Often, we encounter individuals who describe themselves as counsellors. At the very least, such a person may say, “I am a counsellor.” However, many of these individuals are not counsellors in the sense in which the term is understood and used by members of the Sri Lanka National Association of Counsellors (SRILNAC). This raises the question: why do they describe themselves as counsellors?

There are several possible reasons. To be fair, one reason is that the word “counselling” has multiple meanings. Some of these meanings were attributed to the word long before it came to represent what we now recognise as the professional discipline of counselling. Another reason may be a lack of awareness or understanding of counselling as a distinct and specialised field. In some contexts, the term may also appear fashionable, or even be perceived as a means of generating income. For these reasons, we may not be able to blame everyone who refers to themselves as a “counsellor of some sort.”

Nevertheless, it is essential that we clearly define and communicate what we understand by the terms “counselling” and “counsellor” to the wider community, in order to prevent confusion and, more importantly, to avoid potential harm to vulnerable individuals.

As we understand it, counselling is a helping process that takes place within a growth-promoting and healing relationship, offered by a trained and competent counsellor to a person seeking assistance in coping with a problem. This definition is admittedly brief and simplified, and therefore neither complete nor fully adequate. However, it serves to distinguish counselling from other activities such as advising, instructing, teaching, preaching, comforting, listening, or befriending.

While these activities may be valuable in their own right, they must not be mistaken for counselling. Therapeutic counselling should be undertaken only by individuals who have received appropriate training in the discipline and who have been assessed as competent. Research has clearly demonstrated that when untrained or incompetent individuals engage in counselling, the consequences can be seriously damaging to people who are already in distress.

It was in recognition of this need that the Sri Lanka National Association of Counsellors was established IN 1985. Among its core objectives were the bringing together of qualified and competent counsellors in Sri Lanka, the maintenance of high standards of training, the assessment of professional competence and services rendered, and the promotion of continuous study and research to advance the field of counselling in the country. This remains central to what SRILNAC stands for today. In the future, there will also be a need for broader engagement and exchange of experience with international professional counselling bodies.

The journey has undoubtedly been challenging and, at times, discouraging. Yet SRILNAC has remained committed to its mission with determination over the years. The office-bearers throughout the Association’s history deserve sincere appreciation for their dedication and the significant personal sacrifices they made to sustain the organisation.

Looking ahead, we strongly believe that SRILNAC must focus on a phase of consolidation. The counselling profession in Sri Lanka is still in the process of development, and the recognition and support it receives do not yet correspond to the growing need within society.

One of SRILNAC’s most critical future tasks will be to create greater awareness of this need, particularly within schools. It is unfortunate that in this period of rapid socio-cultural change, many young people are left to navigate their challenges with minimal support. Parents themselves often feel lost and helpless, struggling to adjust to a social environment very different from the one in which they were raised.

Another key concern for SRILNAC is the standardisation of counsellor training. While a certain degree of flexibility may have been unavoidable during the early stages of the profession’s development, the time has now come to ensure that all training institutions meet clearly defined standards. Such standards are essential to guarantee the competence of those who graduate from these programmes. Allowing inadequately trained “counsellors” to practise is both unethical and unjust to unsuspecting clients, and the potential consequences are all too evident.

In conclusion, there is no shortage of important work for SRILNAC in the years ahead.

Joseph N. Thilakaratne, SRILNAC