In defence of university autonomy and academic freedom

August 2, 2012, 7:38 pm , the island

By Prof. Wiswa Warnapala

Continued from yesterday

In the last three or four decades, there was a considerable expansion in the intake which, of course, was stimulated by a great demand for higher education. The rapid increase in the number of students, which had taken place in the sixties, was not simultaneously accompanied by a concentrated attention on quality. It was in the last decade that a major effort has been invested in this direction, and the very process of transformation was accelerated in the last few years. It was the exhortation of this policy which called upon the universities to devote their energies to improving the quality of education offered to the students. This had to be done notwithstanding the increasing pressure for the expansion of the intake. The compelling reason was that the country demanded a greater measure of social and educational equality which partly, was one of the aspirations of the post-colonial state. This had a direct impact on the expansion of the universities, and it became lop-sided because the inevitable expansion was on arts and humanities. As was inevitable, the expansion created numerous problems. A numerical expansion was planned to be carried out within a period through a network of provincial universities; the objective of this policy was to make special innovations with regard to their curriculum and new specializations to be given priority. What was vital in each of them was the introduction of new disciplines; it was constantly mentioned that the quality of the University graduate must not be sacrificed to quantity. Character, temperament and wider qualities of mind are, of course, as important as intellectual attainments.

The maintenance of academic standards depended on two important factors, the quality of the undergraduate material reaching the universities from the schools and the quality of training provided by the universities themselves. The two factors are closely related. Well-educated teachers are required to train the school population and to avoid the schools from sending ill-educated entrants to the universities. The main question was the capacity of the schools to produce such freshmen of quality. In this connection, it needs to be recommended that more than ninety percent of the undergraduates are recipients of the Mahapola grants. There is no question that the universities attract suitably qualified university students, who do not need cosmetic ventures such as leadership training programs in army camps, the authors of which, perhaps, never understood the mission of a University. The existing school network is certain to increase the supply of potential undergraduates and the future increase, though not predicted with accuracy, will be substantial, and this indicates the magnitude of the investment needed for higher education. Given the number of universities, investments on an unprecedented scale will be needed, and to decide how this is to be achieved is the responsibility of the government.

Expanded access led to reduction in quality

It has been realised that the elimination of all obstacles to an expanded access led to the reduction in quality. There is no doubt that the average quality has substantially suffered. Apart from the quality of the undergraduate, the maintenance of university standards depends, to a large extent, on the quality of the life and the education which the universities are expected to provide. Most complications of the system are tied to this basic proposition. The rapid increase of student numbers, resulting from a policy to expand access, has, naturally imposed severe strains on the system, contributing to the deterioration in the standards of university education in the country. In Sri Lanka, standards depend on a number of factors-quality of the academic staff, bilingualism and monolingualism of the academic staff, the ratio of staff to students, the buildings and their adequacy to the present requirements, library facilities, residential facilities, extra-curricular facilities and canteen facilities. The sudden expansion of numbers has exceeded the levels of accommodation. In the meantime, the student body, politicized or not, began to make new demands on the universities. In this environment of shortage and inadequacies, the leisured university life with adequate opportunities for regular contact between the staff and the student became impossible, which clearly affected the intellectual life of the university.

The doubling of the numbers of the students in the last four decades could be justified on the ground that it raised the proportion of the population which has had the advantage of university education. The output of graduates from all faculties has had a major impact on the social and economic potential of the country. Advantages of university education for social and economic progress of a given society have been widely recognized. The creation of useful knowledge, as anticipated, has had a direct link with the creation of employment opportunities for the output of graduates in Sri Lanka. The perception of the public is that the University education is a means of training for a particular career. As an inevitable consequence, the failure to provide employment has created a sense of frustration and disillusionment among the unemployed graduates. One way out is to establish an active post-graduate intellectual culture, and the many forms of specialized study could be better left to the post-graduate students. The absence of such a post- graduate intellectual culture is a major deficiency in the present system, which, partially, has been rectified with outside assistance. Sri Lanka does not have benefactors who can dole out money for research. Further, the notion of research has been given a different value. Unfortunately, for many policy makers, university is essentially a place for impartation of knowledge than a place for the creation of knowledge. Therefore, the teaching, at the expense of research, has gained importance.

Principle of public welfare

To conclude, the relationship between the state and the universities, by implication, is a difficult one, as the current debate of the question illustrates. The hard task is to devise appropriate means of reconciling the planning and control of the universities with the maintenance of academic freedom. The need for some kind of central planning of university education through direct government intervention, as the system remains wholly state- funded, has been widely recognised. Universities, in the execution of their policies, needs to be based on the principle of public welfare. However, central control and planning, even through the UGC, cannot involve the curtailment of academic freedom. It needs to be reminded to those who intend in invoking Macarthian techniques of witch- hunting and interference, that such forms of interference would definitely lead to intellectual retardation. As Eric Ashby notes, "the price of autonomy is to abjure power". There are examples of arbitrary political interference in the affairs of the universities in the Commonwealth, but they rarely became issues of political contention, because most governments have shown themselves scrupulously careful to avoid even the appearance of interference with academic freedom. The relationship between the state and the universities, which evolved and conceived as a form of partnership, should not be disturbed and all conflicts between the two parties, each of which showing their own power at the expense of the other, need to be avoided in the interest of the development of the universities. The main responsibility for this kind of arrangement rests with the UGC as the accepted intermediary between the state and the universities, and the accomplishment of this important task depends on the goodwill and understanding between the university community and the UGC. The developing climate of distrust between the State and the universities is certainly not in the interest of higher education in Sri Lanka. The simple truth is that universities need to be given better resources as higher education is an investment in human capital.

Concluded

Dons demand more

August 2, 2012, 7:49 pm , the island

It was heartening to read the news item in the front page of The Island of July 31 of the position taken by  President Rajapakse on the above. He quite rightly has said that there is no way their demand for more and more pay hikes could be met as that would prompt other professionals to follow suit. The dons should understand that there should be some parity in the salary scales of similar professions, as was the case a few decades ago, if not the entire administrative structure can collapse. The country has become almost ungovernable now because of the successive Governments’ failure to stand firm when unreasonable demands were made for pay hikes by powerful trade unions over the years.

If I remember right when I joined the Engineering Service in 1970, my salary was Rs. 650 a month, salary of a new recruit to the Medical Service was Rs 680 and the salary of an arts graduate joining the Administrative Service was Rs.620. All were on the same salary scale with an annual increment of Rs 30. The engineering graduates were given one increment more than the Arts graduates as the engineering degree course duration is one year more than the arts degree course and the Medical Doctors were given one increment more than the Engineers as the medical degree course is one year more than the engineering degree course. The Graduates joining the semi government services such as Corporations, Boards, Institutes etc.were paid generally 33. 3 percent more than their counterparts in Govt. service, mainly to compensate for the pension rights and job security to a certain extent. No wonder the services functioned smoothly then!

Talking about Dons in lighter vein, I am reminded of an encounter we had, in mid nineteen sixties at the Colombo Campus with our physics lecturer Professor Mylvaganam, a brilliant product of Oxford University and a superb lecturer,  who was extremely  strict especially to us male students!  Those days we had to get our "record books" signed by the lecturers in charge of the subjects in order to sit the exams, for some reason or other,  about twelve of us in the batch couldn’t get this done on time and we had to approach Professor Mylvaganam. We were standing just out side his majestic office which had swing doors and he could see our feet from underneath and when he roared " come in " , I almost got shoved in and my "friends" bolted! I quite respectfully handed over my " record book " and requested his signature timidly. He took it and without glancing at it even, threw it, through the open windows of his office on to the lawn outside and said

"COME IN MY FREE TIME AND I HAVE NO FREE TIME"!!!      

  R.Arambewela

  Colombo     

‘Dont let Privatization of Education Destroy the Free Education System’

1 August 2012, 11:27 pm, http://dbsjeyaraj.com

Vivimarie VanderPoorten

by Roel Raymond

Vivimarie VanderPoorten is an award winning Sri Lankan poet. Her first book Nothing Prepares You won the Gratiaen Prize for the best piece of English literary work in Sri Lanka, in 2007.

In 2009 she was recipient of a higher honour; the SAARC Poetry Award, which was followed by the publication of her second book Stitch Your Eyelids Shut, in 2010.

Vivimarie is also a senior lecturer in English language, literature and linguistics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, which puts her firmly at the fore of the on-going strike by academics, spearheaded by the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA). Ceylon Today spoke with Vivimarie to understand her reasons for supporting the strike, factors that led to trade union action by the academics and the nature of their demands.

Q:How is it that you are involved in this massive, on-going strike by academics?

A: I am currently the Assistant Secretary of OUTA – that is, the Open University Teachers’ Association. OUTA is a part of the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA), hence my support and involvement.

Q: What demands are your collective unions making?

A: Our unions are faced with a number of unaddressed issues. However, for the sake of convenience, they can be broken down into two major demands. We ask that the government 1) Enhance recruitment and retention of the highest qualified academics and that it 2) Safeguards and uplifts the State education sector.

Q: What does FUTA mean by ‘Enhance recruitment and retention of the highest qualified academics’?

A: Basically, to make sure the Sri Lankan university system ‘gets the best’. That is, to ensure we recruit those graduates that top the batch; the ones that obtain First Class and Second Uppers, as probationary lecturers (the first rung on the academic ladder). At the moment the university system is unable to attract these graduates as lecturers because the salaries on offer are abysmally low. Even if universities do manage to recruit these top students to their teaching staff, they are unable to retain them as many leave the island to study for their Masters or Ph.Ds and opt to stay abroad, preferring to take up better paying teaching appointments there. This is the ‘brain-drain’ we speak of; our country is being drained of the best of its brains because it has not yet been able to create a university system that will use and look after its best.

Q: You are currently a senior lecturer at the Open University of Sri Lanka, were you ever offered a post abroad?

A: Yes, I was, after obtaining my Ph.D at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland I was asked if I would be interested in teaching on the Masters programme.

Q: You obviously chose not to. What would you have been paid if you had?

A: I would have been paid about 45,000 GBP per annum as a starting fee.

Q: Why choose the Open University instead?

A: There were, obviously, many reasons for choosing to do so. I had always wanted to teach – I knew that. I had also worked briefly – as a new graduate in English and Economics – for the Social Scientists Association in Sri Lanka. It was there that I began to be socially and politically aware, and form opinions for myself. By the time I had completed my Ph.D, I knew I wanted to give back to the State education system from which so many had benefited, myself included.

Q: How long have you been at the Open University?

A: 15 years now, at the Department of Language Studies.

Q: The second demand the unions are making is to ‘safeguards and uplift the State education sector’ – what does this entail?

A: We have made a number of detailed request to this end, key among them are a call for 1) six per cent of the GDP to be allocated to Education, 2) that politicization within universities is ended and 3) the university community be involved in all higher education reforms.

Q: Six per cent of the GDP is a serious commitment. Do you feel that request is justifiable?

A: Totally. The current budgetary allocation towards education is a meagre 1.9% of the GDP. This is one of the lowest in the world – countries like Kenya (7.1%), Bangladesh (2.1%), India (3.7%), Nepal (3.4%) and Namibia (7.2%) allocate more than that towards education! The budgetary allocation towards education has decreased since this government came into power in 2005; back then 2.5% of the GDP was the commitment towards education, now it is 1.9%.

Q: What do your unions mean when it asks for ‘de-politicization’ of the university system?

A: It means that all government meddling with the administration of universities must come to a complete end. The Minister of Higher Education currently meddles with even the micro-management of the universities and this cannot be continued. We are governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) – a body that at one time was staffed with impartial academics that recognized their role in safeguarding the interests of the entire university system – teachers, students all. The UGC is now more interested in agreeing to act as a mouthpiece on behalf of the government rather than university representatives.

Q: You say the minister meddles in even the micro-management of universities; can you give me an example of one such incident?

A: Yes, the University of the Visual and Performing Arts that is situated near the NelumPokuna insists that qualifying students sit an aptitude test before being allowed to enter their programme. Recently, some students with ‘connections’ that had not passed the test had complained to the Minister who in turn called the Vice Chancellor at the University and asked that the aptitude test be removed; which he did.

Q: Vice Chancellors; what exactly is their function and are they not independent?

A: Vice Chancellors are the Administrative Heads of universities – like the ‘Principal’ in a school; he or she has the highest authority. A Vice Chancellor is expected to be independent and run the universities autonomously but that no longer happens as all Vice Chancellors are appointed by the President and hence, chosen more for their political affiliations than impartial authority.

Q: The question of privatizing universities has been subject to much debate – what is your unions’ stance on this?

A: We are not against privatization – by all means do set up private universities in this country, but don’t do it at the expense of the State education system – in other words, don’t kill the free education system to embrace the private one. Instead, simultaneously develop both systems – that way both the affluent student and the one that is not have access to education.

There is another way tackling this issue ; the government could invest more in the existing universities – enlarge them, bring them up to international standards and then charge a fee to students that didn’t qualify for free entrance and education. Further still, if the government invested more in the existing universities they could actually increase local intake – ending the cut-throat competition to get into local universities because there are only limited spots open.

Q: Tell me more about the strike action launched by the university trade unions..

A: As of the 4 July 2012 all teaching activities have been stopped and all examinations have been stopped. In addition to not reporting to work we are also conducting a very organized campaign – a one million signature campaign that is going very well. Academics took to the streets and handed out leaflets explain the reasons for our strike action – just imagine that, Professors standing out at street corners explaining to the average man that his actions are aimed at saving free education for our children, for the future. We have currently close to 100,000 signatures and this number is growing by the hour! In addition to that we run an active online campaign on blogs and Facebook – membership currently at 10,000+ and we use that tool to network and raise awareness on the reasons for our collective strike action, and what our demands are in all three languages.

Q: Doesn’t this trade union action affect university teachers themselves?

A: Yes, it does. This trade union action affects our teaching, it affects our day to day lives, it affects our pay; but we mean to continue to the dogged end. It is important to note that we don’t enjoy what we are doing. As academics we are used to looking at things critically, consider all aspects, all sides, looking for the shades of grey and not just the polarized hues of black and white, and yet, with this trade union action we are being forced to look at things in terms of black and white and take a stand accordingly. This doesn’t make us very comfortable, and yet we must, because we have been pushed to do so. It is heartening that many of our students are supporting us and with us because they know this is a struggle for long term benefits and for the common good, not just for lecturers to get a salary hike.

Q: And for how long will your unions’ be on strike?

A: For as long as it takes. We will continue this trade union action until the government gives in to our demands, or at the very least until a compromise, FUTA and its affiliated trade unions can be happy with, is reached. There must be serious and genuine commitment from the government for us to move forward. courtesy: Ceylon Today

University teachers for excellence in education

August 2, 2012, 7:36 pm, the island

By Dileni Gunewardena

There is trouble in the universities and trouble in the schools. While frustrated students and academics have taken to the streets, there has been much posturing among those responsible for the state of education and higher education in this country. This article attempts to counter prevalent misconceptions about the nature, motivation and demands of the Federation of University Teachers' Associations (FUTA) and the academics they represent.

FUTA comprises over 40 member unions of university teachers of the Universities of Colombo, Peradeniya, Moratuwa, Kelaniya, Sri Jayawardenapura, Ruhuna, Jaffna, Visual and Performing Arts, as well as of Wayamba, Rajarata, Eastern, South Eastern, and Open Universities with a total strength of approximately four thousand members. FUTA has been in existence since 1983. Among its current opponents are former leaders of FUTA. However, I believe that there is a significant difference between the current FUTA leadership and its forebears that explains why the current TU action has garnered widespread support among academics, students, intellectuals and leading lights in the country, as well as the general public.

Clever, young and committed

The most striking feature of today's university trade union leadership is that it comprises academics with outstanding scholarly credentials. A search in scholarly research databases for their names reveals them to be authors of international repute, award-winners for Ph.D. and postdoctoral research, with impeccable track records of international research publications. They represent the best in Sri Lanka's University system today. Among the few I know (of) are an internationally published historian, a distinguished young evolutionary biologist, an outstanding macroeconomist with a Ph.D. from East Asia's best university, a brilliant mechanical engineer, Sri Lanka's first Ph.D. in counseling psychology, and two award-wining authors and poets, all of them trained in some of the best universities and post-doctoral research labs in the world. In fact, in terms of research and publications, these scholar-trade unionists have better academic credentials than several present-day Vice-Chancellors.

Many in the FUTA leadership and others who give dynamism to the movement are in their late thirties or early forties. They are recent Ph.D.'s, having completed their doctorates in the last five to ten years. Most of them funded their own postgraduate studies through teaching assistantships and research fellowships, because state-funded scholarships for postgraduate studies have simply not been available to university academics, at least in the last twenty five years. These academics were brilliant enough to obtain admission and funding on their own merit to some of the best universities in the world, and often turned down good job opportunities in developed countries to return to Sri Lanka, to the ill-paid positions in the universities that nurtured them.

These leaders have a vision for university education in this country, precisely because of the excellent overseas training they themselves received. Dynamic teachers and solid researchers, they have in the past few years, engaged in curriculum revision exercises, brought in external funding to their universities to improve teaching, learning and research infrastructure through competitive research and development grants, disseminated knowledge through workshops and seminars, launched new undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes and inspired recent cohorts of students to pursue academic careers and obtain training in good universities abroad. A critical mass of such academics is what helps universities to thrive and become engines of change and promote Sri Lanka as a knowledge hub.

But these same academics have watched with regret as their colleagues have left the universities for academic positions in universities abroad. They know that if this trend continues-as it will, if salaries are not raised and the present political interference and micro-management of universities continues-the universities that they serve with dedication and commitment will no longer be spaces for intellectual growth and independent thinking.

FUTA demands

FUTA's current demands fall into two categories: (A) outstanding salary-related demands and (B) demands relating to the state education. The first set of demands relates to the remuneration scheme required to retain and recruit highly qualified academics. Principally, FUTA demands the complete implementation of the Prof. M.T.M. Jiffry and Prof. Malik Ranasinghe proposals made in 2008 in consultation with the University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), and FUTA. The second set of demands specifically asks that the Government (1) delineates a course of action to increase government spending on education that will reach 6% of GDP within the next 2 years, (2) clearly states government policy on state funded education, (3)suspends all existing higher education reform processes until a proper consultative process involving all stakeholders and the public takes place, (4) agrees to refrain from the politicization and?micromanagement of the Universities so that these institutions can thrive as autonomous institutions that would act as catalysts in the development of Sri Lanka. [A detailed summary of FUTA demands can be found at http://futa-sl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/FUTA_Demands_Comprehensive_19_06_2012.pdf ]

What motivates this set of demands? University academics realize that they do not work in a vacuum. They are constantly accused of producing "unemployable" graduates. However, they can only do their best with the raw material -students-they are given. Recent analyses of education standards conducted by government entities themselves have shown that there are many quality issues in both primary and secondary education in Sri Lanka (World Bank, Treasures of the Education System in Sri Lanka, 2005, Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka: from Cut Stones to Polished Jewels, 2011). To be able to achieve the kind of transformation required in both school and university education, quality inputs-training, learning and teaching infrastructure, research facilities and better remuneration-will be needed. The type of inputs and facilities required for education and higher education are spelt out in the Mahinda Chinthana Vision 2010 document. In recognition that the measures that need to be taken to ensure quality education for all (EFA) involve substantial budgetary allocations to education, ministers and high level government officials of eight South Asian countries including Sri Lanka, at the second ministerial meeting of the South Asia EFA Forum in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in December 2009, committed to a public expenditure allocation for education that is equivalent to 6% of the country's GDP (UNESCO, Reaching the Unreached in Education in Asia-Pacific to meet the EFA goals by 2015: A Commitment to Action, 2010, p.6). While none of these countries had spent anywhere close to this target in 2010, data from Sri Lanka's Central Bank report and World Development Indicators of the World Bank show that Sri Lanka lags far below her SAARC neighbours, as the graph taken from World Bank (2011, p.30) shows. FUTA's demand is simply that the government takes steps to meet its own commitment.

Nowhere in the list of FUTA demands is there opposition to the private provision of education. Rather, what FUTA requests is a broad-based consultative process on education reform, and clarity regarding the government's commitment to the continued provision of state education.

Who will suffer if FUTA loses?

FUTA president Dr. Nirmal Ranjith has stated that if FUTA loses its demands, it will not be FUTA that loses, but the general public of Sri Lanka. It has been very clear that (especially younger, qualified) university academics are waiting on the outcome of these negotiations in order to make career decisions. If FUTA loses, over the next few years, the best and the brightest will leave the universities for jobs abroad or in the private sector of Sri Lanka. After all, university lecturers are not just teachers, they are skilled professionals: engineers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, etc. who are not restricted to teaching jobs in universities. Eventually, even those with a commitment to stay will leave-not because of the lack of pecuniary benefits, but because of the absence of other colleagues with whom they have a shared vision. Meanwhile, private universities which are not hamstrung by salary structures and patronage will be able to attract some of these academics. Eventually, the only academics who will be left in the universities are those who have few options elsewhere, who possibly were hired to the universities because of their political affiliations.

With the exodus of high-quality academics from the state university system, there will emerge a dual system of higher education in Sri Lanka, a low-quality state system and a higher quality fee-levying system. Who then will suffer? A depleted and poor quality state higher education system is obviously a poor return to taxpayers. Countries with a strong higher education system also had strong state education systems, which provided the backbone of the higher education system, especially in terms of research. But the greatest losers will be the students of state universities-the sons and daughters of the average Sri Lankan. In the future, such students may continue to enter the university, but will receive a poor quality education, while their counterparts in the private sector will have the benefit of better academic staff and better infrastructure. As the gap between these two sectors widens, the social fabric of the country is likely to be threatened. It is interesting to note that in Sri Lanka's history, the highest state expenditure on education (5.2 % of GDP) was allocated in 1972, one year after the 1971 youth insurrection.

Sri Lanka has been called the land of missed opportunities. If higher education officials are unable to grasp the opportunity in this "academic spring", perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury, himself trained in one of the best economics departments in the world, can. Otherwise, sadly, the "knowledge hub" will remain in the sphere of the rhetoric, and the reality that is the education system in Sri Lanka will continue its sad decline from mediocrity to poverty.

Dileni Gunewardena is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics and Statistics of the University of Peradeniya.

FUTA adopts new strategy to secure pay hike

August 2, 2012, 9:52 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando, the island

The Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA) yesterday separated its ongoing strike to win a pay hike from the overall push for an agreement with the government on the allocation of 6 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for education.

FUTA Chief Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri asserted that even if an agreement could be reached on salary and related issues, their battle for enhanced allocation for the education sector would continue. The head of the Department of History of the Faculty of the Colombo University reiterated FUTA’s commitment in the wake of the government and the FUTA initiating a fresh dialogue to settle the ongoing strike.

Dr. Devsiri was addressing the media at the National Library Services Board yesterday morning having met presidential secretary Lalith Weeratunga and Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa the previous night. The government kept Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake and University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairman Prof. Gamini Samaranayake out of Wednesday’s meeting.

A large group of trade unions, including the main union affiliated to the JVP, too, joined the media briefing. Addressing the gathering on behalf of the JVP, Mahinda Jayasinghe alleged that the government was trying to further limit its role in the education sector. Comparing the State sector spending for education in the SAARC region, Jayasinghe said that GoSL’s contribution to the vital sector was now negligible. Unfortunately those who had immensely benefited from free education remained silent when the government was destroying everything. Both free education and free health services were on the verge of collapse due to rapid decrease in State support, he said, adding that the parents were finding it difficult to provide education.

The FUTA chief said that deliberations were held at the Economic Affairs Ministry in a cordial atmosphere, though an agreement couldn’t be reached. "We discuss various aspects, though it is too early to speculate on the outcome," he said.

The soft-spoken academician said that both parties felt that an early settlement was necessary. The FUTA asserted that successful conclusion of the ongoing deliberations would entirely depend on a serious intervention on the part of the government. "Next few days will be crucial," Dr. Devasiri said, while stressing on the importance of taking decisive action to settle the crisis.

The FUTA launched a strike on July 4 to win their demands, mainly allocation of 6 per cent of the GDP for education and a pay hike.

Asked by the local BBC correspondent whether the government was serious in the latest initiative or trying to wear out the FUTA, a smiling Dr. Devasiri said that he didn’t like to comment on the government strategy. Expressing confidence that the government wouldn’t adopt such a counterproductive strategy, the FUTA chief warned such a move would invariably fail.

Devasiri pointed out that the direct involvement of Messrs Weeratunga and Basil Rajapaksa meant that the government was keen to settle the crisis. But the possibility of the ultimate failure of the ongoing talks, too, couldn’t be ruled out. He regretted the failure on the part of Minister Dissanayake and Prof. Samaranayake to help resolve the crisis.

When The Island pointed out that Minister Dissanayake had alleged that the FUTA made a series of demands, including government allocation of funds to teach two children of each FUTA member and the association was, too, greedy, Devasiri that Prof. Navaratne Bandara made a suggestion to that effect sometime ago, though the FUTA wasn’t pushing for that particular demand at the moment. Prof. Devasiri revealed that JVP parliamentary group leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake got in touch with him soon after Minister Dissanayake first made the allegation in parliament. Devasiri insisted that Prof. Navaratne’s proposal was not on the agenda, while likening offer of scholarships to the children of FUTA members to various perks and privileges offered to the public sector.

However, Ven. Dambara Amila thero accused Minister Dissanayake of making an attempt to give a different interpretation to what he called scholarship issue. The Ven. thero said that that FUTA made that particular proposal after Minister Dissanayake offered scholarships to foreign students. "We felt our children should be given scholarships first before foreigners were accommodated," the Ven. thero said.

The Island also raised the issue of the government trebling the university intake without having the necessary infrastructure facilities and giving preferential treatment to FUTA and over two dozen of State sector enterprises, whereas the vast majority of government servants and private sector workers were struggling to make ends meet, the FUTA asserted that that wasn’t the forum to discuss such issues.

Asked whether education and health sector trade unions had at least bothered to inquire into complaints that those who shirk their duties do a much better job for a fee, the FUTA said that there were problems, which couldn’t be tackled by them alone.