SRI LANKA: Alleged assault of a schoolboy by the principle 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission(AHRC) has received information that 13-year-old Lahiru Nalaka, a student of the Sri Pada Madya Maha School, Palabaddala, Ratnapura District, Sri Lanka, was assaulted by the principal. Two other students had also been seen to be harassed and slapped by several teachers. The teachers including the school principal did not ask even one single of question and ascertain the facts before harassing the students. In particular, the principal gave Lahiru corporal punishment without considering Lahiru’s physical condition, which resulted in Lahiru losing consciousness.

CASE DETAILS:

On 19 October 2006, at about 9a.m. a classmate named Wimalasuriya informed Lahiru Nalaka that the school principal wanted to see him with another classmate, Saman. When the three boys set out to meet the principal who was near the staff room, he immediately accused these students of setting fire to a Buddha statue (situated in the grade 7 classroom) and proceeded to assault each boy with the cane. According to Lahiru, the principal had grabbed each of them by their hands and canned them on their buttocks.

However, when Lahiru was being canned, he began to feel faint and quickly let the principal know his physical condition. But the principal only scoffed at his complaint and hit him again. But then Lahiru showed signs of fainting and he was told to go sit in the staff room. When Lahiru entered the staff room and was about to sit on a chair that a teacher, Enoka Bodimaluwa had, the teacher ordered Lahiru to sit on the floor. Lahiru obeyed but lost consciousness thereafter.

According to Lahiru’s sister, Theja who is also studying at the same school, after being told her younger brother had fainted, she rushed out of her class to see what had happened. She had seen two students, Nadun and Rasika assisting Lahiru back to his classroom, but several teachers insisted that as there was nothing wrong with him, he should be allowed to get back on his own. But Theja had yelled that her brother was really unwell and needed help, so with much reluctance, the teachers allowed the two students to carry him back to his class. After that, Theja had seen several teachers viz. Enoka Bodimaluwa and Charith harassing and slapping Wimalasuriya and Saman.

Lahiru remained in a semi-conscious state but the teachers and principal paid scant attention to his condition. Instead, some children brought a ‘Kattadiy‘ (soothsayer) to apply charmed oil on to Lahiru’s limbs, but this did not help. Others ran to the three wheel stand and called one Upul to take Lahiru to hospital, but when Upul had arrived, the Principal chased him away. It was only about 11:00a.m., that after learning about the incident, Lahiru’s aunt together with his sister visited the school and had taken him to hospital, where he was admitted and treated. He was discharged about 3:30p.m.

The following day, On 20 October 2006, Lahiru’s mother, Kusuma Wijelatha came to meet the principal and asked why he assaulted her son. The principal had attempted to justify his behaviour by insisting that the Buddha statue had been set on fire rather than making an apology. But when Lahiru’s mother pointed out that the statue was not really burned, the principal had also said, “I will do what I want; I am entrusted with police powers“. On 23 October 2006, a furious Ms. Wijelatha visited one local human rights organization in Ratnapura (affiliated to Janasansadaya) and asked for assistance in writing a letter of complaint to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and other relevant authorities against the principal and teachers. Consequently, the HRC had informed Lahiru’s mother in a letter dated 15 November 2006 about the institution of HRC inquiry No 6131/06/I(ii) and also requested her to attend the said inquiry on 27 November 2006, at 11.30a.m.

Then on 21 November 2006—possibly in response to a communication by the HRC, Lahiru said that his class teacher, Indika Thelijjagoda made his entire class of 50 children write about “the merits/demerits of setting fire to a Buddha statue.” No reasons for the exercise were given but the students were threatened that unless they obeyed, they would not be allowed to go back home.

At this juncture it is also worth mentioning that according to Ms. Wijelatha, Lahiru’s father had deserted the family when he was quite young. While this incident was a shock to the entire family, it especially traumatized young Lahiru, who had since showed physical symptoms of feeling faint and going lifeless in his limbs whenever he is overwhelmed by events around him. He was also a very emotional and sensitive young man. However without shielding and protecting such children and helping in the healing of their scars, the school principal and teachers are seen to further victimize their young wards.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Corporal punishment and assault of schoolchildren in Sri Lanka is regulated by Circular No. E 36 of 1927.12.21, issued by the Education Department to all local schools, which states “Corporal punishment must be given in serious cases of misbehavior…Corporal punishment should not be given to very small and week children.”

Article 10 of the Convention of Sri Lanka also points out that everyone has the rights not to be subjected to torture or to other cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment which is also contained in Article 37(a) of Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) to which the Sri Lanka is a state party. Nevertheless, the legal system permits the use of corporal punishment in schools since there is no appropriate and specific law in accordance with the international standard to prohibit all forms of physical or mental violence in schools in Sri Lanka. It regularizes the corporal punishment for schoolchild and justifies the violence in school society rather than eliminate it.

According to CRC, the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of status [Article 2(2)], and Sri Lanka as a state party should take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim [Article 39]. Moreover, assault and violence in closely oriented societies like schools should be considered as a form of torture arising in the official sphere and prohibited by the government and relevant authorities. However, instead this violence tend to be justified and intensified merely as a measure of instruction.

Lahiru and his classmates’ incident is not an exception. The AHRC has reported several similar cases on punishment of schoolchild in the second half of this year (refer to: UA-360-2006, UA-324-2006, UA-243-2006 and UA-104-2006). To prevent the recurrence of cruel corporal punishment in the schools of Sri Lanka, the government authority and relevant authorities should take appropriate legal measures based on CRC and CAT to prohibit all forms of punishment and to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of the child victim suffered from the assault conducted by their teachers rather than sending out the Circular to the school in Sri Lanka.

Further, the Education Department and the teachers should ultimately conceive more human and positive means instead of corporal punishment, which will create a positive and open educational culture and society without violence in Sri Lanka.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities below, expressing your grave concern and moral denunciation of the unlawful, unwarranted and wholly unethical behaviour of the named teachers and Principle of the Sri Pada School, Palabaddala.

 

 

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER