A reply to the Living Legend of Royal College

Following is the response received from the original author for the post we published 

[REPLY] During Principal L.D.H. Peiris's Tenure: A Boy Who Entered Royal College...

All what the Editor likes to add is “there are none so blind as those who shall not see”!

----------------------------------

When Institutions Say “All Is Well” and Reality Says Otherwise

I appreciate the courteous and well-articulated response, as well as the stated desire to see Royal flourish. That aspiration is shared. However, what is at issue here is not sentiment, institutional pride, or the comfort of reassuring narratives. It is the growing gap between what Royal claims to be and what it has demonstrably become.

The reader’s reply relies heavily on abstractions—policy, guidelines, procedures, and intent—while largely avoiding engagement with observable realities. That distinction matters.

Secularism Is Not a Matter of Optics or Demographics

A secular institution is not defined by whether minorities are merely “technically allowed” to exist within it, nor by whether no religion is formally imposed. Secularism is defined by institutional neutrality.

When the primary school has a Bo tree enclosed within a bodhi prakaraya; when collection boxes identical to those in Buddhist temples are placed around it; when Buddhist statues are installed in classrooms; when children are instructed to bring flowers and oil to light lamps and worship before the school day begins—while children of other faiths are offered no equivalent space or recognition—this is not neutrality. It is institutional endorsement of becoming a Buddhist school.

That Buddhists form the majority of students is irrelevant. Buddhists were the majority when many of us attended Royal decades ago, yet the school consciously avoided religious visibility. That restraint was not accidental; it was foundational to Royal.

The argument that “visibility should not be mistaken for bias” collapses when visibility is unilateral. Where are the equivalent symbols for Christian, Hindu, or Muslim students in the same classrooms? Their absence is the point. What has occurred is not inclusion, but assimilation by dominance.

To justify this transformation as a natural outcome of changing demographics is not only intellectually weak—it is an insult to the secular ethos that made Royal exceptional, not merely successful.

Procedures Are Not Proof of Integrity

Repeated references to Ministry circulars, guidelines, and official frameworks offer reassurance only if one believes that procedure guarantees compliance. Sri Lankan parents know better.

Grade 1 admissions, English-medium selections, and teacher transfers may all be governed by policy. The real question is whether these policies are faithfully implemented—or selectively circumvented.

When chief occupant quotas appear arithmetically inconsistent with classroom realities; when students classified under that category commute improbably long distances; when English-medium selection tests are conducted under extreme secrecy while parallel tuition ecosystems flourish; and when an opaque appeal process follows unsuccessful selections, reasonable observers are entitled to ask questions.

To demand court-level proof before acknowledging systemic risk is to confuse legal thresholds with ethical responsibility. Those who take bribes do not issue tax invoices or receipts. Corruption thrives precisely when people pretend that the absence of prosecution equals the absence of malpractice.

 

Prestige Does Not Erode Quietly—It Declines When Excuses Multiply

The suggestion that Royal’s changing intake reflects only a broader improvement in suburban schools is superficially comforting and strategically evasive.

Parents do not abandon prestige lightly. They tolerate distance, inconvenience, and sacrifice to secure it. The clearest indicator of decline is not opinion, but behaviour.

When 2026 Grade 1admissions under OBA category go unfilled more than 30 vacancies due to insufficient applicants; when every eligible Royalist applicant gains entry and vacancies still remain; this is not demographic coincidence. It is a verdict delivered silently by alumni themselves. - A reflection of the current state of the school

Royal was never an institution that benchmarked itself against others. Others benchmarked themselves against Royal. Explaining Royal’s decline by comparison to other schools is not humility; it is institutional self-betrayal and an insult to the vision of its founders.

Accountability Is Not Vilification

The response cautions against “public vilification” and urges “constructive engagement.” These are admirable ideals—when engagement works.

Parents have engaged. They have written, requested reports, sought dialogue, and presented facts. When audited accounts are reluctantly released after many requests; when serious concerns are met with silence or deflection; and when statutory bodies operate opaquely, public scrutiny ceases to be confrontation and becomes necessity.

Pointing out corruption is not an attack on teachers, students, or administrators who act with integrity. It is a refusal to allow their integrity to be used as a shield for those who do not.

The Discomfort with Individuals Reveals the Real Problem

Much is made of the danger of portraying any one individual as a “saviour.” On this, there is agreement. No institution should depend on lone actors.

But the uncomfortable question remains: where are the others?

If one voice appears disproportionately loud, it is not because it seeks attention, but because silence elsewhere has created a vacuum. In functioning systems, vigilance is shared. In failing ones, it becomes concentrated.

The answer to this problem is not to discredit the lone dissenter, but to ask why an institution of Royal’s stature has produced so few willing to speak.

The Issue Is Not Change—It Is Erosion Without Resistance

All institutions evolve. Royal is no exception. But evolution guided by principle strengthens character; evolution driven by convenience erodes it.

What is being questioned here is not whether Royal faces challenges, but whether it still possesses the internal courage to confront them honestly.

Defending the status quo by repeatedly pointing to policies, procedures, and stated intentions may feel reassuring. In reality, this mindset has allowed to thrive mediocrity, lack of transparency and malpractices.

Those who raise uncomfortable truths do not undermine institutions. Those who cling to comforting illusions do.

Institutions do not lose public trust because critics speak too loudly, but because those in authority insist that all is well when lived experience says otherwise. As a parent what I reject most is being told that obvious failures do not exist.

Royal College does not need reassurance. It needs reform grounded in its founding values—secularism, excellence, transparency, and moral courage.

Silence will not preserve those values. Nor will denial. Only honesty will.