This is a response we received from a parent for the previous post A Legend Defends
*From Warning to Denial: Lorenz Pereira’s Right Royal Reversal*
Lorenz Pereira is no ordinary Royalist. His record at Royal College is exceptional. He was a coloursman in four sports, captained two of them, served as Head Prefect, and received the prestigious Dornhorst Memorial Prize for the best all-round student. More recently, Royal honoured him by naming the award for the most outstanding sportsman at the annual Colours Night after him.
Given such a distinguished association with the school, his views naturally carry weight among the Royal fraternity.
It is therefore striking that his recent article dismisses critics of the school’s administration as *“disgruntled Royalists” and “Royal bashers.”* The tone is confident and dismissive. Yet it sits uneasily alongside positions Lorenz himself publicly articulated not long ago.
In April 2024, writing in the _Daily FT_ under the title *“The Royal College that nurtured me,”*
https://www.ft.lk/opinion/The-Royal-College-that-nurtured-me/14-760264
*Lorenz highlighted serious concerns about governance at Royal. He referred to non-transparent classroom money collections running into millions of rupees, mentioned the rugby fraud controversy, and raised concerns about irregularities surrounding prefect appointments.*
*At the time, he warned that such developments had damaged the reputation of the school and argued that these issues could no longer be “swept under the carpet.” In fact, he went further, writing with evident frustration:*
*_“I am afraid that I no longer associate myself with this new Royal that some attempt to portray. So, with great sadness, I may have to bid farewell to the school of our fathers.” - Lorenz Pereira 2024_*
Two years later, however, his stance appears markedly different.
*Pride vs Accountability*
His recent defence of Royal is rich in pride and nostalgia. He speaks of heritage, tradition, inclusivity, and sporting prestige. No Royalist would dispute that Royal’s legacy is extraordinary and worthy of celebration.
But pride in an institution’s past cannot substitute for accountability in its present.
When Royalists raise questions about governance, financial transparency, or administrative practices, they are not necessarily attacking the school. In many cases, they are attempting to defend the very standards that once made Royal a benchmark for educational excellence in Sri Lanka.
*It is therefore difficult to reconcile the position that serious issues must not be “swept under the carpet” in 2024 with the suggestion in 2026 that those raising concerns are merely disgruntled voices harming the institution.*
*Nostalgia vs Reality*
Much of Lorenz’s recent argument rests on celebrating Royal’s heritage. He points to its diverse student body, its national reach, its sporting traditions, and its influential alumni network.
These are real strengths. But they do not address the governance concerns that many parents and alumni continue to raise.
An institution’s past achievements cannot serve as a shield against present scrutiny. Royal’s history is glorious precisely because it upheld high standards of integrity, discipline, secularity, and fairness. Those standards are not preserved through nostalgia alone; they are preserved by ensuring that present practices live up to them.
The debate about Royal is therefore not about pride in its past. That pride is shared by every stakeholder. The real question is whether present governance lives up to that legacy.
*Demand and Confidence*
Lorenz also claims that demand for Royal remains “at an all-time high.” Yet admissions behaviour sometimes tells a more nuanced story. *In the recent Grade 1 intake, the Old Boys’ category reportedly received more than thirty fewer applications than the number of places available for old boys; an unusual development for a school long associated with overwhelming demand from Old Boys.*
*Silence vs Transparency*
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of his recent article is the suggestion that concerns about Royal should be raised only through official channels rather than in the public domain.
In theory, that sounds reasonable. In practice, many of the very issues Lorenz himself raised in 2024 became known precisely because they entered public discussion. Without such scrutiny, they might never have received attention.
Public institutions, especially those as prominent as Royal College, cannot reasonably expect immunity from public conversation. Transparency strengthens institutions; silence weakens them.
Criticism is not disloyalty. In many cases, it is the first step toward meaningful reform.
*A Curious Reversal*
*Between Lorenz’s strongly worded critique in 2024 and his present defence of the school, another development took place. A few months ago, Royal College administration introduced an award in Lorenz’s name for the most outstanding sportsman at the annual Colours Night.*
The honour is undoubtedly well deserved. His achievements as a Royalist merit recognition.
*Yet the contrast between the positions he articulated in 2024 and those he advances today is difficult to ignore. When a respected Royalist who once warned that problems must not be hidden now suggests that public criticism itself is the problem, observers are naturally left to wonder what has changed.*
*A Question Worth Asking*
*Lorenz himself wrote in the Daily FT in April 2024 that problems such as non-transparent money collections and governance failures at Royal could no longer be “swept under the carpet.” That was a candid and responsible position.*
*The natural question that arises today is therefore a simple one: if those issues were important enough to be raised publicly then, why should those who raise similar concerns today be dismissed as “Royal bashers”?*
Institutions do not become stronger when criticism is silenced; they become stronger when uncomfortable questions are answered honestly.
*Royal Deserves Honesty*
Royal College remains one of the most respected educational institutions in Sri Lanka. Its alumni have served the nation with distinction, and its traditions continue to inspire generations of students.
But institutions do not preserve their greatness through nostalgia.
They preserve it through honesty.
Royal does not need defenders who dismiss criticism as disloyalty. It needs stakeholders who care enough about the institution to insist that the standards which once defined it continue to guide it.
If the concerns raised about Royal are incorrect, the most effective answer is not dismissal but transparency. Institutions confident in their integrity have nothing to fear from honest scrutiny.
*A school that once taught its students to speak the truth should never fear hearing it.*
Comments
Post a Comment