Forget FUTA, overhaul education policy anyway!

• By  Malinda Seneviratne
• Sunday, 12 August 2012 00:00, The Nation

About 15 years ago as I was passing the Senior Common Room of the Peradeniya Arts Faculty, I saw Dr. S.B. D. De Silva having a cup of tea. He was alone. I walked in and had a chat. I asked him why the place was empty and if this was ‘normal’. He said ‘If you want to find the lecturers, you have to go to Polgahamulla’. The reference was to a highly successful tuition operation close to Peradeniya where lecturers would teach students reading for external degrees. We discussed other things, including the poverty of scholarship and the fact that the Arts Faculty Library housed one of the most under-utilized collections in the country.

Fifteen years later, we could have the same conversation, roughly. And yet, the Arts Faculty is not the University of Peradeniya and arts faculties are not the university system. There are men and women of exceptional intellect who are also endowed with exceptional sense of dignity and honor. They work regardless of reward and are motivated by the love of scholarship and a strong sense of duty, and they do so in spite of and not because of the particular policy and political environment. If the university system has resisted collapse it is because of them, in the main.

Autonomy
Much has been written about the trade union action of academics, led by FUTA (Federation of University Teachers’ Associations). The Nation has given space to FUTA to express its views. What FUTA would like people not to know has also been covered, in part (see ‘The Story that FUTA does not tell,’ The Nation, August 5, 2012). A lot more needs to be said. It will be said, rest assured, and what is said will not need excessive quotation of the excellent undressing that is “Mage Naduwa Iwarai” (My case is over) written by Dr. Sarath Wijesuriya, Senior Lecturer attached to the Sinhalese Department of University of Colombo.
FUTA wants academics to be placed in a separate category in the public service. It demands autonomy and wants to be spared politicization, even as it is politically compromised and has been sophomoric in refusing to acknowledge the fact that rampant irresponsibility, sloth and other ills make academics unworthy of oversight-free control of systems maintained by public funds.

Still, much of its criticisms of education policy remain valid. The teachers’ association of Moratuwa University (MUTA)’s ‘Save Education in Sri Lanka’ presentation (of slides), widely circulated on the Internet, clearly shows that something is radically wrong, even though some comparisons are unfair (they have not factored ‘out’ the large sums pumped into university research for commercial and military purposes in many countries). One doesn’t need FUTA proclamations to understand that education policy is marked by incoherence and devoid of vision in terms of overall development policy (which itself can hardly be called visionary given scant attention to accountability issues and a top-down thrust from thought to implementation that is patently undemocratic).

Aversion to reform
The setting up of the Rajarata Medical Faculty is a case in point, the institution being ‘created’ to tide over problems created by an error in an A/L Chemistry paper. Academics and doctors have objected to the controversial Malabe Medical College on grounds of standard and procedural deficiency (equally applicable to Rajarata on which FUTA is silent), but more importantly this issue showed up the ad hoc nature of policy planning, the Medical Council having had to be reconstituted to obtain regulatory approval.

I am sure FUTA understands that allocating 6% of GDP is a tough task given development priorities, but wastage, mismanagement and flaws in institutional safeguards against misappropriation in the overall economy certainly indicates that corrections can enable increase in allocations for education. MUTA has shown that there is a drop in the skills of students entering university. This means that education policy needs to be revised. From A to Z. FUTA has baggage but the Government’s policy-baggage is much heavier. FUTA cannot be asked to put its house in order until the Government rights itself. Ad-hoc must give way to comprehensive review and reformulation as appropriate. Right now, a marked aversion to institutional reform, especially those mechanisms that ensure transparency and accountability which alone can be expected to make for informed and sensible allocation of resources is giving FUTA a moral high ground which it does not deserve.

In this context it is certainly laudable that a new Human Resources Policy has been developed. One hopes the public and relevant experts will be called upon to debate it before it gets Cabinet approval. All that is ‘in the pipe-line’ though. As of now, the Government has failed in education. It must do its homework and re-face the relevant examinations, not because of FUTA rants but in spite of them.

Last modified on Sunday, 12 August 2012 00:12

Aiyo, another goof by education authorities

the sunday TIMES

With major questions still hanging over last year’s A/Level examination and the fate of tens of thousands of students, the expression on the face of this girl who sat the examination on Friday shows the magnitude of the crisis created by the Ministries of Education. Making matters worse were serious mistakes in the mathematics and Sinhala question papers yesterday. Pic by Indika Handuwala.

University dons in cuckoo land

The longest university teacher’s strike, Sunday Divaina and Sunday Island of 4^th August.

August 4, 2012, 7:00 pm


University academic staff have now been on strike for one month. This is now the longest strike engaged in by university teachers in this country.  Minister Basil Rajapaksa has been called upon to settle the matter. Last Wednesday, a meeting was held between representatives of the Federation of University Teacher’s Associations (FUTA) and Rajapaksa whose team of negotiators comprised of Charitha Herath, Anura Siriwardene, Damma Dissanayake among others. Six members of the FUTA including its president, Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri were present. The talks were described by both sides as being cordial. At the end of it Basil Rajapaksa had said that he will consult the President and the Secretary to the Treasury and come to some sort of a settlement. Hope was expressed that some settlement would be arrived at this week. About expenditure having to reach 6% of GDP, the FUTA representatives had said that this was only a bargaining point and that all they wanted was an assurance that the government will provide more funding for the education sector.

The FUTA representatives had drawn attention to the Mahinda Chinthanaya which aspires to turn the country into an education hub and said that they too like that concept and would like to come to a settlement that would make it unnecessary to have strikes for the next 15 years. They had also wanted to know what the government policy was towards their salary increments. Their main demand was that university teachers be declared a special service like the Sri Lanka Administrative Service.  One point that the FUTA had been very particular about was the insults they had to face from certain quarters with allegations being made that they played games of chance with answer scripts of examinations. While this discussion with Basil Rajapaksa had been cordial, what is a cause for concern is that the core issue of the salary increase was not gone into.

But then again, the FUTA representatives had specifically said that they are not Shylocks demanding the proverbial pound of flesh and that had given the government negotiating team the impression that some compromise formula may be possible. What FUTA had wanted was a clear statement from the government about their salary demands.  After negotiating with the combative and outspoken Minister of Higher Education, FUTA appeared to be willing to talk to anyone who does not say hurtful things to them.  FUTA head Dewasiri when asked by this columnist what form the settlement would take, said that one cannot say at the moment and that it all depends on how serious the government was. Dewasiri said that the president had referred to a win win situation and that what was not yet clear was the ‘win’ for FUTA.

Asked about some specific demands that FUTA had put forward, such as that all allowances be merged into the basic salary, Dewasiri says that they are fighting on the basis of the recommendations made by the Jiffery Commission.  He said that the other side should tell them what they think about this proposal and that had not happened yet.  Asked whether there were any demands in their list which are not negotiable, Dewasiri said that there are no non-negotiable demands.  He said that no trade union will say before they arrive at an agreement which demands are not open for negotiation.  He also said that the immediate demands that will need to be dealt with are those that refer to university autonomy. Dewasiri says that as of now, it was not possible for FUTA to hold a press conference in a university as there was a letter issued by Prof Samaranayake, the UGC chairman to the effect that the press could not be called into the university premises without permission.  When permission is applied for, the UGC chairman wants to know what is going to be discussed and whether any anti-government speeches were going to be made.

Dewasiri was also saying that the Establishment Code EC) was being misused to control the universities. For example, the EC says that trade union meetings cannot be held during working hours. But in the case of university academics, lectures can be held from 8am to 6pm and given such working hours, no meeting of FUTA can be held during the day. He said that the EC was not meant to apply to bodies like the universities where things are different to other work places. Dewasiri said that to meet most of their demands all that is really needed is a change in the attitude of the minister and the UGC chairman.

The demands

 It would be pertinent at this stage to see what the university dons have actually been asking for in this month long strike. The FUTA demands are outlined in a 16 page document and the main demands are categorised into two groups A and B. In the A group are the professional and salary demands of the university teachers and in the B group are the more general demands they have put forward. The A group starts with a demand that university teachers be recognised as a separate profession like the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (SLAS) by setting up a Sri Lanka University Academic Service (SLUAS). With regard to this demand, there is the question whether there is any precedent anywhere in the world for university teachers to be regarded as an SLAS type professional service. The explanation given by Dewasiri is that this is for the purpose of making it easier for the Salaries and Cadre Commission to decide on their salaries. The purpose in setting up the Sri Lanka Administrative Service is to select on impartial selection criteria, and through a public aptitude test those with the correct skills for jobs in the government administration.

But one has to wonder whether this would serve any useful purpose in the universities where recruitment is on academic merit.  Very often the best students are offered jobs on the university staff. Be that as it may,  FUTA has circulated to their members a proposal to set up the Sri Lanka University Academic Service which includes the draft minutes of the service.  The first item on their list is the demand that the government sign an MOU with FUTA to set up the SLUAS, based on the guidelines provided by FUTA as Appendix II of their demands list. They have also stipulated that the Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Finance and the Salaries and Cadre Commission should be signatories to the MOU pledging to set up the SLUAS by January 2013. Moreover this MOU will specify in writing that the first draft of the SLUAS service minutes will be provided by the FUTA on the guidelines provided in Appendix II of the document outlining their demands.   

The FUTA draft service minutes include provisions for recruitment, promotion, transfer, training, salary, sabbatical leave, retirement, pensions, provident fund and gratuity, the acceptance of consultancies and other such matters that have to do with the regulation of a professional body.  In this document is a list of allowances to be paid to university teachers. Among such allowances is a house rent allowance amounting to 25 to 30% of basic salary for those not living in the university quarters or in a house belonging to him or his spouse. There is also an internet and broad band allowance. In the middle of all this, comes an incongruity – item 3.5.2.3 of the proposed SLUAS service minutes which goes as follows.

"Children education allowance up to two children. The allowance could be varied depending on the category of school attended ie, government school/private school/in hostel."

No ceiling has been proposed for this as in the case of the house rent allowance which has been fixed as no more than 30% of the salary. However the interesting thing to note is that private school fees have been included in the allowance. Yet, the heading of section B of the FUTA demands list goes as "Safeguarding and uplifting state education" and under this topic, clause 1.1.8 asks the government to put out a "clear statement of the government policy on general state funded education" that includes a five year and 10 year plan for general education, and financial commitment and plan to maintain the general education system. The incongruity is that FUTA expects the government to uplift state funded general education while asking the government to pay them an allowance to send their own children to private schools. If they were all going to send their children to state funded schools, they would not be needing this Children Education Allowance because government schools do not charge fees.

The question that arises is if other government servants too demand a children’s education allowance, to send their children to private schools, who’s going to be left in the state owned schools? One may assume that private sector employees may prefer private schools in any case, so that may leave only the children of farmers and labourers in the public schools system. When the present columnist asked the FUTA president Dewasiri about this incongruity, he said that he on principle is against private buses but nobody should blame him if he travels in them nevertheless for the lack of an alternative. There may be more private buses on the roads than SLTB buses, but in the education system, state own schools still outnumber private ones so the comparison does not tally.

Perhaps it would better to simply accept the fact that university teachers would also like to educate their children in private schools preferably teaching international curricula, and that this is a way of trying to get the government to pay for it. Everybody has lifestyle aspirations and there is no shame in saying so publicly. In fact FUTA should slightly alter their list and demand that the government should increase spending on general education and at the same time encourage the setting up of private schools with proper supervision by the education ministry so that they would be able to send their own children to good private schools with the allowance they get from the government!

The bizarre six percent

 This brings us to part B of the FUTA demands list. Part B contains their more general demands and is all about safeguarding and uplifting state education and it starts off with the demand that the govern ment has to sign an agreement with the FUTA to increase spending on education to 6% of GDP by January 2015. At present,  (2009 figures) spending on education is more like 2.1%. So this leaves less than two and a half years to triple the share of education in the GDP.  The FUTA claims in their circular to their members that Sri Lanka has pledged to meet this target at the 2009 second Ministerial Meeting of the South Asia Education for All (EFA) Forum held under the auspices of UNESCO. When we asked Dewasiri about this demand we were told that the government has already pledged to meet this target. Our response was that if someone from the government actually did sign such a pledge, he should have been asked to show cause and if it is found that he actually believed it could be done, that FUTA should have assigned a psychiatrist from among their members to treat that individual free of charge instead of incorporating this 6% demand in their wish list.

When we asked Dewasisri whether the economists among their members had vetted this 6% proposal, we got no answer. Dewasiri’a argument was that as he had told Basil Rajapaksa this was only a bargaining point and that all that they want is an increase in government expenditure on education. But university dons should not bargain like labourers. It’s ok asking for a Rs. 20,000 salary increase with the hope of getting a third of that, but you can’t adopt the same strategy when talking about national policy. When a body of highly educated people like university dons propose changes to national policy, the not so well-educated should also feel that the demand was reasonable and achievable. To think that Sri Lanka could achieve a share of  6% of the GDP for education  two and a half years from now is just insane. The six percent target itself is daft.  According to the latest available UNESCO figures, even the USA has only 5.4% of its GDP allocated to education, the UK has 5.6%, Australia has 5.1%, in Canada, its 4.8%. In all these countries, education is one of the biggest foreign exchange earners and these percentages represent investment by both the government as well as the private sector in education.

The FUTA actually expects the government of Sri Lanka to bring expenditure on education to 6% of GDP on its own without any private sector participation. This despite the fact that unlike countries like Australia and the USA, education is not a major (or even minor) foreign exchange earner in this country. There are a few countries like Norway, Denmark, New Zealand and Finland, that do have GDP percentages for education which go beyond the UNESCO target of 6% but these are all countries with very small populations, on average about one fourth of that of Sri Lanka’s. The country with the largest population that has gone beyond the 6% of GDP for education target is Belgium which has an 11 million population. None of the larger states with populations above that of Sri Lanka has achieved the 6% target. Australia which has a population roughly equal to that of Sri Lanka and where education is one of the top three foreign exchange earners, still does not have a 6% of GDP share for education.

Thus FUTA expects this country to meet targets not met even by some of the wealthiest countries in the world. Furthermore, none of those wealthy countries is recovering from a war as Sri Lanka is. Sri Lanka did what was considered impossible by all the rich countries mentioned above and within a few years of winning such a war, the government is expected to do what even first world countries have failed to achieve in terms of spending on education. These are not the kind of bargaining points that should be put forward by a body of professionals like university teachers.  



Aborting the educational

hub concept

When FUTA met Basil Rajapaksa they had in fact said that they like the government’s idea of turning Sri Lanka into an educational hub, but the list of demands put forward by FUTA seeks to destroy the first initiative that the government took to attract foreign  students to Sri Lanka. India already has a considerable number of foreign students studying in their universities but there are few in Sri Lanka. So this country has to build up an international market for itself and the first step in that would be to get some international students into this country. Foreigners do not know that Sri Lankan university degrees are recognised in many developed countries and that since it has that recognition, it would be much cheaper to do their degrees in Sri Lanka than in their home countries.

You have to start the comings and goings somewhere and for this purpose the government initiated a 100 scholarships for foreign students programme where suitably qualified foreign students would be given scholarships to study for undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Scholarship recipients would not have to pay any fees and they would be given a monthly stipend of Rs 30,000 for living expenses. The foreign scholarship holders were to commence their courses from October this year. All courses were to be taught in English. Now FUTA wants the government to discontinue this scheme. The present writer looked through the courses that are on offer for foreign students in the universities and all of them are marketable. Almost all universities have had English medium courses which are of international standard for decades. At the University of Colombo, the courses on offer for foreign students include the MSc in Plant and Cell Tissue Culture, the MSc in Mathematics Education and the MA in Economics and so on. Jaffna university has a range of undergraduate courses on offer.  The University of Moratuwa has the BSc in Quantity Surveying, and Bachelor of Architecture courses among others, Peradeniya University has the MSc in Biotechnology among a whole host of other undergraduate and postgraduate courses. The South Eastern University even offers a BA in Arabic.

The list of courses on offer is definitely marketable in the 48 countries that have been targeted and if this scholarship scheme was allowed to get off the ground, after a few years when foreign students get used to Sri Lanka this could have become a money spinner for this country. This would have created a bigger demand for university teachers and driven pay rates through the roof. Sri Lanka needs to make the transition to this kind of export industry as the cost of production in this country keeps increasing and it is becoming unviable to keep this country as a primary producer. Yet FUTA is now engaged in what is obviously an ideologically driven attempt to torpedo this attempt to modernise the higher education sector. When asked whether this is a slogan of the JVP-led Inter-University   Student’s Federation that they have incorporated in their list of demands, Dewasiri’s response was that the IUSF was not a body that has come from Mars and that it has roots in this country. Arguing against this foreign student’s scholarship scheme Dewasiri asks whether this is a priority at the present moment.  He said that local students get a stipend of Rs. 2,500 a month which is not enough to live on for one week while foreign students are to be given Rs 30,000.

The difference however is that the foreign student scholarship scheme is with a view to turning the state universities into an educational hub and the income derived from these operations will enable the government to increase spending on education. FUTA which is made up of highly educated people does not seem to understand that a resource strapped country like Sri Lanka will have to find the money from somewhere to spend on education and what better way to do it than to earn it through the education system itself? What then of the crux of this whole issue - the salaries question? The FUTA circular sent to their members states that the present gross salary of Rs 51,316 for a probationary lecturer and Rs 126,536 for a Senior professor which is what it is at present, should increase to Rs 73,038 for a probationary lecturer and Rs 166,964 for a senior professor by January 2013, with the categories in between getting proportionate increases. It’s OK to ask for a salary increase since we all need money to live.

 Dons as destroyers

 However, the salary demand should be reasonable. The nature of some professions differ in significant ways from others. It may not be feasible to compare completely different professions. The FUTA salary increase proposal seeks to bump up university academic salaries above the pay rates of the Central Bank, which does not seem reasonable at all. This is based on a recommendation made by Professors M. Jiffery and Malik Ranasinghe in 2008. There is no doubt about the fact that the Jiffery/Ranasinghe committee did make such a proposal which the FUTA is now using to press their claims. However, there is no way to compare a university academic’s job to that of an officer of the Central Bank.  You can’t compare an academic job with an executive job.

University academics have a much greater degree of freedom to do what they like without having their shoulders to the cartwheel all the time. For example, the FUTA draft minutes for the Sri Lanka University Academic Service says that university academics should be encouraged to accept consultancies and jobs directing projects and even lays down how the money earned should be shared between the academics and the institution. No Central Bank officer has the time or the permission to do such things on the side. So the nature of a university job is different and while asking for higher pay is a reasonable demand, you cannot try to bolster your claims with unrealistic and unreasonable comparisons.  If that is the case, university vice chancellors will be able to argue that they have thousands of students in their institutions and hundreds of highly qualified staff under them and therefore, the VC’s salary should be equivalent to that of a CEO of a blue chip company.

If the FUTA succeeds in winning their demands that is definitely going to set off a round of strikes by other government servants asking for the same salaries and perks. The country can be completely destroyed through trade union action. Margret Thatcher had in Britain the image that President Rajapaksa would have today in Sri Lanka. Thatcher was known as the ‘iron lady’ not because she won any wars for Britain, but because she smashed the trade unions and saved Britain from destruction. The fact that Britain has continued to be first world nation up to now is because Thatcher destroyed the trade unions before the trade unions could destroy Britain.   

Have successive governments abrogated their responsibility towards education in Sri Lanka?

Sat, 2012-08-11 07:53 — editor

• News Comments

By Raj Gonsalkorale

Governments can produce statistics through creative accounting, and compete with those who quote statistics from institutions like the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. What is important at the end of the day is whether figures produced by different parties comply with internationally accepted norms for measuring expenditure on education.
The international norm is how much a government spends on education as a percentage of its GDP.
In this regard, official Central bank statistics reveal that the Sri Lankan government spends less than 2% of its GDP now on education.

Expenditure statistics should not be the only measure to judge the responsibilities of a government. The qualitative aspects must receive greater attention than quantitative aspects if we are to chart the right direction for the future generations of the country and the future of the country itself.

The current government or any other government cannot play with mirrors and come up with figures that include non- government expenditure on education, as expenditure on education, as it is misleading from the context of internationally accepted norms.
Sri Lanka cannot include education expenditure by private institutions including private schools and tutories, and add that to expenditure on education if they are comparing what governments of other countries spend on education.
Sri Lanka has a proud record of taking responsibility for health and education in the country. This responsibility entails spending government funds to provide a good healthcare system as well as a good education system for the people of the country.
Sri Lanka’s health and education indicators have consistently shown that we have performed well above the standards of many countries in the world, and most definitely above our Asian neighbours. This has been as a result of the direct responsibility of the government for health and education in the country.
The sprouting of private schools, including scores of “international” schools, tutories in every corner of the country, private tuition to students by the very same teachers who teach or are supposed to teach students in schools, cannot be considered improvements to education system in the country.
This mushrooming has occurred due to the abrogation of the government’s responsibility for education and the economic opportunities it has precipitated for a private industry to fill the gaps created by this abrogation.
While it is understood that governments of the last 30 years in particular had serious competing priorities for expenditure due to the advent of terrorism and war, one cannot permit an ongoing decline in government responsibility, and funding, for both health and education in the country. Neither should the public accept any creative, and misleading accounting on the part this government or any future government about government expenditure on education and health.
There has to be a commitment and a demonstration, that over the next five years, there will be a steady increase in real government expenditure on education and health, and this commitment has to be given not just by the government but also the alternate government, the political Opposition grouping led by the UNP.
This issue must rise above party politics, and personalities, and a public commitment has to be given by both sides of politics.
However, expenditure statistics should not be the only measure to judge the responsibilities of a government. The qualitative aspects must receive greater attention than quantitative aspects if we are to chart the right direction for the future generations of the country and the future of the country itself.
There needs to be a debate on what this expenditure means to the quality of education and health in the country, and how this quality is to be measured. One needs to question whether the education system produces a value system consistent with the cultural identities in the country. It also needs to address the role of the parents and elders in the system.
It is not news to anyone today that economic pressures coupled with numerous logistics difficulties, especially in urban settings, have rendered the family and home unit influence on education and values, much less relevant today than what it was some decades ago. In some respect, this might be the price that one pays for development in developing countries, but unchecked, it could be a very heavy and irrecoverable price to pay for bringing up a future generation on commercial, bottom line values, rendering these generations anchorless in their own country.
Governments and would be governments of all persuasions must work with the civil society to discuss these issues even from their own political perspectives, as the important thing is to have a discourse, and then, where possible, agree on a common path.
A discussion needs to involve a wider cross section of the society and ideally leave the politicians out of it at least initially, as they should only be acting to put into effect the wishes of that wider cross section of the society. The trend today appears to be the reverse, with politicians being of the opinion that such a discussion would be aimed at destabilizing the politicians and the government.
One issue that should be discussed beyond the boundaries of partisan politics is the time that a family spends together as a family unit, the factors that impinge on their inability to spend more time, the interactions that result, and the strengthening of values that comes from the amount of time spent together.
In all likelihood, most urban based families today spend very little time together due to the various pressures mentioned earlier. Even that little time spent may not be of quality or relevance. There has to be a discussion on how this trend could be arrested.
This is where political governance and political decisions can and must come in. For example, meaningful decentralization through devolution may lead to migration of industry and jobs to provinces. With this, the standard of education in provincial schools may improve sufficiently enough for parents to move to provinces and provincial jobs, so that they could relocate their families to provinces. Life in most provinces would be far more relaxed than in a city like Colombo and its immediate environments.
Another measure to ease pressure on parents seeking entry for their children in some of the more reputed and prestigious schools in Colombo and other major cities, maybe achieved by some of these schools opening campuses in outlying areas. For example, in Colombo, Royal College could open a campus say in Hokandara, and similarly, Visaka Vidyalaya could open a campus in Kaduwela. Such a move could lessen pressure for parents living in and around Kaduwela or Hokandara to battle traffic and time, and energy, in transporting their children from where they live to Bambalapitiya or Colombo 7.
A discussion on education as one can see has a much wider spectrum than expenditure as a percentage of GDP. It is so wide it needs to include a wider section of society. Ideas flowing at such discussions should be synthesized by experts and translated into policy options that politicians could consider and bring about policy changes that involve the different feeder influences on education.
Strike action like what FUTA has chosen as a way of conveying their message does not engage or inform or involve the wider society in this important debate. Their mode of operation is seen as a self serving means to achieve their own ends in regard to remunerations and working conditions in the guise of arguing for a noble cause. This course of action will only harm the prospects of a genuine debate on education, and it will only polarize opinion from a political perspective at the expense of a rational debate that must be had.
- Asian Tribune -

Transforming the University Teachers' Strike into a Movement for Democracy

Vol - XLVII No. 33, August 18, 2012 | Ahilan Kadirgamar,

Economic and Political Weekly

Sri Lanka's Federation of University Teachers Association strike has crippled the state university system. The strikers' demands range from salary increases to an increase in state investment in the education sector. The strike is beginning to gain greater and greater public support as there is widespread recognition of the crisis in the education sector.

"After the July 1980 strike, the solidarity shown by personalities like the Anglican Bishop of Kurunegala Lakshman Wickremesinghe, and the famous lawyer and former Senator S. Nadesan QC, both leaders of the Civil Rights Movement to the cause of the strikers convinced us that we needed a broader coalition – initially for the purpose of securing justice for the strikers and our reinstatement. However, our individual issues became secondary to the larger issue of resisting dictatorship and so towards the end of 1980 we formed the Movement for the Defence of Democratic Rights."

These words of Wimal Fernando, an inspiring teacher, trade unionist and democracy activist, are from an interview in January 2011. Fernando was reflecting on a watershed general strike in July 1980, which led to the crushing defeat of the trade union movement with tens of thousands losing their jobs. It also paved the way for the consolidation of an authoritarian regime and a neoliberal economy under President J.R. Jayawardena. Arguably, neither the trade union movement nor social welfare in Sri Lanka have recovered from that crushing defeat, particularly with the emergence of neoliberalism. The long downturn in the global economy and the conjuncture in the mid-1970s had a similar impact on the distant and diverse economies of the US, the UK, Chile and Sri Lanka - where the authoritarian regimes led by the likes of Ronal Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet and Jayawardena - led to the consolidation of neoliberalism.
A few years into the current global economic crisis that has shook the legitimacy of neoliberalism, and three years after a devastating civil war, new political economic questions have emerged in Sri Lanka with another significant strike. The Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) have brought the state university system to a crippling halt with a wide range of demands from salary increases to a call for state investment of 6% of gross domestic product (GDP) for the education sector. The strike is beginning to gain greater and greater public support as there is widespread recognition of the crisis in the education sector. The 6% demand is put forward as a measure that can safeguard free education. The crisis in education has been propelled by cuts to social welfare and particularly a steady decline of state investment in education, which by 2010 had reached 1.9% of GDP, one of the lowest in the world.
Nevertheless, there is a political tension between FUTA's call to safeguard and transform the entire education sector over the coming years by increasing state investment in education versus their immediate concerns of addressing long-suppressed salaries and ensuring the autonomy of the universities. It is this conundrum, reflected in the politics of a trade union strike in contrast to the long process of reforming and transforming the education sector, which this article seeks to address.
The Strike and the Demands
The context of the strike action by university teachers has been a history of broken promises by the government and a second wave of neoliberal reforms launched by a militarised authoritarian regime, which has been consolidating power since the end of the war. Furthermore, it is the aggressive measures of the current higher education minister that galvanised the universities. Persisting low salaries of university staff, repression of student protests, introduction of compulsory leadership training by the military for university entrants, political appointments to administrative positions and attempts to railroad university reforms, including a neoliberal bill to initiate private universities that undermines the state university system, have all contributed to the radicalisation of university space. FUTA has been clear about their demands well before they went on strike on the 4 July 2012. However, these demands have been distorted by government propagandists and the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). Thus, it might be appropriate to reproduce here a section of the FUTA document on their demands made public on the 14 June 2012:

A. Outstanding FUTA demands regarding measures that need to be taken toward recruitment and retention of highly qualified academics be granted
A.1 Considering the crucial role that academics play in developing the country’s human resource capabilities, their specialised duties, and the stringent recruitment and promotion policy that they undergo, establish a Sri Lanka University Academic Service (SLUAS).
A.2 The immediate implementation of the remuneration step outlined in stage 2 of the interim proposal of 7 July 2011:
A.2.1 Provide an increase to the basic salary by 20%, to be paid with effect from 1 Jan 2012. All existing allowances should be paid with no conditions attached.
A.2.2 Provide an increase to the basic salary to be introduced in item A.2.1 above by 16.67%. This increased basic salary should be included in the 2013 Budget to the parliament, to be paid with effect from 1 Jan 2013. All existing allowances should be paid with no conditions attached.
B. Assurance be given to safeguard and uplift State Education An MOU be signed between FUTA, the MOHE and the Government that will:
B.1 Delineate a course of action to increase government spending on education that will reach 6% of GDP within the next 2 years.
B.2 Clearly state the government policy on state funded education.
B.3 Include an agreement to suspend all existing higher education reform processes until a proper consultative process involving all stakeholders and the public takes place.
B.4 Include an agreement 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.

These immediate and long-term demands of FUTA point to a political tension between those demands that address the urgent concerns of the academic community and those broader concerns of society as they relate to the larger education sector. For example, some lecturers may question why their trade union is taking up the demand of 6% of GDP in state investment for the entire education sector. After all, this 6% demand addresses not just universities, but also schools and the broader educational infrastructure, and it will require nothing less than rethinking the priorities of both the budget and the economy. On the other hand, those forces outside the universities, whether they be teachers unions, social movements, political parties or advocacy groups, they all may question the commitment of FUTA to its vision of transforming education if it were to end the strike through a negotiated agreement with the government based on say salary increases or conditions for university autonomy.
Endgame of Strike Action and Transformation of Education
This is the interesting problem that is confronting the closure of the strike in the weeks to come. Any endgame to this inspiring strike, whether it be a victory, defeat or compromise for FUTA, will leave behind the larger question of safeguarding and transforming state education in Sri Lanka. After all, the demand for 6% of GDP in state investment for the education sector cannot be addressed overnight; it will require a process of engagement, a national policy and systemic reform that is bound to take years, including the vigilance of state and society on a par with the one that ushered in the reforms of the 1940s that resulted in the government providing free education. Yet, it is this political tension, between the urgent concerns of university teachers and the broader concerns of society with respect to education, and the temporal question of a time-bound trade union strike and the longer-term reform of the education sector, which raise significant questions about the opening created by FUTA.
This is not a simple problem that can be dismissed nor is it a simple contradiction that nullifies FUTA's demands. First, there is the social and spatial tension of the challenges facing the university teachers. Generally, university teachers' concerns are related to problems in higher education and come out of regional centres with more resources. They are often not connected to the larger problem of widespread dispossession of education affecting rural communities and the disenfranchised urban poor, who find it hard to access decent schooling much less university education. Second, there are the political and temporal tensions that emanate from a trade union struggle. A trade union is not a revolutionary party to transform state and society nor a social movement to sustain for years the engagement necessary to revitalise the education sector. Yet, I would argue, it is the dialectics of these tensions between the social, spatial, political and temporal tensions and contradictions, that have made this current opening so important.
While the outcome of the ongoing trade union strike will be determined in the weeks to come, and certainly the transformation out of the crisis in the education sector will require a lengthy process of reform, what is clear is that a positive outcome for both is dependent on mobilisations and solidarity of varied social and political forces. The political economy of the current moment is such that a victory for the trade union action which either improves the salaries or the conditions in the universities will be critical to continue the momentum towards addressing the broader crisis in the education sector, and in turn, it is only broader social engagement towards addressing the educational crisis and resisting neoliberal policies that can also transform the universities. For example, without a much larger share of GDP in state investment for education, decent salaries for academics will not be sustainable, and in the near term may even cut into already reduced funding for schools. Furthermore, if the university teachers' struggle is crushed, in a climate where trade unions of school teachers are also fragmented and broader dissent in the country is suffocating under a post-war authoritarian regime, the crisis in education is likely to deteriorate and social welfare could be further cut with neoliberal austerity measures.
This struggle initiated by university teachers has laid bare the crisis in education spanning decades and created the opening for broader society to intervene. While FUTA requires solidarity and support, the baton on this relay to address the educational crisis has to be passed on to social movements, political parties and the public more generally to ensure the transformation of the education sector. The process that led to free education in the 1940s came out of years of agitation for social welfare by the left movement and recommendations by a three-year-long committee in the State Council led by the visionary C.W.W. Kannangara and twenty-three independent educationists. Safeguarding free education, coming out of the current crisis and creating the momentum for a credible national policy on education may also require such a robust process with the vigilance of broader society.
Finally, a trade union strike as with any form of class struggle is ultimately determined by class forces and state power, and hence the urgency of mobilisation and solidarity. If FUTA is defeated or crushed like the July 1980 General Strike, then it would augment not diminish the need for a movement for democracy. This is the moment for conscientious activists, teachers, students, parents, clergy and lawyers, all who can be inspired by the legacy and democratic ethos of those in the previous generations who struggled for social justice, to stand up and be counted. A movement that was initiated as a trade union struggle about salaries, and extended to the concerns of safeguarding free education, may now have to become a movement to defend democracy in Sri Lanka.

Response to ‘University Dons in Cuckoo Land’

August 11, 2012, 4:33 pm , Sunday Island


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

One can only thank Mr. C.A.Chandraprema for choosing an apt title ‘University Dons in Cuckoo land’ for his article published in the Sunday Divaina and Sunday Island of August 4. There is no disagreement that is exactly where university dons have been for the last several years. The difference now is that finally they have realized how ‘cuckoo’ they have been to believe that Sri Lanka is marching towards a Knowledge Hub when over the last six years the reality is that funding per university student has been gradually reduced; students per staff ratio increased; attempts to use university positions for political purposes has increased and above all the university community is kept out of discussions of urgently needed reforms in the education sector.

The Difficulty of Finding Academics

From last year, dons who up to then had agitated only when their salary levels fell below embarrassment (as in 1996 and 2011) have realized that inadequate salaries are only the tip of the iceberg of problems facing them. The bigger problem is what lies below the surface. That is what the academia has been struggling to bring to the notice of the Government and also the public. The spending on education which was 5.2% of GDP in 1971 has now reduced to 1.9%. The admission rate of students qualifying at the GCE AL exam to proceed to university has remained at 15% for the last two decades. More than 1/3rd of the academic cadre posts in universities are vacant at this time for want of suitable applicants. Of the people who have filled these posts, over 50% have just first degrees at present and yet to qualify to teach. The percentage of funds allocated for research in most universities cannot be even calculated as there are none! Even in the Government budget only 0.05% percent of GDP was allocated in 2012 for all research and development when global knowledge hubs exceed two and sometimes three percent! So it is true that university dons have been in cuckoo land all this while, expecting the political promises of the transformation of universities to centres of excellence and to global knowledge hubs when we have in fact being taken in the opposite direction.

Losing Accreditation

It is a fact that Sri Lanka continues to lose its gifted academics to foreign universities and now even to local industry. The core issues as Mr. Chandraprema and also the government tries to portray as the salary issue, is not the core problem. It is what lies beneath the salary issue, particularly the danger facing university programs in Sri Lanka most of which have for many years maintained international accreditation by institutions such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities. Our universities will lose accreditation when staffing levels fall below acceptable levels, when research dries up and our facilities such as labs become outdated. Then the degrees which are currently recognized and highly valued globally will require ‘added qualifications’. Sadly this has already happened to some of our programs.

The Cost of University Education in Sri Lanka

Mr. Chandraprema could have done better justice to his article if he had mentioned how much is spent on a graduate in a State university today. To produce an engineering graduate whose four year degree is accredited by all leading international accreditation bodies, the universities manage with a meager USD 6,000 (2010 prices) for all four years of study. This is approximately 1/10th the cost of a similar internationally accredited engineering degree from abroad. At a time when anything international, be it a highway or a meal at an international hotel chain cost as much in Sri Lanka as in a developed country, this achievement cannot be taken lightly. In fact I would contend it to be a miracle- perhaps the only one we have seen so far in education. A 3- year Arts degrees cost the government less than 2,000 USD. Is this adequate value addition for local graduates to compete in today’s competitive markets alongside graduates from foreign universities whose resource inputs may have topped USD 50,000? To make matters worse, it is these same Arts graduates who are picked to teach in our schools, thus passing down the consequences of the deficiency in higher education to school level and to successive generations. Hence this trade union action is not about salaries of dons. In fact it is not about universities either. It is about the downward spiral of education in Sri Lanka. It is also about the consequences of the impact on education on future society.

How much salary should a Professor forego?

But let’s do take the issue of salary- as that too is very important. The Government keeps insisting that academics are well paid. We do realize that in the midst of the hardships faced by many Sri Lankans, that luxurious salaries are not warranted. Neither will we compare the lack of any other benefits for university academics to the luxuries provided to holders of public office that political leaders have provided for themselves. But let us take market values. A recent survey done by Prof Sohan Wijesekera has found that at recruitment, a lecturer with a 1st Class in engineering has to forgo around 20% of the total benefits his colleague having an ordinary pass would receive from being employed in industry. The survey also shows that once he obtains PhD qualification, to decide to continue in university service he must forgo 2/3rd of the potential benefits he would get if he joins local industry. It is clear that no one today joins the universities to get rich! The gifted, the progressive, the ambitious all leave for different pastures local or abroad. The salary in Sri Lanka compared to developed countries to which they turn for jobs is around 1/10th. Even India and neighbouring countries pay their academics much better. So I can only agree that only those whom the modern world will term ‘cuckoo’ will opt to stay in universities and teach. Thus the pertinent question that society should ask is not how much a professor should be paid, but how much he or she should have to forego in order to remain in our universities.

‘Tuition Culture’ in Higher Education

Mr. Chandraprema observes that unlike officers at the Central Bank, university academics can supplement their incomes from consulting work. This is precisely the problem we face and not a solution he suggests it should be. Universities lose potential high caliber staff at graduation and then again become unsuccessful in retaining those they recruit after they qualify further. Then the few that survive are distracted with heavy consulting, teaching at other universities and even responsibilities of Government posts. No leading international university encourages such activities. They would pay the professors adequately to get their best outputs in research and teaching which is what they are trained for leaving no reason to seek outside work other than for purely professional pursuit. Hence encouraging consulting and external work can be counter-productive.

However, what Mr. Chandraprema is suggesting is an interesting concept. It is exactly the course of action that led to the collapse of our school education and the formation of the Tuition Class Culture. When school systems were deprived of adequate resources and teachers were denied a respectable wage, then the school education standards dropped. This began in the 1970s. With the supply for universities spaces also not expanding fast enough, the competition among students for qualifying with high grades at the GCE AL increased. Then some of the gifted teachers in schools found and exploited the ready-made tuition class market which has now become the dominant and determining market to compete for gaining university entry. This is exactly what is being prescribed for universities also. If the current issues of the universities are not addressed, then staff in these established universities will be preoccupied with consultancies and led to work part time in the many mushrooming ‘universities’.

Six Percent

The problem of the 6% of GDP for education would not seem so ridiculous if Government had not allowed its spending to drop to as low as 1.9%. It was 5.2% in 1971 and 2.9% just as recent as 2005. It is correct to note that very few countries have achieved this 6%. Even fewer countries have sustained 6%. But every country that has achieved any form of status as a knowledge hub or centre of education provision has spent 6% of GDP at some point. Besides, none of them have fallen below 4 percent after that. If we search for a global percentage to set as a benchmark, the only figure we find is the UNESCO target of 6 percent. What would be the case if academics asked for 4 percent? Would not Mr. Chandraprema accuse dons of short changing our potential of achieving the much acclaimed knowledge hub? Take the case of India, which invested only 2 percent on education in the 1970s when Sri Lanka invested 5.2%. But then while Sri Lanka has steadily neglected education spending, India kept raising it until they reached 4% in year 2000. Thereafter when Indian Government started neglecting it, civil society opposed and protested. In 2005, the governing UPA proclaimed the Common Minimum Program where they reversed the trend and are currently working towards a target of 6 percent.

Graduates and their Rate of Return

Unfortunately it seems that raising concern, dissent and protest on continuing cuts in education has been left to the university academics. Civil Society as well as the opposition political parties have been slow to take an initiative. The media has remained silent too. This is why the current trade union action may seem so ‘bizarre’ to Mr. Chandraprema. For once, academics are asking for something not just for themselves. The Government must not see this as an ‘opposition’ to its development program or its right to govern, but as strengthening of its hand to spend on education. In an increasingly materialistic world, most Sri Lankans seem to think that carpeting a road brings better benefits than spending on universities. Especially since the media has successfully portrayed the universities as trouble spots and a waste of public spending. It may be revealing for the reader that research shows that an engineering graduate from the University of Moratuwa pays back the cost of his/her university education in less than three years. No other investment in Sri Lanka has such high rate of returns. It is not just engineering. I suspect many degree programs and even the often much aligned Arts degree would have similar returns, especially considering the minimal investment that is made.

Foreign Graduates

It was evident to all academics last year that the program hastily arranged by the Ministry of Higher Education to attract foreign students would surely fail. To begin with, there was no consultation with the respective Faculties or Senates. Three foreign students from the Middle East and Africa were admitted to the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Moratuwa by the UGC. After the first year exams they are currently placed 848th, 849th and 850th respectively in the batch of 850 students. What standard was used for their admission by the Ministry and UGC is still not known to the Faculty. It is true that the local degree programs have the potential of attracting foreign students, but we would insist that such students should be at least as good as local students that enter. Many countries provide scholarships to attract top students to raise standards. The Government has lost nearly USD 12,000 for each of these students in terms of the Rs 30,000 monthly allowance each is paid, full exemption of tuition and other fees applicable to foreign students (USD 8,000), free medical cover, hostel etc to fund students who have made it to the bottom of the batch.

To attract good students it is necessary to invest in the development of potential programs and then to market them accordingly. Mr. Chandraprema would have done himself a favour if he had investigated the status of the foreign students that have been admitted before praising the initiative of the Ministry. What is worse is that the Ministry seems to refuse to learn from its mistakes and has advertised again this year but imposing a restriction that a student who does not perform would lose the scholarship. Such is the confidence that the Ministry has on the selection criteria it has developed to admit foreign students. This is a perfect example of trial and error policies of education the universities and education in Sri Lanka are subjected to.

Dons as Destroyers

Dons have always eschewed violence and should not be termed as ‘destroyers’. But there are many myths and misconceptions about universities that do indeed need to be destroyed. First of these is that our universities produce only unemployable graduates. The so called unemployed graduates are mostly those who were employed at some stage and then opted to obtain external degrees and then begin to desire executive type jobs.

Second is the belief that universities are violent, disruptive and a student takes years to graduate from them. It is the government policy and planning or more precisely the lack of it that delays students entering universities. Take for example the Z score crisis today. When students are sent to our universities by the UGC they are mostly 22 to 24 years of age. In most foreign countries they enter at 18 years and graduate by 21 or 22 years. In Sri Lanka the best years of a student are wasted between government exams and awaiting results and in repeating exams competing for limited spaces in universities. These are matters of education policy and outside the influence of university academics. Students who enter universities are actually adults whose attitudes and behavior is already formed by the schools and society in general. It is often too late for universities to contribute towards their character formation. The violence students demonstrate at times is a reflection of what is happening in wider society. The current situation the Police are faced with in maintaining law and order even in rural areas is ample illustration that this is not just a university issue but a wider social and governance issue.

Third, that the university academics are a self serving lot. It is correct that perhaps for too long that is what they have been. We academics should regret that we have allowed undelivered promises to keep us in cuckoo land for too long. But give the academics a little credit this time! They run the risk of not being paid during this time of trade union action. But every lecture they have refused to deliver during this period will be delivered and every exam will be held. Every student who is affected will graduate. Academics usually forego their vacations, attending conferences, and even research just to ensure that the student loss is minimized. No academic would want to delay a student’s graduation even by a single day. However the question of protecting education as a whole seems to have now fallen on the shoulders of the academic community since the Government appears to be unconcerned.

A lesson from Margret Thatcher!

It is interesting that Mr. Chandraprema should refer to Margret Thatcher in his article. From what is known, her first job as a Minister was in Education where she cut many unproductive spending programs- famous among them was abolishing the milk program for older children that earned her the title ‘Margret Thatcher-Milk Snatcher’! But despite her tough spending cuts, she maintained education spending at above 6 percent during her term from 1970 to 1974. Even during her period as UKs longest serving Prime Minister up to 1999, education spending never dropped below 5 percent of GDP. In fact Mr. Chandraprema may well draw the attention of the Government to learn from Ms Thatcher on how much she protected the future of UK by ensuring that its education and higher education system remained world class through the process of privatization she introduced.

Higher Education should be reformed

It is obvious that reforms in higher education are urgently required. Such reforms must be centered on ensuring that both State and private sector can compete, complement and develop holistically in providing quality programs for more students. The current plan of the Government, if it has one to show, seems to be ill founded. It only reminds us of the botched effort during the late 1980s and in the 1990s of solving the transport problem by introducing private buses. The Government at that time blindly following some of Thatcher’s initiatives in the UK began dismantling the State bus system by allowing a poorly regulated private sector to enter the market. Today neither of the two provides a quality service. It clearly illustrates that when reforms are short sighted and built on improper policies, the damage cannot be put right for generations.

While creating more places for students must be commended and encouraged, as a country we need to keep out institutions that are bent on giving just a degree instead of an education. Today there is much emphasis on language and IT skills. These are just the icing of university education. Developing an appreciation for society and culture, rationality and argument, literature review and research, team work and leadership, innovation and entrepreneurship are core components that need to be inculcated in the future generation. How much these programs will be regulated towards this end remains to be seen.

Academics are Allies not Enemies

The Government must consider the university dons to be their allies and not their enemies. It must stop portraying all academics as being politically motivated or as Mr. Chandraprema attempts to portray as being stupid and intent on destruction! Even if the Government cannot agree to six percent, all it should do as a first step is to agree that six percent is a desirable target and make a commitment towards it. After all, India and many other countries have done so. When we who have always congratulated ourselves as having the best levels of literacy and education among our South Asian neighbors, ask for six percent, we are told that it is the ‘call of the cuckoo’.

It is acknowledged that it is the Government’s prerogative to develop the economy as it deems best as those elected for that purpose. Hence its decision of spending more on highways or tourism or on industry may not be questioned by academics. However, academics can observe many instances of waste that arises in government programs which can be curbed with better fiscal discipline. Education which is a long term investment should not be the sector that has to suffer the cuts in this process. Take for example, the current fall out of the hedging deal! The amount of USD 162 million which the CPC is being asked to pay, could have produced 27,000 engineers!! This is just one instance of incompetency and misguided priorities.

Salaries- just the tip of the Iceberg

In the trade union action of academics, salaries are only the top of the iceberg of demands. The demands raise underfunding, loss of autonomy and depleting human resources as major issues facing education in Sri Lanka. I do not recommend for the Government to follow Mr. Chandraprema’s advise that the President should ‘smash up’ trade unions as Ms Thatcher or the Iron lady did in UK. Protest has a reason. Government should not believe that smashing up dissent would make the problems go away. This would be like the Government taking on the attitude of the captain of the RMS Titanic who believed it could smash up each and every iceberg. Worse still is for it to entrust education to personalities similar to Captain Edward Smith of whom it is reported that ‘as the scale of the impending disaster dawned on Smith, he became paralyzed by indecision. He did not issue a general order for evacuation, gave contradictory orders, and failed to inform senior officers of the ship’s perilous condition. He also did not supervise the evacuation or tell the officers that there were not enough lifeboats to save everyone aboard.

Govt. fiddles while Z-score fiasco and FUTA strikes simmer

By Chandani Kirinde, Our Lobby Correspondent, the sunday TIMES

View(s):

While both the school education system and the university education sector have been thrown into turmoil in the past few months, due to the Z-score fiasco and the protracted trade union action by university academics respectively, Government response remained more lukewarm than one of urgency to resolve the matters, when the issues came up last week in Parliament.

While the Opposition raised the issues in Parliament, university lectures also brought their message of defiance closer to home, when they staged a protest on the road leading to the Legislature on Thursday. But, going by the remarks of Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayaka, the Government also seemed steadfast in sticking to its position of not giving into the demands of the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA).
The stalemate with regard to the Z-score mess up between students and the education authorities also seemed likely to continue unresolved much longer, after Deputy Minister of Higher Education Nandamitra Ekanayaka said that the final decision on how best to resolve the matter has been referred to the Attorney Generals’ Department. This was in the wake of nearly 500 students once again petitioning the Supreme Court seeking redress for an injustice done to them by the newly released Z-scores.
“We want justice for all students,” the Deputy Minister said, but as to how that goal is going to be achieved will be interesting to see in the next few days.
Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who raised the issue in Parliament on Tuesday, said that the Z-score crisis has developed into catastrophic proportions, owing to the “malicious and lackadaisical manner” in which the problem has been handled by the relevant government institutions,�“It is the responsibility of us all to save our children from this situation. It is the duty of us all to apply pressure on the Government to rectify the injustice caused to those children,” he said.
Mr. Wickremesinghe said that the UNP had requested the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee on this matter and resolve the problem, also with the assistance of all academics and experts, but the Government failed to do it.The absence of Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayaka on Tuesday, to answer questions raised by the Opposition Leader was also a matter of debate, with Mr. Wickremesinghe stating that such issues were raised in the House by the Opposition in anticipation of a reply from the minister in charge of the subject.
Deputy Minister Nandimithra Ekanayaka who replied instead, said that President Mahinda Rajapaksa has intervened in the matter and also consulted with Vice Chancellors of every university, for an increased intake of students for the new academic year.
The Opposition Leader also raised the issue of the FUTA strike action, saying that, the inability to resolve the matter now threatens to disrupt the marking of the Advanced Level answer scripts.“The issue of university lecturers is dragging on for over a long period. Discussions were held, but still no solution has been found,” Mr. Wickremesinghe said on Thursday.
Minister S.B. Dissanayake who was present in the House on Thursday, said that the university teachers have been given an unprecedented salary increase recently, and that, some of the demands put forward by these university teachers are laughable.With regard to the FUTA issue, both sides are stubbornly sticking to their respective positions for now, while the Z-score issue is likely to once again depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling.