Features
Investment and accelerated progress during crises?
Women in Sri Lankan State Universities – III
An adapted version of the keynote
delivered by Prof. Dinesha Samararatne
at the International Women’s Day celebration
organised by the Centre for Gender Equity and Equality for the University Grants Commission,
15 March, 2024.
(The second part this article appeared on 27 March, 2024)
Substantive equality means equality of opportunity, not only equality of access. In our context, having access to higher education is equality of access and being able to make informed and free choices based on your university education about your life and being able to enjoy the opportunities that come with such qualifications, would be substantive equality. I would like to make 3 specific points about substantive equality here. They relate to inclusion and progress for women within university, beyond university and in relation to our different disciplines.
On substantive representation within universities, consider the participation of women in student union activities in different faculties. I do not have the overall data for this but common experience suggests that this is an area that tends to be dominated by male undergraduates at the leadership level. At my own Faculty, men are approximately 10-12% in the student body but are more than 90% in the student union and it has been this way for more than two decades.
On substantive representation beyond university CHART 9 reminds us of the notable gap not just between men and women in the labour force, but how the data seems to change overall when we compare the number of women within university with women in the labour force. As we know, if we look at women in politics, the problem is much more serious. In my own field, law, this issue is quite pressing.
Women far outnumber men as law students but are rare to find in positions of leadership in the profession or in the judiciary. The data on enrolment to the legal profession in CHART 10n show that women enter in much greater numbers. However, research has shown that women become less and less visible in positions of leadership and authority.
On having a substantive impact within a discipline, let me draw examples from my own discipline. One of the notable gains made in the last few years is that the Sri Lankan Supreme Court has recognised that sexual harassment in the workplace violates a woman’s right to equality (Manohari Pelaketiya v Secretary, Ministry of Education SC/FR 76/2012, SC Minutes 28 Sept 2016 and Corea v Sri Lankan Airlines SC Appeal No 91/2017, SC Minutes 2 Feb 2024).
It is interesting to note that even though Sri Lanka accepted CEDAW in 1981, it is only in 2016 that our Supreme Court relied on CEDAW to interpret our right to be free from discrimination. In contrast, academic research, policy intervention and state appointed committees have, for a while, revealed the need to reform Sri Lanka’s personal laws, vagrancy laws and other aspects of criminal law, public law, land law and family law to ensure that the law protects women’s substantive equality. However, that research and evidence-based call has not yet resulted in substantive law reform. Although proposals have been made for over two decades, to date, we do not have an enabling law to give effect to CEDAW in our domestic law.
The reasons for some these gaps are not unknown. Surveys and studies have shown that perceptions about gendered expectations in the family is a key factor that influences women to stay away from certain types of work or to stay away from work altogether. But what are the factors that prevent women from enjoying substantive equality within university and how can we advance the opportunities to advance substantive equality within our disciplines? It is time that these questions concern all of us and we work towards addressing the problem in a more systematic way.
If we take the view that respect for human dignity is essential and that society must be committed to advancing human flourishing, we have to respect the right of all persons to enjoy substantive equality and ensure that higher education in Sri Lanka offers substantive equality in terms of opportunity. Of course, such commitment must be accompanied with the openness to critically reflect and question these concepts. It is only when we engage with the question of substantive opportunity in this way, that we can consider the question of substantive equality of outcomes.
The commitment to realising substantive equality is essential for thinking about investment and accelerated progress for women in higher education. Today we concern ourselves with women, but this obligation extends to any person or group that is being left behind, is excluded or is being discriminated against, intentionally or unintentionally.
Let me turn finally to what we can do to address this grand puzzle. I would like to suggest that if we are to think about Investment and Accelerated Progress during Crises for women in Sri Lankan universities, we cannot but prioritise the substantive inclusion of women in higher education. I will speak to four areas that could concern us.
These four areas require the adoption of an orientation of respect for human dignity, commitment to human flourishing and therefore to the substantive inclusion of women. You may note here that cultivating this dispensation is not a question about allocation or availability of funds, but rather about the value commitments that we chose to make as a community.
Administrators can review and revise their day-to-day practices and policies on this basis so that decisions, whether they relate to student admission, infrastructure development or policies on workplace conduct, will be undertaken on the basis of this commitment. Here, I think it is time to systematically review the policy on admission of undergraduates with disabilities to our streams of study. As per the UGC Handbook students with disabilities are admitted to state universities to study Arts, Commerce, Biological Science and Physical Science under special provisions.
The number of students admitted under this scheme 2010 to 2022 is provided in CHART 11. But for streams such as Law, Medicine or Engineering students with disabilities are required to compete along with everyone else for admission. I cannot go into this today but I do think there is a strong link between ensuring inclusion for persons with disabilities to these Faculties on a special basis and about ensuring representation of the lived experience and needs of persons with disabilities in these fields.
We know that even ensuring physical access for persons with disabilities to built environments in Sri Lanka has been a serious challenge. But when we remind ourselves that students with disabilities are not present in places where we study engineering or architecture, we perhaps begin to see why this is such a challenge.
Therefore, I do think that it is past time we revisit this policy and engage in a robust review, taking all views and needs into consideration along with Sri Lanka’s responsibilities to respect the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities. Let me note here that Sri Lanka has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that our Supreme Court, in 2011 and in 2019 strongly affirmed the obligation on state actors to ensure respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.
Sexual harassment in higher education whether in the classroom, canteen or in the staff common room is another area in which we have made some progress, but where we still have a long way to go. Our energies should focus both on prevention of sexual harassment and on offering meaningful remedies and closure for victims of sexual harassment among us.
Academics can reflect their commitment to investment and accelerated progress for women in several ways. If we agree with the approach to investment and accelerated progress that I laid out today, it should affect our disciplinary engagements. How will the way we teach plant science or forensic medicine or history or Artificial Intelligence change if we consider women and women’s lived experiences as substantive and significant? In my own field, taking account of lived experiences of women led to significant changes in the law.
One example is the recognition of a battered woman’s syndrome in criminal law and another is the compulsory legal provision of maternity leave. However, there is much more work to be done at the normative, doctrinal levels and at the level of practice in advancing substantive equality for women in my own discipline. In my view, respect for human dignity, commitment to human flourishing are substantive concerns and should not be seen as limited to ‘soft skills’ or confined to the diversity and inclusion push that we see in many parts of the world today.
Academics and administrators should further utilise engagement as means for advancing the university’s commitment to investment and accelerated progress for women. Over the years and across the disciplines we have had inspiring examples of robust engagement by academics with communities including with communities of practice. In the legal field, Emeritus Prof Savitri Goonesekere easily comes to mind as a law academic who was able to bring together legal norms and doctrine in conversation with lived experiences of women to routinely offer robust critiques of the law – nationally but also at the international level.
Emeritus Prof Kumari Jayawardena is a similar example from Political Science. Her academic work is steeped in practice and lived experience all the while paying close attention to the politics of positionality and the academic disciplinary demands of objectivity. Dr Rajini Thiranagama is an example of an academic who paid the highest prize for living the life of a public intellectual, fearlessly critiquing those who abused power.
There are many other similar examples. It is through this synthesis of firm commitment to one’s discipline that is matched with openness to and engagement with different communities within and outside the university, that we can meaningfully think about investment and accelerated progress, particularly in a society where crises are normalised. I think we should avoid the trap of limiting engagement to partnerships and collaborations with other institutions, private sector, professional bodies etc and think more broadly about the university as an open space for engagement across the spectrum of society – from the CEO to the farmer to the unemployed and the homeless.
Time does not permit me to go into detail about the general conditions that are necessary for the approach that I have advocated thus far. If we are to meaningfully consider investment and accelerated progress for women in higher education, I think respect for academic freedom and institutional autonomy is a prerequisite. The right to dissent must be respected in the classroom and all levels of decision making in higher education. A journey towards the truth cannot be made, if we cannot question the status quo, whether it be in relation to teaching, research, administration or engagement.
Let me conclude by revisiting the individual stories I shared with you at the beginning. How would the lives of these women have changed if they could benefit from the kind of vision that I have suggested for investment and accelerated growth? Recall that in each of those stories, the women had access to higher education and completed their studies. Let me suggest some alternative outcomes for them, if they had the opportunity to enjoy substantive equality. Geetha who had an illegal abortion, would have had access to health care services in a society which did not criminalize abortion.
Sarala who was born with a physical disability and acquired more disabilities due to the war would have thrived at university because it was an accessible environment and she would have found suitable employment beyond university. Savitri who left academia in Sri Lanka – may have remained and persevered because she felt supported by institutional policies and governance.
Jeya, who regrets not being able to ensure accountability for the sexual harassment she experienced would have been able to seek remedies for the same and had closure. Jayani would have flourished in her work as a cleaner at university and enjoyed dignity of labour. Rani would feel supported at university to continue her studies and not feel guilt about not conforming to gender stereotypes about motherhood.
The alternative life outcomes I have suggested reminds us that for meaningful investment choices and for planning for inclusive accelerated progress for women in Sri Lanka’s universities, there is a fair amount of work yet to be done.
I acknowledge feedback I received from some of my colleagues on a draft of this talk and thank Ishan Kuruwita Arachchi for assistance in collating the data. The charts were developed for the limited purpose of presenting overall trends. The views expressed are solely of the author.
Dinesha Samararatne, Professor, Department of Public & International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
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
