years after such programs start leading to student protests and constraints on the proper development of such programs. These examples show how little understanding the Government displays on essentials of university education. It cannot be likened to a production line that can be increased or reduced by working overtime or operating an extra shift depending on a sudden ‘order’.

Make Financial Allocation Student based

The above costs for a degree by any standard are very low. Given the quality of some of the programs that produce graduates holding internationally accredited degrees this is indeed very cost-effective higher education. There is no comparison I am aware of in the world, where medical or engineering graduates who have an international recognition are produced at such cost. But could this cost be squeezed further? In fact this is the crux of the protest! Academics say that it can’t be done- not without a drop in quality. Having studied amount of fees charged by private institutions and costs of public universities from across several countries, it is apparent that further reduction in cost is not possible when it is currently only around 1/10th of that of leading universities. As such my proposal is for Government to start providing universities a per student financial allocation from 2013 onwards. I suggest that average spending should be raised by around 50%, to say Rs 300,000/- per student per year. The different programs may be provided adjusted amounts to compensate for current under spending and to match international norms. As such I believe that the Engineering Faculty should receive around Rs 360,000/- per student in 2012. This should be adjusted for inflation every subsequent year. Further adjustment to reflect the increasing GDP to reach targeted level may fine tune these allocations this further. The increased allocation can be only for new students starting from 2012/13 intake. It will then take around four years till the total funding increase is completed. This will give universities more time to adjust and use the increased funds more efficiently.

The analysis indicates that the capital required to start new programs or to increase of student numbers to existing programs should be calculated separately. At the University of Moratuwa, it costs around Rs 2 to 3 million per new student to provide additional classrooms, labs, staff rooms, other student facilities and equipment. This cost will be different for students in other programs. Thus if the UGC wishes to increase student numbers they should provide the additional capital expenditure in the said format. In this context if the UGC wishes to increase the admissions due to the Z score blunder, it will be easier to calculate the actual cost of its mistake. If as reported in some media, an additional 6,300 students are to be admitted, then this additional financial commitment would be around Rs 18 billion over four years, computed at Rs 300,000 recurrent cost per year per student and capital costs at say, Rs 1.5 million (being adjusted to account for less resource intense programs) per student for creating new capacity. As it may not be possible for a university to increase building space etc in just one year, capital funds may in consultation with the respective university and faculty, be also spread over four years or so making the cost burden Rs 4.5 billion per year. This for anyone who wishes to complain is currently what is spent to build just one km of elevated expressway!

The positive aspect of this funding approach is that the Z-score blunder can be transformed to a constructive feature by initiating a permanent capacity expansion. I believe this may be the solution that HE the President was expecting by saying that solutions must be ‘win-win’ for both sides. Temporary ‘fixes’ such as a one-off additional intake as has been suggested should be rejected outright, as they deteriorate standards for such an intake, which once lowered stay there permanently. According to the above formula and as shown in Table 2, the government will need to only marginally increase its total expenditure on universities in 2013 and will by 2015 achieve 0.48% of GDP, an increase from 0.21% in 2010. It should be noted that the calculations in the tables are approximate and based on assumed student figures and a growth of GDP of 6%.

 

Is Funding the Only Issue?

Additional funding is essential to improve and maintain quality. But that alone will not be adequate to bring about all the desired changes in university education. There are three major areas needing urgent reform that I will elaborate on in this article:

Financial autonomy: At present only the Vice-chancellor, Deputy VC, Deans, Registrar and the Bursar at the University of Moratuwa can approve any voucher or invoice of over Rs 5,000/-. Not even a Head of Department or Senior Professor can approve anything above this paltry amount. Much time of academics is spent on filling forms, following up payment vouchers, collecting cash from the Bursar, getting three, now increased to five quotations for getting simple supplies needed for doing anything out of the mundane. The Finance Ministry can intervene to ensure that financial autonomy is fully vested with the University and that the respective university council encouraged delegating authority so that the core competency in the university which is its academia and their energy and time can be released to pursue academic and research work. Councils must also be given greater flexibility to device incentives schemes as well as means of generating income to universities by providing research and marketable educational products. They must also be given greater discretion in utilizing earned incomes. It is grossly unfair to criticize universities when it is the Government AR and FR that are used to deflate the energy of the presently limited number of academics from doing anything innovative or entrepreneurial.

Recruitment autonomy: It is common knowledge that except for academic posts, applicants to all other posts in universities have to be selected from a list sent by the Ministry. The basis of inclusion in this list is a letter from a ruling party politician. Sadly most government institutions and now universities are being treated as the dumping ground of political supporters and their kith and kin. We know what happened to the CTB and the Railways which were in the 1960s, institutions of national pride. Our State universities are being dragged (currently kicking and screaming) along the same route to ridicule and destruction.

Parliament, the Auditor General and all other watch dogs of public interest have failed to stop such violations of autonomy, transparency and abuse of power. Unless universities are provided the functional autonomy to do their own recruitment to suit the requirements of running an educational institute, public should be made aware that universities cannot be held responsible for delivery or more precisely the lack of it. Thus the most pressing closure we require from the Hon Minister is the closure to political interference. The University Act must be amended accordingly and until then a circular issued to this effect.

Procedural Autonomy: Many readers of my previous article published in the Colombo Telegraph criticized the lack of research publications by Sri Lankan academics. As one of the species who has supervised several PhD candidates, scores of Masters Students and Research Assistants over 20 years, it should be said that State universities have in general no allocation earmarked for research (except the dubious ‘Research Allowance’ that was given in lieu of a salary increase last year). Currently the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides research funding for which it has a 26 page application form. The monthly allowance payable to a full time Research Scientist (one with post graduate qualifications) is only Rs 40,000/- and less for full time MSc and PhD students. I simply cannot find qualified, capable and experienced researchers at such allowances! In the universities abroad that we are often compared with, the research output of professors is almost entirely dependent on the availability of quality post graduate students and assistants they are able to hire. Moreover, even if one finds funding for a research project in Sri Lanka, funds to travel and present research papers at an international forum or for publication is often more challenging that the research itself. Furthermore, if and when you actually get the funds, it is possible that you could have missed the deadline for applying for overseas leave from the university which must be done 24-days before travel! Such are the unsupportive and archaic regulations within which research is expected to be carried out in Sri Lankan universities. If you add the constant chaos due to power cuts, flux in university calendars, and unavailability of suitable support staff, getting even the smallest research output is an effort. A Research Fund to provide regular funds for competitive proposals with simplified disbursement formats, higher remuneration of researchers together with stringent output requirements could be set up in each university to solve this problem.

The Issue of Retaining Academics

Much has been written on the inability of the current university salaries and work conditions to attract or retain quality academic staff in State universities. I wish to say no more. The higher student fees I propose could be used by the universities to overcome some of these problems. For example, I propose the creation of a Research Fund in each university equal to 1/10th of the total salary bill of academic staff to spend entirely on research activities of such academics supervising post graduate students, research fellows and for publications and travel for presentations of papers at conferences. A comprehensive family medical cover and insurance is another requirement as currently there is none and a source of stress for many. It can also provide a fund for assisting young recruits to lecturer grade to pursue higher qualifications, as scholarships are increasingly difficult to obtain. It would also be adequate to provide a ‘re-settlement’ package for those returning from PhD studies overseas to assist them to purchase a house and vehicle if they so desire of course, plus some entitlement for school admissions as these are some of the major concerns for someone returning from abroad with young children.

As per my calculation, if the Faculty of Engineering at University of Moratuwa is provided per student funding of Rs 350,000/-, the recurrent income to the university would increase by around Rs 100 million per year. This will be adequate to provide all the above proposals for the faculty plus leave enough for the 20% salary increase that is demanded at this stage plus hiring staff required for the additional students. The proposed tie to inflation and GDP will also enable universities to pay market rates to their staff without creating salary gaps and ensuing strikes!

Conclusion: More Money for Universities should ensure more Students will access Quality Education

Currently State universities admit just 15 percent of those qualifying to enter university while Private Higher Educational Institutes admit around 8 percent with an equal number seeking admission to foreign universities. The relative costs for providing such education are in the approximate ratio of 1 (State): 2-3 (Private): 5-10 (Foreign). There should be a plan to increase the overall access to universities for at least 50 percent of those qualified. Since State universities offer the lowest cost of higher education they should be nurtured and capacity further developed to become the primary provider. However quality should not be compromised by attempts to reduce cost further.

This article gives clear and practical steps the Government could take to resolve the crisis in the universities. It calls for a committed plan of increasing expenditure on State universities from 0.21 to 0.48 percent of GDP over 4 years. This cannot be a Herculean task for a government embarking on many ambitious and expensive development projects. It is the investment in higher education that will ensure that such projects are properly planned and implemented. Thus higher education is basic condition of sustainability in development efforts. A similar per student funding scheme may be developed for school education with an enhanced remuneration package and in-service training for teachers, for providing resources for student-based learning facilities. These too could be introduced in a stage-wise manner to make it practical and affordable. It is even possible that such strategic interventions can in fact enable quality of university and school education to be restored even without spending all of the 6% of GDP that is being demanded.

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the University of Moratuwa Teachers’ Association (UMTA) for the data mining and analytical work for this article and in particular the contributions from Dr Himan Punchihewa, Dr T. Sivakumar, Mr Ranil Sugathadasa and Ms Baudhi Abeysekera.

Whither education?

Sanjana Hattotuwa, 02/09/2012

The Economist has already run two key stories on the on-going FUTA agitation – a sign of how much the world is focussing in on Sri Lanka’s unprecedented debacle of education.

Lest we forget, Universities in Sri Lanka remain closed, the entry of students to tertiary education is in an unholy mess, we have done away with basic IT literacy and English training for undergraduate entrants, the conduct of 5^thyear scholarship exam is mired in controversy and the subject of an active CID investigation. This invariably means that results of the exam will also be contested. The marking of recently conducted Advanced Level answer scripts has been indefinitely postponed. Down the line, this will add to the existing maelstrom over University admission. Media reports suggest the questions in the Advanced Level Buddhist Culture paper had leaked out before the exam commenced and that several question papers in the school term tests for Grade 10 and 11 in the Gampaha Education Zone were leaked in July. In addition to all this, Transparency International and other civil society groups have repeatedly flagged with damning islandwide research significant corruption around Year One school admissions. Around the time when parents hunt for schools to enrol their children, there is invariably a flurry of media reports around the frustration, favouritism, fraud and fear that governs the process, and how even in comparison to the year before, it’s got significantly worse.

At five critical junctures in Sri Lanka’s current education system – primary school admission, the Grade Five scholarship, Ordinary Level exam, Advanced Level exam and University Admission – the system has completely imploded, with no immediate relief or remedy in sight. And all the government literally has to say is that all this is a vast conspiracy to tarnish its name.

The immediate chaos around this madness is evident – there are water canons blasted on students in Colombo, there are thousands of teachers on the streets and there are parents protesting outside the University Grants Commission. The lasting, longer-term effects of all this is harder to accurately predict. At a time when our President in Iran is touting Sri Lanka as a model for others to emulate, the irony is that within the country, this imagined model is unravelling apace. The government has repeatedly said it is working towards making Sri Lanka a ‘Knowledge Hub’ for the region. This is quite simply not going to happen. Given the scale of the crisis, what we are looking at is an unprecedented challenge of civil unrest fuelled by disadvantaged and demoralised youth. Youth who have nothing to lose. One disturbing future scenario is a return to the violence of the late-80’s. While this could be convenient over the short-term for those interested in regime change, with FUTA’s struggle supported not only for its own significant merits, but as a powerful vehicle for a larger political change in the near term, the greater danger is that this unrest and systemic breakdown is already a foundation for the violence collapse of democratic governance and the rule of law years hence. Use a flawed, failing system for parochial gain, and one risks enduring political, economic and social chaos no matter who is in power. Address the flaws within the system, which will take a longer time, greater investment and sustained agitation, and those in power will be utterly powerless to stop change.

Towards this, and in addition to the core issues driving FUTA’s on-going agitation, perhaps we need to revisit and revise Kannangara’s submissions for educational reform in ’43. He stressed the value of addressing the emotional well-being of students and the importance of teaching English, in addition to Tamil and Sinhala. There is enduring value in these tenets. Today we can add to his central vision the value of teaching (new) media literacy from secondary school upwards, and for those currently eligible for or enrolled in tertiary education and vocational training, basic ICT skills.

Yet the government seems to think what is essentially a total breakdown in our education system is a temporary glitch in Sri Lanka’s pristine post-war perfection that it can tide over with liberal servings of water cannon and empty promises.

It is wrong. It is very wrong.

###

Published in the print edition of The Nation, 2 September 2012

An Idea Worth Discussing

FUTA CITIZEN CHANNEL interview with Prof. Milton Rajaratne,

Preserving heritage of a sound education system and ending present multiple crises

The Island, August 31, 2012, 7:14 pm 

"After the Roman Army took Syracuse

a soldier, in the midst of the looting and raping,

stopped when he saw a Greek bent over

figures inscribed on the sand. Gaping,

the Roman watched his strange absorption

in that magic of lines and circles. He,

(not looking up at the soldier said, "Move!

With your shadow there it is hard to see!’

The soldier hit him on the head, and so

Archimedes died."

- Regi Siriwardena

NOTEBOOK OF A NOBODY

by Shanie

Archimedes was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. He was a native of Syracuse and when the Roman Army overran Syracuse, the Roman General gave orders that Archimedes, because of his fame, should not be harmed. But, yet, a Roman soldier killed him. The circumstances of his death are not known but Regi Siriwardena’s creative enactment of the killing perhaps effectively captures the mindset of a conquering army. An arrogant soldier, unable to comprehend the genius of Archimedes, takes it upon himself to kill the respected scientist, He perhaps thought that this old Syracusean had no right to be talking to a conquering soldier in that manner, without the deference the petty man thought he deserved. It is the same arrogant mindset that seems to grip many of those in power in our country. But we will come to that later.

Our country has had a proud educational tradition since ancient times. Both in the Buddhist and Hindu cultures, scholarship and the guru-sishya tradition flourished. In modern times, the colonial rulers introduced a system of school education. It was during British rule, however, that sound secular education was encouraged, with primary and secondary schools, imparting education both in English and in the vernacular, being established throughout the country. In 1921, the University College, affiliated to the University of London was established and transformed 21 years later, as the fully fledged University of Ceylon. About this time, the State Council, on the initiative of the Kannangara Committee, introduced far-reaching educational reforms. The twin pillars of these reforms were the provision of free education for all, from primary to tertiary levels and the establishment of high quality central schools in all the districts pf the country. Even though the legislation for compulsory education for 5 to 14 year olds did not come immediately, school enrolment was high. That is why at the time we gained independence, our country had a near 100% literacy rate, among the highest in the world. The Kannangara reforms had made possible education available and affordable to all, thus enshrining one of the cardinal principles of a democracy – the right to education.

Decline in Quality

During the first couple of decades after independence, we carried on with the momentum built with the Kannangara reforms. Thereafter there were ups and downs, depending on the Minister of Education. but over the last few years, there has been a rapid decline in the standards and quality of the institutions and bodies associated with education. It will not be fair to place the whole blame on bungling politicians. The sycophantic bureaucrats who have found a niche in our educational system have to share the blame. They have failed to take a firm stand on ensuring that our educational institutions enjoy academic freedom and maintain acceptable academic standards. There are two apex bodies – the National Education Commission reviewing on an ongoing basis the education system in the country and advising on overall educational policy that needs to be formulated; and the University Grants Commission concerned about coordinating the University system, regulating the broad administration of Universities and ensuring that they maintain academic standards. Unfortunately, both Commissions do not function as they should. The NEC has virtually been sidelined and policy decisions are made by politicians and the bureaucrats in the Ministry without any consultation with the NEC. The UGC which maintained its independence until a few years ago, now merely carries out the directives of politicians, even when they are in total violation of the Universities Act.

z-scores and University Admissions

Take the case of University admissions. We have two Ministers responsible for this. The Examinations department under the Minister of Education has to release the results of the GCE (AL) results. Based on those results, a system has been in place to choose those eligible for admission. Raw scores are converted to z-scores based on a system worked out by competent academics. The Minister of Higher Education becomes responsible for the admission of students to Universities.

A new syllabus was introduced for some of the subjects at the 2011 AL examinations: Thus some students sat under the old syllabus and some the new. But the Examinations Department erred in having the z-scores calculated without treating the two sets of candidates as different, and released the z-scores. The Minister refused to listen to the protests and ultimately the Supreme Court had to rule that the calculation of the z-scores by combining the raw marks of two different ‘populations’ was wrong. This has now been rectified. But it has taken the UGC an enormously long time to finalise the university admissions. It will be unfair to penalize the students who qualified for admission under the old (and wrong) system of z-scores but do not qualify under the corrected system. This column suggested some months ago that all those who qualified under both systems of z-scores should be admitted to universities. This is also the opinion of several academics including Professor Arjuna Aluvihare, former Vice-Chancellor and former Chairman of the UGC. It entails taking in an additional batch of students but the UGC in typical bureaucratic fashion seems yet to make up its mind. They seem so used to following political directives that they are unable to take a decision on an issue that is within their mandate. In the meantime, the students are left in total suspense. The z-score issue is not one that should have ended up in a fiasco calling for Supreme Court intervention. But our Ministers and their bureaucrats are not used to admitting mistakes or taking responsibility for mistakes. It is always a case of blaming it on conspiracies!

Yet another conspiracy!

The latest scandal to hit the Ministry of Education is the leaking of the Grade 5 scholarship examination papers. Instead of investigating it, admitting any mistakes made and putting things right, the Minister of Education talks of ‘conspiracies’. To what ridiculous a length can the Minister go. Does he think the public will keep swallowing his conspiracy bogeys. If blundering Ministers cannot take responsibility for mistakes and put things right, they should gracefully give way.

Also, on the subject of schools, it is reported that the Police have installed complaint boxes in several schools (presumably it will cover all schools) with a request that students place any complaints, etc in the boxes. The key to the box is held by the Police and the Principal has no access to its contents. Has the Minister initiated this or is it a Ministry of Defence brainwave? Either way, it will undermine school discipline when the Principal has no control over any student complaints. There are acceptable ways of dealing with student abuse, student complaints (even against the Principal), etc. without undermining student discipline in schools and without the intrusion of the Police or the Ministry of Defence in school affairs.

From Jaffna, comes the report of the senior girls in a leading school having protested against the conduct of an education official whose office is sited within the school premises. Apparently, following the protest, the Sri Lanka Army officials have taken some of the Prefects of the school to the local Army camp, given the girls a dressing down, got them to apologise and obtained a pledge from them that they would not allow such an incident to happen again. Again, at what price is school discipline and the authority of the Principal and the staff of the school.

Indeed this growing intrusion of the security establishment in schools is a worrying development. There have been reports that some school Principals are to be given military rank and that A/L students are to be given training in military camps. Indeed, apparently the students at the Mahinda Rajapaksa Vidyalaya in Homagama have reportedly already had this "training". The University community is already in upheaval about the growing militarization in the campuses. The plan seems to be to extend militarization to schools as well.

Trade Union Action by FUTA

The University teachers’ strike is now nearing two months. Their demands were eminently reasonable but it has taken the Minister of Higher Education, after weeks of denial, to come round to doing something. The reports of this week’s cabinet meeting suggest a Cabinet Paper was presented jointly by Basil Rajapakse and S B Dissanayake on the FUTA demands. The cabinet seems to have approved the proposals. Why did it have to await Basil Rajapaksa’s intervention for this to happen. Of course, the Minister of Higher Education, like his colleague in the other education sector, is unlikely to admit that he was wrong in not having listened and acted on the FUTA demands. We will probably be treated to another conspiracy theory and how he successfully broke the conspiracy.

Reports indicate that in terms of the cabinet paper, University teachers are to be treated as a special category of public servants, as they were some years ago when they were treated on a par with Central Bank officers. But there is no commitment on their salary demands. The FUA demand was also for an acceptance of the UNESCO recommendation that public spending on education should be 6% of GDP. At present, Sri Lanka is at the ridiculously low rate of 1.9%, the lowest in our region. Of course, it may not be possible to change this overnight but there must be a commitment that we would work towards achieving that UNESCO goal on an incremental basis within a defined time frame. In the meantime, adequate resources should be provided to the Universities to function effectively as institutions of excellence in higher education. The cabinet also seems to have accepted that the Universities should enjoy autonomy and independence. This should have been the goal of the UGC which the UGC shamelessly surrendered.

The cabinet has also decided to appoint a committee of some sort. At the time of writing this column, the exact function of this committee is not known. It is hoped that it is not a means to put off meeting the FUTA demands and for implementation of the cabinet proposals. For far too long, the Ministry of Higher Education has been playing games with FUTA with promises made but not implemented. The present cabinet proposals have come about due to the intervention of Minister Basil Rajapakse. He should assure FUTA of the immediate implementation of those demands that can be met now and a definite time frame for others. It does not appear that the academics have much confidence in the Minister of Higher Education delivering on anything.

The cabinet seems to have approved the right to autonomy of the Universities. We trust this means that political interference will end. Professor Arjuna Aluvihare in a recent newspaper interview has said that political interference in universities was all pervasive. This must end. The UGC must re-discover their role as guardians of University autonomy. The Senates and the Councils must be allowed to function and make decisions in terms of the Universities Act. Political directives cannot do away with aptitude tests in aesthetic studies, interfere in the selection of the most suitable security agency for each University, in the authorization of any training (leadership, military or otherwise) for new entrants, in providing for English or IT skills for new entrants, etc. Nor should indirect pressure be brought on making appointments to senior positions, appointments including those of Vice chancellors. The UGC should re-discover its role as a guardian of university autonomy and the rightful functions of the Senate both in letter and in spirit. Universities can meet the needs of the world around them only if their administration, teaching and research are independent of political authority and economic power.

Now is the time to halt the slide in our education systems, both in higher education and at school level. The multiple crises in education offer an opportunity to reverse this trend. We need to revitalise this sector for the public good. We need to preserve our heritage of a sound education system that produced men and women who took their place in society and made a valuable contribution to nation-building.

FUTA Responds To Misleading Information And clarifies Current Status

August 31, 2012 | Filed under: Colombo Telegraph,News,STORIES | Posted by: COLOMBO_TELEGRAPH

By FUTA -

The FUTA Trade Union Action launched on the 4^th of July 2012 has entered its 3^rd month, and there is much speculation concerning the current status of negotiations between FUTA and the government. In order to address some of the misleading information regarding FUTA’s current position, we wish to clearly clarify our stand at this present moment.

During the last two months, FUTA’s demands have been gaining wide, public support. FUTA has managed to awaken public interest in the current status of education in the country. This has been evident in the public response to FUTA’s signature campaign where up to date, 150,000 signatures have been collected and in the support FUTA has been receiving from other civil society organizations. FUTA was also able to organise a massively successful rally on the 23^rd of August at Hyde Park, Colombo where many individuals and organisations publicly expressed their solidarity with FUTA’s campaign to save state education.

FUTA at the same time has been engaging with the government in discussions to resolve the ongoing trade union action. At this point FUTA has engaged in 6 rounds of discussions with government representatives including Minister of Higher Education, Secretary to the President, Mr Lalith Weeratunga and Minister Basil Rajapakse. At the last meeting with Minister Basil Rajapakse the government proposed the idea of a cabinet paper to express the government policy on education spending, the problem of recruitment and retention of qualified academics, university autonomy and politicisation. The Minister also indicated that rescinding arbitrary and unconstitutional circulars can be facilitated, while he agreed to suspend the CIMA programme and to initiate a consultative process for the leadership training of new university entrants. A meeting with Dr.P.B. Jayasundera, Treasury Secretary to finalise the salary issues was also promised. This fell short of our comprehensive demands.

However, the only concrete action to emerge from these series of discussions is a Note to Cabinet on state policy on education presented by Minister Basil Rajapakse and Minister S.B Dissanayake. This was only one aspect of the solution proposed at the last meeting. The Cabinet note is extremely disappointing for two major reasons: the government has failed to even accept at a policy level the need to increase education expenditure in line with the international benchmark of 6%. Also, a permanent solution to the salary issue has not been addressed in the proposal to establish a special category for university teachers. Although Minister Basil Rajapakse indicated that the committee to look into the establishment of a special category would be headed by either the President’s Secretary or a Senior Minister, this has been replaced in the Cabinet note by Minister S.B. Dissanayake. This is an extremely worrying development since Minister Dissanayake has consistently maintained an intransigent position with regard to resolving the problems of university teachers.

FUTA cannot at this stage be satisfied with anything less than a set of clear commitments from the government regarding education policy and addressing the long standing salary anomalies of university teachers.

FUTA also wishes to point out to the public that as an organisation that respects democratic principles, decisions such as continuation of trade union action are not made by a few, but in consultation with its membership. Therefore, it requests the public not to believe statements made by some sections of the government regarding the status of the trade union action. These are deliberately misleading statements made in attempts to turn the public against FUTA. We reiterate that the FUTA trade union action will continue until our demands are met.

Further, FUTA reiterates that it is mindful of its national responsibilities and the trust that the public has placed on FUTA. Each signature that has been placed on the petition, each letter of support, each statement in public, each blessing that individual citizens of Sri Lanka have bestowed on academics in the streets is of tremendous value. FUTA will not betray that trust and belief and has pledged its commitment to see this struggle through to victory. That victory will not be just for the academic community but for all Sri Lankans who value education and who wish for a better future for the children and youth of this country.

Dr Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri

President, FUTA

30^th August 2012