Having participated in the “Leadership Training and Positive Skills Development Programme” I feel the need to give an account of my experience and views on the programme as there was much debate and disapproval among concerned parties regarding its necessity, its relevance and the manner of implementation of this programme. This is an attempt to give a first-hand account of what really took place during the three weeks of training, discuss if the course fulfilled its objective, and propose the way forward in conducting the programme for future batches of university students.
Pre-Departure
May 16 was chaotic. Rumor was that the Ministry of Education was sending out letters to local university entrants for the year 2011, asking them to report to one of some thirty army camps across the country, for a three week (military?) training course. “Naaah, they’ll never go through with it” was the general attitude we had at the beginning of May, following an announcement by the Minister of Education, (a month prior to the arrival of the letter) that there will be a training course conducted by the military, for all local university entrants, 2011, and that they will each ‘receive laptops and dongles’ (which is about all that was revealed). Nothing coherent was conveyed to the public on what the Ministry actually INTENDED to do. There was uncertainty as to whether the English and IT course was independent of this particular course or if it was going to be carried out at army camps. As a result of the vagueness with which the programme’s implementation was announced, there was much called for (and uncalled for) speculation among teachers, parents, student unions, etc: How can students reside in army camps?! Is this not an attempt at militarizing the youth? How can you instill discipline in young adults in a period of 3 weeks! – was the general discussion and mud-slinging in the newspapers. The more serious concerns for us students were: WHAT was the objective of this course and what does it really involve? WHY are they not relating the particulars to the students? MUST we really go if we want to secure our places in university, which we had earned with the greatest difficulty? WHY was this not disclosed at the time of application for university? Closer and closer to the proposed starting date of the course-May 23- having been given no notification in writing, we told ourselves that we really have nothing to worry about; until the letter DID in fact arrive: five days prior to the day students were expected to report to the respective army camps!
“Are we going? Are we staying? Who’s going? They can’t make us go! How can they tell us to go five days before! Are we going to the same camp? Oh my god Trincomalee, we can’t just GO to Trinco in five days time and stay there for three weeks?! This is nuts! I’m not going men! What’s wrong with these people!!?! @*#!!*” was the gist of several phone calls between my friends and I that day. I was taken aback, if anything, at the organization of the letter: it was not something that could have been put together in a couple of days. Considerable thought and planning had gone into it; at least that was comforting. Why we had to be notified only five days prior to the inauguration of the course was extremely exasperating. For some of us, it was a matter of last minute shuffling of plans and mentally telling ourselves that we had to go through with this, and that it will at least be an adventure; a once in a life time experience. For others, it was scrambling to buy the list of requirements and arrange transport (distances as far as Ratmalana to Trincomalee and Jaffna to Kalutara) which may not have been financially feasible, in such a short period of time; students in certain districts received the letter only two days prior to the course. Also all students received the letter in Sinhala, which put the Tamil students in a difficult situation.
In short, the implementation of this course was unacceptable. Were it notified in a transparent, coherent manner, there would have been no room for unwanted speculation, which us students who had to actually PARTICIPATE (being the key word here), could have done without. All the speculation about militarizing students, regimentation, brainwashing, etc didn’t exactly ‘help’.
Attitude Fixing, Positive Thinking, Character Building
This being the backdrop to how our experience kicked off, let me give an account of my views on the programme as I see it today, having participated, learnt, endured, enjoyed and come out having a largely positive rather than negative attitude towards the concept behind the “Future Leaders” Programme. These views do not necessarily reflect those of all the participants, as facilities, resources and procedures drastically varied across camps: but I think I am fairly safe in saying, that most felt that they benefited in some way or the other.
For some it was a humbling experience; learning to mingle with anyone and everyone, to rough it out without showers and commodes. For others it was an opportunity to lose their inferiority complexes, shed the prejudices they had of people in different parts of the country, and realize that there are no barriers. Some argue that this takes place within the university itself: but not at this scale, where complete strangers almost become family, by the end of the 3 three weeks. Certain others felt that they learnt nothing new, and held a “tell me something I don’t already know” attitude towards the lectures that were conducted, and the proceedings of the course. Others felt that it jogged their memory on things they had already learnt in the course of their school life but with a more practical and refreshing edge to it, away from the note taking- memorizing- reproducing- system of learning, that we see more often than not in our local education system.
I would like to stress on the fact that this programme was if anything, a good attempt at changing the attitude that most students and parents hold towards the traditional method of learning: that if you succeed in passing you’re A/L’s with 3 A’s and go on to get a first class and walk out of university with your head held high, that you’re through, that you’re set for life. This course if anything was an attempt to reverse that attitude, to get the message across to everyone, that the ‘soft skills’ MATTERED, that without these, success will be much harder than one thinks; and that in itself speaks for the importance of its continuation.
Conditions and facilities varied across camps: some housed as many as 400 students in one billet; others had bedrooms for a small number of students. There were camps with water tanks and limited shower facilities, while some had individual washrooms. There were mixed camps and single sex camps, those with as many as 1000 students and as few as 50 students. Though there was a set course to be followed, certain camps laid greater emphasis on team building and outdoor activity, whilst others focused largely on giving informed lectures and engaging in aesthetic activities. Thus, the experience drastically varied based on the camp to which one was assigned. Keeping this in mind, let’s look at whether the course fulfilled its objectives, and address some of the issues that have sparked much debate and discussion on the course among non-participatory individuals and groups.
Objective
“…We commence this theoretical and practical training course to develop leadership ability and positive attitudes with the objective of creating the ‘Universal Child’…. “ – Message from Hon. S.B. Dissanayake in the programme textbook
Some who underwent the course felt that those who have inherent leadership abilities are the very ones who will come forward and take responsibility in any given situation, and those who are backward will remain so. I too am in agreement with the view that those who have taken up responsibility and experienced true leadership roles, in school or elsewhere up to now, are the ones who are better prepared to ‘lead’, and no amount of lecturing on the qualities a good leader should possess can change that. But let’s not take the word ‘leader’ so literally, let’s put it in context: Developing leadership skills and the soft skills that are indispensable to succeed in the real world, in addition to academic qualifications, is the objective of this programme. As such, some of us may have already been given this exposure and training, but the vast majority has not. In that respect, this training was indeed a great opportunity for many students.
Syllabus
To quote some of the criticisms hurled at lessons and physical training incorporated in the course:
“Not only are there class and cultural dimensions to personal hygiene, it is an insult to teach personal hygiene to university entrants who are no longer children”
“These students who have cleared the high bar of the A/L exam know how to wake up early”
“One would like to know how wearing a tie and eating with a fork and spoon would create a ‘Future Leader’…”
“…Putting all students irrespective of personal preference or physical fitness, through a standard regimen is not the way to achieve that…”
Apart from lectures on Conflict Resolution, Law, Psychology, First Aid, Sexual Harassment and Time Management, which by and large everyone felt was useful, lessons on Social Customs and Formalities, Hostel Rituals, Personal Hygiene and History were subjects that drew a lot of negativity and criticism prior to the course, as shown above. It should be noted that the objective was not to give an in-depth analysis and understanding on each of these subjects, but to convey something important that we will find useful and require in our day to day lives.
I would like to stress on the fact that ‘formalities’ of for example attending a formal dinner as an employee or representative of an institute, or simply attending a social event and having a understanding of the finer points on how one should carry himself/herself, is crucial. I reiterate the fact that not everyone has been given this exposure. These soft skills matter and the programme not only teaches these skills, but more importantly highlights the message that YES, contrary to common perception, one does NEED these. Also, whether we choose to accept it or not, required hygienic standards are not lived up to in common living areas (for example hostels) and even in the most dignified of workplaces today. To be advised on such matters relating to personal and public hygiene is hardly ‘insulting’.
Apart from the lectures; talent shows plus debating, singing, dancing and drama competitions, were arranged for us to showcase our talents, and to end a long day with variety entertainment.
The level of intensity and routines of physical training too varied across camps. By and large, the training helped us lose a couple of kilos, and more importantly, it was mostly during these activities that we bonded with our group-mates. The squad drills, hikes and ‘P.T Tests’ were fun and strenuous at the same time. We had to focus on coordination and teamwork largely through these activities. My own experience completing the 1.2 km run in a specified period of time, in particular, was heartening. Our group had a combination of those who were fit, and those who could barely run 200m without exhausting themselves out. We literally pushed and pulled each other to make it to the finish line, as a team. THIS was the ‘training’ we got; the lessons we will take back with us.
I urge concerned individuals and interest groups to not criticize the physical training by merely judging it at the outset; there was a lot of flexibility with which it was conducted though the course set out a ‘standard regimen’. We were given the option of participating or opting out -“misslata asaneepa amaaruwak thiyanawanam karunaakarala apata kiyala ayin venna”- this was procedure before each and every session. If some chose to simply opt out due to laziness, that’s their loss. Make use of the opportunity or don’t; that was up to us.
Apart from the 1 hour session of warm up and exercise at the start of the day, followed by varying hours of drill practice, 1-2 hours was devoted to sport every day: Cricket, Volleyball, Basketball, etc. This gave an opportunity for everyone to participate in some way, and have fun.
All in all, in my opinion, having a programme to get all students outdoors- superb!
So, why army camps?
Through recent media coverage of the programme, we have I feel, already established the fact that this was NOT a military training programme.
“Encouraging military style leadership skills, regimentation and behavior patterns, is contrary to core values of freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and the value of dissent which all universities should strive to inculcate in their students” – Friday Forum Press Release, 9th June 2011.
I beg to differ. None of these core values were suppressed through the training, for it did NOT encourage military style leadership skills or regimentation. It was a specially designed civil course, which was undertaken by the army, as they were (probably) the only body that could house such large numbers, and the only establishment that is trained to handle and work with such large groups in an organized manner. Their military routines and training were NOT imposed on us. Especially in the 1000 student-camps, keeping tabs on each and every single child on a daily basis, and ensuring that every child benefits from the programme, is by no means an easy task; they were however, successful in doing so, based on my experience. This was however, quite the contrary in a few other camps.
We were divided into companies, and smaller sections within that. Each section was appointed a lady officer who reported to the company officer (who were in charge of our live-in needs), who then reported to the overall officer in charge, along with the coaches. The larger camps ensured that students were accompanied by ‘army akkis’ when shuttling from the billet to the mess or to the grounds. Once students were a week or two into the training, most felt relatively secure in the camps, and the tension eased among parents (with the exception of a few students who were adamant to leave, and found anything and everything wrong with the camp, the people, the food, the facilities, you name it!).
Criticism leveled against the military undertaking the lectures in the course is justified, but let’s get our facts straight. Certain army officers were assigned the more practical lessons that were within their purview; First aid, responding to emergency situations, dealing with a workers protest in an organization, time management, drills, hiking etc. The more specialized subjects such as Law, Conflict Resolution, Psychology, Hygiene, etc were undertaken by outsiders; university lecturers and other academia/specialists with expertise in the field. However, this was NOT the case in all camps.
On Ragging
“The current ad hoc programme encourages an aggressive response to ragging, rather than focusing on prevention. This may undermine university efforts at preventing and responding to ragging while increasing the risk of violence between student groups.” – Friday Forum Press Release, 9th June 2011.
What ‘aggressive’ response? How will encouraging us to say NO to the rag, undermine university efforts at preventing and responding to ragging? Isn’t the challenge best overcome if students respond by taking the decision to abstain from the rag themselves, having been warned about some of its consequences? How many students who are completely unaware of what to expect on entering the system are easily drawn into this? Saying no to the rag is most definitely easier said than done, but students will now be better prepared and confident to stand their ground once they enter university. Even if we continue to be at the receiving end of the rag, this culture can be reversed when we become seniors. Thus, I would like to stress on the fact that they DID focus on prevention. Also note that these lectures were conducted by university lecturers themselves. On the other hand certain camps did not conduct this lecture at all.
Way Forward
Issues that should not be overlooked, in further continuing the training programme:
- This programme “came under criticism for its lack of transparency, accountability and consultation in the process of design and implementation[1]”. This led to reasonable concern among parents who were under compulsion to send their children to reside in army camps for a fair amount of time, based on religious and cultural grounds as well as on the grounds that the ad-hoc implementation process gave them no assurance of security for their children. The fact that students were unaware of having to undergo such a programme when applying for university in January too was an issue. The mandatory nature of this training programme must be reviewed; it being a pre-requisite to secure a place in university is something that the respective authorities need to come to a consensus on. It should also be noted that:
“This programme has been imposed on universities and university students by the Minister of Higher of Education in a manner which violates the Universities Act No.16 of 1978 (as amended). Part VII of this Act deals with “The Authorities of a University,” and refers to the Council, the Senate and the Faculties. The Senate is the academic authority, which makes all decisions on academic programmes. According to Section 20 of the Act the power of the Minister to issue directives to the Universities Grants Commission is extremely limited, referring to finance, university admissions and medium of instruction, and in regard to investigations and responses to crises in administration or the functioning of universities.” – Friday Forum Press Release, 9th June 2011.
- Much of the criticism leveled against the course, was towards the deployment of the army in carrying out the training. Although they were best suited to administer, house and run the course, certain lectures should be conducted with the involvement of university academia and specialists. This did not take place in all camps. A more streamlined approach in allocating lecturers to conduct theoretical lessons MUST be taken in conducting the course in future, for ALL students to reap the benefits that the programme intends to provide, irrespective of the camp one is assigned to. To give an example to further illustrate the fact that circumstances varied significantly, from camp to camp; the officers in my camp went so far as to make arrangements for those with SIM cards that didn’t have reception, to buy new ones. My friend’s camp on the other hand, barred signal reception, and contacting home was an issue.
- Many students who completed the course found it too strenuous. The timetable did not allow them adequate free time during weekdays to attend to their personal needs, apart from having the full day off on Sundays. However, this should not call for an extension of the time period of the course as a solution, for training exceeding a month will only prove to be counter-productive.
- A few camps had serious issues associated with its location (threat from wild elephants, distance from medical faculties, etc). Thus, the choice of camps needs to be given careful consideration.
- Although there was much debate as to why state funds are not more suitably allocated to uplift existing courses within the university, rather than launch a programme from scratch, there were more practical aspects to this training which may not have been possible were it not a residential course. However, higher involvement of university academia in conducting lectures for the course is recommended.
Taking these issues into consideration, I urge the relevant authorities to not discontinue the “Future Leaders” programme, but to address the issues and make the required changes, so as to allow all students to reap its benefits on an equal platform, in future. Based on my experience, it was a three week training that benefited us on so many levels, and I advise all university entrants in the coming years to participate, for apart from the day-to-day difficulties we might have had to face, it was an experience with a difference, and a challenge overcome, which we can look back on with a sense of achievement. The opportunity to learn and take back something for ourselves, to create links and build friendships with university students from around the country, and to get a taste of living without the comforts we enjoy and take for granted in our day to day lives back at home, was indeed valuable and enriching.
