Features
Efforts to improve things in university sector: More money poured down the drain?
Lee Kwan Yew thought downgrading English main reason for our downfall
In congratulating you on this latest initiative ( launch of Logos, the journal of the Department of Languages), I should add that I am deeply honoured by this gesture on the part of the University and the Faculty, to make this first issue a felicitation volume for me. It was also thoughtful of you to have invited Dr Chitra Jayatilleka to deliver the keynote address today, since she represents what is best about what I consider my other university, that of Sri Jayewardenepura.
I cannot take credit for her achievements, though she would be the first to recognize that, had it not been for the system I put in place at that University, she would not be here today. Her achievements are ample testimonial, as are those of your staff here, to the validity of our decision then to open up English degrees to those who had not done English for their Advanced Levels. And though I did not stay long at that University, I was lucky in that, just as in this University, I was able to recruit excellent staff who took forward my ideas and, as with Chitra and her promotion of Sri Lankan drama in English, developed new ideas on similar lines.
I am immensely proud then of what I managed to do at that university and this one, and of the students who have taken things forward. But with regard to the University of Peradeniya, where I began my teaching career, way back in 1980, since I made no mark at all, I cannot take pride in my brief stint there. But even had I stayed on, perhaps I would not have achieved much, since one of the brightest stars in the English academic firmament, Prof Arjuna Parakrama, who is very different from me in his approach but who shares a similar commitment to students and to productive change, has confessed himself beaten by the place. Having long aspired to the Chair there, he remarked after he had got it that it was even worse than Colombo.
Be that as it may, the point is that, though there are exceptions at both places, those institutions are hidebound in moribund traditions, and like Pope’s Addison simply sit attentive to their own applause. This is very different from the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, which Prof Arjuna Aluvihare, the best UGC Chairman to date, described soon after I joined it as the cutting edge of the university system.
Much has been achieved there, and much at this University. However I come here now at a time when there is a requirement of much more, if this country is ever to return to the leading position it had when the Prime Minister of Singapore hoped that he could bring that country to our level. And I fear that the current project to improve things in the University sector, more money poured down the drain to repeat what has been done again and again, from the year 2000 onward when the irksome IRQUE project first reared its head, money that future bankrupted generations will have to repay, will achieve very little. And that will then allow the World Bank and its cookie-cutting educationists to embark on yet another expensive project, with much more money having to be paid back by those who lack the skills to develop the country productively, and as a consequence try to get away as soon as possible.
Perhaps because of the comfort zone these World Bank projects have engendered, there is nothing of the imaginative radicalism that characterized the period when Arjuna Aluvihare was in charge. And so I feel that, while what I think of as both my institutions try to move forward, they work now in grooves, and do not promote the seminal change which we need.
This is particularly important with regard to English, the downgrading of which as you know Lee Kuan Yew thought the principal reason for our downfall. And that we get worse and worse was brought home to me forcefully when a former senior public servant, now engaged in teaching at higher levels, called to tell me he was in despair about the incapacity of students at one of the premier institutes of management to write correctly. Subject-verb agreement, he said mournfully, was unknown to them. I too, having marked papers recently for your potentially useful MA course in English and Education, which takes up what I tried to do a quarter of a century ago, I am horrified by the English usage of some of those supposed to have degrees in English.
That set me thinking about what might have been, and I make no apologies that what I have to say relates to my own initiatives. For though I can be happy about what I began in the university sector, for that has continued, with many more students able to obtain degrees in English as compared to when it was confined to a charmed circle coming from elite urban schools, I have to confess that my efforts in other areas, secondary education and vocational training, have failed.
The step by step teaching of English envisioned in the curriculum I introduced when I chaired the Academic Affairs Board of the National Institute of Education was promptly abolished when a new Chairman was appointed following a change of government in 2006. He cannot be blamed for the mess except for his failure to impose coherence. But when the dead souls of the NIE took charge, and appointed to advisory positions their incompetent friends, we had a spate of silly books which have completely failed to ensure understanding of basic structures in English.
It is true English medium still continues in government schools but, ever since the current President refused soon after we had commenced it to allow Karunasena Kodituwakku to extend my appointment to run the programme, standards declined, and in place of the systematic training and the excellent textbooks I had initiated, the incompetence of the Ministry and the National Institute of Education hold sway. And as for Vocational Training, the system I put in place to offer English courses at all levels was abandoned, and while Ministers bleat about the need for more English, they do nothing constructive about it.
I have no doubt that nothing will now be done to make things better, but it might help if the universities at least took these problems seriously, and addressed themselves to identifying issues and suggesting remedies.
This was something I proposed when I was briefly State Minister of Higher Education, namely that there should be coherent research done by each university, instead of what we now have, projects chosen at random which cannot then be connected together to improve current practice in different fields.
I wonder now how many Vice-Chancellors, then or now, have any memory of what I proposed, that there should be concerted study of problems in the Divisional Secretariats that formed the catchment areas of each university, so these could contribute to a development plan which the universities could propose to authorities. Heaven knows that this is needed, when currently development funds are devoted to enhancing political popularity, not to development.
I also tried, when I was Minister, to address coherently another problem, though to my horror no one else seems to consider it a problem. I refer to the massive waste of time imposed by our education system. At its most obvious, whereas in other countries there is seamless movement from one level to another, we call a halt after the Ordinary Level examination, which means that our youngsters lose a minimum of four months of their lives, though more often it is six. Worse, the practice of learning in school is totally decimated, a process that had begun earlier with tuition classes from childhood, but now parents have no choice except tuition to keep children gainfully – or not gainfully – employed. Then there is massive waste after the Advanced Level Examination and, though some universities have tried to start soon after results are released, this is exceptional and in any case the release of the results only occurs months after the examination.
This needs to be addressed by reducing the delay, but until that happens there should be measures to use the time productively, with for instance remedial courses in English and Mathematics in Divisional Centres in the three months after the Ordinary Level, with basic core courses such as any modern university system offers in the period after the Advanced Level – Critical Thinking, Bilingualism, Communication Skills, International Awareness.
Interestingly, I was told by one of the MA students, who works for the American Centre, that she plans a Critical Thinking Conference early next week, which suggests that there is wider awareness of the problem. Coincidentally too, in the articles I am now writing about those I have worked with in the university sector, I have explored recently the range of core courses we introduced when this university first took in students for degrees, way back in 1997.
But sadly I believe that particular component was dropped from your curriculum when Sabaragamuwa too forgot the innovations its first Vice-Chancellor Prof Somasundara initiated. All of you will remember how the University Grants Commission tried over many years to destroy the three year Honours Degree Somasundara had started, and how finally they succeeded when conservatism briefly held sway here. So we too waste the resources of the nation, and make no effort to provide essentials for life to our students, working instead to a notion of academia that the world has long abandoned.
But let me move to some practical ideas, for I should not go on for too long, based on something I noticed in the latest Grade 11 English textbook. That at least is not full of misprints, as had been the case earlier, but it continues the practice of being one of a set of three books, all expensively produced, a Pupil’s Book, a Workbook, and a Teacher’s Guide. In other countries there is just the one book, but those other countries have not developed to a fine are the rent-seeking our system has engendered.
The last chapter is about ‘Choices in Life’ and tells you what five students want to do. All of them talk about what they wish to do at university and therefore what they will study for their advanced levels. There are three Sinhalese and one Muslim and one Tamil, and they come from Batticaloa, Kurunegala, Galle, Anuradhapura and Nuwara Eliya.
Admirable diversity, except that rural students do not figure. Even worse is the fact that there is no conception of the real choices students in this country have to make, and no effort to introduce them to vocational training.
Perhaps these and other such books would be suitable subjects for research for student projects at universities. A class of English students could divide the work up and, having gone to several schools in a designated area, find out how much students have learnt, both of English and what appear to be the life skills drilled into them in almost all lessons, what they think of the reading texts and the poetry, and above all what they actually need for their futures.
Surely they do not need flatulent knowledge, already done to death in history textbooks from Grade 1 onward, about kings who built tanks, including Agbo 1 and Agbo 2, particular favourites of the National Institute of Education? There is hardly anything about the former in Wikipedia, except that he reigned for 34 years in the sixth century and was succeeded by his nephew. But the Wikipedia entry for Agbo 2 had different dates for his reign, though doubtless it is considered essential to know in the 21st century that he built the Kantale and Giritale tanks. Perhaps you too will remember that, even if you forget everything else I said, since that it seems is what our current administrators want our students to know.
Finally, may I suggest that those who have studied English here or at Sri Jayewardenepura set up a ginger group to urge reforms in the field? There are several products of the initiatives of the nineties who have done great jobs wherever they are, Dean Abeyweera at Uva Wellassa, Nandana Balasooriya who did so much for English at the Department of Technical Education and Training, Shashikala Assella who heads the Department of English at Kelaniya, to name just a few. You can make suggestions as to curriculum reform, the production of common materials, the introduction of community service centres to provide services to students in deprived areas.
You can produce a newsletter about best practices in the field, to disseminate for instance amongst the teachers who are on your training programmes. And most important, you can initiate through the universities Certificate courses, of three months duration, for English and perhaps Computer competence too, based on the three month courses developed a few years back with the support of the Skills Councils of the Tertiary and Vocational Commission.
I am grateful for this Festschrift, an honour I associate with venerable old age and, though I am not quite seventy, this is a sort of seal on my academic career. But having in a sense abandoned academic approaches half a life ago, I would also suggest that an even more fitting tribute would be aids to action which I believe several of you can help to get going. That, I hope, is what most of you would like to be remembered for, and what your teachers, including the indefatigable Paru Nagasunderam would expect, a continuation of student centred initiatives.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
