By Sugeeswara Senadhira/Daily News  

Colombo, January 24: In a pragmatic move to remove hurdles faced by newest medical college in Sri Lanka, the Cabinet of Ministers granted approval to use the Kalutara Teaching Hospital and the Children’s Hospital in Kalutara for clinical training as part of the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Moratuwa.

This will facilitate the first batch of medical students enrolled to the University of Moratuwa based on the results of the G.C.E. (Advanced Level) 2019 to commence hospital-based clinical training in July 2025.

Approval was granted previously to establish the Faculty of Medicine at This will result in an increase of doctors passing out of local medical colleges in the following year. Hitherto, the University of Moratuwa could utilise only the existing facilities of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) and the Dr. Neville Fernando Hospital for hospital-based clinical training.

Dearth of Specialists

Medical authorities were of the opinion that the facilities were inadequate and it has been found that the utilization of Dr. Neville Fernando Hospital for clinical professor unit training has been an issue as the number of patients and the diversity of diseases of the patients being insufficient and the dearth of specialists.

Taking these difficulties into consideration, the Cabinet of Ministers has approved the joint proposal presented by Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya in her capacity as a Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational education and the Minister of Transport, Highways, Port and Civil Aviation, to utilise the Kalutara Teaching Hospital and the Children’s Hospital in Galassa, Kalutara for clinical training.

Per the Cabinet approval, the two hospitals are to be used to ensure the providing of quality hospital-based clinical training to the medical students.

Approval was also granted to transfer two (2) portions of lands owned by the Sri Lanka Transport Board and Road Development Authority, located at Nagoda West GramaNiladhari Division of the Kalutara Divisional Secretariat, for the establishment of Faculty of Medicine at the University of Moratuwa.

The SAITM controversy has passed through several decades and it has highlighted the challenges of balancing private initiatives in education with public accountability and quality assurance. While private medical colleges can address the increasing demand for healthcare professionals, they must operate under a robust regulatory framework to maintain public trust and healthcare standards. The lessons learned from SAITM continue to influence policymaking in Sri Lanka’s medical education sector.

Contentious Issue

The establishment and operation of private medical colleges in Sri Lanka have long been a contentious issue. While the government primarily oversees medical education through public universities, private institutions have emerged as alternatives, driven by growing demand for medical education. The SAITM became a focal point for debates on private medical education in the country.

The General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University (Special Provisions) Bill, to absorb SAITM medical students into the KDU, was passed in Parliament six years ago.The Bill presented to the Parliament the then Minister of Higher Education and Cultural Affairs Wijayadasa Rajapakshe sought to lay down the national policy relating to the absorption of students registered with the SAITM to the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University established under the Sri John Kotelawala Defence University Act, No.68 of 1981.

SAITM, founded in 2009 as a private medical college, aimed to offer internationally recognised medical degrees. However, its operations sparked significant public and professional opposition. Critics questioned the quality of education, clinical training facilities, and the recognition of its medical degrees by both national and international medical councils.

The primary regulatory body for medical education in Sri Lanka is the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC). It ensures that medical institutions adhere to strict academic and clinical standards. However, SAITM faced challenges in obtaining SLMC approval, which led to disputes over whether its graduates were qualified to practice medicine in Sri Lanka.

The SAITM has been at the center of significant protests, reflecting broader concerns about privatisation in education, particularly in the medical field. This issue has resurfaced recently as students and medical professionals continue to voice their opposition to private medical colleges, which they argue undermine the quality of education and access for lower-income families.

Educational Standards

SAITM was created to address the increasing demand for medical education that State universities could not meet. However, from its inception, SAITM faced criticism regarding its educational standards and the legitimacy of its medical programmes. The GMOA has been a vocal opponent, labelling SAITM as a “corrupt institution” that compromises the integrity of medical education in Sri Lanka.

In 2016, amid growing protests, the Government suspended new admissions to SAITM’s medical faculty following a high-powered committee’s recommendations due to concerns about educational quality. This led to legal battles over whether SAITM graduates could be registered to practice medicine in Sri Lanka.

Seven years ago, the Government decided to abolish SAITM. The institution was restructured and replaced with the National Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), which operates under stricter Government regulations. This decision aimed to ensure quality control and address public grievances. Graduates of SAITM were provided a pathway to complete their clinical training at Government institutions to meet SLMC standards.

With the new Cabinet approval for adding hospitals to SAITM medical education, there is a possibility of rekindling protestsby interested parties alleging that broader educational reforms and Government policies perceived as favoring privatization. The recent actions by university authorities, such as bans on student assemblies and lectures critical of Government policies, have intensified student unrest. For instance, at Peradeniya University, a directive was issued that prohibited student gatherings, prompting protests against what many see as an attack on democratic rights within educational institutions.

Students have organized protests not only against the privatisation of medical education but also against cuts to public funding for universities. They argue that these measures disproportionately affect students from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on state-funded education. The current Government’s commitment to implementing International Monetary Fund (IMF) austerity measures has raised fears that further privatisation of education will occur, exacerbating inequalities.

A section of educationists believes that the protests surrounding SAITM and private medical colleges reflect deeper societal concerns regarding access to quality education in Sri Lanka. Advocates for public education argue that privatisation threatens the principle of free education that has been a cornerstone of Sri Lankan policy for decades. They assert that allowing private institutions to operate undermines state universities and limits opportunities for students from lower-income families.

As these protests continue, they serve as a critical reminder of the ongoing struggle between public interests and privatisation efforts within Sri Lanka’s educational landscape. The situation remains fluid, with students and activists calling for greater accountability and transparency in how educational reforms are implemented.

The protests against SAITM are not just about one institution; they symbolise a larger fight for equitable access to education in Sri Lanka amidst growing privatisation pressures. The outcome of these movements could significantly shape the future of higher education in the country.

Protesters argued that private medical colleges like SAITM undermined the quality of healthcare by producing inadequately trained doctors. Opponents feared that private medical education would commercialise healthcare, limiting access to those who could afford it while eroding the merit-based public system.

The lack of a unified regulatory framework for private medical colleges highlighted gaps in legislation. The SLMC and Ministry of Health now play a more active role in supervising medical education standards. Efforts are being made to align with global benchmarks for medical training and accreditation. While private education remains a viable option, stringent guidelines ensure it complements rather than competes with the public system.

END