The Hon. (Mrs.) Rohini Kumari Wijerathna

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, thank you for the opportunity.

¶ 02 This is a timely and important debate. The adjournment motion itself says we should discuss and engage. We have said from day one: let there be discussion—by not only political authorities but also subject experts and practitioners—so that the best outcomes reach our children.

¶ 03 From the first committee meeting on these reforms, the Opposition stated we would support, provided there was transparency: what are the aims and targets; where is the White Paper; who are the compilers; what are the pathways. These should have been opened to the public, who have a right to know what kind of education school-leavers will receive. Had this been done over the past year, with modules or at least the concept paper published, we could have proceeded in 2026 without stepping back.

¶ 04 Because the information was not shared, the public concluded the Government lacked vision, goals, authorship, and plan. In truth, drafters existed—but they were concealed. Pathways changed, and some institutions were compromised by political appointments of allies. The National Education Commission should lead policy; eight of its twelve members are your political cadres. When the place for experts is politicized, little can be done.

¶ 05 Implementation authority lies with the Ministry, which should work with the National Institute of Education and development partners. Instead, the Ministry bypassed the NIE, worked with others, and thus undermined success. Now even the NIE Director-General and Deputy DG have been cornered. We will speak more on that. In fact, these reforms were a continuation of concepts and proposals led by officials such as Upali Sedere and Sunil Jayantha Navaratne. But the old ideas were altered. To change these proposals, the NIE enlisted Mr. Darshana Samarawira—said to be a JVP supporter. I note he has served many governments as a good official. However, this Government… (speech continues).